Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 251 to 300 of 372

Thread: covert 29er

  1. #251
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    232
    Good to know as I'm planning to hit up Snow Summit here in SoCal at some point this summer, thanks.

  2. #252
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    I was riding with a buddy from Pasadena who rides there and Mammoth a lot, enjoy

    Here's the latest setup, switched to Reverb post and some old XT cranks I had.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails covert 29er-covert-resize.jpg  

    Last edited by rr; 08-27-2013 at 10:43 AM.

  3. #253
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    128
    This thread needs more Covert stoke

    Kirroughtree, Scotland, two days ago....
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails covert 29er-k_roller.jpg  

    covert 29er-k_climb.jpg  

    covert 29er-k_moab.jpg  


  4. #254
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    17
    A question for those with RS Pikes on their Covert 29's. I'm looking at a set of 150mm Solo Air Pikes for my covert 29 and on a few websites see that there are two models. One that looks like the standard model, and one that is advertised as having a 51mm offset. This only seems to apply specifically to the 150mm 29er fork and none of the other travels or wheel size combinations. I'm not sure if 51mm offset is more or less than the std model, but against this option it does state to check with your bike manufacturer for compatability with the 51mm offset. I've queried Transition on this but it seems this is the first they've heard of it and have gone away to investigate further. Also i'm struggling to find anything on the SRAM/Rockshox website and i've spoken to a few local shops and suppliers who recognise the second model but don't know what it should apply to. So for those of you who have got Pikes on your Covert 29, did you go for the std model or the 51mm offset model? SHould I assuming there is no structural or mechanical reason why I shouldn't? Thanks.

  5. #255
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    Kinda curious too as I was looking at a Pike for next season. In theory the longer offset will reduce 'trail' and make the steering feel quicker I guess, but in reality it's probably not noticable. It would obviously lengthen the wheelbase a tad, which I wouldn't want on mine, guess it depends on how your riding the bike.

    Are you running a Fox 34 now? I read it has a 51mm offset so maybe you want to replicate that with the Pike.

  6. #256
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    17
    Currently I've got the 140 mm Revs off the transition build kit 3. I have no idea if the 51mm offset is more or less than the revs, I think the revs offset is 40mm, or what Transition has designed as optimal for the bike. I use my bike for pretty much everything, XC, DH, genuine AM with a slant for DH. It's the statement to check with the bike manufacturer that suggests to me that it might not be suitable for some bikes, and the fact only the 150mm 29er fork seems to have this option. No other Pike model, not even the 140mm or 160mm 29er model. Oh, we'll, the mystery deepens. Is there any way I can query Rockshox directly?

  7. #257
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    I have the 140 Rev too and love the handling and ride of the bike, I wouldn't want that to change. Stiffer fork and added travel are welcome but not if it messes with the front end handling. I think our Rev forks are 46mm offset, the Fox 34's are 51 from what I've read and folks seem to really like them aside from some damping issues so maybe the 51 offset would work fine.

    I think I would go with the 46mm offset myself. I bet the 51mm option is directed more towards bikes with slacker head angles where the 'trail' measurement would be higher and slower steering.

  8. #258
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    17
    Yeah, the bike handles brilliantly, i'm not looking to upgrade, but am looking to use the forks on a TransAm 29 build i'm planning and the Pikes look like a nice fork. The extra 10mm travel might come in useful for next year as i'm planning a couple of Alps trips and the TransAm will probably take on more of the XC duties leaving the Covert to a more DH orientated bike. I think the extra 13mm A-C of the Pike will already slacken things up a bit so feels like I don't need the greater offset.

    I'm in no rush for the next few weeks so will see if Transition come back to me with anything. Cheers.

  9. #259
    rider
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally Posted by wobbliscott View Post
    Yeah, the bike handles brilliantly, i'm not looking to upgrade, but am looking to use the forks on a TransAm 29 build i'm planning and the Pikes look like a nice fork. The extra 10mm travel might come in useful for next year as i'm planning a couple of Alps trips and the TransAm will probably take on more of the XC duties leaving the Covert to a more DH orientated bike. I think the extra 13mm A-C of the Pike will already slacken things up a bit so feels like I don't need the greater offset.

