Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Blur LT Carbon Setup Thread

314K views 1K replies 254 participants last post by  beach_boy 
#1 ·
Won't actually be 'set up' for a couple of days; but, looks really sweet out of the box! 5.68 lbs. More to come. Thanks Zach at Competitive Cyclist.

Cheers.
 

Attachments

See less See more
1
#328 ·
I am going to buy myself a Blur LTc and wondered what sort of spec would see me in a mid 25lbs build?

Currently i am planning on changing my LT2 frame for a LTc and it will see most of these parts:

2010 RS Revelation team air u-turn,
Easton EC90 SL monkey bars low rise,
Easton EA90 Stem,
Easton EA90 seat post,
Fizik Gobi Kium saddle,
X0 Rear mech,
XT front mech,
X0 Shifters,
PG-990 sram cassette,
Noir crank,
Hope Pro3 SP AM4 wheels with ZTR flow rims,
Maxxis high roller LUST 2.35 front tyre,
Maxxis Ignitor LUST 2.35 rear tyre.

I plan on fitting some Formula brakes, R1's or The One or possibly some of the new 2011 ones which will save some weight on the current hope brakes i run. What other areas would people look to save a fair bit of weight in? Currently the LT2 weighs in at 29lbs so i need to save a fair bit of weight on the LTc build.

I dont want to drop to a 2x10 setup or anything like that, quite happy running the gearing i currently do.

To help i weight 175lbs ready to ride and dont consider myself to be a really hard rider by any means.
 
#329 ·
Firstly, thanks for the link re the Easton wheels Porsch...

Rick, having just tampered with my LTc with three different forks and numerous builds, I would say you wouldn't be far off with the build you've got there. It'll be tougher if you're in a large frame, medium should be easy to get to 25lbs.

As for spec, my 2c worth:
- Go with the RS Rev Team dual air; saves another 0.2lbs, and the bike rides perfect at 150 with the revs.
- Go with a carbon post... lighter for sure and the EA90's not cheap.
- XTR cranks slightly lighter than Noir (have both and weighed both, ~ 30g in it...
- Wheels and tires are HEAVY. The Pro2 SP AM4 are 2KG!! I'm having the same dilemma about wheels, the Easton Haven are 1650g and every bit as tough as the Hope's, saving you about 3/4lb...
- Tires, the Maxxis are great tires but very heavy, a Kenda Nevegal kevlar or Specialized Eskar will save you even more weight.
If you want lightweight, Maxxis are rarely the best choice. Great tires but not light.

As for brakes, I have the Rx, R1s and The One MY10's and my choice would undoubtedly be the MY10s, they are superb, and only ever so slightly heavier than the R1s. The R1s are good but by comparison feel every bit a lightweight XC brake and not an AM stopper....

Also, it may sound a bit weight-weenie but foam grips are a stealth way to save weight and are cheap with very comfy feel...

As a yardstick, my LTc with the following spec (as per pics above, except for wheels) weighs in at 26lbs, and that's with a set of Float 36s!

LTc frame, large
RS Monarch shock
2011 Kashima Fox Float 36 RLC (Lowered to 140mm)
Cane Creek XIIX headset
Thomson X4 stem (90x0)
Easton monkeylite low-rise bars
X0 shifters
X0 rear mech
XT front mech
XTR chainset
GUB ceramic BB
XTR chain
SRAM PG-990 cassette
Hope Pro 2 Straight Pull on Stans 355
Kenda Nevegal kevlar 2.35
Thomson Elite layback post
Fizik Gobi saddle
Formula The One MY10 brakes (180mm rotors F&R)

Anyways, just my thoughts... enjoy the build :O)
 
#330 ·
Thanks for that info, its exactly what i was looking for.

What seatpost would you advise?
Also my wheel set will need to have a 20mm through axle front hub.
Finally do you run tubeless on your 355 rims? I run my flows tubeless.

I currently have everything off that list on my LT2 but am just looking at ways to drop the weight down to what i want. If i can drop to around what i want then i will sell my Anthem X and my LT2 and build the LTc. LTc would be the ideal compromise rather than having the 2 bikes i currently own.
 
#331 ·
humdinger said:
... Tires, the Maxxis are great tires but very heavy, a Kenda Nevegal kevlar or Specialized Eskar will save you even more weight.
If you want lightweight, Maxxis are rarely the best choice. Great tires but not light.
Are you kidding?
I couldn't disagree more with that statement. Check their respective websites for the numbers.

Nevegals are heavy. Great tire in the wet but that's it.
The 2.35 STICK-E compound is 763gm

Maxxis Ignitor 2.35 690gm
Maxxis Crossmark 2.25 640gm
Maxxis Larsen TT 2.35 620gm
Maxxis Advantage 2.1 550gm

and the lightest of them all Maxxis Asep 2.25 535gm
The 2.1 is only 475gm!

I run the nevegals in the early spring and fall when it's wet/slippery on the rear and swap them out for a 2.1 Advantage and 2.35 Larsen. The front remains the same all year with the 2.35 Ignitor.
 
