Video: Transition Announces Carbon Patrol Coming This Fall

 @Tigergoosebumps: A Nicolai Geometron G1 is 1.5 lb lighter than the aluminum Patrol, which is 1.3 lb heavier than the carbon Patrol - so, slightly closer to the latter than the former.

There certainly have been some past Nicolai models that were designed like they were trying to create scarcity in the aluminum market, which make the sensible weights of their other models seem light.

 @Tigergoosebumps: Nicolai/geometrons are overbuilt but incredibly strategically so. My XL Geometron is almost 2lbs lighter than my buddies size L Commencal Meta and my old XXL Sentinel!

 @drjonnywonderboy: True, Transition isn't the only brand with a surprisingly heavy aluminum frame.

 Or prioritize carbon for the "enduro race bike" full 29" Spire first (which they know they'll sell a lot of) while testing take-up of the alloy Patrol "fun" frame before investing in "carbonizing" it. Makes a lot of sense to me.

 The current patrol Al is 4.63kg?

 I lugged around a 38lb alloy Spire for a few weeks as I was waiting for my Orbea Rallon which tipped the scales at 31.5lbs. Let me tell you almost 7lbs differences freaking noticeable. I do like the short and steep seat tubes on the Transitions - but no way around that their bikes carry about 5 extra burritos in the frame that you can't eat.

 @nurseben: Latest Trance X alu is full 27.5 and has some good geo to go with it, too.

 @smoothmoose: but weight doesn't matter according to pinkbike.

 1, cut a hole in a box 2, put your junk in that box 3, make her open the box And that's the way you do it

 @smoothmoose: Impossible! I get told all of the time that weight doesn't matter.

 duplicate

 @wyorider I appreciated this one

 @SunsPSD: Only by those who cant or dont want to make light frames

 I bought one of the alloy ones last year, was an XL but with full XT, factory 36’s and decent wheels it weighed 17kg - think the ol marketing department were on the shrooms calling it a trail bike

 I had a 2019 carbon GX patrol szL. I really liked that bike. It weighed about 31lbs with the stock build and exo+ tires. It was barely used when I paid $4k for it at the end of ‘19. Ah the good ol’ days.

 @txcx166: It's still wild to me how light my 2019 carbon patrol is compared to all of my friends' new enduro rigs. Really don't see a reason to get rid of it anytime soon.

 @wyorider: somehow I pictured a guy with his cock in a downtube hole then

 people seem to have an incredible boner for this brand right now. which, hey, to each their own, but are the bikes any better than Norco, Spesh, and a few other Horst designs...?

 @shredddr: Yes in some aspects, no in others. It's a good question and depends on a person's priorities. I'd like to address one thing, though: comparing bikes with the same suspension layout.

Some Horst bikes have nearly the lowest anti-squat on the market. Some have nearly the highest. Some have nearly the least progressive motion ratio curves. Some have nearly the most. Some are stiff and some are noodles. The same can be said of various bikes with two short links or other layouts.

It's not about the suspension layout, it's about how it's configured. There's no need to restrict a comparison to Horst vs Horst, without considering SS (short & short links), LL, etc. Two bikes with LS (long & short, such as Horst) linkages with vertically mounted shocks could be the most different bikes in the world, and there are LS bikes that are extremely similar to some SS.

Go ahead and compare a Transition to a Rotec, and compare both of them to a Banshee. Price is the universal basis for comparison, so evaluate the ride experience you get - everyone wants something different - for a given budget, or compare the incremental return on investment between bikes with different prices.

 @shredddr:

That would be quite the shootout. Only horst link bikes that start with "S"!

Sentinel vs Stevo vs Spectral vs Sight.

 and the lightest 150 or 160mm travel frame on the market is...?

 @peterman1234: If I recall, a Last Tarvo can be at or slightly under 2 kg with some options. 165 mm, EFBE Level 5 (DH) certification.

 @Compositepro: reach carefully when you've gotta grab something from your downtube stash box.....

 @wyorider: yeah I reckon you could be right

 @smoothmoose: I had no idea I needed to use burritos as a weight measurement until today.

 @peterman1234: The Scott Genius would have to be close.

 @littleskull99: Yes and no. It doesn't matter if you are counting grams and ounces...or even 1lb or even kilo. But when you talk about multiple pounds or kilos - it adds up. I generally agree that the anti-squat and shock tune will have a bigger impact on how the bike climbs. All other things being equal - the pig is going to behind the stallion. The Spire I had has decent amount of anti-squat and so does the Rallon, but the Spire drops off through the travel. And there was something off with shock tune on that beat. Both the weight and suspension tune made it sluggish. Plus that bike was just too long/big for my style of riding. The Rallon is more to my liking.