    I'm in no rush for the next few weeks so will see if Transition come back to me with anything. Cheers.
    The Rev's fork offset is 46mm unless you got a G2 Trek version (51mm offset) and I'm not aware of a G2 140mm variant. Both the Bandit & Covert 29ers were designed around a 51mm offset fork. I have verified this with Transition.

    Yes, the longer A-C of the Pike 150mm (561mm) will slacken up the front end as the Rev 140 is supposed to be 546mm A-C, the Pike will increase the trail. Too much trail and your bike will handle like a truck. However, more fork offset reduces trail, helping a bike with a slack front end handle more nimbly.

    You can buy the Solo Air Pike in 140mm travel and 51mm offset. See the link below. I just bought a 51mm offset 150mm travel Pike Dual Position fork for my Covert 29. I think that it will be a much better match for the bike than the 140mm version for the below reasons:

    The Fox 34 140mm 29er fork that both the 2012 Bandit 29 and the Covert 29 were designed for are 51mm offset, but many owners report significantly longer real world A-C length on them than the advertised 552.8mm. Many have stated and posted pics showing that the 140mm F34 actually has longer A-C lengths than the 150mm Pike. Many 140mm F34 owners are claiming A-C lengths that are around 20mm longer than the 546mm of the 140mm Rev.

    universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=62160&category=94
    Last edited by 29erchico; 09-13-2013 at 04:53 PM.
    Abandoned the 26" wheel in May '03

  10. #260
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    Just ordered my Covert 29 frame this weekend! Past Bandit 29 owner looking forward to feeling that Transition vibe again!

  11. #261
    Contagious Xian
    Reputation: Bombin4X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,833
    Welcome back from that Bandit29's new owner

  12. #262
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Bombin4X View Post
    Welcome back from that Bandit29's new owner
    And happy that the B29 found a good home and a taller rider!

  13. #263
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    Woo hoo! Frame has arrived. Now if the stupid carbon rims I ordered 3 weeks ago would arrive, I could start building - and RIDING - the thing.

  14. #264
    Contagious Xian
    Reputation: Bombin4X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,833
    Coming over on the slow boat from China...

    pics?

  15. #265
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Bombin4X View Post
    Coming over on the slow boat from China...

    pics?
    Dude, you're waiting for the same rims. Maybe we can ride them next spring.

    Frame is under construction at Eastside. Ryan's monkeys are typing a sonnet at a million typewriters. Patience, grasshopper.

  16. #266
    Contagious Xian
    Reputation: Bombin4X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,833
    ha. frame pics is what I meant...LEMURZ

  17. #267
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    126
    now, that i'm switching from the Bandit29 to the Covert29 (black, Large), i have some questions.
    I have a Pike with 150mm and thinking about converting to 160mm (possible by changing the airdampershaft).
    is this useful?

    What's about the shock? On the Bandit i switched to the Monarch Plus RC3, because the Float was running through the travel. The Monarch was way more progressive.

    i have an angleset for the Bandit with -1°, should i also use this for the Covert?

  18. #268
    Deere Rider
    Reputation: titusquasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    942
    My suggestions:

    Leave the Pike at 150.
    You can add internal volume spacers to the Fox CTD shock to create more progression.
    Try the stock head angle and see what you think. I found it too slack and installed a +1 deg head set and really like that modification.

    Have fun, it's a very capable machine.

  19. #269
    Deere Rider
    Reputation: titusquasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    942
    I just mentioned this in reply to a question in this thread a page or two back but I just installed a +1 deg Works Components headset on my C29. That's right, I'm going backwards from the every slackening head angle trend.

    The head angle is now in the 68.5-69 deg range depending on what I use to measure (67.5-68 deg with the stock headset...my Float 34 runs a bit long).

    I always felt the handling was a bit sluggish for my tastes and the front wheel tended to wander on steep climbs.

