xfimpg

I recently sold my Giant Anthem X0, I found it didn't have enough travel to take care of my aging body of 47 years. Heck of climber, though.
So I'm looking to replace it and would like the Forums opinion on which bike I should be looking at.
Given all these All-Mountain - XC - etc etc etc categories, well I'm kind of lost, guys.

Here are my priorities:
- ride all kinds of trails, single or double, those meant for bikes and also walkers
- most plush ride possible to absorb hits and not beat me up
- climb like a goat on uneven terrain as much as even
- light as possible (carbon worth the price?)
- budget would be up to $5000
- would prefer Shimano over SRAM
- relaxed geometry as I'm not that flexible
- I have no preference for wheel size as I'm coming from 26ers"
- as with all bikes i've ever owned, I want to look at it and drool to want to ride the heck out of it!

I'm 47 years old, 6'1, 170 lbs if that makes a difference and I like to ride for a minimum of 3-4 hours at a time up to 6-8 hours/day.

Your thoughts... :-)

higgins617

Well if you enjoyed the Anthem up until now why not look into the Trance. same general suspension design with a bit more travel. I have the first generation and love it, the suspension design does make it act like it has more travel than it does.

johnnyace 

My next bike will be a Jones Plus, for many of the reasons you stated:

xfimpg

Hmmm, I thought of trying a different brand. A good suggestion though, thanks.

xfimpg

Nice frames!
No dualies...?

johnnyace 

Well, no. Do you really need 'em? Maybe read some reviews:

Jones Plus Review - BIKEPACKING.com
https://thebicycleescape.com/2015/08...s-plus-review/
Review: Jones Plus ? Dirt Rag
https://www.outsideonline.com/196000...-mountain-bike
Jones Plus Review: Different by Design - Bikepacker
Review: Jones Plus 29+ Steel | Singletrack Magazine | Reviews

Then again, my needs are more geared towards off-road bikepacking. YMMV...

xfimpg

Ah! that's what I was missing, thanks man!
Quite fascinating that the flexing of the frame replaces the shocks, big money saver there.

xfimpg

No Xfimpg, it rides like a hardtail... stiff.
So what happens to those who want a dual suspension?

johnnyace 

I guess they buy a different bike.

hig4s

If you liked your Anthem, I would suggest go Giant Trance Advance.

xfimpg

Excellent suggestion... but those colours... ugggggggg

hig4s

Yeah, some are a bit hard to take. The 2017 Trance Advance 1 is not too bad looking. The Giant Reign advanced 1 2017 in orange/red I think it sweet looking. I rode one this summer, and it is also sweet handling bike. Not as nice on technical stuff or uphills as the Trance Though.

xfimpg

Thanks for the feedback on the Trance.
I guess a can of Plastidip would solve the colour issue.

xfimpg

Hey, can I ask you if you needed to make any travel adjustments to the front fork of the Trance at 150 to be able to climb uphill? I've been limiting my search to 130mm up front to make climbing easier.

hig4s

No just ran the standard set up by demo guy. My bike has 120mm front and rear, and I didn't find the Trance any harder on the climbs than my bike. I personally don't think the front travel has as much to do with climbing as the rear. My bike has a single pivot rear, and the Trance (or any bike) with the multiple pivot point rear to reduce bob or kickback, seemed as good as my bike on the climbs.

I also tested the Santa Cruz Bronson, and the Salsa Redpoint. I liked the Trance better, but all three were great and If I was buying I would get which ever one of those three that had the best deal.

xfimpg

Thanks everyone for the feedback, given the insane prices these manufacturers are demanding, I've decided to go with a Calibre Bossnut!

iftkwoody

How did you find riding the bossnut uphill and down? Is it an easy recommendation?

I'm looking at getting one as the spec seems unreal for the price

xfimpg

Hey, not purchased yet.
The 4 lbs of weight difference with a $4000 Giant Anthem Advanced is bugging me.
Now I have to decide if it's worth spending $500 per pound. LOL

I also looked into the Beastnut (Bossnut on steriods) and Calibre Online confirmed they will not have any more of them.

dirthurts

Honestly, your legs will make up the difference either way.
Gain 4 lbs and your legs will get stronger, and you'll not feel it any more.
Lose 4 lbs and your legs will get weaker, and you'll not feel it any more.
*unpopular opinion*
I out climb people on my 33 lb bike with carbon frames all the time. Weight doesn't matter...

cycloaptrgangr

This is nonsensical. Of course weight matters. Especially rotating weight.

First, give yourself another pat on the back for climbing faster than some folks on your 33 pound bike.

Now spend some time thinking about how much faster you could climb if your bike was five pounds lighter.

xfimpg

I think what he means (feel free to correct me) is that knowing your heavier, you make up for it with a bit more effort...

cycloaptrgangr

This makes no sense.

dirthurts

Let me explain since no one seems to get it.
It's biology (biologist here).
Let's say a body builder works his way up to 300 lbs of lift after several years of work, then you take off 30 lbs off his bar for a month(a lighter bike in this analogy). At the end of the month, he'll no longer be able to lift 300 lbs, he'll be comfortable at 270 again.
it's the same way when you bike. If you don't use the muscle (a lighter bike) you'll loose that unnecessary strength. You'll feel the weight difference at first, but your body will compensate by reducing muscle mass that's no longer needed.
Unless, of course, you train harder to compensate, which, frankly, I doubt anyone here is training constantly to keep it up.
Now, of course, extremes make a difference. A 60 lb bike would be an exception, or a professional biker who pushes his limits daily, but minor changes like 2 or 3 lbs, mostly insignificant in the end.
The human body works on feedback loops built around stressing the muscles. Break them down to build them up, conserve them to loose them.

cycloaptrgangr

This is also hogwash.

When riding a lighter bike it doesn't get easier, you just go faster. You don't lose muscle mass by using a lighter bike.

dirthurts

Explain to me what physics are coming into play allowing you to magically go faster due to lesser weight. It's just easier to pedal.

Assuming a vastly oversimplified formula, force=mass x acceleration. So, acceleration = force/mass. Reducing mass increases acceleration only because the force stays the same(legs strength).

Objects descend (fall) at the same speed regardless of weight. The only factors coming into play would be friction, drag, etc, assuming the bikes would otherwise be the same weight wouldn't apply here.