First Ride: The New Canyon Strive

Jan 17, 2019
by Paul Aston  




Canyon, the direct sales giant from Koblenz, Germany have just finished updating their Strive enduro bike and invited us to Malaga, Spain, to see what it's capable of.

The new model was designed for top-level enduro racing with the help of the Canyon Factory Enduro Team, but promises to be a step up in performance for your local trails too. The previous version took the team to 2x Enduro World Series team championships so it has a lot to live up to. The geometry and kinematic-adjusting Shapeshifter remains to help with climbing, and is arguably more useful than a shock lockout, but has undergone a redesign for greater reliability and easier switching between modes.

This iteration was solely designed for 29" wheels, following extensive testing with athletes such as Ines Thoma and Dimitri Tordo. It is also only

Strive Details

• Intended use: enduro
• Rear wheel travel: 150mm
• Wheel size: 29''
• Carbon only, CF and CFR (-300g lighter)
• On-the-fly geometry and kinematics adjustment
• 66° head angle
• 435mm chainstays
• 2400g frame weight (CFR w/o shock, claimed)
• S to XL frame sizes
• Colors: CF- Mint Blue, Black, Red | CFR- Blue, Black/White
• MSRP: $3,999 - $6,000 USD | €2,999 - €6,999 EUR
www.canyon.com
available as a carbon frame, with no cheaper aluminum bike available. Instead, Canyon have followed Santa Cruz and Yeti with two different qualities of carbon used to create a less expensive, slightly heavier CF frame and a lighter, more expensive CFR frame, but both with the same stiffness characteristics.

Six models are available, four with the CF frame and two with the CFR, but only three in the USA, along with the CFR frameset. Complete bikes are available from $3,999 to $6,000 USD, with the frameset costing $2,999. For the rest of the world, complete bikes cost from €2,999 to €6,999 EUR with the frameset at €2,999.


Photo Boris Beyer

Frame Details

The carbon frame uses an angular design language to create a slick finished product. It features full internal cable routing (housed in foam to keep it quiet), essential down tube and chainstay protection, a custom headset retaining cap, space for a full-size water bottle and a 180mm PM brake mount so that most riders shouldn't need to use a brake adaptor, which is also good to see.

Canyon have designed their own Quixie rear axle for the Strive, which is tool-free and allows the lever to be stored inside the axle, reducing the width of the rear of the bike – one less thing to snag on a rock.

The CF vs CFR frame's weight difference is down to a change of lay-up of the carbon fiber. The CFR uses higher quality carbon fiber; the resin and fiber are combined in a different way and the weave alignment changes to create a frame that is 300g lighter, but equally as stiff.

Photo Boris Beyer
The obligatory down tube protector for the carbon frame.
Photo Boris Beyer
The Shapeshifter is well protected from the elements.
Photo Boris Beyer

Photo Boris Beyer
Canyon's headset top cap not only blends into the frame, but the grub screw also holds the fork in the headset to make changing stems and spacers easier.


Shapeshifter 2.0

Canyon's Shapeshifter enables the bike to be optimized for climbing or descending without adjusting the suspension setup, but they call the two modes 'pedal' and 'shred'. The geometry and kinematics are changed simultaneously to make the bike more efficient when you want it.

The system uses a handlebar mounted remote, air spring, and patented rear shock linkage. By changing the linkage locations, and kinematics with it, it is possible to switch between two different geometries with corresponding amounts of travel and suspension curves. In shred mode the bike has 150mm of travel, a 66° head angle and 73.5° seat angle. but with the Shapeshifter engaged in XC mode, these angles change by 1.5° for a 67.5° head angle and 75° seat angle, along with a reduction in travel to 135mm and a firmer suspension feel.

Photo Boris Beyer
Photo Boris Beyer

The original Shapeshifter did the same job but some riders experienced reliability problems, so this was a priority for the engineers working on version 2.0. Canyon made the decision to work with Fox, due to their experience with telescopic mechanisms, in the same way Yeti does with their Infinity systems. Changes made in the name of reliability are the new piston seals, which also reduce friction; the internal cable routing setup and the new air spring does not require an additional screw thread, enabling an integrated design to keep dirt out.

Other changes were also made to the system. The most important one being the ease of changing modes. The old version required a certain amount of effort and coordination to change modes, which could be tricky to accomplish during a race run. To change into the climbing mode, riders had to unweight the bike to let the suspension extend, and give a hefty bounce on the suspension to lower it back to descending mode. This also had to be timed in conjunction with depressing the remote lever on the bar and then releasing.

On the 2.0 it clicks into XC mode and then 'clacks' back into shred mode. The suspension no longer needs to be loaded, as setting the gas spring pressure equally to the shock allows it to change mode within a few seconds or with slight suspension movements.

Finally, the remote has been made more ergonomic and combined with the dropper post remote, cutting down on bar mounted clutter, weight and putting both levers in the easiest place to reach.

0% Loaded prev 1/2 next



Geometry

Canyon Strive Geometry chart

The new Strive is available in sizes small to XL, with corresponding reach measurements of 415mm to 500mm, so it should fit most riders. The head tube length also grows from 90mm to 130mm, keeping the handlebars in a similar position for all riders. Other important numbers are the 66° head angle (shred mode), 75° seat angle (XC mode), 336mm BB height and mid-length 435mm chainstays. These are rather conservative numbers on numbers on paper for a new enduro race bike.


Specifications

Four different builds (5.0 - 8.0) are available with the CF frame from €2,999 to €4,499 with a choice of three colors in each. The 5.0 uses an NX drivetrain up to X01 on the 8.0. Most models use Fox suspension front and rear (36 fork and DPX2 shock), with the 6.0 being the only Rockshox equipped choice. Some of the 8.0's price can be attributed to the Reynolds carbon wheels, but there are lots of choices without.

The two CFR builds, the 9.0 Team and 9.0 LTD, retail for €5,499 and €6,999 respectively. Both of these use SRAM Eagle drivetrains and Code RSC brakes, with X01 on the Team and XX1 on the LTD. The additional cost of the LTD is mostly down to the Fox Factory suspension and Enve M730 wheels, while the Team uses Rockshox suspension and Mavic Deemax Pro wheels.

Riders in the USA should be aware that only the CF 6.0, CF 8.0 and CFR 9.0 Team will be available to them for $3,999, $5,300 or $6,000, along with the CFR frameset for $2,999.



With the bike set-up with help from Fabien Barel, we were ready to shreddy. The advice was to set the bike at 30% rear sag in descend mode, with around 20% from the fork. Later I added pressure to the fork as the bikes were built with a Lyrik RCT3, which feels really under-supported and spends more time in the mid-stroke compared to the amazing 2019 Charger 2 version – luckily production bikes will be specced with this killer version of the fork.

Photo Boris Beyer

The first thing I noticed with the Strive was how quiet it was, proving that the attention to detail and internal foam housing tubes work well. Secondly, the Shapeshifter really does offer performance benefits over the old system and worked on the trail every time. Just click into the mode you want and it changes quickly without bother. It pedals well in either mode, though slightly better under power in climb mode. More importantly, the changes in geometry make a real difference for climbing off-road. I think that raising the bottom bracket and steepening the seat angle is key for a travel and geometry adjusting bike: improved ground clearance, better climbing position, and increased fork sag (from your weight shift) make more of a difference than the 1.5º change in a static situation.

In shred mode the bike had great small bump sensitivity, mid-stroke support, and smooth bottom out control, all of which resulted in a bike that tracked well and gave a playful and responsive ride, wanting to be pumped through terrain and popped over things. Canyon didn't mention anything about tuning the carbon layup, but this bike is definitely on the more forgiving side of the stiffness spectrum, meaning great grip and compliance through rough sections.

Photo Boris Beyer

Geometry? This is the sticking point for me, with the bike billed as an enduro racer. After going back and forth with so many bikes over the last few years, for me personally, the Strive has drawbacks. First, after riding with much steeper seat angles between 76 - 79º (hell, even those freeriders at YT just added a full 3º to the SA of the new Jeffsy), my legs just hate to pedal a slack seat angle. My quads and lower back were aching within minutes and it felt like pedaling through sand - maybe this would not be a problem if you already ride something similar. Secondly, the steeper head angle made it harder to commit to corners and brake hard in steep sections, forcing me to lean back more and lose grip on the front wheel. I rode an XL, which is the longest bike, with the steepest head angle I have tried to date (other bikes I have ridden with around a 500mm reach have had a maximum of HA of 65º). Leaning back to feel safe on steep sections made the bike feel too big (an Aston first!) and I would ride the large next time.

Overall, Canyon have improved upon their previous Strive chassis that was a hit with many riders and racers. Great suspension, feel, and now with a Shapeshifter that cannot be complained about (unless reliability issues show in the future), with a 'middle of the road' geometry and shape. The shape will work for many riders and scenarios, but it's on the tame side of things for an EWS racer.

