It’s a 135-millimeter (5.3 inch) travel 29er. With a simple wheel swap, it’s also a 27.5+ rig “purpose designed to meet the demands of enduro and aggressive trail riding.” But wait, there’s more. Despite having some of the shortest (428-millimeters/16.85-inch) chainstays in the business, the Switchblade accommodates seriously fat tires (either 29x2.5-inch on up to a 27.5X3.25-inch treads), with a ridiculous amount of clearance for mud, dead squirrels or whatever else sticks to your tires. Oh, and unlike most bikes in this class, you can run the Switchblade with either a single-ring drivetrain or a front derailleur, if you happen to swing that way. There are also all the other bell-and-whistle hallmarks of the super bike du jour—a lightweight (2900-gram/6.4-pound) carbon frame, a much-ballyhooed rear-suspension system, full Di2 electronic integration…
Details• Intended use: trail, all-mountain, enduro
• Rear wheel travel: 135mm
• Fork travel: 150mm or 160mm
• Wheel size(s): 29-inch or 27.5+
• Clearance for up to 27.5 x 3.25-inch tires or 29 x 2.5-inch tires
• Internal dropper post routing
• PF24 BB
• Front derailleur compatible
• Downhill (12x157mm) hub spacing
• Sizes: XS / S / M / L / XL
• Carbon front and rear triangles
• 6.4-pound frame (size Medium)
• MSRP: $6,299- $10,099 USD ($7,599 as ridden)
•
www.pivotcycles.com /
@pivotcycles
Here is a new product I'm reviewing. It contains a feature that is going to make riders really mad, called _____. And, when I first heard about _____, I sure was [insert semi-profane phrase indicating righteous anger]. The fact that I almost use profanity assures you that I really on your side, dudes, not just a predictable shill for the bike industry.
But then I talked to the people marketing ____, and I reluctantly realized how wonderful it really is, and how silly I'd been to question the motives of the bike industry. Now I'm not mad, instead I feel like spending, and you should too, because just like you I like to party!
This new _______ product isn't as good as my [insert outdated, older bike/component/standard]. The bike industry are a bunch of robber barons, plotting to steal our hard earned cash through sophisticated conspiracies to make our bikes obsolete every 6 months. I'm [inset number over 35] years old, and do super awesome shit on my [insert old bike with old components]. Although I have no experience with ______, I feel that I can safely speak authoritatively about how much it sucks, and how much better my [insert older version of same technology, without recognizing obvious contradiction that it, too, was new and revolutionary when it first came out]. Nuff said, really.
But unlike velcro, a larger surface area also prevents the rubber from having to bend as sharply at the edges of the contact patch, so even on sand it rolls faster than a smaller tire. Big tires roll much faster on loose terrain actually; given the same weight larger objects sink less into loose material.
And I don't know why he bothers with this bicycle thing any more. He's been doing it for a long time and I understand it's not easy to come up with original and interesting stuff again and again. But, if he would be honest and just admit that he's tired, washed-up and that he had enough, I'm sure everybody will understand. Nobody would be angry or disappointed. Quite the contrary.
at slower (heh. slow, even) speeds, its about the same. as far as handling both feel different though the plus tires are more cushioned, feel a little off due to that (maybe we need time to adapt), and def. allow for more errors/easier
Of the well more than 1,000 pieces that I have written in the past four years alone, a whopping 2 of them contain a fragment of the argument that you characterized as my schtick. That would amount to a whole 0.002 percent.
And what we're talking about here is my contention that something annoyed me, then I thought about it some more and realized it wasn't as bad an idea as I thought. The rest of your characterization of my writing is...crap.
I have not at any point argued that you or anyone else should buy anything. You don't want to buy stuff, that's fine by me. You don't need to. You can ride the stuff you rode yesterday (or what you rode 10 years ago, for that matter) and be completely happy. I, for the record, couldn't give a rat's ass whether you buy a new product. It's not my job to sell you on the idea of parting ways with your money. My job is to ride things, consider them objectively, weigh pros and cons and write honestly. I've made a career of doing that and I did that here as well.
In short, I'm okay with some general snarky responses to a piece or someone generally disagreeing with what I've written, but if you are going to call me out as a "shill", you should know what you're talking about. Your general premise should be somewhere in the general proximity of "on target".
