Age old questions

Viewing 22 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #93130

      I’m new to XC racing. I’m riding a hardtail 26" Kona shred now and I’m getting ready to buy a new bike geared toward XC and racing. I was leaning toward a 29" full suspinsion. I don’t have access to be able to test ride bikes so I really don’t know what I would like best. Some of the expert racers are telling me to go with a light 29" hardtail. Other guys are saying that 29 ers are worthless and I should stay with a 26". Some guys are telling me that full suspension is the only way to go and others are saying they are two hard to climb with and it would slow me down to much. I’m 6’1" and 190lb. and my hardtail now beats me to death on our local trails. HELP!

    • #93131

      Well maybe some of us can help you. First off I would go with a 26 full suspension. Like a giant anthem x1. Aluminium, light, fast, steeper head tube angle for better climbing. Full suspension isn’t that bad on climbs. Acctually, an adjusted rear shock can keep your tire on the ground better than a hardtail. This equals more constant traction. If you are worried about climbing, I wouldn’t suggest a 29’er. The wheels are a little more sluggish compare to the 26 inch wheels. I would go aluminium frame because it requires less mantainence than the carbon frames.

      Also, where do you live and ride? People may let you try out their bikes.

    • #93132

      I live and ride in WV. Most of our trails our fairly steep. Usually they have a lot of climbs and DH sections. Usually some pretty good technical sections also.

    • #93133
      "dozzerboy" wrote

      Well maybe some of us can help you. First off I would go with a 26 full suspension. Like a giant anthem x1. Aluminium, light, fast, steeper head tube angle for better climbing. Full suspension isn’t that bad on climbs. Acctually, an adjusted rear shock can keep your tire on the ground better than a hardtail. This equals more constant traction. If you are worried about climbing, I wouldn’t suggest a 29’er. The wheels are a little more sluggish compare to the 26 inch wheels. I would go aluminium frame because it requires less mantainence than the carbon frames.

      Also, where do you live and ride? People may let you try out their bikes.

      How exactly does carbon require more maintenance? And I disagree. I think that XC racing &etc. is the best application of 29er wheels, and that the quickness and flickableness offered by 26" wheels would be more of a benefit for all mountain/ freeride type riding.

      To the OP, I would do whatever you could to actually test ride some bikes. Dozzerboy did make one good point that a correctly adjusted FS bike will actually increase traction on the climbs. Of course, you don’t want TOO much suspension for straight XC racing.

    • #93134

      Well at blankets creek, I rode Van Michael on a garyfisher hifi pro. The VM trail is straight up and straight down. I liked the 29’er wheels on the downhill but found the quite annoying on the uphills. Might have been just me but I liked the feel of the 26 inch wheels. Might be because I am 5′-4". 😆

    • #93135
      "dozzerboy" wrote

      Well at blankets creek, I rode Van Michael on a garyfisher hifi pro. The VM trail is straight up and straight down. I liked the 29’er wheels on the downhill but found the quite annoying on the uphills. Might have been just me but I liked the feel of the 26 inch wheels. Might be because I am 5′-4". 😆

      I’ve talked to people that say height definitely does make a difference! some of the more fanatical 29er guys I know are like 6′ 5" ish

      Still curious to hear how carbon frames require more maintenance though…

    • #93136

      I took a Gary Fisher Rumblefish 29’er for a demo ride the other night. It was decent for climbing and I was intrigued. Before making a purchase, however, there are several other 29’ers I would need to try:
      Giant Anthem X
      Salsa Big Mama
      Lenzsport Leviathan
      Niner Rip 9

    • #93137
      "Goo" wrote

      Still curious to hear how carbon frames require more maintenance though…

      Frame cracks are more prone to happening. When a rock might just bounce off aluminium, it could crack carbon. They both are malleable to a point but carbon will crack before aluminium will. Also, carbon gets more brittle as it gets older. Aluminium will also survive a crash of greater magnitude than a carbon frame will. I don’t know about you but I don’t want my frame to split on me during a rock section on a XC downhill. 😮

      I guess what I’m trying to say Goo, is that carbon is more prone to breaking than aluminium, and need to be inspected more often….

    • #93138
      "dozzerboy" wrote

      [quote="Goo":36wckq5j]

      Still curious to hear how carbon frames require more maintenance though…

      Frame cracks are more prone to happening. When a rock might just bounce off aluminium, it could crack carbon. They both are malleable to a point but carbon will crack before aluminium will. Also, carbon gets more brittle as it gets older. Aluminium will also survive a crash of greater magnitude than a carbon frame will. I don’t know about you but I don’t want my frame to split on me during a rock section on a XC downhill. 😮

      I guess what I’m trying to say Goo, is that carbon is more prone to breaking than aluminium, and need to be inspected more often….[/quote:36wckq5j]
      It’d take a pretty horrible crash to do that to a frame, and if you don’t take any horrendous crashes such as those you should be fine. Carbon is strong! It does tend to shred once compromised, though. But still, I don’t think it takes more maintenance.

