2018 RM Altitude

PB Forum :: Rocky Mountain Bikes
2018 RM Altitude
Author Message
flag wpautz
O+
Posted: Aug 2, 2017 at 15:11 Quote
NHCheef wrote:
map-guy wrote:
I cant offer much on the Carbon vs. Aluminum debate other than for me it's the value versus weight/stiffness plus I wont be heartbroken if someone scratches my aluminum frame while loading up the truck for shuttle runs.

As for size, I am 5'11 with 32 inseam and find the large to be a bit of a struggle still. Wish I had tried a medium frame to know for sure. It's probably just the new longer reach and wheelbase that I cant get used to.

Thanks for the reply. At this point I think I'd go with the A70 build... weight is never a major concern of mine (I can always stand to lose a few lbs that would negate the weight difference between alu and carbon) and I'd rather go for the higher spec components.

What did you ride before your Altitude? I'm on a large Kona Precept 130 and the reach is 460 with a 1172 wheelbase. I'm running a 60mm stem. The medium Altitude has an almost identical wheelbase at 1179 but is 25mm shorter in the reach in the neutral setting. Maybe that's what was giving me discomfort? Really wish I could have demoed a large as the reach is almost identical to my Kona.

I'm thinking of getting the A70 as well. I'd rather spend the money on components rather than carbon.

But I have the same sizing concerns. I'm 5'11", average inseam as far as I know (girlfriend swears my size is normal down there!)

I currently ride a 2014 Norco Sight, in Medium. I'm happy with the size and feel of my bike. The sizing charts of the current Norco Sight, and of the Santa Cruz Bronson, would place me on a Large. Those are the two other bikes I'm considering for my old man North Shore riding. They are the rare other brands that offer high-end components on Aluminum.

The RM sizing chart places me exactly between the Medium and Large frame sizes. I'm told to go with the Large and perhaps swap the stem for a shorter one? What else could I do to tweak the sizing?
flag Foxy87
Posted: Aug 2, 2017 at 15:31 Quote
I am 5'9'' and would go with the medium but anything taller than that I would get the large.

How do you wanna change the stem to any shorter when the OEM is already 35mm..?
flag napguy
FL
Posted: Aug 3, 2017 at 7:01 Quote
[Quote]What did you ride before your Altitude? I'm on a large Kona Precept 130 and the reach is 460 with a 1172 wheelbase. I'm running a 60mm stem. The medium Altitude has an almost identical wheelbase at 1179 but is 25mm shorter in the reach in the neutral setting. Maybe that's what was giving me discomfort? Really wish I could have demoed a large as the reach is almost identical to my Kona.[/Quote]

I had a 2014 Banshee Spitfire and 2015 Rune with 160mm forks and 50mm stems. Both before Banshee they made their reach adjustments as well. I had a couple rides on a large Kona process and it felt long to me too. Everyone has weird measurements so if the numbers are right for you it should make sense!
flag napguy
FL
Posted: Aug 3, 2017 at 7:07 Quote
[Quote]

I'm thinking of getting the A70 as well. I'd rather spend the money on components rather than carbon.

But I have the same sizing concerns. I'm 5'11", average inseam as far as I know (girlfriend swears my size is normal down there!)

I currently ride a 2014 Norco Sight, in Medium. I'm happy with the size and feel of my bike. The sizing charts of the current Norco Sight, and of the Santa Cruz Bronson, would place me on a Large. Those are the two other bikes I'm considering for my old man North Shore riding. They are the rare other brands that offer high-end components on Aluminum.

The RM sizing chart places me exactly between the Medium and Large frame sizes. I'm told to go with the Large and perhaps swap the stem for a shorter one? What else could I do to tweak the sizing?[/Quote]

Haha! I rented a 2015 carbon sight and that bike was fun! It was a large and felt perfect so again I seem to have some weird dimensions going despite similar heights to others here.
flag napguy
FL
Posted: Aug 10, 2017 at 10:13 Quote
Awesome to see the new Altitude featured on the PB home page today.
Always feels good to see your bike get some cool coverage. Between Remi Gauvin and Jesse Melamed, their doing a good job of it this year!