 @j-p-i: How about bottles of maple syrup or poutine? I'm a Canadian expat living in California - so burritos are the right unit of measurement here - or tacos if we are talking about lighter weight parts ;-)

 @evehmeyer: There is absolutely no reason. I thought I wanted something more nimble and got an offering that I still have, but it has a coil and 160 fork so what did I accomplish? Then I bought an enduro and put another 11/6 on it. I have them both and they’re great but what am I doing to myself? The system is a trap to trick you into buying stuff you don’t really need and I’m apparently all in. Of course I’m smiling as I type this, but it’s true!

 LOL. Though the "fun" categorization is deserved imo. And I can say my "heavy" alloy Spire is a hoot to ride.

 @smoothmoose: LOL. 38lbs!? my Orbea Rise weighs that! is transition putting fishing weights in the bb or something, or was it spec'd purposefully with the heaviest possible componentry at every corner of the bike??

 @smoothmoose: ewww people buy orbeas?

 My XXL alloy Spire is heavy af, 38ish lbs. I understand why people would look elsewhere, or scoff at the weight. A true pig. But surprisingly playful platform when you get going. Still waiting for all this extra weight to make my days on the bike terrible and no fun. Big climbs and big descents is my local terrain. FWIW Norco sight alloy about the same weight. You pay a toll for heavy hitting alloy bikes.

 @pargolf8: What do you have against Orbea?

 @Gristle: porkbike.com

 @R-M-R: if I’m not mistaken, I think the Norco’s and Transitions have similar, well regarded kinematics. And yes tuning, geo and so on all count. Maybe my question is why Norco over transition or vice versa.

 @Gristle
I was too curious and just weighed a Radon Swoop 27", size L.
It's 3170gr (6,9 lbs) with frame hardware, rear axle and headset cups and some chain slap protection. I've ridden it 5 years with 15-20 lift days each year and I'm 95kg.

Replacement Swoop 29" XL is 16,5kg (36,4lbs) with flat pedals, 223/203 discs, 1450g tires... eg nothing to try to make it light, except no coil shock.

Cheap, light, strong, pick all 3 (by accident!).
As @R-M-R said, you don't have to "pay a toll for heavy hitting alloy bikes" price or weight wise, you just have to buy "those serious - maybe even German - companies that produce light bikes."

 All the hate about their AL frame weight but I’ll take an overbuilt frame with lifetime warranty and stellar geometry over everything you can put it up against.

 @smoothmoose: bias I suppose?

 @Murphius: I get that. But IMO that's building for the lowest common denominator. As someone that weighs 150lbs I don't want to lug around extra weight for other ppl's bad choices. I have the same issue with Santa Cruz carbon - the new Nomad the lightest build is 33.5 lbs. But I'm glad there are other options out there - something for everyone.

Orbea gives lifetime warranty on lighter frames. Still I think lifetime warranty is overrated - more a marketing gimmick - how many of you PB commenters keep your bike for more than 5 years?

 @Uuno: yeah, as I said I understand the skepticism, and am actually surprised your swoop is within less than 1.5 pounds of my XXL spire and not even lighter. One note is the swoop has a max rider rate of about 250 lbs, and to me this is would give me pause as a heavier rider (not that heavy but still, don't want to be near that max), especially for less than 1.5 lbs savings, but that's my preference. Also the spire is rated for a dual crown, which gives you an idea why it might be overbuilt.
My bike is a pig, this doesn't bother me. It treats me nicely on long climbing days (coming from a 34 lb Ripmo AF, and still own a hardtail I use regularly, and the spire is fine for me climbing in comparison).
That said, I know people who would start climbing it and talk about how heavy it is and miserable they are climbing it. I also think most these people wouldn't say a peep if I put 3 lbs of weights hidden in their seat box without telling them.

 @Uuno: also, out of curiosity I checked with transition on rider weight limit, and they do not have such a thing, vs 250 lbs for the swoop. I think transition bikes are just overbuilt, for better or for worse. Depends on your preference.

 Also this bike: *is lightest bike in field test on front page today*

 @Gristle: Yep. And the cheapest of the carbons?

 @Gristle: I bit of anomaly here. As we've discussed, there are plenty of lighter enduro bikes out there. The carbon Patrol is new so PB decided to include it. Similar to Enduro Mag when they included the Santa Cruz Bronson in their Enduro round up.

 @smoothmoose: yes for sure...and also plenty of heavier + more expensive ones is the counterpoint Im making. Variety is the spice of life?

 I'm in the market for a 150 or 160 travel, mullet bike that's decently light and light on the wallet (as far as carbon is concerned). This Patrol seems decent, except for the price. Also looking at stumpy evo since a mullet link from Specialized is available. What else should I be considering?

 @Gristle: I'm probably of those guys who wouldn't notice the 3 hidden extra lbs haha
That's why I've never put much money/attention towards light parts/frames on my biggest bike which is this Swoop 170 (would be different if I had a dedicated DH rig for park days), it's a good climber anyway.

But I strongly disagree with you : you state a 1.5lbs difference, but it would be 3lbs with similar parts, since that's the frame weight difference. Apparently my swoop would be 35lbs with your parts.

