First Ride: 2024 Canyon Spectral CF - Evolution Not Revolution

Feb 22, 2024
by Seb Stott  



Like many recent refreshes, the 2024 Canyon Spectral CF is more about refinement than reinvention. The new bike tweaks the recipe of the previous formulation of Spectral 29, which came out in 2021, while subtly adjusting its positioning in the Canyon range.

The previous bike was stepping on the toes of Canyon's enduro bike of the time, with 150 mm travel at the rear and 160 mm up front, and saw EWS action under multiple athletes. Mike Kazimer described it as more all-mountain than trail, whatever that means. With the new Spectral, Canyon say they wanted to build "a damn good all-rounder".
Canyon Spectral CF Details
• Full-carbon frame
• 140 mm rear travel, 150 mm front
• 29" or mixed-wheel via flip-chip
• Weight: 15.5 kg / 34.2 lb (actual, XL )
• 76.5° seat angle, 64° head angle
• Sizes: XS-XL / 425-525 mm reach
• Price: €4,999/£4,799/$6,499CAD as tested
canyon.com

The main change is that the travel has been knocked back to 140 mm rear, and 150 mm front (though it can still accept a 160 mm fork) to position it more squarely in the trail category. Also, instead of offering dedicated 29", 27.5" and mixed-wheel platforms, the new frame can be run with full-29" or mixed-wheel setups thanks to a flip chip. The geometry, kinematics and frame stiffness have been tweaked, and in-frame storage has been added. Also, Canyon rolled out their KIS (Keep It Stable) steering stabiliser system on all models, rather than just one. This can be removed at the rider's discretion.

The new Spectral is only available with a full-carbon frame. The alloy version of the previous generation Spectral will continue, and with travel numbers halfway between the new Spectral and Strive (both carbon only), it could be seen as a more affordable alternative to both.



photo

Frame details

The most noticeable change to the frame is the addition of a downtube storage port. It uses a knee-lever latch like you get on toolboxes, which does a good job of holding the lid shut tight without rattling. The downtube can accommodate Canyon's tool bundle, with tire levers, tube, CO2 inflator and cartridges, or whatever else you can squeeze in. Above the door is space for a 600 mm side-loading bottle in all sizes, or Canyon will offer a bespoke 850 ml bottle made by Fidlock. There's also space for a tool mount or frame bag under the top tube. Interestingly, Canyon are offering a free 3D printing file for a tool holder that fits under their new G5 stem, allowing anyone with access to a printer to make it themselves.

photo
photo

In 2022 Canyon introduced KIS (Keep It Stable) - their steering stabiliser that uses a spring to add a centering force to the steering assembly to reduce wheel flop. It was available on just one model of Spectral at first; now, KIS will be installed on every 2024 Spectral CF. The spring tension has been reduced to tone down the effect (when I tested it I liked it best set to minimum tension), and the bikes come with a blanking plate if you want to remove it. My test bike came without KIS, but having ridden it before, I don't feel I'm missing out.

The new Spectral has apparently been designed to offer similar overall stiffness to its predecessor but with slightly more flex in the back end thanks to slimmer seatstays. These also offer 2–3 mm more heal clearance on each side. The rocker link is now one-piece, making it stiffer, in a bid to reduce the side-loading of the shock.

photo
photo
photo
photo

For durability, Canyon spec double-sealed frame bearings filled with proprietary grease. Pivot spacers and seals are combined, apparently making for less fiddly pivot servicing and re-assembly. Thread inserts reduce the risk of stripping a thread and fully guided cable routing (which ingeniously bypasses the headset) should make cable swaps easier. The main pivot has a mud flap made of two parts that co-rotate with the suspension, while the stays are well protected with the now-obligatory ribbed rubber protector.