      I feel like element22 expounded on this somewhere here on the boards and the standing falacies of carbon’s supposed weakness

    • #93139
      "dozzerboy" wrote

      [quote="Goo":3n1l2asr]

      Still curious to hear how carbon frames require more maintenance though…

      Frame cracks are more prone to happening. When a rock might just bounce off aluminium, it could crack carbon. They both are malleable to a point but carbon will crack before aluminium will. Also, carbon gets more brittle as it gets older. Aluminium will also survive a crash of greater magnitude than a carbon frame will. I don’t know about you but I don’t want my frame to split on me during a rock section on a XC downhill. 😮

      I guess what I’m trying to say Goo, is that carbon is more prone to breaking than aluminium, and need to be inspected more often….[/quote:3n1l2asr]

      A lot of people think that dozzerboy, but they’re wrong, on all accounts. Carbon does not fatigue (aka becoming more brittle over time), aluminum does. (and fatiuge is caused by repeated pressure/loads/forces, not just ‘time’). The aluminum used for bike frames is generally not very malleable at all, it’s made to be STIFF, which also makes it more brittle.

      Carbon can be whatever the designer wants it to be. It can be crazy crazy stiff, or it can be flexible, like Cannondale’s Scalple (sp?) FS bike. The frame has no pivots, the carbon chainstays flex, but only in one direction. That’s the beauty of carbon, depending on how it’s laid up, it can do all sorts of things.

      Modern carbon mtn bikes are strong. Only ones I hear about breaking are Gary Fishers, but even their aluminum bikes break all the time, so they don’t set a good precedence for everyone else. Look at Santa Cruz, their carbon bikes are stronger and stiffer in every way than the aluminum versions. And they’re lighter.

    • #93140
      "dozzerboy" wrote

      I would go aluminium frame because it requires less mantainence than the carbon frames.

      Maybe he means this carbon frame:
      Image

    • #93141
      "dgaddis" wrote

      [quote="dozzerboy":25nkcqhh][quote="Goo":25nkcqhh]

      Still curious to hear how carbon frames require more maintenance though…

      Frame cracks are more prone to happening. When a rock might just bounce off aluminium, it could crack carbon. They both are malleable to a point but carbon will crack before aluminium will. Also, carbon gets more brittle as it gets older. Aluminium will also survive a crash of greater magnitude than a carbon frame will. I don’t know about you but I don’t want my frame to split on me during a rock section on a XC downhill. 😮

      I guess what I’m trying to say Goo, is that carbon is more prone to breaking than aluminium, and need to be inspected more often….[/quote:25nkcqhh]

      A lot of people think that dozzerboy, but they’re wrong, on all accounts. Carbon does not fatigue (aka becoming more brittle over time), aluminum does. (and fatiuge is caused by repeated pressure/loads/forces, not just ‘time’). The aluminum used for bike frames is generally not very malleable at all, it’s made to be STIFF, which also makes it more brittle.

      Carbon can be whatever the designer wants it to be. It can be crazy crazy stiff, or it can be flexible, like Cannondale’s Scalple (sp?) FS bike. The frame has no pivots, the carbon chainstays flex, but only in one direction. That’s the beauty of carbon, depending on how it’s laid up, it can do all sorts of things.

      Modern carbon mtn bikes are strong. Only ones I hear about breaking are Gary Fishers, but even their aluminum bikes break all the time, so they don’t set a good precedence for everyone else. Look at Santa Cruz, their carbon bikes are stronger and stiffer in every way than the aluminum versions. And they’re lighter.[/quote:25nkcqhh]

      Guess I’m just old school with my thoughts. 😎

      Thanks for the enlightenment.

    • #93142
      "maddslacker" wrote

      [quote="dozzerboy":33cgzjj4]I would go aluminium frame because it requires less mantainence than the carbon frames.

      Maybe he means this carbon frame:
      Image[/quote:33cgzjj4]

      Exactly! 😉

    • #93143

      I actually saw one of those at 24 Hours of Moab. All $12,000 worth, slogging through the dust. And the dude riding it was no where near as fast as the #1 team riders on Trek Top Fuels, or the #3 team on hand built Waltworks steel frames…

    • #93144

      If you want to race seriously you need to decide, if you do, you want the lightest thing you can afford.

      Carbon is crazy strong when engineered correctly, several companies make carbon DH bikes.

      I don’t know why people have this perception that Aluminum is stronger than Carbon. There’s no welds on a carbon bike so there are no weak spots! Think about when an Aluminum bike gets a dent a carbon bike absorbs the same impact, like plastic doors on cars.

      If you get a Scott or similar brand, you can completely lockout the suspension for climbs, smooth sections, and sprinting for that podium spot.

      Personally FS 29ers are huge bikes, and a lot heavier. If you get a 29er don’t go FS especially for racing.

      Look at the pros, they pretty much all ride carbon 26 HT or FS depending on the terrain.

    • #93145

      They weren’t fast because of the bikes, they were fast because of the motor 😼

      I think we’ve all passed people riding much more expensive bikes than our own.

      And if you’ve got an expensive bike, you’ve also been passed by someone on a much cheaper one!

      And yeah, that bike pictured above, that’s an exercise in material science. Obviously not a good choice for mtn biking simply because it could fill with mud lol.

      If you’re still not a believer in carbon, do some research on Edge carbon fiber rims. XC light, DH tough and stiff. Edge is now known as Enve, but that just recently changed. Yeah, they’re crazy expensive, but they show what the material can do.

      EDIT – as far as pros, lots more are getting onto 29ers, HT and FS. Now that they’re legal to race in Europe, you’ll see even more. Specialized has a FS 29er that weighs less than 22lbs IIRC.

    • #93146

      So a light FS bike is for sure. Do you guys recomend 29 or 26 and how much travel in the suspension?

    • #93147
      "drop_off" wrote

      So a light FS bike is for sure. Do you guys recomend 29 or 26 and how much travel in the suspension?

      Not very much, only a couple-3 inches.

    • #93148
      "drop_off" wrote

      So a light FS bike is for sure. Do you guys recomend 29 or 26 and how much travel in the suspension?

      Sorry I set everyone off with the carbon thing…. 😆

      Most XC race bikes have 3-4 inches of travel. Or 80-100mm. Most full suspensions have 100mm front and rear.

    • #93149

      Hard Tails are lighter and Full Suspension is heavier. Full Suspension is easier on your butt and is faster going down hill(ever seen a Hard Tail DH bike?) in most cases. If the rear isn’t set up correctly you look like a monkee humping a football when climbing. I get passed by both kind of bikes because I’m old, fat and slow but I like the control and climbing ability of a Hard Tail. When I’m laying on the ground I’m sure it’s because I’ve got no rear suspension but when I clean a big climb I know my Hard Tail did it. It’s your choice, so MAKE IT! 😎 Later,

    • #93150
      "fat_billy" wrote

      I like the control and climbing ability of a Hard Tail. When I’m laying on the ground I’m sure it’s because I’ve got no rear suspension but when I clean a big climb I know my Hard Tail did it. It’s your choice, so MAKE IT! 😎 Later,

      Actually, a properly set up rear suspension helps keep your back tire stuck to the ground on climbs, especially if the terrain is rough.

    • #93151

      In all honesty I have been away from Bikes for a while. Have ridden a few (too few) of the newer bikes and they are better than the old days, no question. I like my Hardtail because I can count on it to be consistant and no bad habits. I rode a Trek OCLV hardtail for a couple of years and grew fond of the light weight. Once I rode a Titainium bike I was addicted, feel of steel and weight of Carbon Fibre(almost). My Serotta was built 12 years ago and still sports V Brakes. Old guy old bike, what can I say? Getting back in shape AGAIN and still love the Mountain Bikes. Guess I was born a rigid guy and it make for a great excuse when the full suspension bikes fly by. 😄 Later,

    • #93152

      My first exposure to 29ers (both hardtail and fully) – and full suspension to be truthful – was in WV. No issues at all with a 29er full suspension on the climbs. Like said before, it your rear suspension is set up right, you’ll be all set. To be honest, I was totally surprised that there wasn’t some huge pedal bob when climbing with the full suspension. Did Big Bear and most of the guys I was riding with were all on 29ers. Just recently went out and got a full suspension 29er cause I loved it so much down there. I also test rode a Fuel ex8 (which previously had been my focus) and I felt like a midget on a tricycle after riding the HiFi. Bottom line, ride what fits you. I know you said you don’t have much chance for test riding bikes… maybe you can find some locals on here that will give you a shot on their rig?? I would def try out a 29er (with full suspension or hardtail) before deciding on your next bike.

Viewing 22 reply threads

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.