Mike – great idea to rent one for the day (could also try the Fuel that way too to get an idea if I would be happy on a shorter travel bike). Only issue is that the alloy Remedy has a completely different sizing to the Carbon one. You couldn’t make it up could you?!

Some of the figures don’t read right on the website, the stand over on a XL frame being lower than that of a S, no idea how that works out.

Yes, also noticed that the actual frame sizes are quoted wrongly for some of the larger Remedy 9.8 29 sizes eg. 20.5″ for the virtual 19.5″ in the high link position. Doesn’t inspire much confidence in any of the other numbers quoted does it? Have to try and find one to sit on I suppose. Looks like a great bike if it actually fits though.

The early rider belter looks really nice but no front brake

Yes it does. Front and rear brake according to the website and pictures clearly show it. I was thinking of getting one for my princess.

DeeW – Many thanks for your demo impressions of these 3 bikes. Kind of what I was anticipating, Remedy sounds like the plushest ride and Camber fastest and most lively. Stumpy somewhere in between. Decisions, decisions! Did you buy one or just trying out?

As above, you would have thought pedalling positions should be the same, perhaps a tad lower for mtg if not using a dropper post. but a road bike fit is going to be far more stretched out for aerodynamics etc. I certainly sit a lot more upright on my mtb and I think that’s typical from what I see.

skiprat – I’ve just noticed you said the one you tried was a 650b. Looking at the Trek website, the 650b version has a considerably longer top tube, but apparently less reach than the 29 (same seat angle quoted for both). Trek’s figures must be bollocks for one of these bikes surely? Just what I need!

skiprat – Thanks, this is massively useful info as I’m also 6’1″ tall. The 19.5″ v 21.5″ is exactly the dilemma I was expecting to face with this bike from looking at the sizing. I’m sure the reach would be fine with the 21.5″ plus short stem (which is good) but the wheelbase is then very long indeed as it was already the longest bike with the 19.5″ frame. The top tube on the 21.5″ is actually only 22mm longer, but the seat tube is a full 2″ longer.

Trek Remedy carbon sizing is very odd, they offer an extra frame size, but only 1 size really caters for riders above 6′ tall. Conclusion is that Specialized sizing looks much better for me. I sat on a large Camber in the shop and the reach seemed good. The top tube on the large Camber is only 8 mm longer than the 19.5″ Remedy, so might not be too bad after all.

Steeper seat angles give shorter top tubes for a given reach.

Yes, but the Remedy has the slackest seat tube angle in this comparison by far! The reach figure they quote doesn’t make sense relative to the ETT quoted.

There is only one way to see how all those numbers stack up on a bike and that is to get on it and ride it

I agree, but unfortunately it’s not really an option at this time of year. The demo bikes are simply not available so I’m having to rely on reviews, geometry analysis and of course forums! I think you can get some good insight from studying the geometry providing you look at it as a whole and can relate it to your own experience. I know for sure I don’t want a really high BB like my current bike, but I haven’t got any personal experience of running a very low BB, so it’s good to hear about the potential pros and cons. This thread has certainly made me more aware of the potential cons of a fashionably low BB.

I think it’s also quite useful to be clued up on a bike before you eventually take a test ride so you know what things to look out for during the ride.

JCL – there are still a few 2014 spec Cambers available in the UK, but no realistic chance of a demo. I would probably go 2015 spec anyway to get the XT brakes and the new Roval fattie wheels. Discounts on 2014 spec are not quite enough to tempt me. Obviously I could swap out the brakes, but that would eat into a fair bit of the discount. There are however more 2014 Stumpys kicking around if I went that route and discounted slightly more. Very tempted to bite the bullet on one of those actually, but still debating other alternatives such as the Trek Remedy. I thought I’d ruled the Trek out on its higher BB height, but this thread has certainly made me think twice!

Modern full suss bikes might ride smoothly, but they are built from sh**e materials with so little technology (shocks aside) that tiny little companies with no R&D can compete. And mentioning shocks, they have no quality at all, stanchions made from cheese that wear through in 5 minutes causing leaks galore. They really should be made from cromoly like cars and motorbikes. The manufactures are laughing all the way to the bank

Modern bikes are engineered very well at all price points that would interest an enthusiast and certainly much better than they were 20 years ago across the board. Manufacturers laughing all the way to the bank? I very much doubt it, I reckon it’s a tough industry to make ANY money out of. Lots of competition and a pretty small audience above the £1K price point. How many people do you reckon are queuing up to by a £7K mtb v a £7K motorbike?

As for materials, there is nothing inherently wrong with using aluminium alloy (you see quite a lot of it in aeroplanes) and carbon is always king for stiffness to weight ratio, but costs a whole lot more. In most engineering applications titanium is used as an expensive alternative to steel rather than aluminium or carbon.

Anyway I’ll be buying a carbon framed trail bike shortly, which should weigh well under 30 lbs as it happens, but it doesn’t mean that all heavier bikes are crap. To me it seems like the industry is far more tuned towards making excellent riding bikes rather than super lightweight bikes, but at the highest price points they are as light as they realistically can be for their purpose.

A low BB can be crippling, until I put shorter cranks and thinner pedals on my Rocky it was a pain trying to ride twisty singletrack.

Yes, that’s something I haven’t had to worry about at all with my current bike with the BB up at 380 mm! It does feel very high, so I suppose 350 mm would feel positively low anyway in comparison. Maybe I’ll encounter new problems with a 335 mm BB?

mmm…. maybe in that case the Trek should really stay on my shortlist, but the Spesh Camber is still winning the battle on paper, closely followed by the Stumpy FSR. Just wish I could actually demo any of these bikes, or even just sit on one in a shop! When I went to my LBS during the week they had virally nothing sat in the showroom apart from a 2014 Spesh Camber in my size that they had just sold FFS!

The greater the BB drop, the greater the stability but the more the flickability is reduced – so a higher BB will be better at quick slalom turns whilst a lower BB will be better at carving long flat corners.

Good point, I hadn’t thought of that and could explain why Trek chose a higher BB for their 29er – presuming it was a genuine choice and not simply a cost saving compromise. Maybe they thought the 29er was inherently stable enough to cope with a higher BB? But their rivals seem to have gone down the lower route.

Forgot to mention I’m quite tall at 6’1″ with long legs, so I’m quite conscious of seat height. Dropper posts help massively, but would like a reasonably low pedalling position if possible

True not easy to compare, but the Remedy is the odd one out compared against rival 29ers and is supposed to ride high in its travel with the dual chamber shock. Have to say it puts me right off this bike. Why would they run it so much higher than their 650b version unless it was just a compromise on frames e.g. common front triangle.

Yeah Canyon look like great value, if you can actually get hold of one! But heard that they can be hard work if warranty work required etc. Agree big brands are more expensive, but not that much if you shop around and some good deals on 2014 bikes at the moment.

Do you guys not consider the big brands at all? I’ve always quite liked niche brands, but the current crop of big brand bikes are hard to ignore. What would be wrong with a Spesh Enduro for example?

errm Islabikes? I would have thought they sell spares.

so now we’re seeing hugely capable 150mm+ travel bikes for £3k, not crippled 5″ travel bikes with XC bits for the same price.

This ^
Lowest possible weight is no longer the ultimate target for all round trail bikes. Personally, I like the direction trail bikes have gone in recent years.

wrecker – v. nice option and certainly considered the 5010, but was looking more closely at their 29ers i.e. Tallboy LTc. Decided in the end that SC bikes are just a tad more money than I really feel the need to pay to get the ride I’m looking for.

Used one then maybe? They do hold their value well so could actually work out cheaper overall

Take a look at Islabikes website. They specialise in kids bikes of all ages and top notch quality. I’m sure there will be something there appropriate.

Islabikes Rothan is ace.

Our daughter has had hers since she was 2.5 and still riding it at 5 (with the extended seat post option). It has proper tyres, proper wheel bearings and a decent rear brake. The frame is awesome too. A lot of these bikes have no brake, which is crazy as they soon start ripping around on them. Comes in pink for the girls as well!

Wouldn’t you be better off having less bikes, but with the same overall budget i.e. better bikes?
Or are they all works spec bikes already?

Maybe a better answer to the original question is that the nu-skool bikes are considerably stiffer and stronger than their older equivalents. A lot of the early “lightweight” trail bikes were made out of chocolate e.g Whyte 46.

My previous 140mm trail/everyday bike was 35lbs.
My current equivalent is 160mm and 29lbs.

I think that’s more realistic as to how the market has moved in the last decade. As I said earlier my 2004 top end alloy 5.5″ trail bike was 34 lbs and the equivalent priced bikes I’m looking at now are more like 26-27 lbs and probably stiffer frames too. I still think 29 lbs is reasonable for a £3K trail bike that can handle the odd DH track.

If money is no object an S-Works Stumpy or Camber is as light as a short travel XC race bike from only a few years ago. Just costs £7K to get there without compromise.

br – a Kona 134 is hardly state-of-the-art light though is it. Again not really fair to compare against an S-Works Enduro at more than twice the new cost, even an older one. How much does a 2014 S-Works Enduro weigh in at? I bet it’s sub-30 lbs and certainly stiffness/weight ratio will be very competitive.

munrobiker – I thought we were discussing 29 lb trail bikes?

All the bits were new. I posted two brand new alloy frames up there which will weigh 1lb or 2lb more and cost £200-400 more and will weigh 27-28lbs built up, which is noticeably lighter than all those bikes on bikeradar. That’s not a new for old comparison. That’s a new for new comparison.

So for a bitsa using all new parts and frame, you’ve actually saved 1-2 lb over an off the peg bike? And that’s only an estimate. Nice one.

I like a “magic carpet” or “sofa” ride personally. Especially one that can “pop” when needed.

Or I can personally recommend this frame, combined with a Pike RC from Alltricks for £330-ish…

Looks pretty good, geo looks spot on with current trends. Price is right too, but really needs better graphics. I know it makes no difference to the ride, but….

moshimonster- everything on my bike was new apart from the frame. For a decent alloy frame of 1lb more than the carbon one let’s say it costs an extra around 200 to 400 quid. That’s still £3000 and 27lbs with pedals. Which is a lot better than the weights of the bikes I list below.

That might make sense within your budget (providing you are happy to run a used carbon frame sans warranty), but in no way does that make a NEW £3K alloy bike heavy at 29 lbs. That’s just what they weigh at that price point when new. If you’re going to compare new v used then it’s a totally different ball game. A used £3K bike is going to be more like £1.5K or less and then you can make a more meaningful direct comparison as to the trade off between weight and cost. You are also trading off new v used in your comparison.

Ha ha! Good effort in that case. Nice bike too!

My mate just built up a Carbon Tallboy LT for that sort of money with carbon rims on hopes, full XT, reverb, pikes, Easton finishing kit.

For £4K and with carbon rims! I seriously doubt it unless he gets staff discounts. That’s a £6K bike if ever there was one.

think in terms of value for money i’d buy off the peg, but i’d not buy something if there were too many things i’d want to change, if that makes sense.

Same here! Spesh Camber Evo or Stumpy FSR should tick all your spec boxes mentioned – XT brakes on 2015 models, 1×11 Sram drive, wide bars, decent dropper post etc

Hey, you sound exactly like me!! I’m the same height, weight, riding profile etc. and looking for exactly the same kind of trail bike!

My research has come up with the Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Evo 29er as a safe bet. Or perhaps a Trek Remedy 9.8 29. Or maybe the Trance mentioned above.

BUT I’m seriously thinking of dropping the travel slightly (120 mm all round) and going for a Specialised Camber Evo. I’m toning back on the really gnarly stuff, but still want a proper trail bike and reviews of this bike suggest it is faster and more fun than the Stumpy on all but the gnarliest of trails. Also still has a meaty cut down Pike up front and by all accounts the frame is plenty stiff enough. Could be just the ticket for charging around UK trails. These guys seem to be having fun on the kind of trails I enjoy:-

mt – absolutely agree, we all ride what we like best. Only point I was trying to make is that 29 lbs is NOT heavy for a 5″ travel trail bike. Obviously it is heavy if you don’t want to ride that type of bike and I can fully understand people who prefer lighter XC bikes.

My bike is 160mm front, 150mm rear and weighs 26lbs. Spec is a carbon Stumpjumper Evo frame, Pike RCT3 Dual Positions, Easton Havens with XT brakes and a Zee drivetrain- it cost £2600 with a second hand frame and new everything else. It didn’t make sense for me to buy a complete bike for the same cost as they seem to have much higher weights and I suspect this is due to higher spec drivetrains being used with cheaper wheels and heavy bars/stem/tyres.

You can’t really compare a second hand carbon framed bike against a new alloy one. Your bike new would be £4,500 so you’d expect it to be a tad lighter and marginally quicker. But 3 lb is not a lot in the overall scheme of things is it? You might get home a minute quicker on a long ride I suppose.

The manufacturers would rather you swapped out your bike every year and will try and use whatever flavour of the month/fashion they can to persuade you that you should.

Of course they would, but I’m sure they realise that only a tiny fraction of their market can actually afford a new bike on an annual basis.

The less cynical viewpoint is that bikes are simply getting better and manufacturers are competing to get a slice of the market. As an engineer I see much better engineered bikes today than 10 years ago and there are a lot less dogs on the market.

Sure you can enjoy riding almost any bike, but some are certainly more fun than others.

around 24 to 5lbs suits me.

Well I really couldn’t build an all round trail bike at that weight (regardless of cost) that I would be happy to ride all day on interesting technical trails. You are obviously riding a different style of bike, guessing lightweight XC with sub 4″ travel or a HT. Nothing wrong with that of course and you may well have the skills to ride it over properly tough trails, but quite different to the bikes mentioned above.

I like to make it a bit easier for myself and the extra 5 lb or so that goes into making a proper tough trail bike is well worth it – for me. All personal choice, but 29 lb is not heavy for the type of bike mentioned by the OP and won’t hold it back against a lighter bike on the sort of terrain intended. In fact should be much faster for the average rider. That’s why they exist.