PINKBIKE FIELD TEST
2020 Orbea Occam
The most 'trail bike' trail bike
Words by Mike Levy, Photography by Trevor LydenFor 2020, Orbea consolidated several their Occam models into a new 140mm-travel trail bike meant to do all the things pretty well. Remember the more enduro-focused Rallon that we
reviewed a while back? Think of this bike as its lighter weight little bro, with the shorter-travel Occam also using a single-sided strut on the front triangle (but on the right side this time—just because), and the same concentric axle pivot for the rear suspension.
This colourful 28.1lbs test bike is their top-of-the-line M-LTD model that goes for $7,999 USD, but you can get onto an aluminum Occam with the same geometry and suspension kinematics for $2,599 USD. Not enough colour? They offer the Occam in their '
MyO' custom colour & spec program as well.
Occam M-LTD DetailsIntended use: Trail
Travel: 140mm
Wheel size: 29''
Frame construction: Carbon fiber
Head angle: 65.5-degrees w/ 150mm fork
Chainstay length: 440mm
Reach: 474mm (lrg)
Sizes: Sm, med, lrg (tested), xl
Weight: 28.1lbs / 12.7 kg (as pictured)
Price: $7,999 USD
More info:
www.orbea.com Orbea lets riders configure their Occam with either a 140mm Fox 34 or 36 with 150mm of travel. Can you guess what we chose? The steep and rocky terrain around Whistler and Pemberton saw us go for the bigger fork, but not just for the extra travel; it also relaxes the head angle from 66 to 65.5-degrees (
an earlier version of this review incorrectly stated it as 65-degrees). The M-LTD's price tag gets you the Grip2 damper and a DPX2 shock, as well as a set of fancy carbon wheels from DT Swiss, and an XTR drivetrain with a set of carbon cranks from Race Face to match their carbon handlebar. There's not a lot of room to upgrade on this one.
The Occam uses a concentric axle pivot that works exactly as it sounds: the pivot rotates around the axle. Sound familiar? Trek's ABP and Dave Weagle's Split Pivot (found on Salsa and Devinci bikes) both use a concentric axle pivot, although the similarities end there. Compared to its predecessor, the new Occam sees the leverage ratio changed at the start for improved sensitivity, while anti-squat was bumped up by 7-percent to play nice with wide-range cassettes. Anti-rise was changed, too, dropping to a lower percentage to minimize the rear brake's influence on the suspension. Aaaand let's go riding now.
ClimbingWhile an enduro bike has a narrower focus, a modern trail bike has to give you more than just a fighting chance on all of the climbs, regardless of how steep or technical they might be. Even so, there's a massive difference in how companies approach the challenge. The Occam is just a couple of pounds lighter than other bikes on test, but it feels like more than that on the trail - those carbon hoops sure are nice when you're accelerating out of countless switchbacks up an hour-long technical climb. The Occam is also easier to live with than bikes with longer wheelbases when switchbacks are folding back on themselves and littered with rocks and roots, but it doesn't have anything over the Norco Optic in those moments.
Orbea says they've made this bike's rear-suspension more sensitive, and while we don't have the old Occam here to compare, it does feel supple. That can only help your cause, as can the big ol' Maxxis tire we installed and then only inflated to 21 PSI, and neither Kazimer or myself made any notes about sub-par traction. Those dabs will be all you, I'm afraid.
On the efficiency front, the Occam didn't feel like it was lighting a fire under my ass at any point, but it certainly did its job. It feels like a more efficient Stumpjumper.
Descending Some bikes in our trail bike category made my brain automatically switch into 'drop your buddies' mode, especially as the speeds picked up. The Occam on the other hand has a more traditional trail bike personality that, while more competent than any of its peers from just a season or two ago, isn't quite as surefooted as the slacker "plow-style" bikes when things get rowdy.
Don't get me wrong, with an appropriate reach it ain't exactly a nervous nelly. I mean, it was tied for second in timed testing for me, so it's "lively fast" rather than "stupid fast" on the descents.
If there was a bonus side-hit of any kind, I found myself doing it more on the Occam than any of the three other bikes. While the Optic is a very different kind of trail rig, the two were easily the most entertaining of the bunch.
On the suspension front, Orbea has done well to come up with a useable 140mm that'll work for a lot of different types of riders. The DPX2 shock is ideal for this type of bike, and Orbea includes a large-sized volume spacer to add if you're looking for more progression. We spent time on the bike with the stock setup and didn't have any issues, but the added progression did work well for more aggressive riding as the bike carried more speed over rolling terrain that rewards pumping.
