# New Bike for Old Guy



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

I am about 5’ 9” and 145#. Been riding ridged Mt. bikes for 35 years or so. Been riding the same Bridgestone MB1 (25#, ridged Tange Prestige, 19.8” CTC, 26”x2.0”, 3x7 drive train) for the last 25.

FWIW, the MB1 was sold as a XC race bike in its day, but I only used it for commuting to work 4 days a week and exploring the countryside on weekends. Suitable or not, that bike is my standard of reference.

Almost always ride solo, usually starting from my front door at 4,300 feet (a few miles North of Yosemite NP in Tuolumne County, CA). Typical rides combine very mountainous paved roads, fire roads, and single track into loops spanning 3-8 hours. It’s long, slow, distance riding over varied types of ground, but almost all of it’s steep.

Now retired and fast approaching 70, I am thinking about treating myself to a new Mt. bike. Just hope to keep riding the same country for a few more years. Cell phone coverage here is spotty to nonexistent. Emergency medical care is about the same. I am still comfortable riding up almost anything, but now walk difficult downhill sections that look risky and ride my brakes on a lot of moderate downhill sections.

Haven’t paid much attention to Mt. bike tech since buying the MB1 in 93, so feel like a beginner again. Looking for more comfort for the same expenditure of energy and greater safety to continue riding as long as possible.

The LBS sells Trek and Santa Cruz. Tried a 27.5+ Chameleon (hard tail) and a 27.5+ Tallboy (full suspension) around the neighborhood (steep, rough pavement). Both seemed comfortable, but heavy and ponderous by my standards. Really like the hydraulic disc brakes though. Think either bike would be a bit more forgiving and safer on the downhill sections, but concerned about their weight everywhere else. Have no idea whether 27.5”, 29”, or plus tires would work better for the riding I am doing. 

Clearly understand the risks as well as well the rewards of riding, hiking, snowshoeing, and skiing alone, and intend to continue, but perhaps use current technology to make my riding a little easier and safer if that’s possible. Any bike recommendations?


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

Sounds like you would probably love something falling somewhere in between a gravel bike and cross country. A full suspension is a going to be lot of added work going up hill, and just as much on the flats. But a suspension fork, dropper, wide rims, disk brakes and modern drive train would open up a lot of currently intimidating terrain. A carbon gravel bike with flat bars and fat tires can be absurdly light these days. And compared to an mb1 (probably more like a road bike than today's gravel bikes), most any cross country bike will seem to eat up single track easily. I'd definitely look for 29 wheels and err towards less weight for 3-8 hour rides.


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

No idea what your budget is but check out the Trek Procaliber if you want to keep the weight down. https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/...oss-country-mountain-bikes/procaliber/c/B312/

If you can search the classifieds on Pinkbike, I bet you can find a 2011-2014 Tallboy. I had my 2011 built at 24 lbs and that was a great climbing bike on the steeper terrain.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

gwlee said:


> Cell phone coverage here is spotty to nonexistent. Emergency medical care is about the same.


You might want to check out this thread if that is a concern:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=1066840

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

I haven't heard the term, "gravel bike" before. What are they? Example?

I would consider buying another XC bike if I could get an appropriate fit. I expect it would be similar to what i am riding now, but possibly even lighter and probably softer riding given the fork.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

Here is an example of a gravel bike. All City Macho Man Disc.

They are fun and versatile.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

If you don't need more than 41mm tires and the budget allows, this might be your thing (@ under 17lbs)...

https://www.santacruzbicycles.com/en-US/stigmata

I saw one of these on a black diamond trail a few weeks ago. Personally, I'd opt for comfort with a longer wheel base, lower gears and flat bars.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Thanks. I am much more focused on avoiding a crash than calling for help afterwards. I do carry a cell phone though, which is sometimes useful for navigation as well as communication, but can't be depended upon for either.

The sheriff's deputies here have sat phones, but they report they very spotty reception/transmission.


----------



## Len Baird (Aug 1, 2017)

Personally I'd stick with a mtb type bike if that's what you're used to and you like it. A gravel bike is smooth and capable compared to a road bike but it's still going to be a harsher ride than a hardtail mtb. It will be more likely to eject you over the bars on steep stuff too.
You can find light full suspension bikes that climb well. It might take a slight adjustment, even if it's because it feels different, but it will help especially on bumpy downhills.
If you think you just need a hardtail, modern hardtails are super light and the suspension forks are great. Put some 2.4 or bigger tires on it and you're good to go.
A "dropper" seatpost can also help a lot for difficult downhills allowing you to drop the seat for a lower center of gravity, and it allows you to maneuver the bike easier.
Modern bikes typically have a geometry which makes difficult downhills easier. You are less over the bars, and the steering is more stable.
Good luck! You might be shocked at how good these modern bikes are, I was recently.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

jcd46 said:


> Here is an example of a gravel bike. All City Macho Man Disc.
> 
> They are fun and versatile.


Thanks. I see what you mean now. I have owned a similar bike, but without disc brakes. It was a capable bike, but I wasn't enough bike for me to feel comfortable riding over this terrain.

My current bike is an old 25# XC race bike with cantilever brakes and no suspension whatsoever. I want to add disc brakes and some extra cush for the trail segments of my rides, so thinking that I want something with the off-road capability between a hard-tail XC bike, hard-tail trail bike, XC full-suspension bike, or trail full-suspension bike.

From reading about the new bikes, seems like new hard-tail trail bike that weighs no more than 25# would meet my minimum requirements, but not sure which size tires would be most suitable for my riding style and trails.

Think a short-travel, full-suspension trail bike is worth considering if it's not too heavy. Don't know whether 27.5, 29, or + tires would be most suitable, but wouldn't want to go less than the 26" x 2.0" tires I am riding now.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Len Baird said:


> Personally I'd stick with a mtb type bike if that's what you're used to and you like it. A gravel bike is smooth and capable compared to a road bike but it's still going to be a harsher ride than a hardtail mtb. It will be more likely to eject you over the bars on steep stuff too.
> You can find light full suspension bikes that climb well. It might take a slight adjustment, even if it's because it feels different, but it will help especially on bumpy downhills.
> If you think you just need a hardtail, modern hardtails are super light and the suspension forks are great. Put some 2.4 or bigger tires on it and you're good to go.
> A "dropper" seatpost can also help a lot for difficult downhills allowing you to drop the seat for a lower center of gravity, and it allows you to maneuver the bike easier.
> ...


Yes, you are more or less describing the Santa Cruz Chameleon that I rode the other day. at 28-29#, it's heavier than my MB1, but its geometry is much more forgiving for downhill riding. Getting below 25# might require going to a bike with carbon fibre frame though.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

k2rider1964 said:


> No idea what your budget is but check out the Trek Procaliber if you want to keep the weight down. https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/...oss-country-mountain-bikes/procaliber/c/B312/
> 
> If you can search the classifieds on Pinkbike, I bet you can find a 2011-2014 Tallboy. I had my 2011 built at 24 lbs and that was a great climbing bike on the steeper terrain.


The Procaliber is along the lines of the hard-tail bikes that I am considering. Looks like it will take carbon fiber to get the weight down to 25#.

How did you get your TB down to 24#? 2018 version that I rode is aluminum close to 30#.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

One thing to note is the mountain bike scene is not as obsessed with lightweight as much as it used to be. I think you'll find all the newer developments of mountain bikes to be well worth the tradeoff of a little more weight and especially going to a modern drivetrain, you won't notice the additional weight. A modern bike is going to feel a LOT different and will take some getting used to.

You certainly got your money's worth out of your Bridgestone!


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Regarding budget: I have a good bike now that I want to improve with some modern features. It's too old to make upgrading practical, so I will need to buy a newer bike, with the features I want, so I will have to suck it up pay what it costs. 

I more concerned about determining the most suitable features for my terrain and riding style, so I can buy the right bike the time.


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

Any chance you can take a few days and drive over to Santa Cruz where you could demo a few bikes from Santa Cruz and Ibis? Not only will you have to decide if you want to go with another hardtail or full suspension but you have both 29" and 27.5" options. I think most people will steer you towards a 29" model. They generally are thought to climb and roll over obstacles better. Then again, since you've been on a 26" bike all these years, you may like the 27.5" bike better. You never know until you try them.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

chazpat said:


> Once thing to note is the mountain bike scene is not as obsessed with lightweight as much as it used to be. I think you'll find all the newer developments of mountain bikes to be well worth the tradeoff of a little more weight and especially going to a modern drivetrain, you won't notice the additional weight. A modern bike is going to feel a LOT different and will take some getting used to.
> 
> You certainly got your money's worth out of your Bridgestone!


I have owned Mt bikes weighing 30#, 27#, and my current 25# bike, which I strongly prefer. It's one of the reasons this bike has lasted 25 years, and why I am still obsessed about weight. It was an a very expensive bike at the time, but it was the right bike for me, so it's cost was amortized over a long period, and it turns out to have been a bargain.

I have read that the new tech somewhat compensates for increased weight, but I wouldn't want to buy a heaver bike and find out that it doesn't adequately compensate for its increased weight when climbing steep hills, which is about 45% of riding in these mountains is about. Do you think the new tech adequately compensates for increased weight when this much climbing is involved?

Another 45% of riding in these mountains is descending, which is why I want at least front suspension and disc brakes. There's very little riding on flat or rolling terrain to be had around here.

My existing bike has a 3x7 gearing with a low gear of 22 inches, and I find it about ideal for spinning up the hills I must climb. What advantages do the new drive trains offer in this respect?


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

k2rider1964 said:


> Any chance you can take a few days and drive over to Santa Cruz where you could demo a few bikes from Santa Cruz and Ibis? Not only will you have to decide if you want to go with another hardtail or full suspension but you have both 29" and 27.5" options. I think most people will steer you towards a 29" model. They generally are thought to climb and roll over obstacles better. Then again, since you've been on a 26" bike all these years, you may like the 27.5" bike better. You never know until you try them.


Yes, I plan to do that if I continue to zero in on one of the Santa Cruz bikes. It's about a 300 mile round trip, but I have friends in the area that I visit about once a month, and I have ridden at Wilder Ranch many times.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

gwlee said:


> Do you think the new tech adequately compensates for increased weight when this much climbing is involved?
> 
> Another 45% of riding in these mountains is descending, which is why I want at least front suspension and disc brakes. There's very little riding on flat or rolling terrain to be had around here.
> 
> My existing bike has a 3x7 gearing with a low gear of 22 inches, and I find it about ideal for spinning up the hills I must climb. What advantages do the new drive trains offer in this respect?


Yes, otherwise we'd be riding rigid 26ers.

You can play around with Bicycle Gear Calculator to compare gear inches of other drivetrains. A new bike will be a lot different so you'll have to try them out to see if the changes are good for you and they will take some getting used to. Maybe you can rent one to try on your regular routes. Don't get me wrong, light weight is still a good thing but it will cost you and mountain bikers aren't quite the weight weenies we used to be. I recently added a dropper post which is a lot of weight but I haven't noticed it and enjoy using it. It definitely makes me feel a lot safer on the steep downs.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

gwlee said:


> My existing bike has a 3x7 gearing with a low gear of 22 inches, and I find it about ideal for spinning up the hills I must climb. What advantages do the new drive trains offer in this respect?


A 1x drive train is more reliable, easier to maintain, less weight and at 32x42 you would be just under your current 22 gear inches on the low end and 80 at the high end. Drop down to a 30t chainring and you pick up another 6-7% on the low end.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

gwlee said:


> Yes, I plan to do that if I continue to zero in on one of the Santa Cruz bikes. It's about a 300 mile round trip, but I have friends in the area that I visit about once a month, and I have ridden at Wilder Ranch many times.


So, you're not interested in full-suspension? I'd say, as others have said, that a nice lightweight front-suspension is the way to go. The shop should be able to help you order up a rig that is lighter than their floor models that you checked out.


----------



## Len Baird (Aug 1, 2017)

If you do want to investigate full suspension it sounds like you'd be looking for an XC type full suspension. Or possibly a light trail bike. If you tell that to bike shop guys, it should give them an idea of what you have in mind. That should be relatively light, and by modern standards not a lot of travel, though compared to bikes I used to ride it's a lot. It should climb well. Some of them have remote lockouts where you can lock the rear suspension for efficient climbing with a lever on the bar. All modern quality suspension has damping you can adjust on the shock easily, so it's not a problem to set it to stiff or locked out for climbing, then go to full squishy for descending, even without the convenience of a bar lever to do it. That goes for front and rear.
Even when climbing, the suspension can help, because you can comfortably sit and pedal without having to unweight over bumps. It also gives better traction for really steep climbs since the wheel will hug the terrain better instead of bouncing and losing grip.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Len Baird said:


> If you do want to investigate full suspension it sounds like you'd be looking for an XC type full suspension. Or possibly a light trail bike. If you tell that to bike shop guys, it should give them an idea of what you have in mind. That should be relatively light, and by modern standards not a lot of travel, though compared to bikes I used to ride it's a lot. It should climb well. Some of them have remote lockouts where you can lock the rear suspension for efficient climbing with a lever on the bar. All modern quality suspension has damping you can adjust on the shock easily, so it's not a problem to set it to stiff or locked out for climbing, then go to full squishy for descending, even without the convenience of a bar lever to do it. That goes for front and rear.
> Even when climbing, the suspension can help, because you can comfortably sit and pedal without having to unweight over bumps. It also gives better traction for really steep climbs since the wheel will hug the terrain better instead of bouncing and losing grip.


I went back to the shop (the only bike shop in Tuolumne County) to borrow a front wheel for my MB1 this morning and had a chance to ride three different suspension bikes back to back with my 25# MB1 (lugged Tange Prestige, ridged, 26x2.0). The three suspension bikes:

-Trek Stache 9.7 (carbon fiber, hardtail, 29+))
-Santa Cruz Chameleon (aluminum, hardtail, 27.5+)
-Santa Cruz Tallboy (aluminum, short-travel full-suspension, 27+)

These three weighed between 28#-31#. I rode them on a short, very steep 2-mile loop that combined rough pot holed pavement and rutted, pot-holed gravel, but no single track was available near the shop. Like most of Tuolumne county, the loop was almost entirely steep climbing or steep descending.

Because there's very little level or rolling terrain in Toulumne County (Location of Yosemite NP), I wasn't too concerned about this aspect of performance. However, I managed to simulate a short level section by repeatedly traversing a wide, slopping parking lot.

The purpose of the test was to help form a first impression of the climbing and descending performance of typical suspension bike in comparison with the rigid bike that I have been riding for 25 years. The goal was try and determine which suspension type and wheel size would be the most suitable replacement for MB1, given the predominant local terrain and my riding style.

Here's my impression:

-All of the suspension bikes were obviously much more capable descenders.

-All the suspension bikes seemed to be less capable climbers than the lighter rigid bike, feeling heavy and ponderous by comparison, and it took more effort to move them uphill.

-On level ground, I felt all the bikes worked equally well once the heavy bikes got moving. On rough level or rolling ground, I believe any of the suspension bikes would have had a marginal advantage over the lighter rigid bike.

-Of the three suspension bikes, I think I preferred the Statche, which was the owner's personal hard-tail.

-I think 27.5+ wheels felt different than 29+ wheels, but one size seemed to work about as well as the other. The shop guys recommended buying a versatile bike that could use either size.

-Both 27.5 and 29 were notably heavier and slower to accelerate than the 26" wheels, but they also felt more stable and seemed to be much more comfortable riding than my fairly narrow 26" wheels.

I discussed my impressions with the owner and two shop employees who prefer riding heavier suspension bikes because they are willing to trade off climbing performance for descending performance.

I am not willing to trade the climbing performance advantage of my MB1 for the other advantages of suspension though, so I might need to plan on evaluating a lighter, but more expensive carbon fiber bike that won't have a weight disadvantage to see how it compares. Need to look into carbon fiber wheels that might reduce their weight enough to improve their acceleration and lighten the bike as well. Because:

Every additional pound raised on foot is one foot-pound of additional work that must be done. Raising the additional weight at the same speed requires an increase in power.

Locking out the suspension of a suspension bike, might change its motions, but it won't make it any lighter.

In theory, suspension tuned to the terrain and the bike's speed crossing the terrain can somewhat compensate for the additional work and required to lift the additional weight, but the likelihood of this happening regularly enough to provide much real-world benefit it seems low to me.

I haven't reached a conclusion yet, but today's back to back testing which included the MB1 (my baseline) reinforced my impression of the from riding the same bikes last week.

