|   Ellsworth Truth frame weight? "Lightest production frame"? | KMan
Oct 30, 2002 8:23 AM | | Read this from Interbike 2002 info where they state the Truth is the "lightest full-travel production frame"????
Anyone know the frame weight? This seems to me like a bit of "political speak" to me. There is some sort of catch in the phrasing/wording.
"World's lightest full-travel production frame is hand-built with Ellsworth's proprietary, cold worked, custom drawn and internally tapered aluminum tubing. Available in ultra-durable shot-peened anodized finish with laser-etched graphics or lustrous powder-coated paint finish with sticker graphics.
International Standard disc brake mounts and replaceable derailleur
4" travel, patented Instant Center Tracking provides superior pedal power, smooth suspension flow, consistent traction and braking performance under all conditions.
Truth ICT suspension features 3-axis CNC machined linkage, oversized bearings and 12mm pivot axle for unparalleled stiffness and precise tracking.
Compatible with 80-100mm travel forks."
KMan |
| Scott Strike is much lighter. Ever notice how they wont just | yodi
Oct 30, 2002 9:27 AM | | hang a frame up on the scales? Cowards. Its like a competition to see who can build up the lightest complete bike. They should just hang the frames this would tell a better story. |
| Titus showed a sub 20lb bike........ | KMan
Oct 30, 2002 9:46 AM | | So now we have Ellsworth with a 24.15lb bike that is stated to be the "lightest full travel production frame". Titus showing a sub 20lb bike. I wouldn't think that the Racer X or the Truth can't be all that much different in weight. I'm just courious the actual weight of the Truth frame.......by my gustimates of their claim the frame would need to be less than 5.25 lbs and I find that hard to believe (except for an XXsmall)
I know from Titus that their frames weigh in around:
"Frame weights for medium aluminum Racer-X's typically range from 5 1/4-5 3/4 pounds. Large frames will be on average an additional 1/4 pound"
KMan
KMan |
| ellsworth weight.............. | bogart
Oct 30, 2002 10:27 AM | | recently i e-mailed them about the weight. a medium truth with shock they claimed 5.5 pounds. |
| Read the fine print | pedalAZ
Oct 30, 2002 10:39 AM | | I think that statement had all kinds of qualifiers that were so specific that the comparison bike would just about have to be another Ellsworth Truth to fit all the conditions. A waste of time to pursue it with them. |
| Read the fine print | KMan
Oct 30, 2002 11:18 AM | | I had no intention of persuing a Truth as I'll be getting a new Racer X.
I was just courious about the statement they made and how I had a difficult time believing it could hold water. It looked like a statement a politition would make...along the lines of "of the people polled 95% agreed that the USA should not be meddeling in the affairs of the middle east and 80% that......" They just seem to leave out any meaningfull information like who the polled and how many. Makes a big difference if they polled 15 middle eastern people.
KMan |
| New RacerX? A fine choice, my son. | pedalAZ
Oct 30, 2002 11:23 AM | | You better get a consult going here on your proposed build. WE really want to help you spend more money than YOU want to making that sucker light and strong! |
| Parts are already done......here is my current build... | KMan
Oct 30, 2002 12:09 PM | | I've been building my current Racer X for about a year now and pretty much am finished. Just decided to sell my medium frame and get a large. Believe it or not I have not weighted my bike so actual weight is not known. I'm guessing it's somewhere around 24lbs.
I have 12 races on the bike this year and not a single mechanical so never an issue with durability. I'm 185 lbs.
