Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 97 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
How would some of you compare how a 5" 27/28 lbs bike compares with a 6" 30/31 lbs bike on different trail situations such as


Climbing on smooth terrain
Climbing on technical (rocky) terrain
flat ground
Rocky/rooty flat ground
Technical rocky trail
Descending

Having a hard time deciding what amount of travel would give me more enjoyment.
I want more travel because more is plusher but am afraid less may also work fine and be more agile.
Thanks for any replies
Pedro
 

·
No, that's not phonetic
Joined
·
14,313 Posts
Climbing on smooth terrain- my Spot is noticeably peppier when motoring up gravel roads. I can maintain about 1 higher gear than I can on my Pack due to weight and riding position. The Pack mushes more out of the saddle.

Climbing on technical (rocky) terrain- they are actually kind of similar here since the Pack gains some ground back through sheer suspension compliance and needing less finesse. It's still a bit more lumbering, but squish and momentum can be your friend.

flat ground- similar. Depends on setup.

Rocky/rooty flat ground- the Pack just mows everything down. The Spot a bit less so, but the Spot accelerates better after getting bumped about. Probably a wash.

Technical rocky trail- same as the above.

Descending- the Pack has the edge here, obviously.

In the end it depends on what you want (and these are splitting hairs): speed or comfort, climbing or descending, efficiency or lung-busting fun?

Both are versatile bikes. If I could have only one (Dog forbid), I'd keep the Spot.
 

·
Rolling
Joined
·
11,120 Posts
Pedro said:
How would some of you compare how a 5" 27/28 lbs bike compares with a 6" 30/31 lbs bike on different trail situations such as

Climbing on smooth terrain
Climbing on technical (rocky) terrain
flat ground
Rocky/rooty flat ground
Technical rocky trail
Descending

Having a hard time deciding what amount of travel would give me more enjoyment.
I want more travel because more is plusher but am afraid less may also work fine and be more agile.
Thanks for any replies
Pedro
WOW, I wish I had those weight ranges. I'm dealing with a 30+ lb 5" bike compared to a 27 lb 4" bike.
 

·
carpe mañana
Joined
·
7,308 Posts
Pedro said:
How would some of you compare how a 5" 27/28 lbs bike compares with a 6" 30/31 lbs bike on different trail situations
I think that another question would be how does a 27/28lb 5" bike compare with a 30/31lb 5" bike. I did just that, started off with a sub 27lb 5 Spot and over a relatively short course of time I added aroud 3 pounds between stronger wheels, beefier brakes and beefier fork. It is a significantly different bike now, able to take quite some abuse while maintining great climbing ability, manouverability, etc.

_MK
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,257 Posts
I think the weight ranges you provide are nonsensical and counterproductive.

a 30-lbs 6"/6" bike is not going to be burly enough to take advantage of what that amount of travel can do for you. if you want a bike that weighs only 30 lbs you should sacrifice travel amount and get a design that feels deeper than it measures.

my 6-Pack is built as light as I could imagine using the burliest lightish parts that I can handle with my weight (160 lbs) and riding style (fluid & finesse, not bashing hard) and it weighs 34-35 lbs. I think it would feel comical at 30 lbs, sorta like sitting on a grasshopper beefed up with steroids, all high-strung and high-sprung but not really wanting or able to land heavy. not much room for messing up, if you know what I mean. and if you're not going to be using the full 6" of travel, why are you getting it? it's just extra weight. you're better off looking at 4" or maybe 5" bikes, with the rare exception being the Yeti 575, and I wouldn't be riding that thing in any burly terrain if I weighed more than 135 or 140 lbs.
 

·
Baked Alaskan
Joined
·
1,810 Posts
depends on how you ride

Pedro said:
Having a hard time deciding what amount of travel would give me more enjoyment.
I want more travel because more is plusher but am afraid less may also work fine and be more agile.
Though they are similar, to me the Spot and the Pack are very different rides. The difference is more than an inch. The Spot is an XC bike with lots of travel, the Pack is more of a freeride bike that can be pedaled. It'll take DC forks, has built in chainguide mounts, burlier tubeset, longer chainstays and so forth. Its intended to be hammered in a way the Spot isn't.

Personally I like the squish too, but I could never push a Pack to its limits like those with bigger nuts than I have, so the Spot is the one and only suspension bike I have. I think you need to look at your riding style and whether you'll need/use the Pack over the Spot or not. I love the Pack, but there's nothing I can't ride on the Spot that the Pack would allow me to clear.

