Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 52
  1. #1
    Zippy, the wonder bike
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    129

    What would be a good, fast out of the box single speed?

    I've built up my Monocog, and I've latched on to the SS passion. Now I want a fast singlespeed racer with front suspension. I'm looking at the Cannondale 1FG as a first option, also the Brodie 1 Ball (don't really like it) Can you guys think of any more? Do any of you own a bike like this?

  2. #2
    KgB
    KgB is offline
    SNGLSPD
    Reputation: KgB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,017

    fast bike?

    generally riders are fast not bikes.
    why not build one?or convert one
    I've been inside too long.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smeets1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    101
    go to www.webcyclery.com and check out the Salsa Juan Solo

  4. #4
    hmmmmm
    Reputation: AKA monkeyboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    105

    Khs

    I got a KHS Solo One for only Five Hundred beans... It's a 3/4" travel Soft Tail with rigid fork, and totally kicks. All chromo, nice and rigid. I saw the same bike (2003) on JensonUSA.com for three fiddy... Out of the box it's a great ride

  5. #5
    try driving your car less
    Reputation: jh_on_the_cape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by FLYBYU
    I've built up my Monocog, and I've latched on to the SS passion. Now I want a fast singlespeed racer with front suspension. I'm looking at the Cannondale 1FG as a first option, also the Brodie 1 Ball (don't really like it) Can you guys think of any more? Do any of you own a bike like this?
    I have a bianchi CUSS. my first 'real' SS and still love it, although i did upgrade. it has nice components out of the box. i put on a marzocchi fork from an old bike.
    the cannondale 1fg with the headshok is also a great bike. also check out bikes with rigid forks, then get a suspension fork if you want it. like the surly 1x1 or kona explosif. a good bike shop should be able to just work up a price for a complete built bike. then order the parts and build it up.
    i suggest you try to find one that fits well. a test ride can do wonders!
    but there are tons of options out there now, so it depends on what kind of bike you like (steel, aluminum, racy or cruisy)
    i also suggest you check out the ENO rear wheel. this makes any bike a singlespeed, which gives you a huge selection.
    Only boring people get bored.

  6. #6
    Zippy, the wonder bike
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    129
    I'm looking for a dedicated single speed, as light as possible with some sort of suspension on the front (not rigid) any type of brakes are fine, I'd actually perfer cable disc's or rim brakes. Not really concerned about comfort, because it's a SS so you are out of the saddle alot. Will defiantly test ride one first. Just all I can think of is the Cannondale (which I thought was a little pricey and the Brodie. I have to test ride the Brodie, what I didn't like was the moveable dropouts, I think they look silly and I question the long-term durability of that.

  7. #7
    zeebot
    Reputation: Spookykinkajou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by FLYBYU
    I'm looking for a dedicated single speed, as light as possible with some sort of suspension on the front (not rigid) any type of brakes are fine, I'd actually perfer cable disc's or rim brakes. Not really concerned about comfort, because it's a SS so you are out of the saddle alot. Will defiantly test ride one first. Just all I can think of is the Cannondale (which I thought was a little pricey and the Brodie. I have to test ride the Brodie, what I didn't like was the moveable dropouts, I think they look silly and I question the long-term durability of that.
    i may be wrong but i would think the aluminum frame of the cannondale would be not very comy to ride compared to a nice steel frame.

    my surly 1x1 is probably around 21#'s. it was below that but added a bash guard recently. mine is rigid though. i've debated getting a fox 80rlt and adding another pound to the bike but am going to hold off for awhile since i really love the rigid ride just wonder if i'm nuking my wrists...

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tubeless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19
    I've had a steel ss a ti ss and a aluminum ss. the steel ss was ok the ti sucked. when ever I put the power down on climbs the tire would rub the chain stay so bad it felt like I grabed a hand full of brake. i've been riding and racing my 1fg for over a year a still love this bike. It's no more harsh than any of the other bikes i've owed. Put some 2.4 mutanos on and your ready. my bike is 20 lbs and the expert 30-39 geared boys hate it when I show up on this ss.the 1fg is a very sweet bike.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  9. #9
    Zippy, the wonder bike
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by tubeless
    I've had a steel ss a ti ss and a aluminum ss. the steel ss was ok the ti sucked. when ever I put the power down on climbs the tire would rub the chain stay so bad it felt like I grabed a hand full of brake. i've been riding and racing my 1fg for over a year a still love this bike. It's no more harsh than any of the other bikes i've owed. Put some 2.4 mutanos on and your ready. my bike is 20 lbs and the expert 30-39 geared boys hate it when I show up on this ss.the 1fg is a very sweet bike.
    Wow, I love your bike I think the Cannondale is the way to go. I like the Redline, but honestly the rigid fork is a little too hard on the wrists for trail riding so I use it for mainly around town & running errands, occasional group ride, with the 32X16 I can do 18 mph on the road and just about keep up with my buddies I think that SS is the way to go offroad though, just need a shock up front, otherwise my Redline rips offroad. Of course it is a little heavy, around 25lbs I estimate, and adding a suspension fork to that will just make it worse and handle like crap too. I want to try riding a SS in a race this year, I'm a big guy and I love to mash the gears on my XC bike, so a SS would suit me good I think, for long slow climbs I think that they beat a geared bike hands down, the main advantage is the light weight and the solid drivetrain that doesn't lose alot of energy. Also I want to do the 24 hours of Adrenalin in Canmore this summer, I'm going to take all my bikes with me, but I will be starting out on the single speeds and then if I wear out close to the finish I will switch to my Trek hardtail. I'm a little partial to Cannondale anyway, I used to own a F1000 and it made me look like a champ offroad, 23lbs and nice tight geometry, unbeatable on tight single track and short steep climbs. Also my road bike is a Cannodale and it is also very light and fast as well, they just make you a better rider. The only downside is that they tend to be a bit pricey for the components you get. But I'll pay for the extra performance.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SS-Phil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    28
    Why not just put a suspension fork on the Redline?
    Dude, where's my gears?

