Five years have passed since Evil first launched the Following, a time period that's seen a dramatic shift in mountain bike geometry, along with the widespread acceptance of 29” wheels. That wasn't the case when this 120mm trail bike first came out – when it debuted the seemingly slack head angle and the fact that Evil was making a 29er caused heads to turn.
For 2020, the Following has received several updates, including a longer reach, steeper seat tube angle, internal cable routing, and 12 x 157mm SuperBoost spacing. Even with all those changes, the Following's intended use remains the same – it's a trail bike through and through, although there's room to alter its personality, whether that's by installing a Push ElevenSix coil shock, or going down the lighter, more XC-oriented route.
Evil Following Details • Wheelsize: 29"
• Carbon frame
• Travel: 120mm (r) / 120 or 130mm fork
• 66.9 or 66.4-degree head angle (130mm fork) / 67.9 or 67.2-degrees (120mm fork)
• 430 or 432mm chainstays
• 12 x 157mm SuperBoost spacing
• Colors: protein powder, black
• Price: $5,799 - $7,399 USD
• Frame only: $3,099 USD
•
evil-bikes.com The frame with shock is priced at $3,099, with complete build kits beginning at $5,799 and going up to $7,399 USD. All models roll on Industry Nine's Enduro S wheels with Hydra hubs. Additional complete model options will be added later this spring, including a version with SRAM's wireless AXS components. Evil's online bike configuration tool allows riders to pick and choose various components to create their ideal spec.
What's New?The Following's frame shape has been given a nip here and a tuck there, and it has a cleaner, more angular look than before. The housing is all routed inside the frame, where internal guides help facilitate installation and prevent rattling. There's even an internal routing option for riders who want to run a remote lockout, along with housing entry ports for riders who run their brakes moto style
The first Following had 12 x 142mm rear spacing, the Following MB had 12x148mm spacing, and now version 3.0 has, you guessed it, 12 x 157mm spacing. Evil's reasoning for the change? “Go ahead, roll your eyes, it’s warranted—but we tested prototypes thoroughly. It is stiffer, it allowed us to rework our pivots, and it kept our chainstays at 430mm.” The dual-row, angular contact main pivot bearings are the same size as before, but the pivot hardware size has been increased to bump up the frame stiffness even further. There's enough clearance for 29 x 2.5" tires, and some 29 x 2.6" options will work as well, depending on their actual measurements.
Other details include a chainslap protector with three raised portions to help dissipate noise, a downtube protector, an updated version of the integrated chain guide, and a threaded bottom bracket. Oh, and there's plenty of room for mounting a water bottle inside the front triangle.
GeometryIt wouldn't be a new bike launch without the words longer and slacker showing up somewhere, but while the latest Following
is longer and slacker than before, Evil didn't copy and paste the numbers from a downhill bike and call it good. In fact, some might even call that 67.2-degree head angle conservative; it's steeper than the head angle found on their
Chamois Hagar gravel bike.
Slacker doesn't always mean better, and in this case Evil wanted to preserve the poppy, jibby nature that put the Following on the map in the first place, rather than turning it into an enduro bike without enough travel. That's the same reason a fork with 51mm of offset is the stock configuration rather than the increasingly common 44mm option. Both will work, but Evil's test riders preferred the quicker feel that the 51mm offset fork delivered, especially at slower speeds.
Other numbers to note include the steeper seat angle, which sits at either 75.5 or 76-degrees with a 130mm fork, and 76.5 or 77-degrees with a 120mmm fork, depending on which geometry position is selected. The reach has bumped up to 480mm on a size large; it previously was 452mm. At 430mm, the chainstays still remain on the shorter side in order to preserve that snappy handling.
When the Following first emerged, there weren't a whole lot of bikes in that aggressive, short travel 29er category. That's no longer the case, and now nearly every brand has a bike that's vying for a spot at the table. How does the Following stack up against other contenders like the Santa Cruz Tallboy, Norco Optic, or the Guerrilla Gravity Trail Pistol? That's still to be determined - we're working on getting one in to find out.
Even their bigger bikes. They definitely have a ride characteristic that extends across their line.
