Enduro/AM - The Weight Game

PB Forum :: Pinkbike Groups
Enduro/AM - The Weight Game
Author Message
Posted: Mar 25, 2020 at 8:56 Quote
Client9 wrote:
I have a 2002 Turner XCE frame for sale.
How can I determine it's value?

Depends whether you find a buyer who thinks bikes haven't changed in decades Wink

Posted: Mar 25, 2020 at 9:40 Quote
Charlie Cunningham s first bicycle CC Proto is in the Marin Museum of Bicycling

That Pace is one of my favorites.

If we're going to talk prescient, you have to use a photo of this bike. Charlie Cunningham built this bad mother ducker in 1978!!! That's like, before mountain biking was invented.

- Aluminum (meanwhile, everyone else was using steel)
- Compact diamond frame (w/ a toptube that sloped downwards)
- Custom oversized seatpost with zero offset (at the time, the longest post were 180mm. So frame builders in this era had long seat tubes. Charlie just made his own post. )
- Steep 73 degree STA (what do you think the STA was on a klunker?)
- 1x drive train, FD have always been stupid
- Custom wide range freewheel (what, freewheel? Yeah. a 13-34 5 speed)
- Boost f*cking spacing (110 up front, instead of 100. 135 rear, instead of 125)
- Lifetime warranty

This dude also invented roller cam brakes, was one of the WTB cofounders (helped invent the modern system for analyzing mtb tire tread), and helped invent v-brakes

For reference, here's a Breezer from the same year.
photo

O+
Posted: Mar 25, 2020 at 9:43 Quote
Whoa whoa whoa, I said they haven't changed much in the last decade.

20 years old is different than 10 years old.

Unfortunately that Turner is at a weird point where it's new enough not to attract a collectable status, but old enough that most enthusiasts don't have interest.

Probably worth between $300-$500.

I got $250 for a 1990 Cannondale full suspension, frame only.

O+
Posted: Mar 25, 2020 at 9:45 Quote
Will the Grim Donut go down as a bike we look at 10 years from now and go "revolutionary" or "before it's time!"

Posted: Mar 25, 2020 at 10:00 Quote
PHeller wrote:
Will the Grim Donut go down as a bike we look at 10 years from now and go "revolutionary" or "before it's time!"

We’ll never know if nobody rides it...

Posted: Mar 25, 2020 at 10:11 Quote
Circe wrote:
Charlie Cunningham s first bicycle CC Proto is in the Marin Museum of Bicycling

That Pace is one of my favorites.

If we're going to talk prescient, you have to use a photo of this bike. Charlie Cunningham built this bad mother ducker in 1978!!! That's like, before mountain biking was invented.

- Aluminum (meanwhile, everyone else was using steel)
- Compact diamond frame (w/ a toptube that sloped downwards)
- Custom oversized seatpost with zero offset (at the time, the longest post were 180mm. So frame builders in this era had long seat tubes. Charlie just made his own post. )
- Steep 73 degree STA (what do you think the STA was on a klunker?)
- 1x drive train, FD have always been stupid
- Custom wide range freewheel (what, freewheel? Yeah. a 13-34 5 speed)
- Boost f*cking spacing (110 up front, instead of 100. 135 rear, instead of 125)
- Lifetime warranty

This dude also invented roller cam brakes, was one of the WTB cofounders (helped invent the modern system for analyzing mtb tire tread), and helped invent v-brakes

For reference, here's a Breezer from the same year.
photo

That bikes seatpost has offset. It's in the bend of the post just not at the head of the post. Also all road bikes and touring bikes had 73 seattubes. And so did some of the Japanese mtbs at the time.

Posted: Mar 25, 2020 at 10:26 Quote
PHeller wrote:
Whoa whoa whoa, I said they haven't changed much in the last decade.

20 years old is different than 10 years old.

I don't know ... the first generation RFX is almost identical to a 2010 Stumpjumper, which, I'm told, is pretty similar to modern bikes! Razz


Circe wrote:
[Charlie Cunningham CC Proto, 1978]

Charlie Cunningham was a visionary in our sport. It's amusing that monstercross has just reinvented this bike - for all the same reasons. Some cases of "regression" are examples of evolution due to elimination of a weak link in the chain. For example, we're seeing bikes with reduced travel because modern geometry - and, to a lesser extent, tires, wheels, dropper posts, and suspension quality - allow a bike to be ridden hard without excess travel to mask other shortcomings. Monstercross is just a rediscovery of mountain biking via the same evolutionary pathway that led us here in the first place, filling the void that was left when mountain bikes graduated to the burly things we currently ride.

O+
Posted: Mar 25, 2020 at 10:54 Quote
I told my buddy who's got a YT Jeffsy that he loves despite living someplace mostly flat (although technical and rocky) about YT's teasing a shorter travel bike.

His response: "Why?"

I assume that's because he still finds it hard to believe how good that 150mm bike pedals.

Posted: Mar 25, 2020 at 11:16 Quote
PHeller wrote:
[ ... ] he still finds it hard to believe how good that 150mm bike pedals.

True, and the Jeffsy isn't even an above-average example of how modern bikes can combine efficiency and travel.

We used to measure the "capability" of a bike by its travel and we perceived - with varying degrees of accuracy - efficiency as inversely proportional to travel. It was a balance between efficiency and capability: lug around as much travel as you could tolerate, in terms of weight and squish, and enjoy the reduced sketchiness on descents.

Now, less than a kilogram separates a stout, 120 mm bike from some 180 mm bikes, both have steep seat-tube angles, and long-travel bikes barely squish when pedaling (seated, at least). Instead of asking "why not have more travel, since it still pedals fine?" and implying more travel equals more capability, we can have plenty of capability at nearly any travel and we have to evaluate how much travel according to our desired level of responsiveness.

