My first MTB weight weenie Build help (Yeti SB5)

Discuss light weight issues concerning mountain bikes & parts.

Moderator: Moderator Team

User avatar
F45
Posts: 1077
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:08 am

by F45

TheRookie wrote:
F45 wrote:He's using 2.25s.

id=internal diameter......


inner distance

joeg26er
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:40 am

by joeg26er

What about the Thru-Axles?

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



youngs_modulus
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:03 am
Location: Portland, OR USA

by youngs_modulus

F45 wrote:
TheRookie wrote:
F45 wrote:He's using 2.25s.

id=internal diameter......


inner distance


TheRookie understood what you meant, but was teasing you in a good-natured way about your terminology. in engineering, ID is absolutely an abbreviation for internal diameter. You're likely not an engineer (or at least not a native-English-speaking engineer), so you had no way to know that.

"ID" already has a meaning in this context, so the cycling community will have to find another abbreviation for rim width. Using "ID" for "inner distance" here would be like deciding that "ERD" stood not for "effective rim diameter" (as used for calculating spoke length) but rather "Eventual Rolling Diameter," referring to the outer diameter of a tire after it has been inflated and allowed to sit overnight. You can use ERD to mean the latter, sure, but you'll either confuse or annoy anyone with whom you discuss your alternate acronym.

Most likely, some people will use "ID" to mean "inner rim width" in spite of the fact that the acronym is taken. Some people use the non-word "irregardless." What can you do?

User avatar
F45
Posts: 1077
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:08 am

by F45

I'll start using engineering speak on forums when the bike community can get past saying "25c" when they mean 25mm tires.

youngs_modulus
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:03 am
Location: Portland, OR USA

by youngs_modulus

You're free to do what you want, of course. But while "25C" is technically wrong, at least it's unambiguous in context. You're using "ID" in a nonstandard way (which is fine) but also in a way that's totally ambiguous (which is considerably less fine, at least IMHO).

You could similarly use "seatpost" for "seat tube" if you wanted to. But, like "ID," "seatpost" already means something. At best, that's an annoyingly quirky twist on terminology. At worst, people think you don't know what you're talking about when you mention that your seatpost has an ID of 31.6mm.

I'm not saying bike lingo is consistent, or even that it should be. I'm suggesting that you're making up new definitions for existing acronyms, which makes it harder to understand what you write. You can do that, of course, but then people like TheRookie and myself will call you out on it. ;)



P.S.: I'm a mechanical engineer now, but before grad school I worked as a bike mechanic off and on for about fifteen years. In every place I worked, a mechanic who used "ID" to mean "internal distance" instead of "internal diameter" would have been viewed as a bit dim by the other mechanics. "ID" may be engineering speak, as you say, but it's also bike speak. (I'm not insulting your intelligence, FWIW).




Edit: fixed typo and added PS.

ooo
Posts: 1590
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:59 pm

by ooo

Did you feel any difference after changing WTB Volt Team titanium to carbon?
'

02GF74
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:04 pm
Location: Sunny UK

by 02GF74

Lighter gear and drooper post outer cable, can go to mini ilink or less expensive clarks zero cable, the latter at reduced price in Halfords (you need to be in UK to understand)

Jaker
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:55 am
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

by Jaker

I currently have a 2010 ASR5c built to just under 20lbs and dream of someday building either an SB5c or one of the new SB140s to a similar weight. I don't currently have a dropper post, but I'm always on the lookout for a decent weight option that won't break the bank.

User avatar
LeDuke
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:39 am
Location: Front Range, CO

by LeDuke

Jaker wrote:I currently have a 2010 ASR5c built to just under 20lbs and dream of someday building either an SB5c or one of the new SB140s to a similar weight. I don't currently have a dropper post, but I'm always on the lookout for a decent weight option that won't break the bank.
You won’t be able to build a SB140 to 20lbs. Anything below 26-27 would be sacrificing durability for a goal that doesn’t match the bike’s purpose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jaker
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:55 am
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

by Jaker

The off the shelf weight is 27lbs, isn't it? It wouldn't be that hard to knock 4 to 5 lbs of that without sacrificing much. Then again, I don't live on the Front Range nor do I ride like my hair is on fire!