If my riding was equally balanced between climbing (1/3), descending (1/3), level to rolling (1/3), and my climbs were shorter and less steep, I might find a heavier suspension bike more appealing, but that doesn't describe the terrain I ride.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Crankout said:


> So, you're not interested in full-suspension? I'd say, as others have said, that a nice lightweight front-suspension is the way to go. The shop should be able to help you order up a rig that is lighter than their floor models that you checked out.


I am interested in full suspension if the bikes's total weight can be reduced to 25#, so there's no weight penalty.

A hard-tail suspension bike seems to meet my minimum suspension expectations and weight requirements at the lowest cost, so seems to be the most attractive approach so far.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

gwlee said:


> I am interested in full suspension if the bikes's total weight can be reduced to 25#, so there's no weight penalty.
> 
> A hard-tail suspension bike seems to meet my minimum suspension expectations and weight requirements at the lowest cost, so seems to be the most attractive approach so far.


Your first post mentions a mix of mountain paved roads, fire roads and singletrack, what are the approximate percentages and priorities? If they're fairly equal then I think a carbon hardtail is the obvious choice, if your singletrack experience is priority then maybe not.

I love steel bikes and your MB1 is one of the best of it's era but a quality carbon frame is stiff in the right ways and a joy to climb compared to steel. For pavement and gravel/dirt roads a carbon hardtail with a fork lockout is really nice, and I like mine just fine off road too.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

gwlee said:


> I am interested in full suspension if the bikes's total weight can be reduced to 25#, so there's no weight penalty.
> 
> A hard-tail suspension bike seems to meet my minimum suspension expectations and weight requirements at the lowest cost, so seems to be the most attractive approach so far.


Full suspension @ 25 lbs is not going to come cheap. And then you are still giving up climbing performance, and adding weight compared to a similarly upgraded hard tail.


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

If you want full suspension under 25 lbs and don't want to pay $6-7000, this is where I'd start....or at least something similar. https://www.pinkbike.com/buysell/2236699/ He has this set up with a 3x10 drivetrain. I had the 2011 model of this bike and it was about 24.25 lbs. If you put a 1x11 or 1x12 drivetrain on this with a set of Light Bicycle carbon wheels wit the right tires, you're *probably* sub 24.

If you're willing to throw down the $$, I'd look at high end Specialized Scott or the Trek Procaliber. Like somebody else mentioned, the market is going back to where frames are thicker walled, wheels and tires are wider = more weight. Very, very, few people are riding mountain bikes with anything smaller than a 2.2 tire.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> Your first post mentions a mix of mountain paved roads, fire roads and singletrack, what are the approximate percentages and priorities? If they're fairly equal then I think a carbon hardtail is the obvious choice, if your singletrack experience is priority then maybe not.
> 
> I love steel bikes and your MB1 is one of the best of it's era but a quality carbon frame is stiff in the right ways and a joy to climb compared to steel. For pavement and gravel/dirt roads a carbon hardtail with a fork lockout is really nice, and I like mine just fine off road too.


The percentages can vary a lot. Many days I am just exploring and have no destination in mind other than home before dark. Other days I might start with a destination in mind and get there are get distracted.

I prefer to ride loops from home (top of a 4,300 foot ridge) rather than transport my bike to trails, so my rides usually start with steep decent on narrow rough pavement, and end with a steep pavement climb to get home.

Usually try to get of pavement ASAP to escape auto traffic and enter an extensive network dirt/gravel National Forest roads, OHV routes, and single track. A person could go hundreds of miles in this network, which I have done in a 4-wheel drive jeep.

A few miles to the East the mountains rise to 10,000+ feet, but much of it is wilderness, which offers very limited off road access to anything with wheels, so it's primarily a pavement ride through wilderness area. To find level or rolling terrain requires dropping down to the Sierra foothills about 20 miles to the west and 3,000 feet lower.

The common denominators are steep and rough. A rough average might be 1/3 pave road, 1/3 gravel/dirt road, 1/3 single track, but much day to day variation. Rides usually run 3-8 hours.

I think a Carbon Fiber hardtail might be the best way to go for this type of riding. It not too difficult to reach 25#, so probably won't give up anything on the climbs, and the suspension will add control on the descents, offer additional comfort, and be easier to maintain than full suspension, and cost much less too.

I am trying keep on open mind about short-travel full suspension bikes though. Lot of people seem to really like them.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I think you need to try some non-plus bikes. To be honest, I have not ridden a plus bike but my impression of them is that they are sluggish. The wider tires definitely add a lot of weight. And taller tires are slower to spin up so that is going to feel somewhat sluggish compared to your 26er.

I actually am riding 2.1s currently on my 29er full suspension and 2.3s on my 26er hardtail.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

k2rider1964 said:


> If you want full suspension under 25 lbs and don't want to pay $6-7000, this is where I'd start....or at least something similar. https://www.pinkbike.com/buysell/2236699/ He has this set up with a 3x10 drivetrain. I had the 2011 model of this bike and it was about 24.25 lbs. If you put a 1x11 or 1x12 drivetrain on this with a set of Light Bicycle carbon wheels wit the right tires, you're *probably* sub 24.
> 
> If you're willing to throw down the $$, I'd look at high end Specialized Scott or the Trek Procaliber. Like somebody else mentioned, the market is going back to where frames are thicker walled, wheels and tires are wider = more weight. Very, very, few people are riding mountain bikes with anything smaller than a 2.2 tire.


The Tallboy is one of the bikes I am considering for full suspension, but i have only had a chance to ride the aluminum version.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

chazpat said:


> I think you need to try some non-plus bikes. To be honest, I have not ridden a plus bike but my impression of them is that they are sluggish. The wider tires definitely add a lot of weight. And taller tires are slower to spin up so that is going to feel somewhat sluggish compared to your 26er.
> 
> I actually am riding 2.1s currently on my 29er full suspension and 2.3s on my 26er hardtail.


I rode three + bikes today. Two 27.5+, and one 29+. I described them as heavy and ponderous. Think the narrower non-plus 29s specified to be about a pound lighter where a manufacturer offers both (Santa Cruz for example). They were definitely cush though.

The majority of my riding has been on 1.75-2.0 26s that are definitely more lively than 2.25, but more harsh. 50% of my riding is climbing steep sections, so I don't want to go too far in the direction of cush for comfort and downhill control.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

gwlee said:


> ...I am not willing to trade the climbing performance advantage of my MB1 for the other advantages of suspension though, so I might need to plan on evaluating a lighter, but more expensive carbon fiber bike that won't have a weight disadvantage to see how it compares. Need to look into carbon fiber wheels that might reduce their weight enough to improve their acceleration and lighten the bike as well.
> ...If my riding was equally balanced between climbing (1/3), descending (1/3), level to rolling (1/3), and my climbs were shorter and less steep, I might find a heavier suspension bike more appealing, but that doesn't describe the terrain I ride.


I've kept out of this until now. Mainly because most people don't like my recommendations because I am not descent oriented. 

I am biased towards climbing performance too. My riding is done on natural trails and contains a lot of technical climbing and descents are an unknown quantity - there's not necessarily a safe line. I've found a rigid bike with plus size tyres meets all my requirements. My main riding is done on 2.8 - 3" tyres or on a fatbike.

I don't bother with front suspension because years ago I did some testing prior to a race and timed my ascents and descents. Basically what I gained on the descents from front suspension was less than the advantage on the climbs of the rigid fork. I'll happily admit to being a cautious descender. I've seen too many heroes put completely out of the game over the years by high speed accidents.

My other negative against suspension is that for it to be worthwhile, it is expensive. That money could pay for carbon parts, wheels etc which would improve climbing even more. A cheap fork isn't worth having.

BTW before buying forks, check their service intervals. Quite a few aren't even capable of lasting a 24 hour race without needing serviced.

I'm not going to recommend a make of bike, but there's plenty good rigid plus size bikes out there. Good quality steel is still worth having, but there's good alloy frames, and plenty carbon, some of which only have the virtue of being light.

If you're going rigid, just remember that anyone promoting "modern trail geometry" is talking about geometry optimised for a suspension fork. For a rigid bike its only virtue is that it gives a decent front/centre, but the slack head angles mean more steering flop on the climbs.

As for wheel size, these days the choice is between 650B (aka 27.5er) or 29". Either work well with plus tyres. What is important with plus size tyres is their suppleness because you're going to run them at low pressures. The wrong tyre will be like dragging sandbags.

When comparing plus against what you have, it's best done on a decent loop. Judge it by the time it takes, not the feel. The first time I rode my fatbike in a 24 hour race it was because I was a bit unfit and just took it for the comfort factor. I ended up with an extra lap on my previous years race on the same circuit despite the fatbike weighing 20lb more than my lightweight race bike. I suspect the extra tyre width is a great skills compensator when fatigue sets in.


----------



## Len Baird (Aug 1, 2017)

I am not trying to push the issue on full suspension, it sounds like hardtail or even a rigid as described above suits your needs, especially considering you've been doing this riding fully rigid already. I was trying to help you get on a bike that was worth giving a shot.
I love hardtails too for the positive pedaling feel.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Suspension is bullshit mostly, unless you are going for absolute speed and death. Ugly steampunk looking things anyhow... and they need constant feeding with maintenance and rebuilding and replacing and obsoleting, it never ends. Now that you are "old" (your word not mine), you will be looking for more simplicity, believe me.

Get another rigid frame that will take up to 3" tires and never look back. The mb1 isn't doing you any favors anymore. Hell, get a custom fillet brazed steel frame, put some proper American made by real people you can party with parts on it, and send me a couple growlers of your favorite to thank me. Props...


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

bsieb said:


> Suspension is bullshit mostly, unless you are going for absolute speed and death. Ugly steampunk looking things anyhow... and they need constant feeding with maintenance and rebuilding and replacing and obsoleting, it never ends. Now that you are "old" (your word not mine), you will be looking for more simplicity, believe me.
> 
> Get another rigid frame that will take up to 3" tires and never look back. The mb1 isn't doing you any favors anymore. Hell, get a custom fillet brazed steel frame, put some proper American made by real people you can party with parts on it, and send me a couple growlers of your favorite to thank me. Props...


I have ridden ridged mountain bikes for 35 years, owned three of them. Took me 2 bikes and ten years to sort out what worked best for my terrain and riding style. Bought my current steed in 93 and have been riding it ever since. Found narrow tires (1.75) worked best for pavement and and hard-pack trails, fat tires (2.25) worked best for soft terrain, and medium tires (2.0) were a good compromise.

Have maybe 5 hours total time on bikes with any type of suspension, and have never owned one, so don't know much about them, and don't feel qualified to comment on them, but "bullshit" seems a bit harsh.

When I bought my MB1 25 years ago, bike suspension was in its infancy, and I considered buying a suspension (aka monkey motion) bike, but decided to give the technology a few years to mature. 25 years later, I am retired and living in the mountains where the terrain is different, suspension technology has matured, and I am running out of "somedays, " so now's the time if I am ever going to do it.

Like most things, suspension has advantages as well as disadvantages. Whether it's a net advantage or a net disadvantage depends on the person, his riding style, and the terrain he rides. I am using this forum to learn as much I can to help me decide what type of suspension, full suspension, hardtail, are maybe just a ridged fat bike might work best for me. Ultimately, the question can only be answered by buying something and trying it though. It might turn out that the bike I am riding now is as good as it gets for me, but I won't know if I don't try something else.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Len Baird said:


> I am not trying to push the issue on full suspension, it sounds like hardtail or even a rigid as described above suits your needs, especially considering you've been doing this riding fully rigid already. I was trying to help you get on a bike that was worth giving a shot.
> I love hardtails too for the positive pedaling feel.


I appreciate hearing your thoughts, and don't think you are "pushing" suspension. Coming from a ridged bike background, "suspension" includes full suspension and hard tails to me. To a lesser extent, the newer fat bikes might offer some of the benefits of suspension without the complexity.


----------



## scycllerist (Jul 31, 2017)

I rode a Trek 930 for 20 some years and just got an aluminum 29er. I like the new geo, breaking, shifting and handling of the 29er but there's a certain quality to the Trek the new bike doesn't have. Knowing what I do now would like to have a modern 930. 

maybe look at a steel frame 29er with carbon fork. one of the "new tech ideas" around is to run tires much lower in presure. At your size and weight you could go down to low 20lbs in a 2.35 tire and get a smoother ride. I was aprehenisive at first but riding with guys who I know aren't in near the shape I'm in rocketed over the rough terain where I bounced. Sometimes weight and tire size don't matter as much traction and smoothing out the terain to improve confidence and take less beating. Also tubeless improves rolling resistance and weight too. Some tires don't gain much resistance at lower preasure. 

Those hydo breaks are hard to beat, even the cheap sets.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

gwlee said:


> -Trek Stache 9.7 (carbon fiber, hardtail, 29+))
> -Santa Cruz Chameleon (aluminum, hardtail, 27.5+)
> -Santa Cruz Tallboy (aluminum, short-travel full-suspension, 27+)


Stache 9.7: a whopping 28 lbs, and expensive by any standard
Chameleon: 28 lbs, and you really don't want to spend 8 hrs on a AL hardtail 
Tallboy: not sure what makes this any better than a single track eating 5010 C

Based on your requirements I think your sweet spot is the Santa Cruz Highball 29 C @ $3k and a feather light 22.9 lbs.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

sapva said:


> Stache 9.7: a whopping 28 lbs, and expensive by any standard
> Chameleon: 28 lbs, and you really don't want to spend 8 hrs on a AL hardtail
> Tallboy: not sure what makes this any better than a single track eating 5010 C
> 
> Based on your requirements I think your sweet spot is the Santa Cruz Highball 29 C @ $3k and a feather light 22.9 lbs.


I thought the Statche was heavy, and it was expensive compared to other bikes.

The Highball 29 looks very interesting. The weight and geometry are about the same as my existing bike. After accounting for inflation, it costs the same in real dollars as my 93 MB1, but with lower spec components, carbon fiber, suspension for, and all the current standards. It might be a replacement for my MB1.

The Chameleon 27.5+ seems softer riding than my ridged MB1. It's heavier though :-(. 
The MB1 works well for daily commuting (no longer a requirement), road touring (no longer an interest), and weekend trail riding. This versatility allowed me to reduce my ownership to one bike (preferred).

The Chameleon feels more like a dedicated trail bike to me. Don't think I would want to ride it on the road more than required to get off the road and onto the trails, but it might work better on the local trails except for climbing. If so, it might be an addition to my existing bike.

The Chameleon is an inexpensive introduction to the world of suspension bikes. It's also easily switched between 27.5 and 29.0, which would let me experiment with both wheel sizes to see which I like best. It took a couple of inexpensive ridged bikes to learn what worked best for me. Might need to take a similar approach with suspension bikes.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

scycllerist said:


> I rode a Trek 930 for 20 some years and just got an aluminum 29er. I like the new geo, breaking, shifting and handling of the 29er but there's a certain quality to the Trek the new bike doesn't have. Knowing what I do now would like to have a modern 930.
> 
> maybe look at a steel frame 29er with carbon fork. one of the "new tech ideas" around is to run tires much lower in presure. At your size and weight you could go down to low 20lbs in a 2.35 tire and get a smoother ride. I was aprehenisive at first but riding with guys who I know aren't in near the shape I'm in rocketed over the rough terain where I bounced. Sometimes weight and tire size don't matter as much traction and smoothing out the terain to improve confidence and take less beating. Also tubeless improves rolling resistance and weight too. Some tires don't gain much resistance at lower preasure.
> 
> Those hydo breaks are hard to beat, even the cheap sets.


The new bikes "with modern progressive geometry" seem to have a lot in common with my 80s mountain bikes I owned, long, low, slack, fat tires, what we called "bull moose" bars, and just about as heavy. Flat pedals have made a comeback too (good IMO), and I even saw some adds for oval chain rings (goofy IMO), who would have thunk it.

I get away with 35 psi in my 26x2.0 tires, takes the sting out and no pinch flats. Be nice to go lower with fatter tires on rough trails. I really like the way hydraulic discs work.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

The subject of climbing efficiency and traction between suspended and unsuspended bikes has been discussed ad nauseum and the research suggests suspension improves climbing efficiency and traction. Believe it or not.

The weight of a bike is different than the weight of a shoe, rolling weight versus static weight. A lot depends on the location of the added weight, for example a heavy tire makes a significantly greater impact than a spare tire 

The OP is riding an antique, like it if not, his bike is an old scool noodle, more contemporary to a gravel burner than a mountain bike.

I'd recommend demoing bikes until you find one you like. If I was in your shoes, I'd be looking at 29er hardtail with short travel (80-100mm) forks like the RS-1. I'd avoid carbon due the overly harsh ride, leaning toward aluminum for cost and ride quality.

