Video: Mike vs Mike: Geometry Battle - Specialized Stumpjumper vs EVO
MIKE VS MIKE
Specialized Stumpjumper vs Stumpjumper EVO
Specialized Stumpjumper vs Stumpjumper EVO
And we're back... After an extended hiatus, it's time for another episode of Mike vs. Mike, where we argue about mountain biking's important (and not-so-important) topics. Up for debate this week is geometry, specifically the angles of the Specialized Stumpjumper vs. the Stumpjumper EVO.
From a distance, the bikes look nearly identical, and they do both have 29” wheels and 140mm of travel out back, but the EVO model has undergone the long, low, and slack treatment, and it's an entirely different beast than its more conservative sibling. Take the head angle, for instance; you're looking at 66.5-degrees for the 'regular' Stumpjumper, and 63.5-degrees for the EVO. That's a dramatic difference, and it's instantly noticeable out on the trail. The EVO also has longer chainstays (443 vs. 437mm), and the reach on the S3 EVO is 475mm, compared to 445mm on a size large Stumpjumper.
S-Works Stumpjumper 29
• Travel: 140mm
• Wheel size: 29''
• Head angle: 66.5°
• Chainstay length: 437mm
• Reach: 445mm (large)
• Weight: 28.2 lb / 12.8 kg
• Travel: 140mm
• Wheel size: 29''
• Head angle: 66.5°
• Chainstay length: 437mm
• Reach: 445mm (large)
• Weight: 28.2 lb / 12.8 kg
Stumpjumper EVO Pro Carbon
• Travel: 140mm
• Wheel size: 29''
• Head angle: 63.5°
• Chainstay length: 443mm
• Reach: 475mm (S3)
• Weight: 31 lb (14.1 kg)
• Travel: 140mm
• Wheel size: 29''
• Head angle: 63.5°
• Chainstay length: 443mm
• Reach: 475mm (S3)
• Weight: 31 lb (14.1 kg)
But is slacker always better? What about longer? What do all those numbers translate to out in the real world? Of course, personal preference is always going to play a factor, but that's what makes geometry such a hot topic. After a riding a handful of laps on each bike, Mike Levy and I sat down to chat about our findings.
What do you think? Are you in the slacker-is-alway-better camp, or do prefer your bike's geometry to be a little less extreme? Let us know in the comments, and feel free to suggest topics for future episodes of Mike vs. Mike.
MENTIONS: @pinkbikeoriginals
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
How to Watch the 2024 Mountain Bike World Cup [Update: Staylive Offering Access in New Zealand, South Africa & More]
60311 views
60311 views
[UPDATED] Final Elite XC Results & Overall Standings from the Mairiporã XC World Cup 2024
41237 views
41237 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
That said for fast and rough and steep stuff I’ll take the long low and slack bike every time.
The other thing people don’t think about it that the trend for “longer” bikes means that taller people actually fit into a bike. My 2018 norco has 475mm reach in size XL and is the best fitting bike I’ve ever had but I could easy go another 25-35mm in reach so I’m totally on board with the longer bikes. Just because bike sizing has been messed up forever and your 5 8” riding old school geo doesn’t mean you need to oppose bikes getting longer, size down if you want a smaller bike don’t penalize tall people who just want a bike that fits
Our Mike sits up in back, you see.
We like our Mike, and this is why:
Mike does all the work when the hills get high.
100% agree that for average trails, less is more. For UK, 130mm is the sweet spot for travel in terms of fun.
Long, low slack for tall people:
Totally agree with the longer reach and steeper seat angle being great for us tall folks (6’5”, long arms and legs here) . It’s nice not to be sitting 3 feet behind your pedals and steering with a 140mm stem, 520mm reach is awesome!
However, the flipside of this is the slack part. Sure, for small people, that extra length gives them much needed stability, but our size bikes it ends up with either:
A: too little weight on the front wheel (if, like most bikes, the chainstays don’t grow) or,
B: too long of a wheelbase for tighter trails and features(especially skinnies) (for the few bikes that DO have proportional length chainstays). This also makes the ‘low” part even worse, since the longer wheelbase leads to more pedals trikes anyway.
