3k burning a hole in my pocket, which "all mountain&quo

[kthxnp]

Hi all,

I'm about 6'2" and 100kgs, and am looking to buy an "all mountain" bike, basically I want something that I can take up hills as well as down them. I'm not doing any crazy drops or jumps, nor do I envisage doing them in the near future..

I'm currently considering the Giant VT2.. or a maybe a Specialized Enduro? or maybe a Kona Dawg? I'm contemplating going to 4k for a Giant VT1 with UST's, but I'm uncertain..

I haven't test rode anything yet, can anyone offer any thoughts or suggestions?


--
Sorry, I should have mentioned, I'm in .au and it's $AUD

[magnetique']

I love spending other peoples money!

In your situation, I only have one word:

Norco Fluid 1 with Z1 FRSL's, Hayes Hydro's, XT/Truvativ drivetrain, Fox Float rear shock and Titec bits! Ok that was a bit more than 1 word, but you get the picture I'm sure.

Heres a pic.
http://www.farkin.net/forums/album_thumbnail.php?pic_id=9834 (http://www.farkin.net/forums/album_pic.php?pic_id=9834)

Dont know if there are any left in the country, but if there are I'd say they'd be around $3-3.5k? You also get "proven" FSR style rear suspension, instead of whatever giants designers dreamt up during breakfast this morning..

[Cave Dweller]

I love spending other peoples money!

In your situation, I only have one word:

Norco Fluid 1 with Z1 FRSL's, Hayes Hydro's, XT/Truvativ drivetrain, Fox Float rear shock and Titec bits! Ok that was a bit more than 1 word, but you get the picture I'm sure.

Heres a pic.
http://www.farkin.net/forums/album_thumbnail.php?pic_id=9834 (http://www.farkin.net/forums/album_pic.php?pic_id=9834)

Dont know if there are any left in the country, but if there are I'd say they'd be around $3-3.5k? You also get "proven" FSR style rear suspension, instead of whatever giants designers dreamt up during breakfast this morning..

I disagree.

1/ I wouldn't recommend a norco due to their shit warrenty
2/ The guy is over 6 foot and 100kg. Recommending an rear air shock is just stupid.
3/ He would absolutly smash those shity truvativ cranks and single track (or single ride as they are known) rims
4/ The forks are ok but are lower end maz's.

Unfortuantly, like me and many others, you fall into the abusing bike catagory due to your wieght and hieght.

If you want something reliable for $3000 you best bet is going to be getting a burly hardtail with good components that will last IMO. A $3000 FS bike is going to have lots of part compromises on it that WILL break and end up costing you alot more that you planning on spending.

[Dicky]

considering your height, weight and intended use, i would steer clear of the VT series.

if in doubt, go into a Giant dealership and ask to have a look at one. Put one hand on the seat, one on the top of the rear wheel, and see how much torsional (twisting) flex you can get out of the rear end.

Don't put too much force in, you might break something :lol:

If the sales guy is good at his job, then the issues of weight and/or value for money will come up. Giant do both of these well, they just miss on the 'strong frame' concept.

Always remember:

Light, Cheap, Strong - choose any two.

If you are still looking at a Giant, consider one of the AC series - as an "All Mountain" or trailbike. They are not strong or stiff enough to be used for the "freeride" purpose that they are marketed for.


The Specialized and Kona are both good picks - which one to get will depend on how much up versus how much down you want to do.

The rear end on the Specialized (known as a Horst Link) has the rear wheel and rear shock moving in effectively the same plane. This will give you a more active or responsive ride going down, but is affected by pedal-induced feedback (also known as everyone's worst mate, "Bob".)
Many other manufacturers (including Norco) have licensed this design from Specialized, and have been using it to great success for years.

The Kona runs on a 'walking beam' four bar linkage design, in which the rear wheel and rear shock move in opposite directions.
The Giant AC also uses this system.
This will counteract most of the pedal induced feedback, with the small tradeoff that you lose a bit of rear suspension sensitivity. (Not heaps, just a bit.)

Having owned bikes with both rear end designs, i prefer the Kona design as it does pedal noticably better.
Have a look at the Coiler as well - it's about the same price as a Dawg, but being coil sprung with another inch of travel (5") at each end, it's going to let you have some more fun on the way down.

[Sparkman]

I think the VT2 is pretty good price and parts wise. For a bit more cash a RM switch sounds pretty good for a do it all type bike (about 4k for one with a reasonable parts spec). Also a SC Heckler could probably be built up far about that price. For your size/weight you might want the added strength of a Giant AC. I have a mate about the same size/weight who wants a new all-mountain bike and I'm trying to steer him towards the AC for the added strength. If you're not too hard on your bikes, then go the VT1/2.

