Tatt Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 +1 for the Camber. Just out of curiosity, how do the weight limits of the Specialized bikes work? The structural weight limit for a Camber Comp Carbon is 125kgs, which will be perfect for the OP, however, if he was to look at the Elite, it is 109kgs, which as a buffalo class member would probably result in him being above this by the time he has his kit and camelback on. Tom
Mr lee Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 Old habits die hard in the MTB industry. For all it's constant development and updating of standards, a lot of bikes and bike brands still carry the geometry of their road bike forefathers. Take a brand like Whyte. They're making cheap/entry level bikes with modern geometry: long reach, slack, steep seat angles and so on. You would think trickle down technology would apply to frames as well
ZakAttak Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 I more prefer the Camber... but that new Scott just looks the part...Plus it has a vertical rear shock which must count for something....
Ozzie NL Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 I more prefer the Camber... but that new Scott just looks the part... Plus it has a vertical rear shock which must count for something.... *ninja*Pyga has vertical rear shock too
Pikey Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 glad to be of help, man. I constantly see people on XC race rigs when they should be on something a lot more forgiving, a lot more capable and a bit slacker with more squish. It really does make a world of difference to the average rider. And there is no speed difference over a 70km course for the avg Joe. The little you lose on the hills ( which is little) you make up on the downs and tech or single track.
Rocket-Boy Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 You would think trickle down technology would apply to frames as well It does but it takes a long time to get there. The average entry level hardtail is a lot slacker than it was 10 years ago, but trickle down takes a while.
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 And there is no speed difference over a 70km course for the avg Joe. The little you loose on the hills ( which is little) you make up on the downs and tech or single track.Precisely
BaGearA Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 EVERYONE is on A scott so I would go for the camber , on paper the scott looks better but I think the camber is A better bike , in the end the bike does much than the ride does But I strongly advise that you narrow it down to the spez and scott , the other two don't compete with them
Slowbee Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 un ashamed hijack... so what (some of ) you okes are saying is that 2015 camber frame is not the same as a 2017 camber frame? so year model of second hand cambers is important ? in the same line, a 2015 anthem 1, is different to a 2016/2017/2018 anthem 1?
Jurgens Smit Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 un ashamed hijack... so what (some of ) you okes are saying is that 2015 camber frame is not the same as a 2017 camber frame? so year model of second hand cambers is important ? in the same line, a 2015 anthem 1, is different to a 2016/2017/2018 anthem 1? 2015 Camber has 110mm Fork and 70deg head angle2017 has 120mm fork and 68.5 deg HA So yes, there should be minor updates as the models progress. As to how they differences come into account on a ride I'm not entirely sure. Someone with a better understanding of geometry and suspension will be able to tell
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 2015 Camber has 110mm Fork and 70deg head angle2017 has 120mm fork and 68.5 deg HA So yes, there should be minor updates as the models progress. As to how they differences come into account on a ride I'm not entirely sure. Someone with a better understanding of geometry and suspension will be able to tellMoarrrrrrr bettererrrrrrr Slack head angle = confidence and stability in tech and steepsMore squish = more comfort and more margin for error. In this case the improvements are not sacrificing climbing manners
Slowbee Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 at what stage does the HA move from being a marathon bike to a trail bike ?
lerouc Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 I have been eyeing the camber for a while now. If it was 2016 i would have said go for the camber but those new scotts....
Pikey Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 And there is no speed difference over a 70km course for the avg Joe. The little you lose on the hills ( which is little) you make up on the downs and tech or single track.PreciselyIn fact the little you do give up on the climbs is only straight out gravel grinders. If it's rocky the slacker bike with more travel grips and does t get hung up on rocks ,roots or whatever. I have found it to be pretty ewual overall when both gravel & rough sections are combined on a climb. Oh and it's more comfortable if that's what you after. Doesn't beat you up either regardless of the distance . ( fitness allowing obviously) And I am talking 67,5 head angle vs 70.3
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.