Ps. Here's an idea; Commencal Meta AM 29 vs Yt Capra 29. Make sure that the rear shocks are the same though (air vs air or coil vs coil). Just Say'n.
That is one of the best quotes I have ever read on this site. Nice work, and I couldn't agree more. When I was younger I always had a get down the trail as fast as possible attitude, but when I stopped doing that and started looking for fun stuff to play on on the sides of the trails I had way more fun on my bike. I'm all about a party on the trail every ride now.
These two bikes are kinda on the extremes of each side. I think either of these bikes is a bad choice. That green stumpy has quite a short reach and wheelbase for a large... I wouldn't like that. And the EVO is too low, too slack and too long... I wouldn't like that either. Lots of great bikes that fall in-between these two.
A faster bike is a funner bike... See? It doesn't make sense. If going fast is your main thrill, why buy a bike that you can pedal uphill at all? Get a DH rig and shuttle. On the other end of the spectrum, if faster pedalling is your thing, why even buy a mountain bike. Get a gravel bike, or even faster, a TT bike.
By choosing to compromise with a bike that can pedal (or descend), you've already proven faster isn't funner all by itself, because you're not having fun if you can't ride your bike as the fastest bikes suck for everything else.
To make it easier for you - A bike that allows me to ride down the hill at very fast speeds is more to me than one that does not as long as it still allows for competent climbing.
This bike is a game changer, it climbs better than any bike I have ever had (and I don't ride gravel), it descends better than any other bike I have ever thrown a leg over, jumps better, corners better, downcountries better, it's literally the best bike on the market for actual mountain biking. You can spend an extra couple g's and get a Sentinel or a Ripmo, but for $3600 bucks retail you can't beat the Evo alloy.
Only gripe is the increased length has given me some tennis elbow, this bike requires more upper body strength than previous mountain bikes. It rides tight stuff fine, although the suspension is less supple than anything I have had on other bikes. I've had Ohlins for the last couple bikes, front and rear, and the Fox stuff that came on the Evo is just fine, not great, but fine.
I cut down my bars to 760 and I really helped me. This article from RC made sense for me:
www.pinkbike.com/news/handlebar-width-vs-handling-are-your-bars-too-wide.html
Will be intersesting to see the evolution on this long-low-slack
that's the main drawback for me too..... 160mm air shaft and high setting seems to be the way to go.
good idea... also, that's freaking ludicrous! Is that number verified? The alu Sentinel comes in at about 9.5 w/ rear shock for a medium and it's kinda a pig on the trail (tho hard to knock offline on the dh!)
I picked up an evo s3 at a Spesh demo back in the fall and it felt heavy, but not quite alu Sentinel (which i've ridden) heavy.
Adrien Dailly's experimenting down into the 62 degree range!
We live in an age where most bike company's seem to believe that speed is the only thing the consumer wants, and people are eating that crap up. Being able to go as fast as possible is not the only way to have fun and It is awesome that company like Specialized (SJ and SJ Evo) and Trek (Remedy and Slash) make bikes that can ride the same caliber of trail yet suit very different riding styles.
What you say is true, but there are also lots of riders who think the most fun they can have on a bike is when we're going as fast as we possibly can. And I'm not saying I'm fast... I'm not, it's just that when I get on a bike I can't help myself from just f*cking pinning it and trying to go as fast as I can. I often skip little hits and jumps and such because they slow me down... I'm addicted to the speed... MOAR SPEEED!!
Which is why I f*cking love these lower, longer, slacker bikes... just so much f*cking fun because they let me comfortably go faster than I've ever gone before (again, which really isn't that fast :-)).
But I also think, when you find the right lower-longer-slacker bike that works for you... like I have in the Knolly Fugitive LT... when I want to slow it down, and pop off everything, hit every little feature and jump, I can and I have tons of fun.
I think the EVO and others like geometrons and poles go too far, but there is definitely a very happy middle ground, probably somewhere between these two stumpys where you get the best of both worlds.
