Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G.G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    237

    Splitting a 6" hair...

    Custom X-6, 68 HA vs. X-TT Terremoto?
    Last edited by G.G.; 01-12-2008 at 11:43 AM.
    I figure the odds be fifty-fifty.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    7,903
    Here are a couple of thoughts:
    Someone pointed out that longer TTs actually benefit those with longer legs. I was always under the impression that TT was determined by the torso and arm length, whereas a short TT will actually get in the way for longer-legged individuals. That being said, we both have short legs so TT length doesn't matter as much - it is more what position you like being in.

    Now, on the X6 custom vs. TM, I think it is a tough call. The HA would be .5 different. I am not sure how much more nimble the X6 would be than a TM - I think they would be about the same (travel is the same, angles are pretty close). I can see what you say about the WB - 44.1 vs 45.4. It might save you a bit of weight on the frame, but you won't notice that as much as elsewhere on the bike. What is the weight difference between the stock frames? Is the TM straight-gauge toobing (the X5 is)?

    Another point is that if you are using a fork you already have for this project, the X5 ST is an inch longer than the TM.

    The thought of an X-braced TM is an interesting thing - it would look like La BrujitaŠ.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    7,903
    LOL @ edit -
    Did you encounter analysis paralysis?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G.G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    237
    150 view's and no feedback. Even a big FU would be more gratifying than silence. I realise it's thin line between the two but imagine others have been through this. If not custom, simple X-6, Moto comparisons.

    I've been searching for info but not getting a complete story. I am pleased to see positive feedback on the moto's climbing and more so in tight steep scenarios. But call me a tool, I still feel for my area & style, I'm looking for a lighter weight 6" rig. Just not sure I want to be hauling around a 35lb ride.

    If fit weren't an issue I think I'd be taking a hard look at an '08 RFX. My only concern with going with the moto is the end weight with the X TT and to a point if it's too slack. I guess even the HA doesn't matter so much as I can always dial a fork down. ISCG tabs will be nothing more than a good mud catcher. Perhaps a 1.5 HT but that's not even much of an issue for me.

    Have you seen any lighter 31lb moto builds? And not built with super weenie bits. Or further feedback on X-6 builds and moto comparisons. I've seen a few favoring moto's but not sure if any of the X's had a modified geo. aside from running a 6" rocker.

    Any comments on your build. I believe you have a stock X-5 with the 6" rocker but not sure or yr or geo. I run my Salt. mostly with a 5" rocker and fork around 115mm & love it.

    GG
    I figure the odds be fifty-fifty.

  5. #5
    Single Speed Junkie
    Reputation: crux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,106
    One vote for the X-6.

    The X-5 /6 is a great bike and will be a lighter build over a T-moto frame. Since Ventanas are all custom it really depend upon how you build your bike. If you want beefy components then the bike will obviously be heavier than one using light weight xc parts. My 04 X-5.5 is running a 66 up front set to about 150 mm of travel and this seems to be ideal for my skills.

    Truthfully it all depends upon how your bike is set up.

    One thought to ponder is if your looking for a shuttle bike then I might give the nod to the T-moto. Trail bike X-5/6 gets my vote.


    BTW [SIZE="7"]FU[/SIZE] (Sorry could not resist it is the largest I could find. )

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    7,903
    No feedback? I did some searching in the recent past being faced with a similar decision to make, and a simple search yields some tasty morsels of insight:

    My Terremoto climbs as well as the X5, 6"travel it replaced. I swopped all the parts over including the shock so it is a direct comparison.

    I was running the X5 with 6" of travel (5/6" rockers and a 2.25" stroke shock) and now I have built up the TM, I am very glad I made the switch.

    The main differences that I have noticed (I've only been on a couple of short rides so far) are that the TM climbs far better than the X5, the cockpit seems a little shorter on the TM and the standover clearance is less on the TM if you care.


    That being said, context yields that both of those setups are X-5s in 6" rocker configuration. In the second thread, there is actually a lot more information/comparison and insight. Someone mentions that the BB on the TM is not nearly as low as geometry on the site states, but instead crests the 14.5 mark in reality.

    The only actual X-5 custom built to 6" that I remember off of the top of my head is found here.
    And here is the extensive write up on it

    Hope that helps. Advanced search is your friend...and it looks like you might have come across one or two of those, I am just making sure that the threads are linked.

    My X-5/6 was running the longer rockers, PUSH'd DHX-C and a lyrik coil. Full build weight was in the mid thirties, but proportionally, not a very heavy bike. The pedalling efficiency was never dialed on the 6" setting until PUSH worked the shock over. That is the only reason I'd consider another 6" bike. Very nice. Also, the BB with 160mm up front and a 2.5 was maxed out, reaching 15". Like I said, the TM seems to be approaching 14.5...food for thought, esp when taken with bigger tires.
    Last edited by CharacterZero; 01-12-2008 at 08:57 PM.

  7. #7
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    9,586
    Quote Originally Posted by G.G.
    150 view's and no feedback. Even a big FU would be more gratifying than silence. I realise it's thin line between the two but imagine others have been through this. If not custom, simple X-6, Moto comparisons.

    I've been searching for info but not getting a complete story. I am pleased to see positive feedback on the moto's climbing and more so in tight steep scenarios. But call me a tool, I still feel for my area & style, I'm looking for a lighter weight 6" rig. Just not sure I want to be hauling around a 35lb ride.

    If fit weren't an issue I think I'd be taking a hard look at an '08 RFX. My only concern with going with the moto is the end weight with the X TT and to a point if it's too slack. I guess even the HA doesn't matter so much as I can always dial a fork down. ISCG tabs will be nothing more than a good mud catcher. Perhaps a 1.5 HT but that's not even much of an issue for me.

    Have you seen any lighter 31lb moto builds? And not built with super weenie bits. Or further feedback on X-6 builds and moto comparisons. I've seen a few favoring moto's but not sure if any of the X's had a modified geo. aside from running a 6" rocker.

    Any comments on your build. I believe you have a stock X-5 with the 6" rocker but not sure or yr or geo. I run my Salt. mostly with a 5" rocker and fork around 115mm & love it.

    GG
    You want feedback?

    31 pound build on a Terremoto - or an RFX, which you mention as another possibility - can only be accomplished with ridiculously light parts which don't belong on a 6" travel bike designed to handle rough terrain and drops. If those types of parts are suitable for how you ride then I submit that you don't need one of these bikes in which case, like you say, there is no point hauling around the extra weight. The difference in weight between a Terremoto & new-gen RFX frame is a little over half pound.

    My Terremoto has all X.0/XTR/Carbon bits with a reasonably durable wheelset (King hubs, DT 5.1 rims & Big Bettys) and still weighs over 34 pounds. Ditch my AMP post and I still wouldn't be below 33. Swap my coil DHX & coil Lyrik for air suspension and perhaps I'd get below 32 - maybe.

    31 pounds ? Not gonna happen.
    Last edited by The Squeaky Wheel; 01-13-2008 at 07:11 AM.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G.G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    237
    CZ,

    I appreciate your comments & leads. I had come across each but the "Terremoto vs X-5 with 6" rockers thread which does offer some helpful commentary.

    Long and short of it is I'll simply run with the X TT Moto. Aside from the weight it's geo lines up more with what I was thinking. If it's piggy, it will help build character & legs as well as be a further extension from my Salt.

    I'll post the results of my build in a month or so when it all comes together.
    I figure the odds be fifty-fifty.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G.G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    237
    32lbs sounds like a nice number.

    Well, there are definitely two camps as far as a light weight 6" bike having a purpose and for better or worse I thinks it is going to be a common build. You've got mass merchants like Specialized selling a Stock Enduro SL that weighs in around 29lbs. I remember seeing Dave Turners '08 RFX with nothing special on it coming in around 30lb as well as plenty of other folks developing builds to fluctuate with purpose. As with our own carcase, it's easier to put weight on than take weight off.

    Had I not edited my original post down to "Custom X-6, 68 HA vs. X-TT Terremoto?" it may have shed more light. Given the need for a custom geo, I was looking to explore the options between an X-6 & X TT Moto. The Moto I would assume to keep stock aside from the X TT. The X-6 would be brought more in line with a Moto. Tho just a bit steeper with a 68HA, & slightly shorter wheelbase....

    It all boils down to personal preference based on anatomy, rider style/ability and geography/topography. I'd have to imagine my build would change quite a bit from my home base of New England to the southwest. Do I want a slacker deeper bike, yes. Can I ride this bike, yes. Do I feel I need the beef of the Moto over an X tube set or lighter frame, not necessarily but I'm due to find out.

    Like your build. Good looking rig.

    G.G.
    I figure the odds be fifty-fifty.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    7,903
    So what is your inseam? I re-measured mine, this time in shoes, and it was 33.5. I figured that the in-shoe measurement was the relevant one here. Sure, it doesn't provide for margin of error, but justification for not going custom (for me).
    Just a thought....

  11. #11
    198
    Reputation: RSutton1223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,804
    It's my opinion that once you are around the 32 - 35 lbs range...they feel pretty much the same except on a scale. You are not going to build a 32 lbs TM easily and if you do...I wouldn't ride it on what it is designed to do. Mine is a shy over 35 lbs with X.0...but steel coils on both ends, GD, and tubeless kits with tubes. After it is all said and done, I will be like Squeak's and somewhere in the 34 lbs range. Having had a 5" Ciclon at 32 lbs., a 6" Ciclon at 34 lbs. and a TM at 35 lbs...I can say they all climb about the same (with the nod going to the TM so far)...they climb like a 30+ lbs bike.

    CZ - I'll get those measurements today on the BB and SO.

    I have had guys waste me on climbs on 40 lbs rigs with flat pedals and I have passed guys on 26 lbs xc rigs...it's more the ridder than the weight of the bike. If you want a 6" bike...I would buy a bike that is designed to be at 6". I have done the frankenventana deal and I can say that I am happier with the way that Sherwood intended.

  12. #12
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    9,586
    Quote Originally Posted by G.G.
    32lbs sounds like a nice number.

    Well, there are definitely two camps as far as a light weight 6" bike having a purpose and for better or worse I thinks it is going to be a common build. You've got mass merchants like Specialized selling a Stock Enduro SL that weighs in around 29lbs. I remember seeing Dave Turners '08 RFX with nothing special on it coming in around 30lb as well as plenty of other folks developing builds to fluctuate with purpose. As with our own carcase, it's easier to put weight on than take weight off.

    Had I not edited my original post down to "Custom X-6, 68 HA vs. X-TT Terremoto?" it may have shed more light. Given the need for a custom geo, I was looking to explore the options between an X-6 & X TT Moto. The Moto I would assume to keep stock aside from the X TT. The X-6 would be brought more in line with a Moto. Tho just a bit steeper with a 68HA, & slightly shorter wheelbase....
    I understand your POV. People are indeed going to continue to build lightweight 6" travel bikes.

    But a little perspective helps...

    1. I've ridden with DT. His real-life build is not 30#. That was his show-bike build. It was optimized for weight savings.

    2. The Speshy Enduro achieves that weight via a carbon frame, proprietary fork and uber-light parts. It also carries a near $8000 price tag. I'd love to own one but I could have two uber-blingy Terremotos for that price and I suspect the Terremotos would last longer.

    There is no doubt that there is a place for lightweight 6" travel bikes. They definitely have market appeal. But you'll either have to buck up for an Enduro or deal with lightweight parts that either won't be durable (such as a light wheelset) or may have to sacrifice some suspension performance (RP23 on a RFX works for some but doesn't work for me - downhills in CO are long and that shock overheats and packs up on the big travel bike)

    I've never ridden an "x-6". I have ridden the x-5 and don't really dig the feel of the suspension on that bike. Obviously Terremoto has an inch more travel but it feels like more. TM likes to ride deeper in its travel and IMO feels "plusher" than it's 6". In fact, the struggle for me initially was controlling wallow & bottom out which has been achieved with a Push tune.

    I saw a X-braced Terremoto at Mountain High Cyclery recently and don't care for the looks of it. Aesthetics are personal, but I much prefer the looks of a traditional triangle bike like the Terremoto over the X-braced design.

    If the fit geometry suits you, I'd buy either a stock X-5 or TM depending on your preference, shoot for a 32-33# build and be happy knowing you have a durable high-performing bike.

    Any reason Ciclon isn't in the discussion?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    7,903
    Hey GG -
    I know it might be overkill, but have you run the numbers using a La Bruja with a 545mm fork? That would change the 67* HA to 68.3* (theoritically, using 10mm A2C yeilds .5* change). Couple that with a rocker to get only 6" of travel (pure speculation that this is even an option, since I don't know the i2i/rocker for La Bruja) and you would be pretty close to desired HA and standover would be right up your alley. Wheelbase might be a bit long, and I am not sure where the SA would end up. BB would end up in the high 13s.

    Of course, a call to V would clear that one up.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G.G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    237
    I agree on the design of the traditional frame being more aesthetically appealing. But form follows function and given the need for a lower stand over, I am grateful that a builder such as Sherwood offers a solution. Relatively elegant at that. I also agree on stock designs being the best route rather than straying from a builders intended design. Tho I am left going custom one way of the other. I either modify geo or TT to get on the bike I want.

    That said, with an inseam of just about '29" in stocking feet and a longer torso/arms, with a TT minimum need of 23" finding a stock option in a 6" bike is low. I am simply trying to sort out the best route for my situation & interest. 5',11", 188lbs in gear & consideration of terrain, I believe merrit a a lighter more adaptable build.

    Not intending a pissing contest, but even for a show build, Tuner's RFX with '08 XT, a 36 and some other moderate bits and pieces coming in around 30lbs is great. I wouldn't really call that a lightweight kit either. Anticipate a bigger day swap a few bit's pieces and you're ready. The flexibility is very appealing.

    To confirm, a large '07 Enduro SL Pro, alu frame retails for $4,400 and is just under 30lbs sans real pedals. 29.8lbs to be exact by shop scale with cheap resin dime store flats.

    I haven't even looked at the La Bruja for reference in geo. I need to do that. Substituting as an option tho seems unlikely.
    I figure the odds be fifty-fifty.

  15. #15
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    9,586
    Quote Originally Posted by G.G.
    I agree on the design of the traditional frame being more aesthetically appealing. But form follows function and given the need for a lower stand over, I am grateful that a builder such as Sherwood offers a solution. Relatively elegant at that. I also agree on stock designs being the best route rather than straying from a builders intended design. Tho I am left going custom one way of the other. I either modify geo or TT to get on the bike I want.

    That said, with an inseam of just about '29" in stocking feet and a longer torso/arms, with a TT minimum need of 23" finding a stock option in a 6" bike is low. I am simply trying to sort out the best route for my situation & interest. 5',11", 188lbs in gear & consideration of terrain, I believe merrit a a lighter more adaptable build.

    Not intending a pissing contest, but even for a show build, Tuner's RFX with '08 XT, a 36 and some other moderate bits and pieces coming in around 30lbs is great. I wouldn't really call that a lightweight kit either. Anticipate a bigger day swap a few bit's pieces and you're ready. The flexibility is very appealing.

    To confirm, a large '07 Enduro SL Pro, alu frame retails for $4,400 and is just under 30lbs sans real pedals. 29.8lbs to be exact by shop scale with cheap resin dime store flats.

    I haven't even looked at the La Bruja for reference in geo. I need to do that. Substituting as an option tho seems unlikely.
    No pissing match at all.

    I'm a Turner fan - have owned several over the years and own one now - and am friendly with Dave Turner. Having said that, put those same exact parts on a Terremoto and you have a bike within 3/4" of a pound of the RFX weight.

    One last comment on the Speshy - keep in mind it comes with a proprietary wheelset & suspension. I've ridden that bike and am waiting to see how those wheels hold up. I'd also like to ride one where the suspension didn't feel like poo.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G.G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    237
    Exactly why I don't to consider the Enduro.
    I figure the odds be fifty-fifty.

  17. #17
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    9,586
    Quote Originally Posted by G.G.
    Exactly why I don't to consider the Enduro.
    same here

    I don't like proprietary parts. The carbon Enduro frameset is sold separately for the low, low price of $3900

  18. #18
    198
    Reputation: RSutton1223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,804
    Everyone I know on the Future shocks have blown them up. One in particular is on his 3rd dual crown fork. I hate proprietary parts, and I don't trust that bike for 6" duties.

    The RFX and TM also ride differently. I think you need to narrow down what type of ride you are really looking for. DT's show bike is as light as it is from air shocks, wheels, tires, etc. Having ridden a 35 lbs TM back to back with a 32 lbs RFX...I have to say that I like the way the TM descends a lot better (which is a good thing since it's the one I just bought). The RFX seemed to sit higher in it's travel.

    Personally, I don't see the need for ultra-light 6" bikes. For that kind of riding, I would rather have a 5" bike in the 30 lbs range and a 6" in the 35 lbs. range. Since I am a one bike man right now...I choose to have the one that will do more of everything...

    I have owned a Turner and would own one again if I wasn't so happy with my Ventana choices.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    7,903
    Thanks for the measurements there RS....puts me in a tight place (no pun...). I might be in the same boat as GG here, despite having more legs.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    7,903
    Quote Originally Posted by G.G.
    I haven't even looked at the La Bruja for reference in geo. I need to do that. Substituting as an option tho seems unlikely.
    You are right- not feasible.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G.G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    237
    I think I missed something here CZ. What numbers did RS provide you?

    My last dead horse comment on lighter 6" rigs. Just think of the progression that dualies have under gone. I started riding back in '89. What was a cross county or down hill rig then? What and how will we be riding in 10 yrs?

    Technology, rider ability and application should define the contemporary standard across the board in our sport. Not the requisite marketing folk. I'm simply aiming to take advantage of a design and be able to put it into use in a broad range. I've got flexibility in my Salt & I love it. If you ride, you have to be able to imagine a scenario where riding a 30 lbish Moto could be a lot of fun. Built light one day or beefed up the next is just the icing on the cake.

    I would goof on my self too if I were looking for a 32lb Cuervo but that's not the case. Maybe in 10 yrs, but not now.
    I figure the odds be fifty-fifty.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    7,903
    Quote Originally Posted by G.G.
    I think I missed something here CZ. What numbers did RS provide you?
    I was just asking around what the BB and SO were for certain setups, and his is close to what I could see mine being. His are 14ish and 33ish respectively.

  23. #23
    Team Chilidog!
    Reputation: Stripes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,244
    I'm sorry I didn't answer you earlier. I ride an X-5 with an El Ciclon gig, and I haven't really tried it in 6" mode yet. I need to, because that's why I have it a coil Lyrik. With a DHX coil too, my bike weighs around 33 lbs.

    I really like it, but I haven't ridden it in 6" mode to give you an idea.
    MTB4Her.com: mountain bike site for women, by women

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G.G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    237
    Stripes,

    Is your frame a stock Ciclon geo, just with 5/6 rocker and X top tube?

    If not, I'd be interesed in finding out the exact geo. if you have it on record.

    Thx.
    GG
    I figure the odds be fifty-fifty.

  25. #25
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,260
    I dont have detailed specs (cuz I think its a waste of time), but loved my X5 in 5" mode, and loved my X5 in 6" mode (RFX was good to for what it is worth). Unless somebody has the EXACT same setup (ie, build kit) and happened to swap between the X-6 of which you speak and the terremoto and rode EXACTLY the same trail under the same condition with the same fitness it holds not water.

    The closest you will come most likely is to have el beastro weigh in as he owned both steeds

Posting Permissions

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