Giant Launches Its Lightest Ever Aluminium Hardtail to Bring More Affordability to XC Bikes

Jul 28, 2020
by Dan Roberts  
2021 Giant XTC SLR 1 in Teal

Cross country bikes usually conjure up thoughts of featherweight frames and components, constructed from the latest composite materials and brandishing some not so light price tags. Our cross-country Field Test has just commenced, with plenty of evidence of just that. Giant, however, wanted to open up that lightweight XC performance to more people, and so have launched their XTC SLR aluminium XC hardtail.

The XTC SLR is aimed at introducing XC riding and racing to anyone desiring a strong taste of the addictive speed of a full-on race bike without draining their bank account. Behind the scenes of many bikes out there are Giant, they are one of the largest manufacturers and countless brands use them for their expertise and experience. One particular area of expertise is their aluminium construction, which the XTC SLR showcases.

It's a full 29" hardtail with a frame weight of 1,429g for the size small that encroaches into the territory of some carbon fibre composite frames, just without the price tag. Giant claim this to be the lightest aluminium hardtail they have ever produced. The Taiwanese brand manipulate the grain structure of the aluminium, mainly a 6011 alloy, before mechanically shaping and hydroforming the tubes to achieve the desired volumes while having incredibly thin walls and being butted across their length. Put next to their aluminium SL framesets, this SLR frame is almost 20% lighter.

2021 Giant XTC SLR Geometry

Geometry follows the contemporary XC hardtail route, with a 69.5° head angle for sizes S and M and then a 70° for sizes L and XL. Seat angle is 74° but given that the XTC is a hardtail based around a 100mm travel fork, it will actually steepen under sag and while riding. Dropped seat stays aren't just a fashion copy from the road scene, but hint at a bike with some built in flex in the seat tube to provide comfort along with the 30.9mm diameter seat post. The frame is dropper post compatible too.

Reaches span from 416mm to 477mm and stem lengths grow per size from 60mm for the S up to 90mm for the XL. The bottom bracket gets a drop of 58mm, putting it at around 312mm off the ground, depending on tyres, and the short head tubes for all sizes aid in getting the favourably low bar heights for XC riders. Chainstays are 440mm across all sizes.

All XTC SLRs comes specced with Giant's own Crest 34 fork and there are two build options with the XTC SLR 1 using a mix of Shimano XT, SLX and MT500 with the XTC SLR 2 using a mix of Shimano Deore, MT200 and Praxis components. Both bikes use Maxxis Recon Race tyres and Giant finishing kit for the cockpit and saddle areas with 780mm bars on all bikes, giving the availability to either run a wide setup or trim down to your prefered width.

Giant use Shimano hubs laced to their own rims and deliver the bikes tubeless ready, with only the included milk needed to be added to the tyres.

Full pricing and availability aren’t with us as we write. But the XTC SLR 2 retails at the bargain price of $1,200 and both should be available very soon.

2021 Giant XTC SLR 1 in Metallic Black
The XTC SLR 1 in Metallic Black.
2021 Giant XTC SLR 2 in Dusty Blue
The XTC SLR 2 in Dusty Blue. It's also available in Black.



123 Comments

  • 55 0
 What a great option for a high school racer. I have an aluminum hardtail (Scott Scale) and I always have way more fun on it than I expect when I ride it vs my FS bikes. I think this is what is needed to get more people on bikes. The SLX build is the best. The only miss here is another size even smaller - there are so many women in the 5 foot to 5 '3" range that this will not fit.
  • 4 0
 When I was in high school and racing I actually got a Scott Scale as well. I don’t race too much anymore but I love that bike so dang much. Even on technical fun stuff.
  • 13 0
 Wish they did a 27.5 version for a S/XS size. I've been shopping for a bike for a 12-year old gearing up for his first season on the local cross country team next year. Most everything is either too heavy, or too expensive.

Obviously used is a great way to go, but with the used market the way it is right now, I'm having trouble finding good value there too.
  • 5 0
 My thoughts exactly. My girlfriend and I have been looking for an affordable hardtail that can fit her at 5' (ish), and run 27.5 wheels, but doesn't have outdated geo, goofy hub standards, or lackluster components. It's surprisingly tough to find.
  • 2 0
 @atourgates: there can be good deals on used scale 700s on ebay
  • 1 0
 Agree! I don't miss a lot from the early 2000s of mountainbiking EXCEPT the lightweight alloy frame options.
  • 6 0
 Heck, its a great option for a hard core trail rider who already has a dually. Having a back up HT is never a bad thing. That metallic black is great. And, Giant makes a great aluminum frame. I can't kill my aluminum Glory after 4 hard years, and my kid can't kill his Trance. I'd buy this bike. Wonder if you could get it in a frame only?
  • 2 0
 @atourgates: BMC Sport elite is 27.5 and about a $1,000 bike new... hard to find tho because there are very few BMC dealers in the US.
  • 5 0
 My GF is 5' tall, with two equally tiny teenage boys. Finding XS bikes during Covid was crazy (they took an interest after meeting me).
  • 5 4
 the U5'2" market is microscopic. You cannot ask every manufacturer to make every bike in sizes that will sell in the sub 1% of their sales volumes.
  • 2 0
 @JSTootell: Liv Pique

My Wife and Step Daughter a fraction over 5 ft. Both on the smallest model and love them.
  • 3 0
 @Lasse2000: Sadly, Canyon doesn't think those of us in the US should be allowed to buy their Grand Canyon bikes. Even though, you know, it's named after our landmark.
  • 3 0
 @swansong: I put my 10 yr old (4'10") on a Liv Bliss 2 (Disc) small frame: it has 27.5" wheels. Liv is Giant's ladies line. This is an absolutely gorgeous and amazing bike that I'm actually very jealous of. Price was comfortable as well.
  • 3 0
 @atourgates: Canyon had their official US release in Whistler BC (Canada) a few years back - and you still can't buy a Canyon in Canada!
  • 2 0
 @MikerJ: yes! Frame only option please...
  • 2 0
 @conoat: the market for tall people is similarly small, probably smaller, but every time a manufacturer launches a bike with getting on for 600mm they're applauded. Meanwhile the market for small people is alienated as XS and S bikes grow.

When I worked in shops we sold maybe one or two XXL bikes a year compared to dozens of XS and S.
  • 5 0
 @conoat: you do realize that every one of the 7 billion people on earth were under 5’2” for 10-15 years of their life right? Wink
  • 1 0
 @fabwizard: $2000 for the cheapest one. Not ideal for a beginner who isn't sure it is a sport of serious interest. She was looking for something sub $700.
  • 1 0
 @fabwizard: None are available on CRC. Which was a part of my original post of trying to find bikes during Covid, made even more difficult since there are less small sized bikes available.

She already has the bikes she needs (2 used, 1 new).
  • 3 0
 @JSTootell: Next year once the newbies get tired of their new bikes there will be a flood of barely used on the market.

Well I hope there is as I need a FS 24" for my youngest(really liking the Norco 24" options for 2020) for xmas.
  • 4 1
 @swansong: My humble advice is to not worry about "outdated geo" or pre-boost hub spacing in your search. Many millions of miles of mountain bicycle trails have been enjoyed without those "benefits."
  • 1 0
 @fabwizard: very true. Doesn't do any good about today though.
  • 1 0
 @cb7: pretty mashed up, that's like we produce gas here but you need to sell it to the USA 1st before they sell it back to us.
  • 1 0
 @dogmelissa: That's the exact bike my girlfriend is currently riding hah, We're looking at upgrade options
  • 12 1
 Reach is same on medium and large?
  • 6 0
 Yeah that looks wrong.
If reach increases linearly with size (S/M/L/XL), then Reach for size L should be 455mm.
  • 9 1
 Maybe it's in response to the complaint about the huge jump between the M and L on the new Reign haha
  • 4 0
 agree it's a typo - the top tube length increases 21mm from M to L so I'm sure reach is correspondingly longer too.
  • 5 0
 I'm afraid it's not an error. Checked with Giant and the M and L have the same reach.
  • 2 0
 @dan-roberts: so I WAS RIGHT!!!
  • 2 0
 @dan-roberts: LOL
Yeti really messed up with their L sizing... they'll be shortening their reach to match the Medium next season Wink
  • 4 0
 @dan-roberts: Reach is the same, SA is the same but ETT is longer? How exactly?
  • 4 0
 @makkelijk: longer seat tube and head tube. Thats literally it.
  • 5 0
 @hamncheez:

Not possible, wheelbase grows too. Reach on the L must be in the 450-455mm zone
  • 4 0
 I'm sticking with it being a typo. How can you increase the length of the top tube that much and not increase the reach. The increases in head tube and seat tube can't account for this. ST and HT are only 4 degrees different from being parallel - each would have to be a foot or more longer to keep the reach the same with that much longer of a top tube.
  • 10 1
 Am I sick for wishing I could put a rack and slicks on this thing and ride it around town?
  • 10 0
 I don't see any eyelet points for mounting up a rack, so this frame loses a ton of versatility points. Once you stop racing it, an aluminum hardtail should serve double-duty as a year-round commuter rig.
  • 2 0
 @danny611: Yeah, that's what I thought - no surprise because eyelets would add weight, but apart from that this would be perfect for it...
  • 5 0
 Buy a Surly.
  • 4 0
 @danny611: it's alloy so just have your shop drill holes in it when you're done racing it. Won't harm a thing.
  • 7 0
 I appreciate the push for lighter aluminum.. id be curious if they had to trade off strength, especially impact strength, given how thin those tubes must be.
  • 9 0
 Giant's hydroform tube manufacturing is pretty damn good, they are probably the best alloy manufacturer out there. Their alloy frames are down right gorgeous, but they do have some very thin tubes in places that can be vulnerable to impact damage.
  • 4 0
 as XC race bikes these could be crumpled easily if crashed or beaten really hard I imagine but this has always been the case with superlight XC machines of all brands. though Giant had a terrific crash replacement for small price program. back in the day. there were some crazy thinwall alloy frames, the freeride era caused mega broken frames as people were hucking flyweight bikes, hopefully mtb society has matured enough to have these on the market again!
  • 6 0
 this is kinda nice news, actually I see it will work damm well for school racers or any other person who just entering the race crew
  • 9 3
 Love to see an optimized aluminum frame, but I feel like even a modern XC hardtail needs a slacker head angle. I guess I'd put a 120mm on there.
  • 4 0
 Great bikes for racing on a budget!
Giant has a history of making very good aluminum hardtails, and it looks like it will continue.
Can I have my 20yo legs (and 62kg) back please?
  • 7 4
 "Geometry follows the contemporary XC hardtail route, with a 69.5° head angle for sizes S and M and then a 70° for sizes L and XL."

This is more conservative than contemporary. Some examples of where XC race geometry is likely headed:

Compared to a Norco Revolver, the head-tube angle is 1° - 1.5° steeper, the seat-tube angle is 2° slacker, and the reach is an inch shorter.

Compared to the Orbea Alma, the reach and seat-tube angles are close, but the head-tube angle is 1.5° - 2° steeper.


Seat angle is 74° but given that the XTC is a hardtail based around a 100mm travel fork, it will actually steepen under sag and while riding."

