2022 new xc frames?

Discuss light weight issues concerning mountain bikes & parts.

Moderator: Moderator Team

zscs
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2018 12:05 pm
Location: Hungary

by zscs

DanW wrote:
Sun Jul 30, 2023 3:15 pm
BMC Twostroke looks nice but a PF bottom bracket and 27.2 seat post exclude it for me. Full rigid with a rigid seat post would be nice.
I agree, these two things exactly the ones I don't like - however, ~1500k EUR for a frame + carbon seatpost is quite good deal nowadays. :) An Orbea Alma OMX + Spirit rigid fork would be better, however, that's 3500 EUR. :roll:

Sometimes a S-Works hardtail frames appear on the Net (like this one: https://bikemarkt.mtb-news.de/article/1 ... ks-epic-ht , 3.4k for a new frame) but it's still too much for my budget.

I don't know, what other frames could be a potential candidates for a fully rigid MTB. :noidea: Checked already a few, e.g. Merida offers frame separately (the heavier Big.Nine CF3 version) but that's an 1500g (!) frame.
Anyway, Basic Bikes has a crazy good offer, 1100 EUR for frame + rigid fork. The frame is very similar to a chinese frame offered on Aliexpress, so I'm a bit confused here. :) https://www.basicbikes.de/rahmenset-mtb

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



DanW
Posts: 1256
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 5:39 pm
Location: Here, there and everywhere

by DanW

Santa Cruz Highball is very similar to the BMC just adding a threaded BB. Still 27.2 seatpost.

If you are not too bothered about a certain geometry then just go Chinese carbon frame from a reputable seller plus a nice riding rigid fork. Travers, ENVE or Whisky are the nicest riding I've tried (and I've tried tons as my rigid single speed is my only bike).

If you ever wanted to try single speed then there anrn't many light options with decent geo. Spot Rocker Carbon would be the main option IMO

thepassista
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:51 pm

by thepassista

a german webshop rushed the things a bit :D

Supercaliber gen2 9.7 SL https://www.die-edelhelfer.de/trek-supe ... ower-surge
Supercaliber gen2 9.8 SLR https://www.die-edelhelfer.de/trek-supe ... -red-smoke

magnusss
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2023 7:22 pm

by magnusss

thepassista wrote:
Mon Aug 07, 2023 3:23 pm
a german webshop rushed the things a bit :D

Supercaliber gen2 9.7 SL https://www.die-edelhelfer.de/trek-supe ... ower-surge
Supercaliber gen2 9.8 SLR https://www.die-edelhelfer.de/trek-supe ... -red-smoke
Trek is still using press fit BB on the bikes that needs most maintanence (mtbs) :roll: Their road line up have been on threaded for å long time. What are they thinking?

req110
Posts: 903
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:23 am

by req110

BB92 again?
Even Top Fuel and Slash are using BSA.
Why the hell Supercaliber and Procaliber are using bb92, that's one of the worst BB i've ever had.
S Epic 8 L @ XX T-Type / Berg Ratheberg 30 / Quarq / Fox Transfer SL 100mm / 3p

Hexsense
Posts: 3359
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am
Location: USA

by Hexsense

Because those two model emphasize the low weight as one of the main selling point.
And bb92 is far lighter than BSA.

For mtb, weight is even more important than road.
No aero to care about.
Weight matter both for climbing and manouvering the bike. It's also the weight that have to shake and vibrate over vibration, especially for these light mtb models with harsh rear suspension design.

req110
Posts: 903
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:23 am

by req110

I disagree and I will tell you why.

Difference between BB92 and BSA including BB from same manufacturers is how much? 40g? And saving weight on bottom brackets is very stupid idea, especially due to reasons below.

Any cross country tires are build with very wide weight tolerance, you order for example some schwalbe racing ralph/ray combo with declared weight XY, but in reality it's +50g more. Especially rotational weight which hurts three times more.

Also trend is to use wider tires, you see 2.4WT unlike 2.2 in previous years, so they are gaining weight too.
Also trend is to use foam inserts, gaining weight too. (+ 40-80g)
Also trend is to use dropper posts, unlike previous year, gaining weight too. ( + 200-400g)
S Epic 8 L @ XX T-Type / Berg Ratheberg 30 / Quarq / Fox Transfer SL 100mm / 3p

MagicShite
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 3:33 pm

by MagicShite

^bsa also eats into space you could be using to beef up the chainstay without also having to reduce tire clearance.

On a BB86, you have the entire frame wrapping the axle.

User avatar
JayDee81
Posts: 423
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:45 pm
Location: Czech Republic

by JayDee81

req110 wrote:
Tue Aug 08, 2023 7:55 am
I disagree and I will tell you why.

Difference between BB92 and BSA including BB from same manufacturers is how much? 40g? And saving weight on bottom brackets is very stupid idea, especially due to reasons below.