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/remi-gauvin-the-inaugural-pinkbike-hot-lap.html
Destroying
flag wpautz
O+
Posted: Aug 10, 2017 at 15:47 Quote
OK, apart from size, I now have another dilemma. Turns out that money doesn't grow on trees.

There is a $1000 difference between the A50 and the A70. Any thoughts on whether the upgrades are worth the money?

Upgraded components include:

Fork:
A50: Fox 36 Float EVOL Grip Performance 160mm
A70: Fox 36 Float EVOL FIT4 Performance Elite 160mm

Shock:
A50: Fox Float DPS EVOL Performance
A70: Fox Float DPX2 Performance Elite

Handlebar:
A50: Race Face Chester 780mm
A70: Race Face Turbine R 780mm

Brakes:
A50: Shimano SLX 180mm
A70: Shimano XT Ice-Tec 180mm

Brake Levers:
A50: Shimano SLX
A70: Shimano XT

Shifters:
A50: Shimano SLX
A70: Shimano XT

Rear Derailleur:
A50: Shimano XT
A70: Shimano XT (same)

Cranks & Chainring:
A50: Race Face Aeffect Cinch 32T Steel
A70: Race Face Turbine Cinch 32T

Hubs:
A50: Shimano SLX Boost
A70: Shimano XT Boost
flag napguy
FL
Posted: Aug 11, 2017 at 6:20 Quote
wpautz wrote:
OK, apart from size, I now have another dilemma. Turns out that money doesn't grow on trees.

There is a $1000 difference between the A50 and the A70. Any thoughts on whether the upgrades are worth the money?

Upgraded components include:

Fork:
A50: Fox 36 Float EVOL Grip Performance 160mm
A70: Fox 36 Float EVOL FIT4 Performance Elite 160mm

Shock:
A50: Fox Float DPS EVOL Performance
A70: Fox Float DPX2 Performance Elite


For the shock and fork alone probably worth the extra $1000.
flag Nicksen
O+ FL
Posted: Aug 11, 2017 at 17:49 Quote
Yep, I agree with map-guy. Thaths exactly why I went for the A70. The 2018 36 FiT4 is darn good. Had a pike and a lyrik to compare on other bikes and the 36 is maybe not as supple as the RS forks, but overall better in terms of support and tracking through gnarly lines. Still fiddling with the shock but overall impressed. In terms of brakes and components, xt and slx isn't much different imo.
flag bike2850
O+
Posted: Aug 14, 2017 at 12:14 Quote
Foxy87 wrote:
So just got to read a big Enduro test in a german Bike Magazin. They went to the MEGAVALANCHE with 7 bikes (Jekyll, Strive, Hightower LT, Yeti, Nukeproof, Spec Enduro, Altitude C90) and tested them throughout during their time in alp d'huez.

The Altitude C 90 got reviewed as "very Good" and ended up in 5th Position. Jekyll, Strive Hightower LT, Yeti got a "Great" with the Jekyll beeing the winner closely followed by the strive and the Yeti.

They stated the Altitude was one of the most playful bikes they have ever ridden and that its great fun. But they didnt put the race plate on it to ride the race because they thought the Altitude has just a not quiet enough travel for the really rough and steep Megavalanche track. It wasnt as stable on highspeed as the other bikes were. They wrote one can put it in slack mode to achieve more stableness but this minimizes travel even further, so it wasnt the right choice for the Megavalanchetrack.

I was there too and saw the guys testing the bikes and I for myself was overwhelmed with the track as well at how gnarly, fast and rough it was. I rode the track with my 2015 Trek Slash 9.8 with 160/160 and there were a few times that I thought I reached the bikes Limits or thought a bit more travel could be of Good use. So I am a bit disappointed that they stated the altitude is not that potent/burly and confirmed what I feared. I know it is still an "aggressiv trail" bike, but I shure hoped it to be a Enduro race bike, which it clearly isnt according to this test.

I am now a Little bit on the fence. I will definitely ride this race again and dont want a bike that is less burly/potent than my Slash, but then again I dont want a bike that feels "too much" 95% of the time apart from the Megavalanche...