Plus tires are good for some folks, but light and efficient they are not, so stick with a standard 2.25-2.45 tire, which will also give you the feel you already know.

You're probably in the market for a 29er XC bike, something like the Procaliber.

Honestly, the OP is so far off the current bicycle technology, and at seventy, it's challenging to say what bike would serve him best. 26" wheels are years out of vogue and cantis haven't seen the light of day on mountain bikes for decades.

Personally, at seventy years old, I'd want a lightweight, short travel full suspension bike like the Norco Optic. The benefits of suspension cannot be understated, like cars and motorcycles, bikes benefit from being able to conform to the riding surface; riders benefit from improved control and greater comfort.

I rode a Paris Ruboix suspension fork on my gravel burner (Bianchi Project 7) in the 90's, it was amazing!



bsieb said:


> Suspension is bullshit mostly, unless you are going for absolute speed and death. Ugly steampunk looking things anyhow... and they need constant feeding with maintenance and rebuilding and replacing and obsoleting, it never ends. Now that you are "old" (your word not mine), you will be looking for more simplicity, believe me.
> 
> Get another rigid frame that will take up to 3" tires and never look back. The mb1 isn't doing you any favors anymore. Hell, get a custom fillet brazed steel frame, put some proper American made by real people you can party with parts on it, and send me a couple growlers of your favorite to thank me. Props...


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

bsieb said:


> Suspension is bullshit mostly, unless you are going for absolute speed and death. Ugly steampunk looking things anyhow... and they need constant feeding with maintenance and rebuilding and replacing and obsoleting, it never ends. Now that you are "old" (your word not mine), you will be looking for more simplicity, believe me..


That's actually quite funny. Maybe riding rigid bikes works where you ride, but try riding one around here and it would be scary and no fun at best, and downright dangerous. A modern full-suspension bike has better traction climbing and decending, is safer and more controlled, and is just downright fun. BTW, I am also old and don't ride for 'absolute speed and death'.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Nurse Ben said:


> The subject of climbing efficiency and traction between suspended and unsuspended bikes has been discussed ad nauseum and the research suggests suspension improves climbing efficiency and traction. Believe it or not.
> 
> The weight of a bike is different than the weight of a shoe, rolling weight versus static weight. A lot depends on the location of the added weight, for example a heavy tire makes a significantly greater impact than a spare tire
> 
> ...


Climbing efficiency has been discussed, lots of anecdotal evidence, lots of theories, lots of opinions, but I have not seen any equations precisely describing the effects of suspension on climbing efficiency.

On the other hand, most high school physics students can accurately describe the relationship between weight, work, and rate. Lifting weight no matter where it's located is more work and requires more energy to lift the increased weight at the same rate, but putting the weight in the wheels is probably the worst place to add weight for several reasons related to work and energy requirements.

It's reasonable to assume that climbing rough terrain requires additional work and has energy requirements beyond merely lifting the bike up the hill that might be mitigated to some extent by suspension, but I haven't seen a precise mathematical description of this relationship.

So far, something like the SC HighBall 29 looks like the best replacement for my existing bike. It has about the same geometry and weight with the added benefits of front suspension, hydraulic disc brakes, and compatibility with current component standards.

I am also looking at other bikes that complement the MB1 if I don't retire it. Although I prefer to own only one bike for all my riding, I would have hard time selling the MB1, and I am not a collector, so a replacement makes the most sense.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

[QUOTE
Personally, at seventy years old, I'd want a lightweight, short travel full suspension bike like the Norco Optic. The benefits of suspension cannot be understated, like cars and motorcycles, bikes benefit from being able to conform to the riding surface; riders benefit from improved control and greater comfort.
[/QUOTE]

I think a good short-travel full suspension bike that weighs 25# might be ideal for my riding. Don't see any obvious negatives except cost and maintenance.

Not so sure about a heavier FS bike though, which is why I haven't bought one yet. Expect a heavier bike would be great downhill, probably a little better on the flats over rough ground, but might not be so great on the long steep climbs, which is about half my riding.

There are mountains, and there are MOUNTAINS. I live in the MOUNTAINs, and I am 70 years old and ride a 25# bike. Not saying a heavier FS bike wouldn't be better for me, just not yet ready to spend $3K to find out.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Skooks said:


> That's actually quite funny. Maybe riding rigid bikes works where you ride, but try riding one around here and it would be scary and no fun at best, and downright dangerous. A modern full-suspension bike has better traction climbing and decending, is safer and more controlled, and is just downright fun. BTW, I am also old and don't ride for 'absolute speed and death'.


I rode FS for 20+ years, been there done that. I think you dramatize the benefits and gloss over the costs, but that's just me in my place. Glad you saw the humor.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

[QUOTE=Nurse Ben;
Honestly, the OP is so far off the current bicycle technology, and at seventy, it’s challenging to say what bike would serve him best. 26” wheels are years out of vogue and cantis haven’t seen the light of day on mountain bikes for decades.

Post #1: "Looking for more comfort for the same expenditure of energy and greater safety to continue riding as long as possible."

These three requirements are equally important:

1. More comfort.
2. Greater Safety
3. Same expenditure of energy 

Noodle frames, cantilever brakes, and 26-inch wheels are not requirements.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Nurse Ben said:


> The subject of climbing efficiency and traction between suspended and unsuspended bikes has been discussed ad nauseum and the research suggests suspension improves climbing efficiency and traction. Believe it or not...
> 
> I'd recommend demoing bikes until you find one you like. If I was in your shoes, I'd be looking at 29er hardtail with short travel (80-100mm) forks like the RS-1. I'd avoid carbon due the overly harsh ride, leaning toward aluminum for cost and ride quality.
> 
> ...


My experiments gave me the other result, that the suspension fork was no great advantage, and so I was about to refute that.

However, my fatbike seems to get me better averages and when I think of it, that can only be because of the compliance of the tyres, ie a small measure of suspension. I may have to do some rethinking - I'd a link to that research if possible.

Suspension has appeal to me more as a means of damping trail vibration rather than "going big", and I suspect I'd be happy with 2-3" at most. However the associated paraphernalia like pivot joints, bushes, bearings, shocks all seem to be fast wearing expensive consumables, and the bikes seem to obsolete within a couple of years. A plus size tyre would have most of the benefits of ultra short travel suspension. However as you point out, you have to be picky with the large size tyres because some of them are very draggy. I look for a high TPI and suppleness rather than big knobs and burly construction.

When I have considered suspension, it's the likes of the Giant Anthem that has appealed, or the Bionicon with its switchable geometry.

As for what is suitable for a 70+ rider, at 72 I've just done the StrathPuffer 24 hour solo on a rigid singlespeed. It's regarded as a tough race, and I was a long way off last (open race, no age classes) despite being a cautious rider.

I had 2 choices, either my fatbike (there was plenty snow) or my rigid 29er (there was plenty ice on rocky descents), both singlespeed. I chose the 29er because I could fit ice tyres to it but would have preferred the fatbike or a plus bike if I had studs for it.

Edit: I'll be doing the WEMBO 24 Hour World Champs this year, and at the moment my choice is a rigid plus bike. I'm undecided whether to ride SS or use gears at this stage.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Thanks to everyone who provided suggestions for a new bikes that should offer more comfort and greater safety for the same (or less) expenditure of energy than my old MB1. 

Based on your inputs, it seems there are two types of bikes that are likely to meet all three requirements:

1. Carbon Fiber hardtail bikes costing around $3K.
2. Carbon Fiber Full suspension bikes costing around $6K. 

Doesn't look like it's possible to get there with production aluminum or carbon fiber bikes costing much less.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

gwlee, please keep posting, I'm very interested in your impressions and what bike you decide to go with.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

Nurse Ben said:


> The subject of climbing efficiency and traction between suspended and unsuspended bikes has been discussed ad nauseum and the research suggests suspension improves climbing efficiency and traction. Believe it or not.


Not. Wish it could be true. There is some truth taking the traction argument alone, assuming something like steep single track with roots and rocks. But for everything else there are too contrary factors, like the extra weight and loss of power transfer. Would be curious to see such research.


----------



## pitdaddy (Aug 6, 2013)

Myth-
Lighter bike is better.
Fact- Better at what? Sometimes durability is compromised.

Myth-
Full suspension bikes can't climb as well as a hardtail
Fact-
While that is true if you go with something like DW link or VPP it doesn't bob as much. Also, every shock on a full suspension bike has a knob you can turn to stiffen it up.

Myth-
Plus tires are heavier.
Fact- Probably so. But if you can keep your momentum up does it really matter?

Myth-
27.5+ is as tall as 29"
Fact- Not true. Hold'em up next to each other. Also, when you switch to 27.5+ your bottom bracket gets lower to the ground. That's what I don't like.

Go ride a bunch of bikes. You'll fall in love with one eventually. And it might not be the one you thought it would be.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

pitdaddy said:


> Myth-
> Lighter bike is better.
> Fact- Better at what?


Climbing for one. The op says he rides a lot of steep paved and unpaved roads and a light & stiff bike for sure climbs noticeably better. Off road it may matter less, on rough climbs the benefits of suspension can outweigh their extra heft and flex.


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

pitdaddy said:


> Myth-
> Plus tires are heavier.
> Fact- Probably so. But if you can keep your momentum up does it really matter?
> 
> .


What in the fvck is going on in mtbr land?

Op, my suggestion is to find a nice, light hard trail 29er with xc geometry.

It will climb much like what you have now, but you'll lose a bit of efficiency with the fork if you don't lock it out.

Ensure you have gears that go low enough for you.

You'll have better traction up and down, and if you're worried about rolling efficiency then I find a 29x2.0 Conti race King with a 29x2.2 cross King up front to be a great mixed surface combo.

I think full suspension will be more of a hindrance than a benefit for the riding you describe, unless tackling the down hills your currently walk is a large concern. It will make those much more doable.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

gwlee said:


> I am interested in full suspension if the bikes's total weight can be reduced to 25#, so there's no weight penalty.
> 
> A hard-tail suspension bike seems to meet my minimum suspension expectations and weight requirements at the lowest cost, so seems to be the most attractive approach so far.


Give us your price point and we'd be glad to help you spend your money!!


----------



## pitdaddy (Aug 6, 2013)

Dare I start a list-

Hardtail for the weight advantage you will need climbing vs. the 5% of the time you would need full suspension.

Carbon or Aluminum- ?

29" wheels for the rollover/rollout advantage. (A "plus" tire will be to heavy to spin uphill just to gain a little softer ride over 2% of the 'rough stuff'.)

Hydraulic disc brakes. No explanation needed

Gearing- 2x or 1x? Probably 2x since you will be mixing road & off-road.

If you are 70 years old and riding 3-8 hours that is something to brag about!


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

gwlee said:


> I am about 5' 9" and 145#. Been riding ridged Mt. bikes for 35 years or so. Been riding the same Bridgestone MB1 (25#, ridged Tange Prestige, 19.8" CTC, 26"x2.0", 3x7 drive train) for the last 25."
> 
> "Typical rides combine very mountainous paved roads, fire roads, and single track into loops spanning 3-8 hours. It's long, slow, distance riding over varied types of ground, but almost all of it's steep."
> 
> "Looking for more comfort for the same expenditure of energy and greater safety to continue riding as long as possible."


One member asked me to keep posting on this thread, so I have quoted sections from my original post, so my goals are clear and gathered my preliminary findings.

[/QUOTE]

Keeping in mind that these three requirements are equally important to me:

1. More comfort.

Most everyone seems to agree that suspension bikes are more comfortable, especially descending over rough ground, and my own very limited testing of hardtail bikes and full suspension bikes confirmed it. This was true for entry level hardtail bikes priced from about $700 to full suspension bikes priced around $2,700. Haven't had a chance to test the high-end bikes ($3K to $7K), but assume they will be no less comfortable.

2. Greater Safety

Here too, most everyone seems to agree that suspension bikes can be safer, especially descending over rough ground, because they are easier to control and more forgiving. My own very limited testing of hardtail bikes and full suspension bikes confirmed it. In addition, the hydraulic disk brakes of nearly all modern bikes seemed more effective in long descents. This was true for entry level hardtail bikes priced from about $700 to full suspension bikes priced around $2,700. Haven't had a chance to test the high-end bikes ($3K to $7K), but assume they will be no less controllable.

3. Same expenditure of energy

Here, there was no consensus, but the differences in opinion were mostly about the climbing performance of suspension bikes. Some say they climb better, others say worse, others say OK if you lock out the suspension.

For reference, I am an endurance rider, riding almost exclusively in steep mountainous terrain at an average altitude of 4.300 feet, and I have been riding a ridged (no suspension whatsoever) steel bike weighing (measured) 25# for the last 25 years. If we took a poll, which I suggest doing, I would expect to find that the majority of forum members here are riding mountain bikes that weigh in excess of 25#.

My findings: If two suspension bikes have frames that are made of the same material, aluminum or carbon fiber, and they have equivalent spec components, usually carbon fire hardtail bikes are the lightest, followed by aluminum hardtail bikes, followed by carbon fiber full suspension bikes, and aluminum full suspension bikes are the heaviest. "Usually" is based on reading a lot of manufactures spec sheets and riding/handling four suspension bikes priced from about $700 to about $2,700, and all weighed more than 25#.

Initially, I rode the four bikes one at a time over several days in the neighborhood of the LBS, which is located in the mountains at approximately 3,000 feet. Without exception these bikes seemed to require noticeably more effort to climb, but I didn't have my 25# bike there to do a back-to-back comparison.

A few days later, I returned with my 25# bike and rode the LBS bikes again and compared them to my 25# bike over a two mile loop that was half climbing and half descending over rough, pot-holed pavement and rough, pot holed, rutted dirt road. Again, without exception, the heavier bikes required noticeably more effort when climbing, and near as I could tell the effort correlated well to the weight of the bike.

All the suspension bikes exhibited a bit of motion that you don't get with a ridged bike, but it wasn't objectionable to me on these short rides. While not the definitive test regime, it's about the best I could do for now.

At this point, I am very impressed with the increased comfort and potential for increased safety of hardtail and full suspension bikes when compared to my 25# ridged steel bike, but disappointed by the extra effort required to climb long, steep hills. Someone who doesn't ride a 25# bike every day might find the additional weight less noticeable. Someone who doesn't do so much steep climbing at altitude might not care.

As the effort seemed to closely correlate with weight, I researched lighter bikes and found carbon fiber hardtail bikes with claimed weights of about 25# at about $3K and carbon fiber full suspension bikes with claimed weights of about 25# for about $6-7K, but none are available for testing locally. Most of these bikes are marketed XC or XC racing bikes, and so was my MB1 back in the day, but these modern bikes look like they should be more comfortable and offer a greater margin of control that can be used to increase safety.

I am hoping that one of these bikes can meet all of my requirements. If not, or if I am unwilling to pay the entry cost, I will have to decide whether I am want to buy a suspension for it's comfort and safety and accept the loss in climbing performance.

Santa Cruz Bicycles has a factory demo program. For $40, I can reserve and demo any bike they make and ride it on nearby trails, so this is probably my next step. I went school at UCSC in Santa Cruz, and lived and worked in adjacent Santa Clara valley for many years, so I am very familiar with these trails, and I will take my 25# bike with me for a back-to-back comparison.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Crankout said:


> Give us your price point and we'd be glad to help you spend your money!!


The first step is to determine whether my goals can be met at any price. Looks promising at around $3K(+/-) for a hardtail or $6K-$7K for full suspension. Can't see me spending $6K for a bike, but $3K is OK if the technology lives up to its promise, which is still TBD.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

pitdaddy said:


> If you are 70 years old and riding 3-8 hours that is something to brag about!


It's just long, SLOW distance with the emphasis on slow and getting slower 

As long as person keeps doing it, they will probably retain the ability to continue, but a minor injury from a mishap, or even an overuse injury, that keeps an older rider inactive for a few months might make it very difficult resume, which is why I am considering a suspension bike with a greater margin of control/safety and perhaps easier on an old bod.

I also do a lot of hiking, and I got an overuse injury a few years ago that forced me to stop hiking for about six months. It took me a year or two to recover enough to resume my former distances, but I can no longer hike near as fast.


----------



## pitdaddy (Aug 6, 2013)

Riding a hardtail requires using those knees for suspension. Are you up to it for the 5% of your ride?

I love my Santa Cruz Tallboy 3. Yes it 'smooths' things out. Yes, going 27.5+ smoothed things even more but at the cost of lowering the bottom bracket. For the amount of climbing you do it might not be your bike. Even with carbon wheels & something like a Maxxis Ikon tire.