    Only one ride with the steeper head angle but I was very happy with the subtle change. Steering seemed a bit sharper and the front tire was much more "planted" on steep climbs. I noticed no negative effects on steep rough terrain.

    Why are head angles getting so excessively slack?

  20. #270
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    126
    thank you,

    frame arrives on friday, i think i will get it ready the same day.
    i will report.

  21. #271
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    Quote Originally Posted by titusquasi View Post
    Why are head angles getting so excessively slack?
    Cause it's cool and hip?, agreed tho. I like the handling of mine w/Rev 140, don't want anything slacker but will prob go with the Pike which will slacken the HA slightly I guess.

    One thing I like about the Covert 29 is the tight wheelbase, makes it more nimble in slow speed techno stuff, yet it still handled great at the bike park. Transition nailed the geo on this bike. The Spechy Enduro might have shorter stays and half an inch more travel but the wheelbase is an inch longer for any given size, same for most of the other bikes in this segment.

  22. #272
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    Picked up my new C29 build from the shop last night (but couldn't get it out on dirt.) Big thanks to Allen at the Dropnzone for the great customer service on the frame purchase!

    Frame is an XL; all components were swapped over from my '12 RIP (and previously on a '12 Bandit 29.) 140mm Reba, 2x9 drivetrain (mostly X-9 with an SLX crankset), Sun Ringle Black Flag Pro wheelset. Carbon-rimmed wheels on their way. Pike and 1x11 drivetrain go on next year. First impressions -

    1. This is the smallest "XL" frame I've ever seen. It's smaller than the L RIP. Small is good, as the '12 XL Bandit was too big for me. ETT seems really tight. That will take some getting used to. I'm just a hair over 6' and there is no possible way I could have fit comfortably on the L. I will definitely need to source a dropper post ASAP.
    2. The CTD shock is super stiff. I've been reading this thread and the recent review (can't remember the site) about the Float tending to blow through it's travel, so I put in about my body weight as the psi in the shock. Just riding it around the street and off curbs, it felt pretty firm in the Trail 1 or Trail 2 position. When I clicked it into Descend, it felt plusher. That said, I haven't ridden it all geared up and not on dirt. I dropped about 10 psi out and it felt a little bit more plush.
    3. On the other hand, I'm guessing this bike will fly uphill compared to the Bandit. One thing that I never really liked about the Bandit was that it seemed to be a little squishy when climbing, even with the RP23 set on the firmest setting.
    4. The frame/build was not as heavy as I was expecting. The build as it stands now is a hair over 30 lbs, which is slightly lighter than I was thinking it would turn out. The frame feels about the same weight as the RIP.
    5. The frame itself is beautiful. I love the curvy lines, the gunmetal gray and the blue accents. The head angle is noticeably slacker than the RIP, just from looking at it. The BB height measured about 13.7 or so, which is nearly .5" shorter than the RIP. That I like a lot.

    Cruddy, blurry phone pic attached in my messy garage and complimentary Natty can in the background.

    covert 29er-covertt29-small.jpg

  23. #273
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    Surprised at the weight too, must be reasonably light wheels/tires. Mine is at 33 with Hope/Flow wheels and beefy tires, also dropper post.

    I'm 6'2" and was worried about the fit as well, but it has not been an issue, more upright yes but still very comfy on the bike.

    I'm running a little less than body weight and keep it at trail "1" setting, feels good for both trail riding and downhills.

  24. #274
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    Tires are Specialized Purgatory 2.3 front and Specialized Ground Control 2.1 rear. Definitely less beefy than Hans Dampfs or Nobby Nics or similar, but they get the job done very well on the local trails. Wheels are, I think, pretty average in weight for "trail" wheels at about 1750g or so (definitely lighter than Flows.) One thing keeping the weight down, unfortunately, is the lack of a dropper post. My KS Lev is not the right diameter for the frame. (Insert unhappy face here.) If it would stop raining around here, maybe I could ride the thing. (Mountain biking in Boise in the rain is a huge no-no - our trails are heavy clay soil and become soupy and sticky mud, prone to serious rutting and damage. Yes, Bombing4x - I'm talking to you.)

