BCAC

Yep.

My purchasing process is much different than yours and you are absolutely correct. Each of us gets to make our own decisions and if it make sense to the purchaser, well, then, it’s right.

Russ Roth

So you can get a decent dual suspension for less or still have to pay more?
The cheaper ones had springs for suspension and a lot of brands didn't have cheaper, at 2.2k (we got it on sale) the bike comes with front and rear air that seems to be working well and is adjustable, there's a lockout if needed, the 1x10 parts are halfway decent. Deore isn't great but it is respectable for an average or learning rider and the weight is heavier then I think a bike should be but still within a couple pounds of significantly more expensive bikes.
We will get around to replacing the wheels next year with some significantly nicer ones but I actually can't see where the real deficiencies are in the bike. Could everything be better? Sure, but it wouldn't remotely have a real impact on her riding.

Russ Roth

Fail to see the humour, after hitting 2k I didn't see anything that made the bikes so amazingly better. at 8k you got electronic shifting which I guess is nicer if you're into that, I really don't want yet another thing to plug in or worry about. 1x10 vs 1x12 is better but from my own 1x10 deore to 1x11 xt conversion I don't see it being anything special, maybe 12 is just that much more special? Wheels aren't anything to write home about until you get really expensive and I can build or buy nicer wheels for far less of a difference. And the shocks so far work very well. I'm sure to a dedicated MTBer that the more expensive are just so much better but I don't see the value in it. If we want something better on the bike I can put it there for fairly affordable. But other then better wheels/tires I don't know what that would be and what I'd put on there doesn't come on a factory bike typically so either way I'd be replacing the wheels for better.

Russ Roth

While you've done a fantastic job of being condescending you've failed to elucidate the reasons I'm wrong which seems to be the purpose of this thread.
My meaningful experience includes at last 30 races throughout the Catskills, Adirondacks and White and Green Mountains, mountain bike parks in upstate NY, most of the trails on LI, a number of trails in PA and Eastern NY; so nothing too meaningful as I haven't hit the western US/Canadian meccas but meaningful enough I still don't see your humour. The frame of her bike is the same used through 3 levels of Cannondales going significantly more expensive. If we need upgrades we'll get them but I don't see any of them being significant.

Phil_gretz

You guys are arguing essentially the same point ^. The only disagreement is where the knee in the curve is for returns (features, capabilities) for one's money. I haven't priced the dual suspension MTB market. I'm guessing that I could build a pretty capable mostly carbon dual suspension 27.5 bike using components sourced entirely from China, except for the suspension fork. If I were to plan this, I'd set the budget at $2700 to 3200. The wide range is because of what I don't know yet. That'd be where I'd place the knee in the curve, though.

For a similar level carbon racing road bike with R8000 rim brakes and cable shifting, that point would be $1800 to 2000.

Anyway, you two are closer than you realize.

CargoDane

To me, there is no doubt there is diminishing returns above a certain point. Especially when it comes to derailleured bikes. I don't know if I'd put it at 2K. It could be lower, it could be higher.

With IGH, the point where diminishing returns begins in my book is after you have priced either a Rohloff or a Pinion (and the frame for it - especially the Pinion).

But in either case, my bike, although expensive, is not more than three times better than a 2k bike, or more than twice as good objectively speaking than a 3K bike.

My Saint DH brakes with a 203mm rotor in front is not twice as good as another hydraulic brake at half the price. My titanium frame is not more than twice as good as the same frame in steel. My custom titanium handlebars are not 4 times better than a good pair of alu (or steel) handlebars.

Russ is right: After a certain point, the returns on your investment diminishes. Luckily, for everyone involved (Russ+HD3), parts are able to be upgraded or be replaced. It's not a big deal.

Personally, I think $2k is not anywhere near "cheap bike, poor quality" territory as HD3 seems to imply (while attempting to shame Russ for not wanting to spend more).

