Bikes - carbon , aluminium, Santa Cruz/Canyon

mikeyj28

Hi all

After speaking to a respected person in the bike industry who 'apparently' does/should know his stuff, I have a few thoughts to get your opinions on.

What are your takes on Santa Cruz XC bikes (tallboy)?-superb or overpriced and great for people who have a lot of spare cash to offload?
Canyon carbon bikes in comparison have poor quality structure on the inner on the carbon tubes in comparison to Santa Cruz and this is also demonstrated by the relatively lower warranty on the frame???

Giant Anthem 29ers aren't really up to much these days.-bit strange as they were the bees knees a few years back and from experience it has been a great bike for me (26er version).
Pretty much rubbishes Canyon as an internet bike that is rubbish and cheap (and others like Radon and Rose).

FS wins over a super light HT for 2.5-3hrs of XC racing. - probably the one I believed the most from him.

I have opinions on all of the questions statements I have put here but want to see what you all think too. I'd appreciate none of the smart arse answers and genuine replies would be most appreciated.

Reason is this guy is a very well known name and pretty successful and respected too.

Thanks

poah

and who is this well known and respected guy who happens to know everything.

my opinion

santa cruz are overpriced

radon, rose and canyon are decent brands in their own country's. I cannot comment on their strengths and weaknesses but santa cruz aren't free from frame failures/cracks. canyon do use a CT scanner to check their carbon frames.

can't comment on the giant either

smells like someone is a santa cruz fan boy more than anything else.

Ferrals

What sort of xc racing? Most xco style races are 1.5hrs and I think it's horses for courses. I can imagine a fs is good for marathon/endurance races (not that I've done one) but they are surely longer than 2.5hrs?

njee20

Indeed XC racing isn't really 2.5-3 hours, it's either shorter or longer. FS is getting more popular in XCO, probably roughly 50/50, perhaps still a slight bias to hardtails. Personal though, and course dependent.

We pay well over the odds for Santa Cruz - in the US they're vastly cheaper. So I don't think they represent good value in the UK, decent bikes though.

Can't comment on the internal structure of Canyons versus other brands, it's not all that relevant either, other than showing an attention to detail. Trek tend to be very well finished internally, but that doesn't mean their frames are better. The Scott Spark I cut up was a mess. Again, doesn't make it inferior.

Anthems are a lot less popular than they were, a victim of Giants "you need a 29er NOW", followed a year later by "you know that 29er you have? It's rubbish, you need 650b". Turned a lot of people off the brand.

cooldad

I only do smart arse so I'm out.

VWsurfbum

quick reply
Santa Cruz - Good but overpriced and had one too many friends cracked.(carbon ones) for me to consider.
Canyon - First hand experiance is they are incredible value and very well put together, how long they will last depends on how stupid you ride it, just like any other bike, ally or carbon.
Giant - No first hand experiance.
XC racing i found to lose out on out right pace but gained on being comfort and control so could pedal harder for longer.

Thewaylander

Quick reply..

It's a brand thing, it offers nothing over other bikes other than normal trade offs in terms of efficiency vs activeness of the suspension.

Canyon see above

Giant are fine same as above.

xc racing is for people who shave their legs not the face;)

cooldad

What about those who shave their legs with a blunt bayonet?

Thewaylander

oooo good question, I will go away and think about this...

mikeyj28

Yes I think he was siding with a fast finisher on a 75km marathon race and not an outright shorter flat out XC race. Not naming him just yet anyway but he is/ was super fast and is involved very heavily in the industry.

Just a bit disappointed at what I would see as blatant hype and forcing down your throat at how 'great' Santa Cruz are and how bad/inferior other brands are.

BloggingFit

Bare in mind they may be a long wait for Canyon from ordering.

Santa Cruz make decent bikes but as others have said they are better value purchased in the US than UK. It may be worth looking at online retailers competitive cyclist and cambria bike as they run end of line sales which are good value at times. Just beware of import tax.

I think Trek would fit the bill rather well for what you're after. A Superfly would work out well if you plan to race or a Fuel if you are less inclined and rather just ride. The only complaint I could have with brands like Trek, Giant, Specialized is that the ride can be a little dead and less fun.

If you are looking for more slack geometry and a more involved ride on a short travel bike then Transition Scout is worth a look.

rockmonkeysc

Santa Cruz are good value in America (where they think Nukeproof are super expensive & Santa Cruz are cheap)
Canyon are ok but personally I don't like their rear suspension on 150mm+ bikes and think the Torque is the worst modern DH bike I have ridden. Rose make some quality bikes. Never ridden a Radon.
Giant Anthem 29 is a very good bike but no xc racer.
XC racing is less than 2.5 hours unless you are doing something wrong. For XC endurance events it's very course dependent as to whether FS or HT is best.

If a bike makes you grin like an idiot forget all the other bo11ocks

mikeyj28

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Santa Cruz are good value in America (where they think Nukeproof are super expensive & Santa Cruz are cheap)
Canyon are ok but personally I don't like their rear suspension on 150mm+ bikes and think the Torque is the worst modern DH bike I have ridden. Rose make some quality bikes. Never ridden a Radon.
Giant Anthem 29 is a very good bike but no xc racer.
XC racing is less than 2.5 hours unless you are doing something wrong. For XC endurance events it's very course dependent as to whether FS or HT is best.

If a bike makes you grin like an idiot forget all the other bo11ocks

Yes I've heard the Nukeproof are very expensive from the US market.

Haha- you have a good point there with the bike making you grin!!

rockmonkeysc

Some people take mountain biking too seriously, putting all their effort and money in to shaving seconds off their local loop to get up the Strava ranks.
I prefer to go out, have fun, do jumps wheelies and skids. If I go home smiling with all my bones in one piece then its been a successful ride.
I ride the bike I can have most fun on. Some bikes might be lighter, faster or more efficient but will they be more fun.

paul.skibum

I have a Santa Cruz - I like it - it cost me half what it would have in the UK. Canyon's are OK, the latest Nerves and whatsits look great but the early ones I saw were pretty average - definitely a blooming brand and still good value although I think that vfm rating is dropping off as their success grows. Radon - no idea, Rose - my mate had a Granite Chief and loved it, I thought it was over built and over heavy but he was a fat fudge and needed its beef to stop it snapping after two prior frames died.

Anthem? I'd have one if that's the riding I was doing and I could get a deal on it. It's not but I could.

FS vs HT for racing - depends on the course and the distance I'd imagine - watched world cup xc races last year and fs was definitely favoured by a growing number of riders on more technical WC tracks.

Was it Rob Warner you were talking to? Former Giant man, fast once and probably still faster than most of us, SC fan boy, commentates on xc and dh, runs a pimp bike shop.

Lewis A

Rob Warner rides an Anthem 29.

Angus Young

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I ride the bike I can have most fun on. Some bikes might be lighter, faster or more efficient but will they be more fun?

This should be a sticky at the top of the buying advice section.