Field Test: 2020 Pivot Mach 4 SL - Thoroughbred XC Racer
2020 PINKBIKE FIELD TEST
Pivot Mach 4 SL
There's no hiding this bike's World Cup XC pedigree.
Words by Sarah Moore, Photography by Trevor Lyden
Pivot Mach 4 SL
There's no hiding this bike's World Cup XC pedigree.
Words by Sarah Moore, Photography by Trevor Lyden
Pivot’s Mach 4 SL replaces the long-running Mach 429 SL as the company's premier cross-country bike. Given how that market is now firmly in the 29er camp, Pivot decided to shed the "29" part of the name and revert to the simpler Mach 4 moniker since wagon wheels are basically a given in that category these days.
The updated geometry aims to help racers win World Cups while making the bike more versatile. Pivot says that "the new school geometry also lets this cross-country race bike flirt with trail bike versatility outside of the course tape." Building on that theme, riders can choose between a cross-country build with a 100mm fork or the Trail version of the bike that comes with a 120mm fork and a dropper post.
The updated geometry aims to help racers win World Cups while making the bike more versatile. Pivot says that "the new school geometry also lets this cross-country race bike flirt with trail bike versatility outside of the course tape." Building on that theme, riders can choose between a cross-country build with a 100mm fork or the Trail version of the bike that comes with a 120mm fork and a dropper post.
Pivot Mach 4 SL Details
Travel: 100mm (r) / 120mm (f)
Wheel size: 29''
Frame construction: carbon fiber
Head angle: 67.5° (geometry)
Chainstay length: 431 mm
Reach: 427 mm (size Medium)
Sizes: XS, S, M, L, XL
Weight: 26.6 lbs / 12.07 kg (as pictured)
Price: $10,399 USD
More info: www.pivotcycles.com
Travel: 100mm (r) / 120mm (f)
Wheel size: 29''
Frame construction: carbon fiber
Head angle: 67.5° (geometry)
Chainstay length: 431 mm
Reach: 427 mm (size Medium)
Sizes: XS, S, M, L, XL
Weight: 26.6 lbs / 12.07 kg (as pictured)
Price: $10,399 USD
More info: www.pivotcycles.com
The suspension on the Pivot Mach 4 SL is a variant of the dw-link layout that has marked every Pivot full-suspension bike since the inception of the company in 2007, but the shock is now oriented vertically instead of horizontally, tucking in front of the seat tube instead of residing under the top tube. This allows for a lighter and more compact front triangle. It also means that there is room for a water bottle to fit in the main triangle on every frame size, and the XL size can even handle two bottles.
The Mach 4 SL uses Boost hub spacing, a PF86 press-fit shell, and while it is built solely for 1x drivetrains, it does have ISCG tabs if you’d like the security of a light-duty chain guide. All frames are compatible with Fox Live Valve, but not Shimano Di2.
Prices for the complete bike range from $5,200 USD for the Race XT 12-Speed to $11,999 USD for the fully electronic AXS and Live Valve build. We tested the Mach 4 SL Trail XTR model which comes with Shimano's top-tier mechanical group and brakes, DT Swiss XRC 1200 Spline wheels, and Fox's Live Valve suspension. All of that will cost you $10,399 USD.
Climbing
Chloe Woodruff won a World Cup Short Track on the Mach 4 SL earlier this year and finished in the top-ten almost every race, so we had a feeling that the Pivot Mach 4 SL wouldn't be a slouch on the climbs with that kind of pedigree. It turned out to be an accurate assumption, and the Mach 4 SL did a great job of keeping the rear wheel stuck to the ground; I was able to make it up steep and technical climbs that really tested the limits of grip. While the suspension wasn't quite as plush or comfortable as the bikes with more travel, it didn't skip around or feel uncomfortable harsh.
Less commendable was the 73.5-degree seat tube angle on the Pivot Mach 4 SL, which was the slackest of all the bikes in the down-country category. It's 74.5-degrees with a 100mm fork, but as the head tube angle slackens slightly with the more travel, the seat tube angle does the same. The effect was noticeable as soon as you pointed the bike uphill. I slid the saddle all the way up on the rails and still wanted to be more forward, especially when it got steep.
