Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Compulsive Bike Builder
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Time for a write up on my latest project.



It is relatively light for what it is, and there is room or further weight reduction, but then again, there always is, isn't there? It is not an ultimate weight weenie bike. What 29er can be? What full suspension, 3x9, disc bike can be?

Frame: 2006 Gary Fisher Sugar 293, DT Swiss SSD 210 L Shock
Fork: RockShox Reba Race 29er Non-poploc
Headset: Chris King
Crank/BB: Shimano XTR M960, Boone 20T Ti small ring
Pedals: Crank Brothers Triple Ti Eggs
Front derailleur: Shimano Deore
Rear derailleur: SRAM X.0 long cage
Shifters: SRAM X.0 Trigger
Cassette: Shimano XTR M960 11-34
Chain: Shimano HG53
Hubs: American Classic Disc 130/225
Skewers: Control Tech Alloy/Ti QR
Rims: Stan's Notubes ZTR 355 29er
Spokes/Nips: DT Swiss Super Comp, DT Swiss Alloy
Tires: Stan's Notubes Crow 29er
Tubes: None, Stan's Yellow tape and secret sauce
Brakes: Magura Marta, 180mm front / 160 mm rear
Handlebar: Control Tech Carbon low rise 25.4 mm
Stem: Syntace F99 90 mm Ti Bolt Kit
Grips: WTB Moto Tec Clamp on
Saddle: Selle Italia Flite Kit Carbonio
Seatpost: Thomson Masterpiece 30.9 x 367 setback uncut
Seatpost clamp: Bontrager QR
Cables/Housing: Clark's 1.1 mm stainless

Weight: 23 lb 15 oz on the Rapala Digital fish scale. Can I call it 23.9 lbs?


I felt the stock Fox Float R Propedal made the Sugar a bit firm in the back. After a little consultation with Fisher directly, a big volume linear shock like the DT Swiss was deemed to be a good match with the Fisher's linear rate suspension, so I tried it and liked the difference. No real weight difference between the two shocks, however. The cranks and pedals have been on about 4 or 5 bikes now. The Boone 20T small ring is all I need to get gearing I like on a 29er. I prefer the Thomson Masterpiece to carbon posts. Read Thomson's write up on the Masterpiece on their website, this post is totally engineered, and maybe 10 or 20 grams heavier than most lightweight carbon seatposts. Carbon seatstays at least add coolness factor. I think the suspension flexes along the chainstays. Low end Deore front derailleur does the job and is lighter than M960 derailleur that tries to be all things to all bikes. Bontrager QR is suprisingly light. Low end HG53 chain has done the job. Flite Kit Carbonio needs to be broken in according to Selle Italia, and I found that to be true. After a few rides the thin, high density foam padding softened up a bit and I have used this saddle on many bikes now.


Plain Martas instead of Marta SLs because I like black. Although the make them in red now, hmm... Control Tech bars are 660mm wide, wider than most low rise bars, and I like wide. Moto Tec grips allow me to disassemble the cockpit easily for tinkering (what, me tinker?), and are still reasonably light. I keep a lot of steerer tube showing on my 29ers for adjustability, and because most 29ers have very short head tubes, I just cannot bring myself to cut the steerer that short.


I could save weight with 160mm rotors and 5mm skewers. But the added braking power of a 180 mm rotor comes with a 20 gram penalty. It is a simple change with Maggies - Just use a rear caliper in the front and get a bigger rotor. QRs weigh like 40 grams more than CTech 5mm Ti/alloys.



Ahh, the Sugar's spotty reputation. They are known for breaking at the top tube / shock mount junction. For '06 (probably the last year Sugars will be available) I have to believe that Fisher has beefed this area up enough. The shock mount plates are very thick, they are nearly solid (not split shaped at the tubes), and they are double pass welded to the tubes. It will be a sad day when the last Sugar rolls out of the Fisher warehouse. The suspension design is simple and does what it is designed to do very well. Fisher's move to single pivot seems to be a less sophisticated design, if you ask me. The 293 has a nice balance of climbing prowess and downhill stability due to its genesis geometry, 29er wheels, and efficient suspension. My non-platform rear shock has a lockout, but I rarely use it.

