Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9

    Specialized SJ Comp vs Motobecane Fly Team

    I'm new to mountain bikes. I wonder if anyone could comment on the pro/con of these two specific 29er bikes, Specialized SJ Comp and Motobecane Fly Team:

    Specialized Stumpjumper Comp 29er 18"
    http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/...009&spid=39219
    http://www.bikepedia.com/Quickbike/B...29er&Type=bike
    - upgrades: Fox RLC fork, XT front derailler, XTR rear derailler, Specialized Captain tires, tubeless conversion
    - 18" frame, stand-over 31.3", horizontal top tube 23.8", BB height 304 mm
    - excellent condition, asking $1500
    - owner says retail without upgrades is $1750

    2009 Motobecane Fly Team 29er
    http://www.mountainbikebuyersguide.n...type=mtn_bikes,
    http://motobecane.com/ti29_geo.html
    - comes with cleat pedals, extra parts (tires, tubes, front wheel, brake rotor)
    - 19" frame, standover 30.4", horizontal top tube 24.5", BB height 315 mm
    - ridden twice, asking $1750
    - owner paid $1800 for bike only plus $150 for extra parts
    - retail $2000 mail order without extra parts (specs are slightly different):
    http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/..._TeamTI_29.htm

    I am told by current owners that each weighs 23 lbs (both the same).

    Any thoughts on
    - aluminum vs titanium?
    - differences in components?
    - quality?
    - other?

    Comments/suggestions on the sizes also very welcome.
    Both are "about" my size. I'm 5'11", 33" inseam.

    I have ridden a Cannondale F29er 2
    http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/08/c...el-8FS292.html
    for a couple of days, with an 18.7" frame, 32" stand-over, 24.5" horizontal TT length (spec sheet, my own horizontal center-to-center measurement says 24.0), 110 mm stem, 27 lbs, and it feels good.

    Thanks in advance!
    Last edited by riotanama; 09-14-2009 at 02:02 PM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: borregokid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,586
    If you can try both bikes out one will obviously fit better than the other. I havent had a Ti-frame but they dont break as easily as aluminum and it should have a softer ride. I like Stumjumper but I might go with the Ti bike for its durability. The downside on both bikes is the prices are slightly high for "used" because you wont have warranty coverage as the second owner. The price usually goes down about 30% even if the bike is like new. The SJ especially should be a little cheaper.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by borregokid
    If you can try both bikes out one will obviously fit better than the other. I havent had a Ti-frame but they dont break as easily as aluminum and it should have a softer ride. I like Stumjumper but I might go with the Ti bike for its durability. The downside on both bikes is the prices are slightly high for "used" because you wont have warranty coverage as the second owner. The price usually goes down about 30% even if the bike is like new. The SJ especially should be a little cheaper.
    Thanks. What would you think if I could get the SJ for $1100 vs. the Ti for $1500, or what price might you offer? But I guess you said it, -30% would be about $1150 and $1400, and Ti might be good. I have very little idea about how the components compare...?

    I hope to try both, but sometimes I find it hard to tell from a short test ride vs. several longer rides. Plus the rides would be different times and possibly even different days. I guess we all have this dilemma...

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: borregokid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,586
    Finding two decent race grade XC bikes in a particular size range can be very difficult in many areas of the US. I like both bikes. A decent deal on either one would be nice. There will be a difference in the feel between the two bikes as one is 18 inches and one is 19 inches although the effective top tube is almost the same. If you think you have relatively long legs and a short torso the SJ might be a better fit. I would guess that the 19 inch Stumpjumper is a better fit for you rather than the 18. The Motobecane is speced very nice with XTR, FSA Afterburner, and the Elixir brakes so I think thats the one I would look at the hardest, plus it might be the better fitting.

  5. #5
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    477
    For the quality of the bike and a well proven suspension design, you should go with the SJ FSR Comp. The Motobecan't isn't even in the same league. Sorry if I sound like a snob because I'm not. I sell Specialized and I've had customers fall for the "low price/better component spec." and find out that it rides fair at best. You should buy the SJ. Forget that the MB is Ti. You can make crap frames from Ti as well as Steel, Aluminum and Carbon. (Even Walmart sells a carbon bike now.) ;(

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbikernc69
    For the quality of the bike and a well proven suspension design, you should go with the SJ FSR Comp. The Motobecan't isn't even in the same league. Sorry if I sound like a snob because I'm not. I sell Specialized and I've had customers fall for the "low price/better component spec." and find out that it rides fair at best. You should buy the SJ. Forget that the MB is Ti. You can make crap frames from Ti as well as Steel, Aluminum and Carbon. (Even Walmart sells a carbon bike now.) ;(
    So you're not biased at all.