Think of a bike trials vs. moto trials. Both can be hopped, but the trials bike can be moved around with almost imperceptible movements, while hopping a trials motorcycle around requires movements more akin to preparing for a box jump workout.

Posted: Mar 25, 2020 at 13:08 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
PHeller wrote:
[ ... ] he still finds it hard to believe how good that 150mm bike pedals.

True, and the Jeffsy isn't even an above-average example of how modern bikes can combine efficiency and travel.

We used to measure the "capability" of a bike by its travel and we perceived - with varying degrees of accuracy - efficiency as inversely proportional to travel. It was a balance between efficiency and capability: lug around as much travel as you could tolerate, in terms of weight and squish, and enjoy the reduced sketchiness on descents.

Now, less than a kilogram separates a stout, 120 mm bike from some 180 mm bikes, both have steep seat-tube angles, and long-travel bikes barely squish when pedaling (seated, at least). Instead of asking "why not have more travel, since it still pedals fine?" and implying more travel equals more capability, we can have plenty of capability at nearly any travel and we have to evaluate how much travel according to our desired level of responsiveness.

Think of a bike trials vs. moto trials. Both can be hopped, but the trials bike can be moved around with almost imperceptible movements, while hopping a trials motorcycle around requires movements more akin to preparing for a box jump workout.

Had an fun group ride on some enduro-lite terrain this past weekend, all shop guys from a few different brands. Megatowers, new reigns, couple of slashes, fuel ex, and a top fuel and trance 29. Funny thing is, all of us were still surprised that everyone hung without issues on the climbs and descents. Lots of trading bikes back and forth since they’re all new stuff. My trance and the top fuel were noticably sketchy on the steepest rough chutes, and the coil megatower kinda sucked in tight climbs, but we were all pretty stoked on just how plain capable everything is. Sure, I like a firmer ride, and some people like a bit more left over in the tank for suspension, but it’s gonna be really interesting to see what people are buying in a few years with all these travel brackets. I hope people give shorter travel another chance, and give some honest thought to what most of their riding is.

Posted: Mar 25, 2020 at 13:49 Quote
parkourfan wrote:
[ ... ] we were all pretty stoked on just how plain capable everything is. [ ... ] I hope people give shorter travel another chance, and give some honest thought to what most of their riding is.

Having that choice is the great thing about the convergent evolution we're seeing. Most bikes are pretty good on most terrain, so we can choose a hop-and-pop or just-hold-on-and-smash-through-it experience with only minor to moderate compromises elsewhere.

How I usually explain it: for a given level of skill, geometry determines what you can ride and travel determines how fast you can ride it.

Posted: Mar 25, 2020 at 14:09 Quote
R-M-R wrote:

How I usually explain it: for a given level of skill, geometry determines what you can ride and travel determines how fast you can ride it.

Very succinct, I like it. And yeah, I can't understand how people don't believe that we're straight up spoiled for choice in style of bike and price range more now than ever. More than a few people on the FP complaining about too many (seemingly) necessary gadgets and gizmos on cheap bikes are spreading things too thin though.

Posted: Mar 25, 2020 at 14:11 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
PHeller wrote:
[ ... ] he still finds it hard to believe how good that 150mm bike pedals.

True, and the Jeffsy isn't even an above-average example of how modern bikes can combine efficiency and travel.

We used to measure the "capability" of a bike by its travel and we perceived - with varying degrees of accuracy - efficiency as inversely proportional to travel. It was a balance between efficiency and capability: lug around as much travel as you could tolerate, in terms of weight and squish, and enjoy the reduced sketchiness on descents.

Now, less than a kilogram separates a stout, 120 mm bike from some 180 mm bikes, both have steep seat-tube angles, and long-travel bikes barely squish when pedaling (seated, at least). Instead of asking "why not have more travel, since it still pedals fine?" and implying more travel equals more capability, we can have plenty of capability at nearly any travel and we have to evaluate how much travel according to our desired level of responsiveness.

Think of a bike trials vs. moto trials. Both can be hopped, but the trials bike can be moved around with almost imperceptible movements, while hopping a trials motorcycle around requires movements more akin to preparing for a box jump workout.

Jeffsys do pedal well, but I agree it's nothing out of the ordinary.

I agree we're getting to a point where the only reason to have a shorter travel bike is handling. A 120-140mm bike with slightly more traditional geo will handle great and be a riot on nearly any trail, where as a 160-180mm bruiser needs things to get pretty steep and gnarly before it even wakes up.

My buddy had a Scott Genius that was 170mm front and rear that weighed like 12.7kg (28lbs). I literally couldn't believe how little it weighed. Most Norco Optics will likely weigh more than that.

Posted: Mar 25, 2020 at 14:22 Quote
tom666 wrote:
Jeffsys do pedal well, but I agree it's nothing out of the ordinary.

Exactly my point: ordinary is pretty good. Add a few degrees to that seat-tube angle and a bit more anti-squat and a 150 mm bike will out-climb a cross-country race bike from a decade ago.


tom666 wrote:
Scott Genius

Yep, that's the bike that shocks people. The frame is three pounds lighter than some short-travel bikes. Different price points, mind you, and a heavier frame with a bit more anti-squat and steeper seat-tube angle may be faster on climbs, but those changes don't have to weigh anything and Scott has already done the hard part of figuring out how to make such a light frame.

O+
Posted: Mar 25, 2020 at 14:27 Quote
I would love to see a deep dive into where they are saving so much weight on those Scott frames.


 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.041349
Mobile Version of Website