Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,978

    Another option beside Anthem 2 with great spec and good price?

    Shopping for a 5'2" friend, and after comparing price vs spec, geometry charts and then taking quick spins, the 2018 Giant Anthem 2 seems to offer the most for the dollar. For a mid-range bike it doesn't seem to have any boat anchor parts (28 pounds for small I was told, whereas others are 30 pounds) or chintzy parts lurking behind a marketing gotcha (like an XT derailleur but Alivio shifters, for example).

    But I wanted to ask before taking the plunge if anyone knew of a 27.5 (not +) xc/trail that was in the same discussion as the A2 for around $2600 USD.

    https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/anthem-2

    Comparable Santa Cruz is $3299 yet it comes with SRAM brakes, but that's neither here nor there.

    And for what it's worth, nothing on local CL or online classifieds. Small 27.5 with decent spec are hard to find!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,074
    Giant bikes are well known for their specs/$ and the Maestro suspension is very nice. You might be able to find sales - competitive cyclist has some bikes on sale - but you'd be hard pressed to find anything better, I think.
    Also, Giant dealers in your area may have deals on 2017 models. G0-Ride in Salt Lake City does.
    You may want to check sizing on Anthems, as it looks like a small is for 5'7" to 5'9" tall. That doesn't seem right to me, but that's what their site says.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by MSU Alum View Post
    Giant bikes are well known for their specs/$ and the Maestro suspension is very nice. You might be able to find sales - competitive cyclist has some bikes on sale - but you'd be hard pressed to find anything better, I think.
    Also, Giant dealers in your area may have deals on 2017 models. G0-Ride in Salt Lake City does.
    You may want to check sizing on Anthems, as it looks like a small is for 5'7" to 5'9" tall. That doesn't seem right to me, but that's what their site says.
    The reach and standover are similar to small tallboy, 5010 and Giant Embolden. Maybe 3 to 8mm here or there. Test ride and bar/stem swap would answer that. Thanks for the info!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    190
    I just purchased the 2017 version of the Anthem2 and can say that I had looked hard for about 9 months to try and find a better option bike and came up short. You are correct in that there are many mismatched parts that manufacturers like to put together. I don't know if its to save money or to bate and switch by fooling your eye with a prize and not mentioning the bits below.

    As for size. I do get very confused when it comes to the size charts. I am 6'2 and didn't really find that much difference between the L and XL size frame. In your case, the only big one to look out for is the stand over height.

    Now I do have a personal pet peeve with many of the LBS and how they don't seem to understand basic body mechanics. The stand over height is sort of an irrelevant piece other than some people have a hangup with standing over a bike with their feet flat on the ground and no part of their body touching the bike other than their hands. If your measurments are under the 28" and you can't stand that then you are out of luck on this bike.

    The part that I find that irks me is more that bike shops seem to want to setup the seat so that your feet can touch the ground flat when sitting on the seat. this is where it seems that Giant had gone with the frame size recommendation chart. It is also a completely wrong way (in my opinion) to setup your bike. I think it should more be that when seated your leg should be straight when your foot is on the peddle in the lowest part of the rotation. that way you get maximum peddle power. Sadly then you will need to get off the seat to be able to stand with the bike.

    The measurement that they don't give is the minimum height that the seat can be adjusted to. But that is just my own rant.

  5. #5
    L1MEY
    Reputation: mahgnillig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,407
    It's more of the trail end of the spectrum than the XC end, but the YT Jeffsy AL one 27 is going for $2300 right now. I'm 5'2 as well and test rode one a few months back. The small size was a good fit.

    Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
    Ride like a girl!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    597
    5'2", is that for a lady friend? You can also check the Liv and Juliana.

    Here's a Juliana for $2699 - it is 27.5+, but I'm sure you can run regular tires:
    https://www.competitivecyclist.com/j...tain-bike-2018

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    34
    At 5'2" you might need to look for an extra small. As noted, if you friend is a female, you can find some left over 2017 Liv models at a discount.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    35
    Small carbon Bronson R build, asking $2999: https://www.thehubpisgah.com/Clearance_bikes

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by dcr1 View Post
    At 5'2" you might need to look for an extra small. As noted, if you friend is a female, you can find some left over 2017 Liv models at a discount.
    Small reach on the 4 or so bikes we've tried fits her best, and standover was good. She's currently on a Small "feminine petite" of an older Cannondale Rize, and it's almost like she's on a bike 2 sizes too small. Looks funky.

  10. #10
    L1MEY
    Reputation: mahgnillig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,407
    Quote Originally Posted by smoothmoose View Post
    5'2", is that for a lady friend? You can also check the Liv and Juliana.

