First Ride: Knolly Chilcotin 6.0
Canadian brand Knolly is releasing an all-new Chilcotin. The bike, which is named after the vast mountain range in BC, is in its sixth generation and sees a raft of changes that combine to offer something quite distinctive from the previous version. The geometry concept undergoes a significant change and the aesthetics receive a well-executed facelift. In fact, although the seat tube is carried over from the previous generation everything else has undergone a redesign, all while keeping this appropriately Knolly with their FourByFour Layout.
Chilcotin 6.0 Details
• Build options: 160f/155r & 170f/160r
• 29" Wheels
• Head angle (170/170): 64.25/63.75°
• Seat tube angle (170/170): 77.5/77°
• Rear-center length: 438, 442, 446, 450mm
• Reach (170/170): 458, 483, 509, 534mm
• Price: $4,499 USD - $5,799 USD
• More info: knollybikes.com
• Build options: 160f/155r & 170f/160r
• 29" Wheels
• Head angle (170/170): 64.25/63.75°
• Seat tube angle (170/170): 77.5/77°
• Rear-center length: 438, 442, 446, 450mm
• Reach (170/170): 458, 483, 509, 534mm
• Price: $4,499 USD - $5,799 USD
• More info: knollybikes.com
The bike will be available in two travel options, each with four different build kits. Both versions come with 29" wheels front and back and are available in small through extra-large. Being the same frame, you could run either with a fork from 160-180mm.
Frame Details
The new Chilcotin sees a slew of changes to its revised frame. The top tube is now lower slung and straight, giving it both a sharper, more compact look and a lower standover, the bearings are a full complement from Enduro, the rocker is now a one-piece monolink and all the bearings are house with flat-tooling in mind, which should make for easier installation and removal. There are also size-specific chainstay lengths that are UDH compatible, tool and bottle mounts, a lower shock mount to work with Fox's roller bearing kits, and a larger 180mm post mount. There is also the advent of the size small.
Geometry
The geometry of the Chilcotin has also seen some really big changes. Firstly, the introduction of size-specific chain stays shouldn't be understated. The brand is a large proponent of longer reaches, so having that offset to a degree by longer stays is a great way to keep the front more evenly weighted. Although when comparing the geometry chart to the outgoing model it might seem that reaches have increased again, which they have, this can be more easily offset by the introduction of the size small, allowing more riders to size down should they wish.
The sizing is proportional and reach values, effective top tube lengths and rear centers are all where you would expect them to be, however, I would also observe that the sizing labels aren't where a lot of riders would expect it. I would go as far as saying that in reality, the Chilcotin is available in sizes medium through extra-extra-large when compared to other brands. There is nothing wrong with this, but I would say that t-shirt style sizing might not be relevant should you be buying your own Knolly. For my testing, I'm 183cm (6") and rode a medium very happily, whereas I typically ride a large.
One thing riders of all shapes and sizes will enjoy though is the option to spec long-droppers. A combination of the short tubes and long insertion depth means that you might just be able to use your longest post yet. I've outfitted mine with a 240mm OneUp V2 post for testing, whereas with some other frames I can only just fit a 210mm in if I'm lucky. That 3cm of extra room will make a difference, even if it's a benefit you reap more as you adjust to it over time.
The seat tube angle is steep enough, but at extremes, its actual measurement might shuffle the rider's weight back towards the rear of the bike. This is often a trade-off between uninterrupted tubes and suspension layout packaging and will be looking to cater to riders that want extra-seatpost drop even if it means a slightly more rearward position.
Suspension Design
Would it be a Knolly without their FourBy4 system? The brand clearly believes that this is the best way to satisfy their particular demands, but that's not to say it isn't something of an outlier with its characteristics.
This version sees a further increase in anti-squat but also to leverage ratio. The idea is that you can have the efficiency of high anti-squat but then use the higher leverage ratio to offset this and still offer decent tracking. The bike also has a low-value of anti-rise to ensure independent braking, even if that might translate to more mass transfer when getting hard on the anchors. While I don't have exact figures, these attributes are present in riding the Chilcotin, and I look forward to providing a better-informed review in the spring. The immediately obvious benefit is tracking while not using the brakes, and even though 170mm is a bike with a lot of travel, it somehow feels like it has even more.
