Forum menu
Pretty sure there was another thread, with pics of him riding it etc, but I don’t think you are far wrong.
Those things were like putting a stick in your spokes with all the subtlety too, at least, they were before they broke them with the silly race levers.
Am I getting them mixed up with the R1 or RX that was a bit weedy (coming from The Ones)?
Prefer this over the Atherton bike
I'll have to win the lottery tho
Am I getting them mixed up with the R1 or RX that was a bit weedy (coming from The Ones)?
The rx were poo.
R1 were the xc race brake, still a good bit of power but definitely a step down from "the one".
The r0 were a little later and a step up from the "the one" , pitched as the dh brake of the range when the "the one" didn't keep up with the competition at that end, they rebadged the "the one" to T1 and marketed it to trail and Enduro - which all those years back was trail heavy not DH-lite (and not even really lite these days).
Then they changed the r0 levers to these weird pull lever things, which were pants, and formula disappeared for a while.
@Adam - You can’t get a TVR from Barnoldswick. You’ll have to settle for a shiny bike instead
The pictures don't do this bike justice. No that they are bad pictures, but saw one in the flesh at Fort William this year. It is bloody gorgeous.
Plus it had the new V4s, and I've never wanted a bike quite so much. Not likely to be able to afford one, but if ever I come into a few quid, it'll be a serious consideration.
Geometry trumps weight every time in my experience. A bike that fits and is a comfortable place to sit is much nicer to get around on than a very light bike with old school geometry.
Agree 100% but I would expect with some decent engineering then I should be able to have both.
Agree 100% but I would expect with some decent engineering then I should be able to have both.
In this case I suspect there has been a lot of decent engineering involved to make it as light as possible while still being fit for purpose. Let's not forget this is a purpose built enduro race bike fit to take on and win EWS courses. The fact that some say it is capable of being an all day trail bike is an added bonus. Granted some of the in house components may be a little on the heavy side but with frame only options the owner could spec whatever they wanted weight wise.
I NEED to find a chink in its weave-tastic armour. Otherwise, it may well be The Perfect Bike.
Um. You've already pointed out at least two key ones:
internal cable routing, ..... ‘Butty Box’ downtube storage
Granted some of the in house components may be a little on the heavy
This is my point. If their components are on the weighty side then it’s not unreasonable to assume the same engineering team with the same philosophy have made the frame on the weighty side
No, but we’re at the stage now where most 150-160mm ‘enduro’ bikes are good enough that they can be ridden all day on trail centres or in the mountains as well as thrown down an enduro race.
Not if they weigh 15.9kg they aren't.
Not if they weigh 15.9kg they aren’t.
Well I must be doing something very wrong then, riding both my 15.5kg+ full suspension 150/160mm bike and gearbox 150mm hardtail on multi day trips, with full days in the mountains, with hikeabike, XC sections, climbs...
Granted, I think that weight of my bike is with pedals so about 1kg lighter thank the hope, but 16kg would not put me off riding it all day, not one bit. If fact my next bike will probably be heavier than that, with supergravity tyres as well!
What weight would make a bike suitable for using on day long rides in the mountains or at a trail centre? 14.5kg?
Just for the record, I don't care about the weight. I think modern bikes like this are perfectly reasonable especially considering what they're capable of. You can ride them up and along all day and they've all but entirely replaced DH bikes for most people.
I'll take strength and reliability every time.
Just for the record, I don’t care about the weight. I think modern bikes like this are perfectly reasonable especially considering what they’re capable of. You can ride them up and along all day and they’ve all but entirely replaced DH bikes for most people.
I’ll take strength and reliability every time.
Exactly, and it's not just the weight of the bike you're pedalling up the hill, it's the weight of the bike, plus you, plus your backpack, plus your water...
An extra kg or 2 on the bike if the rest of the stuff weighs 80kg is a couple of % increase. Congrats, you'll be up that 5 minute climb 10 seconds faster! 🤣🤣
Sorry for the tangent, but it's a ridiculous statement that a bike of 15.9kg can't be used for all day rides.
Sorry for the tangent, but it’s a ridiculous statement that a bike of 15.9kg can’t be used for all day rides.
Strictly speaking you are correct. And taken to an absurd limit a 60kg bike could indeed be used für an all day ride. It's just that you wouldn't get very far in that time.