Swoop was 3000€ and same spec Spire is 6000€, don't want to bring up the DTC debate but surely Transition has "enough" R&D budget to make light AND strong frames.

Also I don't actually know about Transition, but other "heavy overbuilt frames" like Commençal or Norco don't seem to bring the supposed peace of mind... Like Raaw's Madonna seems to promise for example

 @Uuno: but the *carbon* swoop is just about 3 lbs lighter than the alloy spire with a similar build. Not sure how the alloy one could weigh so close to the carbon.

 @Uuno: just look how heavy the new strive cfr is, I think close to 36 lbs if I remember correctly. And it's carbon. Intended use matters to engineers, I'll trust them on the extra weight. But absolutely fair to say it's unnecessary for most people, likely myself included. I do not mind paying the weight toll for a durable frame.

 @peterman1234: Santa Cruz Bronson, Orbea Rallon, and Canyon Spectral CF8 mullet. Would be the mullet bikes I would consider (I got my Rallon in mullet myself), but the Bronson and the Canyon were in the running. The Canyon is probably your best option if on a budget, though I highly recommend the Rallon.

 I'd say most who ride a patrol simply don't give a shit about weight . Simple as that.( In case everyone forgot these are not intended for xc ).

 Bring back the Smuggler.... best bike, ever!

 It escaped under wrong post.. sorry for that

 With trail-ish sentinel and the spur, I highly doubt they will drop a smuggs

 @pargolf8: I agree, but I also think that there is room in their lineup to make the Spur more XC and then slot something between the Spur and Sentinel as a true trail bike with around 130 rear travel. Enough people buy Spurs and then put more burly components on it, that it seems like there would be demand for an in betweener that's better suited to the terrain most people actually seem to ride the Spur on.

My friend also has the last smuggler and absolutely loves it.

 @mtb-thetown:
@pargolf8:

Funny the Smuggler comment always comes up w/ pretty much any Tranny release. I'd love to hear if any Sentinel owners have short-shocked it (which tranny advertises as an option) down to 140r/150f and how that affects agility and efficiency. For now that's a smuggler-ish setup and it seems like lots of smuggler owners were long shocking it anyways.

I think a good indicator of what the Smuggler market is, especially in carbon (as who wants a super heavy 130-ish bike), is how many carbon Optics Norco sold. Like mtb-thetizown said I would think there's a strong market for a bike between the Spur and Sentinel. I've considered short-shocking my Ripmo down to 133r/150f just for funsies.

 @WasatchEnduro: "I'd love to hear if any Sentinel owners have short-shocked it (which tranny advertises as an option) down to 140r/150f and how that affects agility and efficiency"


Answer: It doesn't affect it at all. Not one little bit.

 @mtb-thetown: scout is a money 140 trail bike though

 @mtb-thetown: Think the YT Izzo hits that spot 130/130

 @pargolf8: I know, I have one to go with my Spire and it's totally awesome.

 @Ed-Richardson: but that's a YT. Can't be seen on one of those or my friends will roast me. Party in the woods for life

 I have it on dubious authority there is something coming to fill in that slight Smuggler gap in the line up.

 @BiNARYBiKE: Thanks! I will now spread this as if it's uncontested fact.

 Stoke deez nuts

 I came here for the vid

 super good.

 Try almost 11 for a size large with a 600 pound coil. Ask me how I know

 Yup, I bought one when weights weren't listed. Took it out of the box, put it right back in and shipped it back, lol. Well over 10 lbs w/X2 air shock.

 @davec113: lololol

 Christ, I thought my Privateer was heavy.

 3.9 kg in alu with Float X in L

 @bananowy: it still is...ask me how I know

 They would need to revamp the rear suspension. The Spur uses a flex pivot so they would need to make changes.

 @HB208: There have been durable aluminum frames with flex pivots.

 @HB208: Scott uses a flex stay on the alloy Sparks

 @HB208: I’d put money if the spur test mule being alloy before they made molds for carbon, just never released it because it wouldn’t sell well in the lightweight 120mm XC bike category

 @R-M-R: Name ANY and ill be able to Google a picture of that frame broken where it flexed.

 @OnTheRivet: Maybe, maybe not, but that's a strong selection bias. If we look hard enough, we can probably find a picture of nearly every frame broken at nearly every location.

 @Arierep: Cannondale has been using an aluminium flex pivot on their Scalpel for a long while. I'd say they were first but I may not have payed enough attention to Scott.

 @vinay: The Castellano Fango pre-dates either of those, and the Ibis Bow-Ti used a whole lot of flexing metal about a decade prior. The latter was titanium, not aluminum, but steel and titanium fatigue just like aluminum once the stresses are beyond the fatigue endurance threshold of the former two. People often believe steel and titanium have infinite fatigue life due to the endurance limit property, but the endurance limit applies only to extremely low strain, below the range of interest for our purposes.

