['size]

probably less than 3 or 4 %...that guy is a freakin animal...why even make the comparison....i don't think that many people are so delusional that they think they're drivetrain setup symbolizes whether or not they can hang with weir....

i run 1x9 because i absolutely abhor front derailleurs, and it challenges me to push a little harder, and keeps my bike setup cleaner and simpler....that's all

i might switch to 1X10 to get the 36T rear so i can get through some of the more technical climbs here and there, but all in all i'm pretty content, and i could give a sh:t about looking like mark weir

agreed. i run 1x9 for the same reason (front mech hate) as well as where my main trial rides are the climbs are mostly short and not too steep. momentum goes a long way for most of the short ups and i don't mind pushing a little bit every now and then.

also looking at 1x10 for the same reason.

 

[Mulestar]

Funny, because according to the internet, my trailbike sucks.

It has a 69 or 68 degree HA, depending on fork height. It isn't setup 1x9. It has a BB height of 13 and change. It has 2.2 xc tires and 6 inch brake rotors. It's a single pivot.

But it RIPS. It feels like a slalom bike with 5 inches of travel. The guys that ride 29er's and carbon epics around here look at me like i'm on a DH bike...probably because I ride it like I am. I'll take this thing on 6 hour trail rides with thousands of feet of climbing, then drop the seat and run it down DH tracks with the same setup. Point is, these bikes are meant to pedal, right? The last thing I want to ride for 30 miles and climb 6000 feet in a day is a mini-DH bike with a 66 degree HA, no gears, and flat pedals.

If you think you "can't" rip an AM bike because the head angle is 1 degree too steep, you probably just aren't as good a rider as you think you are. I've seen skilled DHers go stupid fast on XC race bikes with their seats up their asses.

The Ibis is sick, the Blur LT carbon is sick, the yeti asr5 is sick. Things like the black market roam, commencal, etc are sick too, but just not for me. If you want a mini-DH style ride for your trails, great, but don't go blaming the industry for making bikes that are meant to be ridden ALL day on all types of terrain. If the point of a trailbike is to do it all, then why limit yourself to climbing gravel roads and riding down DH trails? There's a lot of sick shredding out there that takes legs and pedalling to find.

Also, don't try to tell me I just don't ride my trailbike as hard as you, because I think my 69 degree HA is working just fine.

By the way, I'm not hating on the guys that want super DH friendly short travel bikes, just saying that's not what ALL DHers want.

 

[tuumbaq]

Again... Banshee Spitfire. Why all the hating? If you want, run it with a Pike and a flush cup and it will be in hte 68degree range AND it has ISCG '05 tabs for a chainguide. Personally I like it with the 66degree ht, 160mm Fox 36 and 2-ring bash setup. There are some STEEP hills around here and the 22/34 gear comes in handy.

Again for the 50th times, absolutely no hating...I have no idea why people seem to think I hate everything...must be my wording.All Im saying is that a few years ago it seemed like the trend suited my style better ( and many other riders that I know )

Never said anything about head angle, I couldnt care less actually, I'll ride anything that has a burly 6" up front and dialed geo.Why is that being pointed out to me ?

I always funny when I hear people in my area they couldnt do without a front derailleur (again most of my gripe with this trend has more to do with travel but it seems like I've opened a can or worm with this topic ) I do fine without a it and NO its not a fade thing...Been doing it well before Mark Weir was an known rider or even Steve Jones talked about it in Dirt ( On a side note, a guy like Jonesy gets to ride 100 bikes every year and he swears by a single ring setup...you'd think the man has a valid opinion on the topic...the guy must be fit as f.ckI guess

Im not that fit, hate the chain slap and I would drop my chain all the time back when I had front derailleurs.Could be the way I ride I guess.

As for staying fresh for the down ,that's a bit weak I'd say.I think everyone can benefit from having stronger legs IMO.I dont feel tired for one bit when I get to the top of trails at the contrary , I feel warmed up and ready to attack.Again,most people I know using front derailleurs end up in an equivalent gear ratio than me on my when going uphills.

I dont care either about tabs on a bike, aside from a Blur 4x , Ive never had a trail bike with the tabs and do fine with the adaptor. I just hate having to pay for a front derailleur and a chainguide on top of it.I understand the need for a front derailleur on an XC bike but I believe it should be offered has an option on burlier/AM bikes or at least be 50/50...Right now, the trend is for XC riders wanting more travel...a few years ago it seemed like it was more for DH riders wanting a trail bike.

