Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    31

    2013 Giant Anthem X Advanced SL0 29er Prototype?

    Seen today at the Cross Country Worldcup in Houffalize/Belgium:








  2. #2
    swag ho Administrator
    Reputation: francois's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    17,961
    Carbon frame.
    189 grams lighter than previous anthem x
    7% stiffer head tube

  3. #3
    swag ho Administrator
    Reputation: francois's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    17,961
    IPA will save America

  4. #4
    jms
    jms is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,546

    Are They

    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    Carbon frame.
    189 grams lighter than previous anthem x
    7% stiffer head tube
    Are they setting you guys up with the tubulars too?
    My Favorite Peeps:

  5. #5
    2010 Glory custom FR
    Reputation: frango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    985
    francois, what would Kevin say if he'd seen this picture here? ;>
    pozdro
    frango

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    11
    Gonna get em talking!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    40
    oh baby don't be so mean!

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    38

    I'm wandering if geometry is changed?!

    I'm wandering if geometry is changed?!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    38

  10. #10
    swag ho Administrator
    Reputation: francois's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    17,961
    Quote Originally Posted by esblo View Post
    I'm wandering if geometry is changed?!
    Geometry is unchanged.

    Fc

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,089
    Frame doesn't look as macho as the Trance X SL0.

  12. #12
    Crop Dusting Magistrate
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    599
    189 grams lighter...shows how optimized the aluminum has been.
    It wasn't me

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cale399's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    318
    tubulars are ugly

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cale399's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    318
    no thru axle on the pro's bike...stuff like that I just don't get...cause if it is all about weight, then why a Shimano XTR crank and Shimano stem and low riser Shimano handlebar and I know they race for a team etc but come on these bikes look so generic and boring, would that bike make it for the Race the Divide?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4
    I want one

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    706
    Quote Originally Posted by cale399 View Post
    no thru axle on the pro's bike...stuff like that I just don't get...cause if it is all about weight, then why a Shimano XTR crank and Shimano stem and low riser Shimano handlebar and I know they race for a team etc but come on these bikes look so generic and boring, would that bike make it for the Race the Divide?
    Well those are pretty irrelevant remarks... It's a non standard prototype frame with team sponsored components for RACING. It's a question of taste, but it's anything but generic. Catalog bikes can be viewed as generic.

    I just do not see the point of critizising racing bikes for not being fit for a totally different purpose. It's as irrelevant as the regular 'how would you fix a tubular on the trail' whine. You run to the pits, that's how. If there is no pits, there are no spare wheels over there, or it's not even a race, you should have thought about what parts you bought for what purpose in the first place. It's the same as the complaint that your F1 car is not capable of riding over a speed bump.

    Speaking of wheel changes: The QR is still the best way to ensure fast wheel swaps in the event of a puncture.

    I would not want any MTB manufacturer to design their bikes for the Race the Divide. THAT would make them look boring in my opinion and way to heavy for racing use. If you want your bike to survive that, pick one that is designed for the job. It's that simple.

    Sure, tubulars are ugly. The guy got 28th in a worldcup as a U23 rider opting to race elite cat. I doubt he cares and frankly: I think he thinks they look cool and make him ride fast.

  17. #17
    08anthem adv 1x9 23.5lbs
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    30
    The first set of pics are of the advanced x 29er w alum rear triangle, the SL frame is in development.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cale399's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by JeroenK View Post
    Well those are pretty irrelevant remarks...
    why that is ur opinion...fast forward to your irrelevant F1 comment...I can afford (bike) and ride everywhere the guys that ride these bikes ride...F1 not likely I can hang w/those guys in the purchasing department

    It's a non standard prototype frame with team sponsored components for RACING. It's a question of taste, but it's anything but generic. Catalog bikes can be viewed as generic.

    anything but generic please it is just that instead of IMHO getting a stiffer and lighter stem exp. new Ritchey c260 they try and get schmucks like u the avg ****** to buy their inferior $hit....and most don't even know that the stem is made by Shimano i.e. a company they acquired a yr ago or so...

    I just do not see the point of critizising racing bikes for not being fit for a totally different purpose.

    totally different purpose, I gonna f'n ride a 9 hr race where I need light durable and stiff as possible in ratio to the weight that will hold up under my fast fat a$$ (190 lbs)!!!

    It's as irrelevant as the regular 'how would you fix a tubular on the trail' whine. You run to the pits, that's how.

    run the pits you already lost the race if you on a 12 mile lap race course have flat 1/2/3 etc miles from the PIT! so forget your spar wheel analysis....
    If there is no pits, there are no spare wheels over there, or it's not even a race, you should have thought about what parts you bought for what purpose in the first place. It's the same as the complaint that your F1 car is not capable of riding over a speed bump.

    Speaking of wheel changes: The QR is still the best way to ensure fast wheel swaps in the event of a puncture.

    I would not want any MTB manufacturer to design their bikes for the Race the Divide. THAT would make them look boring in my opinion and way to heavy for racing use. If you want your bike to survive that, pick one that is designed for the job. It's that simple.

    that simple I want a bike w/FS that is light and durable and can take beating...and I have one one Anthem X3 upgrades 1x10 and a Santa Cruz TallBoy i.e. one Mustang GT and one Porsche Panamera

    Sure, tubulars are ugly. The guy got 28th in a worldcup as a U23 rider opting to race elite cat. I doubt he cares and frankly: I think he thinks they look cool and make him ride fast.
    where are the tubular in automotive tech...I'm not saying there aren't any but I'm stupid and haven't heard about the tubular that the weekend hardcore redneck and or Wall Steet rich a$$ put on his car to win the weekend warrior race...

    so now lets just take a chill pill and don't lose ur f'n mind over a stupid opinionated comment on MTBR, unless u have stock in Giant and believe that my comment may hurt their stock in any form or fashion KBOOM!

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: packfill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    230
    The QR is dead. Last i checked a guy won the world championships last year on a bike with a thru axle rear. Giant is always late to the party. The same principles that make it a good idea for use in the front also work in the rear.

  20. #20
    My dogs are barkin
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by packfill View Post
    The QR is dead. Last i checked a guy won the world championships last year on a bike with a thru axle rear. Giant is always late to the party. The same principles that make it a good idea for use in the front also work in the rear.
    I'm fairly sure that Giant was one of the first, if not the first, to commit to 15QR on XC/trail bikes. What the athletes race is up to them and their sponsors.

    As to the making sense on the rear, yes, if the rear needs it. The triangular, one piece rear on the Maestro platform does not have this need.
    I know just enough to be dangerous
    --Me

    SoCAL
    06/17/2009

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by packfill View Post
    The QR is dead. Last i checked a guy won the world championships last year on a bike with a thru axle rear. Giant is always late to the party. The same principles that make it a good idea for use in the front also work in the rear.
    Giant are usually first to the party. 15QR, tapered head tube, oversize tapered head tube,
    pressed in BB .If you read the test reports they considered 12mm axle but made no difference in stiffness to this rear triangle. Santa Cruz also came to the same conclusion with the Tallboy LT. The LTC has a 12mm because it's actually easier to build in to the carbon rear traingle than a qr.

Posting Permissions

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