Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 120
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    25 pounds 5 Spot

    ... here we are: after 7 years my GT STS in is semi-retirement and the 5 spot is built!

    I took it out a few times (it works fine) and I will post a report in a month with a comparison with the Blur (I spent 3 weeks on one this winter). For now I hope you like the bike that has quite a lot of attention to detail and esthetics, and have fun with the fairly irrelevant weight issue.

    PS some of the details (especially the front der!) on the bike are not final this is a pre-first-ride riding photo session.
    PS PS I am quite of a no-logo person, the cheap Turner decals had to go (thanks god they where not laser etched) but I left an UR, which suggests the UR-bike nature of the 5 spot?
    PS PS PS thanks to hammerhead bikes for shipping the frame

    WEIGHT. The frame with installed headset (130 grams) brake bosses, and seat collar is 3440. The shock is heavy at 699 grams. The spring is a 450 lbs 2.25" and it is 345 grams. The longer spring (If I am not mistaken the 2003 shipped with a 2" spring) might explain some of the small weight increase of 2004 vs 2003 models: 1/4" length is about 40 grams more.

    Total weight is a bit more than 26 lbs, in a trim that is almost perfect for my style of riding. Sub 25 lbs are VERY possible with an air shock (- 1 lbs) a long travel air fork (- .3 pounds) and lighter wheels (- .3 pounds, my Chris King are 32 and not very light). The sturdier build I would consider adds at most 2/3 pounds (heavier tires and maybe larger pedals).

    Not bad: a convertible 5 spot can go from < 25 to 27 pounds ...

    Now the boring details:

    Brakes Complete (Vuelta Mag tuned all bolts included) 266
    Levers (Tuned Vuelta Mag) 142
    brake booster (Shimano Carbon) 55
    BB TNT Titanium 158
    Race Face LP 170 mm with rings titanium/aluminum bolts 662
    Pedals Frog titanium 205
    Rear Der Sachs Tuned 199
    Front Der 130
    XT Cassette 12-32 300
    Chain 300
    Grips (cut) 70
    HandleBar Maxm 26" 160
    Shifters (Sachs R, cut Attack L) 120
    Cables 120
    Stem 120 (KORE Elite titanium bolts) 195
    Marz Z1 2001 (including cup) 1987 Note: this is a 2001 Z1 with 30mm stanchions
    Medium Silver Frame+Syncros headset+setpost collar 3440
    Seat Post (Tompson with titanium bolts) 230
    Seat (WTB Stealth) 230
    Front+Rear Chris King with skewers and lining 1690
    Tires (Specialized 1.95) 950
    Tubes (Torelli) 260
    TOTAL (Kg) 11.869
    (lbs) 26.14317181

    All weights on a digital scale, I weighted multiple components together (e.g. all drivetrain) and then check each component and their sum.

    FRAME/SHOCK PROTECTION:

    Chain Stay: Multiple layers of white (now black) carbon vinyl. 5 layers give about 20 mils or about 0.5 mm of vinyl, which makes a sturdy protector.
    Head Tube cable route: One layer of carbon vinyl
    Seat Tube cable route: One layer of carbon vinyl
    BB: 1 layer of carbon vinyl (under frame)
    Shock: covered in white or black vinyl tape depending on the mood. For winter/rainy riding I use an tire inner tube to enclose the shock.

    ESTHETICS:

    IRD cables are silver and black.
    The ugly top tube cable route is "hidden" in silver mylar as well as the rear der on the seatstay.
    Carbon vinyl is used for frame protection
    Water Bottle holes are covered with small carbon vinyl patch.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Davide; 03-10-2004 at 11:04 AM.

  2. #2
    Daniel the Dog
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,745

    Very cool bike!

    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    ... here we are: after 7 years my GT STS in is semi-retirement and the 5 spot is built!

    I took it out a few times (it works fine) but I will post a report in a month with a full comparison with the Blur (I spent 3 weeks on one this winter). For now I hope you like the bike, that has quite a lot of attention to detail and esthetics, and have fun with the fairly irrelevant weight issue (thanks to hammerhead bikes for shipping the frame).

    PS some of the details (especially the front der!) on the bike are not final this is a pre-first-ride riding photo session.
    PS PS I am quite of a no-logo person, the cheap Turner decals had to go (thanks god they where not laser etched) but I left an UR, which suggests the UR-bike nature of the 5 spot?

    WEIGHT. The frame with installed headset (130 grams) brake bosses, and seat collar is 3440. The shock is heavy at 699 grams. The spring is a 450 lbs 2.25" and it is 345 grams. The longer spring (If I am not mistaken the 2003 shipped with a 2" spring) might explain some of the weight increase of 2004 vs 2003 models: 1/4" length is about 40 grams more.

    Total weight is a bit more than 26 lbs, in a trim that is almost perfect for my style of riding. Sub 25 lbs are VERY possible with an air shock (- 1 lbs) a long travel air fork (- .3 pounds) and lighter wheels (- .3 pounds, my Chris King are 32 and not very light). The sturdier build I would consider adds at most 2/3 pounds (heavier tires and maybe larger pedals).

    Not bad: a convertible 5 spot can go from < 25 to 27 pounds ...

    Now the boring details:

    Brakes Complete (Vuelta Mag tuned all bolts included) 266
    Levers (Tuned Vuelta Mag) 142
    brake booster (Shimano Carbon) 55
    BB TNT Titanium 158
    Race Face LP 170 mm with rings titanium/aluminum bolts 662
    Pedals Frog titanium 205
    Rear Der Sachs Tuned 199
    Front Der 130
    XT Cassette 12-32 300
    Chain 300
    Grips (cut) 70
    HandleBar Maxm 26" 160
    Shifters (Sachs R, cut Attack L) 120
    Cables 120
    Stem 120 (KORE Elite titanium bolts) 195
    Marz Z1 2001 (including cup) 1987 Note: this is a 2001 Z1 with 30mm stanchions
    Medium Silver Frame+Syncros headset+setpost collar 3440
    Seat Post (Tompson with titanium bolts) 230
    Seat (WTB Stealth) 230
    Front+Rear Chris King with skewers and lining 1690
    Tires (Specialized 1.95) 950
    Tubes (Torelli) 260
    TOTAL (Kg) 11.869
    (lbs) 26.14317181

    All weights on a digital scale, I weighted multiple components together (e.g. all drivetrain) and then check each component and their sum. Some of the weight are

    FRAME/SHOCK PROTECTION:

    Chain Stay: Multiple layers of white (now black) carbon vinyl. 5 layers give about 20 mils or about 0.5 mm of vinyl, which makes a sturdy protector.
    Head Tube cable route: One layer of carbon vinyl
    Seat Tube cable route: One layer of carbon vinyl
    BB: 1 layer of carbon vinyl (under frame)
    Shock: covered in white or black vinyl tape depending on the mood. For winter/rainy riding I use an tire inner tube to enclose the shock.

    ESTHETICS:

    IRD cables are silver and black.
    The ugly top tube cable route is "hidden" in silver mylar as well as the rear der on the seatstay.
    Carbon vinyl is used for frame protection
    Water Bottle holes are covered with small carbon vinyl patch.

    Great job! You really put some effort into that bike. I just built a Spot too. I'm a bit of hack, so my bike doesn't shift as well as I would like, and I'm dialing in the shock and fork.

    The only change I would make is a set of Magura Marta brakes. That reflects my personal love for disc brakes.

    A raceable Spot! Vunderful.....

    Jaybo

  3. #3
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,389
    where do you get the carbon vinyl? Is that the stuff you can buy at RC car shops?

    Maybe I'll wrap my shock spring with it, and tell my friends it really is a carbon fiber spring, saves 2lbs over a stock romic!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    where do you get the carbon vinyl? Is that the stuff you can buy at RC car shops?

    Maybe I'll wrap my shock spring with it, and tell my friends it really is a carbon fiber spring, saves 2lbs over a stock romic!
    Check out http://vinyl-effects.com/carbon_fiber.htm

    Great Idea with the spring! If I can only find unobtanium vynil I am sure I could shave off 3 pounds!

    By the way, it is a bit hard to cover the spring with tape (to get rid of the Red).
    I found that teflon plumbing tape (white in the photo) works very well but is fragile, another option is general purpose vynil tape ( http://industrialgeneralstore.com/Vinyl%20Tapes.asp ) which is VERY easy to apply on the spring because it stretches ... Ok, of I go for a ride

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,972
    Cool build, even if not exactly text book. I've always thought it would be cool to build up a lightweight long travel (5 or 6 inches) bike. My ideas centered more around a Maverick fork and air shock and didn't involve v-brakes or 1.95" tires, but to each their own. The alternating wheelset idea is a good one, but would be much easier with disc brakes At any rate that's going to be a super fast bike going both up and down, and that's what matters, right?

  6. #6
    M070R-M0U7H FR3NCHI3
    Reputation: Acadian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,599
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    where do you get the carbon vinyl? Is that the stuff you can buy at RC car shops?

    Maybe I'll wrap my shock spring with it, and tell my friends it really is a carbon fiber spring, saves 2lbs over a stock romic!
    Also some MX shop will cary some. They even sheets of real sticky carbon fiber...I bought some last year and used it on the downtube of my DH bike to protect it from rock chips. Worked great!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741
    Quote Originally Posted by miles e
    Cool build, even if not exactly text book. I've always thought it would be cool to build up a lightweight long travel (5 or 6 inches) bike. My ideas centered more around a Maverick fork and air shock and didn't involve v-brakes or 1.95" tires, but to each their own. The alternating wheelset idea is a good one, but would be much easier with disc brakes At any rate that's going to be a super fast bike going both up and down, and that's what matters, right?
    Yep, 1.95 are a bit on the small side (maybe, larger tires would add up to 1/2 pound) and V-brakes are certanly retro (although in California ... mud is a small issue and both brakes lock the wheels if I want to ...)

    The Maverick ... I am not sure, I would really wait for some serious testing and I am afraid of double crown forks on my trail bike. I don't want to be there when I fell, the wheel turns around and I have a nice ding on the top tube!!! But, as you say: "to each their own".

    and yes, this thing, thanks to the Romic probably, is fast ... compared to the GT STS uphill is a real breeze, I think I am gaining at least 2-3 gears ...

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation: Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    (although in California ... mud is a small issue and both brakes lock the wheels if I want to ...)
    So you don't ride between November and May in the Bay Area or In the Sierras at all?

  9. #9
    M070R-M0U7H FR3NCHI3
    Reputation: Acadian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete
    So you don't ride between November and May in the Bay Area or In the Sierras at all?
    I was going to say...if there is a place in the Bay Area that is alwyas dry...please share with us!!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    Ceramic ...

    [QUOTE=Acadian] I was going to say...if there is a place in the Bay Area that is alwyas dry...please share with us!! [/QUOTE

    Far for wanting to start another discussion of V-brakes vs Disks I must say that I was a bit generous toward disk brakes by somewhat implying that V-brakes do not work well in wet conditions. I ride all year around, rain (with my goretex outfit) or shine (naked, but with elbow guards) and I never had a problem with V-brakes.

    As you can see from the photos I use V-brakes and Ceramic Rims. I use ceramic pads in front and regular pads in the rear because I do not need the extra power in the back (I can lock the rear with "half-finger"). The front provides a lot of modulation and I can lock the wheel if I want to. The V-brakes + ceramic rims work the same in dry or wet conditions.

    The longest personal experience with disks is with a Blur I used for less than a month. It had Hayes disk brakes and to be honest I could not tell the difference in performance my weight 145-150 pounds might be part of the equation.

    PS Great test ride today in GG and Presidio Park, working on the preload/rebound: it is a great bike!
    Last edited by Davide; 03-10-2004 at 05:07 PM.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaybo
    Great job! You really put some effort into that bike. I just built a Spot too. I'm a bit of hack, so my bike doesn't shift as well as I would like, and I'm dialing in the shock and fork.

    The only change I would make is a set of Magura Marta brakes. That reflects my personal love for disc brakes.

    A raceable Spot! Vunderful.....

    Jaybo

    After all our past discussions here we are: both owners of a 5 spot, it must mean something

    thanks for the congrats, and good luck with your build. To cheer you up: right now I only have 6-7 speeds working because they shipped me the wrong front der, so I am just using the middle chainring with no der, never attempting to use all gears for fear of dropping the chain ... the 6 speeds do work well ...

    Instead of disk brakes what I would like to try out is some different tires: any suggestion for something not too heavy (say 600 grams top) but larger than my well-performing Specialized 1.95 Team Master/Comtrol 1998
    Last edited by Davide; 03-10-2004 at 05:01 PM.

  12. #12
    banned
    Reputation: Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    I use ceramic pads in front and regular pads in the rear because I do not need the extra power in the back (I can lock the rear with "half-finger"). The front provides a lot of modulation and I can lock the wheel if I want to. The V-brakes + ceramic rims work the same in dry or wet conditions.
    I want some of what you're smoking.

    I ran ceramic rims and Vs and then ceramic rims and Magura hydro rim brakes before switching to discs.

    There is a dramatic difference between Vs and hydro rim brakes and also a dramatic difference between hydro rim brakes and discs.

    Wet or dry.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    Ops

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete
    I want some of what you're smoking.

    I ran ceramic rims and Vs and then ceramic rims and Magura hydro rim brakes before switching to discs.

    There is a dramatic difference between Vs and hydro rim brakes and also a dramatic difference between hydro rim brakes and discs.

    Wet or dry.
    ... as I said I do not want to start one of the usual "slippery slope toward insults" "conversations" on disks vs V-brakes vs dragging your feet on the ground (it works!) enjoy your disks as much as I enjoy my Vs
    Last edited by Davide; 03-10-2004 at 07:50 PM.

  14. #14
    banned
    Reputation: Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    ... as I said I do not want to start one of the usual "slippery slope toward insults" "conversations" on disks vs V-brakes vs dragging your feet on the ground (it works!) :) enjoy your disks as much as I enjoy my Vs :)
    Ok, so you stick to your fantasy then.

    Let's get back to the original question:

    Where are you riding in Northern California during the Winter/Spring where "mud is a small issue"?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    Mud

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete
    Ok, so you stick to your fantasy then.

    Let's get back to the original question:

    Where are you riding in Northern California during the Winter/Spring where "mud is a small issue"?
    What a charming chap.

    Where I came from (northern Italy), you ride mostly in secondary growth forest from 600 to 3000 feet. The rain season lasts late September to May, the soil has a much higher percent of organic components than the dry soil of most of the Bay Area. and the mud never ever goes away.
    It is thick, glue-like, and especially deep. The stuff that stop motorcycles. I cannot think about any Bay area location even coming close, Headlands, Tam, China Camp, Tilden, Diablo are basically dry with patches of mud. Point Reyes has some trail with some mud, and if you go south of SF there is some good mud in the redwoods, like the lower trails at Butano or the hills between highway 280 and the costline.

  16. #16
    banned
    Reputation: Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    I cannot think about any Bay area location even coming close, Headlands, Tam, China Camp, Tilden, Diablo are basically dry with patches of mud. Point Reyes has some trail with some mud, and if you go south of SF there is some good mud in the redwoods, like the lower trails at Butano or the hills between highway 280 and the costline.
    Ok, so you've confirmed that you either don't ride in the Winter/Spring or you're just hopelessly clueless.

    I wonder why my bike is so muddy during the Winter?

    Diablo "dry with patches of mud"?

    ROTFLMAO!


    (note: this is the only ridable route when it's wet as the South side of the mountain is heavy adobe clay, as is the Northeastern lower flank)

    Tam "dry with patches of mud"?


    (This is four days after precip stopped and a relatively dry part of the trail)

    Thanks for the laughs!

  17. #17
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    Cool rig. I'm gonna drop 2-3# soon with a Mav fork and maybe try a rear Swinger Air of some flavor. That should get me down to 30ish

    tscheezy
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    sigh ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete
    Ok, so you've confirmed that you either don't ride in the Winter/Spring or you're just hopelessly clueless.

    I wonder why my bike is so muddy during the Winter?

    Diablo "dry with patches of mud"?
    ... what a waste of time

  19. #19
    Daniel the Dog
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,745

    I'm not a real tire expert....

    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    After all our past discussions here we are: both owners of a 5 spot, it must mean something

    thanks for the congrats, and good luck with your build. To cheer you up: right now I only have 6-7 speeds working because they shipped me the wrong front der, so I am just using the middle chainring with no der, never attempting to use all gears for fear of dropping the chain ... the 6 speeds do work well ...

    Instead of disk brakes what I would like to try out is some different tires: any suggestion for something not too heavy (say 600 grams top) but larger than my well-performing Specialized 1.95 Team Master/Comtrol 1998
    However, I must admit, I never pay over $20 for a tire. Only buy on sale. I'm running IRC Backcountry this winter. They are okay. A bit slippery on rocks and roots. I'm interested in the new Specialized Roll X tires. Too bad they cost $80 for a pair.

    Yep. The Spot is a very fun bike.

    Jaybo

  20. #20
    banned
    Reputation: Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    ... what a waste of time
    Nah, folks who post silly things like "The V-brakes + ceramic rims work the same in dry or wet conditions" and "although in California ... mud is a small issue" and Diablo et al are "dry with patches of mud" aren't a waste of time.

    They are entertaining, in a funny kind of way.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,972
    Unlike Jaybo, tires are one place I'm not afraid to splurge, since the difference between the clearance models and the most expensive ones you can find is what, like $20/wheel? Compare that to forks, which can vary by up to $500 between last year's model and the current ones. Anyway, I put some 2.5" Kenda Nevegal kevlar bead (Stick-E rubber) on last fall and wouldn't trade them for anything. Probably a bit much for you at 840 grams a piece, but the 2.1" in the Nevegal or Blue Groove is closer to 600 grams I believe. Kenda's tend to truer to the stated size than say, Conti's, whose 2.3" Vertical Pro is more like a 2.1" but also around 600 grams. A dark horse contender might be the new Bontrager ACX (not the old AC), which comes in a 2.2" version in the 600 gram neighborhood.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741
    sorry for the misunderstanding. To clarify: I meant to say that you are the waste of time, and apparently you also love to waste your time taking mud photos. Very interesting and very consistent in a muddy way. If I may, I would suggest that you go to some reall muddy place (maybe Calistoga) and take a mud bath with your Turner, than you can post a "mud-pit" series and show everybody what real mud is! "A man his Turner and his mud" can be the title.

    Looking forward the photo series, goodby for now on
    Last edited by Davide; 03-11-2004 at 01:47 PM. Reason: mud #II (wow!)

  23. #23
    banned
    Reputation: Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    sorry for the misunderstanding. To clarify: I meant to say that you are the waste of time, and apparently you also love to waste your time taking mud photos.
    How ironic, especially when one considers the source (the guy who posts mundane pictures of his anorexic frankenbike with an exhaustive, and somewhat goofy, list of parts).

    I'm more than happy to takes photos/videos of you riding Diablo, Black Diamond, Briones, Pleasanton Ridge, etc. after the next bout of rain.

    They would be quite amusing, and dispell your silly fantasy that these places are "dry, with patches of mud."

    p.s. photography is also a hobby to it's hardly a waste of time, just like riding while taking a photo isn't a wste of time.

  24. #24
    banned
    Reputation: gonzostrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,258

    Hope sorry, but what's the point in 25 lbs?

    I don't get it. Does the thought of "the lightest 5-Spot around" give you a woody?

    Why would you want to make a 25-lb 5"/5" bike? Seems to me there's no point in 5" of travel if your goal is lightness... and please, don't bring the Maverick into this... I don't wanna piss Pete off!

    What conditions warrant 5" travel at an uberlight weight? What 5" travel bike at 25lbs will hold up to repeated banging using the full 5" of travel?

    Nerds, pocket protector geeks, weight weenies, etc. rejoice. Your new hero is Davide. He's making a useless 5-Spot out of a perfectly decent 5-Spot frame. Congrats Davide for defying logic and sense.

  25. #25
    M070R-M0U7H FR3NCHI3
    Reputation: Acadian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,599
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzostrike
    I don't get it. Does the thought of "the lightest 5-Spot around" give you a woody?

    Why would you want to make a 25-lb 5"/5" bike? Seems to me there's no point in 5" of travel if your goal is lightness... and please, don't bring the Maverick into this... I don't wanna piss Pete off!

    What conditions warrant 5" travel at an uberlight weight? What 5" travel bike at 25lbs will hold up to repeated banging using the full 5" of travel?

    Nerds, pocket protector geeks, weight weenies, etc. rejoice. Your new hero is Davide. He's making a useless 5-Spot out of a perfectly decent 5-Spot frame. Congrats Davide for defying logic and sense.
    oh trust me on this one...I visit my bike shop on a regular basis and I've seen stranger builds! I guess it’s whatever floats your boat. My tail bike right now must be like frekkin’ 35+ lbs, MRP with single ring and I still hang with the best of em’ on the climbs…but I wouldn’t mind having a tad lighter rig!!

    The 5 spot give me wood…I would love to get one eventually, but it wouldn’t be setup light, but more for epics, Downieville, skeggs, etc… Fragile lightweight bike are not ideal for those type of trails! You might get away with it, but sure would take some fun out of it in my opinion.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete
    I'm more than happy to takes photos/videos of you riding Diablo, Black Diamond, Briones, Pleasanton Ridge, etc. after the next bout of rain.

    They would be quite amusing, and dispell your silly fantasy that these places are "dry, with patches of mud."
    If I had to guess he has never ridden Diablo or Shell ridge when you have to carry your bike because the mud has packed up so bad that you can't even roll it, much less spent hours after trying to clean it off. Not that I would know anything about that while I sit in my office staring out at Briones and wishing it was Saturday already.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    452

    I'm confused

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzostrike
    I don't get it. Does the thought of "the lightest 5-Spot around" give you a woody?

    Why would you want to make a 25-lb 5"/5" bike? Seems to me there's no point in 5" of travel if your goal is lightness... and please, don't bring the Maverick into this... I don't wanna piss Pete off!

    What conditions warrant 5" travel at an uberlight weight? What 5" travel bike at 25lbs will hold up to repeated banging using the full 5" of travel?

    Nerds, pocket protector geeks, weight weenies, etc. rejoice. Your new hero is Davide. He's making a useless 5-Spot out of a perfectly decent 5-Spot frame. Congrats Davide for defying logic and sense.
    What are you trying to say?

    What's wrong with a 25 pound 5" travel bike? A 150 pound rider on a 25 pound bike is the equivalent of a 225 pound rider on a 37 pound bike (rider weight:bike weight). I haven't seen one post where anyone said that a 37 pound bike is too light for a 225 pound rider.

    Granted, I wouldn't choose the components that Davide chose.....but who cares? I prefer disc brakes, but half of my rides are on a bike that uses rim brakes...and I ride all year long. If I'm going somewhere where it's terribly muddy....I'll take the disc equiped bike. What did everyone do before disc brakes? Stay home? I know that I rode my rim brake bikes all year long.

    Personally, I wouldn't put an air shock on the Spot, but that's not what everyone is complaining about....it's the weight. I see nothing wrong with making a bike light, especially when the rider is very light himself.

  28. #28
    banned
    Reputation: gonzostrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,258

    point missed, pretty well completely

    Quote Originally Posted by WarrGuru
    What are you trying to say? I see nothing wrong with making a bike light, especially when the rider is very light himself.
    What I'm trying to say is this:

    1) what's the reason for more travel?

    2) what's the reason for lightness?

    3) how do you reconcile those two reasons in one bike?

    What my answers are:

    1) to go faster and bigger through rough terrain

    2) to be able to climb and ride with maximum speed and minimal effort.

    3) you can't. a light bike won't hold up under "faster and bigger through rough terrain."

    What my conclusion is:

    An ultralight bike with 5" travel is pointless. If you're concerned about weight, get a 3" travel FS XC racer. If you want 5" travel for fast riding through techie terrain, the bike won't hold up with ultralight parts. The 5-Spot isn't designed to be an ultralight XC racer. Ask Turner. He'll tell you the 5-Spot is a **slightly** lighter version of the RFX, minus one inch of travel.

    A 5"/5" "ultralight" bike is pointless if you ask me. But I actually ride my bikes. I don't just build them, weigh them, photograph them and post them on MTBR.

    What do I weigh? 155 lbs. Just a tad more than Davide.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    452

    OK. I see your point

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzostrike
    What I'm trying to say is this:

    1) what's the reason for more travel?

    2) what's the reason for lightness?

    3) how do you reconcile those two reasons in one bike?

    What my answers are:

    1) to go faster and bigger through rough terrain

    2) to be able to climb and ride with maximum speed and minimal effort.

    3) you can't. a light bike won't hold up under "faster and bigger through rough terrain."

    What my conclusion is:

    An ultralight bike with 5" travel is pointless. If you're concerned about weight, get a 3" travel FS XC racer. If you want 5" travel for fast riding through techie terrain, the bike won't hold up with ultralight parts. The 5-Spot isn't designed to be an ultralight XC racer. Ask Turner. He'll tell you the 5-Spot is a **slightly** lighter version of the RFX, minus one inch of travel.

    A 5"/5" "ultralight" bike is pointless if you ask me. But I actually ride my bikes. I don't just build them, weigh them, photograph them and post them on MTBR.

    What do I weigh? 155 lbs. Just a tad more than Davide.
    I don't agree with it.....but I think I understand where you are coming from.

    I don't agree with it.....but I think I understand where you are coming from.

    Let me provide a different set of answers to your questions

    1) what's the reason for more travel?

    2) what's the reason for lightness?

    3) how do you reconcile those two reasons in one bike?

    What my answers are:

    1) to go just as fast and big as before, but with more comfort....through rough terrain

    2) to be able to climb and ride with maximum speed and minimal effort.

    3) Easy to reconcile. His bike will most likely be a better climber than a 31 pound bike and it will be more plush and comfortable than a shorter travel bike.

    What my conclusion is:

    An ultralight bike with 5" travel will be better for long climbs than a much heavier bike. It won't be as nice on the downhills as a heavier Spot, but will be better than a 3 or 4" travel bike.

    My personal preference is similar to yours. I ride my Spot with a friggin heavy 2003 Z1FR at slightly over 5.5 pounds. I like my Spot set up heavy, but I won't disparage anyone from making it light. The Intense 5.5 is a very light bike with even more travel than the spot. It's designed for use with air shocks. I wouldn't buy that bike, but wouldn't disparage anyone for doing so.
    Last edited by WarrGuru; 03-11-2004 at 05:24 PM. Reason: wasn't finished typing

  30. #30
    banned
    Reputation: gonzostrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,258
    I see your point, but I disagree quite strongly with the notion that someone who actually uses 5" of travel regularly in tough terrain can expect an underspec'd bike to hold up.

    I learned this lesson quite well when I set up an Ells Isis for "light freeride" and made it weigh 28 lbs w/ Fox Vanilla R coil in rear. What happened? wheels didn't stay true, tires flatted, etc. XC stem and bar flexed like crazy.

    Maybe Davide's terrain is baby-arse smooth, and that's how the parts will hold up. If that's the case, there's utterly no reason to have 5" travel front OR rear.

    I just think it's silly to buy a frame made for relative burliness, and then emasculate it with parts that will fold up under normal use... especially wheels & tires.

    Again, I'm 155 lbs and I ride smoothly but very fast and over quite rough terrain. I wouldn't try to build a 5-Spot at any weight less than 28 lbs or so. My X-5 (which I got because I got tired of waiting for a 5-Spot) is about 31-32 lbs in riding shape. I could lose a few pounds with single-ply XC tires and a Manitou Swinger air shock in the rear, but then the bike would be essentially a XC racer with a too-heavy frame. And the too-heavy frame's extra weight (extra burliness) goes unused, essentially.

    My point is simpler, really. If you want a 25-lb FS rig, you should be looking at bikes designed at that weight. I'd look at a Ventana El Saltamontes, or a Specialized FSR XC race rig.

  31. #31
    Stand back
    Reputation: dbabuser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,183
    I didn't see anywhere what kind of rims are on it, but guess nothing on the build list looks stupid light, as in would break and leave you stranded somewhere. I think the "tuned" stuff is kind of funny, but if it makes you feel better to ride a bike that's just under 26lbs than one that's just over, I guess it works. The tape everywhere, tho, that is fairly odd. The tape on the shock spring, especially. Is that just for the photo shoot? Appears dirt is gonna stick to the inside and undo most of your tuning efforts...

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Duncan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    464
    No matter what you are putting on your bikes, at least you guys are all capable of doing your mechanical stuff and setting up the bike to fit exactly what you want.

    I'm totally crap with most aspects of building and maintaining bikes, and I just rely on my bike mechanic brother (who originally recommended the 5 Spot but now lives in faraway England) or by giving helpless doewy-eyed looks to friendly Korean mechanics who do a good job for free.

    Just one question Davide. The 'UR' sticker. Was this an intentional removal of the other letters or a further example of tURner's dodgy stickers?

    Cheers, Duncan

  33. #33
    Roy
    Roy is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,024

    Here's something you don't read every day....

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete
    How ironic, especially when one considers the source (the guy who posts mundane pictures of his anorexic frankenbike with an exhaustive, and somewhat goofy, list of parts).

    I'm more than happy to takes photos/videos of you riding Diablo, Black Diamond, Briones, Pleasanton Ridge, etc. after the next bout of rain.

    They would be quite amusing, and dispell your silly fantasy that these places are "dry, with patches of mud."

    p.s. photography is also a hobby to it's hardly a waste of time, just like riding while taking a photo isn't a wste of time.
    It's not often when Pete gets rattled and his quarry keeps his cool; let alone a pawn of Davide's caliber....

  34. #34
    banned
    Reputation: Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy
    It's not often when Pete gets rattled and his quarry keeps his cool; let alone a pawn of Davide's caliber....
    Rattled?

    Bwahahahaha.

    I'm still laughing my ass off, as I have been from the start.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete


    hey Pete, how did you take this picture?

  36. #36
    banned
    Reputation: Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzostrike
    Why would you want to make a 25-lb 5"/5" bike? Seems to me there's no point in 5" of travel if your goal is lightness... and please, don't bring the Maverick into this... I don't wanna piss Pete off!
    Hey, lay off the fork. The weight is a secondary feature. It's the stiffness that makes that thing so groovy.

    Like almost as rigid as my 888, if I do say so.

    29ish pound trail bike without any goofy stickers, wannabe xc racer tires, or home made mylar condoms.

  37. #37
    banned
    Reputation: Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Biandon
    hey Pete, how did you take this picture?
    I rode down the singletrack with my camera in my right hand and snapped the picture.

  38. #38
    banned
    Reputation: gonzostrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,258

    speaking of that 888

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete
    Hey, lay off the fork. The weight is a secondary feature. It's the stiffness that makes that thing so groovy.

    Like almost as rigid as my 888, if I do say so.

    29ish pound trail bike without any goofy stickers, wannabe xc racer tires, or home made mylar condoms.
    so how much time have you spent on the Fly? what do you think of it?

    and what's with the mylar condom thing anyway?

    think I'm gonna go create an "ultimate Ventana X-5" post, demonstrating the ability to theoretically turn my X-5 into a 23-lb racing machine. do I have to use a drivetrain? does it have to be able to get traction off-road? does the "suspension" actually have to work? tune in next week.

    hey when are ya gonna update your site with some new vids?

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete
    I rode down the singletrack with my camera in my right hand and snapped the picture.
    Pete, you bring out your digital slr in the mud? How do you protect the camera during the rest of the ride? I average 3 over-the-handlebars per ride...

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    Thanks both (long)

    Quote Originally Posted by miles e
    Unlike Jaybo, tires are one place I'm not afraid to splurge, since the difference between the clearance models and the most expensive ones you can find is what, like $20/wheel? Compare that to forks, which can vary by up to $500 between last year's model and the current ones. Anyway, I put some 2.5" Kenda Nevegal kevlar bead (Stick-E rubber) on last fall and wouldn't trade them for anything. Probably a bit much for you at 840 grams a piece, but the 2.1" in the Nevegal or Blue Groove is closer to 600 grams I believe. Kenda's tend to truer to the stated size than say, Conti's, whose 2.3" Vertical Pro is more like a 2.1" but also around 600 grams. A dark horse contender might be the new Bontrager ACX (not the old AC), which comes in a 2.2" version in the 600 gram neighborhood.
    thanks to both of you, Jaybo and Miles, for the suggestions. I am quite closer to Jaybo in my tire habits: I always bought last year tires at discount and that is why I have a trackload of 1998 (or 1999 who knows) Specialized (they do work well) ... I even have Tioga Psycho in my basement (what will I do with those ...). But Miles has a point: tires are not that expensive compared to everything else and it might be fun to experiment a bit more than every 5 years

    Now some more general comments and some indirect replies to some of the posts below :

    The nice thing of the set up I described is that it can be the foundation for a great convertible: my goal is to own one mountain bike that can wear a couple of hats with minor modifications.

    5" Travel? There is little new about a 5" bike: what has changed is the quality of the travel! Best example? I have been on a 4.75" bike for the last 7 years, and 4.5-5.5" bikes have been on the market for a very long time (just think switchblade). I love to have 5" back/front because, at my weight, it let me do almost everything I dare doing. The difference is efficiency. I have still limited experience here, because I had the bike for a week, but at my weight the Romic seems to move very little seated or standing. Same story with the Blur, 4.5" and exceptional efficiency uphill. And I am sure it is the same story with many bikes out. My GT STS, by comparison, stops uphill!

    WEIGHT SAVINGS: Some people below object to the weight of the rig, I think that it just shows how people get cought up in categories: "a 3" can be light but a 5" cannot be light bike because it does not make sense etc etc". One rides what works for his/her needs, not a travel category or a marketing label. I am 145 pounds and saving 2-3 pounds of weight may be significant. Starting light also gives me the option of having a "marathon" rig (something to use for longish > 2-3 up to my longest 5 hours rides), all the way to a "freeride" (whatever that means) one to use for daring or shorter rides. I am the first one to say that saving weight is often overated. Often times it is just for fun, although I am pretty sure that there is a difference in performance between a 25 and 35 rig!

    Anyway, I will probably not go for the 25 pounds bike option, or at least not until air shocks are as easy to tune as a coil shocks. It is tempting to lose another pound+ but I just love the simplicity of coil shocks front and back ... maybe I am just old fashion again and I should give a air shock a good try, maybe when the new Foxes hit the market next year.

    For now I can see going the other way, using larger tires, changing pedals and maybe using a front 8" disk (not 6", that would offer relatively little advantage, if any, in respect to v-brakes) to have the option of a more aggressive rig. The total weight would be in the 27-28 pounds range, still light enough for me, and I would have a bike that I could push more.


    Final comment:
    The 5-spot, by the way, is very far from being a freeride machine. For example, the difference in weight between a Blur and a 5-spot is around half-pound (the medium blur is roughly 5.9 with a 280 grams shock, the Blur is 7.25 with a 700 grams one). So one might turn some of the comments below around and ask why rigging up 35 pounds 5-spots? (or if one is as nice as some of the people down there politely ask "why are you so facking idiotic to put downhill components of a cross-country frame") But this is a free-country, at least for a while longer, and obviously some people like the idea to have extra-heavy-duty bullet-proof components on a light "all-mountain" frame ...
    Last edited by Davide; 03-12-2004 at 04:41 PM.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    165

    East Coast

    Last summer it rained 63 out of 90 days. It just became natural. It was fun. I hope this summer mother nature is a little kinder. There was maybe 1 week of super dry trails. That is pushing it. As we all said , just deal with what we have.

  42. #42
    banned
    Reputation: Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Biandon
    Pete, you bring out your digital slr in the mud? How do you protect the camera during the rest of the ride? I average 3 over-the-handlebars per ride...
    When I ride with my DSLR in the mud, I just throw it in my hydro pack.

    However, that picture was taken with a Nikon 995.

  43. #43
    banned
    Reputation: Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzostrike
    so how much time have you spent on the Fly? what do you think of it?

    hey when are ya gonna update your site with some new vids?
    I've spent a decent amount of time on the Fly and I dig it. Piggish, but fun. Still clime-able, but on really steep tech stuff the fork is a hindrance due to the height. I've got drop crowns coming that should help a bunch.

    New vids when I shoot some more footage which should be after this weekend.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    452

    I wasn't finished

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzostrike
    I see your point, but I disagree quite strongly with the notion that someone who actually uses 5" of travel regularly in tough terrain can expect an underspec'd bike to hold up.

    I learned this lesson quite well when I set up an Ells Isis for "light freeride" and made it weigh 28 lbs w/ Fox Vanilla R coil in rear. What happened? wheels didn't stay true, tires flatted, etc. XC stem and bar flexed like crazy.

    Maybe Davide's terrain is baby-arse smooth, and that's how the parts will hold up. If that's the case, there's utterly no reason to have 5" travel front OR rear.

    I just think it's silly to buy a frame made for relative burliness, and then emasculate it with parts that will fold up under normal use... especially wheels & tires.

    Again, I'm 155 lbs and I ride smoothly but very fast and over quite rough terrain. I wouldn't try to build a 5-Spot at any weight less than 28 lbs or so. My X-5 (which I got because I got tired of waiting for a 5-Spot) is about 31-32 lbs in riding shape. I could lose a few pounds with single-ply XC tires and a Manitou Swinger air shock in the rear, but then the bike would be essentially a XC racer with a too-heavy frame. And the too-heavy frame's extra weight (extra burliness) goes unused, essentially.

    My point is simpler, really. If you want a 25-lb FS rig, you should be looking at bikes designed at that weight. I'd look at a Ventana El Saltamontes, or a Specialized FSR XC race rig.
    posting when you answered. I accidentally hit the save button.

    ANyway...I guess I agree with your basic philosophy about bikes and weights. I just don't agree with the disparaging remarks about Davide not riding much or "baby-arse smooth" terrain. I don't know Davide. In fact, he and I butted heads some time ago in this forum (the old forum, actually). This was back when Davide was anti Turner....no bike is worth the cost....blah, blah, blah.

    Davide hasn't pulled that crap in some time. He appears to be posting information about his new ride because he's really excited about it. I thought that he did mention that he test rode a 5 Spot prior to purchase, so he'll have an idea what the difference is between a stock (read heavier)

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    Mud #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy
    It's not often when Pete gets rattled and his quarry keeps his cool; let alone a pawn of Davide's caliber....
    There is an interesting category of people that are always saying just one thing: "I am right you are wrong".

    It can be mud, or what components you use, or what brakes, or you daring to say that a $1900 for a frame IS overpriced, you could even agree with them and they would just call you names and insisting that you are wrong.

    I am sure you have met a few out there

  46. #46
    banned
    Reputation: Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    There is an interesting category of people that are always saying just one thing: "I am right you are wrong".

    It can be mud, or what components you use, or what brakes, or you daring to say that a $1900 for a frame IS overpriced, you could even agree with them and they would just call you names and insisting that you are wrong.
    There is an interesting category of people who "talk" out of their ass, frequently.

    You are one of those amusing people.

    For instance, there is this one weight weiner/sticker freak who claims that:

    "although in California ... mud is a small issue"

    "Headlands, Tam, China Camp, Tilden, Diablo are basically dry with patches of mud."

    ...as well as claims the following:

    "I see a fair amount of mud because I ride regularly through the wet California "winter":"

    "just back from a nice "muddy" bike ride"

    "...perfect muddy conditions at around 50-60F.
    "Where do I ride: San Francisco (GG and Presidio), Marin epics (e.g. start GG south tower, cross over the bridge, go left -> all the way to headlands --> all the way (all the way!) to top of Mont Tam an back to south GG tower by a similar route), China Camp, Tilden, and east Tilden waterreservoires, Point Reyes"

    It seems that this weight weiner is pathological liar...

    He should quit while he is behind, but I doubt he has the sense to.

  47. #47
    Tonight we ride.
    Reputation: fonseca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    770

    Sticking to your guns eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    ... here we are: after 7 years my GT STS in is semi-retirement and the 5 spot is built!
    Davide Jan-12-04, 06:54 PM
    "Bye Bye MTBR"
    I am sorry but the new forum are just horrible and so I'll stop wasting so much of mine (and especially yours!) time in front of a computer!

    I really enjoyed all the chat, the occasional smile and all the info. Even the insults since most of the time I knew that they would not have taken place in person.

    Too bad ... I would have liked to post the build of my 5-spot, but I guess that my ego will have to take a back seat!

    ciao a tutti
    Davide


    Not that I'm suprised. After all, you now own a 5-spot ofter how many months of slamming the bike and trolling on the old forums? Oh the irony.

    I can't believe you're sticking with a heavy coil shock considering all the other "improvements".

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    Nice!

    Quote Originally Posted by fonseca
    Davide Jan-12-04, 06:54 PM
    "Bye Bye MTBR"
    I am sorry but the new forum are just horrible and so I'll stop wasting so much of mine (and especially yours!) time in front of a computer!

    I really enjoyed all the chat, the occasional smile and all the info. Even the insults since most of the time I knew that they would not have taken place in person.

    Too bad ... I would have liked to post the build of my 5-spot, but I guess that my ego will have to take a back seat!

    ciao a tutti
    Davide


    Not that I'm suprised. After all, you now own a 5-spot ofter how many months of slamming the bike and trolling on the old forums? Oh the irony.

    I can't believe you're sticking with a heavy coil shock considering all the other "improvements".
    It is so nice to have a biographer at my relatively early age, I am so flattered

    If I may. You might want to take a class in "Biography Reference Sources", a good english department should offer one, to improve your accuracy in researching facts. Or you might want to look into a few scholarly efforts. Alan Walker and his wonderful work on Franz Liszt comes to mind (ISBN: 0-8014-9721-3). Good research skills are the foundation for a good biographer, and you could certanly use some more skill in your research.

    But otherwise, thank you, it is so nice to see that immature sixteen years olds are finding clever ways to occupy their time. Keep up your good work
    Last edited by Davide; 03-14-2004 at 09:48 AM.

  49. #49
    Baked Alaskan
    Reputation: AK Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,812

    hate to pile on...

    [QUOTE=Davide]There is an interesting category of people that are always saying just one thing: "I am right you are wrong".

    It can be mud, or what components you use, or what brakes, or you daring to say that a $1900 for a frame IS overpriced, you could even agree with them and they would just call you names and insisting that you are wrong. [QUOTE]

    ... but you did spend a lot of time giving all us 5-spot owners a lot of crap about an overpriced frame with an inferior design to the Blur, that doesn't ride as well as everyone said it did, and that we were just gushing about our purchases in an effort to justify spending the amount of money we did on our rides.

    And now you own one.

    Now I'll admit Pete rattled me once too, but you have to expect some backlash after hammering Turner riders for so long.

    p.s. IMHO, with your setup, skinny tires and V's, a Burner would have been a better choice. Enjoy the ride.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741
    Quote Originally Posted by AK Chris

    ... but you did spend a lot of time giving all us 5-spot owners a lot of crap about an overpriced frame with an inferior design to the Blur, that doesn't ride as well as everyone said it did, and that we were just gushing about our purchases in an effort to justify spending the amount of money we did on our rides.

    And now you own one.

    Now I'll admit Pete rattled me once too, but you have to expect some backlash after hammering Turner riders for so long.

    p.s. IMHO, with your setup, skinny tires and V's, a Burner would have been a better choice. Enjoy the ride.
    Hi Chris, nice to hear from you.

    Just to clarify (if anybody cares besides us ...). I don't think I ever said the 5-spot is an inferior design or that the 5-spot does not ride well. Most of the discussions were about the hype sorrounding the bike (magic pivot locations, telephatic steering etc ...), and a lot was about people trashing the VPP. I am sure I was out of line a few times, and I apologized back then.

    Why the 5-spot: I bought the 5-spot because: (1) it is designed around a 5" fork (2) has rear V-brake (3) coil shock and (4) I got a good price. I would have bought a Blur if it was designed around a 5"+coil shock. Down to the last minute I was considering a Ventana or a Sycip/Ventana but the price differential was more than I was willing to spend .

    Overpricing: I still think that the frame is overpriced. A more proper retail should be around $1500 (we are getting there, mine was somewhat remotely close to that number). But it is not just Turner, all botique bikes are overpriced. Quality of the Turner is good, but, in my opinion of course, not as good as Ventana or Titus.

    Set up: please read my post close to the top. The 25-26 pounds V-brake is supposed to be my "marathon" set up. A 27-28 pounds with front 8" disk brake will probably be my "aggressive" set up.

    thanks for your "auguri" I will enjoy the ride and I think this is enough replies ... I'll post back in a month at the end of my testing period on the 5-spot ...
    Last edited by Davide; 03-14-2004 at 01:41 PM.

  51. #51
    banned
    Reputation: Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by AK Chris

    Now I'll admit Pete rattled me once too, but you have to expect some backlash after hammering Turner riders for so long.
    My comments have nothing to do with any alleged past slams against "Turner owners." My self-worth isn't tied up in my bike so I couldn't care less about some dweeb making value judgements about what is "too expensive," when he has no idea of people's financial situations.

    Davey did make some absolutely retarded claims about local riding conditiond though. Claims that are diametrically opossed to previous comment s that he has made.

    Liars make me laugh, hence my replies.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    115

    I like it

    I like your 5 Spot. I think its cool
    Why not run lightweight kit, you just have t be wary jumping it off cliffs

    Still, for all this weight stuff - if you take a dump and miss breafast you can lose two pounds Might aswell build a bike how you want it get on with it.

  53. #53
    Tonight we ride.
    Reputation: fonseca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    770
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    It is so nice to have a biographer at my relatively early age, I am so flattered
    LOL! Don't flatter yourself. It was impossible to ignore your constant slandering of this bike in the old forum. I was merely one of many that breathed a collective sigh of relief when you forswore MTBR.

    Seriously, put an air shock on that bike to complete the transformation from capable trailbike to b@stardized XC lovechild.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lambone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    511
    Just curious, but why call this thread '25lb 5-Spot" when your bike ways more than 26 lbs?

    And whats up with the fake Carbon tape? Why not just ge some real carbon stuff?

    UR? :-(

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    All-mountain racer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lambone
    Just curious, but why call this thread '25lb 5-Spot" when your bike ways more than 26 lbs?

    And whats up with the fake Carbon tape? Why not just ge some real carbon stuff?

    UR? :-(
    Just to show the possibility: the bike would be 25 with an air shock/fork (I am not sure I will go there, maybe if I enter the Transalp next year). So, for my set up, 25 is the theoretical lower limit for a all-mountain racer version, 28 an upper limit for a fun-freeridish bike (e.g. with 8" front disk and 2.5 tires).

    The Carbon vinyl is cheap ($5/square foot) and easy to work with. All it has to do is to protect the frame from cable scratches. I use 5 layers to provide a light but strong chain protector.
    Last edited by Davide; 03-15-2004 at 09:33 AM.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    Loosing weight

    Quote Originally Posted by blippo_uk
    I like your 5 Spot. I think its cool
    Why not run lightweight kit, you just have t be wary jumping it off cliffs

    Still, for all this weight stuff - if you take a dump and miss breafast you can lose two pounds Might aswell build a bike how you want it get on with it.
    Thank you, isn't it amazing how some people get upset around a bike build?

    Anyway, I completely agree about weight, loosing some makes the rig feel more snappy but the effect is often overated. But just for play here are some suggestions (biographers and mud-boys: the following is a joke).

    Loose weight #1: Take off one shoe, saves up to a pound and improves your spinning (similarly take off helmet, pants, gloves, socks etc).

    Loose weight #2: What about taking off a kidney, we have two, one can make some money selling it (and help paying off the 5 spot) ... how much does a kidney weight?

    Loose weight #3: Go ride with a lot of helium filled baloons (only good in open spaces with little wind)

    Loose weight #4: learn how to fly? (it also helps jumping off cliffs)

    Any more suggestions?

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    Oh well

    Quote Originally Posted by steve3
    That was the most unfunny thing I've ever read.

    It was worse than watching C-Span.
    never claimed to be able to please everybody but I have no idea about C-Span, is it that bad? I stopped watching TV about 16 years ago, it is proven that it destroies brain cells.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    you might be right

    Quote Originally Posted by steve3
    From the way you spell "destroy" many must have been killed off in your case.

    I'm sure it's been proven.
    it is something to investigate, although, being a non-native speaker hjelps (ops, sorry) elps (no, damn) hops (whatever), hurpls too with the spelling.

    quit TV while you still might

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    APRIL UPDATE: Thanks Romic!

    After a solid month+ on "Spotty" it is time for some update.

    The most interesting thing is probably the change in spring rate for the ROMIC. I am anywhere between 144-153 pounds (depending on how many chips I eat) and the 5-spot came with a 450. I was not too happy with the performance of the shock (anything more than 1-2 clicks in the compression dial made for a failry stiff ride) and I talked with Romic. They said that I was just in between the 450 and 400. So I got a 400. What a difference: the rear is now VERY compliant and the spikes that came through over square edged bumps, especially at slow speed, are almost completely gone. Going singletrack fast, (32x 11-13) I go through roots like they are not there. Finally, I was starting to wonder: now the rear is as complaint as my Z1 MCR. I now use 1.5 to 2 preload turns, and the compression clicker in by 2-3 (instead of 0.5- turn, 1 clicker in), the change in spring rate has not influenced the pedaling performance.

    It is a great example of how much a shock can make or un-make a bike: with the 450 Spotty was good, with the 400 it is entering superlatives territory. Thanks ROMIC! (and I have a 450 spring for sale!)

    A less interesting update is more shaving of weight. Thanks to some suggestions from the weightwheenies I am getting in under 25.7. An upgrade to Nokians 2.1 (or 2.3) will still keep the bike at around 26. The weight list is below.

    Cheers
    D

    BRAKES (gr) Brakes Complete (Vuelta Mag tuned all bolts included) 228
    Levers (Avid Ultimate L tuned) 142
    brake booster (Shimano Carbon) 55 425 BRAKE TOTAL
    DRIVE TRAIN (gr) TNT Titanium BB 158
    Race Face LP 170 mm with rings titanium/aluminum bolts 640
    Pedals Frog titanium 205
    Rear Der Sachs Tuned 199
    Front Der (tuned) 126
    XT Cassette 12-32 260
    Chain (SRAM PC99) 275 1863 DRIVE TRAIN TOTAL
    CONTROLS (gr) Grips (cut) 90
    HandleBar Maxm 26" 145
    Shifters (Sachs R, cut Attack L, tuned alu bolts) 108
    Cables (IRD) 90
    Stem 100 (Thomson Elite) 190 623 CONTROLS TOTAL
    FORK (gr) Marz Z1 2001 (including cup) 1987
    FRAME (gr) Medium Silver Frame (400 Spring) 3259
    Seatpost collar (titanium bolt) 16
    Syncros headset 130
    Seat Post (Thompson) 230
    Seat (WTB Stealth) 230
    WHEELS (gr) Front+Rear Chris King with lining 1630
    Skwewers (non-quick release) 60
    Tires (Specialized 1.95) 950
    Tubes (Torelli) 260 2900 WHEELS TOTAL
    TOTAL (Kg) 11.663
    (lbs) 25.68942731
    Last edited by Davide; 04-17-2004 at 08:00 PM.

  60. #60
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    After a solid month+ on "Spotty" it is time for some update.

    The most interesting thing is probably the change in spring rate for the ROMIC. I am anywhere between 144-153 pounds (depending on how many chips I eat) and the 5-spot came with a 450. I was not too happy with the performance of the shock (anything more than 1-2 clicks in the compression dial made for a failry stiff ride) and I talked with Romic. They said that I was just in between the 450 and 400. So I got a 400. What a difference: the rear is now VERY compliant and the spikes that came through over square edged bumps, especially at slow speed, are almost completely gone. Going singletrack fast, (32x 11-13) I go through roots like they are not there. Finally, I was starting to wonder: now the rear is as complaint as my Z1 MCR. I now use 1.5 to 2 preload turns, and the compression clicker in by 2-3 (instead of 0.5- turn, 1 clicker in), the change in spring rate has not influenced the pedaling performance.

    It is a great example of how much a shock can make or un-make a bike: with the 450 Spotty was good, with the 400 it is entering superlatives territory. Thanks ROMIC! (and I have a 450 spring for sale!)...

    It's interesting to read about your spring tweak. I'm glad to see you are getting a ride more in line with what many have so often claimed in the past. I was starting to wonder about small bump compliance on my bike and had completely forgot that I had Romic revalve my compression control with the "Big Boy" treatment..I backed it out two clicks and it was a whole new world. At one or zero clicks it pretty much keeps pace with the plushness of my '03 Z1 QR20 at two makes for a great all around trail pedaler (under my conditions and weight)

    Now about those pivots...c'mon D... they'er a helluva lot more easy to maintain than a chain. As for the annual replacement...lawyerlips...no one has reported needing a replacement in less than 3 years and even then it may have been only the main pivot. And most of those people were riding in pretty harsh conditions.

    Annnyway I hope you enjoy the bike until you get the appropriate VPP solution...somehow I don't think you'll be truly happy until you get the bike you really want. But then who is?

    Cheers.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    It's interesting to read about your spring tweak. I'm glad to see you are getting a ride more in line with what many have so often claimed in the past. I was starting to wonder about small bump compliance on my bike and had completely forgot that I had Romic revalve my compression control with the "Big Boy" treatment..I backed it out two clicks and it was a whole new world. At one or zero clicks it pretty much keeps pace with the plushness of my '03 Z1 QR20 at two makes for a great all around trail pedaler (under my conditions and weight)

    Now about those pivots...c'mon D... they'er a helluva lot more easy to maintain than a chain. As for the annual replacement...lawyerlips...no one has reported needing a replacement in less than 3 years and even then it may have been only the main pivot. And most of those people were riding in pretty harsh conditions.

    Annnyway I hope you enjoy the bike until you get the appropriate VPP solution...somehow I don't think you'll be truly happy until you get the bike you really want. But then who is?

    Cheers.
    I am glad too! Spotty jumped from "good" to "superlative-of-your-choice". And the clicker seems to be now operating in a similar range than yours: for me 0-2/3 as plush as the MCR-Z1 and than progressively firmer. The experience makes me really wonder about getting an air shock down the line, the weight saving (who cares at the end!) might come at the price of reduced compliance.

    Bushings: yes, yes, you are right! I give it up: all I try to say is that for the Turner flag-ship it would be nice to have a more advanced bearing system. For example an hybrid of needle bearings together with GT new serviceble set-up (really neat actually, you can take it apart with a BB tool) ... but bushing will do and I'll stop talking about it.

    VPP: will have to wait 10 years: I am very happily stuck with Spotty until I turn 55!
    Last edited by Davide; 04-18-2004 at 09:10 AM.

  62. #62
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    ...[a] hybrid of needle bearings together with GT new serviceble set-up (really neat actually, you can take it apart with a BB tool) [would be nice]
    I haven't seen the GT bearings and the needle bearings on the Davinci sound nice. Having seen how the Turner bushings work, and knowing how light and stiff they are plus there is no need for special tools...I'm satisfied w/them. Sometimes simplicity has it's own merits .

    Peace and chain grease.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    Here it is

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    I haven't seen the GT bearings and the needle bearings on the Davinci sound nice. Having seen how the Turner bushings work, and knowing how light and stiff they are plus there is no need for special tools...I'm satisfied w/them. Sometimes simplicity has it's own merits .

    Peace and chain grease.
    Here it is, it looks nice (it uses "cone" bearings) but t would only work for the main pivot(s) of a 4-bar design.

    Peace and chain grease and long life to bushings!
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Davide; 04-19-2004 at 09:39 AM.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    A bit late but

    now I am home sick and I have time to read all these posts and give some more replies to Warrguru, Dbabuser and Duncan.

    Rims: Mavic 220/ceramic 430 grams 32 spokes, these are 8 years old+ and still working great. This Weelset (King+Mavic) seems to be lasting forever.

    Tape: vinyl tape actually sticks like a glove to the spring, but the new 400 spring I left it red (got used to the color and it matches the fork). Some of the carbon-vynil is gone ... I admit it I did get a bit carried away, and Dbabuser is right tape adds weight!!!!

    UR: The UR was a reference to the greatness of the 5-spot, UR-bike, the "original", the "quintessential bike that started all" ... or something like that ... It is now gone. What came off by itself is the Turner headbadge: on the front of the headtube. This is a cheap solution for a headbadge: it is some sort of light aluminum with some foam adhesive to stick it to the bike. It started to came off at the second wash

    Weight: I think I agree with Warrguru, less weight makes a rig work better both up and down the hills. Is my bike too light for a 145 pounder? I don't think so: I never broke anything in 12 years of full suspension. I agree with somebody else on the tires: the Specialized 1.95 can go, some Schwalbe Jimmy (2.25) are on their way (adding about 120 grams total to the equation)
    Last edited by Davide; 04-20-2004 at 09:04 AM.

  65. #65
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,115
    Quote Originally Posted by steve3
    That was the most unfunny thing I've ever read.

    It was worse than watching C-Span.
    I thought it was hilarous....imagining all that "loose" weight bouncing around like that!!

  66. #66
    banned
    Reputation: Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman
    I thought it was hilarous....imagining all that "loose" weight bouncing around like that!!
    Hey you Ellsworth owning douchebag, get back to your own forum already

  67. #67
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete
    Hey you Ellsworth owning douchebag, get back to your own forum already
    WOW,...I just noticed it was the Turner board.. I just followed the link progression from the Ells board!

    Hey you "not brand loyalist" [font=verdana,geneva,lucida,'lucida grande',arial,helvetica,sans-serif]prick[/font] , get ready to rock-and-roll on Tuesday!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    PS: I should have really gotten upset about Davide's kidney comment but I will let it slide!! Jeese!
    Last edited by lidarman; 04-22-2004 at 07:57 PM. Reason: the server won't let me use bad words

  68. #68
    banned
    Reputation: Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman
    PS: I should have really gotten upset about Davide's kidney comment but I will let it slide!! Jeese!
    Your are such a weight weiner.

    Laying in a hospital bed pissing blood is true dedication but you obviously don't have the techinique down. The resultant scar tissue has to be heavier than the original kidney tissue.

    Loser.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    May update: TITANIUM KIT

    Since Romic titanium springs which actually weight less than the original are probably months away I decided to put together a "titanium kit" (a-la-Titus).

    I got all the bolts/nuts at Pro-bolt, http://www.tastynuts.com/

    Ingredients are:

    6 M8x20mm Countersank Bolts: for the linkage

    2 M6 x 40 Titanium Hexhead Flanged bolts: shock mounts.

    2 M6 Flanged Nyloc Nuts: shock mounts

    2 M5 Flanged Nyloc Nuts: rear pivots

    The original bolts are 81 grams and the titanium kit is 50, a small 31gr gain (1.24oz) which might be good enough especially for future Nitrous owners. I was a bit afraid about the fit of the countersank bolts , but they work perfectly and look very nice (Pro-bolt has them in gold and blue too). The M6 bolt is not threaded through as in the picture below, but it is solid with a thread at the end (I bought a M6x45 and had to dremel 5mm off). The flanged nylock nuts are actually beautiful (if you like bolts) and fit the rear pivot better than the originals, nice touch is that you do not need to use washers with those.

    Cost (excluding the flanged nuts which do not save weight) is around $40, or $1.3/gram
    Compared to a Titanium Spring savings are similar: my 400lbs spring weights 314 grams and assuming a very optimistic weight saving of 314*0.40=125 grams, we are at 200/125=$1.6/gram
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Davide; 05-01-2004 at 07:52 PM.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jedoaks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    85

    Trick, now all you need is a new fork,

    [QUOTE=Davide]Since Romic titanium springs which actually weight less than the original are probably months away (and very expensive) I decided to make my own "titanium kit" (a-la-Titus).

    don't you think. I can see having a light bike at your weight. Just takes dollars. Under 25 with an airshock, sounds interesting? Plus, we'll have first hand accounts on durability. Rich

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hangdog98's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    12

    So how does this work?

    A guy with lots of cash shares his project bike to give readers a bit of eye candy and some other guy decides that the wheel travel / weight ratio is inconsistent with his notion of mountain bikes and his experience with brakes is mighty and all-seeing, then sets about insulting the guy.

    Who cares if the guy has a 25lb x 5" bike with V brakes. I think the bike looks HORN.

    It's not my preferred set-up, but it's his, and if he's cashed-up, good for him.

    I have an old Azonic O.R.C. Stem and I'm trying to convince my wife I need a Thompson stem. I just want one because I like the look and I'd like to own a piece of Thompson hardware, but she can't see how it would work better than the azonic. We all know that for me, it won't. I just want one. Yes, for me, it's pointless from a performance perspective, and I'm sure some thrifty-weiner will tell me so. But I still want one.

    Maybe I'll just explain to my wife that it will almost certainly give me an enhanced libido, and that can only be a good thing.

  72. #72
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,880

    New question here.

    Quote Originally Posted by hangdog98
    I think the bike looks HORN.

    "HORN"?

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hangdog98's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    12

    Yes, HORN

    Quote Originally Posted by airwreck
    "HORN"?
    Horn, wood, blue steel, cat couldn't scratch it, "Gives me a ....."

    As opposed to "Looks POX"

    Common vanacular in certain parts of the world, (but not where you live I guess).

    "The bicycle looks splendid in a way that causes me to produce an erection, in the spiritual sense, rather than the physical"
    Linkage Fork Fanatic. AMP-Research Carbon Fibre F4's (modified to last).