The frame has been designed primarily with 29" wheels in mind, but a flip chip on the chainstay pivot allows the bottom bracket height and frame angles to be conserved in either size. This approach causes the rear-centre to shrink from 437 mm to 429 mm with the smaller wheel, much to Matt Beer's dismay. Note the XS is only available with mullet wheels due to tire-saddle clearance issues. In addition, there's a geometry-adjust flip chip on the rear shock eyelet for fine-tuning, which allows the BB to be raised by 8 mm and the frame angles steepened by around 0.5 degrees from the stock setting.



photo
These geometry figures are for the low shock eyelet flip chip setting.

Geometry

Depending on how you look at it, the geometry has either transformed compared to the old Spectral 29, or stayed almost exactly the same.

Size-for size, reach numbers have grown by 15 mm, and stack height has grown too, which means the overall fit and front centre have grown by almost a whole frame size. So a new large will feel very similar to an old XL, and so on.

Canyon designed the 2024 Spectral to suit riders from 155 cm (5'1)" all the way up to a whopping 203 cm (6'8 ), which explains why the sizing of the XL is comparable to many brands' XXL. The addition of a fifth size (XS) at the other end of the scale ensures shorter riders are still catered to.

At 191 cm (6'3"), I considered downsizing to the large but opted for the XL for the higher stack height and based on the wheelbase, where I usually prefer something between 1,300 & 1,320 mm.

But if you were to downsize, the geometry is very similar to the old Spectral 29 - the chainstay length, BB height, head angle and effective seat angle haven't changed. The main difference is the shorter seat tube to fit longer dropper posts and a shorter chainstay in the mullet setting. Compared to other modern trail bikes, the reach is on the long side size-for-size, but the rest of the numbers are middle-of-the-road these days.



photo

Suspension design

photo

Canyon's press material talks at length about how they've fine-tuned the ride feel by straightening out the leverage curve compared to the previous Spectral. But aside from the reduction in travel, I doubt if anyone could tell the difference.

Either way, it's a fairly progressive system, with around 29% change in leverage over the shock throughout the stroke, which should make for plenty of mid-end stroke support. Interestingly, Canyon spec three different shocks across the range: a Fox Float X air, Fox DHX coil, and RockShox Super Deluxe air with the low-negative-volume "linear" air can. The spring curves of these three shocks are quite different, which will likely dwarf any subtle tweaks to the frame's leverage curve.

photo
photo

Anti-squat has gone down compared to the old bike, and it now stays well below 100% in all gears. This will reduce support while pedalling and increase pedal-bob in most situations. Canyon say this is offset by the reduced travel - and therefore firmer spring rates - and that lower anti-squat allows the suspension to move more freely over bumps while pedalling. Similarly, anti-rise had been reduced slightly, which should cause the bike to rise at the rear and pitch forward more readily when braking. So while there's less travel on tap, it might feel like there's more squish when pedalling or braking hard.



photo
Spectral CF LTD - €6,999/£6,699/$8,999CAD
photo
Spectral CF 9 (tested) - €4,999/£4,799/$6,499CAD
photo
Spectral CF 8 CLLCTV - €3,999/£3,999/$5,499CAD/$4,199USD
photo
Spectral CF 7 - €3,399/£3,299/$4,499CAD/$3,699USD

Builds

There are four models to choose from, although the top two builds are not available in the US. I'd say the entry-level CF7 looks to be the best value; with DT Swiss wheels, Fox Performance/Rhythm suspension, Shimano SLX drivetrain and four-pot brakes, its components are probably all you need. Full specs for all four builds are listed below.

photo




photo


Ride Impressions

As you'd hope for the category, the Spectral gains height without fuss. There is some pedal bob, but due to the short travel, it's only subtle and doesn't feel like it's sapping too much power. Similarly, I had to slide the saddle fully forward on the rails to get comfy, but the seat tube is just steep enough thanks to the fact the suspension doesn't slouch too much on the climbs. The stock DHR2 tires roll fast and make it easy to cover ground at speed, and the suspension does a good job of ironing out the chatter while you pedal through the rough. It's on rolling terrain, as opposed to brutally steep climbs, where the Spectral feels more rapid than many trail or enduro bikes.

