[Closed] alpine vs 5am vs 5 pro+

You can't forget, they'r different bikes.

5am for biggish stuff, alpine for bigger stuff.

The way I think of it is,

Alpine - heavy with big travel all round and reasonable kits

5 am - lighter, big travel up front med out back with lower end kit.

5 pro with 36 talas - lighter still, variable big travel up front med in the rear and good all round kit.

All imo.

5am always looked the better value of the oranges

Forget what type of riding will be done and just say what you would choose

Really? 😕

You want to know which one other people think would look best for you to pose on?

You're not doing anything to dispell some of the rumours about Orange 5 owners...

Anyway, none of them... Orange 5's are FUGLY IMO!

Love my AM, saved hard to get it 3 years ago and it looks well worn now but it's always as good as I am! And I think that's the factor people who judge other people's bike choices and reasons seem to forget. The bike is as good as you are on any given day. Reasons then to recommend ... It's never broken, let me down, cost me much (tallas do nead yearly service mind if you do big miles), excellent value for money over 3 years and counting, exciting when I'm up for it. It's right for me, but I never forget the most important bit of kit that will improve my riding is my brain, the size of my belly and the amount of miles I put under my wheels off road per week.

Choose your bike for the reasons you want, and enjoy it! This approach hasn't let me down since 1989.

People ALWAYS read to much into the type of riding. I am just interested in what is the better bike. Not how it looks or if it can be posed on, but if it is that important, it will be used on trails in the UK such as fod, cwmcarn, afan, brechfa and because of my job and what I do it will be used all over the states and Canada also in France Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly russia at Yeh end of the year.

but that's not important. nor are looks.

None of them.

People ALWAYS read to much into the type of riding. I am just interested in what is the better bike.

One of the dumbest comments to STW I've read.

5 AM then. Still can't see the point of adjustable forks on a FS!

For my penneth, people who buy bikes on looks...don't get out much.

Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly russia

You probably don't want something that noisy out there!

Sorry didn't answer the question, if I were you with that potential itinery I would go AM with cane creek on back and renthal fat boys for bars with hope short stem. Wouldn't go tubeless with that sort of adventure in mind

[i]You probably don't want something that noisy out there![/i]

I love my 5 & It's no 'noisier' than anything else I've ridden (with Hope hubs) Don't understand this noise thing.

However, if you ever come across the tallyban, they'll instantly think it was built by Vickers Defence Systems & run for cover. I think the Challenger's a lovely looking tank.

Iraq and afgan I won't be riding the countryside lol

People ALWAYS read to much into the type of riding. I am just interested in what is the better bike.

One of the dumbest comments to STW I've read.

Yup, gotta agree with coogan there...

Which is the better bike, only YOU can decide, based upon the type of riding YOU think you do/are going to do, and possibly other factors that are important to YOU. ie. NOT US...

For me, none of them are the better bike, though obviously the 5 is lighter and more UK trail friendly, the 5AM is a bit more DH focussed, and the Alpine is essentially a short travel DH bike with 2 chainrings fitted. They don't float my boat at all.

and the Alpine is essentially a short travel DH bike with 2 chainrings fitted.

though obviously the 5 is lighter and more [s]UK[/s]easy smooth trail friendly

or and the Alpine is essentially [s]a short travel DH bike[/s]fun trail bike without[i] [s]2[/s]a stupid 44t chainring fitted.

The UK is a big place ridden harder in the lakes than in the Alps

OK if type of riding is not an issue - I googled 'best bike' and this is the first image result. Therefore this is the 'best bike' overall.

[img] [/img]

When I had the three bikes in front of me I chose the Alpine 160. Although a little heavier on test riding it I thoroughly enjoyed the climbing and did not feel I'd be leaving it home in favour of the lighter hardtail.

But! It really does depend where you are going to use it. If mainly South Wales trail centres and the like I would go for something less burly. On the other hand, if you're thinking about a couple of Alps trips per year, DH at the new trails in South Wales and so forth, the Alpine wins it by some distance.

Sounds like you've earned it too, so enjoy whichever bike you choose!

Alpine - better for the bigger stuff, like the Alps, when you need it. A mini-dh bike you can pedal all day.
5 AM - still a mint option, and possibly even slacker than the Alpine.
5 Pro - probably great, but I wouldn't touch anything with Talas - problematic and unnecessary IMO.

If you're reasonably fit, defo the Alpine if you're off to Canada and fancy hitting BC's finest trails at places like Squamish, Whistler, Nelson, Pemby etc.

Just buy frame only and build it yourself. Save some money and get exactly what you want. None of those bikes is any better than the other. They're built for different purposes and as such cannot be accurately compared.

About 2 months ago I was thinking the same as crush83. which of the 3 bikes to go for spec wise and geo. In the end I went for the alpine 160 as the angles are slightly better suited to the 160 fox talas forks, seat angle is a little steaper than the five am with the 160 forks. overall the alpine climbs well much better than I expected.
My build comes in at shade over 29 pounds, just bought a frame and fork deal and transfered my running gear over. tested a five before hand and loved it but wanted the extra travel of the alpine so went that route ride it down and up everything in the fod.

I bought a five pro, not with talas.

I've since spent a fortune turning it into a 5am... And I sometimes wonder if I should have bought an Alpine 160 in the first place.

The five am is not a great climber, the front is to slack and lifts on anything to stiff. A friend on a nomad has lyriks up front and can drop down to 130mm and swears it helps with the climbing no end.

The alpine is better at climbing than a 5 with 160 forks i know because i own both. The alpines wheel base helps when it comes to the downs. I love both bikes but they are very different and have different jobs for me.

Had a Five AM (as well as a mojo, blur LTc etc) and can safely say my Alpine 160 is by far the best bike I've had.

Since making it lighter (kept coil shock and dual ply tyres for alps) I have not ridden my Soul on even local loops, as long as your fit enough it's pedal able all day, mine weighs 30.5lbs with reverb but mine is built pretty light at mo (no paint, xtr 1x10, tubeless EXO tyres, modified forks removing internals that are not needed, hope m4 with race levers etc). I know I could get down to 29 lbs with lighter pedals, carbon bars, foam grips and lighter tyres etc but there is really no need.

The Alpine just feels so stable at high speed but is nimble enough for alpine switchbacks, even with the 1x10 it doesn't feel sluggish on the up.

[url= http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7231/7161030855_70d8ab3c07_b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7231/7161030855_70d8ab3c07_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/24531848@N05/7161030855/ ]Untitled[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/24531848@N05/ ]jonathan.truesdale[/url], on Flickr

My current 5 started out as a AM but after the Fox 36 Talas turned to mince I've changed it to 140mm forks and a 10x3 gear set up (much like the pro). Liked it in AM mode but prefer it now.

If I were you I'd either get the Pro and not bother with the 36's or get the Alpine. Either way you can't really go wrong.

got the Alpine, admittedly flattered with a CCDB and I love it. Not weighed it but with bombers, easton flatboys, dropper post etc it wont be light.

Seems to be the right choice if you want bigger forks which by all accounts spoil the 5.

Ok, ignoring riding type etc. This is my opinion based on ownership of a 2003 Sub-5, a 2006 5, and a 2011 5 (tapered head tube, dropper post version), and extensive riding of an Alpine.

I loved my sub-5 but it had all kinds of quality control issues (it was out of alignment and the shock mounts and mech hangers kept coming loose - even loctite wouldnt cure it, it also came with odd length crank arms and slack spokes). Orange were [b][u]brilliant[/u][/b] and once they had a look at it refunded me immediately.

The 2006 5 was pretty much perfect, except like a knob I had my eye on a Nicolai, so it had to go. I loved that version of the 5 - engaging, fun, handled brilliantly (having said that I loved my Nic' too)

The 2011 5 was boring. It felt extremely sanitised, and as though it had lost its 'pop'. I think they made a mistake by following trends and slackening the head angle. Also, I could tie the back end in knots when throwing it around tight single track and hard fast DH - it felt very flexible compared to the older versions. I had nothing but problems with the RP23 shock on that bike (cavitated repeatedly), and can't help suspecting this was also to do with the flexy rear end. I must add that it was the QR version, so the maxle may be better.

The Alpine - I honestly couldn't feel the difference in weight, and it seemed to have the 'pop' of the older 5. I have no idea why, but it felt like a properly fun bike. The rear end was nice and stiff and I never once felt like it was deflecting off stuff like the 5. The bigger 160mm forks suited it, much like 140mm forks suit the 5 (I tried my 2006 5 with Fox 36's and it felt dull, so I personally think 140mm is best on the 5).

Like I said this is all my opinion, but its interesting to note that I actually settled on a Blood, which in my opinion is one of the best bikes I've ever owned.