Photo Boris Beyer







332 Comments

  • + 81
 I guess the 66 deg HTA could be seen as slightly steep, but unless you do literally race EWS level steep tracks all the time, the slightly steeper HTA will make for a better all round riding experience. Any geo is a compromise and my recent experience on mellower local tracks is that super slack bikes are a handful in the corners while a steeper angled bike - even with a longer than fashionable stem is better and still handles the steeps. I also think that Barel and his team know what they're doing...
  • + 164
 i think it was a missed opportunity...i mean, if you already going through the Trouble of make the geometry of the Frame adjustable on the fly, why not go crazy with the numbers? You can adjust it endlessly anyway...they should have made a 64HA in low and 66HA in high, 76SA in low and 78SA in high, BB height, etc....that way the bike pretty much suits everyone and every condition, and that "on the fly"...litteraly...
  • + 22
 problem is that this is canyon‘s new race enduro and the geo screams longtravel trailbike unfortunately. for sure a well made mtb, but a failed attempt at a enduro race bike in my opinion. 65 hta wouldn‘t have bin too far.
  • + 55
 @pperini:
Seems like they forgot to develop the bike along with the shapeshifter.
  • + 8
 @ondrejaugustin: F*ck that sounds so accurate LOL
  • + 22
 I have a hard time trusting barrel after the while mavic crossmax enduro rear wheel and tire fiasco. Expensive,Twangy ,19mm wide cheese, 20 odd sided weird spokes and a skinny plastic gripless tire din't make for fast reliable fun on anything but a fire road
  • + 12
 The shape shifter has so much potential if it had a radical change in geometry between the two settings. I think I'd just choose between a spectral or torque depending on style of riding especially with the torque being specd with 36's
  • + 3
 *spectral being specd with 36's too.
  • + 4
 @pperini: Canyon should just pay you some royalties and introduce exactly this geo to the Strive next year. I'd buy one.

Still, the frame is absolutely gorgeous as it is. One of the best recent frame designs.
  • + 15
 I'm also asking myself who can use a 660 mm top tube for a 470 mm reach... seated this thing has to feel like a triathlon bike! The 480 mm SB150 has a 35 mm shorter top tube.
  • + 5
 @jzPV: XL is even worse at 695mm(!) ETT / 500mm reach. Also no size specific CSL. As @pperini pointed out, it's a sadly missed opportunity to make this playful-stable unicorn bike. @ondrejaugustin Excellent point!
Canyon has something to strive for with the next generation bike. Conceptually, Shapeshifter is an excellent idea. Unlike, TALAS and its kind.
  • + 10
 @pperini: Agreed! The messed this one up big time for a new release! It's already a fail when u consider all the other newer releases.
  • - 2
 I don't see why they couldn't make the shapeshifter have an additional click to allow for super slack/enduro, trail and xc modes...

I know they say never go full enduro, but this concept is just begging for it to be taken further. Also why not make the system wireless and hydraulic...
  • + 0
 @jzPV: The new Yetis nail it!
  • + 5
 @pperini: If I could upvote this twice, I would. Strange to keep things so conservative. This should have been the new Spectral instead
  • + 4
 Because most of us mere mortals still have the same skills, or lack thereof, from years ago compared to present!?
  • + 28
 geez it gets worse guys...i was just Looking at their Website, and not only cant you have an alloy Frame anymore on this model, but the cheapest model (Carbon! Keep that in mind!) weights 15.6Kg!!!! wooooat the hell...my 29er, 170mm front/read, alloy Radon Swoop weights 14.2Kg and cost me 2250euros...Canyon, seriously...the only Thing you did Right on this bike was to go back to a threaded BB...
  • + 4
 100% agree as do other seasoned riders I’ve talked to. The latest super slacked out sales strategy is annoying. Kudos to the brands making bikes that we actually need and that ride well.. “My back hurt while peddling”, complete bullshit!!!
  • + 7
 lol - yet another review that fails to take into account the difference between actual seat tube angle and virtual seat tube angle (a claimed 75). There's no chance this bike has a 75 deg seat tube angle when seat post is fully extended for climbing.
  • + 22
 @pperini: Yes, nothing makes sense... It is like Canyon heard the "cheap, light, strong, choose 2" saying and promptly decided, "no you get none of the above"

If you like the geometry, then buy the equivalent spectral, which is 1kg lighter for the same price and better specced, geometry is almost identical.

If you want a 29er enduro bike, buy a YT capra alu bike, similar specs are 1k cheaper, 500g lighter (wtf), and it has more aggressive geometry.
  • + 3
 @utley06: Back to 90s for you then?
  • + 4
 @pperini: this is also true... best of both should have been easy to achieve. Also why limit it to 150mm. If I was racing EWS I'd use the Torque.
  • + 4
 @pperini: how do you find the Swoop?
  • + 10
 @Mondbiker: I was riding a 70 degree head angle in the 90's.. Today I'm on a Mojo 3 with a 66.8 degree head angle and short chainstays, which is a phenomenal handling balanced bike that climbs and descends outstanding.. The Mojo HD4 has been over slackened for the average rider / trail and even Ibis themselves have said its better designed for the bike park. Its these reviewers that muddy the waters and confuse riders with comments about their back hurting. Yes the new steeper seat tube helps with climbing these slacked out bikes but they do not replace the nimble playful feel of bikes like the Mojo 3, Yeti SB5 and so on.. The SB130 that I demoed was a plow through it confident inspiring bike but it was boring as hell for my local trails. I'm 190lbs and bench press 260 so its not a strength thing, they are just boring bikes. Unless you're Richie Rude status and can take a bike like the SB150 and make it his bitch, then yeah they make sense but for the average rider / trail these bikes are overkill and take the fun out of the ride. I can see if you're a super timid rider that these bikes could help with confidence but man you'd be missing a lot of fun out of other bikes that are better suited for your local trails.
  • + 6
 @utley06: I went from 1135mm wb 15YO nicolai to 1263mm WB mondraker, the bike feels better everywhere, even for trials moves as I have more time and space to move it around. If you have the skill it does just that, works well. If you don´t you will need shorter and unstable bike which gets confused for being nimble.
  • + 5
 @Mondbiker: nope, maybe style of riding has something to do with it but my Mojo 3 is a gawd damn jack rabbit on the trails. Has a 130mm just like the SB130 but is so much more playful and fun. easier to manual, throw around / over terrain, handles drops adequately.. Maybe at really high speeds it loses composure but thats about 15% of my riding as my trails are not straight up and down.
  • + 3
 @utley06: Well if you ride flat trails you can get away with worse geometry, simple as that. I will keep riding what suits me better, feel free to do that as well. Just don´t say it´s better than modern geometry, it isn´t, call it more fun if you must (some people like to fight the bike, so it´s fun for them I guess)
  • + 4
 Im tryn to figure out if I like new reduced offset forks...seems like the turning(fall off rate?) Happens quite more drastically than 51mm. So the front will tuck under easier.
Thinking reduced offset forks should be slightly slacker...works headset needed for testing
  • + 12
 @utley06: Riding bikes with forward seat angles where you're on top of the pedals actually makes my back hurt (the opposite of the reviewer's problem). So my experience doesn't match the reviewer but its definitely possible for a large seat angle difference to affect one's comfort.

As an aside, I also find that forward seat angles shift 90% of the workload to my quads, whereas a more traditional position over the BB uses my glutes and hams more effectively. It seems that would result in better muscle utilization over time, but again you probably get used to whatever you ride.

