I'd have gone for the carbon since you do seem to get a very heavy 120mm bike otherwise, but if Transition say there's only clearance for a 2.3 then that most likely means there's not even particularly good clearance either. I'd possibly wait until a few are out and about to find out.
Not sure my carbon Patrol rides any better than my alu one.
Certainly not £1000 better.
Loving my carbon. Not environmentally friendly? Well I try to make up for that by not having a car, flying, or driving to trail centres.
It may not work but I reckon I'm not too bad a person. And my 160 travel bike weighs 28.5 lb 8)
Oh, and I can fix carbon if if I shag it. Not certain if I can do that with alu.
I like carbon, but mostly because of the cool noise it makes, klonk klonk. Like a rotten treetrunk.
Had carbon bikes and now back on ali, probs a teeny bit slower on the climbs, but I don't cringe on every rock strike (just the big ones 😆 ) and I'm not worrying about the dinks and dents and the paintwork and, and...
having said that, carbon bikes are lovely though!
sorry, that didn't help much, did it! 😆
I have a carbon Mojo3 and an Alu smuggler. Both are fab. The Mojo3 was 2nd hand so I wasn't too bothered about cosmetic scars. Good job as it now has many 🙂 My smuggler was a frame only build. With SLX/XT, Fox 34s, Thomson dropper, etc it weighs about the same as my flare max. Which isn't 35lbs!
The carbon one tho. I can make no justification whatsoever for having one. But I still think I might...
Not sure on the Smuggler but the new Scout frame is 2lb heavier (more than 9lb) than the old one, which is no lightweight.
Transition have 'apparently' over built the alu ones to make the carbons look light. Not sure I buy it but you never know!
I have a 2017 Smuggler & it’s not light being an XL with a coil shock & it’s interesting what people say about 2018 ally Smuggler being even heavier. My frame says max wheel size 2.3 in rear I have run a Rock Razor in there & a 27.5 x 2.6 Nobby Nic.
Have owned a few Transition’s in the past & Carbon Covert wasn’t much lighter than the ally one, it was only front triangle that was carbon & was a chunky frame. I guess they are really plugging carbon frames by making ally ones so heavy & carbon frame completely carbon not just front triangle.
So, I think we can conclude that we predominantly buy carbon because we like the way they look, but in many cases actually dread damaging them. So if you’re the worrying type when riding, don’t buy Carbon.
I’ve got two Carbon bikes (they’re my 6th and 7th) and don’t treat them any differently to any of my previous (alloy) bikes and have never really damaged one. Carbon rims however...
I'm a big carbon fearty, an grippit ticht too.
Get carbon.
Had the same dilemma when I bought my Patrol.
Went for carbon and I’m now 94% more attractive and an all round better lover according to my wife*
If I’d have gone alu I’d still regret it now, but not once have I regretted going for carbon.
*may not be true.
Is the carbon one coming with a more premium shock? I'm holding out on the Carbon 2018 Patrol, I'd expect a Factory DHX2 or X2 Float for that kind of money.
I went carbon for my race bike,I bought the best that I could afford at the time,I don't have carbon wheels though and the reason is I can't afford to replace them if I smash them up,so what I'm suggesting is,if you can afford to replace carbon then buy carbon,bit different with wheels I suppose,you'll love it when you ride it for the first time.
I would be gutted if I'd saved for three years and all I had to show for it was a carbon mountain bike that'd probably be out of date by the end of the year.
That's if your bothered about "new year,new frame",all bikes are out of date as soon as you buy them,worth a fraction of the money aswell,but if you get your perfect bike that fits with a proper bike fit,and works it never goes out of date.
I agree with David above. If I'd saved up for 3 years then I'm not sure I'd want to spend an extra grand or so (or whatever the difference is) on getting a bike that is a bit lighter. I guess it depends on how long you plan on keeping the bike, if it's for years and years then it might be worth it, if it's a year or two then it probably isn't.
Personally I'd rather save that money and spend it on something else (or save it), but I'm not really one to spend a lot of cash. Once you're on your bike, I doubt you will care whether it could have been a bit lighter or not.
Lots of people have already mentioned the pros and cons, I think you just have to decide your priorities and whether you think it's worth it.
That's if your bothered about "new year,new frame",all bikes are out of date as soon as you buy them,worth a fraction of the money aswell,but if you get your perfect bike that fits with a proper bike fit,and works it never goes out of date.
I guess that's sort of a point I agree with.
Although at the same time, why not just buy a carbon frame from five years ago if they're never out of date?
MTBs appear to be something that you do have to keep up to date with to some degree. I think an alloy frame from 2018 would be far better than a top of the range carbon frame from five years ago, if you're the sort of person who cares for those gains.
You can have fun on any bike though (something that's barely worth mentioning in a thread about a five grand bike)!
I have a carbon bike that's seven years old and it has never crossed my mind to replace it with something more modern as I can't see where the benefit would be. I am not a materialist though.
Seven years old carbon bike David,if that's not an advertisement for carbon longevity I don't know what is,I also agree with David,very good points.
I think people (me included) don't trust carbon like aluminium,I think the fear of breakage over price is always going to be a worry,although the there is much proof that carbon is very strong,I hope my bike lasts 7 years,I think the biking world has a fear of no change.
I don't understand your point davdtsylforth... "if that's all I'd have to show for it..." ?
Quite amusing, while the forum was down, I went to another site and read an "agony aunt" type letter about choosing a bike.
https://nsmb.com/articles/dear-uncle-dave-i-cant-decide-what-bike-buy/
Scroll down to Uncle Dave's answer, point 5. 🙂
Thanks Dez! 😀 That article is going in my 'Favourites' list...
Blatant copy pasta for anyone that hasn't clicked through...
(edit: quote removed, it hurt my eyes. It seems that quoting in anything with HTML formatting is breaking STW currently...)
I think an alloy frame from 2018 would be far better than a top of the range carbon frame from five years ago
You've not been cycling long then? I have a steel bike from the 90s and aside from having no disc mounts it's every bit as good as my current bikes. "trickle down" and "new technology" are horse crap in my opinion and never actually happen. High end bikes are always really nice to ride and low end are less nice to ride, age has very little to do with it. A carbon frame from 5 years ago will almost certainly be better than any alu frame from this year, because almost without exception the changes that happen to frames are based on trends rather than technology* and anyone who has done this for a couple of decades or more will agree.
There is certainly a lot of very determined FUD about carbon going around right now, which seems to be aimed at dethroning the "big boys" of frame manufacture. I note that very few of the companies that can afford to research and manufacture carbon have an issue, while the less well off are all suddenly obsessed with the planet.
Sorry, went a bit ranty there 🙂
*road frames are different. There the use of wind tunnels has greatly improved performance at many levels.
Awesome - and that's why Uncle Dave earns the big bucks.
So what's it gonna be howsyourdad? My money's on the plastic.
I'll be keeping it for 3-5 years, I'm currently on a 2013 Aluminium Norco . Kind of why I want to not regret the purchase.
I'm gonna get a definite price and make a decision
@lustyd ... bikes have changed quite a bit. There's the wheel sizes, for starters - having more choice there is good. I suppose you could dismiss geometry being totally different now as a 'trend', but it makes quite a difference to how the bikes are ridden. Everybody's usage case is different. Maybe your 90's bike is exactly what you want in a bike. That's awesome. But it's really not going to be the case universally for everyone.
</span><span style="color: #444444; background-color: #eeeeee;">I’ll be keeping it for 3-5 years
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">If you're keeping it for that long make sure whatever you're buying has a good warranty reputation that covers it. Any of the big brands will be fine, as they'll still be there in 5 years. Some of the smaller ones I wouldn't trust to sort out a problem with a 5 year old bike.....</span>
flipping heck what went wrong with my last post?!?!??!???
If the alu frames have gone up in weight as much as it seems the carbon version would be tempting. My xl smuggler comes in at 31.5lb but I wouldn't want it any heavier
@vincienup I have various wheel and tyre sizes in the stable, thanks. Also have choice in geometry and suspension. My point was that trends aside (and current MTB geo is a trend, trust me) none of these things make much difference. Modern bikes are not lighter and they aren't stiffer or faster. As I said, high end bikes are better, low end are worse and that's true of any vintage with an old high end being better than a new low end every time.
As I said, road is different. The pro money there has led to some real scientific advances. Everything I see in mtb is down to trends and preference with almost no engineering/science since the early 90s. Different bikes suit different trails, and a 90s 26er is way faster in places than a modern 27.5+ which is faster than my fattie in places. I have PBs on all of my bikes in different segments, the only factor not making a difference is vintage.
My point was that trends aside (and current MTB geo is a trend, trust me)
@lustyd what makes you say that? hasn't all geo at some time been a trend?
My current cheap heavy aluminium bike definitely rides better than older high end bikes I have ridden, trend or not it works!
I'm in a similar boat at the minute with the new bike dilemma, feel like I crash way too much for carbon but want a carbon bike! Tested an alu patrol, it was amazing but should I wait for the carbon one to come out next year?!
I can sort of see what lustyd means. Modern geometry is a trend and it doesn't make a bike better; just better in certain situations. But if those situations are the ones that matter most to you then it is a better option. A cheaper bike with geometry suited to the type of riding that you care most about is going to be a better option than a high-end bike with the wrong geometry for most people.
The problem is that not only do trends change so does your riding. This is what puts me off spending too much on a single bike (whatever the material). I can't say for sure what sort of riding I'll be most into next year, let alone in five years time. I may be looking for steeper more technical descents to challenge myself, but I'm equally as likely to get into XC racing, bikepacking or whatever. So, the idea of a "bike for life" or even just of buying a better bike and keeping it longer doesn't make sense (to me). I'm going to want to change it long before it wears out whatever I buy.
For the love of god when are people going to get with the 1960s and state weights in kg….
Why should everyone change the unit used to describe mountain bike weight since the very early days just because a few people have decided to change it?
Modern geometry is better in many situations, but of course not all - but you can buy bikes with more or less any geometry you like these days, which at least early on wasn't really possible.
Also I think geometry changed in response to bigger wheels. And also in response to the kind of riding people are doing.
Carbon scares the crap out of me on an MTB, there's way too many ways to wreck it in an instant (I've ticked off quite a few) and the extra fun with carbon is the outer layer is the last to go so you've no idea it's buggered until it's too late.
Was only talking to a mate the other day who accidentally dropped his bike when he stopped, it was onto a rock and left him with a scratch on his ALU bike, if it'd been his carbon one it'd be new frame time.
All that said, if you want carbon, then get carbon.
[i]left him with a scratch on his ALU bike, if it’d been his carbon one it’d be new frame time.[/i]
Yep, they make carbon mountain bike frames as fragile as a china teacup. Er, except, my carbon bike fell on a rock, and ooh, it just took off a bit of surface paint.
All that said, if you don't want carbon, don't get carbon 🙂
I don't think I'll be getting carbon. Got an EWS place so I'll spend the money on going to Spain instead. Memories not things 😀
