- Show me your light weight full sus's
Still think those scales may need a check Steve, those early Epics were weighty buggers
I suspect they're in the ballpark, based on the weights for my other bikes (23ish for my Zion, 27 for my Soul and 30+ for my Enduro when it had Talas and an RP2 – haven't weighed it since fitting a coil shock and Pikes though as I reckon the scale would explode). The Epic has different wheels (American Classics) now as well, and they're quite a bit lighter than the HopeXC/717's that used to be on it.
I've never weighed just the frame of the Epic but it doesn't seem all that heavy.Posted 7 years ago
Mine was actually the base model 2003 one, not even the Comp and I suspect it'd also have been 28lbs or so.
It's very non-stock now though – SID teams, American Classic wheels, XTR drivetrain and brakes, Litespeed Ti railed saddle, carbon seatpost and bars, Speed King supersonics (and Twister Supersonics for summer). Other than the frame and fork I think the only other stock bit left is the LX front mech as it just refuses to die and I won't replace it until it does!Posted 7 years agoRipMember
Surf-Mat – Member
Rip – that is a stunner!
njee20 – Member
Why the 4-pot brakes?
And it has no pedals, so you actually took it to a muddy pond purely to take a photo of it, good effort
The build was finished and the pedals hadn't arrived! Couldn't wait to get a photo though.
I have the four pots on all my bikes just to keep spares inventory down really.
Apart from changing to Middleburn cranks it's just the same now. I have the Scale version too and hardly ever ride the Spark. I'd probably sell it to someone who'd appreciate it.Posted 7 years ago
not how big your rotors are or how many calipers you have
I strongly suspect that most people only have one calliper, although there were some very dodgy twin calliper forks around in the late 90s!
Aside from that, are you actually saying that you can exert the same braking force with a 160mm XC race brake as you can with a 203mm Hope Mono 6 ti?
My S-Works Epic frame (Large 2006) is 2650g
Aye, they got lighter by then, the seat tube/top tube bridge was hollowed out significantly, Brain Lite shock, hollow magnesium mounting, carbon linkage etc etc, the 2003 ones really were heavy, heavier than the Stumpjumpers of the same era.Posted 7 years agopaulrockliffeMember
Of course the bigger brakes have a higher maximum force, but when you're slowing down do you:
a) Pull the brakes on as hard as they'll go.
b) Apply as only as much power as required.
If you choose option b) then you'll squeeze the levers with a bit less force and exert the same force on the forks, when compared with less powerful brakes. Not a problem.
I can see how option a) would pose a threat to some forks, but if that's your choice, your forks are the least of your worries.Posted 7 years ago
But surely it's a value judgement, you brake based on what you know your brakes are capable of. If you have bigger, more powerful brakes, you will brake harder and later purely because you can, ergo exerting a greater force on the forks.
Is there not an issue with the actual amount of leverage on the bottom of the fork legs too, hence maximum rotor sizes on forks.Posted 7 years agoKINGTUTMember
KINGTUT – No offence does that make a huge difference with lightweight frames?
Between a 14" and a 20" yes I would say so, but as njee says not so much between a medium and a large, but it's still a measurable difference.
But heck why let facts get in the way of a weight weenie willy waving thread. 😉Posted 7 years ago
The topic ‘Show me your light weight full sus's’ is closed to new replies.