I'm glad that forward seat angles work for many people, but getting tired of them being touted as the end all be all. Although it should be noted that with a 32" inseam I don't extend the seat post as high as taller people so the effects of a slacker SA aren't as acute with me. For example I run a 150mm dropper and have never ever felt like I needed more drop.
  • + 4
 @jrocksdh: that was exactly my experience with a 46 offset on my '14 E29 which has only a 67.5 HA. I didn't like it at all. But I put the 46 offset on a 460 reach 65HA bike and it felt totally fine. OTOH, I tried a 51 on the same bike and really didn't notice the difference. IE the offset change was obvious and I didn't like it on my E29, but was a non-factor on the neo geo bike.
  • + 3
 @preston67: Is your back hurts with steep SA your bars are too low and make you hunch forward. If you can try it with 1 more 10mm stem spacer, it could and should change.
  • + 5
 lol! Most people believe the bike industry knows what it is doing and then are surprised when the following year the same model bike comes out longer and slacker...this bike should have come out with AT LEAST a 76º seat angle it is 2019 after all not 2009! At least with the head angle you can slap on an angleset and bring down to 64º.
  • + 4
 @powderturns: Agree! Looks like the actual seattube angle is slacker than the head tube angle. So the actual seattube angle is 66°ish. Pretty slack in my opinion. Not really helpful for long dropper posts.
  • + 2
 @SintraFreeride: Look at the headset, it doesn´t look like any angleset is going to fit in there. To me it seems like the mainstream brands don´t want you to mess around with their geometries with these frame specific headsets, just take it or leave it.
  • + 5
 @utley06: Depends where you live dude, the modern geo is awesome in BC, WA etc. 65-66 HTA 29er with long reach is fine for climbing when combined with short stem, short offset fork and steep STA which is the problem with the new Strive, tall dudes are gonna be seated on the rear axle.
  • + 1
 @utley06: Yeah... "my legs just hate to pedal a slack seat angle. My quads and lower back were aching within minutes and it felt like pedaling through sand - maybe this would not be a problem if you already ride something similar. Secondly, the steeper head angle made it harder to commit to corners and brake hard in steep sections, forcing me to lean back more and lose grip on the front wheel. I rode an XL, which is the longest bike, with the steepest head angle I have tried to date (other bikes I have ridden with around a 500mm reach have had a maximum of HA of 65º). Leaning back to feel safe on steep sections made the bike feel too big (an Aston first!) and I would ride the large next time."
A tad melodramatic, eh?
  • + 2
 @pperini: So sad... last year had lots of models, aluminum, down in the more attainable range, for instance you could get a carbon bike with just about top of the line stuff for 4 or 5k... 27.5 and longer travel... that was my dream bike... now fewer models, only carbon, more expensive, and 29" with possibly sorta conservative angles... I get the 29"/geo thing, and it differentiates it from the Spectral/Torque, but I thought Canyon's practically unbeatable value was big draw on the consumer-direct side... Anyone have a Canyon from last year for sale? Wink
  • - 1
 @celedonio: ur either not riding or trying hard enough then.
  • + 4
 @pperini: great comment. 64° should be the head angle for enduro bikes, and this is their enduro bike. The advantage on the downhills outweighs any drawbacks, and DH is the priority on these bikes. Another solid review by Aston.
  • + 2
 @utley06: I don't think that's necessarily true.. The new Yetis are slacked out same with that Jeffsy.. With the seat angles the way they are now at say 77d...A slacker bike now pedals better than say my older Trek fuel ex.. I was blown away when I demoed.. The slacker bikes don't feel as slack as they are on climbs with the steeper seat angles.
  • + 3
 @utley06: My sb130 is the furthest thing from boring and that was after a shit ton of demoing.. Granted mine has a 140mm pike on it... Once I got used to the geo I can't imagine going back.. I pop it and manual it of everything... Thing climbs better than my older fuel ex hands down and that thing was touted as one of the best climbers for 2016. Sure it smashes as well but it doesn't have to be ridden that way. Jesus, look at the shit Jeff Kendall Weed does on his Ripmo and that thing is a beast... He's also a ninja tho! But still!
  • + 1
 @Mondbiker: Agreed! I thought that my first demo on the sb130.. Demoed 150 then back to 130 again.. I figured the bike out and it was glorious.. U can pop these new bikes off anything once u have them figured.. Bought the 130 and couldn't be happier.
  • + 1
 @SintraFreeride: I don't want to have to do that either in 2019 if I'm buying a new bike tho.
  • + 0
 @Mondbiker: my trails aren’t flat, just not straight... mojo 3 is 3 years old and still modern in my book, 66.8 isn’t steep. Canyon got the geo right!
  • + 6
 @utley06: For xc bike maybe Wink
  • + 17
 For comparison's sake, from @paulaston 's review of the Banshee Prime a while back... "I was initially a little disappointed when the bike arrived without the adjustable drop-outs as I was on my way to the Alps, where I was thinking I would need it to be slacker in the head angle department. Nevertheless, I was pleased and surprised that at no point I felt that I needed to change the angles. After the whistle-stop tour I found that 67.5º was spot on—it never felt too steep or wallowed on the climbs." He also said the steep 75.5º STA felt great, and didn't cause any problems with a tallish rider like himself. He also noted that the bike, even though the components he had available were weak (32mm fork, etc.), didn't even start to get overwhelmed until the steepest and chunkiest of descents, and that it was probably all anyone except a DH racer really needed. This was on a 130mm 29er with a 67.5º HTA and 75.5º HTA, mind you! Now he wants 180mm 29ers with 63º HTA's, 82º STA, and the longer everything, the better. And now 66º HTA is scary, dangerous, and steep, 75º STA makes his back hurt and feels like pedaling through sand, etc... Practically unrideable! What happened, Paul? You're like a completely different person ! It's like I hardly know you! lol
  • + 4
 @mtbikeaddict: Did it have 595mm TT, 435mm CS, super slack actual seat angle? I know the answer, just trying to point you in the right direction, you seem to be lost in this whole geometry thing.
  • + 1
 @striveCF15: With so much AS built in, and the steep HA, no way it was designed for all mountain.
It just looks like a longer legged spectral with a liitle more complication...
  • + 2
 @bohns1: The Ripmo rides better than the SB130 for sure.. I was a huge fan of the Ripmo but its still a little to long for my liking. For longer travel, 27.5 is were its at for me unless I just want to smash over shit.
  • + 2
 @pperini: Bionicon went precisely that way and it didn't stick...
  • + 4
 @gramboh: I'm not arguing that a super slacked out bike doesn't make since in the right situation. However, look at Yeti's 29er line up for example.. You have an SB100 that has a 68ha and 74sa with 100mm of travel which is straight up XC/light trial numbers. It then bumps up to the SB130 which is the perfect amount of travel for my local trails but they made it super long, slacked it out to a 65.5ha and a crazy 77sa. The bike is long as hell which makes it lose its playfulness. It climbs great, descends even better but for me the fun factor is gone. I need a bike that can take a 15 foot double, 5 foot drops, pedal through the chunk and get up to speed fast for my tight up and down trails all while being nimble and quick or mountain biking isn't fun for me. Nothing wrong with middle of the road bikes and it seems like everyone is going super long and slack or bust.. Its nice to see Canyon offer up something reasonable.
  • - 2
 @utley06: for 2015, Ya, they nailed it!
  • + 0
 @utley06: I feel the opposite.. Although it was close.. The Ripmo couldn't quite match that switch infinity climbing ability in my books.. Tho it is more plush.. It was close for me.
  • + 1
 @preston67: good feedback..so far I've had the rallon(fox36performance), demo 153.29 kona(lyrik2.0?), and now my new 19 jeffsy(36g2). I haven't ridden the yt yet...too much rain(laughable timing here socal). Kona tucked in me-i fell. Rallon tucked in on me-almost fell.
So we'll with yt. Mist likely run low position 1st, then most likely slack it to 65 w/headset if its compatible.
  • + 1
 @pperini: Couldn't agree more, and its probably low-end carbon too. Have you seen the Fezzari Lasal Peak, great price, spec, and very progressive geo numbers. By-the-way, how is your Swoop, I really like the look of their new 29er Swoop and super value too, at least as good as YT Capra Comp in value if not better.
  • + 1
 @preston67: Now you're getting seriously old school: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo_Geo_
  • + 3
 @utley06: Maybe you just don’t get the right size bike with modern geometry or ride them properly to have them handle well. My current bike has around 480 reach with a ~65 degree head angle and 453 chain stays and it handles just like the nomad in a large which is shorter by 20mm in reach and chainstay length. The nomad in a large has the same geometry as the sb130 in a medium, granted the yeti is a 29er, but they should handle fairly similar. And you said earlier that you’re a seasoned rider, but riding a new school bike with old school techniques doesn’t work. If you watch Sam Hill’s 2008 Val Di Sole run he is hanging off the back the entire way down. If you watch any vital raw from the world cups you’ll see that even at Val Di Sole the riders stay fairly central on the bike. If you ride aggressively over the front newer, long and raked out bikes handle like a dream. If you don’t they don’t ride well at all and lose the nimbleness because you aren’t riding them, you’re just along for the ride.
  • + 8
 @mtbikeaddict: Yeah, there are a treasure trove of old reviews out there that will be painful for many of these guys if brought up. RC in particular, if only because there is content based on his perspective going back 20ish years. rather than the 10 years for the other guys. That's not to say that I don't appreciate their efforts, but they do have a way of framing their perspective as gospel, rather than the personal opinion (colored by the current zeitgeist and pressure from advertisers) that it really is. If we dig deep enough, we will find an Iron Horse DH bike profile in an issue of MBA that highlights the 150mm stem, because of course you want the longest stem possible on a DH bike, to ensure maximum front tire grip.