Who cares about "demographics"? That is just lazy stereotyping and internalizing marketing bullshit. If you want to understand the hype, go try one.
the demographics thing... i'm just responding to the original demographics post, just wanted to join the conversation and add something a typical pinkbike a*shole would say, which is my expertise.
Never got Evil either. They are basic single pivot bikes.
commencal supreme dh dingle pivot, trek session single pivot, there's loads of good singles and having ridden a Wrecking but owned vpp, 4 bar etc I can say the wrecking at least is a great bike!
Yes, Single pivot matters here.
AS and Pk are only linked to pivot position on a single pivot bike and you typically get 24° PK at 120mm in 30/50 for the 2018 following and 120% AS at sag in 30/50 with 24 mm chain growth on the upper side, that is more than equivalent yeti, trek, devinci, etc... meaning you actually didn't get a lot of traction at all since your kinematic is parasited by the chain growth...
Talking ratio, you get a strongly progressive value on the first half of travel, then a flattish/mildly progressive curve on the last part which is not good cuz your shaft speed is lower in the second part (lower shaft speed = less speed-dependant compression) when you precisely need your hydraulic to support the end of travel... In a general way better stay away from "composite" ratio curve since your shock's hydraulic will not behave constantly along travel.
Ride bikes with low AS/PK and ratio with constant progression (Knolly's, Rocky - GT- Cannondale of late...) if you want to experiment what a fully operating suspension is...
The other dentist I know is my son in law, he’s doing an orthodontic residency, was riding an d Chromag hardtail, but I talked him into buying a nicely cared for used Esker Elkat.
I’m a shrink and I ride Guerilla Gravity
I must admit there are a lot of snobby riders on the trails but lots of nice riders too.
Its not a competition out on the trail but ok its always a competition you might be faster but I rode further. I already hit Moab this year. Have you? Get out and ride
You realize that superboost is the same as a DH hub right?
If I spend 2k on a wheelset. I want it to work for a long time, not become outdated faster than my damn cell phone.
I also don't care about short chainstays.
Wide rims do help the rim from collapsing due to lateral loads. But the wheel as a system needs high offset flanges to make a stiffer wheel. The top 2 factors for lateral stiffness are bracing angle and spoke length. I don't remember where rim stiffness came in after those 2 factors.
As a pretty heavy person that rides at least moderately hard, boost made 29 inch wheels possible for me to ride and I'm sure superboost/DH spacing would be even a bit better. With good 142 mm spaced 27.5in wheels I never felt that my rear wheel was terrible but people that ride harder than me likely enjoy the extra stiffness, with lower cost wheels though the 142 rear wheel flex was pretty noticable. I like the idea of wider hub spacing as it makes lower cost wheels hold up better to hard riding.
In case it doesn't, let me help DH= Downhill. So that's a downhill hub on a XC/Trail bike.
See where that's going? Not needed.
135/142 hubs with 26” rims were fine up to about 8spd, then the smart folk started saying that we should probably widen the rear hub. For those that didn't push bikes as hard as pros the 135/142 hubs were fine still when we got to 27.5” wheels on bikes meant to be ridden hard. For all except for lightish people that don't push very hard a 135/142 hub doesn't work for a 29er that is meant to be ridden hard. So boost finally happened over 20 years after I remember seeing prototype wider hubs in magazines.
Now to your point... There is nothing that says that a certain axle width is DH only. The current DH width hub was developed with 26" wheels in mind, now they are on 29ers and I wonder how long till we see a wider DH hub. Thru axles were at one point only a feature of DH and freeride bikes, now there are zero serious MTB's without them. 2.3"tires used to be considered huge and had no place on a bike you actually intended to pedal very far, xc riders are often riding 2.4" you're now. 3" travel forks were at one point long travel, now that is less than a super light xc bike.
MTB's change, and this is just another small change that should concern no one. It is a little annoying, and will cost you a bit of money, if you intended on buying a specific frame that doesn't fit all the parts that you currently own, but that is all.
Only the left flange is different.
Some would argue that having equal flange spacing, equal spoke tension and equal lateral stiffness is a bigger benefit than what superboost offers. I'm not one of those people, but if I had a DH hub that I could lace into a wheel, or already owned that wheel, and that was the only hurdle to ride the bike I wanted, that benefit would be too good to give up. If I didn't own either, I would build up a decent rear wheel for $200-300 bucks and go ride.
I have an extra 80 lbs on you and I find 148 hubs on 29ers to work for me. I run 32 2.0/1.8 db spokes, and I prefer mixed lacing to gain stiffness on the drive side. I have never owned carbon rims, and I prefer to not have that as a requirement to build a stiff wheel.
There is no reason to abandon 148 hubs, but there are no real disadvantages of 157.
I do not know what "ftp in the mid 300" means, File Transfer Protocol was Google's guess.
Oh that FTP, gotcha. I have been meaning to measure that on myself but other life stuff keeps taking priority. A higher FTP though would not make a stiffer wheel important.
I pedal a bit duck footed so I would have to see if I had clearance issues with superboost frames.
Any ideas?
I'm grateful that there are still some bikes that are not designed solely for top speed runs in a straight line down the fall line. #maketurninggreatagain
Talking about angles: their gravel bike has a slacker head angle. Something went wrong somewhere?? And that's before sagging...
I long for a world where it’s standard practice to show effective STA at 60, 70 and 80cm from BB. Especially for bikes like this one where effective vs. actual STA is very different due to kinked seat tube.
That said, seat angle is getting way overblown. A 120mm bike doesn’t need a radically steep seat angle. In fact I’d say it’s a detrimental for pedalling efficiency. 74/75 would be ideal I think.
XL following: 462 mm reach
XL following mb: 475 mm reach
XL following 3: 500mm reach
Head tube length for all three: 120mm
I’m not seeing any smoke and mirrors here.
This bike is specced with Minions - what is the point of running less travel when your bike rolls slowly?
I do not enjoy climbing with my ass perched on top of the rear hub. Neither do my hips or my low back.
Anyway my argument is shorter travel bikes don’t need as steep seat angles as longer travel bikes due to the smaller differential between static and sag.
(I"m getting a ~65* HTA on that pic, appears to be a medium frame from other measurements) for my seat height I'd be at ~73*... super MEH! BUT if it's cause it's overforked by 20mm than maybe...
@Drew-O: I"m not getting 77* at stack height?
www.pinkbike.com/photo/18392012
I actually didn't know for sure "stack height" was where the industry measured STA. (also I don't think the industry knows that either cause that doesn't seem to be consistently used? OR at least there is still differences between how the industry is doing it?)
I did one at top of saddle height, and then one at the rails cause maybe that's also an industry standard? Still is WAY off their numbers...???
www.pinkbike.com/photo/18392011
Nope, they are the same as far as fitment into a frame. Often they do have the brake side hub flange closer to the brake disk, but that is the only difference.
Out side of road and fatbike world.
There 3 rear hub shell sizes 135/142, 148/(we won't talk about 141 boost QR), and 150/157.
There are 2 front hub shell sizes 100/110x20mm and confusingly 110/110x20mm boost.
Superboost might make sense on longer travel bikes but more weight, fewer options and less heel clearance on a short rear centre 120mm bike makes no sense to me.
Wanting light weight would be a bit of a problem as the bikes that have gone to 157 axles are generally not looking to be lightweight bikes, so there are not as many rear hub options, as you pointed out. That would be the only place you would have to compromise on weight though, well the rear hub and the 6ish pound frame without shock.
Not much different for 4 spokes + it is 4 more speed holes in the rim.
Didn't actually know that there were so many hub options at this point.
Superboost only builds a stiffer wheel over a DH hub in one direction. It increases lateral stiffness when making right turns. With a superboost hub, to regain the even spoke tension and similar lateral stiffness side to side, that you have in a DH hub, you have to resort to mixing spoke types or spoke lacing patterns.
@jclnv: 240's are offered in 157DH. That's what I'm using. It's not superboost specific, but doesn't matter. Not sure on centerlock, as I don't use centerlock.
The offering at about 6.25 lbs for a medium without a shock, I guess it isn't terrible, but it is a quarter pound heavier than the Following. Evil is not focused on making super light frames.
Well if you only make left turns, these are pretty much the way to go.
www.dirttrackdigest.com/a-change-of-pace-dtd-exclusive
The driveside flange on a superboost hub and a 157 DH hub are in exactly the same spot, about 4.5 mm further from center than a boost hub. That means quite a bit more lateral stiffness over a boost hub.
What wheel are you riding XC/Trail that's you'd ride on a DH rig?
My point is just that it makes sense to have one hub spacing standard across all mtn bikes (except maybe xc race bikes). Makes life much easier.
That said, I would gladly have all of my bikes share 157 spacing. Personally I find it indistinguishable from even 142 and never had any rubbing issues with the bikes I've ridden/ride.
Q-factor is exactly the same as that is a crank thing. With Knolly bikes they actually increased heel clearance when they went from 142 to 157.
148 and 157 of any type do not have the same flange spacing, 148's flange spacing is closer to 135 than 157. 135 and 142 are the same hub with different endcaps so they should feel the same. Some DH bikes have offset rear triangles and can get away with narrower hubs, Specialized and others did that for a long time. Of course if I was selling a 157 DH hub I wouldn't claim it to be the same as a superboost hub, but I would say that it will fit and function great in a bike designed for a superboost hub.
"yet heel clearance of our new designs has only moved outward by 1.5mm per side!"
Maybe that the new core 2.0 math, but for us old school math types, that's an increase.
If you go back to when Trek first came out with 148, it's purpose was the widest they could go without increasing Q-factor. Watch old videos, they reference that in them. Then everyone went gaga over b fat so they started makes rear ends wider, which forced Q-factor to go wider.
If they had stuck to the original intent for 148, it made perfect sense.
I guess I did remember that heel clearance info about knolly incorrectly, though when I went to the website they say that regular cranks work on the superboost frames, so no change to q-factor, though you can choose to use a wider crank if you want.
My remembering of the original intent of boost was to avoid co-spatial events when combining short chainstays, 27.5/29er wheels and 2x drivetrains. I don't really know how how much it matters though as the additional wheel stiffness was the only lasting benefit for me.
While I’d still prefer an open downtube, I applaud Evil for their anti-racist stance on internally guided routing.
Nice.
Note to reviewer: in industrial design critiques, 'cleaner' and 'more angular' are usually not interchangeable adjectives.
Less angles and facets generally equals lighter, more consistent, and probably better performing gram-for-gram.
I bet they come out with a new Wreckoning soon for those folks that ride the gnar on the regular.
Put down the slide rule and ride one. Evils rip.
Bike looks really good, gotta get that seat tube angle thing sorted out though. I'm only 5'8" so it bothers me a bit less but still...
Nice job Evil.
imagine having a bike that sounds like a bag of spanners strapped to your nuts.
Dont get me wrong i think evil frames are retardely expensive too
-Orange Stage 4 = 4,700 British Lbs which is roughly $5,800.
-Worse specs by a long shot, starting at the wheels and running all the way through to the suspension, so only the most impactful parts of the bike.
-No way you can know its more poppy unless you have some insider time with EVIL
-Don't know why being made of tetanus or by Brits is a plus or minus, but it should definitely be cheaper than CF
-Also while I agree that 5-6k is a lot of money for a bike in general, EVIL's prices are pretty on par with Spesh, Giant, Trek etc. and those companies have a lot more capital to spend and should be making bikes cheaper than a more boutique brand like EVIL. The price is pretty inline with Pivot and Ibis, although again a better wheelset on the Evil.
They aren't DTC prices, but evil isn't a DTC brand.
Have you ridden an Orange? What is it that is making noise? Do you even know?
If you know how to build a bike, you run your 1, or 2 (hoses cables) through some foam, and there is nothing to make noise on the bike?
So, it's obvious you haven't.
Nice try though.
So apparently you don't build your own bikes.
An Orange Stage 4 frame is $2,200, not $3,100.
You didn't mention frame, just a bike.
Ha, assumptions. You should try them less.
I literally just finished building up a Wreckoning LB last month. My frame with an PUSH 11-6 was slightly more than your Orange frame, soooo lighter (relatively), better suspension, sexier, etc, etc, than the Orange.
I build up a lot of my bikes. I actually built up a SC Bantam frame a while back which looks pretty similar to your bike. So aluminum single pivot with old suspension designs I am familiar with.
I build many of my wheelsets too, just incase you want to make other assumptions down the line. Preventative heads up.
Also lets compare some apples to apples. I can get a Ripmo AF for $3k complete. If I was going to build it up I can get the frame for $1800. I can get the Frame with a DVO shock and bad ass DVO Diamond fork for $2300
I can get a Canfield Balance for $3400 complete, frame for $2000, frame and fork for $2600: all limited edition
With the exception of complete bikes those options are all cheaper than the Stage 6 frame alone.
I don't really see the appeal of an aluminum 110 travel bike, but different strokes for different folks.
Yes, i know how to build a bike.
Yes, i have ridden an orange.
Oranges are notorious for being noisy. There is a reason they get called filing cabinets on wheels. Chain slap and cable rattle have nothing to do with it. Its having a giant sheet metal rear end built like a metal guitar, and if you have to fill it with foam to not sound like your bike is full of spoons then you are doing something wrong.
I will admit the new ones are way better than the old ones, not very far off bikes with hydroformed alloy tubes.
Back to your original comment. "lighter and cheaper" means very little. I notice you have eewings and no dropper on your bike, plus those horrible lightweight rotors. Not surprised its light. I could buy a 2003 XC bike and it would be lighter and cheaper than your orange. I could then go on to say being a hardtail it pops just as well as your bike. Does it mean everyone should buy one?
Nice try though.
Didn't know a dropper was mandatory on a 110mm bike on XC trails for it to be a bike.
Lighter and cheaper referred to the frameset alone - large with shock at 3kg. My Orange is probably the most expensive built Orange in existence.
Brakes work fine.
Be butt hurt less. Would love to race any of you heroes on your new Evil that you don't even own. Name the time and the place.
Who is the butt hurt one here? It is looking like that is more on your end. I will chalk it up to you most likely being quarantined and going stir crazy.
I am loving that you started this thread by bragging about how cheap your Orange was, but now its how its the most expensive ever built in all of existence, Jeezus.
Way to end it with the most testosterone pubescent lines I have heard lately. I guess you were the kid asking people to fight at 3:00 on the football field in middle school. Go ride your bike.
Sure, race me with a high seatpost down zen garden at maydena and see where that gets you
Also, regarding "lighter"... it appears that this evil frame is 2700g without shock. add 300g for a shock and you get a weight the same as your orange. (Which probably weighs more than 3kg thanks to your new ohlins suspension. Did you get a matching gold chain btw????). Which is fair enough as your orange has no linkages or pivots to speak of. And dont go comparing your bike to a bike you have never ridden.
brakes- of course they work fine if you dont do any real descending.
@yourrealdad Is it possible he is talking out of his ass? Never would have thought i'd see such a thing on pinkbike....
Course Evil us just fukin with us showing the new Wrecker and the dropping the short travel bike first!!
Sorry Evil, you guys just disqualified yourselfs in the competition of who will sell me my next short travel trail bike.
Short Chainstays? My Riot had them with 148 rear end.
Stiffer rear end, plenty of bikes with 148 and stiff rear ends.
So what are the reasons again?
Guess I trust the actual engineers who designed the bike and have real data- they said it’s better because stiffer, better tire clearance, shorter chain stays which they wanted for this bike
Never did i think i would see the words evil and better tire clearance in the same sentence- they need all the help they can get apparently...
I like seeing different designs like this.
Now that's not the case here, as Delta is a Weagle design, so it's all good. But four-bar is hugely popular for good reason. It's like the Chevy smallblock of suspensions - been around for ever, still kicking ass.
geometrygeeks.bike/bike/evil-following-2020
How so?
There are none......weird.
Pinkbike: *posts feature on newly released Evil bike*
Comments section: “Lame!” “Overpriced!” “Only for dentists!” “SuperBoost sucks!”
It is not with shock.
Fanatik bike does a good job of actually weighing everything that is on their site.
www.fanatikbike.com/products/evil-following-v3-frame-2020?variant=31813641109550