Burry's bike....

[SARA]

would assume so since he has just got the bike...

the water bottle thing is SOO true. it is ridiculous. I had a IDX 1 2004. ooh the bottle cage irritated me, never mind that I ME AS in 52 kg, broke the leaf spring that holds the nonsense at the bottom in place 4 times.

honestly. 

[TitusTi]

So that's what the linkage is called, the nonsense, well said, again!

[MintSauce]

What about the new Scott Ransom ? Better looking ? I think it is lighter

 

 

 

Isn't the Ransom a AM/FR rig?

 

Anyway, have a look at this thread on MTBR!

 

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=244081

 

[TitusTi]

I read that Mints, that is not cool! Must say it does confirm all I believe about Mtb frame material however.

[MintSauce]

Ja....carbon is a no-no IMO. One heavy tumble and chances are you'll be shopping for a new frame!

[MintSauce]

would assume so since he has just got the bike...

the water bottle thing is SOO true. it is ridiculous. I had a IDX 1 2004. ooh the bottle cage irritated me' date=' never mind that I ME AS in 52 kg, broke the leaf spring that holds the nonsense at the bottom in place 4 times.

honestly. 

[/quote']

 

SARA....do you still have the GT or you just riding the Ti hardtail now?

 

Other than reliability, how did you find that contraption?

[SARA]

still got it and rode it for IMANA. Was awesome to get back on a fullsus! when i first got it, i loved it pedals up hills beautifully descends well, not too heavy, it was 12.5 kg fully built. rode it pretty hard all over England and France, er, on the downhill trails. Perhaps I was a little hard on it. It is sposed to be a mellow XC bike. They just really have to sort out that stupid spring and bottle prob... 

[MintSauce]

I see....i kind of always saw it as one of those Trek/Giant marketing based attention grabbing designs. Like the Y-frame and NRS!

 

Not to knock them, cos I haven't ridden them much!

 

Anyway......I am a recovering cycling snob who has to fight the tendency to look down at any bike that isn't from a boutique brand....sorry

[CVANC]

After seeing someone ride a Litespeed MTB at the Hell & Back, looks very tempting. Would love to get a Titanium MTB one day, when I'm able to descent.

[_Daemon_]

 

I see....i kind of always saw it as one of those Trek/Giant marketing based attention grabbing designs. Like the Y-frame and NRS!

 

Not to knock them' date=' cos I haven't ridden them much!

 

Anyway......I am a recovering cycling snob who has to fight the tendency to look down at any bike that isn't from a boutique brand....sorry

[/quote']

 

The NRS is probarly one of the best XC full sussers out there, at least up to when giant released the Anthem.

 

[MintSauce]

The NRS is probarly one of the best XC full sussers out there' date=' at least up to when giant released the Anthem.
[/quote']

 

Hi Daemon,

 

I'm not flaming you, but let me explain my comments.

 

When the NRS was introduced, Giant lauded it as a technological marvel thought out by their genius ex-racecar engineer.

 

The reason it pedals so well, is simpy because it uses the chaintorque from the pedaling action to pull the backwheel down, hence restricting the suspension from reacting to the riders weight.

 

IOW, it's an inactive system. To see this in action, put an NRS in the granny gear and, standing next to it, compress the suspension. With no weight on the pedals to counteract the suspension movement, you'll notice that the force from the suspension causes the pedals to turn backwards. This little experiment simply shows the design working in reverse.

 

This is the same basic concept that GT used in the first mass-produced full-suspension frame, namely the RTS, circa 1993.

 

It really isn't some technical, well-thought out marvel that some racecar engineer came up with. It's pretty damn simple and most certainly not a new concept. Which is the opposite of what Giant's marketing department was telling the world.

 

I don't doubt that it's a good design, but it is not really anything special, definitely not groundbreaking.

 

At the same time, someone might prefer having such a design since it does pedal better in certain situations like when you're out the saddle, but how much time do you spend out the saddle hammering the pedals?

 

Because it relies on the inactive concept for it's pedaling performance, and not on a well-thought out, refined and active concept like Horst Leitner's Macpherson strut/Horst Link based design(Specialized, Titus Racer X, pre-VPP Intense) it is fundamentaly flawed IMO since when you're just pedalling along at moderate power, there are no systems in place to counteract pedalling induced bobbing. This bobbing action is something you'll see in action anytime you ride behind one of the thousands of NRS's out there, because they all do it!

 

Trek's Y-frame design was at one stage said to be the best-selling full-suspension design ever. Do they still make them? No, simply because it wasn't a good design. It had huge limitations, being even less active than a normal inactive design like the NRS. The Y-frame was useless when standing up.

 

My comments re the GT was not to knock it either (sorry SARA). I simply stated that it seemed to me(my opinion) to fall into the same category as it uses the Y-frame design albeit re-hashed by GT to counteract all the bad press the Y-frame eventually and deservedly received. I haven't ridden the GT at all, so maybe I shouldn't have said that.

 

The problem I have with inactive designs is this.....why have all the extra complexity, weight and cost all the time, when you're only going to have the advantages half the time?

[_Daemon_]

 

The NRS is probarly one of the best XC full sussers out there' date=' at least up to when giant released the Anthem.

[/quote']

 

Hi Daemon,

 

I'm not flaming you, but let me explain my comments.

 

When the NRS was introduced, Giant lauded it as a technological marvel thought out by their genius ex-racecar engineer.

 

The reason it pedals so well, is simpy because it uses the chaintorque from the pedaling action to pull the backwheel down, hence restricting the suspension from reacting to the riders weight.