Speaking of- best way to drop weight is wheels, tires, & hub combo. Someone told me rotating mass takes 3x's the effort to move.

Make a list of full suspension bikes that weigh 25-27lbs, & short travel (100mm or less). Pretty short list isn't it? ;-)


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

You need to demo, borrow, bikes until you find one you like.

Like buying a car, it's very individual.

I don't think you can underestimate comfort, but if you'e riding smoother terrain, then suspension could be less important.

A well designed full suspension bike will not impede your climbing, esp if it's short travel.

If you do spring for a full suspension bike, you might find that your riding style changes and you do a little more exploring.

If that's not where you want to go, then maybe all you need is an up date to the Bridgestone. Maybe a hardtail without a suspension fork would be an option. The Stache set up as a hardtail would be a sweet ride, clicks all the boxes, plus tires would soften the jolts without killing your climbing, very fun bike to ride, though you might want to change the tires if they feel slow and/or run higher pressure.

If I was rolling mostly dirt/gravel and asphalt, I wouldn't look at anything other than a 29er. No suspension up front or an RS-1 (killer fork and very lightweight), a short dropper post for the occasional single track jaunt. Stache in purple


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

pitdaddy said:


> Riding a hardtail requires using those knees for suspension. Are you up to it for the 5% of your ride?
> 
> I love my Santa Cruz Tallboy 3. Yes it 'smooths' things out. Yes, going 27.5+ smoothed things even more but at the cost of lowering the bottom bracket. For the amount of climbing you do it might not be your bike. Even with carbon wheels & something like a Maxxis Ikon tire.
> 
> ...


I am riding a ridged steel bike now. I have found that a hardtail with 4" of front suspension and a wider tires is definitely softer riding than my existing bike, so assume that I will be able to ride a hardtail at least as long (few years?) as my ridged bike. At 70, my days of epic rides are clearly numbered though. My mean life expectancy is 14 years.

If I decide to go full suspension, the list of 25# bikes is short and very expensive. I only need to find one though. More concerned about expensive.

Hardtail seems more sensible to me unless I want to radically change my riding style. For example, start transporting a heavier full suspension bike 20 miles and 3,000 lower to the foothills where the hills are low and the terrain is rolling with some flats instead of just rolling the bike out of the garage and riding off. If so, I doubt that I would ride near as often, but it might come to that someday, just hope it's not tomorrow.

Yes, it's possible to reduce the total weight of the bike and the inertial of the wheels by going from lightweight aluminum to carbon fiber, but the wheels are EXTREMELY expensive. Lightweight aluminum wheels and lightweight tires are a given.

I was talking to my Santa Cruz dealer about whether I should buy a TB with 27.5+ or 29 inch wheels if I am not sure which I wanted in the long run. He recommended going with 27.5+ out of the box because the conversion to 29 is easier (few problems, requires only a wheel change). What's your experience?


----------



## pitdaddy (Aug 6, 2013)

gwlee said:


> I was talking to my Santa Cruz dealer about whether I should buy a TB with 27.5+ or 29 inch wheels if I am not sure which I wanted in the long run. He recommended going with 27.5+ out of the box because the conversion to 29 is easier (few problems, requires only a wheel change). What's your experience?


My experiences are different than yours. One of my favorite trails is a 7 mile ride with only about 500' of elevation change. My trails have a lot of tree roots and rocks. Those roots and rocks are a different challenge compared to climbing 500' in one mile.

From the spring of 2014 until the fall of 2017 I rode an entry level 26" hardtail with 4" travel on a coil spring fork. In Sept of '17 it got pushed aside for a carbon framed Tallboy with 29" wheels. In between that time I've ridden a Giant Anthem, Trance, & Reign (all 27.5 wheels), Specialized Camber Comp in 27.5, Pivot 429 Trail, And the Tallboy.

From MY limited experience here is my take on wheel size- bigger is better. My 26" bike is great for twisty turns but sucks over roots and rocks. Going up to 27.5 helped. Going 29" it will roll over things much easier therefore keeping you moving forward. Does it take more effort to start? Probably so. But I don't stop! Hence, this is why I say you need to go 29". You will also find that when you get to that 5% of "rough" the 29" tire will roll thru better thus giving you more "safety" and confidence.

27.5 Plus- Great at smoothing things out. Switching my Tallboy (I have the 130mm fork) from 29 to 27.5 plus I lost about an inch of clearance down low. You aren't riding "rough" 50% of the time like I am. It has no advantage for you.

One more thing. The Tallboy is on it's 3rd generation. It has gotten heavier because people are riding them beyond just 'cross country' trails. that seems to be the trend among all 'cross country' full suspension bikes. However, you can find exceptions like the Giant Anthem series. They have one particular model that is short travel & true to x-country geometry.

I'll pause here and ask others to chime in about wheel size. Are most of us in agreement he'd be best on 29"?


----------



## Len Baird (Aug 1, 2017)

Canyon just started selling in the US, I actually just got a road bike from them...
So I decided to take a look and they have a carbon fiber hardtail for 3299 with SRAM X01 (high end), a dropper post and a claimed weight of 10.2 kilos which is 22 1/2 pounds!
https://www.canyon.com/en-us/mtb/exceed/exceed-cf-sl-7-0-pro-race
2499 with no dropper and SRAM GX which is sort of shimano LX equivalent at 10.3 kilos which is 22.7 pounds.
https://www.canyon.com/en-us/mtb/exceed/exceed-cf-sl-6-0-pro-race (edit: link is going to 7.0 model for some reason, this should be the 6.0)
The only catch is that they are done all direct sales, no local shops to test them. They do have a 30 day return policy, and you can contact them to make sure it fits you, I believe you can tweak stem length etc with them pre order if you wanted to match it to your current bike say on reach.
You could try posting in your local forum or the Canyon forum here on MTBR for owners willing to let you test theirs.. Offer to drive to them if you find someone reasonably close.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

Here is a radical departure from your current ride, and yet familiar (24lbs)...
http://bscycle.co.jp/global/common/pdf/X9B_ELITE.pdf

Santa Cruz does not seem to have a Highball available for demos  Direct sales is great if you know exactly what you want, or are willing to experiment. But for a once every 30 years bike to rule them all purchase you definitely want to borrow, demo or what ever it takes to ride before you buy.


----------



## lovemonkey (Jan 5, 2005)

If you can test one, try a Specialized Chisel. Aluminum hardtail, very close to 25# stock, modern geo, 90s racer feel according to Bike Radar. Sounds like you might like it. http://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gea...uct/specialized-chiselexpert-1x-review-51739/

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

lovemonkey said:


> If you can test one, try a Specialized Chisel. Aluminum hardtail, very close to 25# stock, modern geo, 90s racer feel according to Bike Radar. Sounds like you might like it. Specialized Chisel Expert 1X review - BikeRadar USA
> 
> Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


Aluminium hardtails are for 20 somethings who can't afford carbon fiber, and can recover overnight from regular beatings. I made that mistake once, and only once. Was waiting until spring to post on pinkbike, but if anyone is interested in a gently used 2017 Honzo AL frame...


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

pitdaddy said:


> My experiences are different than yours. One of my favorite trails is a 7 mile ride with only about 500' of elevation change. My trails have a lot of tree roots and rocks. Those roots and rocks are a different challenge compared to climbing 500' in one mile.
> 
> From the spring of 2014 until the fall of 2017 I rode an entry level 26" hardtail with 4" travel on a coil spring fork. In Sept of '17 it got pushed aside for a carbon framed Tallboy with 29" wheels. In between that time I've ridden a Giant Anthem, Trance, & Reign (all 27.5 wheels), Specialized Camber Comp in 27.5, Pivot 429 Trail, And the Tallboy.
> 
> ...


I am thinking about buying one bike and with two sets of wheels and tires, 27.5+ and 29. In this case, my local SC dealer recommends buying the bike with 27.5 wheels because the 27.5 fork is compatible with the 29 wheels, but the reverse isn't true.

If I understand you correctly you have swapped from 29 to 27.5 encountered a problem. Is this correct? In hind site, would switching from 27.5 to 29 have created any problems?


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Len Baird said:


> Canyon just started selling in the US, I actually just got a road bike from them...
> So I decided to take a look and they have a carbon fiber hardtail for 3299 with SRAM X01 (high end), a dropper post and a claimed weight of 10.2 kilos which is 22 1/2 pounds!
> https://www.canyon.com/en-us/mtb/exceed/exceed-cf-sl-7-0-pro-race
> 2499 with no dropper and SRAM GX which is sort of shimano LX equivalent at 10.3 kilos which is 22.7 pounds.
> ...


Thanks


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

sapva said:


> Here is a radical departure from your current ride, and yet familiar (24lbs)...
> http://bscycle.co.jp/global/common/pdf/X9B_ELITE.pdf
> 
> Santa Cruz does not seem to have a Highball available for demos  Direct sales is great if you know exactly what you want, or are willing to experiment. But for a once every 30 years bike to rule them all purchase you definitely want to borrow, demo or what ever it takes to ride before you buy.


You are right, I don't see the HighBall on the demo scheduling page. I will call them to see why.

Are the current Bridgestone bikes available in the US?


----------



## pitdaddy (Aug 6, 2013)

I've got the 'plus' Tallboy- with the 130mm fork which is another discussion. Back to the 27.5 vs 29 on the Tallboy. The bottom bracket is lower when you go 27.5+. It doesn't matter what fork/chip combo. It's just the fact that the circumference is less.

For me & where I ride it's nice to have that extra cushion of the plus setup. But what I had to give up in exchange is more opportunity for pedal strikes. You said most of your riding is climbing and descending. I did that in Colorado 2 years ago. From my experience plus tires would have been a disadvantage.

Again, as much as I love my Tallboy you would be best to look for something leaner. You could ditch the dropper seat post, exchange the Maxxis tire combo for the Ikons front & rear. That alone could possibly drop one pound.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

gwlee said:


> You are right, I don't see the HighBall on the demo scheduling page. I will call them to see why.
> 
> Are the current Bridgestone bikes available in the US?


Nope. There's always ebay, or maybe a vacation to see Keirin racing, climb Mt. Fuji, sample Fugu and do a demo ride


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

pitdaddy said:


> I've got the 'plus' Tallboy- with the 130mm fork which is another discussion. Back to the 27.5 vs 29 on the Tallboy. The bottom bracket is lower when you go 27.5+. It doesn't matter what fork/chip combo. It's just the fact that the circumference is less.
> 
> For me & where I ride it's nice to have that extra cushion of the plus setup. But what I had to give up in exchange is more opportunity for pedal strikes. You said most of your riding is climbing and descending. I did that in Colorado 2 years ago. From my experience plus tires would have been a disadvantage.
> 
> Again, as much as I love my Tallboy you would be best to look for something leaner. You could ditch the dropper seat post, exchange the Maxxis tire combo for the Ikons front & rear. That alone could possibly drop one pound.


I haven't ruled out full suspension, but I am leaning towards a modern hardtail that will provide more comfort and control than my ridged bike, but won't be as heavy as FS and will be easier to maintain. Riding solo into the wilderness, I need a reliable bike, especially in Winter.

Living in the boondocks, opportunities to demo bikes are very limited, and I think I have already demoed the most suitable candidates that are available nearby. I used to live in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is something of a bike mecca, and I get down there about once a month, but parking lot demos don't tell me a lot.

I am considering just buying one of the intermediate level trail bikes the local dealer sells and using it to get some hands-on experience with modern trail bikes, accepting that I might need to upgrade it or replace it, but I will hang onto my 25# MB1 temporarily for what it does best.

If I go this route, the SC Chameleon is an option. It's available both wheel sizes, but both weighs about 28#, but the 29 is about 3/4# less per spec. I understand both versions use the same fork, but use different replaceable dropouts to preserve the same geometry. If I bought the 27.5+ version, which I have ridden, it would be softer riding, and I could buy and ultralight set of 29" wheels and tires to complement the fat 27.5s. The light 29's and any other upgraded parts could be used on another bike or frame if I decide to replace the Chameleon. Just a thought, and the reason I was inquiring about your experience swapping wheels on the TB.


----------



## pitdaddy (Aug 6, 2013)

The Chameleon is to heavy as well as most bikes that will let you swap between 29 & 27.5+. They just seem like to much of a compromise for what you want. Plus bikes have their merits for me. But for the riding you do I see them a disadvantage. Earlier today I looked at the spec on that Highball. It's under 23lbs!

Can you rent a bike while you are in San Francisco? You'd be better off to rent 4 or 5 bikes over the course of time. In my case, I attended a few bike demo's here close to home & rented one while in Colorado.

It's Friday afternoon and I'm ready to leave the office. You won't find me for a couple days unless I jump in here while doing taxes. Have a great weekend!


----------



## scycllerist (Jul 31, 2017)

the SC is fairly similar over the Salsa Timberjack I've been riding for a year. I mostly ride forest trails and it's lots of fun for that. When there's slushy ice on the ground I use it for fitness rides on the road through town. I can average 15mph on rolling pavement. 

Difinately look at the Highball.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Not sure about dealer direct, but this is the type of bike that interests me. My MB1 was considered a XC racing bike when I bought it. I never had any interest in racing, but I sure enjoyed riding it.


----------



## scycllerist (Jul 31, 2017)

Folks are recommending a cross country bike because that's the classification that meets your weight requirement not that your interested in racing. A similarly equipped trail bike will weight in at 28-29lbs. I was able to shave off 24oz from mine by upgrading wheels, tires and the cluster and by going tubeless. I now have $1800 into a $1000 bike. But I have yet to find a bike under $5K with equal wheels. So that route isn't a terrible way to go but still hard to get that combo below 25lbs without a lighter frame, fork and bull parts that spells $$. The Kestrel and the Highball are decent deals that meet your requirements. The quickest way to further shave weight is with a carbon fork for a 1-2lb savings. Those two bikes come with fairly light wheels so a $1000-1500 wheels set might save 6-8oz. Super light tires will reduce reliability and are very questionable\risky for you needs.

Here's a link with decent descriptions of the various mountain bike classifications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_bike


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

scycllerist said:


> Folks are recommending a cross country bike because that's the classification that meets your weight requirement not that your interested in racing. A similarly equipped trail bike will weight in at 28-29lbs. I was able to shave off 24oz from mine by upgrading wheels, tires and the cluster and by going tubeless. I now have $1800 into a $1000 bike. But I have yet to find a bike under $5K with equal wheels. So that route isn't a terrible way to go but still hard to get that combo below 25lbs without a lighter frame, fork and bull parts that spells $$. The Kestrel and the Highball are decent deals that meet your requirements. The quickest way to further shave weight is with a carbon fork for a 1-2lb savings. Those two bikes come with fairly light wheels so a $1000-1500 wheels set might save 6-8oz. Super light tires will reduce reliability and are very questionable\risky for you needs.
> 
> Here's a link with decent descriptions of the various mountain bike classifications.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_bike


Thank you for the link.

Since buying the MB1 in 93 (my 3rd "mountain bike"), I have read no bike magazines and visited no bike websites, but I have put thousands of miles on this bike riding it to work every day, riding it on fire roads and natural mountain trails on weekends. I have toured New Zealand and some the Australian Outback, and even ridden a few road centuries with it.

Five years I retired and moved to the Central Sierra Nevada Mountains, and I use this bike for exploring the 2-lane pavement, fire roads, and natural trails outside my front door. So far, haven't ever bent a rim, or even broken a spoke, and never had to walk home from a ride.

Bike tech has changed quite a bit since 93, lots of new standards, some parts for my bike become difficult to find, so looking at what's available today that will allow me to continue doing exactly what I have been doing for the last 35 years with slightly more comfort and control, but with no more effort. My bike is still in excellent conditions, except for the rims that I have worn out, so I don't really need a new bike.

Since I already have a light responsive bike with high quality components, the guys at the LBS are encouraging me to buy a short-travel full suspension bike that they feel are ideally suited to the extended network of rugged natural trails available here. I find these bikes too heavy and ponderous for all around riding, a great second bike for trail riding here, but a one-trick pony my standards, and I would rather not own more than one bike.

So far, a light, modern XC hardtail seems like the single best candidate to provide slightly more comfort and control on the trails without weighing more than my present 25# bike, and like the MB1, they seem versatile enough to handle all the types of riding I like to do.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

It's impossible for any bike to be great at everything and most people here (mtb forum) would gladly sacrifice a little efficiency on the road for a better experience on the trail.