Ride Impressions
The new Chilcotin represents a decent step in the right direction from the previous version I tested in 2022. While it wouldn't be unfair to raise the point that I'm riding a size down from the last test, I would also say it's worth noting that the sizes have also grown significantly (by around 20mm in reach). All in all, the bike feels far better rounded, and I put some of that down to the shorter reach value I now have plus the size-specific stays. This combines to make you feel like you can trust the front more.
I would say that it is a good climber, and tracks better than the high anti-squat values that go hand-in-hand with Knolly's suspension concept may suggest. In fact, when it comes to singletrack the rear wheel very willing to hunt out grip. As stated, tracking in certain situations is excellent and I'm looking forward to continuing my test into the spring.
Pricing & Availability
The Chilcotin will be available in multi-build kits across four different frame colors. There is an additional fifth color, but the pink is a team issue only. All bikes come with the same DT Swiss M1900 wheels, Maxxis Assegai and DHR2 Exo+ tires, and an SDG Telis Seatpost. The bike is available now in limited runs.
Chilcotin Shimano Deore 160/155: $5999 CAD/$4499 USD - 170/170: $5999 CAD / $4499 USD - Marzochi Z1, RockShox Super Deluxe Ultimate, Shimano Deore drivetrain and brakes
Chilcotin SRAM GX/PSE 160/155: $6999 CAD/$5299 USD - 170/170: $7099 CAD / $$5399 USD - Fox Performance Elite 38/36, RockShox Super Deluxe Ultimate, SRAM GX drivetrain and Magura MT5 brakes
Chilcotin SRAM GX/Factory 160/155: $7299 CAD/$5499 - 170/170: $7399 CAD / $$5599 USD - Fox Factory 38/36, Fox Factory X2, SRAM GX drivetrain and Magura MT5 brakes
Chilcotin Shimano XT 160/155: $7699 CAD/$5799 USD - 170/170: $7799 CAD / $5899 USD - Fox Factory 38/36, Fox Factory X2, XT drivetrain and brakes
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
That's all I did... And keeps options open.
I've been able to get great deals on good to high end 157 wheels both new and used. The red headed step child of hub spacing standards makes for good deals. It also makes your 148 (assumption) wheels decent ROI when selling.
157 makes sense, and if youre buying a frame, youre already dealing with swapping and building. Just peruse the BuySell, and your local retailer
trust me, you and your girl won t notice the 4.5mm to the left at all...
There are economies of scale at work with whatever the most popular standard is, this makes for easier repair, sourcing, warranty etc.
I like the idea of SB but because its isn't the main option it will always be less desirable, at launch I really wanted it to take over, but that didn't happen. So we are stuck with boost, which was a dumb half measure.
Truth is, I run a bike with 148, and 1 with 157. There has been no difference in any of the issues you mentioned. In fact, youre more likely to encounter the issues you mentioned with a higher end hub than a hub with different spacing. Ever try to get parts quickly for a Ck, Hadley, Project 321, I9 Hydra, etc? most shops dont have that lying around. Need a free hub for an SLX 157 hub, pretty well any shop has a freehub for you.
We can make up all sorts of excuses one way or another, outside of your resale argument theres not much in it. To be honest, the resale argument works both ways, you can find good deals on 157 frames and wheels (as I mentioned before) cause its less popular.
148 was prolly a silly half measure, but the issues regarding 157 seem pretty overblown to me, and I run one
Youre simply just making up an argument in order to prove your point.
I run both, I've had to get parts for both, I've bought wheels for both. Small sample size, but yours is exactly 0, so.....
Youre welcome to have an opinion, but maybe check in with yourself to see if its a fair assessment
Just some information that may not be commonly known yet:
Regarding cranksets and chain lines:
Both main drivetrain manufacturers (Shimano and SRAM) are converging on a single 55mm Chainline for both 148mm Boost and 157mm Super Boost drivetrains.
