Nukeproof Releases a Limited Short Travel, Lightweight Edition of the Reactor

Apr 27, 2020
by James Smurthwaite  
photo
Photos: Roo Fowler

Built for everything from trail centre jaunts to undulating epics, Nukeproof are releasing a shorter travel, lightweight version of the Reactor in a limited run. This ST version of the recently-released Reactor is now the shortest travel full-suspension Nukeproof have in their line up but they are calling it the most versatile bike they have ever produced saying, "it’s all about maximum bike time and getting out to explore nature's elements."

photo
photo

The travel on the Reactor ST has been pared down from 130mm rear, 140mm front to 125mm rear with a 130mm fork. This also taughtens up the bike into a racier configuration, we didn't get a full geo chart with the press release but some key numbers that Nukeproof gave us are a head angle of 66.8° (or 66.3° in the low setting), which is nearly a full degree steeper than most of the standard Reactor models, and a seat tube angle at 76.3° (75.8° Low), which, again, is an increase of roughly a degree.

photo
A new spec steepens up some critical angles on the Reactor ST.

photo
photo
Slimmed down Fox components should give a racier feel to the Nukeproof's reimagined trail bike.

Alongside the tweaked intentions is a spec to match. A Fox 34 fork replaces the 36 that is specced on most of the 29" models of the Reactor and a Fox Float DPS replaces the piggyback shock that sits on every Reactor model. The bike rolls on lightweight DT Swiss 1501 wheels with low-profile Maxxis Rekon rubber and a Shimano XT 12-speed drivetrain handles the transmission.

photo

photo
The Reactor ST sheds the aggressive treads of the standard line up for faster rolling Rekons
photo
Nukeproof's ever-expanding range of components completes the build.

Nukeproof's limited edition models are always eye-catching, from the raw aluminium Worx Mega 290 last year to the replica green and gold Sam Hill Mega 275 that came after the Cairns World Champs. This bike comes in raw carbon that not only looks striking but, Nukeproof says, contributes to the lower weight on this bike. Nukeproof are claiming that the bike tips the scales at 28lbs (12.7kg) in size medium.

photo

The Reactor 290c ST will be available in limited numbers from Nukeproof dealers or online from 30 April 2020. The SRP is £4900 GBP

Posted In:
Reviews and Tech Press Releases Trail Bikes Nukeproof Nukeproof Reactor


Author Info:
jamessmurthwaite avatar

Member since Nov 14, 2018
1,770 articles
Report
Must Read This Week
Thank You For Everything, Pinkbike
75633 views
Pole Bicycles Has Filed for Bankruptcy
52883 views
[UPDATED] Final Elite XC Results & Overall Standings from the Mairiporã XC World Cup 2024
41975 views
First Ride: The Sub-$600 RockShox Domain and Psylo Forks
41869 views
Staff Ride: Matt Beer's NZ MTB Rally-Spec Ibis HD6
40245 views
Tree Root Pierces Harriet Harnden's Foot at Round 1 of the British National Downhill Series
37759 views
Review: Race Face's Era Chainring Uses Steel, Carbon, & Aluminum
27863 views
First Ride: Fox's New Transfer Dropper Post - Adjustable Travel, Up to 240mm of Drop
26485 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup

165 Comments
  • 145 7
 The reality is most people aren't descending a continuous 4,000 feet every ride, and while piggyback shocks and big stanchions look sick, they're usually extra weight imo. At the end of the day geometry is what matters. Hopefully this is more of a "feeler" and not actually limited. The industry needs more affordable agro short travel bikes.
  • 29 2
 +1. I have a Rallon, and as much as it flattens everything in it's path, after borrowing a "downcountry-d" Oiz TR from my LBS (Mborg in Munich), set up with wider bars, 120mm 34SC, decent rubber, etc I'm seriously considering buying something similar. Faster for 95% of everything, and pushes you to ride better.
  • 60 75
flag WAKIdesigns (Apr 27, 2020 at 1:31) (Below Threshold)
 Geometry is what matters, as well as brakes, tire choice, suspension, layup, cockpit setup, yeah... everything matters. If you think that geo matters most then please slap RS XC32, cheapest monarch and Conti XKing on this bike. I’ll build 2015 Spec E29 With Fox Factory fromt and rear, slap Bontragers XR2/SE4 on it and demolish you both on up and down. Geometry folks are getting woker and woker
  • 8 5
 "agro" ? this looks more like a slightly burlier cross-country race bike... along with the Rekon Race tires...
  • 4 0
 @ferntreekid: I also have a Rallon and I think it's a pretty playful bike for it's travel, particularly in the low setting (rather than lower). That being said, I also have a Transition Smuggler, this bike is so much more fun on my local trails, which are more rolling XC with smaller features.
  • 51 53
 Here's a thought... people say they want small bikes since they have small features on their trails... why don't they build bigger features?

#kiing_of_spades
  • 44 2
 @WAKIdesigns: "demolish you both on up and down" modest words.
  • 34 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Where I live a lot of the land is managed by the Forestry Commission. If you build anything too big/scary, they just pull it down. Understandable really, as land managers they are liable if anyone injures themselves and decides to sue. I think this law is complete BS, but it is what it is.
Also, gradient comes into play. If you live somewhere that is more rolling terrain, rather than mountainous, then smaller bikes are more appropriate and fun to ride.
  • 19 3
 @ferntreekid: Watch out my friend. You are half way to buying a hardtail. Its only a matter of time. You know you want too. Resistance is futile!!
  • 14 4
 You can overheat a piggyback shock & make a fork feel like a banana in 300ft of descending, people ride bikes differently, I would take a burlier build, each to their own
  • 6 31
flag WAKIdesigns (Apr 27, 2020 at 3:12) (Below Threshold)
 @watchtower: yes, that was too strong. Off ccourse it was an exaggeration- How optimal should I put it? I would not use such words if given bikes releases post 2012 suspension and tires were not determining how ANY bike climbs and descends.
  • 2 0
 The reality is sometimes we might be. It looks awesome though and I'd love a pure trail bike.
  • 7 2
 @watchtower: Hes having one of those small mans syndrome days... Let him be.. Ha
  • 5 22
flag WAKIdesigns (Apr 27, 2020 at 4:59) (Below Threshold)
 @bohns1: Silence, I changed my guru to Louie Simmons, all I do is Drive! Drive! Drive!
  • 9 0
 Most DH race courses aren't a 4000 ft descent either. I agree geo matters but this idea that having a burly bike requires exceptionally long descents misses the mark.
  • 4 2
 @WAKIdesigns: Because they don't have enough pitch to make bigger features viable.
  • 9 1
 "needs more affordable agro short travel bikes".

How is this affordable?
  • 7 0
 @watchtower: king of keyboard warriors, waki is
  • 8 1
 @WAKIdesigns: haha Mr bitch tits himself!
  • 2 19
flag WAKIdesigns (Apr 27, 2020 at 6:09) (Below Threshold)
 @bohns1: I would assume how body builder like you (no dis meant) would not resonate too well with someone who is into making athletes as strong as possible from as little muscle mass as possible Smile Like Remy Metallier being a perfect example. I am finally not slow the day after deadlifts. Lowered them to 70% RMax with high bar speed, low rep, short rest period, high total volume. 5-8 sets of 3 fast lifts, be it DL, SQ, BP, or OP or BBR. Drive! drive! drive! ...Rest... Drive! Drive! Drive!

Damn! Rippetoe can screw himself with his Fhiiiiiiv's during the season. It rained today tomorrow will be Prime Dirt, I want to wank out some Strava Top10s...
  • 3 2
 @WAKIdesigns: I agree put a fully slick 29er bmx tyre on the front wheel and see how much that effects the bike it really isn’t just geometry or some none working brakes
  • 1 0
 @ferntreekid: I'm really liking the flex-stay short travel designs like the Oiz for downcountry trails. Near the end of the travel, the stays flex nicely as if it were a softtail type bike (such as the Ghost reviewed below), taking the edge off the terrain just enough to not disrupt your pedaling.
  • 4 15
flag WAKIdesigns (Apr 27, 2020 at 7:14) (Below Threshold)
 @Ooofff: depends, you can do a lot with little knobs... depends how they are shaped, sized and placed. Some tires are an art project or a total mess or both at the same time. Bontrager XR2 and XR3 for XC/pedally trail forever. Brilliant, brilliant and once again brilliant design.
  • 6 1
 @WAKIdesigns: "depends, you can do a lot with little knobs... depends how they are shaped, sized and placed." Amen Brother.
  • 17 0
 Why are lots of people commenting on here so concerned with the possibility that others are "overbiked"? Yeah my big stanchions and piggyback shock are likely a little too much for my regular ride but they are great at the bike park and now I only need one bike.
  • 2 0
 @WAKIdesigns: not a bodybuilder bro.. Not even close..
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: wait so I shouldn’t run a wetscream front and back on dusty trails at 60 psi?
  • 1 0
 @bohns1: Bob? Robert Raulson? Is that you?
  • 3 0
 I'd no doubt get an Enduro if I were near a bike park. I'd still keep the spark because I find just as much enjoyment on the single tracks and nothing is more fun than dusting guys on their heavy rigs.
  • 6 1
 Since when is 4900 GBP "affordable"? That's over $6000 USD or $8500 cnd? Besides that, bike looks fantastic.
  • 1 0
 @takeiteasyridehard: how'd you guess
  • 8 1
 You are wrong. I have read in these comments that my bike needs to be bigger - slacker - longer. 38mm stanchions at the very least. Coil with a piggyback in both ends. And 305mm brake rotors with 4 pots.
  • 1 2
 @bohns1: +1 lol
  • 1 2
 @JohanG: same I love flex stays. Perfect for black diamond xc.
  • 6 3
 @fraserbritton: no worries, Brexit’s coming. British Pounds will not be worth much more than Canadian Pesos Smile
  • 1 0
 Totally agree. I down-sized to a Stumpjumper ST from my Identiti Mettle after I stopped racing. I'm having the best time ever on my local trails and all-day rides I could have never imagined doing on a bigger bike!
  • 1 0
 @zyoungson: That banana is too ripe, then.
  • 3 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Not everyone is a Pinkbike bro sending 10 foot drops on a downhill bike
  • 2 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Your point is a side issue. the main thing is we can buy bendy bananas by the pound/ounce again, that's real freedom. Oh shit, we won't importing bananas for much longer as our currency is deflating faster than a nobby nick with a torn sidewall. Still, freedom! If we hadn't brexited we would've ended up being governed by Germany. What have they ever done right? Ah.....
  • 1 2
 Not sure why, but most of the comments to your very logical post I read as if they were a line in "Gleaming the cube".
  • 1 0
 They should make the a fully rigid Reactor instead or even into a road bike...
  • 5 0
 @zyoungson: Damn 300 ft and you've toasted your shock and your fork is mush? Are you riding the rampage course or down a bunch of escalators or something?
  • 1 0
 @ferntreekid: just buy a hardtail, spend less and get pushed to ride even better...
  • 3 0
 @WAKIdesigns:
@WAKIdesigns: why play the internet tough guy again? Sometimes you live in a place that's flatter therefore the speeds are lower and you want something that isn't numb at them. Building bigger jumps has nothing to do with that. I've had a habit of trying to rent bikes when I went to strange places on non bike trips and yes sometimes a smaller bike was more fun (if it was a good bike ofc) than a bigger one since the bigger one made the trail too easy and simply rolled down over it like a tank.
  • 1 0
 @spaced: additional to this - sometimes you are in lockdown and making sure you ride well within your limits so you don't end up in the local A&E.
  • 1 1
 @alexhyland: I have crashed a few times few seconds after thinking: "Go big or go home". But I had much bigger consequences from crashes following the thought: "I'll better take it easy". And please it's not like middle aged men take some big risks when riding bikes. Most of us crash because we are clumsy.
  • 2 0
 @SimbaandHiggins: nooo, u need 6 pot brakes... They are coming!
  • 38 3
 Very nice.
Imagining if I put a longer fox 36 on this and maybe overshock it and it would be a rad bike ;-)
  • 15 10
 Reactor 290c Factory- its that spec already Smile
  • 41 1
 @Nukeproofinternational: I kinda feel like that was the joke.
  • 94 0
 @everythingsucks: I have a bad sense of humour and am very gullible
  • 31 0
 @Nukeproofinternational: In that case, I have recently come into a large sum of money but have no way to access it. If you will be so kind as to send me one of your new bikes I will in turn be sending you a check for 250,000 US dollars. Upon receipt of said check you will then cash it, keeping $50,000 US dollars for your troubles and the bike and send the $200,000 US dollars back to me. Please reply so that we can continue this transaction.
  • 41 0
 @cofo11: Almost had me, but you spelt cheque wrong....
  • 8 0
 @Nukeproofinternational: well dang... Frown
  • 1 0
 @Nukeproofinternational: Hey NP, saw this on your blog re this bike "steep seat angle (a steep effective seat angle is nice but steep actual seat angle is more important!)" Could you elaborate on why actual is more important than effective?
  • 4 0
 @ACree: Since @Nukeproofinternational seems to have gone to bed, I'll bite.

If you happen to have an inseam which is exactly what a bike manufacture had in mind when designing a bike then actual seat tube angle might not matter much, however if, for example, you have really long legs for your height, or are close to the max height for a specific bike size, then a bike with a slack actual seat tube angle, will end up having an effective seat tube angle which is much slacker than advertised.

Basically, a slack actual seat tube angle means that the effective seat tube angle will change a lot depending on the rider, so if you're outside of the average for a certain size, it can really mess up what looks like good geometry on paper.
  • 1 0
 @gibspaulding: A reasonable explanation, but I think what they (and possibly you) are really saying is that an effective seat tube angle that is the same as the actual is best, because you have less actual/effective divergence as the seat goes up. Which makes sense as you wrote it, but not at all in their marketing release.

I still like the bike though.
  • 10 0
 I love the effort and I love this style of bike for most of what I ride. That said, Nukeproof missed the mark by at least two pounds. A bike like this should not weigh any more than 26 lbs. Come on bike industry, get back to caring about weight just a little. My sentinel only weighs two pounds more than this thing and it's an XL.
  • 4 0
 Yea, laughed when I saw 28lbs. Agree 26lbs max for a down country bike with Fox 34 and light wheels tires, dropper.
  • 2 0
 Here's at least part of the problem; because we all love to ride carbon bikes, if the industry makes them too light, we break them! Then you get all those people whining and talking shit about either carbon bikes in general, or about how a certain mfg's bikes always break. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want carbon that can take a beating, it will either be heavy or super expensive. I'm just talking about trail and enduro bikes. The XC scene is a whole other animal...
  • 10 2
 Are we not just going full circle here? Isn't this where we started from 4 years ago before long travel/enduro became the norm? Sure is nice looking though!
  • 5 0
 I thought the same.
This Nukeproof Reactor: 66.8°HA / 76.3° ST / 12.7kg (Carbon)
My 2016 Stumpjumper: 67.0°HA / 74.0° ST / 12.9kg (Aluminium)
I think I'll stick with my old Stumpy; it's got the same "racy" geo and only 200g heavier. It's also got 20mm more travel, much burlier tyres, and was £1400 cheaper.
  • 8 0
 @Sasquatchumus: but its unrideable with that ancient 74 deg seattube angle
  • 5 1
 Pretty much where we were 4 years ago. Except now everything is 2 lb heavier with +20mm reach, - 2deg HTA, and +3 degree seat tube angle. So not really where we were 4 years ago...
  • 9 1
 How the hell do you make a 120mm bike with Rekon Races so heavy? Is this thing filled with lead?
  • 4 0
 My 120/140 bike with regular 2.6 Rekons is lighter lol
  • 1 2
 My yeti sb6 weighs the same with fox 36 160 and dpx 2 (dt carbon wheels and schwalbe snakeskin tires).
  • 9 0
 Nice to see some Shimano specd bikes.
  • 3 1
 Definitely! That's why I just bought a Mega Factory build!
  • 3 0
 I completely agree. SRAM drivetrains are not for everyone. It's really nice to see Shimano options.
  • 1 0
 @NWBasser: Finally!
  • 1 0
 @mybaben: I was looking at that bike for my son. The one I saw had full SLX and really looks like a sweet bike.
  • 1 0
 @NWBasser: That is the "Elite" build. It is the burgundy colored one, and it is very sweet! It's a very good build for under $4K US.
  • 9 1
 Super cool bike! Looks better than the Izzo.-
  • 4 0
 Will there be a long travel, over built version call the “Lizzo”?
  • 2 0
 Nice! Very smart build right out of the box. Is how I would set up the Reactor 29c for trail riding if I bought the frame only. Remove some paint to save weight = a bonus. And orange graphics always pop.
  • 2 0
 That is one very nice looking bike, well-spec'd and with smart geometry for downcountry/BCXC/etc riding. A quick check of the currency conversion shows it to be ~$8500CDN. Damn, the loonie sucks now.
  • 3 0
 This would be a rad bike for BC bike race. If you're into that kind of suffering that is.
  • 1 0
 @friendlyfoe: those were my exact first thoughts...awesome for BCBR, but I dont wanna do that.