    Assuming you can since they are used, test ride the bikes and let that make the decision.
    2011 Trek Gary Fisher Collection Rig
    2007 Gary Fisher HKEK

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Whitedog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbikernc69
    For the quality of the bike and a well proven suspension design, you should go with the SJ FSR Comp. (
    Except that he bike he's talking about is the Stumpjumper Comp 29 which is a hardtail, he's not talking about the SJ FSR 29

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitedog
    Except that he bike he's talking about is the Stumpjumper Comp 29 which is a hardtail, he's not talking about the SJ FSR 29
    Yea...I kinda missed that. Anyway...the SJ HT is a nice bike but it is a super stiff frame. I've have several in the shop and have test ridden them and find them to be as bone jarring in the rear as a 26" hardtail. I'd check out the Rockhopper 29-er first.

  9. #9
    Mtbr Forum Sponsor
    Reputation: bikesdirect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    931
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbikernc69
    For the quality of the bike and a well proven suspension design, you should go with the SJ FSR Comp. The Motobecan't isn't even in the same league. Sorry if I sound like a snob because I'm not. I sell Specialized and I've had customers fall for the "low price/better component spec." and find out that it rides fair at best. You should buy the SJ. Forget that the MB is Ti. You can make crap frames from Ti as well as Steel, Aluminum and Carbon. (Even Walmart sells a carbon bike now.) ;(
    The ride and quality of Ti Motobecanes has been well covered by magazines and buyers. I have not seen a single person be less than amazed by the Ti Motos.

    Framework is fantastic
    Ride is reported by all that own one as simply amazing

    There are plenty of posts online by owners of these Ti models - as we are able to increase production; more cyclists will be exposed to these bikes. Comparing them to Litespeed, Moots, Etc is fair. They can not be fairly compared to Aluminum HT frames by any maker; Specialized, Fisher, Motobecane, Kona, whatever in AL does not compare to Ti

    Both Ti and AL have their place [as does Steel and CF] -- and comparing high-end steel to Ti makes some sense ~~ but AL and Ti are completely different.

  10. #10
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    477
    I recant what I said about FSR's and FS Motobecant's. Should have read the OE post a little better. Was talking about full suspension designs and that argument doesn't apply here.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9
    Reports from seeing and riding.

    Motobecane Fly Team:

    I was very tempted to make an offer. Size seemed great, lightweight bike (about 23 or so lbs, I weighed it with a crude scale) and rides very nicely. Components seem great. A couple of things had me wondering:

    (1) There is very little clearance, maybe 2 mm (0.2 cm), between the front derailleur at the back of the set tube and the rear tire. It makes me wonder if a different tire might eat up that 2 mm and be unable to rotate, or that mud will clog that narrow passage and cause friction or even a jam. The tires currently on the bike have mini knobs, lots of small tread squares maybe 3 mm on a side. Smooth rolling on pavement.

    You can see how the clearance looks here:
    http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/..._TeamTI_29.htm
    With frame specs here:
    http://motobecane.com/ti29_geo.html

    (2) The rear wheel is not quite centered between the seat stays. When the quick release is loose and the wheel is sitting all the way up in the drop-outs, it is centered, but when the QR is tightened the rear wheel tilts several mm to starboard (rider's right) between the seat stays. It remains centered between the chain stays. Note the drop-outs are mostly veritcal. Is this tilting a significant thing?

    (3) The front and rear brakes both drag. I assume this can be adjusted so there is no drag, mayb it's not an issue but it is my first up-close encounter with disk brakes so I'm not 100% certain.

    The first two have me concerned, is it with or without reason? The third I assume can be fixed by adjusting the brakes (but I have not yet learned about disc brakes).


    Specialized SJ Comp:

    The SJ Comp is also very good. The components were nice but maybe not as nice as on the Fly Team (detail: as I recall it has red-line gear indicators on the shifters, which I don't like but not a big deal).

    SJ Comp is 18" vs 19" for Fly Team. SJ has 1.7 cm shorter horiz top tube than the Fly but just 0.4 cm shorter than a Cannondale 29er 2 that I have ridden some and which seems okay.

    I rode the SJ Comp first, before the Fly Team, so I cannot compare the point 1/2/3 mentioned above about the Fly Team to the SJ Comp as I did not notice them on the SJ Comp. However in the photos the SJ has more clearance from front derailleur to rear tire:
    http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/...009&spid=39219
    http://www.bikepedia.com/Quickbike/B...29er&Type=bike

    SJ has some upgrades: Fox RLC fork, XT front derailler, XTR rear derailler, Specialized Captain tires, tubeless conversion.


    Both weight about 23 pounds. This is a bit lighter than retail weight for the SJ as it now has tubeless and a Fox fork which is lighter than the original Rock Shox. I guess the Fly could come down slightly in weight with tubeless.

    The Fly Team owner may not be willing to come down much from $1750, which includes some extra tires and tubes and an extra front wheel with brake rotor, but he paid $1800 new although it is now $2000 new. He might accept $1500 without the parts or $1600 with the parts, just guessing.

    The SJ Comp owner paid $1750 and the 2010 MSRP is $1850. He might go down from $1500, maybe to $1100, but again I'm not sure.

