I know this belongs on Singletrackworld but I’m not a hardcore biker and generally welcome comments from the UKC community.
I’m looking at buying either
https://www.certini.co.uk/bikes/mountain-bikes/2023-cube-reaction-c62-pro-h...
or
https://www.bicyclechain.co.uk/shop/bikes/sub/mountain/trek-procaliber-9-7-...
Mostly for relatively easy XC plus the odd red trail.
Any thoughts from those of you who understand the tech better than I?
The ultimate answer lies in whichever fits best but given finding a bike in a shop nowadays can be hard work I just thought I’d ask.
These both look like quite serious XC race machines, for a casual rider I'd go for something more relaxed with a little bit more suspension.
That was my thought. I really like the low weight though.
Don’t worry about the weight. Everyone could easily lose the small differences in weight from their person, and save a wad in the process.
True. I’m very aware that the Procaliber is around 1.5kg lighter than my current bike. When my body is easily ten times that heavier that it “should” be.
I’ve tried researching the term “relaxed”. Am I correct in saying that it describes a more upright riding position?
Having owned steel and Al bikes I can tell you nothing beats the feel of a good carbon hardtail frame
> they're both nice. I've looked ar the Cube before but I have something similar instead. They'll both really fly on easy xc, but if you're going to ride a lot of gnarr then something a bit slacker might be nice.
Can you explain “slacker”? I assume it’s used similar to the term “relaxed”, but I’ve yet to read and easy to understand explanation.
> Having owned steel and Al bikes I can tell you nothing beats the feel of a good carbon hardtail frame
I’m aware both are bikes beyond my ‘need’ but as I can currently afford something in that price range I am definitely tempted to just go for it. That sounds encouraging, thanks.
> Can you explain “slacker”? I assume it’s used similar to the term “relaxed”, but I’ve yet to read and easy to understand explanation.
It's all about the angle of the head tube (the bit of the frame that the fork passes through) relative to the ground. A "slacker" geometry with a lower angle would put the front wheel further out in front and change how responsive the steering feels etc.
> I’m aware both are bikes beyond my ‘need’ but as I can currently afford something in that price range I am definitely tempted to just go for it. That sounds encouraging, thanks.
It's not so much your need but more what you'll enjoy, you can spend plenty on all types of bike but if you get something that doesn't suit what you want to do with it then it's no good.
> It's all about the angle of the head tube (the bit of the frame that the fork passes through) relative to the ground. A "slacker" geometry with a lower angle would put the front wheel further out in front and change how responsive the steering feels etc.
Thanks
> It's not so much your need but more what you'll enjoy, you can spend plenty on all types of bike but if you get something that doesn't suit what you want to do with it then it's no good.
Yeah. It’s a lot of cash and def don’t want to waste it. I currently ride an old 2006 Trek 8500ZR on 80mm forks. So have grown used to, and enjoy, XC race set up and weight. Accepting MTB design has moved on a lot since then.
Agree with Gethin, they've more race-focussed hard-tails.
For your budget and what you say you want to ride, you could get a nice all-round full suss, like a Trek Fuel EX, or even this from the site above:
https://www.bicyclechain.co.uk/shop/bikes/sub/mountain/whyte-t-140-s-361676...
I’m assuming full sus would be more forgiving downhill. But are they not harder in the climbs? And getting a light one adds a lot of £££?
(one reason I really want to get as light a bike as possible is having to lift it onto the roof of my car, it’s a pretty high 4x4)
A reasonably well designed full sus can climb surprisingly well as both the frame and shock will be set up to not bob and the rear wheel travel can keep the wheel on the ground over rougher terrain so you can keep pedaling.
You are right in saying that you do face a weight and price penalty. If you look at two similar priced bikes, one full sus one hard tail the full sus will usually be heavier and have lower spec parts.
The Cube has a Rockshox Judy Gold, that fork only has 30mm stanchions. Wet noodle handling alert! Forks with 30mm stanchions were being specced on 26" wheeled bikes with 80mm travel 20 years ago. If you are lightweight rider it might be ok. I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.
It depends on what you're looking for, the two bikes that you listed will feel nicer and lighter than your current bike and if you mostly care about pedalling on the uphills then they are the right choice. If you want something that feels more confident when things get fast or rough or steep then something with a slacker head angle, a higher front end, and wider handlebars will feel better. A 'trail' hardtail rather than a 'xc' hardtail. A vitus sentier would be a good example of such a bike with a claimed weight of only 400g more than the cube even though it is aluminium. Nobody seems to make carbon trail hardtails. You may want to hire a trail hardtail to see what you actually prefer
Phttps://vitusbikes.com/products/vitus-sentier-27-vrx-mountain-bike-2022p
If as you say you want to use it for:
> Mostly for relatively easy XC plus the odd red trail.