Given that the Occam was the most trail bike-feeling trail bike of the bunch, it's probably a good thing that we decided on the 150mm Fox 36 instead of the 10mm-shorter 34 that would have sped up the handling by a touch. Pemberton and Whistler have more than their fair share of steep and rowdy lines, and it's a place where trail bikes need to be ready for anything.
The reality is that the Occam is probably one of the best trail bikes for most riders and most places. It's capable enough for almost all of us, and I'd choose it over bikes like the Stamina if I weren't taking big chances all the time, or if my main focus was just to cover a lot of ground.
That being said, most people won't buy it because it's a short(er) travel trail bike that doesn't have 160mm of sweet sweet bail out travel when your eyes exceed your skill.
Stumpy Evo geo is almost there, but the reach is short (I ride an XL, so more so they don't make my size), and STA is still a bit slack.
It might be a cultural difference but I find it a bit arrogant to say most people dont need (read: deserve) a rowdy bike because they are slower/more timid than me / my perception of rad riding.
I think it all depends on how you ride and what you want. The 'big bikes' these days seem to all pedal really well, even if they deaden the trail a bit, they seem to provide a lively ride due to the speed you can comfortably keep in comparison. The bigger bikes will be more planted, but provide a different style of ride than something like the Optic, Smuggler, or Occam, which requires a more active riding style.
I think it ultimately comes down to preference and what the rider wants, you could argue that riders on short travel bikes 'aren't as hardcore' (per your post) or make the same argument of riders on big bikes for having so much travel. Personally, I'd like to see that nomenclature and phrases like "too big for this area" and judgements made about a riders skill die off in favor of people advocating for bikes based on their ride quality and type as opposed to more arbitrary, subjective factors. If I want a more compliant, dead feeling ride, that's on me to decide. If you want to ride playfully, pop off features, etc, then that is up to you choose a bike that fits that role.
You just need to remove the shock spacer and get a new fork airshaft
I stick by my statement that most people don't need a rowdy bike. When talking in broad generalities, most people are riding relatively tame trails and they do not need a ton of travel/bike, they just think they do because their endur-bro friend or the bike industry told them they are the best for Richy Rude, so therefore it's a good bike for them.
FYI, I live in Utah where we have access to some pretty gnarly terrain which absolutely can warrant a big rowdy bike, but most of the US doesn't have the terrain to warrant a bike bigger than the Occam for example. I realize my example and experience is US centric, I just have less experience in Europe and am not qualified to propose that most people in Europe would be better off on a trail bike.
There is a reason Rocky Mountain came out with an Altitude and an Altitude BC Edition, one for the majority of riders and one for those who can and do ride gnarlier trails regularly.
My crazy suggestion would be that trail bikes should be tested on trail bike terrain and "downcountry" bikes are tested on even mellower terrain.
My Ripmo is a lot of bike but still fun for just about everything.
I like the sentinel and the smuggler too
It’s proper technique to use the left hand unless you have your breaks set up moto style. That way your right rear brake is covered in case of an emergency break situation.
I was first taught it in a road riding course 20 years ago. That’s when mountain bikes were much closer to road bikes.
@i-am-lp:
My hatred for hydration packs is second to none but I totally get your comment about collapsing at the top of climbs. Depending on the length I also like to collapse at the mid point or several points along the climb too.
I guess I am dreaming of the next Pole which will have a 100 degree seat angle where the seat mounts on the stem. That will help me on the climbs.
@Dethphist:
Anyway - Trail bikes are stomping on the coat tails of what was Enduro not more than 2 or so years ago. 120 to 150mm rear travel and although I ride a multitude of stuff, I am happy with my 150 rear and it pedals well. Effective seat tube angle - could be steeper though.
More generally speaking, many high-end bikes tend to have similar or even longer delivery times where I live, so it is not uncommon. The industry seems to have moved to a direction where manufacturers do not keep bikes in stock and produce them on batches, thus causing delay for most of us.
in the riding parts of the video i can barely look at how the bike bounces around under levy .. looks awefull.
we teste two pivot firebirds 29 this year one with aluminium and one with carbon wheels and the difference in traction was huge. the carbon wheeled one was so stiff that it felt really shitty, bouncy and uncontroled for all of us while we instantly loved the bike eith the aluminium wheels.
just wondering if that was a factor here too?
