[ivantcs]

is it a wrong set up to use avalanche as xc race bike?

 

[gm1230126]

Absolutely not. That's what the Avalanche frame geometry is set up for. Just don't go putting some 100mm travel overweight freeride/downhill fork on it if you plan to use it for XC.

 

[Sideknob]

No way is it wrong, go for it - it's only in recent years that they have been set up with riser bars, 10 degree stems, big trail tyres and heavy forks. That's the trend nowadays.

I got an '05 Av and took off the risers and mounted a low stem, flat bars and put on lighter rubber - the bike shed a couple of pounds and climbed a LOT better - while still retaining the stable handling that the Av is known for.

 

[liam2051]

YES OH GOD YES!

the zaskar frames are practically the same and they were/still are/ have been the greatest XC frame ever made!

 

[RedToasty]

Only in looks, the recent Avalanche have shorter top tubes than the Zaskars. You can fit it with lighter bits and race with it certainly. It's not even vaguely "what the Avalanche frame geometry is set up for", it's a fairly upright, mid range trail bike.

 

[Sideknob]

The Zaskar has always been a bit longer in the TT and generally set up lower - this year the Zaskar sports a 100mm fork as opposed to last year's 80mm Reba.

According to GT's site there's not a huge difference in the geometries at all - the M Avalanche is listed as 71/73.5 degree angles which is pretty standard for an XC hardtail. The Zaskar Carbon is 71/73.

As for length the M Av is listed as 577mm effective TT length while the Zaskar is 597 - 20mm difference.

As I said above, the bars, stem and tyres make a big difference to these bikes. My 2005 Av had a 10 degree stem and stupidly wide, 2" risers - it couldn't climb the average driveway without the front end wheeleing and flopping everywhere. And the stock Tioga tyres were heavy and slow. Flat bars, flat stem, light tubes and light tyres made a huge difference, and a carbon post took a bit of sting out of the stiff rear end. It turned it into a much faster bike that was also more capable as the stock setup on rought trails.

 

[RedToasty]

Well yeah, the extra height could also be down to the longer head tube on the Avalanche. Higher front end, shorter top tube, more upright riding position, the stay lengths will differ as well I'd guess. Even GT themselves class it as All Mountain, I'm not saying you can't race on it, I'm just questioning "That's what the Avalanche frame geometry is set up for." on a bike which is pretty much a generic trail setup.

 

[Sideknob]

Well yeah, the extra height could also be down to the longer head tube on the Avalanche. Higher front end, shorter top tube, more upright riding position, the stay lengths will differ as well I'd guess. Even GT themselves class it as All Mountain, I'm not saying you can't race on it, I'm just questioning "That's what the Avalanche frame geometry is set up for." on a bike which is pretty much a generic trail setup.

20mm less length in the head tube on a Zaskar - 130mm vs 110.

By the time you factor in the higher, shorter stem and riser bars of the Av that makes the front end about 4 inches higher on the stock Av. :eekster:

Interestingly, the Zaskar Team uses a zero setback post as opposed to the setback model on the other bikes - it might not seem a big difference but it can steal a meaningful amount of length and make you feel a bit pitched forward if the fit is borderline.

 

[liam2051]

like i said roughly simmilar although as mentioned the avalanche sits much higher but you could still race on it until you feel the need for something slicker

 

[Sideknob]

Here's my 2005 0.5 set up properly for XC - all that riser bar crap and high stem gone.

 

[dot]

The Zaskar has always been a bit longer in the TT and generally set up lower - this year the Zaskar sports a 100mm fork as opposed to last year's 80mm Reba.

According to GT's site there's not a huge difference in the geometries at all - the M Avalanche is listed as 71/73.5 degree angles which is pretty standard for an XC hardtail. The Zaskar Carbon is 71/73.

As for length the M Av is listed as 577mm effective TT length while the Zaskar is 597 - 20mm difference.

20mm in ETT that's A LOT. it's a whole size up/down. I can't imagine myself riding on an M-sized Avalanche, it's too short for me and I'll need a 120mm stem :nono:

PS by the way, your bike looks cool. What size is it and how tall are you?

 

[Sideknob]

PS by the way, your bike looks cool. What size is it and how tall are you?

Thanks - I reluctantly sold it last year to finance this:

That Av was a Medium. I'm about 5' 7" I loved that bike!

 

[dot]

Thanks - I reluctantly sold it last year to finance this:

That Av was a Medium. I'm about 5' 7" I loved that bike!

Ah, perfect fit I suppose, that's why it looks so proper. I'm taller by 3.5" and Ava M doesn't fit me and L size looks too high and utterly stiff due to very short seat port.