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.
Frame DetailsThe 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.
GeometryThe 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.
Ride ImpressionsI 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.
enduro-mtb.com/en/super-boost-plus-standard
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.
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.
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.
Two decades.
"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.
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?
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.
2:1 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.
just imagine, the number of interections until we arrive at 666!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
www.knollybikes.com/engineering
-
So if anything we should skip 157 SuperBoost and go straight to 157 DH.
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.
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.
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.
IF buying a new bike today you're forced to buy boost or another hub standard that isn't 12x142.
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...
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.
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.
www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel_index.html
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?
@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.
And what makes it modified? Having a linkage driven shock? Because said linkage only modifies the leverage ratio as the designer sees fit and reduces loads on the shock. And helps packaging. All good things, of course, but kinematics wise, it's still a single pivot, so there won't be any difference in pivot locations for the same pedalling response between an Orange style (swingarm only) and a linkage driven single pivot bike.
Honestly, the split pivot is actually a 'different' take on the single pivot as it actually behaves differently when braking. I'd call that modified to be honest.
On a serious note, are the 200mm 30.9 droppers really that bad?
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?
Descending was amazing tho. Still tempted to demo this new wreckoning, which could lead to me buying one
And @j-p-i, I wouldn't want to downsize - the 480mm reach works really well for me on the descents.
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.
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.
@mikekazimer: Makes sense, cheers.
- 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
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.
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.
That's what is great about Amurica. No need to make any greater, haha ;-)
Try using escape characters, like \
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
2018 word champs. max 28%
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_UCI_Road_World_Championships_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_road_race
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).
Which I showed they do.
Typically MT Bikers do climb more and steeper but that was not what I was answering.
"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?
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?
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 .
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.
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 .
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.
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....
I honestly mean that if you´re limited by the STA on your bike, you need to seriously improve your technique...
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?"
@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.
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...
Edited to say that my bb to saddle height is 81.5cm, so Im not short in the legs, and I have the saddle mid position. I think this is all down to preference.
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.
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?
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.
www.transitionbikes.com/SBG_EffectiveSeattube.cfm
"Should we change it?"
"...Be a lot cooler if you did."
Shall we add Explosif to Coiler and Stinky? Colorway: Dwarf Brown
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
Cool username btw
Just lean forward 5mm when you go around a turn.
Maybe flip chips are the way to go.
But off the top of my head:
Pole, Santa Cruz, Norco, Privateer, Banshee, Nukeproof
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.
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.
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"
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.
@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.
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.
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.
Am I missing something?
And what Nino rides doesn't have much to do with the direction geometry is going - he's not exactly a mere mortal.
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.
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.
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...
But it looks like size matters a lot here.
Bike, website reviewers please do not accept this. Push back. this is a disservice to consumers. pure and simple.
geometrygeeks.bike/bike/evil-wreckoning-2021
Maybe I could run some offset bushings I suppose.
Is the stack height lower now? Many had to run a flat bar previous model
-Oh, new bike from Evil, lets check it out
-This looks interesting
-"sUpErBoOsT", dated geometry, ridiculously big price tag
-Rrrrrrright. Not interested anymore.
...
Super boost rear axle... "Next"