Guerilla Gravity

Discussion in 'Bike Reviews' started by herzalot, Jun 25, 2018.



Want to donate to imtbtrails?



  1. herzalot

    herzalot iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    Laguna Beach
    Name:
    Chris
    Current Bike:
    2020 SC Megaplower
    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.
     
  2. Sidewalk

    Sidewalk Well-Known Member

    Location:
    The road is where I call home
    Name:
    Josh
    Current Bike:
    N+1
    Mine is the last generation, much more nimble than the new generation bikes.
     
  3. mike

    mike iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    Western US
    Name:
    Mike O
    Current Bike:
    HT, FS
    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.
     
  4. Sassyquatch

    Sassyquatch Well-Known Member

    Name:
    Sam

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

    herzalot iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    Laguna Beach
    Name:
    Chris
    Current Bike:
    2020 SC Megaplower
    435 or 445 on mine. My choice! 435 is plenty short for an XXL 29er - 17.1"
     
    mike and Sassyquatch like this.
  6. Sassyquatch

    Sassyquatch Well-Known Member

    Name:
    Sam
    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....
     
    herzalot and mike like this.
  7. mike

    mike iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    Western US
    Name:
    Mike O
    Current Bike:
    HT, FS
    Redman likes this.
  8. DangerDirtyD

    DangerDirtyD iMTB Addict

    Location:
    CA
    Name:
    Chicken Nugget
    Current Bike:
    2018 Guerrilla Gravity SMASH
  9. mtnbikej

    mtnbikej J-Zilla

    Location:
    Orange
    Name:
    J M
    Current Bike:
    SC Chameleon SS, SC Hightower
  10. Danimal

    Danimal iMTB Rockstah

    Location:
    Mission Viejo
    Name:
    Dan
    Current Bike:
    GG Trail Pistol!
    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.
     
  11. buggravy

    buggravy iMTB Rockstah

    Location:
    Calabasas
    Name:
    Matt
    Current Bike:
    GG The Smash, Ibis DV9
    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.
     
  12. buggravy

    buggravy iMTB Rockstah

    Location:
    Calabasas
    Name:
    Matt
    Current Bike:
    GG The Smash, Ibis DV9
    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".
     
  13. buggravy

    buggravy iMTB Rockstah

    Location:
    Calabasas
    Name:
    Matt
    Current Bike:
    GG The Smash, Ibis DV9
    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.
     
  14. mtnbikej

    mtnbikej J-Zilla

    Location:
    Orange
    Name:
    J M
    Current Bike:
    SC Chameleon SS, SC Hightower

    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.
     
    mike, Faust29, herzalot and 1 other person like this.
  15. buggravy

    buggravy iMTB Rockstah

    Location:
    Calabasas
    Name:
    Matt
    Current Bike:
    GG The Smash, Ibis DV9
    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.
     
    mike, herzalot and mtnbikej like this.



Want to donate to imtbtrails?