Trail Bikes - Alloy vs Carbon

[pakora]

Living in western WA will make you realize you're dumb for insisting on riding a rigid singlespeed bike everywhere and finally decide to get a trail bike. I'm very big so it will be a XL 29er, and I like to go up, so it will be more on the XC side of things. (I've ridden a couple enduro and all mountain bikes that are slacker and have more travel and I hated them)

But let's not talk about suspension designs, wheel size and head angles. I think I've decided on a bike, but the question is - alloy or carbon. There are bikes that are identical but for alloy vs carbon frame and wheels. The difference is what seems like a lot of money to me - $1200.

My SS mtb is like 22 pounds. FS bikes that aren't XC race bikes are much heavier. I accept this.

I think my brain is locking on the the fancier spec - Carbon frame, carbon wheels, NX. I kicked the tires at my sponsor shop today and though they only had a large on the floor, they set up the suspension for me to take a spin on the bike path, and I demoed it as best I could - up and down the bits of hill and lumpy grass slope before it leveled out into sidewalk.

Part of my brain wants to get the alloy spec. It will be about a 1lb difference. A 30lb trail bike is the same as a 29lb trail bike or a 31lb trail bike, right? Then I can spend the extra dollars on... Kanza registrations? $1200 carbon wheels? Beer?

If I don't even know how much of a trail bike person I am, better to go for a decent spec and upgrade with the next bike when I know better? Or live by "buy nice or buy twice?"

[Joe Remi]

Hopefully you'll get some recs from the experienced side, but I'll throw in from being kinda where you're at.

Years ago I did a fair amount of singletrack on rigid bikes, but faded out of it before FS took over everything. Since then it's been road only, and recently I got to thinking that one of those newfangled suspension bikes that look like a motorcrosser would be fun to try. I looked at a few and saw all that carbon radness, but I fell on the side of "WOW that's a lot of money for a weight and stiffness/comfort difference you won't notice in the dirt with those big shocks soaking everything up."

So I snagged an alloy double-boinger on sale with what I've read are kinda-entry-level-but-not crap shock and fork. I haven't gotten to the trails yet (it's raining..I need dirt, not mud), but I figure it's good enough to tell me if mountain biking is a thing I want to do again at 56, and I can Craigslist it later for the full zoot carbon wallet drainer if I really get into it.

[nmrt]

All things being equal (components, cockpit etc), the only difference between a carbon trail bike and it alloy counterpart is only 1 lb? Usually, I have seen that the alloy trail bike in a company's line up gets built with lower specced parts. So, for more money ($1200 more) you ought to be getting a carbon frame and better parts. No?

Anyway, only you can answer your question. Do you feel a difference between the carbon specced bike versus the alloy one while trail riding? If no, the answer is simple. But if you do feel a difference between the two, then the answer is complicated. Simply put, is the $1200 difference between the two bikes worth it for you to experience the difference that you perceive between the two bikes.

one thing I find confusing. you mention that you are looking into the xc side of mtb bike. so, is a 30 lb xc bike not heavy by xc standards? or maybe thats how much it really is and i have forgotten about xc mtb weights these days.

anyway, good luck with your decision! i for one, would pick carbon because I always delude myself into thinking that I can always tell the difference between a carbon trail bike and it's alloy counterpart. and that i like the carbon version. :)

[pakora]

Ah, to be sure what I mean is a trail bike for me to be more toward cross country riding, but beyond the limitations of my current bike to ride black diamond trails. I don't mean I want a xc bike - you're definitely right that 30 lbs would be a very heavy xc bike.

Re the specs, many MTB companies offer identical specs for frames of different materials. Santa Cruz does this, say. It's from their site I'm taking the rough difference in weight.

[KonaSS]

Aluminum has come a long way. I would think that yes, the ONLY difference for most bikes between the aluminum and carbon bikes is the weight. Not flex or other characteristics. I wouldn't hesitate to get an aluminum bike if I was comfortable with the weight.

[fa63]

Having ridden both a carbon and aluminum Santa Cruz 5010 with the same specs, I couldn't feel a difference in frame material.

[johnniecakes]

If you have a mishap one will get a dent and still be rideable. The other maybe not.

[Hilltopperny]

I am very impressed with the last two carbon xc bikes I picked up. The first was a trek Superfly 9.8 which weighed around 23lbs and just felt faster and easier to climb on than any other mountain bike I'd ridden to that point.

The second bike which I still have is a trek Procaliber 9.8sl and it weighs a little over a lb less. Although I didn't think it was possible the Procaliber is an even smoother ride than the SF and it is the best riding trail bike I've ever been on.

