So you're climbing on a 47lb freeride bike and are saying something about how too slack and low will hamper climbing?Out here in the West, we got rocks. This thread also started out as one-person's idea of the perfect bike, but yesterday on the climb out to (Goat Camp in Phoenix) I killed most of our group on my 47lb highline. One person's "do everything" bike will always be somewhat different from the next.
Hell no. Geometry wins over weight every and any day. Try climbing on a DH bike. It's not the weight, it's the geometry. Even the gearing pales in comparission to the geometry. I'll agree that massive differences in weight can have a big effect, but if we're not talking about 16lbs (because I'm simply strong enough to ride said bike) then geometry will always triumph. Bike manufacturers and shops would LOVE for us to believe that a few lbs saved will somehow allow us to magically keep up with faster riders, but as has always been said: It's the rider, not the bike. I won't even blink an eye to a difference of 5lbs.So you're climbing on a 47lb freeride bike and are saying something about how too slack and low will hamper climbing?
I can think of a bunch of compromises that wouldn't affect my riding as much as an additional 16 pounds of bike weight.
Hell no. Geometry wins over weight every and any day. Try climbing on a DH bike. It's not the weight, it's the geometry. Even the gearing pales in comparission to the geometry. I'll agree that massive differences in weight can have a big effect, but if we're not talking about 16lbs (because I'm simply strong enough to ride said bike) then geometry will always triumph. Bike manufacturers and shops would LOVE for us to believe that a few lbs saved will somehow allow us to magically keep up with faster riders, but as has always been said: It's the rider, not the bike. I won't even blink an eye to a difference of 5lbs.
Seriously? I may be a massively strong rider right now, but geometry wins out every day. I guess all the manufacturers making adjustable travel and lock-down forks are wrong. Weight+good geometry=you can manage. Bad geometry+anything=misery.
Which is why my Morewood Mbuzi is so good.but if I had a DH bike or "mini" DH bike, it would sit and gather dust most of the time and be broken out for weekend shuttles every few weekends or something. With more versatile geometry I can ride a bike every day that I want to and still have something gravity oriented, just not quite as DH oriented.
dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. you're like an "economist," tossing out "data" that doesn't make your argument any better, but does make your argument seem "supported."Top tube measurement is a fairly useless number when looked at independently of the other variables.
it's easy to understand.I guess I'll never understand the whole "I need a 12" BB and 63° HT angle on my 5" bike to descend".
You're making me laugh b/c I ride my slack and low sx everywhere and have done 5000' climb rides with it, 50mm stem and all. It's the most fun trail bike I've owned/ ridden. I've also ridden my Sunday on xc rides. Not fun, but the geometry wasn't what made it tough, the short cranks, gearing, short seatpost and heavy tires did that.Hell no. Geometry wins over weight every and any day. Try climbing on a DH bike. It's not the weight, it's the geometry. Even the gearing pales in comparission to the geometry...
So a bike with a 45 degree seattube angle and a 23" TT will feel like a bike with a 90 degree seat tube angle and a 23" TT? I think his point is that you have to consider lots of other variables aside from just the TT length to interpret what it means in terms of the ride of the bike.dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. you're like an "economist," tossing out "data" that doesn't make your argument any better, but does make your argument seem "supported."
top tube length determines your reach to the handlebar. if you've never had a bike with a too-short or too-long top tube then you have no clue what its importance is, but you haven't "proved" it's irrelevant. you've only "proved" that you don't know its relevance.
Or maybe they prefer something different from you. Amazing, but true...it's easy to understand.
it's all about e-riders regurgitating what they think will "prove" they are hardcore DH riders. but they only thing they're proving is that they are good at following fads.
these discussions always bring out a whole fleet of morons who think they know how bikes work, but who post thoughts that prove the opposite.
...and a 5" travel bike is NOT a downhill bike. ummm that's why it doesn't have 8" travel, eh?How does a 65* HA and 13"ish BB limit a rider's ability to climb to the top of a trail? I think the point here is that DHers typically will be willing to sacrifice a bit of "tight, twisty, seated climbing" ability for downhill stability. This is the Downhill forum.....
nope, you missed the point too. it's not about my choice being in control, nimrod. it's about the real effect of top tube length on bike handling. if you don't feel that effect as TT length changes, it means only that you don't have the same body awareness. that's no big deal, a lot of people have skills but no idea how they got those skills or how they play out.Or maybe they prefer something different from you. Amazing, but true...
dude how the fuggg did you get that from what I said?So a bike with a 45 degree seattube angle and a 23" TT will feel like a bike with a 90 degree seat tube angle and a 23" TT?
Wow!dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. you're like an "economist," tossing out "data" that doesn't make your argument any better, but does make your argument seem "supported."
top tube length determines your reach to the handlebar. if you've never had a bike with a too-short or too-long top tube then you have no clue what its importance is, but you haven't "proved" it's irrelevant. you've only "proved" that you don't know its relevance.
And wow again!some of you fools should try framebuilding some time. it would help your ignorant selves learn a bit about the subject we're discussing here.
They will feel different because the seat would hit your knees in a different spot.Do you think that these bikes will ride drastically different?
nope, you missed the point too. it's not about my choice being in control, nimrod. it's about the real effect of top tube length on bike handling. if you don't feel that effect as TT length changes, it means only that you don't have the same body awareness. that's no big deal, a lot of people have skills but no idea how they got those skills or how they play out.
if TT length was irrelevant then there would be no need to change the TT length and every bike would have the same length. why isn't every TT the same length?
some of you fools should try framebuilding some time. it would help your ignorant selves learn a bit about the subject we're discussing here.