I thought long and hard about even responding to your comment. The general rule of thumb is not to feed the trolls. But then I realized some of the 227 people who up voted you may actually think you'd done your due diligence, so I thought that it was time to actually roll out some facts.
In other words, you didn't get where you are because of the quality of your content. It was the quantity. Like you said, you were a busy guy. I read your longer articles, little "side projects" for Adventure Journal and half-assed articles that were supposed to be gear reviews. And like I said, you read one, you read them all. But wait... More 1,000 articles in pas four years? "How is that possible?!" I wouldn't brag about it if I were you. Especially in the times with enormous amount of low quality content floating on the web. Also, as a web editor of a bike magazine, you had a lot of content to play with and recycle. So, it's not so hard to pump out 3 posts per day. You probably could've written even more.
In case you've missed the memo, all publications for the bicycling industry have to play "the game" to get access to the gear and ad dollars. Look no further than the Theranos Inc. tech/bio company voiding 2 years of blood tests largely because Theranos tightly controlled the media access for this tech darling that basically got a "pass" from the tech news media. That media played the game and didn't push the hard questions and life decisions were made based on now voided blood results. The Wall Street Journal broke this story and faced law suits because of it. www.wired.com/2016/04/theranos-investigated-fraud-weird-private-company
One of the bike industry publishers got leaked photos of the new Shimano dura ace groupset and published the photos despite law suit threats and ad pulls from Shimano. Standing up to the companies and not playing their game is rare. Somone please link that story for me.
I for one, appreciate Vernon's critical and even-handed approach to bike reviews and editorials on the bike industry. Vernon is the closest thing we've got to real bike journalism.
I find it interesting, though, that you characterize my work for Adventure Journal and Outside as "side projects", as if writing for those publications is somehow a slight as opposed to being an accomplishment. You sound, from the tenor of your posts, more like someone that has a personal grudge than someone who is responding to what I've actually written or how I've written it. Ride on.
"...the fact is 227 of your readers agreed that your writing can come across as inauthentic..."
There are millions of people in the US that think that Donald Trump has a lot of good ideas. Baywatch was the most popular show in the world for a long time. The fact that 227 people agree with your trolling doesn't mean you're brilliant.
Its way easier to criticize what other people do than do something original yourself. You're entitled to your opinion, but I think a lot more than 227 people found the article useful and informative. I did
This sounds like a recipe for success.
It probably comes down to how big you are and what type of riding you do. I live in the PNW (berms!), and weigh 225lbs. Someone who weighs 50lbs less and/or rides mellower trails might not have the same experience.
Now Cocalis and I cannot be channeling each other since that is impossible, but apparently great minds think alike. I know many on hear will be cussing this as a useless, stupid new direction. But if you really look at the progression from 135-142-148 now 157 . It had to happen. I also think we are reaching physical width limits. SO this is likely the end game of hub width/spacing standards. Until humans get shorter feet and wider hips anyway.
Smart to keep the option of Shimano FD intact as this will be an issue if you try and force all us old fat guys into 1X . 6 knee surgeries do not make for comfortable out of saddle or grinding climbing. Hike a bike sucks w/o cartilage.
www.nextie.net/mountain
Crap.
Methinks you glossed over that part.
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
It happens this speaks to me in the versatility dept. more than any other bike in recent memory.
If I was buying a new bike I would demand the latest greatest tech. So I would hope the industry would keep working on things - that's how improvements are made. Otherwise we'd still be riding canti brakes with updated 'grippier' pads.
And tbh, the anger seems really misplaced here. Pivot gave some extremely well thought out reasoning for why they changed things around, and didn't treat the readers/customers like a bunch of idiots or feed tons of marketing drivel. They used an EXISTING hub width and ended up with customizability, mud clearance, and stiffness. IMO this is what a new standard should provide in the first place - not a half-measure that then locks you into 1x or some other design compromise. It took real creativity and engineering to come up with all these solutions, and I appreciate that the Pivot guys seem so stoked about it and that they're excited to stand behind it and share it with people.
Anyways, 142x12 is the shit - thru axles are just a better way to secure a wheel, and that's enough of a benefit for me.
For some reason, people have this strange idea that standards need to be the same on all bikes for decades (or more, as slowrider73 is still loving his 135 QR setup). That isn't the way things work in the automotive, moto, or other industries. Why should we expect bike companies to stick to the same basic specs indefinitely? If a new standard fixes an issue, great! Its annoying if you want to keep using the same components across different frames, but thats life. Technology progresses: disk brakes are better than rim brakes. Wider axle standards and thru-axles are better than old QRs. Dropper posts, new school geometry, etc: these things work really well. Lots of people like them. Its not just a marketing conspiracy to make your bike obsolete.
I'm not going to rush out and get this. But the rationale behind it - and boost - makes perfect sense: it allows you to make a stiffer 29er wheel, and fit those wheels into the frame without long stays and long wheelbases. Its a valid solution, especially if you want the ability to run 27.5+ and 2x transmissions.
It comes down to this: bikes today are really f*cking awesome. The technology is incredible. Its also expensive, but nobody is making you buy the new stuff. If you like your 26er, great! You can probably buy 26er, 135 QR, etc stuff really cheap right now! Have fun riding your older bike. But please don't bitch about everything new that comes out. At one point, that stab dee-lux, monster T fork, Nokian Gazzaloddis, and 9 speed transmission were all new and exciting. Back in 1999, some old guy was undoubtedly bitching about how all this stuff was not nearly as good as his rigid clunker.
Again, why do we need everything to conform to standards? I've never understood why people are so adamant about bike specs being standardized (or the idea that a different standard somehow makes older ones obsolete). The idea that this is going to make 142 and 148 obsolete is silly. Why should that necessarily be the case? Why is more standards bad? And why should bike designers have to conform to these standards? If making the hub wider works, why question it? Hub and wheel manufacturers will have to make compatible parts, but i don't understand why consumers freak out about this so much. Bikes are machines, not Legos.
Thats because you are buying proprietary parts. But that isn't going to happen with bikes. Bike manufacturers work with component manufacturers all the time, and different standards are not inherently more expensive. Its never been a problem before, so why should you expect it to be in the future? Even if there were 10 common hub standards, I don't think it would make a huge impact in price. Looking at the history of the industry, I don't see any trend towards increasing focus on proprietary parts. When companies like Specialized and Giant have done this, it hasn't really worked. Thus, I don't think your analogy works.
That old Kona had a 69 deg head angle i think so thanks for reminding me of some sketchy moments!! ????
I think the line between independent components & what the moto world looks like is closer than you think, & certain companies are trying to dip their toe over it all the time.
My Kona was a bucket of shit compared to all new bikes but as you so wisely pointed out you could put any wheel in it from any bike. 142 12 has kind of settled in now as the industry standard and it has massive geometry and wheel choices so compatibility between bikes "in the shed" has never been better.
All im saying is that can we just keep it simple!
Source: I work in it.
Axle standards aren't like Highlanders. Two can co-exist. The problem isn't too many standards. The problem is the idea that once a new standard comes out that everything that existed before is suddenly obsolete. The specs of a bike should be determined by WHAT WORKS BEST FOR THAT BIKE.
Beyond cynicism, the fact that this bike has a strange axle spec made it possible to do things that wouldn't have been otherwise possible: super short stays, compatibility with 27+ and 29er wheels, and ability to run a front derailleur. That's undeniable.
Does this axle standard make sense for all bikes? Of course not. Just like 35" tires don't make sense for all vehicles. The problem isn't too many standards. The problem is that everyone loses their shit whenever companies don't conform to standardized norms. Its a strange obsession with standards that only exists in the bike market. We all need to get over it.
The problem isn't that everyone loses their shit when companies...
"don't conform to standardized norms",
the problem is not being able to continue to use components, hubs and possibly even frames if they have been marketed to users as being "future proof" and they subsequently turn out to be less than as advertised.
If the industry gets itself sorted out and stops giving mixed messages, some of us would be more than grateful.
Think the Cannondale approach to standards and marketing. Honest, open and successful.
I've never seen a standard marketed as 'future proof', and if I did, I would be immediately suspicious. Why would any standard continue to be used indefinitely? The notion of 'future proof' is complete BS. Its a straw man argument.
If you want to continue to use components that are frame specific between different bikes - hubs, wheels, cranks, etc - then you'll need to account for that when you buy something new. Its not that difficult. For me, personally, I won't buy a Switchblade anytime soon because I have a set of really nice wheels that won't work with it. That's not ideal, but it doesn't mean that I'm going to gripe about Pivot's audacity to build a bike around specs that don't match what I already have. That doesn't mean that my wheels are shit. It just means that they won't work with this frame. Thats life.