Speaking of steep climbs, the 34-tooth chainring also felt pretty specific to cross-country racing, as did the 75mm stem. There were no complaints about the weight, though. Even with the slightly heavier Live Valve setup (adds 220g / 0.5lb), this was one of the lighter bikes in this category, which was nice on the longer climbs and made that 34-tooth ring more manageable.
Descending
One downside of riding the Pivot Mach 4 SL with the 120mm fork was that the reach was a paltry 427mm. It has a 440mm reach when ridden with a 100mm fork, but when you over-fork the bike it ends up shortening it by 13mm, which reduces some of the benefit of that extra suspension. You get more travel up front and a slacker headtube, but you’re moving the rest of the geometry in the opposite direction of what you want.
Both James and I felt that we were constantly fighting to hold lines on Pemberton's chunky, steep terrain, and it was the most nervous of the five bikes we rode. The suspension on the descents was not the most predictable or supple, and instead of being able to relax into the descents and catch your breath, you had to really hang on and focus on the task at hand.
On the trails in Pemberton, it felt like the Live Valve-equipped Mach 4 SL had a hard time keeping up with the terrain at times, especially when faced with repeated hard impacts.
Both James and I felt that we were constantly fighting to hold lines on Pemberton's chunky, steep terrain, and it was the most nervous of the five bikes we rode. The suspension on the descents was not the most predictable or supple, and instead of being able to relax into the descents and catch your breath, you had to really hang on and focus on the task at hand.
On the trails in Pemberton, it felt like the Live Valve-equipped Mach 4 SL had a hard time keeping up with the terrain at times, especially when faced with repeated hard impacts.
Timed Testing
Our timed lap for the down-country bikes was around 8:30 long and started with a 0.5km singletrack climb up Wild Potato, before heading up the Smell the Glove Connector, a loose double track road that got steeper and steeper towards the top. Then, we dipped into Econo Dave, a spicy black diamond trail with lots of steep rock rolls, before looping back on the loose higher-speed Dark Forest. The climb accounted for half the distance but about two-thirds of the time.
Don't forget that timing is just one of many ways to judge a bike, and fast doesn't always mean it's the best for everyone.
Sarah: ''I had the slowest descent on this bike, which was 8.4% slower than the fastest bike. On the uphill, I was 6.1% back from fastest and the overall lap time was a three-way tie for second-fastest, 5.4% back."
James: "I had my slowest overall lap time on the Pivot at 4.3% back, but was third-fastest on the climb at 2.8% back from my fastest lap time and 1.9% slower on the descent."
Pros
+ Fast on less-demanding terrain
+ Good pedaling efficiency
+ It's super light
Cons
- Feels like the 120mm fork is an afterthought
- Slack seat tube angle, short reach
- Nervous on the descents
The 2020 Pinkbike Field Test was made possible by support from
Race Face apparel & pads, Giro helmets, & Sierra Nevada beer.
Race Face apparel & pads, Giro helmets, & Sierra Nevada beer.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
Can we just go with:
110mm or less = XC or XC race (F-Podium XC, Mach4 XC race)
111m-130mm = Short Travel Trail (Joplin, Optic, Trail Pistol)
131mm-160mm = Long Travel Trail (Occam, Primer, Stamina 140)
150mm-180mm = Enduro (mmhmm...overlap but it's cool...)
180+ Freeride fun or DH race (send it...)
≤120mm = Up Mountain
≤140mm = Some Mountain
≤160mm = All Mountain
≤180mm = Big Mountain
≤200mm = Down Mountain
Bottom line is, you gotta actually try/pay attention to geometry and spec.
I'd say more like 108.6mm or less for xc
108.7-131 low-short up down xc traveling trail
132-144.8 high short upcross downcountry travel trail
144.8-149 low-duro-coutry cross mountain trail
149-154.22 middlemedium downmountain uptrail trail criss-cross trail trailtrail
154.22-161.11- long-dong-duro...up...down
161.11-161.12 a bike, with two wheels
161.13-179 freetrail
180+ jumpcountry downtrail
I mean you got yer mullet-countries, mountain-mullet-duros, and so on.
Almost all from you is the XC end of the spectrum
Almost all from gravity is the DH end
Pick your bike weight/geo/travel combo based on where you are in that continuum.