I was advised to aim for somewhere between 25% and 30% sag, but I ended up reducing air pressure in the shock until I settled on 30%. With this setup, I was using all the travel on hard landings, but it never felt too soft or unsupported. One thing to note is that the O-ring doesn't quite go all the way to the end of the shaft (like this) when you do bottom out hard, which made me think I had more travel in reserve than I did. The main downside of going softer was a slight reduction in climbing performance. I also opened up the low- and high-speed compression damping but still found the suspension wasn't as supple as I'd like in certain situations. In particular, when braking while going over a crest, the rear wheel didn't seem to track the ground very well and often lost traction over braking bumps. On touchdown after small steps, the suspension doesn't feel as seamless when engaging the first part of its travel when compared to some other bikes.

photo

I suspect the shock's "linear" air can is to blame here, so I swapped to the progressive version with a higher negative air volume. I increased air pressure from 200 psi to 220 psi to maintain 30% sag and removed the volume spacer fitted in the shock. This setup still allowed access to full travel but made the bike feel more ground-hugging and settled when riding steep terrain and braking bumps. It's a big improvement in my mind.

photo
The stock air can (left) and the progressive one (right) which has a larger negative chamber.
photo

When things got gnarly, I did appreciate the burly brakes and the long front centre, which make it easier to hold your nerve and brake late. I did find the front end a little skittish on loose terrain, which I put down to the tire spec more so than the long front end relative to the rear centre. I'm glad I picked the XL, as I could only just get the bar high enough with all the spacers underneath the stem. Taller riders or those who size down will likely need a higher-rise bar.

On flowy jump lines and trail centres, the Spectral is in its element. The suspension is poppy and supportive, it carries speed well, and the geometry offers plenty of stability without being unwieldy. A true trail bike indeed.




Author Info:
seb-stott avatar

Member since Dec 29, 2014
298 articles

126 Comments
  • 195 2
 Best feature of K.I.S. system: no room left for cables to be routed through headset.
  • 23 0
 Don't give them any ideas.
  • 48 1
 @r-zero: cables routed through the KIS springs
  • 2 0
 At some point, they had a version where the cables and hoses were guided under a downtube protector, which makes most sense to me even for people who like their cables and hoses routed internally. I'm surprised to see they no longer have that. Is anyone aware of any issues they may have had with that feature?
  • 64 1
 Why is canyon trying to make me feel insecure by making me a medium?
  • 8 0
 haha this bike is huge by the geo chart
  • 6 0
 go with extra medium.
  • 56 3
 No cable tourism! Well done Canyon! Sizes are funny, luckily the XS exist, as a Medium with 475 reach is a proper Large
  • 6 0
 Yeah, and the S has a 60cms TT, 45 reach. Germans are big fellas.
  • 26 2
 Would someone please criticize the brands for removing sizes for shorter riders?! A 425mm reach as the smallest size is huge! I'm trying to help friends who are 152-156 cm tall to buy a new bike and almost nothing exist .
  • 115 0
 Agreed, very silly to piss off small people - you don't want them as enemies > typically very sneaky
  • 13 0
 @browner: As a short person, I approve this (your) message.
  • 13 0
 The sizes are odd. Making a medium have a 626 ett and 475mm reach. People who always bought based on size is going to be confused when they need to size down.

Should read s,m,l,xl,xxl or even s,m,m/l,l,xl.