Each to his own but I'd much rather take a lighter bike * on a long day ride than a heavier one **
* ideally sub 13.5kg
** 16.3kg with a set of pedals?
An extra kg or 2 on the bike if the rest of the stuff weighs 80kg is a couple of % increase. Congrats, you’ll be up that 5 minute climb 10 seconds faster! 🤣🤣
I'm not remotely arsed about whether it takes 10 seconds less. But I am bothered about whether I get up it at all, and on a gbadgery techie climb at my limit 2kg is a huge amount and would frequently be the difference between success and walking.
( sorry, I'm part of the rare breed of bikers that enjoys the ups and alongs as well as the downs.)
Sorry for the tangent, but it’s a ridiculous statement that a bike of 15.9kg can’t be used for all day rides.
Agreed. Think it's the historical greater focus on weight than there is now - still focussing on the past. Some mates I ride with always compared who had the lightest bike, forgetting that they're all on mediums while I'm on XLs. That simple aspect makes quite a difference. More frame material = more weight. Taller/heavier rider = stronger (heavier) components. It all adds up.
For the record, my two (alloy, XL sized) FSers are 15.0kg and 16.3kg. Happily ride either on full days.
And amen to this:
The pictures don’t do this bike justice. No that they are bad pictures, but saw one in the flesh at Fort William this year. It is bloody gorgeous.
But then I saw the Atherton stand and the bar was set higher for me.
@thegeneralist fair enough, I agree that a lighter bike in general should be slightly nicer on a general all day long ride, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible on a heavy bike.
In the G1 review linked below this Hope review, it says this:
Now, I’m not the first tragic bike journo fanboy to bang on about GeoMetron bikes. But I would like to be one of the few (first?) bike reviewers to compliment the G1 on how nice it is as a cross-country trail bike.
The G1 that was tested weighs 16.55kg. And yet is excellent at cross country trail riding.
I'd rather have a heavy bike with sorted geometry for climbing and an efficient suspension system than a something 4kg lighter where I'm sat over the back wheel and which has suspension that bobs about like a boat in a gale force wind!
Times have definitely changed in terms of weight but it's also great that we have a choice of these super capable bikes with DH levels of performance that can still be pedalled all day, and also 120mm bikes with modern geometry that will fly uphill but can also handle techy, rough descents. I'm not going to tell someone that if they're riding a 120mm bike that "you can't ride down that", same as I wouldn't tell someone on a 17kg enduro rig that they can't ride that to the top of Helvellyn. Because someone will come along and prove me very wrong! 🤣
I've seen a steel starling FS bike with DH tyres and coil front and rear suspension, weighing the same as a small moon, being ridden up a climb that everyone else was walking 😁
Re the weight thing, I was quite crestfallen when I unboxed my new Specialized Enduro and noted that it was a hefty beast, substantially weightier than my 2016 Enduro and was concerned about how my 48 year old legs would cope winching the damn thing up hills, especially considering that I'd specced 25" Wide Trail Minions at either end of the former. The geometry is one thing - having a much longer TT (old bike is a large, new bike is an S4) gives me a much better climbing position, but the suspension feels much less troubled by roots and trail detritus. I'd far rather tackle a challenging climb on the new bike than the old FWIW.
Anyway, Hope seems to have made a nice bike.
internal cable routing, ….. ‘Butty Box’ downtube storage
You're listing these as negatives? How come?
Both big plusses in my eyes
I’d rather have a heavy bike with sorted geometry for climbing and an efficient suspension system than a something 4kg lighter where I’m sat over the back wheel and which has suspension that bobs about like a boat in a gale force wind!
I would expect to get both. It’s called engineering. Every other branch of cycling is improving performance and reducing weight why not in trail / enduro bikes. There is no sensible reason for trail / enduro bike to weigh more than a DH bike
The down tube storage I could do without, but even the cover is machined beautifully. Does help with the routing though.
Climbing is surprisingly good, but there's a few short, steep climbs I can't make yet compared to the 160, and fire roads need 1 or 2 cogs lower. Likely due to the big wheels and 165mm cranks. Mulleting the 916 made it more like the 160 for climbs, but need to try it more.
It's my first 29er and it's a revelation
Every other branch of cycling is improving performance and reducing weight
Increasing performance, yes. Reducing weight, no. Road bikes are heavier because aero, wider tyres and disc brakes. MTBs are heavier because bigger wheels and tyres, droppers, bigger cassettes and a desire to not snap frames.
I’d take all those things over the insignificant difference in total system weight any day.
Enduro bikes can weigh more than DH bikes because they run DH wheels, tyres and inserts, droppers and big cassettes. Only the fork will weigh significantly more on a DH bike over an enduro. Even the frames are comparable.
