Help me buy: Giant Anthem X 3 or Gary Fisher HiFi Deluxe?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 38 of 38
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    29

    Help me buy: Giant Anthem X 3 or Gary Fisher HiFi Deluxe?

    What are your thoughts - what you would buy?

    I live in PHX and ride the rocky single track (FINS, South Mountain, BCT, etc) of PHX and I dont race.

    I demo'ed the Giant this weekend and thought it was pretty sweet but all of my research is pointing towards the HiFI Deluxe!

    Giant: http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-us/....3/7508/44090/
    Deluxe: http://fisherbikes.com/bike/model/hifi-deluxe-29


    Thanks!
    Andrew

  2. #2
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,930
    For PHX, get a bike with at least 120mm of travel in a 29'er, and if you ride more Gnar Gnar, get a 140mm bike. Think Niner RIP or WFO.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    528
    I actually own a Hifi Plus as well as an Anthem X3 and feel that the Anthem is a great bike to take into Rock Gardens. I took a 3 foot drop on the Anthem and was amazed out how eventful it was. However for high speed racing down rocky terrain you may have to adjust the rebound.

    In terms of agility I think the Anthem definitely beats the Hifi Plus for some reason it's far more nimble and precise. I was riding some short track and following a friend of mine on his 26 inch GF Hifi Deluxe on the Hif Plus 29er and it felt like I had to work to keep up with him through the turns. Keeping up with him on the Anthem X 29er through those same turns wasn't nearly as much work.

    The Anthem X also comes with better standard equipment.

    1. 15mm T/A wheel
    2. Boost valve is standard on all Anthem X 29er models. Only the Hifi Pro has boost valve in Trek's lineup
    3. Shimano Dynasys 10 speed drivetrain. I haven't experienced any problems riding offroad,although ironically I have experienced problems on the street with this drivetrain during acceleration from a standstill.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SlowbutSure's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    285
    Gluvnaa, why the HiFi when the Rumblefish is less money and more suspension? I am asking because I'm new to the 29er technology and currently shopping for a replacement to my trail bike (Kona Dawg). It sure is fun checking out all the bikes I just wish more shops had mediums in stock to test ride. I too live in the Phoenix area and think suspension is a good thing at least for me it is. Thanks

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    145
    I would also like to hear some opinions comparing these two bikes. They are both in the price range I am looking at (~$2000-$2500) and appear to be pretty good bikes. It seems like the Trek has better drivetrain components (SRAM X.9) vs the Anthem's Shimano SLX group, but as was mentioned earlier, the Anthem has a better rear shock (although I don't know what the boost valve does, could someone explain?) So I guess I am asking mostly about the geometry, pedal bob, and riding experiences. I was able to ride them in the parking lot, but thats not the same as actually riding them on a trail. Any thoughts on the wheelsets? Thanks guys!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    37
    broke a chainstay on my hifi pro on the desert classic at south mountain, although we did get a superfly 100 warranty frame, it took 3 months to get it

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: msouthall669's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    85
    I was torn between the same bikes about 3 months ago. I decided to go with the Hifi due to the better components. Other than that, it was pretty much a toss up. I love the Hifi. It rides great, accelerates/maintains speed great, looks good, and just feels sturdier than the Giant. I do believe that Giant makes a great bike though and probally would have felt the same way about it as I do about my Hifi if I had it. I dont feel like I helped you much but the purpose of the reply was to tell you I think my Hifi is great.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: msouthall669's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    85
    One more thing...I ride extremely rocky terrain and dont have any problem with the suspension. I have never bottomed it out.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    145
    Just wanted to bump this one more time, and wanted to add that for me it would be between the Anthem X2 and the Hifi Deluxe. Anyone want to comment on the components on these two bikes? I'm very torn between them...and the Anthem X 29er is new enough that there aren't really any "pro" reviews out there that I can find. I generally ride more XC oriented stuff (Brown County, Versailles, Town Run, etc. in Indiana for those that might know the area) with a good number of hills to climb and descend. And just to throw a log on the fire, I'm also interested in the Scott Genius 50 (26er, I know...), but am definitely leaning towards the 29er. I'm not the kind of person that is going to be able to upgrade his bike every year, so I want to do my best to make the right choice the first time... Ideally I would be able to demo each of these bikes, but parking lot rides are about all that is going to happen, unfortunately. Obviously I'm looking in the ~$2500 range, so please don't tell me to go get a Pivot or a Niner...I would love one of those, but they are out of my price range right now.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: msouthall669's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    85
    The biggest thing that I noticed is that the Anthem pretty much has a complete XT set. I would say that is a plus although I think my Sram components on my Hifi are great (X9 rear der., X7 shifters). I like the SLX front der. alright but will be replaced when the funding allows. One BIG difference between the anthem and the hifi is the 10 speed V. 9 Speed. I like the 10 speed a lot. I think it gives me more low to mid gear options. I didnt even include the Scott in this because it is a 26. I wouldnt ever go back to a 26 after riding my 29er. In closing, I think you would be happy with either bike. It may just come down to something as simple as what bike you think looks best (Hifi in my opinion)