There is 100% no XS size for this bike lol
  • 3 0
 Knolly Endorphin is designed for just these people!
  • 2 0
 @Ryan2949: no kidding, I'm 5'10" and that ETT on the medium is a little longer than I'd like it to be if it was my bike.
  • 3 0
 @meowmeowkill: sadly Knolly is really hard to come by within the EU without paying tolls.
  • 2 0
 @Ryan2949: Sizing is all over the place. With those reach numbers I'd be between a Medium and a Large and I'm 6'5".
  • 2 0
 @ClaraA: I believe Knolly have a distributor in Norway
  • 3 0
 Canyon's sizing is a mystery, I ride a large in most MTB brands and i'm a Small on canyon road bikes. They say its because they have. much larger range of sizes which is true...but its very confusing
  • 17 0
 Why is it that some bikes get the benefit of the tester making significant changes to them while others do not. If you’re going to change out one of the shock components for this bike to “help it out” it should be done for other brands as well. It isn’t a test of the bike as sold if you customize it. Or if you do that do it for all brands and it would be great.
  • 17 6
 That chain stays length for the mullet setup is a recipe for an unbalanced ride, in my opinion. It could works only on xs and s size.
  • 7 1
 Best cornering bike I’ve ever ridden was 395/439.5 in terms of reach and chainstay length, and i actually reckon having a bike with a proportionally slightly shorter reach and longer chainstay makes for a bike that corners really really well. Then again it’s all influenced a lot by personal preference, but Brian Cahal has been making a case for geometry like that recently and he’s us usually not far off the truth I find
  • 10 0
 @samdaman1:

Personally I’d like the chainstays to stay at the same length when running mullet.