Each to his own but I’d much rather take a lighter bike * on a long day ride than a heavier one **
* ideally sub 13.5kg
Where does that number come from? I'm not criticising I'm just intrigued as the how you got there and not say 13.8 or 12kg? I seem to recall the old rule of thumb was keep it below 35lb.
( sorry, I’m part of the rare breed of bikers that enjoys the ups and alongs as well as the downs.)
You're not that rare and I'll tell you now, I'd trade my old 28lb XL orange 5 and my own mother for either my current 30lb evil following or 35lb process 153 for pedaling up or along. Sure they weigh more but the lighter one pedalled like a dog.
Some people are clearly just obsessed by the number on the scales and can't see, or will never experience, the vast improvements we've all enjoyed in the last 5 years.
I would expect to get both. It’s called engineering
It's called defying physics. I want a longer frame that fits me properly, tougher tyres, longer travel, longer dropper, bigger brakes, wider bars.
I can't have all that and have it weight the same as my old 28lb Stumpjumper and I don't care one bit because old MTB's are crap compared to these new ones.
I love the raw carbon but for some reason I don't like the bike, cant quite work out why.
Where does that number come from? I’m not criticising I’m just intrigued as the how you got there and not say 13.8 or 12kg?
Good question. It was a combination of aspiration and what is possible for me in my circumstances. My Anthem is around 12 or 12.5kg IIRC, however it is a vile vile thing on anything harder than a fireroad or easy blue. I totally agree with the posters above that just because something is light doesn't make it good.
My Occam on the other hand.... I *think* is a touch over 13.5kg with the light wheelset, Rekons, new Vecnum seatpost etc etc. Based on my ( admittedly very limited experience on decent bikes) it's bloody marvelous. It does 80km in a day with perhaps 2800hm without too much bother. It sits happily on my shoulder for a Snowdon Double but more importantly it gets me down Cavedale dabless, the Champery WC [ very :-)] dabfull and did 40,000m of descending over in August without breaking*. ( admittedly it had the heavy wheels on for that, so wasn't 13.5kg at that point)
I reckon it is very close to the perfect bike for what I want. It could be 1kg or so lighter I'm sure, but I don't have the desire to spend that sort of cash on it, and I guess I was trying to signify that actually for the first time in 20 years I really really like the bike that I have.
I'm sure a 16kg bike would be significantly better on the downs, but I think it would involve too many compromises on the ups and alongs. So I want to register my view to the manufacturers " fine, make awesome 16kg Enduro bikes, but please don't think that everyone is willing to put up with the compromises for normal riding. Please keep making brilliant shorter travel, lighter weight bikes too "
* yeah OK a few spokes did break due to my dire jumping technique ☺
The occam does come up light but
Based on my [experience] it’s bloody marvelous.
Is the important bit. I think you'd be reasonably surprised to find how well the occam did 80k and 2800m even at a few kg heavier depending on where* that weight was.
*I think this is probably why people tend to find "heavy" bikes unpleasant. Very often it's not a heavy bike so much, maybe a few 00 grams above the axles and especially on the cheaper spec of the same the dampers are less capable (which can easily make a good bike rubbish) but much of the extra weight is in heavy cassettes, heavy wheels, heavy tyres which are often either utter rubbish OE things or so tacky they're almost molten and ill suited to anything but throwing down a hill.
Certainly my evil the difference between an xt 11 speed cassette and an xg 1195 is massive. As massive as the weight loss to my bank account of the same? Maybe not, but it genuinely changes the behaviour of the bike. Adding or taking off a full water bottle is 2-3 times the weight difference but completely unnoticeable to me.
Up until very recently, Grizzly Munro Diaries was doing all the Munros on a Deviate Guide, which is well north of 16kg. He’s now continuing on a Zerode, Taniwha I think, that will be of similar heft.
Admittedly there’s sponsorship considerations here but still, them’s some big ‘ills
Let’s not forget this is a purpose built enduro race bike fit to take on and win EWS courses.
Ah-ha! If this is true then that explains a lot. It's also not the "perfect bike" if its built for that, unless you do that. In which case. I'm oot.
There's some very good riders racking up podiums on the 916 in all sorts of enduros.
I won't be troubling them, but I'll still enjoy riding it.
Let’s not forget this is a purpose built enduro race bike fit to take on and win EWS courses.
Ah-ha! If this is true then that explains a lot. It’s also not the “perfect bike” if its built for that, unless you do that. In which case. I’m oot.
True, a perfect Enduro bike would still be useless as a daily shopper.
