First Ride: 2021 Evil Wreckoning

Jul 8, 2020
by Mike Kazimer  
Evil Wreckoning

Evil's longest travel 29er has received even more travel for 2021, along with new geometry numbers and 12x157 rear axle spacing. That's pretty much the whole scoop in one sentence, but there's obviously more to it than that.

The original Wreckoning had 161mm of travel, and the latest edition gets an additional 5 millimeters of squish for a total of 166mm. The bike's designed to be used with a 160 or 170mm fork, although team rider Bubba Warren already demonstrated that it's possible to run a dual crown fork on it at Crankworx Rotorua earlier this year.

There are two colors available, black and Coral Reefer, which, it turns out, is very hard to match on a computer screen. It's sort of a flourescent salmon pink / orange color, with a hue that varies depending on the light.
Evil Wreckoning Details

• Wheelsize: 29"
• Carbon frame
• Travel: 166mm (r) / 160 or 170mm fork
• 64.8 or 64.2-degree head angle (170mm fork)
• 430 or 432mm chainstays
• 12 x 157mm SuperBoost spacing
• Colors: Coral Reefer, black
Weight as shown: 32.1 lb / 14.6 kg
• Price: $5,799 -$8,099 USD
• Frame and shock: $3,299 USD
evil-bikes.com


Complete bikes begin at $5,799 and go up to $8,099 USD, with five different build kit options, along with the ability to select either an air or a coil shock, including a Push Elevensix. The frame only with a RockShox Super Deluxe coil shock is priced at $3,299 USD.

Evil Wreckoning

Frame Details

The clever little features found on Wreckoning LB like the built-in sag-o-meter and the integrated chainguide didn't go anywhere, and there's still plenty of room for a water bottle inside the front triangle. A metric, trunnion shock is now used, and the bike is coil- or air-spring compatible. The DELTA link suspension layout (a link-driven single pivot design) remains, but the leverage curve has been altered slightly to match the additional travel.

Like the recently released Following, the Wreckoning now uses Super Boost, 12x157mm rear axle spacing, along with a wider main pivot and larger hardware in order to increase the overall frame stiffness.

Other details include a 30.9mm diameter seatpost, internal cable routing with guide tubes to elimate rattling, and a threaded bottom bracket shell.

Evil Wreckoning
The Wreckoning now has 12x157mm Super Boost spacing.
Evil Wreckoning
Evil's 'sound mounds' help minimize chain slap noise.


Evil Wreckoning


Geometry

The new Wreckoning is longer and slacker than the previous version, although Evil didn't go quite as far as some may have expected. Remember, this is the same company that has a gravel bike with a 66.6-degree head angle...

With a 170mm fork the Wreckoning's head angle sits at either 64.8-degrees in the Low setting, or 64.2-degrees in the X-Low setting. Switching from one geometry position to another isn't hard, but it is a little time consuming, since it involves removing a total of 10 bolts to make the swap.

The reach has grown on all sizes, and a size large now has a reach of 482mm, up from 452mm on the previous version. There's a steeper seat tube angle to accompany that longer front center; Evil says it's 76.5 or 76-degrees depending on the geometry setting. I'll dig into this topic a little more in the ride impresisons, but keep in mind that the actual seat tube angle is around 68-degrees – that means taller riders may find themselves sitting more towards the back of the bike than they'd expected based on the numbers on paper.

The Wreckoning's chainstays measure a short 430 or 432mm for all sizes.

Evil Wreckoning
Dave's Extra Legitimate Travel Apparatus delivers 166mm of rear travel.

Evil Wreckoning
Graham Agassiz throwing up a smoke screen. Photo: Mason Mashon

Ride Impressions

I was able to sneak in two decent rides aboard the Wreckoning in order to get an initial feel for what version 3.0 of this big-wheeled brawler is all about.

I clocked 7,000 vertical feet of climbing between the two rides, which gave me plenty of time to ponder its geometry and pedaling performance. The 32-pound weight is reasonable for this category, especially considering that's with a coil shock and a Zeb – gram conscious riders could easily knock off a pound of weight with a different suspension set up. That coil shock does start cycling into its travel when you stand up and really put the power down, but it remained reasonably calm during seated pedaling efforts. I did make use of that climb switch, though, especially on long logging road grinds, partially to keep the bike sitting higher in its travel, which helped a little with the seat angle.

Yes, it's time to talk about that seat tube angle. To put it bluntly, I don't think the Wreckoning's seat tube angle is steep enough, at least with a 170mm fork. With the dropper post fully extended I felt more stretched out, with my weight further over the back of the bike than I would have preferred. The last few bikes that I've tested – the new Transition Sentinel, Guerilla Gravity Gnarvana, and Commencal Meta TR, all put me in a more comfortable, upright riding position due to their steeper actual seat tube angles.

The Wreckoning's stiffness was noticeable, especially with the Zeb up front. It has a very solid feel, and the short back end makes it easy to snap through tight turns and pop off of jumps. That coil shock and 170mm fork are conducive to plowing straight through obstacles, but I'd hesitate to call this purely a 'plow bike' – there are longer and slacker options out there that fit better into that category. Instead, the Wreckoning feels like it has plenty of travel to get you out of trouble when things get extra-rough, without being a one-trick-pony that only works on the steepest, gnarliest tracks.

The travel is very well managed - it's there when you need it, but there's also enough support to keep it engaging on smoother, flowier sections of trail. That adds an unexpected level of versatility to the Wreckoning, making it suitable for much more than just shuttle and lift-served adventures.











419 Comments

  • 474 71
 Superboost is the dumbest fucking trend. Change my mind.
  • 80 121
flag bman33 (Jul 8, 2020 at 11:03) (Below Threshold)
 Why are you so irritated by it? It's just 157mm (150mm with end caps like 142m was to 135mm). Any modern 157 DH will work, boost or not
  • 92 39
 @bman33: End caps don't give additional stiffness. Your second point is wrong, the chainline will be affected.
  • 35 3
 I've got a 2016 hardtail with superboost, way ahead of its time I wish they would just decide on a standard though cause its bloody stupid having all the different ones that do the same thing
  • 56 5
 deonvg is not complaining about the move from 150 to 157. he is complaining about the move from 148 to 157.
  • 69 21
 @cascadiac: Thanks. Superboost is still an unneeded standard for trail bikes.
  • 22 2
 I keep my hubs and wheelsets longer than frames. Probably won't be switching to 157 spacing anytime soon. Bummer would of thrown a leg over this one. Loved my version 1.0, but the lack of water bottle option took its toll. The DELTA is such a good suspension platform though. Torn.
  • 29 30
 Double down, Superboost and still running Single Pivot suspension....
  • 29 9
 @deonvg: Actually the chain line is exactly the same. See for yourself on the link below: I have built up several bikes as such. Great to have choice. Pinkbike commentators just love to whine and bitch I suppose.

enduro-mtb.com/en/super-boost-plus-standard
  • 84 11
 Boost is the stupid standard. Superboost makes way more sense. Too bad most of the industry just went with the flow.
  • 43 12
 @deonvg: Then don't buy a trail bike with it. Same thing was said when Shimano went 7 speed to 8-speed when they debuted XTR, I hear endless folks say 100mm travel should be ONLY DH bikes back in the day, disc brakes are too complicated, 1x is a fad, etc. etc.
  • 50 32
 @deonvg: Not as dumb as the trend of indignantly whining about bikes you don't like instead of just riding something else. It's a superior design to 148. Get used to it.
  • 34 2
 @deonvg: I have no problem with Superboost from an engineering standpoint (probably makes sense), I just have a garage full of Boost wheels. I'd amend your claim to "only one standard is needed for trail bikes, and Boost has won that battle."
  • 35 35
 @thegoodflow: What could be more pinkbike than bitching about bitching? Your comment history is pretty miserable. Hope you get better bud.
  • 9 9
 Depends on the bike. It likely allows Evil to produce the combination of longer travel, shorter chainstay, and seatube angle that would not be possible with a 148 hub. Other bike designs have different constraints and parameters and don't need it, for example Gnarvana goes for longer chainstays to get around these geometry issues instead.
  • 14 23
flag thegoodflow (Jul 8, 2020 at 11:49) (Below Threshold)
 @deonvg: I appreciate your concern for my well being. Likewise, I hope you don't lose too much sleep over the bike industry shoving another standard down your throat.
  • 82 3
 Lol, what is going here. For all the people who apparently think this is a new standard: s14761.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Superboost-Plus-Standard-Enduro-006-1950x2048.jpg

Frankly Superboost seems inferior to 157 DH due to unequal spoke tension, but regardless the fact that you can run any 157 hub from 10 years ago or brand spankin' new Superboost hub in the same dropouts make a frame more versatile than Boost. 12x148 is the real bastard child, things should have been left at 135/142 and 150/157 spacing, full stop.
  • 16 1
 @HaggeredShins: Thank you for the logic sir. Big Grin
  • 1 5
flag deonvg (Jul 8, 2020 at 11:55) (Below Threshold)
 @Drew-O: Sure
  • 18 6
 @HaggeredShins: Superboost is just a marketing term. It's a 157 hub, and hub manufacturers can and will continue to build their 157 hubs with whatever flange spacing they choose. The new trend is wider nds flange spacing, and they're calling it superboost. For what it's worth, I also prefer the dishless spacing of the old 157 hubs, but I think you can build a good wheel with either approach.
  • 5 7
 @cascadiac: not exactly, the BB is aligned to a different centre, chainline affected. This is why Shimano and others have boost cranksets.
  • 11 4
 completely agree, this will 100% hurt sales
  • 16 3
 @JDFF: did they stop the links from snapping and frames from breaking yet? Gabe fox used to just send me bags of linkages lol had him on speed dial
  • 22 3
 @HaggeredShins: Agreed. The original boost was a far dumber trend. Should have just gone straight to 157 and saved boatloads of waste.
  • 23 3
 It blows my mind people are mad at 157. When it was always there. 148 was the new dumb wheel standard we should have skipped..
  • 20 11
 @deonvg: Boost 148 is more of a trend than 157mm. Boost came after 157 and is already on the way out. Change my mind.
  • 8 6
 @skinnie-master: Why do you think Boost 148 is on the way out?
  • 19 2
 Boost was. Should have gone from 142 to 157 and skipped the BS inbetween.
  • 13 5
 @toad321: they can't get our money of they don't keep changing the "standards".... Which is silly since its not a standard if it's constantly changing...
  • 11 2
 @bikegreece: This is mostly false--for the vast majority of crank manufacturers chainline is altered by chainring (this is true for practically all DM cranks). Shimano affected chainline of past cranksets with a spider in that interface itself, hence boost variants.

The primary difference you're alluding to is that most DH bikes that utilize 157 hubs also run 83mm BB spacing while SB continues to use the 68/73mm standard. The only measure that impacts chainline from this end of the equation is chainring position, which quite frankly, is quite easy to compensate. The chainline of the hub does not differ.
  • 27 2
 Stupid name aside it's just 157x12, it's been around for a decade now, it's easy to get parts for and it's fine. The industry at large would have done a lot better to not invent 148x12 and go with 157x12 in the first place.
  • 9 9
 Just a way to get people to spend more money! Want to switch to a superboost bike? Guess what, you'll also need new hubs or an adapter at minimum.

