>>1049004Sorry to offend you with a shitty filter. First photo was the only one I had on my phone, second was one I found on my computer.
>>1049078>Literally the worst mechanical disc brakes ever on a full sus MTB.Have fun stopping. I've had those breaks or over 10 years now. I actually think they are great. Easy to maintain.
>>1049088>I'd be more worried about getting going in the first place. That thing looks like it weighs 50lbs yet it has XC parts and geometry. Probably not far off weight wise. The rear triangle tubes are thicker than most normal bikes front triangle. Plus that thick as fuck linkage. Not really the bike for the sort of person who shaves his legs to be a bit lighter. It's mostly made up from all mountain or "enduro" parts not really any xc stuff.
>>1049106>>1049105Yep they are 7's. Why the hate for bb7's?
>>1049109>Short front and rear travel, Mechanical discs with 160mm rotors, Babby rims. Plus dat head angle is steeep. Hardly a xc setup. Although I do a fair bit of xc on it as its my only bike. The forks can be dropped down from 140 to 100. Would it please you a bit more if I lowered my suspension?
>>1049117>Short travel and a steep head angle do not an XC bike make, take dirt jumpers for example. The Mountain Cycle Battery is a slopestyle frame with 130mm travel, that fork is 140mm, and it has a very short wheelbase. Those rims also don't look particularly narrow.If that's your idea of an XC bike then you're obviously clueless.
This guy is correct
I knew when I bought that bike I'd be sacrificing a lot, but the downhills on that thing make up for all of that, it's a fun bike to ride, the short wheelbase is great fun. I normally set the short rear sus up pretty hard to so it feels a bit like a hard tail, but gives on the bigger stuff.
I'm sorry I offended some of you by posting my bike here. Will knowing I'm 6'1" riding this tiny bike make you even more full of rage?
Also pic related
