Those are quantifiable numbers, everything else is subjective, and therefore requires experience, not heresy.

Nothing else is really quantifiable. So then why do we seem to focus SO much on the stats? Does having a rebound adjustment mean the same thing on a Manitou as it does a Fox? Isn't there a certain range of effectiveness that needs to be considered? After all, the average Fox has an incredible range of rebound, whereas a Manitou has a limited amount of range. The point is that feature-for-feature comparisons aren't honest comparisons; they are simple and superficial.

FRAME WEIGHT

Sometimes these are intelligeable riders as well, not only in terms of cycling concepts, but also in terms of metallurgy or physics. In other words, they understand the principles of engineering being applied in various circumstances, leading them also to be quite articulate and with their understanding. Those who expect their bikes to be light, yet strong, almost always favor light weight over strength.

In actuality, it is most likely that a frame with a "respectable" weight--not too light, not too heavy-- has the best ride quality to it. Let the nay-sayers throw their tomatoes . . . Depsite what many others would argue, I believe that a frame's performance rests upon its geometry and tubing, not suspension gimmicks or weightlessness. Sure, the suspension design does have a significant bearing on the bike mating to its rider, the weight of the frame on the other hand has litte to do with the over all weight of the bike. Even a frame weight savings of an entire pound makes little difference to a 27lb 5" travel aggressive XC bike. A single pound lighter is nothing more than bragging rights; it does not represent a performance advantage. Save a pound in your wheelset, and now were talking about a measurable performance advantage, but not in the frame.

There are too many other weight factors to account for on a complete bike to put priority on the frame weight.

It is appropriate to say to one's self "I'd like to keep the bike under Xlbs," but it is a whole other matter (usually obsessive) to say "I need the bike under Xlbs." This attitude variation implies volumes about each rider.

Here's what a "respectable" weighted frame will offer you:

• Thicker tubing - results in a more stable ride, reduced flex, reduced torsional twisting within a single tube, less vibration & jittering, and a more solid feel. Each of these added benefits are more noticeable at higher speeds. Less vibration = less rider fatigue & greater control.
• Larger diameter tubing - provides significantly greater contact area between welded tubes and ultimately more welding surface. Stiffens the frame's ride and reduces flex.
• Sronger gusseting - offers increased assistance to the down tube, top tube, bottom bracket shell, seat tube, etc. Basically gusseting reinforces your frame's geometry by protecting the integrity of the frame against force loads, angles and the terrible combination of too much force at angles that the tubing alone cannot bear. Less flex = greater energy transference & greater control.
• Wider yoke - located at the main pivot point of a full suspension, the wider the stance the better, the thicker the better. Let's face it, you take pretty fast turns through rough terrain. Wider = stiffer rear end, less rear wheel wandering & smoother travel (easier on all pivot bearings).

These points reveal why Ventana makes the BEST frames on the planet. Transition, Brodie and Commencal all abide by these precepts as well. Manufacturers who focus on weight savings compromise so many engineering details to achieve that single element of a light weight offering. The most popluar frames are surely adequate, but they fall short of being enchanting, captivating and the subltely majestic.