Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Love child of a Dos and a Big Mama?

4K views 65 replies 27 participants last post by  Boyonabyke 
#1 ·
#2 ·
Doesn't the JET 9 fit the bill for what you seek? Or are you not a fan of the mini-link type suspension designs?

Isn't the KHS Flagstaff a 3.5" fully? Or is that frame design too heavy to accomplish what you desire?


Are you wishing for a slightly updated and refined version of the old Fisher 293/293 (Sugar-style design) but in a short travel format?


What is "affordable" for a frame like this? $1K threshold? Perhaps your critieria makes it financially unfeasible for a bike company to produce such a frame. Is Scandium pricier to spec that 7005 or 6061 AL?

Just pondering "out loud" to add to your thread a bit.
 
#4 ·
What I want is beyond a bike that feels like a 'hardtail with a low pressure rear tire', the comment made about most softails.
That is pretty much how the Milk Money feels to me.

What exactly do you want that your 3" Lev does not give you? It seems ideal.

Do you want a frame like that from a major producer at a low price?
 
#5 ·
MMcG said:
Doesn't the JET 9 fit the bill for what you seek? Or are you not a fan of the mini-link type suspension designs?

The JET9 should have been the slam dunk, but it is not, and I am not the only one who feels that way from what I have read. I had hoped the Pivot would be...not. Frankly the Racer X comes closest in my mind.

Isn't the KHS Flagstaff a 3.5" fully? Or is that frame design too heavy to accomplish what you desire?


I don't know that much about it except for a brief ride at a demo day. Meh!

Are you wishing for a slightly updated and refined version of the old Fisher 293/293 (Sugar-style design) but in a short travel format?


Maybe I am. I think about the old K2 stuff before they went Walmart...the Razorbak or something like that?

What is "affordable" for a frame like this? $1K threshold? Perhaps your critieria makes it financially unfeasible for a bike company to produce such a frame. Is Scandium pricier to spec that 7005 or 6061 AL?


Well, I threw out Scandium as a way to get stiffness and durability, but 6061 works for me. I would not expect that frame at 1K, but under the 1500 mark would be nice.

Just pondering "out loud" to add to your thread a bit.
Yeah, good questions.

What I want make not make sense. But I see 29ers going in the direction of becoming big wheeled 26ers in some ways and I think the sweet spot for big wheels is the way they allow you to do more with less.

However the cost to make a 4" travel bike is likely the same as a 2.76589" travel (or whatever) bike and once you get all those linky things and pivots in there it may be hard to hit the mark I am aiming at. Or maybe that mark does not exist given the constraints of engineering VS. function VS. cost VS. market share.
 
#6 ·
Enel said:
That is pretty much how the Milk Money feels to me.

What exactly do you want that your 3" Lev does not give you? It seems ideal.

Do you want a frame like that from a major producer at a low price?
I could do with less travel then the Lev 3.0 has, or at least, I am willing to compromise depth of travel for a snappier ride. Case in point: I ride with the ProPedal on 90% of the time. Am I getting full travel...maybe, but the reduced suppleness does not bother me at all and I could live with it all the time if that was the requirement to get the rest of the package.

Ah...yes to your second point. Good observation. Why not?
 
#7 ·
I feel you. Some options currently availible are the Jet 9 at 3", Milk Money at 3", Silk Ti at 1.75". The Silk Ti seems real nice but it's very costly. Now if Castellano offered a Fango 29er with 1.75" of travel, we might be onto something.
 
#11 ·
MMcG said:
What are you reading about the JET9?

What about something like this but in 2.5 or 3" travel guise and 29er wheels?

Reading some disappointments in weight and flex. Flex will likely get fixed over time and with refinements like the RIP went through. Weight....well, that may be the ceiling getting bumped into. I am not sure.

EDIT: I have ridden the JET on two occasions and I liked it, so it is not like I have just been internet testing bikes. If it ever gets a bit stiffer in the back end for bigger guys like me, I would rank it a bit higher.

Maybe that pic is the thing. but I keep coming back to that Scalpel. I saw one on a trail ride the other day and I thought "that is a weapon, right there."

Meh, I could be completely wrong. Not the first time my mind has deluded me and reality taught me the difference!
 