Frame - 2001 Racer X Medium, Ano Blue front and rear with Ti bolt kit
Shock - 2002 Rock Shox Duke Race
Wheelset - AM Classic/Velocity VXC/14/15 alloy nipples w/ Stans
Tires - Conti Explorer Supersonics or Panaracer Trailblasters
Headset - King
Stem - Extralite Ultra stem
Bar - Easton CT2
Brakes - Hope Minis
Grips - Ritchie WCS
Shifters - SRAM 9.0
Cables - Gore Ride-on
Post - Extralite The Post
Saddle - Selle Italia Flite TT
BB - Action Tec Ti
Crank - FSA Carbon w/ Sugino SS rings, alloy bolts and Action Tec Ti
inner ring
Pedals - Egg Beaters
Shoes - Vittoria Rock (ultra light)
Rear Der. - SRAM 9.0 SL
Front Der. - Shimano LX
Chain - SRAM 89R
Carbon spacers
Think that is everything
The only changes I may make is looking into possibly trying a 2003 Rock Shox SID Team or Race. I also have a set of the new Formula B4SL's that I will try or may sell the Hopes to try out a set of Marthas. Also have a Extralite Ultra Bar that I will put on.
I actually just bought a digital camera that should be here any day now so I will stap a picture of the old bike going out and the new when I get it. Going for the Ano Gold this time around.
KMan |
| Nice build | pedalAZ
Oct 30, 2002 12:48 PM | | Similar to mine other than the fork and the disc brakes.
What cassette are you running? |
| XT 11-32 | KMan
Oct 30, 2002 1:01 PM | | Currently and always have used the Shimano XT. Have a difficult time spending a lot of money on a part that wears out. I may look into the Action Tec Ti or sonmething similiar...all depends on the weight savings vs the $$. Any suggestions? I just don't want a cassette that cost $75+ and you can only use for a season. I put a new chain on every 600-800 miles and have been getting 2000+ miles from my cassettes.
KMan |
| XT 11-32 | pedalAZ
Oct 30, 2002 1:27 PM | | I went from that cassette to the GoldTec, which didn't last long enough. Too bad, as it was sickly light. You've probably been reading some of the posts the last few days over 8spd vs 9spd on an Action Tec Ti I'll be trying next.
What's your opinion on the lighter 8spd 11-30, vs tried and true 9spd 11-32? |
| XT 11-30 Cassette | Kittmer
Oct 30, 2002 2:42 PM | | I'm riding an 11-30 XT with XTR rings, and I like it. Bikes with super low gears, like 22x32 or 22x34 seem pretty dumb, you don't have enough speed to maintain stability when you crawl up a cliff.
I haven't had any trouble with the cassette or shifting at all
Kittmer |
| Where can one read this fine print? | Leverage
Oct 30, 2002 2:15 PM | | Its probably just as light as a Racer X with MUCH better rear suspension.
In fact, didnt we ahve a board member weigh his RX at 2800 grams?
But I would like to read their fine print, where did you see this? |
| i don`t think so : Scott USA G-Zero Strike 10 (M) : 1995g | nino
Oct 30, 2002 9:42 AM | | Scott USA G-Zero Strike 10 (Medium) : 1995g - that`s including the rear shock! |
| Superlight is lighter . . . | Jas0n
Oct 30, 2002 10:59 AM | | i always thought the superlight light was lighter, esp. after this years modification of the rear triangle. my large ano. came it as 5 pounds, 4 oz. not too bad. |
| Single pivot POS | pedalAZ
Oct 30, 2002 11:24 AM | | Just thought I'd throw that in there for fun, being a 4 bar rider. |
| Racer X is low leverage ratio POS! | Leverage
Oct 30, 2002 1:48 PM | | just thought I'd throw that in for fun since I ride a high-leverage-ratio suspension design.
Works much better. Especially with air springs. |
| Truth's suspension absolutely CREAMS RacerX's suspension. | Leverage
Oct 30, 2002 2:10 PM | | No comparison. Night and day difference. RacerX feels like an old Mag21. No joke. Old school technology. Right there with the good old Amp. |
| heh heh- kids on the internet | Coolhand
Oct 31, 2002 7:56 AM | | I have ridden both, and own one. The ride is so similar that anyone making this claim must be discounted almost entirely.
But this isn't about bikes is it?
Well you got the attention you desired, hope you feel better.
BTW- I liked both bikes quite a bit- Truth was just overpriced at the time, and Tony still had a few service issues being discussed here.