You shouldn't be too hard on the staff though. If you look at the poor sap commentators, you will see the same thing. Not that long ago, a 68 head angle on an enduro/trail bike was "balanced" and 66 was "extreme". A year before, and you can bump up those numbers a notch, and a year later and you can drop them down similarly. Now 66 is out of touch, and anyone who knows anything is at 65 or lower. Tough to say where we will end up but it does seem that things have stabilized in the 62-63 range for DH, and we know moto didn't go much below that, so it may have reached its terminus. I know, it's frustrating having people who claim to be experts, who write reviews, when they are fallible humans subject to the same biases as you and I, but such is the condition of enthusiast journalism, take it or leave it. Knowhatimean?
  • + 1
 @jzPV: the sizing makes no sense. The medium has a 30mm longer top tube than my medium Norco Range or the RM Slayer I had before that. I'd have to ride a size small to get a similar seated reach position.
  • + 5
 @Gremclon: the swoop is an amazing bike dude...stiff, inexpensive, the susp kinematics are spot on, adjustable geometry really makes sense and all 3 settings are very usable, and for the Price of the 2019 base model, i personally dont think you can get a better deal out there...the spec is insane for the Price and as i mentioned, even though it Costs only About 2500euros, the bikes weights only About 14.2kg, Features E1900 wheelset, some of the best Schwalbe tires Money can buy, Monarch RC3 Debonair 170mm, Lyric RC2 170mm, Magura MT5 Brakes, Tellis dropper...and the list goes on...for 2500? not bad at all..
  • + 3
 @pperini: The highest end LTD Strive for 7k weighs 14.2kg... Thats no cool
  • + 0
 @pperini: No one ever said carbon is always ligther then alloy is, atleast not someone with his head in the right place. If stiffness is your goal you can go crazy with carbon and end up being heavier then an alloy frame. By the way, the "old" Strive also had a threaded BB ;-)
  • + 2
 @pperini: thanks a million I've been trying to decide between that and the new jeffsy
  • + 1
 @Gremclon: the Jeffsy/Capra were very high on my list as well, but i seriously dislike the pressfit BB and i have heard way too many stories about snapped YT Frames and it kinda got me a bit scared of them...for whatever its worth, my second option would have been a Propain Tyee, worth checking out for sure
  • + 3
 @TheSlayer99: cool, yeah I suck, I don’t get it, I’m not wearing full face. Great, grand, trick of the day!!! I see what’s at my local trail, I’ve seen all the shit YouTube riders. I’m confident in my level of riding and I’m done arguing with a bunch of enduro wanna be riders that compare themselves to pro level riders.. I hope bike manufacturers continue to make bikes that make sense.
  • + 1
 Yep. They must be republican with these conservative ass numbers. @pperini:
  • - 2
 @utley06: Like I said, ride what you want and what you have, just don´t say that bike that is supposed to be modern makes sense when is actually 5 years behind the curve. It doesn´t make any sense. If you want to ride dated geometry, cool, retro bikes have fans too, nothing wrong with that. Also if you want playfull bike, no reason for you to ride anything other than fully rigid setup, bloody suspension takes away so much playfullness that no geometry change can take away more.
  • + 4
 @Mondbiker: no one gives a shit “what you said” I came on here and stated I have no problem with canyons geo.. you came at me disagreeing.. I didn’t come at you..
  • - 2
 @utley06: You obviously do if you reply mate Wink If you bullshit the bullshiter, you will get called out on it, simple.
  • + 3
 @Mondbiker: I’m not your mate; keep buying into the marketing BS you’re their number one sucker
  • - 1
 @utley06: I never said you sucked, if you really read what I had said, you would know I said riding has changed with geometry and that because you probably haven’t changed your riding style with geometry might be why you don’t think newer bikes handle well, to which you could ride a bike with more conservative numbers and it would feel perfectly fine. And for the record I am not an enduro wanna be, I could easily take a great result in the overall of my regional enduro series.
  • - 3
 @utley06: You mad bro?
  • + 3
 The MTB industry is setup [for better or worse] where the Pros and Consumers essentially ride the same product. Most racing isn't this way. Moto3/2/GP and basically any pro level racing use prototypes specific to racing that consumer will never see - highly adjustable, highly specific. Even production based series like WSBK still use fully adjustable frames, from head angles, swingarms to seat angles. Trickle down tech is great, but to say what works best for the speeds Richie Rude is riding at is also optimal for the average rider on the trails may be disingenuous?
  • + 4
 @Mondbiker: No idea why utley06 is so against long and slack.. Ive been trying to make my dam bikes longer and slacker for the last 10 years and finally dont have to.. its not being duped by marketing ... its bike companies following what most riders have been doing with anglesets, offset bushings and inline posts with the saddle forward for years. This bike will look past it in 18 months. Its deffo 2-3 years behind the curve.

The recent 65/66 - ha 77 sa bikes are by far the best ive ever ridden. No loss in chuckability at all.
  • + 3
 @Karve: Not against long and slack, I commented that I was for the Canyon Geo because I enjoy a playful nimble bike and twinkle toes got dick bent over it. Ride what you want, I don't give two shits.
  • + 1
 @utley06: Ahhhh, The beauty of choice in this day and age.
  • + 1
 @Mondbiker: Hadn't noticed that. Shame though.
  • + 2
 @motard5: I agree. I have noticed that with suspension setup in the past. Bikes setup way too hard for the average riders.
  • + 1
 @dangerousdave: I’d argue it’s less about the sizing and more about that janky actual seat tube angle. It’s slacker than the head angle and that’s what’s screwing up your seated climbing position and making it so long.
  • + 2
 @mtbikeaddict:

I reviewed the Banshee Prime in October 2013!! I think a few things have progressed since then.
  • + 1
 @paulaston: Ah, I was wondering if you'd show up. No worries, I'm aware of the timeline, just messing with you a bit, and honestly, I just thought that parts of the review were phrased a little strangely. But it makes me wonder, considering how different this review felt from other reviewers' feelings on this bike... Is it truly that slightly "older" geometry, while praised recently and for years, actually really sucked, and causes pain, sketchiness, etc., and should be obsolete/ignored/abandoned whatever now that the latest and greatest thing is out? Or is it comparison thing where it was ok, but compared to modern bikes is horrible? Or is it still pretty good, but comparatively speaking, "newer" is a little "better"? Or is it just, as one review noted, that both are fine, but to a hard-core longer-lower-slacker(hta)-steeper(sta) fan, riding a bike like this could be a little different and uncomfortable, and require adaptation, and you're one of those people? Does 2014 Prime or Altitude still ride like it was said to in its review? Would you still say the Prime is a great bike, and that review still applies? Or would you say it needs to be longer, lower, slacker, and steeper? Or somehow both? Genuinely curious . Smile
  • + 2
 You are all so smart ha? 99% of you guyz cant tell the difference between 66 or 65 HA angle except on a paper... Its just a number in your head. You wont be any faster with a slacker geometry. Only the ones who suck at riding are complaining. Slacker is not always better. The bike needs to be balanced and the suspension needs to work in harmony with the frame...Its so simple.
  • + 2
 @sid700: Yes a bike should be balanced and yes most people wouldn't notice the difference of 1º in HA, However, slacker is better up to a point, that point is 63º.
  • + 2
 @SintraFreeride: dude...its a trail/enduro bike..not dh...Its just not posible to make a frame with 63º angle that would be suitable for effective pedaling...
You guyz are looking just for numbers in geometry and travel and this is wrong.
A slacker strive with more travel would be nice on a paper but would it be on a trail too?
J. Graves was racing with new stupmy frame last year instead with old enduro frame---He said: Its more about quality than quantety...
I have been riding bikes for years now and I can tell that a good balenced bike with 150mm travel performs better than some of long travel enduro bikes...Like scott genius 16-17....170mm travel for nothing...On the other side you got a Santa Hightower LT with 150mm travel which performs better on the trail than most full enduro bikes...
Dont judge a bike on a paper...thats all...
  • + 1
 @sid700 : "dude...its a trail/enduro bike..not dh...Its just not posible to make a frame with 63º angle that would be suitable for effective pedaling..."

