Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    79

    My simple review of the GT Force Carbon

    Disclaimer:

    * I'm not here "looking for a fight", this is just one crazy dude's opinions about ONE bike
    * This is a separate post so not to "muddle up" the reference thread
    * I've never liked the aesthetics of GT bikes and never owned one before
    * BUT I actually BOUGHT a GT bike because I liked it!
    * Please, please don't send the GT ORG after me
    * This is after 3 months riding




    GT Force Carbon Expert 2012




    The Story:

    This bike was at my LBS as a show-off bike with several other high-end GT's. I was about to order another bike/brand and started chatting with the GT dudes. I was looking for a full on AM bike for a bit more aggressive riding (NO DH/Freeride mind you). What I wanted was a stable, secure, downward pointing platform that was "pedalpushing-friendly" as well. Wight was not really that important, unless it was more than 15kg. I could wait 3-4 weeks for a new bike or take the Force out the door the same day......


    Initial thoughts:

    It's beautiful. GT has gotten their mmmmm "stuff" together and started making nice looking bikes, not that booring drab stuff they've been making for YEARS IMO. Hey, how a bike looks is important and if you say otherwise someone pays you to ride. I'm vain when it comes to my bikes.

    I was truly impressed by how well spec'ed this bike is stock. The match up of high end components and their function is almost perfect. There's little I would change and NO parts I actually wanted to change. I was happy. BUT I actually thought the bike was a little bit "too bling" because of how good it looked. As in, a "normal person" would automatically assume it was a d*mn expensive because it was so shiny, as opposed to a bike-person actually knowing. Not reeeaaaally important, but it does look a little bit more show-off riding around town than say a Ibis Mojo HD.

    First Rides:

    WHOA, you mean this i-Drive mess (it does look a little bit messy, lots and lots of parts) ACTUALLY WORKS? Holy crappola, I've NEVER ridden a bike that could climb that fast, that good. Hands down, it's THE best bike I've ever had the pleasure to pedal upwards. It was like riding a hardtail that magically followed the terrain and didn't hurt your spine/ass going over stuff. Pedal flow was excellent and I managed to ride past a friend I've never been able to keep up with before.

    The frame is STIFF and has (from what I felt riding it around, trying to flex it) little or no flex. Rocksteady!

    Because of the amount of travel, this bike should invite going downwards fast. The 150mm just wants to eat up trail as fast as you can throw it's way. Sadly, the faster you go, the more nervous and jittery it feels. In my lame-mans-term, this has to do with it's geometry. A combination between the steep head angle, high bottom bracket and short wheelbase. Weight has a hand in this as well, lack of it actually. It's so light, it bounces more around things than going over them. It feels like it shifts a lot sideways and it does not feel very confident between me legs. Mind you, this also makes it nimble as few others. But for my intended use, it's not so good. I might have to adjust my riding style a bit more, less full on Brutus and more nimble and flexible. But then again, that was not what I was looking for.

    I've looked into angle-set headset, but GT uses IS headset so that's out of the question. I've also looked into angled washers, lowering the BB and slacking the headtube. But it's kind of "not right" changing stuff out to get a bike like this working. It should work straight out of the box.

    Final thoughts:

    Spec wise, this bike is almost perfect. The only idiotic thing GT put on this bike, is white grips. Come on, they look like dog-poo now hehe. And that sharp edged headset cap, coooome on, it hurts. I seriously question their choice of wheels though. An "AM" carbon frame bike with light, narrow rim XC wheels? But they do seem to hold up.

    The riding I'm not so sure about. It's got too much travel for "normal" old-school XC riding, making it sluggish in some areas. Travel DOES eat energy, its very simple, so don't argue with me hehe. The cockpit is also a bit cramped for XC, the rider sitting too straight/high in the saddle.

    Now the headtube angle is too steep for AM in my book. It's to nervous going fast, and feels too insecure going steep. The rear-shock geometry feels like it's "on edge" all the time, as opposed to more laid back. This is also clear visually, it's like it's a cat shooting up it's back or a muscle already compressed. The wheels are too puny for the frame as well.

