Again, stiffer isn't always better for pure timings.This thread highlights perfectly, why BMW are introducing a carbon framed road based superbike for people who want bling - but Moto GP and WSBK teams and riders won't touch them with a barge pole. People like exotic for exotics sake.
It doesn't though does it, your projecting again. Take a look back at your thread history you seem to find fault with everything most people are riding, dislike or can't get tuned stuff that people are flying down trails on etc. Harsh as it sounds if nothing is ever right, what's the last variable you haven't looked at?
My comparison is direct from the alu nomad from 2012 and the carbon blur lt from 2012, I'm taking the nomad for the extra travel and angle though the frame is carrying weight that it doesn't need to and extra bits of metal to get the required stiffness.
I will keep an eye out for those giant riders though and see what they reckon about their contact patch feel 😉
I'm not questioning whether a 7k bike is faster than a 2 k bike (i'm sure it will be if only by a small percentage).
My OP was more about how certain manufactures are really upping the costs. I don't think anyone would disagree that a Carbon Santa cruz frame is a top piece of kit, it certainly not cheap, yet its now 700 quid cheaper than an equivelent Yeti. I very much doubt the Yeti is a better bike.
The post definitely want intended to be inverse snobbery. For full disclosure I have just built up a Carbon Yeti...(although I didn't pay 3.7k for the frame!)
If you can afford it then lucky you, go buy it. I was just surprised by how expensive they were!
My OP was more about how certain manufactures are really upping the costs. I don't think anyone would disagree that a Carbon Santa cruz frame is a top piece of kit, it certainly not cheap, yet its now 700 quid cheaper than an equivelent Yeti. I very much doubt the Yeti is a better bike.
Costs are costs though, yeti will pay more for their frames as they sell less, there is less volume to recoup the design costs too, they also have some extra interesting features with some of their bikes that probably are not the cheapest to manufacture. Is it pushing the price up that much or is it an exception?
Despite all the tittle tattle and waffle, yes bikes/frames are too expensive.
Oh dear some folks have bought into the marketing waffle 😆
plus one - Member
Oh dear some folks have bought into the marketing waffle
as lame as the it's all fashion line really 2/10 try harder
I think the 'fashion' bit has so some truth in it. The selling price of many items, such as clothes, watches and phones, is often set by what people are prepared to pay. I'm sure some people buy expensive frames and bikes just because they are expensive (and there's nothing wrong in that). As any activity gets more popular, like cycling is now, the cost of bits will be more influenced by the spending power of the precipitants. (I think.)
I've got a Boardman FS with a RS Monarch still attached you can have for £75
Now doesn't that seem cheap
I guess if you change your bike the whole time then yes, MTB is expensive. My last bike, a carbon Zesty, cost me something like £4k, 5 years ago. It's probably worth a grand now, so that's 3k over 5 years, lets say £800 a year with repairs / upgrades. So, is £800 a year a lot to spend on my main hobby? I'm not sure it is?
I had done hundreds (well maybe 50) of laps of a particular trail centre on a 2012 Banshee Spitfire over about a 4 year period ...
First ride out on my sb6c I wasn't pushing hard, just going out to try my bike out.
Didn't feel like I'd gone particularly quicker. Uploaded to strava to find 80% of the segments were pbs.
I'd say that's a reasonable 2k to 7k comparison.
Genuine true story.
Does that mean all 7k bikes are faster than 2k ones... no of course not. BUT this one did in this case, I wasn't even expecting it too either. Thought it'd be too much bike for the course.
Turns out it descends and corners quicker for me and it's lighter and pedals better for me.
Was it the frame/new wheel size/carbon everything/different tyres/suspension platform or a combination?
Who knows, but the bike did and continues to make a difference. Ive got a friend who used to be neck and neck all the time. He cant keep up now and is subsequently looking at relacing his bike.
Modern 'Enduro' bikes are amazing because to a large degree they are do it all, or at least, have nicely compromised on a set of attributes that make them fit a lot of riding
I used to think that but Im moving away from that view. The newest designs are IMO basically downhill bikes that can be pedalled uphill well enough to meet the time limit. Im no sure they actually make good allday ride bikes unless you live in the Alps or want to do self propelled uplifts. This to some extent was born out at last weekends EWS where many pro riders who can choose used their trail bike and not their enduro bike.
I used to think that but Im moving away from that view. The newest designs are IMO basically downhill bikes that can be pedalled uphill well enough to meet the time limit. Im no sure they actually make good allday ride bikes unless you live in the Alps or want to do self propelled uplifts. This to some extent was born out at last weekends EWS where many pro riders who can choose used their trail bike and not their enduro bike.
I agree with this, its modern 29er trail bikes that really are the silver bullet for most people's riding IMO.
. This to some extent was born out at last weekends EWS where many pro riders who can choose used their trail bike and not their enduro bike.
How do you find kung-fu fu walrus compares with that massive run from the top of whistler?
Roto was a 70km lap and the forest is technical but most of the trails are not overly steep in there so it suits a more trail bike, this weekend probably similar as the big jumps are mostly all off line (though not sure of the new sections) when it gets bigger and steeper the enduro bikes will be back
What I am waffling on about Mike is basically - the priorities for enduro are -
1) Geometry
2) Suspension setup
3) Linkage stiffness
4) Frame material
You can get the top three by paying less than 2 grand for a frame.
You can conversely get none of these things except for 4 - by paying 3.5k for a frame.
In any build - lets say I even had 5 5 to 6k to spend - Id still prioritise the suspenion, wheelset and brakes over the frame material. Id happily soend 2 grand on a properly setup for me - fork and shock - perhaps by going for a day or two of data logging. Again - frame material would be last. I too often see people on expensive frames with crazy suspension setups - spend the money on a day out getting you bike setup by some experts! If you have money left over for a carbon frameset - then it might be a semi sensible idea to soend the money.
And if what you mean about me complaining about bikes - is my past criticism of some really long bikes eg Pole - Ive come to the conclusion my issues are because I ride flats and have to drop my heels and get over the back sometimez a little more than clipped in tiders - who can tide in a more forward position.
So Im now thinking of moving back to clips.
TBH, I wouldn't spend much money on bikes/components if I thought they were all rubbish either. Probably wouldn't even bother riding
Faster=better????
Simple as that???
People can buy/ride what they want.
Justifying the wrong kit for stupid reasons (ability for example) is stupid.
Justifying the wrong kit for stupid reasons (ability for example) is stupid.
Nope, you can't have it till you've earned it, not just the the money to pay for it 😈
Thats not what Im getting at - begginers riding lively bikes is gine by me. What Im getting at is that all too often, beginners and sometimes the rest of us - are given the wrong advice by the industry and journos - on where to spend and prioritise your money.