E.G.:
SRAM Transmission has only 55mm CL option for both 148 and 157. While none of this is confirmed, it is speculated that this will be the path forward for whatever new drivetrains they introduce.
Shimano converted: Deore, SLX and XT (6120, 7120 and 8120) cranksets from 52mm to 55mm. They also introduced XTR 9125 in 55mm as well.
Going forward the only difference is rear wheel hub width. For sure, a rear wheel is not an insignificant bicycle component. But with the shift to a common 55mm chainline, this eliminates one of the two major concerns about different chainlines. 148 ---> 157 (Boost --> Super Boost) adapter kits are available in a pinch and cost about $10-15 on Amazon or through aftermarket manufacturers.
@dgwww doesnt seem to understand that the parts between 157 hubs, and 148 (the ones youd need to replace anyway) are completely interchangeable. Obviously 148 hubs, and 157 hubs from the same manufacturer runs different bearings and freehub assemblies.....so youd be totally screwed if you really needed a part
Generally the hubshell and its axle are the only difference between 148 and 157 hubs. Bearings and free hub bodies will be hub model specific and the same across all hub widths. You don't need a "super boost flanged" hubshell to work with 157: any 157 hub will work including every DH hubset on the market. Pretty much every hub manufacturer makes their most common MTB hubs in 142, 148 and 157.
If you are using hub adapters to convert a 148mm wheelset for a 157mm frame, no dishing on the rear wheel is required. You use the 4.5mm spacers on each end of the axle and are good to go (and the rotor spacer). If you are using a 55mm chainline crankset, the chainline will be appropriate as well.
Also please note that because we taper our chainstay close to the rear pivot, heal clearance is the same as most 148 Boost bikes on the market.
The move by both SRAM and Shimano towards 55mm chainline will simplify the crank situation for OEM customers, resellers and end user customers alike. It will take time to percolate throughout the market, but it's a simpler system that works for everyone.
The previous gen was looking like it would be the replacement for my aging Range (2018 frame). Guess that won;t be an option anymore.
I like to prioritize low speed steep tech handling over the race-pace stability of these longer frames. I'm good enough to compensate for a shorter reach/chain stay length at speed. I'd rather maintain the feel and maneuverability of a more moderate length bike. Of course, not everything needs to be designed for me (and people looking for similar attributes)... but options are starting to get limited.
I'd have to go down to a Small (in either travel configuration) to get a reach number that I'd even consider. I'm not tall, but at 5'9"... usually a medium is a safe bet.
I'm 6'1 and find the previous generation Chilco in large with a 490mm reach too long. Only manageable with a 31mm stem, which is too short IMO. Guess I'm a small now!?!?
It's not necessarily as easy as just sizing down though, because then your seattube is too short, headtube / stack is too low, effective top tube is too short due to steep STA, etc.
So you make a bike with longer reach and then shorter this reach with a shorter stem, shorter the wb with offset and you are left with a bike with flatter ha and a little more wb.
Anyway you said that shorter offset means quicker handling and I was just referring to this false statement. Now you say that you also needa shorter stem...
I've got exactly that setup - 465 reach Banshee Phantom with ~65.5* HA, 51 o/s, and 50mm stem & a 490 reach Chilcotin with ~63.5* HA, 44 o/s, and 31mm stem. Very different bikes and use cases, but I generally find the handling of the Phantom to feel more natural / intuitive.
Now, would I prefer that setup for a smashy smashy bike like this? Not necessarily, just saying it has its place and is not necessarily worse just because it has a certain length / offset / stem (IMO, it's arguably it's the better setup for the Phantom).
What I don't understand is how much of the difference in feel and handling is attributable to head angle vs. offset (and the resulting trail figure) vs. reach vs. stem length vs. wheelbase, because it's a dynamic system and they all have an impact on steering.
For example, say you have two bikes:
1. 64* HA, 44 o/s, 480 reach, 30 stem
2. 63* HA, 51 o/s, 460 reach, 50 stem
Even though we've just changed 4 significant variables, they might end up with the same trail figure, same wheelbase, and same effective fit (reach + stem). It's above my paygrade to figure out what the perfect combo is, but I will say the shorter reach + longer offset + longer stem combo seems to work well for more all around trail bikes vs. enduro crushers.