If it comes from an electric motor you're probably actually getting your power from PB arguments and rage, but that's a whole other category.
There will always be class defying bikes out there but they are the exception to the norm.
101 to 130 = Up-duro
131 to 145 = Fun-duro
146 to 160 = Bikes Formerly Known as Enduro
161 to 175 = En-duro
>175 = Down-duro
Cushion
Cushion+
Simi-squish
Squish+
Double barrel squish+
nailed it.
i'm headed to the shop this afternoon to ask for a "long-dong-duro" bike and see what they come up with.
probably an sb165 and referral for a divorce lawyer.
This Pivot like the Joplin, F-Podium, Top fuel, etc. are XC bikes vs. Supercaliber or Spark RC are XC Race Bikes.
You could use the same for Trail bikes being either Trail or Enduro vs. Trail Race or Enduro Race...
There's a real difference between a race bike and high-end non race bike despite them being the same "category"
Maybe this would be a better way to group the bike tests - who's going to buy it? Or perhaps to put it another way; what sort of person wants to be seen on this bike?
Do you dress like this? Have you ever used any of these words or phrases without hint of irony or sarcasm? These are the bikes for you.
Much easier for picking your next bike than looking at a load of boring numbers.
That's a big difference from a Hightower/Megatower (just to stay in the SC family for ease of comparison) which too have their differences. The hightower will be great for your ride with some techy/fast descending that also requires some climbing and maybe some mellow connector trails but is step below the Megatower when you go lineup between the tape in an enduro race.
about It, use to be wheel size, ....for life,
29" are... well wagon wheels.
But what do I know... I think enduro is just a racing format.
#slopedurocross4life
Classifications are necessary when comparing bikes. My original post was referring to classifications for this field test to group the tested bikes. For example, If I were in the market for a short travel trail bike right now I would be comparing the Tallboy, Trail Pistol, and the Optic. The Mach4 and F-podium wouldn't be included because they lean too much to the XC spectrum.
All I say is that is very artificial to divide bikes by their travel in 20mm gaps, cause after all, there's not that many types of riders, wich by what you see in the trails are 1- the "lycra/long distance/take it easy" crowd , with hardtails and short to medium travel bikes, 2- the lift/push crew with DH and long travel, and 3- the rest, who pedal up and also want to go fast down, with travels all over the place depending on preference. That's why nowadays you gotta take the bike as a whole to see it's intentions rather than the travel alone.
Re-read my last comment please, is about how nowadays you can't use only travel to categorize bikes. xx.
Can you post your idea of the proper nomenclature?
I am not sure how Pinkbike managed to do that, maybe is the stuff that does not belong (like the tires) but still ... they probably forgot to take out the tool kit and the water bottle! It would not surprise, from a publication that thinks that one timed lap is a way to compare bikes.
But besides the weight of my bike, starting with a sub 5 pounds frame (PIvot quotes 4 pounds with no shock) it is a major achievement to reach to a more than 27 pounds bike (with pedals) that is supposed to go out racing!!!!!
I assume the 27.5 must make a big dent but you would be hard pressed to find a downcountry bike ( legit fork and dropper post, 29 inch wheels) that can break the 24 pound barrier and still handle being ridden aggressively.
Just my $0.02
I'll bet that thing hauls up the hills!
I am a weightweenie (just for fun), the bike is 11 speed (Garbaruk), XTR, DT Carbon Spline, Next LP crank, Carbon everything including saddle and all bolts/valves/head cap alu/titanium etc ... it can be done, and I still think that the weight quoted by Pinkbike is wrong ...
And that's why this is a bit silly: instead of checking the claimed weight (pivot says: "starting at 1840 grams", that probably is a small frame with no shock, translating into a 5 pounds or so for medium) they repeat something they read on the Pivot web site without seemingly even know what light means for a XC racing bike.
Not mention piling up fork and tires that add a ton, and obviously not being used to ride a XC rig ... so they get scared and go slow in their single test run and complain about it ... what a waste of time!
Disclaimer; I really really really like this bike. It's on my short list of rowdy bikes I can race XC on. Weight is a very small portion of what makes a bike, and I really don't believe it's even close to top dog. The frame's suspension is absolutely amazing, it's a very stout stiff frame, and the geometry is essentially as spot on as possible for riding in this area. In a lot of ways, I see this frame as a spiritual successor for the Process 111. I want.