As a general rule, if you are wondering if some new product will be 'future proof', here's a simple way you can can tell - - > Its not.
The thing that is getting lost in all the comments here: this looks like a pretty cool bike.
Hi Jerry,
The practicality of what you say is, of course, undeniable. We all find ourselves faced with choices over the frames and components that we buy and use; equally we know that new innovations become standard and that nothing is truly "future proof".
I personally have learned this lesson and make my choices accordingly, which, to take an example is why I buy Novatec 4 in 1 hubs. Boost is not for me thanks.
However, and this is important, there is also an undeniable and valid sense of frustration felt by consumers when things change. That "Who moved my cheese?", as the self help best seller said, moment leads to frustration that feels real.
And, equally, the use of certain language in marketing material does tend to lead the consumer into believing that their purchase will "stand the test of time", be "everything you will ever need" or, in a recent article here on PB, be "future proof" (FSA modular crankset). www.pinkbike.com/news/fsa-launches-new-modular-cranks-first-look-2016.html
While me may be gullible if we choose to believe it, it is, in the end, only the voices of disgruntled consumers who
cry foul of the marketing departmemts' use of language in this minefield that will ever lead to those same marketing departments being more responsible in their claims.
As I said before, Cannondale has been using proprietary components for years in many areas of its bikes and consumers are in no doubt about that. Bravo.
Nice bike Pivot.
"we called it super boost plus, and have tried to get all the major component players on board"
Come f*cking on
This may be an existing axle length, but I'm guessing the amount of wheels already out there appropriate for this bike is slim to none.
Wait, what are we talking about?
It's a super common thing in the fatbike world. People use cranks that are spaced for 170mm bikes and flip the rings to make them work on 190mm rear end bikes all the time. It decreases the qfactor quite substantially. Doesn't create any issues between leg and boot clearance on a fatbike. Should be negligible on a trailbike and trail shoes
f*ck mtb
Ahhhhh, refreshing!
I'd like to give one a ride just to see how a pivot rides, so far there hasn't been one that has fit me. I'd be worried about smacking my shoes on that super wide rear triangle! even my 142x12 bike is scuffed to hell.
What?! This is the opposite of the truth. That gap between the rotor and spokes on a dh hub is there in order to even out spoke tensions. Now you have removed the gap and claim it evens out spoke tensions?
1: the axle ends are in the same place with the new Pivot non-standard vs regular old 157
2: the centerline to drive side flange is the same (because it's limited by the freehub width) so spoke tension stays the same
3: the centerline to brake side flange increases, which would decrease required tension
but somehow they're saying the difference in tension decreases? It sure seems like moving the brake side flange out puts more load on the drive side spokes which would make the wheel weaker, unless the rim is not centered?
It begs the question why everyone made 150/157 hubs with the flanges they way they did up until last week, doesn't it?
Old DH hubs were designed around old, flexier, rims, for far more abuse than this bike is intended for
Now that people are making asymmetric rims, the symmetrical spoke setup on a old 157 is less important for strength
However, to your point, I'd worry that the non-drive side spoke tension would fall below 30% of the drive side's tension. Chronic detensioning would be something to look out for. Unless they utilized the 2-to-1 lacing pattern (like on on I9's 24-hole stuff) to even the spoke tension. That or a helluva lot of loctite.
Therefore I am slightly currious as to where it will go - well in the UK anyway. Its nearly June and I have not had a clean ride lately....
Not saying plus tires are a bad idea, but when people talk about endless traction they needs to be specific about under what conditions that's happening because I don't think that statement is universally true.
You love your 135 rear end? GREAT! Still a crap load of parts available for it. Same with 142, 148, 150, 177, 190, 197.
This was easy enough to do (and others were already thinking about it) that three hub manufacturers - including DT Swiss and I9.. two of the best IMHO - made a version for them.
So why is everyone going all apoplectic? Oh that's right, it's the Pinkbike comments section. Rage is required!
Personally, I think this is where trail bikes are evolving and this is super cool. Someday we'll look back at 2.25 tires as "anorexic"... much like the 1.9 tires and 19mm inner rims of a decade ago.
Bring on more innovation!
Oh, and to completely blow your mind... I wonder if you could get a 26 x 3.8 or 4.0 in the back of the Switchblade.. because lots of people up here with dual squish fatties (Salsa Bucksaw and Foes Mutz) are converting from blutos to boost spaced Fox forks up front because they can fit a 26 x 4.0 tire.