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    145
    The Anthem X2 has SLX shifters and front derailleur, with an XT (10 speed) rear derailleur. I think that they are both sharp looking bikes (I like the black and red of the X2...not so much the blue of the X1 and X3) it really comes down (for me) to the suspensions I guess, and how they handle. I think that you are correct that I will end up liking whichever I go with, just looking for some opinions! Thanks for your thoughts.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: msouthall669's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    85
    I made a mistake on my research. I was looking at last years model. I thought that I erased it but evidently I didn't. I had SLX shifters on my last bike (Specialized). I like the Sram a lot better. They are easier to manipulate.

    I dont know enough about the suspension on the rear to be able to say anything about it but I can tell you that I like the Fox Float RP-2 a lot. I use the propedal system a lot on long level stretches. I think your right, the only difference may be the rear suspension. You will have to decide if its worth the extra $400.

    Once again, you cant go wrong with either bike.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    145
    The reality is is that I would almost certainly upgrade the shifters on either bike (x.7 to x.9 on HiFi, SLX to XT on Anthem), so that isn't really too big of a deal, although XT stuff is a bit less $$ than X.9 stuff. I do wish that someone that has had some seat time on an Anthem (even a 26er...) would chime in and comment on the Maestro suspension vs the Trek single pivot with ABP.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    30
    Rhys05

    Both are great bikes, but I have only had any experince on the Giant (29er X1). But if I were choosing, it would be the Giant for one simple reason, it comes with QR15 fork, not quick release. (oh and in NZ Giants are way cheaper).

    Looking down the list of specs, the only other real differences is the Anthem has a boost valve rear shock, and then obvisouly the suspension designs and shimano versus SRAM.

    My anthem rides great, I only turn the propedal on riding down the road. If you remain seated there is very little actual pedal bob, the main reason I turn it on on the road sections as you feel a little higher, so pedalling feels more efficient to me. I also use all my travel while off road as well.

    Oh and the new 3 * 10 shimano shifts great, especially up front.

    cheers

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by southernbrad
    Rhys05

    Both are great bikes, but I have only had any experince on the Giant (29er X1). But if I were choosing, it would be the Giant for one simple reason, it comes with QR15 fork, not quick release. (oh and in NZ Giants are way cheaper).

    Looking down the list of specs, the only other real differences is the Anthem has a boost valve rear shock, and then obvisouly the suspension designs and shimano versus SRAM.

    My anthem rides great, I only turn the propedal on riding down the road. If you remain seated there is very little actual pedal bob, the main reason I turn it on on the road sections as you feel a little higher, so pedalling feels more efficient to me. I also use all my travel while off road as well.

    Oh and the new 3 * 10 shimano shifts great, especially up front.

    cheers
    Yeah, I'm starting to lean towards the Giant for many of those reasons, the 15mm axle, the better shock, the lighter weight, etc. The guys at my LBS also implied (and from the research I have done...) that the Anthem would be a better choice for XC racing as well. I'm certainly not a hard core racer, probably will only do a couple a year (~cat 3), but that makes me lean a bit more towards the Giant. That and the fact that it appears that with the Maestro suspension the ProPedal isn't really needed, and with the Trek it really kind of is. Still not sure though. Need to go do a more extensive test ride (even if it is just in a parking lot)...it was COLD the day I was there last week!

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhys05
    That and the fact that it appears that with the Maestro suspension the ProPedal isn't really needed, and with the Trek it really kind of is.
    This is true in my experience, at least for the Giant... After owning/riding a TranceX for about a year, I vote for the AnthemX

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by JungleJim
    broke a chainstay on my hifi pro on the desert classic at south mountain, although we did get a superfly 100 warranty frame, it took 3 months to get it
    I have a 09 HIFI Pro here with a broken chainstay , not a warranty frame , do they have replacement stays and if so how proud$ are they on them .

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    145
    How do those of you with Anthems feel about the durability of the frame? The Trek (as has been mentioned before definitely appears to have a burlier frame, and there was the recall on the Anthems (only ~300 affected, and all fixed now..but still) having to do with possible frame breakage.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: msouthall669's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    85
    That was the was the deal breaker for me when I chose between these two bikes. I felt like the X2 and the Hifi were so close that the recall (which was going on when I bought my bike) helped me make my decision.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    30
    Frame issue does not worry me on the Giant, the problem area aparantly is where the top tube and seat tube meet. It is the same (if not very similar) to my 2010 XTC which I have been riding for over a year now no problems, and I am over 200 pounds and not could not be classed as a smooth rider at all.

    The anthem is actually a really stiff bike, especially with the tapered head tube and QR 15, it just goes where you point it. I generally notice rear flex in a bike as well, and have not noticed any in the Anthem, whereas I used to feel it all the time on my old trance.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    29
    Comparison of the Giant Anthem X3 vs the Gary Fisher Rumblefish I

    Background: I am not an upper tier rider – but I have been riding for over 10 years and I am pretty physically fit. I guess a baseline estimate is riding Desert Classic (I live in PHX AZ) )East Parking lot to the west Parking lot (riding secret) is about 70 mins for me. On my 8 year old GT Avalanche, I have an upgrade 140mm fork and components and I could not ride the entire trail. In most cases, I would have an rider error at least 3-4 times which would require hike a bike up a wash or up a hill climb.
    First off, I just want to say that both bikes are very close in first ride impression. So close, that it hard to pick apart the differences.

    Giant: The Giant X3
    http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-us/...x3/3894/36668/

    Retail: 2,299
    The Giant was a rental bike and was dialed in for my weight of 170. The Giant had a tubless tire setup and I ran Desert Classic. The tubeless setup was very nice which impacted the comparison between the two bikes as the lower psi provided a softer tire to deform over objects as well as provide a larger traction contact patch.

    Shifting:
    shifters Shimano Deore Rapidfire
    front derailleur Shimano Deore
    rear derailleur Shimano Deore XT Shadow, top normal
    cranks Shimano Deore XT, 22/32/44
    cassette Shimano HG80 11x34, 9-speed

    The shifting was nice, smooth and clean. I didn’t have any issues or complaints.
    Handling: I was super impressed with the quick steering of the bike. Granted, this was my first 29er ride, but I was fully onboard when I was able to maneuver through sections with high confidence in the front tire. The tubeless tire really provided an unfair advantage over the Rumblefish – but the steering was quick, predictable and smooth. Very impressive.

    Climbs: Wow, I loved the 29er technology on how everything seems easier including climbs. I didn’t do any steep climb on DC (obviously) but the quick up and downs through the washes were a great test and then also the rocky section about halfway through the trail. Climbing is much easier on a 29 and I did not note any fighting of the rear shock under climbs. I slightly noticed one of the popular complaints of the 29 wheel being harder to spin up quickly. But, for my riding style I charge the hills and don’t see this as an issue and the issue is nominal at best. The fast rolling of the wheel at speed more than compensates for the ‘issue.’

    Shock:
    Fox Float R
    I wasn’t too impressed with the rear shock, it worked under load but I did max the compression travel under XC riding. Which really surprised me since the preload and sag were properly set. Rebound was nice and smooth. Overall no complaints for XC riding.

    Fork:
    Fox F100 RL, 100mm travel
    I didn’t max the compression on the fork but did have trouble dialing in the compression to the proper setting for XC riding- fast continuous bumps. The compression setting does not allow for fine tuning.
    The rebound, I fought to avoid chatter over fast rolling bumps and also to avoid a nice slow rebound that does not overload the fork over continuous bumps that eats up the travel. Make sense? I don’t feel that the valving in the fork is well balanced between the compression and rebound and should be reworked for better balance.
    Overall: I really liked the Giant. No complaints that would prevent me from buying the bike. I did bottom out on my clip pedal several times when I wasn’t expecting it and in situations that we not avoidable (such as rolling over objects in Secret). I wasn’t able to locate the ground clearance numbers from the website but I would assume that a slightly higher preload in the fork might fix this problem.


    Gary Fisher (Trek) Rumblefish 1:
    http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes...on/rumblefish/

    Retail: $2,300

    I ended up buying the Rumblefish after riding the Giant. The main reason why I didn’t buy the Giant is the 100 fork vs the 120. The Rumblefish did not have tubeless tires which resulted in a harder tire and slightly less traction. More in the Handling section… I rode FINS out in the West valley. Basically everything including the climb of Jims Star Pass to Grunt.

