Climbing The Raaw climbs extremely well for a bike in this category, and flies from the start. I think this bike is more proof that the riders position in relation to the bottom bracket can be more important than the suspension design itself for pedaling efficiency. I measured an actual seat angle of 76º at my preferred saddle height of 74cm from the BB center, this makes it one of the steepest on the market without getting confused about different manufacturers' measurements. Despite people saying my knees will explode, they, along with my lower back and hips never felt better - even riding back along the beachfront after completing the 52km EWS race in Finale I was upright and comfortable.
Standing up and putting down the power, the Raaw still kept pushing forward with little lag despite the long travel and 'scary' numbers on the weight scale. It also provided great uphill traction, with its only climbing downside being the low bottom bracket that makes pedal strikes more frequent. This is less of a problem when you're fresh, accurate, and on top of your game, but it did cause me a few problems when my eyes and heart rate were in the red when racing - I completely messed up two climbs by striking pedals and losing all momentum and a lot of time at the EWS. I would really look for something shorter than the 170mm cranks I chose to improve ground clearance on technical climbs.
The Twistloc remote did help with this by increasing the ride height, firming things up, but still giving good small bump compliance and grip. This is easily the best lockout system on the market and improved the climbing of the Raaw even further. Firming the suspension up by twisting the grip is easy at the bottom of the climbs, but can be slightly more difficult if you press the PopLoc button when already committed to a descent and holding on for dear-life – you need to release your grip slightly to let it rotate back to the open position but this becomes natural quickly.
Descending There's barely anything that got in the way of the Raaw on the way back down the hill. Big wheels and lots of travel meant it could take on everything with ease and I would be happy to take this bike to many full-on downhill tracks. The coil sprung suspension was superbly supple off the top, giving great traction and a smooth ride. The rear suspension had support in all the right places and plenty in reserve for the biggest of hits.
The low bottom bracket gave a secure feeling and placed me in the bike, rather than on top of it. This also helps to carve corners but being so low does slow down the switch between directions somewhat. The downside of a steep seat angle, which becomes clear after riding downhill bikes with more relaxed or set-back saddles, is that the seat is getting in the way between your thighs more - the longer 170mm Reverb helped to get it out of the way, but I wouldn't say no to 200mm of drop.
Overall, the Raaw is an awesome machine that really can do it all. If I was nitpicking I would raise the bottom bracket slightly. I proved this was my preference by running a 500lb spring to raise the dynamic ride height, giving more breathing space when descending and climbing through rock sections, and sped up changes of direction; the Raaw has plenty of stability so raising the bike a little shouldn't have any negative effects.
Really ? A 170 29er monster flying on uphill ?
What is a carbon cross country bike then ? A space rocket ?
Common sense has been lost for ever in MTB.
My 15,3kg alumimum, Capra 29 with 170mm and DHR2 Exo climbs really well, too. Did 6600hm in Finale 2 weeks ago, uphill. And on none of the trails I would have wanted a carbon CC bike for the downs.
I wonder why that top tube is so short. With that steep seat angle, the XL should deserve a longer reach, say 530mm. The seat tube could be 490 or so also.
XL frames should not fit folks that are a mere 185cm, but 195cm. Otherwise I would call it a "L".
No guys, No Paul Aston, the reference is not a mid trail full sus bike for reference (like a Spectral).
As a top reference, the best climber is a 8/9 kg lightwheight XC bike. And the worst a 170 29er weighing more than the empire state building.
PS : don't get me wrong, I have a Meta V4.2 with heavy coil weighing a ton. It "climbs" for sure, but it's a tank.
What's the point overwise ?
Body weight and the vehicle weight have a quite a different effect imo.I know this beyond any doubt: I can feel losing 2# on my bike easily but can't tell on my body at all.
Put DH tires on a 9kg bike and it will feel worse than a 16kg bike with XC tires.
And the analogy for the 500lbs woman doesnt make sense as she doesnt lift at all. You´ll notice 5kg difference in bodyweight- trust me, especially if youre somewhat fit.
Thank you @paulaston Paul Aston for measuring the actual angle, though you should clarify, I believe you measured the actual seat tube angle - not the seat angle...
Ps, you may not have mentioned XC specifically, but it's assumed given you replied to a thread where everyone is comparing this to an XC bike due to a comment Paul made.
Really why not add some lead to your frame then? I don't think so!
HA: 67º
STA: 76º
CS: 450mm
Reach: 500mm
WB: ~1200mm
I'd run a 50mm stem with drop bars, disc brakes a 50T chainring with a 10-42T mtbike cassette so I could run only a rear deraileur and a dropper post so as to enhance cornering performance on fast downhills.
gizmodo.com/100-years-of-tour-de-france-bikes-map-the-evolution-of-709973821
Also curious to your view of BMX bike geometry?
Have only ridden roadbikes and I love the low weight and lack of drag from the hubs. Handling is utter shit, sizing is terrible (compensation with long stem) and at the time I road with rim brakes which was scary compared to my Shimano Saint MTB.
