[jacksonpt]

I cracked the frame on my 575 a few weeks ago. It's not going to be replaced under warranty as it's too old, but I'm waiting to hear back about any crash replacement options.

If things work out, I'd like to build it back up. But if they don't, I need a plan B. Even if they do work out, another bike is never a bad thing, right?

I've been eyeballing a HT 29er for a while now, as it's a good fit between my 1x1 singlespeed and my yeti. Plus I am doing a bit of racing this summer (xterra triathlon), so it would fit that bill nicely as well.

The leading candidates at this point are the Specialized Stumpjumper Evo 29 and the Jamis Dakota D29 Race. Pros and cons, as I see them, are:

Stumpy:
pro: specialized
pro: fox fork (nothing but luv for both my foxes)
pro: slightly better components/specs
pro: got a kickass specialized dealer, always happy to support them
pro: looks badass (for whatever that's worth)
pro: lifetime warranty
con: single chain ring
con: comparatively expensive

Dakota
pro: price price price... I can get a deal on it making it about $800 less than the specialized
pro: lifetime warranty
con: fork (bad experience with Reba durability/reliability)
other: carbon seat stays - not sure if that's good or bad. I'm not a finesse rider by any stretch of the imagination, but as long as they don't fail and send me plummeting to my death, lifetime warranty should cover any damage, no?

Usual riding will be typical east coast stuff... roots, rocks, single track. Not overly technical, but not a lot of smooth and flowy here either. Racing will likely be more technical.

Thoughts? Anyone have any experience with either of these bikes?

 

[Sandwich]

Yo...I don't really have comments on either bike because I just don't know them well enough....except:

A) The specialized has better brakes

B) The specialized has much better geometry, with one key feature: short chainstays. I switched recently from a bike with what I refer to as "old school" geometry (18.2" CS, 72* HA) to a Scott Scale with 17.3" CS and 69.5* HA. It amazes me how much of a difference this has made. Some other things have changed (****ty FS to a HT, longer TT) but my components are all the same. I friggin love the Scott. It rips the tight turns I have in MA, accelerates well, and it's much harder to notice that it's a 29er vs. a 26er, which is IMO a very good thing. The spec has a 71.5* HA, but you can slacken that out, or just ignore it. The Jamis, on the other hand, has 17.75" stays, which are getting up on monster truck length.

I really, really like my Scott, and I'm amazed at the difference.

 

[jacksonpt]

Cool, thanks. The geometry stuff, specifically how it translates to handling/rideability isn't something I know much about. I'm pretty standard height/proportions, so I've never had to worry about fit much (I just get on and ride), so I've never paid much attention to geometry differences.

I really do want something nimble though, so it's good to know the shorter stays might help with that.

 

[Sandwich]

I'm with you. When I decided to get a 29er, I found a real cheap, well built suspension bike without paying any attention to the geo. It was fine at wide open places like the kingdom trails, but having taken it to real twisty spots around Boston I got tired of pushing it through corners. I was offered a frame trade, and hemmed and hawed for a bit, but eventually decided to go for it. I really think the combo of short stays and a slacker HA make the bike more stable at speed, but more apt to change direction at slow speed. Proportionally, the bike stayed pretty close to the same, as I lost an inch in CS but gained an inch in the top tube (plus 2.5* of HA). Anyways, the change worked and I think you'll be more satisfied on a more aggressive setup than the school-bus handling long CS/tight HA bikes of old, especially if you're used to 26ers. The canzo (my old bike) "felt" like a 29er. The scott does not.