It's clearly on the other end of the spectrum to the GG and the Juliana, but the Mondraker (100/120mm 29er with 66.8° HTA) and the Trek (115/120mm 29er with 67.5° HTA) are much more directly comparable to the Pivot.
We did specifically tell Pivot we were going to test this bike in the 'downcountry' category ahead of time and they were enthusiastic about it. Based on based on Pivot's marketing materials, travel, geometry, and more trail-oriented spec we hoped it would be right at home in the aggressive XC terrain we were testing on.
I'm old enough to remember when we had XC, Trail, Enduro, Freeride, and DH.
Really old means you rode the same bike in XC race and DH.
Despite years of PB reviews chastising manufacturers for creating new "standards", they are effectively trying to create a new standard of their own, the "Downcountry" category.
Let's review this week so far:
1) an xc bike (overforked and overweight)
2) a trail bike (pared down to try an xc outfit on.. but the muffin-top still shows)
3) a trail bike (plain and simple)
4) an xc bike
5) am I wrong?
Hate the term. Love the reviews.
Categorization is always a challenge, and our goal is to use logical groupings of bikes to show how they're different rather than necessarily better or worse. There will always be disagreements on where to draw those lines.
It's clearly on the other end of the spectrum to the GG and the Juliana, but the Mondraker (100/120mm 29er with 66.8° HTA) and the Trek (115/120mm 29er with 67.5° HTA) are much more directly comparable to the Pivot.
We did specifically tell Pivot we were going to test this bike in the 'downcountry' category ahead of time and they were enthusiastic about it. Based on based on Pivot's marketing materials, travel, geometry, and more trail-oriented spec we hoped it would be right at home in the aggressive XC terrain we were testing on.
My current 150 bike has better speed, geometry and handling on the climbs than any of the 120 bikes I rode on the same trail just a few years ago. At the same time, much more capable on the descents. Geometry has eclipsed travel in how pedal trail-worthy a bike can be, the divide is not so clear anymore when trying to categorize a bike by travel. Example - check out the SB100 review... travel number says firmly xc, ride report is much more rowdy. You can eat your cake, and have it too right?
Right, but honestly it’s a continuum and the latest gen of bikes blur the lines. What’s xc race, xc, or dc? What’s trail, all mtn, or enduro? Trying to create a thinner slice of the pie and call it something just makes things messier.
Imagine being someone wanting to get into mtb and trying to understand and decide what bike to buy. 5 categories in a 40mm travel range?? Talk about making an exclusive club even more exclusive. Say no to DC!
Saying "I'm old enough to remember when" and then mentioning something that happened/ existed a very short time ago, is a smart ass way to point out the absurdity of a situation.
I'm old enough to remember when people understood sarcasm.
Using that unironically is the same as the years we've all endured of 'muh millennialz' on every channel amd newspaper. It's lazy, dismissive, and boring already. People don't always get sarcasm when it's text on a screen--assuming people are over-50 out of touch dumb dumbs for it is just silliness, and makes your previous attempt at a joke all the less funny.
Additionally, my .02, is that it make no sense to directly compare bikes with such hugely different price points. Why go to the trouble of making all the tires the same when the builds/weight are so different?
I'm chuckling reading comments from people expecting scientific rigor out of a MTB test. PB is giving you some general traits these bikes have to consider when you're narrowing down your own search. They don't have an unlimited staff and time. They did good work on this.
A side note about Sarah and some of the comments I've read here: I remember reading the comment section after one of her reviews. I wouldn't call the commenters negative, but there were a few. Then I watched the video and saw how she cleared a rock climb - pretty sure 75+% of the commenters don't have her climbing skills. So I'm inclined to believe her opinions.
However... the flip side is often what you start out with needs critique, change, refinement; so that it grows into something really amazing and worth your effort!
So for instance I think it was a good idea to have "control tires" and take that aspect out of the equation. But I do recognize the logic in the critique that the tires used for the "down country" group might not suite what "most" people think a DC bike should use? It's a legitimate point, though it's also abstract and personal and in no way invalidates their tests/choice of tires for the job.