BMX race in my opinion needs longer bikes, especially in reach and a slightly slacker headangle. For street and vert the geo is fine because you are looking for something super small and agile to throw around. I do, however, find it strange stronger tires aren't used instead of singleply tires with 100psi in them...
PS: Great link! Fascinating stuff!
As someone that rides a newschool fat tire road bike, your geometry makes no sense even for the far extremes of what "road" constitutes.
It seems illogical that a bike built to ride fast on wide roads should have a wheelbase of around 1000mm and a near vertical head angle with short chainstays, The fact the taller riders are forced to ride bikes with slacker seat angles and longer stems so that the wheelbase does not grow very much compared to a shorter guys bike is just insane!
But hey if you enjoy your road bike more power to you. I like to have bikes that handle well instead of having to compensate and ride around terrible geometry.
There are plenty of bikes out there that don't conform to norms, fashion, or to UCI regulations. Specialized made a "F-UCI" bike a few years ago, as an example. People are able to go nuts on geometry, but they haven't ended up with that geometry because it'd handled absolutely stupidly slowly and honestly take all the fun agility out of a road bike.
What you see as "terrible geometry" is stuff that's been experimented and toyed with for well over double your lifespan. People run that geo, frankly, because that's what is fun and that is what works best.
But hey, you clearly know better than everyone else, Mr. Pinkbike Commenter.
I can understand why you think my views are like that though. I've seen the change in geometry in MTBiking from the 90s XC hardtail (pretty roadlike) to the bikes of today and I truely believe the UCI restrictions has stifled the further evolution of the roadbike geo. Now within the restrictions of the UCI roadbikes have been taken to the max. We see that with aero, shifting, materials, etc.
But like I said if you like your current bike great, it doesn't work for me though and I'll wait until the UCI lifts the ban to see how things pan out or barring that I'll put some cash together and make my own.
Keep the word "UCI" out of your posts. It's a buzzword, and completely irrelevant to what we're talking about.
Yeah, those silly star nuts that have worked perfectly well on nearly every mountain bike on the planet for the best part of two decades.
I also have a Woodman one that is aluminium and a little more refined. Azonic used to make them as well.
I think BMX guys use them too.
I think the bike looks awesome, but lets not kid ourselves, this is DH bike which you can pedal uphill.
Did he really move to Birmingham from Finale? Man that´s tough.
On the other hand, if the weld can handle the strain it might give some nice compliance in the frame.
It's my big bike though, and I want it to be tough, and last. You do notice the weight, but it climbs well for it's size
The tool slot is neat too.
That’s what I ride currently. Geo feels great, I just feel like it runs out of travel pretty easy. Spec may be on the lower end, but it performs great. The grip fork is better than the 2018 f36 rc2 imo.
Given the quite steep STA resulting in the ETT in a size L department for most of bikes out there, would you actually upsize if it were possible?
Regarding the saddle, how does it compare to Specialized Power or Selle SMP offerings?
Under 14Kg I don´t even believe the machine can take the abuse so then it somehow slow me down. Also with that weight I believe it goes much calmer when pointed thru rockgardens and roots.
What is not so good for me is once you find interesting frame talking about geometry, you are pushed to go 29" nowadays which sucks for me
It helps that I'm the same height and have the same trail preferences!
the bike should perform for an entire season (manufacture service interval) without issues - that service, then again;
The BB is slightly higher in the "low" position, but I smash into rocks and roots regularly on climbs with 175mm cranks.
The suspension seems to be a bit different, though - looking at those graphs. The Capra needs to be pushed with force to activate the suspension, but on the occasional huck to flat uses 90% of travel.
Like raw but longer ?
Or more like car but longer ?
Within this context, it makes complete sense. Would you compare an XC bike with a 4.5kg road bike?
Pipe pipe
hast stash
joint joint
crack cut
I’d be far more upset with the usage of an e-bike tyre on the front.
NN is fine front or rear, great trail tyre.
But I would never think that Paul Aston would use it in Finale Ligure!
Seems many here ( nothing unusual for Pinkbike) hammer away at keyboards before even bothering and to read the specification list.
And how about you keyboard engineers? The frame would comply at least with ISO 4210 or can’t be listed for sale.
Sometimes the mediocrity of thought and comments here beggars belief
- No Engineer Ever
If the FEA shows a better frame than the carbon version then yes, use the aluminum.
Notice at all how carbon frames got chunkier after 2017?
It's because the FEA on those frames pointed out that their aluminum counterparts were stronger and stiffer.
Literally no reason for anyone to be ignorant ever.
I'd say that is a pretty big con for the consumer and the company, seeing as that's a consumer base of almost a half billion affluent customers.
I wish Ruben all the best but he should think about bikes ascetics if he wants to sell it anywhere else other than the Reich.
How can you have an idea if ANY of the bikes you have listed are going to ride better? The reviews of the RAAW floating around all have one thing in common, which is how well engineered they are, and how well they ride, compared to pretty much anything on the market.
It's clearly right up there as one of the very best 29" enduro race bikes on the market.
Have fun spending 2k+ on a bike built by people that get paid $1 a day or something like that.