I'd be curious to see how many guys on here have actually tried running a single ring setup for a while...It works very well and it makes me wonder how can someone say they couldnt live without a granny ring up front.

 

[jackalope]

This -

Again... Banshee Spitfire. Why all the hating? If you want, run it with a Pike and a flush cup and it will be in hte 68degree range AND it has ISCG '05 tabs for a chainguide. Personally I like it with the 66degree ht, 160mm Fox 36 and 2-ring bash setup. There are some STEEP hills around here and the 22/34 gear comes in handy.

As was discussed ad nauseum in a previous thread, people like different sh!t for different reasons.

I simply do not care if my front wheel wanders a little bit going up a 1:1 slope, or I can make some super tight uphill switchback because my wheelbase is long. In my particular case, 99% of my climbing suckitude is because I'm fat & out of shape, and my bike doesn't weigh 25 lbs.

My priority is on the DH side of things, and more importantly, how comfortable I am on the bike at speed. Can I go fairly fast downhill on a Trance and a 130 mm fork? Sure, but I don't feel that comfortable and believe I have less margin for error. I should also mention that I am total punter, and there are countless monkeys (Mulestar for example) who can absoluetly walk away from me going up or down on their 69* HA trail bikes, but it is because they are 400% better riders than I am. I have ridden numerous classic Pisgah trails with my Spitfire, and when you're going 30 mph+, I wish the damn thing was slacker.

When I got my Spitfire (160 mm fork btw), I felt instantly comfortable on it, as it gave me confidence on medium-biggish gaps, cornering was improved with a still low BB height, and nothing that I have ridden (ranging from a Trance to a Nomad) matches its' DH performance.

And FWIW, I've had the bike almost a year now, and I've replaced 2 bushings.

 

[tuumbaq]

This -




As was discussed ad nauseum in a previous thread, people like different sh!t for different reasons.

I simply do not care if my front wheel wanders a little bit going up a 1:1 slope, or I can make some super tight uphill switchback because my wheelbase is long. In my particular case, 99% of my climbing suckitude is because I'm fat & out of shape, and my bike doesn't weigh 25 lbs.

My priority is on the DH side of things, and more importantly, how comfortable I am on the bike at speed. Can I go fairly fast downhill on a Trance and a 130 mm fork, sure, but I don't feel that comfortable and believe I have less margin for error. I should also mention that I am total punter, and there are countless monkeys (Mulestar for example) who can absoluetly walk away from going up or down on their 69* HA trail bikes, but it is because they are 400% better riders than I am. I have ridden numerous classic Pisgah trails with my Spitfire, and when you're going 30 mph+, I wish the damn thing was slacker.

When I got my Spitfire (160 mm fork btw), I felt instantly comfortable on it, as it gave me confidence on medium-biggish gaps, cornering was improved with a still low BB height, and nothing that I have ridden (ranging from a Trance to a Nomad) matches its' DH performance.

And FWIW, I've had the bike almost a year now, and I've replaced 2 bushings.

This . . . well put

 

[time-bomb]

2 other big things that effect the 1x_____ or 2x____ setup choice:

1. length or ride. if you are riding for 1-2 hours, its a heck of alot easier to push a 32 or 34 or whatever up a couple of hills. if you are riding for 6 hours, well... having a bail out gear gets nice for that long, steep uphill grunt back to your car.

2. elevation. in colorado, if you are riding the epic high alpine stuff, which is were the slack xc bikes thrive (certainly the front range rides don;'t require a 67 HA), tell me you think you can pedal up 12% rocky, loose, technical trail at 12000 or 13000 feet. sure i can ride that stuff all day at 5000 feet in a middle ring, but no way at 12000 or 13000 feet. and i certainly would rather ride up hill in the 24t than push up hill for 3 or 4 hours. (and you certainly want a 67 or less HA, 31" bars, 50mm stem, big brakes and 160+mm travel for the 5000-7000 foot, 10-20 mile, 20-45 minute descent )

I totally agree with this......and for that reason I do both! I may be in my own category on this but I change up my drive train on my trail bike depending on the riding I am doing. If I am going to be out all day and getting pretty far away from the car then I am running a triple/front derailleur set up. If I am just ripping around the local trails for a couple of hours I run a single/chainguide. It is worth the hassle to me to take the time to change out the parts. I may be alone on that but the bike work is part of the fun to me.

edit: back on topic, that ibis is sweet

 

[slowitdown]

2 other big things that effect the 1x_____ or 2x____ setup choice:

1. length or ride. if you are riding for 1-2 hours, its a heck of alot easier to push a 32 or 34 or whatever up a couple of hills. if you are riding for 6 hours, well... having a bail out gear gets nice for that long, steep uphill grunt back to your car.