On the flip side, when the control tires used on the mullet bike lowered it's BB height so low that pedal strikes became a detriment to the ride I think that should have been noted, and then another solution/round of testing needed to happen. Certainly it was a valid and worthy test result, buyers need to know of that risk should they also not like Plus tires and that it was just a "garage hack" and not a bike designed as a mullet.
It was the tire change that caused the pedal strikes. If you throw a 160mm fork on one of those DC bikes, you can't complain that it stopped climbing well and the front end is flip floppin all over the place!
SO, I hope they keep their idea for control tires but that next year maybe they will spot ways to improve it? I hope they look at different bike groupings. Or maybe just call the grouping by what it was, "Travel" and then just pick the best bike at that amount of travel instead of saying this 130 bike is DC, but this 140 bike is Trail, and this 150 is still trail, etc. I don't make these comments because I'm just trying to be a jerk. It's cause I think they are valid points and I hope next years tests will evolve in ways I can't even think of and get better and better!
Make no mistake I LOVE these tests!!! They are awesome. I come to PB for the content which is the best on the net IMO. BUT I come back again and again for the COMMENTS!
7 years and multiple iterations later and they are still firmly on the shorter end of the spectrum.
Then I came back and read the review... Oh, hard no
Then I read the comment that these guys are still using a pressfit BB... laughing rudely while repeating ‘no’ in the tear speckled face of the designers
no tolerance issues with threaded BB’s
Those issues don’t exist with press fit. Not to mention that threaded is over 100g heavier.
He talks about this topic from the point of view of someone who manafacturs BBs and deals with problematic frames
That said, it was another engineer who convinced me that press fit makes sense for an alignment sensitive component.
Thing is I doubt there’s that many good bike mechanics on Pinkbike and even fewer engineers do I’m not to concerned.
Obviously paraphrasing.
Damping changes made in 20 milliseconds sounds quick, but it err isn't. It feels bangy and over damped most of the time, then bottoms out when things are getting wild
And I like Levy's reviews honestly. He's sort of a loveable chucklehead but he clearly has skills.
1) Those who were wanting the downcountry reviews to be an "XC" review.- "This review is terrible, how could you group it with the more burly bikes? This is a great bike, you guys just messed up the reviews and categories! AAAAARRGGG!"
2) Those who interpret "DownCountry" as Enduro/Trailish- "Wow, gonna steer clear of this bike, sounds too XC!"
Downcountry means different things to different people. XC Plus vs. Fast Trail.
@GalacticBikes that is categorically false. The likes of Specialized, Santa Cruz, Transition, etc. are not cheaply made in any way.
How is it at all redundant to be threaded? It makes installation, servicing, and removal much easier and with less risk to the bottom bracket.
Not all press fits are created equal, true, but I have had bad experiences with them in basically all cases.
It wasn't all problems with creaking, but ones that didn't creak also required enough force to remove that they had to be trashed when a simple servicing by way of flushing and re-greasing would have sufficed.
Sure, having a threaded bb shell means you can screw your frame up by screwing up the bb install, but my personal experience and anecdotes from others over the years leads me to believe that jacking up the threads is possible, but a non issue in the grand scheme of things.
All the while pressfit, using the same source of personal experience and 3rd party anecdotes, either creaks like mad, or basically can't be serviced and need to just be replaced anytime they start to need some love.
Interference fit components are all over their products.
You raise an interesting question. I myself am curious how a CRF450R, pretty much the top of the food chain dirt bike, retails for less than this bike. How is it that Honda can produce a rugged, racing motor in addition to all of the additional parts necessary on the high end dirt bike, for less than this carbon framed, motor-less bike with far fewer parts? Something doesn't add up. Frankly, I take these prices as egregiously marked up and an outright slap in the face to the middle class. I predict things will change when the next recession hits.
My wager? If they would have made the climb even 1/2 way legit (more than 1000 vertical feet) this would have been among (or the) fastest bike. (1000 vert up, 1000 vert back down)
You have to test a XC bike doing what it was really intended to do.
The most "DC" bike of the group is the Mondraker with its progressive geo. Too bad they couldn't get the back end to feel the way they would have liked.
Check out the results from the BC Bike Race prologue and the final results. The top 3 finishers in the sub-7 minute prologue were the same top three after 13+ hours of racing.