People often talk about aluminum rims being less harsh than carbon, some frames being "noodles" while others are super stiff, and I'm sure we've all felt a handlebar that killed our hands or a stem that felt like we were rowing a kayak. All these things are flex. Metal flexes. It's unavoidable and, if designed properly, totally fine. In the case of a rear triangle, there's most of a metre of beam length available to flex, and the displacement may be only a few millimetres. That's less strain than in a handlebar, especially if the rear triangle elements are vertically flattened.

 @R-M-R: Ok, I'm less of an historian than you are . I started out on an aluminium mountainbike in 2001 but have been on steel hardtails since 2006 so I'm not really one who can tell how different materials ride with respect to each other (if generalizations can even be made). I am fully aware that in most vehicles, you're going to exceed the fatigue limit of steel and titanium and that anything subject to a load (even concrete) is going to show some amount of elastic deformation. It is fine. Otherwise that worries someone, whenever in an aircraft, don't look at the wing . But yeah, steel does fatigue. This year, I've broken to pedal axles and in both I could clearly see the striations. I also broke the downtube of my three year old steel commuter this winter, probably because they were working on the road and had a temporary pavement that was more bumpy. Bike apparently couldn't deal with months riding that when fully loaded.

As for "harsh" my understanding was that that was also down to damping. You can design a titanium and an aluminium bar to be equally stiff, but the titanium bar will have more damping so it will be more comfortable. Again that's what I've read. My frames have all been steel, mountainbike handlebars aluminium. I haven't compared anything.

 Just bring back ANY spurs. Sold out worldwide goddammit

 Reeb SST…

 @vinay: My response strayed from a direct response to you, toward a general rant to the collective consciousness of the mountain bike world. Or something like that. I know you know many of these things.

One of the classic bike publications - the sort that was almost as much an academic journal as a magazine - did a fatigue test of high-end lugged steel, welded steel, and aluminum road frames - maybe there was a titanium frame in there, too. The result was nearly the inverse of what the traditionalists predicted: the lugged frames failed somewhere around 60,000 cycles, if I recall; welded steel frames failed at considerably higher cycles; and the aluminum frames fared best, often lasting until the machine was switched off.

Of course, this doesn't prove aluminum products are intrinsically more durable than steel, just that aluminum can be a durable frame material, steel isn't guaranteed to be so, and the optimal balance of weight, stiffness, and durability for a given material may force a compromise in durability for steel to achieve a viable weight. The different requirements of a mountain frame will shift the balance, but again, the broad conclusion remains that aluminum can be durable and steel and titanium are not guaranteed to be so.

Regarding damping: that's a myth. No metal suitable for frame construction has any significant amount of damping. Of course there is some damping in the most literal sense, but it's negligible - bordering on infinitesimal - in the context of the complete system. I'll summarize some properties of the Big Three metals, which Scot Nicol covered beautifully in his classic Metallurgy for Cyclists series:

Shape: Stiffness increases exponentially with diameter. For the same amount of material, a large, thin tube is stiffer than a small, thick one. Unfortunately, there is a minimum ratio of wall thickness to diameter required to resist denting and buckling (the ratio is not constant; it varies with the material properties).

Steel
+ High to very high strength
+ High elastic modulus
- High density
Result: Can't afford to use much, or else it gets heavy. Luckily, little is required, due to the strength and modulus. Tubes have to be fairly small to avoid excessive weight, which limits stiffness of the constructed frame.

Titanium
+ Moderate to high strength
+ Moderate density
- Low elastic modulus
Result: Can achieve good strength at low weight due to the high specific strength, but the stiffness will be low. Titanium gets its reputation for being comfortable because many frames and components are designed to be strong enough and fairly light, resulting in low stiffness. Many early titanium frames wobbled like Jello, yet were still fairly stiff in-plane due to the intrinsic properties of a traditional bike frame. Worst of both worlds, but we eventually got better at maximizing the advantages and minimizing the disadvantages.

Aluminum
+ Low density
- Low strength (some exotic alloys greatly outperform the usual alloys)
- Low elastic modulus
Result: Have to use a lot of it, which is fine, because the density is so low. This allows large tube, with enough wall thickness to resist denting and buckling. It's also convenient for frames with many, complex brackets that could become heavy if made from a material with high density.

Hopefully that summary - or Scot Nicol's articles (read them, they're interesting and fun) - clarifies why titanium has a reputation for being the most comfortable, steel moderately so, and aluminum is considered harsh. It's all about the flex, not damping! Bike brands and factories now have so much experience with aluminum that a truly high-end aluminum frame can be among the most comfortable at a weight comparable to entry-level carbon, without sacrificing durability. The hard part is convincing people to buy aluminum at carbon prices, even if the weight, performance, and durability may be comparable.