I am riding a Racer X, one of the true mac-struct 2001's if anyone cares.
Coolhand |
| Sorry if you cant feel the difference. Youre the perfect Racer X | LEVERAGE
Oct 31, 2002 8:23 AM | | customer.
Differences are night and day.
No, not a kid, just an AVID rider for the past 19 years. |
| Fun with fan boys- | Coolhand
Oct 31, 2002 11:40 AM | | On back to back sections of rocky trail the two bikes performed almost actually the same. Only difference was an extra $500 frame cost for the Ellsworth and a much better set of reviews regarding frame life, warranty issues and customer service for the Titus.
Try reading the MTBR frame reviews. Seems lots and lots and lots of deluded owners love their Racer X's. Thank God that someone with your powerful bike knowledge came along to save them.
But of course you already know everything after 5 days here.
Oy. |
| Links | Coolhand
Oct 31, 2002 11:49 AM | | 2002 Racer X, 5.0 average (out of 5).
http://www.mountainbikereview.com/reviews/2002_Full_Suspension/product_88988.shtml
2001 Racer X, 5.0 average (out of 5).
http://www.mountainbikereview.com/reviews/Bike_full/product_77351.shtml
2 straight years of perfect scores, not bad for a POS. |
| Pretty convincing. Im getting one. | LEVERAGE
Oct 31, 2002 1:50 PM | | What color? |
| "lots and lots of riders" LOL! | LEVERAGE
Oct 31, 2002 2:35 PM | | nineteen! for crying out loud! Nineteen people that just spent 1.5k+ on a frame and arent at all biased.
Most anybody who just forks out $1500 on a frame is going to tell themselves they like it. Its human nature.
No, but in all seriousness, this type of suspension has its place. Dont get me wrong. If you dont like a lot of rear end movement this is good. I just prefer something a little more supple. My theory is this, if Im gonna carry that extra 2-3 lbs, it better earn its right to be there. I dont want to carry 3 lbs for a half a__ suspension. I like to be able to let it hang out on the DH.
Bottom line is it comes to personal preference. No hard feelings to the Titus owners. I was only really responding to AZ's remark about some guy's Superlight being a POS. So, I returned the fire. I dont own a SC, a Titus, or an Ellsworth. Just being devil's advocate. Dont want this bored to get to board. |
| "Don't want this bored to get board" | pedalAZ
Oct 31, 2002 2:44 PM | | Hmmmm. Interesting phrase. Actually, I only got that started for a similar reason. I got a new rider going on the sport this year, starting off by helping him purchase a Superlight frame and some components at the local bike swap in April, then finishing the project out over the summer. We've been on a few rides together since and he's hooked. It's a nice bike and he likes it.
Too bad it's not a Titus! |
| 19-0 ain't bad | Coolhand
Nov 1, 2002 5:59 AM | | That would get you deep into play-off's at least.
The Superlight is certainly no POS.
So, do tell us what you do ride.
BTW, the better comeback was linking to the 2002 Ellsworth Truth reviews which were pretty good as well.
Coolhand |
| Is the RX even really considered a 4 bar? Looks more like a | Leverage
Oct 30, 2002 2:22 PM | | McPherson strut to me. It does have that little swing link, but that to me is not really part of the linkage, just reinforcement, which the Superlight could really use. Have you ever ridden behind someone on an SL?? The swingarm noticeably flexes back and forth around the seat tube. It really needs one of these swing links to keep everything in line back there. |
| Rode behind one Sunday | pedalAZ
Oct 30, 2002 2:28 PM | | Trouble is, he kept opening up big gaps on me 'til he stopped for me to catch up! It's the rider, stupid! |
| Well, how about the 4 bar part? And who you callin' stupid? nm | Leverage
Oct 30, 2002 2:36 PM | | |
| Me - no flames here nm | pedalAZ
Oct 30, 2002 2:45 PM | | |
| Expert in evasion.........4 bar? | Leverage
Oct 30, 2002 2:48 PM | | Or Amp? |
| 4 bars: Hanratty's, Seamus McCaffery's, Rosie McCaffery's | pedalAZ
Oct 30, 2002 2:58 PM | | and Houlihan's. No Amps in sight. |
| We have a winner...AMP IT IS!! ding ding ding ding ding ding. | Leverage
Oct 30, 2002 3:04 PM | | AMp with a swing link, very good. Its a good design if you dont like your rear end to soak up sharp hits.
