Salsa Redpoint Carbon vs SC Bronson AL (2017 both)- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fjonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    74

    Salsa Redpoint Carbon vs SC Bronson AL (2017 both)

    Hi,

    I just have a comparable offer for these bikes. Hard to decide. What do you think?

    I need an Am/enduro bike which can be used for jumps in a bike park, while still fun and aggressive enough for uphill riding. The redpoint is reviewed to perform very well going down and being really plush overall. It has some issues going up, 1 degree slacker seat angle re/ bronson. The Bronson AL should be less plush and I fear cable rattling.

    Thanks for your help
    Ingo




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fjonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    74
    The german magazine overall praises the bike, but says that with the flatter seat angle the rider pedals more from behind the pedal, not from above. The difference can be seen when comparing it with e.g. the Pipeline:

    Redpoint:
    Salsa Redpoint (Modelljahr 2017) bei mountainbike-magazin.de

    Rocky Mountain Pipeline
    Rocky Mountain Pipeline 770 MSL (Modelljahr 2017) bei mountainbike-magazin.de

    So while I think it's a great bike I'm a bit afraid of knee issues (which I had before), did your customer mention anything about the seat position?

    Geometry-wise the Bronson seems more tuned for pedaling, but the Carbon option is too steep for me. I wonder if the Alu version loses the light/supple feel, popping easily over small bumps, that can be seen it many ride test videos (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbjEVnPS_-o), and if the Salsa Carbon can deliver in this regard.

    I'd like a bike which I could take to a bike park or a DH course during vacations, or just do rowdy stuff on my local trail. A full DH is no option because it should be pedal-strong enough that I can ride around 10km to get the local mountains.

  3. #3
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,973
    When did a 73.5* effective seat tube angle become flat/slack?

  4. #4
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,973
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantTurd View Post
    Check this thread out - most of the newer geo bikes, like the Bronson, many believe are inferior pedaling category, it is an interesting read.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/xc-racing-tra...o-1031445.html
    Inferior to what? A World Cup XC race bike? Or a DH bike?

    Don't over think this. Bikes are built for different uses and different terrain. Horses for courses, if you will.

    The Bronson and the Redpoint will both climb just fine. You can do a 30 mile backcountry epic ride on either bike... and then have WAAAY more fun on the descents than a bike designed solely for climbing.

    I mean, isn't the point to have fun?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fjonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    74
    Thanks for the link.

    When comparing e.g. the Redpoint Carbon (Size L) and Bronson AL (Size XL) for me as a 187cm rider (6,13 ft/inch), the Redpoint has the longer toptube and flatter seat angle. The Bronson has the longest Reach though. Since for the Salsa I'm choosing the smaller frame for my height I'm doubting that there will be a problem with positioning the knee over the pedal.

    The Redpoint with the same components will be around 1 pound lighter due to the Carbon. Bronson might be stiffer, and has inner tubing so might even be quieter. Aluminium can better endure crashes. I want to like the Redpoint more, but can't really find good arguments. I wonder what the Build Quality of the Redpoint is like?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,698
    There are so many bikes in this category, I'd pick the one that rides best in a demo. Demo, demo, demo.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fjonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    74
    I've demoed some bikes while I was in Utah a while ago but no SC's. Nice experience, super-friendly, knowledgable and helpful people, you learn a lot too.

    My experience with bike shops in Germany were usually turn-offs. Dealers are often super-arrogant pretenders, expect you to buy when testing a bike, and eventually have no clue about anything. Our old saying "Germany is a service desert" is mostly true. Last year I needed a shock service and went to the local Radon centre. The dealer told me he attended a shock service training but has no clue how suppression works. He took a test ride on my bike and charged me for it.. IMHO most of them can only push parts.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    124
    I've ridden a lot of newer SC bikes and I will say that the VPP suspension does climb "snappier" but on chunky stuff the anti squat makes for a harsher ride and less traction.

    I bought a Redpoint last summer and it is a great climber but like a lot of active bikes it does settle into it's travel and feel a bit slack if you don't use the "trail" setting on the rear shock.I swapped out some parts I had from a Monarch XX and set mine up with a remote but really only use it on long climbs.The braking performance is way better than any VPP or DW bike out there.Very active especially in braking bumps.

    All in all a great trail bike but maybe a little steep head tube angle for park or DH if that's what you want.

    I did get a smaller frame mainly because I'm happy with a shorter reach than is "cool" these days and being a closet XC geek I wanted a lower stack too.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fjonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    74

    Salsa Redpoint Carbon vs SC Bronson AL (2017 both)

    VPP with positive anti-squat causing a less sprung ride uphill sounds efficient to me. For longer climbs over rocks/roots it could become tiring, but losing energy into the suspension is tiring as well. I'm running on a HT right now and usually lock out the fork during climbs. With more rocky terrain I just open up the front a bit more to soften the ride (while losing efficiency). So thinking about rear suspension for softening climbs is pure luxury to me atm

    When the Salsa sinks into its travel it means it has negative or at least neutral anti-squat. It's probably the cool thing about the VPP that the rider doesn't need to switch the damper's LSC. It's more flexible this way, stiffer up and soft down, all controlled through chain tension.