That said I can relate to your needs because I do a fair amount of riding on gravel roads and 4wd tracks and my carbon hardtail is a pretty good all arounder. You might be surprised to find that a modern bike with a little slacker geometry and a good suspension fork offers more than just a little extra control compared to your present bike, IMO the difference is very significant.

Also I'd opt for 120mm fork instead of the more traditional 100 for xc, more control off road and no real penalty on climbs IME.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> It's impossible for any bike to be great at everything and most people here (mtb forum) would gladly sacrifice a little efficiency on the road for a better experience on the trail.
> 
> That said I can relate to your needs because I do a fair amount of riding on gravel roads and 4wd tracks and my carbon hardtail is a pretty good all arounder. You might be surprised to find that a modern bike with a little slacker geometry and a good suspension fork offers more than just a little extra control compared to your present bike, IMO the difference is very significant.
> 
> Also I'd opt for 120mm fork instead of the more traditional 100 for xc, more control off road and no real penalty on climbs IME.


Yes, Mt. Bikes have continued to diverge from their road bike roots since I've bought a new one. I enjoyed road bikes, but didn't like being confined to the roads. When "ATBs" became generally available in the 80s, I jumped on the trend.

The first two I owned, Miata Ridge Runner, and then a Specialized StumpJumper Comp were about as long, slack, and heavy has "modern progressive geometry." They got shorter, lighter, and steeper into the 90s, and I replaced the StumpJumper Comp with the MB1, which is short, light, has 71 degree HT, and 73 degree ST.

Today, "mountain bikes" have been sliced and diced into various sub-branches, such as XC, Trail, All Mountain, Enduro, Free Ride, etc. All seem to have more off road focus than my present bike. I am trying understand the new terminology and determine which new bikes are the most suitable for my riding.

I have only been riding new bikes and researching them for about two weeks, but it looks like an XC, bike would have the most in common with the bike I am riding now, and the most likely replacement for it. A short-travel full suspension bike would likely be the best complement to it for trail riding, but light ones are extremely expensive. I have spent the last ten years paring down the number of bikes that I own, so I am reluctant to start adding bikes, but maybe.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

gwlee said:


> I have only been riding new bikes and researching them for about two weeks, but it looks like an XC, bike would have the most in common with the bike I am riding now, and the most likely replacement for it. A short-travel full suspension bike would likely be the best complement to it for trail riding, but light ones are extremely expensive.


A short travel full suspension bike is an xc bike, hardtails are the minority these days. Off-road a good suspension bike will more than make up for a couple of extra pounds so I wouldn't worry about keeping it under 25# as far as that goes. FS is faster and safer over rough ground.

I think the bike you want depends on your priorities, a hardtail only excels on pavement and smooth dirt roads or trails. Or just get 2 bikes, YOLO!


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> A short travel full suspension bike is an xc bike, hardtails are the minority these days. Off-road a good suspension bike will more than make up for a couple of extra pounds so I wouldn't worry about keeping it under 25# as far as that goes. FS is faster and safer over rough ground.
> 
> I think the bike you want depends on your priorities, a hardtail only excels on pavement and smooth dirt roads or trails. Or just get 2 bikes, YOLO!


I have had the opportunity to ride an 31# aluminum Santa Cruz Tall back-to-back with my 25# bike a couple times to evaluate climbing a descending performance. The TB was a much better descender, but required much more effort to climb. I had no complaint about the suspension when climbing, it was the 6# (24%) weight penalty that was the problem for me.

For playing on trails, I think it would be fine, but not a bike that I would want to do much climbing on. Heavy, main stream, FS suspension bikes are very popular here with riders that truck their bikes to their favorite play areas and ride around with their friends for a few hours.

All of my riding is solo roaming and exploring from home on the bike. In the summer, the are often all-day rides. Living at 4,300 feet, a riding east is climbing to 10,000 feet. Riding west is descending to sea level. Riding north or south is one steep 5,000 foot ridge after another.

So my priorities are one light bike with slightly more comfort and control than I have now, but with no more effort required to climb given the amount of climbing that's required. That's at least a $6K FS bike with XT/XO1 spec, so I am looking more at carbon fiber hard-tails.

If I can talk myself into owning two bikes again, one of them might be a mainstream FS bike like the aluminum Tall Boy, but more likely a somewhat lighter, inexpensive aluminum HT project bike (Intro to Suspension 101) like the Santa Cruz Chameleon set up just for trail use, and keep my existing 25# bike for roaming. 
Judging from the weight of most bikes available today, most people are riding bikes heavier than 25#, so most people must not mind climbing with heavy bikes or don't do much climbing, but it's not for me, and I have always liked climbing.


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> It's impossible for any bike to be great at everything and most people here (mtb forum) would gladly sacrifice a little efficiency on the road for a better experience on the trail.
> 
> You might be surprised to find that a modern bike with a little slacker geometry and a good suspension fork offers more than just a little extra control compared to your present bike, IMO the difference is very significant.
> 
> Also I'd opt for 120mm fork instead of the more traditional 100 for xc, more control off road and no real penalty on climbs IME.


I agree 100% with every one of these statements...


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

The solution is obvious, a 24lb Tallboy or similar


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Travis Bickle said:


> The solution is obvious, a 24lb Tallboy or similar


Well, $8k would get me a 26+# Tallboy. For $8k, I would get a bike that weighs more than my existing bike, has equivalent component spec, and is probably capable of descending at speed on trails that I would probably walk no matter what I was riding. Don't think it's a sensible choice for me.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^Like I said... put your money in a good custom build. You don't seem like you need a crutch.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

bsieb said:


> ^Like I said... put your money in a good custom build. You don't seem like you need a crutch.


A crutch? Did he hurt his leg too? I must have missed that


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

gwlee said:


> Well, $8k would get me a 26+# Tallboy. For $8k, I would get a bike that weighs more than my existing bike, has equivalent component spec, and is probably capable of descending at speed on trails that I would probably walk no matter what I was riding. Don't think it's a sensible choice for me.


That's ridiculous. First off, when you say "equivalent", what does that mean? Because the lowest level of components made today are 10X better than the best (XTR) from 20 years ago. Here's a 2017 Tallboy with SRAM X01 components for $4500. You could get a pimped out wheel set for $1500 if you wanted and still be at $6K with top end components. https://www.competitivecyclist.com/...gQmlrZXM6MToxODoxMDAwMDA3OTZfY2NDYXQxMDAxNTc=

If you want to stay with a Hardtail, they have a pimped out Highball with Enve wheels for $5600 https://www.competitivecyclist.com/...gQmlrZXM6MToxOToxMDAwMDA3OTZfY2NDYXQxMDAxNTc= or a stripped model for $2600 https://www.competitivecyclist.com/...gQmlrZXM6MToyMToxMDAwMDA3OTZfY2NDYXQxMDAxNTc=

Or do what others have suggested and start from scratch. Here's a Highball frame for $1900. You could scour the internet (especially Pinkbike classifieds) and build whatever you wanted for about $5K tops and definitely less than 25 lbs.

Late edit: I was just on Santa Cruz' website and saw that the top of the line Highball is $5999 and 20.93 lbs. https://www.santacruzbicycles.com/en-US/highball-29


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

k2rider1964 said:


> That's ridiculous. First off, when you say "equivalent", what does that mean? Because the lowest level of components made today are 10X better than the best (XTR) from 20 years ago. Here's a 2017 Tallboy with SRAM X01 components for $4500. You could get a pimped out wheel set for $1500 if you wanted and still be at $6K with top end components. https://www.competitivecyclist.com/...gQmlrZXM6MToxODoxMDAwMDA3OTZfY2NDYXQxMDAxNTc=
> 
> If you want to stay with a Hardtail, they have a pimped out Highball with Enve wheels for $5600 https://www.competitivecyclist.com/...gQmlrZXM6MToxOToxMDAwMDA3OTZfY2NDYXQxMDAxNTc= or a stripped model for $2600 https://www.competitivecyclist.com/...gQmlrZXM6MToyMToxMDAwMDA3OTZfY2NDYXQxMDAxNTc=
> 
> ...


I am starting to have second thoughts about the HighBall. I have been playing with the MB1 a lot this week, testing it on steep, fast descents to revaluate its geometry before buying a new bike, and I'm beginning to think it might be too twitchy for me these days (older) on this steeper and rougher terrain. It's got a 41-inch WB, 71 HT, and 73 ST. The HighBall weighs the same, but it's about 1/2 more slack and has a suspension fork, so it should be more forgiving, but ....

Wondering if I shouldn't go with something a little closer to current trail geometry than the XC geometry that I have ridden for the last 25. Perhaps a hardtail 29 that would still handle the pavement and fire road portions of my loops as well as single track, but a hair less twitchy on the rough descents.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

gwlee said:


> I am starting to have second thoughts about the HighBall. I have been playing with the MB1 a lot this week, testing it on steep, fast descents to revaluate its geometry before buying a new bike, and I'm beginning to think it might be too twitchy for me these days (older) on this steeper and rougher terrain. It's got a 41-inch WB, 71 HT, and 73 ST. The HighBall weighs the same, but it's about 1/2 more slack and has a suspension fork, so it should be more forgiving, but ....
> 
> Wondering if I shouldn't go with something a little closer to current trail geometry than the XC geometry that I have ridden for the last 25. Perhaps a hardtail 29 that would still handle the pavement and fire road portions of my loops as well as single track, but a hair less twitchy on the rough descents.


You would really enjoy a hardtail 29er, it's a good place to start.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

k2rider1964 said:


> That's ridiculous. First off, when you say "equivalent", what does that mean? Because the lowest level of components made today are 10X better than the best (XTR) from 20 years ago. Here's a 2017 Tallboy with SRAM X01 components for $4500. You could get a pimped out wheel set for $1500 if you wanted and still be at $6K with top end components. https://www.competitivecyclist.com/...gQmlrZXM6MToxODoxMDAwMDA3OTZfY2NDYXQxMDAxNTc=
> 
> If you want to stay with a Hardtail, they have a pimped out Highball with Enve wheels for $5600 https://www.competitivecyclist.com/...gQmlrZXM6MToxOToxMDAwMDA3OTZfY2NDYXQxMDAxNTc= or a stripped model for $2600 https://www.competitivecyclist.com/...gQmlrZXM6MToyMToxMDAwMDA3OTZfY2NDYXQxMDAxNTc=
> 
> ...


Ridiculous? As I said, at $8k it wouldn't be a sensible choice for me. I also wouldn't build up a frame from scratch unless I already had most of the most of the components that could be moved from another bike, but I can see the advantages to this approach.

There's only so much a person can learn from demos, paper research, and internet forums, so it might take a bike or two for me zero in on what will work best for me.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

bsieb said:


> You would really enjoy a hardtail 29er, it's a good place to start.


Think I am going to buy one of the HTs available locally and see how the type works for me. It will be an experiment. If it's not the right bike, I will replace it or up grade it.


----------



## pitdaddy (Aug 6, 2013)

I still suggest demo'ing everything you can get your hands on. That's what got me on my Tallboy. It felt good & more importantly has nothing "proprietary". Threaded bottom bracket, standard tapered fork, no special this or that. Anyone can work on it.

Yes, you should get a hardtail. Keep us posted.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

gwlee said:


> Think I am going to buy one of the HTs available locally and see how the type works for me. It will be an experiment. If it's not the right bike, I will replace it or up grade it.


If it's a 29er, check to see if it will also take a 650b+ wheel and tyre.

It opens up a lot of options on one bike, especially if you like crawling around in the back country.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Velobike said:


> If it's a 29er, check to see if it will also take a 650b+ wheel and tyre.
> 
> It opens up a lot of options on one bike, especially if you like crawling around in the back country.


After riding every bike that I could get under me for the last month, I ordered an inexpensive olive green HT with 29" wheels this morning from the only bike shop in this county. It's set up so it can be converted to 27.5+ with a wheel change to keep my wheel size options open.

It's three pounds heavier than my existing bike, and I have ridden it with 27.5+ tires, so I know it requires more effort to climb, and it has x1 gearing, which gives up something on pavement and fire roads, but it adheres to all the new MTB standards, so it can be upgraded to reduce it's weight, and the upgraded components can be moved to a lighter frame if a HT works for me.

In return for giving up some pavement and fire road performance, I think it will provide the additional comfort and control I am seeking on single track, while still working well enough on all three surfaces to be compatible with my roaming/exploring from home riding style. After seeing how a HT works, I will decide what to do with my MB1.


----------



## Len Baird (Aug 1, 2017)

Congrats!
I wouldn't be surprised if you adjusted to a few pounds pretty quickly. It's funny how a new bike feels light or heavy at first but quickly just feels normal.
Make sure you set the suspension up properly for your weight, it makes a big difference. If it's an air fork it means setting the air pressure for your weight. 
Post us up a report when you get it!


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Len Baird said:


> Congrats!
> I wouldn't be surprised if you adjusted to a few pounds pretty quickly. It's funny how a new bike feels light or heavy at first but quickly just feels normal.
> Make sure you set the suspension up properly for your weight, it makes a big difference. If it's an air fork it means setting the air pressure for your weight.
> Post us up a report when you get it!


Thanks. It's an entry-level Fox air shock. Might be a gateway drug.


----------



## paramount3 (Jul 13, 2014)

Congratulations on your purchase! I'm too late to this thread to affect the outcome, but in case you get back in the market, I'll offer my opinions.

First, I think 90% of riders (commenters) truly don't get the type of riding you describe. You combine pavement, dirt road, and singletrack into long rides. You don't load your bike onto a car and drive to the trailhead. So out of the gate, plus tires are off the table. They're heavy, very expensive to replace, and they're dogs on pavement.

I think a hardtail 29er is probably a good compromise--and what you need is a compromise, because no one bike does everything optimally. You said the bike you ordered is "inexpensive"--does that mean aluminum? My recommendation would probably be to get a good steel 29er frame, build it with a good aluminum wheelset chosen for weight but also durability (not ultra narrow, not ultra wide), and either a low travel (80-100 mm) suspension fork or a rigid fork. Look for a good compromise head angle--maybe 69-70 degrees, long front-center and short stem. This compromise will give you somewhat better control on descents than you have with your current Bridgestone (less likely to go over the bars). Do you like to climb standing out of the saddle? A rigid 26er like your Bridgestone climbs like an angel out of the saddle. If that's important to you, check out the fork to make sore it has a true lockout. Lots of forks these past few years don't really lock out--especially at the higher end. Looking ahead in time, it does make sense to bias the bike towards climbing rather than descending, since the prudent thing is to to get more cautious as you get older and just walk the tough descents. No shame in that, I'm doing it more and more (age 53). For tires, I recommend tubeless 2.0 to 2.2, run at maybe 25-28 psi. This is ok on the road, and ok on dirt roads/light trails. For serious rocky single track I would want 2.3-2.4s and run maybe 22 psi---but again, I think you will want to walk over rocky single track descents as the years go by.

Someone recommended running a modern 1x drivetrain for dependability. You've got to be kidding me. Your Shimano 3x7 drivetrain from 1993 is still running smooth. I guarantee you that no SRAM ultra-range cassette will be rideable 25 years from now. And they cost too much to replace regularly. So on your next bike, I absolutely would recommend a 2x10 Shimano drivetrain, or even 3x. Dropper posts are great for descending steep singletrack, in fact I think they are an absolute game-changer. I love my dropper post and full suspension 29er for tough descents. But it's hard to imagine riding that bike for 8 hours with a lot of steep climbs without cursing a lot. If you're not descending steep difficult singletrack, I would skip the weight and complexity and cost of the dropper post (and the FS).

I think the type of bike I describe would be efficient, versatile, dependable, somewhat more comfortable than your current bike, somewhat better on the descents, and probably close to 25 pounds. The 29" wheels will keep it from accelerating like your current bike, but in other ways will be better. I think you could do it for $2500-3000 if you buy new, probably a lot less if you look around for some gently used parts that people have discarded because they aren't the hippest.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

paramount3 said:


> ...First, I think 90% of riders (commenters) truly don't get the type of riding you describe. You combine pavement, dirt road, and singletrack into long rides. You don't load your bike onto a car and drive to the trailhead. So out of the gate, plus tires are off the table. They're heavy, very expensive to replace, and they're dogs on pavement.
> 
> I think a hardtail 29er is probably a good compromise-...
> 
> ...the prudent thing is to to get more cautious as you get older and just walk the tough descents...


Basically what I do. This was taken on a 90 mile loop of forestry roads, singletrack and with about 30m of road.



The point about being careful on descents is important when you're riding solo. Some places no one will find you for days.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

This is a great thread! Lots of really good advice here.

