Your next ride?oops. not a thread though, just a post! =P im not in the wrong quite yet.
I always thought part looked funny too. Probably why I couldn't get into the Nomad or Jackal too.Finally a V-10 that looks good. I'm glad they got rid of the quasimodo hunch back nut buster top tube.
they are as low as 32lbs from what i heary're pushing the envelope of DH race bike weight down pretty substantially. I would guess they're approaching low 30's on complete bikes.
Slater - what's the ideal weight for DH stability? Just curious.So how far will this tide of bike weights go before people realize there is such a thing as too light for DH stability and the tide turns?....
Hmmm, not sure this is apples to apples thought. They only said it was 900g less than what they raced last year. If that includes the coil shock and this one has the air, that could be a big part of the weight difference. I need to see pix of the old frame weighed with no shock up against the new one with no shock before I swallow this one hook line and sinker. I am not trying to sound like a hater, believe me, I want to believe, but it seems like every year the marketing BS gets thicker and craftier.That's huge. In other words (according to SickLines frame weight page) a large V-10 frame weight will be dropping from 3708g (or 8.1 lbs) to 2808g (or 6.1 lbs).
The article also says "Production weights to be determined." so we'll see if those numbers stand up.
That is of course preference, point well taken. Super light bikes in the rough stuff just aren't as confidence inspiring for me as ones a touch heavier. I'm a fan of the 36-38lb range, with a good bit of that in the wheels and tires.Slater - what's the ideal weight for DH stability? Just curious.
Because east coast rocks are so much gnarlier than the rocks of world cup courses?I'm personally not ready to test carbon against the rocks of the east coast, but other than that, the lines and numbers on this bike look brilliant.
Because east coast rocks are so much gnarlier than the rocks of world cup courses?
Hopefully this bike will finally dispense those ideas. The GT carbon DH rig has already been hanging tough, but SC has a much bigger following and name in the DH game.I'm personally not ready to test carbon against the rocks of the east coast, but other than that, the lines and numbers on this bike look brilliant.
The carbon bikes are stronger AND lighter. The LT and Nomad frames blow the aluminum versions away in terms of strength and stiffness, and they happen to be lighter too. And even though it's significantly lighter, they say they were unable to break the new V10 frame with their typical testing. All the SC carbon bikes are overbuilt on purpose.Clearly SC are not following GT's philosophy of "carbon for strength, not weight"
From a composites engineer working for a very highly regarded sports materials company,From a Materials Engineer with a phd from a top 3 school who works on hypersonic planes (not me)
"If done right, carbon is better in ALL ways for bikes."
I'm personally not ready to test carbon against the rocks of the east coast, but other than that, the lines and numbers on this bike look brilliant.
I wonder why you cant hit thing the same way on your 30lbs am bike and 37lbs dh bike. Let me think.....
My first thought when I saw it was ouch rocks, incredible looking bike regardless and awesome to see this kind of development.
I agree with the 'to light' comments, i have been spending a ton of time riding fr/dh on my 30 lb am/fr bike and I just cant hit stuff the same way...I like the 37 lb range (for me personally)...
Your next review?
Possibly, if it is I will hit you up Ben. That may be some time off before it becomes available but when it does... YES!Get me one Ian, I'll test it...then steal it
Santa cruz is going to loose sales with this.
Then again,people who dont ride their bikes will be all over this.
trully dissapointed.
I hope that they would offer two version the Aluminum and then the Carbon version so both camps can be happy?Santa cruz is going to loose sales with this.
Then again,people who dont ride their bikes will be all over this.
trully dissapointed.
Care to elaborate on why you feel this way? It is the carbon or something else?Santa cruz is going to loose sales with this.
Then again,people who dont ride their bikes will be all over this.
trully dissapointed.
Care to elaborate on why you feel this way? It is the carbon or something else?
As for the opinions of "experts", for every expert opinion there is another expert who will say the exact opposite. I'm sure I can find experts who will say steel is best, aluminum is best, titanium is best, bamboo is best, balsa wood is the bomb, etc., so take it all with a grain of salt.
Thanks for clarifying. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I will just say that (1) ALL materials "eventually" fail, we've just accepted the lifespan of aluminum; and (2) you will be surprised at how well a properly designed carbon frame can withstand a direct impact. I'm no engineer but I can easily "imagine" the outcome - a lot less damage!stuff
Yeah, also the rear end is still alu. 900g is a huge amount to drop off the front triangle alone, i suspect that they have included the weight savings from the shock too.Hmmm, not sure this is apples to apples thought. They only said it was 900g less than what they raced last year. If that includes the coil shock and this one has the air, that could be a big part of the weight difference. I need to see pix of the old frame weighed with no shock up against the new one with no shock before I swallow this one hook line and sinker. I am not trying to sound like a hater, believe me, I want to believe, but it seems like every year the marketing BS gets thicker and craftier.
does it look good because you have beer goggles on? tell us what you really think in the morningsh*t..i have had to many beers, and that is pimp!
Yesh master!does it look good because you have beer goggles on? tell us what you really think in the morning