  11. #11
    Zippy, the wonder bike
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    129
    I thought of that, but I like it the way it is. Really the frame is too heavy to justify adding a suspension fork too it. What I really want is something that would weigh the same or less then the Monocog does now, but with a suspension fork. I love the Redline, but I think that the wieght of it holds it back alot offroad. Also in Canada to buy a decent suspension fork would cost me upwards of $500, a 04 Judy here is $350. I bought my last fork mailorder but after duty, brokerage fees, etc. it was almost $500 too. Really for $500+ it makes more sense to get another bike with a suspension fork, besides I'm a little shy of my 7 bike quota

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SS-Phil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    28
    Hm...

    My Redline weighs in at about 20 lbs, rigid. That's pretty light on the trail...
    Dude, where's my gears?

  13. #13
    Zippy, the wonder bike
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    129
    How did you do that? I thought I used pretty light parts, Avid single digit 7's Mag levers and all and it is still almost as heavy as my XC bike, a good 24-25lbs.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SS-Phil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    28
    I used lots of light parts....carbon post, handlebar, light stem, Selle Italia SLR, Carbon crankset, CK headset, SRAM Hollowpin chain...and some other goodies. I could probably trim it down another pound...
    Dude, where's my gears?

  15. #15
    KRN
    KRN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    276

    um....

    the alloy version might be what your looking for I have a friend who has the steel bike & his weighs on at 23lbs so I dont know how the other guy got his down to 20 lbs I think he said? My friend works in a bike shop & he has all the connections BUT he just bought the Alloy version of the mono-cog & it does weigh 21 lbs but whatever good luck in your choice!

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    848

    Didn't the alloy Monocog make the podium at Sea Otter?

    I know, it's the rider not the bike.

    But it does say something for it's race worthiness. If you already like the Monocog, the alloy version might be a good base to build on.

  17. #17
    ...
    Reputation: dtownmtb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,198

    2nd the 1fg

    Quote Originally Posted by tubeless
    I've had a steel ss a ti ss and a aluminum ss. the steel ss was ok the ti sucked. when ever I put the power down on climbs the tire would rub the chain stay so bad it felt like I grabed a hand full of brake. i've been riding and racing my 1fg for over a year a still love this bike. It's no more harsh than any of the other bikes i've owed. Put some 2.4 mutanos on and your ready. my bike is 20 lbs and the expert 30-39 geared boys hate it when I show up on this ss.the 1fg is a very sweet bike.
    You are able to put 2.4 Mutanos on the back? I didn't think they would fit.

    I've had my 1FG for about 9 months and really love it. It just feels fast and the head shock is awsome - no flex, smooth travel, and total lockout when you want it. The back end is stiff, but no more harsh than the Surly I used to have.

  18. #18
    Recovering Weight Weenie
    Reputation: Padre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,766
    My singlespeed racer floats on the scale rigid at 28.7lbs. Sweet!

  19. #19
    try driving your car less
    Reputation: jh_on_the_cape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by FLYBYU
    Wow, I love your bike I think the Cannondale is the way to go. I like the Redline, but honestly the rigid fork is a little too hard on the wrists for trail riding so I use it for mainly around town & running errands, occasional group ride, with the 32X16 I can do 18 mph on the road and just about keep up with my buddies I think that SS is the way to go offroad though, just need a shock up front, otherwise my Redline rips offroad. Of course it is a little heavy, around 25lbs I estimate, and adding a suspension fork to that will just make it worse and handle like crap too. I want to try riding a SS in a race this year, I'm a big guy and I love to mash the gears on my XC bike, so a SS would suit me good I think, for long slow climbs I think that they beat a geared bike hands down, the main advantage is the light weight and the solid drivetrain that doesn't lose alot of energy. Also I want to do the 24 hours of Adrenalin in Canmore this summer, I'm going to take all my bikes with me, but I will be starting out on the single speeds and then if I wear out close to the finish I will switch to my Trek hardtail. I'm a little partial to Cannondale anyway, I used to own a F1000 and it made me look like a champ offroad, 23lbs and nice tight geometry, unbeatable on tight single track and short steep climbs. Also my road bike is a Cannodale and it is also very light and fast as well, they just make you a better rider. The only downside is that they tend to be a bit pricey for the components you get. But I'll pay for the extra performance.
    get the 1FG ultra. it's nice and sounds like exactly what you seek.
    Only boring people get bored.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tubeless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by dtownmtb
    You are able to put 2.4 Mutanos on the back? I didn't think they would fit.