Congrats gwlee for making a quick choice.

Reading between the lines I think the bikes out there that you want are not sold in stores. I initially went the store route and couldn't understand why the bikes all sucked, then I found at races that pretty much every bike was fantastic.

I think your next step, should you dare... try and get some test rides on high-end endurance hard tails that you find at races. Beware though that you might have your socks blown off and your mind infected with lust.

Pivot Les, Ibis Tranny, Kona Raijin. Personally I'd recommend a bike with a good 120mm fork and tubeless ikon 2.35, things need to get pretty crazy before it can't be ridden on a modern hardtail. Once you know what you want it isn't a big step to buying used.

Also, I know this sounds crazy but given all the climbing you might perhaps consider a properly geared singlespeed. Singlespeeds only suck on the flats (oh, and on the too steeps.)


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

OP, what kind of tires are you running?


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Velobike said:


> Basically what I do. This was taken on a 90 mile loop of forestry roads, singletrack and with about 30m of road.
> 
> 
> 
> The point about being careful on descents is important when you're riding solo. Some places no one will find you for days.


This is beautiful country. Spent several months touring Scotland and Ireland in 1971. 
Have great memories of Skye. Hope to spend some more time there with a friend when she retires. Returned to the west coast of Ireland last year for a family reunion without bikes, but we got to do a lot of hiking, including climbing Croagh Patrick.

In the 80s, I immediately saw the potential of the new fat-tired bikes that weren't so limited to paved road networks and had the potential to broaden my riding opportunities enormously, and I bought one of the first, which were often marketed as All Terrain Bikes (ATBs) rather than Mountain Bikes (MTBs), but the later marketing term stuck.

35 years later, shopping for my 4th "MTB," I find that many of them are no longer as well suited to long rides that combine paved roads, gravel/dirt roads, and natural trails. Living in the mountains now, I find they are often trucked to destinations where they are ridden in circles for a few hours to provide thrills rather than provide wide-area transportation.

More options is a good thing for riders, but it complicates shopping for someone who wants an ATB, and many people who use bikes or sell bikes don't seem to get concept.

This evolution of bikes is somewhat similar to the evolution of skis where fewer people or using skis for wide area transportation, but instead transporting them to facilities where they are hoisted up coast down the same hills over and over again to provide thrills rather than wide-area transportation, but nordic skis are still available, just fewer of them, and fewer places to buy them.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

leeboh said:


> OP, what kind of tires are you running?


On my current bike, I have used 1.5-2.25 tires, and find 2.0 tires a good compromise for long rides that combine an equal amount of pavement, gravel/dirt roads, and single track. At 145#, I can use 35# of air in these tires without getting pinch flats or damaging wheels. All of these tires are light, folding, kevlar clinchers with light tubes.

The new bike (on order) will come with 29x2.3 tubeless tires, and the frame is compatible with 27.5+ tires. No hands-on experience with them except for demo rides.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

paramount3 said:


> Congratulations on your purchase! I'm too late to this thread to affect the outcome, but in case you get back in the market, I'll offer my opinions.
> 
> First, I think 90% of riders (commenters) truly don't get the type of riding you describe. You combine pavement, dirt road, and singletrack into long rides. You don't load your bike onto a car and drive to the trailhead. So out of the gate, plus tires are off the table. They're heavy, very expensive to replace, and they're dogs on pavement.
> 
> ...


Bike on order is an aluminum HT with 120mm fork, and dropper. It has 29x2.3 tubeless tires, 69.3 degree HT, 72.8 degree ST, and 45.65" WB. Frame can also accommodate 27.5+. It's heavy by my standards, but I think it will provide a good hands-on introduction to current MTB technology and avoids paralysis by analysis. If it doesn't work for me, I will fix it, or replace it.

Its geometry is similar to the MTB I was riding in 1984. The bike I have been riding for the last 25 years, is much lighter, shorter and steeper, and perhaps a bit too quick handling for me these days, especially on this terrain.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

paramount3 said:


> My recommendation would probably be to get a good steel 29er frame
> ... probably close to 25 pounds.


?????

steel is real...
...heavy.

How do you get near 25# with a steel bike?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

andytiedye said:


> ?????
> 
> steel is real...
> ...heavy.
> ...


Mine is a lugged steel "XC Racing" bike from the days before suspension and dropper posts and such added a lot of weight to mountain bikes.

It weighs 25#. Despite being marketed as a racing bike, it's been an excellent commuter, road tourer, dirt/gravel, and single track bike.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

gwlee said:


> Its geometry is similar to the MTB I was riding in 1984.


I have a 1983 Stumpjumper and have ridden many vintage mtb's, Joe Breeze, Ritchey etc. and though they did have fairly slack head tube angles the overall geometry is not the same as modern mountain bikes at all. Lots of subtle changes add up to a totally different ride IME.

Congrats on the bike! I'm sure it's great and I hope you enjoy it but I do think you should have sprung for carbon, YOLO and if cycling is your passion why not get a modern top tier equivalent of your trusty MB1?


----------



## screamingbunny (Mar 24, 2004)

23#


----------



## screamingbunny (Mar 24, 2004)

28.6# for something a bit more capable


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> I have a 1983 Stumpjumper and have ridden many vintage mtb's, Joe Breeze, Ritchey etc. and though they did have fairly slack head tube angles the overall geometry is not the same as modern mountain bikes at all. Lots of subtle changes add up to a totally different ride IME.
> 
> Congrats on the bike! I'm sure it's great and I hope you enjoy it but I do think you should have sprung for carbon, YOLO and if cycling is your passion why not get a modern top tier equivalent of your trusty MB1?


Thank you. I have been riding my current bike for 25 years. It took me 10 years and two bikes to determine which features and components worked best for me. Then, I bought a top tier bike, but the seat and the pedals are the only components on this bike that conform to modern MTB architecture and component standards, so I am not sure whether a HT, "modern progressive geometry," etc. are for me. I also don't know whether I will prefer 27.5+ 29 wheels, a dropper seat posts, or tubeless tires for example.

When I know which of the new components and features best suit my terrain and riding style from hands-on experience, I will buy modern top tier bike, upgrade this one, sell it and keep riding my MB1, or keep it to complement my MB1. However, I think buying what I want from the get go and paying whatever it costs would be the least expensive approach if I could be sure what would suit me, but I can't be sure yet, so I am experimenting.

I enjoy riding, been doing a lot of it for 35 years or so, hope to continue for a few more years, but I wouldn't call it a passion. I also do a lot of hiking and have many other interests competing for my time.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

screamingbunny said:


> 28.6# for something a bit more capable
> 
> View attachment 1180793


Yes, this is similar to the bike I ordered; modern, more capable in some ways, perhaps less capable in others, heavier for sure.


----------



## paramount3 (Jul 13, 2014)

andytiedye said:


> ?????
> 
> steel is real...
> ...heavy.
> ...


Well, for perspective, I have a 2007 GT Peace 9R frame and fork that I built up with my own parts. It's about 27 lbs, which is the same as the weight of the factory build. The frame is about 6 lbs, so everything else is 21 lbs. If you had a theoretical zero mass frame with my parts, the bike would still weigh 21 lbs. A carbon frame might weigh half as much as a steel frame, but that doesn't mean the built bike will be half the weight of the built steel bike. It would not be a stretch to get my bike down to 25 lbs with a lighter build, even with a suspension fork (which wouldn't weigh much more than the incredibly heavy GT rigid fork I have).


----------



## paramount3 (Jul 13, 2014)

gwlee said:


> Bike on order is an aluminum HT with 120mm fork, and dropper. It has 29x2.3 tubeless tires, 69.3 degree HT, 72.8 degree ST, and 45.65" WB. Frame can also accommodate 27.5+. It's heavy by my standards, but I think it will provide a good hands-on introduction to current MTB technology and avoids paralysis by analysis. If it doesn't work for me, I will fix it, or replace it.
> 
> Its geometry is similar to the MTB I was riding in 1984. The bike I have been riding for the last 25 years, is much lighter, shorter and steeper, and perhaps a bit too quick handling for me these days, especially on this terrain.


If you switch to well-chosen 29x2.0 tires (tubeless), and swap out the dropper post for a good rigid post (there are many Thompson elites sitting in garages these days after people made the first swaps to dropper posts), you will probably save 2-3 pounds, and a good chunk of that is large-radius rotating mass. You could also consider a rigid fork, which would save you more weight (as long as you don't run a stock GT Peace 9R fork!).


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

paramount3 said:


> If you switch to well-chosen 29x2.0 tires (tubeless), and swap out the dropper post for a good rigid post (there are many Thompson elites sitting in garages these days after people made the first swaps to dropper posts), you will probably save 2-3 pounds, and a good chunk of that is large-radius rotating mass. You could also consider a rigid fork, which would save you more weight (as long as you don't run a stock GT Peace 9R fork!).


Dropping 3# (~11%) should get the new bike' s weight down to 25#, same as my MB1. Have too wait and see what it really weighs when it gets here, and use it a bit to see what I've got. Might like that suspension fork and dropper


----------



## paramount3 (Jul 13, 2014)

Definitely the suspension fork and dropper are great to have for real trail riding. It's just a question of priorities.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

I'm late to the party and can't really comment as to what you have just purchased, but I'll say congrats on the new ride. Enjoy it!.

I repped ya with the comment that I covet thy MB-1. I keep my eyes peeled for one all the time. One of these days the right bike will pop up. 

So, additionally this is just a note to say for all the folks out there touting "modern" geometry, I get it. Faster, stronger more comfortable, is all good. Just don't sell short the bikes designed by the pioneers of our sport. They rode some gnarly trails on those bikes. While I may not be able to go as fast as a lot of guys on my '01 hardtail, or my '99 URT, I can promise you I am having just as much fun.

As for the Bridgestone MB-1 specifically, in October of '15, I made my pilgrimage to Moab. On the third day we were there, my buddies and I were riding Ahab. We were well into the trail, when I looked up and saw a guy coming at me down a rocky section. He was on a full rigid, white bike. As he passed, I noticed it was a near original MB-1. I was a fan.


----------



## screamingbunny (Mar 24, 2004)

They do ride nice  Steel is real baby


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

paramount3 said:


> Definitely the suspension fork and dropper are great to have for real trail riding. It's just a question of priorities.


I wonder how much weight would be saved by going to carbon fiber wheels? Expensive, but could be moved to any bike or frame I might by in the future.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

gwlee said:


> I wonder how much weight would be saved by going to carbon fiber wheels?


It depends on what the wheelset that you have now weighs. I'm using wtb KOM rims (aluminum) which are pretty light so I could save very little if any weight by going to carbon but I would have a stronger wheel. Also a bit wider without any weight/strength sacrifice.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

chuckha62 said:


> I'm late to the party and can't really comment as to what you have just purchased, but I'll say congrats on the new ride. Enjoy it!.
> 
> I repped ya with the comment that I covet thy MB-1. I keep my eyes peeled for one all the time. One of these days the right bike will pop up.
> 
> ...


I have kept my MB1 original so far. Replaced the bar and stem to fit the bike to me, but kept the original parts.

Original Ritchey Vantage Comp rims are near end of life though. Hoping to find new old stock to replace them. Front wheel in photo is a loaner from my LBS. The original as hanging on the garage wall while I decide what to do with the bike.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

chuckha62 said:


> ...So, additionally this is just a note to say for all the folks out there touting "modern" geometry, I get it....


I do too. It's for bikes with suspension.

For rigid hardtails, bikes like the MB-1 pretty well nailed the right geometry back then.


----------



## Yalerider (Feb 14, 2017)

Sheesh.....so many nice bikes out there. I like what I have, thank goodness!


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Velobike said:


> I do too. It's for bikes with suspension.
> 
> For rigid hardtails, bikes like the MB-1 pretty well nailed the right geometry back then.


Mine has a short chainstays, short wheelbase, and steep HT and ST angles. Much quicker handling than most MTBs bikes available today. The older I get, the faster it handles, especially in this steep terrain, so I am going to retire it, before it retires me.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

screamingbunny said:


> They do ride nice  Steel is real baby
> 
> View attachment 1180861


I want another Aussie.


----------



## screamingbunny (Mar 24, 2004)

yeh shes a pretty good dawg.

P.S. carbon wheels save about 200 grams, but ALOT stiffer


----------



## paramount3 (Jul 13, 2014)

gwlee said:


> I wonder how much weight would be saved by going to carbon fiber wheels? Expensive, but could be moved to any bike or frame I might by in the future.


Not sure I would go for carbon rims:

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/carbon-vs-aluminum-wheels-which-do-ews-pros-use.html

It's interesting that the original concept of the 29er was a rigid, simpler bike. Usually steel, often single-speed. The idea was that the steel frame and larger diameter spoked alloy wheels (as opposed to 26"/559 mm) had inherent flexibility and shock damping characteristics. So suspension was not needed, and the rider could be more connected to the bike and terrain. Now, we've gone to full-suspension 29ers, with frames designed for stiffness, and we have boost hub spacing partially to increase the stiffness of our noodly 29er wheels, which are now morphing over to carbon for stiffness. Not that these bikes are bad--I have a FS 29er and like it--but I think it's funny that we've gotten to this point.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

paramount3 said:


> Not sure I would go for carbon rims:
> 
> https://www.pinkbike.com/news/carbon-vs-aluminum-wheels-which-do-ews-pros-use.html
> 
> It's interesting that the original concept of the 29er was a rigid, simpler bike. Usually steel, often single-speed. The idea was that the steel frame and larger diameter spoked alloy wheels (as opposed to 26"/559 mm) had inherent flexibility and shock damping characteristics. So suspension was not needed, and the rider could be more connected to the bike and terrain. Now, we've gone to full-suspension 29ers, with frames designed for stiffness, and we have boost hub spacing partially to increase the stiffness of our noodly 29er wheels, which are now morphing over to carbon for stiffness. Not that these bikes are bad--I have a FS 29er and like it--but I think it's funny that we've gotten to this point.


Not sure I would go carbon rims either. I have various concerns, but the question is worth worth asking to identify and quantify the possible advantages/ benefits of carbon rims. Equally interested in the disadvantages, which must be balanced against the advantages to decide.

Trying to determine the advantages and disadvantages of various ways to reduce total weight by 11% if I decide it's necessary. Taking weight out of the wheels and tires reduces total weight and rotating weight, so gets my attention.

Light weight and durability are equally important to this 145# recreational rider who treats his gear gently. Not going to be doing any enduro racing.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

gwlee said:


> Mine has a short chainstays, short wheelbase, and steep HT and ST angles. Much quicker handling than most MTBs bikes available today. The older I get, the faster it handles, especially in this steep terrain, so I am going to retire it, before it retires me.


About the only changes needed is to lengthen the wheelbase and widen the tyres.

Modern bikes have a longer front centre because of the slacker head angles. The slack HA means more flopping on steep climbs, but a longer toptube on the old style angles would achieve the same result without the flop.

The wider tyres allow lower pressures so you are no longer pinging off the scenery into the shrubbery on fast descents. On my 1x1 the addition of 2.8" tyres on wider rims has transformed the handling - they rarely exceed 15psi, and I am heavier than you.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

What exactly did you order? I've tried reading all of the lengthy posts but my time allows for skimming.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Crankout said:


> What exactly did you order? I've tried reading all of the lengthy posts but my time allows for skimming.


Santa Cruz Chameleon 29


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Velobike said:


> About the only changes needed is to lengthen the wheelbase and widen the tyres.
> 
> Modern bikes have a longer front centre because of the slacker head angles. The slack HA means more flopping on steep climbs, but a longer toptube on the old style angles would achieve the same result without the flop.
> 
> The wider tyres allow lower pressures so you are no longer pinging off the scenery into the shrubbery on fast descents. On my 1x1 the addition of 2.8" tyres on wider rims has transformed the handling - they rarely exceed 15psi, and I am heavier than you.


I looked for front wheel flop on my demo rides of new bikes. It seemed to be better controlled than I remember it being in the long and slack bikes that I rode in the 80s. Might have something to do with changes to trail, which wasn't specified for the new bikes. I won't know until I ride it extensively.

Although there are differences between "modern progressive geometry" and the geometry of the first generation of MTBs, they are similar in many respects. Wide bars and flat pedals seem to have made a comeback too.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Velobike said:


> About the only changes needed is to lengthen the wheelbase and widen the tyres.
> 
> Modern bikes have a longer front centre because of the slacker head angles. The slack HA means more flopping on steep climbs, but a longer toptube on the old style angles would achieve the same result without the flop.
> 
> The wider tyres allow lower pressures so you are no longer pinging off the scenery into the shrubbery on fast descents. On my 1x1 the addition of 2.8" tyres on wider rims has transformed the handling - they rarely exceed 15psi, and I am heavier than you.