One can argue that regular boost is unnecessary as well. Is 6mm really that much of an improvement? Highly unlikely... Should've went straight to superboost if they wanted to increase spacing.
  • 7 8
 @stumphumper92: So someone buying a $5000-$8000 bike is going to cry about a new hub or adapter? It isn't Evil is hiding it or being sneaky about it. In addition, Evil doesn't sell hubs or adapter so they make no money on those components anyway
  • 9 4
 @Fix-the-Spade: agreed, boost was at least 10 times dumber than superboost
  • 5 3
 @bman33: sounds like you’ve got some negative friends...I’ve been riding since 1990 and never heard anyone say any of that.
  • 1 6
flag iantmcg (Jul 8, 2020 at 12:47) (Below Threshold)
 @stumphumper92: the other dumb thing about boost is the big excuse was 29ers needed the extra stiffness. If that BS was true then why did boost come out like 5 years after 29ers did?
  • 10 3
 @bman33: I know people who's bike is worth more than their cars and a full year's rent. Just bc people buy expensive bikes doesn't necessarily mean they have money. They just prioritize riding over other possessions and sometimes go broke in the process. To each their own. Not saying Evil was hiding anything, but new standards influence people to believe their current bikes are outdated, which isn't really true.
  • 8 7
 Amen, I love evils (well old ones I guess) and won't buy this bike or any bike with Super Boost. I've invested too much in boost wheels at this point.
  • 3 8
flag DirtbagMatt (Jul 8, 2020 at 13:11) (Below Threshold)
 @deonvg: You sir, are the correct one in this banter.
  • 29 4
 I'll have a quick go... it follows the same path as to why we're getting 38mm stanchion-ed single crown forks. We're riding these bikes just as hard and fast on the same gnarly terrain as a DH bike. So why wouldn't frame and part designs that are made to make a DH bike stiff enough to handle the terrain and allow the suspension to work... also not benefit longer travel enduro bikes. There's a lot of confusion regarding super boost... some people think it's all about making a stronger wheel with no dish, or too allow more room for bigger rubber or being able to keep shorter chain-stays on longer wheelbases bikes to keep the flick-able fun factor. These are all just side benefits. The real benefit is the extra space allows for beefier rear triangles and most importantly suspension linkages. The beefier suspension set-up makes for a stiff platform that allows your suspension to do what it's supposed to do... it can also remove a lot of load from your shock, again, allowing it to move in the plane it's supposed to more easily. Much in the same way a 38mm stanchion will reduce flex and stiction between the tubes and allow the fork to do it's job better under extreme forces... the same happens on the rear end of the bike. A properly designed super-boost bike with a 38mm stanchion-ed fork will ride more like a mini-dh bike that you can still pedal to the top of the hill easily
  • 12 2
 I'd like to know what the Q factor is like. Did Mr Kazimer rub his shoes/calfs on the stays more than usual?
  • 3 0
 Hey, you have 157 up votes, spooky.
  • 7 1
 @HaggeredShins wrote:
"Superboost seems inferior to 157 DH due to unequal spoke tension"

Only if you use the same number and type of spoke on either side. A better solution is to use 2:1 spoke count or thick spokes on the drive side and thin spokes on the non-drive. If this isn't done, then yes, it's a wasted opportunity and there's little advantage to the wider spacing.
  • 13 0
 @deonvg My 12x142 11 speed still runs strong and I can still find parts easily and even upgrades to new hubs/wheels....no bike "industry" person or fellow rider has ever told me I need to upgrade or that my bike sucks, no need to change minds, ride what you got.
  • 6 0
 @thegoodflow: I thought the name superboost was just Pivot trolling SRAM for creating a new inbetween standard rather than going all the way from the off.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: It seems like we flattened out on diminishing returns a ways back as far as axle standards compatible with current drivetrains are concerned and I'm curious whether ideas like yours here become at least an experiment if not mainstay in wheel building down the road.
  • 6 2
 I'm fine with superboost, but this is Evil's first and last Pinkbike review. Enjoy it everyone!
  • 3 0
 @unrooted: I have been riding since about the same time, none were my friends bitching, just the folks coming into our shops or on the magazines.
  • 1 9
flag zyoungson (Jul 8, 2020 at 13:54) (Below Threshold)
 @islandforlife: Stanchion size and a few mm here & there is not everything. Back in the day there were 32mm long travel forks that were beefier than most 36mm and probably 38 forks we have today.
  • 2 3
 You can use a 9mm spacer on the disc side of a 148mm hub, then re dish the wheel for almost even spoke tension and works with 157mm wheel. easy.
  • 41 2
 Superboost isn't dumb, it's how the bike industry got to implement it that suuuuuuucks. It was a preexisting standard (old DH spacing) so a lot of the initial tooling and engineering to make it work happened years ago. What pisses me off is that the need for stiffer, stronger rear ends was known years ago. Trek and SRAM got together and created an intermediate standard (Boost) and foisted it on the cycling public. So is Superboost a trend? No. Is it dumb? No. Did the bike industry f*ck all of us with a sandy donkey dick when they created an intermediate standard for years KNOWING that there was a wider, stiffer, better pre-existing standard? Yep.
  • 1 0
 @HaggeredShins: 2:1 is standard on high-end Campagnolo / Fulcrum road wheels and has been used by Shimano, Specialized, and others. Different spoke thicknesses are occasionally used; it's such a simple and effective solution that failure to do so is a missed opportunity to optimize wheels. It's not even a problem if consumers can't keep track of the different spoke sizes and replace a broken spoke with the "wrong" diameter, especially if the replacement spoke is thicker than its neighbours.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: I recall seeing this with most of the Roval wheelsets that came through on new Specialized road bikes. I should probably have said in MTB, which I've never seen--are there any hubs out there that accommodate this?
  • 3 1
 How else are you gonna fit a 35-speed cassette in there?
  • 3 6
 Super boost blows
  • 1 0
 @HaggeredShins: Roval Control SL. Offset rims have become more common, reducing the need for 2:1 spokes. Super Boost would increase the benefit of 2:1.
  • 6 0
 @jgainey: so you’ve never ridden an evil before huh
  • 1 0
 @islandforlife: does this reasoning apply to short travel (for ex Following)?
  • 7 5
 Boost was a mistake. This is the way forward.
  • 2 1
 @peleton7: 148 is great for short travel bikes still. Y'all just like to bitch.
  • 4 1
 @jgainey: Single pivot will never be outdated.
  • 5 2
 @Zaeius: All the bikes with rear ends with heels that have already worn through paint and into the Carbon would beg to differ.
  • 11 3
 @deonvg: @deonvg: Because you are seeing smaller ride focused business taking it up. After Pivot, there is Knolly, Devinci, now Evil making the change. It provides a very real design advantage that true performance focused business are looking for. Remember that Boost was only chosen because it was as wide as a bike could be designed while still being able to fit a front derailleur. Now that Sram has killed the FD, companies are free to move in this direction to fully realize the advantages a wider chain line offers. More and more North American and hard charging EU companies will pick it up.

The delay in adopting this new hub width will be probably dictated by Europe. Their love for front derailleurs have probably held back the big companies from changing their frames to 157mm; I'm sure there are EU only spec's that we don't see in North America. Those Swiss alps are steep. An unknown benefit of E-bikes and the prevalent European adoption could decrease FD equipped bike sales in the EU to a level that makes one of the big 3 consider it.

The other hurdle in widespread 157 adoption would be the lack of ability to market a "technological advantage" or uniqueness to a brand. Recently, Specialized pushed 29, Giant pushed 27.5 and Trunion, Trek pushed 148. These have all allowed for a dramatic increase in market share as one company was able to beat the others to market with a perceived revolutionary change that customers had to have. Do you think these guys care if you can bring your nice 148 wheel set over to your new bike? Hell no. They have shareholders and targets they need to achieve. One will make a change and the others will be left sitting on boatloads of inventory at the end of the year.

On a technical side, I've got size 12 feet and am now running Shimano M8120 cranks (Shimano's boost 148 spacing crankset) on my SB+ 157 ride. Boatloads of clearance for my 32t ring, big feet, ability to run a 2.6x29" rear tire with extra space for mud. Why wouldn't I?
  • 8 9
 I was considering Evil until they started going with Super Boost. Sorry Pivot and Evil...I will never be buying one of your bikes. My choices just got easier...Ibis...Santa Cruz...Yeti...Revel.
  • 4 1
 @skinnie-master: @skinnie-master: I'm with you but it doesn't have anything to do with front derailleurs. The knolly fugitive, for example, is 2x compatible... it has internal fd routing and a low-direct e-type front derailleur mount.
  • 2 1
 @deonvg Really? I don't like the changing standards either but at the same time I do know how much Evil owners ask for bigger tire clearances while keeping the short chain stays. This frame can now take 2.6 tires in the rear, which is what everyone has been asking for. How can you do that with 430mm chain stays on a 29er without a wider hub spacing? On top of that, most bikes now run 12 gears, and huge 29" wheels that are made much stronger and stiffer by the wider hubs.
  • 3 0
 @dthomp325: how does using superboost enable them to have the seat tube angle they have? The wheel/tyre is where it is, the hub width doesn't have anything to do with this.

Plus their seat tube angle is just plain stupid. It's 2020, I thought it's been established steep seat tube angles are a good thing.
  • 2 3
 @R-M-R: I get the 2:1 as a benefit in the front, where you only have the disc brake, but in the rear you also have the drivetrain, so both spoke sides carry torsional loads as well. Where would you put the 2 and where the 1 spoke in that case?

2:1 might be a bit much if you ask me, but something like 3:4 would be very hard to achieve.

Plus how does using thinner spokes help? The force needed to reach equilibrium is the same and the direction of the thinner spoke is the same as well. Granted, the stiffness coefficient is different, so the strechiness of it is different and that gives you slightly different riding dynamics, but the angles are still unequal.
  • 1 1
 @brappuccino: could you please elaborate? :-)
  • 4 4
 Superboost really is the most pointless trend that the industry has come up with in a long time. It takes the only advantage that 157 DH has over 148 Boost and throws it right out of the window. If anything, we should move right to 157 DH and skip 157 SuperBoost
  • 1 0
 C'mon... it's "Eviltion"
just imagine, the number of interections until we arrive at 666!
  • 4 0
 @sundawg: I am still on 142, imagine I will shoot for super boost next bike. Skip a standard so I am not caught with an outdated wheel set next decade
  • 1 2
 @sundawg: Those brands will eventually switch to 157
  • 2 6
flag jclnv (Jul 9, 2020 at 7:53) (Below Threshold)
 You guys are missing the point - actual usage, not theoretical advantages. The fact is many more people are going to get annoying heel to chainstay/seatstay contact issues with Superboost. It’s bad enough on many Boost bikes already.

Unless we’re going to 83mm bb she’s widths etc on all bikes to accommodate the reduced clearance, people are going to have issues with something they weren’t even aware of before Superboost.
  • 4 1
 @jclnv: 83 mm shells are problematic from the Q-factor stand point.

Also, heel contact is a 'personal issue', I'm lucky that I haven't had any issues with it on any of my bikes, QR, 142 or 148. But yeah, Superboost amplifies this.
  • 2 0
 @Primoz: Not every tool should be used in every application. If reasonably symmetrical spoke stress can be achieved with an offset rim and different spoke gauges, there's no need for asymmetric spoke count. Alternatively, 2:1 may allow a wheel with closely matched spoke stress that uses identical spoke gauges and lengths for consumer convenience.

Asymmetric spokes gauges helps in exactly the same way as asymmetric spoke counts: the matching the stress in the spokes on either side. This leads to a better balance of strength and stiffness. For a 1:1 lacing, the side with worse bracing angle will always have higher tension. If thicker spokes are chosen for this side, they can have the same stress as the thinner spokes on the other side. The thicker spokes are also stronger and stiffer; combined with the poor bracing angle, the strength and stiffness of the spokes combine with the geometry of the wheel to produce better symmetry in the mechanical properties of the complete system.
  • 2 9
flag DoubleCrownAddict (Jul 9, 2020 at 8:22) (Below Threshold)
 @jclnv: Agreed, I feel like when I'm on a bike with anything wider than a 148mm rear hub the wide chainstays not only hit my heels all the time when pedaling but also are in the way on downhills. Superboost will always be a hard pass for me, even if I have to ride an outdated bike.

Then there is also the disadvantage of having it be more likely that you will damage or rip your rear derailleur on rocks because the rear end is wider.