Some brands feel we want shorter chainstays for a smaller wheel, but it just doesn’t make sense as mulleting makes a bike more nimble in the corners anyway. By keeping the chainstay the same length you retain the plantedness at speed in a straight line
  • 1 0
 @rich-2000: these bikes are not designed as mullets. The reason the mullet has shorter CS is that this is the only reasonable way to adjust the BB drop without ruining the suspension performance.
  • 1 0
 Always tricky to judge a full suspension bike by the unsprung geometry. Especially in the wheelbase dept. where the sagged rear center will grow and the front center will shrink. Especially when cornering where you'd sink even a little deeper than sag level.
  • 14 2
 Another full 27.5 option bites the dust , looks decent though
  • 7 5
 No kidding. But hey, snack storage. You’ll need snacks for those wagon wheel wheel outings.
  • 24 5
 There’s literally nothing stopping you from bumping the travel up 10mm and putting a small wheel on the front.
  • 6 4
 @succulentsausage: its added work and $$$ for new parts to do so. Some people may not want to go up 10mm in travel. And the bike is engineered (geo, kinematics, etc) around 29. So while its probably okay to just put on some 27.5s and not notice much difference if at all for the avg rider, at the end of the day its not the same as just buying a 27.5 bike ready out the box.
  • 4 1
 @succulentsausage: it's not that simple , to correct the geo you have to go up 20mm to get the same axle the crown length and add a head tube extender to compensate for the reduced wheel radius. It's doable though for sure
  • 5 0
 @FoxRedLabs: Exactly. A 27.5" fork is on average 20mm shorter axle to crown, and the axle on a 27.5" wheel is another 19mm lower than a 29" wheel with the same tire. If you want to avoid a headtube extender, you need to add a lot of travel to keep the geometry similar with a 27.5" front end
  • 1 0
 @showmethemountains: 170mm mezzer pro would be perfect. Or get an Intense 275.
  • 1 0
 @RWRides: Yes, that 170mm Mezzer would be about the same a2c height as a 150mm Lyrik or 36, but you still have to further compensate for the wheel size dropping the front end another 19mm.
  • 1 0
 @showmethemountains: yep if you go up 20mm travel and then put the headtube extender in it works out pretty much the same geo. Much easier to just get a 27.5 design in the first place. Theres still a few out there at the moment lucklily
  • 1 0
 @FoxRedLabs: Idk if it's Much easier... Just Mach 6 and Bronson as a full 27.5 comes to mind. What else?
  • 1 0
 @Vyckinis: bronson is now a mullet, pivot do have the shadowcat and yeti still have one i think , and airdrop have theirs and a coupel of other small manufactures but theres not many left now
  • 11 0
 it's almost as if this bike stands out because it doesn't stand out - I like that, Canyon!
  • 2 16
flag emptybe-er (Feb 22, 2024 at 3:43) (Below Threshold)
 Yes, more boring wagon wheelers are desperately needed at this time. We need welcoming bikes for deep pockets right now..
  • 8 1
 @emptybe-er: Is wheel size choice a wealth issue? Will dentist jokes follow?
  • 1 1
 @dcaf: No, well kind of if you think about it. Do you know more dentists or young blue collar that are throwing down? By throwing down, I mean someone not just trying to buy into a lifestyle trend (in order to bolster ego), but someone who can manual, jump, bunnyhop and appreciates riding a playful, versatile bike.
  • 5 0
 @dcaf: So mtb is actually becoming a wealth issue because people with $$$ don’t have the skills to realize 27.5 sucks.
  • 1 0
 I, too, love boring 29’ers, as long as they have snack storage.
  • 2 2
 Remember, it’s not evolution, it’s devolution. Let’s get back to not being able to jump.
  • 20 12
 Really glad to see in frame storage here. Blows my mind that some brands just don’t implement such a common sense feature. I know most of you pinkers prolly don’t care about it, but after you daily drive a bike with it you’ll look at bikes that don’t have it with skepticism. Having water + a tube or jacket with me while still having my bike look clean is nice, plus the waters weight is at the lowest point of the bike.
  • 11 2
 To me it seemed like a no brainer for a long time. Specialguys started doing it a long time ago and I wondered why no else jumped on.
It takes a lot of time and *engineering* to get the frame stiffness/reliability/feel/etc just right when you cut a big hole in the frame. Which will also drive up the price. So there’s that to consider as well.
  • 14 4
 I rode a Stumpy EVO with Swat storage last year and it was nice to have, but it wasn’t a game changer to me personally. I’d occasionally stow extra water or a very light jacket, but I also don’t mind wearing my Camelbak Chase vest on longer rides.
  • 22 2
 @stevemokan: I just bought a new bike that doesn't have it, and while I wish it did, not having it didn't make me buy a different bike.
  • 15 4
 Whether or not I can stuff things inside a frame isn’t even in the realm of things I consider when looking for a bike ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • 2 1
 @pmhobson: Amen to that.
  • 8 1
 @stevemokan: I have a SJ evo and kinda agree. It's nice, but more of a bonus feature that might tip the scales between two very similar bikes rather than anything to base a purchase on. Currently lusting over Madonnas where the lack of frame storage wouldn't bother me at all.
  • 2 0
 Well... the first spesh enduros with a hoke in the downtube the carbon frames were actually quite a bit heavier than the alloy one that didn't have a hole. Also I had that first enduro and the only thing I had in there were the setup I carry on my bike in a strap know. I really don't see the point with a hole in the downtube....
  • 2 0
 Meh, it's nice being able to keep a few things in the frame I suppose. But it's also pretty annoying always having to have it so jam packed it doesn't sound like a maraka going down hill. Then if you have to remove something (like a tube) and don't have anything to fill the space, your frame is right back to being a maraka.
  • 2 2
 Yeah in case the bike was not heavy enough you can still hide a few things in it , and fill your bottle to get closed to 38lbs
  • 22 11
 a 34 pound trail bike is riciculous.
  • 5 8
 What should it be?
  • 15 2
 @JonnyNorthmore: the new Pivot Switchblade comes in at or under 30 lbs
  • 2 0
 @JonnyNorthmore: my XL Stumpy expert is 29lbs with stock aluminum wheels
  • 1 0
 so last CF9 model I wanted to buy 13kg and 6000€... still a trail/enduro bike it makes sense comparing to ebikes... now 15.5kg... and less travel.. WTF!?
  • 7 0
 So what exactly is the point of having really common geo numbers and just naming everything one size smaller than conventional? A med has a 475mm reach and small is 450. If you called these large and med respectively, they would be the exact same sizing convention as every other brand. It also does seem weird to put the average height for male bodied people on your size small...

Granted if they just called them sizes 1-5 or whatever like specialized does, I wouldnt find it as weird. It just seems like a strange choice to do it like this
  • 15 6
 Who keeps asking for a steering damper? Please stop! ; )
  • 31 2
 Nobody asked for a steering damper and Canyon didn't provide one.
  • 11 0
 Be (slightly) more appealing if it was a damper
  • 2 7
flag Biketechted (Feb 22, 2024 at 4:41) (Below Threshold)
 @boozed: Thanks. Always like to be corrected by a Kiwi.
  • 20 0
 @Biketechted: That's an Aussie, mate. Now you've been corrected by a Kiwi...
  • 7 1
 As someone who is usually right in between sizes L and XL I really appreciate their new size L! Having to choose between 485 and 510 reach before, the 500 reach is ideal for me. Stack is a bit too low though.
  • 9 1
 do they make the bikes heavier to make us buy ebikes? CF7 +700g, -10mm travel ??
  • 4 1
 ..CF 9 +1.3kg Big Grin
  • 4 3
 @jankropik: That’s nearly 3 lbs, or a water bottle and snacks. But then you actually have a water bottle and snacks, so you’re looking at an additional 6 lbs to ride a boring CF 29’er. Yay.
  • 4 1
 Yes, this feels like a trend across the category - even for $5k and up carbon builds.

Santa Cruz, Trek, etc all come in at 33-35lbs
Meanwhile, Yeti, Ibis, and Specialized still have 30-32lb options

I’m looking at the builds… yes T-type is a bit heavy but not enough to explain the change. I think it may come down to warranty departments and in-frame storage. As a lighter weight rider who prefers a bike that’s easy to move around, I really notice a few extra pounds on the frame. If I lived in an area with bigger mountains and more forest road climbs I might not care… but then I’d probably be looking at Enduro and not Trail bikes anyway.
  • 8 2
 I hope i never have to deal with a Canyon warranty again. Their warranty department is the worst in the business.
  • 5 0
 I'm with you, holy crap did they give me the run-around on a delaminated BB shell. It took ages and I ended up paying for the shipping and full duties on a replacement frame.
  • 2 0
 @ewingate: I had same issue but different experience. I got new frame within a month and I did not pay anything.
  • 1 0
 @KiithSjet: same, just for a particual bearing. Just talked with the website chat and they sendt me it to Chile inmediatly, without asking to much stuff. They payed shippment and import duties
  • 9 4
 So I've gone from being in need of an XL/XXL+ a few years ago to now needing a Medium. It's almost like the designers have no idea what they're doing!?
  • 13 1
 You could just ignore the arbitrary labels and go by the numbers?
  • 4 1
 @JonnyNorthmore: after getting a new bike last year two sizes too big and losing a ton of money I do now. Bike sizing is just a mess imo, constantly changing year on year up and down for no real reason.
  • 3 1
 Dude, geometry has changed to the better in so many ways! Almost sounds like someone else doesn't know what he's doing...
  • 2 1
 @kage17: It did get better but now it's getting worse again imo. Being 6'5" I spent years riding bikes too small for me so when newer bigger sizes came along I embraced it. But the last few year sizing has got ridiculous and inconsistant. Reach numbers especially.
  • 2 0
 @Freakyjon: always go by the numbers. It's not (necessarily) that the designers don't know what they're doing; it's more like each brand/design team has their preference or guidelines to follow, and that's borne out in the product. Look at the numbers and you'll always know what you're getting.
  • 9 1
 34 pounds. How??
  • 2 1
 What’s that kis system weigh on top of adding material inside the frame to accommodate it… frame storage also adds weight doesn’t it
  • 6 0
 Does this mean the Spectral 125 has been killed off?
  • 3 0
 I was wondering the same, and I expect it could be so. Very niche bike, esp. considering the rest of the brand's short-mid travel bikes. Even the recently redesigned Neuron and this Spectral seem to have plenty of overlap.
  • 3 0
 Yes, it is.
  • 6 4
 I purchased a Canyon Torque back in May and in November the rear pivot screw stripped it's self. After many calls and emails to canyon warranty dept I am still waiting for the replacement bolt that is out of stock and canyon will not replace the frame either. Really sucks and I'm done with them if/when this ever gets sorted.
  • 2 0
 @etacata Maybe you could go to a machine shop and get what you need made.
  • 6 0
 that mini tool under the TT is just fine!
  • 4 3
 On paper verry similar to the new Jeffsy, on spec price and price. The Canyon looks really long compared to the Jeffsy though, 15 mm longer reach and 1 deg slacker seat tube that is a lot of extra top tube on the Canyon, that is some strange sizing. And I expect both Canyon and YT compete for worst customer service...
  • 4 2
 Actually, Canyon was crowned the winner for customer service from german mtb-news mag recently. So I assume their customer support can't be too bad.
  • 2 0
 @kage17: Interesting, sold my Canyon 2020, but was not happy with the support at the time. Sounds like they managed to improve.
Got a YT and they had a lot of potential improvement to the support to. Haven’t needed support from them in a couple of year either. So you never now.