  25. #275
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    I used a 27.2 Gravity dropper w/shim for awhile, worked fine.

    I have a 2.5 DHF/2.3 DHR 2 combo on mine, love love love these tires! Not light tho.

  26. #276
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    Just ordered a 31.6 Lev with the 125mm drop. (Same as what I was running on the RIP.) I'll hang on to the 30.9 for a potential Canfield Nimble 9 build next spring. I tend to go a bit lighter on the tires just due to the trails I usually ride, which are pretty smooth hardpack. I keep beefier tires for backup for other areas. I've never felt I needed much more than 2.2 max in the rear on any bike, but I do like a wide, fat front tire, regardless of weight. I may end up going with a Dampf up front and repurpose the Purgatory for the Nimble next year.

  27. #277
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2
    Hi Folks! Mine is up for sale and is posted in the classifieds on MTBR There is a link a couple of pages back to some additional photos. I have loved the bike but my riding style is changing a bit and want something smaller. Thanks for looking!

  28. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    126
    first pic.
    will make better soon.
    first ride was short but great

    covert 29er-2013-09-27-17.25.34.jpg

  29. #279
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    Is that a Pike?

  30. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    126
    Yes, that is a Pike SA 150mm.

  31. #281
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by flowbike View Post
    Yes, that is a Pike SA 150mm.
    That is definitely my next upgrade.

    Finally got out for a short ride yesterday. First impressions:

    1. This thing climbs really well, even in "descend" mode. No detectable bobbing or squatting. Climbs way better than the Bandit did.
    2. That stiffness climbing also resulted in some stiffness on the downhill. Just didn't feel at all plush. I ended up dropping another 10 psi from the shock, but it didn't seem to make much difference, whereas on the Bandit you could really tell the difference. I've heard that the CTD shock does take a while to set up. I checked the sag before the ride and I got it pretty much spot on 25%; perhaps now it's 30%.
    3. That said, this bike corners very intuitively. The RIP I always felt was too tall and you had to muscle it around corners. The Covert feels more planted and whippy.
    4. The positioning on the bike is odd, to say the least. I come from a squarely XC background - long top tubes and long stems. The RIP had a 24.6" ETT, a 72.5 degree STA, 69.5 degree HA, and I was running a 90mm stem. With the steeper STA and slacker HTA on the Covert, I can definitely feel a much more compact ETT. That, and running a 70mm stem, I feel considerably more "upright" than I've ever felt on a bike. That said, I think that upright position contributed greatly to being comfortable while climbing.
    5. This frame cries for a dropper post. With the shortish head tube length, the bars are pretty low in comparison to the saddle. I couldn't get my butt off the back of the saddle while descending, which made me feel a bit too over-the-bars on the downhill. Good thing I ordered a dropper post already.

    Bottom line - I'm looking forward to experimenting with the frame. I need to get the shock dialed - it just feels too stiff. And, add a longer travel fork to slacken the angles and raise the front end a tad. I already like it more than the RIP, based on the quicker handling and lower BB height, but it will take some time to get more comfortable on it.

    covert 29er-photo-10-.jpg

  32. #282
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    Got in a couple more rides (total about 40 miles for the weekend.) Dropping another 10 psi out of the shock definitely improved the ride. I'm down to about 175 psi in the shock, which is about 15 - 20 lbs below body weight. For climbs, I'd put the shock in Trail 2, and then switch it over to Descend 2 for the downhills. I need a longer A-C fork. The positioning on the downhill still feels a little too forward. The Reba RLT Ti is set at 140, with an A-C of about 552mm. Just feels too low. I think the 561mm of the Pike will be a better fit. Other than that, no complaints at all. Climbs amazingly well for its weight and it handles great on the downhills. Just need the dropper post for now and all is well.

