Forum menu
heavy, ovaled head tube, looks rubbish imo
why not make it 160mm if its that hardcore?
im out
Personally I like the look of it. The weight will certainly be a bit higher, but I get the idea of a shorter travel hard hitting bike.
The headtube I suspect is a non-issue in practice, I have seen this happen on other bikes where the headset was loose. At least steel can be repaired.
More than I could afford though.
ugly, heavy and stupidly expensive.
Industrial but svelte at the same time
Have I misunderstood the meaning of the word "svelte" all these years?
I'd be much more likely to pony up that kind of cash for a Starling, but it'd be great to get a go on it.
Wow - looks like despite appearances this thread got A LOT of replies:
[img] https://photos.app.goo.gl/oRZUA0P4EYXHPqH42 [/img]
Most of the comments on Pinkbike on the ovalised headtube completely miss the point - if you're thrashing a bike and have accidentally not preloaded the headset properly, it's no reflection on frame quality if the headtube gets damaged.
Given the bike was flown out to Italy it's probably not even BTR's fault it wasn't preloaded properly.
Most of the comments on Pinkbike on the ovalised headtube completely miss the point - if you're thrashing a bike and have accidentally not preloaded the headset properly, it's no reflection on frame quality if the headtube gets damaged.
Given the bike was flown out to Italy it's probably not even BTR's fault it wasn't preloaded properly.
Great looking bike, Good value too
I'd like a go on one, but not sure it would be so blindingly good to be over 3 times better than my current bike to justify it being 3 times more expensive. I'd love to be proved, but even if I was I couldn't afford it.
Aren't most of the PB comments about Brexit and one bloke who keeps on mentioning the ovalised headtube (when the tester rode it with a loose headset...).
I quite like it; it's a frame for life.
And don't they know it's all about the wagon wheels nowadays?
I quite like it; it’s a frame for life.
So's anything surely?
Carbon can be repaired even easier than steel, so you could at least claim that about the Hope bike or ther stratospherically expensive bikes.
And it's only a bike for as long as you ride it, it's not like there's mountains of cracked Turner 6-packs (something a bit retro but similar), or any other aluminum bike with a few notable exceptions (Commencal), those bikes were bikes for the life of those parts standards, geometry fashions, or just until the owner moved on to Enduro/DH/XC/Golf.
It's a bike, it's expensive, it has a USP beyond it's performance (Made in Britain, Steel, etc), it'll probably sell enough to justify it's existence.
I’d like a go on one, but not sure it would be so blindingly good to be over 3 times better than my current bike to justify it being 3 times more expensive. I’d love to be proved, but even if I was I couldn’t afford it.
You'd have to go very cheap to find a price point where 3x the price gets you a bike that is 3x better (probably a £50 BSO vs a £150 Decathlon commuter). In reality the question is "does this deliver £2k (or whatever) more enjoyment?" Which depends how much more enjoyment you get, and how much £2k means to you. To me, I couldn't even justify £2k for a new poverty spec Bird Aeris, to plenty of people that just wouldn't be as much fun to own as a carbon Santa Cruz and they have £6k spare so to them it is worth it (and I'll keep enjoying a motley assortment of £500-£600 bikes because that's where my enjoyment Vs budget sweet spot seems to be).
No such thing as a bike for life.
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">I do like the look of it but it's pretty expensive and kind of weighty. </span>
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">The cost can be justified, but the weight still would put me off, you inevitably start comparing it with similar travel bikes in Aluminium and Carbon... </span>
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;"> </span>
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Part of the issue is probably the complexity of the design, a simpler frame layout without a shock linkage would save some weight, steel is always seen as being a bit heavier but the number of parts in the pinner probably contributes more mass than is strictly necessary. </span>
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;"> </span>
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Dunno, I want to like it but ultimately I'll never be wealthy enough to buy one and if I was, I'd probably buy a different bike... </span>
think it looks amazing I'd love to ride one
So’s anything surely?
Carbon can be repaired even easier than steel, so you could at least claim that about the Hope bike or ther stratospherically expensive bikes.
I was more referring to the fact that it's built tough for a short travel bike so will take some hammer rather than built to hit weight targets etc.
Looks like a late 90’s Marin. If that’s good or bad is up to you. Costs a lot but not compared to many mass produced carbon frames.
Meh, not for me but glad they’re doing it.
I was more referring to the fact that it’s built tough for a short travel bike so will take some hammer rather than built to hit weight targets etc.
My point went on to point out, you don't see a disproportionate number of broken carbon or aluminum frames in the first place anyway considering that almost all mountain bikes aren't steel.
If I bought a Bird, or a Santa Cruz I wouldn't expect it to break within any sort of realistic timeframe (I suspect the market for £6k+ full suspension bikes is the kind of people who change bikes far more frequently than say steel hardtails.
Personally I am a fan. I love steel bikes made to high quality. These kind of businesses love what they do and it comes across in their bikes.
I din’t mind paying a premium for a product like this.