    I've had my 1FG for about 9 months and really love it. It just feels fast and the head shock is awsome - no flex, smooth travel, and total lockout when you want it. The back end is stiff, but no more harsh than the Surly I used to have.
    yes the mutano 2.4 will fit. it will rub the chain stay a little when your grinding corners with 30 psi. I run mine with stans.

  21. #21
    Zippy, the wonder bike
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    129
    I realize all you guys are saying, "it's not the bike, it's the rider" and all that, but why limit myself with a heavy bike? A fast rider on a heavy bike is an even faster rider on a light bike. I admit to being a bit of a weight weenie, on my XC bike I replaced nearly every bolt on it with Ti or aerospace aluminum fastners. I'm already thinking of some tweaks that I could do to that Cannondale to drop even more weight off it. I'm looking for something with regular spaced hubs on it too, otherwise I would build up a Alloy Monocog frame and slap a nice fork on it. But the Monocog is right now my favorite bike for commuting, running errands and training.

  22. #22
    Master of the Obvious
    Reputation: Angus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    497

    wahh wahhh

    I am not sure if you really get this single speed thing.
    I used to race an uber lite klein with all the trimmings( say $$)
    But I feel i am faster and a better rider on my 25lb Karate Monkey (rigid w/ discs)

  23. #23
    President, CEO of Earth
    Reputation: TobyNobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,001

    stop whining

    The whole idea behind casting off your derailleurs was to remove the complexity and focus more on the ride and not the bike. Yet here everyone is whining about "Oooh, the Karate Monkey is too heavy. My bike weighs 22 pounds and I want it to weigh 21-and-a-half. Whats the spoke with the best weight-to-thread count-to-diameter ratio?

    Anybody remember the early nineties? John Tomac riding with that gawd-awful Tioga Tension Disc wheel? It weighed about 2 lbs more than a standard wheel, had a bunch of squishy feeling flex to it, and he still managed to win world cup races. All this complaining about "Which bike is better" is horrendous.

    Your all just lucky that your mother doesn't know how you spend your time.

  24. #24
    zeebot
    Reputation: Spookykinkajou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by TobyNobody
    The whole idea behind casting off your derailleurs was to remove the complexity and focus more on the ride and not the bike. Yet here everyone is whining about "Oooh, the Karate Monkey is too heavy. My bike weighs 22 pounds and I want it to weigh 21-and-a-half. Whats the spoke with the best weight-to-thread count-to-diameter ratio?

    Anybody remember the early nineties? John Tomac riding with that gawd-awful Tioga Tension Disc wheel? It weighed about 2 lbs more than a standard wheel, had a bunch of squishy feeling flex to it, and he still managed to win world cup races. All this complaining about "Which bike is better" is horrendous.

    Your all just lucky that your mother doesn't know how you spend your time.
    when there are so many choices why settle for less since there's so much potential to make basically the same bike yet much lighter and more compliant allowing one to ride faster and longer since it's more efficient? In most peoples eyes that increases the fun factor significantly. Stick with your roadmaster and come ride with me and see how long ya last before something breaks or you quit because you can't drag the 30lb pos up yet another hill in only one gear.

  25. #25
    President, CEO of Earth
    Reputation: TobyNobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookykinkajou
    when there are so many choices why settle for less since there's so much potential to make basically the same bike yet much lighter and more compliant allowing one to ride faster and longer since it's more efficient? In most peoples eyes that increases the fun factor significantly. Stick with your roadmaster and come ride with me and see how long ya last before something breaks or you quit because you can't drag the 30lb pos up yet another hill in only one gear.
    My point was this: The 2 lb difference is not a major factor. Yes, a 30lb roadmaster is gonna be a pig and break, but compare one quality SS to another quality SS and the 2lbs or 3 lbs means very little.

    2.2lbs of weight (9.8 newtons) X 1600M climbing = 15.7KJ

    Thats about 1/100th of a chocolate donut meaning that the energy from 1 donut will make up for carrying a bike thats almost 5 lbs heavier up forty miles of climbing. Thats a lot of weight when your talking about a bike, and thats a whole lot of climbing.

    Most people simply would not notice the difference on the trail. The time and money some people spend agonizing to get a bike 1/2 lb lighter is, really, depressing. Go take a look at the 'Weight Weenies' forum to see this rediculous practice... "how many grams will I save by swapping my titanium brake-lever pivot for a carbon fibre one?"

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SS-Phil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    28
    Most people simply would not notice the difference on the trail. The time and money some people spend agonizing to get a bike 1/2 lb lighter is, really, depressing. Go take a look at the 'Weight Weenies' forum to see this rediculous practice... "how many grams will I save by swapping my titanium brake-lever pivot for a carbon fibre one?"
    I'm trying to get my Redline down to 18 lbs...

    Oh...and if you race, or do XC...2 lbs does make a difference. The bike will be easier to bunnyhop, and faster handling...and lighter to carry over technical terrain.
    Dude, where's my gears?

  27. #27
    KRN
    KRN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    276

    still

    I want mt Redline to go ona diet also but like what was said ealiler unless you drop say 5lbs off a bike your not really going to notice>besides the idea of riding a SS is so you can spend more time riding not fixing it yes we all tinker with it but you sound like you need to stick with a gearded bike to be honest with you.That is untill you truly get the SS rider mental mind set.

  28. #28
    Combat Wombat
    Reputation: BrianU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,206

    Damn straight.

    Quote Originally Posted by FLYBYU
    I've built up my Monocog, and I've latched on to the SS passion. Now I want a fast singlespeed racer with front suspension. I'm looking at the Cannondale 1FG as a first option, also the Brodie 1 Ball (don't really like it) Can you guys think of any more? Do any of you own a bike like this?
    You are thinking too much. Don't you know that singlespeeding is about being brainless and from some of the other posts, being fat enough not to notice anything less than a 25% difference in the weight of your bike. Yeah right!

    Seriously, I think you would be hard pressed to beat the Cannondale for an out-of -the-box singlespeed with suspension, although it is a bit pricey. If you are willing to spend that kind of money, have you thought about checking out some of the custom shops around? Curtlo, for example, can build you a sweet steel ride for not much more than that stock Cannodale.

    Brian

  29. #29
    President, CEO of Earth
    Reputation: TobyNobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by SS-Phil
    I'm trying to get my Redline down to 18 lbs...

    Oh...and if you race, or do XC...2 lbs does make a difference. .
    How is it that Johnny T won races using that terrible tension disc wheel then? Those wheels added at least 1lb of rotating weight. Are you saying that your riding style is more finely honed then John Tomac's was in the early nineties? The 2 lbs will make a bigger difference to you because your riding skillis at a pinnicale and can not be improved except by lighter grips and spoke nipples?


    Quote Originally Posted by SS-Phil
    The bike will be easier to bunnyhop, and faster handling...and lighter to carry over technical terrain.
    Lighter to carry - yes it is. Would you notice? Maybe. Would it make an actual difference (other than psychological)? Probably not.

    Easier to bunnyhop ... well, I can see why you say that, but I'd take a look at Freestyle bikes for a sec. They seem to have no problem getting their 35lb bikes off the ground - usually higher than a XC MTB. But faster handling? Why would you make that claim? A 21 lb touring bike, then, is going to be faster handling than a 23 lb XC race bike? Hmm... I don't know about that. There's a lot of factors apart from weight that have a much bigger impact on handling.

    I understand the theory (probably a correct one) that a fast rider on a heavy bike is a faster rider on a light bike. But how much faster, really? And I have nothing against people on light bikes - I can't ride 'em cause they break, but you all go right ahead. But you have to realize that all this weight weenyism is just a big pit. At some point you get buried in it and wind up having a hobby of upgrading your bike rather than riding it. If shaving 1/4 lb of your bike is really gonna make you happy, then go for it, but I think you may be fooling yourself with unrealistic expectations for the improvement a little bit of weight savings will make.

  30. #30
    zeebot
    Reputation: Spookykinkajou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by TobyNobody
    How is it that Johnny T won races using that terrible tension disc wheel then? Those wheels added at least 1lb of rotating weight. Are you saying that your riding style is more finely honed then John Tomac's was in the early nineties? The 2 lbs will make a bigger difference to you because your riding skillis at a pinnicale and can not be improved except by lighter grips and spoke nipples?




    Lighter to carry - yes it is. Would you notice? Maybe. Would it make an actual difference (other than psychological)? Probably not.

    Easier to bunnyhop ... well, I can see why you say that, but I'd take a look at Freestyle bikes for a sec. They seem to have no problem getting their 35lb bikes off the ground - usually higher than a XC MTB. But faster handling? Why would you make that claim? A 21 lb touring bike, then, is going to be faster handling than a 23 lb XC race bike? Hmm... I don't know about that. There's a lot of factors apart from weight that have a much bigger impact on handling.

