[GrapeApe79]

This thread has inspired me to take mine to the shop today and get it weighed. Mine is a small Rotec with some lighter components, although I think my 2.7 Nevegals with DH tubes kind of cancels out the lighter weight stuff. I'll post when I have the weight of my ride.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Yup, it's meant to be similar to Kawa green but a little darker I would like it to be Kawa green sic colour

There's a guy here that had his done in Kawa green...and another one that was done in a little darker green with gold specks....both sick paint jobs. Another guy did his with a color matched rear triangle in XTR grey. It r0x0rZ yer b0x0rZ.

 

[Mike Buell]

are you sure george? geoffs bike definitely felt a bunch heavier than mine and mine is 42# with nearly all lighter parts (including 2.35 nevegals and xc tubes)

not bashing, im just wondering. anyways, every single time i rode his bike it worked flawlessly...which is not something i could ever say about mine.

I don't doubt his bike is in the 43lb rang, mine weighs in at 45.0 lbs currently with a very overbuilt parts list, including saint cranks, bullet proof peadles, mavic 729 wheels built with strait gauge spokes, 2.5 maxis tires, middle weight tubes. Etc.

The 14lb wight listed for the Rotec frame is for the Large frame with aluminum axle, 5th element shock and steel spring.
Small Rotec with axle shock and ti spring is 12.8lbs, my medium with axle shock and ti spring is about 13.3lbs
The rotec is really not that heavy of a frame set, remember that many manufactures list their frame weights with nothing else included, like axle or shock.

 

[sanjuro]

Whatever you do, don't get a Sunday. Someone wrote it pedaled poorly.

 

[Bobodaclown]

There's a guy here that had his done in Kawa green...and another one that was done in a little darker green with gold specks....both sick paint jobs. Another guy did his with a color matched rear triangle in XTR grey. It r0x0rZ yer b0x0rZ.

Ahhhh I'd love to see some pics of those bikes! I think I've seen pics of the XTR grey one-I'm not keen on it but it doesn't look bad. If I don't like the colour I can always just get it repainted but I want something I like from the start....canary yellow with metal flake or Kawa green or perhaps polished -although polished sometimes looks tacky...I like how the F1 looks good polished.

I'm quite excited about getting one I've been out for the last two seassons with a shoulderr injury an various other problems so will be good to get on a bike again.

 

[sbabuser]

You are only slightly correct in your above referenced statement. The geometry has nothing to do with helping the bike stick to the ground. Does the geometry of a pizza box help to stick it to the ground? How about the geometry of a Christmas tree? The Earth's gravity is what keeps the bike on the ground. You probably already knew this. I know what you are trying to say. The suspension helps to absorb and damp the forces being applied to the bicycle as you ride or jump over various terrain. Additional weight creates more work the shock system must damp, but all things being equal, additional weight also creates more friction between the tires and the ground, as well as more momentum once you get moving. Suspension systems are extremely complicated from a design point of view and each one attempts to solve an even more complicated problem. At the end of the day, all that matters is that you have fun on your bike, and all I was trying to say is that the Rotec is a great bike and the weight is a non-issue, even for a 120# rider.

You are only slightly, no wait, completely wrong to compare the geometry of a bicycle to that of a pizza box. The geometry of the bike can completely change how effective the suspension is. And weight, which does help give traction in a straight line, does nothing desireable when moving off that straight line, or braking or accellerating. One more time: how many vehicles in other sports do you see adding weight for performance purposes? Carbon fiber and aluminum are plentiful in motorsports for a reason...
And weight is relative. I, at 185 lbs, riding a 44 lb bike is comparable to a 120 lb rider on a 28.5 lb bike. If you're not going to put your bike on a diet, then weight training sounds like a good idea if you want to be competitive...

 

[FactoryCostcoDH]

Not to butt in, but vehicles in other sports, such as dirtbiking, use extra weight as a beneftit. A good example would be an xr650 (the bike most commonly used in the baha 1000). The extra weight makes the bike feel more stable when they reach speeds around 100 mph. The added weight can come from stronger, more reliable parts as well, meaning less chance of equipment failure and a safer ride when pushing it. I completely agree with what you said in the above post, but weight is somewhat of a double edged sword. It's more of a rider's preference thing, not better or worse than someone elses bike. Just my .02

 

[sbabuser]

I've been out of motocross for awhile, but I know they used to have a minimum weight allowable, in order to keep the factory guys from having too much advantage over the rest of the pack (b/c they could afford to dump huge $$ into the bike to make it uber light). Seems like it was around 215lbs or so? Light weight is an advantage for any sport where you need to maneuver the vehicle. I know that added weight as ballast is used for cars reaching maximum velocity (ever seen World's Fastest Indian?), but I think a dh course that was just for top speed (no tech/ jumps) would suuuuuck.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I've been out of motocross for awhile, but I know they used to have a minimum weight allowable, in order to keep the factory guys from having too much advantage over the rest of the pack (b/c they could afford to dump huge $$ into the bike to make it uber light). Seems like it was around 215lbs or so? Light weight is an advantage for any sport where you need to maneuver the vehicle. I know that added weight as ballast is used for cars reaching maximum velocity (ever seen World's Fastest Indian?), but I think a dh course that was just for top speed (no tech/ jumps) would suuuuuck.

Yeah...the Kamikaze blowz ass...lthumbsdown: [/sarcasm]

 

[sbabuser]

Yeah...the Kamikaze blowz ass...lthumbsdown: [/sarcasm]

Oh, I'm sorry, I left a part out of my statement:
I think a dh course that was just for top speed (no tech/ jumps or corners) would suuuuuck.

Note that I said, "I think" which means that is my opinion. If you're all about going fast in a straight line on a smooth surface, don't let me rain on your parade, and by all means, add all the ballast you can carry....

 

[dhspeedster]

I thought that I would just pop up here with my views. Yes, I may be a trifle biased (UK Team Leader) but after racing for 9 years and currently riding Expert DH in the UK and Europe I have certainly had the oppertunity to ride a fair number of bikes on a large variety of courses.

My Rotec weighs in currently at 43.5lbs with Diablous cranks, steel springs F+R and Maxxis full-fat tubes, tyres and 729 rims with Hadleys (which, contrary to popular opinion over here, are pretty damn heavy). I found that when setup with the 40% sag that Progressive recommend that it was way too soft. Even with a 400lb on there (at 12.5 stone) I found it was still too soft. i am currently running a 450 and that lends to a sprightly nature for the bike. Although a little heavier frame wise than the M1 that i had previously (or even an M3 for that matter), I got sick fed up of replacing the chainstays and seatstays on the M1. I mean, there's a reason that they are light. There are also a whole raft of the M3's failing over here in the hands of some not so heavy racers.

As what weight there is is placed low down on the frame there are no noticeable detractions from the ride because of it but get to somewhere like Fort William and the increase in stiffness is hugely apparant. The strength of the frame is such that i am perfectly happy to run the same frame for a second season with no worries about reliability. After doing 20+ races and riding virtually every weekend on it for the past 14 months I have done no more than replace the bearings on the floater... That has been jetwashed 5-6 times with a petrol pressure washer virtually every weekend in that time too. It is a simple, solid and reliable bike that works well on all the terrain I have ridden it on.

With Hannah's bike over here, the frame was a Small and set up for a lighter rider so consequently, when anyone heavy got on it, their weight automatically compressed the rear suspension massively which then led to a rear heavy feel. Once set-up for the terrain you're riding and your weight it is a very flickable and balanced ride.

Over here, tracks can have some pretty flat, tight and slow turns (usually all in one go!) which can lead to a bike feeling it's weight. I can honestly say that I have not noticed any weight issues on this sort of track, regardless of SPD's or flats...

 

[GrapeApe79]

Just want to say I weighed my Rotec (small frame) at a shop and it came in at 44.5 pounds...very light components like carbon fiber bars and seatpost, super light seat, sram xo components, fox 40. But then, I've got a heavy wheel set and run 2.7 Nevegals front and back.

 

[GrapeApe79]

You are only slightly, no wait, completely wrong to compare the geometry of a bicycle to that of a pizza box. The geometry of the bike can completely change how effective the suspension is. And weight, which does help give traction in a straight line, does nothing desireable when moving off that straight line, or braking or accellerating. One more time: how many vehicles in other sports do you see adding weight for performance purposes? Carbon fiber and aluminum are plentiful in motorsports for a reason...
And weight is relative. I, at 185 lbs, riding a 44 lb bike is comparable to a 120 lb rider on a 28.5 lb bike. If you're not going to put your bike on a diet, then weight training sounds like a good idea if you want to be competitive...

Well, first of all captain know-it-all, I'm a girl, so strength training won't increase my weight a whole lot, and, since my competition consists of other chicks, I hardly think gaining weight is necessary. With that said, the Rotec is the bike that I feel most comfortable with and allows me to go faster than any other bike ever has. I highly doubt that many of my competitors bikes weigh in much lighter, so whats the big deal??? If you have issues with heavier bikes, maybe you should look at your own skillset first...

I agree, carbon fiber is the hot ticket, not just because it is light, but because it is STRONG, and I have plenty of it on my bike. There is a fine line where a bike can be too heavy depending on how its weighted, but in my opinion, the Rotec just doesn't cross that line. I would not want a 28.5 pound DH bike because I wouldn't be able to carry as much momentum through rough sections as with a 44 pound bike.

By the way, I did not compare the geometry of a pizza box to that of a bicycle. I was responding to your previous statement "Uh, the suspension and geometry helps the bike stick to ground and track, additional weight from the bike itself just makes more work for the shock and fork..." trying to explain that the geometry itself does not help the bike stick to the ground. The geometric design, as well as suspension design, working together, help to absorb imparted forces while riding. Gravity is what ultimately makes the bike stick to the ground. In a zero gravity environment, does the geometry of bike X make it stick better than bike Y? This has turned into a flame of semantics and its not worth anymore of my time.

 

[sbabuser]

That's Uncle Know-it-all to you..
When I said weight training, I meant working out with weights, not trying to bulk up.

And if it's all gravity, then why do shocks have sag/ negative travel? Why have shocks at all?
Suspension is what keeps your tires on the ground and in control, gravity is just what's pulling you downhill.

 

[GrapeApe79]

Why do shocks have sag/negative travel? To overcome friction caused by the sealing surfaces. Why have shocks? To absorb the bumps...the net result is to go faster. If suspension keeps your tires on the ground, then how to bmx bikes stay on the ground???????????

 

[sbabuser]

Negative travel is so that your wheel will track the ground when the ground falls away. Maybe you're getting confused with why air shocks have negative chambers, which is to overcome the initial stickiness in their stroke.
Bmx bikes race on smooth groomed courses. They don't keep good contact between the tires and ground when the ground is rough.

Think of the difference b/t a heavy and light bike as this: Take a 10 lb dumbbell and hold it at arms length in front of you. Someone can smack the weight and move it sideways fairly easily. The heavier that weight is, the less easily they can knock it sideways, but also the tougher it is for you to return it to its previous position and the more work you will do holding it in front of you. This is the dynamics behind why a light bike is superior (given the same quality of travel) to a heavier bike.

 

[GrapeApe79]

Uh, I wouldn't want my DH bike to be knocked sideways easily...I'd rather have it be solid and stable and carry momentum throught the rough stuff.

 

[Dogboy]

Suspension is for traction. Period.

 

[GrapeApe79]

Suspension is for traction. Period.

Thank you!

 

[sbabuser]

Uh, I wouldn't want my DH bike to be knocked sideways easily...I'd rather have it be solid and stable and carry momentum throught the rough stuff.

So you'd rather it didn't turn, stop or accellerate as easily, so long as it helps give you momentum downhill. Brilliant!