Then also the fact that super boost makes your bike slower in terms of aerodynamics, anybody who has ever lost a downhill race by a small margin might appreciate that. Superboost is a lose, lose, lose proposition. No wins, just heavy losses in every aspect under analysis. And any easily marketing-manipulated idiot who thinks it's necessary should remind themselves that the World Championship DH race was won on a 135mm rear hub as recently as two years ago. How was that possible of this is such a necessity? It's not a necessity and all these people propping it are filled to the brim with marketing BULLSH#T!

I'm looking forward to the day when internal drivetrains are finally successful and we can ignore this garbage standard.
  • 5 1
 @jclnv: The issue with heal clearance is due to poor design by the frame company, not the hub width.

When I considered my first 157 bike, I measured a dozen bikes at the heal position and found that the Knolly Fugitive to have a narrower rear end than a bunch of 148mm bikes. Props to Rocky Mountain in their previous generation Slayer, the only thing I liked about that bike was the ingenuity in the chain stay to seat stay pivot.
  • 6 0
 @jclnv: Depends on the design of the bike. Take Knolly for example, their Trail 157 is only 1.5mm wider on each side over their 142 frames... not 148, but 142. Clearance is mostly a made up issue... more people experience clearance issues on 148 bikes than the new gen of 157's.
  • 5 0
 @DoubleCrownAddict: you had me until “aerodynamics”... if MTB’s travelled @ +100km/phr.. maybe... but they don’t.. and all of this is assuming the rear end will always be wider with super boost (which is untrue).. otherwise good post.
  • 3 0
 @DoubleCrownAddict: Sure, winning world championships has nothing to do with buying the two of the most dominant downhill racers of the last two decades and it has everything to do with the 11mm narrower width at their feet. It sounds like you are taking the marketing hype from the biggest marketing business in the industry?

What about all of the other races won on 157 bikes, surely you would recognize that more total race wins = a faster platform? Shouldn't a 'W' matter more than the message provided by the big S because they talked about it in a video? Sure narrower road bikes are more aero with a narrower crankset but a DH bike where you are turning corners most of the time? That is a tough pill to swallow.
  • 2 1
 @CDT77: I refuse to ride any tires wider than 2.1" on i21 rims. The aero advantage is significant. You're just flushing watts down the toilet.
  • 4 1
 @DoubleCrownAddict: What 'analysis' are you talking about? You're aware the most winning bike in DH history, the V10, is now 12x157--are you suggesting SC doesn't know what they're doing?

157 derailleur position is identical to any 12x150 frame due to using the same drive side hub shell dimensions and no one has been losing their derailleurs who wouldn't do so on 148. You're also talking a total difference in axle width per side of less than 1/5 an inch over 148 so heel contact is a more factor of outboard CS design than anything else, not to mention if this is impeding your aerodynamics you'd be the fastest athlete to ever grace two wheels.

I get that people see another thing to buy into and get upset, but this is a lot of gymnastics.
  • 4 1
 @thegoodflow: This article is about a beastly 166mm travel mountain bike.. in this application - aerodynamics (of the rear end of the bike in regards to which hub standard being used) is largely insignificant. I don't disagree in the skinny tire bent bar world the advantages could be real.. but not in this application. I don't buy it. Nope.
  • 1 1
 @CDT77: Yeah........ that's the joke.
  • 1 4
 @islandforlife: That’s pure marketing BS and a physical impossibility. Go check where your (or other riders) heel is relative to the rear axle and tell me widening it 10mm won’t cause issues.

No matter how much you bend the seatstay and chainstay material, adding weight and reducing stiffness in the process, dropout widths are pretty much fixed which leads to contact for many riders on 430mm or so rear centres.
  • 2 0
 @thegoodflow: LOL! Hard to tell sarc sometimes.. haha. Good one. You had me.
  • 5 1
 @jclnv: Here is Knolly's page where they overlay their old design and their new one (scroll down pretty far)... shows pretty clearly that they've managed to keep it very narrow. Remember your heels don't come close to the rear axle. Good thoughtful design can make 157 rear ends great. But you don't seem to want to listen to reason... the proof is in the pudding... riding them, I've not experienced any additional heel contact, yet the stiffness from the links on back is quite noticeable. Even Kaz, who's only 160lbs I think, mentions in just this first ride review that "The Wreckoning's stiffness was noticeable". You should get out and demo some with 157 rear ends and see what you think. Just remember the biggest differences come from riding very hard and fast through really gnarly terrain. If you're not up for that, no it may not make much of a difference for you.

www.knollybikes.com/engineering
  • 1 0
 Only in tight/slow bits. Otherwise it accelerates like a rocket and rolls over almost everything I encounter here in Arizona. I'll I get where you're coming from. I'm tired of the ever changing "standards" as well. But I gotta say, it works. I ride a Devinci Spartan 29. And coming from "old skool roots". I came over from a 160/165 mm, 26" bike. And one of the things that sold me right away was how stiff and quiet it was. Truly felt like a "pedalable dh bike".
  • 1 0
 =
-
  • 1 2
 F-ing Pinkbike. Tried to edit my comments. Now it has me locked out to where I can't edit. Guess I'll try again later,????
  • 1 1
 @islandforlife: I think you’re reading into it too much. They probably just did it for tyre clearance short stays. Wouldn’t you have to use a wider bottom bracket tube also?
  • 1 2
 @thenotoriousmic: what's a "bottom bracket tube"? Shimano sucks, amiright?!
  • 5 1
 @islandforlife: lol... hard to imagine 1.5mm making much difference for heel run. Wish they had just skipped 148 entirely and just gone superboost instead.
  • 2 2
 430 up votes say you're right my friend.
  • 2 6
flag benmoosmann (Jul 9, 2020 at 12:39) (Below Threshold)
 @iantmcg: Why tho? 157 SuperBoost makes literally no sense at all, since it looses the only real advantage that 157 DH has over 148 Boost. By and large, 157 SuperBoost has the same flaws as 148 Boost, just ever so slightly less - to a point where wheel manufacturers like DTSwiss say that the advantage is so small that it's practically not existent under real-life conditions.

So if anything we should skip 157 SuperBoost and go straight to 157 DH.
  • 2 1
 @benmoosmann: I say we skip the 157 superboost, and skip the 157 DH, and go straight to 157 Trail. What are you even talking about? 157 is 157
  • 2 1
 @thegoodflow: You just wait for 157 Downcountry, it will change everything
  • 1 3
 You are right. Hope f on r the way with its 135mm. In these dimensions that a mtb weighs incl rider we do not need those dimensions. Besides with people and feet getting bigger and gnarly trails we need thinner bikes, not fat ones to hit every rock by the side of the trail
  • 3 1
 @thenotoriousmic: Nope, lots of benefits including tyre clearance short stays, the main reason you do it is for chassis stiffness and suspension performance, especially at the extremes. Same reason DH bikes have been built to this standard for years. Same reason we now have a Fox 38 and Rockshox Zeb. You use the same 73mm BB shells, you just buy a SuperBoost bottom bracket. The SRAM DUB version is just called DUB SB+ and comes with additional spacers to keep proper chainline... so most of the same cranks all work with it.
  • 3 3
 @thegoodflow: LOL. No it isn't the same. Like, not at all.

Spoke angle, position and spacing of the flanges and center line is totally different on 157 DH and 157 SuperBoost. The biggest difference by far is that the spoke angles on the right and left side flange of 157 DH are identical, because they are evenly spaced apart from the centerline. That means that the left and right side spokes are all evenly tensioned, which makes for a super strong wheel.
On a 157 SuperBoost wheel the flanges are unevenly spaced, nearly exactly as they would be on 148 Boost. The geometry works out in a way, that 148 Boost has a spacing ratio of 62/38 left to right. Now, 157 Superboost has a spacing ratio of the flanges relative to the centerline of 60,5/39,5 - meaning that the left to right ratio is 1,5 percentage points more even than on 148 Boost, but it's still a far cry from the ideal 50/50 spacing ratio of 157 DH.
And that precisely is the reason why 157 DH as a standard makes a lot of sense in the absolutely most durable of applications, and 157 SuperBoost makes no sense at all - because it doesn't fix the "issues" of 148 Boost. It's a half-hearted approach to fixing a "problem" that very few people even ride hard enough to actually being able to claim they need fixed. That's also the reason why big companies like DTSwiss and Trek say that 157 SuperBoost is bullshit.
On the other hand, there's the whole discussion of changing the standard yet again. Not saying that 148 Boost makes the most sense because frankly it doesn't. Other concepts like Syntaces EVO6 are way better in theory. And honestly, when's the last time someone ever truthfully wrecked a wheel just by riding hard and not by having too little spoke tension or accidentally smacking their wheel into a rock. High quality modern wheelsets just don't really ever break and then there's just no practical reason to change a standard that isn't even inadequate in the first place.
  • 3 4
 @benmoosmann: bruh, I'm not going to read all that. Yes, much like 142 and 148 hubs, there are all different shapes and sizes of flange spacings. I also prefer the narrower dishless flanges, but you're acting like they're two separate standards. You can use whatever 157 hub you want in any 157 frame. Chill
  • 1 5
flag benmoosmann (Jul 9, 2020 at 13:37) (Below Threshold)
 @thegoodflow: I never said you couldn't? That wasn't ever my argument... Was just saying those two are completely different apart from having the same overall width. And that in general the little advantages that are there don't facilitate enough reasons to justify changing the standard yet again. Because yes, you could run a DH wheelset on your trail bike, but where exactly is the point in that?
  • 5 3
 @benmoosmann: K, nevermind. Sounds like you've got it all figured out. I'm surprised no one from evil consulted you when they were designing this bike.
  • 2 0
 @benmoosmann: Using that logic, what was the point of 148?
  • 1 0
 @thegoodflow: I'm waiting for 257 DH. Though I think the chainstays have to be a little longer.
  • 2 3
 @gnarnaimo: Pretty good question. As I've been saying, I don't think 148 is optimal either, but its good enough. There really isn't a point in switching to something that doesn't even provide any substantial advantage - not just for the sake of switching anyways.

And even with SuperBoost out of the picture: One could theoretically, instead of going with SuperBoost, run a DH wheelset on a trail bike with 157 spacing. But I still fail to see an actual point in that.
  • 5 0
 @benmoosmann: Right..but any advantages 148 would have gained (if any) would be present and even slightly better with 157...and if they had just moved straight to 157 they could have saved the planet from a whole load of waste and pollution, and potentially one could have recycled old 157 hubs if they wanted to. It seems like that would have been the better option to start with IMO
  • 2 3
 @gnarnaimo: Totally agreed on all points you made. Adapting 157 (instead of 148 ) from the get-go would have been the better solution. But now that 148 is the standard and change to 157 is neiter necessary nor beneficial at this point.
  • 3 0
 @benmoosmann: that is just it though, tons of people are still hucking 142. We might as well wait for 157 at this point. That is my plan. Still like my bike and wheel set and prices and availability suck anyway so I will wait a couple more years.
  • 2 0
 @tgent: Problem Solvers makes a $20 adapter. Just need to re-dish the wheel.
  • 2 8
flag jclnv (Jul 9, 2020 at 21:06) (Below Threshold)
 @islandforlife: I’ve just been around far too long to buy this “reason”/BS. I remember Vouilloz machining down his front axle for lateral compliance before thrashing everyone for a decade. I know for a fact that right now the best DH racers run far lower spoke tension than possible for the same reason. Why mediocre amateur weapons on Pinkbike who don’t get anywhere near the speed of the above think they need maximal stiffness rear wheels is a joke.