Edited to add:
I probably have to explain a couple of things:

I didn't buy my frame and "stuff" based on the above things. I began by wanting a Rohloff (instead of the 11-speed IGH on my Bullitt). I then decided I wanted an omnium, but I wanted it in Ti to make it lighter and to avoid a steel frame (as Omniums are usually made of), as well as to have one that was stiff enough for a rohloff and had a split backstay for a Gates belt. I then asked around for prices to see how much I'd have to spend tor those things and whether or not I felt I could afford (if it was "worth it" basically).

Secondly, I don't usually talk about prices, but as I was stupid enough to mention the price of my bike in this thread earlier on, and having to break down various prices, it is already done, so it doesn't matter much anymore.

Thirdly: My handlebars are etched to look like steel (I asked for this, as I wanted to limit reflections), and they're only made in titanium because it's lighter than a steel version. An alu bar would be lighter still.

CargoDane

LOL, all the points HD3 makes are what any upgrade from any price can potentially get you. There i s no doubt that spending more may give you some of those things, but what HD3 seems to not understand is the very idea of "diminishing returns". He doesn't seem to grasp that diminishing returns means that per monetary unit you spend above a certain point, the unit buys you less benefits.
Of course, HD3 is arguing that spending more buys you better gear (or rather, that you can get better gear if you spend more as it costs more), which is so obvious that I don't know why he thinks he needs to post it continuously.

CargoDane

I have bolded the words you seem to not grasp:

He is NOT saying that there are no benefits to buying dearer bikes or parts, which is what you think he is saying.

CargoDane

You claim that that is not what you think, then immediately proceed to argue exactly that.

I also have a problem with your argument that paying more for a frame than he has somehow would increase durability and performance - and do it "significantly" even. And yet, you still claim you're not attempting to shame him.

You're back on my ignore list.

Russ Roth

This is mostly false. Her habit shares the same geometry as an 8000 habit. While suspension might effect how well that suspension works the geometry and how the suspension is integrated into it has a greater impact then the actual shocks. Arguing your geometry is better is something to take up with C-dale, they also offer three different trail bikes using 3 different suspension systems designed for different styles of riding. Which is better is up to where and how a person rides and their opinion of which engineering is the better design. There is nothing about any of the price points that makes a frame more durable though I'll be a lot happier if she drops the frame on a pile of rocks and we have to live with a dent vs a crack in the carbon. Frame compliance in a dual suspension bike is also not the same thing as compliance in a road, gravel or cross bike where compliance may determine how long your back, butt or shoulders can handle the rough terrain.

Right, and as I said all along, we will next year build her a nice set of wheels. I'm leaning towards a set of I9 built by them since she will love the aluminum ano spokes and the way we can play with colors. Otherwise I'd head towards a set of Kings with 1.8 butted spokes in the front, 2.0 butted spokes in the rear and colored alloy nipples with a nice carbon rim. Probably looking at outlaying from 1800-2500 depending on what she wants. How ridiculously expensive would I have to spend to get the equivalent on a bike? I'll give that the 8000 Habit does come with DT with a 54 POE star ratchet which is absolutely nothing to sneer at but the King or I9 with be every bit as good with more engagement and, for my wife, prettier. 2k is also tubeless now a days, just toss in the goo and a stem and go. Even filled it with the floor pump.

The first thing that really can make a difference though I've never had to adjust my bottom out on the side of the trail. Maybe that's a real thing? Seems like a solution looking for a problem.

True but not a significant upgrade to match what they put on the 8000 version that uses the same geometry, pivots and mounting points.

oooh, a couple hundred grams at best. How stiff does a 130lb woman need? Since the difference between the Habit she bought at the nearly 9k Santa Cruz we weighted it against in the shop was only 3lbs I'm gonna guess the wheels and tires will solve most of that. As she breaks things, and she will better will follow and the minimal amount of weight will go down. But these aren't road machines that will hit 16lbs, we're talking trail bikes that in dual suspension seem to bottom out around 28lbs making the difference not that great. I haven't weighed her wheels yet but that and tires should have her at close to 30lb.