Watching my endurance improve picking the perfect line while hauling ass learning to rail flat dusty corners letting the ass get a little loose this is all fun.
Popping off little rocks and shit I can do that on the way to the trail or in my driveway.
You don't need apostrophes to make things plural! For the most part, just add an 's' to the end like you would any other word. Sometimes, if the word used to end in a 'y' you might need to change it to 'ies' at the end! If you're making an abbreviation (like CD's) plural, it is okay to add an apostrophe there.
Happy spelling!
My riding buddy and I are complete opposites - he's all about speed and start-to-finish runs while I'll seek every little feature, eat up as much trail as I can and am happy to stop and session a feature over and over for fun or practice.
At the end of the ride, we're both smiling!
Which is why I race and ride a 135 / 160 Knolly Fugitive LT (bumped it up to 160 on the front due to my local terrain) on the west coast of Canada. 5'11" on a large with a 160 fork in neutral setting: Reach - 472, wheelbase - 1222, HA - 65.5, SA - 75.5, BB - 342 and 430.5 stays. It hauls ass but is also a really fun bike and great climber.
Very true.
I wish They had ridden these bikes on a more diverse set of trails. The only climbing was on a fire road. But what about those of use who climb on singletrack? That is where a shorter, poppier bike is probably more FUN. Also what about contouring, rolling singletrack and tight, steep slow speed trails?
I think for most people, FUN is the number one, and that comes form a combination of speed and playfulness.
I do worry that the emphasis on making bikes slacker is driving the market towards bikes that are becoming less fun for the majority of riders out there.
I am not saying they dojn’t have their place, just that we might be overshooting the middle of the bell curve.
In Specialized’s Defence, they don’t claim the Evo is aimed at the middle of the bell curve, they specifically position it as an outlier.
Essentially i want a bike that helps me feel fast, without necessarily being fast. My inner 10yo has a poster of Evel Knievel on the wall, not of Michael Schumacher.
It's an awesome bike with a 160 fork, in the neutral setting, it's a killer all round bike for my area (west coast of BC) and then in the slack setting (64.8 HA), it just destroys the downs... not as good at tech climbing with that HA, but super fun down.
I thing I didn't realize I'd do is switch between the slack and neutral settings so often. It's so easy to do trailside (one bolt and you don't have to deflate your shock), unlike other bikes with multiple links and flip chips... it's takes like 30 seconds to switch between modes. Sometimes if I'm headed somewhere really rowdy, I'll climb in neutral and switch to slack before heading down.
The standard stumpy (demoed one) in it's stock setup is a bit of a snoozer compared to comparable bikes with steeper sta, longer reach, and slacker hta (ripmo, sentinel, sb130). But if you slammed the bars on the standard stumpy (long head tube), upforked it, slammed the seat forward, had a proper reach and a high end rear shock, I think it could shred. That's kinda what Vital mentioned could be a good halfway point at the end of their Stumpy head to head review.
Overall the Evo climbs better than the regular SJ. It has a much more progressive spring curve with more mid stroke support. It has way more pop off everything compared to the regular SJ. With the same rear shock the SJ is the more dead feeling bike. The climbing position is better on the Evo as well. One thing you do have to figure out is the way the Evo wants to drop into slower/sharper corners. You can use this to your advantage, but it takes some getting use to. After a few rides it becomes a weapon going uphill.
Descending obviously goes to the Evo, but the regular SJ can hold its own. The standard bike is much easier to move around from line to line. The Evo is damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! This one really comes down to what style of descents do you want to ride and personal riding style. The Evo rewards aggressive descending where the standard is more enjoyable for the average rider.
Both are incredible bikes and you can't go wrong with either one.
I ask, because the Stumpy’s don’t size up their chainstays, so the handling and weight distribution willl be very different for the S vs the XL.
Also, is the weight argument really valid? Isn't the regular Stumpy the $8k top line kit and the evo is the $4.5k GX kit? Of course they're going to have weight differences. Would be nice to compare apples to apples on that one with similar parts spec so you can get the weights more even and see how much feel is geo and how much is actual weight.