The Crow tires work surprisingly well, esp at low pressures as recommended, I have settled in at 25 psi for now. They get traction in situations seemingly in defiance of the laws of physics. They are a full 2 inch casing, unlike other lightweight tires like 26" Kenda Klimax Lites I tried that must have had like a 1.7" tread and a 1.6" casing. I cannot speak to the Crows in 26" - they would have less volume and a different contact patch, of course, both of which might change the performance of the tire dramatically. The combination of the tires and wheels vs. the stock parts that I rode for a while made a huge change. 29er "momentum" issues do not exist with these tires/wheels. I suspect that adding a couple hundred grams for different tires will not change that much, since the stock wheels/tires must have weighed about 800 grams more, and barely had the "momentum" issue you read about so much.
 

·
Recovering Weight Weenie
Joined
·
8,821 Posts
Wow...that is light!

And all the stuff is very "real world..." except for those Crows...make sure to carry an extra tire with you at all times.;)

My dual-squish is sitting at 28.5lbs, and it's as light as is reasonable....oh wait...i could drop like 2lbs with road tires...:p
 

·
Compulsive Bike Builder
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Probably not

FoShizzle said:
i hope your luck with girly weight weenie tires fairs MUCH better than mine
My experience with weight weenie tires has been terrible. By far the worst was the Kenda Klimax. They had so little air volume that you had to run them at high pressure or you would pinch flat the TIRE not the tube, which I did more than once. But at high pressure they rode like rocks and offered very little grip. I suffered them for part of a race season.

The 29er Crows at least have a wide casing and high volume - for a WW tire, that is. Enough so that they seem to have some trail applicability beyond just racing.
 

·
Compulsive Bike Builder
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Kinda

anden said:
Have you tried flipping over that riserbar, to see if you like a lower front?
I want a lower front for sure. I have ordered the Salsa carbon wide flat bar with 11 degree sweep instead. Which, by the way, is lighter than the CTech bar.
 

·
SUBLIM8er
Joined
·
2,203 Posts
Quite nice and lots of room for shedding fat. Hmm?...this might change my winter project equation. Lose the Rapala scale and get it on an Ultimate hanging scale. I had the Rapala scale a coupla years ago and it was not to be trusted. Question: does the frame come w/canti mounts?
 

·
Recovering couch patato
Joined
·
14,017 Posts
A a 29" weightweenie, I am sincerely impressed. I admire the choices you've made to "add" weight for performance and even budget. Those brakes, that chain. Of course it's not a budget build though :) Good to hear a damper swap worked out well for you.

Did you weight the frame?
 

·
Fo' Bidniz in da haus
Joined
·
17,282 Posts
DirtDad said:
My experience with weight weenie tires has been terrible. By far the worst was the Kenda Klimax. They had so little air volume that you had to run them at high pressure or you would pinch flat the TIRE not the tube, which I did more than once. But at high pressure they rode like rocks and offered very little grip. I suffered them for part of a race season.

The 29er Crows at least have a wide casing and high volume - for a WW tire, that is. Enough so that they seem to have some trail applicability beyond just racing.
yeah, what the heck...worth a try.

I even dont like girly Ignitor tires....blew a sidewall on them on a relatively girly technical trail.

Put Exis on my Ventana last night (fr/rear) and was happy about the weights too.....765 and 770 grams....heck, at that weight, NO reason not to run em given my Ignitor was 625 grams...but I diverge.

SWEET bike....
 

·
Compulsive Bike Builder
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Replies

Axis II said:
Quite nice and lots of room for shedding fat. Lose the Rapala scale and get it on an Ultimate hanging scale. I had the Rapala scale a coupla years ago and it was not to be trusted. Question: does the frame come w/canti mounts?
Cloxxki said:
Did you weight the frame?
I am off to google to look for the ultimate scale. But I have seen here many using the Rapala. If it is inaccurate, I hope it is consistently inaccurate so you can make comparisons, anyway.

Room for shedding weight, yes there is. I have in my hands an Extralite eBones W crankset. I don't have rings, it will be a long term project. A Lenzsport Leviathan would be about 1/2 lb lighter than the Sugar frame. There are more possibilities.

The Sugar medium frame weighed in at 5.9 lbs, and they lost their canti tabs in 2005.
 

·
Compulsive Bike Builder
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I have tried that in the past

sonyisdope said:
I have to be honest, I am pretty skeptical. I would like to see the bike sitting on a scale.
I have thought about authenticating weights like this. If you take a pic close up enough to show the scale reading, you cannot see the whole bike, someone could easily be holding the bike up to make the scale read whatever you want it to. If you back up enough to show the whole bike, the display is not readable in the image, and it could still be rigged. Then there is Photoshop to contend with. I could weigh it on other scales, like at shops. But they may not be accurate, and all I would be doing is making an unsubstantiable claim that it had some weight at some shop. Ultimately, there is no way to *prove* the weight of a bike in a forum.
 

