Results 1 to 64 of 64
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    123

    Cool-blue Rhythm Why are trail bikes getting heavier?

    Looking at replacing my 2013 Santa Cruz LT carbon. I'm looking at the new Yeti SB130, Pivot 429 trail, Evil offering, Ibis Ripmo or Ripley and Spot Mayhem. When I compared the weight of my 8 year old TBLT (XL 28.5 lbs with pedals) I was shocked that my old bike weighted less than the new bikes with identical builds. I'm 58 years old and want a bike that will bail me out when I make a mistake, but climbing is very important. I climb everything I ride (no shuttles). I might just wait until the new Hightower comes out. The new Scott genius is the only bike that weighs less than my TBLT but I really don't know much about it. Any advice is much appreciated.

  2. #2
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,669
    One could say that bikes now are ridiculously more competent than bike of the past. So, a tiny gain in weight in trade for a huge performance benefit is worth it to many.

    Problem is that rarely do I see riders coming close to maximizing the capabilities of these modern, plastic wonders. Yes, that rider will enjoy a more "comfortable, stable" ride but they are now riding a 30# bike they still have to lug to the top of the mountain.

    I've also found the sport moving away from challenging, technical climbs - Something that was once a mainstay of the sport. Now only to be replaced by long slogs ascending fire roads so one can spend a few minutes bombing back down manicured dirt-walks in comfort.

  3. #3
    Demon Cleaner
    Reputation: Structure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    586
    I own a TBLTc too and also felt this way trying to replace it. I just ignored the concern initially and ended up with a 34 lb trail bike. But I love it and can still do long climbing days with it. That said, I still own the TBLTc and its much more efficient.

    I would think a Yeti SB130 would be a pretty good direct replacement. My size L TBLTc is 28 lbs with carbon wheels. An XO1 SB130 is 29 Lbs with alloy wheels. If I didn’t mind the 7.5k price I would love to have that as a replacement.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Bicycling is politics by other means.

  4. #4
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,993
    I also owned an XL TBLT a few years back. It was an excellent bike at the time. My Ripmo may weigh a pound or two more, but it’s astonishingly more capable both up and down the mountain.
    Just like a raindrop, I was born to fall.

  5. #5
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,536
    A few pounds on the bike makes little difference in the big picture.

    Doesn't mean I want to haul more than I have to, I just recognize that it's a small part of the overall total.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,367
    I'd also comment on the capability to weight factor. That & things just work better with much less fuss and fragility. My bike may weigh more but I'm covering the same big rides riding harder, having more fun, and despite the weight, with less fatigue.
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    491
    2 to 3 pounds heavier is going to cost you about 1min up a one hour climb depending on the gradient. Durability is a much more useful feature unless you're racing XC.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    One could say that bikes now are ridiculously more competent than bike of the past. So, a tiny gain in weight in trade for a huge performance benefit is worth it to many.

    Problem is that rarely do I see riders coming close to maximizing the capabilities of these modern, plastic wonders. Yes, that rider will enjoy a more "comfortable, stable" ride but they are now riding a 30# bike they still have to lug to the top of the mountain.

    I've also found the sport moving away from challenging, technical climbs - Something that was once a mainstay of the sport. Now only to be replaced by long slogs ascending fire roads so one can spend a few minutes bombing back down manicured dirt-walks in comfort.
    As someone who got my start in mountainbiking riding geurilla trails cut in timber country back in the 70s (I'm not that old, the trails were just old when I started), I feel you on the loss of technical climbing. However, I find that on technical climbs, newer, heavier bikes are well worth the weight gain in exchange for how much easier you can make them hold traction.

  9. #9
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,993
    I long for these "fireroad" climbs I read about all the time. Day after day of climbing ledges up the side of a mountain gets old ;-)
    Just like a raindrop, I was born to fall.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    964
    What is the weight difference between equal build 26 and 29 wheels?

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    155
    There's probably twice the carbon in a new Kona 153 than your old bike. That thing is a tank!

  12. #12
    Rides all the bikes!
    Reputation: Sidewalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudguard View Post
    What is the weight difference between equal build 26 and 29 wheels?
    Probably a pound total.

    But I looked up that bike online, it is a 29er. So that's not the difference.

    Though, my 2012 trail bike came with I think 17 or 19mm ID wheels. That's a lot of weight savings!

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    982
    The frames are probably close, and the newer ones are probably stiffer. Then you've got better (heavier) shocks (DPX2 vs DPS or Float), Fox 34 vs. 36, wider rims, wider, bigger tires. They all add up to a pound or 3 but WAY more capability and fun. And just a much better ride. You can weight-weenie up these new bikes to where they'd be as light or lighter than yours if you really want to, but why?
    You can't buy happiness. But you can buy a bike. And that's pretty close.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,345
    Quote Originally Posted by dustyman View Post
    Any advice is much appreciated.
    People are willing to buy heavier bikes at high prices now so manufacturers are making them. These heavier bikes are not [necessarily] stronger or more capable they are just heavier. The problem with making a lighter [relative to other options in the same class] bike is that it's hard....both in the design phase and in the manufacturing phase. By hard I mean it takes skill, time and money. So if you are a company and people will buy your 32lbs bike for $X dollars and if you spent time/money to get it down to 29lbs they'd still only pay $X dollars at approximately the same sales volume you have zero motivation to make your bike lighter.