Output (wattage) and power to weight isn't going to come into play in a ~10 minute lap in a material way. It just plain doesn't translate which is ultimately what XC is all about.
Sarah, I'd think you, as a former XC world cup racer would be the FIRST to point this out! The gains you make over a long climb is where a bike like this would start to shine, and it'd *very* likely be the fastest.
I'm not defending it as the ultimate bike in this test, just saying your testing is incredibly flawed. You need real climbs to test something that is designed to be raced in XC. If you can't handle doing a timed 1000 foot climb/descent type of lap for each of these bikes, kindly, don't test them. Find people who can. That isn't some absurd level of fitness.
While I think a descent can do a great deal to show the performance of a true enduro (or even long travel trail) bike, I think you guys have completely blown the test on the XC side of things.
Me: When do you plan to have more x-brand helmet in a size-whatever?
Old Pro License Holder: Well when I was a pro roadie we didn't wear helmets.
Me: Okay, are you open Sundays?
OPLH: Not in winter, still gotta have a day off even though I'm no longer racing pro.
As for Sarah, I had no clue she was a former pro. Thought they had her on staff as the "other end" of the Levy and Kazimer equation. Good for her!
That said, thanks for adding a timed component to these field tests, offering some "data" support to the subjective commentary.
Put another way, I can drive a Prius and a F-250 at the same speed for 10 miles and the difference in gas consumption is relatively minimal. Where it starts to matter is over a much longer period of time.
You *have* to test these bikes over a longer period of time. Nobody races XC for 8 minutes. Period.
Again, if that's too physically hard for these testers, find better (more well suited) testers.
Its a stupid name for something that is really to indicate "its a cross country bike". The Mach 4 SL is a bike that is *designed* with XC racing and marathon XC in mind. I don't see the word "downcountry" once on the Pivot site.
Any way you slice it, 8 minutes of riding is a complete shit way to test a bike designed around going the distance. The same way driving a Prius hard for 8 minutes is a shit way to test its ultimate efficiency.
Again, you *have* to go put this bike through its paces over a longer climb that is more representative of the riding THE ULTIMATE BUYER would be doing on this bike.
I don't know anyone buying one of these bikes looking to go fast for 8 minutes.
This is not an accurate statement at all. If you are going to be all nitpicky on the chosen size of their laps then use an accurate analogy. My back of the napkin math indicates that F250 would have used between 2.5 and 3x more fuel in 10 miles. It would have used 2.5 to 3x more fuel in 100 miles too.
Anyone can hammer any bike super hard for 5-10 minutes. In fact, having entered XC races on enduro bikes (just for fun) I'm often able to stick with the lead group for the first 10-15 minutes. Then the reality of what I'm trying to do sets in, weight starts to matter more and more, efficiency starts to become noteworthy - especially in the uphill direction.
I'm not alone in my findings. One could even apply some math to back this up, especially when the trail is more of the up and down variety. Its going to skew things the wrong direction for the intended application.
I'm frankly shocked this is even a debate.
no, your analogy is just bad. and it's not about how much is left in the tank. so say they have the same size tank- lets say 10 gallons for easy math. In 10 miles the f250 would burn about .66 gallons. The prius would have burned approximately .2 gallons. You'd have 93% in one and 98% in the other. 5% difference for the pro xc racers is 1st vs last place.
So there's math. But really, it's more accurate to say 2.5 to 3x the burn rate.
When you're testing a bike that you're thinking about buying, how many feet of climbing does it take to know if it's a good climber. There are 2 sections of trail near me that are my go to tests for climbing. Each is maybe 100 feet? How it behaves on those 2 sections will pretty much tell me if a bike is a good climber. More time may give me 'nuance' but I've got a pretty good idea pretty quickly.
Analogies aside I get the feeling you've never raced XC (or anything for that matter). As someone who has been in well over 400 races in my life I can firmly say you need a lot more than 100 vertical feet to really tell (on the clock) what bike is faster. Sure you can get a feeling if a bike pedals well in a short distance, but true climbing performance isn't something you'll see on the clock over 100 vertical feet. You need to put a bike that was purpose built for something into its native habitat.