#332 ·
Brumos. Not wanting to disagree but speaking from owning and weighing both the Larsen and the Ignitor LUSTs mentioned, the Maxxis website is VERY optimistic indeed. From my digital scales, weights are as follows:
Ignitor LUST 2.35 - 790g
Hi-roller LUST 2.35 - 830g
Kenda Nevegal 2.35 (non stick-e) - 630g
as for the other lightweight Maxxis tires, they're skinny walled XC tires and this chap's building an AM LTc? Personally, IMHO, I never go for skinny 'light AM' tires such as ardents or Aspens as modest weight gains are outweighed by how easy they get shredded in your first rock garden. The Nev's are 100g+ lighter than the LUST Ignitors and as we agree a great tire. I do also agree about the Larsen, a SUPERB hard-pack summer tire which is also quite light.

Rick

IMO The cockpit is short on the LTc as on the LT2 so I run a Thomson layback and that goes v well.
I run both my 355s and my CK Flows tubeless, another superb way to save weight is to run non-UST tires tubeless as USTs are much heavier and the Stans rims seal the non-USTs a treat!
If you're looking to sell your Anthem X, I'd certainly be interested... I can get Formula brakes VERY cheaply over here if u wanna work something out? PM me with some details of the Anthem X if ur interested.
 
#333 ·
My LTc

Finally after waiting a month and a half, my fork came in. So I was able to build my bike:

Large LTc frame w/ RP23 shock.
2011 Fox 32 TALAS RLC 150 FIT 1.5 taper
Cane Creek XIIX headset
Mavic Crossmax ST wheelset
Kenda Nevegal DTC Tires 2.35 front, 2.1 rear
XT crankset
XT front derailler
XO rear der.-red
XO shifters-red
PG990 cassette-red
PC991 chain
Avid Elixer CR brakes, w/ carbon levers
Thomson seatpost and X4 stem 90mm, 10 degree
Specialized Phenom Gel Saddle
Easton Monkeylite XC bar
Lizard Skins Moab grips w/ red locks.
Love it.
 

Attachments

#334 ·
Sick build, neblackb! We have a lot of overlap on our build lists. Out of curiosity, did you ever consider going with a 36 TALAS instead of the 32? I am on the fence about that one myself. The weight penalty has me a tad worried but the extra stiffness would be awesome.

Also, what does the "ne" in your handle stand for?
 
#335 ·
Nice build.
IMHO if u want a light as possible light-AM bike then 32 forks will do a great job. But if u want a fork which fully does justice to the phenomenally stiff frame and make it an AM shredder, then it's 36 all the way. I don't notice the extra ~0.75lbs but the stiffness difference is significant.
But hey, it's personal preference.
 
#337 ·
humdinger said:
They're great wheels gmk, I actually had a pair but at ~1900g they're a bit heavy. Great value wheels but the Easton Haven 20mm's are gonna take some beating at ~1650g. That kinda weight saving's worth having, but a lot more $$$ to buy :0(
anyone know a good price on the 20mm's yet? If they're out yet...
what?
not really
mine weight about ~1800g
with sapim cx spoke ~ 1700g

the haven look really nice but they are expensive :eek:
and they are only 26mm width

a question to your shock:
what kind of tune do you have? tune d for the monarch?
thx
 
#338 ·
cctuan

Like I said in last post, it's really not about the simple extra 10mm travel, as you can see from my build, I've actually lowered mine to 140mm. It's all about how the bike rides, thus why I don't skimp on wheels and tires because these directly affect the way the bike rides as an AM rig. The 36 is SO much stiffer than the 32, that it rides like a completely different beast, and because I like to ride more than light AM, the stiffness pays dividends over the 32 predecessor. Cornering, drop-off support and all around robustness are very different.
In terms of weight, if you are designing an LTc to be as light as possible then hey like I said, go 32. But if you're happy to take an extra 3/4 lb (which I cannot notice when riding the two forks back to back) then the bike takes on new capabilities. Apart from which, my Large LTc's under 27lbs with burly wheels AND 36s... Is this heavy?

Horses for courses though ultimately.
 
#339 ·
I think the 2011 fox 32 is stiffer than the 2010, which helps, but for sure you will feel a difference going with a 36. I went with a 32, because I don't take drops that often, and wanted my bike a little more xcish. The bike feels much stiffer than anything I have ridden though. I love it. Oh, EIC the NE are just initials in my name.
 
#342 ·
humdinger said:
Nice build.
IMHO if u want a light as possible light-AM bike then 32 forks will do a great job. But if u want a fork which fully does justice to the phenomenally stiff frame and make it an AM shredder, then it's 36 all the way. I don't notice the extra ~0.75lbs but the stiffness difference is significant.
But hey, it's personal preference.
Can someone define light AM for me? I'm also in the throes of putting together a BLTc build, and I want some insight into the perceived limitations of 32mm forks. Cheers.
 