[Rik]

4/ The forks are ok but are lower end maz's.
They're actually fairly high end forks, aside from the rear shock, that Fluid doesn't look too bad for the money... the forks are what appeals to me the most about it.

[Ryan]

Yeah, the z1fr sl's have dual hscv damping with positive and negative air springs, they're actually a top of the line fork. I recently purchased a set of these forks and I can say they feel 1000 times better than I ever imagined an air-sprung fork could feel.

[S.]

The rear end on the Specialized (known as a Horst Link) has the rear wheel and rear shock moving in effectively the same plane. This will give you a more active or responsive ride going down, but is affected by pedal-induced feedback (also known as everyone's worst mate, "Bob".)
Many other manufacturers (including Norco) have licensed this design from Specialized, and have been using it to great success for years.

The Kona runs on a 'walking beam' four bar linkage design, in which the rear wheel and rear shock move in opposite directions.
The Giant AC also uses this system.
This will counteract most of the pedal induced feedback, with the small tradeoff that you lose a bit of rear suspension sensitivity. (Not heaps, just a bit.)

Having owned bikes with both rear end designs, i prefer the Kona design as it does pedal noticably better.


Unless you have a very old, sloppy frame (eg RM6/9), your shock and rear wheel will move in the same plane (because suspension design, in theory at least, is strictly 2-dimensional). The positioning of the shock has NO effect on the pedalling of the frame, and is totally irrelevant to the differences between linkage-activated singlepivots (Konas, VT's) and FSR 4-bar bikes. Contrary to what you said, it does NOT affect the sensitivity of the suspension. Most FSR designs have a centre of curvature just above/behind the BB (coincidentally similar to where Kona main pivots are), and as such will pedal very similarly (and yes I've ridden many of both and can back that up).

[Dicky]

1/ I wouldn't recommend a norco due to their shit warranty

A guy came in on Monday with a cracked 125 frame. Photos were sent to Norco Australia - a warranty replacement frame was not only organised but sent on the same day. It's probably at the shop by now.

Cave Dweller, your name is pretty appropriate here. :roll:

2/ The guy is over 6 foot and 100kg. Recommending an rear air shock is just stupid.

Bit of a grey area. Depends on how hard you ride it - if you don't want to jump huge stuff as you say, go right ahead. Having seen the thrashing that a 200mm eye to eye Float RL copped on the rear end of a mate's Gemini, i wouldn't be too worried...

3/ He would absolutly smash those shity truvativ cranks and single track (or single ride as they are known) rims

Both will stand up to a bit of a beating, but yeah, they're not downhill parts. Which is fine, if you're not downhilling...

4/ The forks are ok but are lower end maz's.

Dude, they're Z1 FR SLs. 5" air sprung travel, positive/negative air chamber, 5 position ECC damping/lockout cartridge. All in a fork that is a reasonable weight for a Marzocchi.

A guy that bought a pair of Z150 SLs (the 6" air sprung version), who is taller and heavier, has nothing but good things to say about them. They're on the front of his Bullit, which he does jump off things on.

I think you'll find they're higher end "Maz's" (Marzocchis).


You raise some valid points though. If you buy an "all mountain" bike and go jump off everything in sight on it, then yeah, you're going to bust things - and in this case "shit warranty" actually translates to "you bought a trailbike. You jumped off big things on it. It wasn't built for that. Sorry."

[Dicky]

suspension explanation

i guess that clears that up. :oops:

i always presumed the shock positioning made a difference. Oh well.

[magnetique']

You raise some valid points though. If you buy an "all mountain" bike and go jump off everything in sight on it, then yeah, you're going to bust things"

I'm not doing any crazy drops or jumps, nor do I envisage doing them in the near future..

[Dicky]

You raise some valid points though. If you buy an "all mountain" bike and go jump off everything in sight on it, then yeah, you're going to bust things

I'm not doing any crazy drops or jumps, nor do I envisage doing them in the near future..

my point exactly.

"kthxnp", i hope our collective ramblings are of some use to you...

[kthxnp]

Aye, large response.. thanks all!

So the Giant's aren't great.. what about a Jekyll? or Trek Liquid? or the Specialized Enduro? I think I'll end up spending way more than I want to if i get a Santa Cruz or Elsworth frame and build something up, they're like 2.5k+ just for the frame..