Yeah that's right... the TRUE one quiver bike! Put some racy 29er tires on it for speed, 27.5+ meat for all around traction and then 4.0s for packed winter trail riding.
Everyone here is losing their shit over the hub spacing, and neglecting to mention that this looks like a really interesting bike.
I agree, it's a very interesting bike. Probably a blast to ride, and I can definitely appreciate Pivot's engineering and enthusiasm.
The hub designs and shock designs make sense, so let this stuff in with open arms, were on the edge of progression with bikes and it's never been a better time to ride!
Rad bike and I hope they sell a ton so I can buy one on PB buy n sell next year for $3500!
inb4 bald eagle 13 superboostDHturbo htis next year
But on a serious note- I am really getting sick as hell of this half-assed change stuff, like RC mentioned about a year back in that column on speeding. You want a stiff wheel? Go zero dish. Hope did it on their prototype. Anything else is a compromise that f*&cks the consumer.
Also. Wouldn't pushing the non-drive side flanges out further just create LESS even spoke tension, thus resulting in a less durable wheel. I always though even spoke tension was desired...
e.g. Chris King used Boost to make their front hub have a "dish-less" flange offset.
It’s like a SWITCHBLADE covered in Velcro. Razor-sharp handling meets ridiculous levels of traction and control. It’s dumbfounding, actually. - Vernon Felton, veteran journalist, writing for Adventure Journal
Must be the name.
I didn't have to hold back today because I own the bike, a thought came to mind. Because I held out so long getting into a technologically advanced bike, I missed out on some comforts of life. As fun as hardtails are to ride they are punishing after several hours. Thanks PinkBike for all the reviews and great features of your website!
I have a Boost bike with thick carbon stays and my size 12.5 feet rub on the seat stays all the time. This bike has even shorter chain stays and wider rear spacing - anyone with largish feet is gonna have a lot of contact.
So, ladies and gentlemen, we now have the 'SUPERBOOST 157'(applause).
Gotta love it when they contradict themselves in the same article
If you have a set of expensive wheels that you want to continue using, then this bike probably isn't the best choice for you. But that doesn't mean that its a bad idea, or some sort of marketing conspiracy.
Almost every comment here is about the hub spacing of this bike. Lost in this conversation is the fact that this bike is damn innovative:
-flexibility to run 29" or 27.5+ wheels
-super short stays, but able to run a front derailleur
-geometry that looks great (at least on paper - numbers don't tell the whole story)
-built around on of the best suspension designs (DW-Link)
I don't plan to buy this bike, but it looks pretty damn cool.
Now, most brands sell completes, & they usually have decent builds. but people still want to grab a new frame now, & build it up, rather than having to wait 6 months in order to save up for a new complete. & even if modern completes don't have any terrible parts, not being able to pick every piece of a build is hard to change to, when you got exactly what you wanted in the past.
I know what you mean, as I build most of my bikes from scratch, and tend to not keep them long.
But more standards doesn't make that impossible. It complicates swapping out a frame a bit, but that is already difficult (multiple wheel sizes, BB standards, seat tube diameters, axle standards, fork offsets, headset standards, freehub standards, etc.). If you're building a new bike from new parts, it shouldn't matter at all. Mixing and matching new and old parts will be a bit more difficult. But if the end product works better (as a system), isn't that worth it?
The funny thing is how unique this is to bicycles. I've never heard of someone complaining that they can't swap the frame from their toyota tundra with a ford f150. Or that the fork from their dirtbike won't fit on a bike from a different manufacturer. Likewise, a new standard in those industries doesn't mean everything else is obsolete.
You can still build bikes ala carte, it will just take a bit more planning. I envision things getting more complicated, but with design specs being determined more by what works best for that specific bike than adherence to whatever is the latest standard trend. On this specific bike, the axle standard made it possible to do some things that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. But on bikes where having a front derailleur mount or the ability to use both 27.5+ and 29" wheels isn't a huge concern, a narrower axle would probably be better (as 157 will have downsides). More diversity is fine, especially if it eliminates or mitigates limitations inherent in strict adherence to only one or a few standards.
you can put 27.5+ wheels/tires on most 29'er trail bikes at 142x12 no worries WTF?
Remember, nothing changes if nothing changes. .
Snag that and your gonna have a bad day.