|
|
Post by andy4d on Dec 18, 2014 20:04:45 GMT
Thinking of a getting a frame in the new year and trying to do a build. Really really love the look of the on one 456 evo carbon in black but not sure if its worth me throwing an extra 200 quid at it over the steel evo2 frame.
Whats everyones thoughts on carbon vs steel, does carbon ride better ( I read its a bit more forgiving over the bumps?) last longer etc? I am not looking to build a weight weeny or anything just a decent long travel hardtail that can take a small bit of trail abuse.
If I do go carbon is there any other additional cost/ special component I would have to consider
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Dec 18, 2014 20:11:59 GMT
I think the steel frame will be more forgiving and that's where my money would be going. Not the same, I know, but my steel Cotic is brilliant
|
|
|
|
Post by timbo on Dec 18, 2014 20:20:25 GMT
I had an '12 456c, was really really good, id definitely recommend going for the carbon one, much lighter and quite compliant compared to a steel/alu frame, they're very well designed. Mine cracked at the seat clamp area in the end, that was more of a wear and tear issue than a failure, i ran a really long seatpost that went up and down probably 10-20 times a ride for a long time. If id had a dropper on it then ive no doubt id probably be riding it forever.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 20:38:50 GMT
I love the look that 456c Timbo. I'm like Andy and am dreaming of a black 456 carbon jobbie next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by scott on Dec 18, 2014 20:41:43 GMT
I had the original carbon as my main bike before I sold it. Light, agile and very stable, it was a bit stiff over the rough stuff but its nowt to cry over. I got the steel Evo2 as a hack bike because at £150 it was a no brainer. It is more forgiving over the lumps and bumps and comfortable-er? than the carbon. A little bit heavier too obv.
Go for whichever one you prefer, like the look of, sounds the best etc.
PS, the steel 26'' evo2 has a standard 1 1/8th headtube only strangely.
|
|
|
|
Post by notsarkyadam on Dec 18, 2014 20:54:46 GMT
I'd take a Reynolds steel frame, over carbon any day!...
|
|
|
|
Post by andy4d on Dec 18, 2014 21:19:15 GMT
I'd take a Reynolds steel frame, over carbon any day!... Really, I looked at stantons. Whats so good about the reynolds steel. Excuse my ignorance  |
|
|
|
Post by andy4d on Dec 18, 2014 21:21:29 GMT
I had an '12 456c, was really really good, id definitely recommend going for the carbon one, much lighter and quite compliant compared to a steel/alu frame, they're very well designed. Mine cracked at the seat clamp area in the end, that was more of a wear and tear issue than a failure, i ran a really long seatpost that went up and down probably 10-20 times a ride for a long time. If id had a dropper on it then ive no doubt id probably be riding it forever. Timbo that is one lovely looking bike, just what I am dreaming of.  |
|
|
|
Post by notsarkyadam on Dec 18, 2014 21:40:56 GMT
I'd take a Reynolds steel frame, over carbon any day!... Really, I looked at stantons. Whats so good about the reynolds steel. Excuse my ignorance Lightweight, strong, and smooth!... |
|
|
|
Post by timbo on Dec 18, 2014 22:26:09 GMT
A little bit heavier too obv A whole kg isn't it?! I don't buy the steel = soft ride thing at all, any vertical flex in a frame is a fart in a jacuzzi compared to the give in your forks, bars, seatpost, wheels, tyres, saddle, grips, shoe soles, etc. Carbon frames are the future, stiff in the direction you want them to be, yet compliant in others. |
|
|
|
Post by matthews on Dec 19, 2014 8:43:49 GMT
Steel for me but I'm biased as both my Soul and Lava Dome are steel .
|
|
|
|
Post by notsarkyadam on Dec 19, 2014 16:25:08 GMT
Steel is where its at!... Just all 650b!...  |
|