 @vinay: iir correctly robert from mountain cycle had built a flex aluminium bike in the moho

 @Compositepro: He built a seatstay arch with some trusses and claimed it offered in-plane compliance, but the claim doesn't hold up. Sure, maybe it added displacement on the order of a millimeter or two, but nothing significant. An inline structure like that simply can't; there needs to be some sort of curvature of a long beam for any noteworthy displacement.

That said, I would absolutely buy a vintage Moho STS or Moho Road and build a resto-mod city bike.

 @OnTheRivet: Kona Hei Hei

 @R-M-R: I rode around on one whilst o was there it was pretty cool we actually had a test rig with the yoke installed in it and a lever that pushed up and down on it , it did move a fair old way not sure how far it shifted in a triangle once you took into account the welds etc

 @Compositepro: Are we both talking about that horseshoe seatstay bridge?

 @R-M-R: Would love to keep the conversation going but I'll be away for a week or two. But it is fun to talk geek stuff. I largely agree with what you said. A small thing you probably agree with, the stiffness of a tube doesn't increase exponentially with diameter. Instead bending stiffness grows to the third power and torsional stiffness grows to the fourth power. And axial stiffness grows linearly (for a thin walled tube with constant wall thickness) but that usually isn't too relevant in bike design.

One thing I realized from the Cotic Geek pages and which I agree with, in some areas room for large diameter tubes is limited so when strength is critical steel wins over aluminium. This is typically the case around the seattube area where you have cranks, chainring, suspension system (linkage and shock) and also need room for tire and clearance.

As for aluminium and fatigue, isn't it usually a trade-off between strength and fatigue resistance. In aircraft typically the planes subject to tensile loads (top of fuselage, bottom of wing) are made out of the less strong but more fatigue resistant Al2xxx series whereas the planes subject to compressive loads (top of wing, bottom of fuselage) are made out of the stronger but less fatigue resistant Al7xxx series. So my understanding was that bike frames out of Al7xxx and Al6xxx series needed to be stiff in order to not prematurely fail from fatigue. A friend of mine used to ride a hardtail from Miyata made out of Al2xxx aluminium. He loved how comfortable it was as it was designed to flex more with fewer worries that it would fatigue.

I'd have to know more about this fatigue test you mention before I can truly comment on it. Where did the lugged frames fail? Typically the lugs are cast so these aren't necessarily more durable than a weld. Depending on the shape of the lug, you may also have stress concentrations near where the lug stops. And then yeah as for the aluminium frame as mentioned above it also depends on the alloy. Then for the welded steel frame, what was it like? If you look at a classic steel frame, tubes have a small diameter whereas more modern steel frames have a thinner wall and a larger diameter. The larger diameter obviously limits the deformation and contrary to popular belief, a thinner wall is better at stopping crack propagation. Once you've gone past the crack initiation phase, you've got a crack between the grains with sharp ends. If the material is thin, the stresses near the crack tip will increase past the yield point and cause it to ovalize. So soon enough these tips will be rounded and the crack growth stops or at least grows very slowly. If the wall is thick, the stresses near the tip won't pass the yield point throughout the full thickness of the wall and it won't ovalize properly.

So yeah, what we both do agree on is that we can't make blanket statements on which is the better bike material. If designed properly, they can all work well.

 @R-M-R: Sure all metal flexes but to put steel and titanium into the same category as aluminum is disingenuous. Aluminum has no fatigue threshold, every bit of flexing no matter how small puts it one step closer to failure.

 @vinay: To clarify our miscommunication: Perhaps it's a matter of terminology. I've always used the term "exponential function" to refer to f(x)=x^r, rather than necessarily involving e. Wikipedia tells me I should be more clear by calling this a "power function", so maybe I've been misusing the terms all along. In any case, we agree on the nature of the dimensional relationships, though the formulae are slightly different when using constant mass, rather than constant wall thickness.

It's true that some areas are space constrained, especially the “tight spot” where the chainstay passes between the chainraing and rear tire, yet Cotic uses steel front triangles, where such constraints are minimal, and aluminum rear triangles, where constraints can be severe.

You're correct that fatigue is a major factor in bike design. For bikes, inspection is easier and consequences of failure are lower than in aviation - and we face less rigorous regulations - so we give designers too much credit if we assume frame materials are chosen to optimize these properties! As I mentioned above, the hierarchy is design > manufacturing > materials.

Fatigue life of a bike frame is typically determined by a weakness in the design – you won’t find a FEA model without a few hot spots, and they’re often severe. Even if the design is well optimized, manufacturing imperfections and damage through use are likely to introduce weaknesses. Designs rare take full advantage of the material properties. It’s possible your friend’s Miyata was designed with less stiffness due to a more resilient material, though even basic 6061 can be allowed to flex a surprising amount in the main spans of the tubes if the vulnerable joints and other problem spots are executed well. There have been plenty of titanium frames with short lifespans due to localized stress concentrations, so a great material is no guarantee of a durable frame.

The magazine test I referenced is a distant memory. To the best of my recollection, failures were typically at joints – ends of lugs, chainstay bridges, and the like – but it’s been ages since I read it.

Your statements are true about crack propagation through thin vs. thick materials, but it’s not always applicable to actual designs. The usual decision involves a catalogue of tubes, usually of the same material with similar outer diameters, and deciding whether to go up a level in wall thickness to bump up the safety factor. In that case, the thicker walled tube is typically less likely to crack simply because it’s stronger. If there was a situation in which to choose between two tubes of equal mass with different outside diameters and, therefore, thicknesses, I would agree the thinner one could be less likely to develop a problematic crack, but there would be many other factors to consider.


@OnTheRivet: I addressed precisely that subject four posts ago. Misunderstanding of the fatigue endurance limit is a common problem among cyclists. Yes, steel and titanium have such a property and aluminum does not, but the strain threshold is extremely low - far lower than what's relevant for bike parts. Bike parts are stressed multiple orders of magnitude beyond those thresholds, so all three materials have a finite fatigue life, with the endurance limit properties being irrelevant to the calculations.

 @R-M-R: Yikes, anyone that verbose has got to be in engineering management.

 @OnTheRivet: Every topic has a lot to discuss for those interested enough to learn.

 @R-M-R: yes it was set up on a similar thing to a manual shock dyno they used to take it to interbike to demo the compliance thing

 @OnTheRivet: lol i used to get involved in all the techno whatifaboutery until it became very apparent that the proof of the pudding was in the riding and the rest was moot there are some utterly fast f*ckers on what the forums or comments sections would lead you to believe are the wrong thing

 @Compositepro: That would've been fun to watch. Can't picture it being more than a few millimeters before the fatigue life got awfully short, which I don't believe it was, so probably little deflection in practice. As you said, though, the proof is in the riding - or at least a fully assembled bench test!

 Yeah, people like this bike a lot. The alloy patrol sells, but the comments on weight are fair. I think people buy it being like "oh, weight doesn't matter" and then realize they that pedaling a 38 pound bike for three hours sucks.

 It is/isn't all sarcasm, they can build up heavy. I reckon most TR owners complain about the weight and then forget about it instantly when railing it down a hill, through some rowdy chunk and over big old jumps, which is why they've gone heavier because people are thrashing the living crap out of them.

I've stuck with TR ever since getting a 16 Patrol. It was just a riot to ride compared to other bikes at the time. They've certainly made fun trendy but I just keep going back. The change to SBG was real, not just hype, I've ended up on a carbon Scout because age and whatnot related issues meant I wasn't getting rowdy enough to push the19 Patrol to get the most out of it.

Every TR I've ridden just gets me grinning and I've no doubt this one will be the same. Sure they're heavy but I rode the 16 Patrol on long rides including a 41 mile enduro and it just got on with it and it was easy to blast past all the weight weenies on their lighter XC oriented bikes on all the downs. Sure most overtook on the next climb but so what I had fun.

 @veero: good to know!! thanks guys! I have a '17 scout and love it. It's also super light which is where my brain is getting confused. Clearly they have added some heft over the years. I am currently debating new patrol or new scout and am looking for some wisdom.

 @BrentZombie: Yeah get yourself a demo on a new geo Scout, they're an absolute hoot. If you're not going massive every ride and don't want to go full wagon wheel a newer Scout will probably suit you. I bumped mine to 160/150 and put a coil on and love it to bits.

 @veero: So you made your Scout a Patrol?

 @veero: I thought my carbon Smuggler was too heavy for what it was (Just over 30lbs for 120mm, as light as i could get it without going full-crazy weight-weenie). But my Sentinel at just over 32lbs (large, ready to ride, with pedals etc.) is totally reasonable for a 150/160mm bike, and my wife's Spur (also a large, just over 26lbs for 120mm) is totally reasonable.

Transition deserves some ribbing for its chonky frame weights, but the current Spur and Sentinel are doing just fine as far as I'm concerned.

 @wolftwenty1: Haha yeah kindf of, well I guess I made it as near as a 16 Patrol as possible. I think a big part of my issue with my 19 Patrol was the Fox suspension, it was just dull and lifeless, no amount of tinkering seemed to liven it up. RS on the Scout, I bloody love it, perhaps I'd sitll have the Patrol if I've tried different suspension on it who knows...

 @BrentZombie: I've got an XL Carbon Scout and it is by far the most fun bike I've ever ridden. It tips in at 30.6lb currently. No complaints there.

I know TR are on average a little heavier than a lot of other manufacturers, but people aren't buying and riding them to worry about weight. I'm an older rider and I still remember 26" days. 27.5 feels great and 29 feels sluggish for me. No hate on 29, but the flickability and quick twitch on tighter trails of the 27.5 is great with this bike.

 I dont get all the weight bashing either. A 7.5lb frame will build out to a 30-32lb complete enduro bike. Thats perfect! Same as an SB150, less than Spesh Enduro... same as Bronson, less than a Nomad.