You only get a few tries on support so they need to be on top of their game when they get the "chance" to shine...
  • 1 0
 @kage17:
Thats just because so many people have to contact their customer service
  • 1 0
 Last time I had to deal with the Canyon customer service was in 2022. Long story short: It was in fact so bad that I decided to never buy a Canyon again. YT couldn't possibly be worse.
  • 1 0
 Have been on a 2021 CF 7 and love it. The only improvement the 2021 model screamed for was to upgrade the super crappy noisy headset (that needs a service every 3 months — which now looks resolved. If it rides like the current model its a ripper.
  • 1 0
 Have the same bike with a shock upgrade and oneup stearing multitool. Climbs like a rocket, descend like a magic carpet. The only improvement a mortal could realy see here is the inframe storage. Geo is almost the same
  • 4 0
 The main change should be the bottom bracket shell stops nuking itself
  • 4 0
 I'd love to see a Spectral vs. Jeffsy comparison
  • 4 0
 But does the headset start making noise after two rides...
  • 2 0
 to be fair it is the stupid plastic top cap that makes the noise. Really baffling "cost savings" by keeping that piece plastic. The should have changed it to metal.
  • 9 7
 429 Chainstay with a 525 reach hahaha thats embarrassing. Should be 450. I'm convinced bike engineers are all under 6ft
  • 5 2
 Sorry, fat fingers, should’ve been +.

429mm chainstay lenght is crazy!
  • 3 0
 this or yt jeffsy? similar spec wise and price.
  • 3 0
 Three greyscale frame colors, and one actual color, bleh
  • 4 0
 Reminds me of a Jeffsey.
  • 1 0
 It seems head tube slackening is still happening, in some segments (in this case Trail). This is getting close to Enduros from 2020.
  • 1 0
 Those are some whacky geometry figures. Super long reach paired to tiny stack and very short chainstays. That's the recipe for understeer right there.
  • 3 2
 Fewer wheel size options, but snack storage!! Yes! Finally a 29’er with snack storage.
  • 2 1
 No aluminum?

Edit: I just saw the last version will live on in Aluminum; better than nothing.
  • 1 0
 last time the AL version came 1 year after the CF
  • 2 0
 Golden shower version is the best
  • 2 1
 Seb has the best and most thorough first ride/reviews.

This man is the "Truth"
  • 1 0
 Why the new model is so much heavier than the previous ?
More than 3 pounds for the CF8 ! !!
  • 1 0
 I wonder what PBs thoughts are between this and the gen 6 Fuel EX
  • 1 0
 Do they still spec these with knocking Acros headsets?
  • 2 1
 Did it break on the test ride or will it take a few weeks?
  • 1 0
 How is Evolution not Revolution not a cliche yet?
  • 2 0
 At least they didn't declare "Now with bold new graphics!" like the motorcycles industry does.
  • 2 1
 Once again I don’t get the point. 15,5 kg for a 150mm bike is wrong
  • 2 1
 35 lb trail bike LOL.
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.369157
Mobile Version of Website