It is possible, I've done it on a regular basis. It's not ideal for technical climbing but if you're mostly pedaling up gravel roads it's fine and worth it for the downhill performance. This has been an ongoing battle in the sport for 30 years, every time the bikes get slacker some complain they won't climb as well but they turn out fine. If you want steeper angles get some offset bushings or a shorter travel fork and quit trying to hold back the downhill performance of downhill oriented bikes.
  • + 1
 @Flowcheckers: Oh yeah, reducing travel is the way to go /s/. "quit trying to hold back the performance of downhill oriented bikes" Except we're not talking about DH bikes. Facepalm This isn't a DH bike. Nor is it intended to be one. "It's not ideal for technical climbing but if you're mostly pedaling up gravel roads it's fine and worth it for the downhill performance." You are a textbook example of the present-day issues. Make everything a DH bike for your super-enduro-bro trails that apparently only go down, with the only pedaling being on smooth dirt roads when you can't find someone to shuttle for you.
  • + 1
 @sid700: My "trail" bike has a 62-63º head angle and that has little effect on its pedaling ability. Slack head angles make the bike wander on uphills IF you have a short reach bike, with decent reach it ceases to be a problem. I didn't say you needed 63º on this bike but a little slacker and it would feel better for sure!
  • + 0
 @mtbikeaddict: You can climb a 63° bike up single track trails if you have decent skills. With the seat raised to the proper height it doesn't feel like a downhill bike. Have you tried riding an enduro bike with a 63 head angle uphill?
If its a bike designed for top level enduro racing it's a downhill oriented-bike and should have DH bike geometry.
  • + 51
 3000 EUR for frame only? From a direct sale? Are they serious ? I can get a Yeti from my local bikeshop for just a few more pennies (or even same price if I manage to get a discount).
  • + 7
 Canyon frame only prices have always been totally ridiculous and i don't understand why they even offer the frame only option. The complete bikes are really well priced, though. It would actually be far cheaper to buy a complete bike and sell the components than to buy a frame.
  • + 11
 Yeah huge problem, but i have a deal for you. I buy the low spec bike for 3000, and sell you frame, shock and dropper for 2000.
Deal?
  • + 1
 But it's not just frame only, you also get a Fox Transfer Kashima seat post and a headset and post clamp
  • + 2
 I would guess that most of their sales figures don't come from frame only sales, and the (probable) amount of frames for sale is pretty low. Just a guess, though.
  • + 1
 The rallon is quite expensive frame only as well..almost like companies are tryn to steer buyer into the complete...of course.
  • + 9
 Framesets are this expensive because of anti dumping duties. If you import a asian made frame only and sell it, you have to pay 100% anti dumping duty. If you build up the bike in the EU like Canyon does in Koblenz, you don't have to pay those duties. All this is to protect some jobs in Europe in this branche of industrie.
  • + 1
 @jrocksdh: except that Orbea is not a direct sale company. Btw I love my Rallon, it’s just a little too noisy.
  • + 2
 @Medacus: yeah but you used to get the same for 2400-2500 eur before...
  • + 2
 A bunch of factors here, but, volume plays a role, as well as their desire to increase the perceived value of their completes, in addition to any local duty idiosyncrasies, and a feeling of obligation to keep pricing consistent across markets, even if duties differ.
  • + 3
 @kamelfront: That might play a role. However, canyon frames are expensive even in comparison to other frame only offers. Given the economies of scale that Canyon can leverage, i don't get why their frames are just as, if not more expensive than boutique brands.
  • + 2
 @Ttimer: agree. see intense frame only prices nowadays... you can get carbon tracer for less than 2000 usd...
  • + 52
 Missed opportunity not calling the two Shapeshifter modes "pedal" and "shredal"
  • + 31
 pedo and speedo?
  • + 3
 @lacuna:
Pedo/shredo?
  • + 47
 The shapeshifter is a turn off. More gadgets more problems
  • + 6
 Aye, that's the reason I sold mine. I had a Strive when they first came out. They were a 2X and just had so much going on up in the cockpit. Rear D, Front D, seat dropper, shapeshifter. When it came to going downhill you would just have so much shit to mess around with to get it good to go. My shapeshifter piled in like the rest of them too, hopefully the 2.0 is much better. Good bike tho. When it was 27.5 anyway.....
  • + 2
 @priest55:
Yep, and if I buy a bike with one-off tricky components... it will be with my LBS.
When you buy online you want simplicity and easy home wrenching.
I like Canyon but again, shapeshifter is off the table.
  • + 10
 @Cherry79: What's an LBS? Load Bearing Sister?
  • + 2
 @priest55:
NahSmile
Local Bike Shop,
Or that’s a whoosh over my head smartassSmile
  • + 1
 @priest55: da fuq!
  • + 1
 Without the shapeshifter I would definitely consider this bike, although ideally with a steeper STA.
  • + 36
 So basically the shapeshifter gives us a steep or really steep HA. It looks like a Trek Slash but with worse geometry. As a current Strive owner and someone who has been eagerly anticipating this bike, I'm disappointed. Not for me thanks.
  • + 11
 Exactly the same here. Also a no Alu is a no-go.
  • + 27
 This is just lazy design, they literally took the old Strive and made it in 29 wheels (just to differentiate it I guess?). What the hell is the point of having a geo switch if your slackest setting is 66°???
This might pedal well but you know what also does? A lighter bike with a steeper seat angle
  • + 29
 Welcome to 2015 Canyon, must feel great to release an obsolete bike
  • + 29
 This is honestly just a 150mm trail bike.
  • + 16
 Yup, it is. But what's really interesting is the fact your nickname is exactly like my full name. Must go for a beer!
  • + 5
 Well what a coincidence! Maybe sometime we'll go Big Grin
  • + 17
 If you wanna make enduro of this, you'll need the following:
1° or 1,5° angleset
Buy XL over 180
Buy L under 180
Don't bother over 190
Buy one-up dropper to make this biggest drop possible out of your too long seat tube
Slide saddle forward and hope it doesn't feel too short when pedalling.

Or you can have race-ready Capra out of the box for the same money
  • + 1
 I agree with most of what you said, why the hell would you put 500mm seattube on anything other than XXL size if you have one is beyond me...With 695mm toptube you could slide the saddle off the reails forward and ot wouldn´t feel too short, it´s actually ridiculously long, for comparison XXL Geometron G16 doesn´t come close to it, I don´t know how much the shape shifter will change TT number, but I cannot see it being more than 15mm. And again, going with short chainstays. Stupid, really stupid. But 29er capra isn´t much better either, it´s half a degree here and 5mm there, not much in it. It seems to me they really focused on jeffsy development and didn´t really do much to improve capra other than new colors.
  • + 3
 @Mondbiker: I'm with you. My large Bird Aeris AM9 is slacker, has the same 500mm reach as the XL Strive but a 40mm shorter ETT, so with long seat post extension I'm barely over the middle of the chainstays, not the rear axle like the Strive would be, plus the AM9 has a 470mm ST making it easier for people to size up.
I didn't consider the first Strive because of the wheel size, but I wouldn't consider this one either I'm afraid.

It does look good though.
  • + 0
 @Mondbiker: The shapeshifter would extend the TT even more.
  • + 2
 @TheSlayer99: I don´t know how exactly you came to this conclusion, I´m thinking it won´t change it at all if you don´t change seat height, if you lower it to be at the same position in relation to ground, it will shorten it, but why would anyone do that, I don´t know. Physically it cannot do anything as TT is measured between two fixed points of bike, so it won´t change unlike reach which is pretty much virtual number. One thing I noticed when looking at the bike, it looks to me that the actual seat angle is slacker than HA? WTF in this day and age? That puts it at something like 65 maybe even 64deg., don´t you even dare extending your dropper past point where they measured the effective SA, you won´t even able to reach your grips and loop out immediately lol. They got the geo sooo wrong with this bike I actually feel sorry for them. People will still buy it though, it looks nice and is well priced and most people don´t understand geo numbers anyway.
  • + 1
 @Mondbiker: I was mistaken between TT and reach. Reach extends and TT shortens. If you look at the geometry of any rocky mountain bike, you will see that going between the slackest mode and the steepest mode of the ride 9 chip in the geometry chart you will see that I am correct. I agree about how horrible the geometry is, as the small and the medium got smaller in reach, and the large grew by 2mm in reach, with the xl being the only size to have a significant positive change. The only real updates were the wheel size, kinematics and shapeshifter. If they made the geometry of the neuron the same as this bike and made this bike more similar to the new stumpjumper evo or sb150 and I would buy a canyon. Until then, I will go on believing their bikes aren't good and they won't have me as a customer.
  • + 2
 @TheSlayer99: effective TT lenght depends on the way the company measures it, which is a mystery for most of them, if effective measurement is horizontal, it will shorten it but you will also run seat higher up so it doesn´t really change anything in real world. One thing we can agree on, this bike has some messed up numbers going lol.
  • + 2
 you won't be able to fit an angle or reach set due to custom headset cups.
  • + 2
 @chappers998: you can - you just lose the spacer under the stem. Works Components have kits that fit without any issues. You add an additional ~0.5deg doing it though and also raise the BB a smidge (a really small smidge) and slacken the seat tube a little too as the fork crown stays the same height, but the headtube moves up 12 or 13mm. Same geo changes to the BB and seat tube angle occur if you up-fork another 10mm, so it isn't really too much of an issue. So buying the 1-deg angle set results in a 1.5-deg (ish) change in fork angle
  • + 1
 @handynzl: this bike has frame specific headset, so no angleset at least that´s what it looks like.
  • + 3
 @Mondbiker: nope. Same headset as in current Strives, of which I have one, and of which a Works Components angle set headset is installed. All they do is replace the lower bearing with a machined spigot that sits in the race then there is a stepped OD section that allows the bottom bearing to be installed. Raises the bike 10mm at the front. So long as the steerer tube is long enough you can 100% fit a World. Components angle set head set.
  • + 1
 @handynzl: It´s not the bottom cup that looks like it will be problem but the top one.
  • + 1
 @handynzl: I had a sender with the frame specific headset and wanted to fit a reachset I bought one and found it wouldn't fit, the cups were .6mm smaller than STD. I spoke with both Works Components and Superstar Components. Works said they could machine a set specially on the next production run which was in a couple of months time. I can't comments on the Strive but mine was listed as ZS44 .6mm pointless!!
  • + 1
 @chappers998: yeah, and lower was IS 52 on previous strive according to cane creek website, which is also pain in the ass.
  • + 20
 It seems Canyon didn't design the geometry based on the PB comment section... Fabien Barel doesn't know a thing. ????
  • + 4
 Fabien barel is not very tall DH racer. I´m not sure if you are aware of his DH bike with 58deg. HA??? You can only do and say so much when you get free stuff from your sponsor, they won´t feed you when you badmouth their new super duper race bike.
  • + 2
 @Mondbiker: What does Barel's DH bike have to do with the Strive?
  • + 3
 @bikeinbih: What has Fabien Barel to do with strive other than riding it for money lol? You seriously think he designed the bike? Get a clue mate, he is just advertisement guy, nothing more. When he was racing, that´s when they made bike to suit his need, 58 degrees HA was a result of that, shows you what he really preferred when he was racing for living not being guide for journalists.
  • + 1
 When Barel raced DH he always liked a 63 head angle. What's this 66 nonsense?
  • + 2
 @Mondbiker: ok maybe 62.
  • + 1
 @Flowcheckers: it was 59 and less depending on stanchions position in fork crowns, like I already stated twice here.
  • + 20
 66 degree head angle? Welp, see ya later
  • + 38
 Everything without 63° HA and atleast 500mm reach for a trail/enduro bike is just unrideable.
I mean how on earth do I shred the maschine made trails with these ancient numbers?
  • + 12
 See you later as in "I'll come back with my credit card" or as in "I am going out to get some cigarettes"?
  • + 5
 @NotNamed: How do u is right? And were not even talking seat angles here! Just look at what happened to the reviewers back during pedaling with that slack ass seat angle.... Guys, you need to get out of 2016 and step ur game up... This is DOA!
  • + 14
 15.4 kg on the Lower spec bike?, the previos AL version used to weight 13.4
  • + 2
 bigger wheels = more weight...