Then you will have a lot of fun with either of these and the Trek being the better spec of the two.
It will feel fast and responsive, climb as well as you legs can power it and with getting your weight back on anything a bit more technical will be fine on red descents. Compared to an old style 26” these already feel a slacker design and with the bigger wheels roll well over a lot of obstacles.
I have a similar bike that I ride all over the Lakes and when I go out with a friend who has a much slacker angle full sus he pays for it on the up hills and while he does rides descents more aggressively than I do it is probably as much to do with my mindset of preservation rather than what the bike is capable of.
I meant to link the 29" version which would be much more up the OP's street, faster rolling and lighter at the expense of a little manoeuvrability
https://vitusbikes.com/products/vitus-sentier-29-vrx-mountain-bike-2022
> I’m assuming full sus would be more forgiving downhill. But are they not harder in the climbs? And getting a light one adds a lot of £££?
Downhill - depends on the ground and how good you are at picking a line, but generally yes.
Up hill - not necessarily, see Gethin's answer.
> (one reason I really want to get as light a bike as possible is having to lift it onto the roof of my car, it’s a pretty high 4x4)
Fair enough, but you hadn't said that previously. If you can afford that much on a bike, then maybe also look at a tow bar mounted carrier?
I recently looked for a new MTB (to replace my 10 year old and very well used Scott Scale), wanting an upgrade I looked at newer carbon Scott Scale and Trek Procaliper models but in the end I decided being a bike that would see all season used ideally I wanted to stick with an alloy frame, in the end I went with a Specialized Chisel Comp, and have to say have been very impressed, seems fast and significantly more comfortable than the old Scale. It may seem pricey (given it comes with SRAM NX) but the frame and wheels are great quality, and I will probably upgrade as parts wear out
> Fair enough, but you hadn't said that previously. If you can afford that much on a bike, then maybe also look at a tow bar mounted carrier?
Fair point.
And a general thanks to everyone. Looking forward to planning a few wee test rides.
Why not carbon in 4 seasons?
+1: I've a mate who rides a Specialized Chisel Comp and he loves it (he likes fast XC rides)
That’s a nice looking bike. And for significantly less than my original options.
Also:
- Go to Alpkit in Edinburgh and look at their range of Sonder Bikes (they should be able to arrange demos)
- And also take a look and the new current gen Cotic Solaris 29er (I've got the last gen SolarisMax running on 160mm forks - best hardtail I've owned, and I've owned a fair few).
https://www.cotic.co.uk/product/solaris#bike
scroll down for complete build options; the current gen is designed for 120mm forks (to provide more differentiation from their BFe hardtail).
Canyon Neuron 7 (13.6kg) could be an option for something more trail orientated yet still efficient for pedalling:
https://www.canyon.com/en-gb/mountain-bikes/trail-bikes/neuron/al/neuron-7/...
For a little bit more money Intense have the Sniper XC on offer currently, full suspension bike that weighs 11.59kg. Probably difficult to beat this weight for a full sus bike at the price:
https://uk.intensecycles.com/products/copy-of-sniper-xc?variant=42546779160...
> Also:
> - Go to Alpkit in Edinburgh and look at their range of Sonder Bikes (they should be able to arrange demos)
Thanks. I’m noticing Alpine Bikes in Edinburgh also appears to have a few other suggestions in stock so a wee trip may be in order.
I just bought a Superior XC859 with SRAM NX Eagle groupset and a dropper seat post (bought secondhand with these additions) and its really good fun. I personally don't really notice the weight riding because the gearing can go so low (being a road cyclist 95% of the time i'm not used to the dinner plate cassettes) and because i'm pretty rubbish there is a good chance the bike is going to end up in a hedge/tree so happy with the aluminium frame and the fact the bike wasn't too expensive. Their XP range have carbon frames. I was told that this brand offers better value for money then the big players with better groupsets at each price point compared the the household name brands...but who knows?
Re getting on roof - a £10 fold out plastic foot stool left in boot has been a revelation for this 4x4 owning heavy bike rider
I know a lot of people use carbon bikes through the winter but I guess for me its a general concern about robustness. Slippery conditions mean I am more likely to slip off and impact the frame. Mud clinging to the rear tyres will abrade the chainstays. On my previous Scale I went through I think 3 or 4 bottom brackets in its life time - and thats a PITA if the BB is a press fit.