Paging @R-M-R because he's a whiz with this stuff...
You're absolutely right that it's a dynamic system and you can achieve similar results via different configurations. It's also difficult to factor in the human. For example, if we take the configurations you suggested, my intuition is #2 will feel more stable because its front-centre is almost as long, trail is greater, and the stem is longer. The rider might lean back slightly to compensate for the difference in reach, largely taking that variable out of the calculation.
We could match two variables, such as front-centre and trail, and the one with the shorter reach and longer stem would be more stable. So yeah, the tidy answer is that you can arrive at a pretty similar ride feel via different pathways. The early days of Mondraker's experimentation showed some interesting results that aren't captured in these numbers: they placed the hands and the front wheel in the same locations via combinations of reach and head-tube angle and found the steeper HT° had less understeer than the slacker HT°, which led them to the solution of longer reach, steeper HT° (steeper than their other prototypes, but slacker than typical for the time), and short stems. The understeer may have been related to trail and suspension binding may even have been a factor; I can't say I understand the exact causes and relationships.
Why stop there, though? Maybe we can vary the wheel size and tire width, put in a steering damper and recentering device, change the BB height ... and we haven't even explored the dynamic geometry capabilities of front linkage suspension!
how could you get hung jup on things with your GD T-rex arms?
FWIW, I've never thought you were that bloviating douchebag PVD (though he makes admittedly cool bikes that I would be interested to ride
Reach is the measurement from the BB to the top of the HT... it's not how long your arms are.
And whilst the ETT is more than I prefer at 176cm tall ( 605mm ETT is my ideal) the nice long reach and high stack the Knolly comes with would feel terrific for high speed and rough descents.
ie: Much the same geo as a medium Pivot Firebird but with slightly longer reach.
Would love to try them of course.
Knolly has historically had among they lowest pedaling anti-squat values on the market. If you're suggesting you expected the values to be high because it uses a Horst (plus extra shock linkage) design, a Horst - like any suspension type - can have any value the designer chooses.
Historically, Noel has used extremely low pedaling anti-squat because he claimed you can damp out the bobbing with a climb switch, but a bike with high pedaling anti-squat can never eliminate the kickback while pedaling, which he claimed was more detrimental to overall pedaling than bob. The former part of the argument is true and the latter is debatable, but not unreasonable. My preference is for the efficiency of high pedaling anti-squat without excessive low-speed damping. Personally, I'm not terribly bothered by kickback while pedaling, but I see his point and how some would prefer the feel of his designs.
The newer models have slightly higher pedaling anti-squat, but still outliers toward the low end. Pinkbike's reviews are among the most-read in the industry and many readers take your words as truth. Please take the time to apply journalistic rigor and not just repeat whatever lies, truths, misconceptions, and marketing spin manufacturers may throw your way. I would be happy to assist.
The values most companies supply to Pinkbike are dodgy at best. Pedaling anti-squat values depend on the chosen location of the centre of mass and can double or halve throughout the travel and across the cassette. Pinkbike publishes charts - or even single values - often without stating any of these values. For some bikes, I could provide two charts for a given bike that show an average pedaling anti-squat of 200% or 50% - or even a negative value, if I were to provide a single value at some undisclosed point in the travel - and none of it would be false.
I'm not just some comment section, keyboard engineer, you know
I think Henry is trying to walk the line w the companies desired presentation w some subtle nods to their kooky low AR values. See paragraph below.
"Would it be a Knolly without their FourBy4 system? The brand clearly believes that this is the best way to satisfy their particular demands, but that's not to say it isn't something of an *outlier* with its characteristics."
1. The relationship between pedaling anti-squat and chassis stability when pedaling is not linear. Many believe it is something like a bell-curve function, but there are actually local minimums due to resonance. It's complex!
2. There are damping systems available (ex. climb switches), which are being automated (ex. Flight Control, Live Valve, etc.).
3. Various riders value various characteristics and ride various terrain, so no one solution suits all customers.
4. Resistance to bobbing does not necessarily equate to efficiency - much less comfort, and less still enjoyment - especially in extremely rough terrain.
