Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
731 Posts
They were not very impressed?

Probably the worst review I have seen for the FTM. What say the FTM ers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,067 Posts
MBR is a pretty fair mag and I am really surprised by this. Their highest rated bike is actually the Lapierre 914, which is basically a HL linked bike.

I almost feel as if they rode a bike that was too small for them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,261 Posts
Vespasianus said:
I almost feel as if they rode a bike that was too small for them.
I was thinking the same thing. I don't agree with the comment about stability and balance at all. But no matter. I'll measure my BB height when I get home.

I'd like to here from Jeff regarding the geo changes from '09 to '10.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,261 Posts
Looking at the article, the medium FTM was significantly shorter than all the other bikes tested, 100% of the difference come off of the front triangle (BB to front hub). A large FTM would have put the wheelbase in-line with the rest. That may explain some of the thoughts. They tested a large Santa Cruz, Turner and Tomac.
 

·
what's that rattle?
Joined
·
324 Posts
Some strange geometry

I was under the impression that the differences between the MotoLite and the 2009 FTM were the lower bottom bracket and front end designed around a 140mm (rather than 130mm) fork.

With a 140mm Fox fork and 2.1 Kendas my ML2's BB is 14". When I rode the '09 FTM I can't say I felt any higher up. Did MBR get a couple of duds?
 

·
ಠ_ಠ
Joined
·
3,190 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Blofeld said:
I was under the impression that the differences between the MotoLite and the 2009 FTM were the lower bottom bracket and front end designed around a 140mm (rather than 130mm) fork.

With a 140mm Fox fork and 2.1 Kendas my ML2's BB is 14". When I rode the '09 FTM I can't say I felt any higher up. Did MBR get a couple of duds?
I believe the ML was designed with an 125mm Fox in mind.
 

·
what's that rattle?
Joined
·
324 Posts
dulyebr said:
I believe the ML was designed with an 125mm Fox in mind.
My mistake! :eek:

In that case my BB height is 1.7mm closer to being on spec. :thumbsup:
I still think something sounds fishy about those test bike geometries...
 

·
At Work
Joined
·
1,814 Posts
But if they were stacking a Med FTM up against Large's then it is a skewed test.
 

·
At Work
Joined
·
1,814 Posts
I am actually liking the high BB height on mine. Taken a bit to get use to, but I am coming off a GF Sugar with less than half the suspension!
 

·
"El Whatever"
Joined
·
18,889 Posts
The SB and ML shared the (almost) same geo... being the main difference the longer chainstays on the ML.

My SB measured 13.75" with a Pike. So, if the FTM measured 13.75" with the Fox 140mm, then nothing has changed.

But to put the BB at 14" you need to put something like a Lyrik/36 on the ML. No joke! I got like 14" BB height when I put the Zoke AM1 at 145mm.

So, yeah... something doesn't add up. Did they get a dud? Did they measured correctly?

It looks like they were suing too little a bike also... or compensated with a longer stem and, IMHO, that feds up the handling of a trailbike.

Pure speculation at any rate. Now if someone would be very nice to post pics... ;)

Did MBR used the "control tyres"?? Maxxis Ardent 2.25" is what they use as control tyre.
 

·
what's that rattle?
Joined
·
324 Posts
Personally I have no problem with the test comparing the large SC to the medium Titus. Effective top tubes are only 1/4" different - a large Titus is a much bigger bike than a large SC.
Warp said:
The SB and ML shared the (almost) same geo... being the main difference the longer chainstays on the ML.

My SB measured 13.75" with a Pike. So, if the FTM measured 13.75" with the Fox 140mm, then nothing has changed.

But to put the BB at 14" you need to put something like a Lyrik/36 on the ML. No joke! I got like 14" BB height when I put the Zoke AM1 at 145mm.

So, yeah... something doesn't add up. Did they get a dud? Did they measured correctly?

It looks like they were suing too little a bike also... or compensated with a longer stem and, IMHO, that feds up the handling of a trailbike.

Pure speculation at any rate. Now if someone would be very nice to post pics...

Did MBR used the "control tyres"?? Maxxis Ardent 2.25" is what they use as control tyre.
What seems strange to me is that the FTM has ALWAYS supposed to be lower than the MotoLite and Switchblade even with a 140mm fork. An inch of BB height is would mean about 3" of A2C change, hard to think that much could be attributed to fork variation alone.

There's more on this test in the Turner Forum here.
 

·
MTB aficionado
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
dulyebr said:
They gushed over the 5.Spot 9/10.
It doesn't suprise me.... it is one of those rare machines that does every right.

Regards,

EndUser
 

·
MTB aficionado
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
Yes

dulyebr said:
have you test ridden one?
Yes, I have. Have time on two DW bikes.... the mojo and the spot. The spot was heavier, but better in every way .vs the Mojo. If I had to replace my ML today, it would unquestionably be the spot. The suspension out-classes everything else I've tested. It has a remarkable ride quality.

EndUser
 

·
Ti is addictive
Joined
·
2,894 Posts
Read the article a couple of weeks ago, came up with the conclusion different strokes for different folks. The FTM has made no bones on leaning towards the long travel XC range of bikes, while the spot leans towards the do all one trail bike (heck you can hang a Fox 36 on it). For the MBR reviewers that was what their bias was towards, a balanced do all bike. It was the same with all the other bikes, they didn't slag on any of the bikes, said good things about them all, but just voiced their 2 cents as to what they wanted in a 5 inch travel bike.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top