I don't ride that hard, I'm on a $500 Giant hardtail at the moment, I did the rims on that first time I took it in the dirt, and replaced them with some heavy FIR ones that have held true for a good 6 months.. and I've got a Giant TCR2 road bike that holds me okay on the tarmac :wink:

I'd rather spend a little more now than break something the first time I take it for a run..

[Cave Dweller]

Im not going to get into a pissing match but........


A guy came in on Monday with a cracked 125 frame. Photos were sent to Norco Australia - a warranty replacement frame was not only organised but sent on the same day. It's probably at the shop by now.


I have heard of many other storys of people with 250's being told stiff luck cause you went and jumped it, or of DH frames not being warrientied becasue they where taken off road. I will stand by what i said.

Bit of a grey area. Depends on how hard you ride it - if you don't want to jump huge stuff as you say, go right ahead. Having seen the thrashing that a 200mm eye to eye Float RL copped on the rear end of a mate's Gemini, i wouldn't be too worried...


Bit of a grey area but better to go a coil shock then blow it up. The guy weights 100kg, an air shock won't cut it in the long run.


Both will stand up to a bit of a beating, but yeah, they're not downhill parts. Which is fine, if you're not downhilling...


The will stand up for the first 5 seconds in a round in boxxing and then get KO'd after the first punch. I have owned stylos and husseflets and have bent both. Single track rims won't last more that 6 months under a 100kg rider hitting anything even remotly fast. Again, these parts will not cut it in the long run, why bother waisting your money?


Dude, they're Z1 FR SLs. 5" air sprung travel, positive/negative air chamber, 5 position ECC damping/lockout cartridge. All in a fork that is a reasonable weight for a Marzocchi.

I think you'll find they're higher end "Maz's" (Marzocchis).


Fair enough, must have read it wrong.

Anyway, good luck getting something. I would probably spend a bit more and get a big hit. They are fairly dam strong and good value for money.

[Daver]

2/ The guy is over 6 foot and 100kg. Recommending an rear air shock is just stupid.

Actually, being the same dimensions i'd want an airshock over a coil shock for the added reliability and adjustability. My shock for any 4x bike would be an air shock (Fox Float R), and its the same with any trail bike. Coming from one big guy to another, air is the go, because a lot of coil shocks will struggle to find springs that can cope with 100..

I was in the same boat when i went to choose my bike (actually I'm 6 foot 1 and 110 kilos) and i couldn't find a duallie that was stiff enough in that price range. If a duallie is what you want i'd suggest something along the lines of a Kona Coiler with upgraded rear shock or possibly a Jamis XLT.

[magnetique']

Another thing to remember is, technically, air shocks cant be bottomed out! Also, and I'm not talking from experience here, but arent they more adjustable - therefore better able to cope with the weight of a bigger person?

Certainly if you buy a bike with a non-air rear shock you should upgrade the spring at your weight - another reason the Norco is right for you.

Also, you are presumably going to need quite a large frame so standover height will be an issue. Not many bikes in a large size have as good standover height as the Fluid.

[magnetique']

Another thing to remember is, technically, air shocks cant be bottomed out! Also, and I'm not talking from experience here, but arent they more adjustable - therefore better able to cope with the weight of a bigger person?

Certainly if you buy a bike with a non-air rear shock you should upgrade the spring at your weight - another reason the Norco is right for you.

Also, you are presumably going to need quite a large frame so standover height will be an issue. Not many bikes in a large size have as good standover height as the Fluid.

[S.]

Another thing to remember is, technically, air shocks cant be bottomed out!

Uh, I'm pretty sure they can... you can set them up harder to stop them bottoming (as easily) but they can be bottomed just like coil shocks.

[magnetique']

Well, the theory behind it being that air cannot be compressed to a solid, so therefore if they designed the shock well it wouldnt bottom out and could be infinitely rising rate... correct, or am I talking out my arse?

Please do not include any diagrams or words you may find in a yr12 physics text book.

[S.]

Well, the theory behind it being that air cannot be compressed to a solid, so therefore if they designed the shock well it wouldnt bottom out and could be infinitely rising rate... correct, or am I talking out my arse?

Please do not include any diagrams or words you may find in a yr12 physics text book.


Ahh I getcha, you're meaning that the air volume would become zero (at bottom out), which is physically impossible. The answer is no, this doesn't happen, there's plenty of volume in the shock at bottom out :)

Edit: also, you don't want an infinitely rising rate (unless it's in the last like 2mm or something), because it will make the bike "spike" like crazy - it'll feel really harsh after a certain point in the travel.

