Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    18

    2006 Racer X vs 2010+ Carbon X

    I have been riding my 2006 aluminum (with carbon seat stays) Racer X for about 6 years now and I still LOVE IT. It is the best MTB I have ever ridden, and I have tried many of the high dollar carbon XC offerings from other companies. I am considering upgrading my 6 year old frame with a newer 2010+ Carbon X. Is there anyone out there that has ridden both the 2006ish racer X and the latest model Carbon X and can compare the two for me? Is the feel of the carbon X frame the same or very similar to the older racer Xs? Is there much of a difference in frame weight? I am basically trying to decide if it is work the $ to upgrade.

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    42
    Why the choice of carbon?
    Assiduus usus uni rei deditus et ingenium et artem saepe vincit

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Gonzo View Post
    Why the choice of carbon?
    Well, I guess that is also my question, ultimately. I have a 6 year old frame, so I will need to get something new eventually to replace it with. Almost all high end XC race frames are going to carbon now. Is there a reason to avoid the Carbon X?

    I have also though about going with the highly praised Pivot Mach 4, but I love my Racer X so much that I don't want to risk getting something that I don't like as much. I figured the Carbon X is the most updated and lightest version of what I know and love.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    42
    Had a specialized epic carbon but prefer my Titus racer x exogrid (titanium). If you like that stiff, racy feeling that reacts at exactly your demands i guess carbon will please you. They reason i still love my tita is the joy factor. Its really a "toy" for every kind of track. And never i have the idea after a stone clashes with the bottom tube that something might be wrong. For me i stay with tita and alu but if I was a pro and had my frame for free Ii would use a carbon for xc races.
    Assiduus usus uni rei deditus et ingenium et artem saepe vincit

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,918

    Its not worth the money.

    I have had a few racer x's. I have ridden the carbon frames, from about 2009, but not the latest offerings. In my opinion there was not a noticeable difference in ride quality between my alu bike and the carbon one. The Carbon frames are not any lighter, In some cases they might be heavier. My alu frame was about 5.2 lbs, and my friends carbon x was 5.5. These numbers are not on the same scale as my bike was already built when he got his. From what I have seen on this forum and in person the carbon bikes are not lighter. Your frame might eventually break, but you can work with on-one and get a replacement front or rear for less then a new frame.

    My advice would be to save your cash for the new carbon bike you really want. Keep your trusty old steed for a back-up or to remind yourself of the times long gone when bikes were made of metal and had small wheels.
    Visiting St george/Hurricane? Stay at my vacation rental. Discounts for MTB's

    http://www.vrbo.com/392904

    PM me

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    431
    re: aluminum vs carbon

    I had a '09 aluminum X, which is the same as the current one except it had a carbon/aluminum "literail" seatstay with aluminum rear dropouts, while the latest "literail" seatstay on that frame looks like it is full carbon (including the dropouts). I sold that frame and got a carbon X (current one) in the same size, and swapped all the parts over. The carbon frame is ~100g heavier than the aluminum frame (exact same shock, no headset or seat collar). The seat collar on the carbon bike is heavier, while the integrated headset on the carbon bike would save some weight, roughly netting out the gain in the seat collar (maybe a bit more). So, like-for-like, about 100g in it in the end. The rub plate on the downtube (for protecting the carbon from rocks flung off the front tire) of the carbon is probably what pushes it over.

    I can't be sure, but I reckon the carbon frame has the more laterally stiffer rear end - noticeable when hitting rocks/bumps when cornering, I reckon the aluminum had more rear-steer than the carbon (had the same wheels on both). The carbon is also quieter. It could be in my head, but the carbon seems to dull the vibration a bit more, be a little less lively (more isolated) than the aluminum, which may be a good or bad thing, but I definitely prefer that when doing longer races and/or get a bit fatigued. Consistent with the specs, the geo seems to be identical between the bikes, and the handling was instantly familiar when i switched from the aluminum to the carbon (except the above mentioned diffs).

    Even though it is heavier than aluminum (which is a big factor, it being my WW race bike), I am glad I "upgraded" from the Al to the carbon. However, if you aren't a heavy rider and would prefer a more lively ride, maybe the Al could suit you better, as the skinnier stays on the Al frame won't be as much an issue for you.

Posting Permissions

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