2. elevation. in colorado, if you are riding the epic high alpine stuff, which is were the slack xc bikes thrive (certainly the front range rides don;'t require a 67 HA), tell me you think you can pedal up 12% rocky, loose, technical trail at 12000 or 13000 feet. sure i can ride that stuff all day at 5000 feet in a middle ring, but no way at 12000 or 13000 feet. and i certainly would rather ride up hill in the 24t than push up hill for 3 or 4 hours. (and you certainly want a 67 or less HA, 31" bars, 50mm stem, big brakes and 160+mm travel for the 5000-7000 foot, 10-20 mile, 20-45 minute descent )

Yeah I agree but I don't think it's limited to 10k elevation. What matters IMO is for how long you pedal, on what kinds of trails. My elevation isn't consistently at or above 10k though I know and have ridden such trails. My thought on elevation is simple: if you live there, you acclimate. So the elevation isn't the key. It's the duration of the climb and the type of the climb.

There isn't any One Best Geometry, but for those of us who like to rip the descent but climb for 5-6 hours to get that 1hr+ descent, a bike that makes climbing more like wrestling and less like pedaling, that's no fun no matter how cool it is to descend on it. And a good rider can descend quickly on a more climb-friendly bike. As I often say, one of the fastest descenders I know, most smooth, most flowy, rides a fully rigid 29er singlespeed. I've watched him easily lead out and leave behind people on full DH bikes. That probably says more about the DH bike riders than anything else, but it makes a good point: if you have skill, you can descend quickly no matter what.

I also understand the desire to have a trail bike that feels more like one's DH bike, but such a bike doesn't seem suited to a 9-hour slog with a ton of steep techie climbing.

It's kinda like doing a long day skinning uphill on Dukes, alpine boots, and fat metal-sandwich skis. You can do it... but why?

 

[ebarker9]

Sounds like what most people want is along the lines of the new Jeckyll...

 

[roel_koel]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuumbaq View Post
Beside the Dixon STILL has a f-ing useless LOUD AS FACK front derailleur.

??

I've been riding a Dixon SP for months, the second available in the UK (the first was one of the bikes from the Interbike Dirt Demo fleet)

mine is a custom build with 2 x 9 gearing running an XTR front derailleur, 28T/36T chainrings with E13 bash and Blackspire Stinger b/b mounted lower chain roller

front derailleur works just fine, crisp shifting even going up steeps, never dropped or jammed a chain, no problems to report??


bike is f*cking amazing, I've owned too many simple single pivots, faux-bars, four-bar horst pivot bikes and short-link virtual pivots

the Split-Pivot suspension is simply transparent and lets you get on with the job of stomping the pedals, getting grip when you need it, and riding the brakes without losing traction

my Dixon custom build (Fox 36 Float RC2 lowered to 150mm) has 66.5 HA, 70 SA and weighs in at 27.4lb with Stans ZTR / Pro II wheels running Specialized Purgatory / Eskar tires on Stans tubeless conversion

drivetrain is sensible mix of XO / X9 / X7 / XTR / SLX HT2 and Easton Haven / Renthal finishing kit with Wellgo Mg1 pedals, WTB Devo Ti saddle, Elixir CR brakes

 

[marshalolson]

My thought on elevation is simple: if you live there, you acclimate. So the elevation isn't the key. It's the duration of the climb and the type of the climb.

what if the mountain tops where you live are 7000-8000+ feet above your house?

 

[slowitdown]

what if the mountain tops where you live are 7000-8000+ feet above your house?

That can be tougher... but still not quite as bad as it is for the sea level people! Imagine going from like 500 ft above sea level, to 10,500!

 

[Chaingangster]

1x FTW!
Front ders are for suckas!

And I resent the Weir-wannabee comment.

 

[ZoRo]

interesting you saying this...cause I dont actually.Im desperate and have no idea what will replace my 2009 Remedy next year.lol

All of those bikes are far too "XC" for where I live...or at least for me anyways. Where are the 6x6 travel bikes gone ? I want either a 36 or Lyric up front ...

Not a whole lot of those out there unfortunately...I mean , they are not "rare" by any means but it seems the trend has gone down to lesser/ weaker travel up front and that just doesn't cut it for me personally.

Ive been running a single ring up front FOR YEARS on several different bikes and they've all pedaled uphill like champs.We are in 2011 now and I cant even think of a single lite duty trail bike speced out with a chain retention device...GAYI though at least by now we'd see a few bikes with a single ring setup and a 10 speeds cog but not even...this is so gay.

That new Blur is a bit of a joke IMO, At least the original 4x came with an optional chain guide, now a wanna be 4x with a 3 rings setup up front ???WTF?

Rode a few different Pitch and they all felt like turds to me...very soft compression and all had flexy noodle forks.Even with a properly tuned rear shock the thing is SOOOOo long and makes me feel like Im driving a school bus.

That Ibis is a beautiful bike though ...

Guess my self and the people I ride with are they only ones missing the slightly bigger trend from 2-3 years ago...

This:

???

 

[slowitdown]

hey Marshal, what are you riding this season? didn't see anything on TGR to suggest what the answer is.

I'm still on my 575 w/ 36 TALAS using the Cane Creek +5mm headset which puts the 160-setting HA at something pretty slack though I never climb at 160, usually at 130 or sometimes 110. Kinda tired of the shock bushings and bearings being such short-timers though. Reminds me of Santa Cruz bikes from the 00s. Do they have a QC problem on their bearing shell alignments?

When's a mfr going to have the balls to run a CS length under 17 or 16.9? How many mfrs do that?

* Special Ed
* Knolly

and that's all. The NukeProof Mega looks okay but 17.3 CS? Jesus.

"Short CS scares me, it feels so unstable!"

"DOOD, learn to ride a bike... learn to pick lines... learn to use the terrain, rather than fearing it!"

And that Ibis says only one thing to me:

EGO!

It may be the only frame in existence that looks like something I'd maybe enjoy a bit, but will avoid because of the huge population of nimrods who buy them for the image, and the image alone. Don't be that guy!

 

[EastCoaster]

Morpheus Loki?

 

[marshalolson]

2010 giant reign x

super stoked on that thing. pedals nearly as well as my old trance x, and decends like any 6-7" park bike. 30.5lbs with a joplin 4, 2.4's and ONE dh brakes. will be the epic ride crusher. stoked for this snow to melt and ride up high, but the resorts are all at 100" bases, so well... august it is!

 

[slowitdown]

2010 giant reign x

super stoked on that thing. pedals nearly as well as my old trance x, and decends like any 6-7" park bike. 30.5lbs with a joplin 4, 2.4's and ONE dh brakes. will be the epic ride crusher. stoked for this snow to melt and ride up high, but the resorts are all at 100" bases, so well... august it is!

Great weight for that spec! Is the Joplin 4 more durable than the 1st gen Joplins? Less nose-wag, better on the rotational stability? I liked my Joplin but the maintenance... annoying... and the keyway wear... ditto.

Remember the general prediction was more snow + warmer temps for the upper Rockies... I'd bet it's going to be a scorcher summer with some heavy raging snowmelt. Good year for kayakers and river-runners. I bet pre-August will be possible. We have the same up here... big snow year, not much rideable now except really low elev stuff that sees sun most of the day. Shade = still snowy, lots of snow under the tree canopies still. Good time to ride a 'cross bike, actually.

 

[syadasti]

2010 giant reign x

super stoked on that thing. pedals nearly as well as my old trance x, and decends like any 6-7" park bike. 30.5lbs with a joplin 4, 2.4's and ONE dh brakes. will be the epic ride crusher. stoked for this snow to melt and ride up high, but the resorts are all at 100" bases, so well... august it is!

Make sure you get the lower link upgrade at your dealer, its a free warranty item...

 

[roel_koel]

When's a mfr going to have the balls to run a CS length under 17 or 16.9? How many mfrs do that?

* Special Ed
* Knolly

and that's all. The NukeProof Mega looks okay but 17.3 CS? Jesus. [/B]

my Devinci Dixon has 16.8" CS in the "low" geometry setting (slacker HA) and 16.7" in the "high" geometry setting (0.5 degree steeper HA)

manuals beautfully down the trail

 

[marshalolson]

Great weight for that spec! Is the Joplin 4 more durable than the 1st gen Joplins? Less nose-wag, better on the rotational stability? I liked my Joplin but the maintenance... annoying... and the keyway wear... ditto.

Remember the general prediction was more snow + warmer temps for the upper Rockies... I'd bet it's going to be a scorcher summer with some heavy raging snowmelt. Good year for kayakers and river-runners. I bet pre-August will be possible. We have the same up here... big snow year, not much rideable now except really low elev stuff that sees sun most of the day. Shade = still snowy, lots of snow under the tree canopies still. Good time to ride a 'cross bike, actually.

The new joplin 4's are 100x better than the old 3" ones. For sure. Really no wiggle etc. I like it for sure. But I have a lever, and want to switch to a remote. So I just ordered a reverb. I am interested to compare.

And yeah i broke the stock link on the first ride, got the new one, no issues in 20-30 rides.

 

[norbar]

hey Marshal, what are you riding this season? didn't see anything on TGR to suggest what the answer is.

I'm still on my 575 w/ 36 TALAS using the Cane Creek +5mm headset which puts the 160-setting HA at something pretty slack though I never climb at 160, usually at 130 or sometimes 110. Kinda tired of the shock bushings and bearings being such short-timers though. Reminds me of Santa Cruz bikes from the 00s. Do they have a QC problem on their bearing shell alignments?

When's a mfr going to have the balls to run a CS length under 17 or 16.9? How many mfrs do that?

* Special Ed
* Knolly

and that's all. The NukeProof Mega looks okay but 17.3 CS? Jesus.

"Short CS scares me, it feels so unstable!"

"DOOD, learn to ride a bike... learn to pick lines... learn to use the terrain, rather than fearing it!"

And that Ibis says only one thing to me:

EGO!

It may be the only frame in existence that looks like something I'd maybe enjoy a bit, but will avoid because of the huge population of nimrods who buy them for the image, and the image alone. Don't be that guy!

But short CS is bad for climbing. Slackish ha + a short CS = front lift at steeper uphills. If you don't ride uphills steep enough you probably don't need a trailbike but a funbike(4x type fully) with an uninterrupted seattube.

 

[tuumbaq]

This:

???

yesssss

 

[ZoRo]

And that Ibis says only one thing to me:

EGO!

It may be the only frame in existence that looks like something I'd maybe enjoy a bit, but will avoid because of the huge population of nimrods who buy them for the image, and the image alone. Don't be that guy!

I concur, when you browse the Ibis pages on MTBR, people stubbornly try to put 70-80mm stems on the Mojo HD! Doooooood.

But the hell, they hired the man ruled to be poser #1 by many to market their bikes (albeit one of the greats of MTB ever) so the correlation with the public buying the bikes is direct! Shiny carbon frames can lure many people with deep pockets and a shallow skillset

 

[slowitdown]

But short CS is bad for climbing. Slackish ha + a short CS = front lift at steeper uphills. If you don't ride uphills steep enough you probably don't need a trailbike but a funbike(4x type fully) with an uninterrupted seattube.

No, I'm afraid that simply isn't true.

Short CS is far superior for all types of climbing.

I don't know anyone who says long CS climbs better in any condition...

...except maybe on a tandem and you're letting the other guy do all the pedaling!

You need to take the Polish Penis Measurement contest somewhere aside from here, norbie. You have no clue what kind of riding I do -- and I assure you it rivals anything you can find in Europe for steepness, technical difficulty, or altitude.

If your bike needs to have its CS extended just to hold the front wheel down, that suggests the frame geometry is off -- at the front end. The handlebar is too high, your hands are too high. And quite possibly, the HA is too slack.

I'm going to assume you're trying to be sarcastic here. How do you imagine the Knolly Endorphin keeps its front wheel down with 16.75" CS? A magic wand in the downtube?

 

[Sandwich]

Agreed, short cs work fine for xc climbing. I suppose a mega long cs might work too, but I don't know that it would be advantageous.

 

[Sam B]

I "like" this comment.

Full info on my perspective... i am running 1x10 with a 32t and 11-36 on my Covert. LOVE it, but in fairness it has fallen short for me a couple times on longer rides. However it's quiet, it is considerably lighter than the front der, etc that I took off, I haven't dropped my chain ever, and it makes my bike feel more like a dh bike knowing my chain is dialed pedalling out of a corner, etc. That being said, i think my Bandit will end up 2x10, at least for a while.

It is silly to argue about the 1x topic. I agree with Pat too on the original topic, trail bikes made for actual pedalling with more aggressive angles and features are rad. "Trail riding" is a lot of fun if you DH and Enduro peeps haven't tried it

Again for the 50th times, absolutely no hating...I have no idea why people seem to think I hate everything...must be my wording.All Im saying is that a few years ago it seemed like the trend suited my style better ( and many other riders that I know )

Never said anything about head angle, I couldnt care less actually, I'll ride anything that has a burly 6" up front and dialed geo.Why is that being pointed out to me ?

I always funny when I hear people in my area they couldnt do without a front derailleur (again most of my gripe with this trend has more to do with travel but it seems like I've opened a can or worm with this topic ) I do fine without a it and NO its not a fade thing...Been doing it well before Mark Weir was an known rider or even Steve Jones talked about it in Dirt ( On a side note, a guy like Jonesy gets to ride 100 bikes every year and he swears by a single ring setup...you'd think the man has a valid opinion on the topic...the guy must be fit as f.ckI guess

Im not that fit, hate the chain slap and I would drop my chain all the time back when I had front derailleurs.Could be the way I ride I guess.

As for staying fresh for the down ,that's a bit weak I'd say.I think everyone can benefit from having stronger legs IMO.I dont feel tired for one bit when I get to the top of trails at the contrary , I feel warmed up and ready to attack.Again,most people I know using front derailleurs end up in an equivalent gear ratio than me on my when going uphills.

I dont care either about tabs on a bike, aside from a Blur 4x , Ive never had a trail bike with the tabs and do fine with the adaptor. I just hate having to pay for a front derailleur and a chainguide on top of it.I understand the need for a front derailleur on an XC bike but I believe it should be offered has an option on burlier/AM bikes or at least be 50/50...Right now, the trend is for XC riders wanting more travel...a few years ago it seemed like it was more for DH riders wanting a trail bike.

I'd be curious to see how many guys on here have actually tried running a single ring setup for a while...It works very well and it makes me wonder how can someone say they couldnt live without a granny ring up front.

 

[norbar]

No, I'm afraid that simply isn't true.

Short CS is far superior for all types of climbing.

I don't know anyone who says long CS climbs better in any condition...

...except maybe on a tandem and you're letting the other guy do all the pedaling!

You need to take the Polish Penis Measurement contest somewhere aside from here, norbie. You have no clue what kind of riding I do -- and I assure you it rivals anything you can find in Europe for steepness, technical difficulty, or altitude.

If your bike needs to have its CS extended just to hold the front wheel down, that suggests the frame geometry is off -- at the front end. The handlebar is too high, your hands are too high. And quite possibly, the HA is too slack.

I'm going to assume you're trying to be sarcastic here. How do you imagine the Knolly Endorphin keeps its front wheel down with 16.75" CS? A magic wand in the downtube?

Chill out man. Nowhere did I claim that I ride gnarlier terrain than you so why do you feel the need to offend me? Because we often disagree? Get over it.

Yes if all the other numbers are made to work with the shorter CS than the bike will handle steeper climbs but comming from an XC background I rode my share of uphill and my share of xc/trailbikes and the CS makes a differance if all the other numers stay the same. It simply brings the mass distribution closer to the rear wheel so the idea that shorter cs = better for climbs is not true. Its ok if all the other numbers are right.
Though your use of Endorphin as an example shows that we talk about different kind of bikes and riding. For a 150mm AM bike shorter CS may be more reasonable than something smaller(travel -wise) and aimed at more/steeper uphills where you are forced to use lower gears and therefore its harder to keep the front down.




btw. My current bike is long, around 67 at 140mm travel and has a 16.9inch cs so its pretty close to what you think I hate. I only notice that after trying some other bikes it could climb steep better.