    The Fly has the Ti frame and nicer components, but I'm a bit worred about the tiny rear wheel clearance and strange (but not large) rear-wheel centering issue.

    Any comments, especially on items 1/2/3 above, would be great. Thanks very much for all the comments up to now.
    Last edited by riotanama; 09-10-2009 at 05:34 AM.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    86
    I think you are too worried about the components. I would suggest that you try to buy the bike that rode the best, working to a price that you feel fairly reflects what is for sale (independent of ride quality). If you need to add or subtract 'value' for the ride, adjust appropriately.

    I'm tall and don't like 29ers, just trying to help you balance objective and subjective values. If you are 5'11, I'd think that the smaller SJ frame would be a better fit, but you should know better from the ride.

    In my opinion, there is no contest between Spec. Aluminum and the Moto Ti. When I was 18 years old I valued stiffness over flex, now it's the other way around.

    G.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    834
    "In my opinion, there is no contest between Spec. Aluminum and the Moto Ti. When I was 18 years old I valued stiffness over flex, now it's the other way around."

    +1

    Just by looking at the pictures, I'll go with better looking nude Ti.
    When I get bored trail riding, I'll put 700c tires on them wheels and go road riding. Want it lighter? .. put a 29 carbon fork and you got a holy batman disc cross-like bike.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Gringo
    I think you are too worried about the components.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gringo
    When I was 18 years old I valued stiffness over flex, now it's the other way around.
    Quote Originally Posted by older guy
    Just by looking at the pictures, I'll go with better looking nude Ti. bike.
    Many thanks to for all the comments, I agree.

    I would make an offer for the Ti but I am worried about the tiny 2mm clearance between rear tire and front derailleur. How much clearance is enough? Could it choke with mud, or could a tire with deeper tread have even less clearance?

    Another frame issue is that the rear wheel tilts off-center by maybe 2 or 3 mm between the seat stays when the quick release is tightened, although it is centered when loose. What does that mean and is it important?

    Finally both front and rear brakes drag but I assume this can be fixed with a normal adjustment.

    Quote Originally Posted by older guy
    When I get bored trail riding, I'll put 700c tires on them wheels and go road riding. Want it lighter? .. put a 29 carbon fork and you got a holy batman disc cross-like bike.
    Great ideas!

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    86
    It could choke with mud, but from my experience not a serious concern. The wheel being off center 2-3mm, that's not much. What's critical is alignment, that the wheel follows the axis of the front triangle. Perhaps the wheel wasn't dished properly, an easy fix, but (for me) not much of an issue. Brake drag, I face this problem with every bike I own, not much of an issue here either.

    Both bikes are great, you can pay too much for either, but I don't think you can go wrong either way.

    Hands down, frame fit first, everything else should fall into place with a little tweaking.

    G.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9

    Ti vs traction

    Quote Originally Posted by Gringo
    It could choke with mud, but from my experience not a serious concern. The wheel being off center 2-3mm, that's not much. What's critical is alignment, that the wheel follows the axis of the front triangle. Perhaps the wheel wasn't dished properly, an easy fix, but (for me) not much of an issue. Brake drag, I face this problem with every bike I own, not much of an issue here either.
    The brakes dragging I guess can be adjusted so no problem there.

    I've been looking into the frame questions:

    About the tilt, I'm certain it has nothing to do with the wheel itself. When the QR is loose the wheel is centered and the dishing is fine. I also checked that the wheel is true. I talked to a friendly LBS guy and he suggested that the tilt of the rear wheel when the quick release is tightened could mean there is a slight frame misalignment. I think this is the reason. However it is a vertical tilt, not a right-left tilt, so the wheel does still follow the axis of the frame.

    About the very small clearance between rear tire and front derailleur, it will put a limit on tire size. The tires I saw were the originals from Bikesdirect, Kenda 29x2.1". The tiny clearance probably means that tires wider than 2.1 can't be used as they will be taller too. That is a limitation as wider tires have better traction (see http://mountainbike.about.com/b/2007.../tire-size.htm for example). This may be the more serious consideration.

    Contrast that to the nice things about a Ti frame. Is Ti worth the limitation on tire size and therefore traction?

  17. #17
    Feeling retro..but Jung
    Reputation: Germany_chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    215
    Your talking a 9er so traction will not be an issue like is with 26er. Second most people who do alot of tire playing (not me) run narrower in the back and wider in the front. If you value Ti then go with the moto, personally if it is not litespeed, merlin, linskey the ti doesn't do much for me I don't know the source butting etc. The stumpy on the other hand has dealer support and a large following for support. The last is truly my opinion, if LS etc. cast in the 4k range for just the frame why is the moto 1800 complete?

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    834
    Just wanted to say this..
    Moto is made in Taiwan and no aftermarket LBS support, reason why it is less money - nothing wrong with that. However If rear wheel is truly tilting, I wouldn't buy it even if it is Ti.

Posting Permissions

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