And no, your heels may not come close to the rear axle, even on stupid 430mm rear centre, large frames. However, the numbers don’t lie and clearance will be reduced, even with heavily compromised tubing profiles.
  • 3 1
 @benmoosmann: what do you think the point of running a DH wheelset on a trail bike is? Strength of course!
  • 11 0
 @Primoz: Because shortening the chainstays, increasing travel, increasing tire clearance, decreasing rear wheel axle width, and steepening the seat angle all geometrically consume space above/behind the bottom bracket. The specs for all of those parameters + your suspension design must be juggled around to get the bike you want. Increasing rear axle width reduces constraints on the other parameters. It seems like the 2 parameters Evil cares most about are long travel and short chainstays, so they need to adjust the other parameters to get those to fit. In contrast GG Gnarvana has much longer chainstays, which reduces constraints on the other parameters and allows them to fit a steeper seat tube and run a narrower hub, although they still need a custom offset to make it fit.
  • 2 1
 @dthomp325: You must really stop with your logic and reasoning. Damn you! Big Grin
  • 2 4
 @DrPete: If I'm ever forced to buy a super boost bike, that's what I'll do but it's still a huge pain in the ass.
  • 3 1
 @tgent: "Forced"???? As in gun to your head and threaten way? Not a single person is forcing anyone to buy anything...
  • 1 2
 @bman33: I'll clarify. If I'm ever buying a new bike and super boost is the only reasonable option, I'll suck it up and buy spacers and re-dish the wheel, but it's still a huge pain in the ass.

IF buying a new bike today you're forced to buy boost or another hub standard that isn't 12x142.
  • 1 0
 @tgent: I have a feeling 157 is going to be the new standard. But, i'll ride my current bike for a while so I am sure even more standards will pop up before I buy new again. If gear boxes are in fact the future, I'll likely wait until that is perfected and more utilized. Maybe I'll even buy an ebike just for the haters!
  • 1 0
 @bman33: I think you're taking him too literally........ If he wants to buy new bike down the rode and most bikes are on 157, then you kind of are "forced" to buy into it. OR buy used older gen bikes. 10 years from now our current modern bikes will still hold up, unlike bikes from 10 years ago today (though there's nothing really wrong with older bikes, but we can all agree modern bikes are much better in terms of geometry.)

We really are peaking in performance in mtb, but there's obviously always room for improvement! But IMO millimeters aren't much of an improvement to hop on board with...
  • 3 0
 @stumphumper92: The mild irony in what you're saying is that 12x157 has already been around for those 10 years. Its not like this is some ultra-hyped 156.6576754545mm nano micro polished futuristic hub axle that needs to be assembled in a laboratory with a voodoo ritual and proprietary tooling Noel Buckley hand fashioned out of timmys cups. SB is more or less something that has been around the block for a while, now with uncomplicating and pretty inconsequential changes to an interfacing part (hub & flanges).

Some people, quite obviously, get hyper-focused on this whole sTifFnEzZzZz element and forget that engineers and frame builders are generally the ones supporting this for the reasons @dthomp325 stated above.
  • 2 3
 don’t you think it’s weird we have massive 20mm axels on the front wheel but 10 or 12mm on that back which takes all the abuse and usually has to keep a swing arm square. Shouldn’t we be increasing the diameter of the axel not the width?
  • 3 0
 @thenotoriousmic: I think that's a really tough proposition. Modern freehubs like XD and MS are already so compact to support 11 and 12 speed that you would need to come up with a very clever bearing arrangement (and thus new cassette body) to make it work.

For the most part the rear tri is a much better structure compared to how sloppy forks are, especially single crown. Going bigger in the rear axle isn't going to have much if any redeeming benefit. Going back to 20mm in the front though, I'd get behind that any day.
  • 3 6
 You guys must all work for Apple. You seem obsessed with planned obsolescence.
  • 1 0
 @HaggeredShins: good point. 10 tooth cassettes might be an issue but don’t hope manage it with the hb160?
  • 2 1
 @thenotoriousmic: I'm pretty sure they went even bigger than that, but they also went full proprietary with brand new dropouts/spacing and axle. The biggest issue taking something like that to the MTB market seems to be getting tinkerers onboard with net new products that can't be used with common standards. Honestly I was sold on the HB130 and the only reason I bought a Murmur instead is how much Hope is pushing this propriety in-house stuff (and that steel is real). Eventually once people fully recognize 12x157 SB and DH are cross compatible, I don't think the two conversations will resonate as much.
  • 2 0
 @benmoosmann: Do you have or can you calculate wheel stiffness numbers comparing DH157 and Superboost for a 29inch wheel? It seems like the superboost would result in a stronger 29inch wheel than the DH157 because of the wider base.
  • 1 1
 @benmoosmann: This was a good resource if you want to read more:

www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel_index.html
  • 4 1
 150/157mm hubs have similar flange width to the front hub.

148mm is narrower by 3mm per side.

Do you think it is a good idea to have a rear wheel with less stiffness than a front wheel. Honestly wtf did the industry not switch to 157mm instead of 148mm?
  • 1 3
 @bjorntsc: because it's an industry that's so small that standards dont apply. Its. Its not the automotive industry. You can literally make a bike and fork with a 3 inch diameter if you wanted for next to nothing.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: granted on the spoke tension, but the wheel itself is still balanced through different spoke forces. But yeah, equal length spoke either side are a must for anyone designing hubs. Even more, equal length spokes side-to-side AND front-to-back, even more so if you're on custom spokes (straight pull and the like).

@dthomp325: let me reiterate. How does a wider hub shell enable them to have a given seat tube position (which is anything but good, looks like a typical 10 year old bike in that regard, so much for giving them space)? And not the 'geometrical consumation of space' spiel, actual hard facts, because of X they did Y. The only possibility I see is that using Superboost enabled them 3 mm more clearance for the tyre besides the chainring. Otherwise it's like I said, it's the tyre's position that defines where the seat tube can go. That and chainstay lengths, pivot/link positions and axle path (a high pivot bike has no issues with seat tube clearance due to a rearward axle path). So those 5 mm either side of the rear hub make exactly diddly squat of a difference, when they are almost half a meter behind the BB. It's the stuff that's mounted around the BB and the tyre that has an effect on it all.
And yeah, they have anything BUT a steep seat tube. The virtual seat tube angle is quite ordinary for modern bikes while the actual seat tube angle is slack as fsck. Chainstays are short, but given the position of the front chainring, the tyre and the MASSIVE slab of carbon between them, superboost did squat to increase the space around the area.

And a massive thank you to Pinkbike for not posting my comments with no warnings and losing the content, forcing me to type them out twice.
  • 1 0
 @Primoz: Draw lines between the pivot point and the rear axle, a wider rear axle gives provides a larger angle and more space behind the pivot.
  • 161 5
 An Evil review on Pinkbike?! Can 2020 get any more crazy...
  • 88 2
 pretty generous calling that a review!
  • 44 2
 @rookie100: calling... Haha get it... Ok I'll show myself out
  • 19 0
 If they review the new canfield balance, that would be the end of the world
  • 20 0
 @rookie100: I wreckon you’re right.
  • 6 0
 @Lagr1980: the people that know, don't need a review to tell them that balance will be sick
  • 4 6
 @BiNARYBiKE: seems pretty grim...... That donut
  • 72 15
 @rookie100: this isn't a review, it's a first ride. It says so in the headline. When we do reviews it says "review" in the headline. Smile
  • 73 0
 @brianpark: He was talking to me. I was the one that called it a review. But in any case we appreciate you clarifying that Pinkbike still does not review Evil bikes. Wink
  • 3 0
 @BiNARYBiKE: following this thread
  • 12 0
 @BiNARYBiKE: at least give them a little weagle room on this one
  • 2 2
 @brianpark: Im wreckoning you should do a review on this bike Smile
  • 1 2
 So funny PB mentiones an Evil and immediately calls it worse than the bikes they will review
  • 70 12
 Why do we still use 30.9 or even 31.6 mm seattube diameters? Droppers are now exceeding 200 mm, it’s about time the industry migrates to 34.9 mm to allow for beefier internals, in particular on bikes with such a slack actual seattube angle.
  • 24 1
 “They” will read this. New standard soon....
  • 13 2
 I don't know if it's part of the reason, but that's 2mm less you'll have on either side of the seattube to fit the whole kinematic, and space in that area is really precious depending on your kinematic.
  • 12 0
 Funny thing is that the old wrecker had a 34.9mm seat post diameter.
  • 6 0
 uh oh you done did it now... Now my bike is outdated with its 150mm dropper, 30.9 ST and regular boost spacing. Better refinance my mortgage so I can afford a new bike with the new standards!
  • 1 0
 I just came here to to tongue in cheek complain about this, lol. Ya beat me to it.

On a serious note, are the 200mm 30.9 droppers really that bad?
  • 3 5
 @Pyres: Didn’t you guys hear? 34.999mm Reverb is out
  • 1 2
 @Will-narayan: I might be ignorant, but does that actually matter? Suspension is a 2D concept, the width of the front and rear triangles shouldn’t have any effect on how it works. If anything, a wider truss would be stiffer.
  • 5 1
 @cuban-b: Aah, it's just gone back in again under warranty.
  • 3 0
 @MaplePanda: Chainline, chainstay thickness, crank q-factor, crank length, and rubbing your calves on the sides of the bike while riding are all things that have to be considered in 3D. Suspension isn't designed in a vacuum disregarding all other factors, (except the eminent haste, which is a joke) suspension needs to consider all these things and more to be a complementary part of the whole bike design.
  • 3 0
 @Fullsend2-13: no. I've got a gen1.2 wreckoning shimmed to take a 200mm long 9point8 30.9 dropper. It's just fine. Too bad the seat angle didn't change enough on this new rig. That's my only complaint about my bike. It's so damn good..
  • 2 0
 @Spencermon: Makes sense, thanks.
  • 1 0
 @bmxslinger: good to have confirmation. My friend is actually running a 210 OneUp v2 30.9 with a shim to 31.6 to work in his Nomad, amd he's 6' 5" 260lbs and hasnt had any problems
  • 1 0
 It's weird though, seat tube angles are approaching 80 so you'd think the need for thicker tubes to prevent flex is lower than ever.
  • 2 2
 Shims suck and 31.6 or 30.9 200mm posts work fine. What's the advantage to 34.9? They just weigh more and don't have a functional advantage. People don't like super boost because it's change but it has an advantage. 34.9 is a change with no advantage in practice. Yes, I have a 34.9 bike with a shim that creaks.
  • 1 0
 @Spencermon: The first thing I noticed when demoing an Eminent Onset was how wide the links were and how I kept bumping into them with my legs.
  • 1 0
 Honestly, I can't even wrap my head around needing a 200mm dropper. I'm 5'10", ride a LG Devinci Spartan 29, with a 160mm dropper. It's slammed all the way down. And I still have to drop it about a 5-10mm for a comfortable pedaling position on actual singletrack. The only time I run it all the way extended is on roads, dirt or paved. I guess maybe if your pretty tall, or have long legs and tend to go downsize on frames. But being average height and having a tendency to "upsize" on frames, I've never had a need for more than 160-170mm of drop. But that's just me.
  • 1 0
 @tmwjr777: I'm 6'2 34" inseam. I've got a 210mm dropper on my Orbea Rallon XL and it's 2" from slammed.
  • 1 0
 @tmwjr777: then you've never ridden a bike with a short seatube then. I'm the same height and I ran a 170mm on my Size Large Ibis Mojo HD4 and i had it sticking out 1.5" too...
  • 2 0
 @Artnshel: Yeah, shims suck, but it does seem like that an equivalent 34.9 dropper should last longer between service intervals, all else being equall. Also less likely to develop play It's less stress on the bushings.
  • 1 0
 @cuban-b: Idk why you were downvoted... I found it funny and accurate
  • 1 0
 @k-n-i-x-o-n: it looks like someone drew a bike that had a really cool side profile, then they just made everything 3D with boxy shapes and 90 degree angles. Also they gave the middle finger to dropper posts.
  • 1 0
 @tmwjr777: I'm 5'11" with a 33" inseam and I don't need 210 mm of dropper either, but I can do it with the OneUp dropper and it makes the bike feel like a BMX mountain bike. Opens up the options for playfulness on the downhill.
  • 2 0
 @Spencermon: I mean I could see that. If it's a "low slung" enough bike. My last bike is a size Medium, 26" wheeled bike. It has a 100mm dropper on it and I have it up about 2 inches out of my frame in order to accommodate a "more comfortable pedaling position". So, I could see running a 170 or 180 on there in order to get the seat as low as possible. But personally, I find that soon as I start pedaling, even DH, it's too low and burns my legs in a hurry. But hey, I'm not using any of my bikes as a dirt jumper either, so... Different strokes for different folks I guess. (no pun intended lol)
  • 1 0
 @commental: Yeah, a lot of it just depends on the frame I guess too. I don't know that I have ever owned a bike with THAT low a standover height. And as I commented upon prior, I find that anytime I have to pedal, even on DH sections of trail, the seat slammed is TOO low. But I've never been great at standing up and mashing the pedals anyhow. I prefer to let gravity do the bulk of the work. ????
  • 1 0
 @tmwjr777: There's a lot of different bikes and different riding styles. Great thing is, we're pretty well all accommodated for.
  • 43 3
 Evil? Never heard of it. They must be new
  • 38 2
 Its WAY past time to get a better seat tube geometry measurement. Companies with giant kinks in the seat tube are gaming the system by using the effective STA to cover up flawed design. Especially when the bike is still long, they aren't running out of reach.