#12 ·
mtroy said:
I could do with less travel then the Lev 3.0 has, or at least, I am willing to compromise depth of travel for a snappier ride. Case in point: I ride with the ProPedal on 90% of the time. Am I getting full travel...maybe, but the reduced suppleness does not bother me at all and I could live with it all the time if that was the requirement to get the rest of the package.
I think you've already found your sweet spot, you just can't help letting your eyes wander.

With PP on, unless you land a drop HARD, you're not likely getting more than ~2.25" of travel. The Lev 3.0 is a VERY rampy design, even when run wide open it's still not often that you get all 3".

Going to something like a Jet or BM adds weight and/or flex and will most likely have a less snappy/racy feel, and the softtails will weigh and cost almost as much (if not more) than what you currently have, with little (or no) on-trail benefit.

Methinks (and yes, it's just my opinion) that you need to lighten your Lev up! 28lbs?!! It is very, very easy to get an XL Lev into the low 26's without throwing stupid amounts of money at it. I'm not talking about stupid light weight weenie disposable or flex-o-matic parts either--I'm talking about stuff that can be ridden day in/day out by adult sized human beings that don't always hit their lines just right.

Keep us posted...

MC
 
#13 ·
mikesee said:
I think you've already found your sweet spot, you just can't help letting your eyes wander.

With PP on, unless you land a drop HARD, you're not likely getting more than ~2.25" of travel. The Lev 3.0 is a VERY rampy design, even when run wide open it's still not often that you get all 3".

Going to something like a Jet or BM adds weight and/or flex and will most likely have a less snappy/racy feel, and the softtails will weigh and cost almost as much (if not more) than what you currently have, with little (or no) on-trail benefit.

Methinks (and yes, it's just my opinion) that you need to lighten your Lev up! 28lbs?!! It is very, very easy to get an XL Lev into the low 26's without throwing stupid amounts of money at it. I'm not talking about stupid light weight weenie disposable or flex-o-matic parts either--I'm talking about stuff that can be ridden day in/day out by adult sized human beings that don't always hit their lines just right.

Keep us posted...

MC
You may well be right. It may not get better than the 3.0 Lev. Making it lighter would just take money. It has very solid parts and some nice stuff too, but there is room in the brakes and other odds and ends to shave grams.

It is an amazingly satisfactory ride for my needs. It makes me wonder, "why the rush to bigger travel 29ers", but that is filtered through the lens of my priorities.
 
#14 ·
As much as I like my GF Supercal at 3" travel, I would have loved to see them stick with the design long enough to refine it and stiffin it up some. I still think it is a great bike for me, even with the bit of flex in the design.

G
 
#15 ·
mtroy said:
It makes me wonder, "why the rush to bigger travel 29ers", but that is filtered through the lens of my priorities.
It all depends on who you are and what you ride. I never understood why someone would want a hardtail, then I found myself in a pine forest with a bed of needles over soft dirt. I swear the ground felt like it had two inches of travel. For me (old and fat), 3-4" of travel works well for most of my riding (hard and chunky). If I were throwing myself down rougher terrain, I'd look for more travel.
 
#16 ·
bsdc said:
It all depends on who you are and what you ride. I never understood why someone would want a hardtail, then I found myself in a pine forest with a bed of needles over soft dirt. I swear the ground felt like it had two inches of travel. For me (old and fat), 3-4" of travel works well for most of my riding (hard and chunky). If I were throwing myself down rougher terrain, I'd look for more travel.
Agreed and noted in my comments earlier. In fact, the other day I did a ride that I finally came to appreciate the call to stiffer and better forks for 29ers (running a classic Reba). It was like trying to wrassle a snake and keep it pointed straight. If I rode chunky, deep stuff all the time we would not be having this conversation.

But, I still wonder if the rush to bigger and better is not all that better for a LOT of folks, they just don't know it. It reminds me of all the guys I ride with that never use the 5-6" of travel in the bikes they thought they had to have to be a mtn biker, so now they suffer on long climbs with a 30+lb bike and think they are really using up that all mountain bike on a smooth singletrack....until I drop them on my hardtail SS 29er.
 
#17 ·
bsdc said:
I feel you. Some options currently availible are the Jet 9 at 3", Milk Money at 3", Silk Ti at 1.75". The Silk Ti seems real nice but it's very costly. Now if Castellano offered a Fango 29er with 1.75" of travel, we might be onto something.
Siren does just under 2" with their softail and is coming out with a new model that's 4" travel with a modified softail design. Blacksheep/Daryl Funk do 4" titanium softails, but they rely heavily on the shock platform by design. From what I've been told about the new Siren design, it should be a very efficient-pedaling design.
 
#19 · (Edited)
The once and future king

To me, the RX 29 is the still the once and future king of the XC 29ers. It's suspension remains active while braking, and it does not "squat" into it's travel under pedaling load on a climb. It's a well balanced design with the 4" fork and 3" rear travel arrangement. The damn thing's pivots/bearings are still rock solid and slop free after @ 120 hrs + of racing in the last year and a half. It may not be the best endurance racing platform around, but it's close, and not giving up much to anything that might be better. Specialized sure seems to think so - that "new" FS 29er of theirs really, really, closely resembles a RX 29.
And FWIW - that front end stiffness deficit that the old Reba's are alleged to have, COMPLETELY disappears with a Mikesee built Edge XC/DT190/RWS skewer front wheel attached to the fork. Basically, no fork is going to "shine" when the front wheel has the torsional rigidity of a warm corn tortilla.

I've stated it more than once, sometimes "new" is just new. I'm happy with my "old" 24.5 lb RX 29
 

Attachments

#20 ·
jms said:
To me, the RX 29 is the still the once and future king of the XC 29ers. It's suspension remains active while braking, and it does not "squat" into it's travel under pedaling load on a climb. It's a well balanced design with the 4' fork and 3" rear travel arrangement. The damn thing's pivots/bearings are still rock solid and slop free after @ 120 hrs + of racing in the last year and a half. It may not be the best endurance racing platform around, but it's close, and not giving up much to anything that might be better. Specialized sure seems to think so - that "new" FS 29er of theirs really, really, closely resembles a RX 29.
And FWIW - that front end stiffness deficit that the old Reba's are alleged to have, COMPLETELY disappears with a Mikesee built Edge XC/DT190/RWS skewer front wheel attached to the fork. Basically, no fork is going to "shine" when the front wheel has the torsional rigidity of a warm corn tortilla.

I've stated it more than once, sometimes "new" is just new. I'm happy with my "old" 24.5 lb RX 29
Right now, if I had to replace my Lev, it would be with a RX 29. Some things just get better with age. It is an excellent, proven, simple design.

Interesting on the wheel deal. I noticed the stiffness in the Edge wheels I tested and that was with the normal QR set up. However, for the cost of the front rim only, I could replace my fork AND get a 9mm set up for my Hope hubs/Flow rims combo.
 
#21 ·
dinoadventures said:
Siren does just under 2" with their softail and is coming out with a new model that's 4" travel with a modified softail design. Blacksheep/Daryl Funk do 4" titanium softails, but they rely heavily on the shock platform by design. From what I've been told about the new Siren design, it should be a very efficient-pedaling design.
A chance to spend time on a Song slipped by me last year, but I do respect Brenden's approach to that product. I guess it is a baby bear/momma bear/ poppa bear thing. Where is the point of balance for what I am looking for? 1.5", 2", 2.5", 3". I am not sure. I think a Song would be very very close to what I am talking about although I am not so sure that the shock as a frame member is the deal for much longer travel than the way it is now. I completely appreciate the simplicity and the weight savings.

If MC is right, and I have thought about this but had no real numbers to go by, and I am not using much more than 2.25" of travel in PP mode, then that falls into my thinking that even a 2.5" travel, Scalpel like approach has merit. Maybe even an adjustable travel setting from 2.XX to 3".

I am not sure if the big guys like Trek, etc. see it that way. The brief time I had on the Epic Marathon 29er was very nice and the JET9 is good too, but I have an idea of something a bit different...not sure if I can put my finger on it. I still think that something along the lines of a Dos Niner-ish bike with a small link and a pivot is the deal.
 
#22 ·
I'm also interested in this type of bike. I have wanted something plusher than a Dos Niner, but not as heavy as a JET for a while. The Titus Racer-X looks appealling - anyone know if it is stiff enough for a big guy? How does it compare to the JET9? I have to agree on the "29er Scalpel" idea - it has occurred to me more than once. The Lenz Lev 3.0 looks nice, but I hear it is very plush riding - not an efficient climber without Propedal on - that is one thing I enjoy on the JET - it climbs great even with the PP off.
 