 

IOW, it's an inactive system. To see this in action, put an NRS in the granny gear and, standing next to it, compress the suspension. With no weight on the pedals to counteract the suspension movement, you'll notice that the force from the suspension causes the pedals to turn backwards. This little experiment simply shows the design working in reverse.

 

This is the same basic concept that GT used in the first mass-produced full-suspension frame, namely the RTS, circa 1993.

 

It really isn't some technical, well-thought out marvel that some racecar engineer came up with. It's pretty damn simple and most certainly not a new concept. Which is the opposite of what Giant's marketing department was telling the world.

 

I don't doubt that it's a good design, but it is not really anything special, definitely not groundbreaking.

 

At the same time, someone might prefer having such a design since it does pedal better in certain situations like when you're out the saddle, but how much time do you spend out the saddle hammering the pedals?

 

Because it relies on the inactive concept for it's pedaling performance, and not on a well-thought out, refined and active concept like Horst Leitner's Macpherson strut/Horst Link based design(Specialized, Titus Racer X, pre-VPP Intense) it is fundamentaly flawed IMO since when you're just pedalling along at moderate power, there are no systems in place to counteract pedalling induced bobbing. This bobbing action is something you'll see in action anytime you ride behind one of the thousands of NRS's out there, because they all do it!

 

Trek's Y-frame design was at one stage said to be the best-selling full-suspension design ever. Do they still make them? No, simply because it wasn't a good design. It had huge limitations, being even less active than a normal inactive design like the NRS. The Y-frame was useless when standing up.

 

My comments re the GT was not to knock it either (sorry SARA). I simply stated that it seemed to me(my opinion) to fall into the same category as it uses the Y-frame design albeit re-hashed by GT to counteract all the bad press the Y-frame eventually and deservedly received. I haven't ridden the GT at all, so maybe I shouldn't have said that.

 

The problem I have with inactive designs is this.....why have all the extra complexity, weight and cost all the time, when you're only going to have the advantages half the time?

 

Dunno hey, don't agree at all...firstly by pressing down on the saddle and compressing the rear suspension, the pedals don't move at all. And the NRS does not bob AT ALL when your sitting, if it does your rear shock is not pumped up to the correct psi according to your weight. It does bob *slightly* if you stand out of the saddle and power away. As for the Specialized suspension design, only reason it works well it cause of the brain shock, go to any spaz dealer and they have a little see through brain shock where can see how it work. Just look at the Merida FS bikes, same design as the Spaz but without the brain....and it bob's all over the place. All this said it's been a while since I raced XC mostly on the road there days, and if I were to go back to XC it would be on a hardtail. There's something to be said for simplicity, IMO ALOT of the mtb's currently on the market are over engineered.

 

[MintSauce]

Dunno hey' date=' don't agree at all...firstly by pressing down on the saddle and compressing the rear suspension, the pedals don't move at all. And the NRS does not bob AT ALL when your sitting, if it does your rear shock is not pumped up to the correct psi according to your weight. It does bob *slightly* if you stand out of the saddle and power away. As for the Specialized suspension design, only reason it works well it cause of the brain shock, go to any spaz dealer and they have a little see through brain shock where can see how it work. Just look at the Merida FS bikes, same design as the Spaz but without the brain....and it bob's all over the place. All this said it's been a while since I raced XC mostly on the road there days, and if I were to go back to XC it would be on a hardtail. There's something to be said for simplicity, IMO ALOT of the mtb's currently on the market are over engineered.
[/quote']

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree

 

I observed the exact opposite of what you're stating, especially that experiment with pushing down on the NRS saddle. Make sure it's in granny and the chain is tensioned. I've done it many times.

 

I've never ridden behind a NRS that didn't bob all the time, except when peddaling hard out the saddle when the intended design of the bike did it's duty as I explained above. I keep a pretty close eye on bike development and am always watching other bikes work whenever I ride or race since the workings of these bikes interest me very much.

 

Again, I thought the Merida to be very effective at isolating bobbing. I spent quite a bit of time climbing alondside one at Hell & Back this weekend.

 

The Specialized design I had in mind was not specifically the Epic. I'm reffering more to the overall design.

 

As for the Epic, here's what I think. If you're going to race, i don't think anything can beat a hardtail. BUT, this is simply because of the intense pace where riders are hammering the pedals. Because of this they require absolutely every last ounce of energy to get to the back wheel. This is never going to happen on a FS bike. The Epic is Specialized's attempt at making their FS bike more raceable.

 

My original comments were regarding suspension performance and not the bikes' raceability.

 

Anyway, we're sharing our observations here. Not very scientific, so there are bound to be disagreements! Still an interesting discussion!

[stringbean]

 

Don't like it. Never liked the GT full sussers' date=' and the position of the water bottle under the downtube is just stupid, never could understand how people can get to bottles there.

[/quote']

I agreee 100%.forced to use a camel back.

My poor neck.How much sh*t must the water bottle pick up when placed on the down tube.

 

[stringbean]

 

It's lite but this is lighter at 9.9kg.

http://www.scottusa.com/i/images/products/205193_3-4.jpg

 

Nice but not practical.Imagine falling and snapping off that intergrated seatpost.By By frame.

 

[_Daemon_]

Well I guess it all comes down to how your riding style is and what you prefer. Hence why it's so important with bikes, especially FS mtb's to test ride them before, as the above is a good example. I experience no bobbing on the NRS and don't like the Merida at all as it bob's all over the place for me.