 @veero: Preach! I have owned three Transitions. They might not be the fastest/lightest/whateverest but they are absolute hooligans! Transition has found the recipe for fun and what is more important than that?

 It's the bike I love to hate. It's balls out fast & fun on the downs, great in the steeps. Feels like it has more travel than it does. Nice and stiff & jumps amazing! Makes a great freeride bike, slap a 27.5 front wheel on with a 180-190mm single or 200mm dual crown.
Even with carbon wheels and a nicer build than my Knolly Delerium, it's 3 pounds heavier and takes me about 10 minutes longer on the same climb & takes more energy to do it, but oh dear god is it fast coming down.

Hopefully that helps a little, feel free to dm me if you like or have more questions.

 @veero: 16 Patrol was the nuts

 It rides great! My son rides trail, park, dirt jump with it and loves it. It climbs ok, gives a lot of confidence and is playful too. Bb is a little low for some trails but good to live with.

 @HB208: honestly if a bike is a bit heavier, but sturdier too I’m happier. Also I have a somewhat heavy bike and I don’t notice it when going off big jumps and bombing down rock gardens and loam.

 @excavvator666: Came here to say just that.

 and it seems important to have air awareness... whatever that is....

 @saladdodger: Air awareness is coordination while jumping. Think of doing a flip: you have to keep track of where the ground is and what position you are in. Not used as much in mtb because outside of Slopestyle, most jumping is right side up and going forward.

 have to spend $7449 with Santa Cruz to get equivalent suspension on the Bronson... but still, insanely expensive

 @fjopsys: wonder why they spec'd with TRP brakes as well, usually i see Code RSC's on their carbon builds

 @Randmhero87: I think that might be to do with supply issues... a fair number of brands have turned to TRP, Magura, Alhonga when they normally would have used the full SRAM or Shimano package.

 @islandforlife: Makes sense, I have no experience with them or how to service them like I am with SRAM products. They look nice, but definitely a thing that makes me want to buy frame only and build up around it with my own parts.

 @Randmhero87: For sure... interestingly it's how I came to be using Magura MT5's with upgraded levers and pads that came with my build this year. I decided to upgrade to the MDR-P rotors as well. They are so much more powerful than my previous Code RSC's that I can't see going back. I just always assumed the RSC's were a very powerful brake... just didn't realize how much more power was available out there. Cheap as well.

 @islandforlife: my friend did the exact thing on their Hightower and swears by it. They stop almost too well for my liking haha. I think everyone just has a preference for feel. For me I just like having all my bikes use similar parts so when I inevitably brake something can rip something off another bike for a quick fix.

 Not all GX builds are equal. I don't know all the specs from other brands, but I got an aluminum Patrol for my wife and it has basically top end suspension, great brakes, and GX stuff. It isn't cheap, but Transition generally puts money where it is most noticed.

 People literally bitching about the price of everything? Definitely the world we live in now

 @islandforlife: SRAM actually has tons of stock on almost all of their components right now. TRP are mega hype these days which would explain their choice to offer them on their complete builds.

 Yep! I run mine like that and love it.

 Hannah B runs hers with a 190 zeb and a 27.5 wheel. She posted about it in Instagram a while back

 www.instagram.com/p/CbGIAd-Pq4A/?igshid=MDJmNzVkMjY

 @sudochuckwalla: thx - I'll have to check it out.

 Yes, with a fox 38.
Bottom bracket is too much low, so a lot of small pedals strikes.

I'm running it in mulleet with a fox 36 (170mm) , it's much better for the bottom bracket but I'm not faster in mullet.
The fox 36 (2020 grip2) is more comfortable than the fox 38 (2022 grip2).

 @sudochuckwalla: I was surprised to hear Hannah Barnes is off Specialized and on Transition now, but your link helped me out .

 Check the transition forum on here, personally I don't like mullets, so running a longer travel fork and 27.5 put the geo around the same.

 @907nattylight: Does that do the same? I thought a larger diameter wheel gives you more trail whereas a longer fork gives you a longer front center.

 I do, + a CC link and 65mm stroke shock for 180/180 27.5/27/.5
Geo is good, With a Zeb it ends up being about .5 degrees slacker than stock settings.
Makes it pretty low though. But you get use to it.

 I wonder if I could fit a double crown on it. It would mean no barspins down the trail, but a lack of skill also affects that

 @MikeBikerson: Check out my profile for pics if you're interested. Put a dual crown is on my bike , I transition from a 170mm fox 36 and a 60mm stroke float X2, 27.5 front rim w/ CC link for trail riding, to a bomber 58 and a 65mm stroke DHX2 coil for the gravity runs. "Downduro" is what they call it eh?

 Thankfully it's a Float X

 Now That Was A Bike!

 You could build a whole bike for under $2000 back then easy! I think the frames were $800 something…

 @Sleeperific: Transition used to be the affordable brand. You really could build a bomb proof bike for $2k.

