Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Timberjack vs. Woodsmoke

9K views 11 replies 8 participants last post by  Dead Reckoner 
#1 · (Edited)
Hi,

I'm quite new to the world of mountain bike but I got sucked in quite completely, riding almost every day. As a result, my used diamondback overdrive is falling apart pretty quickly (and dangerously at times).

For a matter of "bike store affiliation", my choice are on Surly, Specialized, or Salsas... I'm leaning towards the latter, so this is the question: is the Woodsmoke worth the price difference? What improvement would it bring compared to the Timberjack? Besides the larger tire clearance...

Thanks!
 
#2 ·
I am a Salsa, Surly, Marin fan. I prefer Steel over Aluminum. I do want a Carbon Woodsmoke. Timberjack has great reviews, but it's Aluminum. Aluminum rides harsher compared to Carbon and Steel. The price on the Timberjack is fantastic.
 
#5 ·
Through personal experience I'm going to say that is 100% false. Coming from riding a salsa El Mar SS through super gnar **** for the last 7 yrs and riding plus bikes for the last 2 the Aluminum bikes today are more supple than today's carbon built bikes. They are crazy stiff. The timberjack will be more supple and has slightly less slack headangle putting ur weight a bit more forward. The woodsmoke will be a nice ride as well but the timberjack will be a more comfortable bike..ur choice depends on what kind of riding you will be doing with this bike...timberjack for more tech and climbing and the woodsmoke for more flowy oriented trail conditions...
 
#7 ·
Frame materials?? Here is one man's opinion. http://sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.htmlA

I have ridden and owned titanium, carbon, aluminum and steel.

I scratch the heck out of my bikes so I don't like carbon for that reason.

Suspension, tire size, geometry and tire air pressure are a lot bigger part of the equation than frame material vis a vis ride quality and comfort in my opinion.

Ultimate frame material for me is Titanium. My one titanium bike has over 20,000 miles on it, looks better with age, never rusts, no paint to chip and the welds look beautiful.

Steel is renowned for it's ride but the type of steel, wall thickness, tubing diameter and geometry can make differences. So when people automatically say steel rides better they are just blowing smoke.
 
#10 ·
That can be a hard call as a $1000 difference can be the cost of a really good wheel set that could take the lower cost bike way out In front of the more expensive one.....

But then again, what would that wheel set do on the Woodsmoke.....

Your In a pickle :p

I ain't no help at all am I ?
 
#12 ·
I've done some research on this topic. IMO, the Timberjack is the way to go. It's $1600 cheaper than the WS 27.5+GX1 ($3000) and has almost equivalent components (and most notably, the same wheelset). It's basically the same weight overall as well.

What's the argument for a carbon MTB frame? Aren't people worried about crashing and damaging the frame?

The WS feels like a bike made for sponsored riders who can afford a replacement frame. I'd rather spend the $ on a 29er wheelset (and have some leftover) and have an all around perfect single track/general MTBing/bikepacking bicycle.

I agree w @rich wolf regarding Titanium. So much debate on this topic but for the average rider who wants a return on investment, it's hard to not consider Titanium topping the list.

At the end of the day, if you go with the Woodsmoke, you're investing in a frame that's more susceptible to catastrophic failure and a +1 on the Rock Shox heirarchy. I feel like that novelty would wear off quickly for me...along with the paint from the frame pack. I'll be pulling the trigger on a Matte Khaki Timberjack as soon as they come in stock.

If you don't know what color that is, check out this informative explanation.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top