[magnetique']

Well, the theory behind it being that air cannot be compressed to a solid, so therefore if they designed the shock well it wouldnt bottom out and could be infinitely rising rate... correct, or am I talking out my arse?

Please do not include any diagrams or words you may find in a yr12 physics text book.


Ahh I getcha, you're meaning that the air volume would become zero (at bottom out), which is physically impossible. The answer is no, this doesn't happen, there's plenty of volume in the shock at bottom out :)

Edit: also, you don't want an infinitely rising rate (unless it's in the last like 2mm or something), because it will make the bike "spike" like crazy - it'll feel really harsh after a certain point in the travel.

What about non-linear infinitely rising rate? Noone ever said you couldnt have more than one rising rate in a rising rate shock did they?

Hahaha. Now I'M sounding like a yr12 text book. Socket, say something technical so I dont look like a geek. :)

[S.]

Well, the theory behind it being that air cannot be compressed to a solid, so therefore if they designed the shock well it wouldnt bottom out and could be infinitely rising rate... correct, or am I talking out my arse?

Please do not include any diagrams or words you may find in a yr12 physics text book.


Ahh I getcha, you're meaning that the air volume would become zero (at bottom out), which is physically impossible. The answer is no, this doesn't happen, there's plenty of volume in the shock at bottom out :)

Edit: also, you don't want an infinitely rising rate (unless it's in the last like 2mm or something), because it will make the bike "spike" like crazy - it'll feel really harsh after a certain point in the travel.

What about non-linear infinitely rising rate? Noone ever said you couldnt have more than one rising rate in a rising rate shock did they?

Hahaha. Now I'M sounding like a yr12 text book. Socket, say something technical so I dont look like a geek. :)

Well an infinitely rising rate couldn't be linear anyway, it'd have to be exponential :P

[McBain]

Coming from one big guy to another, air is the go, because a lot of coil shocks will struggle to find springs that can cope with 100.Bollocks. Unless the suspension design has a ridiculous spring rate, or a weird shock size, you shouldn't have a problem. Sure, the standard spring that comes with it will need to go, but that should be true for a lot of people.

But yes, air shocks are certainly more adjustable in that regard.

[Daver]

Coming from one big guy to another, air is the go, because a lot of coil shocks will struggle to find springs that can cope with 100.Bollocks..

I was running an FSR (an older one) when i was 90kg and i was using a 1050 spring on a 1.5" stroke shock and it was too soft.

[S.]

Coming from one big guy to another, air is the go, because a lot of coil shocks will struggle to find springs that can cope with 100.Bollocks..

I was running an FSR (an older one) when i was 90kg and i was using a 1050 spring on a 1.5" stroke shock and it was too soft.

Seems like you like it hard in the rear...

How much travel?

[Daver]

Coming from one big guy to another, air is the go, because a lot of coil shocks will struggle to find springs that can cope with 100.Bollocks..

I was running an FSR (an older one) when i was 90kg and i was using a 1050 spring on a 1.5" stroke shock and it was too soft.

Seems like you like it hard in the rear...

How much travel?

haha. :P .

6" plates from stan at ba.

[McBain]

I was running an FSR (an older one) when i was 90kg and i was using a 1050 spring on a 1.5" stroke shock and it was too soft.So you should have had a firmer spring then. I had a Trek VRX (ugh) running a 1200 lb spring and it was about right - except for the weird rising rate it had.
Still a crap bike though - that was such a mistake. :)

[RaID]

Coming from one big guy to another, air is the go, because a lot of coil shocks will struggle to find springs that can cope with 100.Bollocks..

I was running an FSR (an older one) when i was 90kg and i was using a 1050 spring on a 1.5" stroke shock and it was too soft.

Seems like you like it hard in the rear...

How much travel?

haha. :P .

6" plates from stan at ba.

that pretty much explains why
very high compression ratio
if you tried that spring with that shock on a 4.5" travel setting
youd find it more then hard enough

[S.]

Coming from one big guy to another, air is the go, because a lot of coil shocks will struggle to find springs that can cope with 100.Bollocks..

I was running an FSR (an older one) when i was 90kg and i was using a 1050 spring on a 1.5" stroke shock and it was too soft.

Seems like you like it hard in the rear...

How much travel?

haha. :P .

6" plates from stan at ba.

ahahahahahaha no wonder, you had a 4:1 shock ratio... most bikes run ~3:1. Very big difference...