Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
ಠ_ಠ
Joined
·
3,190 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
2006 Moto-lite 142g heavier due to wider swingarm

My question:

"One other question. I know the 2006 Moto-lite has a different, wider swingarm, is the frame heavier as a result?"

Titus's reply:

"The weight difference between the 2005 and 2006 lower swing arm is 142 grams (approx. ¼ lb.) in favor of the 2006. We had to trade some weight in order to gain tire clearance."

By the way, 142g is closer to 1/3 of a pound...
 

·
Paper or plastic?
Joined
·
10,335 Posts
dulyebr said:
My question:

"One other question. I know the 2006 Moto-lite has a different, wider swingarm, is the frame heavier as a result?"

Titus's reply:

"The weight difference between the 2005 and 2006 lower swing arm is 142 grams (approx. ¼ lb.) in favor of the 2006. We had to trade some weight in order to gain tire clearance."

By the way, 142g is closer to 1/3 of a pound...
Interesting. Supposedly the 05 FR lowers were only 75g heavier, not that I have ever checked that either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
dulyebr said:
Are you serious?
mostly. i recall one of the titus guys telling me that powder coat added 1/4 or more to a frame. which I thought was absurd. but what the hay, it got to weigh somethin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
I weighed the lower chainstay used on last years frames and the 'new' freeride lower chainstay about two weeks ago when making the switch on a titanium Motolite. Those stays were polished, and the weight difference was 140g on my Ultimate digital scale. I have not weighed any of the powder coated stays though.

Frank
 

·
ಠ_ಠ
Joined
·
3,190 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
frannek said:
I weighed the lower chainstay used on last years frames and the 'new' freeride lower chainstay about two weeks ago when making the switch on a titanium Motolite. Those stays were polished, and the weight difference was 140g on my Ultimate digital scale. I have not weighed any of the powder coated stays though.

Frank
Did you end up keeping the new lowers?

I was sort of on the fence whether to get the new chainstays, but I think 140 grams is just too much of a weight penalty. I don't really need a really big (heavy) rear tire anyway... :(
 

·
Do It Yourself
Joined
·
5,720 Posts
Math correction...

Trond said:
let's say your bike comes in at 13kg (28.6lbs). 142 grams is a 0.011% weight increase :rolleyes:
That's 0.011 or 1.1%. Still relatively insignificant for all but the weight weenies.
 

·
ಠ_ಠ
Joined
·
3,190 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Trond said:
let's say your bike comes in at 13kg (28.6lbs). 142 grams is a 0.011% weight increase :rolleyes:
Actually it's 1.2%.

But that's not the point. Look at it this way. The difference between a XTR crank vs. XT = 60g, X.0 triggers vs. X.9 = 25g, X.0 rear der. vs. X.9 = 35g, XTR front der. vs. XT = 18g. That totals 138g. But it costs around $500 extra for a little weight savings and minor if any performance.

Plus, I just spent $100 on a titanium kit, which saved me 85g. The point is it adds up. When you save 10 grams here and 85 grams there, pretty soon you save a pound, and a pound is a lot despite what you might think - I can definitely feel it. To put back on a 1/3 of pound after I've finally got my bike (with non-race tires) under 27 lbs. just doesn't make sense.

I'm the guy Titus was thinking about when they made the decision to use the RX lowers. In fact now I feel lucky I bought my Moto-lite in the first year.

Currently I have a Specialized Adrenaline 2.0 UST on the back which measures 2.14. It has plenty of clearance, and I think it's the perfect tire for my Moto-lite and my particular riding style right now. Like I said, the idea of adding more weight to the frame with the new chainstays, and then a bigger tire (more weight) is not something I would want. But, I can see why someone would. Hopefully you can see why someone wouldn't.
 

·
Supersonic Garfield
Joined
·
613 Posts
1.2%. You're right. Brainfreeze when I typed it out :D

I see what you're saying. It all adds up. But if you can feel the difference of +-142gr on the trail, on the same bike, then you're one sensitive guy. I have tested +50 bikes for magazines, and such a small weight increase/decrease I have never felt. Nor have I been faster. On wheels and rubber/duro - yes. Not on the frame. Like you said, thinking like this and adding small increases on several parts make a difference in the end. Light bikes are cool, but so are stiff bikes that track well at speed :)
 

·
ಠ_ಠ
Joined
·
3,190 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
Trond said:
Light bikes are cool, but so are stiff bikes that track well at speed :)
I don't think anyone has ever accused the RX or the Moto-lite as not having a stiff rear.

It's not just the weight. It's also the hassle and the expense, plus the weight that's made just say [email protected] It. If it were free, I would still change them out. If the swingarm weren't polished and matched my bike so I didn't feel the need to powder coat my rear triangle black, I would probably do it. Or, if it didn't add 1/3 of a pound, I would have done it (in fact I have the order pending). But, when you combine all the negatives, for something I'm not even sure I'll ever need - not worth it.
 

·
Do It Yourself
Joined
·
5,720 Posts
dulyebr said:
I don't think anyone has ever accused the RX or the Moto-lite as not having a stiff rear.