Also big chance that cheaper carbon frame weights about the same as a previous alloy version.
  • + 2
 Thats what we call upgrade! And its carbon! Its the same with new Spectral. Low end version is 1kg heavier than on previous model. They probably put some lead somewhere. that seems to be modern these days. Light bikes are soo old fashioned!
  • + 6
 Heavy ass wheels with heavy ass NX eagle makes wonders mate, but it is what everyone wants right? 29er and 50t cassette, because hills got so much steeper during past 3years it´s not possible to climb them on 32-40 anymore. Damn you hills!
  • + 2
 I have done my homework and found this new cheaper carbon frame weights 2700gr (expensive one is 2400gr) while out going 2017 Al frame is 2900gr.

Also 2017 Strive Al 6.0 weights 14,1kg, not 13,4. Still quite the difference.

The same goes for top end models:
2017 Strive CF 9.0 Race Team - 13,1kg
2019 Strive CFR 9.0 LTD - 14,2kg
  • + 0
 @AspidMan: bigger wheels = more fun!
  • + 1
 @bohns1: that's true too! My previous post may have sounded like silent hatred towards 29" but actually I am big fan (6'5" so bigger wheels for me only).
  • + 0
 @AspidMan: what has height to do with wheel size?
  • + 2
 @Mondbiker: matching proportions
  • + 2
 @AspidMan: I hear Ya... I'm 6'3...So, they just work.
  • + 2
 @Mondbiker: a shit load! U feel like a circus bear with a propeller hat on sitting on top of a tricycle is about how it sums it up for me.
  • + 3
 @bohns1: You can have bike with the same geometry that fits you just as well with 27.5 inch wheels, how does that make you feel like circus bear? It´s not like they are small, they are as large or larger than MX wheels and I don´t thing even 2m tall person looks out of place on one? I would expect something like better rollover or something similar from you.
  • + 1
 @Mondbiker: yup, rollover, speed and stability do it for me. You definitely have point but unless I got super powers (mad skillz and style) I will ride 29ers. It just suits me and I like them. 650B have no advantages over 29" wheels for me.
  • + 11
 "First, after riding with much steeper seat angles between 76 - 79º (hell, even those freeriders at YT just added a full 3º to the SA of the new Jeffsy), my legs just hate to pedal a slack seat angle. My quads and lower back were aching within minutes and it felt like pedaling through sand - maybe this would not be a problem if you already ride something similar."

Wow. I had no idea a 3 degree seat angle was so important. I'm going to throw out my old bike and buy something with a 77 or greater angle immediately.
  • + 12
 Your 77° seat angle bike will be outdated and terrible next year because by then 81° seat angle will be SO MUCH BETTER!!!!

Ah, good old marketing hyperbole. Where every tiny, incremental change is lauded as the second coming of crist which makes all of last years "ultimate" bikes completely unridable.
  • + 16
 Pick a hill. Move your saddle all the way to the back and climb. Then move it about 3-4 cm forward (rough equivalent of 3 degrees SA change, depends on how tall you are - the taller the closer to 4) and climb again. You should feel very noticeable difference. While it's not a dealbreaker, it's deffinitely much easier to climb with steeper SA.
  • + 5
 Seriously. Move your damn saddle and make up some seat angle adjustment if it's that big of a deal. Maybe if he wasn't on an XL due to the "scary" 66 HA he could adjust his riding style, but that's probably just out of the question
  • + 9
 Just slide your derriere an inch forward on your saddle when climbing.....voila, big STA increase, no cost! :-)
  • + 1
 @jddallager: If you start with really shitty SA it won´t give you enough range, only like 2 deg. from central position on most seats. On this bike you would need at least 5 degrees to get it where it should be with so slack actual seat angle.
  • + 5
 Yep - every bike pre-2017 is now worthless. I'm definitely going to list my process for cheap in Buy/Sell. I can't stand the 74deg STA.
  • + 2
 @iduckett: Your process most likely has steeper actual seat tube than this thing?
  • + 3
 @ondrejaugustin: The taller you are the less change you get from it surely Wink
  • + 4
 Just ride without a seatpost. Then you can get whatever bike you want.
  • + 1
 @Mondbiker: My '16 134 with a 160 fork is technically 73deg. Golly that's even worse!
  • + 5
 I can honestly say I've never given two poops about the seat tube angle.
  • + 2
 @iduckett: Just looking at it it´s very obvious that the actual seat angle is steeper...So congrats, your bike is more modern in that aspect than 2019 strive.
  • + 1
 Yeah, you’re totally right, the roadie guys had it right the first time round and 73STA is where it’s at! @Ttimer:
  • - 1
 @bertbc: Not again this flawed roadies analogy...
  • + 1
 @Mondbiker: I don't think anyone's questioning where the 73 STA came from, the bigger issue being why it stuck around for so long! With all this experimentation going on it'll be interesting to see where the dust settles - I just won't like to be shopping for a bike right now!
  • - 1
 @bertbc: It stuck around so long because most mtb companies don´t try to improve things, just make copy of what the other popular brand has and sell maybe as many. And people buy only what is available, so it was vicious circle.
  • + 3
 @Ttimer: not unridable for sure.. But for us taller riders it is a welcome benefit.. Its all about progression.. Even if only incremental.. Change is inevitable
  • + 4
 @bohns1: Change is inevitable, but geometry is finite — there is a limit somewhere. You’re not going to be riding on a mountain bike with a 33-degree headtube, 90-degree seat tube and a 900mm reach where you’re stretched out over the top tube like Superman. It’s all only going to make sense to a certain point, then you hit diminishing returns. I don’t know where that is, but bikes have been really capable for almost a decade now. My new bike is really only marginally better than my old one from 2010.

My guess is we’ve come close to geometry limits. I don’t know what’s next.. Maybe suspension? Think about it — about 15 years ago, a 160mm bike was a floppy mess. Now it’s no big thing to have a 160mm bike as your one bike quiver. What if they started making 200mm bikes that climbed like mountain goats? But we’ve been stuck at 150mm for a while now.
  • + 5
 The funniest thing about this, is that people complaining about slack seat angle and telling everyone how their bike is so much better with a 77°angle are usually the first one to hike-a-bike on the first technical steep climb.....
  • + 6
 For the record, I have no doubt that a steeper seat angle is the way to go in the future and I'm sure my next bike will have a steeper seat tube than my current bike. I object to the hyperbole. We're talking incremental change, not "my legs hate...", "aching within minutes..." ...Good Lord. I have a feeling climbing still sucks, even with a steeper seat tube.
  • + 4
 @Adamrideshisbike: Climbing sucks. But I suspect a more efficient suspension system will help with this more than a steep seat tube. I just can't bring myself to care too much about STA.
  • + 0
 @TheR: Ehm, more effective suspension with higher antisquat values makes SA steeper?
  • + 2
 @Mondbiker: Yeah, and no bobbing around helps out quite a bit, too. Frankly, I'm going to look at that feature a little more closely than whether my STA is 77 degrees or whatever. I have never, ever even looked at what the STA was on any bike I've ever bought, but I have checked into the efficiency and feel of the suspension. If STA is a by-product of that, great.
  • + 2
 @bertbc: The interesting thing is that the 74-73° STA is also present on Triathlon bikes which are not hobbled by the UCI rules which restrict road bike geometry.

Obviously a MTB would need a steeper effective STA because of suspension sag, but not dramatically so. The main issue is that manufacturers measure effective STA at unrealistic saddle heights.

@TheR: Maybe the 140-160mm travel range is indeed the sweet spot for mountainbikes. Just like Motocross bikes have settled on a narrow range of travel.
  • + 12
 440 seat tube on a medium. When will it end Frown
  • + 40
 Shortly after 439mm....
  • + 1
 @nsp234: hahaha - yea thats too long in 2019 but I think their frame design with the kink in in means they have to have them that long... Shame really... needed to be 425max
  • + 1
 @nsp234: hahahahaha ????
  • + 8
 Wow, some crazy negativity in here.

I'm wondering how many of the posters have actually ridden a 78 STA/ 63 HTA bike that they all seem to require?

It's not that I don't like the modern geo on my Foxy 29 with a -1 headset (heck, that's even sounding out of date now!), it's just that I don't buy in to it being right for everyone nor that it made older geo bikes obsolete.

Seems to me this new Strive will be a good fit for a trail rider looking to shred.
  • + 11
 Older Strive looks better. Big Grin
  • + 6
 Two different opions from two different reviews.

"Secondly, the steeper head angle made it harder to commit to corners and brake hard in steep sections, forcing me to lean back more and lose grip on the front wheel."

