|   lightweight xc ride: scalpel vs. giant xtc2 | captainfun6
Jun 13, 2003 6:07 AM | | I had a offer made to me to purchase a brand new 2002 cannondale scalpel 800 with an upgrade to an m960 xtr crankset for $1950.
I love cannondale's so thats not a question, but is this worth it when you compare the 2002 model to the 2003 which has a longer travel fatty headshock? The new xtr crankset is lighter than poop so in that sense it makes the deal sweet. Or I could get it with an xt crankset for $1650. I'd like to make this my light race bike. Any thoughts? Is the xtr worth the extra $300? Most of the other uprgrades I can perform myself as needed like carbon handlebars, seat post, seat, blah blah.
So its comes down to 2002 scalpel 800 with xt or xtr crankset...or 2003 800 scalpel...or should I just opt for a giant xtc 2 hardtail frame and build that up to be around 22 pounds?
Is the little bit of suspension the scalpel offers really worth the weight penalty? Plus with more rear moving parts on the scalpel equals more areas to loosen and or break.
Any input is appreciated. |
| What type of terrain do you ride? | Fett
Jun 13, 2003 10:27 AM | | I own a Scalpel and have owned an XTC hardtail and also own an NRS. The XTC is light and it is a rocket, but it is the harshest riding hardtail I have ever ridden. If your terrain that you ride is very smooth and non technical the Giant will serve you well, but most mountain biking tends not to be like that. The Scalpel works very well for most XC applicationswhere big hit performance is not required. It is a very efficient pedaller and has great handling.
As far as the crankset, a German bike magazine (It was posted in the Weight weenies page)published a test of stiffness of the cranks and the difference in stiffness was minimal as is the weight difference. I would choose the XT in a second and spend the money on a lightweight killer wheelset where weight makes a much bigger difference |
| |