    Here's a Juliana for $2699 - it is 27.5+, but I'm sure you can run regular tires:
    https://www.competitivecyclist.com/j...tain-bike-2018
    Juliana bikes are built on the exact same frames as Santa Cruz: Furtado = 5010, Roubion = Bronson, Joplin = Tallboy. The only difference is in the touch points and the fact that some models go down to XS. Liv frames are ever so slightly different than their Giant counterparts, but not vastly so. Unisex bikes are fine for women, women's bikes are fine for small men... it sounds like the OP's friend has figured as much and is trying out size small bikes across the board. That's honestly the best way to go... had I stuck only to women's bikes then I wouldn't have bought my Ibis, which is awesome .

    For what it's worth OP, I totally get how she could feel cramped on a size XS bike. I'm 5'2" with a short torso and thought XS would be perfect for me... turns out a small feels so much better.
    Ride like a girl!

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,978
    Quote Originally Posted by smoothmoose View Post
    5'2", is that for a lady friend? You can also check the Liv and Juliana.

    Here's a Juliana for $2699 - it is 27.5+, but I'm sure you can run regular tires:
    https://www.competitivecyclist.com/j...tain-bike-2018
    So close! But running regular tires on a 27.5+ would drop bb height so low she'd have lots of pedal strikes. And for her needs/terrains a 27.5+ isn't wanted. Dang, that is a good price.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by westin View Post
    So close! But running regular tires on a 27.5+ would drop bb height so low she'd have lots of pedal strikes. And for her needs/terrains a 27.5+ isn't wanted. Dang, that is a good price.
    I never quite figured out that generalization. Sure, as you reduce the size of the wheel, the distance from the BB to the ground will get less. But the distance you have it really defined by the layout of the frame and the length of the front forks along with the size of the wheels. I have ridden a 26"er for most of my riding life, and just by the fact that the wheels are smaller, the BB has been closer to the ground along with the crank arms, pedals but I won't say that pedal strike was a constant problem for me. I might catch a peddle once or twice a year when taking a corner a bit too fast and trying to actually pedal my way through them. So any strike was by my own dumb ass doing, and not because the BB was an inch or so closer to the ground.

    You need to take a look at a diagram of a bike and draw a line from the axle points at the front and rear of the bike. Then measure the distance from that line through where the BB is located on the frame. Then draw a second line from the bottom of the front and rear wheel to show where the ground level is. You will likely see that most bikes today have a far greater clearance under the bike and pedals than most of the older 26" bikes have ever had.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,181
    GT Helion and Jamis Dragon can both be found for under 2k and make great XC/trail bikes. A rocky Mountain thunderbolt is another bike that can be found on discount. I think the helion is the absolute best bang for your buck.

  14. #14
    BOOM goes the dynamite!
    Reputation: noapathy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,630
    Quote Originally Posted by roadkill401 View Post
    As for size. I do get very confused when it comes to the size charts. I am 6'2 and didn't really find that much difference between the L and XL size frame. In your case, the only big one to look out for is the stand over height.

    Now I do have a personal pet peeve with many of the LBS and how they don't seem to understand basic body mechanics. The stand over height is sort of an irrelevant piece other than some people have a hangup with standing over a bike with their feet flat on the ground and no part of their body touching the bike other than their hands. If your measurments are under the 28" and you can't stand that then you are out of luck on this bike.

    The part that I find that irks me is more that bike shops seem to want to setup the seat so that your feet can touch the ground flat when sitting on the seat. this is where it seems that Giant had gone with the frame size recommendation chart. It is also a completely wrong way (in my opinion) to setup your bike. I think it should more be that when seated your leg should be straight when your foot is on the peddle in the lowest part of the rotation. that way you get maximum peddle power. Sadly then you will need to get off the seat to be able to stand with the bike.

    The measurement that they don't give is the minimum height that the seat can be adjusted to. But that is just my own rant.
    That's a lot of words to say you don't know what you're talking about (and possibly you need a new bike shop if they don't know how to size a person's bike properly). No way anyone sets up a bike that way if they have half a clue even if they don't work at a shop.

    Quote Originally Posted by roadkill401 View Post
    I never quite figured out that generalization. Sure, as you reduce the size of the wheel, the distance from the BB to the ground will get less. But the distance you have it really defined by the layout of the frame and the length of the front forks along with the size of the wheels. I have ridden a 26"er for most of my riding life, and just by the fact that the wheels are smaller, the BB has been closer to the ground along with the crank arms, pedals but I won't say that pedal strike was a constant problem for me. I might catch a peddle once or twice a year when taking a corner a bit too fast and trying to actually pedal my way through them. So any strike was by my own dumb ass doing, and not because the BB was an inch or so closer to the ground.