It's not just the weight. It's also the hassle and the expense, plus the weight that's made just say [email protected] It. If it were free, I would still change them out. If the swingarm weren't polished and matched my bike so I didn't feel the need to powder coat my rear triangle black, I would probably do it. Or, if it didn't add 1/3 of a pound, I would have done it (in fact I have the order pending). But, when you combine all the negatives, for something I'm not even sure I'll ever need - not worth it.
Understandable. It's an expensive upgrade. It does add some weight. My point was that if you want meaty 2.3-2.5 tires, you're not worried about the 142g rounded to 12 significant digits. Also even with the weight gain, it's still a lightweight 5" frame.

And not be contrary but in the example used, isn't 142/13000 = .0109... ?
 

·
ಠ_ಠ
Joined
·
3,190 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Homebrew said:
And not be contrary but in the example used, isn't 142/13000 = .0109... ?
Yes you are correct. I used 27 lbs. since that is what my bike weighs, 142/12258 = 1.2%. I guess I should have noted that, or used the weight in the example given.

That's a great point. People who want to run big tires typically won't care as much about weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
We had received a 2006 stock ti Motolite but it had the 05 lowers on it. The customer specifically wanted the 2006 lowers for more tire clearance, so I had Titus send me the new lower once they had a spare. He was not too concerned with the weight of the lowers.

Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
I have a late 2005 frame that came with the 2006 lowers. I am fine with the extra weight as a trade-off for the additional tire options. That said, I would have learned to live with the older swingarms given the kind of money they are asking for the "upgraded" retrofit lowers. Also, look at the seatstay portion of the swingarm and the amount of clearance you have for the tire. This does not change with the 2006 rear so you will still have some clearance issues if you are looking to go a lot bigger. I am running a 2.25 IRC and it is tight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
truberski said:
I have a late 2005 frame that came with the 2006 lowers. I am fine with the extra weight as a trade-off for the additional tire options. That said, I would have learned to live with the older swingarms given the kind of money they are asking for the "upgraded" retrofit lowers. Also, look at the seatstay portion of the swingarm and the amount of clearance you have for the tire. This does not change with the 2006 rear so you will still have some clearance issues if you are looking to go a lot bigger. I am running a 2.25 IRC and it is tight.
Check out my winter rig...

...44mm wide rim and the new WTB Timberwolf 2.3 tires on my racer x for a winter ride...I was surprised that I had enough clearance...but it fit. Too bad the snow was still a problem last night (8-9 inches worth). The tires measures out (on these rims) at about 2.4"

Who has clearence issues?
 

Attachments

·
ಠ_ಠ
Joined
·
3,190 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
A message from the President

Dear Brett:

I just saw the MTBR thing. Apparently, one of our sales guys weighed a downhill swing-arm which is a little longer and has heavier gauge tubing to come up with that weight difference. The actual weight difference is just over 100 grams and it is the Quasi-Moto/Super-Moto swing arm-same part. Please feel free to post this on MTBR as a correction. By the way, this was the balance we were trying to strike when we originally chose the Racer-X swing arm for the Moto-Lite. It is not that the Moto-Lite swing arm is heavy. It is still extremely light weight given it's massive tire clearance and rigidity. It is just that the Racer-X swing arm that was on the 05 Moto-Lite is optimized to be extremely light and stiff, but at the expense of some tire clearance. That is the trade off. If you want to run big tires though, 100 grams on the swing arm is not where you will notice the weight. It's in the big tires.

Sincerely,

Chris Cocalis

President
 

·
Paper or plastic?
Joined
·
10,335 Posts
dulyebr said:
Dear Brett:

I just saw the MTBR thing. Apparently, one of our sales guys weighed a downhill swing-arm which is a little longer and has heavier gauge tubing to come up with that weight difference. The actual weight difference is just over 100 grams and it is the Quasi-Moto/Super-Moto swing arm-same part. Please feel free to post this on MTBR as a correction. By the way, this was the balance we were trying to strike when we originally chose the Racer-X swing arm for the Moto-Lite. It is not that the Moto-Lite swing arm is heavy. It is still extremely light weight given it's massive tire clearance and rigidity. It is just that the Racer-X swing arm that was on the 05 Moto-Lite is optimized to be extremely light and stiff, but at the expense of some tire clearance. That is the trade off. If you want to run big tires though, 100 grams on the swing arm is not where you will notice the weight. It's in the big tires.

Sincerely,

Chris Cocalis

President
That makes perfect sense. 75gr weight penalty polished, 100gr with powder coat (I'm guessing there). A very worthwhile investment IMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
I can't believe anyone riding a moto-lite is that concerned with weight. Gram counting is something that sould be left to the Racer-X crowd. My 06 moto is weighing in at 31 and some change. Who cares? I'm not racing it, it's not meant to be raced. It was built with epic Pisgah rides in mind. It still pedals at least 5-7 pounds lighter then my Giant AC1 which it replaced and weighs about the same.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top