ever wonder why motorcycles went away from the shock mounted right on teh rear axle to the back of the seat? Its because it was a low leverage ratio that sucked for eating up bumps. |
| 4-bar | f-pig
Oct 30, 2002 3:56 PM | | Since they added the swing link, it is technically a 4-bar linkage design, although it doesn't act much different than the old strut design, except for lateral stiffness. Now the shock pivots at both ends. It used to be attached rigidly to the strut. |
| Yea, but mine's a 2001, so I'm still a dumbass nm | pedalAZ
Oct 30, 2002 4:28 PM | | |
| Technically a 4-bar? ehhh maybe. Functionally? Absolutely not. | Leverage
Oct 30, 2002 4:29 PM | | I guess the non-fixed mount to the shock makes it also a non-McPherson? Is this right?
Im not really up on the patents and definitions. |
| No its still a mac-strut... | DeeEight
Oct 30, 2002 7:12 PM | | the presence of a stabilizing link doesn't make a mac-strut into a 4-bar since the shock is still rigidly attached to the seat strut. If the shock mounts to the link, and the link to the seatstrut, then its
a 4-bar. |
| But this one isn't a Mac because . . . | f-pig
Oct 30, 2002 7:25 PM | | . . . the shock is NOT rigidly attached to the seat strut. It is mounted with a pivot (at BOTH ends). When they added the link, it became a 4-bar linkage even though it looks much like it did before, and even though it doesn't look like what most other 4-bar linkage frames look like. The only way that I can think of to add a stabilizing link without adding a pivot at the shock (and therefore turning it technically into a 4-bar linkage) is if the stabilizing link includes a slot where it attaches to the seat stays so that it can slide.
A long time ago a company (can't recall the name) used a strut design with a plastic guide around the seat tube that slid on the strut to prevent lateral deflection. It was kind of a clever addition to the Mac-strut design. It served the same purpose as the swing link, yet pre-dated it by a lot. It was in response to the generally flexiness of the Amps and Mantis's that were popular at the time. One of the benefits of the 4-bar linkage frames that followed was the laterally stiff rear ends. |
| Depend on what you mean by... | Sunny
Oct 30, 2002 7:37 PM | | "rigidly attached". The shock can pivot around the mounting points. As the suspension compresses, the shock no longer lines up with the "seatstays" as it did before the extra link was added.
What is the definition of a Mac strut? A rigid body that compress only in one direction (along it's length)? If so, the new frame is not a strut any more.
As for 4-bar...what is the definition? The wheel axle path is now determined by the 4 pivots. Where the shock is mounted really only affects the "rate" of the suspension. |
| explain this.................................. | bogart
Oct 30, 2002 8:20 PM | | I'm thinking of a stumpjumper fsr which has two positons on the swing link to mount the shock to change the travel. lets assume one of the positions is on the same pivot as the "seatstrut" and the other position is in the middle of the link.
are you going to call one position a strut and the other a "4-bar" |
| Only the older FSR XC's with the fixed swing link were Mac-Strut | DeeEight
Oct 30, 2002 9:11 PM | | bikes, all the rest have been 4-bars. The shock mounts to the linkage, which
runs between the seatstrut and the frame. The FSR XC from a few years
back was very much the same design as the current Racer-X, the shock
mounted direct to seatstrut and frame, and the stabilizing link runs
from frame to shock/strut connection point. The only other Specialized FS
bike that was also a Mac-Strut was the 1996 Ground Control A1 AIM design. |
| is there a pivot................ | bogart
Oct 30, 2002 9:22 PM | | where the shock mounts to the swing link? |
| On which? The original FSR XC or the FSR 4-bars? | DeeEight
Oct 31, 2002 7:50 AM | | The 4-bars is like any other 4-bar. The original FSR XC swing link pivoted around the shock/strut interface as the shock compressed because the angle changes on the seat stay during compression. But
that's no different than how any Mac-Strut works. Which is why there's
a dropout pivot, to keep the shock and seatstrut from binding during
compression. |
| although similar in action............... | bogart
Oct 31, 2002 9:13 AM | | i don't think you can call it a strut. the arc of the rear wheel motion is changed to that of a 4-bar with any type of swing link where the link and the shock is joined by a pivot and i think the term "strut" would bring us back to a three pivot (amp style) rear end.