    The frame/i-Drive is also starting to creak INSANELY and it's annoying the ***** out of me. This is "normal" from what I read here, but it's not good just because it's normal

    This bike, is in it's own category. Neither this nor that......I'm not really satisfied. Short end of the stick, this is GT re-tooling an excising frame/bike to a new market (AM). Slacker headtube and beefier rims, this bike would actually be amazing. Sadly, I can't afford that.


    Pro

    - Excellent component spec
    - Like adjustable seatpost
    - XT 2x10
    - Shocks rock
    - Carbon, stiff
    - BRAKES...oh maaaaaan are these brakes are sweeeeeeeet
    - Looks
    - iDrive

    Con

    - TOO steep head angle : jittery, nervous
    - Making the wheelbase too small : less stable at high speed
    - BB is to high, butting rider weigh too high : not good going down
    - Crap white grips
    - Wheels are too puny, too narrow rims
    - Frame creaks A LOT
    - Paint cracking around rear triangle joints
    - IT CREAKS A LOT
    - iDrive


    I'm currently looking at finding a way to replace it with:

    Commencal VTT META SX 2012
    Trek Remedy 8 2012

    About GT in general:

    - They don't supply geometry information on their website
    - Can't find recommended PSI for shocks either
    - They haven't replied to an email about a question I have (1 month ago)
    - Why OH why no information about the bike having ISCG???????? NOWHERE!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    335
    I'd write the same report about my experience. I ride with a buddy thats been on GT I-drives since the first ones. He's super fast on them and is on his 4th one and loves it (gt carbon force currently). So I got a chance to egt one..full on XTR equiped carbon force. As stated already, great parts pick. I was riding a 2002 Foes FXR for around 6 years, I get the shock rebuilt every winter and new bushings when needed (I buy spare bushings and rear der hangers right away for all my bikes). The bike is light an dvery responsive on slower single track and climbing. I had the same issues with speed..faster it went, scaryer it got...Id jump on the foes..and Whoosh...superfast!...did many tests..GT always failed..took the thing to seven springs to try some downhilling and freeking wrecked on one of the jumps...kinda thing that has never happened before..freak accident or maybe a bike thats not designed corrctly.. I too inqured about the angled headset but no go...I even considered making an adjuster for the shock to alter head tube angle...but in the end...I bought another FOES....this time an XTC...WHOA...fast nible...the light weigth that the orig poster talks about, well this bike is lighter then the GT an dit is better in every single way...its not the weight, its the bike.
    I also hated that fox fork,,,what a turd it is. I rode a revelation for 6 years and didnt touch it once..that fox super fork was a pain to set-up..never did feel good ever..and it wore out the stanctions in less than 1 year...Push wouldnt even touch it..not even 1 season cause I kept riidng the "old" Foes. BE AWARE OF THE FOX FORKS. I put a new revelation on my new foes and BAM...back to a good fork again too. Sorry that GT has f'd up such a sweet looking bike, but it sucked bad and I even have a messed up shoulder a year and a half later from that bike..period!....and if you think i'm a gt basher, I have a dozen GT bikes from very old school bmx to new MTB's and bmx for the kids. I love GT as a company, always have but these bikes just plain suck...I sold my GT on ebay recently, I hope that someone like my buddy got it and loves it, but there was no getting used to it for me.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    335
    oh....and those creaks...you need to carry one of those round bottom bracket tools with you at all times to tighten that main pivot or it willl ruin your bike...I know cause I've seen it happen....be careful and keep them things tight...squeaks and creaks are like your bike crying for attention to fix it....NO CREAKS ALLOWED.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    949
    Hmm? Good write up guys. I just wonder why my aluminum Force doesn't feel nervous on the downhills. I was even able to keep up with my buddy at Trestle Park, Winterpark, Co. and he was on a Konda DH bike. Mind you there were a couple of extremely rocky areas that I didn't try but I'm sure that was the rider more than the bike. I've used my Force in Colorado, Utah, Texas, and of course Oklahoma my home state. It is really an AM bike for me. I don't expect it to do what a DH bike does but I expect to be able to perform for me. Maybe it's a carbon to alluminum difference. I don't know. The jumps were no problem either. It held its line on the fast downhills too. Mine has LX and Fox stuff and I've never had an issue. The only big upgrade was going to Mavic Crossmax LX tubeless wheels. Yes, there is creaking but I've learned to keep it clean and when I powder coated the rear stays the creaking from that area went away. I've never had an issue with my bottom bracket pivots becoming loose. I do my own maintenance by the way. I don't trust other wrenches to know what I like, and if they aren't familiar with the I-Drive you'll get crappy service on it. Too bad your experience didn't pan out guys. Best of luck with the other bikes.
    2009 GT Marathon Team,GT Force 2.0, GT Jelly Belly TT (nude carbon), and a very special Todd Wells Zaskar.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    949
    Oh and I'm not fighting. I totally understand your review on this ONE bike. I rode my buddy's Santa Cruz Tallboy and Niner RIP 9 and totally hated the experience. All the magazines gave the Tallboy amazing reviews. It just wasnt made for me and neither was the RIP 9.
    2009 GT Marathon Team,GT Force 2.0, GT Jelly Belly TT (nude carbon), and a very special Todd Wells Zaskar.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    335
    my buddy did have an aluminum one before the force and he hated it...once he got the force...he was wayyy faster too...kinda funny, he just aquired a 1st gen team frame..NOS...built it up and was kikkin my butt the other day on some fast singletrac...thos XC bike are sure fast on the easier stuff...and I do all my own wrenching too...most shop personnel dont have a clue in my area...were just gettin a few shops now that have actaul riders in them. but if you ride into the backcountry, you better know how to fix it yourself.
    Glad you enjoy your bike, to each his own on these things. In 93 I bought two fisher supercaliburs...exactly the same..one for racing and one for training...they rode totally different...sold one of them cause it was soo much different(in a bad way)..manufacturing tolerances are always with us...sometimes aginst us.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    134
    to be fair it sounds like the OP brought the wrong bike. the sanction/distortion sound like a better pick for what he is after, they may not be carbon but there angles are far better.
    plus http://www.gtbicycles.com/nzl/2012/bikes/geometry, them big yellow letters can be hard to see at times.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mojojojoaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    726
    To the OP its an honest write up for the experience you had- no one can argue to much with what you experienced. Although if you want slacker I would go with a Covert or even the DB Mission, loved my Mission and wish I could have afforded the replacement I was offered.

    I really like my Force it does pedal exceptionally well, but I would like a slightly lower BB a longer top tube and slacker HA. But they built s good bike and one that will get you anywhere you need to go on the mountain.

    I am running 160 Vengeance forks and that keeps it slack but brings the BB up a touch too much for modern bikes. Is it horrible? no and in fact I barely notice it because I also run a Specialized Blacklite post which allows me to get low whenever I need to.

    Like it, love it or hate it. The Force is solid but for my style the Sanction might have been a better choice but I couldnt find one my size at the price I wanted.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by herb1234 View Post
    to be fair it sounds like the OP brought the wrong bike. the sanction/distortion sound like a better pick for what he is after, they may not be carbon but there angles are far better.
    plus http://www.gtbicycles.com/nzl/2012/bikes/geometry, them big yellow letters can be hard to see at times.
    Never seen that before. But this info is not on each bikes "page" and this information is not in their printed 2012 catalog. You shouldn't have to hunt these things down, they should put it right THERE...

    http://www.gtbicycles.com/nor/2012/b...-carbon-expert

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    79
    I just had a ride yesterday, keeping in mind my recent rant and I would like to add a few thoughts.

    The bike, or more to the point all the parts of the bike are great, just not the sum of them. The annoying thing is, it really should have made a "perfect" bike. Hey it's not HORRIBLE but it's not as great as it's spec or price. It's just not a great AM bike.

    My fear is that GT is in a little creative rut, hampered by their i-drive design. It's like they said to their engineers, "Here's the i-Drive, it's out trademark, we put a lot of money in it, make a bike around it that can do anything". This might offend some people, but this might be the case with the triple triangle as well. It's a trademark of GT, people know the bike's a GT by it, is their ancestry. But it might, just might, also be their Achilles heel, limiting creativity. The Zaskar still wins a lot of bike tests, so we know it works. I'll give them that. What I'm talking about is the need to put it on EVERY bike, just like the i-Drive. They've got so much invested in it, they can't let it go. There is such a thing as sunk cost. At one point, it doesn't matter how much you have invested in something, it's better to let it go.