Any cross country tires are build with very wide weight tolerance, you order for example some schwalbe racing ralph/ray combo with declared weight XY, but in reality it's +50g more. Especially rotational weight which hurts three times more.

Also trend is to use wider tires, you see 2.4WT unlike 2.2 in previous years, so they are gaining weight too.
Also trend is to use foam inserts, gaining weight too. (+ 40-80g)
Also trend is to use dropper posts, unlike previous year, gaining weight too. ( + 200-400g)
So you're saying that weight doesn't matter? Because that's obviously not true. Every bit matters, because everything adds up. The trend of using heavier components because they provide something important in exchange for being heavier is true, but BB92 vs BSA is not that.

req110
Posts: 903
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:23 am

by req110

No, i am saying that using crappy bb92 (and i had 4 bikes with this BB) to squeeze only 40g over BSA does not make sense, while you are losing up to 500g on bigger tires, dropper and foam inserts.

To add:
I am user of dropper, inserts, and sometimes 2.3 tires, i am ok with XC bike being 10kg, but if i decide to shed some weight, the BB (having bb92 instead of BSA) would be LAST place touch.

To add also:
The only selling point for BB92 i accept is tire clearance and more beefy BB area. That one yes, but then you have TopFuel and SLASH, both with BSA, they don't have problem with that.
S Epic 8 L @ XX T-Type / Berg Ratheberg 30 / Quarq / Fox Transfer SL 100mm / 3p

DanW
Posts: 1256
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 5:39 pm
Location: Here, there and everywhere

by DanW

My BB92 Trek MTB has been great.... with a Wheels MFG BSA BB where both sides screw together. All the weight saved with the BB92 is added by having to fit a decent BB :D

dpries
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:24 pm

by dpries

thepassista wrote:
Mon Aug 07, 2023 3:23 pm
a german webshop rushed the things a bit :D

Supercaliber gen2 9.7 SL https://www.die-edelhelfer.de/trek-supe ... ower-surge
Supercaliber gen2 9.8 SLR https://www.die-edelhelfer.de/trek-supe ... -red-smoke
Is the rear travel moving to 80mm new? It looks like the 2023 models are listed with 60mm rear travel.

Hexsense
Posts: 3359
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am
Location: USA

by Hexsense

req110 wrote:
Tue Aug 08, 2023 10:04 am
No, i am saying that using crappy bb92 (and i had 4 bikes with this BB) to squeeze only 40g over BSA does not make sense, while you are losing up to 500g on bigger tires, dropper and foam inserts.
For full sus xc bike like SuperCalibre, it'd be more than 40g diff for the same tire clearance and chainstay length.
Weight saving may not be apperant, but it may also result in shorter chainstay and more tire clearance and stiffer rear end than otherwise for a given suspension design. There'd also be more stiffness to gain if they kill the support for crank-arm based power meter by widening chainstay to almost reach the crank arms.

The mtb BB92 is equivalent to road BB86. It's 41mm diameter like BB86, just wider (92mm instead of 86mm). Giant has excellent track record on executing bb86 and bb92. Trek should be able to do the same. BB92 is far better than Trek road BB90 which is both narrow and small diameter and hard to get it trouble free. BB90 is worth killing. But BB92 is technically superior to BSA and can stay. If you want to kill BB92 and want to keep most of the wide bb benefit while paying weight penalty, use wide-format T47 instead. BSA is technically inferior because it's narrow.

I understand you don't care of this 40g or shorter chainstay or more tire clearance or better stiffness. But then you might not be their target buyer for this bike.

req110
Posts: 903
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:23 am

by req110

My epic has bsa and has correct tire clearance and chainstay length.

I understand that somebody may be lucky with bb92 with good tolerances and build quality, but that's a lottery so I prefer bike with bsa. If I can choose between bsa and t47, I would chose t47 of course.

I am not a fan of bb86 as well, but giant bikes of my peers were pretty solid.

Anyway I am selling my bike and some potential successor will have bb92 which I am not happy about. The only good thing is that I am sram user and those dub bb are solid even with these.

Lux (bb92)
Supercaliber (bb92)
Spark rc (bb92)
Epic WC (bsa)
Orbea oiz (bsa)
S Epic 8 L @ XX T-Type / Berg Ratheberg 30 / Quarq / Fox Transfer SL 100mm / 3p

Hexsense
Posts: 3359
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am
Location: USA

by Hexsense

req110 wrote:
Wed Aug 09, 2023 8:14 pm
My epic has bsa and has correct tire clearance and chainstay length.
And there are multiple people complain about rear end lateral stiffness. Personally, I'm light and I never have a problem with frame stiffness. So I don't feel Epic (Evo) to be noodley. But it's a potential gain there to be had with wider bb and chainstay.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply