There are some important differences you missed. The forks may be the same model, but they are not exactly the same. The Marlin does not have Boost spacing (front or rear), tapered head tube, or thru-axle in front, all of which you have on the X-Cal. Also, the Marlin does not provide for an internally-routed dropper post, should you wish to add one. Apart from drivetrain components, those are really the main differences, which make the X-cal more easily upgradeable. Another detail, the brake disks are only 180mm in front on frame sizes L and up, 160 mm otherwise. Finally, the head tube angle is the same on both bikes, and if it was steeper on the Marlin (as you erroneously stated) that would be worse on the descent, not better.
Thank you for pointing these things out. I didn't include a few of them in the video because I didn't deem it necessary to know as the video covers an overview of the bikes and not technical stuff. If you check out the beginning of the video as well you'll see that I mentioned the head angle on both bikes was 69°. But anyway, thank you for watching.
@@SummitMTB That's fair, but if you're going to compare two similar bikes head-to-head, and ultimately recommend one over the other, I think it's important to highlight the key differences that may affect a buyer's decision. Budget is usually a consideration, but so is intended use. A rider starting out in XC racing, for example, may prefer to spend a bit more for the upgradeability of the X-Cal (front end, in particular), whereas, a more casual rider may find the Marlin similarly suitable for their off-road adventures at a lower price point. Aside from that, nice job!
There are some important differences you missed. The forks may be the same model, but they are not exactly the same. The Marlin does not have Boost spacing (front or rear), tapered head tube, or thru-axle in front, all of which you have on the X-Cal. Also, the Marlin does not provide for an internally-routed dropper post, should you wish to add one. Apart from drivetrain components, those are really the main differences, which make the X-cal more easily upgradeable. Another detail, the brake disks are only 180mm in front on frame sizes L and up, 160 mm otherwise. Finally, the head tube angle is the same on both bikes, and if it was steeper on the Marlin (as you erroneously stated) that would be worse on the descent, not better.
Thank you for pointing these things out. I didn't include a few of them in the video because I didn't deem it necessary to know as the video covers an overview of the bikes and not technical stuff. If you check out the beginning of the video as well you'll see that I mentioned the head angle on both bikes was 69°. But anyway, thank you for watching.
@@SummitMTB That's fair, but if you're going to compare two similar bikes head-to-head, and ultimately recommend one over the other, I think it's important to highlight the key differences that may affect a buyer's decision. Budget is usually a consideration, but so is intended use. A rider starting out in XC racing, for example, may prefer to spend a bit more for the upgradeability of the X-Cal (front end, in particular), whereas, a more casual rider may find the Marlin similarly suitable for their off-road adventures at a lower price point. Aside from that, nice job!
Better wheels, hubs on the x.caliber ae well...
@@MACKCATHY Yeah fair enough, but if you're new you don't care about hubs, I know I didn't, right?
@Summit MTB If it's going to save me cash in the long run yes, plus it explains the price difference better...
Very well made video.Great all round.
X-Caliber has same frame as a mighty Roscoe family...
No, it doesn't
Wrong Treks Marlin 8 even the Gen 3 is the silver frame alum alloy not the gold!!!!
X Caliber has a tapered headtube, Marlin does not.