    The Force

    It's not really an AM bike, they are stretching that one IMO. Yes it has enough travel. Yes yes, you can go "all over the mountain" with it and it works "everywhere". As I do. But that's just semantics, it's not in the spirit of AM if you will. You could argue that bikes are getting too diversified and each bike is only good for one type of riding, resulting in a created need for several bikes. In that sense, the Force is perhaps a try from GT to stick out, making a bike that's not really good at anything, but does everything. It's not crap, heck it's a well designed bike, it's got great parts and it looks amazing. But it's not a great AM bike. AM is DH's second cousin out of wedlock.....

    The bike is an old design, tweaked and given a new category stamp to save engineering costs on designing a proper bike.

    Comparing

    I was out riding with a buddy who has a 2011 Rocky Mountain Altitude. Sans the longer stem, it tracked the trail better, feeling more secure. It's only 0.5 degree slacker than the Force, but something felt more right. It's felt more like I was part of the bike, as opposed to me sitting on top of a bike. It's not a great climber, but I'm not going for a race win or trying to figure out my MHR. I want to enjoy the riding, going up is just a necessity.

    Back on my Force I noticed straight away what bothered me. The cockpit felt more cramped. It felt like most of my weight was on my wrists/hands, my upper body weight leaning forward. I could also feel that most of my weight, was too high. It does feel like a XC bike on stilts.

    (I also tried a Trek Remedy, thought not on the trail, but this didn't push my weight forward.)

    Creak

    Perhaps something is wrong with my bike, but it CREAKS every friggin time I apply any sort of forward pressure to the pedals. If it's 100% flat and I pedal VERY soft, it creaks. I can stand on level the pedals and jump up and down. No creaking. But EACH time I pedal, IT CREAAAAAAKS.

    - The wheelbase is to narrow
    - It's nervous on the trail (like it's had too much coffee)
    - It put's your weight to high to the ground
    - The headtube is too steep
    - Making descents feel a little uncomfortable
    - The seattube is too steep
    - Putting too much weight to the front of the bike
    - Combined, this is the bikes main flaws.
    - It creaks and this is something you SHOULD not accept from a new bike

    What would have made the bike great?

    - Slacker headtube (1.5)
    - Normal headset (not IS) so you could use a angleset instead
    - Fox 36 fork up front
    - Wider rims

    All in all, the more I think about it the less happy I am with this bike. But I can't afford to replace it just like that. I figure, that the people who REALLY like this bike are old-school XC bikers who always wanted more travel. It's more a design flaw than quality issue.

    So why write all this, because I would have wanted this kind of information before I decided which bike to buy. If this is the kind of bike you are after, it's an amazing bike.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    335
    i went riding with my buddy last night and we talked about this discussion...one thing he reminded me of was that his aluminum idrive was a medium and the force he has is a large. He's only 5' 10"..or a little shorter but wants to ride a large frame..says he gets cramped...he does wayy better on the force he has now than the alu. med. one....my force was a medium or he would own it also....he didnt even want a medium frame for free.

    for a long term test....his force is on it's 4th year of riding (we ride all winter too)...he doesnt keep his bike too good but enough so they dont break down....the force has never had any issues....thats a good 7-10 thousand miles....so its a good sturdy design as far as the pivots go...right now, its desperately in need of some TLC though...but mainly from the components and that fox shock(his did the same thing as mine...POS).

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    949
    Quote Originally Posted by Sebastian78 View Post
    I just had a ride yesterday, keeping in mind my recent rant and I would like to add a few thoughts.

    The bike, or more to the point all the parts of the bike are great, just not the sum of them. The annoying thing is, it really should have made a "perfect" bike. Hey it's not HORRIBLE but it's not as great as it's spec or price. It's just not a great AM bike.

    My fear is that GT is in a little creative rut, hampered by their i-drive design. It's like they said to their engineers, "Here's the i-Drive, it's out trademark, we put a lot of money in it, make a bike around it that can do anything". This might offend some people, but this might be the case with the triple triangle as well. It's a trademark of GT, people know the bike's a GT by it, is their ancestry. But it might, just might, also be their Achilles heel, limiting creativity. The Zaskar still wins a lot of bike tests, so we know it works. I'll give them that. What I'm talking about is the need to put it on EVERY bike, just like the i-Drive. They've got so much invested in it, they can't let it go. There is such a thing as sunk cost. At one point, it doesn't matter how much you have invested in something, it's better to let it go.