I feel like the carbon bikes these days are pretty durable. They are built for offroad use after all and I didn't not see many reports of them being broken. All that said I'm sure higher end aluminum is likely to be fine as well. If you have an opportunity to demo one of each then do it! See if the extra weight savings and ride quality are worth it for you.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[NHAero]

I have a carbon FS Pivot that I bought slightly used for half of retail. I wouldn't spend $1,200 if the only difference is 1 pound. Lots of rider here on carbon, none broken.

[CunegoFan]

If you are looking at Santa Cruz then you might consider their carbon C rather than carbon CC. The only real difference is price and weight.

[peanutgallery]

Having ridden many aluminum full suspension bikes and then some carbon for a while I noticed the carbon ride to be a bit more nuanced. Feels more responsive and flexes slightly where it needs too.

Specialized does the comp level stumpjumper in carbon and aluminum with the same build kit. The carbon one isn't cheap, north of $4200.

As far as the weight and style, rode rigid and single 5 years ago and now I'm on basically an enduro bike. I stopped weighing it and I'm never going back because the newer style stuff is so much fun for what I ride. XC geometry for rocks and logs is too busy for me

As far a carbon breaking? I can store my flat kit in my downtube, how cool is that? On a serious note, the only broken one I've seen feel off a rack and got run over by a semi. I've seen nothing full sus/carbon/trail that was broken in action. Light cc carbon? That's another story

[Vientomas]

Having ridden dual susp. aluminum frame bikes only, perhaps my opinion is not fully informed...but, I have always been of the opinion that the frame on a dual suspension bike has but one function - to support the suspension components. It matters not what the frame material is, so long as it it stiff enough to allow the well designed suspension components to function properly. I don't know with certainty, but I assume the suspension was designed around a stiff frame, not a frame with built in flexiness.

Therefore, then, and only then, do weight cost become factors to consider. That being the case, if an aluminum framed bike is not significantly heavier than carbon, is as stiff or stiffer than carbon, but is significantly less expensive...I choose aluminum. My opinion for what it's worth.

[Jaybee]

I would worry about geometry, fit, suspension platform, shock quality, wheels, drivetrain before I started parsing frame material.

[Tony]

"Aluminium is making a comeback"
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/7-things-weve-learned-in-2018.html

[Jcgill]

I was in a similar internal debate last summer looking at hardtail xc bikes....
My debate was to get a carbon frame with lesser components or get the alloy frame with mid tier components for $500 less.

I went with the alloy and am happy with my choice, the only time i second guess my decision is when i stare at the alloy bike hanging in the garage I think how much cleaner the lines would look if it were molded carbon instead.
Once i hit the trail and it rides and shifts great, i no longer question my choice.

[dancinkozmo]

heres another pinkbike article on the environmental impact of crabon vs al alloy

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/aluminum-vs-carbon-separating-environmental-fact-from-fiction-in-the-frame-materials-debate.html

[pakora]

I would worry about geometry, fit, suspension platform, shock quality, wheels, drivetrain before I started parsing frame material.

Agree 100%, and that's how I've worried myself into a single decision point (or actually two if you count the frame material, 4 if you count I'm considering another bike that seems to differ only in brand and paint). This is why I'm buying a bike locally as well instead of an internets - support for all those moving parts. (well, and a team discount at a sponsor shop makes it the same as an internet trail bike :) )

I'm fairly convinced after talking to shop folks and the internets that the Fox OEM fork (Rhythm) is a "real" fork and the primary difference between it and the next spec up (which is another $800 difference) is weight. I'm riding rigid singlespeeds for so long because my experience (as a 220 lb person with a high center of gravity) pre 2012 with forks that weren't for top of the line gravity bikes was they were flexy pogo sticks, but I believe the popularity of trail bikes has pushed that stoutness all the way to OEM spec (for Fox anyway).

Also convinced that like their road stuff I've used at every level and speed, SRAM 12speed is functionally identical independent of (weight) level, so NX is fine. I like Shimano better but it's not popular with trail bike folks these days it seems.

The wheels on all bikes considered seems completely identical except for the rims - OEM hubs (that are probably made by DT), OEM carbon vs alloy rims.

Fit is a crapshoot because zero local shops that carry bikes I'd consider have an XL bike on the floor or have a demo available to them. But fit is much more forgiving on MTBs than road bikes in my experience!

