Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    15

    Tell me about AC vs CC - already have an AM

    Hi guys - new to this site and have come here for some detailed Nicolai advice!

    There are many threads with "AM vs AC" - but I'm looking for info on AC vs CC.

    I ride mainly trail centres/natural trails but am not a super rad drop off man and while I love the bombproof feel of the AM, I'm also wanting something a bit lighter/more nimble. I want to stick with Nicolai as you guys can appreciate, but need some help to make up my mind.

    I'm concerned the AC is just too similar to my AM, and so I'm being drawn towards the CC at the moment. I haven't really considered the RC - is this a mistake.

    Sorry if you guys are bored with the whole "one -vs- another" thing, but I'm struggling to get much info on the CC anywhere - seems to be a bit forgotten??

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    "Its All Good"
    Reputation: Whafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    10,715
    dazzling - Welcome to the MTBR Site, along with the Nicolai area....

    I cant answer your question in detail, but some of the other lads will for sure.... In my opinion, I think the CC seems to get a bit forgotten as you mention, because the AC & AM a relatively new models so to speak, not that the RC, CC are old and past it.... Am thinking that most whom are purchasing a CC are more likely to race the bike, where by the AC is your all round typical hard core trail bike (which of course could be raced)

    I do know that the CC is a fast, real fast bike.....

    I was about to say, I would not go an AC if you had an AM... Of which I have an AC 29er, and am building a AM 29er... Go figure....

    In my mind, the AM is more of a replacement for the FR.... Where by the AC is not a replacement for the CC....
    The_Lecht_Rocks: whafe - cheeers - may i offer an official apology for the wagon wheeler "dis-belief"

  3. #3
    steep fast and loose :)
    Reputation: The_Lecht_Rocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,271
    i have an AM and want an AC.
    the AC will perform trail duties better than the AM for me.

    the AM warrants 36's whereas the AC warrants 32's, and this is the biggest difference imo.
    the AM was my choice as the AC wasn't available at the tine and the CC and RC were too ace focussed.

    The AC is simply the ultimate UK centric trail bike sitting within Nicolai's current product range.

    i know Mike at Nic UK swapped from an AM to an AC and loves the AC...

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    15
    Interesting - did not appreciate such a gap between AM and AC TLR. Why do you say the CC is too race focussed??

    My AM is 2008/9 - so 67.7 head and 73.2 seat angles. (I know they have slackened it for 2011)
    AC is 67.8 and 73.1 - so the same to all intents and purposes.
    5mm difference on top tube length.

    Travel is obviously different (although not hugely - substantial overlap at top end of AC and lower end of AM - could easily be the same depending on settings).
    Weight is different - 500g - so a pound give or take.

    So on paper they are very similar. I haven't ridden the AC but based on these stats they are hardly night and day from each other?

    I'm worried an AM and an AC would overlap too much - the CC is different altogether?

  5. #5
    steep fast and loose :)
    Reputation: The_Lecht_Rocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,271
    indeed the AM and AC do overlap.
    but the AC is designed for 32's whereas the AM isn't.
    this is the considerable diference.
    thereby the AC builds into a cracking UK centric trail bike.

    didnt i say that above ???

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    15
    Indeed you did! However not sure what difference that really makes. I run 36 wotans on the AM most of the time, but also 32 thors and 32 floats with the travel in 2nd or 3rd hole. Nae odds really (other than travel of course) apart from 36 being a bit stiffer but not really noticed 99% of the time. Maybe I don't ride hard enough to find the limits of the 32s!

    And I'm really more interested in the AC vs CC comparison.

    I guess there's only one sure way to find out! I may have to break out the credit card!

    Thanks for the feedback.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    898
    What's the difference?

    400g in frame weight and some length in the top tube/reach/wheelbase (the AM is longer). Aaprt from that nothing.

    Yes, as TLR points out, you tend to run the AC with a shorter fork but you can also run the AM with a Fox 32 without too many issues and you can get a taller lower crown race from Reset Racing to compensate for the lower A2C height of a Fox 32 150mm if you were desperate to save weight. I have run my AM with a 150mm 32 for about 3 months and for the most part is was actually pretty good. The geometry is a little different as a result but there were times when it was for the better. It steepens the HA a little and drops the front end, so you get slightly faster handling, thus making it nimbler. If you're not riding steep terrain then it might get you to where you want the AM to be without having to spend another 2k on a new frame.

    Also have you tried the AM in the other travel settings? 158mm and 146mm is available in second and third from top holes, which do make the bike pedal a lot better.

    Or you can buy a 2011 Fox 36 Float, at which point the next difference between the AM and the AC becomes a marginal 600g total build difference in weight.

    The AM and AC have similar ride characteristics, but obviously the AM has the advantage being stronger, stiffer and better able to take heavy landings and DH use. I've run mine on a number of DH courses in the UK and France. I doubt the AC would take that.

    The AC is a bit more nimble, but that's more to do with size than weight; the AC is shoter in the wheelbase.

  8. #8
    Distributor
    Reputation: nicolai-uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    230
    We don't really consider the CC a race bike - that's the realm of the RC. However, it certainly can be raced - drop the fork to 100mm and the rear to 115mm and you have steeper angles and a low bottom bracket. The main advantage of the CC is flexibility.

    Unlike the AC and the AM the BB height, and angles, change as the rear travel is adjusted. Keep front and rear about the same and you keep the HA/SA unchanged but drop the BB as you reduce travel. Drop the rear more to slacken the HA, less to steepen.

    In longer travel form (ie full 130mm at the rear and 130mm plus at the front) the geometry is almost identical to the AC - top tube length is the same, head angle is the same for a given length of unsagged fork (ie both have the same head angle fitted with a 140mm fork) so it's very much a trail bike - this isn't some super steep race weapon.

    The main difference you'll see on the spec sheet is that, compared to the the AC, the bottom bracket is higher when it's in long travel mode. This works well in rocky environments as it means less pedal strike.

    Personally, I think the optimum build for the CC is as a 120mm trail bike run with an adjustable fork to drop it to c100mm for racing. It handles really nicely at that travel and you can build with something like a Reba and save a bit more weight. That would also give a good seperation between your bikes if you're also running an AM.

    Lastly, we've still got some stock of CC's with old (not bolt on) cable routing at a bargain price...
    Simon Still
    Momentum Distribution
    www.nicolai-uk.com

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,417
    Hi Dazzlingboy,
    Mugtree would be the perfect person to comment here because he has had both a AC and CC. He prefers the CC, I believe?

    I ride a CC built up to about 30lb with DT150mm forks, CCDB shock and big 2.4 tyres front and rear. I run it one hole from top. Head angle is 67 deg which I like. Travel on the rear is enough for most of the riding in the UK. I use 720mm wide bars with a 50mm stem and the handling is great. The fork is much plusher than the Wotan which I had on another older Nicolai FR.

    I am sure that the AM is a great bike and am wondering if you might be better off spending some money on up grading some of the parts and reducing the weight at the same time? A BOS Deville or DT EX150 fork and go 2 x 10 XTR or Sram, for example? What shock are you running? Elka, BOS or CCDB would be my choice for this bike.
    Last edited by loamranger; 11-19-2010 at 02:14 PM.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    898
    I wish I had a message board mega phone right now.

    Attention, attention (or should that be Auchtung, Auchtung!). If TLR is in the building can he please read the following:

    This works well in rocky environments as it means less pedal strike.
    I repeat

    This works well in rocky environments as it means less pedal strike.

  11. #11
    steep fast and loose :)
    Reputation: The_Lecht_Rocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,271
    Quote Originally Posted by geetee1972
    I wish I had a message board mega phone right now.

    Attention, attention (or should that be Auchtung, Auchtung!). If TLR is in the building can he please read the following:



    I repeat


    lol - i'm fukkn sick of the AM and pedal strike........now realise the AC will suffer the same fate..........

  12. #12
    steep fast and loose :)
    Reputation: The_Lecht_Rocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,271
    fwiw the greatest trail bike i've yet ridden is Dippers Chumba VF2...... it was an absolute gem

    i'm now looking at a blur lt carbon.

  13. #13
    Distributor
    Reputation: nicolai-uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    230
    "Pedal Strike" is not something we have had complaints about from magazine reviews or owners. However, the AC does have a lower bottom bracket than the CC - it stands to reason that if pedal strike is an issue for you then a higher bottom bracket is likely to be preferable.
    Simon Still
    Momentum Distribution
    www.nicolai-uk.com

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    898
    TLR - WTF? If the greatest trail bike you've ever ridden is a Chumba VF2, then er, why the feck don't you just buy one of those rather than a Blur?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,962
    Quote Originally Posted by geetee1972
    TLR - WTF? If the greatest trail bike you've ever ridden is a Chumba VF2, then er, why the feck don't you just buy one of those rather than a Blur?

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    313
    Go away from the forum for a couple of weeks and still it is the same old

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    89
    I own an AC & a CC.
    The AC is built with 150mm forks Mavic 819 rims Nobby Nic 2.25 tyres Foox DHX5 air shock weight 30lb.
    The CC has full XTR group inc. the wheels 120mm Fox forks RP23 shock run one hole down from top weight 26.6lb.
    The difference between the two bikes is the AC is fun its always trying to get you to pop the wheels in the air just for the hell of it.
    The CC is the most efficient mile eater I have ever owned.
    Both are great bikes , I think it would be impossible to " make a mistake" which ever one you choose.
    Hope this helps
    Cheers
    Jeff

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    15
    Thanks for the excellent replies guys - my gut feel is pushing me towards the CC having read everything you say - sounds like an excellent compliment to the AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by nicolai-uk
    The main difference you'll see on the spec sheet is that, compared to the the AC, the bottom bracket is higher when it's in long travel mode. This works well in rocky environments as it means less pedal strike.
    One thing I can definitely agree with TLR on is that I get a lot of pedal strike on the AM too!! I suspect pilot error is to blame in my case but it I get it noticeably more than on any other bike I've ridden. That is another point in the CC favour.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryates
    What shock are you running?
    Wotans up front and DHX Air 5.0 on the rear. Wotans seem OK rather than brilliant (I have Thors on a hardtail and rate them highly). Fox shock is great although takes a bit of fettling to get it spot on IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by jfb1
    The CC is the most efficient mile eater I have ever owned.
    I think that sums it up well - that's what I'm looking for in this bike!

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,417
    dazzlingboy, I'm selling my CC. Size XL. If you are interested drop me a PM.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    226
    I've got a CC, set up in a pretty light trail type build. 130mm Dual Air Revs up front, XT drive train, SLX brakes & cranks, thomson/USE Carbon finishing kit and Hope hoops with ZTR355's.

    It certainly rides best in the 116mm setting IMHO, in fact it's been left in that guise for about 6 months now regardless of what i've ridden, from the peaks to the howgills and Welsh trail centres.

    It is indeed a fast mile muncher, but it handles way more than it looks like it should.

    The angles with my set up at HA-68deg SA-72deg, so bang on the money in my book. It weighs in at 27.5lbs in it's current set up too

    Might as well throw in a couple of gratuitous picks of it too


Posting Permissions

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