    The Force

    It's not really an AM bike, they are stretching that one IMO. Yes it has enough travel. Yes yes, you can go "all over the mountain" with it and it works "everywhere". As I do. But that's just semantics, it's not in the spirit of AM if you will. You could argue that bikes are getting too diversified and each bike is only good for one type of riding, resulting in a created need for several bikes. In that sense, the Force is perhaps a try from GT to stick out, making a bike that's not really good at anything, but does everything. It's not crap, heck it's a well designed bike, it's got great parts and it looks amazing. But it's not a great AM bike. AM is DH's second cousin out of wedlock.....

    The bike is an old design, tweaked and given a new category stamp to save engineering costs on designing a proper bike.

    Comparing

    I was out riding with a buddy who has a 2011 Rocky Mountain Altitude. Sans the longer stem, it tracked the trail better, feeling more secure. It's only 0.5 degree slacker than the Force, but something felt more right. It's felt more like I was part of the bike, as opposed to me sitting on top of a bike. It's not a great climber, but I'm not going for a race win or trying to figure out my MHR. I want to enjoy the riding, going up is just a necessity.

    Back on my Force I noticed straight away what bothered me. The cockpit felt more cramped. It felt like most of my weight was on my wrists/hands, my upper body weight leaning forward. I could also feel that most of my weight, was too high. It does feel like a XC bike on stilts.

    (I also tried a Trek Remedy, thought not on the trail, but this didn't push my weight forward.)

    Creak

    Perhaps something is wrong with my bike, but it CREAKS every friggin time I apply any sort of forward pressure to the pedals. If it's 100% flat and I pedal VERY soft, it creaks. I can stand on level the pedals and jump up and down. No creaking. But EACH time I pedal, IT CREAAAAAAKS.

    - The wheelbase is to narrow
    - It's nervous on the trail (like it's had too much coffee)
    - It put's your weight to high to the ground
    - The headtube is too steep
    - Making descents feel a little uncomfortable
    - The seattube is too steep
    - Putting too much weight to the front of the bike
    - Combined, this is the bikes main flaws.
    - It creaks and this is something you SHOULD not accept from a new bike

    What would have made the bike great?

    - Slacker headtube (1.5)
    - Normal headset (not IS) so you could use a angleset instead
    - Fox 36 fork up front
    - Wider rims

    All in all, the more I think about it the less happy I am with this bike. But I can't afford to replace it just like that. I figure, that the people who REALLY like this bike are old-school XC bikers who always wanted more travel. It's more a design flaw than quality issue.

    So why write all this, because I would have wanted this kind of information before I decided which bike to buy. If this is the kind of bike you are after, it's an amazing bike.
    Sorry bro but maybe you need to look back a few years and see how the Force was described by GT. The Force is meant to be an XC/AM ride. To say that the I-drive is an old design given new life is bogus since all the designs out there are the same old designs given new life. They are all different types of Horst, 4 bar linkage, URT's and others. All those designs are still employed by Giant, Trek, Rocky Mountain, yeti, etc.....all with just a tweak to make a little different just like GT did with the I-drive. You are almost describing the Sanction when you state what would make the Force great. It seems like alot of people in here really got the wrong bike. I know what my Force can do and its limitations. I'm 5'11 and ride a medium because I like to flick the bike around. My XC ride is a GT Marathon in large and I can't treat it the way I treat the Force. I gotta be more gingerly with it. It's way faster than the Force but it won't handle the roughness the Force can take. With that said, the Sanction would be a more AM/light DH friendly bike with a slacker head angle beefier tires, beefier fork and shock. People make wrong choices, heck I tried a single speed hardtail for a while and maybe I'm just too old but that was totally freakin brutal. I won't make that mistake again, but I don't think it's a bad design or the manufacturer made a mistake because it didn't work for me. I just take it as a bad choice of bike for me.
    2009 GT Marathon Team,GT Force 2.0, GT Jelly Belly TT (nude carbon), and a very special Todd Wells Zaskar.