 @MTBfloat: They still seem reasonably attainable in North America (relative to similar products). In the UK the pricing is "aspirational" to say the least. Greedy importer to blame I suspect.

 I could recommend the trek top fuel it’s pretty nice feeling and comes in a few alloy builds

 It's a Float X

 Freeride/park.

 I mean, the spire is a full 29er. Transition has a long travel 29er, long travel mullet, longish travel all mountain bike, mid travel 27 (which I bet becomes a mullet later) and a short travel 29er. Doesn't seem too crazy to me.

 @k2theg: Thats just the way to say there is no use-case for this bike IMO.

 “It’s not enduro enough”…no way you typed this w a straight face

 @HB208: seems like they should have gone full 27.5 on this bike. They are the Party in the woods brand...I thought 27.5 was fun wheel size. I don't know...just seems like a pointless bike in the lineup...would love to see a new proper DH bike from them personally.

 @Ensminger: I miss the days when the industry was run by DH bros rather than the current Enduro era we're in.

 @wolftwenty1: You're overthinking it. It's a party bike.

 @wolftwenty1: Agreed. DH to see who’s actually the best, endurbro for marketing

 @k2theg: Its not a critique of Transition, the 160mm 35 pound 'trail bike' is an interesting segment is all. Use case escapes me as already noted.

 @wolftwenty1: You can throw a 27.5 on the front... Transition says it is possible

 @HB208: Well there ya go..a 160mm Scout makes a lot of sense to me.

 @wolftwenty1: No, saying you can throw a 27.5 front on a patrol

 @wolftwenty1: IDK... speak for yourself. I dig this bike and will probable build one up when available. Its a perfect mix of everything Im looking for in a bike.

The alloy version is 34lbs... and the carbon is 3lbs lighter.

 @Baller7756: Right? This is a strong contender for my next bike. The Spire is huge and the large size is a bit long for east coast trails, and the Sentinel isn't quite beefy enough. The Patrol falls right in that happy medium.

 @4thflowkage: The sentinel isn't beefy enough? Lol, ok dude. I am sure it is good for 99% of riders in any trail system with the 1% being enduro pros.

 @HB208: Beefy enough for me in terms of what I want in a new bike. My stumpy evo is great and is pretty comparable to the Sentinel, but I've been riding more park and I want my next bike to be prepared to handle that.

 How is this lower spec than the Spire GX? Genuinely asking. I've heard people gush about TRPs over RCS and Shimano (I personally want to try them), which leaves the RockShox Ultimate setup vs Fox Performance Elite. Which also has me wondering why the Patrol is $400 more

 @TeaPunk: wheels, rear shock , brakes are all cheaper and or worse quality, with a price increase. I guess they are pricing in the inflation, and using what parts are available.

 @DGWW: The RaceFace Affect R aren't as good as the Stans Flow S1s? (I have no personal experience)

 @TeaPunk: in my opinion , no. There is a reason the Stans stuff is sold out.

 I know right! I've asked Santa for riding skills every year, but apparently I'm a naughty boy because I still look like a lobster trying to make love to a pig when I ride a bike.

 @nzandyb: all I want for Christmas is to hear @mikelevy read this comment on the podcast

 If you look at this meme and then read this comment, it's much gooder.

i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/033/152/cover4.jpg

 I prefer my park bike to be carbon, because it is stronger (prevents stress fractures better) than aluminum. I've cracked an aluminum headtube and snapped an aluminum chainstay from landing big drops and casing big jumps. I punched a hole in my carbon frame near the bottom bracket from a crash but it was repaired for about $350 and I'm still riding it 2 years later with no problems. I'm now a carbon believer, and not because of the weight, couldn't care less about that.

 @slow-burn: Steel has entered the chat.

 My transition DH bike weighs 37 pounds and my carbon patrol is 32. Depends if you want one bike for all?

 Why you want more weight for your park bike?

 @ybsurf: more weight feels better in the air. More of a sailing arc feeling to jumps. Jumping my ebike feels better than any other bike I've owned.

 @gravitybass: my dh weight just under 30lbs and it's the best jump bike I ever had. Best whip I do it's with that bike, easier to move it in the air and less fatigue over time. 8-10 hrs whistler bike park for several days in a row.

 @gravitybass: but different feel for different people I guess.

 Get urself a marin then, bud

 Totes if ur into unclipping in the air… more like clips for race, flats for everything else

 They messed up, the seatpost and seatpost clamp dimensions are swapped over. 31.6 post on alloy and carbon, 34.9 and 37mm clamps on alloy and carbon respectively

 Prob a 37mm clamp for a 34 post

 Would love to see a wild card like a titanium or steel Spur and trail Hardtail

 Check out the price increases in Evil's, especially in Canada, if you want a good laugh.

 BREAKING NEWS, every brand did it.

 Oh nice catch! Guess my spire worth just went up lol. Can’t wait for a new enduro to get released!