User avatar
LeDuke
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:39 am
Location: Front Range, CO

by LeDuke

Jaker wrote:The off the shelf weight is 27lbs, isn't it? It wouldn't be that hard to knock 4 to 5 lbs of that without sacrificing much. Then again, I don't live on the Front Range nor do I ride like my hair is on fire!
It’s 29lbs without pedals for the T2 model, which is $7400.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jaker
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:55 am
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

by Jaker

I stand corrected.

User avatar
F45
Posts: 1077
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:08 am

by F45

youngs_modulus wrote:
Fri Aug 11, 2017 4:35 pm

P.S.: I'm a mechanical engineer now, but before grad school I worked as a bike mechanic off and on for about fifteen years. In every place I worked, a mechanic who used "ID" to mean "internal distance" instead of "internal diameter" would have been viewed as a bit dim by the other mechanics. "ID" may be engineering speak, as you say, but it's also bike speak. (I'm not insulting your intelligence, FWIW).
That sounds like a good way to allow the blowhards to identify themselves. I am now more motivated than ever to use id for inner distance. Thank you.

Jaker
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:55 am
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

by Jaker

So since my current ASR-5 carbon is 9kg (19.75lbs) and I'm having a blast riding it, does anyone see why I couldn't get the SB5 Turq to sub 10kg (22lbs) with a dropper post? The 9point8 Fall Line R post is under 400g with remote and my current post is a slightly modified Thomson layback at about 150g. The only concession I'd have to make over my current build is giving up on the DT Swiss XR Carbon rear shock that currently shaves about 80g off the Fox RP23 that it replaced. I certainly wouldn't be buying an XR Carbon for the SB5.

But I would transfer over the Lefty PBR130 carbon that's on the ASR-5. Something about a sub 1,300g front shock that ticks all the boxes for my purposes. I know the SB5 Turq is spec'd with a 150mm fork, but some reviewers felt the SB5 wasn't as playful and lively as it should be. Maybe 1 degree more headtube angle would liven it up just enough? 67.5 degrees instead of 66.5?

XC71, how was your build for XC racing/marathoning?

I welcome your feedback, good or bad.

xc71
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:36 am

by xc71

Jaker wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:56 am
So since my current ASR-5 carbon is 9kg (19.75lbs) and I'm having a blast riding it, does anyone see why I couldn't get the SB5 Turq to sub 10kg (22lbs) with a dropper post? The 9point8 Fall Line R post is under 400g with remote and my current post is a slightly modified Thomson layback at about 150g. The only concession I'd have to make over my current build is giving up on the DT Swiss XR Carbon rear shock that currently shaves about 80g off the Fox RP23 that it replaced. I certainly wouldn't be buying an XR Carbon for the SB5.

But I would transfer over the Lefty PBR130 carbon that's on the ASR-5. Something about a sub 1,300g front shock that ticks all the boxes for my purposes. I know the SB5 Turq is spec'd with a 150mm fork, but some reviewers felt the SB5 wasn't as playful and lively as it should be. Maybe 1 degree more headtube angle would liven it up just enough? 67.5 degrees instead of 66.5?

XC71, how was your build for XC racing/marathoning?

I welcome your feedback, good or bad.
The SB5 has been great. I have made a few changes from the original build.
Fox transfer 100mm tuned with carbon craddle, POP yokes and Ti bolts - 425 grams. Still running the YEP finger actuated remote.
Berk saddle, very comfy seat.
KCNC Razor rotors. Only slightly heavier then Ai2 but better stopping power, less fade on long decents and they last way longer.
Rocket Ron 2.6" front, this was huge as the 2.25" RR was not horrible but I never felt comfortable pushing it, always seemed to be on the edge of traction. The 2.6" I able to run lower psi which worked great and I leave it on for racing as well.
For racing I run a 2.25" Rocket Ron on the rear. For most rides here in the Rockies I run a Forcaster 2.35 rear. Currently have a 2.25" Nobby Nic rear and it is horrible for the most part, it rolls well but traction is poor and it lets loose so fast its really sketchy. The only place I like the NN is in Arizona.
Currently with the RR 2.6 & 2.25NN bike 21.90 lbs. I do use the shock lever in climb mode on longer climbs but it pedals very well in open mode.
A 130mm fork would be okay for racing, but I would not consider running it outside of racing - too steep and chunky around here. That being said, with that fork, E thirteen XCX cranks, your dropper, lite wheels with Berd spokes and lite tires, etc You should be under 21 lbs.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply