Best value 29er? - thinking Trek/Specialized, but Polygon?

[juzzle]

How do you compare the relative value of MTBs?

This is how I did it, and the result surprised the hell out me!

First of all, I am not a shill for any brand or outlet. I was the owner of a Giant Talon from 2007 and loved it. When considering a 60:40 road:trial mix, I naturally considered a Giant, but then I discovered the 29ers. I was very close to pressing the button on a Trek or Specialized bike when I discovered a new brand which is seemingly amazing value! .... please, fault my logic!

(BTW, I am scientific engineering type so you'll have to excuse the precision with which I approached the task of evaluating my bike choices. With all the biased publications out there, I had no choice but to do this myself)

Here's how I went about it Considering a spend of about $1000, I assembled a few brands and slimmed out the obvious losers.

1. I ranked the componentry - since I don't believe the line that "it's all about the geometry", I figured the value of a bike is in the components, BUT, some are more than others.



2. I assembled the specs of the all the bikes and ranked their total componentry quality, noting that all componentry is of different importance (hence forks and brakes score 5/5, whilst brake levers are only a 1/5) - thus allowing weighting of the various pieces



3. I assessed each bike in terms of outright score and value

Here are the results

Considering that I was very very close to pressing the button on a Trek X-Caliber 7 or Specialized Rockhopper Comp, I was amazed when I discovered the apparent ranking and value of the Polygon bikes.



Conclusion

Considering that the Trek was my number one choice, I am blown away to see it come in last - ultimately, it has the least impressive gear and unless that frame has some incredible magic I don't know about, I am compelled to go for one of the Polygon Siskuis. Both Polygons rank well outright AND in terms of value!

I invite criticism of my logic and ranking ... please

[silentbutdeadly]

Did you ride any of them? Which one actually fit you?

Sad to say but it is all about the geometry and the components are there merely to exploit it.

And you forgot about the wheels too. Fail. Massive Fail.

[trailgumby]

1. I ranked the componentry - since I don't believe the line that "it's all about the geometry" ...

Based on what evidence? Ridden a whole lot of different bikes, have we?

From my experience you're right it's not all about the geometry. Neither is it all about the components. Maybe you should buy a BigW bike from the Tip Shop and kit it out with XTR and Fox components from Wiggle?

My considered view is that nice gear on poor geometry is putting lipstick on a pig. My advice is to ride them all. Buy the one that sings to you. This from another analytic engineering type.

Take a risk. Exercise the other side of your brain.

[rodneycc]

I won't be as harsh as the others (tough crowd hey ) but I will go as far as to say sometimes you even need a good month of riding to determine how good or bad a bike is usually after many adjustments to get it perfectly suited to you. So you usually first look at the geo and specs and go 'oh yeah that looks ok' to whittle the field down. Then get a ball park feel on the first ride but then there is a lot more to it than that after buying it and take ownership I find to make the call on which one is better. And as above the fit is usually the number one aspect when determining suitability.

Edit: btw I do agree with you and reckon Polygon do make some great value for money bikes which are great quality as well. No doubting that.

[juzzle]

@trailgumby - I have ridden them all in fact. And yes, I concede your 'lipstick on a pig' comment - in fact, that was the reason I first ignored the brand. However, this magic 'geometry' people talk about seems a little enigmatic - I mean, are they really that different?! Perhaps the 14 day test ride is likely the best way to discover whether geometry and weight are indeed showstoppers.

@silentbutdeadly - good point about the wheels, but can you be specific? - in what way are the wheels on any of these a fail or otherwise? When manufacturers bundle their own wheels, it's tricky to compare one against the other. Suggestions welcome.

@rodnetcc - in fairness, I did invite criticism Thank you for the feedback.

Can anyone provide some clues as to this elusive magic geometry, or is geometry just a euphemism for fit? (ie, is it simple about how well a bike does or does not fit me)?

[trailgumby]

It's not just about fit. It's things like head angle, rake, stem length, bar width, top tube length, chainstay length and bottom bracket height.

All influence the bike's handling, including cornering, climbing and descending, and that's before we start getting into things like rear suspension geometry and its impact on ride and pedal-ability, fork and shock tune, and frame stiffness.

There is a recent trend towards slacker head angles and greater fork rake combined with longer top tubes and shorter stems to compensate along with wider bars. This makes the bike more descending-friendly and, if done right, without compromising steering response or making the bike difficult to manage on steep climbs. For me it provides greater confidence in being able to put more weight through the front wheel with less risk of it hanging up and sending you over the front of the bike, which is also an advantage of the 29er over the smaller wheel sizes.

As a result I have better traction and more confidence to hold higher cornering speeds, which results in less effort over the length of the trail, and more fun, and a sense of achievement in being able to get up steep stuff that I couldn't manage on my old bike.

A short rear triangle improves steering responsiveness and the ease with which you can loft the front wheel over trail obstacles to conserve momentum. A lower BB height means better cornering from a lower CG, but at the price of more pedal strike. A dropper post also enables you to get lower through the corners, while facilitating pedalling at the most efficient saddle height on the straights. I have one on my AM bike but haven't been able to get past the 500g weight penalty on my XC bike.

Does this help colour in the picture a bit?

[barefoot]

2. I assembled the specs of the all the bikes and ranked their total componentry quality, noting that all componentry is of different importance (hence forks and brakes score 5/5, whilst brake levers are only a 1/5) - thus allowing weighting of the various pieces

Conclusion

Considering that the Trek was my number one choice, I am blown away to see it come in last - ultimately, it has the least impressive gear and unless that frame has some incredible magic I don't know about, I am compelled to go for one of the Polygon Siskuis. Both Polygons rank well outright AND in terms of value!

I invite criticism of my logic and ranking ... please

As others have said, your decision to exclude geometry is questionable. For both fit and handling, some frames will suit you better than others. Granted, if you don't know (or if you subjectively assess that they're all equivalent), then they all get equal scores in your decision matrix, which is equivalent to excluding them anyway.

Wheels as well. As you say, hard to evaluate. Might have to make some assumptions. But if most of the bikes have heavy house-brand wheels and one has expensive brand-name wheels... you have to capture that relative value if you're going to score them fairly.

Another significant dimension that you could have included is brand value. It may be unimportant to you, but it's critically important to some people. All else being equal, would you choose a Cell or Reid house-brand bike over a Specialized? A Giant over a Trek?

In most peoples' decision matrix, a Polygon would lose points for not being a desirable brand. Whether or not those people do a formal K-T matrix spreadsheet like you have or whether they just weigh things up in their head, a Polygon HAS to offer more, or cost less, than a more prestigious brand to overcome the sticker value of the other brands.

I suspect you assign some value to brand, even if only subconsciously - after all, your initial feel was to buy the Trek. Based on... anything more than the sticker?

tim
another nerd who has been known to use decision matrix spreadsheets outside of work

[rodneycc]

Warranty is another one - Very hard to score that one. Oh and best paint job, very important, has to look the part

[Calvin27]

In addition to the already made comments.

I'm not sure how you applied weightings, but I think for mtb's the groupset is very low value consideration unless you have strong preferences for sram/shimano. First brakes, then geometry and then forks. I would steer clear of avid (flame suit on).

[celeste boy]

Its interesting to look at some of the bikes for sale on this forum and notice how many of the components have been upgraded. Some of them are no where near the original - except for the frame which others have pointed out.

C B

[trailgumby]

Its interesting to look at some of the bikes for sale on this forum and notice how many of the components have been upgraded. Some of them are no where near the original - except for the frame which others have pointed out.

C B

I'm guilty of that.

XC bike: Seat tube is now Thomson. Ditched Avid brakes for Shimano XT and SRAM FD for XT as well on the Scalpel. My ears thanked me for the brakes and my left thumb for the front derailleur change. The Avids weren't bad as brakes but the XTs are a revelation, even with almost-not-there lightweight rotors. The rest of the running gear was Shimano apart from SRAM carbon cranks, they actually shift really nicely. I've had built up a set of carbon Light Bicycles wheels for racing.

AM bike: The Trigger already had all XT on it. Only bike I've had that I've not upgraded drivetrain or brakes. Might lace up a nice set of LB rims though. The Crests are a bit flexy - why would you put them on an AM bike? I have an XTR rear derailleur ready to go on, but only because I've damaged the XT unit and shifting can be a bit unreliable.

Changeover tends to be quite cheap as I do quite well reselling stuff on eBay. So a good frame is a higher priority for me.

[barefoot]

Its interesting to look at some of the bikes for sale on this forum and notice how many of the components have been upgraded. Some of them are no where near the original - except for the frame which others have pointed out.

That's certainly true of my own bikes too (especially the ones I've built myself from collected bits and pieces ), but it's amazing how many second hand bikes you see on the market being sold with the exact components they left the factory with.

It's always a nice thing to find a factory-spec bike for sale... if it's in reasonable condition, you can be pretty sure it hasn't been ridden enough to wear anything out

My usual policy is that anything I wear out gets upgraded (hoping that a better component won't wear out), anything that I break gets replaced with similar or downgraded (figuring that there's a fair chance of breaking the next one as well, so no point burning money on it).

A bike being sold with an eclectic mix of upgrades is a reliable indication that it has been pretty well ridden. Which may not be a bad thing, because it's also a good indication that it has been well maintained. Certainly better than a bike with completely flogged out factory spec that hasn't seen a workshop in its life.

As far as upgrades from factory spec goes... my hardtail is on to its third frame, fourth fork, and any number of drivetrain replacements since I first bought it in 1996

[Calvin27]

An easier way is to actualyl ride soem and then make no compromises. These criteria are ntoe scored per se, but non negotiable as their name suggests.

For example mine might be: Tapered head tube, thru axles rears, sram thumb shifters and geometry (riding it) (notice how these are frame attributes!)

Then I would preference bang for buck equipment. Something like this: forks, brakes, wheels, internal routing, RD, cranks, at 30%,30%,20%,10%,5%,5% respectively.

[juzzle]

Hi All, and thank you again for all the input.

I'm still hearing a lot of about geometry - I get that it's important, to a point - so, I've had a closer look at this issue by a) test riding a couple of the bikes in question, and b) comparing the geometric dimensions (see below). To my eye, the frame dimensions are near enough to each other to not make a difference, with the possible exception of the head and seat tube angles suggest that the Trek X-Caliber is more attuned to downhill descents (which in turn accounts for the 37mm increase in wheelbase).



Interestingly, the Siskiu is lighter - I didn't expect that - I weighed both all bikes setup with my own digital scales.

With regards to the wheels (a point which someone raised), the salesman agreed that the "Araya" brand were "cheap", and perhaps this is where they are save a few dollars. But at least they're not heavy (in so much as they don't contribute to excess weight).

Someone mentioned brand - yes, a good point. With brand comes reputation (to both assure the buyer of good lineage, but arguably also to extract a premium price).

The results of the test rides are incomplete (one yet to test), however the large X-Caliber impressed me greatly in that it was clean setup and spacious enough for some of my road cycling. The only Siskiu I've been able to ride is the medium, which was cramped, so I am yet to make a call on a decision between the two.

I do wonder how much the brand rep of Trek is subconsciously influencing my decision. Yes, there's the comfort of an established brand, but against that, there's improved componentry in the Polgyon Siskiu.

Stay tuned

[trailgumby]

610-620 is the top tube range I prefer for all-round XC riding, but I am taller than you. You also need to take account of the stem length, seat tube angle and bar sweepback for the full cockpit length story. Perhaps measure the distance between saddle nose and handlebar at the clamp, and then how much sweepback.

900g is a massive difference between the Siskiu and the Trek. That will be in the fork, groupset and wheels.

With regard to the slacker head angle, the adverse impact on climbing stability can be mitigated by increased fork rake to bring the axle trail back down. Ask if the Trek uses their "G2" geometry. If so, that would lean my inclination toward the Trek.

However, that extra kilogram (nearly) is hard to swallow. And I'd really put Deore as the minimum groupset level for any bike intended to be used seriously off-road. Altus is fine for bike paths, but I gather you're wanting more capability and reliability than that. If that is the level of groupset, I'd be a little concerned about the robustness of the wheels as well. As you've said, though, hard to judge.

71 degree head angle on a 29er hardtail is fine. Pretty standard for most bikes in that class. My Scalpel is about 70.4 and is nice and responsive to steering. It always gets compliments from mates who ride it.

If $1200 is your hard upper limit I'm leaning back towards the Siskiu. If you can spend more I'd explore options with the Trek in higher groupset levels. Or buy secondhand. You'd get something pretty nice for that budget.

[juzzle]

@trailgumby - thank you - they are great tips.

With regards to "slacker head angle", I assume you mean that a more laid back fork is "slacker" right? In other words, a steep (laid back fork) is more "slack" - yes? (Just getting a handle on your language).

Assuming I have the above is right, you further imply that that laid back fork is somehow more jittery(?) than say a more vertical fork - right? You also imply by ".. increased fork rake to bring the axle trail back down .." that it's possible to adjust it - that can't be right, can it?

With regards to G2 geometry- the following implies it is http://www.bikeradar.com/au/mtb/gear/ca ... r-7-47752/

[trailgumby]

@trailgumby - thank you - they are great tips.

With regards to "slacker head angle", I assume you mean that a more laid back fork is "slacker" right? In other words, a steep (laid back fork) is more "slack" - yes? (Just getting a handle on your language).

Assuming I have the above is right, you further imply that that laid back fork is somehow more jittery(?) than say a more vertical fork - right? You also imply by ".. increased fork rake to bring the axle trail back down .." that it's possible to adjust it - that can't be right, can it?

With regards to G2 geometry- the following implies it is http://www.bikeradar.com/au/mtb/gear/ca ... r-7-47752/

Slacker head angle is more laid back. That is, lower degree number. That makes the bike more stable at high speed, but slower to respond/more understeery when trying to whip between the trees on twisty singletrack. The increased axle trail also makes the bike more floppy/hard to stabilise on steep climbs and severe side slopes and off-camber trails. Combine that with narrow handlebars and the bike can sometimes take you on an interesting journey through the trailside greenery

A more upright head angle (closer to 90 degrees/vertical) makes the steering more responsive, easier to manage across severe side slopes and steep ups, but increases fear/likelihood of going over the bars on steep downs.

The G2 geometry mitigates the sluggish response/floppiness by reducing axle trail and retains better descending geometry by pushing the front wheel a little further forward, but you have to be more active in your body english to make sure the front tyre is adequately weighted to give adequate cornering traction. You can't just sit in the saddle, but then you never do this on a mountian bike anyway, especialy not a hardtail.

My comments on the geometry impacts on handling in the following review might be of interest: http://www.montaguebikes.com/assets/med ... l_test.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[trailgumby]

Ha! just noticed my comments on all-mountain handlebars being 685mm wide. These days it's 700mm for XC at minimum and 740-780 for AM.

[silentbutdeadly]

The x-caliber has very short rear stays these days which makes up for the slack looking head angle. They are indeed G2 forks. And they steer rather well

Trek just agreed to replace a mate's 2004 x-caliber with a new frame after the original cracked at the seat tube/BB join.

The extra weight is in the bontrager wheels mostly. Main issue with g2 forks is sourcing an upgrade

[Calvin27]

Curveball here:

Buy a low end $500-600 bike and then spend $400 on the fork, $250 on a mini groupset (no cranks) and $50 on a NW chainring.

I rekon you'd get heaps lower weight and much better bang for buck.

[StevOz]

Buy in June/July/August and get big discounts, for instance I bought a Fuji Traverse 1.3 Disc 2015 model, mid last year from my local bike shop for $800 new compared to the recommended retail which was $960 new.

[juzzle]

Thank you Calvin.

Just one question - what's a "NW chainring"? Are you referring to a single front sprocket setup?

[Calvin27]

Thank you Calvin.

Just one question - what's a "NW chainring"? Are you referring to a single front sprocket setup?

Yep. At you price point of $1200 you're almost better off buying a $550 cheapie and then forks, and possibly 1x11 (not sure prices, haven't been keeping up to date, if not 1x10).

I've gone this route personally a long time ago when buying a second general use hardtail. I've also recommended it to my roadie crossover mates. The main benefit is the weight reduction is much better from a value preposition. Fork loses about half kilo depending on what the current forks are and they also feel a tonne better (I'd recommend xc30 gold or reba) - this is probably what you are going to want to upgrade when you get a few miles anyway so might as well not pay for the intermediate xc32 or XCR forks and go straight to decent air forks. The other area is brakes, personally, I threw my avids out after the third bleed and haven't had to bleed my shimanos too frequently (about once a year and that's preventative more than anything). The groupset will also net considerable weight losses and more so if you hit a single cog, but the real reason is for reliability and simplicity.

[juzzle]

Funny story ...

Ultimately I bit the bullet and ordered the Polygon Siskiu 7 (be damned second thoughts). Payment accepted. Due date provided (4 days ex-stock).

[4 days later] - Hit the guys up on chat - 'yep, all bikes have arrived, yours will be ready this afternoon - should we ship it?' I elected to pick it up the next day (for which you receive the first service free). Organised time off work and started to order miscellaneous bits for it (seat, rack, tyres, etc). I advised the team I'd be there in the afternoon - 'Okay, see you then'

[that night] - 'I'm sorry to advise that your bike didn't actually show up - next shipment is a month away - would you like to a refund or split discount on the next model up?' - grrr, are they kidding? They said it had arrived and then pulled the pin on my anticipation in the biggest possible way. The representative was polite but despite worded sentiment, not particularly regretful. I get the sense it had happened before.

[over the next three days] I reviewed my options - wait a month or opt back into the Trek debate. But then I spotted a special on bikeexchange for some seriously discounted X Caliber 7s. I did some fishing around and realised that Trek has a) a sale coming up, and b) has some hefty margins on their bike prices (notably higher on the South East coast). Long story short, I realised that the X Caliber 8, when haggled down, was on par for price and equipment compared with Polygon kit (for the same compelling price point) - it has Rockshox Recon XC32 Silver, SRAM X5/GX running hear and Shimano M355 brakes. As a bonus, that lighter shock should shave 0.5 kg off the weight and close the apparent weight difference gap.

Short story, the X Caliber 8 arrives this week (fingers crossed)



http://www.trekbikes.com/au/en_AU/bikes ... uying-zone

Thanks to all who provided feedback.

[trailgumby]

Good work!