I'm half way tempted to post my own race results and strava times along with what bike I rode for each effort to fully articulate my point but your heels are dug in pretty firmly. I can also tell you have very little idea what you are talking about outside the vacuum of "riding on the internet".
Pinkbike has never been known for their XC pedigree. Sarah racing world cups 7 years ago is cool, but she should have spoken up and put these bikes through a more proper objective test.
This isn't a relevant test for the space.
And btw- this test never tested anything marketed as a cross country bike.
Here step into my office over here. That's $13,222 after dealer fee, taxes, and other fees.....how much can you afford a month? Ok, let me go speak with my manager. Now, would you like the silver, gold, or platinum service package? What do you mean you don't want the warranty? I've never heard of such a thing! Wow, you are sure a tough negotiator, we are losing money on this deal! Now for just an extra $12/month you can have the protection package with crank arm covers and a piece of tape on the downtube...."
So why does over forking an xc race bike somehow transform it into a different category?
Proper XC 80-100/
Trail 100-120/
All mountain 130-150/
Enduro/ FR 160-180/
DH 200+/
i would think that by moving the seat forward on the rails, you could at least adjust your STA by 1 deg ?
I was also a bit surprised that this bike wasn't right up there in the uphills compared to the others.
I'll do this occasionally, and I'm surprised by how often I'm wrong. I'm just curious as it might add another but if info into ride characteristics.
Anyways, this bike is very uninteresting to my tastes, but otherwise I think highly of the brand.
Have to wonder: Would this bike be really stupendous/ fast in more rolling smooth terrain which is so common on much of this planet?
It certainly would have fared better, no question, and I thought we conveyed as such in the video.
I think y’all have already gotten the point that we think the Tallboy and Trail Pistol would have been better compared to the optic etc. We get it... you had to draw the line somewhere.
And yeah, PF92 isn’t ideal for 30mm cranks for the reason you specify, but keep in mind it wasn’t originally designed for it, either. It does work (I’ve run it that way myself), but yeah, you usually compromise the bearing longevity.
As for PF92 being a Shimano thing, that’s also true. But Shimano only establishes the dimensions for the cups, and leaves it to the frame/bike brands to figure out what shell dimensions are best. It’s kind of silly if you ask me.
As for the creaking in general, is your bike still making noise currently? Creaks can be a PITA to isolate, but definitely not impossible. Unfortunately, there are a lot of places to investigate on a full-suspension bike.
It’s not just the NIMBY, St Anne and number of other World Cups would have them complaining. I think this is half the reason we still see bikes like the Epic etc being built. These riders tend to think that a fast bike should feel so nervous that it wants to kill you on anything technical.
ABSOLUTELY NUTS.
Thanks
But it's also uncomplicated and most definitely not for everyone.
on 30mm rims too.
know your engineering first before commenting...
This review has me shaking my head. James, your earlier review was glowing. Is this more about environment and less about the bike itself? Even more confusing was your tepid response to attributes you lauded in your earlier review. Full disclosure I enjoy reading your reviews at cyclingtips and my last two bike purchases (including my non-live valve Mach 4SL) have been influenced by your commentary.
Well, that makes two of us then.
I meant everything that I wrote in that earlier review, but I also had to keep in mind that what I experienced then just wasn’t what I experienced in Pemberton. Out in Fruita (where the launch was held) and at home around Boulder, the bike was great. Good handling, great suspension manners.
But the terrain in Pemberton was more “complex”, and certainly steeper, and it just felt like the suspension couldn’t keep up, and the geometry too XC in that situation. Maybe it would have been better without the Live Valve? Unfortunately, I can’t say since that’s all we had.
That is what I suspected. I remember the Epic WC review you did which was vetted in the article at Laramie Enduro. If we are looking at the Horse for the Course type of review this proves that there is not really a "quiver killer" and there are certain rigs that are more suited to one type of terrain. I suspect that an Epic Evo which is another popular XC bike would have suffered a similar fate in Pemberton.
Being able to review the same bike in two different settings and give a review that differs certainly reinforces your credibility as a product reviewer. Keep up the good work!
I have never seen any WC XC racer on Maxxis Minions!! please Pinkbike if you are going to do a test on a pure XC race bike keep the bike strictly XC.
Imagine if they were building engines...