Guerilla Gravity

That's what a lot of testers said about the Megatower. That must be why I crashed - I was trying to change direction!!!

Yes - a 51.7" long bike (XL) that weighs a ton and has huge gyroscopic devices on either end probably won't be described as "nimble, agile and quick." Especially with 17.7" chainstays and a 63.7° head angle.

Bikes of this size are probably better suited for big dudes. I can't imagine trying to adapt to beasts of this size if you are under 6'0" tall. I wonder how @Sidewalk manhandles his Enduro with similar numbers. Of course, he's a better rider than I.

 

Mine is the last generation, much more nimble than the new generation bikes.

 

There's one more reason I don't believe this new bike could ever be for me. To get 160 out of the triangle, they had to make the stays long. Some will argue that that geo was intentional. The results are hard to dispute, though.

 

Preach on! I’m a short stay guy too for sure...425mm on Godzilla.

 

435 or 445 on mine. My choice! 435 is plenty short for an XXL 29er - 17.1"

 

that is a really sweet feature...maybe an XXL Mega down the road for me if/when I destroy Godzilla and/or Smashy...if GG eventually makes a size 5, that would get more complicated....

 

In case anyone looking to Pistolize their Trail Pistol... This Rockshox Super Deluxe coil with hardware came up on Pinkbike:

https://www.pinkbike.com/buysell/2807274/

 

https://ridegg.us17.list-manage.com...51af7942e25b3bb723&id=4e67359177&e=af4142b174

 

80mm dropper???

 

They have to do something to drop 2.5-3lbs off the race version. So trim the dropper it is! And a 120 fork.

Making a lighter frame next time might help.

 

Just regurgitating anecdotal ramblings here, but there has been a bit of clamor for a lighter carbon layup for exactly this type of bike. Word is that it will likely happen, but not until the carbon rear triangle becomes a thing. Guessing the latter will be within the next year or so.

 

Comment of the year: there's a theoretical discussion about a GG e-bike on the GG FB group. Someone commented it wouldn't be metal/punk/grunge enough. The response - "they could call it the Nickelback".

 

The discussion over in the Revel thread got my bike nerd wheels spinning, and this question may be more contextual here. With all other things being equal, as they mostly are with GG (suspension platform, front triangle, etc.) what is going to make a 120/120 Trail Pistol SL faster/more efficient (theoretically) than, say, my 160/145 Smash. Is it mostly STA? Weight? Total weight is about 3.5 lbs different, but only a couple ounces of that on each end is rotating mass. Does a short travel bike give up less of its travel (wasted energy) climbing? The move from a Pistola to Smash was a much smaller jump, but recall it FEELING slightly slower going up, but the Strava numbers said otherwise. I certainly feel a difference pedaling my DV9 vs. my Smash, but once you throw movement into the back of the bike, what is it that makes these short travel bikes faster (again, theoretically).

*disclaimer: This is not a purchase weighing question. Just geeking out.

 

Theoretically a short travel bike will be more efficient while pedaling. Less sag, less monkey motion. think about it.....25% of 120mm vs 25% of 160mm.

Generally a bike with 160mm of travel is gonna be heavier as it’s built with more durable parts(however this line is being blurred more and more these days).

Geometry does play a little bit of a roll. While most trail bikes have gone quite long/low/slack...XC race rigs are quite the opposite, though again they are starting to follow that trend to a point.

 

thanks, that’s actually a specific question I meant to ask, whether a short travel bike gave up a similar amount of travel, or just a similar percentage of travel. The latter makes the most sense now that I think about it.

 

Check out my Smash with custom 50mm fork!

She climbs like a stone.

 

@buggravy I noticed today for the first time that the RaceFace Turbine crank arms on the SquigleBug are 170mm long. Every other MTB I own has 175mm length cranks, but I didn't notice the difference here. This helps explain why I am not getting pedal strikes. I conclude the shorter crank arms also require the saddle height to be 5 mm higher to allow for proper leg extension on the down [pedal] stroke. Are all the crank arm lengths 170mm for all of your MTB bikes?

 

My Smash has 170s, and the Spur has 175s. Coincidentally I just ordered 170s for the Spur today.