This is intrinsically true for all hardtails. It won't steepen much, though, and it's equally true that the already-steep head-tube angle will also get steeper, albeit not as much as if it had more travel.
  • 5 1
 I know its a crazy thing, but Giant has always made bikes with fairly conservative numbers. A 70* HTA still works quite well.
  • 1 0
 @clink83: especially for an XC race bike that will get kids going on the tamer HS courses they'll use it on. Just think how good they'll be on a "more modern" bike after a few seasons!
  • 1 0
 @Artikay13: i agree with that, same concept as a bat weight in baseball.
  • 3 1
 @Artikay13: World Cup races are still being won on bikes with 70 degree head tubes. People need to stop obsessing over single geometry values like they are somehow going to make the bike explode if they don't match what the current trend is.
  • 1 0
 @clink83: Someone has to obsess over the details or things won't evolve. Obviously, I'm not advocating full enduro geometry for XC race bikes, but there's room for the same trends that have shaped other disciplines to influence XC a little further.
  • 5 1
 What about the weights of the complete builds? Isn't frame weight usually specified for a medium not a small?
  • 8 0
 Giant doesn't supply weights.
  • 2 1
 check the weight of a rockrider 500 or 100, should be pretty similar
  • 40 2
 @fabwizard:
Giant: lightest ever alloy xc!
People: how much does it weigh?
Giant: All our bikes are designed for best-in-class weight and ride quality!
People: yeah, but how much
Giant: The most accurate way to determine any bike’s weight is to have your local dealer weigh it for you.
People: is it actually lighter or not?
Giant: Many brands strive to list the lowest possible weight, but in reality weight can vary based on size, finish, hardware and accessories.
  • 7 0
 @eh-steve: many brand reps straight up lie, Giants alloy bikes often are similar to competitiors carbon offerings.
there is no industry 'police' to verify weights given out by brands. you want good data for actual weights, buy a scale and start weighing bikes.

It could also be partly because they don't want to outshine their oem customers, a significant part of their business. but thats just speculation.
  • 4 0
 @lifted-d: Fair enough, but does anyone treat listed weights as being true rather than a general indicator? I have zero idea what either build would weigh (super curious about the $1200 build) and I can't go into a store with a scale and measure because. there are none to measure.

I just want to know approximately what a complete weighs. Sub 30lb on the cheap one?

What's an example of a brand that straight up lies? My current bike was around what I thought it would be (considering the brand only listed weights for medium completes).
  • 2 0
 @eh-steve: I understand why they do it. As someone who routinely weighs parts most bike spec weights for frames and full builds are 100% bs.
  • 2 0
 @fabwizard: Some bike weights were actually listed for the 2020 season...
  • 4 0
 Would love to see other brands follow suit. Great solution for kids getting into racing (NICA) too.
  • 4 0
 I love that manufacturers are finally getting the memo, curbing the insane rise of bicycle prices across the market.
  • 2 0
 Ha! A friend and I saw the talent and photo crew out at Cuyamaca (East of San Diego) just over a week ago with this bike. Cool to see the pics on their website: www.giant-bicycles.com/us/bikes-xtc-slr-29-2021.
  • 1 0
 I am a Giant fan for 3 years now my HT is a Talon with an 11 speed Shimano and a RS Recon 100mm I installed and a X-Fusion dropper. I also have a Trance 2019 that rocks out. Now this bike comes with Giant's version of a Fox 34 that I love along with big hoops and Shimano offerings. Giddy up
  • 4 0
 Now I just need some bargain Lycra.
  • 3 0
 You definitely don't want that hahaha!
  • 4 0
 "full 29" hardtail" odd phrasing
  • 1 0
 Yeah,not just 28.99,but the FULL 29!!
  • 2 2
 nice! now it's between this frame or spec. chisel. Had niner air-9 carbon HT and it's too harsh (for me at least), hopefully going to Aluminium will soften up the ride a bit. (yes, I know; full-susp is more plush. I have one but, sometimes, you just want hardtail)
  • 2 2
 I’d be curious about max tire. Many of these cheaper XC frames (and even expensive ones) really limit you on anything more than a 2.4. Outside of that, while the alloy might be of questionable durability, at least it can be easily recycled.
  • 3 0
 Generally, the fork is the limiter on an XC bike, Fox 32 is only rated for 2.3, though a 2.4 does fit comfortably in my experience. I believe the SID has a bit more clearance but not by much if memory serves. Not much sense in a frame that accommodates a 2.6” rear tire and only a 2.4 up front...
  • 4 0
 Good move by Giant, that metallic black is hot!!!
  • 2 0
 I remember picking up their xtc2 back in 2010 and I was amazed at how light that thing was.. So if this is even lighter, I'd love to try it
  • 4 0
 Put a set of 32" wheels and that baby is mine.
  • 3 0
 Great! Now please update the Stance to slightly more modern geometry and current axle standards.
  • 1 0
 How about an XXL please? Keep the seattube length the same, and increase the reach. I really like the fit of my new school enduro bike, but am in the market for an XC bike.
  • 4 2
 Add a drop bar and this could be an awesome AnyRoad bike
  • 4 3
 Holy shit, a company steepening the head angle on the large sized frames for once, it's a miracle.
  • 7 0
 Honest question- why would a steeper HA on larger frame sizes be desirable? I’m 6’3” so I’m curious about this idea.
  • 2 0
 Also worth noting, steeper HA on larger frame sizes is standard practice on road bikes. My 61cm Felt F2 had a 74 HA versus 73 degrees for my brother’s 58 in the same model.
  • 2 2
 @TEAM-ROBOT: basically if you have a longer wheel base due to reach the bike becomes more stable on downhills, but it also slows the steering down too compared to the medium and large frames. The same could be said for the S and XS bikes, they have such a short wheel base that they would benefit from a slacker HTA to balance out the handling. Its silly to keep the same geometry on all sizes the same, it would be better to change the small and XL frames to have the same handling as the M and L frames. The road bike world has done this for ages, I dont know why they cant do it in their mtb lines too.
I had a felt F5 in 60cm that had the 74* HTA too, it was the best handling road bike I've owned.
  • 2 1
 @clink83: road bike geo is pretty whack though because most models don't increase reach very much. As an example a 52 vs 54 will have a 2cm longer seattube, but only a 1cm longer reach and they just slap Al longer stem on to compensate. Never made much sense to me that a small road bike has a 70 stem and a xlarge had a 120. They must handle radically different, vs mtbs which try to keep the stem length the same across sizes and vary top tube length.
  • 7 1
 @dthomp325: a 2cm increase is huge on a road bike though. I sold my Felt because the 60cm was too big for me despite being 6'4 with short legs, and I needed a 58cm top tube. The idea that all frames should have the same sized stems is a dumb endurobro thing, XC guys dont do that either.
  • 2 0
 @clink83: Personally I don't see why a large road rider would want more weight on the front wheel and a smaller rider would want less instead of having a front/back weight distribution that's constant across sizes. There was one road bike I looked at where the 52 and 58 had reach and top tube within 5mm of each other, they just made the bike taller without making it any longer, wtf.

I ended up buying a gravel bike instead because they tend to have longer reach and toptube compared to road bikes. I picked basically the longest top tube and shortest stem I could find in my price range and it's great, less twitchy and more confident in corners and at high speed.
  • 2 0
 @dthomp325: I'm sure that gravel bike handles spectacularly.
  • 1 0
 @dthomp325: there are also still restrictions on road bike design and geometry the UCI (or some other governing body) has in place so manufacturers have to consider this when designing the bikes their world tour riders use.

I'm also sure there's a certain handling characteristic riders are looking for that plays well with the aggressive riding positions they have.

Like for a loosely related example even for an xc race bike on the flatter and twistier singletrack courses where I live I find being able to run a marginally longer stem (like say a 60 or 70 instead of a 50 on a more "aggressive" bike with a similar TT length) really helps keeping the front weighted and tracking through turns when trying to maintain seated power.
  • 1 0
 @Artikay13: I find it odd that most road bikes are so twitchy because I rarely turn when road riding, you mostly just go straight, and when I am in a corner it's usually on a descent at high speeds. It's not like mountain biking where you need to make tons of quick direction changes at low speeds.

I frequent two road descents that are each about 5 miles long, one is a 50+mph descent with straightish gentle turns where you tuck and go with no brakes, while the other is a steeper more active descent with tight switchback turns you need to brake hard for. Longer wheelbase bike feels so much more confident and has more grip on both descents compared to twitchy road race bike.

I'm not a roadie, so perhaps I just don't get it, but I do feel like road race geometry was standardized a long time ago in the era of flexy steel frames and caliper brakes that severely limited geometry and many riders just haven't tried something new.
  • 1 0
 @dthomp325: uh, a longer bike with a long wheelbase just means your bike will handle like shit because you are riding a bike that's too big and don't have enough weight on the front end. The geometry of a gravel bike will just hide that.

Road bikes have head angles anywhere 68-74 degrees, they don't all have the same handling. If they are set up right race bikes, xcor road, aren't really twitchy. If they are it's probably due to poor fit. If you watch a road race or crit you will see why bikes need to be fast handling, riding in a pack in a race is not the same as riding solo.
  • 1 0
 @clink83: I raced road (road, crits, tts) for several seasons many years ago on a standard race frame, but haven't done much road lately, so I checked out and rode many different roadie type bikes this spring before deciding.

The gravel bikes with low bb and long wheelbase had what I felt was the best handling. Just like with long wheelbase mtbs it does take a bit more effort to initiate a turn, but once you're turning you have more control and more traction and they feel great at speed. I've gotten PRs over my old race bike on just about every descent I've tried, so they handle well for me. You should give one a try if you haven't had a chance yet, you just might like it.
  • 2 0
 @dthomp325: This is my impression as well. I think road geometry is still old school because people's thinking about road bikes is also medieval. People feel fast handling and they think the bike "feels" fast, whether it translates to actual track speed or not. Have raced road bikes and I never, ever, ever thought fast/twitchy handling was necessary or helpful. This is the same phenomenon that kept road riders on 23's pumped up to 120 psi for decades. Turns out big, soft tires feel slower but actually ride faster.
  • 1 0
 @TEAM-ROBOT: None of my road bikes have been twitchy when fitted properly, even with the 74 degree head angle on the felt. Bike geometry is pretty simple, if you fit your body like below, the bike will handle well.
i2.wp.com/www.unionpt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/bikefit.png?fit=614%2C536&ssl=1
A large pecentage of road bike riders, just like mountain bikers, have jacked up fits so its not surprising that people think race bikes are twitchy. If you think about how much of a difference just dropping your heels while descending makes a difference in handling, its not surprising that people with bike fit that are off by inches or more have poor handling bikes.
  • 1 0
 @clink83: I agree that lots of riders have jacked up fits and lots of riders think their bike sucks when it's actually a result of setup decisions. Agreed. I disagree with your statement that "Bike geometry is pretty simple." For instance, the graphic you shared only shows contact points for the human with the bike. You could fit a rider onto all those contact points and still have a longer or shorter wheelbase, steeper or slacker head angle, long stem or short stem, etc. Respectfully, I think the relationship between bicycle geometry and handling is significantly more complex than your explanation. Similarly, I think the assumptions behind road bike geometry have not been seriously challenged for a long time.
  • 1 0
 @TEAM-ROBOT: Its insane to think that people have been road racing for over a hundred years and have not figure out road bike geometry. Mountain biking is kind of a joke compared to road, there isnt much money in it and mountain bikers have only had decent bikes in the last 10-15 years and still are pushing trendy geometry that changes year to year, yet mountain bikers think road bikers dont know what they doing. There isnt much money in mountain bike racing, but there is road racing. You have to be kidding yourself if you think the big race teams and the big bike companies arent testing bikes constantly trying to get an edge.

That said there are lots of bikers on the wrong bikes. My next road bike once I get a job and my scapula heals is going to be an "endurance bike". I'm not going to get a full on race bike then complain about it when I really dont need a race bike. There are lots of options out there for road bikes these days, you dont have to buy a race bike.
  • 1 0
 @clink83: Agree to disagree. It took 100 years for the peloton to switch to 80 psi in 28mm tires or to switch to easy gears in the mountains. 10 years ago you wouldn't ever see a compact crank on Alp d-Huez, and now it's standard practice. Baseball was a multi-billion dollar sport before they used sabermetrics to revolutionize rosters and batting strategy. I don't think it's insane to think that road bikes have hit a local optimum in their development and there's room for out of the box thinking to improve the existing platform.
  • 1 0
 @TEAM-ROBOT: Gears and tires arent geometry, so thats a straw man. They also haven't made riders any faster (bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/7661/why-arent-tour-de-france-riders-going-any-faster/14290), so that's much ado about nothing.