Question: Can you just slide the seat forward to account for the slack STA and get more upright? Or does that create a new issue with the bike?
  • 32 4
 Yes, I slid the seat all the way forward on the rails, which definitely helps, but I would have still liked it to be even steeper.
  • 5 5
 @mikekazimer: Would you consider going down a size to decrease the reach to remedy that?
  • 2 1
 @mikekazimer: did you ever have the fork at 160mm? Would be interesting to see people’s feedback regarding pedaling with the shorter fork travel. I sold my wreckoning for this reason, because it was a pain to pedal at both 160 and 170 with the seat all the forward.

Descending was amazing tho. Still tempted to demo this new wreckoning, which could lead to me buying one
  • 8 2
 @j-p-i: To me the climbing position is a minor problem for slack seattubes. The major problem is unweighting the front wheel and having a hard time keeping the front end down on technical climbs.
  • 6 2
 @onlyDH, no, I only had a chance to ride it with a 170 fork. I do think the 160 fork could help - the Zeb is pretty tall, so going to a 160 Lyrik could help steepen that seat angle without sacrificing too much.

And @j-p-i, I wouldn't want to downsize - the 480mm reach works really well for me on the descents.
  • 4 1
 The seat has to be offset a ton in order to deal with its long travel and short chainstays. Of course, a steeper STA would have the same effect...
  • 7 2
 @Svinyard

Dam right. I have long legs for my height.
My evil following had to go after a handful of rides because I was so far over the back wheel it started damaging my knees.

I tried an offering - it was better, but still not a good enough pedal position for me. Until Evil start steepening that ACTUAL seat angle, its a pass from me.
  • 11 0
 @j-p-i: That might create the opposite effect. Since the "effective seat tube angle" is based on an assumed average seat post extension beyond the frame, and since the "actual seat tube angle" is slacker than that, then the longer you extend the post beyond the frame, the slacker the effective seat tube angle will feel. So if you size down and extend your seat post to compensate, then you're going to find your centre of gravity moving back with the longer seat post.

I'd say that, if you're on the divide between sizes for this bike go with the larger one for sure if you do a lot of climbing.
  • 1 0
 @CaMKii: Ahh okay, got ya.

@mikekazimer: Makes sense, cheers.
  • 11 0
 @hamncheez: Dumb question, but why couldn't they just steepen the upper half of the seat tube on this bike? I don't see how it would impact linkage or do anything besides decrease ETT (so they could stretch out the top tube a few mm to compensate). I just don't understand why they would leave it as is since it has been a criticism of these bikes for a while. This looks like a new mold so it can't be that?
  • 5 3
 @Richt2000: True. I'm 6-4. The following I rode was a joke going up hill. auto-wheelie and uncomfortable in XL
  • 17 8
 The worst thing about overly slack STA is that it throws a higher percentage of your weight on the rear wheel and causes your $8K superbike to wallow in climbs. This is further exacerbated by long travel, since wallowing at 50% drops you down even more in back and raises you up even more in front.

- 160mm travel bikes need 78 degree STA
- 130mm bikes need 77 degree STA
- 100mm bikes need 76 degree STA
- Hard tails are fine with 74 degree STA
  • 11 0
 I just drew this out on solidworks. For my height at 5'-11"and my seatpost extension, and with a 15mm fore, 15mm aft ability to adjust your saddle, that yields a +/- 1.5 degree effective seat angle range. Some saddles have even more fore/aft adjustment.
  • 5 0
 @onlyDH: I sold my Wreck and regret it. It did suck to climb between the slack seat angle and supple suspension, but damn was it good on the downhills. I wish I would have kept it and turned it into a dedicated park bike. They are the perfect park bike, durable, agile and lively enough to not feel like a slow pig on flatter blues and blacks, yet still burly enough to tackle everything. That's how I'd market it if I was Evil.
  • 11 0
 @gramboh: Yes, thats very possible. I have three theories as to why they didn't:

1. Evil bikes have always been very good looking bikes. Its something they pride themselves. on. This color might be polarizing, but the silhouette of these wreckonings is so hot. Maybe on the computer a steeper STA ruins that. Some bikes like the privateer and grim doughnut look silly with super steep seat tubes.
2. Like you said, to compensate for a more upright seat tube you'd have to increase the reach, and therefore the wheelbase. They probably didn't want to do that since its already pretty long and slack.
3. Their sponsored riders aren't exactly XC guys. A steeper STA typically requires a longer dropper post to get the seat out of your way when riding Rampage or who knows what on the North Shore. Sitting down on a steep STA bike when the saddle is lowered all the way isn't as comfortable either. Thats why dh bikes and that failed Specialized dropper post all have angled back saddles. These things matter to professional freeriders, and they probably had a lot of input on these new bikes.
  • 1 0
 @CaMKii: very true.
  • 2 0
 @Marcencinitas: True, my custom hard tail has a 76 STA and its probably too steep
  • 3 0
 How the heck does the seat tube angle get steeper in the x-low position "76.8" than in low "76.5"
And I can tell you right now it ain't even close to 76° at a normal seat height. Looks a lot like my 74° Hightower as far as I can tell from these photos.
  • 9 0
 @mikekazimer: any chance you could measure the actual angle at your seat height in your reviews and what sag you were using? Seems like a necessary couple of data points if it’s going to be brought up in every review. Relying on geometry charts obviously isn’t working.
  • 5 0
 As far as I can tell, they need the linked seat tube to allow 29" wheels not to contact the seat tube with a single pivot and short chainstays. So, if they don't want to go longer chainstays and want to preserve the top tube length, would it be possible to have a steeper actual STA and use a layback seatpost (I assume someone still makes them)? At least that way it wouldn't get even more slackerer with the seat up high (speaking for those of us with long legs here).
  • 2 0
 For me, with flats, as the difference between reach and ETT getting smaller, it starts to get awkward pedaling.
  • 2 0
 @Marcencinitas: I like this! I very much agree. My GG has a steep STA and I absolutely love it.
  • 3 0
 @hamncheez: Good theories, all of those make sense actually when you think about them, especially needing a longer dropper and sitting down on a saddle with a steep STA it feels like a 2005 DH bike with your knees hitting the bars.
  • 7 4
 f*cked up STA is a trademark for Evil... get use to it or move along! ;-)
  • 4 4
 Men, it is impossible to write f*ck on Pinkbike... the U is automatically replaced by a "*"
That's what is great about Amurica. No need to make any greater, haha ;-)
  • 1 0
 @Happymtbfr: It shows up perfectly on my dashboard!

Try using escape characters, like \
  • 3 2
 @Marcencinitas: You might want to tell Nino his bike is wack lol.
  • 7 1
 @clink83: Great riders like Nino can kick ass on any bike. Old, beaten up, out of shape guys like me need every trick in the book.
  • 1 0
 @DHhack: Or if he didn't want to math it out, just measuring the actual saddle setback would be a good starting point.
  • 7 0
 @Marcencinitas: The reason XC bikes have 73-4 STA angles is because that is the seat angle that puts most humans with their knee over the pedal spindleish with a 30* degree bend in the leg.
  • 2 0
 So... aren't seat desighned to have a certain amount of flex in the rails for comfort? Sliding them forward in the clamp will negate this?? Also, I have my seat to the forward limit on the rails an I break the rear clamp bolts. 2 so far (but, I do wiegh in at nearly 90kg geared up)
  • 2 1
 @gramboh:

Purely for form over function.
They, and makes like santa cruz like the upper part to be parellel to the forks because they think it looks cooler
  • 2 0
 Looking at you Commencal
  • 2 0
 @Marcencinitas: broom handle and your choice of method for measuring angles. Takes about 10 seconds.
  • 1 0
 @nojzilla: If you're looking for compliance and comfort, get a Reverb
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer: and... if doing a custom build one could build with a Fox or Helm @160mm which have lower Axle to Crown measurements than rockShock @160 I believe as well.
  • 1 0
 @inceptioncyclery: my thoughts exactly
  • 4 3
 @clink83: Knee over pedal spindle works well enough for roadies and for XC on rolling terrain. Point yourself up a 10 degree hill and your knee will be far behind the pedal spindle.
  • 4 1
 @Marcencinitas: You do know road bikers ride up stuff way steeper than 10 degrees right?
  • 1 1
 @Marcencinitas: That is only because you move forward on the seat otherwise your position should remain the same.
  • 1 0
 @big-red: Excellent explanation, thanks Smile Makes sense
  • 1 0
 @flattire: Interesting info. THX
  • 2 3
 @clink83: Road bikers do not ride up stuff way steeper than 10 degrees.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: especially for many that would want to go mix wheels.
  • 3 0
 @fabwizard @Marcencinitas: A 28% grade is about 15.7 degrees off horizontal. That being said, 95% (or more) of road bikers would not make it up that grade. I just checked strava for a local hill that I sometimes climb on my road bike, and there is a stretch with a 16% grade that I have to stand to be able to make it up with my 2x11 speed shifting, in my lowest gear. Luckily its only a few hundred yards long or I wouldn't make it.
  • 2 0
 @nojzilla: there's some flex from the rails, but most of the flex comes from the shell flexing like a hammock hanging between both ends of the rails
  • 1 0
 @hamncheez: why would you think Mt. bikers are any different. It is the gearing not whether they are Mt. biker or Road.

One of my road tandem bikes has 22 x 36 low gearing and will climb a tree(slow enough to be passed by a caterpillar).
  • 1 0
 @fabwizard: The Mortirolo is considered one of the toughest mountain passes in the professional cycling world and it averages about 11% and peaks at 13%, aside from steepest sections of the switchbacks where everyone stands up.
  • 1 0
 @Marcencinitas: Why would a Mt biker be any different on the same climb?
  • 2 0
 @fabwizard: Mountain bikes are geared SIGNIFICANTLY lower than a road bike. Trails are SIGNIFICANTLY steeper than most roads can get. Therefore a mountain biker typically finds himself climbing at a much steeper angle than a roadie.
  • 1 1
 @hamncheez: The original statement that i responded to was MT. Bikers VS Roadies. That roadies do not ride up stuff steeper than 10 degrees.

Which I showed they do.

Typically MT Bikers do climb more and steeper but that was not what I was answering.
  • 2 0
 @DHhack: Excellent idea to have reviewers measure their saddle height and the corresponding STA. Should be done in every single review.
  • 32 0
 can someone please tell me what I need to complain about for this bike (even though I have no intention of ever buying it)
  • 18 12
 It’ll crack and Evil won’t care
  • 17 3
 @bobpretend: BS. Maybe in the bad old days.. but not anymore. Nothing but top notch service from these guys in my experience. And the bikes are built like tanks to boot.
  • 4 1
 Bike is great. You can complain about the movie... so many effects that you can barely see the bike
  • 4 2
 @CDT77: lol aye they have top notch service until it comes to a warranty claim. It’s pretty far from ‘top notch’ then, in MY (recent) experience.
  • 1 0
 @CDT77: I was charged $600 for a wreckoning swingarm that cracked internally. I wasn't stoked about that. They did do a patch fix on frame standoffs that were worn down by the the delta link bearings without charge, but that was a terrible design that should never have been used....
  • 14 0
 Its amazing how small changes in the effective STA, can make a bike go from:

"I'm hanging too far off the back of the bike" like this bike.

to

"I've got too much weight on my hands on anything other than a steep climb" like the Privateer 161.

I get that the actual STA is a problem (my Kona Process 153 has an actual STA of 67 degrees as well), but just pointing out that just looking at the spec sheet can be pretty misleading. So even bikes with similar STA's can be wildly different (especially if you have long legs).

Also, at this point what are people thinking is the goldilocks number? 78 degrees?
  • 20 3
 True, although there's a fairly significant difference between the actual seat angles of those two bikes - the Evil is around 68-degrees, and the 161 is over 75-degrees. The offset of the seat tube to the bottom bracket plays a factor too. Looking at the effective top tube length can help provide an idea of how a bike can feel, since the seat tube angles and how they're measured can be so different.
  • 5 0
 Deleted
  • 4 0
 @mikekazimer:

Fair point.

Maybe its better to compare the Raaw Madonna V2, and the Privateer 161. They are much closer in effective, and actual STA if I remember right.

The Raaw gets pretty good reviews on its seat angle, but the Privateer has people worried its "maybe a bit too steep".

But is that "pressure on the hands" feeling because people are sizing based on reach, and not on ETT?

I'm in a weird spot where I want a Privateer 161, but if I size based on reach of my current bike, I get a P3 (490mm reach, 603mm ETT), but if I sized based on the ETT I'd end up on a P4 (515mm reach, 630mm ett).

I imagine if I went with the P3, it would put a lot of weight on my hands, as I'd be hunched over (short ETT, and lower stack). But it seems that the P4 would feel pretty normal, even with the steep STA, as my ETT would be about where I am now.

Thoughts?
  • 4 1
 @mikekazimer: Exactly, its nice that most people seemingly are starting to understand the concept. Maybe PB could develop a solution and start measuring by it in their reviews?
  • 1 0
 @ocnlogan: move the seat back. The sta just has to be within a range that allows for proper fore-aft adjustment. Most of the time you have to move the seat forward because it's too slack for steep climbs. My husband rides a titan, had a 150, and borrowed a 161 for a few minutes. Each of those can be put in just about the exact same spot by moving the seat. The wreckoning has no chance on a larger size to make that true as the actual angle affects higher seats as you know.
  • 7 7
 @mikekazimer: I plan on getting this bike and have owned an original Wreckoning up until now. The new model's SA is significantly steeper than the old one and actually falls in line with other long travel 29er bikes in this category. (Enduro 76 degrees, MegaTower 76.3+/-, Gnarvana 76, Mega 290 76.3, Kona Process 76, Sentinel 77.5 -steepest, but less travel). FWIW, I actually scored every PR I have both up and down on my Wrecker all the while demoing every major long and medium travel 29er out with it back to back. I really believe that it comes down to one's body dimensions and preference and that any SA that is 75 degrees or steeper is fine. The outliers with the super steep SA's (Pole, Raw, Privateer, etc.) will suit some, but for example with my short stature they felt very strange to me. Whatever turns you on.
  • 2 0
 @Fifeandflow:

Good point. I've pushed the saddle forward on my Kona, but wouldn't have to do the same on some of these other bikes.

Which size Titan does your husband have and what size 161 did he sit on out of curiosity? Now I'm just comparing geo charts Smile .
  • 5 0
 @hellbelly: Its not about the STA always tho...the actual STA is a lot different on those bikes. Which has a drastic difference.
  • 6 1
 @Svinyard: A pal of mine had basically the first Wreckoning in our area (N Georgia) over four years ago. At 6'3" he had an XL and like most taller riders had issues with climbing on that bike. I'm 5'7" on a medium and have had zero problems. Coincidentally, he now owns a L Offering which up until this year had the steepest seat angle of any Evil bike (a lil' slacker than the new Wreckoning). His climbing issues are nonexistent with it. Virtual versus actual seat angle, again I believe it's more a matter of body dimensions and personal preference.
  • 1 0
 @ocnlogan: Raaw V2, 161, and Wreck.2 all have plenty of stack. Between headset spacers and riser bars, I don't see how hand pressure will be an issue. 161 P4 is almost 10cm longer than your Large Process. Do you really need all that?--if the steep STA pitches you that much further forward, I guess you might.

I like Evil because it permits me, at 6' with short torso, relatively long lower legs, and flat pedals, to ride a Medium. Not having to move much to weight the front wheel is also nice. And being able to use a stem with greater offset than fork. Slammed stem and riser bar?--yes please.
  • 1 0
 @ceecee:

Good questions.

I was between sizes with the size L and XL on my Process 153 29, and went with the L, without a test ride on either. I think I probably would have been better off with the XL.

I've got a 38mm riser bar, and 50mm stem on the L, and have ~2-3in of my 170mm dropper post exposed above the seat clamp.

I'm searching for something that has more chainstay length, a slacker HTA, and longer wheelbase. I came from riding dirt bikes, so I think I'm just used to a more stable feeling bike.

But I do want to demo something similar before I buy something like the Privateer. The change in geo seems pretty extreme, and I want to make sure I can actually weight the front wheel Smile .
  • 3 2
 @mikekazimer: The Evil's geo numbers are very close to the Enduro which every reviewer was over the moon with. How is it that Evil's 75.7 degree sta is so much different than the Enduro's 76? Even the actual STA looks very similar in photos of both bikes.
  • 2 0
 @ocnlogan:
Effective seat tube angle is relative to Bottom Bracket and Stack. Every centimeter above/below the line of measured Effective STA is affected by Actual STA. So Effective STA is the biggest bullshit number of all.

Then we have to take into account SAG, actual travel front and rear and also the steepness of the climb. All that matters.
  • 3 0
 @pulDag: this is the normal but not for evil. Look at the geo diagram and you’ll see they are measuring from the centre of the frame seat tube extension, not stack height
  • 1 0
 @ocnlogan: hey there! I am 6’ 1.5” and used an xl for the last 6 months. Just swapped to a large titan with a longer stem. Either is great just depends on the vibe you’re looking for. Checked out the p4 on the privateer. It’s a sweet rig.
  • 5 0
 @hellbelly: My sh*t simple analysis is thus; had an old Wrecker -> loved everything about it except steep climbing.. now have an Offering -> steep climbing issue fixed. New Wrecker has slightly steeper STA than Offering = Wreckoning climbing issue fixed. Of course this is all relative to other Evil models.. but that's all I'll ever ride. Once you get it.. its game over - new bike choosing becomes quite easy.
  • 3 0
 @CDT77: at 6’2”/188cm I loved everything about my Insurgent except the seat tube angle. Your comparison of Wreckoning V1 and Offering was actually quite helpful. Between your comment and the Freehub review, it made my pick for a long-travel 29er super easy... I feel pretty lucky that Evil dropped the Wreckoning a day after I decided to get a new frame. Haha.
  • 16 1
 Pooperboost
  • 13 0
 Huk to flat or its an 8 grand snapper....
  • 13 1
 Who was the idiot that spec'd exo front and rear on this bike? Should be fired.
  • 7 1
 The same idiot that spec’d EXO’s on my Bronson. Took all of three rides to shred that rear tire.
  • 8 1
 Allows them to give a posted bike weight a pound or more less than it really is.
  • 4 0
 Depends where and how you ride
I’d want at most a DD rear, exo front, on a big bike like this. My trail bike is Exo front and back.
Local terrain is sand/loam, and roots.
If I’m spending this sort of coin in a bike shop I expect to have the appropriate tyres put on it for me, otherwise that’s another £80 I’ve got to drop straight away.
  • 10 2
 What is the hangup on STA?
If you have a steeper STA you need to either have longer chain stays or longer front end. This makes the bike less nimble.

When do you actually need a really steep STA? I mean, steeper than 77Degrees. When climbing? If you´re climbing technical stuff, you should be mostly out of the saddle, or move a lot forwards and aft on the saddle. On easy fire road climbs, you can just bend your elbows a smidgeon more.

I you´re 190+ with a mega dropper, the point becomes more valid, but still...

My opinion is that 77degrees is the absolute steepest I would ever consider going on a trail bike.

Give it a rest with the STA hysteria.

This bike is meant to shred downhill and make it uphill. STA is resultant of the other geo measurements, and probably the least important one. Silly of PB to focus so much on it. No one claims this bike is a rocketship climber. You got the Following for that....
  • 3 0
 I agree. Enough crying over the STA. Is it the most steep? No. But it's plenty steep enough to not be a problem climbing. My Stumpjumper Evo has about 1 degree slacker STA and I'm running a 210mm dropper with the seat slammed forward. It's perfectly fine. The STA on this new Wreckoning is within the acceptable range for a modern bike and it wouldn't dissuade me from buying one. The geometry of a bike is always a sum of it's parts and this bike looks like it will be a riot. In fact, there is a good chance I will buy one of these after I get a chance to demo one.
  • 2 1
 @WalrusRider: Hear hear!

I honestly mean that if you´re limited by the STA on your bike, you need to seriously improve your technique...
  • 2 1
 The other thing is that the handlebars on the bike pictured are significantly above the saddle, which is going to put a ton of weight on the rear wheel climbing. If you put flat bars on the bike it would probably climb better.
  • 7 0
 @JBSDesigns Totally agree. On top of that Evil owners do value their short chain stays and their DELTA platform and in this case, with a 166 travel, the seat tube needs that kink to get out of the way of the wheel trajectory if the chain stays are to be 430mm. Still, the seat tube angle is pretty steep unless you are so tall (I am 6'-1" and have no complains). Evil bikes are know for their quick handling, pop and playfulness and we buy their bikes based on that. If they lost those traits, I am not sure many people would buy them. Are they the best for super tall riders that focus mainly on climbing? Most likely not, but neither are these bikes the best for racing because they err on the side of playful and that makes them less comparatibly stable than a bike with 450mm chin stays.

Also, as a designer I do not underestimate the design of the frames. When you make seat angles so steep, and head angles so slack, you end up with some of the monstrosities like the POLE frames that are starting to look like triangles where their sat angles and head angles appear to meat at the riders head. I know many people will find it "frivolous", but I need to get stoked every time I see my bike leaning against the wall or in the garage. Purely functional designs do the opposite for me.

I recommend everyone read the BIKE magazine review of the bike too. Ryan Palmer admits is even better than the Enduro, which he himself bought. And he raves about the seat angle and starts his review with "Is The New Evil Wreckoning the Most Versatile Long Travel 29er?"
  • 7 0
 Why not have your cake and eat it too? Geometry is free, and I think that a steeper actual seat tube angle could improve the climbing performance of this bike without sacrificing its descending capabilities.

@WalrusRider, what if you didn't need to slam your seat all the way forward? Wouldn't that be nice? To have both fore and aft saddle position adjustments still on the table?

@clink83, that's not my actual saddle height in the photos - the seat was lowered for the shot. At full extension it's well above the handlebars.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: Ah, nevermind then. I see people on the trails with that setup all the time, I'm always like why?
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer: I agree with you that a steeper STA would be desirable and definitely a flaw of the new Wreckoning. Without having ridden it and just seeing the numbers on paper, the STA wouldn't dissuade me from buying the new Wreckoning. Of all the recently updated or released long travel 29ers this is the closest geo to what I'm currently looking for in my next bike. Although, I'm curious to see what kind of updates Kona and Trek have coming down the pipe.
  • 2 2
 @mikekazimer: How would you just alter the STA? Evil obviously wants the short CS, so you gotta make room for the wheel..