So, to be clear, I'm not saying low pedaling anti-squat is intrinsically and universally good or bad, nor am I saying the Knolly 4-By design intrinsically has any such characteristics. I'm saying it's a complex subject, Knolly has a unique perspective that will suit some riders (any will be poorly suited to others), and cycling media should better understand the subject before repeating values and philosophies. To be fair to Henry and to Pinkbike, both are better than average about this among cycling press and I believe Henry has admirable desire to be informative and transparent, but there's room for improvement in technical understanding and relating that to the audience.
That's exactly what it is. Well, some designers don't understand the physics of the machines they're designing, but let's talk about the ones who do. Marketing has led to an arms race of hyperbole in which every product has to be the no compromise, best ever at everything. In reality, everything is a compromise and it would be interesting to see what would happen if a company said something like
"We prioritized Characteristics A and B, which come at the expense of C and D. If that suits your tastes, you'll probably prefer our product over typical products that give equal weighting to A, B, C, and D, and you'll almost certainly prefer ours over products that prioritize C and D."
To expand on the first statement: Pedaling anti-squat is relevant only when pedaling. When pedaling, the hub is already engaged, so engagement delay is irrelevant. You're thinking of kickback when coasting, which can occur in certain situations, but is a separate concept.
I also stated eliminating hub float has "similar affects" to antisquat in that you are loading and unloading your hub/chain system constantly while your rear wheel is navigating terrain (w or w/o pedaling), so now the next time you rock your feet forward (either to pedal or riding dh) you are either getting a stiff chain (and stiffer suspension) or you are getting free float and that has an affect on how your bikes feels and pedals and suspension feel. I didnt make this stuff up so a bike engineer and his followers should understand this concept instead of blindly downvoting.
A similar line of thinking is, for example, how bike power meters arent true power meters as they only account for rotational power and not the power you are driving down into the pedals to maneuver/weight the bike.
In recent PR materials, I've heard their reps mention different types of terrain (eg. desert), but we know what a Knolly bike is truly meant for
The geometry charts show the same drop for both travel options. This means the static heights are the same, but the dynamic heights will differ due to the version with more travel having a greater time-averaged droop.
Does that get at what you're asking?
It's true a greater AtC will raise the frame a little, but mostly the front, not so much at the rear. If the charts are correct, we have to assume the flip chip precisely compensates for the different shock and AtC lengths, such the static BB position is the same for both configurations.
As mentioned earlier, this would match the static BB positions, which would mean the longer-term travel bike sits lower when comparing these configurations.
I like that they added some decent chainstay length, and that it varies per size. That was one of the things that had me holding off from the old model, so glad to see that fixed.
Its a breath of fresh air compared to the Scott announced today
Although still bummed by SuperBoost.
Exactly this.
I have a nice set of WAO Union wheels with Onyx hubs. I also tend to build from a frame up, but realize that is less common.
Also, the benefits of superboost seem really small these days. If we can make DH bikes with normal 148 boost spacing (current gen Specialized Demo), I don't really see a purpose for superboost to exist anymore (which was mostly billed to help give super short chainstays, and big tire clearance. These days longer chainstays are normal, so that benefit isn't a big deal anymore IMO).
Totally. If I had a 157 wheelset already, I'd of course feel different.
Its just there are so few brands using superboost now, even years later, means that I'd guess there are more people with 148 wheelsets laying around, than 157.
Which means I'm mostly bummed by the fact that there are two competing standards. Its just that one is way more prevalent than the other.
I kinda feel we got sold a bill of goods when 148 came along. The wider 157mm rear end has no engineering downsides that I've experienced. Heel clearance and chainline were all good. That said, I wish more bikes went with the wheel that is better at being a wheel, rather than what SRAM was marketing at the time that we're now stuck with.
It's meant to signify the 6th version of the patented Fourx4 suspension found on Knollys.
At time of the press release mailed out we realized that there was confusion by publications.
This is the NEW Chilcotin, which is the 3rd version of this bike bearing the name using the newest 6th version of the Fourx4.