    Shifting:
    Shifters SRAM X.7, 10 speed
    Front Derailleur Shimano SLX
    Rear Derailleur SRAM X.7
    Crank SRAM S1000, 44/32/22
    Cassette SRAM PG-1050 12-36, 10 speed

    The shifting was nice, smooth and clean slightly better than the Giant. I do have a issue that I would classify more than a nitpick – the Rumblefish does not have the gear indicator dials for the quick shifters. I know this is a detail – but I actually like the visual display.

    Handling: I was impressed with the quick steering of the bike. Not as much as the Giant most likely because of the tube tire which reduced the traction footprint. So, I do see this as unfair comparison. I did note under climbs and rolling over the objects that the steering is much quicker on the Rumblefish – perhaps a little too quick but I believe that the lower tire pressure from a tubleless setup would minimize this.
    Climbs: I did not note any major differences between the bike. But during the Jim Star Pass to Grunt trail, I realized how much more capable the 29er bikes are over my 26 hardtail. I rode the entire trail with no breaks or mishaps except for taking a small break before the Northern Lights trail – mostly because I was tired and never climbed that far without having to Hike a Bike…

    Shock:
    Custom Fox Float RP-2 w/DRCV, 2-position ProPedal, external rebound
    I felt that the Rumblefish is a better shock due to the valving. I also set the sag correctly for the Rumblefish and did not max compress the shock. BTW - The Trek OEM sag meters are a great accessory and should be a purchase for any rider. I rode over more obstacles at FINS and noted the smoother ride over most objects but also that this bike wants to get off the seat a little more to help absorb fast hits. This may be to a compression/rebound setting – I will have to play with the setting…

    Fork:
    RockShox Reba RL 29 w/Motion Control lockout, custom G2 Geometry, 51mm offset crown, 20mm thru axle, 120mm travel
    10x better than the Giant. The valving in the shock is actually very balanced and was very easy to tune in on my first trail. Double thumbs up.
    Overall: More forgiving and easier to ride than the Giant. I say this because rolling over obstacles are no issue on a 29er but on the Rumblefish the geometry was more forgiving and comfortable than the Giant. Small difference but I did notice that I was much more comfortable making adjustments during turns and also during technical sections on the Rumblefish. I did end up buying the Rumblefish mostly due to the fork limits on the Giants. To get a 120 or larger – that requires more money… a lot more!
    The 10 speed is nice but I have to buy more master links now! I also wonder how much weaker the thiner chain is. The 10 speed really has a ton of gear without having to jump up and down on the front ring…

    Conclusion:
    Both bikes are so similar that I would be very happy with either of them. They are both great rides and Im glad to have one of them! The only mod that I want for the Rumblefish is the tubeless setup and perhaps the shifting indicators.

    The 29er is a more capable bike over a 26 because it just makes everything easier. Sure it has its downfalls which everyone plays up – but I don’t mind the slight effort to get the wheel spun up which I think is the most major ‘flaw.’ But, I bought one and I totally think that its worth the money for the technology. Sure, a full 26 can do the same stuff and ride the same trails but when it comes down to it, the 29 wheel really does make a difference regarding traction and rolling speed. I don’t think those benefits are played up as much as they should be.

    NOTE: Setting the sag is the first order of business on suspension and getting the most of what you paid for. Its not a complicated process – but should be done by every rider.


    Hope this helps!
    Andrew

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    145
    Andrew-

    Wow, great write up! Thanks! I am somewhat curious as to what Anthem configuration you were running though, as the component mix you listed for the Giant doesn't match up with any of the builds on their website, especially the two shocks. You said that your bike had a Fox Float R rear shock and a Fox F100 RL fork, where on the website it shows them having a Fox Float RP2 w/ boost valve and a Fox F29 RL. Could be the same things named differently, I don't know. Again, thanks for your impressions!

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    29
    Ya, I just pulled the component config from their website...

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    145
    Ah, looks like you pulled the specs from the 26er version, no biggie! Thanks again for your riding impressions.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    44
    Andrew,

    Your review made a lot of sense until I re-read it, and I'm not sure if you're real or some Trek marketing guy pushing the GF.... Both bikes have the same rear suspension, a Fox RP2 with ProPedal. So you shooting down the Giant's rear suspension, which is exactly the same, makes me doubt. I'm really tempted to say "You're full of it!" but I'll wait until someone else can chime in before jumping to conclusions....