  33. #283
    mtbr member
    Reputation: eurospek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,458
    The Reba 140, as well as the Revelation 140 A-2-C is even lower, 548mm. The Fox 34 140 is 552.8mm.
    konahonzo

  34. #284
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    Probably the saddle height making your position feel too forward on the descents. I have the Rev 140 and it handles great, even did a few days at the bike park and I never felt under forked. That said I'll prob get a Pike too, better match for this bike than the Rev.

    The 1-2-3 settings are only for trail mode, I found the 2 setting too harsh so keep it at 1. Descend mode is uber plush but I dont use it except in real chunky sections, blow thru the travel too easily on jumps or drops.

  35. #285
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    Ah, I suspected the Reba was shorter than 552 - I thought I had read that somewhere. I think the 2012 Revelation is basically a re-stickered 2011 Reba, since they discontinued the 140mm option for the Reba after 2011. I think the shorter a-2-c is making the angles slightly steeper.

    I have my saddle set at 787mm from the center of the BB to the top of the middle of the saddle (measured on a straight line, not following the seat tube.) That's pretty much my standard saddle height across any frame. Hence, the need for a dropper post on frames with a steeper seat tube angle. (I frankly don't see how anybody over 6'2" could be comfortable on even an XL frame without over-maxing the seatpost height and putting a long stem on. An L would feel like riding my kid's BMX bike.) I became more used to the lack of a dropper the longer I rode it.

    Good to know about the 1-2-3 setting on the shock. Our climbs are long and steady, so trail 1 or 2 feels about the same. I'm not blowing through the travel on descend mode, but it certainly feels less plush than the 2012 Bandit 29.

  36. #286
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    126
    made some new pics.
    here it is in parksetup for tomorrow

  37. #287
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    126
    is someone here riding a Monarch+ in the Covert29?

  38. #288
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    12 rides on the Covert so far - somewhere between 150 and 200 miles. I still feel like the seat tube angle is far too steep and the ETT/reach is far too short. Even at just a shade over 6' tall and riding an XL, I can't get my saddle far enough back to achieve KOPS position, which makes my knees and back hurt. I also still have the OTB feel on downhills (although that's mostly negated by the dropper post.) I'm hoping these problems are a combination of (1) a fork that's too short for the frame and (2) a stem that's too short. Transition's website notes that the geometry figures for the Covert 29 are based on a fork a-2-c of 556mm. Mine is sub 550 - maybe 548mm. Second, I'm running a 70mm stem and a 740mm wide bar.

    The BB height feels pretty tall too, especially compared to the '12 Bandit 29 I used to have. I can't imagine how tall it would feel with a 150mm Pike or even a 140mm Fox 34.

    Also, I'm having the same problem as others with blowing through the travel. If I put enough air in to prevent that, the ride is harsh. If I drop the air to smooth out the ride, I go through the travel pretty easily. I've got about 175 psi in the fork and run the shock in Trail 1 or Trail 2 only.

    I'm starting to get suspicious that this frame is not living up to the hype. I demoed an Ibis Ripley last weekend - now there's an impressive frame. I really want to like the Covert, but so far it's not happening.

  39. #289
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,687

    covert 29er

    From what you've written, I think you're unlikely to warm up to the Covert. It sounds like the geometry isn't what you're looking for. It has a steep STA and short cockpit for a reason. I ride a Prime, which has a similar fit, and I love it. The compact cockpit is beneficial for a certain riding style, but it sounds like you don't care for it. It's less a matter of not living up to the hype than it is choosing the tool that fits your purpose. I think this style doesn't work as well for a bike that will be ridden mostly with the saddle at full XC height, and if I buy another bike for mostly XC duties, it'll have a slacker STA and a longer cockpit.

    FWIW, the Covert actually has a very slightly longer reach than the Ripley. The Ripley's slacker STA gives it a longer ETT, though. Although the difference in travel isn't huge, they seem like very different bikes to me, with different intents.
    "Back off, man. I'm a scientist." - Dr. Peter Venkman

    Riding in Helena? Everything you need to know, right here.