[NHAero]

Thanks for linking that article - it's excellent.
Biggest impact for me personally was that every newly manufactured item has an impact on the planet, so the choice isn't so much aluminum vs. carbon, but what can I choose that will serve me and others after me for the longest time?

heres another pinkbike article on the environmental impact of crabon vs al alloy

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/aluminum-vs-carbon-separating-environmental-fact-from-fiction-in-the-frame-materials-debate.html

[Jaybee]

Agree 100%, and that's how I've worried myself into a single decision point (or actually two if you count the frame material, 4 if you count I'm considering another bike that seems to differ only in brand and paint). This is why I'm buying a bike locally as well instead of an internets - support for all those moving parts. (well, and a team discount at a sponsor shop makes it the same as an internet trail bike :) )

I'm fairly convinced after talking to shop folks and the internets that the Fox OEM fork (Rhythm) is a "real" fork and the primary difference between it and the next spec up (which is another $800 difference) is weight. I'm riding rigid singlespeeds for so long because my experience (as a 220 lb person with a high center of gravity) pre 2012 with forks that weren't for top of the line gravity bikes was they were flexy pogo sticks, but I believe the popularity of trail bikes has pushed that stoutness all the way to OEM spec (for Fox anyway).

Also convinced that like their road stuff I've used at every level and speed, SRAM 12speed is functionally identical independent of (weight) level, so NX is fine. I like Shimano better but it's not popular with trail bike folks these days it seems.

The wheels on all bikes considered seems completely identical except for the rims - OEM hubs (that are probably made by DT), OEM carbon vs alloy rims.

Fit is a crapshoot because zero local shops that carry bikes I'd consider have an XL bike on the floor or have a demo available to them. But fit is much more forgiving on MTBs than road bikes in my experience!

Fox Rhythm 34 or 36 is perfectly fine for a trail bike fork. SRAM Eagle NX and XO1 have been worry free for me over the past year. At that price difference I’d be perfectly happy with a good aluminum frame. What are the specific bikes in question here?

[trener1]

I have demoed a fair amount of full squish MTB's the last couple of years, most of them were carbon as that is usually what the companies bring to the demos, however I did ride one or two aluminum ones, and if the weight dosen't bother you then save your money, sure the carbon one will feel "slightly" better but if you have a bike fully dialed that will make a much bigger difference then the carbon, setting us the suspension properly is what really makes a bike ride well (or ride like crap), if the $1200 is burning a hole in your pocket, a nice wheel set or an upgraded fork will make a much bigger difference.

[pakora]

The bikes in question are the Giant Trance 29 in alloy vs carbon flavors ("Advanced 29er" is the carbon models but same geo).

Spesh Stumpy ST 29 ("Short Travel") is the alternate contender.

I looked at some other close bikes from Yeti, Ibis and Santa Cruz (mostly because they were on sale, but also because my teammates love their Yetis and Ibis', and everyone else loves SC) but everything seems to be either much more travel or much slacker.

[trener1]

Ibis and Yeti make some of the best riding bikes, you owe it to yourself to at least demo them.
Unlike road on the MTB side the numbers are far from the whole story.

[Kirk007]

As a sometimes mountain biker your size in Western Washington might I suggest you consider looking for a good used bike. I recently picked up a ti 29er that was like new and a song off of Pink Bike. I also have a Yeti SB5+ that is sitting here as its more bike than I need for 99% of the trails I ride and I was thinking of moving that along for a smaller travel bike - there were a lot of nice Yeti sb4.5s on Pinkbike for reasonable prices (all things considered) - that definitely caught my eye.

As to alloy vs carbon: my Yeti is carbon and for such a capable bike it's weight (or lack thereof) is pretty amazing. The carbon hoops help on that account as well.

[Jaybee]

The bikes in question are the Giant Trance 29 in alloy vs carbon flavors ("Advanced 29er" is the carbon models but same geo).

Spesh Stumpy ST 29 ("Short Travel") is the alternate contender.

I looked at some other close bikes from Yeti, Ibis and Santa Cruz (mostly because they were on sale, but also because my teammates love their Yetis and Ibis', and everyone else loves SC) but everything seems to be either much more travel or much slacker.

There's nothing wrong with any of the choices you have listed here. I demo'd a bunch of trail bikes this fall, and though there were some I liked more than others, none of the bikes were just bad. The non-ST Stumpy might have been my favorite overall ride, and I didn't find it to pedal any less capably than the ST version. That might be one case where I'd go carbon, just because I think the SWAT box is so cool. Another big plus on the Stumpy is the massive tire clearance.

The Yeti 4.5 might have been the most fun, playful bike of the bunch. A lot of good deals to be had now on Yeti 4.5s, 5.5s since the SB100/130/150 came out. Ultimately I decided against the 4.5 because of the limited rear tire clearance - even a 2.3 with limited knobs is a tight squeeze.

The Trance 29 2 is a solid bike - there's nothing I'd rush to change on the spec for that price, and Maestro is a proven platform. I didn't get a long ride on it, but I thought it was a lively responsive ride - felt bigger than 115 rear travel.

[benb]

I have an ancient Giant NRS XTC whatever the top end was way back in ancient times, it's aluminum, it's from before they started making that frame in Carbon. The newer stuff with Maestro I think they introduced right away with carbon versions.

I doubt any of the newer frames have any issues but I do think stiffness matters, maybe carbon has an advantage there.

The F/S frames are way more vulnerable to too much lateral flex under cornering & hard application of power than fully rigid frames. Maybe only a concern for X/C racing though? All those linkages/bearings/bushings are places flex can be introduced.

I could care less about the weight of my ancient bike but the stiffness in a sprint is pretty bad. If I could detect a big difference in ability to sprint/pedal really hard on a carbon vs aluminum version of a new bike that would be a major decision point for me.

Not sure what my bike weighs but it's well under 30lbs, but then it's a 26er with pretty decent wheels and high end components and it doesn't have much travel. It's lighter than my All City Space Horse I think, so closer to 25lbs.

Not sure I'd be worried about durability of carbon, they don't make mountain bike frames the same way they make < 1000g road frames. Chips in carbon bother me I guess on road bikes, but harder/heavier carbon on MTBs is going to harder to chip.

[Jaybee]

I have an ancient Giant NRS XTC whatever the top end was way back in ancient times, it's aluminum, it's from before they started making that frame in Carbon. The newer stuff with Maestro I think they introduced right away with carbon versions.

I doubt any of the newer frames have any issues but I do think stiffness matters, maybe carbon has an advantage there.

The F/S frames are way more vulnerable to too much lateral flex under cornering & hard application of power than fully rigid frames. Maybe only a concern for X/C racing though? All those linkages/bearings/bushings are places flex can be introduced.

I could care less about the weight of my ancient bike but the stiffness in a sprint is pretty bad. If I could detect a big difference in ability to sprint/pedal really hard on a carbon vs aluminum version of a new bike that would be a major decision point for me.

Not sure what my bike weighs but it's well under 30lbs, but then it's a 26er with pretty decent wheels and high end components and it doesn't have much travel. It's lighter than my All City Space Horse I think, so closer to 25lbs.

Not sure I'd be worried about durability of carbon, they don't make mountain bike frames the same way they make < 1000g road frames. Chips in carbon bother me I guess on road bikes, but harder/heavier carbon on MTBs is going to harder to chip.

Lateral flex is a legit concern when you have bolts and bearings holding the rear triangle to the front. I haven't noticed it on any modern aluminum bikes save the Trek Full Stache, but that's a different animal - elevated chainstay is probably the issue there.

[benb]

Yah if you observed it on the Trek Full Stache (which particular model?) I guess it's still a real thing?

Maybe for a lot of these bikes the target crowd just isn't into pedaling hard anymore but at the prices a lot of these bikes go for it would be pretty unacceptable to me. I do know at least in my area the majority of people I run into in the woods ride really differently than I do. Mostly I see people wearing some armor, pretty leisurely uphill, lots of breaks to talk, lots of setup and riding really hard/fast downhill or through the downhill technical areas. I tend to ride continuously without breaks just like on the road and ride harder uphill and slower/more cautiously downhill than most.

I'm not sure I would haven ended up on my NRS if it wasn't for the fact I bought a frame.. never got to ride it. By upgrading the frame I avoided a giant (pun intended) expenditure at the time. I got it based on advice from a fitter just like I have bought road bikes as a frame.. so didn't get to ride it till it was too late. He got the rider/bike interface dead on though so I've put up with the flex for a long long time obviously. The longest I've owned any bike so it's a success. But it has enough flex I can make the chain rub in the top gears when pedaling hard. Never had a PM on it but my guess is it can't take more than 350w without rub. And the flexibility seemed to have shifting issues too, but I was able to address that with careful setup.

If I replace my MTB it's going to have to be something I can test ride to make sure it doesn't have these kind of issues. It's going to be really hard to drop the kind of cash all these MTBs cost now though as it's never been 50% of my riding even.

[pakora]

all the reviews of the 4.5 talked about the suspension being underwhelming for a trailbike - I really want that to be the bike for me because a top of the line spec on the lightest Yeti trailbike for <5k is attractive.

When I look on Pinkbike though, I see a lot of older bikes for thousands of dollars - not what I'm willing to commit to as someone who knows nothing about modern forks and has never dealt with a shock or linkages.

My teammates also recommended used on Pinkbike, but I'm leaning much more toward brand new in a shop.

(The only used MTB I have purchased basically fell apart as I used it - I sold the fork here as a fixer upper after the wheels blew up and the frame broke (steel!). That bike was just very bad luck and a poor choice but that super cheap trail hardtail became very expensive when I repaired the frame, then replaced the wheels, then replaced the frame, then replaced the fork!