    Also, your other major point, the front suspension, again not too sure about what you're saying. You'll find the Giant's F29 RL on GF's more expensive bikes... so yeah, 120mm, but not sure it would be such a clear winner to the Fox's racing shock.

    But your review was interesting to read, really sounded like you knew what you were talking about.

    So, just a word to the wise reading his review: take it with a grain of salt. Make up your own mind, try the bikes, and buy what fits your riding style best. Me, I just wish Giant had put the 120mm version of the F29 RL on the Anthem X, and I'd be done with it.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    528
    Wow trying to defuse this situation I can tell you my experiences on the GF Hifi Plus (2010) and the Anthem X 29er.

    At least in Moro Canyon the Anthem X 29er was much more agile through the twisties than the GF Hifi Plus I was able to follow my friend's GF Hifi Deluxe (26 inch bike) more easily.

    In terms of rear suspension design the Anthem X 29er is absolutely insane I was able to take a 3 foot drop in a rock garden without any fanfare at Santiago Oaks,absolutely amazing.

    I think both bikes are really good but the Anthem is simply better. That's not to say the Hifi Plus or Deluxe aren't great bikes but Giant has simply moved the game up a notch with Anthem X 29er.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    29
    That’s really crazy – but no I’m not trying to push any brand… If I was, I wouldn’t say that they are equally comparable.

    I’m not a 100% a mountain biker for knowing the components and geometry numbers but I am a motorcycle racer – and I do know suspension feel and traction.

    In all honesty – I only mountain bike for training for racing – so this isn’t my full time hobby, but like I said I know traction and suspension.
    So, responding back to your statement about the Giant having better suspension… that may very well be true; however, in my case there are a few variables.

    1. I rode completely different trails. The Giant saw fast sweeper action with little obstacles. The Rumblefish saw very rocky and hilly trails.

    2. I went into great detail of the valving of the forks because its important to me and my riding. I can set up a sag for my weight and riding style – or even change my style to compensate for poor suspension… However, the fork valving in the Rumblefish I feel it’s a better fork for the AZ trails… A poor fork setup can cause a lot of geometry and rear shock issues – so maybe that played a factor in the Giant…

    I still hold true to my review/opinion. Which is what my review is – just like magazine reviews and online reviews… Its all opinion for your style and trail rides…

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by UnderWurlde
    Also, your other major point, the front suspension, again not too sure about what you're saying. You'll find the Giant's F29 RL on GF's more expensive bikes... so yeah, 120mm, but not sure it would be such a clear winner to the Fox's racing shock.
    True - but the Trek has the G2 geometry on their forks. Still the same fork for sure but there are subtle differences.

    Also, the Trek has the Active Brake Pivot meaning that the rear suspension performs differently in the same conditions.

    I also compared both and ended up with the Trek. Nothing against the Giant, I was quite impressed with it, it just didn't suit my style of riding.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    29
    FYI - Rode a tubless setup on the Trek and still didnt have the front end feel that the Giant had... Grip was improved on the Trek - but not close to the Giants!

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by mefistofeles
    I actually own a Hifi Plus as well as an Anthem X3 and feel that the Anthem is a great bike to take into Rock Gardens. I took a 3 foot drop on the Anthem and was amazed out how eventful it was. However for high speed racing down rocky terrain you may have to adjust the rebound.

    In terms of agility I think the Anthem definitely beats the Hifi Plus for some reason it's far more nimble and precise. I was riding some short track and following a friend of mine on his 26 inch GF Hifi Deluxe on the Hif Plus 29er and it felt like I had to work to keep up with him through the turns. Keeping up with him on the Anthem X 29er through those same turns wasn't nearly as much work.

    The Anthem X also comes with better standard equipment.

    1. 15mm T/A wheel
    2. Boost valve is standard on all Anthem X 29er models. Only the Hifi Pro has boost valve in Trek's lineup
    3. Shimano Dynasys 10 speed drivetrain. I haven't experienced any problems riding offroad,although ironically I have experienced problems on the street with this drivetrain during acceleration from a standstill.
    Good Info!

    The 3 foot drop only really considers the high speed compression of the shock and possibly mechanistically bottom out of the shock.

    For your points 1 and 3, the 2011 Rumblefish comes with the 15mm front and rear and also 10 speed in the back.

    Thanks for the info!

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: stonedead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    122
    I was wondering what shop you got the Giant Demo from? I'm in Phoenix and am thinking about the Anthem 29er X3. Thanks!