Bob, an experienced arm chair engineer and MTB lover.
I recently bought a Kona process 111 and for 350 days of the year it’s exactly right for me and the places I ride. However for the rest of the days when I’m somewhere else it could definitely be slacker and have more travel.
That being said, it performs as expected. I didn't buy it to race up climbs, I bought it to ride trail and rip the bike park. Highland opens in a week so I expect that I'll confirm how much of a plow this rig is! Feels incredible on the downhills I've ridden so far and with 160 on the front(running it in high) I've got the geo numbers I want.
I also agree it is a bit of a pig on slower pedally stuff, but nowhere near as bad as the geo numbers suggest. I wouldnt call it dead, it's just long and takes more work than your typical less aggressive bike. At speed it jumps amazing and is a fun and playful bike.
I wouldnt recommend the SJ Evo if you only have one bike, but it pairs perfectly with a shorter travel "play" bike like a Scout or a similar 130mm 27.5 bike.
Great little video guys!
If you want to manual properley again, you’d be advised to drop the frame size.
other things that factor into making a bike easier to manny:
-taller bars, more stack, higher rise stem
-shorter reach
-taller bb
-24" rear wheel
-long arms
But seriously, love these and think the conversation is spot on. I'm with Kaz overall, but also you have to agree with Levy that the SJ Evo is too long and slack for most people who aren't living next to gnarly terrain.
Leviathan wins!
Annoyingly it means I need at least two bikes, trail and enduro/downhill. Tough times.
Another potential downside of a really steep seat angle is the top tube can end up really short, creating a cramped seated position. It's a balancing act, and some companies have figured it out better than others.
But my original question which i didnt phrase very well now reading it again. You guys mentioned in this video comparison and is mentioned many many times in bike reviews all over the internets that the steeper seat tube angle helps with climbing. I assume that people are saying this as they are actually moving their bodies more forward with the steeper seat tube angles which helps position you to better manage steeper climbs but maybe also putting them into an unfavorable fit. If people are putting their seats based on proper bike fits the seat tube angle should not make a difference unless it hinders you from getting to your position which seems like the situation i am in. So i guess in the end my question is people must be running their seats more forward than maybe ideal with the steeper seat tube angle if they are taking advantage of the forward riding position for climbing. are more and more people finding knee pains due to this?
the main reason why seat tube angles are driving steeper and steeper is cause we are moving to 29ers with longer travel and larger size/volume tires. We either have to make chain stays longer, change to rearward axle paths or go to steeper seat tube angles or a combination of all to make everything package. I think the claim of the steeper seat tube angle for climbing is really more just a cover up to the inherit design of the bike. Thats my theory at least.
Thanks
As for Specialized saying they wouldn’t make 27.5” bikes, that’s because they already had a line of 29ers they were happy with, ahead of many other manufacturers.
No, they’re not a perfect company, but we’re not going to ignore them when they make interesting bikes either.
Thanks
Combined with a longer reach than my old bike I still have longer front center(to prevent OTB’s) and higher fork trail (for stabilty at speed or in G-outs), but while keeping the wheelbase in check (important when you have are around 1300mm already)
I was referring to comparing a steeper head angle w/ a 51mm offset fork versus a slacker head angle w/ 44mm offset fork while having the same wheelbase on both. I kinda think it is splitting hairs and don't think it makes much of a difference, but I haven't really ridden both side by side to see how different they are. It would be an interesting test.
Predictably: he is Team Evo. I'm Team Stumpy (or Team Boring as he'd likely call it).
The Evo tho...its a specialty bike for guys that need it. Seems cool for the hard riding crowd. Getting closer to MX geometry, prob a good thing for guys that don't need to climb a lot.
High speed (so long and slack comes into play), fairly wide (so no drawbacks to the length) and not crazy steep or rough(In this case there is some very rough stuff, but they jump over it every time). Many modern flow trails in bikeparks and trail centers are like this.
