Bird Aeris owners thread

Author Message
Posted: Oct 13, 2019 at 4:57 Quote
edvin-m wrote:
Check the a2c. Someone asked about using a dual crown fork a ehile ago in the fb grpup and someone from bird replied that as long as the a2c is less than a 170 mmlyric its fine Smile

Now to the real question, how does it compare to a single crown fork?

Axle-to-crown lengths are exactly the same. There may have been a restriction on fork length for the XL ... or was that only for the AM9? Either way, it really depends on the rider's weight and riding habits, but manufacturers have to provide clear guidelines, even if the actual use cases vary tremendously.

I'm also interested to hear feedback on the Bartlett.

Posted: Oct 13, 2019 at 11:04 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
edvin-m wrote:
Check the a2c. Someone asked about using a dual crown fork a ehile ago in the fb grpup and someone from bird replied that as long as the a2c is less than a 170 mmlyric its fine Smile

Now to the real question, how does it compare to a single crown fork?

Axle-to-crown lengths are exactly the same. There may have been a restriction on fork length for the XL ... or was that only for the AM9? Either way, it really depends on the rider's weight and riding habits, but manufacturers have to provide clear guidelines, even if the actual use cases vary tremendously.

I'm also interested to hear feedback on the Bartlett.

I did ask Bird about it and here's the reply I got:
"Hi Siri, the frame is not warranted for the use of dual crown forks. As you will appreciate they do transmit more force through the frame than a single crown - whether that would cause issues we can't say without testing further, sorry.

Ben"

The A2C at 180mm is actually within the specs for the frame though, so I don't really foresee any problems running it like this.

As for how the Bartlett itself, I'm very happy with it. Mostly because I find single crowns way too flexible for my weight (~90-100kg usually) and style of riding, the Bartlett is as solid as any dedicated DH fork.
I've got the ramp control dialed up quite a bit, don't remember the specifics, but it is set up very progressive, so much so that I've only really bottomed out on a couple of occasions where I did some really stupid stuff and/or crashed.
After a whole season of riding it is still feeling rock solid and smooth, only done a quick lower leg oil change that I don't even think was necessary. I'm going to do a complete end of season rebuild soon-ish,so I'll know the state of it a bit better then.

Posted: Oct 13, 2019 at 12:32 Quote
SiriW,

Thank you for your thoughts on the Bartlett.

Regarding frame stress and manufacturers' specs: The actual specs have so many assumptions put into them. Unfortunately, people usually follow the spec absolutely, while overlooking the most important factors. For example, I've met many people who feel the bike should be invincible if the fork has the maximum recommended amount of travel, but 10 mm more and the bike would be dangerous to ride as a road bike.

I've met riders from about 60 kg - 120 kg who share this belief, but clearly the latter will be putting roughly double the stress on the bike, while 10 mm of fork length is roughly 1% more stress at full extension - and the same length at bottom-out. Maybe it also implies a more aggressive riding style; even so, it's only a portion of the total stress estimation.

Anyway, the point is that you should probably check your frame for cracks a little more often than most of us here!

Posted: Oct 13, 2019 at 14:02 Quote
Is anyone running a ML AM9 with a One Up dropper (ideally the 210)? I'm keen to double check if I will be able to slam it right down in the frame. Initial testing suggests it may bottom out at 270mm, total insert length is 297 with actuator..

Posted: Oct 15, 2019 at 8:18 Quote
RE tyre sizing

2.5 aggressor on 35 mm is ok
2.5 minion dhf on same 35mm rim is pretty buzzy and wouldn't recommend

Currently got the HRII in 2.5 (or 2.4 possibly, whatever the WT variant is) on the 30mm rim and that is fine. Haven't had loads of time on it yet though as currently out with a broken ankle.

Had 2.6 butchers on for a while - as stated by R-M-R they are way smaller than marked. Something like a 2.35 magic mary and no issue with clearance on the back. Ditto the purgatory

Posted: Oct 16, 2019 at 7:49 Quote
clamps81 wrote:
RE tyre sizing

2.5 aggressor on 35 mm is ok
2.5 minion dhf on same 35mm rim is pretty buzzy and wouldn't recommend

Currently got the HRII in 2.5 (or 2.4 possibly, whatever the WT variant is) on the 30mm rim and that is fine. Haven't had loads of time on it yet though as currently out with a broken ankle.