Geometry is much more math based than anything else, and even engineers in the mountain bike industry will admit a lot of the geometry on mountain bikes is crap, geometry wise:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5R60JHJbxI&t=174s
  • 1 0
 ^and at road racing speeds the difference between a 23, 25 and 28 tire is tiny compared to the effects of drag.
  • 1 0
 @TEAM-ROBOT: yeah. I used 23 tires back in the day when I raced, comfort riders used 25s, but that's about all that would fit with old style brakes. Now that Roadies finally bought into disc brakes wheel manufacturers like Enve and Zipp are saying their tests show 28 and 30 to be the most aero and least rolling resistance with modern rims. I'm running 30mm slicks setup tubeless on my "gravel" bike.
  • 1 0
 @dthomp325: back to your point about BB height real quick a co-worker of mine who used to race cat-1 road and CX stuff (xc racer at heart) back in the day told me once about how he used to run XT pedals on all his bikes just so he wouldn't need different shoes all the time and have to fiddle with seat height and all that constantly. ANYWAY the point here is in crits when people (and he) would go to start pedaling/sprinting out of turns he'd always catch his inside pedal on the ground and do that lovely little rear-wheel hop. So in that situation having a BB on the higher side is good for the ground clearance.

Lovin' the talk in this thread there's some great points in here
  • 2 0
 @clink83: Thanks for the most interesting Pinkbike discussion that I've had in a while. Shout out to @dthomp325 and @Artikay13, too. Buncha road nerds on PB.
  • 1 0
 @TEAM-ROBOT: bikes are bikes, dude! \m/
  • 5 4
 So what does this "lightest ever" actually weigh?
  • 8 2
 From the article: "It's a full 29" hardtail with a frame weight of 1,429g for the size small that encroaches into the territory of some carbon fibre composite frames, just without the price tag."
  • 1 5
flag NorCalNomad (Jul 28, 2020 at 9:43) (Below Threshold)
 I'd guess it'd probably be something from Specialized. They've continued to push aluminum pretty far.
  • 2 1
 @NorCalNomad: That aluminum bike was probably built by Giant for Specialized though. Specialized contracts with Giant (and Merida and a few others) to actually build their frames.
  • 3 2
 I'd like to see them put the total weights of the bikes.
  • 1 1
 Didn’t there used to be lightweight coke can xtcs that dented when you touched them? Are these tougher?
  • 1 0
 If only they flipped the stem for pictures.... But what a bike though!!
  • 2 3
 Giant should have slackened the head angle by at least a degree and a half more. Because of that, I don't see it selling very well.
  • 3 4
 Companies were making bikes with 3 lb frames back in the 90's for not much more.
  • 18 1
 * that had short wheelbases, 26" wheels, and frequently broke
  • 4 0
 In 26 with short reach/tubes though..
  • 6 0
 Lightweight 90's frames didn't tend to last too long. I hope these are more durable.
A modern 29er frame is also a lot bigger than a classic 26" frame with short reach and short rear triangle, so Giant is using a similar amount of material to make a larger frame
$1200 dollars in 1995 is equivalent to a bit over $2000 in 2020 due to inflation (or looking at it the other way, the $1200 model would have been $709 in 1995)
  • 2 1
 @showmethemountains: Small wheels + skinny tires at high pressures had a role in that.
With big rubber and lower pressures,a great deal of vibration and impacts are filtered and don't reach the frame.
  • 1 1
 @showmethemountains: well, it says these have "incredibly thin walls". So yeah.
  • 2 0
 @showmethemountains: It's a XC bike, meant to do XC things. Doesn't need to be capable of doing laps on A-Line. For a racer, a frame that strong would just be unnecessary weight.
  • 1 0
 Inflation is a b*tch... Those 1200$ you had in your pocket in 1995 have equivalent purchasing power of 700$ today.
  • 1 1
 My favourite. Lighter and cheaper. They should shorten the warranty too.

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2020. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.027422
Mobile Version of Website