[Jaybee]

There's only one model of Full Stache:

https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/04/Milner_FullStache20-630x420.jpg

Under really hard cornering (not pedaling), you can sometimes get the rear tire to rub a seatstay. Understand that this is a chubby 3" tire on a big wheel with that funky rear triangle design. Still a super fun bike, and I almost bought one. I have a feeling that a carbon rear triangle might solve the issue, or maybe its the wheel and not the triangle.

In a modern trail bike of any material, it's going to be really hard to detect pedal flex. The tubes, alu or carbon, have massive cross sections and shaping, and the pedal platforms are just so good now. The days of bobbing around like an ocean buoy just because you get out of the saddle are over for most platforms, even if you aren't using your climb switch. Sure, some platforms (Trek, FSR) like to sit a little lower in the travel under hard efforts and some (Switch Infinity, SC VPP) are a little more stiff, but these are just degrees on the preferred plushness spectrum.

IME, a FS trail bike today is a totally different animal than something even 8-10 years old. Worth a try - they are a crapload of fun.

[Jaybee]

all the reviews of the 4.5 talked about the suspension being underwhelming for a trailbike - I really want that to be the bike for me because a top of the line spec on the lightest Yeti trailbike for <5k is attractive.

When I look on Pinkbike though, I see a lot of older bikes for thousands of dollars - not what I'm willing to commit to as someone who knows nothing about modern forks and has never dealt with a shock or linkages.

My teammates also recommended used on Pinkbike, but I'm leaning much more toward brand new in a shop.

(The only used MTB I have purchased basically fell apart as I used it - I sold the fork here as a fixer upper after the wheels blew up and the frame broke (steel!). That bike was just very bad luck and a poor choice but that super cheap trail hardtail became very expensive when I repaired the frame, then replaced the wheels, then replaced the frame, then replaced the fork!

The 4.5 can get in over its head pretty quickly with extended big hits. Probably because the fork is so much bigger than the rear. More than other FS bikes, it kind of rewards riding it like a hardtail with a plush rear end, rather than just sitting a plowing over stuff. By this I mean that you can get good pop from out-of-saddle pedaling efforts, and also that the best way to handle tech is to get behind the saddle and let the (really nice) fork do the work.

I'd stay away from used for this particular purchase. Trail bikes are meant to be thrashed, and you want to know what you are looking at before you commit. Also, most companies have pretty solid warranties, and you want that as well. For the frame and for the components.

[Tony]

Yah if you observed it on the Trek Full Stache (which particular model?) I guess it's still a real thing?

Maybe for a lot of these bikes the target crowd just isn't into pedaling hard anymore but at the prices a lot of these bikes go for it would be pretty unacceptable to me. I do know at least in my area the majority of people I run into in the woods ride really differently than I do. Mostly I see people wearing some armor, pretty leisurely uphill, lots of breaks to talk, lots of setup and riding really hard/fast downhill or through the downhill technical areas. I tend to ride continuously without breaks just like on the road and ride harder uphill and slower/more cautiously downhill than most.

I'm not sure I would haven ended up on my NRS if it wasn't for the fact I bought a frame.. never got to ride it. By upgrading the frame I avoided a giant (pun intended) expenditure at the time. I got it based on advice from a fitter just like I have bought road bikes as a frame.. so didn't get to ride it till it was too late. He got the rider/bike interface dead on though so I've put up with the flex for a long long time obviously. The longest I've owned any bike so it's a success. But it has enough flex I can make the chain rub in the top gears when pedaling hard. Never had a PM on it but my guess is it can't take more than 350w without rub. And the flexibility seemed to have shifting issues too, but I was able to address that with careful setup.

If I replace my MTB it's going to have to be something I can test ride to make sure it doesn't have these kind of issues. It's going to be really hard to drop the kind of cash all these MTBs cost now though as it's never been 50% of my riding even.

The group of folks you described (outside of lots of breaks and setup) can ride very hard, just different then xc riding. Going "hard/fast downhill" is like a sprint in many ways. Throw in jumps and technical sections and your have a full body workout. Then there are the climbs out that can be competitive. Here's a video I shared recently of a flowy down hill section in Nevada City. It's not technical, has many jumps.
Trails like this will give riders more of a work out than xc alone.
On this day the trail was frozen, a rider has already gone down so my group is taking it easy and not hitting the big jumps. I'm in the back, orange helmet. Rider filming is using a 360 camera
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bK7xR8qIBo&t=97s

Op, you may want to look at direct purchase from the likes of YT and Canyon.