The Santa Cruz Chameleon that I ordered can take 27.5+ wheels and tires. I demoed that version, but ordered a 29. It's also designed to be easily converted to a single speed with a dropout swap. I wanted a bike that lends itself to experimentation with most of the current MTB tech, so I can determine what works best for me.


----------



## ddoh (Jan 11, 2017)

gwlee said:


> Santa Cruz Chameleon 29


I had not heard of this bike before. That looks like a very good option for your stated purpose(s).


----------



## Len Baird (Aug 1, 2017)

gwlee said:


> Trying to determine the advantages and disadvantages of various ways to reduce total weight by 11% if I decide it's necessary. Taking weight out of the wheels and tires reduces total weight and rotating weight, so gets my attention.


If you have a Shimano LX level crankset, something like a Next SL carbon crankset would give a good weight savings.
Tubeless tires setup is slightly lighter, and light wheels would definitely be lighter overall and better for acceleterating rolling weight as has already been mentioned.
A light fork would probably be good too, at your size I bet you'd be fine on the lightest XC type forks. Standard trail bike forks these days are strong enough for a big rider to beat the living crap out of with jumps and dropoffs but they are heavy compared to something like Fox 32 or the Rock Shox equivalent light XC fork.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Len Baird said:


> If you have a Shimano LX level crankset, something like a Next SL carbon crankset would give a good weight savings.
> Tubeless tires setup is slightly lighter, and light wheels would definitely be lighter overall and better for acceleterating rolling weight as has already been mentioned.
> A light fork would probably be good too, at your size I bet you'd be fine on the lightest XC type forks. Standard trail bike forks these days are strong enough for a big rider to beat the living crap out of with jumps and dropoffs but they are heavy compared to something like Fox 32 or the Rock Shox equivalent light XC fork.


Thanks for the tips. Good to know there's a viable path for lightening the bike if necessary.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

gwlee said:


> Santa Cruz Chameleon 29


Great choice! I used to run the Blur for xc racing years ago.


----------



## centershot (Nov 21, 2008)

Being how you are in no big hurry or racing, then my vote is for a trail type bike. I just picked up a last year model Trek Fuel Ex 7 on closeout to replace my 2011 Rumblefish (10K miles on that one) and love it. Sure it's a little slow on the pavement but it is very plush and smooth on the trails. You may find yourself exploring new trails that were intimidating on the old rig.

I think you would be thrilled with a new Carbon Hardtail right up until you tried a full suspension rig. The weight trade off of full suspension is well worth it for me. To finish a long rough ride and not be beat to a pulp is nice. The problem with lightweight full suspension bikes is that most are Cross Country race bikes with racy geometry and uncomfortable riding positions. The trail type geometry allows for a very comfortable ride, not quite as efficient but again well worth the trade off. In the end you will need to ride a few to see what fits.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

gwlee said:


> The Santa Cruz Chameleon that I ordered can take 27.5+ wheels and tires. I demoed that version, but ordered a 29. It's also designed to be easily converted to a single speed with a dropout swap. I wanted a bike that lends itself to experimentation with most of the current MTB tech, so I can determine what works best for me.


Damn I think that's a GREAT BIKE. Great choice. Frame weight is its weak point - heavier than you'll like but reasonable price and extremely capable, it even comes with sensible tires. Solid bike with good resale. Well done. As an inexpensive intro to modern bikes I don't think you could have done better.

Now try and demo an x01 highball and see if you care about a measly five pounds of weight savings.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

eri said:


> Damn I think that's a GREAT BIKE. Great choice. Frame weight is its weak point - heavier than you'll like but reasonable price and extremely capable, it even comes with sensible tires. Solid bike with good resale. Well done. As an inexpensive intro to modern bikes I don't think you could have done better.
> 
> Now try and demo an x01 highball and see if you care about a measly five pounds of weight savings.


I estimate the Chameleon will weight at least 3# more than my MB1. The Chameleon is supposed to ship to my LBS on Monday, so won't know before then. Expect a year with it will tell me whether I want to continue with a HT, moved to full suspension, or go back to a ridged bike.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

gwlee said:


> I estimate the Chameleon will weight at least 3# more than my MB1. The Chameleon is supposed to ship to my LBS on Monday, so won't know before then. Expect a year with it will tell me whether I want to continue with a HT, moved to full suspension, or go back to a ridged bike.


With your experience I doubt you need a year. A 60 second back to back would tell you how much you actually 'need' a 21# $5k hardtail. Insert evil smiley here.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

eri said:


> With your experience I doubt you need a year. A 60 second back to back would tell you how much you actually 'need' a 21# $5k hardtail. Insert evil smiley here.


I demoed the Chameleon with 27.5+ tires back to back with my MB1 and the degradation in climbing performance was as obvious as the improvement in descending performance.

I ordered a Chameleon 29 though. It will take me a while to decide whether the tradeoff is worth it to me. If not, and I like HT suspension, I can lighten the Chameleon or replace it with a lighter HT to recover the lost climbing performance.


----------



## pitdaddy (Aug 6, 2013)

You will love the 29" wheels. They roll over things so much better than the 26's. My confidence level shot way up after switching.

Can you share pictures of the fire roads & single track trails you ride?

I'd also be curious how many feet you climb in a mile. Strava gives a general overall "distance" & "elevation gain" for a ride. I like to see what others have done on trails I'm not familiar with to get an idea of how much climbing they involve. Most of my rides average about 50' of climbing to a mile. We have one or two trails that are closer to 100' of climbing in a mile. One spring I went to Colorado and the first trail I rode was almost 400' of climbing in one mile.

One last thing and I'll shut up. Going from a 28lb hardtail to a 28lb full suspension bike its amazing how much less it wears me down.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

500'/mile would be considered a gentle climb here.

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

andytiedye said:


> 500'/mile would be considered a gentle climb here.


Same here but pitdaddy was talking about ft/mile for entire rides. 500' per mile over the course of a ride is generally pretty mellow but if you get that 500ft gain in a few hundred yards it's not going to be such a gentle climb.


----------



## casey2020 (Jun 14, 2009)

I retired and moved up to a Trek 2018, full suspension 29er, all mtn bike. The newer bikes are impressive. I was riding a 7 year old Trek all mtn, a great bike, but not as nice as the 29er.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

pitdaddy said:


> You will love the 29" wheels. They roll over things so much better than the 26's. My confidence level shot way up after switching.
> 
> Can you share pictures of the fire roads & single track trails you ride?
> 
> ...


I will try to remember to take some photos. Unlike the trails near urban areas the trails here aren't mapped, sign posted, or described in guide books. There are no parking lots, gates, hours, rules, fees, or friendly rangers handing out trail maps and citations for infractions unless you are in a national park. There are a lot of trails though, but finding them and determining where they go is requires local knowledge or exploring. Often, the are left over infrastructure from mining and lumbering dating back to the CA Gold Rush.

I have found one self-published print trail guide and one local's web page that describes loops combining pavement, fire roads, and trails, but do not include much hard info, mostly narratives with a few rough hand drawn maps and cell phone photos. They only scratch the surface of what's available, but I used them to get started exploring when I moved here.

Except for a few abandoned narrow gauge rail right of ways left over from logging, there are no flat trails or rolling trails to be found at this elevation. It's mostly up and down, steep and steeper, usually grinding a 22" gear. I know the last paved mile to my home is climbs 500 feet in a mile, and it's nothing special. Many of the fire roads require 4-wheel drive. I am not familiar with Strava, will look into it.

There are few road cyclists here. The only bike shop in the county doesn't sell road bikes. Except for the abandoned railways, I seldom encounter another cyclist or hiker. I think the relentless climbing and descending discourages most people. Local MTB riders tend to ride full suspension bikes and truck their bikes to favorite play areas and ride short loops over generally more favorable cycling terrain.

Writing this post, describing the local terrain and how the locals prefer to handle it, is leading me to reconsider my riding style, so I put the roof rack on my car yesterday for the first time in three years, and I will try hauling my bike to some lower elevation trails to see how I like this style of riding.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

I put the bike rack on the car for the first time in three years this morning and transported it to an abandoned narrow gauge rail right of away for a 10 mile out and back ride on one of the only level trails for miles around. It was pleasant mid-chainring cruise intended to shake down any problems with the car and rack. Packing/unpacking the car, loading/unloading the bike, and driving to/from the trail head took as much time as the ride, which is why usually ride from home.

Someone asked for a trail photo, so on the way home, I stopped and took a photo that shows the terrain around here. We are looking west from about 4,500 feet. Roughly, in the center of a mountain range that's about 70 miles wide and 400 miles long.

From the rail right of way, we are looking west into the canyon formed by the South Fork of the Stanislaus River. The distant 4,900 peak in the center of the photo is Mt. Elizabeth, which is very near my home. Another twenty miles further west from Mt. Elizabeth the elevation drops 3,000 into the MotherLode region of CA and the foothills of this range.

Going North or South from here requires descending into one steep river drainage after another and climbing out. 35 miles East, the ridge we are standing on crosses the Pacific Crest trail at about 10,000 feet and descends into Nevada. Climbing East to the pass is a challenge, going North or South from here is brutal.

Above 8,000 feet or so much of this country is designated wilderness where bikes are prohibited except for roads. Bikes are similarly restricted in Yosemite NP to the South.

Given this mix of steep terrain, I prefer to ride a light back that climbs well, and can hand single track, dirt/gravel fire roads, as well as pavement.


----------



## scycllerist (Jul 31, 2017)

Awesome riding!!


----------



## centershot (Nov 21, 2008)

Well, with that much climbing, it may be a good time take a look at some of the newer e-bikes.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

centershot said:


> Well, with that much climbing, it may be a good time take a look at some of the newer e-bikes.


Would like to try one out of curiosity, but it doesn't sound appealing to me. When no longer able to ride these hills, think I will search out easier terrain.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

pitdaddy said:


> One last thing and I'll shut up. Going from a 28lb hardtail to a 28lb full suspension bike its amazing how much less it wears me down.


I am interested in your opinion. I was/am tempted to buy full suspension. Lot of older guys (aka experienced cyclists) strongly recommend them for their comfort. The younger guys at the LBS ride them and recommended that I give them a try. Might get there yet, but decided to start with a front fork, and see how I like it.

The Chameleon is scheduled to ship on Monday. Plan to ride it for a year before making a decision about where to go next, but want to keep researching and learning about full suspension in the meantime.


----------



## pitdaddy (Aug 6, 2013)

gwlee said:


> I am interested in your opinion. I was/am tempted to buy full suspension. Lot of older guys (aka experienced cyclists) strongly recommend them for their comfort. The younger guys at the LBS ride them and recommended that I give them a try. Might get there yet, but decided to start with a front fork, and see how I like it.
> 
> The Chameleon is scheduled to ship on Monday. Plan to ride it for a year before making a decision about where to go next, but want to keep researching and learning about full suspension in the meantime.


This may be a rather lengthy reply because I want to cover several things.

First of all I don't understand why the salesperson steered you to a Chameleon instead of a Highball w/29" wheels. I've been listening to you comment over and over that you do a lot of climbing and descending & "fire roads" and various connectors of that sort. You probably spend 5% of your time riding anything most of us here call a "blue" or "black" trail. I would venture to say 90% of your riding should be on a cross country style bike like the Highball. Maybe the Chameleon has a stronger frame? A few extra pounds can make a difference going from a 23 lb Highball to a 27 lb Chameleon. A few pictures of what you actually ride on would tell more.

Now onto the good stuff-

Why a 28lb full suspension is better than a 28lb hardtail.
First of all I'm not beaten to death like I was on the hardtail. It used to be a one hour ride wore me out. Now I'm not shaken up so much and the lungs aren't stressed as hard.

I also went from a 26" wheel to a 29" wheel. Rolling over rocks & tree roots is much easier. Because of that I now have more confidence on the trails I ride. Swapping my 29" wheelset to a 27.5" plus with 2.8" tires makes for an even smoother ride. However, the compromise there is it lowers the bottom bracket thus pedal strikes can sneak up on you.

Most of my riding is on green & blue rated trails. We don't have the elevation changes in Kansas City like you do out west. We do have lots of rocks & tree roots. Get on YouTube and look up Swope Park mountain bike trails. An exaggerated example would be Rim Job trail at Landahl Park. "Horns High" mountain biking on YouTube would have some of the better videos.

Anyway, I'm so inspired to hear of your adventures at 70 years young! You are 15 years older than me and could put me to shame on climbs.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

pitdaddy said:


> This may be a rather lengthy reply because I want to cover several things.
> 
> First of all I don't understand why the salesperson steered you to a Chameleon instead of a Highball w/29" wheels. I've been listening to you comment over and over that you do a lot of climbing and descending & "fire roads" and various connectors of that sort. You probably spend 5% of your time riding anything most of us here call a "blue" or "black" trail. I would venture to say 90% of your riding should be on a cross country style bike like the Highball. Maybe the Chameleon has a stronger frame? A few extra pounds can make a difference going from a 23 lb Highball to a 27 lb Chameleon. A few pictures of what you actually ride on would tell more.
> 
> ...


The sales person tried to steer me to full suspension. I was initially very interested in the 29 Highball because it was the only type of bike that appeared likely to meet all my initial goals.

1. Marginally better comfort
2. Marginally better control
3. No increase in effort (no additional weight, so no additional work)

Furthermore, it's one of the few current bikes that can approach the quick handling characteristics of the bike I am riding now, which is shown in post #104. So, it would seem to be the ideal replacement bike, but I am probably going to keep my MB1. If so, it might be more of modern functional duplicate than a replacement.

I also began to wonder whether the bike geometry that had offered ideal handling for me in my 40s might be a touch too quick for me in my 70s on such much steeper average terrain, and I wanted to experiment with "modern progressive geometry" to see whether it offers anything for me. The Chameleon has this geometry, so it's a much tamer bike and perhaps a better assisted-living bike. 

I also wanted a bike that would allow me to experiment experiment with all the of the new MTB technology and standards that have been introduced since my last bike and determine which of them of them might be suitable for my riding here. For example, 27.5+ tires and dropper posts. (It was ordered with 29 wheels and dropper post.) In this respect, the Chameleon is a more versatile bike than the HighBall).

Unlike the Chameleon which is available locally, I couldn't find anywhere to demo the HB, including the SC factory. I also decided that I could reduce the weight of the Chameleon to 25# if it's weight proved to be to much of a climbing burden, and I decide to stick with a hardtail and decide to fully retire my MB1.

I am not sure this is the best decision I could have made, but this is the thought process behind ordering the Chameleon. I consider this bike purchase as a relatively inexpensive experiment and the beginning of a longer hands-on decision making process that might end with full suspension or even another ridged bike.

As I was writing this post my LBS store called to report that Santa Cruz has slipped the promised delivery date for the 3rd time (now 3/23), and asked me if I want to cancel, so I have another decision to make.


----------



## pitdaddy (Aug 6, 2013)

I put a down payment on a Tallboy on June 30th of this year. It was October 6th when I received it. Which brings me to another point. I never considered a Santa Cruz bike. A local bike shop was demo'ing bikes. They asked me if I wanted to ride the Tallboy. Figured since it was free why not? This was after riding a Pivot 429 Trail & Specialized Camber Comp (w/27.5 wheels). About 3 or 4 turns down the trail the bike & I just lit up and blazed.


On a side note, I'm so glad to hear you choose not to go e-bike. I know that subject stirs up more than Trump's twitter account so let's drop it for now.

Your reasoning for the Chameleon makes perfectly good sense. What sold me (besides the ride) is the fact there isn't anything proprietary on the bike. Threaded bottom bracket, standard tapered head tube, nothing that makes the bike unique from a replacement parts perspective.

It's Friday afternoon & I"ll be off the grid for most of the weekend. Hope you can get out and ride!


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

You made a good choice gwlee, you will have a lot of fun with the 29er and the 27.5+. Light and durable wheels can be done in both sizes, a plus as they get bigger. Happy trails...


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

bsieb said:


> You made a good choice gwlee, you will have a lot of fun with the 29er and the 27.5+. Light and durable wheels can be done in both sizes, a plus as they get bigger. Happy trails...


I think... you made a very logical choice by dipping your toe in the pool with that inexpensive chameleon. Bummer about the delivery date. Probably you should take the opportunity to cancel and spend more time shopping. I would.