So Slayer after all?? I think the Altitude is the most beautiful bike out there and I wouldnt use the Slayer in the bikepark, as I have a Propain Rage Carbon for this. So just buying the Slayer for the Megavalanche track while for all the other time the altitude would be enough or even the better choice...? Really cant decide *arrghhhh*
the Altitude just won the EWS whistler race so.....
flag bike2850
O+
Posted: Aug 14, 2017 at 12:18 Quote
NHCheef wrote:
I test rode a C70 a month ago and absolutely loved it. Needless to say it's on the shortlist for my next bike. As much as I liked the C70 build it's a bit over my budget of ~$4,500. I've never owned a carbon bike and it's not a make or break requirement for my next bike either... so my dilemma is should I go for the C50 build or the A70 build? The DPX2, 36 FIT4 and XT everything on the A70 build have me favoring it over the C50 but I'm wondering if I should go for the carbon.

Anyone care to give me their $0.02 on which build I should pursue?

Lastly, I'm 5' 10" with a 30-31" inseam. I rode a medium at the demo day as the large was out with someone else. I definitely felt a llittle cramped on the medium and my lower back was a bit sore after an hour or so in the saddle. Anyone with similar body dims to mine riding a medium? As it stands now I think I'd go for a large. I like a roomier bike even with my stubby legs.
i have the a50 and it is plenty capable the drive train and suspension are great for the price point and if i am honest no one needs the nicer suspension most people just don't ride that hard.
flag bike2850
O+
Posted: Aug 14, 2017 at 12:21 Quote
wpautz wrote:
NHCheef wrote:
map-guy wrote:
I cant offer much on the Carbon vs. Aluminum debate other than for me it's the value versus weight/stiffness plus I wont be heartbroken if someone scratches my aluminum frame while loading up the truck for shuttle runs.

As for size, I am 5'11 with 32 inseam and find the large to be a bit of a struggle still. Wish I had tried a medium frame to know for sure. It's probably just the new longer reach and wheelbase that I cant get used to.

Thanks for the reply. At this point I think I'd go with the A70 build... weight is never a major concern of mine (I can always stand to lose a few lbs that would negate the weight difference between alu and carbon) and I'd rather go for the higher spec components.

What did you ride before your Altitude? I'm on a large Kona Precept 130 and the reach is 460 with a 1172 wheelbase. I'm running a 60mm stem. The medium Altitude has an almost identical wheelbase at 1179 but is 25mm shorter in the reach in the neutral setting. Maybe that's what was giving me discomfort? Really wish I could have demoed a large as the reach is almost identical to my Kona.
i would go with the large the medium feels a little smaller than most mediums so the large should fit nice.

I'm thinking of getting the A70 as well. I'd rather spend the money on components rather than carbon.

But I have the same sizing concerns. I'm 5'11", average inseam as far as I know (girlfriend swears my size is normal down there!)

I currently ride a 2014 Norco Sight, in Medium. I'm happy with the size and feel of my bike. The sizing charts of the current Norco Sight, and of the Santa Cruz Bronson, would place me on a Large. Those are the two other bikes I'm considering for my old man North Shore riding. They are the rare other brands that offer high-end components on Aluminum.

The RM sizing chart places me exactly between the Medium and Large frame sizes. I'm told to go with the Large and perhaps swap the stem for a shorter one? What else could I do to tweak the sizing?
flag DonLopez
Posted: Aug 14, 2017 at 12:44 Quote
I am 5-11; get the large. My Altitude is large and perfect size while my Element is medium and slightly small...Don
flag Foxy87
Posted: Aug 15, 2017 at 9:36 Quote
bike2850 wrote:
Foxy87 wrote:
So just got to read a big Enduro test in a german Bike Magazin. They went to the MEGAVALANCHE with 7 bikes (Jekyll, Strive, Hightower LT, Yeti, Nukeproof, Spec Enduro, Altitude C90) and tested them throughout during their time in alp d'huez.

The Altitude C 90 got reviewed as "very Good" and ended up in 5th Position. Jekyll, Strive Hightower LT, Yeti got a "Great" with the Jekyll beeing the winner closely followed by the strive and the Yeti.

They stated the Altitude was one of the most playful bikes they have ever ridden and that its great fun. But they didnt put the race plate on it to ride the race because they thought the Altitude has just a not quiet enough travel for the really rough and steep Megavalanche track. It wasnt as stable on highspeed as the other bikes were. They wrote one can put it in slack mode to achieve more stableness but this minimizes travel even further, so it wasnt the right choice for the Megavalanchetrack.