[NHAero]

Weighing in on the new vs. used question here:
with the caveat that I don't ride my bike hard, and I'm under 150 pounds - I bought my Pivot 429C off Pinkbike a bit over three years ago with top of the line equipment. It was a bike that cost $6K new, I paid $3K. It was on consignment at the shop that sold it. My experience with high end MTBs (maybe high end bikes in general, but it matters more in MTB world) is that these bikes are either thrashed because they have been really ridden by hard chargers, or, they have hardly been ridden - they were bought by someone who has the wallet but not the commitment. I called the consignment shop and asked what needed to be rebuilt or replaced on the 429, and they said, this bike has hardly been ridden. When it showed up, that was evident.
So the deals are out there. In many cases it's partially because of new tech (slacker HAs, accepts Plus tires, Boost fit) but maybe that doesn't matter to the used market buyer. For my riding, I don't want the slacker HA, and I don't need Plus tires.
Many years ago I bought a year old Klein Pulse II. It had been ridden hard and I had to rebuild and replace. But I paid appropriately for the bike. Still have it BTW, set up for winter with Nokian Freddy's Revenge studded tires.

[Tony]

Weighing in on the new vs. used question here:
with the caveat that I don't ride my bike hard, and I'm under 150 pounds - I bought my Pivot 429C off Pinkbike a bit over three years ago with top of the line equipment. It was a bike that cost $6K new, I paid $3K. It was on consignment at the shop that sold it. My experience with high end MTBs (maybe high end bikes in general, but it matters more in MTB world) is that these bikes are either thrashed because they have been really ridden by hard chargers, or, they have hardly been ridden - they were bought by someone who has the wallet but not the commitment. I called the consignment shop and asked what needed to be rebuilt or replaced on the 429, and they said, this bike has hardly been ridden. When it showed up, that was evident.
So the deals are out there. In many cases it's partially because of new tech (slacker HAs, accepts Plus tires, Boost fit) but maybe that doesn't matter to the used market buyer. For my riding, I don't want the slacker HA, and I don't need Plus tires.
Many years ago I bought a year old Klein Pulse II. It had been ridden hard and I had to rebuild and replace. But I paid appropriately for the bike. Still have it BTW, set up for winter with Nokian Freddy's Revenge studded tires.

Agree. Many folks buy a mtb and use it lightly, some six months (including myself) before moving on to the next greatest mtb.

[pakora]

Ok, so I've fretted and googled and read way too many waste of time/rewrite the press release type things about these bikes and carbon vs alloy. I think I've settled on this:

Because I've broken plenty of alloy wheels and I'm sold on carbon ones, I'll definitely want to upgrade the alloy wheels on the alloy bike immediately.

If I'm going to do that, I may as well go for the stock carbon wheels (which I believe are DT ratchet hubs plus their own rims) and then get the carbon frame "for free" in the sense that the upgrade is the same price as I'd end up paying for quality wheels.

[TMD]

Alloy isn't $1200 worse per pound than carbon,
Alloy all day

[dancinkozmo]

NSMB did an excellent test where they evaluated two virtually identical knolly wardens, one carbon one alloy back to back....

https://nsmb.com/articles/duelling-knolly-wardens-final-verdicts/

[pakora]

Excellent article. I've changed my mind for the umpteenth time.

It's especially interesting to me that all three of them said one is a touch stiffer (in a bad way) and one gives more vibration/chatter (in a bad way) but perfectly distributed between the three people they said it about both bikes:

reviewer 1: vibration/chatter - same, stiffness - carbon stiffer (not better)
reviewer 2: vibration/chatter - carbon worse, stiffness - al stiffer (not better)
reviewer 3: vibration/chatter - carbon worse, stiffness - carbon stiffer (not better)

The second person uses "refined" to describe why carbon is better and the third uses "rocketship" to mean light in a positive sense and why given the two he'd definitely take the carbon bike on a longer ride (because he believes that .9lbs matters significantly, and stresses that he understands what "belief" means by saying he could just lose 400 grams of rider weight for the same effect).

That's enough trail science to me to conclude that at least for mountain bikes 100% of anyone measuring anything without a scale or a spreadsheet is measuring feelings.

And feelings are important. The latter two all but scream it!

But I'm tryna buy a bike here.

[trener1]

I read that article, I found it very interesting.
Not sure if you read the comments section, but here is one that jumped out

Support your local bike shop; don't just buy something off the internet based on reviews - they're inherently subjective and we're all human with different perceptions of the world around us.

Go test and demo bikes to find out what works for YOU. Use reviews to guide and augment your decisions.

I have to say that I agree, as roadies we love to look at the angles and spec sheets and for road bikes it mostly works, and you can pretty much buy a good road bike just by reading the specs.

