Hope HB.916 first ride review: The Perfect Bike?

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

What are bike manufacturers not doing that they could be? ‘Just make them lighterer!’ isn’t really helpful.

Im not an engineer. If I was I would be working on making them lighter rather than posting on here. Scott seem to know how to make frames lighter that I’m sure are as durable as anyone else’s

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.

I would expect them to hire people who know this rather than use customers as their test team. I want to buy a bike designed by those who know what they are doing, not learning as they go

Scott seem to know how to make frames lighter that I’m sure are as durable as anyone else’s

In terms of mountain bikes Scott always come up light on paper, can’t say I’ve been convinced when I’ve picked them up but the calibration on my lifting isn’t very good. Their road bikes do feel like they should be chained down in case they float away on a draft though.

IIRC giant’s high end alloy frames are often lighter than the carbon equivalent in theirs and many others ranges.

I want to buy a bike designed by those who know what they are doing, not learning as they go

It’s not like it’s a work experience kid running the process and discovering it didn’t cure at that temperature. These are cutting edge research labs and the like improving things as they go.

Im not an engineer. If I was I would be working on making them lighter rather than posting on here.

Lolz.

The engineering of aluminium verses carbon would be an interesting article

My hunch would be that engineering a frame for the expected forces in use carbon would be lots lighter. My hunch is that you start adding carbon to cope with the forces that arise from crashes and impacts the weight advantage starts to decrease

My hunch would be that

By the time you put in a load of bearings and axles, make linkages that don’t crumble or flex, put in BB inserts, headset cups and 1kg of coil shock there’s surprisingly little weight to shave off the actual frame construction.

Regarding carbon engineering. Hope have close connections (ie the hope founders used to work there) with Rolls Royce in Barnoldswick. When they decided to make frames they got the RR aerospace carbon engineers in to show them how to do it. I don’t think there is any guess work or trial and error going on here.

Scott seem to know how to make frames lighter that I’m sure are as durable as anyone else’s

Top of the range Ransom is still over 30lbs, just. And £8500. The next one down is £6k and 32lbs.

Frame weight is 6lbs. Can’t find details on the 916, but given its burly build kit giving a total of 35lbs I wouldn’t imagine there’s a huge (noticeable out in the trail) difference in frame weight.

Something something system weight something 2-5% something.

Very nice. Do they do an eeb version 🙂

Scott seem to know how to make frames lighter that I’m sure are as durable as anyone else’s

I used to work for Scott and I wouldn’t give them the sweat from my balls if they were dying of dehydration.

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.

I’ve was amazed at the stuff I’ve cleared uphill on my Nukeproof Mega 290. 29″ Wheels, properly sorted geometry that means theres loads of rear wheel grip without the front lifting (but not so long that you can’t change direction or lift the front when you need to). I’d say it’s pretty damn rare that the weight of the bike is what makes you dab on a tech climb.

And an extra few kg on a bike isn’t pleasant but it doesn’t stop you putting it on your back for a hike-a-bike. I shouldered my Orbea Rise up the Fairfield Horseshoe last week.

I’ve was amazed at the stuff I’ve cleared uphill on my Nukeproof Mega 290. 29″ Wheels

Mm agreed. The two big bikes that I’ve had (Enduro and Occam) were far better up short climbs than any of my old light bikes, but after a few 10s of metres the additional weight kicks in and it ain’t happening.

I shouldered my Orbea Rise up the Fairfield Horseshoe last week.

On the actual Horseshoe? How much of it were you able to ride? We did Grisedale Tarn – summit- western descent to Rydal and looking at the eastern ridge ascent nearly made me go and buy an Orbea Rise just for that 1 ride. It looked perfect for an eeb.

…but from what you’re saying perhaps not. Was the HaB shortish bits?
Did the eeb make the difference on the amazing looking ascents?
Clockwise or anti?

Everyone moaning about weight – this is a £7k build… which sounds a lot these days but that would only get you an entry level carbon Santa cruz, spech or trek these days.

If you chuck £10k rrp at a build you’d easily get this down to 32lb with carbon wheels, carbon bits everywhere etc.

I’ve ridden a 33lb build of this and it feels anything but heavy picking up or on the trail.

I wouldn’t buy one – largely because I couldn’t ride a a non eMTB now to do it justice, but also because it is very fugly.

fugly

Ebikes aren’t exactly known for their aesthetics

If you chuck £10k rrp at a build you’d easily get this down to 32lb with carbon wheels, carbon bits everywhere etc.

I’m really not clear what your point is here 🙂
That if you spend a frankly insane five figure sum you can get a not quite so heavy version?

Wow, that’s just amaze… no it’s not really anything.

It’s means nothing. Ten grand is an insane amount of money.
I mean for ten grand you could chuck the frame in the bin and still get it down to 13kg.

Have we really got to the stage where the fact that 10 grand buys you a not so very heavy version of a bike is seen as amazeballs?

Can you point me to an off the shelf 13kg 170mm 29er enduro bike, for any price?

Closest I can find is a 13.5kg 160mm travel one (with flex pivots) for €9500, a Last Tarvo.

Ebikes aren’t exactly known for their aesthetics

Agreed. It is better than not riding at all though.