And what dogboy said - that's a really short version of what I said. Maybe if I'd have shortened it you'd have thanked me?

 

[GrapeApe79]

So you'd rather it didn't turn, stop or accellerate as easily, so long as it helps give you momentum downhill. Brilliant!

And what dogboy said - that's a really short version of what I said. Maybe if I'd have shortened it you'd have thanked me?

I'm not concerned about it accelerating (that's what gears are for) or stopping (that's what disc breaks are for), I mostly care about maintaining my speed on the DH courses I like to ride.

You did NOT say that suspension was for traction, period, like DogBoy, you said suspension helped the tires stick to the ground, which is what gravity does. You previously stated that the geometry and suspension help the bike stick to the ground...does the geometry of a pizza box help the bike stick to the ground? NO, gravity does.

You win though!

 

[sbabuser]

So if the tires don't stick to the ground, how exactly do you get traction?

 

[GrapeApe79]

Did I ever say that tires DON'T stick to the ground??? No, I just said that its not the suspension that causes them to stick to the ground, its gravity...and extra weight creates more friction between the tires and the ground, making the bike feel more stable at high speed, which was my entire original point, that you tried to argue. You keep changing what you are arguing about.

 

[frorider]

Suspension is for traction. Period.

sorry, physics just called, and said you were wrong. he was concerned you'd be upset to hear that, but i assured him you'd take it pretty well.



suspension also helps preserve forward momentum. and traction, of course.

ride a rigid fork bike on a descent with some square-edge rocks, and feel the impact as it tries to bounce your bike back up the hill.

 

[GrapeApe79]

sorry, physics just called, and said you were wrong. he was concerned you'd be upset to hear that, but i assured him you'd take it pretty well.



suspension also helps preserve forward momentum. and traction, of course.

ride a rigid fork bike on a descent with some square-edge rocks, and feel the impact as it tries to bounce your bike back up the hill.

Yes, momentum can be an outcome of a good suspension design, but I think that Dogboy was just trying to simplify the argument that suspension is for traction, not keeping the tires on the ground.

 

[hungryleprican]

grapes apes goin at it

 

[dropmachine]

My rotec weighed 14 pounds, with a steel axle, swinger 4 way with steel spring. I could give a **** less.

Amazing how stupid people get over stupid things like weight, while disregarding how much fun the bike is, how durable, whether its a good time, good value, blah blah. I mean, what if the Sunday weighed 15 pounds? Is it all of a sudden not racable? Of course not, it would still rock the hill, just chubby.

Half the guys bitching should worry more about learning to ride then worry about shaving a pound off thier frames.

 

[dropmachine]

BTW, the rotec rocks. I guarantee a huge, stupid smile on yer face after your first run on it. It may be a little bit heavier then is cool these days, but good god is it ever a fun goddam bike.



BTW, rear suspension is not for traction, keeping tires down, acceleration, or any of that other bull****. ITs purely for impressing chicks when you bounce up and down on it in the parking lot. You all new or something?

 

[GrapeApe79]

^^^well, it does have 9"!

 

[Bobodaclown]

BTW, the rotec rocks. I guarantee a huge, stupid smile on yer face after your first run on it. It may be a little bit heavier then is cool these days, but good god is it ever a fun goddam bike.



BTW, rear suspension is not for traction, keeping tires down, acceleration, or any of that other bull****. ITs purely for impressing chicks when you bounce up and down on it in the parking lot. You all new or something?

lol thats last bit cracked me up!

 

[sbabuser]

Uh, I wouldn't want my DH bike to be knocked sideways easily...I'd rather have it be solid and stable and carry momentum throught the rough stuff.

So why do you have any light parts on your bike then? If heavier is better, then lots heavier should be lots better. Fill the frame with water, run lead tubes and sand in your pockets!

 

[FlipFantasia]

So why do you have any light parts on your bike then? If heavier is better, then lots heavier should be lots better. Fill the frame with water, run lead tubes and sand in your pockets!

stop being an arrogent douche already.....