I m glad people don't think the Evo is a good bike for them ( they haven't tried it). there will be less people buying them.
and as for climbing, mine can get up stuff that my old bike (Mondraker Dune) could never even dream of! The wheelbase and basically the entire set up (which came off my Dune, meaning the ONLY difference is frame and shock) means the front doesnt lift on steep climbs that the Dune would loop out on and when i stand up to crank hard in first it still doesnt lift and the rear grip is much greater (same wheels n tyres as the Dune)
There is basically no down side to this unless you specifically want to ride slower lol.
On that note, when its so muddy i have no choice but to go slower, i get out my much shorter bike LOL
I hear you on the angled seat. I've tried that and it's not cool with that extra pressure on the hands/thumbs.
The other problem is the slack headangle. This is not good for tall riders unless you also lengthen the chainstays even more.. In which case you are talking about wheelbases heading towards 1350mm, that’s definitely not a length friendly to tight trails.
Absolutely, tray style racks can reach their limits quickly. You also have to start paying attention to how you drive, when the bikes stick out that far to the side.
The opinions of how well a reviewer or owner likes a particular bike or part, and their reasoning for the opinion, is helpful because I can compare the reviewer's preferences and experiences to my own. But speculating in what "most people" would like best isn't helpful since I don't know how my preferences and trails really compare to most people's. And I doubt there are many who know how they really compare to the majority either.
If I had followed the speculation of what media guys and comment section warriors had told me was best for most people, I would never have purchased a DH bike because there are no super technical and steep trails here, and even the few trails that have jumps are regularly ridden by guys on "enduro" bikes without problem. But I bought the DH bike, and I have more fun on those trails than I did before when riding them on my enduro because I am more relaxed and my head is in a better place for hitting biggish jumps (the biggest gap is 35 feet, and you can come up short without crashing.)
In short, opinions are helpful, but, speculation on others opinions is wasteful.
The reason they know this is from reader surveys where they get several thousand replies about what kind of riding people do.
These days, with Strava and Trailforks, I bet you can get some pretty good data on what people are riding (not perfect of course)
The Bike Mag Germany's survey was likely a voluntary response survey, I say this because you said it is a reader survey, and that is how reader surveys work. This webpage, www.reference.com/world-view/voluntary-response-sampling-daf6a6c947b30a94 explains why surveys like Bike Mag Germany's can only provide unreliable, or biased data.
This same problem will apply to data from Strava and Trailforks, since there is likely a statistically significant difference between those who contribute to those apps, and those who don't.
So my point stands, people in MTB media and the comments section cannot possibly know what most people want, so they should stop pretending that they do.
I live in Sydney were there isn't really any "mountains" but I'm lucky enough to ride a lot of bikes and this is the most capable bike I've ever ridden. Throwing a coil in the 36 fork and a DBIL coil in the back has turned it into the bike I've been lusting for, a DH capable bike that climbs just as well. It's now 170/163mm travel, 29 inch wheels, long wheelbase and roomy reach for a bigger rider at a bargain basement price (just over $4k AUD I got mine for)
Is it too much bike.... absolutely for my local trail, when I go down to the ski fields, or shuttle days... it's a game changer.
on too slack a bike plus I understand his "FUN" factor..yup Levy on this one
Interestingly they both seem to agree there is such a thing as too low.
Shorter steeper bikes corner better, they are more nimble they jump easier, manual easier and just seem more fun in general. From my experience it seems that only slow riders or riders not skilled enough to jib/have fun on the trail are concerned with how fast they are going
i would agree with Mike Levy
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHFc7NGp5Hk&ab_channel=ViRLeRViDeos
If you haven't ridden one of these bikes you really have nothing speak from. Most people will come to love the new geo bikes... 3% of folks won't love anything but the past. Good luck with that mate!
Dont let me get started about trigonometry
Learn something about bicycle geometry. Draw a few bicycles. See what a designer has to look at instead of what the marketing guys keep telling you.