So you basically want to alter the geometry into a totally different bike? Isnt 77 Degrees pretty darn steep for a long travel 29er intended to be playful?

I dont know the history of the grudge between PB and Evil, but this is getting stupid. This bike is not intended for climbing, but does so pretty damn well according to EVERY other media source out there. AND, if you want it to pedal even better, you can but a shorter fork on it, and and air shock with less sag. (or kink your elbows 2 mm....)

Yes, Geometry is free. But according to trigonometry, a bikes figures is a compromise, and this compromise is what the brand/designer deems the best for its intended purpose...
  • 3 0
 @JBSDesigns, there's no grudge here - I rode the bike, and reported my initial impressions above. I'd recommend giving the bike a try if you get a chance. Maybe you'll find the seated climbing position to be perfect, or maybe, like me, you'll think a steeper seat tube angle could make it more comfortable.
  • 7 0
 for what it is worth, i rode a gen 1 insurgent for 3 years and only when i over-forked with a 170 and switched to the x-low setting did the seat tube angle start to feel too slack. my yeti says about 73.5 and with the saddle pushed forward it crushes climbs. i just rode the new enduro for 2 days and it also crushed the climbs, even without the saddle pushed forward.

obviously there is a ton of variability in rider size and saddle position but is anyone really having problems with the seat tube angle on their bikes currently? if we didn't know the #s, how frequently would be actually feel the difference on the trail?
  • 8 0
 Without riding it, I like the geo (aside from STA). The wheelbase isn't crazy long. Looks like a long travel fun-machine rather than a plow tractor.
  • 9 2
 Nothing screams louder for an Enduro bike than the color florescent salmon! Perfect for my Chartreuse riding kit. Or will it clash i just don't know!
  • 1 0
 I don't know man. Following that trend might wreck the whole style thing you got going on there!
  • 15 10
 Man people bitching about superboost is ridiculous. How about how nice the wreckoning looks. The bike is trail bike weight but can handle DH terrain. An all arounder. I had the first wreckoning and it was the best bike I ever had. People bitching about superboost being the reason they won’t buy the bike... stop being pussies. Or keep being bike snobs from your couch while riding once or twice a year. Who cares. GFYSelves. Evil makes great bikes and I bet the wreck is one of the best out there.
  • 3 0
 Agreed...best bike I ever owned.
  • 6 1
 Wonder how climbing with this seat tube angle compares to the 2020 specialized enduro, which has also been said to not have a steep enough seat tube angle? Either way this bike looks sick!
  • 9 1
 Banshee is the only company I've seen that provides effective STA at multiple saddle heights. Sadly, I think most give us the number at the height of the effective TT line. The Enduro's actual STA isn't nearly as slack so the effective STA doesn't change so much as a function of saddle height.

I like slack effective STAs because the saddle is really out of your way when it's dropped but it makes fit/sizing a PITA.
  • 2 0
 @Sam-B: Thanks! Nice to see them being so clear about it.
  • 1 0
 @asf: unno too
  • 8 1
 Initial color name: Coral
"Should we change it?"
"...Be a lot cooler if you did."
  • 4 3
 Now that weed is legal in most places these sort of joke names fall a bit flat. Like the Kona stinky or coiler of old...
  • 26 0
 @usedbikestuff: It's a gateway to harder naming. The next crop of bike names will be cocaine puns.
  • 7 0
 @usedbikestuff: did pooping used to be illegal?
  • 2 0
 They've already recycled the Black Out Drunk color name.
  • 4 0
 @LCW1: Now that alcohol is legal in most places these sort of joke names fall a bit flat.
  • 6 0
 @bikeybikeybikebike: Snow White, a common heroine
  • 2 0
 @unrooted: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_defecation

Shall we add Explosif to Coiler and Stinky? Colorway: Dwarf Brown
  • 2 0
 @wpm1414: just saying that one side of the mouth saying check out our super trick $3300 frame with all this science followed by naming it coral reefer seems to undermine the legitimacy of their technical accomplishments.

Like you want to believe they know what they’re doing, but then you aren’t quite so sure. Transition could pull this off, they had cock and balls suspension for gods sake, but I don’t know prevailing winds in that area of the country to know if bong smoke blows in the right direction
  • 14 6
 430mm chainstays on XL long travel bike?
  • 25 6
 Just buy a different bike? Some of us don't mind short chainstays.

Cool username btw
  • 12 5
 Ridiculous. Proportionally sized CSs please.
  • 10 3
 @fartymarty: Short CSs are great wheelbase control.

Just lean forward 5mm when you go around a turn.
  • 6 3
 @CobyCobie: Yea but it can be a bit frustrating for us XL riders who do like the longer stays. Very few companies make anything with stays longer than 440. :/
  • 3 1
 @CobyCobie: On bikes with 480 or less reach its not too bad, but man once you get past 500 reach it feels like you have to constantly lean forward to keep the front weighted, and its a lot more lean than just 5 mm.
  • 9 8
 Yeah, it really doesn't makes sense on a 160mm+ bike. I'm 6'5" and I have bikes ranging from 419mm chainstays to 445mm. If I need a 170mm bike, there's no downside to a longer chainstay. If you think we'll a shorter chainstay keeps the bike more playful and nimble then the terrain you're on isn't fast enough or rough enough for a 170mm bike.
  • 7 1
 @Wormfarmer:

Maybe flip chips are the way to go.
But off the top of my head:

Pole, Santa Cruz, Norco, Privateer, Banshee, Nukeproof
  • 4 1
 @jeremy3220: 445mm isn't too long.

I am making no claims as to what length is faster. All I am saying is that plenty of tall people don't mind short CS, and it certainly does make the bike more versatile.
  • 5 1
 Not everybody wants their long travel bike to have a 1300+mm wheelbase. It's definitely cool to prefer long CS, but not every bike needs to ride like a race bike.
  • 6 4
 @CobyCobie: Sure every bike doesn't need long stays. But a Large or XL enduro or DH bike with short stays is kinda like buying an enduro bike and running an ultra light XC wheel set and Maxxis Aspens. Some people might love that setup. It doesn't suit the purpose of the bike though.
  • 4 1
 Guerrilla Gravity Gnarvana 450mm
  • 4 1
 @jeremy3220: Short chainstays arguably don't suit the purpose of a race bike. Not every bike has to be a race bike though.

Also, bikes are a huge investment so it makes sense for them to be fun in as many situations as possible and for different people that means different CS lengths. If people want the ones with long chainstays they can just buy the ones with long chainstays. No need to complain when there are options out there.
  • 3 0
 @jeremy3220: Same reason 27.5 Enduro bikes still exist in large sizes.
  • 3 0
 @CobyCobie: Yea flip chips would be a great start. I would say that if you want a playful long travel bike then get a 27.5, instead of a short chainstay 29er. To each their own though clearly there is a market for both long and short hence the flip chip like santa cruz has done is a great solution. I will say I don't think we are necessarily "complaining" as much as stating our preference, if enough people state they like long CS then companies may start offering more options such as flip chips etc. Currently there are options however the vast majority of companies are still speccing short chainstays on their XL long travel 29ers.

I would have bought this Evil over the bikes from the companies you listed if it had had a slightly steeper actual seat angle and longer chainstays (or a flip chip).

Ideally most companies would offer different CS with their different sizes and also include flip chips, until then I'm going to keep "complaining"
  • 1 0
 My point above was that CS should be proportional to FC length or someone is getting a raw deal and the different sizes will feel different.
  • 1 0
 @Wormfarmer: I would rather mountain bike companies steep up the head angles in XL bikes bikes before they made the chainstays longer, but I'm sure people will think I am crazy for saying that. (Its common in the road bike world)
  • 2 0
 @CobyCobie: You're right, I'm completely happy with my current bikes and have no intention of buying this one, but this is pinkbike after all.

I just think short chainstays are generally better on smaller bikes or bikes intended to be playful, and are a bit out of place on long reach long travel bruisers. But you can't ride a geo chart, and I do have a hardtail with short chainstays that is a blast to ride.
  • 1 0
 @Wormfarmer: Heck yeah to flip chips. Would prefer if we voted for that instead of long chainstays though haha. Also I'll look like I'm riding a clown bike if I go 27.5 Smile

@fartymarty: I do get that but maybe the ideal ratio is that of the XL and the others should change... Too many variables for it to be super important.

@lyzyrdskydr: Definitely don't think that long travel has to mean not playful.
  • 7 4
 This is disappointing. In the XL, even the old one was difficult to weight the front end. Need longer stays on the bigger sizes. And make an ACTUALLY steep STA. Evil have really missed the mark on their last two bike launches IMO and are failing to keep up with trends.
  • 11 5
 Wondering what would come first… An evil review or the grim donut video
  • 7 0
 Any of them will be acompanied by an apocalypse so does it really matter?
  • 10 4
 Generally like it, but the slack SA means it's not an option.
  • 3 1
 So is there a good reason why these bikes don't have steeper seat tube angles in the bigger size? Do they not know that XL people tend to have longer legs? Let's not even get started on the same chainstay length across sizes.

I had a first gen Wreckoning and I loved how it rode but for a bigger guy the fit sucked. Which is funny because for a very brief time it was the go-to bike for big guys but by that summer they had all flipped them literally and figuratively. That slack seat tube angle paired with the short rear end meant the bike was flipping over backwards on anything steeper than flat ground. I guess that is a feature not a bug.

I liked it back then when they just doctored the geometry charts to make the STA seem steeper. And yet here they redesign the bike and even with a chance for a fresh chance to do it better they choose not to.
  • 6 3
 Lazy ass crayonengineering, no effort at all put into it. There is science behind steeper seat angles be better:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5786204

Effective seat tube angle should be outlawed as a measurement until there is a universal agreement and process to measure it, otherwise its next to useless.
  • 2 2
 Which is wild because its not like the seat tube plays much of a part in suspension packaging. They could totally make a steep STA and keep everything else the same way. My best guess is that they wanted to give current happy Evil riders/owners an easy upgrade path without messing with a good thing. Although, as others have mentioned, the best move would've been size dependent Actual STA.
  • 1 0
 @PHeller: Actual Seat Angle =/close to Effective
  • 5 0
 Ones who complaint about being a single pivot, should test this Delta Link, it's true magic.
  • 2 0
 This review is highly suspect. I just sold my Wrecker to get the new one, then read this and the comments and started to second guess my choice. Started to think I might want an Offering instead or maybe should of just kept my old bike. Then I looked at Bike Mags review www.bikemag.com/gear/mountain-bikes/is-the-new-evil-wreckoning-the-most-versatile-long-travel-29er/?fbclid=IwAR1w_-JWcKKCURFDY928CRz-LElMfUueLlKGcBIUxF-AufvxszRhO8PzcAE or even better watched the bike in action with Freehub Magazine www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWrQR3NeZCA&feature=youtu.be and Im completely sold I want THIS WRECKONING more than ever. WTF PB?
  • 1 0
 That Freehub Mag review was exciting! The Bike Mag review makes the Wreckoning sound like the perfect all-rounder. So tough to know what the truth is without a demo, but I'm also extremely interested in the V3. Let us know your thoughts if you grab one!
  • 1 0
 Its a good fun bike, not a race bike (as people are missing the point of) however, I think even Evil has missed the mark on this; making a fun bike, with more flickable intentions, have a 445mm reach on the small, I get that they say its a race bike, but historically, Evils linkage isn't fast, but its bloody fun, so make it smaller, slacker, then change the advertising and your on to a winner!
  • 1 0
 Wait for the Insurgent unless you really want a 29er
  • 1 0
 @HopeFbn: is there word that they are making a new insurgent too?
  • 1 0
 @wilbersk: Unfortunately not confirmed, but I see them updating all their lineup to new aesthetics/geo numbers, but looks like they are emphasizing on their 29ers.
  • 3 0
 Seems like Evil has a trend of lying about their seat angles: www.pinkbike.com/news/first-look-2020-evil-following.html#cid2530535
  • 4 3
 Can someone please explain to me why companies are not fully embracing steeper seat angles? Like 78 , 79 etc. What’s the down side? I see these redesigns they see to be missing the mark. Surely sales would improve if they made the change
  • 5 0
 The seat goes waaaay further out of the way if the seat angle is more slack. I love climbing bikes with a steep STA, but unless there's room for a 170 or 200 dropper the seat's still in the way on the downs.
  • 3 1
 I have the Wreckoning LB and I was hoping for a steeper STA on the V3. I am going to keep my LB and keep pushing it up the steep hills as I think the V3 would have the same problem. I am 6'5".
  • 9 4
 I have an Insurgent and that has a STA at 73.5/74*. WTF are people on about? I'm 6'3" and never really had that big of a problem. On SUPER technical climbing items I might struggle. I didn't struggle at all in Sedona last week.

