# Brand X XC frame on CRC



## jpembroke (23 Sep 2009)

anyone know anything about these frames? Ridden one or owned one? I'm looking to build up a new MTB and just want a cheap, lightish alloy frame for knocking about on. This frame looks like a bargain and has top reviews. It's just the geometry that confuses me and an email to CRC has not had a reply. Website says that, regardless of size, they all have a 20.5" top tube!!!!! That's BMX size. Can't be right, surely. If anyone out there can shed any light on this I'd be really grateful.


----------



## archenemy (23 Sep 2009)

i may be wrong on this but it looks like a steel frame with how small the tubing is could not say if they are any good but i would exspect a thicker tubing if it was me.


----------



## kyuss (24 Sep 2009)

The top tube length limits it a bit. That said the measurements on the CRC site can't possibly be right. The regular 14" XC Hardtail has a quoted top tube length that's 3cm longer than the 20". How odd.

Personally at around that price, I'd spend £25 more and get an On One Inbred (or a 456 if you fancied running longer travel forks). It's steel, but I don't see that as being a drawback, especially in a hardtail where the extra comfort of steel may come in handy. It's not _that_ much heavier than the Brand X either and would still build into a fairly light machine with the rights parts.


----------



## jpembroke (24 Sep 2009)

Funnily enough I have an On One Inbred already. Whilst I really like it (great for going downhill and zipping along singletrack; nice to look at too) it's just not great at going uphill. I'm a strong climber but I'm constantly fighting the front wheel when on steep climbs, which is very frustrating. In fact, there are steep sections of singletrack around here that I used to be able to cruise up on my old GT Aggressor yet am now lucky if I nail then 1 in 4 goes on the Inbred. It may be because I have one of the older frames designed for up 3" forks (my forks are 4" MX Comp ETA) but then again I still get problems when the forks are locked down. I just want a better geometry for climbing.


----------



## 02GF74 (24 Sep 2009)

jpembroke said:


> it's just not great at going uphill. I'm a strong climber but I'm constantly fighting the front wheel when on steep climbs, which is very frustrating.
> In fact, there are steep sections of singletrack around here that I used to be able to cruise up on my old GT Aggressor yet am now lucky if I nail then 1 in 4 goes on the Inbred. It may be because I have one of the older frames designed for up 3" forks (my forks are 4" MX Comp ETA) but then again I still get problems when the forks are locked down. I just want a better geometry for climbing.



surely for climbing steep stuff you want rigit forks - any suspension fork will lift the front end up thus putting your weight back thus making the front wheel light and a tendancy for you go over backwards?

can't see how lock is gonna help you.

or get a longer wheel base bike.

The Geometry on the Gary Fishers Genesis frames, going bck a few years now *was supposed* to help.


----------



## jpembroke (24 Sep 2009)

The Inbred has a very long wheelbase for an MTB and the lockout on the MX Comp ETA fork actually reduces the length of the fork by about 2" or more: you flick the switch and push down, the forks don't spring back up. This means they are not only rigid (almost) but also quite a bit shorter than they are in suspension mode. I suppose 'lockdown' would be a more apt description. Yet even with this facility on the inbred doesn't climb as well as my old GT with entry level 80mm rockshox .


----------



## jpembroke (24 Sep 2009)

and agree with you about the Gary Fisher Genesis geometry. A mate had one and I found it far better for climbing than my Inbred.


----------