I've decided that it's a kick ass bike but for me to really love it, the reach would need to be ~15mm shorter. Right now the length is good with a 31mm stem but I don't like how it steers and find it a bit tough to weight the front wheel.
Looks like they've gone the opposite direction with this generation though, the new medium is only a tad shorter than the old large... Also a YUGE (nearly 1,300mm) WB in large.
I loved the MX setup for shuttling and the length / handling with a 40 stem was great, but found the bb was too low for technical climbing (even with 165 cranks).
So while these reach numbers seem long, the ETT is actually nominal for the frame size and comparable to the last model.
His quote from lower down:
"Please note that there was a significant increase in seat tube angle between the previous Chilcotin and the new one. That alone accounts for about 20mm of increased reach, while keeping the ETT (Effective Top Tube) length the same.
The new bikes DO fit slightly larger than the outgoing ones, but it's only about 1/5 of a frame size. This was to make room for the new XS sized frames, launched with the Endorphin this past November."
Longer seatstay may counteract front end lift issues for taller riders climbing.
Pinkbike should measure effective sta for rider height if there were serious about their reviews...
True, but easier said than done!
First, Pinkbike would need to establish a consistent rider height for each size. But sizes never match up! One brand's Medium may have a reach of 440 mm, while another has 485 mm. Maybe the ideal solution is to create an equation to relate rider height and frame dimensions - maybe even separate formulae for different sexes. They could take it a step further by asking for the demographics of the brand's customers and fitting that onto the bell curve distribution of the equation relating bodies to bikes. That's actually what I did and how I design bikes, but I'm not aware of any other companies doing this! It also doesn't account for changing tastes. For example, the equation I might have used in 1994 - had I been designing then - would look a lot different than what I currently use.
For geometry charts, I prefer to publish the measurements in the traditional format (ex. seat-tube angle measured level with the top of the head-tube centreline), plus the actual angle, plus the angle at the assumed (and published) saddle height for each size. Unfortunately, this confuses many riders - and even the ones who understand it can make few comparisons, as other companies rarely publish anything like this.
So ... what's the solution? Most people want familiarity and convenience, even if it's misleading. We could try to introduce a new standard, but we know how that goes!
xkcd.com/927
The Chilcotin's actual seat tube angles are:
Medium: 69 degrees
Large: 70 degrees.
Effective seat tube angle is as listed on our Geo page and ranges from 77-78 degrees.
Seat tube angles are frame size specific and designed for different rider heights for each frame. For (e.g.) a size large frame, the extended saddle height is set to about 800mm from the BB shell. This corresponds to the proper pedaling position for a rider around 6'2" or 187cm in height with a 33-34" inseam. The XL frame is even steeper in actual seat tube angle.
This approach (actual and effective seat tube angles) is now common across the industry as almost all modern trail and enduro frames require clearance behind the seat tube for the rear wheel under full compression.
Please let us know if we can answer any more questions and feel free to reach out to us or our resellers directly if there is anything we can help you with. Cheers,
Meanwhile, please feel free to contact any of our friendly staff or one of our resellers and we will happily provide any geometry information that you need
My first mountain bike was a Chilcotin 167. Loved everything about it except for two things:
1: I have a 38" inseam and that seat tube basically put me right on top of the rear axle when climbing. Impossible to keep the front wheel on the ground.
2: Very low stack for a bike meant for tall people. Not a problem if you can throw a bunch of spacers under your stem (and don't mind losing some reach, but with a Knolly there's certainly room to sacrifice a bit), but I bought the bike used, so that wasn't an option.
Size specific chainstays are certainly an improvement over the previous model, but I feel like more should have been done.
I wanted to love the Chilcotin, but those two things forced me to sell it. Replaced it with a Privateer 161 and have been much happier with the 161. The seat tube angle alone was a revelation compared to the Chilcotin. Far less issues with the front end wanting to lift on climbs. Just wish it had more travel for those occasions when I decide to do a day of lift serve.
Next frame will likely be a Nucleon with the Supre drive if I'm honest. Been drooling over those for a while now.