However Mountain bikes are way different, I have gone to lots of Demo days and demoed a whole host of bikes (MTB) and I can tell you that the difference between them (to me) was very noticeable, some I loved and some just didn't feel good to me (for how I ride), so what I am trying to say is that buying a MTB is very different that a road bike.
Personally I ended up with a carbon bike, but only because a LBS had a floor model on clearance for the same price as an alloy one.

[fmradio516]

im going through a similar deal now. Leaning towards YT industries(jeffsy) at the moment but that could change 6 times today.

[Tony]

I have the JEFFSY 27 CF Pro Race, excellent bike! A lot of bike for the money.

[pakora]

I'm a bit afraid that for folks that haven't ridden many bikes on the same trails the "demo them all and find out what works for you" argument is the same as the roadie, "well a free basic fitting comes with bikes in a shop so you should get the one that fits."

I mean in the sense that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference in what I wanted/needed/valued in an advanced trail bike in 30 minutes on a demo day. Just like knowing what "fits" means is basically impossible unless you are already dialed on a bike for a similar purpose.

It would create lots of feelings though.

Like the ones I've created by saying the bike I threw a leg over (which comes in red, my favorite color, and the best color for bikes) is a better value because I want carbon wheels for strength and weight (despite owning and currently riding old Stan's Flows with Hope hubs, which are lighter and are proven to withstand 5 years of my abuse).

[fmradio516]

I have the JEFFSY 27 CF Pro Race, excellent bike! A lot of bike for the money.

Id probably go for the CF 29er model but its out of stock until May. I am going to MOAB at the end of May so I need some time in the mtn saddle before then.

[Jaybee]

Demo days are fun, but you are correct that there is a minimum baseline of knowledge "this is what I want a MTB to feel like, and i think this is why this bike does/does not feel the way I want". That said, even a 30 minute ride on actual dirt that you might actually ride that bike on later is orders of magnitude better for getting a feel than doing a few curb drops in the parking lot. It's not the same a weekend demo where you get to take the bike to 3 or 4 trails that you'll commonly be using it on, but still way better than the parking lot.

Almost every bike is good these days. GLW your choice.

[Mark McM]

That's enough trail science to me to conclude that at least for mountain bikes 100% of anyone measuring anything without a scale or a spreadsheet is measuring feelings.

Rather than saying that this test measured "feelings", I'd use the verbage from the article itself, which calls them "impressions". Well controlled studies in a variety of areas (including bicycles) has shown that peoples impressions are greatly influenced by often subconscious expectations.

[mtechnica]

Look at the tallboy it’s a shorter travel FS that’s still pretty capable.

[93KgBike]

Demo days are fun, but you are correct that there is a minimum baseline of knowledge "this is what I want a MTB to feel like, and i think this is why this bike does/does not feel the way I want". That said, even a 30 minute ride on actual dirt that you might actually ride that bike on later is orders of magnitude better for getting a feel than doing a few curb drops in the parking lot. It's not the same a weekend demo where you get to take the bike to 3 or 4 trails that you'll commonly be using it on, but still way better than the parking lot.

Almost every bike is good these days. GLW your choice.

Wisdom.

[scopes]

In my experience the best value has been alloy with carbon contact points (cranks, bars) and wheels.

My previous mountain bike was a '14 Enduro Expert with aluminum rims, riding my friend's aluminum Enduro with carbon rims was a very interesting comparison.

The aluminum with carbon wheels felt lighter on the trail due to lower rotational weight and felt like it accelerated faster (both 29ers) - despite both bikes being within 1lb of each other.

It could be different with a more traditional trail bike (130-140mm rear travel vs 155mm of the Enduro).

A good friend of mine who is a larger rider (6'4, 250lbs) has broken countless carbon frames and aluminum wheels. Last year he switched to an aluminum frame with carbon wheels and is convinced that is the best solution.

Echoing what others have said, at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference.

[trener1]

Just to confuse you some more
I would say have a serious look at the Rocky Mountain Thunderbolt, it is supposed to be a great bike and you can get the alloy version for as low as $2600, and move up the price point from there.
http://www.bikes.com/en/bikes/thunderbolt/2019

[Jdg68]

I feel like you can build a sturdy yet light bike with alloy with a new or used frame. Fewer cracking/warranty issues especially riding in rocky terrain.
I had a Salsa Horsethief built with an alloy frame, I9 wheels and generally nice parts for much cheaper than anything out of the box. Frame is about a pound heavier than the carbon versions which seem to have some cracking issues.
Good value per $$.

[zmalwo]

get a cheap Ti bike you will be set for life.

[Clean39T]

https://www.jensonusa.com/Kona-Process-134-Supreme-Bike-2016

For FMRadio...