  40. #290
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    I'm 6'2" and run a 90 stem with a 750 bar, I swap out to a 60 stem for pure downhill days. If you have the saddle all the way back and still can't get the right KOPS position then a longer stem/wider bar is not gonna help tho. I have shortish legs for my height but have the saddle pretty much centered on the rails with a Reverb and it's perfect. The fit is upright but still very comfy

    175psi in your fork sounds way high, I run 135 in my Rev, I weigh 210. Sounds like your fork might be the culprit but my Revelation is the same A2C I think and it's been fine, like I said before even did a few days at a bike park on it. You should get 25% sag on the rear shock, for me that's 205 psi in the shock. Some have posted here they needed to swap out the air sleeve so maybe that's the problem? I keep mine at the Trail 1 setting all the time.

    With your description its kinda hard to pinpoint what's going on. This bike is more of a gravity oriented play bike tho, I wouldn't compare it to the Ripley which is more of a trail bike IMO. It's a beefy frame

  41. #291
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    I may try a 90mm stem to see how that feels. I have an 80mm stem on order. I think a longer fork will help too, as that will lengthen out the ETT a tad and slacken the STA. I just don't think the Reba 140 is the right fork for this frame. I have an XC bike (actually 2, if you count a singlespeed as an XC bike) so this is intended for "gravity" duty. As for the PSI, the 175 is in the shock, not the fork. I run the Reba at 125+ and 120-. Never had a problem with the fork.

    What sort of "riding style" is the intended style for the Covert? I climb, I go downhill. I like to go downhill as fast as possible - not unusual to hit low 30's mph on most trails. Is that the wrong style? I'm not trying to be sarcastic - just wondering what sort of style of riding I'm not doing.

    Not sure what is meant that the Covert is not the sort of bike to be ridden with the saddle at full "XC height." How else do you pedal up a hill? And, isn't that the point of a dropper post? To be able to climb with the saddle at "XC height" and still slam it on the downhill? I have a KS Lev on the Covert and have no problem with the downhills except that with the short stem and short ETT, I still feel like my weight is pretty far forward even with the saddle lowered. Are we saying that the Covert is something to be ridden with the saddle lower than normal at all times?

    I agree - the Ripley and Covert are not directly comparable (the Bandit is probably a better comparison.) My impression of the Ripley was yes, definitely more XC biased, but still a very capable trail bike if you build it the right way. Travel felt bottomless, the BB height was comparatively low and it cornered tight singletrack like it was on rails. That said, point the Covert down a steep and rocky trail and blammo - good times. Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of steep and rocky around here.

    I'm not at all ready to give up on the Covert - I do think adding 13mm of a-2-c with a Pike and a 10mm longer stem will do the trick. And, if not, hey - there are lots of long travel 29'ers out there.

  42. #292
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jmontroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    51
    I also have some similar complaints about the shock, it just doesn't seem to work for me, whether its the valving or what. I really love this bike and don't want to give up on it yet so i just sent the shock to PUSH to see if they could work some magic. Hopefully I'll report back with improved characteristics.
    "Obviously, you're not a golfer."

  43. #293
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    Maybe this is the sort of riding style for which the Covert is built:

    #whatwereyoudoingat10 on Vimeo

  44. #294
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Earthpig View Post
    Are we saying that the Covert is something to be ridden with the saddle lower than normal at all times?
    Hell no, it pedals and climbs very well for a full travel bike, I think evasive just meant it's not really intended for doing big mile or big vert(up) rides, altho I'm sure some folks certainly do. I've done a few rides with around 3k climbing but that was mostly fireroad work to get to the goods, with some light wheels/tires I think it could easily tackle a big XC style ride. I have a steel HT with carbon wheels and I really want to swap those wheels to the Covert and try it out, just haven't gotten to it yet and now winter is almost here.

  45. #295
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    Absolutely - the Covert climbs amazing well - better than the Bandit, better than the RIP, and probably better than the Jet 9. I have no problems with the way it climbs - I see climbing as its strongest point. I bested my PR on a longer climb yesterday - and the PR I had on it was on a carbon hardtail. (And then bested my PR on the long-ish somewhat rocky downhill that follows the climb.) My only issue is with fit. I'm thinking, again, a longer fork and longer stem will go a long way to solving my fit issues.