    I understand the theory (probably a correct one) that a fast rider on a heavy bike is a faster rider on a light bike. But how much faster, really? And I have nothing against people on light bikes - I can't ride 'em cause they break, but you all go right ahead. But you have to realize that all this weight weenyism is just a big pit. At some point you get buried in it and wind up having a hobby of upgrading your bike rather than riding it. If shaving 1/4 lb of your bike is really gonna make you happy, then go for it, but I think you may be fooling yourself with unrealistic expectations for the improvement a little bit of weight savings will make.
    It will handle MUCH better in tight, twisty single track. it's not even funny how much faster i can ride my surly 1x1 with rigid fork through tight stuff vs my full suspension that weighs maybe 5lb's more.

    i sorta get the feeling you dont know what you are talking about...

  31. #31
    President, CEO of Earth
    Reputation: TobyNobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookykinkajou
    It will handle MUCH better in tight, twisty single track. it's not even funny how much faster i can ride my surly 1x1 with rigid fork through tight stuff vs my full suspension that weighs maybe 5lb's more.

    i sorta get the feeling you dont know what you are talking about...
    Sure. I'm being told that I don't know what I'm talking about by someone with a 21lb bike trying to spend his way into being a better riding by making it into a 18 lb bike. Well, I wish you all the luck. With your bike 4 lbs lighter than 95% of the pro racers out there, and going by your claims about the importance of bike weight, I should be seeing you on the world cup podiums as soon as your done.

    As for your little claim about your FS vs. SS: are you claiming to have a FS bike with exactly the same geometry and dimensions (trail, wheelbase, bb height, seat and head angle, fork rake, bar width, top tube/stem length) as your Surly rigid? You have the same tires and gearing on both of them? And I suppose the squishy bobbing feeling you get on a climb is a result of the extra weight too.

    Get yourself a custom FS made with the same specs as your Surly, so you can actually make a fair comparison, then tell me I don't kow what I'm talking about.

    I had a 21 lb SS made out of an old (like 83-84) cromoly Miele frame. It weighed a little less than my newer 27 sp ti hardtail, but it handled like a wheelbarrow in tight singletrack. So bad it wasn't even funny. But boy was it light. I guess it was the trail's fault - It should have known how light my bike was and just jaid down flat so I could ride it easier.

  32. #32
    zeebot
    Reputation: Spookykinkajou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by TobyNobody
    Sure. I'm being told that I don't know what I'm talking about by someone with a 21lb bike trying to spend his way into being a better riding by making it into a 18 lb bike. Well, I wish you all the luck. With your bike 4 lbs lighter than 95% of the pro racers out there, and going by your claims about the importance of bike weight, I should be seeing you on the world cup podiums as soon as your done.

    As for your little claim about your FS vs. SS: are you claiming to have a FS bike with exactly the same geometry and dimensions (trail, wheelbase, bb height, seat and head angle, fork rake, bar width, top tube/stem length) as your Surly rigid? You have the same tires and gearing on both of them? And I suppose the squishy bobbing feeling you get on a climb is a result of the extra weight too.

    Get yourself a custom FS made with the same specs as your Surly, so you can actually make a fair comparison, then tell me I don't kow what I'm talking about.

    I had a 21 lb SS made out of an old (like 83-84) cromoly Miele frame. It weighed a little less than my newer 27 sp ti hardtail, but it handled like a wheelbarrow in tight singletrack. So bad it wasn't even funny. But boy was it light. I guess it was the trail's fault - It should have known how light my bike was and just jaid down flat so I could ride it easier.
    You must have me confused with someone else. I'm not trying to lighten my bike at all. In fact, i'm adding weight to it this week with a raceface bashguard and a fox 80rlt to deflect some pain on my long rides planned this coming week in pisgah. If i was that concerned about a pound or two i wouldn't be riding a surly 1x1.

  33. #33
    President, CEO of Earth
    Reputation: TobyNobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookykinkajou
    You must have me confused with someone else.
    You're right. I did get you confused with someone else. You aren't making great efforts to do something useless, you're just making stupid claims and comparisons..

    Quote Originally Posted by Spookykinkajou
    "I ate an orange once and it was good. Then I found an apple in the garbage and it wasn't as good. I guess apples are no good, so I'll stick to oranges."
    Well, maybe you didn't exactly say that, but it seems like a similar assumption.

  34. #34
    zeebot
    Reputation: Spookykinkajou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by TobyNobody
    You're right. I did get you confused with someone else. You aren't making great efforts to do something useless, you're just making stupid claims and comparisons..



    Well, maybe you didn't exactly say that, but it seems like a similar assumption.
    i still maintain when comparing racing bikes to racing bikes(i think thats what this post was about) weight should be considered!

    you are right the geometries are different on my bikes.

    Maybe it's because i'm naturally gifted and am a fast learner, but when i dumped the squishy bike for the SS i significantly decreased my lap times and i attribute some of that to the 5lb decrease in weight! Mostly it's the lack of gears forcing me to hammer on hills in 34/18 while the silly squishies spin out in 32/32. Against pro riders i realize this isnt the case so all my comments are targeted below that level!

    And it doesnt hurt at 21# being able to sling the bike over the shoulder with little trouble and run up the hill with ease...
    Last edited by Spookykinkajou; 04-27-2004 at 05:33 PM.

  35. #35
    President, CEO of Earth
    Reputation: TobyNobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,001
    I agree with you. If you are a fast rider on a heavy bike, you'll be a faster rider on a light bike. Who said that first?

    Anyhoo, all I really wanted to say is that people put waaaaaay too much emphasis on the weight of a bike. People phone bike shops and ask how much some $300 entry level bike weighs. Why? I don't know. I don't believe, and I'm sure most of you will agree with me, that a brand new rider will have troble getting the benifits that a 26 lb bike gives over a 27lb bike. But people are using that as their deciding factor.

    Other peole come in to shops with a postage scale so they can get the lightest of a particular model tire. Its nuts. And they will doube check to see if the two lightest really are 665 and 668 grams- making sure they don't get stuck with the 668 gram one. In reality, the people posting in this forum seem reasonable. Maybe I just overreacted due to my hatred for the real weight weenies out there.

  36. #36
    zeebot
    Reputation: Spookykinkajou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by TobyNobody
    I agree with you. If you are a fast rider on a heavy bike, you'll be a faster rider on a light bike. Who said that first?

    Anyhoo, all I really wanted to say is that people put waaaaaay too much emphasis on the weight of a bike. People phone bike shops and ask how much some $300 entry level bike weighs. Why? I don't know. I don't believe, and I'm sure most of you will agree with me, that a brand new rider will have troble getting the benifits that a 26 lb bike gives over a 27lb bike. But people are using that as their deciding factor.

    Other peole come in to shops with a postage scale so they can get the lightest of a particular model tire. Its nuts. And they will doube check to see if the two lightest really are 665 and 668 grams- making sure they don't get stuck with the 668 gram one. In reality, the people posting in this forum seem reasonable. Maybe I just overreacted due to my hatred for the real weight weenies out there.
    yes quite obsessive over weights. i was shocked when i saw people posting saying the thomson stem wasn't any good because it weighed 200gms. what????? I'll admit i take weight into account when buying parts but i've never weighed anything other than when right after my bike was built i hung it on a scale at the shop...Here's my beauty. Enjoy.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Spookykinkajou; 04-27-2004 at 05:47 PM.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SS-Phil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by TobyNobody
    Anyhoo, all I really wanted to say is that people put waaaaaay too much emphasis on the weight of a bike.
    Apparently you don't race...

    Let me try to explain. A lighter bike means that the bike is easier to maneuver during twisty singletrack, is more energy effiicient, is faster accelerating, and plain easier to cart up a hill.

    A)The bike is lighter. This means that less energy is required to maneuver it during technical terrain. This means a) you can turn faster, since it is easier to push a light load fast, as compared to a heavy load fast (ie. try smacking an empty soda can fast, and then try smacking a 2 liter full bottle fast. which is going to be easier and faster to push). A lighter bike also means that during technical terrain, more energy can be used to make the bike go forward, instead of sideways, and through turns.

    B) More energy efficient - the bike moves faster forward...because it is easier to acclerate and change speed (think of the bottle and can example again...if you start by pushing the can slowly...it won't take much effort to push faster...but the bottle, in turn will.)

    C) Faster accelerating - lighter weight...more power able to use to make the bike go faster...instead of having to use that power to get a heavier bike to go as fast.

    D) Hills - I don't know the exact numbers but I think that the numbers are about like this - 1 lb of weight saves a 140 lbs cyclist 10-20 seconds up a 1 mile 10% grade. That may not seem like a lot to you....but think about it. Assume that you and your closest competitor can exert exactly the same kind of power over a given distance (highly unlikely), but that your competiors bike is 2 lbs heavier. Now say that the race is 5 laps, with a 1 mile 10% hill. You are going to save 40 secs up the hill one time - because your bike is lighter. 5 times up the hill, you are going to save 200 seconds - 3.3 minutes...races are won that way.

    The other crap you said...

    F) DH and FR bikes can bunnyhop don't usually bunnyhop, but rather launch of a lip or a berm...and if they do bunnyhop, they have lots of suspension, which they can compress and release (in a bunnyhop you are basically compressing yourself, and then releasing.

    G) I'm not as good a pros...because I don't ride my bike 6 hours a day.

    H) I ride my bike 3 hours a day 4 times a week and 4 hours a day 2 times per week. I race in the expert category, and have won stuff...

    J) There is a guy called Mr. Newton. He wrote some stuff about motion and energy. maybe you should read some stuff.

    I) Now get you ass out of your chair and ride...
    Dude, where's my gears?

  38. #38
    President, CEO of Earth
    Reputation: TobyNobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,001
    I thought I was going to let this die, but since you had to bring it up...

    Quote Originally Posted by SS-Phil
    Apparently you don't race...
    Let me try to explain. A lighter bike means that the bike is easier to maneuver during twisty singletrack, is more energy effiicient, is faster accelerating, and plain easier to cart up a hill.
    I'll deal with these each as you explain them...