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzostrike
    What I'm trying to say is this:

    1) what's the reason for more travel?

    2) what's the reason for lightness?

    3) how do you reconcile those two reasons in one bike?

    What my answers are:

    1) to go faster and bigger through rough terrain

    2) to be able to climb and ride with maximum speed and minimal effort.

    3) you can't. a light bike won't hold up under "faster and bigger through rough terrain."

    What my conclusion is:

    An ultralight bike with 5" travel is pointless. If you're concerned about weight, get a 3" travel FS XC racer. If you want 5" travel for fast riding through techie terrain, the bike won't hold up with ultralight parts. The 5-Spot isn't designed to be an ultralight XC racer. Ask Turner. He'll tell you the 5-Spot is a **slightly** lighter version of the RFX, minus one inch of travel.

    A 5"/5" "ultralight" bike is pointless if you ask me. But I actually ride my bikes. I don't just build them, weigh them, photograph them and post them on MTBR.

    What do I weigh? 155 lbs. Just a tad more than Davide.
    What a crap!!!

    What's the point of riding with 5" of travel?

    According to your statement 1) to go faster and bigger through rough terrain
    I have to disagree with this very black/white opinion!!
    Maybe you want to have a XC bike but with a lot of comfort???

    2) to be able to climb and ride with maximum speed and minimal effort.
    Idd, because you want to ride your 5" bike also uphill

    the bike has been designed for hard XC or ligt Freeride use. When the bike is only used for hard XC, lightweight will be a great advantage!!

    pls give each other some space!! for your riding style the 5 Spot needs heavy hardcore wheels and other components, that's perfect!
    For other the 5 Spot offers just great comfort during hard XC use, and they don't need the heavy hardcore components! So why buy these components???

    Be nice... can't be that hard..

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    Mid Aug UPDATE: Vanilla!!

    I finally gave up! m1 Z1 MCR 2001 130 neve felt right on spotty. It rised the front too much, put my weight too much back and I never felt leveled on the bike. The only solution was to use a truckload of sag on the poor Z1 and more preload on the ROMIC: not great!

    So, after a bit of debate I decided to follow Turner specs (no Marathon, no Talas) and bought myself a Vanilla RL (thank you to Mountain High Cyclery for the excellent service).

    And what a difference it makes! As strange as it might sound the at most 15-20mm of extra rise induced by the Z1 really upset the geometry of Spotty. Now the bike feels leveled and balanced. I could slide back the saddle to an almost optimal position, adjust sag of the shock as it should (not trying to "fight-the-sag-induced-by-the-chopperizing-fork" as before) and similarly run the correct sag on the fork. I am now almost perfectly centered on the bike. Using a 110mm stem and about 2.5" of total rise from the top of the headtube, I slide at most 1-2" forward uphill and 1-2" backward downhill in most situations.

    Very happy about this! (it makes me a bit wonder about all the people using a Z1 on spotty and swearing that a 5-spot is the best thing on the planet).

    The Vanilla is fine. It is better than the Z1 (2001) on the small stuff, maybe a bit rougher on the big stuff at speed. It fells more "directionally stable" than the Z1.

    Moral of the story? ... screw a bike geometry at your risk!!!!



    Weight is more or less as before, I have on order some Schwalbe 2.1 that will add a bit.

    Brakes Complete (Vuelta Mag tuned all bolts included) 228
    Levers (Avid Ultimate L tuned) 142
    TNT Titanium BB 158
    Race Face LP 170 mm with rings titanium/aluminum bolts 640
    Pedals Frog titanium 205
    Rear Der Sachs Tuned 199
    Front Der (tuned) 126
    XT Cassette 12-32 260
    Chain (SRAM PC99) 275
    Grips (cut) 90
    HandleBar Maxm 26" 145
    Shifters (Sachs R tuned alu bolts) 120
    Cables (IRD) 90
    Stem 110 (Thomson Elite) 190
    Fox Fork Vanilla 1950
    Medium Silver Frame (400 Spring) (titanium kit) 3228
    Seatpost collar (titanium bolt) 16
    Syncros headset 130
    Seat Post (Thompson) 230
    Seat (WTB Stealth) 230
    Front+Rear Chris King with lining 1630
    Skwewers (non-quick release) 60
    Tires (Specialized 1.95) 950
    Tubes (Torelli) 260
    Kg: =================> 11.552
    Pounds: ===========> 25.44493392
    Last edited by Davide; 08-16-2004 at 10:00 PM.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,986
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    Very happy about this! (it makes me a bit wonder about all the people using a Z1 on spotty and swearing that a 5-spot is the best thing on the planet).

    The Vanilla is fine. It is better than the Z1 (2001) on the small stuff, maybe a bit rougher on the big stuff at speed. It fells more "directionally stable" than the Z1.
    We wonder about your setup, too.

    The people that prefer the Z1 on the Spot are:

    1) talking about a 2003-2004 Z1

    2) Ride aggressively

    3) Ride very technical trails

    4) Fly downhill (technical....not fire roads)

    The newer Z1's outperform the older forks by a mile. The current Z1 is much better than the Vanilla for big hits.

    At your weight and style of riding, I can understand why you don't want the Z1. You seem to be a XC type of rider that doesn't need anything beefy.
    Last edited by Blue Shorts; 08-17-2004 at 08:24 AM.

  77. #77
    oly
    oly is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: oly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    851
    Isnt all that carbon tape adding weight?

  78. #78
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132

    Caveat Emptor?

    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    ... (it makes me a bit wonder about all the people using a Z1 on spotty and swearing that a 5-spot is the best thing on the planet).

    The Vanilla is fine. It is better than the Z1 (2001) on the small stuff, maybe a bit rougher on the big stuff at speed. It fells more "directionally stable" than the Z1.

    Moral of the story? ... screw a bike geometry at your risk!!!!
    If that's the correct phrase (I'm in a bit of a rush)
    I really think that conclusion needs some serious qualifications.

    I don't wish to be disagreable. I however got the impression from some of your previous posts that you put a fair bit of mileage on fireroad climbs and rolling singletrack. (apologies if I am incorrect). My point being that for persons who spend a great deal of time on very rugged, rough, rocky, terrain, a modern Z1 can show quite a bit of benifit. Especially in terms of steep technical riding (both up and down)

    Also your a great deal lighter than many of the folks who love their Z1's (for example I'm ~220lbs) While the Fox is an excellent fork, and has a lower AC, it has been said that the rake and trail can easily mitigate that difference. I personally find the handling quite good, and more importantly, find I almost never use the ETA on climbs. Why? because the fork climbs better over the rough stuff in normal mode.

    So what I'm saying rather longwindedly is that hard technical riding and/or heavier riders have good reason for their appreciation of the Z1. Lighter XC-oriented riders quite certainly have good reason for their appreciation of the Fox.

    It all depends on what you plan on doing with it....IMO of course
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  79. #79
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    I wouldn't categorize the Vanilla into a XCish fork for lighter riders. I'm riding one at just under 200lbs and have found it to track very nicely over technical rock sections and at speed. Maybe its not as stiff as the Z1(I've never ridden one), but its still plenty stiff for rough and technical riding. Personally, I prefer a fork that can climb as well as it descends(I need all the help I can get!) and a lower front end sure helps on the climbs.

  80. #80
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by rroeder
    I wouldn't categorize the Vanilla into a XCish fork for lighter riders. I'm riding one at just under 200lbs and have found it to track very nicely over technical rock sections and at speed. Maybe its not as stiff as the Z1(I've never ridden one), but its still plenty stiff for rough and technical riding. Personally, I prefer a fork that can climb as well as it descends(I need all the help I can get!) and a lower front end sure helps on the climbs.
    Hmm, good point. As I said I was in a hurry. I'm more interested in addressing the comments regarding the Z1 than the Fox as I've never been on the Fox. To that end considering the Z he's replacing, his weight and probably the terrain I'd say the conclusion he reached is limited in scope.

    hows that?
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  81. #81
    Stand back
    Reputation: dbabuser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,183

    You should try a Firefly

    Quote Originally Posted by rroeder
    I wouldn't categorize the Vanilla into a XCish fork for lighter riders. I'm riding one at just under 200lbs and have found it to track very nicely over technical rock sections and at speed. Maybe its not as stiff as the Z1(I've never ridden one), but its still plenty stiff for rough and technical riding. Personally, I prefer a fork that can climb as well as it descends(I need all the help I can get!) and a lower front end sure helps on the climbs.
    Or some other thru axle fork. The A-C is definitely taller, but the difference in steering precision I've found (at 190 lbs) is incredible when compared to the Talas I had before.
    I'm thinking one of the new 6" infinite adjust travel forks may be "it" for me, so long as I can't detect any loss of rigidity. I do miss the easily adjustable headangle the Talas allowed...

  82. #82
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    Hmm, good point. As I said I was in a hurry. I'm more interested in addressing the comments regarding the Z1 than the Fox as I've never been on the Fox. To that end considering the Z he's replacing, his weight and probably the terrain I'd say the conclusion he reached is limited in scope.

    hows that?
    Yeah, I hear ya. The Z1 sounds like an awesome fork for it's intended purpose, which I guess is not the same as the Vanilla. Hey dude, how the hell do you guys get the different smiley faces inserted in the text?

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    chocolate icecream

    What I am talking about is geometry and balance: for me there is a difference between a Vanilla and a Z1 that I believe is due to the difference in their axle-crown (I measured at 16mm to 18mm). Believe me I did not want to shell out $360 to change a perfectly fine Z1 with only 3 years of life, but I suspected that the Z1 ""compromised"" set up and consequently handling, and it did: uphill and on flat and to some extent downhill. It might be me, and set up is VERY personal, and you can easily get rid of some A-C using less pre-load (as I did) but the FOX is also the fork (length) reccomanded by Turner.

    Having said that: I did not mean to offend the 5-spotters using Z1s, I am perfectly aware that there is a big difference between a 2001 Z1 and a 2003-4 Z1, and I can fully understand why one might want a more beefy fork up front. I do not care about saving weight when it comes to shocks and forks and I was very tempted to wait a few months for the All-mountain Marz that has adjustable travel (I looove Marzs ) and (finally would say somebody) move on to a front disk, or get a Marathon 120.

    However at my weight (145 right now, I lost some), and possibly at any weight judging by the comments above, the Fox Vanilla is plenty for any terrain I care to go through (by the way, categories are opinions, but since when a Fox Vanilla 125 is a cross-country fork?). My terrain involves pretty much everything, fireroads are the exception (and even there, coming down the north-east side of mount Tam there is a fireroad that is one of the most rugged and stone covered downhills I ever go through ... great testing ground for a Z1 that of course would shine through).

    I am pretty happy with the Vanilla right now, it compares well with my old Z1 (and what i can remember of a Z1 SL 2003 I tried). I do not really get why the Vanilla does not have an on the fly adjustable travel feature (the lockout is stupid) but I guess one cannot have everything. Maybe I'll "Push" it when the push industries mods come out: I could use a bit more smoothness at speed (ops, I guess I am missing the Z1 already), but maybe the fork is just braking in.

    Enjoy the spotties!!!!
    Last edited by Davide; 08-18-2004 at 10:03 AM.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrashTheDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,492

    Caveat Emptor?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    If that's the correct phrase (I'm in a bit of a rush)
    I really think that conclusion needs some serious qualifications.
    Caveat Emptor = Buyer Beware

    Is that what you were searching for or perhaps the idiom "To Each His Own"? Regardless, I'd have to agree with Bikezilla 'n Blue Shorts. Hey! Seeing as how you're both pooftas maybe the two of you could post jointly under the name Bluezilla in Shorts



    Anyway, to simply dismiss the Z1 as inappropriate for the Spot is baseless and as msxx's post, which drug this thread up from the grave, so eloquently put it is a "very black/white opinion." Come on guys can't we just "pls give each other some space!!"

  85. #85
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by CrashTheDOG
    Caveat Emptor = Buyer Beware
    I thought so...wrong term, whoops!

    Quote Originally Posted by CrashTheDOG
    ... I'd have to agree with Bikezilla 'n Blue Shorts. Hey! Seeing as how you're both pooftas maybe the two of you could post jointly under the name Bluezilla in Shorts
    Bwahahaha!!! Bluezilla...Bikerilla...Grapeape, Grapeape
    The most amusing thing is that someone though it necessary to put shorts on an inflatable Gorilla. Is it anotomically correct? Perhaps it's located infront of the NJ Govenor's mansion?
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,741

    Bikezilla, is that you?

    now I can really see how come you need a Z1


    Long live Marzocchi! (I still cannot believe I betrayed my country to go for a gringo-fork ... as a partial excuse: I do have dual citizenship)

    PS Z1 MCR 2001 for sale!

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,986
    Quote Originally Posted by CrashTheDOG
    Caveat Emptor = Buyer Beware

    Is that what you were searching for or perhaps the idiom "To Each His Own"? Regardless, I'd have to agree with Bikezilla 'n Blue Shorts. Hey! Seeing as how you're both pooftas maybe the two of you could post jointly under the name Bluezilla in Shorts



    Anyway, to simply dismiss the Z1 as inappropriate for the Spot is baseless and as msxx's post, which drug this thread up from the grave, so eloquently put it is a "very black/white opinion." Come on guys can't we just "pls give each other some space!!"
    Good one, Crash!!!! I spit my lunch all over my keyboard.......BlueZilla.....ROFLOL!!!!

    ....and when you say "Pooftah".....Say it with PRIDE....Hehehehehe

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrashTheDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    Bwahahaha!!! Bluezilla...Bikerilla...Grapeape, Grapeape
    The most amusing thing is that someone though it necessary to put shorts on an inflatable Gorilla. Is it anotomically correct? Perhaps it's located infront of the NJ Govenor's mansion?
    What did you say?!?! You want Grapeape without shorts! You sick little bastid! Oh well, here you go...

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,828
    ......hmmmmm. I just recently upgraded an older z1 (2001 MCR) for the 04 with the trade in Marzocchi is offering. The difference in A-C between the two model years was ~1".....approximately the same difference as the Fox to 2003-4 Z1...I would be seriously curious to see some actual comparisons (measurements) between the two, as I highly doubt that there is any significant difference. a couple mm's maybe.


  90. #90
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by CrashTheDOG
    What did you say?!?! You want Grapeape without shorts! You sick little bastid! Oh well, here you go...
    Dude, do you work at an inflatable gorilla factory or something?
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  91. #91
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter
    ......hmmmmm. I just recently upgraded an older z1 (2001 MCR) for the 04 with the trade in Marzocchi is offering. The difference in A-C between the two model years was ~1".....approximately the same difference as the Fox to 2003-4 Z1...I would be seriously curious to see some actual comparisons (measurements) between the two, as I highly doubt that there is any significant difference. a couple mm's maybe.
    T-t-t-t trade in? what trade in? Oh I feel UGI coming on! a black and gold '04 fork would really top out my setup.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jedoaks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    85

    Hey Zilla, what you need is a gold Maverick

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    T-t-t-t trade in? what trade in? Oh I feel UGI coming on! a black and gold '04 fork would really top out my setup.
    Now, wouldn't that be pimpy.Have PT make you one up special. LOL

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    T-t-t-t trade in? what trade in? Oh I feel UGI coming on! a black and gold '04 fork would really top out my setup.
    ......I had a 2001 Z1 that began to exhibit the warrantee-able symptoms of a creaking crown/ steerer interface. When on the phone with 'Zocchi, they offered to upgrade it. I had to pay around $230 for a Z1 with standard QR. Apparently they are trying to eliminate the abusive riding being done on the remaining 30mm stantion models. You would not qualify 'Zilla unless you have a pre 2003 version somewhere that needs service.


    ....back to the other issue.....it's my experience that the 2001 Z1 & Fox 125 have nearly identical A-C......can someone (Davide) verify with a measurement? I hate to imply it, but this whole diference in performance you feel you've gained appears to be merely in your head...


  94. #94
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter
    .........You would not qualify 'Zilla unless you have a pre 2003 version somewhere that needs service.
    Oh well. No problem, methinks there will soon be several used '04s up for sale when the '05s ship.

    While we are on the fork subject, I'm noticing what seems like fore/aft play in my front end. I've checked and rechecked my headset and it's always been tight. I've also checked my wheel which is fine too. Could it be the fork bushings are worn already? Replacement seems quite a big job special tools and all.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrashTheDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    Dude, do you work at an inflatable gorilla factory or something?
    Sometimes I feel like I do.

  96. #96
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter
    ......hmmmmm. I just recently upgraded an older z1 (2001 MCR) for the 04 with the trade in Marzocchi is offering.
    Whats the trade-in deal?, my buddy has a 2000 Bomber on his Spot and it gave up the ghost last night.

    oops, ignore that, I just read your above post. I will let him know about that-will his 2000 Bomber qualify?

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrashTheDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    While we are on the fork subject, I'm noticing what seems like fore/aft play in my front end. I've checked and rechecked my headset and it's always been tight. I've also checked my wheel which is fine too. Could it be the fork bushings are worn already? Replacement seems quite a big job special tools and all.
    If it's not your new CK hubs have you checked your Thomson stem for problems similar to Blue Shorts?

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    While we are on the fork subject, I'm noticing what seems like fore/aft play in my front end. I've checked and rechecked my headset and it's always been tight. I've also checked my wheel which is fine too. Could it be the fork bushings are worn already? Replacement seems quite a big job special tools and all.
    ...could be the bushings...possibly. Grip the stantion at the base where it enters the dirt seal & rock the fork (front brake applied obviously) see if you can feel some movement emanating from within. If so, you may be a rebuild candidate. I would send it in for service unless your shop has the proper tool for pressing in the new seals & is quite experienced with the process. If you ride it fairly aggressively it's possible to wear thru your first set in 1.5 years.


  99. #99
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by jedoaks
    Now, wouldn't that be pimpy.Have PT make you one up special. LOL
    If PT made gold crowns for their black fork, it'd already be on my bike

    rroder, you can pull the smilies down from the tools listed above the reply window. It's only available when replying directlyl, not quick reply.

    Yo Double-R, dbabuser hit the nail on the head, sometime you just gotta try a 20mm thru fork. It's amazing to flow down rockgardens without the wheel deflecting off of anything. Having gone that route I am loath to go back to a QR. Weight be dammed, my next fork will be a thru axle. ...and don't get me started on damping, hee hee!

    Don't worry bro, I know how hard it is to give up the light-lifestyle you've become accustomed to...we'll get you outfitted like the closet-Clydesdale that you are . (hell the Foes has got you almost there anyway)

    That blue Gorilla keeps cracking me up! I can't help but wonder if that is how my bike sees me .
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  100. #100
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    If PT made gold crowns for their black fork, it'd already be on my bike

    rroder, you can pull the smilies down from the tools listed above the reply window. It's only available when replying directlyl, not quick reply.

    Yo Double-R, dbabuser hit the nail on the head, sometime you just gotta try a 20mm thru fork. It's amazing to flow down rockgardens without the wheel deflecting off of anything. Having gone that route I am loath to go back to a QR. Weight be dammed, my next fork will be a thru axle. ...and don't get me started on damping, hee hee!

    Don't worry bro, I know how hard it is to give up the light-lifestyle you've become accustomed to...we'll get you outfitted like the closet-Clydesdale that you are . (hell the Foes has got you almost there anyway)

    That blue Gorilla keeps cracking me up! I can't help but wonder if that is how my bike sees me .
    OK, I'm retarded, I see the smiley faces BELOW the window, but no tools list ABOVE the window. As far as the thru axle fork, I might get to ride one soon if I can talk my buddy into getting one, his Bomber bombed on our ride last night and it's making a horrible creak noise and his CK base plate had come loose on the previous few rides so I bet its the steerer tube/crown interface like jncarpenter was describing. Anyway, he's a candidate for one, he rides an XL.

    Right now I have shoes, gloves, front tire, saddle, der. hanger, grips and drivetrain parts on my list so a new fork would get me divorced.

    Check it-I think I fiqured it out
    Last edited by rr; 08-18-2004 at 10:03 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Romic or Swinger 4way coil for 5 Spot
    By Alpenglow in forum Turner
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-19-2004, 06:20 PM
  2. question for small 5 Spot owners
    By Uzzi in forum Turner
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-22-2004, 08:33 AM
  3. Help me spec my 5 Spot!
    By blippo_uk in forum Turner
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-11-2004, 10:13 PM
  4. 5 Spot - first ride, some thoughts
    By cooldaddy in forum Turner
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-09-2004, 12:09 PM
  5. finally appreciating the 5 Spot
    By Duncan in forum Turner
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-01-2004, 06:47 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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