Am I missing something?
  • 3 3
 @pistol2ne: I have the seat all the way forward and when I climb the steep stuff, the front wheel comes off the ground and I cant ride like that. Maybe you have the XL and you are leaning forward more to get the weight over the front end? I have a 50mm stem to help out. I demo'd the offering in Sedona. I rode hiline without wheeling. I ride in aliso viejo and we have some steep climbs
  • 7 4
 @pistol2ne: People on here just dont know crap about bike fit. The problem is too long of front centers for climbing, not the seattube angle. steep STAs are just a bandaid for poor climbinging geometry. The current world champ XC rider is riding a 73.8* sta bike.
  • 11 3
 @clink83, except that with a steeper seat tube angle you can make a bike with a long front center much more manageable while climbing, and benefit from that extra length on the descents.

And what Nino rides doesn't have much to do with the direction geometry is going - he's not exactly a mere mortal.
  • 6 3
 @mikekazimer: See, you actually get it.
Its the front center: rear center ratio that makes a bike a good climber or a good descender, the STA has very little to do with it. If you want gravity oriented geometry to climb well, you need a steep STA to get your center of mass forward. On the flip side, if you want a bike to climb well you just need to reduce the front center and keep a STA in the 73-74 range to produce optimum power. I don't know know why people can't figure that out, its maddening.
  • 1 0
 @clink83: I think a consideration is that the geometry changes with sag. So a 160mm bike with a 78° seat angle on an incline (say 35% rear sag, 5% front), will end up back near that 74° sweet spot that you get on a hardtail or short travel xc bike.
  • 2 0
 @C-Tuck: I woukd be interested to see a "behind the numbers" type article to see how geometry changes when sagged on normal bikes.
The seat tube angle obsession is getting out of hand though, Jared Graves had to come post on the SB115 article because all the endurobros on this site were all trashing the bike because it wasn't LLS enough, even though that makes zero sense.
  • 1 0
 @clink83: Do you find it annoying or just bizarre that almost no one seems to see (or acknowledge) that the current obsession over long reach is actually significantly impairing many bike's capabilities climbing or on flat ground? Yours is the first comment that seems to address the main issue. Instead of realizing the problem, designers are keeping with the fad and applying all sorts of bandaid fixes (like steep seat angles that make the TT way too short, or the wheelbase huge, your choice).

On a bike like this, maybe, ok, whatever. But they are applying the same design principles to 120mm bikes, making them worse at what they should be good at, and all anyone can talk about is how much better it descends...
  • 4 0
 Does anyone know who makes those little clamps on the cables (where a non-profit ocd person would be fine with a zip tie)?
  • 2 0
 been trying to find them too. cleaner than the swivel ones. can't find them anywhere....
  • 2 0
 The logo on them looks like Jagwire but I don't see the product on their site....
  • 1 0
 @pwn1: Thx for looking! The wire hooks look sorta like them, but is that 2.5mm E-shift sizing for Di2? I've seen the same clamps on pics of other complete builds, but never been able to figure out who makes them.
  • 1 0
 @muscogeemasher: as with the swivel ones the thicker end plays well with brake hose (5mm i think) and thinner end for shift cables (4mm i think).
  • 3 0
 PB presents a new Evil Bike through its always gritted teeth. What happened between Evil and PB and where did it all go so sour?
  • 1 0
 I wonder what other reviews say about the sta. At 172 i ride a medium following v3 with a 130mm pike wich gets me to a sta of 74.5 in low position. I have a hard time believing those 2 bikes are this far apart and that you can f* this up at this point in time. I
But it looks like size matters a lot here.
  • 2 0
 For average sized riders the effective seat tube angle and the actual seat tube angle being massively different doesn't cause too much of a problem. For taller riders the actual seat tube angle is very important as the further you get from the height used for the effective seat angle the more the reach measurement grows.
  • 3 0
 Take the glass-half-empty PB review and the glass-half-full BikeMag review, split the difference and you're probably close to reality.
  • 1 0
 Thanks for the first impressions, Mike. I know you have limited time on it, but I was wondering about how it compares to other similar bikes, like the Specialized Enduro, Sentinel, etc. Looking forward to seeing a full review!
  • 4 0
 Nothing too extreme from a geo pov; but, I really like the color!
  • 5 1
 Going to be a failure due to its lack of 420, 666, 69 in the Geo chart.
  • 1 1
 With 166 of rear travel I think we can give it a pass
  • 5 1
 Incremental update is incremental.
  • 4 0
 @mikekazimer: How would you compare this bike with the Banshee Titan?
  • 8 3
 There's a good chance that one of them will break, and one of them probably won't?
  • 5 0
 @jaame: Since my 6.5 year old Banshee Prime is still running strong (with the original bearings)...I know what you are saying.
  • 2 0
 Enduro
  • 3 1
 Starts literally $2000 higher with GX than bikes that are really well reviewed and specced with the fantastic SLX. (Nukeproof and Commencal etc.).
  • 4 1
 Totally. And add the crappy seat tube angle and it's a miss or me for sure. Was hoping it would be better...Checked out the specs too and they only come with 2.3 EXO tires in the rear as well. Huge fail...
  • 5 2
 @Marky771: Spoken like 2 people that have never ridden an evil.
  • 2 4
 but guys...err bros, it's an EVIL which means its totally the most unheard of but awesome brand ever
  • 3 2
 I see this company trying to get out of a hole I hope things go good for them, so many great manufacturers are out with newer geometry and great riding. I would hate to see a company turn out like niner.
  • 6 6
 For the love of God. No Super boost. STOP please. I will not recommend any bike that yet again changes standards for no really good reason. Is is a little better? probably. Will anybody notice the improvement? probably not.

Bike, website reviewers please do not accept this. Push back. this is a disservice to consumers. pure and simple.
  • 6 1
 Uses dh parts though...should have skipped boost and went straight to dh
  • 2 0
 Can't believe this company is still going. More warranty claims than you can count, terrible customer service. Quit while you're behind guys.
  • 3 0
 Ancient history, which, to their credit, Evil have rectified now.
  • 2 2
 The most annoying thing with evil is they are measuring effective seat tube angle at the end of the main frame seat tube, not stack height. You can see it in their geo diagram. It’s plain stupid as no one rides with a saddle that low
  • 1 0
 Such a good looking bike, I'd love to ride one. Any thoughts on heel clearance with the super boost rear @mikekazimer? I'm a tall dude with long feet and already rub the shit out of most boost frames.
  • 2 0
 Fox is gonna bring back Marzocchi's ETA and put it in the 38 too. Rumors.
  • 3 0
 The Zeb gets launched and somehow shows up on every new bike released.
  • 2 0
 Geometry is in the database for comparison purposes...
geometrygeeks.bike/bike/evil-wreckoning-2021
  • 3 0
 Never had a reason to upgrade my wreckoning, until now.
  • 4 2
 Sounds like a perfect frame for the new RockShox 190mm ZEB 38mm stanchion beast
  • 2 0
 Looks Sick. The original Wreck climbs awesome. I'm sure this will too. People need to try one of these for themselves
  • 3 0
 Version 3.0? I wasn't aware there was a Version 2.0.
  • 2 0
 Basically the same as the old one with a -1.5 angleset.
  • 3 0
 Upsizing on the old one and a -1.5 angleset
  • 3 1
 That's an impressive weight for a bike in this travel range with a coil.
  • 2 0
 Oh my tup This looks amazing!!!!
  • 2 0
 Rumors are flying that one of the big 3 is working on UltraBoost.....
  • 6 1
 Shoot me in the face.
  • 1 0
 Luke Strobel was running a 40 on this bike several years ago. I’d say it’s a pretty capable machine.
  • 1 1
 Would have liked to see an aggressive seat angle.
Is the stack height lower now? Many had to run a flat bar previous model
  • 1 0
 I have SuperBoost! I'm pretty sure that's not the super boost they were thinking of...
  • 2 3
 -Me, browsing Pinkbike

-Oh, new bike from Evil, lets check it out

-This looks interesting

-"sUpErBoOsT", dated geometry, ridiculously big price tag

-Rrrrrrright. Not interested anymore.
  • 2 0
 cool. another $8,000 Full Suspension Enduro Bike.
  • 1 0
 Geometry numbers in the article (table + text) are based on a 160mm fork, not 170mm.
  • 4 3
 Surely Wreck my bank account...
  • 2 1
 Holy upsweep on those handlebars batman.
  • 5 4
 Big bikes with short chainstay are a fail to me
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer What is the rear tire clearance?
  • 1 0
 Evil to make a wreckoning... on our wallets...
  • 1 2
 Evil bikes are amazing to look at! Not an easy task to refresh older models! Still, seattube angle and long top tube won’t work for me.
  • 1 0
 Needs a boXXer on it. Or put a SID on it lol.
  • 2 1
 Please make a Calling with this "update" and give it 140mm in the rear!!!
  • 2 1
 It's called the Offering. And it's really fun to ride.
  • 2 1
 @peleton7: thats a 29er, I want an even moooore fun and playful version in 27.5, which is why I said Calling
  • 1 0
 @Fullsend2-13: run the Offering in 27.5+. That's how I run it - and it is fun!
  • 1 0
 When will it end????????????????
  • 4 4
 445mm reach on a small? That's the reach I would ride and I'm 6'2". How do people ride 500mm reach? And why?
  • 1 0
 The question is: Will Aggy run 29" wheels on his Rampage Bike?
  • 1 0
 @mrwynnewillson I am pretty sure he won't. He already runs this very bike on 27.5 and a Boxxer fork. He used it at Darkfest earlier this year. Form the description of the bike at Evil's website, they seem to imply Sorge will be riding for Evil too and if you follow him on IG you'll see that he has nt posted anything about Polygon isn quite some time. I seriously doubt these two guys will ride anything but 27.5 on rampage. Not even Brendog runs 29 in the rear at Rampage.
  • 1 0
 I thought it was a Dh bike... they need to stop playing with my emotions
  • 1 0
 Can we try to flatten the curve on Boost and SuperBoost?
  • 1 0
 Reviewer size and bike size?
  • 2 1
 looking good
  • 4 6
 How long til someone complains about the name. Current trend in society today. Always liked the design. Would love to long some mileage on one.
  • 1 0
 Looking good
  • 1 0
 Jammon Salmon.
  • 2 2
 New evil Wreckoning.... "great"
...
Super boost rear axle... "Next"
  • 1 0
 Monster bike!
  • 2 2
 Add to cart
  • 3 4
 I skipped at 68 degree of effective seat angle... Isn't it 2020 already?
  • 4 6
 So you're saying the new bike is a total wreck?
  • 3 6
 Way over priced frame compared to YT or INTENSE. No deal
  • 5 2
 Intense and yt bikes are also shit
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2020. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.053376
Mobile Version of Website