That's a sample size of one, though - four if you count everyone in this comment chain - so let's look at my database (it contains every mountain bike from the past decade and plenty of interesting models from earlier). Knolly's current reach recommendations are nearly a full size larger than the average recommendations of their peers. Not a total outlier, though: the Geometron / Nicolai product range and the Canyon Strive have similar reach recommendations for a given rider height. Recommended values of reach vs. rider height increased at a surprisingly consistent rate from 2013 to 2022, at which point it leveled out. Perhaps the trend will pick up again as seat-tube angles continue to get steeper, or maybe we're approaching the practical limit. If it's the former, this Chilcotin will be like getting a bike from the future! If it's the latter, Knolly's recommendations may be at the upper end, but aren't crazy.
Again, that's relative to industry averages. Short seat-tubes and long droppers mean we have a greater ability than ever to choose whatever reach suits our taste and make the rest of the bike fit properly.
It's surprising where Seat Tube angles have gotten to, but I suspect for the most part they have leveled out. At a certain point, they are just too steep and really play havoc on the wrists and knees. We'll see - I guess never say never, but it seems like we're starting to bump into the upper limits...
The super steep Enduro / FR bike seat tubes are also challenging on trail bikes, simply because you need to pedal these bikes across terrain, not just up and down. If the STA is too steep, then the bike simply becomes uncomfortable to ride on moderate terrain for any length of time.
I'd like to think that we're at the forefront of the front center geometry. Given that we have had riders from sub 5' tall (150cm) to well over 6'6" (198cm) testing our new models, everyone has been pretty stoked on the geometry, including seat tube angles, reach, head tube lengths (longer, but still relatively low compared to the average in the industry) and of course seat tube height and dropper post insertion lengths (which we would argue are among the best in the industry). This is where we want Knolly to be geometry wise.
knollybikes.com/en-ca/products/chilcotin-170
Our spec stems are 40mm
Of course there will be a correlation between the frame's length and the rider's height, but if the seat-tube is short enough - as it is on Knolly's current range - almost any rider can ride almost any size, giving them the freedom to choose how they want their bike to feel. If you prefer a 480ish mm reach, choose the bike that matches your preferred length and ignore the nominal designation!
We may at some point move away from the traditional S, M, L, etc... sizing and just shift to a number. For now, riders should concentrate on the posted geometry for sizing decisions and if they have any questions, feel free to reach out to one of our resellers or us directly
Please note that there was a significant increase in seat tube angle between the previous Chilcotin and the new one. That alone accounts for about 20mm of increased reach, while keeping the ETT (Effective Top Tube) length the same.
The new bikes DO fit slightly larger than the outgoing ones, but it's only about about 1/5 of a frame size. This was to make room for the new XS sized frames, launched with the Endorphin this past November.
In terms of your height: at 6'1" - assuming your inseam length is fairly standard (33-34") I suspect that you would find you fit quite nicely on a new Chilcotin size large frame. We have several test riders all in this height range (myself included at 6'1.5" and 34" inseam) and all prefer the fit of the new Chilcotin vs. the outgoing model. Please feel free to contact us directly or any one of our resellers and we would be happy to help with any and all fitment questions!
I can confirm that the new sizing is a little larger that previous, I'm 5;11" 32" inseam and never ridden anything other than a large, I got a size M in my Chilcotin and it fits perfect. The new bikes are VERY well engineered and thought through, not built by accounting. I was a bit apprehensive buying a M, but the folks at Knolly were super helpful in guiding me through my size selection and they were spot on. If you want to see a pretty in depth look at the new bike check out the VanCan video that came out yesterday on assembling his new Chilcotin with Noel.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JMSWBrIF1o&ab_channel=VanCan
Da fark? Deore? 4.5K?
I just saw the ransom being far more expensive, which is even more absurd.
Would a longer chainstay corner better? Yes, but would it be more fun? Not IMO...even my large doesn't feel horribly unbalanced, and it's such a sled that I wouldn't want to extend the wheelbase more. It actually strikes a pretty good compromise between fast / fun if you ask me.
1)Superboost
Or
2)Cable tourism
???