VS

"In long, open corners you always have enough weight on the front wheel without having to shift your weight around too much – way to go!"
  • + 0
 Except there is a very different scenario described in each review...
  • + 3
 The different scenario is buy it if you like the bike, go out and ride it and take your own conclusions. Those guys surely know the drills. I think the overwall behaviour of the bike should be good, without looking at all those details of HA and SA. Just saying
  • + 0
 @t1t0: They might, but you may not? But try to read at least more carefully next time.
  • + 6
 Well looks like I'll be sticking with my 2016 strive CF a while longer...as 29" does nothing for me, the shapeshift on mine I never had any problems with, (to be honest there wasn't much cause to use it, apart from uphill) if canyon had done away with it, I doubt it would have been missed much anyway, due to its reputation.
The new set up for less bar mounted clutter, seems not to have worked that well, as it looks pretty dam busy under the bar there! doesn't much look like you can move much around to resolve it either.
The geo isn't much of a surprise, but having no AL is, and I can see strive sales suffering for it. overall I cant see much here to grant rushing online, and buying one, aside from if your in love with wagon wheels.
  • + 5
 66 head angle?
Same as the YT trail bike? Jeffsy
And same as the previous Strive?
It’s this the same bike with 99 wheels on...
I was looking for a Strive with same designs and kinematic as the torque / spectral.
I get why only one of the four factory riders from last season was using the Strive.
  • + 16
 Going from 27.5" to 29" with the same geometry gives a larger "trail" which equals ~1 degree slacker head angle. That's why 29:ers usually have steeper HA to give the same characteristics.

So, it actually _is_ slacker than the previous model.
  • + 4
 @Makten: The whole point of having raked out 29er enduro bikes is so that they can monster truck through the tech better than a 27.5 bike. Sure it has more trail, but it could have even more with a slacker head angle and be even more capable than the old strive than this one is. And the geometry is only different in the large and XL. The small and medium got smaller, so the old bike was more progressive in the smaller sizes than the new one.
  • + 3
 @TheSlayer99: what tech section, no such thing anymore. Just point it downhill and hold tight.
  • + 3
 @Makten: ya but with lame seat angles. I'm out.
  • + 1
 @alnavasa To compare the Strive with the Jeffsy you need to change the Jeffsy's 150 fork to 160 - then it's HA is slacker than the Strive.

Also expected a similar layout to the Torque...
  • + 7
 He got back pain because the seat angle was 73.5 degrees!!! hahaha, I'm sorry but I can't take this review seriously. Total none sense.
  • + 5
 Bummer - I'd been waiting for this to come out, I figured it would have aggressive 29er geometry. I was planning on picking between the Jeffsy, Fezzari La Sal, and the Strive. The conservative geometry and having to use a stupid proprietary mechanism (shapeshifter) just took it out of the running completely for me. Frown
  • + 2
 The Fezzari shreds. I love it.
  • + 1
 @mtbenthusiastsofutah: yeah it's my top choice as far as geo and spec goes. The only thing that concerns me is its weight - how does a company like Fezzari build such a light "enduro" frame, lighter than a Hightower for example, without strength compromise? Then seeing that Loam Wolf broke a frame when he was using it...other than that I'm sold. Just a little hesitant about build quality and its ability to withstand big hits on rough terrain.
  • + 9
 Tired of these stupid long seat tubes.
  • + 6
 i guess factory team will just grab the torque for big mountain stuff while this can come in handy for tracks with less elevation
  • + 7
 Who the heck is going to buy this over a Jeffsy. You got to be crazy.
  • + 2
 Sad but true.
  • + 3
 I was really waiting for this bike... but.... No Alu... The entry version is heavier than most of alloy bikes and much more expensive.... It could have had better brakes... better fork... and reading all the comments here I am not the only disappointed one... I am no pro rider... I don't need 5K bike and I don't want one... I just need a good bike to have fun... and with 3K I can probably get an alu bike with better parts... I am sure that the strive 9.0 is a great bike just is a lot far from my wallet...
  • + 3
 I'm lame and all - but I think the geometry looks fine for my actual riding. Hell, my current trail bike is pretty similar to the "pedal" setting. I probably have a 67.0 HA - but I don't have the option to slacken it once I get to the top of the hill and start going down. So I wouldn't even mind a little steeper HA for climbing if I had that option. So despite the fact that the comments are telling me that 66 degrees is steeper than crit racers use, I think I could live with it.

But, what does this thing weigh? Is it feasible to replace a trailbike? I don't wanna ride a 35lbs bike everywhere I go, if I have a choice. Does that frame weight include the shapeshifter linkage?
  • + 2
 If you don't need 29 wheels, I can't see why you would go for this instead of a torque as a big hitting enduro bike, considering the geometry of the torque is much more progressive and it doesn't have the shapeshifter either.
  • + 1
 It's for when you pedal up as much as you descend.
  • + 2
 I think it looks nicer than the old Strive. I'm not going to buy one because it's too much bike for me.
But... it looks like (with my limited fork offset/geo knowledge) that this could be a nice aggressive bike for those who train on it, but spend most of their weekends racing on it. It just looks quick.
  • + 5
 Shapeshifter recall 2.0 in 3...2...1
Oh I forgot it’s Canyon, so no recall, you’ll have to deal with it yourself.
  • + 6
 worked with fox in the shapeshifter, bikes come with Rockshox ; )
  • + 2
 the only one coming with rockshox sus. is the Team replica model, all the other models do have fox sus
  • + 1
 @paulherrmann: the CF 6.0 has Rock Shox too.
  • + 1
 @handynzl: yeah, sorry mate
  • + 2
 What if you compare this bike to the specialized stumpjumper?
M size strive looks very close to the L size stumpy
M size strive compared to L stumpy is:
+10mm fork travel, same rear travel
-5mm reach,
-10mm stack,
-0.5 HA,
about the same SA depending on the shapeshifter position (if you'll seat and pedal in XC mode, than it is 75 vs 74.1 degrees)
wheelbase is 5mm smaller, but the fork offset is smaller by 9 or 7mm (rockshox vs fox forks on the strive)
Seatube is shorter as well - 440 (strive M) vs 455 (stumpy L)
bb drop is -3mm in DH mode
and the antisquat is higher on the strive

correct me if I'm wrong, but the new stumpy was a hell of a great bike last time I checked
  • + 5
 Love the that the older gen Lyrik reads as "undersupported" and pretty much unridable compared to Charger 2. Yeesh.
  • - 2
 older gen, this is the current gen lyrik they are talking about with a different damper tune than their previous damper tune.
  • + 5
 Hang on.. 165mm cranks? I thought SRAM only made 165 in their DH cranks?
  • + 4
 Man you successfully found the only progressive thing about this bike, congrats!
  • + 1
 Leaving Uber conservative geometry and worries about Shapeshifter long term reliability aside for a moment, US price for the frame is the same as for a carbon Sentinel frameset. So much for direct to consumer savings, I guess...
  • + 1
 Great first ride report Paul, Thank you for taking the time to describe what you were feeling, especially with regards to the geo. I applaud canyon for trying new things and being innovative, but sitting here on my computer, I too wish the geo were a little more modern.

Does it have more of an antisquat/efficient feel, or more of a plush fsr/horst feel with a bit of bob on sprints?
  • + 1
 It is good the shapeshifter remote works now like on/off toggle, so if you switch it and forget or fail to push suspension down into DH mode it will not break up once you bottom out. Previous shapeshifter would require bleeding afterward.

