Forum menu
Long travel carbon ...
 

[Closed] Long travel carbon hardtail options

Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 
[#5410828]

Hi all,

Apart from the 456 carbon, is there any other comparable carbon hard tails around, looking for something to take 140-160mm forks and a 30.9 or 31.6mm dropper post

Many thanks

nowthen


 
Posted : 10/08/2013 8:41 pm
Posts: 40432
Free Member
 

There's a new c456 on the way I think - with updated angles


 
Posted : 10/08/2013 9:26 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

But when.... not sure I have the patience!


 
Posted : 10/08/2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 812
Free Member
 

why do you want a lt carbon ht...? The fact that the market doesn't cater for you (much) implies you might have unusual/wrong ideas about what you want and what you want the bike to do......


 
Posted : 10/08/2013 11:03 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Erm ok thanks for that, very helpful...


 
Posted : 11/08/2013 2:03 am
Posts: 20977
 

He's got a point though...

I reckon the reason that lt hts tend not to be made of carbon is the type of riding they encourage, ie hooning about in the woods, on rougher terrain, isn't what carbon does very well without the aid of a rear shock to stop all that lovely stiffness from drop kicking you repeatedly in the plums. What attributes of carbon do you want? Light weight? Means the bike won't be that durable (and flexy) on terrain requiring the 160mm fork. Super Stiffness? See above re your plums, and it won't be 'that' light.

IMO you'd have more choice, and a better bike, if you picked a different material. Or if you need carbon, go full sus.


 
Posted : 11/08/2013 2:46 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

So many professional bike designers on here, never realised!

Am I to assume that its a 456 Carbon or nothing then?


 
Posted : 11/08/2013 5:41 pm
Posts: 35031
Full Member
 

nowthen,

yep, pretty much that's it.

(you're not allowed light, strong with lot of travel, on a HT) 😉

I had a chameleon that was 140mm travel and 27lbs. It was 'flicky' and speedy but got pinged around just as much.


 
Posted : 11/08/2013 5:47 pm
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

I swapped from an alloy Rock lobster B52 and the Carbon 456 is far more forgiving that that ever was. It is not zingy like steel [ then again it weighs 2 lb less than my steel frame [ to be fair it has an EBB in it]

As for choices it would appear limited but I like my 456 though it gets more rocks than woods


 
Posted : 11/08/2013 5:51 pm
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

tomhoward

I reckon the reason that lt hts tend not to be made of carbon is the type of riding they encourage, ie hooning about in the woods, on rougher terrain, isn't what carbon does very well without the aid of a rear shock to stop all that lovely stiffness from drop kicking you repeatedly in the plums. What attributes of carbon do you want? Light weight? Means the bike won't be that durable (and flexy) on terrain requiring the 160mm fork. Super Stiffness? See above re your plums, and it won't be 'that' light.

And once again, someone fails to grasp the concept of "Specific Stiffness/Strength"..........

(i.e. Stiffness or Strength per unit of mass).

You can easily make a CF frame less stiff and less strong than a steel one.

It's also worth noting that in order to "absorb" terrain inputs, you'd be talking about a frame that could deflect in the order of INCHES (like a shock/damper) at low frequencies. I'm sure at say >200Hz & 0.1mm a CF frame has a different damping co-efficient than a steel one, but at 1Hz & 25mm it isn't any different!

TBH, the whole "CF frames are stiff and buzzy" is pretty much marketing / reviewer rubbish! Do the maths and that much is obvious.

So, the real reason you don't see too many Cf long travel hardtails is the development costs and hence frame costs. If you're going to all that effort, then most designers are going to include rear suspension in the design whilst they are there. Few people are going to spend say £1500 on a CF hardtail when you could have an Ally FS for the same money (which the general public see as better value for money etc)


 
Posted : 11/08/2013 6:44 pm
Posts: 9965
Full Member
 

I think outside of the Uk it makes no sense

So people haven't bothered making one. It has been done and the material must offer potential, particularly with Kevlar mixed in


 
Posted : 11/08/2013 7:07 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I understand the draw of a carbon HT, but I just wouldn't buy one again. The ride [i]is[/i] lovely, and the lightness makes a big difference. But...

...bits will come off. Probably nothing serious, but you'll always be thinking...'damn, that rock really whacked the downtube...'

Steel and Titanium, that's where it's at for the sort of bike you want. Of the two, Ti is the closest to the feel of carbon, but little matches the sparkle of a high-end steel frame


 
Posted : 11/08/2013 11:16 pm
Posts: 8469
Full Member
 

My C456 was probably the toughest bike I owned. Mine was the Raw Carbon Matt Black finish, which seems key to me, as the paint job seems flaky on the coloured ones.


 
Posted : 12/08/2013 8:01 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Agreeing with dantsw13, my raw carbon one seems fine, nothing flaking off or anything.


 
Posted : 12/08/2013 10:50 am