Actual proof of cranks being any stiffer to the point of mattering? Under a 280lb guy like me "stiffer" cranks might make some difference but in tests I seen and tried to duplicate the frame flexes before the cranks. 2k gets you thru-axle, not square taper, and the race face cranks it came with don't flex. Much of what made cranks better in the past was how well they shifted, pick up pins, ramps, etc. A modern 1x narrow/wide chain ring doesn't have these same features or need them. The quality of the spider and material in the rings is the main difference and the returns here can be really diminishing.
More precise shifting, finally something I can't argue, absolutely.
While the der will probably be lighter, more gears seems to equal heavier cassettes all things being equal, and I really haven't seen the der being more durable, I can't prove either way but I suspect the chunkiness of the cheaper, mid-range ders to be more durable. But as rear ders are in a sense disposable, by bashing them against rocks or putting a branch through them when the need arrives we will be upgrading to a Box 1 kit at 1x11.

Although I have found remote suspension lockout to be a great thing I've yet to see the need to drop my post, maybe its from going 20 years without one but I've practically sat on tires I was far enough back on downhills but I've yet to have the seat in the way. When demo'ing a bike I never found myself using it.

I may not have the experience you have, but that doesn't mean I don't have any. I've built plenty of top end dual suspension bikes over the years and played around with some really expensive componentry. I'm well aware of the way returns diminish and how some of them, especially based on the rider are completely unimportant. Some parts are, like the wheels and especially the tires, big aspects of how a bike rides and how it handles while some of it doesn't matter that much. Since I don't care to replace a carbon frame, and she is crash prone, her 2k bike that has the same trail handling as the 8k bike really is good enough, more would be a waste.

CargoDane

Everyone not on the top-of-the-line FS bandwagon are ignorant or worse according to HD3andme.

HD3andme strikes me as a person who is so happy with his own bike that he cannot fathom why anyone would think the price point and features of his particular bike used for his particular type of rides is not for them, that they don't have his needs or wants, doesn't ride in the samme manner/places as him, or that they don't weigh the same as him.
This is most evident when he tries to make his bike "the one" and his eagerness to prove his bike is better than a 2k bike (it is, for his type of bike/rides).

Me, I'm happy not having a full-sus bike, as I don't do dedicated hobby-bikes. I don't have a road bike for the same reason. I like a bit of a compromise so it is better suited to a variety of things.

My next bike (in some years) will probably be an unsuspended gravel grinder with loads of mounts and cargoplatform at the front for a bag, and I'm still considering whether it should be a drop bar (haven't owned a drop bar since I was child) or if I should get one with a flattish alt-bar.

Russ Roth

So if all the frames have the same link system and same geometry what is the improvement between the frames at different price levels other then aluminum vs carbon vs strength of the carbon being used? Which was my point with the C-dale, they all use the same system on the Habit frames so an 8k frame doesn't have a better linkage then a 2k. Now whether the Habit's is better then the Jekyll or Scalpel, or treks or Santa Cruz or Giant is the part that magazines and engineers can debate.
I also never suggested that "carbon assplodes", that's your misreading of the sentence. I said that I'd rather deal with dented aluminum vs cracked carbon. My bikes currently include a carbon road, aluminum with carbon fork gravel and steel with carbon fork cross; I have no fear of carbon "assploding" whatever that is supposed to mean. But crash and carbon cracks, its a reality of life, doesn't mean aluminum or steel won't fail either but I've ridden dented steel and aluminum for quite a while, I would never ride cracked carbon. Although I always liked carbon bars, riding home on an aluminum bar that was bent at a really weird angle felt safer then riding home on a cracked bar and I've had to ride both.

Actually you failed to answer the question. Its only at 8k that the wheels start to get good enough that they're not necessarily worth replacing, so why would I spend 8k on a bike that I wouldn't replace the wheels on because they're good enough and not just spend 2500 on the wheels I'd rather have and save the difference.

Sorry, too busy riding through to stop and figure out which setting I need. Maybe I'm just not hardcore enough to need to do so. I really like long flowy trails that twist and wind with the occasional drop or features to jump. The chair lift to the top and ride the trails down not take the shortest route down.

Still don't see your point, her shock works well enough for her, if we ever need to upgrade or find better we can go to what the top end of this suspension system uses or what the upgrade from that is. Maybe she'll notice the difference, maybe she won't.

From my experience selling bikes those aren't the norm and the average rider won't benefit. I worked with a guy who's 12k downhill bike was frickin amazing, completely pointless to me and not worth the money but I have no desire to follow him down a mountain. Only about 3 other customers ever needed a similar bike. After a certain point the differences were still splitting hairs rather then make a difference.

Can't say I have ever found the stiffness of the cranks to ever make a difference, jumping, small drops, tricky climbs; mid-range cranks have always been fine to arm stiffness especially now with thru axle. The biggest difference in ratcheting to connect a series of moves is the hub's instant engagement.

Nothing wrong with buying upgrades, shifting can make it better but not spending thousands more to upgrade a couple levels.

You skipped, all things being equal.
12 sp xt 462g, 10sp 330g
11sp XX1 260g
11sp XO, can't find a weight.

Not at all, and depending on the purpose a bike might need to be more expensive, there's also a point where the differences are pointless to all but the pros and even then it might not be really significant. There's also a point at which what you are paying for is the manufacturer telling you it is worth more and suckering you into paying. I've got Campy record 12sp ergos on my cross bike, are they really better then Chorus; nope. Are they lighter; not enough to be worth mentioning. Are the levers really stiffer then Chorus to make it matter; not that I can tell. For the 10.00 difference between Record and Chorus levers I like the pretty carbon, if I'd bought them in the US and had to pay the 200+ difference they seem to have over chorus would, knowing what I know, they be worth paying the difference. Hell no, the 15g or so difference, the lack of difference in performance and the carbon shine are so insignificant they're not worth it. Just as I can't see the difference between my record and Super record being something worth while other then to just say you have it. Maybe I'm wrong but I could never see the point of paying the difference.

If spending 12k on a new mtb is what you need to go out and have the most enjoyable ride for you, then more power to you. As for me, I still like my 2k hardtail with upgraded wheels from 4 years ago and I'll just go enjoy myself.

big john

This Ibis aluminum framed Ripmo has good reviews and I don't think any parts from China. It's a long travel 29er.
https://www.ibiscycles.com/bikes/ripmo-af

big john

For those worried about carbon fiber frames Giant has a lifetime warranty AND a 2 year crash replacement warranty.

"We’re so confident in Giant’s composite technology, if any composite frame or component is structurally damaged while you’re riding in the first two years after you bought it, we’ll repair it or replace it free of charge. This is in addition to Giant's limited lifetime warranty and offers coverage which usually isn't offered."

big john

As to dropper posts, I rode mtb without one for 25+ years and never saw a need. I even lowered the saddle using the seat post QR a few times and meh. Then in 2018 I bought a new bike which came with a dropper and I never want to ride without one again. It takes a while to learn how to use it, besides just descending. I lower it a little on tough climbs, too.

I like the bike but I would have paid more to get a higher level fork and better brakes. It's a Fox 36 fork and it's great except on long descents with stutter bumps, which is where the pricier fork would help. The rear shock and DW link knockoff suspension works fine.
Better brakes would help on certain steep descents.

CargoDane

I don't think anyone is actually worried about CF frames in this thread. Russ, who is arguing it's unnecessary and might be expensive due to crashes, has a carbon bike himself (road bike, IIRC).

I don't have a CF bike, but that's because I prefer titanium. I may swap out my fork (which is currently steel) for a Ti fork, but if too difficult to source with a "tab" on it, I'll probably go CF.

