Also, the fact the Five is named because it has 5inches of travel is something that has probably long since lost any relevance for many prospective buyers

Eh? The name 5 has nothing to do with the travel, it was because of the frame weight.[/quote]

No, it’s the number of drawers the filing cabinet they made it out of had.

jambalaya – Member

@Pip, but does he ride one ?

Yup, and the cable and chain slap of the swingarm as he rides across the sky is what makes thunderstorms.

What about the Sub 3 that was out at the same time then?

Similar concept – single pivot, but designed for XC only. From memory, it had 100mm travel and round tube profile. (i.e. Proper tubes not folded sheet).

@roverpig

a reason to change (if i do) is so both my mtb’s have the same size wheels so when going away biking weekends etc i can take spares ;o)

but…. in saying that if i get a test ride on the current model an its big enough i would be tempted with a frame swap for mine just for the updated frame if they do get knocked down in price with the 650 coming

Similar concept – single pivot, but designed for XC only. From memory, it had 100mm travel and round tube profile. (i.e. Proper tubes not folded sheet).

Sorry, didn’t explain properly. I know what the Sub 3 was but meant about the weight thing. Was it really sub 3 lbs?

Yeah, Sub 3 tonnes.

Sorry, couldn’t resist. It was kilos?

Still can’t be sure it wasn’t tonnes though.

Wonder how much my 224 weighs 😆

I could be wrong but I don’t think there ever has been a production Alpine 5 in the past.

I seem to remember the Alpine 5 was the test bed for what became the Alpine 160. The bike mentioned above sounds like the 5 AM.

You are correct. I’m getting my ‘Alpine Five’ and ‘Five suitable for riding in the Alps’ mixed up.

I believe the only previous Alpine Five was the Strange, that gave birth to the Alpine 160.

@roverpig

a reason to change (if i do) is so both my mtb’s have the same size wheels so when going away biking weekends etc i can take spares ;o)

Fair enough, that makes sense I guess. After all, it will almost certainly ride like an Alpine. It’s just the mass hysteria about 650B that I find hard to fathom. It reminds me of those crowds in the Life of Brian, desperate to follow something, anything, as long as somebody tells them it’s the true way.

It’s just the mass hysteria about 650B that I find hard to fathom.

There isn’t any. Instead of most of the new bikes being reviewed/bought being 26 or 29 they’re 27.5 or 29. How is that hysteria? Unless the hysteria is that from the #26forlife brigade…

Maybe you’re right. I was just surprised, looking on the Orange Facebook page, by the number of people saying that they wanted a 650B Alpine. No suggestion that there was anything wrong with the current model. No explanation of why a version with a slightly bigger wheel would be better, just a blanket “make it 650B and I’ll buy it”, which sounded a bit hysterical to me.

No explanation of why a version with a slightly bigger wheel would be better…

Because the industry has whole-heartedly embraced a new wheel size, meaning upgrades and quality spares are going to become increasingly hard to find?

Because the industry has whole-heartedly embraced a new wheel size, meaning upgrades and quality spares are going to become increasingly hard to find?

That’s what I mean about hysteria. People are changing because they are scared of being left behind. But if they didn’t change the market would still cater for them. That’s what markets do, they cater to demand.