Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bonesetter2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,497

    Element 29er - alu Vs CF

    I'm interested in the 970, but of course have been eyeing the RSL

    Anyone comment on what real world trail riding differences are/might be?

    The frame difference only seems the front triangle...?

    Cheers

  2. #2
    ups and downs
    Reputation: rockyuphill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    13,649
    The all carbon frame will be stiffer, and lighter by about a pound.

    The 999 RSL and 970 RSL use a carbon rear triangle, the 970 RSL BC and 950 RSL use an alloy rear triangle.
    I'm a member of NSMBA and IMBA Canada

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    11
    I demoed an alu element, and the bike is vvery stiff. I'm 225lbs without gear and I couldn't feel or see it flexing at all on the trail. By contrast, I noticed quite a bit of flex on a carbon Tallboy.

    I think the only difference you'd notice with the RSL is the weight.

  4. #4
    ups and downs
    Reputation: rockyuphill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    13,649
    The carbon Elements are stiffer and less flexy than the alloy Elements.
    I'm a member of NSMBA and IMBA Canada

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bonesetter2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,497
    There's such a huge amount of cost difference I have never been able to justify carbon.

    I bought my first ti frame this year (Kona Raijin) due to it essentially being the preferred off the peg geo, and the right price. Was never sure the ti (or the CF) was worth another few ooo over alu. The ti would not be worth another few 000 $ over a nice steel frame (which I also own).

    Still, I have an alu version to collect tomorrow for a test ride Watch this space

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    89
    Have owned a 2012 970 and should have delivery of 2013 999 by the end of new week. So should be able to give you a bit of an insight into the differences then. We have had a proto 999 (carbon front/alloy rear) in the shop for a week and have done the up and down the cobbled street ride. Obviously you can't gauge much of an impression of the bike from that, except the reduced weight. 11kgs on the scales with tubes, aluminium rear end and basic steel pedals so from that you can make some assumptions its easily going to hit the 10.5ks with pedals pretty easily.

    The obvious improvement over a fantastic frame suspension design from the alloy, was the new monarch XX with xloc lockout! We intentionally ran it with less than optimal air pressure and locked the rear shock out and the rear end was SOLID. So set up correctly it is going to be an abolsute endurance trail weapon.

    With my personal preferences changed out Easton bars, stem, seatpost and ec90 wheels, weight should be down in to the low 10kgs ready to race. Can't wait

    quiggs

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by rockyuphill View Post
    The carbon Elements are stiffer and less flexy than the alloy Elements.
    They probably are, but I'm saying that in my experience the alloy element is stiff enough that the average joe probably wouldn't be able to feel the difference.

Posting Permissions

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