·
A Real Winner.
Joined
·
863 Posts
DirtDad said:
I have thought about authenticating weights like this. If you take a pic close up enough to show the scale reading, you cannot see the whole bike, someone could easily be holding the bike up to make the scale read whatever you want it to. If you back up enough to show the whole bike, the display is not readable in the image, and it could still be rigged. Then there is Photoshop to contend with. I could weigh it on other scales, like at shops. But they may not be accurate, and all I would be doing is making an unsubstantiable claim that it had some weight at some shop. Ultimately, there is no way to *prove* the weight of a bike in a forum.
Ok, well, I still don't believe you. Just take a picture. You can be an ass and Photoshop it to try win the respect of the weight weenie community, or you can just post an honest weight and show it off. I'm just saying I'm skeptikal of this bike being this light, if it is, more power to you. If not, who cares? Just man up and post a picture.
 

·
Compulsive Bike Builder
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Previous post

sonyisdope said:
I meant post a picture of the honest weight. Why are you so anti-showing-off the bike on a scale?
Per my previous post, it proves nothing and so I believe it is a waste of time. Besides, my scale could be inaccurate, too. So I prefer just to give my word that the weight is accurate, at least per my digital fish scale.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
im amazed this bike is a solid four lbs lighter than my dos niner. ive been scratching my head trying to figure out where Im missing something. Med Dos,
xt/xtr drivetrain,
xt calipers/hydro,
flippy shifters,
mav fork/hub,
syncros ti post,
flyte seat,
mary bar,
shimano pedals,
karma/ignitor,
td17 rims, comp. spokes,
dt 340 rear hub,
foam grips,
160 rotors,
king HS,
Kore elite 120 stem,
salsa ti skewer,
one alloy bottle cage,
deore crank arms/race face rings.

28lbs.
the weighing method Ive used is standing on a bathroom scale with and without my bike and figuring the difference.

If thats what that bike weighs, Ive got alot of work to do.
 

·
A Real Winner.
Joined
·
863 Posts
DirtDad said:
Per my previous post, it proves nothing and so I believe it is a waste of time. Besides, my scale could be inaccurate, too. So I prefer just to give my word that the weight is accurate, at least per my digital fish scale.

So you are saying that your crappy scale is inaccuarate, therefore you do not feel the need to post a picture of the weight, because your scale is obviously off by 5 pounds? I didn't say that I didn't believe you at first, I just said I was skeptical, but now because of the fact that you keep coming up with excuses to NOT post a picture of the weight, I think you are full of it. Yes, I realize that you can photoshop the picture, or you can do things to make the scale read incorrectly, but if you were honest, and your bike did indeed weigh under 24 pounds, you would post a pic of the honest weight. I use a Rapala fish scale, and it is pretty accurate, accurate to the point where I can tell if I put something on my bike, or take something off, it will show different weights. I highly doubt that it is off by 5 pounds, therefore when I am talking about weight of my bike, or other bikes, I can weigh them with confidence on my scale.

Like I said previously. . .If your bike weighs under 24 pounds, quit wasting your time defending why you shouldn't post a picture of the bike on a scale, and man up and take a picture! Until you do. . .Your 29er doesn't weigh under 24 pounds, so quit telling me it does.
 

·
bike dork extraordinaire
Joined
·
628 Posts
FoShizzle said:
besides, even if he posted a pic of the scale, how would we know it was not choped.....

for the record, I believe you ;)
It's probably accurate. My 293 weighs 28 lbs on an alpine digital scale, but all I've changed are the easy parts to upgrade (FSA XC140 stem, FSA Sl-K carbon seatpost, FSA carbon bar, FSA carbon cranks, Kenda Karma tires, 26" lightwieght tubes) and left the rest alone. The stan's tire/wheelset combo would probably drop an easy 2-3 lbs off of that, and swapping out the stock brakes, cassette, and saddle, which I haven't done, could easily save another lb, so 24 lbs is well within range on this bike. I don't think I'm going to go that route, but I don't question the possibilty of turning the sugar into a true lightweight dual squish 29er.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top