If you lean more toward XC, go Spot and build it fast and light and have some super fat tires, a monster front rotor and so forth for the more aggro days. If you lean more toward FR, go Pack and have some weenie-light tires, an RP3 and a lighter fork for the XC days. For everyday riding with small drops and small airs, the Spot has never disappointed.
 

·
Waiting to exhale.
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
I say go for the 5 spot if you're not into serious freeriding. You would be amazed at some of the things people can ride on a hardtail let alone a 5 spot. 5inches is plenty for even the gnarliest trails. I think people rely too much on their bike and less on personal skill to get them through the rough parts of the trail. you shouldn't get a 6inch bike just because you don't want to feel a few rocks as you pedal through. But then again, if you already have those skills and just want a cadillac trail bike then go for it.
 

·
Fo' Bidniz in da haus
Joined
·
17,282 Posts
SMOKEY said:
I say go for the 5 spot if you're not into serious freeriding. You would be amazed at some of the things people can ride on a hardtail let alone a 5 spot. 5inches is plenty for even the gnarliest trails. I think people rely too much on their bike and less on personal skill to get them through the rough parts of the trail. you shouldn't get a 6inch bike just because you don't want to feel a few rocks as you pedal through. But then again, if you already have those skills and just want a cadillac trail bike then go for it.
boy.....that almost sounds like single speed philosophy speak......
 

·
dog's best friend
Joined
·
699 Posts
gonzostrike said:
I think the weight ranges you provide are nonsensical and counterproductive.

a 30-lbs 6"/6" bike is not going to be burly enough to take advantage of what that amount of travel can do for you. if you want a bike that weighs only 30 lbs you should sacrifice travel amount and get a design that feels deeper than it measures.

my 6-Pack is built as light as I could imagine using the burliest lightish parts that I can handle with my weight (160 lbs) and riding style (fluid & finesse, not bashing hard) and it weighs 34-35 lbs. I think it would feel comical at 30 lbs, sorta like sitting on a grasshopper beefed up with steroids, all high-strung and high-sprung but not really wanting or able to land heavy. not much room for messing up, if you know what I mean. and if you're not going to be using the full 6" of travel, why are you getting it? it's just extra weight. you're better off looking at 4" or maybe 5" bikes, with the rare exception being the Yeti 575, and I wouldn't be riding that thing in any burly terrain if I weighed more than 135 or 140 lbs.
Gonzo,

Sounds like you've ridden an Els ID. Grasshopper on steroids...perfect description. I owned one for a couple of months and switched to an RFX set up for XC. Still weighed in the mid 30's but man what a stable ride up or down. So I would agree, light weight and big travel = bad mix.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,257 Posts
telebiker said:
Gonzo,

Sounds like you've ridden an Els ID. Grasshopper on steroids...perfect description. I owned one for a couple of months and switched to an RFX set up for XC. Still weighed in the mid 30's but man what a stable ride up or down. So I would agree, light weight and big travel = bad mix.
Id and Moment and any other longer travel but lightweight bike, all are going to ride like this.

that kind of bike is for the rider who wants to... or believes he can... impress people by saying he has a 6" / 6" travel bike that weighs only 30 lbs. IMO, big friggin' deal. the bike doesn't do a danged thing on its own to make you a better rider or person. it's the combo of pilot and bike. a 83-year-old grandma could own a Canfield Fatty Fat fully customized to her and it wouldn't make her a good rider.

the whole point of MORE travel is to go FASTER through ROUGHER terrain.

the whole point of LESS weight is to go FASTER when climbing uphill on smooth terrain.

why are some morons gullible enough to think that these two goals can be reconciled in one bike?
 

·
carpe mañana
Joined
·
7,308 Posts
gonzostrike said:
IMO, big friggin' deal. the bike doesn't do a danged thing on its own to make you a better rider or person. it's the combo of pilot and bike.
No bike will make you a better person, that's for sure. I think that your statement that a bike won't make you a better rider is worth commenting on, however. A rider is still the same rider, same amount of skill, right? But there is a lot to be said about a bike. I've been riding a Burner for a while and now a 5 Spot. I haven' t touched a hardtail in over a year and I've felt like my skill has skyrocketed in this timeframe. Well, I just rode a hardtail this past weekend, and I came to realize that my skill hasn't improved as much as I thought it had. The lesson I learned is that a rider's lack of skill can be augmented by a well performing bike and as a combo they can be a great team.