Seems like a great trail bike for the price.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[fmradio516]

https://www.jensonusa.com/Kona-Process-134-Supreme-Bike-2016

For FMRadio...

Seems like a great trail bike for the price.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Thanks Dan, I saw that but was looking for a 29er specifically. I pulled the trigger this morning on the YT Jeffsy Aluminum. Was about to do it last night but then went to check out and saw the $100 shipping fee and the proprietary $50 water bottle cage. I went for it this AM. Still cheaper than anything else..

[BikeNY]

get a cheap Ti bike you will be set for life.

Nope!

First, cheap and Ti don't go well together. Second, Trail Bike means full suspension, and that means aluminum or carbon. Titanium is not a good material choice for a full suspension trail bike. Neither is steel. For a FS frame, stiffness is what you want. To get that stiffness in steel or Ti takes a lot of material which equals lots of weight.

For a FS trail bike I would pick aluminum over carbon and spend the difference on a really nice set of wheels. The aluminum frame will be a touch heavier, but will stand up to crashes and drops better than carbon.

If we were talking about a hardtail XC bike you would have a valid point.

[Clean39T]

Thanks Dan, I saw that but was looking for a 29er specifically. I pulled the trigger this morning on the YT Jeffsy Aluminum. Was about to do it last night but then went to check out and saw the $100 shipping fee and the proprietary $50 water bottle cage. I went for it this AM. Still cheaper than anything else..

Congrats on the Jeffsy!

Did you do much research on the Kona? Seems like a great bike for the price...

[fmradio516]

Congrats on the Jeffsy!

Did you do much research on the Kona? Seems like a great bike for the price...

Yeah that is a sweet bike even just for the parts on it. Anyone looking for a 27.5 should go for that for sure. I was close to it, but would be silly as I just sold a perfectly good Giant trail bike only because i wanted to go to 29...

[trener1]

Those Kona's are great, my friend has one like that and loves it, I demoed one and though that it was fantastic.

[duff_duffy]

Amen!

get a cheap Ti bike you will be set for life.

[Tony]

Thanks Dan, I saw that but was looking for a 29er specifically. I pulled the trigger this morning on the YT Jeffsy Aluminum. Was about to do it last night but then went to check out and saw the $100 shipping fee and the proprietary $50 water bottle cage. I went for it this AM. Still cheaper than anything else..

Congrats! I have a friend who has the 2018 YT Jeffsy Aluminum 29er, believe the geometry is the same for 2019 in the Aluminum only, it's a great bike! A lot of bang for the buck.

[pakora]

Amen!

Don't have to convince me that ti hardtail is a good thing - that's what I'm already riding! (Kona Raijin).

But year trail meaning full suspension.

[PJN]

I have an aluminum Transition Patrol.

I'm not a full fledged enduro-bro (yet) and have a heavy road background and raced/rode some XC in the early to mid 00s.

The new bikes are so insanely good and really really fun.

The patrol rides really well downhill and pedals surprisingly well uphill. I've done quite a few 30+ mile rides with 5k ft climbing and descending and never wished I was on a different bike.

I went aluminum for cost and durability. Carbon wheels are really nice though.

[pakora]

relevant

https://i.imgur.com/AATQFDM.jpg?1

I went carbon because ???

Really I considered that I did want carbon wheels (and couldn't use any of my current wheels because Boost) and that what I would pay for a nice set of those was basically the cost of going for this model with a carbon frame as well.

Plus the red is really, really hot. I love red bikes and I've never had one. And this is really red!

[Jaybee]

Trance Advanced 29, right? Looks hot, shred the hell out of it!

[velotrack]

so just out of curiosity i was looking at the santa cruz 5010 c (base level carbon) versus the alloy with the same part spec, and the alu comes out to about 2.5 pounds more. does that sound right? not even the higher mod carbon, at that. seems like a huge weight difference as opposed to a carbon vs good alloy road frame, which might be around a pound if not just a touch more.

normal or am i crazy?

[tele]

so just out of curiosity i was looking at the santa cruz 5010 c (base level carbon) versus the alloy with the same part spec, and the alu comes out to about 2.5 pounds more. does that sound right? not even the higher mod carbon, at that. seems like a huge weight difference as opposed to a carbon vs good alloy road frame, which might be around a pound if not just a touch more.

normal or am i crazy?

My 5010c is about 2 pounds lighter than the alloy model, if you can even find an alloy model...not many that I could find in my area or even used.

[Jaybee]

SC Tallboy is about a 1.7 lbs. diff between the alu frame and the carbon C model, so 2-2.5 lbs for the 5010 doesn't seem crazy. Santa Cruz offers some seriously burly frames on their trail bikes.

My guess is that you might notice this difference picking the bike up, and wouldn't notice it on the trail.