I don't think the Giant actually warranties crashes. Notice how it says "frame replacements" in the "crash protection part? Yeah, they'll probably give you a 30% discount on a new one to keep you in the fold.

Mind you, I do think CF can be made strong enough if done correctly. My left foot and stump holster (prosthetic leg) is CF and the fittings are titanium. But a cf tube isn't that strong if it hits a rock (pointed or not) as most of the energy will be from a point source. If it was solid CF, it would be different (and heavy!!).


When (and if) I get a gravel bike, I know for certain I want a titanium frame, and most likely, that bike will get a CF fork. On my Omnium (cargo bike), I am not quite sure if I can get a CF BMX fork strong enough (I have a 20" front wheel) and have a tab for the steerer tube attached strongly enough unless it's a custom job.

CargoDane

I should have never clicked "show reply".

He is not "worried". He feels that for something that would get dings and dents, it is safer to continue with an alu bike dented rather than cf bike "dented" (fibres cracked).
The pieces of that video I saw (I clicked random places) seems to be about ultimate strength, not having you land on top of a rock with the bike in between.


I don't doubt that one can make strong constructions out of carbon. There is just some things where metal is better, whether you like it or not. Which is also why my prosthetic foot is made from high-density carbon fibre, the stump socket is made from normal carbon fibre and the tube connecting the two + the various adjustment sockets are made from titanium.

As for your "classic dunning kruger right there". You need to learn something about materials and shapes. A tube is most vulnerable when hit perpendicularly regardles of material. And the thinner walls and larger diameter it is, the more prone to folding it will be. Maybe it's time to stop projecting your own ignorance? Carbon is not good when hit "sideways" to the designed forces. If you make a boat out of CF, you put a layer of Kevlar on the inside to keep it from cracking open if you hit something. That's a direction of force carbon is really, really poor at surviving.


I also have a couple of rowing boats (sculling boats), and for those, I have the stiffest CF oars available. Although they resist bending forces (torsion too) exceptionally well, you will still be able to make a hole it in with a peen hammer or a pointy rock or otherwise crack some of the fibres if you hit the tube perpendicularly. If that happens, it is not to be trusted anymore because without x-ray and modelling, you don't know how weakened it actually is. Which is what Russ explained: That a small dent in an alu tube is nothing, while a small crack from a hit on CF will mean that out of precaution, that frame is dead.

That's not "worrying" which seems to imply that there is no need for it, or it is ridiculous. It is not. It is taking the properties of a given material into account and choosing on the basis thereof.

----------------------

All this posturing from you makes me think that maybe you have recently bought your first CF bike and/or first FS bike, and since you're happy with it, everyone should follow your lead and do as you.

CargoDane

Any more psychological insights you'd like to share with the group?



Taking material properties into account is not worrying. It's making an informed choice.




Yeah, because I don't want to sit through a five minute infomercial with some bikebros, I must be lazy.

I did just now after you told me. Just because it doesn't bend, doesn't mean it can still be ridden on. Even on that really poor video audiowise, I can hear what sounds like cracking. Now put some actual weight on it while smashing into something.



Material science is applicable everywhere. Giving examples is a good way to explain things.
The examples I give just show that I have actual experience with carbon fibre, and not blind trust in it for everything.




Oh, yeah, I forgot: You're the bloke who thinks that one cannot possibly know anything if you're from a small country, but if you're from a big country, it means you automatically know more. At one point (can't remember if this was this thread), you actually attempted to claim that I couldn't know what it was like to ride at night because I was from Denmark. You did that in your usual condescending way, not realising just how much pseudo arguments like that project your own ignorance. Beliefs such as that must for sure be genetic.

As for the actual contents: You claim to know a lot, but you reveal to know very little, projecting your own ignorance onto everyone else.


Again with the ridiculous strawman that is so out of touch with reality it's beyond laughable.
Does that mean that even if your CF frame has been hit hard enough to have cracked visibly "only" on the hit surface, you feel it will be safe to continue?
I mean, you CLAIM to know about materials, yet you don't know how carbon destructs?