    Quote Originally Posted by SS-Phil
    A)The bike is lighter. This means that less energy is required to maneuver it during technical terrain. This means a) you can turn faster, since it is easier to push a light load fast, as compared to a heavy load fast (ie. try smacking an empty soda can fast, and then try smacking a 2 liter full bottle fast. which is going to be easier and faster to push). A lighter bike also means that during technical terrain, more energy can be used to make the bike go forward, instead of sideways, and through turns.
    Maybe while I'm re-reading Isaac Newton's stuff, you should take a class in remedial literacy. Go back to my other post. Now, Phil - sound it out. You see where I agreed that a lighter bike makes a difference? All I'm saying is that some people overstate the difference.


    Quote Originally Posted by SS-Phil
    B) More energy efficient - the bike moves faster forward...because it is easier to acclerate and change speed (think of the bottle and can example again...if you start by pushing the can slowly...it won't take much effort to push faster...but the bottle, in turn will.)
    Energy efficient, eh? Listen, bub: if you're not exactly sure what something means, don't try to bring it up in an argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by SS-Phil
    C) Faster - lighter weight...more power able to use to make the bike go faster...instead of having to use that power to get a heavier bike to go as fast.
    Faster, eh? Hmmm... Maybe you should use your new-found reading skills to hit the Newtonian physics book yourself. The weight of the bike has no bearing on the speed. DO you mean climbing speed? I suppose an argument cound be made for that. I wonder if anyone knows the exact amount? Oh - you made some claims here - lets look at those...


    Quote Originally Posted by SS-Phil
    D) Hills - I don't know the exact numbers but I think that the numbers are about like this - 1 lb of weight saves a 140 lbs cyclist 10-20 seconds up a 1 mile 10% grade. That may not seem like a lot to you....but think about it. Assume that you and your closest competitor can exert exactly the same kind of power over a given distance (highly unlikely), but that your competiors bike is 2 lbs heavier. Now say that the race is 5 laps, with a 1 mile 10% hill. You are going to save 40 secs up the hill one time - because your bike is lighter. 5 times up the hill, you are going to save 200 seconds - 3.3 minutes...races are won that way.
    Don't know the exact numbers, eh? Then maybe, as I said before, you shouldn't pull them out of your ass to prove some misguided point. This is a rediculous statement. You seem to be on the right treack talking about power output, but a blanket statement like "1lb less weight means 20 seconds faster" Thats BULLSHlT. Really, you could have researched that a little to make it at least sound beleivable.

    Quote Originally Posted by SS-Phil
    The other crap you said...

    F) DH and FR bikes can bunnyhop don't usually bunnyhop, but rather launch of a lip or a berm...and if they do bunnyhop, they have lots of suspension, which they can compress and release (in a bunnyhop you are basically compressing yourself, and then releasing.
    I didn't say freeride or DH, I said FreeSTYLE. BMX. And any decent rider on a freestyle bike can hoist the thing 2 feet into the air with no ramp.


    Quote Originally Posted by SS-Phil
    G) I'm not as good a pros...because I don't ride my bike 6 hours a day.

    H) I ride my bike 3 hours a day 4 times a week and 4 hours a day 2 times per week. I race in the expert category, and have won stuff...
    Who gives a big rats ass? "I ride my bike 13 to 14 hours per month averaging 23 miles per ride, usually with 35 psi in my rear tire and 38 in my front; I have a pet iguana named Carlos and my mother was born in Belgium." Useless information. Isn't there a "useless information from ignorant people" forum here?


    Quote Originally Posted by SS-Phil
    J) There is a guy called Mr. Newton. He wrote some stuff about motion and energy. maybe you should read some stuff.
    WHats all this "stuff?" Is it the same "stuff" that you have won in expert class races? Are you saying you once won a physics text? Boy, the expert prize purse really has gone to hell.

    Quote Originally Posted by SS-Phil
    I) Now get you ass out of your chair and ride
    Fine then.
    Last edited by TobyNobody; 04-28-2004 at 10:34 AM.

  39. #39
    banned
    Reputation: gonzostrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,258

    why not put a suspension fork on the Monocog?

    sounds to me like you just want front suspension. just put a suspension fork on the Monocog. it's that simple.

    *****************

    oh, and to SS-Phil and everyone else arguing with TobyNobody, you're all WRONG about focussing on weight.

    you're always better off taking a giant dump pre-race, losing a quick 5 lbs of do-nothing albatross-like weight.

    in other words, quit obsessing about bike weight, especially over long rides. your body weight is a MUCH larger impediment to climbing ease than any 1.5 lbs you can lop off the bike.

  40. #40
    No relation
    Reputation: Ichabod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzostrike
    sounds to me like you just want front suspension. just put a suspension fork on the Monocog. it's that simple.

    *****************

    oh, and to SS-Phil and everyone else arguing with TobyNobody, you're all WRONG about focussing on weight.

    you're always better off taking a giant dump pre-race, losing a quick 5 lbs of do-nothing albatross-like weight.

    in other words, quit obsessing about bike weight, especially over long rides. your body weight is a MUCH larger impediment to climbing ease than any 1.5 lbs you can lop off the bike.
    As long as it's not the wrong 5 lbs. I think saving body weight can impede race performance under some circumstances. For example, removing internal organs (other than vestigial), limbs, or eyeballs, spring to mind as misguided weight savings. All these carbo gels perhaps mean one could race toothless. How much do teeth weigh? And could one still fight tooth and nail for a podium spot?
    Don't you ever, don't you ever, stop being dandy showing me you're handsome.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SS-Phil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    28
    Well...My body fat is at 6%...and I visit the portapotties before the race
    Dude, where's my gears?

  42. #42
    President, CEO of Earth
    Reputation: TobyNobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,001
    But remember: If you have to go during the race, don't go in your seatbag 'cause you won't take full advantage of the weight savings.

  43. #43
    banned
    Reputation: gonzostrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,258

    I usually remove my brain, it just gets me in trouble.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ichabod
    As long as it's not the wrong 5 lbs. I think saving body weight can impede race performance under some circumstances. For example, removing internal organs (other than vestigial), limbs, or eyeballs, spring to mind as misguided weight savings. All these carbo gels perhaps mean one could race toothless. How much do teeth weigh? And could one still fight tooth and nail for a podium spot?
    IMHO the brain is the best organ/body part to lose before a race. no overthinking errors, no fear, no wrong turns. and nothing to injure if you take a header.


  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: crankpuller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    504

    go with the canadian bike

    what dontchya like about the brodie?

    it comes with a marzocchi (upgrade over the headshock), hydrolic discs
    AND is cheaper than the 1FG.

    My unibomber is the best handling bike i've owned - give it a chance man!

    Save the monocog for commuting and get the brodie

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    451
    Wow!
    I think the poster specifically said in his posts that he wanted a lighter bike "light as possible", so id imagine that is what hes after.
    Tobynobody, i understand that many people dont want or need a superlight bike and will take extra durability any day, but mate, the way your looking at it was if someone said to you theres no point riding on a singlespeed, its outdated and inefficient.
    I would tend to agree that 1-2lb, or 500-900gm of stationary weight wont feel immediately different, however rotating mass is a different story, but even on long rides it is noticeable.
    If you dont think it makes a difference to your bike, then fair enough, but this guy has asked for recommendations on a lighter bike, not on why he should have a lighter bike.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by FLYBYU
    Not really concerned about comfort, because it's a SS so you are out of the saddle alot.


    you are?


    that test ride may help to shake loose your myriad misconceptions

  47. #47
    wait a minute....
    Reputation: SIGMA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    218

    but compare one quality SS to another quality SS and the 2lbs or 3 lbs means very lit

    [I cut 3 pounds off my ss and started riding it again. it was wheels and tires,rolling weight, and was the first weight loss I felt immedietly.I dont race or weigh my bike.I just ride. now my bike handles,climbs, and yes it rolls faster on flat ground.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by TobyNobody
    How is it that Johnny T won races using that terrible tension disc wheel then? Those wheels added at least 1lb of rotating weight.
    I would guess nobody on this forum is as strong as a '90's johnny t. call me crazy, but I would imagine 2lbs to me makes a much larger difference than to a top notch pro rider. I'm fairly certain a top pro like that could ride a 60lb bike and still beat 99% of the people on the forum.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    102

    why

    i don't want to become involved in this weight thing as i don't race and have never
    weighed any of my bikes
    **** i haven't weighed myself in years
    but,i digress
    my question for FLYBYU is, if you replace every fastener on your bike, and $$ isn't
    a big factor for you
    why do you want an "out of the box " ss?
    it seems your quest for a lighter than air bike would be better served by a ground up build
    where you can start with helium filled frame tubes and such and not buy parts you aren't going to use

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe Sausagehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    732
    I have owned a really light rigid aluminum SS (approx. 19.5 lbs)
    I have owned a fairly heavy rigid steel SS (approx 26 lbs)

    One thing I noticed. On the light bike, the light stuff broke a lot.

    Like Bontrager says: "Light. Strong, Cheap. Pick two."
    "America is the greatest country in the world, but that's a lot like being the prettiest waitress at Denny's."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. S.S.S. = stealthy single speed
    By whale in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-13-2004, 10:56 AM
  2. 24 hour race on a single speed?
    By FLYBYU in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-13-2004, 04:50 AM
  3. First "Production" SS frame?
    By Fast Eddy in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 03-05-2004, 10:38 PM
  4. She's done! my $136 single speed convert w/pics
    By rligeti in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-10-2004, 09:16 AM
  5. Using factory made wheels on a single speed
    By Dimitri Nikas in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-31-2004, 02:23 PM

Posting Permissions

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