Dont wanna/can't.
  • 2 0
 At first glance it seems to be a great choice for BCBR but at 28lbs for $8500CDN maybe not.

Rocky Element 70, XT, Fox 34SC Performance, RF alum cranks/wheels, 120f/100r, 26.7lbs, $7150CDN
Rocky Element 90, XTR, Fox 34SC Kashima, RF carbon cranks/wheels, 120f/100r, 25.4lbs, $9400CDN

It sure looks fast though.
  • 1 0
 I'm amazed how this version looks more appealing than the "standard" version in my eye.

Must be the toptube mounted shock I assimilate more with a trail bike and non-piggyback, when BB mounted ones are more "enduro" (in my mind), and need a piggyback or even a cool shock. Don't know why.
  • 1 0
 In Enduro-MTB’s 2020 trail bike shootout the top RS-spec Reactor was 2kg heavier than this. Only complaints were it was heavy for a trail bike, seat angle a little slack and could be more playful. No wonder, the build spec on it straight up belongs on the Mega 290c.
Nukeproof has managed to drop almost 2kg while travel is only reduced 5mm/10mm. Well done. Call it ST, call it lightweight, call it limited edition, it is all 3. If it had been this spec before I likely would have bought one before the new Switchblade came out.
  • 1 0
 @Nukeproofinternational good job this ltd edition looks on point.

Decision for me is 275 or 29 pro? 5ft8 ride a mix of trail, XC all over the UK and bike park wales. Every bike now seems to be a 29nr, I ride for fun and not against the clock. Currently ride a trance 275 with 2.6 rubber up front and 2.35 rear.
  • 2 1
 "a Fox Float DPS replaces the piggyback shock"