Nope. You still can't grasp that different materials have different properties, and fail differently.




Nope, not "making stuff up". It was a guess since I have never met someone as infantile and clueless in their defense of a material other than someone who has just received his first bike and/or first bike in a specific material.

And you still think carbon fibre is somehow magic for everything.
By now, you should really know better, then.

Coming from a guy who fails to grasp examples, doesn't know the failure mode of various materials, nor knows where a tube is the weakest when exposed to a force, that is pure and simple projecting on your part.

It would be hilarious if you weren't so intent on showing off with the zealotry of a recent convert, projecting your own ignorance while trying to be as condescending as at all possible at any time.

At least we have established you know nothing about the failure mode of carbon, you know nothing about materials science, you know nothing about shapes and where a given shape is most vulnerable, you know nothing about efficiency, you don't know that it gets dark in small Scandinavian countries too, and you have the very firm belief that the size of one's country you were born in somehow dictates not only how much you can possibly know about a given subject, but dictates how much you know.

You must be born with it.

rekmeyata

Let's see tough carbon fiber in action:



https://vimeo.com/106021360

CargoDane

LOL, as an owner of a Titanium bike, that "TItanium strength" video is a joke. It's a pipe, not a tube. Look at the wall thickness of the titanium tube vs. the wall thickness of the alu one he crushed.
There is also many different titanium alloys, just as there many (more) different aluminium alloys, and many different steel alloys.

And, yes, I realise you can bang on a CF tube and it doesn't show much damage on the outside. However, if you hit a sheet of CF (or a tube), the cracks and delamination happens on the other side (inside of the tube). Something DH3andMe completely fails to understand.
You don't see the people bashing on CF frames go ride them afterwards. For good reason.

Edited to add:
I first thought you were posting more videos of people bashing on dead CF frames to prove a point. I then watched the videos. Hilarity ensued. Effing brilliant.

Russ Roth

I didn't word my response quite right, I don't give a damn which system of suspension you care to claim is better. Cdale says that the system on the Habit is a good system for trail riding and continues to be a good system for some of their more expensive mtbs. Nope, I don't have enough experience to try out every system out there nor do I care to. Their engineers say its as good as it needs to be, it gets very good reviews in a number of trusted publications and review sites, and they have been adapting their designs to tweak ride quality for decades. That does make it good enough for the trail riding we like to do, whether a 2000 habit or an 8000 habit the difference is the shock and that can always be remedied if need be.

I'm no more worried about her ability to crack carbon as I am her ability to dent aluminum. She crashed 4 times today riding a place called Hempstead Harbor which is a decent technical trail. Having been around bikes long enough I've seen plenty or cracked carbon and dented aluminum and am aware that carbon can take quite the impact. But she isn't that great a rider and if she lays the bike down hard enough to put a serious dent in it then that level of impact has a good chance of putting a crack in the carbon. While I know it can be repaired as good as new, doing so would be costly with shipping and repair cost, and I'd rather an aluminum bike she can just keep riding.

Maybe you're some great guru who just knows everything everyone has to have to enjoy their ride to the fullest, or maybe you're just the pretentious ass that you sound like in this thread. Either way I don't care and I'm done responding. Enjoy.

5 mph

A friend of mine filled my bike tires with nitrogen. Boy did that make a difference.

big john

I was working in the car dealership when that silliness started.

rekmeyata

I seriously doubt you felt any difference since the air we breathe is 73% nitrogen, thus the extra 27% percent of Nitrogen added would have had a negligible effect. In addition to that nitrogen's main use in car tires are to reduce the temperature a bit due to high speeds, but on a bicycle, you would never get close to the higher speeds necessary to see any sort of an effect from using nitrogen. The only benefit of using nitrogen in your bicycle tire is that it doesn't naturally leak out as fast as it would with regular air; and also your tubes will last longer.

So all you felt was a placebo effect.

big john

Pretty sure he was joking.