This is the part that is hard for the consumer. It used to be that different category bikes (cross-country or trail or enduro for example) could be separated by travel and weight. The lines are blurred now, and even the short travel downcountry and trail bikes weigh 30 pounds or more. Except this Occam, which weighs at 28.1 (as pictured). This is where it gets tricky. If 28 pounds feels "more than a couple pounds lighter than other bikes in the test" then what is a light bike? What is worth paying for? The difference between the entry and top level bike from just about any manufacturer is about 2 pounds and $3500-4000 (provided the frame is the same material) This holds true if you look at Santa Cruz bikes (they post the weights), and the difference between carbon and aluminium rims is very small as well.. Nobody publishes frame weights and if they do you can't compare because they are weighed differently. Is it frameset with shock, and seat post collar, etc, or what? And there are people who are saying geometry matters more than weight........My feelings are sort of like that of Mike Levy here. A 28 pound bike feels pretty light. A 31 pound bike doesn't generally feel light. But it doesn't make sense. If two pounds doesn't matter, then buy the aluminium bike and be done. But the weight does make a difference in trail feel. The cross country racers know that a bike in the low 20 pound range for a dual suspension race bike matters. So it's confusing for the consumer when people say you could ride a 30.5 pound short travel downcountry bike alongside a cross country bike, but it will have more capability. What? It's all crazy now.
Couple thoughts...
Think it would be helpful to dive into and compare the specs on the bikes in the same class a little more...like this bike has the longest or shortest wheelbase or reach of the bikes in its class etc. or bike A has a slightly longer reach then bike B etc. ...More frame details.
Do the frame sizes run spot on or on the large size etc.
Also you touched on anti squat, but would like to hear more about the leverage curves of each bike and if running a coil is an option. Does the bike have adjustable geometry?
Think maybe less time talking about the components?
Shame im left handed and very very tempted by the Occam
Appreciate any thoughts on what to choose. Ride predominantly in (semi) flat country with occassional trips to the Alps. And yes, The Tallboy would also make a good choice...
Can you include the graphs so we can see them too?
Interesting - Its progressive, yet tied to an air shock with a large volume spacer which is seemingly wouldnt need. I didnt see the leverage ratio posted in the Norco Optic review, but its interesting that you noted that was also fairly progressive, but it was spec'd with a shock that should be more linear in nature.
Its funny to me that so many bike companies are now producing progressive suspension setups but spec'ing air shocks, and many of them are very progressive air shocks at that. YT has been doing it for years, but others are now following suit. Santa Cruz's new bikes are super progressive, yet you cant fit a coil on one until you get to the MegaTower - makes no sense to me.
Anyway, I digress - My point really is I'm surprised you liked the heavier Norco so much more than this, given its fairly similar geo, wheelbase, and this Orbea has nice AS/AR and LR numbers. Wonder how much comes down to that shock?
Lucky bastids!
I own a Devinci Troy do you think this Orbea could help me to improve riding?
www.orbea.com/ca-en/about-us/1969-1982
m.pinkbike.com/news/inside-orbea-175-years-of-manufacturing-heritage-2015.html
Then, assembly in Spain. You can argue that the bike became a bike when it has been assembled in Spain.
It s actually the most common practice. "Made in" = "Assembled in"
I believe the law is very vague (probably on purpose) and mention a percentage of the fabrication but do not give an unit. Weight, material price, sweat, time, salary of the worker, some kind of unicorn unit?
Basically they can stample made in spain as long as they put a sticker on the bike.
They would buy furniture as kits from Malaysian trade shows, assemble them at the shop and stamp "Assembled in Europe Chair". Then there's the tiny little industrial areas in china that are given names of European countries.... but that one may be a myth.
I nearly bought an Rallon because I thought it was made in Spain. Talked to a sales rep at a bike fair here in Switzerland and he told me straight away that the frames are made in Asia.
I saw pictures of the "made in Spain" stickers too, but apparently this sticker is earned by assembling and painting the bikes in Spain.
I think if you want to have a frame that's made in Europe, most of your options are Steel (Curtis, Stanton, BTR, and so on etc.) and a few Aluminum (Pole, Nicolai, Kavenz, Orange) companies. Carbon... only a handful like Hope, Stoll and Unno.
at least it’s going to be one of the kind not one of those mass produced china specialeds.
Who cares about milk toast ....
More cowbell!
geometrygeeks.bike/bike/orbea-occam-2020
Norco: 3; Orbea: 1; Pole: 2; Intense: 0
Obvious f*ck up on the left handed grab water bottle, somebody flipped the CAD drawing and once the molds got made it was too late. Now it is a feature of the bike. Those spaniards make some nice bikes frames, loved my Alma hardtail.
In the future PB should use the same wheels on all the bikes. Doesn;t seem like a good head to head when you compare a 8k carbon wheled 28 pound bike against a 5k 30+ pounder.
Also why no overlay videos of you guys doing the same run on the bikes like they do in the downhill races. At least hotlap quality intervals times please. None of this 2% faster crap. How is a man supposed to decide which bike to get with that!