#343 ·
PUNKY said:
Love the 150mm, strongly dislike the 15mm axle on the fork. It serves no purpose other than replacing a 9mm qr axle.

I've seen RS Revelations be put through more than anything closely resembling Trail/AM and they hold up fine.
Just to clarify: Is the difference in the 32 and 36 at the hub more than just the diameter in the axle? In other words, does the different ratchet mechanism make a difference between the two as far as stiffness is concerned?

The reason I ask is because 15mm is closer to 20mm than it is to 9mm. So unless the ratchet mechanism that connects the hub to the fork is a big factor, I don't understand why the 15mm isn't much better than the 9mm.

If so, then the stiffness difference between the 32 and 36 TALAS forks is due to three factors:

1) The increased diameter of the stanchions (32 vs. 36mm)
2) The increased diameter of the axle (15 vs. 20 mm)
3) The mechanism that connects the hub to the fork

From Fox's site, it looks like the difference is 381 grams or 0.84 lbs. Is the stiffness difference so dramatic that it justifies almost a pound of increased bike weight?
 
#345 ·
It's numerous factor that make the 36 better for my style of riding. I found the revelation 150 a superb fork but when really going hard on the downhill sections the fork struggled a little to keep up, and most importantly when going round berms or hard corners, the 32mm fork flexed noticably, yet the frame doesn't flex at all. So when doing the same routes on the 36, the frame and fork seem perfectly matched, going round corners on rails and coping with anything the downhill can throw at it (and me!)
Other than that, there's the geometry difference, the 32 will leave a neutral HA, and the lowered 36 I've got a little more relaxed, which again for me means it still climbs very well, but goes down hill MUCH better.
It's absolutely a personal choice, if you do just general trail/XC then go 32 for sure, the extra weight's not worth it. But if you do anything a little more aggressive (and I'm not a freerider on a light bike before anyone thinks that!), then 36 all the way. The difference btw is less than 0.86lbs, my 36s came in at 4.46lbs including axle.
 
#346 ·
Thanks humdinger, that's exactly the kind of info I was looking for. So adjusting the travel down in 10mm increments on the Float is something I can do at home, or does it require a workshop with special tools?

How do you find the stiction on that 36? Does the Kashima make as much difference as they claim?

The prospect of the new Rev with 150/120 settings is attractive, but having less moving parts has to be a good thing as far as reliability is concerned (eg Float with reduced travel versus TALAS or RS adjustable system).

Has anyone here tried the 2011 36 TALAS yet?
 
#347 ·
Hi Max,

The spacers can be put in at home, piece of cake. The stiction's been hardly noticeable as yet, I've only put about 50+miles on them yet but so far so good, the Kashima's working well. I'd want to bed them in more to make a final judgement....
My riding buddy runs the 2011 Talas and also loves it, although he has had to drain of air and refill already due to the fork staying down, but compared to the old 3-stage travel settings, it seems MUCH improved.

I like the idea of the travel adjustability but to be honest I found I never used it and just want one good all round travel setting which I don't have to faff around with and for me the lowered F36 is great.
 
#348 ·
humdinger said:
It's numerous factor that make the 36 better for my style of riding. I found the revelation 150 a superb fork but when really going hard on the downhill sections the fork struggled a little to keep up, and most importantly when going round berms or hard corners, the 32mm fork flexed noticably, yet the frame doesn't flex at all. So when doing the same routes on the 36, the frame and fork seem perfectly matched, going round corners on rails and coping with anything the downhill can throw at it (and me!)
Other than that, there's the geometry difference, the 32 will leave a neutral HA, and the lowered 36 I've got a little more relaxed, which again for me means it still climbs very well, but goes down hill MUCH better.
It's absolutely a personal choice, if you do just general trail/XC then go 32 for sure, the extra weight's not worth it. But if you do anything a little more aggressive (and I'm not a freerider on a light bike before anyone thinks that!), then 36 all the way. The difference btw is less than 0.86lbs, my 36s came in at 4.46lbs including axle.
Thanks for this. I think it all comes down to how you define one style of riding versus another. It would be nice if we'd hit some common trails so I had a sense of what you call general trail/XC versus more aggressive. Any chance you've hit any trails in Sedona or Moab or San Diego?
 
#349 ·
humdinger said:
It's absolutely a personal choice, if you do just general trail/XC then go 32 for sure, the extra weight's not worth it. But if you do anything a little more aggressive (and I'm not a freerider on a light bike before anyone thinks that!), then 36 all the way. The difference btw is less than 0.86lbs, my 36s came in at 4.46lbs including axle.
Are you talking about the Float or TALAS?

From the Fox website:

32 TALAS 150: 3.81 lb / 1.73 kg

36 TALAS 160: 4.65 lb / 2.11 kg

4.65 - 3.81 = 0.84 lbs.

That's quite a bit IMO, unless the stiffness difference is dramatic. It is hard for me to imagine being as happy with the Float as I would be with the adjustable travel on the TALAS.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top