The thing is... the chamelion is sort of a dog - a 28# hardtail would not make me happy. Certainly you'll increase your biking vocabulary by spending time on it but I really think you need to get some seat time on a bike that you might love instead of settling for that much weight. Is better if you can buy the right bike once.

I really think for the sort of riding you do that a light endurance hardtail would light you up. The sort of bike I'm talking about is >=$4k. This would be a bike that you'd love, would make you forget that mb1. Problem is that they are really hard to get seat time on, you basically need to beg the crazy owners to let you try them.

I personally don't care for the ride of the santa cruz fs bikes. I have friends with dazzling $7k carbon everything 5010 and tallboy. The bikes are super fast, stiff and keep control through all sorts of insane stuff where I must use much more english and unweighting on my own bikes, but I just have never liked how they pedal. Sure I'm much faster to descend the rough stuff but I'm also less satisfied at the end and concerned that the extra speed will lead to injury.

I really think you should get in contact with a Pivot dealer. Demo a carbon 429. Its a dwlink xc-type bike but I think pedals very well, nice lively bike. Are you near Lake Tahoe? Shirley there's a pivot dealer near there. Or maybe fly to moab, stay in a motel and demo a bunch of bikes on the slickrock. That will learn you real quick.

The other bike that is an amazing deal that you might love is the Giant Anthem 29, the higher end model comes with carbon frame and wheels, suspension is quite supple but it also climbs crazy well. I also had about 30 minutes on a Trance Advanced and that is a remarkable bike too. I dislike the weight of the 27.5+ tires but for that bike I might make an exception. So maybe see about demoing a higher end giant?

Also, this bike choice isn't about speed but about feel, I find that on 29er it is super important to have light wheels and light supple tires, which is almost never the case on a stock bike.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

I cancelled my order for the SC Chameleon. The promised delivery date kept shifting out with no explanation, so I am back in the hunt for another HT.


----------



## N10S (Sep 27, 2004)

gwlee said:


> Mine is a lugged steel "XC Racing" bike from the days before suspension and dropper posts and such added a lot of weight to mountain bikes.
> 
> It weighs 25#. Despite being marketed as a racing bike, it's been an excellent commuter, road tourer, dirt/gravel, and single track bike.
> View attachment 1180785


I love the MB1's, especially the 1987 drop-bar version. Yours is a nice example. Having started my MTB riding in 84 these are the bikes I learned on and that I still love. Lightweight steel is not an oxymoron and other than ti a good quality steel frame and fork is about as pure as it gets. As I get older and try to avoid injury in get-off's I find that I have come full circle and that the older iron is just about right again for a lot of my rides.

Here are my two Bontragers. The Race Lite is 23.5 lbs and the Privateer a bit heavier and a lot more durable.













I also have a rigid 91 Rockhopper Comp set up as an SS, but that one see's less use...

Having been through a variety of FS bikes, 29er's and now a Trek 29+ I am pretty happy with my current 29+. I have also been a fan of 1x gearing set-ups for the last 15 years as this keeps it light and simple. Some things just work and when they do you stick with them. Knocking at the door of 60 this year I am a retro-grouch when it comes to new tech for XC riding. In my opinion the 29er revolution makes sense but some things like through axles, tapered steerers and integrated BB's and headsets have no place on an XC bike. Same for long travel suspension, specifically when considered for riding Missouri single track trails. Crazy as it seems though I popped for a Trek Stache 7 a couple of years back. Like you I like light bikes and the Stache 7 is not a light bike. Overall it rides well though and is actually fairly agile considering it weight. Its as comfortable as a short travel FS XC bike and its also purple so how could I resist?

If I were looking at a new bike I would probably go back to a regular steel 29er frame set-up as either rigid or hardtail with a 100mm fork. I have owned a number of this spec of bike over the years and if you go with a custom frame from Waltworks, Quiring, or others of that sort and go with a 1x drivetrain and lighter wheelset, you can keep the weight down to the 24-25lb range . Another off-the-shelf option is finding a Jamis Dragon Pro frame or full bike with the 853 steel tube set frame. This is a nice light production frame that really rides well. I ran mine with a 100mm Manitou Tower fork and then later rigid with an RC29 carbon fork and it was a great handling bike.

Anyway, good luck with your search. I think going with slightly newer tech 29er with a big set of tires to take the edge off your ride and keep your hardware current is a good option. Having one newer bike along with your old trustworthy MB1 would be the way to go for sure.

Not sure why the pics of the trek loaded upside down? I tried to fix the first one then ended up with 2!! Tried to just remove, but now can't get rid of them! Sorry about that guys...


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

I think a new, light, fully ridged bike with slightly wider 29” wheels, tubless tires, slightly slacker geometry, and hydraulic disk brakes would meet my minimum requirements for slightly more comfort and slightly more control control at the same effort (weight) while conforming to current MTB component standards. 

Finding an off-the-rack, fully ridged bike with high end components might be more difficult to than an equivalent HT though. However, it might be more likely to offer the durability and reliability I take for granted with my present bike.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

gwlee said:


> I think a new, light, fully ridged bike with slightly wider 29" wheels, tubless tires, slightly slacker geometry, and hydraulic disk brakes would meet my minimum requirements for slightly more comfort and slightly more control control at the same effort (weight) while conforming to current MTB component standards.
> 
> Finding an off-the-rack, fully ridged bike with high end components might be more difficult to than an equivalent HT though. However, it might be more likely to offer the durability and reliability I take for granted with my present bike.


I am sure some here will disagree, and maybe makes purchase more difficult but in my experience as a random guy working on his own bike: you want Shimano brakes, xt or better. I have friends that disagree but I've had nothing but trouble with SRAM brakes. I think the rest of SRAM and Shimano parts are both good. The high end SRAM stuff is excellent and parts are available.

Another story, I made the acquaintance of a wonderful older gent with deep road bike experience. He cheaped out on mountain bikes for a few years, getting deals of crappy bikes but finally bucked up for a great bike, a carbon everything specialized camber. He said he got calls on the same day that his new sports car arrived, and his bike was ready, said he simply couldn't wait to get the bike, felt like a kid. I think this buying process should make you happy, you ought to bē excited!

A year later my friend has heart timing complications and can't ride, so get going while you can.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

gwlee said:


> I think a new, light, fully ridged bike with slightly wider 29" wheels, tubless tires, slightly slacker geometry, and hydraulic disk brakes would meet my minimum requirements for slightly more comfort and slightly more control control at the same effort (weight) while conforming to current MTB component standards.
> 
> Finding an off-the-rack, fully ridged bike with high end components might be more difficult to than an equivalent HT though. However, it might be more likely to offer the durability and reliability I take for granted with my present bike.


There are some good ones out there, build up a frame, great fun!


----------



## pitdaddy (Aug 6, 2013)

Even though I don't have them I agree on the Shimano brakes. The mineral oil won't damage paint. Most all of them are easy to bleed. The only thing people complain about is the modulation. But that is only certain higher end ones. Is it the "servo wave"?

It's really to bad you can't demo more bikes. It about killed me but I took my time and attended about 3 bike demo's. One spring I rented a bike. Even tho I didn't ride every "brand" *I learned what geometry fit me best for the trails I ride.* Personally, I'm glad you cancelled out on the Chameleon.

I started on a 30 pound Giant Revel in May of 2013. A couple years later swapped fork & crankset and got it down to 28lbs. Finally, by chance in March of 2017 I hopped on a bike and fell in love with it (Tallboy 3). Finally got one last October.

Can you snap a few more pictures of the actual trails and roads you ride on?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

gwlee said:


> I think a new, light, fully ridged bike with slightly wider 29" wheels, tubless tires, slightly slacker geometry, and hydraulic disk brakes would meet my minimum requirements for slightly more comfort and slightly more control control at the same effort (weight) while conforming to current MTB component standards.


Why fully ridged? Unless you just ride pavement or very smooth trails ridged forks are only best for hard core masochists, a good suspension fork makes a huge difference both for comfort and control IME, fatbikes aside I suppose.

Sub 25# carbon hardtails abound.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> Why fully ridged? Unless you just ride pavement or very smooth trails ridged forks are only best for hard core masochists, a good suspension fork makes a huge difference both for comfort and control IME, fatbikes aside I suppose.
> 
> Sub 25# carbon hardtails abound.


I would consider another ridged bike, I am riding one now. Its fork never requires air or maintenance. Fewer parts, less to go wrong in the back country. Just looking for marginal increases in comfort and control, which expect wider tires at lower pressure, more relaxed geometry, and hydraulic brakes would provide.

However, not inclined to build up a frame, and there are few higher quality ridged bikes available off the rack, so a HT seems to be more accessible while offering more comfort and contol without adding too much weight. I assume a good suspension fork is reasonably durable and reliable.

I haven't said much about reliability and durability, which i tend to take for granted based on 25 years with my current bike, but any problem or accident that prevents the bike from being ridden or me from riding the bike home in daylight can have serious consequences for a solo rider deep in the Winter mountains. This is one reason i walk any section of trail that I am not 100% certain I can ride cleanly.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

pitdaddy said:


> It's really to bad you can't demo more bikes. It about killed me but I took my time and attended about 3 bike demo's. One spring I rented a bike. Even tho I didn't ride every "brand" *I learned what geometry fit me best for the trails I ride.* Personally, I'm glad you cancelled out on the Chameleon.
> 
> Can you snap a few more pictures of the actual trails and roads you ride on?


I have been looking for around for other demo/rental opportunities, but haven't found much yet. There are MTB Meccas witin a few hundred miles from here where rentals are available, but they tend to be full suspension bikes. There's the Santa Cruz HQ (250 miles RT) offers demo rentals of most of their bikes that can be ridden to Wilder Ranch. Expect to take advantage of the opportunity the next time I am in town, which usually about once a month.

Manufacturers don't often bring their demo days to small rural towns unless they are established MTB Meccas. Urban-metro centers like the San Francico Bay Area have many large bike shops, and this is probably where I need to go to purchase my next bike. I find parking-lot demos are helpful for quickly eliminating unsuitable bikes and unsuitable sizes, but not that helpful otherwise.

I took several trail photos on my last ride that showed small sections of trail that varied from easy to unrideable by me. After looking at them at home, I thought the photo in Post #145 was most useful because it shows mountain topography within a five mile radius of my home.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Took a 125 mile car ride today to visit the three nearest bikes shops outside my home town. Found Pivot, Salsa, Felt, and Santa Cruz dealers in addition to the usual suspects found everywhere, but not one had stock on any HT that interested me. Bikes in stock were entry level, which must be what sells. Local dealers seem to special order anything else. 

Would like to support my local dealers, but not willing to buy sight unseen. Guess I will be forced to visit a major metro area to find a stocking dealer. 

Managed to purchase a Yakima Front Loader bike mount that fits my Yak bars, so the trip wasn’t a complete waste of time. It fits my 26” bike, and it should fit anything I am likely to buy.


----------



## roadkill401 (Mar 14, 2017)

*Think it's ready*

Finally got all the parts on the new bike and I think it's ready to ride.

Started off with a Giant Anthem2 (2017). I upgraded the front ring to a 34tooth blackspire. replaced the handlebars with a MEC carbon 720 (20mm rise). new chain, ritchie SPD peddles, 120mm 35deg stem, new gel seat, ODI double clamp grips.

















Also picked up some shimano shoes. Really lucked out at size 51 shoes are hard to come by in these parts. most stores don't carry above 47. luckly my LBS had some larger sized ones in. Of the pile he had, it was the last of 6 that actually fit comfortably, so I bought them.. ouch about the price but it is what it is if you want cycling shoes.


----------



## scycllerist (Jul 31, 2017)

gwlee said:


> Took a 125 mile car ride today to visit the three nearest bikes shops outside my home town. Found Pivot, Salsa, Felt, and Santa Cruz dealers in addition to the usual suspects found everywhere, but not one had stock on any HT that interested me. Bikes in stock were entry level, which must be what sells. Local dealers seem to special order anything else.
> 
> Would like to support my local dealers, but not willing to buy sight unseen. Guess I will be forced to visit a major metro area to find a stocking dealer.
> 
> Managed to purchase a Yakima Front Loader bike mount that fits my Yak bars, so the trip wasn't a complete waste of time. It fits my 26" bike, and it should fit anything I am likely to buy.


Check out All City Gorilla Monsoon.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

Thanks. Lots of interesting bikes available these days.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

gwlee said:


> Thanks. Lots of interesting bikes available these days.


If you haven't seen it there is a thread in endurance racing which probably has the opinions you should trust:

http://forums.mtbr.com/endurance-xc-racing/2018-endurance-bike-thread-1064601.html

All the bikes listed there are the hotness, and are all very difficult to demo.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

eri said:


> If you haven't seen it there is a thread in endurance racing which probably has the opinions you should trust:
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/endurance-xc-racing/2018-endurance-bike-thread-1064601.html
> 
> All the bikes listed there are the hotness, and are all very difficult to demo.


Thank you. Read through the entire thread this PM. Might take a ride to Big City after the this snow storm ends to see what's in stock there.


----------



## pitdaddy (Aug 6, 2013)

Have you seen the new Santa Cruz Blur & Highball?


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

One year later: Santa Cruz pushed out three promised delivery dates for the 2018 Chameleon that i ordered, so I cancelled my order and continued riding my ridged XC bike for another year. 

Ordered and received a 2019 Chameleon with 29R build through my LBS this week. Looking forward to riding it to get some first hand experience with current MTB technology on my local trails. 

The new bike is 5” longer (WB), 5 degrees slacker (HA), and 5# heavier, so I am confident that it will be safer and more comfortable to ride in this steep terrain than my current bike, meeting two of three goals for a new bike. If it proves to be too heavy to climb as well as my old bike, I have identified several paths ($$$) to reduce its weight to 25#, which is the weight of my old bike.


----------



## SqueakyWheel73 (Sep 21, 2018)

gwlee said:


> One year later: Santa Cruz pushed out three promised delivery dates for the 2018 Chameleon that i ordered, so I cancelled my order and continued riding my ridged XC bike for another year.
> 
> Ordered and received a 2019 Chameleon with 29R build through my LBS this week. Looking forward to riding it to get some first hand experience with current MTB technology on my local trails.
> 
> The new bike is 5" longer (WB), 5 degrees slacker (HA), and 5# heavier, so I am confident that it will be safer and more comfortable to ride in this steep terrain than my current bike, meeting two of three goals for a new bike. If it proves to be too heavy to climb as well as my old bike, I have identified several paths ($$$) to reduce its weight to 25#, which is the weight of my old bike.


I have no doubt you will love the new bike. I picked up a new bike in 2018, replacing an 8 year old Specialized Epic. Everything has just gotten better. Even though my new bike weighs 2-3 pounds more than my old bike, it is more fun to ride in nearly every way. Have fun!


----------



## AntonioJMcMillan (Feb 12, 2019)

*old cars and bicycles*

I like old cars and bicycles. I often buy new parts for tuning bikes. I understand that bicycles have a soul and this fact makes me happy. Bicycle shops https://bikesist.com/best-cyclocross-bikes always help you find the right part.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

You have a lot more patience than I have. I would have cancelled the Santa Cruz order and bought a Spot Rocker rather than wait that long. 853 steel, basically the same geometry as the Chameleon, sliding dropouts, etc. 

The Chameleon is a nice bike though. I like that they put a threaded BB on it, I know a ton of people with creaky press-fit bottom brackets.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

SqueakyWheel73 said:


> I have no doubt you will love the new bike. I picked up a new bike in 2018, replacing an 8 year old Specialized Epic. Everything has just gotten better. Even though my new bike weighs 2-3 pounds more than my old bike, it is more fun to ride in nearly every way. Have fun!


I have been snowed in since bring the bike home about two weeks ago, so haven't had an opportunity to ride it on my nearby trails yet. Expect it will be a better bike for these trails than my current bike except for climbing where its extra weight will be felt.

Want to ride it for a year or so to get some hands on experience with modern bike features and options to determine my preferences, and then I might replace it with something lighter.


----------



## gwlee (Jan 22, 2018)

honkinunit said:


> You have a lot more patience than I have. I would have cancelled the Santa Cruz order and bought a Spot Rocker rather than wait that long. 853 steel, basically the same geometry as the Chameleon, sliding dropouts, etc.
> 
> The Chameleon is a nice bike though. I like that they put a threaded BB on it, I know a ton of people with creaky press-fit bottom brackets.


The Spot Rocker is the first bike I have seen with belt drive. How is to ride and maintain?

Waiting another year for my Chameleon wasn't all bad. I continued riding my old bike, continued researching new bikes, SC made a couple of improvements for 2019.


----------