I like the look of this, but it'd be wayyyyyy too much bike for me. Are there any rumours of an updated HB130? My 2017 Smuggler is starting to feel quite tired.
a daily shopper.
Still trying to find the perfect one. Come on Singletrack help me out here!
IIRC There was a cargo bike in FGF a few weeks ago...
I think this is probably why people tend to find “heavy” bikes unpleasant. Very often it’s not a heavy bike so much, maybe a few 00 grams above the axles and especially on the cheaper spec of the same the dampers are less capable (which can easily make a good bike rubbish) but much of the extra weight is in heavy cassettes, heavy wheels, heavy tyres which are often either utter rubbish OE things or so tacky they’re almost molten and ill suited to anything but throwing down a hill.
can add head angle to that. How many times have you heard that a slack head angle made a bike climb poorly?
Nothing to do with that slack bike of your mates that you tried was a 160 travel squidgy monster on little wheels and DH tyres, the reason your 29er xc bike went uphill faster was definitely the head angle...
its an easily measurable metric that will broadly, correspond to the intended use of the bike, and therefore its overall adeptness at the task in hand.
chrismac
Granted some of the in house components may be a little on the heavy
This is my point. If their components are on the weighty side then it’s not unreasonable to assume the same engineering team with the same philosophy have made the frame on the weighty side
@chrismac good point but, when I collected my HB130 I was asking Doddy how much abuse it could take as it was being marketed as an all day trail bike. He said not to worry as it had been deliberately over built and as if to prove that those same bikes have also gone on to prove themselves to be very worthy enduro bikes (not in my hands btw).
The thing is though, my HB130 which is fitted out with pretty much the same build kit as this new bike also weighs in at 15.9kg on my scales. This suggests to me that although the frame looks burlier compared to the 130, they haven't felt the need to over build this one.
Ben Haworth
@vinnyeh In a word: yes. It’s something to tinker with if/when we get the bike back in. I’d like to have got to the point where things were ‘too open’ and then dial back from there (mainly for reassurance). Stay tuned basically
I also run mine with everything fully open for general trail riding comfort and that is after having J-tech give them a lighter tune. I would go as far as getting the LSC even lighter tuned next time it's in for a service. It's not like there isn't plenty of adjustment range to tighten them up when needed.
I think the problem is light & durable aren't easily achieved together unless you throw squillions at a project - which then means it cost the customer more.
There has to be a trade off somewhere - and the fact that most carbon frames are now only a couple of hundred grams lighter than the alloy equivalent goes more toward the durability.
The old engineering adage of Light, durable & 'cheap'* - pick any 2 but not all 3...... (* in relative terms....)
I would go as far as getting the LSC even lighter tuned next time it’s in for a service.
I'll be looking into similar for my charger 2.1rct3 dampered Yari when it's due a service. I run both LSC and HSC fully open and a Shockwiz I used (admittedly briefly) was telling me I needed less damping.
There has to be a trade off somewhere – and the fact that most carbon frames are now only a couple of hundred grams lighter than the alloy equivalent goes more toward the durability.
I've noticed that too: only 450g difference between my previous carbon frame (Intense Carbine SL, 3.1kg) and my current alloy one (Geometron G15, 3.55kg). I expected a bigger difference, especially as Geometrons look as robust as brick shithouses.
There has to be a trade off somewhere – and the fact that most carbon frames are now only a couple of hundred grams lighter than the alloy equivalent goes more toward the durability.
To me it suggests they aren’t engineered aswell as they could be. Assuming the carbon and alloy ones are both expected to pass the same durability test then the carbon bike is overbuilt and unnecessarily heavy. Either that or the alloy ones aren’t as strong. It can’t be both.
What are bike manufacturers not doing that they could be? ‘Just make them lighterer!’ isn’t really helpful.
I think bike manufacturers are learning more about the properties of carbon and how the different weaves and layups influence the characteristics of the frame - compliance, stiffness etc.
This is probably adding to weight as they can engineer a durable frame with the characteristics they desire.
Also let's face it - we're not all Sam Hill or Richie Rude who can hammer the crap out of a frame over a couple of weekends and then get a shiny new one to hammer again.
The frames have to be built with the 'masses/all the gear no idea' riders in mind
Very nice bike . My only concern would be with the idler design and whether that brings extra wear or maintenance issues. Wish I could afford one!
Ive just spent way to much time reading this thread and looking at geometry number on the website, plus the idea of a demo and the need for the extra £500 paint job. But at £1100 saving the Claymore could win.. edited as the shock is extra ... the 916 now becomes the front runner