Had 2.6 butchers on for a while - as stated by R-M-R they are way smaller than marked. Something like a 2.35 magic mary and no issue with clearance on the back. Ditto the purgatory

Is that on the AM9? Good info thanks!

Posted: Oct 16, 2019 at 11:27 Quote

Here's my 145lt earlier this year before the weather caught up...love it! originally demoed a 120 at Swinley but glad I went for the 145. Chose a medium over anything longer and its a pretty good balance between flickable and stable... Changed a few bits since I first brought it and its pretty much spot on for me now.

Posted: Oct 17, 2019 at 13:02 Quote
Hi there, I’m hoping that I can get some help from you all about which bike will work best for me out of the 145, 120 and the 120LT. I’m not going to get an opportunity to test them I’m afraid.

I’m 5’8” and 63kg so not a big rider. I ride mountain routes, local trails and trail centres. I do enjoy riding the downhill hard and that’s kind of the whole point for me, but I also enjoy long days out in the fells here in the Lakes as well as more cross-country type full-day rides.

I’ve got a few questions, here they are!

1: I’m torn between the 145 and the 120/120 LT. My heart says the 145 for the fun element but my head suggests the 120. Is the 120LT a step between the two? If so, how much lower is the bottom bracket than the 120 as I’m concerned about hitting pedals etc?

2: If I did go for the 120 or 120 LT, I wonder though whether 140mm is ‘enough’ on the front for me for Lakes riding and easier enduros given my weight?

3: I’m also wondering whether I need to bother upgrading the rear shock given the rocky riding in the Lakes, but like I say I’m only light?

4: Finally I’m in between an M and ML in the 120 and at the bottom end of ML in the 145 but I hear it’s a big bike. Where should I put myself? I hear that both are long bikes so do I size down? Is the standard stem length a good shout?

Any help of advice you could offer would be amazing. I’ve read this whole thread and it’s been mega useful but I’m still not sure!

Thanks!

Posted: Oct 18, 2019 at 3:09 Quote
Hi, is there anybody that can share some experience with the new AM160? I understood that there are slight differences to the previous 145 LT. Comparison with AM9 or other bikes would be most welcome as I've read a lot good about AM9 recently. I would rather stick to the smaller wheels though. From what I've seen, I like this bike but I probably would not be able to test it so any information is welcome. Thanks.

Posted: Oct 18, 2019 at 15:08 Quote
kerak wrote:
Hi, is there anybody that can share some experience with the new AM160? I understood that there are slight differences to the previous 145 LT. Comparison with AM9 or other bikes would be most welcome as I've read a lot good about AM9 recently. I would rather stick to the smaller wheels though. From what I've seen, I like this bike but I probably would not be able to test it so any information is welcome. Thanks.

Ive ridden both bikes in a large (ive got an am160 frame on order so bias may apply lol) the am9 is an absolute beast of a bike and the rollover is unrivaled with it being a very well sorted 29er enduro bike, my only issue with it was the fact that on tighter and twistier trails it was a bit like trying to parallel park a limousine, it also takes quite a decent amount of effort to get up to speed. the am160 was just as fast in my opinion and i found it easier to ride and get up to speed (smaller wheels, lower moment of inertia etc) because of that you can push it alot harder, easier i found. its more fun to ride at the expense of slower race times (if that matters to you). actual physical differences between 160 and 145lt are mainly more mud clearance between the seatstays and chainstays and the cable routing is slightly different. if you want an all out enduro machine that eats steep gnarly trails, get the am9. if you want something that wants to get airborne all the time and can smash corners like no tomorrow, get the am160.

Posted: Oct 19, 2019 at 8:16 Quote
I finally managed to work out how to squeeze the essentials onto the bike, which should mean less faff, i can just grab the bike and go !