#23 ·
bridog said:
I'm also interested in this type of bike. I have wanted something plusher than a Dos Niner, but not as heavy as a JET for a while. The Titus Racer-X looks appealling - anyone know if it is stiff enough for a big guy? How does it compare to the JET9? I have to agree on the "29er Scalpel" idea - it has occurred to me more than once. The Lenz Lev 3.0 looks nice, but I hear it is very plush riding - not an efficient climber without Propedal on - that is one thing I enjoy on the JET - it climbs great even with the PP off.
IMO the RX is stiff enough for a big guy. IMO without PP on, the Lev is too active to feel good when trying to ascend or get down the road quickly, although shock settings can be set to mitigate that somewhat. The JET could care less about PP and that is, IMO, the best part of the whole package.

But, the Lev makes a better short travel trailbike than either of them.

It would be a tough choice between the two, but I would go to a RX until the JET gets up to the level of frame stiffness that the RIP is...maybe that has already happened by now. I also tend to keep my bikes for years and the RX is so darn proven by now that there are few 'My Broken RX' threads out there...if any.
 
#24 · (Edited)
I have a Lev 4 with a 2010 RP23 w/ Boost Valve.
Still playing with pressure,and comparing to a Fisher Hifi (that I always run pp on in 1 or 2...didn't climb great without ( not bad, but not great) and 3 was too stiff)...but:

The Lev feels soft without the pp on.I like a stiffer feel. I have been trying pp 2 and 3. The good thing with the Boost Valve is( at least I think it's the BV more that the Lenz design) it is not harsh leaving the pp on all the time , where on the Fisher it was a compromise.pp1 is very soft, 2 is probably going to be great for rocky/rooty trail riding and 3 are what I'll probably use at races unless it is really rocky/rooty.Again...I still have to play with pressure and dials.

And for a fork, I put DT Swiss XMC that is incredible.

With the Launch Control on the fork and the pp in 3...hard, out of the saddle race efforts feel better that the Fisher on smoother ground and much better on rougher ground( which in pp2 ,the Fisher would chatter a little,and pp1 was too soft)

I can't really compare it to a Jet because I only rode one around a parking lot.

I plan on racing the Lev at a NH race that has a lot of climbing and descending this weekend and a race in VT the next week that is smoother with climbing....both will be the test to see if I made the right decision.

The Fisher w/ RP23 and a RLC F29 always felt like a 3" bike, efficient but on the harsh side...where the Lev feels like more bottomless,smoother but still very efficient ( and probably more potential after dialing it in)
 
#26 ·
Thoughts.......

#1: No one has yet executed the soft tail design properly yet. Siren comes closest in my opinion.

#2: 29"er Scalpels have been test ridden in the field for at least two years. The Cannondale/Dorel company have not seen the numbers or dealer pressure to go forward with it.

#3: The proposed cross between a Big Mama and a Dos Niner is intriguing. If Salsa pulled it off in a package that provided 3 inches of travel in a laterally stiff, efficient chassis, then the JET 9 might have a serious competitor for the 29"er XC/endurance racers dollars.

#4: The RX was a bike that mikesee reviewed along with some other rigs on this forum several years ago. As I recall, he pronounced the RX as the stiffest laterally, and the stiffest in terms of suspension feel. A racers 29"er FS design. Maybe it should be resurrected? Maybe the Superfly 100 is a bling version of that bike?

#5: The Pivot 429 seemed like a bike that had XC race written all over it when I rode it. Stiffer feeling suspension than anything I had ridden in its class with a rigid lateral feel. Maybe it is too heavy/expensive for some tastes, but I thought it would fit the bill very well for what is being asked for here. I don't think having 4 inches of travel is a bad thing for a bike in this category.

#6: In my opinion, the bike in question needs to be light race bike, (sub 6lbs for frame and damper), be laterally rigid, allow for out of saddle performance on par with a hardtail, and take the edge off the rough stuff while keeping the rear wheel in contact with the ground. Basically, be everything good that a hardtail is and have none of the drawbacks of riding a hardtail. This is if we are talking about a racing bike for XC and fast paced shorter endurance events. We already have great long distance endurance rigs, light trail bikes, and efficient hardtails.

I think the problem that any bike that fits the parameters I am talking about, (JET 9), has is that it gets taken out of context by the riding public, is found to be defficient, breaks, and disappoints some buyers. Light weight can be an addictive elixir, and when you get away from the racing courses and start trail riding, or AM riding on these sorts of rigs, the sparks start to fly. At least that is how I am reading what I see here and in other forums.

In the end, it may be a case of "be careful what you ask for"! ;)
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top