You're making me laugh b/c I ride my slack and low sx everywhere and have done 5000' climb rides with it, 50mm stem and all. It's the most fun trail bike I've owned/ ridden. I've also ridden my Sunday on xc rides. Not fun, but the geometry wasn't what made it tough, the short cranks, gearing, short seatpost and heavy tires did that.
IMO, steep and tall isn't fast, and I'd trade some discomfort climbing for a bike that can rail the dh. If you get more out of climbing, then maybe you're on the wrong forum...
Also your slacker angled bike will be harder to pedal up steeps, for your butt will be positioned 1" further in the back, making you more prone to tip down the hill, thus causing more discomfort.They will feel different because the seat would hit your knees in a different spot.
Don't think the location of the seat and where it hits your legs is important when riding? Take your seat and seat post off and go try to rip a trail.
As I said in a earlier post. Horizontal seat position is easily adjustable.They will feel different because the seat would hit your knees in a different spot.
Don't think the location of the seat and where it hits your legs is important when riding? Take your seat and seat post off and go try to rip a trail.
It had quad bearings at every pivot. Still didn't feel very stiff, and surely not as stiff as the thru-axle pivots that Turner used...how could it be? Pivots 1" wide vs pivots 5" wide...alot more support offered. That's just my take though.The geometry is listed with a 140mm fork.
Did your Bruja have quad bearings? This bike feels as stiff as my old 6pack, but then again I'm not a big guy.
...and a 5" travel bike is NOT a downhill bike. ummm that's why it doesn't have 8" travel, eh?
DH race geometry + 5" travel = the equivalent of an SUV for driving on asphalt.
Start a new bike company called "SoCal" bikes.In response to your quoted comment; many of us here in SC and surrounding areas have said for years and years now, that our perfect bike would be a 5 or 6 inch bike with DH geo and an xc seat angle/seat-tube length. You can call that bike whatever the heck you like, but I've wanted one since '01 or '02
.
Start a new bike company called "SoCal" bikes.
Sorry, I wasn't sure what it was, if it was SoCal, Santa Cruz, South Carolina, Southern Comfort, etc...Sir, I take that as a direct slight... an insult of the highest order!
Santa Cruz is most definitely not SoCal. I live less than a mile from NHS, makers of all fine NorCal products...
.
Noob. Everyone knows Southern Comfort is referred to as SoCo. Duh.Southern Comfort, etc...
Sorry, I wasn't sure what it was, if it was SoCal, Santa Cruz, South Carolina, Southern Comfort, etc...
Bucko- your bikes are always the ****....but these angles already exist and work well. Why are people hating on geo they have never ridden?
130mm travel fork with a 66° HA
fun in the corners
...but these angles already exist and work well. Why are people hating on geo they have never ridden?
130mm travel fork with a 66° HA
You sound like you want the same as me. In addition to this I think that Lyrics or 36s are overkill for this sort of thing so want a bike that is sorted with Pikes on the front.I don't want a mini DH bike. I want an appropriate, modern-geometry mountain bike. Something with a reasonable amount of travel and well-rounded geometry. You can call it all-mtn, XC, enduro or whatever the f#@k you like. I call it a mountain bike 'cause that's what it is. A bicycle made to ride in the mountains, over and around rocks and logs and through turns of varying radii, camber and traction, both uphill and down, for hours on end. mountain biking. end of story.
8 pages of stupid later...
Back to my post on page 1. You don't want a 6" AM bike, or an average XC bike with a lyrik or 36 on the front, or a 46lb freeride bike with 'the right numbers' because you actually ride xc(?), or a silly 'slopestyle' bike with a short and slack seat tube thats impossible to pedal without standing up. You simply want an xc bike you can pedal all day with slacker-than-norm angles because your a ex-downhill racer. You still climb, you still want to cover ground, you just don't feel comfortable on a traditional trail bike. I get it. I've been riding these bikes for years. None of the ones I've ridden exist is "stock" form. I've always put a pike, revelation 140, or a slightly shorter shock on to achieve the angles I wanted.
Be careful what you wish for. It doesnt matter if its light, or pedals well, because in my experience going slacker than 67.5 will turn the bike into a complete dog. These bikes inherently require more gas to ride well on flat and uphill terrain, and beyond that angle you've stopped riding xc and started pedaling simply for the downhills. XC bikes aren't dh bikes, and there really is a point where the bike is too low, too slack, and completely not worth the effort.
The bikes I've owned are the Blur 4X, which would be my first recommendation and fits your application like the last piece of a jigsaw puzzle. You'll need to watch ebay, because it was discontinued. They still pop up in excellent shape online, and parts are still available for them. Mine sat at approximately 67.5, 45" WB, and 13.25" bb.
I also owned a Giant TranceX with a Pike, and Revelation 140. It sat at 68.5 and 68 with each fork, with the other geometry strikingly close to the 4X. It was noticeably steeper, but was a much better climbing and cornering bike. You probably would like the 4X more.
The last was a Giant Reign with a .3" shorter-than-stock i2i shock. The headangle matched with the 4X, and it sat at 13.0" flat. Unfortunately I don't have a picture. You would like this bike though.
I really don't see why you need advice from ridemonkey on this subject. You seem to know what you want. When I know what I want, I don't ask for peoples opinion or input. Jump on manufacturer websites, look at the numbers and the AC forks they are spec'd with, and play the comparison game.