Everybody on PinkBike thinks I'm the fool but I've designed hundreds of bike frames, built about 30 with many custom parts, and ridden them for years. I surely know a lot more about bicycle design than the 16 year olds here that are still confused about what trail is.
www.peterverdone.com/actually-youre-not-a-bike-expert
theteamrobot.blogspot.com/search?q=verdone
No homo
I'm just kidding, most of your bikes actually look cool, too bad they are made by a complete dick.
I didn't get where I am today because I'm going to take a dive. You seem fine with that.
I wonder if shitty pinkbike comments from an old dude trying to defend his ideals and goofy stems nobody asked for is how every other successful bike company started as well...
Also here is a link to the drawing of my bike measurements www.konaworld.com/process_153_cr_275.cfm . I ride an XL. Tell me Im wrong, tell me i need a drop stem and that my W factor is wrong, tell me my wheel size is wrong and my body positioning is messed up....
But then please for the love of god ask me or any body on here if they care what you think? Its always gunna be a "no"
Also, I've backed up everything I've said at length.
Math.
www.peterverdone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DSC_0053.jpg
... and we're the idiots?
Yes. You are.
I describe everything corre tly and in detail. Nobody else has. Because you havent bothered to read any of it, you dont see that.
I think I rose to the occasion with some forward thinking geo, and a few things you probably haven't seen in the bike industry for a moment. I tweaked one of my existing drawings with a fresh take on some of the geo issues that plague us all. Also, I think I took a creative angle to the "no-fly zone" that you've expressed an interest in...
It's been a min since I've fired up the welder, but I might just have to build this one to see if it rides as good as it looks:
i.imgur.com/y7wU8XS.jpg
Cheers!
It looks like you have what it takes to work in the bike industry.
Pretty much all you’ve said so far is that you know everything and everyone else knows nothing so teach me. I’m giving you one opportunity to change my mind so don’t blow it.
It's understood that I'm the expert here. I've shown that with my portfolio and continue to.
You have not portfolio. No body of work. Nothing.
My premise here is that none of y'all have any understanding of bicycle geometry yet chat endlessly about it. It's stupid, especially when someone like me shows up and tries to educate. Instead of catching on to that, I'm de-listed. It's truly insane.
It is for you to show me you have an understanding, not the other way around. That is what this thread is about.
Just cause you have a portfolio of stuff does not make you fit for the job
You have no understanding of the subject and no portfolio so whatever your opinion is, it is meaningless.
Rather, you may 'think I'm an idiot but you don't 'know' I'm an idiot. Thats because you know nothing.
Obviously, you've ignored the overwhelming majority of my work.
I don't know Felix and can't comment on what his personal understanding of bicycle geometry is versus what his company is finding sell-able in the market. He may want to make better bikes but has to produce what he does to placate the idiots on PinkBike. Regardless, he's got a portfolio and his comments would get the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.
You, however, have no portfolio. You have nothing to show and your comments prove you're uninformed on the topic. You don't get that benefit.
I've written extensively on the subjects. I don't know what you expect me to do that I haven't already provided in great detail.
I've written extensively on the subjects. I don't know what you expect me to do that I haven't already provided in great detail.
I've written extensively on the subjects. I don't know what you expect me to do that I haven't already provided in great detail.
I don't want you to explain to me why you are an expert, and I don't care about your portfolio. I want you to show me you're an expert by teaching me so that I too may become an expert, if you know as much as you say you do. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and one more shot to teach me, so don't blow it like you did the last one.
I'd love to have a discussion about bicycle geometry but I can't really do that with someone who hasn't learned anything about it. You can go to my blog and learn a considerable amount on the subject, then you can start drawing and measuring your bikes, then we might be able to start talking.
I don't use message boards as repositories of information. That's not what they are for.
There is a search bar on my blog.
There are common terms that can be used in the search. They return many pages that cover many topics.
Have you converted that information into knowledge?
So you've drawn your bicycle?
You don't have access to a computer?
The laptop I use was purchased for $630 2 or 3 years ago. It does full 3D modeling and rendering. I could do 2D CAD on something 1/3 that cost. Get serious.