Which of these bikes should I buy?

[Gambatte]

I'm on the market for a MTB hardtail, carbon, preferably used because get better value for money.
Which one should I buy?

Here my shortlist:

Cannondale Scalpel HT 4, new
https://buycycle.com/en-gb/bike/scal...n-4-2022-74425

Bianchi Methanol CV S 9.1 – GX Eagle 2022
https://buycycle.com/en-gb/bike/meth...gle-2021-27421

Trek Procaliber 9.8 SL 2018
https://buycycle.com/en-gb/bike/proc...-sl-2018-41570

Giant XTC Advanced 29 1 2021
https://buycycle.com/en-gb/bike/xtc-...9-1-2021-92000

I'm very disturbed that Carbon bicycles with apparently "same" level of components, when new can have so extremely different prices. The prices of XT Carbon hardtails can range between 1.6k to 6k. The only thing I can thing of being different is the "type" of Carbon. But also that is not really convincing...

About some Carbon frame being light than others: is it really a different "type" of Carbon? Or is it maybe that the manufacturing engineer made the tubes of the frame simply thinner, which of course makes it lighter, but also weaker, so overall not sure that's an overall advantage.

[Marco]

My limited cycling knowledge only really extends to road cycling, so my thoughts should not be taken too seriously. But as you asked, this is what I would do if I was in your position:

Both the Bianchi and the Trek are listed at £1703, and are the most expensive. They are also equipped with SRAM, which I don't rate as highly as Shimano. I would therefore not look at these two.

The Cannodale (£1515) and the Giant (£1345) both have Shimano Deore XT. The critical difference is that the condition of the Giant is described as 'Good', whilst the Cannondale is described as 'Brand new with warranty'. For this reason I would buy the Cannondale, as I'm not sure what you'd find with the forks and brakes of the Giant.

As to using carbon fibre in mountain bikes, it doesn't sound like the obvious material. The fact that they keep selling them with warranty means it must be good. I think I'd be looking for the heaviest frame as it would have the thickest tubes, but as I said at the top it's not my specialty.

[molehill]

I won’t comment on the best bike (very limited knowledge) but I do know that carbon comes in many different grades with differing properties, depending on the fibre and resin used. I guess the old cliche is you get what you pay for.
Last year I visited a local Scott dealer as I was interested in a carbon gravel bike, my big concern was that when descending fastish on my current aluminium framed bike, some good sized stones fly up and hit the frame underside with one hell of a crack. Surely very risky on a carbon frame?
The sales person fetched a cut out section of carbon frame and told me to hit it with a hammer as hard as I liked, no way it would crack, confidence.
I still haven’t bought a bike a year later!

[mr brightside]

I'd go aluminium unless you can verify the build quality of a carbon frame. My only carbon frame is a Colnago C50, the rest are steel or ally.

[Graham Breeze]

I'd go aluminium unless you can verify the build quality of a carbon frame.

I agree. My road bike is carbon but my winter bike is Al.

Carbon might be lighter but that will be the last thing on your mind plunging and bouncing down a rocky mountain side.

[Gambatte]

Thanks for the discussion guys.
But where does the concern about Carbon strength come from? Knowledge or "gut feeling"?
Warplanes as well as F1 racing cars are made with Carbon frame. Hard to believe that a Carbon MTB cannot be trusted.
I have abusing my Carbon road bike for 15yr (before it eventually got stolen) and despite trying hard, I never managed to damage the frame. OK, it was road, but still....

Besides, most/many C-frame bike manufacturers give lifetime warranty.

[Marco]

But where does the concern about Carbon strength come from? Knowledge or "gut feeling"?
Warplanes as well as F1 racing cars are made with Carbon frame. Hard to believe that a Carbon MTB cannot be trusted.
I have abusing my Carbon road bike for 15yr (before it eventually got stolen) and despite trying hard, I never managed to damage the frame. OK, it was road, but still....

Besides, most/many C-frame bike manufacturers give lifetime warranty.

I think the concern about carbon comes from middle-aged, and older, people talking about it based on what they saw and heard when they were younger (carbon fibre frames were used in big races like the Tour de France 40 years ago, and when there was a crash they often snapped completely back then.)

I stand by what I said yesterday (below)

As to using carbon fibre in mountain bikes, it doesn't sound like the obvious material. The fact that they keep selling them with warranty means it must be good.

I'm sceptical, and older than mr brightside, but can't argue with the numbers. Carbon-fibre is a proven material, and if built correctly should be able to produce a stronger frame as it is easier to thicken the high stress areas according to the FEA (Finite Element Analysis)

If you want carbon, buy it. One big crash would wipe-out an aluminium frame, and although a steel frame could be repaired the financial cost in doing so might be prohibitive.