That's a huge disappointment. It's not just the piggyback that makes a DPX2 better/different, it's a different damper architecture with different feel and different adjustments.
  • 5 1
 Mmm, downcounty... Can thy do reduced travel Mega for freecountry?
  • 6 5
 This is very silly considering the pairing of Rekon Race tires with a 130/125 mm travel bike without remote lockout. I mean the bike is fine, but the tire choice is very questionable and imo stupid.
  • 4 1
 I am also confused what this bike is for. For example, My local trails are flat-ish and rocky in places, and when I'm riding my 100mm bike hard, I love to use the lockout to get more bb height on gnarly sections where I'm putting down power. The Mcleod I use has far more oil and heat shedding capability than the DPS, but it is still on the edge of what I can use, getting quite hot under constant use. One of the local fit guys uses his 100mm xc bike on these trails, and I've seen his DPS being worked on in the shop. It got so hot it looked like the seals left melted streaks of rubber on the thing. So if this Limited Edition bike is made for pedaling, I would at least expect a lockout. If I purchased this bike, I would change the shock too. It is a good looking machine, I give them that.
  • 5 0
 Why is this being downvoted? Tallboy and Optic are coming with much burlier tires. Rekon Races are hardcore XC race tires.
  • 1 1
 @AvidTrailRider: I think there are a lot of riders who only do big mountain stuff and reflexively hate bar mounted lockouts. And the tires? Because otherwise it would be 29lbs. I bet if you put sealant in them it would be about 30. Then pedals on top of that.
  • 1 0
 @JohanG: Ohh the lockout portion, I understand now.
  • 1 0
 @JohanG: Don't put on lockout. Put on tires like Forecasters, which will be max 100 g heavier per set and the bike will be fine as a whole. It's just that with these tires the bike is very limited almost anywhere even if it's dry. At the very least the tires simply don't brake as well as tires with bigger knobs and that's even on hardpack. All this is considering the suspension capability of the bike. The tires will hold it back.
  • 4 4
 Almost there!, I can't wait for the limited edition 26er version of this ST model, then we'll be exactly where I want to be. This is not sarcasm, I am a grumpy old man trapped in a young/middle age man's body, and I miss the good ol' days.
  • 6 0
 Yeah but would you actually buy one if they made it?
  • 3 4
 @rudymedea: the only 26" bike I will buy is for my 10 year old to ride.
  • 4 2
 @fruitsd79: Yeah 26" wheels are just for little kids. Real men should only ride 27.5 or 29, unless they're on a bmx bike then 20" wheels are for men, or on a dirt jump or slopestyle bike then 26" wheels are for men. But 26" wheels on a trail bike or DH bike is only for little kids. Whenever I think back about a lot of my favorite freeride and DH moments like Kelly McGarry backflipping the canyon gap at rampage I think why was he riding a little kids DH bike?
  • 3 0
 Remember when things used to be the way things used to be? Those were the days.
  • 3 0
 @friendlyfoe: I do. I'll tell ya, reminiscing ain't what it used to be.
  • 2 1
 @robw515: find a good adult trail bike made in the last 5 years with 26" wheels.
I'm not going to buy a 15 year old bike with QR hubs and then go on an all day ride.
Look at the 2010 dh replay video. Do those racers look like they are on the right size bike? Now look at minaar on a 29er v10.
Do you think he wants to ride a 26" ironhorse?
  • 3 0
 I dig the short travel thing. I've tried bigger bikes, but I always come back to a 120-130 rear and a 130-150 front set up.
  • 3 0
 Love the looks and the idea. Big fan of all things Nukeproof (I own a 2017 275 mega pro) - BUT - cmon, this is not cheap.
  • 2 0
 That's why they also sell the comp.
  • 4 5
 I really like the idea of aggro angle short travel easy pedal bike to go along side a ‘big bike’
This needs a -2 degree headset in it for me.
If I’m going to be held back by limited travel, I want to be limited only by short travel, not short travel & geo
  • 4 2
 I think if 135mm isnt enough for your trails and "holding you back" changing headtube angle isnt going to save you.
  • 1 0
 @RonSauce: You might be surprised by what an advanced level racer can do with short travel and modern geo.
  • 2 0
 @friendlyfoe: except this isnt a race bike, so I dont really know how that relates. This might blow your mind, but we aren't all Sam Hill blasting down the alps, we aren't all racers. 135mm isnt a hindrance, that's plenty of travel for most trails, and 66* isnt exactly steep.
You would be amazed at how fast a racer can take a 20 year old bike down a hill.
  • 1 0
 To you original point modern geo makes a way bigger difference in going fast than travel does.
  • 2 0
 @RonSauce: Okay I'm not paying enough attention to the specs. Agreed that 66 degrees is plenty slack for a trail bike. 2 degrees slacker would actually be awful.

Was more responding to your comment than the OP
  • 3 0
 @friendlyfoe: right, but 66* isnt archaic is really my original point. My point is if 135 is too short for where you ride, adding a degree isnt going to change that. Not every bike is for every rider and every trail.
  • 2 0
 28 lbs for that build is kinda surprising. 2-piston brakes, 34mm fork. I guess the alloy wheels aren't helping.
  • 2 0
 12,7 kg is lightweight....then I am not fat or overweight anymore ;-)
  • 3 0
 ooooooooooo weeeeeeee!
  • 2 0
 that is a sick looking bike
  • 2 2
 Calling this a "special edition", are they?
All they have done is put in a travel spacer into the rear shock and fitted a shorter fork. Thats hardly special.
  • 1 1
 "Limited" is the word, not special.
  • 2 1
 @RonSauce: Limited in more ways than one, it seems.
  • 1 0
 Thats relatively heavy for having top of the line CX components sprinkled all over.
  • 1 1
 1 million karma points to the author for not using 'down country' in this article
  • 1 1
 No IZZO comparisons? But seriously, I do love this idea of bike. It looks really sweet.
  • 1 0
 Is there a frame only option?
  • 1 0
 We do sell frame only Reactor's 290c, but this is a limited edition complete model, so no frame only option in this colour.
  • 1 0
 @Nukeproofinternational: how much does an XL frame weigh, with shock?
  • 1 0
 @thegoodflow:
Large 27.5 is 7.5lb if that is any help. Heavy for a carbon frame - but its built for gnar...
  • 1 1
 @Richt2000: thanks, that's good to know. Is that the carbon or Al? I would hope this new "lightweight" edition would be significantly lighter though.
  • 1 0
 @thegoodflow: carbon.

Yea i wonder if this is a different type of carbon or just same frame with a different shock and paint job.
  • 3 1
 @Richt2000: It's the same layup, just minus the paint (but still lacquered) so a tad lighter. W
  • 5 3
 @Nukeproofinternational: ok, so not actually lightweight then? Gotcha
  • 3 3
 @thegoodflow: It's a single layer of carbon weaved over cardboard tubes leftover from Christmas wrap. Happy now?
  • 4 2
 @bishopsmike: not really sure what point you're trying to make. It's a 125/130 carbon bike sold with a DPS and rekon races that has "lightweight" in the name. They don't post the frame weight, ignore a direct question about the frame weight. I don't think it's unreasonable to be surprised or disappointed that it weighs over 7 lbs.
  • 2 1
 @Richt2000: Ok so 3400g for a size L frame. That is basically saying they don't want to even hear about frame breakage warranties lol.
  • 7 0
 @thegoodflow: Honest answer is I can't answer that question. When it arrived we didn't weigh it as a frame only, we got too excited and built it up to try out as soon as it landed (we only had one sample of this)- hence I can only say it weighs 28lbs as it stands now! It's designed as Shorter travel and a little lighter than the "normal Reactor" rather than true XC weight - It's still a Reactor so a mini trail weapon, we know people are still going to want to shred normal trails on it (when we are allowed to again)! sorry, I know it's not ideal!
  • 1 0
 @Nukeproofinternational: ok, fair enough, thanks for the reply!
  • 1 0
 Actually, 7.5lb included the pre-fitted headset. And obviously piggy back shock, rear axle and seat clamp.
  • 2 0
 @Richt2000: perfectly reasonable for a trailbike, but at that weight i'd personally just rather ride an aluminum frame. I think my confusion came from thinking that they actually built a new more xc-oriented frame. In reality, they're just offering it with an xc build kit.
  • 4 4
 @Nukeproofinternational: @Nukeproofinternational: Great looking bike and design. Very clean lines and looks fast even when sitting. I also like the raw carbon look and orange highlights, which really sets it off. For most trails, I think you nailed it with 125mm rear and 130mm front travel. Good job.

I do agree with your remarks that there is nothing wrong with having a Limited Edition bike in your lineup, as I think it's cool to offer one and it makes some people feel special when they have something that is a bit different than others. This same Limited Edition concept is used by car manufacturers all the time and many people make mods and upgrades just so there car does not look like everyone else's on the road, or trail...

However, the one problem I do have is when you market it as a "Limited" Short Travel, "Lightweight Edition" of the Reactor, it should weigh less than 28lbs, especially for this type of bike. I think this build you used (all XT drivetrain, XT brakes, aluminum wheels & cranks, etc) should "NOT" be a "Limited Edition" bike. Just call this your "Short Travel Reactor" with a different paint scheme for the masses. You can then still release your "LIMITED" Short Travel "Lightweight Edition" with that great orange on raw carbon look, but with lightweight carbon wheels (w/matching orange highlights), XX1 or XTR drivetrain, carbon cranks, G2 or XTR brakes, etc. This should then put your bike into the "Lightweight Edition" category (26lbs or less?), although all this would depend on the actual frame weight???
  • 2 1
 @Nukeproofinternational: that colorway is hot.
  • 1 2
 @JohanG: nope. The Nicolai Saturn 14 ST frame weighs 3300grams.

That's a ridiculous weight for a carbon trail frame.
  • 1 0
 This bike looks like a hoot to ride anywhere.
  • 2 1
 Now make a carbon Vitus Mythique/Escarpe
  • 1 0
 Love my Escarpe. Carbon would be rad.
  • 2 0
 @phobospwns: I also have an Escarpe. I asked Vitus if they planned on making it in carbon and unfortunately they do not atm
  • 2 0
 @stumphumper92: Thanks for the feedback, amigo.
  • 2 3
 Looks like a Rocky Instinct, nice. I have that Float dps and if I use the climb switch the rebound backs out.
  • 1 1
 Their Copper range looks sweet, especially if you're running Kashmir!
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.049237
Mobile Version of Website