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,493
    Seems to be some concern about SLX group set in the comparisons. There's no need to concerned about quality of SLX. IMO most of it is close to XT in quality and weight.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,493
    Quote Originally Posted by gluvnaa
    That’s really crazy – but no I’m not trying to push any brand… If I was, I wouldn’t say that they are equally comparable.

    I’m not a 100% a mountain biker for knowing the components and geometry numbers but I am a motorcycle racer – and I do know suspension feel and traction.

    In all honesty – I only mountain bike for training for racing – so this isn’t my full time hobby, but like I said I know traction and suspension.
    So, responding back to your statement about the Giant having better suspension… that may very well be true; however, in my case there are a few variables.

    1. I rode completely different trails. The Giant saw fast sweeper action with little obstacles. The Rumblefish saw very rocky and hilly trails.

    2. I went into great detail of the valving of the forks because its important to me and my riding. I can set up a sag for my weight and riding style – or even change my style to compensate for poor suspension… However, the fork valving in the Rumblefish I feel it’s a better fork for the AZ trails… A poor fork setup can cause a lot of geometry and rear shock issues – so maybe that played a factor in the Giant…

    I still hold true to my review/opinion. Which is what my review is – just like magazine reviews and online reviews… Its all opinion for your style and trail rides…
    You may not be familiar with the Fox forks but the RL has no compression or platform adjustment. It just has a lock out. So the blue lever has no input until it reaches the far right.
    Out of the box the compression is usually pretty spot on and fiddling with air pressure does the fine tuning. Oil weight change is the only option But I find after fiddling I usually go back to OEM oil spec.

    It's hard to compare suspension without using same terrain tires and pressures[ tubeless makes little difference to feel if run at same pressure]

    The Fox can shine on the rougher terrain as they are more progressive and the valving can give smoother action over multiple hits. The Rockshox can feel smoother in the small stuff if they have the dual air but may blow through travel a bit more on the big stuff with the same settings as they tend to be more linear. That's a generalisation without having ridden both forks back to back on multiple rides on varied terrain. the Reba will give more riding style options with the platform adjustment. I personally don't use it on my FS bikes anyway only on my Hard tails where I ride out of the saddle more.

    I've got two new F29 100 RLC with I have not yet broken in but initial impressions are I may have to go down oil weight to get a lighter action than I am used to on my F120 RL's? The 100's will generally be valved differently to cope with the same terrain with less travel. So I will have to run them in and change oils to reach any conclusion.

    The Float R on that Anthem you tested is definitely a compromise shock. As you bottomed it out then air pressure must have been too low[ as you know sag is only a guide and 5 psi either way makes a big difference]. The R has factory added platform damping so it will feel less supple than the RP2 at the same pressure. I've had one on my Trance X and was initially critical I find it is a good compromise for racing as a set and forget firmer more efficient ride as used in racing. So I swapped back from a RP23 to the R for that purpose as I use My Trance as a Endurance race steed. For general trail riding the RP2 would be better[ especially the GF custom valved one. Lots of R&d into that] but you do get used to the firmer ride . It doesn't appear to affect the big hit performance as it is only built in platform damping to aid peddling and blows through when you hit the bigger stuff.
    Last edited by gvs_nz; 02-27-2011 at 03:13 PM.

  34. #34
    Cars Are Evil
    Reputation: Vermont29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,125
    Anthem X29 3 and 2 have RP2 Boostvalve rear shock. The 1 has an RP23 Boostvalve rear shock.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,493
    Maybe the hire bike gluvnaa was riding was a real oddball because other items weren't to spec either?

  36. #36
    jct
    jct is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    962
    good reading here.

    i ordered an XL X2 yesterday.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    528
    The X2 is the best looking bike in the whole lineup! My X3 looks too understated and the X1 literally has too much bling.

  38. #38
    jct
    jct is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    962
    Quote Originally Posted by mefistofeles
    The X2 is the best looking bike in the whole lineup! My X3 looks too understated and the X1 literally has too much bling.
    it was a toss up for me b/w the X2 and X3.

    The X2 has more of the stuff that i'd probably upgrade to anyway: brakes, cranks, XT rear der. it's not a huge difference, but it should keep the upgrade bug away longer than if i went with the X3.

    i also considered the X1 but just couldn't do the polished alum.

    the first upgrade will be the bars and front tire with a new wheelset sometime later this summer.

Members who have read this thread: 0

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.