Posted: Oct 20, 2019 at 7:02 Quote
I'm not really getting the strap-all-the-things-to-your-bike trend. What's the advantage? I just have a bag ready with all the things in that I put on my back. Nothing rattles, gets dirty or falls off.

Posted: Oct 20, 2019 at 8:52 Quote
A lot of people dislike riding with a bag, I have tried both camps and have returned to a bag as I find I can carry much more water and haribo, especially in winter when an extra layer can be useful. For shorter rides I will ditch the bag and just go with a bottle and a multi tool. It's all personal preference at the end of the day.
Joemmo wrote:
I'm not really getting the strap-all-the-things-to-your-bike trend. What's the advantage? I just have a bag ready with all the things in that I put on my back. Nothing rattles, gets dirty or falls off.

Posted: Oct 21, 2019 at 6:43 Quote
pdono325 wrote:
kerak wrote:
Hi, is there anybody that can share some experience with the new AM160? I understood that there are slight differences to the previous 145 LT. Comparison with AM9 or other bikes would be most welcome as I've read a lot good about AM9 recently. I would rather stick to the smaller wheels though. From what I've seen, I like this bike but I probably would not be able to test it so any information is welcome. Thanks.

Ive ridden both bikes in a large (ive got an am160 frame on order so bias may apply lol) the am9 is an absolute beast of a bike and the rollover is unrivaled with it being a very well sorted 29er enduro bike, my only issue with it was the fact that on tighter and twistier trails it was a bit like trying to parallel park a limousine, it also takes quite a decent amount of effort to get up to speed. the am160 was just as fast in my opinion and i found it easier to ride and get up to speed (smaller wheels, lower moment of inertia etc) because of that you can push it alot harder, easier i found. its more fun to ride at the expense of slower race times (if that matters to you). actual physical differences between 160 and 145lt are mainly more mud clearance between the seatstays and chainstays and the cable routing is slightly different. if you want an all out enduro machine that eats steep gnarly trails, get the am9. if you want something that wants to get airborne all the time and can smash corners like no tomorrow, get the am160.

Thanks, you've essentially confirmed what I expect. I would like to go for playful since fun is the key factor for me. I like steep gnarly trails but I like to play with the bike and prefer twisty and fun line over sending it down in a straight line. Seems that AM160 is the right choice Smile May I ask how tall are you? To have some basis for size estimation.

Posted: Oct 21, 2019 at 9:17 Quote
kerak wrote:
pdono325 wrote:
kerak wrote:
Hi, is there anybody that can share some experience with the new AM160? I understood that there are slight differences to the previous 145 LT. Comparison with AM9 or other bikes would be most welcome as I've read a lot good about AM9 recently. I would rather stick to the smaller wheels though. From what I've seen, I like this bike but I probably would not be able to test it so any information is welcome. Thanks.

Ive ridden both bikes in a large (ive got an am160 frame on order so bias may apply lol) the am9 is an absolute beast of a bike and the rollover is unrivaled with it being a very well sorted 29er enduro bike, my only issue with it was the fact that on tighter and twistier trails it was a bit like trying to parallel park a limousine, it also takes quite a decent amount of effort to get up to speed. the am160 was just as fast in my opinion and i found it easier to ride and get up to speed (smaller wheels, lower moment of inertia etc) because of that you can push it alot harder, easier i found. its more fun to ride at the expense of slower race times (if that matters to you). actual physical differences between 160 and 145lt are mainly more mud clearance between the seatstays and chainstays and the cable routing is slightly different. if you want an all out enduro machine that eats steep gnarly trails, get the am9. if you want something that wants to get airborne all the time and can smash corners like no tomorrow, get the am160.

Thanks, you've essentially confirmed what I expect. I would like to go for playful since fun is the key factor for me. I like steep gnarly trails but I like to play with the bike and prefer twisty and fun line over sending it down in a straight line. Seems that AM160 is the right choice Smile May I ask how tall are you? To have some basis for size estimation.

im 6ft (185cm) the large i rode had a 170mm dropper on it with no post showing out the seat tube along with 170mm cranks and it was absolutely perfect for me.


 
Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.018187
Mobile Version of Website