just like you said, the need for the pivot was because of the angle change. the same is true of the way the rear wheel moves through that arc, it has changed too. which i think indicates a 4-bar.
as far as old and new fsr, haven't they always had the horst link? |
| bogart is right | f-pig
Oct 31, 2002 2:00 PM | | Some people do know what a 4-bar linkage is. It is not a mysterious or vague concept. |
| Minor point... | JmZ
Oct 31, 2002 4:44 PM | | Specialized has done two designs of Mac-Struts.
One is effectively a soft-tail design. The other a (heavy) Amp B-4 Clone. The B-4 Clone was offered for the 1997 year, I know, I had one. Three bikes, approx $900, $1200, and $1500.
Instead of the crappy RST rear shock they had the crappy Rock Shock. :)
Not a bad bike overall, '97 was a very hard year to find a reasonably light XC dually.
JmZ |
| Thats good thinking but......... | UJUBI
Oct 30, 2002 9:20 PM | | In the situation where the shock is directly mounted to seat strut on the "top of the swing link" the swing link is nothing more than a reinforcement to the seatstays. It is not part of the suspension kinematics. This is not a 4 bar.
When you take that swing link (in this case its no longer a swing link though) and mount the shock in the middle of it, its now part of the suspension linkage. Now and only now is it a 4 bar.
4 bars arent the only way to get a good leverage ratio. You can have a good leverage ratio with a single pivot. 4 bars do add another connection point for the swingarm thus helps to stiffen things up a bit. However, this is not necessary to have a stiff swingarm. Look at a 400lb moto-x bike and rider. This machine is pumping out 40 horsepower and only has a single pivot. These bikes do have a rising rate linkage which really decrease the leverage ratio towards the end of the stroke to make the otherwise linear coil springs feel progressive. I have only seen one bike so far which has a similar rising-rate linkage. It was at Interbike this year. I forgot the name though. |
| is it a strut or a 4-bar............................. | bogart
Oct 30, 2002 9:42 PM | | how about count the number of pivots. a strut has three and a 4-bar, four THAT define the arc of the rear wheel. take a strut, once you add the brace and that extra pivot, you've got an arc only by a four-bar.
leverage ratio is a different topic |
| Wrong, a Mac strut has to be a fixed part of the seat strut | kid4lyf
Nov 1, 2002 7:38 AM | | That's what makes it a Mac strut. If the shock has a pivots on both ends, which the RX does, then it isn't a Mac strut, period. This design is the same as the older FSRs, the Sugar, and the Klein. It's basically a semi 4 bar with no leverage gain from the linkage. |
| Has anyone checked a Turner O2? | Kittmer
Oct 30, 2002 2:42 PM | | The website says 5.5lb for an 18" polished frame. And it's a true four-bar, not a "single pivot POS" or such ... |
| Has anyone checked a Turner O2? | PeterC
Oct 30, 2002 7:15 PM | | How about a 2003 Turner Burner, which I have read is supposed to be lighter than the 02 |
| Has anyone checked a Turner O2? | einke
Oct 31, 2002 8:35 PM | | My O2, 16.5 inch, polished, weighs in at:
frame - 2213 grams
v-brake mounts - 67 grams
fox float RL - 235 grams
shock bolts - 25 grams
for a total of 2540 grams or slightly over 5.5 lbs |
| |