Thanks
> Re getting on roof - a £10 fold out plastic foot stool left in boot has been a revelation for this 4x4 owning heavy bike rider
Annoyingly it has a running plate. Which I thought would make it easier, but sadly it forces said plastic foot stool (of which I have two) out from the car. And subsequently harder to get the bike on.
But thanks for the suggestion
I've ridden carbon MTB bikes for years through many winters in the dark Peak with all the associated rocks and sand/grit - no extra issues at all.
https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx0NORiqkW-9UBfXRkfu1Iunnkn87sD4pa
(though on any MTB bike, I would recommend a bash guard if you like riding the gnar)
If it's XC you're into ... both great looking bikes. I think reds won't be hugely fun in a XC focused bike though.
How often are you out? How many miles will you be putting on it? How hard are you pushing? Is this a wknd spin or is this your main hobby?
As other have mentioned ... £2.5k is a lot for a hard tail especially so if you're not that into riding - you'll need to be sure that's the bike you want to keep for a while.
> .... you'll need to be sure that's the bike you want to keep for a while.
Well, he kept his last one for 17 years, lol.
> Mud clinging to the rear tyres will abrade the chainstays.
I share that concern - and it's why my MTB/CX bikes have a combination of frame tape and a load of zip ties around the tyre ends of the seat/chain stays.
> True. I’m very aware that the Procaliber is around 1.5kg lighter than my current bike. When my body is easily ten times that heavier that it “should” be.
> I’ve tried researching the term “relaxed”. Am I correct in saying that it describes a more upright riding position?
Angle of the head tube fork will be slacker, which you’ll notice on technical descents.
> I’ve tried researching the term “relaxed”. Am I correct in saying that it describes a more upright riding position?
> Angle of the head tube fork will be slacker, which you’ll notice on technical descents.
Maybe worth expanding a little on this to change it to "modern trail geometry".
Generally speaking ... trail bikes have a evolved a number of geometry changes in the last 15 years to make the bike more comfortable in a trail setting:
(I'm sure I'll have missed something)
Together these are often referred to as some variation of "modern trail geometry" and together they make the bike much more pleasant much more capable on the trail (and much more fun!).
This is maybe worth a read: https://bikefaff.com/xc-bike-vs-a-trail-bike/
All depends on what you're going to do with this bike. If you're a distance and climbing machine - get your XC bike. If you're going to be hitting the trails ... get a trail bike.
Got bike psych for you just talking about this!!
Just to add to this a steeper seat angle is also generally required when bikes have a longer reach (length of standing position on bike) as this keeps the seated position comfortable (similar effective top tube lengths - distance from saddle to grips - to older geometry). This geometry works best with a dropper post for the saddle as if you cannot get it down and out of the way it is in a position that is difficult to avoid as with the increased length you cannot get off the back over the saddle as you could on older bikes.
Also if you do choose to go with a hardtail the geometry won't be the same as for a full suspension bike, with a hardtail the head tube and the seat angle steepens with fork sag. On a full suspension bike the front and rear both sag and the geometry stays more in line with the static numbers. In a similar vein to this static bottom bracket heights will increase for bikes with more rear suspension travel, this is to keep similar bottom bracket heights when the suspension sag is setup and to stop the chainring hitting the floor at bottom out.
If you haven't ridden a bike with modern geometry it may take a little bit of time to adjust, with the longer wheelbase and the front wheel being further out in front you need to ride balalnced between the wheels, there isn't the same need to get your weight back as your centre of gravity is so much further behing the front axle you are much less likely to get pushed over the bars. Also on flatter terrain you really need to weight the front wheel to stop it washing out, this can be hard and you really need to trust the grip of your tyres (they are much better than they used to be though with amazingly grippy compounds!) It is worth it in the long run though as you will generally be able to ride faster whilst feeling safer doing so.
> This is maybe worth a read: https://bikefaff.com/xc-bike-vs-a-trail-bike/
I have no idea about idea about XC/trail/enduro and never had suspension so that's useful and led me to https://bikefaff.com/xc-bike-vs-gravel-bike-which-is-better/
Most of my riding is gravel & single track is sometimes blue/green MTB with bits of walking (for me) on ascents/descents. Basically footpaths often but only very rarely a dedicated MTB trail.
Currently have a gravel bike with 700cx42mm tyres and MTB gearing but maybe I should consider hardtail XC. 42mm tyre width right at the limit of what the current gravel frame can take so I have been thinking about a no suspension hybrid bike to as some can take MTB width 2.2 inch tyres.
Sounds like an adventure bike such as the Sonder Frontier is what you need...
That’s a really helpful explanation of hardtail vs fs taking into account modem geometry and tyres.
> Currently have a gravel bike with 700cx42mm tyres and MTB gearing but maybe I should consider hardtail XC. 42mm tyre width right at the limit of what the current gravel frame can take so I have been thinking about a no suspension hybrid bike to as some can take MTB width 2.2 inch tyres.
Is 42 mm at the limit at both the back and front fork? On my gravel bike I have a 40 mm tire on the back and a 50 mm on front. This happened sort of by accident originally but has turned out to be superb. I did a two day bikepack around the Kielder Forest and popping into Scotland at the start of the week. The tyres were superb on the rather "chunky gravel" that seemed predominate on the endless gravel roads up there. So at least on my bike there is way more clearance on the front than on the back.
Gravel bikes are going full circle back to 90s MTB, several brands are offering bikes with flat rather than drop bars this year, even front suspension. Its been incremental so they can sell new bikes every year with slightly more frame clearance. When they should have had 2.2" clearance from the start.
My "gravel" bike is a 2009 MTB hardtail, 26", old school geometry and a size too small so the reach is not outrageous with a drop bar fitted, although its still pretty stretched out with a 70mm stem. I've got 2 sets of wheels, lightweight XC wheels with 26x2.2" Racing Ralphs run tubeless at 20psi, plenty of volume for a smooth ride and more than enough grip for non-technical riding. For on-road I've set of Shimano cyclocross wheels with 700cx28mm slicks. The bike is only 2kph faster with the slicks on road.
> Sounds like an adventure bike such as the Sonder Frontier is what you need...
That does look very nice!!
Now that's a good idea as definitely more space at the front and it's the wrist rattling that is sometimes too much for me. Legs are generally good enough suspension for my rear.
What width is the front rim?
I'll just pop downstairs and measure front fork clearance although I think I'm already exceeding the recommended tyre width for the rims.
622x42 tyres on 622x17 rims, about 1cm clearance to knobbles laterally and radially.
I think it would be a bit risky without new wheel or rim according to Sheldon Brown.
Although strangely a 19mm MTB rim can take 1.9-2.1 inches but a 19mm road rim is only up to 38C.
https://www.lightbicycle.com/newsletter/tire-size-chart-for-bicycle-rim.htm...
I'm not running tubeless, perhaps that means road rim guidance.
I've got Hunt 4S Gravel wheels - I think 26 mm external width 21 mm internal if the spec hasn't changed - mine are three years old. I must say I've never thought about it and have had no problem, but looking on their site they suggest up to 45 mm tyre width.
Tyre-rim combinations are specified by the standards organisation ETRTO, they are VERY conservative, to avoid getting sued when a tyres pops off a rim at high pressure or rolls when exposed to high side loads. The road tyre-rims specs are even more constrained than those for MTB tyres because of the traditionally much higher pressures that were used, typically over 100psi. We now know that wider tyres at lower pressures have lower rolling resistance on real life surfaces. additionally a rule of thumb is that running tyres which are more than 105% of the outside rim width is less aerodynamic.
I've been running 2.25" MTB tyres on 19mm internal width rims for 20 years tubed and tubeless with no problems, before 19mm rims were common most mountain bikes came with 17mm internal width rims and everyone was quite happy running 1.85" or 47mm tyres, admittedly the tyre profile is better with a wider rim.
There is no difference between a 29er and 700c rim they both have a 622mm bead seat.
That's excellent news!
My 622x42 tyres on 622x17 rims felt dodgy under side load at first corner on tarmac. Possibly entirely in my imagination as they feel fine now.
Currently Schwalbe Smart Sam Plus 42-622 (28 x 1.60, 700x40C) with about 10mm clearance laterally and radially on front forks but knobbles a bit worn.
Looks like I should try 47-622 (28 x 1.75) Smart Sam Plus or look around for 50-622
The biggest Smart Sam Plus is 54-622 (29 x 2.10) but that might be stretching it for 17mm width and front fork clearance. I like the Schwalbe puncture protection because my rides often have an urban start.
PS sorry to OP for thread hijack
> PS sorry to OP for thread hijack
No worries. It’s nice to see posts go to ubernerd level. That’s why I trust the advice I get. I know you guys know your technical stuff.
Get a Trek fuel EX. Both the bikes linked to will be horrid on reds.
The head angle is only 1.5 degrees less than the Procaliber. Will that make that much of a difference?
Its obviously full sus so I’m sure that’s what makes the big difference?
I think you would notice it but, more importantly, superlight XC machines just don't ride well on gnarly downhill stuff.
Ta