    You need to take a look at a diagram of a bike and draw a line from the axle points at the front and rear of the bike. Then measure the distance from that line through where the BB is located on the frame. Then draw a second line from the bottom of the front and rear wheel to show where the ground level is. You will likely see that most bikes today have a far greater clearance under the bike and pedals than most of the older 26" bikes have ever had.
    Nope. Wheel size doesn't dictate BB height. At all. If it did, 29ers would be sky high (hint, they're not). The recent trend is actually the opposite, especially with longer travel bikes where the effective height is sometimes pretty low when the suspension is compressed. No line drawing necessary.
    Last edited by noapathy; 01-21-2018 at 10:34 AM.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    4
    I highly recommend Juliana bikes. Liv are also very good. You can't go wrong with either really.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by noapathy View Post
    Nope. Wheel size doesn't dictate BB height. At all. If it did, 29ers would be sky high (hint, they're not). The recent trend is actually the opposite, especially with longer travel bikes where the effective height is sometimes pretty low when the suspension is compressed. No line drawing necessary.
    Are you now going to tell me that 26ers don't have suspension compresson? Or did you just fail at trigonomitery. But if you took the time to look it up. I was riding a 2003 Trek Liquid 20. Now I couldn't find my origianl manual but did find the 2004 one online. And look it up, the bottom bracket on that bike was 308mm. The Psylo front fork was 80-125mm travel. I can't find the spec for the rear but it was considered a long travel down hill style bike.
    http://www.vintage-trek.com/Trek-Fis...manualTrek.pdf

    So lets take a look at the printed specs for a modern Trek bike. I picked the Fuel 5. it's a 27.5mm tire. The bottom bracket is 334mm. Remedy 7 ~ 336mm bottom bracket. For 29" wheels.. Top Fuel 9.7 ~ 330mm bottom bracket. (as it also only has 100mm travel on the front fork and frame.

    So as I was saying. The old 26ers their bottom brackets were a good inch or more closer to the ground and we didn't suffer from pedal strikes all the time. And that includes taking into consideration compression and travel of the shocks.

  17. #17
    BOOM goes the dynamite!
    Reputation: noapathy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,630
    Quote Originally Posted by roadkill401 View Post
    Blah blah blah.
    I don't care about your one old bike with a low-ish BB. As a rule, effective BB height has gotten lower. Nothing to do with wheel size. All bikes have suspension compression, so feel free to do all the calculations you like no matter the wheel. It still won't make your BS turn into a fact. Then there's the fact that today's bikes tend towards longer travel...more BB drop as you get deeper into the compression. So your ~100mm bike at the bottom would have ~208mm and the Remedy with its 160mm would be 176mm...about an inch lower. Go take a hike.

    **edit: sorry for the thread derail westin. I'm blocking/ignoring this...person.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    190
    I am only responding to this as other people do read threads and I might as well clear up some BS that noapathy just doesn't understand.

    So your ~100mm bike at the bottom would have ~208mm and the Remedy with its 160mm would be 176mm...about an inch lower.
    Sadly someone who doesn't understand Trigonometry would easily get lost on is heights of clearance when you start to change angles. On a full suspension bike, both the front and the back wheel can move up and down in relation to the BB and each other. But what some don't realize is the distance of travel is not in a vertical direction. For example the Trek Remedy 7 the front fork has 160mm of travel, but as the head tube is 66.1 degrees, the vertical displacement is only 146mm. Likewise, the rear wheel travel is not in a vertical direction either as it actually rotates in an arc around the rear triangle pivot point.

    The next consideration is where it gets really confusing for most. The BB is located between the front and rear wheel. If only the front suspension compresses, the bike frame will rotate around the rear wheel and the bottom bracket only drops 1/2 the distance. It is only you fully compress both the front and the back suspension at the exact same time will you get the BB to the lowest position. In most riding, that is pretty damn hard to do, but if you are bottoming out both then you likely have your suspension adjusted completely wrong.

Similar Threads

  1. Shimano i-spec mashup (i-spec B brakes with i-spec a shifters)
    By FM in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-27-2014, 09:40 AM
  2. Walk Beside Me
    By Maadjurguer in forum Passion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-12-2012, 02:27 PM
  3. Walk Beside Me: x-post from passion
    By Maadjurguer in forum Arizona
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-12-2012, 10:22 AM
  4. trail work beside the poop chute
    By singlesprocket in forum Eastern Canada
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-01-2011, 07:25 PM
  5. my favorite thing to do with bikes beside ride them...
    By nailtrail in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-13-2011, 05:47 PM

Members who have read this thread: 8

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.