Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Reeb SST

5 reading
Jump to Latest
41 - 60 of 1,780 Posts
Discussion starter · #42 ·
Adodero said:
I somehow missed this thread being created. I got mine last week and built it out, I posted some of this in the steel FS thread already.
Click to expand...
Nice write-up. Glad you mentioned that other thread - I can now devote some of my fetish attention over there heh. Some really cool bikes and more SST content I've missed. Nice build btw!
 
#45 ·
Name given to a new component in Rock Shox forks. The marketing whiz team at SRAM spell it out this way:

ButterCups live on both the damper and air spring shafts of Ultimate-level forks. Inside their gold packaging, ButterCups utilize rubber pucks and a metal plate to absorb frequencies that would otherwise travel up to the rider.

Tinstigator said:
Can someone explain what a buttercup is please?
Thanks đź‘Ť
Click to expand...
 
#49 ·
For what it's worth, I'm just under 6 ft with an inseam of 34.25 inches and I'm going with a medium SST. I think historically it's been said that if you were in between sizes you always 'size up'. But that was before the move towards long, low and slack. These days I don't even look at the size, I only consider reach, then things like stack, seat tube angle, etc. I've tried all manner of sizes over the years and a 460-465 reach is my sweet spot. With that said, I've got a 12 year old large steel HT with ancient geo and I still love riding that bike.

phazedalx said:
Would any of you 5'9 / 5'10 riders ever go for a small sst?

I demo'd the Medium and loved it but my seat was slammed forward. The stack on this bike already feels low but I wonder if on a small it would be too crazy.
Click to expand...
 
#50 ·
phazedalx said:
Would any of you 5'9 / 5'10 riders ever go for a small sst?

I demo'd the Medium and loved it but my seat was slammed forward. The stack on this bike already feels low but I wonder if on a small it would be too crazy.
Click to expand...
I'm just under 5'9" and went with medium. I haven't got it on the trail yet but circling around on the street it felt pretty good. I might need to shorten the stem, currently 50mm.
 
#52 ·
One thing I forgot to mention earlier is the tire clearance. When they mean 2.5, they really mean it. The seatstays have plenty of clearance, but the chainstay yoke is really tight with my Ehlin 2.5 in there, no way a 2.6 will fit and I did try. Not a huge deal, but worth keeping in mind, mainly because their hardtails have a ton of clearance (I have a 2.6 rear on my Redikyelous with plenty of space left still) despite the advertised limit.

Image

There is no rub to speak of and I haven't had issues with the finish down there, but I haven't done any long epic rides either. IIRC that area is stainless, so the finish coming off is presumably less of an issue, but again worth keeping in mind. I'll monitor it as time goes on and see how it holds up. My Smuggler was a much tighter fit with a 2.5 and only rubbed in a few spots, so I expect it'll be fine.
 
#54 ·
Sucker Punch said:
For what it's worth, I'm just under 6 ft with an inseam of 34.25 inches and I'm going with a medium SST. I think historically it's been said that if you were in between sizes you always 'size up'. But that was before the move towards long, low and slack. These days I don't even look at the size, I only consider reach, then things like stack, seat tube angle, etc. I've tried all manner of sizes over the years and a 460-465 reach is my sweet spot. With that said, I've got a 12 year old large steel HT with ancient geo and I still love riding that bike.
Click to expand...
Interesting you say that. Im on a Druid now and was on a large (460 reach) for a while but recently frame swapped with someone to a medium (440) and it is like a whole new bike. I love it. That being said Reeb told me theyd never ever put me on a small haha. The Medium might be a little big for me but at the same time it climbed a tech trail better than any bike ive ever been on which says a lot imo.
 
#56 ·
Sounds like you're right on the bubble for sizing, which is probably frustrating when choosing a frame size. I've tried a few different longer travel bikes that were in the 480-490 range because, ya know, 'longer is better". But what I found (at least for me) is that in order to get front end traction I have to ride them 'angry'. Meaning I always have to push them hard in order to get grip. If I just ride relaxed and cruise around I find myself washing out the front once in a while. Sort of an all or nothing kind of riding mentality. It took some experimenting, but I finally realized that 460 works for me. And when you consider the likes of Jack Moir, Richie Rude and Ed Masters are racing on sizes smaller than might ideally fit them on paper, long reaches aren't for everyone.

But good to know about the tech climbing ability!

phazedalx said:
Interesting you say that. Im on a Druid now and was on a large (460 reach) for a while but recently frame swapped with someone to a medium (440) and it is like a whole new bike. I love it. That being said Reeb told me theyd never ever put me on a small haha. The Medium might be a little big for me but at the same time it climbed a tech trail better than any bike ive ever been on which says a lot imo.
Click to expand...
 
#59 ·
41 - 60 of 1,780 Posts
About this Discussion
1.8K Replies
113 Participants
Last post:
snow snakes
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
posts
16M
members
534K
Since
1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Discussion Downhill - Freeride California - Norcal Shocks and Suspension Passion