  13. #13
    Chamois Dropper
    Reputation: natzx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    774
    This is a really interesting thread. Although I feel I am a novice when I read your opinions and criticisms on the bike, I do find my Force to be perfectly suited to the type of XC / technical trails we have here in FL. It has given me a lot of confidence and I think its the perfect compromise of geometry for me.
    2008 GT Force
    Go Veg

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    335
    please note, I wrote that I tested the bike aginst another bike...if you have access to trails you know super well and other bikes...do your own tests. Its not the wrong choice bike for me at all...that force was made for what I do...it just cant do it...not even for a little bit. just for the record, I also tested a marathon (my buddy has a marathon also and yes, its way faster than the force for typical XC)....my foes XCR is just sooo much better its not funny...I did the tests on a 6 year old FXR that was beat...and it was wayy better than the force...and the marathon.. My foes fxr 2:1 doesnt do as good as the marathion on XC, but kills it everywhere else...the Foes XCR beats themm all...and leaves me with time to look and see where the others are casue I soooo far ahead!.....just sayin...test other rides to make rational decisions on your bike choice.
    I have access to alot of rides and I just cant beat the foes...dont know what it is, I just like it (OPINION). But getting back to the force...it was made for a guy like me...I raced XC for over a decade and now just love to ride alot an denjoy the skills I've built up..I ride all mountain and XC...I like to climb and go down..the force is that bike, it just cant do it....at least not for me....thats why we have choices...but please, try other bikes to have something to base your coice on.....they all do ride different.
    It good to see that there are alot of folks that love those forces....and I hope the person that purchased mine does too...
    may the force.....Haaaaa...you know!

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    949
    Very well said syklystt. I also had the opportunity to ride different bikes cuz of the buddies that I ride with. I rode an Epic, NRS and some Maestro suspended bikes, Jamis, several steel and Alu hardtails. The Force just fits me better for my all time ride. I am a little biased towards GT though. Although I have taken my Force to Moab, Fruita, and DHing at Winterpark, I understand it doesn't climb as good as my buddy's old GF Sugar and it doesn't perform as the perfect DH bike. I am building a GT Ruckus with 7 inches of travel and the right Geometry for those days at the slopes, and I do find myself riding my Marathon Team on the local tamed trails of Oklahoma City. When I know I'm gonna hit different trails I always take my Force. I'm glad you found the bike that works for you bro.
    2009 GT Marathon Team,GT Force 2.0, GT Jelly Belly TT (nude carbon), and a very special Todd Wells Zaskar.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mojojojoaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    726
    Quote Originally Posted by gt jorgito View Post
    You are almost describing the Sanction when you state what would make the Force great. ......With that said, the Sanction would be a more AM/light DH friendly bike.
    Yup exactly what I was saying really. I wanted the Sanction but couldn't find the frame size and price range I wanted. The Force definitely fits the AM/XC category, and quite well at that. I just did 8 miles yesterday and I keep going back to how well it pedals, but it is by no means a poor descender either. It rips tight single track and has enough travel to handle the stuff I took my Mission through.

    Every bike has limitations when compared against what someone considers ideal for themselves, that's natural. There have been very few bikes I have ever been decidedly against- Santa Crus Heckler was one it never felt right to me but the Butcher I loved (couldnt afford that one either).

    GT has a solid product in the Force and Sanction- I really like the iDrive....am I going to own it forever? No but I bet I can get two - three solid years from it for sure. Maybe then I can pick up the Sanction.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    79
    So, perhaps my Force is Force'less then?

    It's felt funny from day one, the noise I'd taken as a "given" after reading up on it. But it feels funny on the trails. I've been trying to figure it out:

    - The rear trails funny, it's like the wheel steers on it's own.
    - I steer the front, the rear continues a bit the other way, then flexes back with a little "whip".
    - Hitting lines in the road/concrete, the rear will lean over the the opposite side than the front
    - It feels extremely flexy

    I made this video, will put up more as well and make a separate post about it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT9L...ature=youtu.be

    No loose bolt, no cracked frame (heck it's BRAND NEW), no dent, dings, scratches or monkey sitting in the rear triangle.....