I was there too and saw the guys testing the bikes and I for myself was overwhelmed with the track as well at how gnarly, fast and rough it was. I rode the track with my 2015 Trek Slash 9.8 with 160/160 and there were a few times that I thought I reached the bikes Limits or thought a bit more travel could be of Good use. So I am a bit disappointed that they stated the altitude is not that potent/burly and confirmed what I feared. I know it is still an "aggressiv trail" bike, but I shure hoped it to be a Enduro race bike, which it clearly isnt according to this test.

I am now a Little bit on the fence. I will definitely ride this race again and dont want a bike that is less burly/potent than my Slash, but then again I dont want a bike that feels "too much" 95% of the time apart from the Megavalanche...

So Slayer after all?? I think the Altitude is the most beautiful bike out there and I wouldnt use the Slayer in the bikepark, as I have a Propain Rage Carbon for this. So just buying the Slayer for the Megavalanche track while for all the other time the altitude would be enough or even the better choice...? Really cant decide *arrghhhh*
the Altitude just won the EWS whistler race so.....

No, not really. Jessies bike has a different shock with offset bushing that should give him about 165-170mm reartravel. Dont compare it to the stockbike, its not the same unfortunately.
flag bike2850
O+
Posted: Aug 16, 2017 at 19:32 Quote
Foxy87 wrote:
bike2850 wrote:
Foxy87 wrote:
So just got to read a big Enduro test in a german Bike Magazin. They went to the MEGAVALANCHE with 7 bikes (Jekyll, Strive, Hightower LT, Yeti, Nukeproof, Spec Enduro, Altitude C90) and tested them throughout during their time in alp d'huez.

The Altitude C 90 got reviewed as "very Good" and ended up in 5th Position. Jekyll, Strive Hightower LT, Yeti got a "Great" with the Jekyll beeing the winner closely followed by the strive and the Yeti.

They stated the Altitude was one of the most playful bikes they have ever ridden and that its great fun. But they didnt put the race plate on it to ride the race because they thought the Altitude has just a not quiet enough travel for the really rough and steep Megavalanche track. It wasnt as stable on highspeed as the other bikes were. They wrote one can put it in slack mode to achieve more stableness but this minimizes travel even further, so it wasnt the right choice for the Megavalanchetrack.

I was there too and saw the guys testing the bikes and I for myself was overwhelmed with the track as well at how gnarly, fast and rough it was. I rode the track with my 2015 Trek Slash 9.8 with 160/160 and there were a few times that I thought I reached the bikes Limits or thought a bit more travel could be of Good use. So I am a bit disappointed that they stated the altitude is not that potent/burly and confirmed what I feared. I know it is still an "aggressiv trail" bike, but I shure hoped it to be a Enduro race bike, which it clearly isnt according to this test.

I am now a Little bit on the fence. I will definitely ride this race again and dont want a bike that is less burly/potent than my Slash, but then again I dont want a bike that feels "too much" 95% of the time apart from the Megavalanche...

So Slayer after all?? I think the Altitude is the most beautiful bike out there and I wouldnt use the Slayer in the bikepark, as I have a Propain Rage Carbon for this. So just buying the Slayer for the Megavalanche track while for all the other time the altitude would be enough or even the better choice...? Really cant decide *arrghhhh*
the Altitude just won the EWS whistler race so.....

No, not really. Jessies bike has a different shock with offset bushing that should give him about 165-170mm reartravel. Dont compare it to the stockbike, its not the same unfortunately.

Your right I didnt notice the travel was increased but i was surprised why they went more travel but still the altitudes geometry.
flag napguy
FL
Posted: Aug 17, 2017 at 8:55 Quote
Jesse was testing a new airsick from FOX that was custom built for his Altitude. It is longer than the stock shock to give the bike a bit travel and tuning options. Jesse chose to run it softer and with more sag than his usual setup and had the shock tuned specifically to take advantage of the progressive ending stroke of an air spring.

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/air-vs-coil-jesse-melamed-and-remi-gauvins-shock-options.html

Ok just so i'm clear on this set up:

8.5 x 2.5 shock with offset bushings and position 1 with the ride 9?

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.013519
Mobile Version of Website