  46. #296
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,687
    I'll try to clarify: what I mean is that climbing is the only time I find full XC saddle height to be comfortable. Otherwise, if I have the saddle all the way up, I get that OTB feeling described in the OP. That's a function both of the steeper STA bringing the saddle forward, and in my case, a relatively slammed stem/bar on a low stack height. When I'm riding a rolling trail or moderate grade, I do in fact have my saddle down a notch. However, the flip side of that is that I think it makes for a fantastic climbing position, whether technical, steep or both. When I'm perched on the saddle nose for a really steep climb, I'm well positioned between the axles and over the BB.

    The compact cockpit style of geometry really lends itself to an upright position while seated. Based on what I've felt myself, I think trying to achieve a more traditional MTB fit on that kind of geometry would feel awkward, and what you describe in your OP is suggestive of that. So as far as the riding style I meant, for me personally I'd say that I climb to descend and don't care about the level. My ride profiles tend to be up and then down, ~1k in town, 2K+ if I'm out in the woods. Not that you can't do that with even an XC bike (some of the fastest guys here do). But I'm not trying to be fast on moderate terrain, so I'm content to have an upright seated position when I'm pedaling in those circumstances. If I wanted to put the hammer down on rolling trails, I'd want a longer cockpit with a slacker STA so that I could achieve a more traditional XC position.

    I think your feeling of OTB susceptibility could be addressed a bit by raising the front end. A longer fork would help with that. I didn't notice if you mentioned how many spacers you have under the stem.
    "Back off, man. I'm a scientist." - Dr. Peter Venkman

    Riding in Helena? Everything you need to know, right here.

  47. #297
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    We have a few of the rolly-poly trails out here, and I do drop the saddle a tad for those. I rarely if ever leave the saddle at full mast except when I'm climbing. Our climbs tend to be long (1 - 5 miles on any single trail, depending on route) steady and gradual - maybe 8% to 12% grades with a few punchy steeps of 20% or more here and there. I am way more upright than I've ever been on a bike, which in and of itself doesn't bother me, but it does give me the feeling of being really "tall." I've got about 25mm of spacers under the stem (down from 30mm.) I think 10mm more of axle to crown will really do the trick - slacken the angles a bit and raise the front end relative to the saddle, while reducing the reach and lengthening the ETT. Which is pretty much what I'm looking for!

  48. #298
    Back of the pack fat guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,958
    OK, put in another 20 miles and 5000 feet of elevation yesterday, a significant portion of which was rolly up and down trail. I get the geometry now - I understand the point. The more upright STA and short ETT keep you centered between the axles, which has significant benefits both up and down. I'm used to shifting my weight way back on any downhill and forward on uphills, but keeping the weight centered has traction and handling upsides. Having ridden my XC bike on Friday and then back to the Covert on Saturday, I'm starting to like the more upright position. I was railing tight, bermed corners that I haven't been able to keep all my speed through. It was just a mindset change - accepting the positioning rather than fighting it. Now, I'm thinking a 150 Pike may actually be negative for handling. I may just go for a 140 Pike instead. Thanks for the feedback.

  49. #299
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    I agree about being centered on the bike with the geometry. I had an older Sultan before and it had a loooong TT which felt good from a fit perspective, but I used to have to get my butt way off the back on steep descents and shift my weight forward on the climbs. I don't move around nearly as much on the Covert, just stay centered, also better traction with the front end on steep climbs.

    I really like the handling with the 140 Revelation for trail rides, but will probably try the 150 Pike anyways.

  50. #300
    unrooted
    Reputation: unrooted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,195
    Here is Keith Bontragers opinion of the KOPS system: The Myth of K.O.P.S.


    I want a Covert 29 or prime, and I expect the bike to under perform on the uphill, but this compromise should provide for faster and more stable rides downhill.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 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
  •