AFR good for AM-riding or just FR-fun???
Hi, I am looking for a new Frame to build up a DO-IT-ALL-BIKE. Considered the FR/AFR several month ago to replace my Remedy for a bit more downhill/jumping/dropping stuff, but they are both discontinued and I ve been told that I would have to stay with the AM. Now I have the chance to get an almost new AFR Frame in my size "L" and I wanted to ask you wether this thing could be build as an light AM/FR weapon, that goes up the hill as well. Does a AFR with 160mm of travel makes sense at all? Is there really a huge difference in uphill fun between AM and AFR?
Have these pieces to stuck on:
TALAS 36 RLC FIT 160.
Race Face Atlas AM crank
DT Swiss EX1750 wheelset
Thanks for your help, Andy
The 160 fork will work nicely on the AFR and you can search through the forum to see my comments around running the AFR with a short shock and a light build. The AFR with an RP23 is about 9.5lbs for a powder coated medium frame only. So, it is a lot of bike to push up the hill if you're not looking to get on some fairly big/committing lines on the way down. For pure AM, most would be better served with a Helius-AM.
FWIW, I got my AFR down to about 31.5 lbs with a dropper post and burly tires. Getting the AFR light is not that hard with enough budget, but it's still not going to be the super-efficient climber that a lot of "AM" style riders want.
Do you think the AFR could be on pair with the AM when build up light, while the AM is build a little more sturdy. So a light AFR vs a "fat" AM???
Originally Posted by Err
Nicolai has a comparison between the AFR and AM on their Homepage, showing that the seat-position is not that different, despite the shifted seattube of the AFR.
The reason I am asking is, that I could get an almost new AFR-Frame a lot cheaper than the AM. I have planned to do a lot more agressive trail-riding in the future and therefor the AFR possibly is the better choice, because it can be easily upgraded with stronger parts or more travel.
But in the end I want to climb the hills too, so pedaling is also important.
The comparison is good, and it for sure shows that the seat position is not that different, but it would not be as comfy on a full day in the saddle as say the AM...
My AM 29er has a AFR rear, of which has the very slack seat tube angle. I ride it uphill, all over the show, but it is not as comfortable as say my FR used to be... It dosnt annoy me at all, jsut being honest is not as comfy...
As Err mentions, if your climbs reward you with sick downhills it would be worth it...
The_Lecht_Rocks: whafe - cheeers - may i offer an official apology for the wagon wheeler "dis-belief"
The AFR works just fine as an all rounder. I never took mine to the extremes that err did either. I think the lowest weight I had it at was @ 35lb. The riding position is very good for trail riding. I felt more central on the bike than I did with the FR. The afr has a similar angle st to the AM, the FR being a bit slacker. I ran it at 175mm travel pretty much all the time. Never felt the need for more
There's a lot of cross over between the am, fr and afr. All great bikes:thumbs up:
By Hopping_Rocks in forum General Discussion
Last Post: 05-14-2010, 01:25 PM
By ionsmuse in forum Arizona
Last Post: 01-09-2008, 02:13 PM
By FastFreerider91 in forum Urban/DJ/Park
Last Post: 06-25-2007, 12:20 PM
By STinGa in forum Passion
Last Post: 06-07-2007, 06:37 AM
By Clyde S Dale in forum Turner
Last Post: 05-20-2007, 01:47 PM