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    949
    Wow! Something ain't right bro. That is alot of side flex. Have you checked the i drive pivots? Too bad ur not around oklahoma I would love to help u out.
    2009 GT Marathon Team,GT Force 2.0, GT Jelly Belly TT (nude carbon), and a very special Todd Wells Zaskar.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    335
    I also thought that my force was extremely flexy...My buddy that loves his says that its the one thing he hates about it...on the tough stuff it just cant take it...and lets remmeber that at 6 inches, it was made for tough stuff...I'm killing him on my 5" foes...there's just no way of comparing them...i tried. my buddy still swears by it though....but he wont ride anything else, so to each his own...I tend to not try other bikes when I cant offord to purchase one but the GT made me put it in a different perspective...I only gte to ride so much, i cant be wasting time on a subpar bike when i know darned well there are bikes that just work adn bikes that dont....and it almost always is just one persons opinion...or two in this case...or three....ummm....not lookin to good.....

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    134
    odd as my force is as stuff as most other QR reared frames that i have ridden. sure its not wheel flex?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Reelchef67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    292
    Hi I've got an old id5 4.0 that I've tuned for myself.
    They come with 69.5 head angle.

    I put a longer travel fork(rlo44 140mm Marz) on it the stock is a (Judy J4 120).

    I put a 1/4 shorter fox rp23 on it ( stock is actually 7.5x2 even though everywhere online is says 7.25/1.75) .

    I lose a bit of rear travel, but havent noticed it.
    I also put 2.3 nevegal and 2.1 of rear.

    I now sit at 66 degrees with a slightly lower BB height.

    Much nicer for my local North Vancouver (mt seymour and Fromme) riding area.
    Old bike feels new now.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    335
    nice setup...I do admit that I never went through alot of tweaking with my GT...I worked with the handlebars and the shock setup. but didnt think if adjusting the geometry with tires and shorter shock. I do feel that it was a geometry thing. The bike rocked most of the time...but I like to go fast, and that was where I had issues. My foes has an adjustable shock so you can dial the geometry quickly...very cool idea and should be on all bikes...why wouldnt we want to adjust it??...every trail is a bit diff....I love the foes I'm riding now (I have a couple old ones). I cannot even compare it to the GT...its amazing the differance. Maybe someday I'll try my buddie's GT....but only so I can sell him on a FOES.

  23. #23
    Braugh Bro.
    Reputation: Buggyr333's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    443
    the force is an odd bike. I got my frame for cheap so i didn't mind some work to get it working the way I wanted it. I'm 6' and I ride an XL, with a 60mm stem. That fixes the cramped cockpit issue, also being an XL it has a longer wheelbase, so it's plenty stable. At first i ran the rear shock softer than usual so the sag would fix the high bb height and steep HT angle. I recently got some offset shock bushings to lower the bb and HTA. seems to have worked very well, although extensive testing will have to wait since i crashed and am out of commision for a few weeks now. Creaking is fixed (semi-easily) by wrapping the pivot bearings in teflon tape and greasing generously (i use buzzy's slick honey).

    lots of work to get it quite right, but since i got the frame for only 250$, i feel it's still worth it.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Reelchef67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by syklystt View Post
    nice setup...I do admit that I never went through alot of tweaking with my GT...I worked with the handlebars and the shock setup. but didnt think if adjusting the geometry with tires and shorter shock. I do feel that it was a geometry thing. The bike rocked most of the time...but I like to go fast, and that was where I had issues. My foes has an adjustable shock so you can dial the geometry quickly...very cool idea and should be on all bikes...why wouldnt we want to adjust it??...every trail is a bit diff....I love the foes I'm riding now (I have a couple old ones). I cannot even compare it to the GT...its amazing the differance. Maybe someday I'll try my buddie's GT....but only so I can sell him on a FOES.
    I also put a zero rise 70mm D2 stem.
    Bike feels much stabler at speed.
    I've never heard of Foes bikes. I'm in Nvan bc Canada different bunch of bikes up here . I am going to check them out though

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Reelchef67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    292
    Quote ///Creaking is fixed (semi-easily) by wrapping the pivot bearings in teflon tape and greasing generously (i use buzzy's slick honey).

    lots of work to get it quite right, but since i got the frame for only 250$, i feel it's still worth it.[/QUOTE]
    IME most creaking has been at the BB pivot not the main pivot. ..

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •