Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    923

    Foes ridgeback 29er and 27.5er

    In case you Foes fans havenít heard already...

    https://www.bikerumor.com/2018/04/03...d-29-versions/

    ...exciting stuff from Brent.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Albacore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    97
    Since the beans have been spilled. . .


    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Got rocks?
    Reputation: desertwheeler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    538
    Thatís a nice looking bike. Sure wouldnít mind trying one out.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slowrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,787
    Looks far better without the arched "dog crapping" top tube most builders are equipping these days.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sgill32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    121
    Foes ridgeback 29er and 27.5er-30412623_10155619762808985_8869955022201290752_o.jpg

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slowrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,787
    Fantastic looking bike. Odd that MTBR can't be bothered to post the work of a legend Like Brent Foes but they have a ton of piddly stuff on the front page.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sgill32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by slowrider View Post
    Fantastic looking bike. Odd that MTBR can't be bothered to post the work of a legend Like Brent Foes but they have a ton of piddly stuff on the front page.
    I agree the Ridgeback looks badass Would love to test one out.

    I'd imagine companies have to pay MTBR for front page content. Foes really doesn't need to advertise, word of mouth and quality not quantity applies. I think Brent likes it that way and so do I.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    122
    Gorgeous - my mutz needs a friend!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Just Ride!
    Reputation: kustomz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,167
    I have ridden hardtails for ever and have often thought about getting a full suspension bike... This is the first thing I have seen that has motivated me to think more seriously about it.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slowrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,787
    Any news out there on when these will be available? My broken Lynskey FS is due back from repair today but I'd rather spend the effort on a durable frame from my favorite builder.

  11. #11
    Got rocks?
    Reputation: desertwheeler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    538
    I stopped by the shop a while back to check out a mixer and i think they are getting closer. They had pieces of ridgebacks all over getting ready.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slowrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,787
    I called them yesterday, they're building now for Mid-late August delivery.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    378
    Any ride reports on these?

  14. #14
    fraid of heights
    Reputation: stiingya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,651
    Can't really blame mtbr for not having something on the bike when Foes website doesn't have any info on the bike other than "pre order now", then nothing else... (I miss the days when bike makers went to Interbike and MTBR.com had all the coverage, it was cool! Course the flip side is we get new bikes all year long now...?)

    The Ridgeback "looks" like a cool bike. Looks to be several out in the wild. But I don't see any testing or reviews yet? Someone mentioned theirs being 2lbs heavier than a 5010. I assume that's a carbon to aluminum comparison. (I think there is also an aluminum 5010 available?) Don't know how much of that was build difference? And don't know enough about the Ridgeback to know if that's an apples to apples comparison to a 5010. (the newest 5010 is longer travel and more aggressive geo so maybe? Sort of almost took over for the last bronson and the bronson got a little bigger/badder, etc.) 2 lbs isn't the end of the world, but it's a higher penalty than I'd expect. Makes me wonder how effective all the machining and assembly work is? I mean it's awesome! No doubt about that... Anyway, would be cool to see some for sure apples to apples weight comparisons.

    The same facebook post on the Ridgeback mentions the weight was worth it because of it pedaling better than the 5010. I know suspension kinematics and dampeners have come a long way and just about any suspension design can be made effective these days. But it would still take some back to back test riding to convince me a linkage driven SP pedals better than a dual mini link bike? (course maybe if it was a first gen 5010/SOLO, but still from all reviews they "pedaled" very well, just could be a little harsh depending on the rider/shock tune)

    Anyway, I could see someone saying it pedals good enough that the difference doesn't matter? But new SC bikes seem to pedal pretty amazing to me?
    Quote Originally Posted by the_owl
    Everytime you ride in mud, god kills a kitten.

  15. #15
    The Fastest of Bananas
    Reputation: FastBanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by stiingya View Post
    Can't really blame mtbr for not having something on the bike when Foes website doesn't have any info on the bike other than "pre order now", then nothing else... (I miss the days when bike makers went to Interbike and MTBR.com had all the coverage, it was cool! Course the flip side is we get new bikes all year long now...?)

    The Ridgeback "looks" like a cool bike. Looks to be several out in the wild. But I don't see any testing or reviews yet? Someone mentioned theirs being 2lbs heavier than a 5010. I assume that's a carbon to aluminum comparison. (I think there is also an aluminum 5010 available?) Don't know how much of that was build difference? And don't know enough about the Ridgeback to know if that's an apples to apples comparison to a 5010. (the newest 5010 is longer travel and more aggressive geo so maybe? Sort of almost took over for the last bronson and the bronson got a little bigger/badder, etc.) 2 lbs isn't the end of the world, but it's a higher penalty than I'd expect. Makes me wonder how effective all the machining and assembly work is? I mean it's awesome! No doubt about that... Anyway, would be cool to see some for sure apples to apples weight comparisons.

    The same facebook post on the Ridgeback mentions the weight was worth it because of it pedaling better than the 5010. I know suspension kinematics and dampeners have come a long way and just about any suspension design can be made effective these days. But it would still take some back to back test riding to convince me a linkage driven SP pedals better than a dual mini link bike? (course maybe if it was a first gen 5010/SOLO, but still from all reviews they "pedaled" very well, just could be a little harsh depending on the rider/shock tune)

    Anyway, I could see someone saying it pedals good enough that the difference doesn't matter? But new SC bikes seem to pedal pretty amazing to me?
    I honestly dont care about 2 pounds at the frame. It matter the least on the frame. My Foes hardtail is about 27 pounds, but feels like when riding.

    I agree though l, the website should have geometry, and more info.

    They, ideally, would have a few test bikes to send to Bike mags, or at least YouTube bike channels to go through. You cant compete with the larger brands without gains some traction with the media channels. At least enough, that when a potential customer Google searches for that bike, it would show up. I am aware that most Foes bikes are repeat customers, but still. The ridgeback has massive curb appeal, is modern, and honestly a great deal. It could be a popular frame. Hell, I want one, and I'm normally into carbon superbikes.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bigdrunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,223
    I just made the switch to an aluminum frame which was 2.75lbs heavier than the carbon one it replaced. The extra weight was nothing......

    Aluminum frames seem to be $800+ cheaper than their counter parts. I would spend the money saved on the aluminum frame on better wheels, brakes, fork, etc. Those 3 things make a much greater difference in the ride than frame weight.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slowrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,787
    I really like the look of this bike but I was expecting it to be a 29/27.5+ compatible design; apparently you have to choose one or the other.

  18. #18
    The Fastest of Bananas
    Reputation: FastBanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by slowrider View Post
    I really like the look of this bike but I was expecting it to be a 29/27.5+ compatible design; apparently you have to choose one or the other.
    I'm pretty sure that's not true. Did you call them?

    It's just 27.5 or 29/27.5+

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sgill32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    121
    I thought I read that the Ridgeback is designed to fit up to 2.6 tires.
    But I can fit a 2.6 on my Mixer Trail with plenty of clearance and the Mixer Trail is supposedly designed for up to a 2.4 tire.
    Curious to know if the Ridgeback 29 is actually capable of fitting 27.5+.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slowrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by FastBanana View Post
    I'm pretty sure that's not true. Did you call them?

    It's just 27.5 or 29/27.5+

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    Yes, I went through the pre-order process with them and they asked if I wanted 27.5 or 29. I may have made up the 27.5+ part, I'm old and I've been shopping a number of bikes but I recall very clearly the tire size question.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    67
    Hey guys! Yeah I've had my eye on that Ridgeback for a while now. On Instagram they stated that it would fit 2.6 inch tires, so likely no plus option for this one. Yeah I wish they'd get their info out a little more. I'm looking for a mid travel aluminum bike to beat up during enduro races to save my carbon top spec trail machine. I may have a chance to visit their shop early next year, will see about taking one out to the trails and perhaps write up a review of no one has by then.

  22. #22
    The dark side is quicker
    Reputation: evilbullit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    170
    I will be picking up my 29er after Christmas. Should be built and riding shortly after new years. I'll follow up with a ride report then.

    I was worried about the rumors of SuperBoost, seems the prototype was 157x12, but production models are 148x12. Awesome!
    "The Truth is Absolution."

Similar Threads

  1. Foes meets Foes 2015
    By matt45 in forum Foes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-27-2015, 09:48 PM
  2. Foes meets Foes 2014
    By matt45 in forum Foes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-16-2014, 08:59 PM
  3. Foes meets Foes 2013
    By matt45 in forum Foes
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-30-2013, 12:42 PM
  4. Moose Mtn Ridgeback
    By jeffscott in forum Western Canada
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-08-2011, 08:27 AM
  5. Calgary Trail Building Day - July 17th - Ridgeback
    By chrissa in forum Western Canada
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-13-2011, 10:53 AM

Members who have read this thread: 82

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 2018 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.