Also now you can tell which mode are you on by the position of remote's levers.
  • + 1
 Another flop of a bike from canyon the only good bikes they've come out with recently are the spectral, the lux, and the sender, but its really hard to mess up a downhill bike. Everything else is fairly conservative for the style of bike they are including this. I would consider buying a canyon in a few years if their next updates to their neuron aren't as much of a flop as their recent ones have been.
  • + 4
 Cant say this does it for me. Patiently awaiting the review of the 2019 radon swoop though. That looks the nads.
  • + 1
 Considering how they nailed the 27" swoop, I'm pretty confident the 2019 29" will be just as good, but clearly more monster truck (because because wheels and reach basically)
  • + 4
 Sounds lame. Throw these bikes in a canyon and let future civilizations discover bad product!
  • + 3
 What a fantastic, honest sounding review... It highlights pros and cons without selling why the cons aren’t so bad etc. This is what all reviews should read like!
  • + 4
 Looks like they should keep striving for a steeper seat tube angle. Nice looking bike.
  • + 2
 Sorry but after experience although great bikes would be worried about frame cracking and found after care to resolve problems to be poor
  • + 3
 I like how everything is Enduro race bike, because we are all pro Enduro racers haha
  • + 2
 f*ck shapeshifter! 170 mm fork at 65 ht angle! Destruction would have been had. But this? No wonder Joe Barnes skipped sponsor! Not a fan of Orange though...
  • + 4
 Hey Canyon, what is that STEAM LENGHT in geo chart ?
  • + 5
 No Al version??
  • + 2
 It would weight 36 pounds
  • + 2
 Sounds like Canyon should Strive for a frame with a geometry better suited for enduro riding/racing.
  • + 2
 Didn't Joe usually ride the spectral for years because he thought the shapeshifter was "wank"
  • + 3
 Curious about the long term review. Hopefully no more squeaking...
  • + 0
 It will need service, just like any bike.
  • + 1
 Would the bike be cheaper if they just made the light carbon version and didn’t put the r&d into two versions of the same frame?
  • + 2
 They need to find a use for all the carbon scraps from the high end model Smile
  • + 1
 Only difference between CFR and CF is longer fork by 10mm, still geometry numbers stay the same. As would Ben Finegold say: Very suspicious.
  • + 4
 0.3 or 0.4 degrees slacker for head and seat tube angles, maybe 3mm more bb height. Nothing major. Also, canyon isn't know for the most reliable geo charts anyways.
  • + 2
 Forgive me, But (-300 Grams lighter) makes me think its 300 grams heavier....
  • + 3
 Nice to see a FOX/Shimano (with 4pot XTs too) spec on the 7.0.
  • + 1
 No kidding. The CF 7.0 hits the mark.
  • + 1
 I liked my old strive and was holding out for the new one but the 29" wheels are the deal breaker, will have to go for the torque
  • + 3
 So they'll be using the Torque for the EWS then...
  • + 3
 Seriously, who ever has the most levers on a handlebar wins!
  • + 2
 @drivereight That would be Scott then....
  • + 0
 I wonder can the new shapeshifter work with the old model Strive? The replacement shapeshifter I was sent out never worked consistently :/
  • + 3
 No drop-to-flat video?
  • + 1
 seatangle 2 degrees too slack, headangle one degree too steep - first world problems...
  • + 2
 It´s more like 8degrees too slack in actual SA.
  • + 2
 when canyon will ship to canadaaaaa Frown
  • + 0
 This!!!
  • + 2
 cheap components and way over priced.
  • + 3
 Those spokes look huge
  • - 1
 mavic wheels. worst wheels on the planet. I thought these wheels were banned from the solar system.
  • + 1
 @DH-Angel: why are they the worst?
  • + 1
 @DH-Angel: no response.. your opinion is invalid
  • + 0
 @Kimura: they bend when you look at them
  • + 1
 Ok, silly question. Does it mention anywhere in the review what travel the fork is?
  • + 1
 By official geo numbers it does not matter Smile
  • + 2
 @pulDag: I see on Canyon's site its 160mm for most and 170mm for a team model. I assume that slackens everything by .5 degrees which probably falls more in line with "EWS race" expectations. Just seems odd no mention of fork travel in the review.
  • + 1
 By the looks it's CFR model, which has 170mm. So probably slacker HA and STA by half degree or so.
  • + 1
 so the top range model is more expensive in the euro zone (6999€) than in the US(6000$)? or am i missing something here?
  • + 1
 Europe gets and LTD model with ENVE and Fox Factory suspension
  • + 1
 @Pavel-Repak: Ah alright, thanks!
  • + 3
 Too many levers
  • + 2
 This couldn’t handle the sick gnar us Canadians always shred, right bud?
  • + 1
 Let's pull on some runners and grab a two-four.
  • + 2
 Not putting an RC2 on it was a big boo-boo.
  • + 1
 I'm not saying im right, but when a bike has the shock upside down, i have to move on. my OCD cant move past it. haha
  • + 1
 From performance standpoint this is the right orientation. From durability standpoint it most likely isn´t.
  • + 2
 29 only....
#27.5 is dead.
  • + 7
 Just get the Torque - good old long travel and great geo.
  • + 12
 5'7 prepper, stockpiling 27.5 frames and parts in my fallout shelter for the wagon wheel apocalypse
  • + 4
 @caltife: call me if you need any particular model.. tire fetiche here and 27.5 diehard , happy to help ; )
  • + 2
 @Lagr1980: shhh chill man the government monitors these message boards, hit me up on IRC
  • + 1
 As more and more bikes get released, it does feel like that at times. Which is a shame. Having said that, there are still loads of awesome 650b bikes out there.
  • + 1
 What a shame. The stiffness and handling of a 27.5 wheel outweighs the straight line rolling of a 29er by huge margins. I don't know what bike companies are thinking.
  • + 1
 29" can go die in the woods for all i care.
  • - 1
 @chriskneeland: no way! lack of stiffness means your riding a shit wheel! lets race. 29er all day!
  • - 2
 @endlessblockades: not everyone can be 1st... enjoy your training wheels! Wink
  • + 2
 @rzicc: Training wheels? The whole point of 29ers is to smooth everything out and make the bike faster when your riding can't. Going the big wheel route is for bitches.
  • + 2
 @chriskneeland: Real men install skateboard wheels on their MTBs!
  • + 3
 @SunsPSD: I can tell you're still bitter about trading in your man card for a 29er.
  • + 0
 Butt hurt then ????@endlessblockades:
  • + 1
 @dagzin: Nope, just stating how I feel about those and seeing who's triggered.
  • + 1
 @chriskneeland: wait, so me going faster than you makes me the bitch? not sure if you know how this works... is that what they say about racing. Faster cars are for the bitches?!?! Strong work.
  • + 1
 @rzicc: Bahaha...you're definitely not faster than me. But trying to get faster by using bitch wheels is being a bitch.
  • + 3
 @chriskneeland: I like how everyone here is faster than the other guy without actually knowing who the hell you are comparing yourself to lol. Well I´m faster than Sam Hill, I just don´t have time or money to race EWS, beat that!
  • + 2
 @Mondbiker: First rule of internet bike forum arguments: Noone is faster than you.
  • - 3
 @chriskneeland: not saying I'm personally faster than you.(but im willing to find out) Its the concept. ... its proven 29er wheels are faster than 650. Also, if you remember this but 29er's where around before 26". Just saying. with that being said. Why would you not want to go faster? Great argument though.
  • + 2
 @rzicc: I like how fast I go on 27.5ers - In fact, I can easily go too fast. I know it's hard for 29ers to believe that, but that's why we 27.5ers still use brakes.
  • - 4
flag rzicc (Jan 18, 2019 at 17:05) (Below Threshold)
 @endlessblockades: once again. dumbass comment. 29ers ARE faster. Im sure you are also fast, just saying you could be faster with bigger wheels. Wonder if you all said the same about 26ers when 650 came around?!?! Guessing so.. Obviously the point is missed with this short bus crowd.
  • + 2
 @rzicc: I would like to see that proof lol.
  • + 2
 @rzicc: 29ers are faster in straight lines. Perfect for the dumbed down DH tracks we're seeing now. Sam Hill and Martin Maes proved 27.5 are faster over all.
  • + 2
 @rzicc: how do you explain the fact that some of my fastest descending times are not on my 170mm 27 5 Enduro beast but on my 26" enduro hardtail? Could it be that a host of other factors make a bike work and wheel size is just one tiny factor in a sea of many?
  • + 4
 @rzicc: Classic. 29ers ARE NOT faster than 27.5, in some places there are benefits but in others drawbacks. I'm considerably faster on 27.5 in some areas, and still have a few PB's from my old 26.

It's why many still ride 27.5 (i.e. top 3 at DH world champs, 1 & 2 in the EWS last year etc etc...)
  • + 2
 @NickB01: dont bother man. let them #beadickaboutit
  • + 1
 @headshot: From the new Intense M29 review. In case you were wondering, none of the three riders will be taking 27.5-inch M16's to the World Cups this season. Intense Factory Racing is on 29ers for life.

Also, Trek, Specialized and S/C all going 29er on their DH bikes. Just saying. May not be for everyone. 29er for DH bikes is def new, but they will figure out the geo soon enough, if they haven't already. Guess my point is, innovate or die. But with that being said, we are all riding our bikes. So thats a good thing. Cheers.
  • + 3
 @rzicc: I read all of that. Do you honestly believe that any rider in the EWS or DHWC lost out on a win or points because they had the wrong wheel size last year? The only person I can think of is Gee Atherton who crashed and broke himself testing a 29er (butt buzz on the big wheel is a killer). There are too many factors at play in each race run to say one way or another. I'd love to see how a top rider on a modern 26" . wheeled DH bike would do against the monster trucks in a race.
  • + 1
 @headshot: agreed!
  • + 1
 @headshot: According to Laurie Greenland his fastest timed test runs before last season were on 26 in wheels. I believe the interview is on Vitalmtb. I'll look for it.
  • + 1
 looks sick but, same head tube angle as the spectral and even slacker STA? weird
  • + 1
 Why only 29!?! You guyz at canyon are crazy...
  • + 1
 i see huge price difference from the older strive.....
  • + 0
 Canyon needs to differentiate the strive from the new torque, hence the mellower geo.
  • + 2
 Torque is not progressive in terms of geo either and they did differentiate it by wagon wheels and shorter travel.
  • + 1
 How long are the forks for shit's sake?
  • + 1
 I'd like to see 65-67 HA and 75-77 SA
  • + 0
 I LIKE IT. Now, AL version for poor people, please!
  • + 1
 looks like a genius!
  • + 0
 German geometry.
  • - 3
 Damnit, a critical review of a german product... Better block those DE Ip's, otherwise we may see them invade something in anger...
  • + 6
 Given the state of things right now, pretty much everyone in the world is more likely to get angry and invade someone than the germans. Especially the brits and 'mericans. ;-)
  • + 2
 @Ttimer: The Brits should be begging the Germans to invade them right now. Someone to blame the chaos on and also build a modern infrastructure.

Also, the Germans in the comments seem to agree about the Strive.
  • + 1
 Enduro seemed a lot more complementary about the new Strive for some reason Smile
  • + 7
 @BenPea: We asked the French to invade but they got upset and went on strike
  • + 1
 @Karve: don't get me started on the f*cking French....
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.101894
Mobile Version of Website