    I won't name any name to protect the guilty, but when shopping for a 29er for my GF we looked at several options that were separated by multiple pounds for a metal frame. Same class of bike. Same travel. Same quality. Same cost [more or less]. And same history of reliability. Since she is a lighter less powerful rider an extra 1.5 pounds is a reasonably big deal. If you can save that weight without paying more or giving up anything in terms of performance why would you buy the heavier option?

    Well the answer is marketing. Companies these days are doing a great job at spinning heavier bikes as a good thing and people are buying them so why would those companies make less profits with a more expensive design?

    At my 200lbs ride ready weight 1.5lbs is a lot less important than for my GF, but I am an engineer so I'm happy to reward the folks that put more care and attention into their bikes. I know making something light, strong and affordable is hard so I'm happy to give my $$ to those folks.

    And although 1.5lbs isn't the end of the world to me you can't just keep adding weight without a negative impact on the ride. So I'd rather have the lighter frame and be able to spec 1.5lbs of burlier parts in key areas. If you start with an excessively heavy frame and then spec burly parts you end up with a pig.

    I just sold a 2008 bike to a friend that is as light strong and capable as any metal bike folks are making today. There is nothing radical about aluminum manufacturing that has happened in the last few years to make today's metal frame radically different than in previous years.

    If the market took a turn and started demanding lighter bikes you'd see metal frames drop 1-2lbs to stay competitive. The potential is there, but most companies won't bother until they have a really good reason like losing significant sales to a rival, but that pressure has to come from the market.

    On a positive note if you want a light metal or carbon frame they exist. You just have to pay attention and seek out those options. From a reputable designer they are no less capable and in some cases no more costly than the heavier options.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    58
    1. 29" wheels and tires weigh > 27.5 weigh > 26.

    2. 2.8" tires weigh > 2.6" tires weigh > 2.4 weigh > 2.1.

    3. Wider, stiffer stanchions weigh more than narrower stanchions.

    4. Longer travel forks and shocks weigh > lower travel forks and shocks.

    5. Dropper posts weigh > standard posts.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: global's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    177
    Bikes can be as light or lighter now than previous years as vikb said. If you are willing to buy the marketing without paying attention to actual build. Often I see specs advertising xo build and they sneak a cheap heavy cassette or piggish wheels. Almost impossible for me to not go frame only and spec my own components. Holds true on road and mountain bikes.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Dale-Calgary View Post
    There's probably twice the carbon in a new Kona 153 than your old bike. That thing is a tank!
    There really is, weighs more than my 2015 AL 111. Was hoping they would add a 27.5 111 in carbon, instead they went in the opposite direction.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by sapva View Post
    There really is, weighs more than my 2015 AL 111. Was hoping they would add a 27.5 111 in carbon, instead they went in the opposite direction.
    And i'd bet nobody has ever complained about a broken frame.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Dale-Calgary View Post
    And i'd bet nobody has ever complained about a broken frame.
    I bet you they have. Nobody would want to ride a bicycle frame that was unbreakable.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I bet you they have. Nobody would want to ride a bicycle frame that was unbreakable.
    well of course there has to be some broken 153's lets not go crazy here. Okay go find one, google it.

    I'm not a Kona fanboy, in fact I hate them for a creaky BB on my kona
    134.

  21. #21
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,358
    OP, the bikes you listed cross a couple of categories and it's not fair to compare a 115/130 bike with a 145/160 bike when it comes to weight. Those are two different tools for two different jobs.

    Most of the bikes you listed are good brands and are built with durability in mind. Probably most of them are more capable both up and down than your old bike. Dropper posts add some weight but are well worth the penalty to me. And frankly most stock wheelsets suck, but I'm a bit of a snob in the wheel department. (I build my own)

    Just focus on the geometry of the frame, that's priority #1. Down the road you can spend money on the components you value and tweak it to your liking, or save some weight.

    TLDR- Stock builds suck unless you spend $8k. Buy a frame with the right geo and build it the way you want.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  22. #22
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Dale-Calgary View Post
    well of course there has to be some broken 153's lets not go crazy here. Okay go find one, google it.

    I'm not a Kona fanboy, in fact I hate them for a creaky BB on my kona
    134.
    Ironic that you mention durability of Kona bikes in a thread about mid travel trail bike weight weenie ism. Kona is one of the companies that plainly advertises they value durability and longevity over light weight. Especially on their trail bikes. Don't blame the manufacturer if you're a hack mechanic.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,345
    Just don't confuse heavy with strong. It's easy to make a heavy bike. It's much harder to make a strong frame. When I look at two frames and one is 1-2lbs heavier in the same class of bike and same material I do not assume the heavier one is stiffer or stronger. All that tells you is one weighs more.

    Marketing folks will spin the heavy = stronger story. They have to it's their job, but it doesn't mean it's true.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    Ironic that you mention durability of Kona bikes in a thread about mid travel trail bike weight weenie ism. Kona is one of the companies that plainly advertises they value durability and longevity over light weight. Especially on their trail bikes. Don't blame the manufacturer if you're a hack mechanic.
    But if they had done a carbon 111 for 27.5, it's win win. Instead they discontinued it and replaced it with more suspension weight.

  25. #25
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by sapva View Post
    But if they had done a carbon 111 for 27.5, it's win win. Instead they discontinued it and replaced it with more suspension weight.
    The 111 was a 29er, and a killer short travel trail bike. I would still happily buy one if the right deal came along on a 2017 in XL.

    I'm not sure what your on about? They came out with a carbon 130/140 27.5" bike that pedaled way better. Anyway, this discussion is about 29ers. There's a ton of 27.5 bikes out there, but this is not the place for that conversation.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,352
    Going with this thought, maybe riding less bike will not only weigh less, but will provide the level of performance comparable to older longer travel bikes?

    I like those slow technical climbs, lots of pumping and driving, nothing like a good workout on the way up. Downs are fun, but I’d rather do a fun tech climb on the way to the top.

    I think folks worry to much about weight AND I think folks are wrong to believe that you can have two equvalent frames with one weighing significantly less than the other without some compromise.

    Pick the bike that rides the way you want to ride.

    Quote Originally Posted by WHALENARD View Post
    I'd also comment on the capability to weight factor. That & things just work better with much less fuss and fragility. My bike may weigh more but I'm covering the same big rides riding harder, having more fun, and despite the weight, with less fatigue.
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+ (for sale)
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Fezzari Signal Peak 29/27+
    Lrg Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife's)

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sturge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    TLDR- Stock builds suck unless you spend $8k. Buy a frame with the right geo and build it the way you want.
    Seriously? You need to spend $8K on a bike or it will suck?
    12 Santa Cruz Heckler
    18 Kona Process 153 AL/DL (27.5)...

  28. #28
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by sturge View Post
    Seriously? You need to spend $8K on a bike or it will suck?
    Apparently. Anything else will weigh 1.5 lbs more and be nearly unridable.

    I guess I didn't word that clearly enough. I really hate these kinds of questions about burly trail bikes (that pedal like XC race bikes) and weight is the primary concern, the arbitrary number is 26 lbs, and the budget is $3,500. It's unrealistic, irrelevant, and frustrates me to no end if I'm honest.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    The 111 was a 29er, and a killer short travel trail bike. I would still happily buy one if the right deal came along on a 2017 in XL.

    I'm not sure what your on about? They came out with a carbon 130/140 27.5" bike that pedaled way better. Anyway, this discussion is about 29ers. There's a ton of 27.5 bikes out there, but this is not the place for that conversation.
    Ok fair enough, but a carbon 111 29'r would have still been better than what they did. There are relatively few trail bikes in that 120 range for any wheel size. There seems to be a race to that middle travel range of 130-160 lately, and that is a big part of why we are talking about heavier bikes.

  30. #30
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by sapva View Post
    Ok fair enough, but a carbon 111 29'r would have still been better than what they did. There are relatively few trail bikes in that 120 range for any wheel size. There seems to be a race to that middle travel range of 130-160 lately, and that is a big part of why we are talking about heavier bikes.
    I completely agree. I have a Kona Hei Hei CR DL 100/120, it's my endurance race bike. As capable as it is, it is NOT a burly short travel trail bike. Believe me, I'm one of the many people that wish they would bring that bike back.

    Hence why my first comments were about how the OP was comparing a XC/trail bike to an Enduro bike. Apples and Oranges, and weight is low on my personal priority list for anything other than a purpose built race bike. Fun factor trumps grams on a scale.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sturge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    887
    Fair enough...Probably missing out but I've never had a carbon bike because the minimal weight savings over a similar alu model is not even close to being worth the extra cost to me. At 6'4"/220lbs, grinding a couple of extra pounds up those hills isn't that a big factor but I'm sure a super light $8K bike is nice.

    The 2018 Kona 153 is a big burley girl...probably around 33lbs and much heavier than anything I've ever owned but it's not gonna break and it climbs great. I'm having BIG fun every time I get on that thing.

    Plus, I got other hobbies to spend $$ on too!
    12 Santa Cruz Heckler
    18 Kona Process 153 AL/DL (27.5)...

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,352
    ~1k for a 2# savings, Carbon vs Aluminum, worth it to some folks.
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+ (for sale)
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Fezzari Signal Peak 29/27+
    Lrg Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife's)

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by westernmtb View Post
    1. 29" wheels and tires weigh > 27.5 weigh > 26.

    2. 2.8" tires weigh > 2.6" tires weigh > 2.4 weigh > 2.1.

    3. Wider, stiffer stanchions weigh more than narrower stanchions.

    4. Longer travel forks and shocks weigh > lower travel forks and shocks.

    5. Dropper posts weigh > standard posts.
    This seems pretty spot-on to me. I'm riding a Hightower (C model / mostly S build), and I'm pretty sure it weighs 30-31 pounds. I love the way it rides, so I'm not complaining about the weight. The Fox 36 is more fork than I've used in the past, but I love the way it feels. I am running 2.4 tires front and back and I also like the way they ride. I'm still getting used to the dropper post, but I will assume that in time I will find this to be a beneficial addition as well (bit behind the times on that one...).

    A friend just picked up a Blur (C model / XE build). Less travel, no dropper post, smaller tires, less fork. He swapped out the wheels for a pair of Roval SLs and the bike weighs less than 24 pounds. For the right trails it is a great bike. I'll take the Hightower for my normal trails any day of the week though.

    The bike industry does seem to have gone in the direction of worrying less about weight - at least outside of the XC racing market. I don't know if this is because of marketing / because they can get away with it, or if it is just that manufacturers are finding that the extra weight is necessary to build reliable bikes with 130mm+ of travel. I personally think that more of the issue is that what is a 'daily trail bike' has been redefined. 100mm travel used to be the norm for a trail bike. 130mm was clearly in the All mountain / Enduro range - people were perfectly willing to have heavier bikes for this application. Now 120-135mm is more of a daily rider, but given the amount of travel, the frames have to be built to withstand more abuse, even if most riders won't ever push a frame that far. If a manufacturer could build a 130mm travel frame that had a reasonable rider weight limit, and couldn't be taken off anything larger than 3 foot drops, I'm sure they could drop the weight of these frames easily. But that would be a tough bike to market, even if it would be more than adequate for 75% of the market. Instead, reviews are focusing more and more on how much more capable our 100mm travel bikes are becoming. Its hard to push the capabilities and range of application for the frames and still ask the bike weights to be lower.

    Heck - I was ambitiously pursuing wider rims/tires until I realized that a 2.6 Nobby Nic weighs almost 950 grams. Back in the early 2000s, that would have been laughable - I was using 550 gram tires, looking for something that was lighter. The happy spot for me seems to be 2.35-2.4 29er tires on i25 - i30 rims. Tires around 750 grams seem to be plenty durable and perform well enough for the riding I do. But even with this 'compromise' my wheels are over a pound heavier than they were when I was racing.

    Anyway, for now I like the way the newer bikes ride - it easily offsets the higher weight. I sympathize with the plights of lighter riders that notice the increased weight more - when it is time to get my wife a new bike, she will be in the same position. But I also have some sympathy for the bike industry and where marketing pressures are pushing them.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,655
    Quote Originally Posted by westernmtb View Post
    1. 29" wheels and tires weigh > 27.5 weigh > 26.

    2. 2.8" tires weigh > 2.6" tires weigh > 2.4 weigh > 2.1.

    3. Wider, stiffer stanchions weigh more than narrower stanchions.

    4. Longer travel forks and shocks weigh > lower travel forks and shocks.

    5. Dropper posts weigh > standard posts.
    Yup.

    Whether or not a couple pounds really matters is another question, but this nails the reasons that bikes are heavier these days.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by SqueakyWheel73 View Post
    Anyway, for now I like the way the newer bikes ride - it easily offsets the higher weight. I sympathize with the plights of lighter riders that notice the increased weight more - when it is time to get my wife a new bike, she will be in the same position. But I also have some sympathy for the bike industry and where marketing pressures are pushing them.
    A few pounds, or ten, makes no difference to me when climbing. But just a few pounds less can make a bike a lot more playful.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plummet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    430
    Hubs are wider, frames are longer and slacker, cassettes are dinner plate sized, dropper posts are longer, handle bars are wider, rims are wider, as are tyres, shocks/forks are longer, better more complex stiffer.

    It all adds up to heavier.

    But ride the new bike for a month, then jump back on the old and ride. You will discard the old bike in disgust at how Badly in rides by comparison.

    New is better. Even if heavier.

    Check out rocky mountain they seem to be making some good light frames these days. My Slayer 27.5 165/180mm is a beast and comes in 28.8pd.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    The thread turned out to to be an industry bagging type, with strong opinion comparison between alum. and carbon frames. Several of the models (or brands even) that the OP is interested in are only available in carbon frames, and are “boutique” bikes that tend to have a slightly higher MSRP, so I’m guessing a penny pinching build wasn’t the intention. Most of those bikes could be built relatively light, but because of advances in the last few years with geometry and certain components, they will certainly allow riding in slightly more difficult terrain without a need for increase in skill.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by dustyman View Post
    Looking at replacing my 2013 Santa Cruz LT carbon. I'm looking at the new Yeti SB130, Pivot 429 trail, Evil offering, Ibis Ripmo or Ripley and Spot Mayhem. When I compared the weight of my 8 year old TBLT (XL 28.5 lbs with pedals) I was shocked that my old bike weighted less than the new bikes with identical builds. I'm 58 years old and want a bike that will bail me out when I make a mistake, but climbing is very important. I climb everything I ride (no shuttles). I might just wait until the new Hightower comes out.The new Scott genius is the only bike that weighs less than my TBLT but I really don't know much about it. Any advice is much appreciated.
    I ride the Scott genius tuned and with it's 12.1 kg sans pedals and 150 to 100mm twinlock it's nearly like 2 bikes in one. Its expensive and they skimped on the wheels but it's just extremely efficient all round. When in traction mode the efficiency is nearly as good as lockout at least for my 72kg. I very seldom use the 150mm as the bike is very stable due to its geometry. I also got the bike to get better safety and it is and it have saved my ass a few times from going otb. I just love the bike. Felt good on it from the go.
    Ride 27.5 2.8 now. Wasn't expected so the 29 wheelset is collecting dust now. I will boot the 29 set up in a few months with new tyres. So hey perhaps it's like having 4 bikes then

    I don't use computer or phone or even ride using a watch. I ride to have fun not to go fast. Lighter high modulus carbon bikes is just more fun imo. They are more springy and jumpy. More flickable. And yeaa also a tad more efficient especially uphill. I like climbing too.

    The bike is reasonably fast for normal xc trails. I can follow the group I train with with this 150mm 2.8 rekon bike while they come on the typical epic spark rc ikon bikes. Wouldn't be possible at all without twinlock and the lightness of the bike.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Fajita Dave View Post
    2 to 3 pounds heavier is going to cost you about 1min up a one hour climb depending on the gradient. Durability is a much more useful feature unless you're racing XC.
    More like 6 seconds. You're off by a factor of ten.

    And people spend thousands for this useless benefit.

    OP: you asked for advice, so I'll give it. Stop weighing bikes. It does not matter. There are so many other factors that matter more than this useless figure. Lose some weight off your body if you can't resist the urge.

  40. #40
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,005
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    More like 6 seconds. You're off by a factor of ten.

    And people spend thousands for this useless benefit.

    OP: you asked for advice, so I'll give it. Stop weighing bikes. It does not matter. There are so many other factors that matter more than this useless figure. Lose some weight off your body if you can't resist the urge.
    No, he's correct, per every calculator I can find, and basic physics.
    Death from Below.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    964
    Quote Originally Posted by westernmtb View Post

    3. Wider, stiffer stanchions weigh more than narrower stanchions.
    I would've thought wider stanchions meant they were thinner too. I would say forks for every discipline except DJ have got lighter

    Quote Originally Posted by plummet View Post

    But ride the new bike for a month, then jump back on the old and ride. You will discard the old bike in disgust at how Badly in rides by comparison.

    New is better. Even if heavier.
    It really depends on what you ride, I have a 2014 Enduro with about 170mm of travel that weighs 30lbs and I have a 2006 Enduro with 150mm that weighs 31lbs. 66 vs 67 degree head angle, same width bars, same tires. The old bike is still a blast to ride.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,115
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    OP, the bikes you listed cross a couple of categories and it's not fair to compare a 115/130 bike with a 145/160 bike when it comes to weight.
    Not to mention a modern geo 120mm [rear] travel 29er would easily be as [or more] capable descending as a 140-150mm 26" trail/AM bike from 6-7-8ish years ago.

    OP is you want something light-ish to replace your existing bike you would probably be better looking at something more like a Tallboy, set up with a 130mm 34/Pike, dropper post and decent tyres/wheels rather than a mini-enduro bike like the SB130 or Ripmo.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Because they have gotten much better.

    That said, you can spend the money and still build a very lightweight and capable modern bike.

    I ride a large Mondraker Foxy 29 with all the good bits and it weighs 28.1# before I add my pedals/ bashguard/ tools and it's more capable than I am in every regard.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  44. #44
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,015
    bb are lower so you need to run beefier pedals.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,825
    There is a big difference pedaling a 30lbs bike up a moderataly rocky 6" grade vs 22.5lbs XC bike up that same grade. Max effort the time will not so much difference, but if you ride them back to back you will really feel it. The issue today is lots of big bikes are very fast downhill, but are you the type of rider who will be really using all that speed? If so then get the big bike and deal with it on the climbs. Remember if your just pedaling up a steep road speed does not really make a difference. However if you goal is push yourself up steep techy climbs where your smiles come from cleaning the climb and not having to push your bike then maybe some of these bikes are just too big and heavy. Especially if you don't plan to really send it down stuff. The "new" tallboy LT is the hightower, but before you buy one maybe take a look at the regular Tallboy. I would not be shocked at all if it could hang with 90% DH capabilities of older TBLT. I if you are currently using up all the TBLT has and needing more the go bigger. I not then maybe a smaller class bike might be more than enough due all bike from XC race bike to DH trending to have more DH capabilities.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  46. #46
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,609
    Bikes are the lightest they have ever been. A new blur tr with dropper is 23lb and will blow the doors off your current bike. Both up and down.
    Now if you want big brakes, big grippy tires, wide rims, extra long dropper, extra wide bars and more suspension you will increase the weight.
    The OP is simply not comparing apples to apples. I love my 2008 Blur XC carbon at 22.7lb, but it tries to kill me everytime I ride it and in trail form it's 25.5. Ill take the 4lb more my Ripmo weights for the insane jump in capability.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    982
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    More like 6 seconds. You're off by a factor of ten.

    And people spend thousands for this useless benefit.

    OP: you asked for advice, so I'll give it. Stop weighing bikes. It does not matter. There are so many other factors that matter more than this useless figure. Lose some weight off your body if you can't resist the urge.
    The 6 seconds is not even close. It's MUCH more than that. And "useless" is one man's opinion (or woman's). Weight matters, and weight off the bike is much more beneficial vis-a-vis weight off your body. Couldn't disagree with your whole post more. But that's just my opinion, yours might be different.

    And BTW, I'm the OP's age so maybe it matters more at our age.
    You can't buy happiness. But you can buy a bike. And that's pretty close.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,500
    I too have a Santa Cruz Tallboy LTc. One of the things I'll never understand is why SC decided to create this bike with a 69* HTA. If this bike came with 67 or 68 it would have been perfect as the angle set would fix is for slacker HTA's. Anyway, the frame weight is at a 5.3 LBS with shock in the large frame. Some say 5.1 in the matte black finish but I can't substantiate that. I built mine up years ago and if I run Schwalbe 2.35 tires (Hans Front & Nobby NIc Rear) it weighs 26.8 lbs! If I run Magic Mary front and Hans rear I tic just over 27.3. When I put on a 2.5 Maxxis DHF front I can tell the difference in climbs immediately!

    Yes I run a 125mm dropper and Pike 150 fork.

    Anyways, I've demoed many bikes as I'm in the market for something new. While the geo's are much noticeable in the downs confidence inspiration department, they climb like an 18 wheeler up a hill, slow and noticeable draggy. Now, the better STA and reach do give me a better feel in position to attack the climb, the weight though is so darn noticable.

    When I jumb back on the Tallboy LTc, when I climb, that sucker just seems to run up the climbs. On the downs, while it lacks the HTA and better suspension platforms, it is super snappy and agile. I guess I've concluded there are trade offs. I might keep the Tallboy LTc because it is so much fun, but may just get one of these new bikes. I haven't made up my mind yet. I have asked the same question though, why are these darn things getting so heavy?

    How can Santa Cruz make the Tallboy LTc 29er with 135mm of travel at 5.3lbs and then as they create the Hightower it goes up almost a pound? I've given the LTc hell and it has never cracked and I weight 225lbs without a pack. I've jumped this thing in some serious air and it has never cracked. So, obviously its possible to build a lighter 29er with over 5in of travel. But why are they getting so darn heavy? Perhaps its the rear shocks too? Most companies are now putting more capable rear shocks so I think that has something to do with it. Plus all the ones I've demoed have Maxxis tires, which are so good, but are known for draggy heavieness.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,500
    Compared to the Tallboy LTc - 29er Frame weights, from the lightest to heaviest. Not all models have I listed but all the usual suspects...
    (FYI, I could not track down the frame weight on the $3,500 Yeti SB150. If anyone has it, tell me and I'll edit this.)

    Santa Cruz - Tallboy LT frame weight - 5.3 lbs (Large) / 5.1 (Med.)

    Orbea – Rallon Frame weight – 5.73lbs. (Large)

    Santa Cruz – Hightower LT – 5.9lbs. (Large)

    Rocky Mountain – Instinct Frame Weight – 6.19 (Medium)

    Ibis - Ripmo Frame weight – 6.1lbs (Large) / 5.15 (Med.) – Depending on Shock Choice

    Evil - Offering Frame weight – 6.26lbs (Large) without shock

    Pivot – Switchblade Frame Weight – 6.4lbs (Medium)

    Pivot – Trail 429 Frame Weight – 6.4lbs (Medium)

    YETI – SB 130 – 6.4lbs (Large)

    YETI – SB 150 – N/A

    Pivot – Firebird 29 Frame Weight – 7lbs (Large)

    Transition – Sentinel Frame Weight – 8.52lbs (Medium) without shock

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by BmanInTheD View Post
    The 6 seconds is not even close. It's MUCH more than that. And "useless" is one man's opinion (or woman's). Weight matters, and weight off the bike is much more beneficial vis-a-vis weight off your body. Couldn't disagree with your whole post more. But that's just my opinion, yours might be different.

    And BTW, I'm the OP's age so maybe it matters more at our age.
    Except it's not, and weight still doesn't matter. If you put the same power into the pedals, it's seconds after an hour-long climb. You might not want to hear it because you bought into the marketing and wasted your money, but how much distance can be covered at a fixed power varying only the weight is not anybody's opinion, it is a fact. And the fact is that it's nowhere near what you think. I am not a physicist but I trust the people who are, and the data could not be more clear on this. In fact, mechanics is probably the oldest branch of physics, so the human race has known this for hundreds of years.

    Tires make a much larger difference than any amount of weight, in my experience. I can't calculate that (although there are models for it).

  51. #51
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,005
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    Except it's not, and weight still doesn't matter. If you put the same power into the pedals, it's seconds after an hour-long climb. You might not want to hear it because you bought into the marketing and wasted your money, but how much distance can be covered at a fixed power varying only the weight is not anybody's opinion, it is a fact. And the fact is that it's nowhere near what you think. I am not a physicist but I trust the people who are, and the data could not be more clear on this. In fact, mechanics is probably the oldest branch of physics, so the human race has known this for hundreds of years.

    Tires make a much larger difference than any amount of weight, in my experience. I can't calculate that (although there are models for it).
    Please cite the data you claim supports your 6 seconds over an hour climb for 2kg gain.

    Everything I’ve seen shows a nearly linear relationship between watts/kg and climbing speed.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    No, he's correct, per every calculator I can find, and basic physics.
    Could you possibly link to these calculators? I feel like I could get lost in that rabbit hole.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    982
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Please cite the data you claim supports your 6 seconds over an hour climb for 2kg gain.

    Everything I’ve seen shows a nearly linear relationship between watts/kg and climbing speed.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    All the tests I've seen from Zinn and several others have shown that an increase in bike weight of 3-4 pounds will increase the time of a 5% climb by about 1.5-2%, which is around a minute or so for an hour climb. But maybe he stayed in a Holiday Inn last night?
    You can't buy happiness. But you can buy a bike. And that's pretty close.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,825
    Weight does make a difference. The 7lbs between my XC bike and trail bike is very noticeable. Less so on smooth climbs and more so on rocky ones. Funny thing about tire weight is that not as bad as frame weight. Yeah it hurts acceleration, but helps to prevent losing momentum on rocky trails.

    Still seeing those frame weights is scary. Scary to see how much weight as gone up on these bikes. I think it comes down to the new cool "Enduro" trend. Everyone wants to make an "enduro" bike that can shred the DH at superfast speeds. Truth is only a few can actually do it and fewer still have trails to even do it. But it is cool so everyone wants one. In the mean time the light nimble XC bikes get pushed to the side as "racer weenie" bike for riders with no skills. However when you look at what the pro's ride on 22lbs XC race bikes you realize they are far more capable than most give them credit for and most riders would love the snappy riding these bikes provide. They may even make climbing fun again. I am going to make a hate about it. MCFA ... Ha... Really these bikes are very capable and with a dropper and 69-68 deg HA can tackle some really tough trails.

    As for bikes "wanting to kill me" I have ridden 26 HT from 1998,2002 and 29er HT from 2012 , 7" travel bikes and 125/130 slacker bikes and right up to 2018 XC FS bikes and even today a rigid 29er. None of these bikes has ever wanted to kill me. Some turn really well and some require more careful body position to get through stuff. Some you can blast through crap fast and others you need a more measured approach. Just today I was blasting through rocky trails on my rigid SS 29er. 29x3.0 tires and setting times as fast as my 100/100 FS XC bike. Of course I do have really watch the front end loading so I don't smack the rim, but with revised technique I am still amazed how it handles chunky stuff.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    Weight does make a difference. The 7lbs between my XC bike and trail bike is very noticeable. Less so on smooth climbs and more so on rocky ones. Funny thing about tire weight is that not as bad as frame weight. Yeah it hurts acceleration, but helps to prevent losing momentum on rocky trails.

    Still seeing those frame weights is scary. Scary to see how much weight as gone up on these bikes. I think it comes down to the new cool "Enduro" trend. Everyone wants to make an "enduro" bike that can shred the DH at superfast speeds. Truth is only a few can actually do it and fewer still have trails to even do it. But it is cool so everyone wants one. In the mean time the light nimble XC bikes get pushed to the side as "racer weenie" bike for riders with no skills. However when you look at what the pro's ride on 22lbs XC race bikes you realize they are far more capable than most give them credit for and most riders would love the snappy riding these bikes provide. They may even make climbing fun again. I am going to make a hate about it. MCFA ... Ha... Really these bikes are very capable and with a dropper and 69-68 deg HA can tackle some really tough trails.

    As for bikes "wanting to kill me" I have ridden 26 HT from 1998,2002 and 29er HT from 2012 , 7" travel bikes and 125/130 slacker bikes and right up to 2018 XC FS bikes and even today a rigid 29er. None of these bikes has ever wanted to kill me. Some turn really well and some require more careful body position to get through stuff. Some you can blast through crap fast and others you need a more measured approach. Just today I was blasting through rocky trails on my rigid SS 29er. 29x3.0 tires and setting times as fast as my 100/100 FS XC bike. Of course I do have really watch the front end loading so I don't smack the rim, but with revised technique I am still amazed how it handles chunky stuff.
    Pros can ride anything on any bike. But a lot of people are going to ride terrain on a mid to long travel 29er that they could not navigate on an xc bike, even if pros were capable of shredding it. And I am a long time XC racer, so I certainly have no aversion to XC bikes.

    Also, I think it is always worth noting when you compare climbing your 30lb bike to you 22lb bike, that your 22lb bike probably has much more favorable geo for climbing. In reality, this probably matters far more than the weight.

    I think I could climb faster on my xc bike with 10lb of weight strapped on than I could on a more enduro focused long travel bike of equal weight.

  56. #56
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,609
    Joe the wanting to kill was refering to my 25-30% dh trails. With a 69 hta and rocket rons its stupid fast on the climbs and still competive in XC races, but the old frame and 32 fork have a ton of flex compared to new bikes. Rock gardens at speed on crazy steep shoots are not it's strong suit. Still ride it like I stole it and did for 10 years straight.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    21
    At 5’6” and barely 150lbs riding weight, I should consider myself part of the “weight sensitive” group. I owned 3 successive generations of Stumpjumper FSR, with the last being a 2013 carbon Comp 29. At 28 lbs, It was almost 1 lb heavier than the previous 26 alu Stumpy, but it was a huge improvement, and made me a better rider. I completed the same 30 mile race a full 30 minutes earlier with it, than with the previous Bike. Thanks to the 29” hoops maybe? Over time, I upgraded the bike with a better fork (Pike) , carbon wheels and cranks, dropper post, mostly for better performance, because the weight savings were marginal. But my skills improved along with the upgrades. I was faster up and down.
    I now ride a Ripmo GX, carbon wheels and 2.6 tires. It is almost 1 lb heavier than the Stumpjumper carbon Comp, at 29 lbs and change. And at first I was skeptical. But what a bike! It is noticeably faster up and down, makes me seek more challenging trails, that I wouldn’t have dared trying before, and with my legs notoriously cramping on long rides, I don’t feel that tired anymore. It is, marketing or not, all in the geometry.
    OP, instead on focusing on weight, you have to consider how much more capable modern bikes have become, and the possibilities they are offering.
    As a comparison, modern cars might be heavier, but certainly safer, faster and way more capable.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    84
    On a high quality carbon frame stiffness and flex can be tuned incredible precise vs good quality hydroformed aluminium. The layers of carbon can be places excactly where it's needed. It's not a matter of weight. A high modulus carbon frame e.g. just feels way more responsive. When you push the pedals the bike jumps forward.

    The new good alu frames is super nice but when people arrives with their new half enduro 140mm alu bike with dhf tires they are just going nowhere.

    I am pretty sure a bike like eg the chameleon would be way more fun with a cc frame. But no you have to buy some ultra short steep ass xc hardtail to get that.

  59. #59
    It's the axle
    Reputation: Gregg K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,695
    I just sold my '55 Chevy to pay for all of the incredible parts to make my new Ibis Ripley under 23 pounds. And except for the frame this bike would have been even lighter. I sold my soul for grams, haha. All of that just because some youngsters want to huck canyons.

    I'm your age too. Is this one of those "get off my lawn you youngin's!" moments?
    Note to self: 85% of FTP for 20 min.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    Except it's not, and weight still doesn't matter. If you put the same power into the pedals, it's seconds after an hour-long climb. You might not want to hear it because you bought into the marketing and wasted your money, but how much distance can be covered at a fixed power varying only the weight is not anybody's opinion, it is a fact. And the fact is that it's nowhere near what you think. I am not a physicist but I trust the people who are, and the data could not be more clear on this. In fact, mechanics is probably the oldest branch of physics, so the human race has known this for hundreds of years.

    Tires make a much larger difference than any amount of weight, in my experience. I can't calculate that (although there are models for it).
    If you just bolted the weight to the same frame and rode up a 100% smooth road with no undulations that the additional weight has to be be lifted up and over, then yes the physics calculators would be accurate.

    However, the extra weight is never just bolted on to the frame rail on a smooth trail. In reality the bike gets wider rims, wider more draggy tires, more plush and longer travel suspension with correspondingly more weight transfer, less aero, and so on.

    The above chassis differences add up to WAY more than what a physics calculator shows for a few pounds. Minions vs. Trail/ XC tires alone there has to a be a solid 15% difference in my average speed favoring the trail tires.

    Riders are right for really thinking about this stuff if their end goal is to cover more ground faster, both up and down. There is a LOT more time to gain when pedaling then when going down the steeps.

    I am a bit obsessive, and was not a great climber but I REALLY focused on building a bike that was: 1) Very efficient with the shock open, even with the long low geo I prefer (Foxy 29); 2) As light as it could be and still be entirely reliable even at the bike park(Size L, 28.1#); 3) and choose tires that did what I needed, but rolled notably better that the standard Minions that I had ran before (Butcher & Hans Dampf). Well the process worked because on the new rig, on the climbs and pedally sections anyways, I'm either pulling away in the front, or braking often when following to avoid flat running in to the rider ahead of me. People that just 3 months ago I could not keep up with. If I could just man up and hit the 6'+ drops and jumps I'd be flying all around honestly. I'm so much fresher on this bike when I arrive at the top/ fast part of the trails now. That's a huge advantage.

    Good luck.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    If you just bolted the weight to the same frame and rode up a 100% smooth road with no undulations that the additional weight has to be be lifted up and over, then yes the physics calculators would be accurate.

    However, the extra weight is never just bolted on to the frame rail on a smooth trail. In reality the bike gets wider rims, wider more draggy tires, more plush and longer travel suspension with correspondingly more weight transfer, less aero, and so on.

    The above chassis differences add up to WAY more than what a physics calculator shows for a few pounds. Minions vs. Trail/ XC tires alone there has to a be a solid 15% difference in my average speed favoring the trail tires.

    Riders are right for really thinking about this stuff if their end goal is to cover more ground faster, both up and down. There is a LOT more time to gain when pedaling then when going down the steeps.

    I am a bit obsessive, and was not a great climber but I REALLY focused on building a bike that was: 1) Very efficient with the shock open, even with the long low geo I prefer (Foxy 29); 2) As light as it could be and still be entirely reliable even at the bike park(Size L, 28.1#); 3) and choose tires that did what I needed, but rolled notably better that the standard Minions that I had ran before (Butcher & Hans Dampf). Well the process worked because on the new rig, on the climbs and pedally sections anyways, I'm either pulling away in the front, or braking often when following to avoid flat running in to the rider ahead of me. People that just 3 months ago I could not keep up with. If I could just man up and hit the 6'+ drops and jumps I'd be flying all around honestly. I'm so much fresher on this bike when I arrive at the top/ fast part of the trails now. That's a huge advantage.

    Good luck.
    Thanks for the response guys. I'm planning on demoing the Ripmo and SB130 soon. Thanks for attaching the frame weights. I can't believe the Ripmo weighs less than the Ripley, 429 and SB130. I checked the Ibis website to confirm. The Ripmo is definitely more travel than I need, but I can build it up close to the same weight as my Tallboy LTC. I also heard that Santa Cruz will be releasing a new Tallboy and Hightower this year. Any more thoughts on the new Scott Genius?

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,180
    Dropper post, 500mm of travel and 1000mm bars.
    Small ring in front makes it easier. Small ring in back makes it harder. That blows my mind.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by dustyman View Post
    Thanks for the response guys. I'm planning on demoing the Ripmo and SB130 soon. Thanks for attaching the frame weights. I can't believe the Ripmo weighs less than the Ripley, 429 and SB130. I checked the Ibis website to confirm. The Ripmo is definitely more travel than I need, but I can build it up close to the same weight as my Tallboy LTC. I also heard that Santa Cruz will be releasing a new Tallboy and Hightower this year. Any more thoughts on the new Scott Genius?
    If you haven't yet, check out Bike Magazine's 2019 Bible of Bikes for their review of the Ripmo- they loved it. I don't have any regrets about my Hightower (which I strongly recommend) but I would be very curious to ride a Ripmo sometime.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by dustyman View Post
    Thanks for the response guys. I'm planning on demoing the Ripmo and SB130 soon. Thanks for attaching the frame weights. I can't believe the Ripmo weighs less than the Ripley, 429 and SB130. I checked the Ibis website to confirm. The Ripmo is definitely more travel than I need, but I can build it up close to the same weight as my Tallboy LTC. I also heard that Santa Cruz will be releasing a new Tallboy and Hightower this year. Any more thoughts on the new Scott Genius?
    About the genius. Perhaps pm user SLVR. He seems to have tried a lot of different stuff and ride the genius now.

    I have to add that if you want the light hmx frame the tuned is where the fun starts and what makes it special. Expensive stuff.
    Last edited by krumme; 2 Weeks Ago at 11:30 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Getting Heavier & Lovin' It!
    By phlegm in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-25-2013, 12:03 AM
  2. Why the New Bicycles are Getting Heavier
    By caesar148 in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-06-2013, 11:45 AM
  3. Heavier Tires that noticeable for heavier riders?
    By offroadcmpr in forum 29er Components
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-16-2012, 07:38 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-02-2005, 02:14 PM
  5. Heavier oil for heavier rider (Manitou)?
    By Trajan in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-21-2004, 06:23 AM

Members who have read this thread: 423

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.