    This video is a bit savvy but a good ressource: https://youtu.be/D0bAVTiFyy4

    Looking at the split-pivot of the Redpoint the Innstant Center should be located just behind/above the bottom bracket.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    124
    This video is a bit savvy but a good ressource: https://youtu.be/D0bAVTiFyy4

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    I must say,that video is pretty lame.The chain isn't even routed correctly,don't know about the rest as I stopped watching it at the 2 minute mark.Whatever,,,,,

    If we were talking about a XC bike what you say might be valid but the OP is looking at long travel trail bikes and to me that means an active suspension. The bike isn't "sinking into it's travel" because of pedal force but of weight transfer.Anti squat beyond what is needed to control pedal forces will create a comfort and traction to suffer.

    Slackening the STA is really the only concern as long as there isn't pedal induced oscillation.

    One way to get around that is setting your dropper post a bit high,say 5-10 mm,and then you can sit farther forward on the saddle and still get good leg extension. and drop then it a bit on the flats,

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fjonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    74

    Salsa Redpoint Carbon vs SC Bronson AL (2017 both)

    Quote Originally Posted by joecx View Post
    This video is a bit savvy but a good ressource: https://youtu.be/D0bAVTiFyy4

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    I must say,that video is pretty lame.The chain isn't even routed correctly,don't know about the rest as I stopped watching it at the 2 minute mark.Whatever,,,,,

    If we were talking about a XC bike what you say might be valid but the OP is looking at long travel trail bikes and to me that means an active suspension. The bike isn't "sinking into it's travel" because of pedal force but of weight transfer.Anti squat beyond what is needed to control pedal forces will create a comfort and traction to suffer.

    Slackening the STA is really the only concern as long as there isn't pedal induced oscillation.

    One way to get around that is setting your dropper post a bit high,say 5-10 mm,and then you can sit farther forward on the saddle and still get good leg extension. and drop then it a bit on the flats,
    Not lame at all. Sorry you didn't understand it.

    We are talking about an AM/Enduro Bike, not DH. People want an active suspension going dowhnhill. Uphill they want efficiency as close as possible to an XC bike. Moving the Instant Center forward provides more efficiency while disabling the rear suspension to a certain degree when the chain is under force. Weight distribution is another force but equal to all bikes. I was wondering why some lock their rear suspension out while others say not needed (the SC test riders leave it open), the IC discussion in the video explains it for me.

    At the end of the day it's rider preference. If you understand anti-squat you won't probably pedal strongly into an obstacle if you need suspension at this instant. Or you don't want this feature, buy another bike and change LSC during climbs to have enough platform in order to not sink in.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by fjonzo; 01-07-2017 at 05:03 AM.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by joecx View Post
    This video is a bit savvy but a good ressource: https://youtu.be/D0bAVTiFyy4

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    I must say,that video is pretty lame.The chain isn't even routed correctly,don't know about the rest as I stopped watching it at the 2 minute mark.Whatever,,,,,

    If we were talking about a XC bike what you say might be valid but the OP is looking at long travel trail bikes and to me that means an active suspension. The bike isn't "sinking into it's travel" because of pedal force but of weight transfer.Anti squat beyond what is needed to control pedal forces will create a comfort and traction to suffer.
    In this case, you are talking to the OP, so your personal preferences in long-travel bikes doesn't carry quite as much weight. I happen to prefer active suspension because I ride chunky, irregular surfaces much of the time, and the active suspension helps maintain traction in those settings. If the OP cares more about pedaling efficiency, that's his choice.

    Decent video if you hang in there. The unrealistic chain lines are only used to illustrate the phenomenon. Of course, it's easier to demonstrate the value of anti-squat than it is the benefits of active suspension, which you have to feel, so I think it tends to be over-emphasized, especially in this era of superbly engineered shocks and much more efficient active suspension designs.

    I don't buy the video author's point about 120-150% anti-squat being necessary for fully efficient pedaling. Sure, if you're a bouncy gorilla masher on smooth climbs, but if you have an efficient position and cadence and are relying on the suspension to maintain tire-to-ground contact without much kickback or loss of traction, active designs become much more efficient in the real world.

    That said, relative to the original post, the Bronson is not overly designed for efficient pedaling and is a very capable bike, and I would be happy to ride it every day. The same goes for the Redpoint. I've only been on the two bikes each for short (very different) stretches of trail, so I can't provide a detailed comparison of performance. Builds are similar, so the carbon provides value. However, the fits differ with the Redpoint having a somewhat roomier cockpit (even comparing a size L Bronson to a M Redpoint). Hope you get a chance to demo one, and if you like the way it fits and rides, buy it.

    Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    ejj
    ejj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    480
    Redpoint climbs pretty well, I'd say, for a 150.

Similar Threads

  1. Salsa Redpoint
    By fitz3641 in forum Salsa
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 04-03-2018, 10:07 AM
  2. Fox float x vs stock monarch on 2017 Bronson
    By Ksanman in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-18-2017, 09:06 AM
  3. 29+ Carbon Hardtail - 2017 Salsa Cycles Woodsmoke
    By forgiven_nick in forum 26+/27.5+/29+ Plus Bikes
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 01-16-2017, 02:11 PM
  4. 2017 Salsa's ?
    By rushman3 in forum Salsa
    Replies: 350
    Last Post: 01-05-2017, 11:44 AM
  5. 2017 Bronson Monarch Plus RC3 and Pike RCT3 Settings
    By wagonmaster87 in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-12-2016, 03:19 PM

Members who have read this thread: 2

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.