_MK
 

·
No, that's not phonetic
Joined
·
14,313 Posts
It is pretty obvious that travel keeps increasing while weights keep coming down. Saying a 6x6 rig is totally appropriate at 34#, but anyone riding a 30# version is just deluded, is a little wacky in and of itself. The sentiment is rather quaint when you take the long view. I mean, look at every aspect of the sport. Who would have ever imagined a few years ago that World Cup XC racers would be competing on fullies? Who would have guessed that trailbikes would hit 5" not to mention 6? I can remember the exact same arguments made at the dawn of civilization (mid 90's) when people said 3" was absolutely the most anyone would ever need and 2" was probably more appropriate: leave the 4" travel to the DH bikes...

Quaint.
 

·
not so super...
Joined
·
11,466 Posts
gonzostrike said:
Moment and any other longer travel but lightweight bike, all are going to ride like this.
IMO...my Moment rode quite well. I would say as well as any 6/6 trail bike and will be testing that theory soon.
 

·
Fo' Bidniz in da haus
Joined
·
17,282 Posts
SMOKEY said:
Its got me man, its got me.
me too bro......I just sold my roadbike and shipped it off today........have a sale pending for the Rocky Mountain as of this morning, and put the Surly on ebay/mtbr yesterday.

All I have left to do know is decide on which UST tires to run on the new blinglesizzle
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,257 Posts
SSINGA, I have to conclude from your statement that what you and I seek and like in a bicycle are probably pretty different.

tscheezy, I see your point but I think that UCI DH racing is the real testing ground for durability, weight, amount of travel and quality of travel. the more finesse-oriented riders are moving their rigs back to the 40 lb mark, but they're not going much lower. a few years ago they were all at 45-50 lbs. but about 10 years ago they were at the 35-40 lbs mark. ;)

I'm not talking about the possibility of building a 7"/7" 30 lbs "super XC" rig. I suppose one could do so with a Foes Inferno and the new upcoming fully air DH40 fork etc. whether it would feel as good on a technical descent as the same bike set up 10 lbs heavier is a question that we shouldn't even need to ask, as the answer should be intuitive. and in the negative. ;)
 

·
No, that's not phonetic
Joined
·
14,313 Posts
Just wait until I get done with my DH40 Air fork equipped Nitrous sporting the 6-Pack rockers and a 2.25" stroke DHX air for a sweeeeeet 6.75" out back and 8" up front. I'm shooting for a sub-28# FR rig.
 

·
Paper or plastic?
Joined
·
10,627 Posts
tscheezy said:
Just wait until I get done with my DH40 Air fork equipped Nitrous sporting the 6-Pack rockers and a 2.25" stroke DHX air for a sweeeeeet 6.75" out back and 8" up front. I'm shooting for a sub-28# FR rig.
I'm with Tscheezy there. The idea of a "light" 6x6 trail bike sounds appealing, and I would not be surprised if you'd see more soon. The Giant Reign already offers 6x6 and can be easily dropped to 30#. At that weight, you probably should not be hucking 5 ft to flat, but you can have a nice squishy bike to handle all the regular obstacles. In the meantime, the 6x6 burly bike will probably move to 7x7 or 8x8.

Size matters after all. :)
 

·
not so super...
Joined
·
11,466 Posts
zorg said:
I'm with Tscheezy there. The idea of a "light" 6x6 trail bike sounds appealing, and I would not be surprised if you'd see more soon. At that weight, you probably should not be hucking 5 ft to flat, but you can have a nice squishy bike to handle all the regular obstacles.
My Moment was 34lbs mostly due to tire choice and a 600lb spring and I always did 4-5' drops on it. When did "suggested drop size" become the way to measure a bikes strength and durability anyway???

Look at the 2nd picture in superstock's post "more Moab Pictures - Spot and Flux"

That is 4-5' to flat on a Spot!!!!!
 

·
Paper or plastic?
Joined
·
10,627 Posts
SSINGA said:
My Moment was 34lbs mostly due to tire choice and a 600lb spring and I always did 4-5' drops on it. When did "suggested drop size" become the way to measure a bikes strength and durability anyway???

Look at the 2nd picture in superstock's post "more Moab Pictures - Spot and Flux"

That is 4-5' to flat on a Spot!!!!!
Replace 4-5 by whatever number is appropriate, but you get the idea. :)

Interestingly enough, right after this posting, I found out about the SC Nomad which apparently will be sold as either a lightish all mountain or burly hucker.
 
1 - 20 of 97 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top