Pivot Switchblade - First Look

May 27, 2016
by Vernon Felton  



What It Is

Today, Pivot Cycles is unveiling a new model—the Switchblade—which begs the question, “Well, what is it?”

It’s a 135-millimeter (5.3 inch) travel 29er. With a simple wheel swap, it’s also a 27.5+ rig “purpose designed to meet the demands of enduro and aggressive trail riding.” But wait, there’s more. Despite having some of the shortest (428-millimeters/16.85-inch) chainstays in the business, the Switchblade accommodates seriously fat tires (either 29x2.5-inch on up to a 27.5X3.25-inch treads), with a ridiculous amount of clearance for mud, dead squirrels or whatever else sticks to your tires. Oh, and unlike most bikes in this class, you can run the Switchblade with either a single-ring drivetrain or a front derailleur, if you happen to swing that way. There are also all the other bell-and-whistle hallmarks of the super bike du jour—a lightweight (2900-gram/6.4-pound) carbon frame, a much-ballyhooed rear-suspension system, full Di2 electronic integration…

Details
• Intended use: trail, all-mountain, enduro
• Rear wheel travel: 135mm
• Fork travel: 150mm or 160mm
• Wheel size(s): 29-inch or 27.5+
• Clearance for up to 27.5 x 3.25-inch tires or 29 x 2.5-inch tires
• Internal dropper post routing
• PF24 BB
• Front derailleur compatible
• Downhill (12x157mm) hub spacing
• Sizes: XS / S / M / L / XL
• Carbon front and rear triangles
• 6.4-pound frame (size Medium)
• MSRP: $6,299- $10,099 USD ($7,599 as ridden)
www.pivotcycles.com / @pivotcycles

Pivot Switchblade


What It Isn't

By this point, you might be thinking the Switchblade sounds like some too-good-to-be-true infomercial for the current bike of the moment. The ShamWow/Ginsu knife of knobby-tired rigs. How could any single bike actually do and be all these things? Brace for it: The Switchblade is rocking a rear axle set up that you haven’t ridden before…at least not on anything outside a bike park.

“Don’t call it a new standard,” says Chris Cocalis. He makes this point while squinting and frowning. A gaggle of us media hacks have just come off of two long days of pounding the hell out of the Switchblade on Mag 7 and the extended version of Porcupine Rim, and are now sitting around for the requisite Kool-Aid drinking portion of the press launch. I’m not a professionally-trained psycho-therapist, so I am, admittedly, simply guessing here, but I think there are two reasons why Pivot’s founder and engineer has suddenly gone sober and dead-eyed on us. For starters, he’s right: the 157x12-millimeter rear axle width on the Switchblade is not new. Anyone who’s looked closely at a downhill bike can tell you that. What is new here is that Pivot has used it on a bike that doesn’t require a chairlift.

The other reason that Cocalis is making a point of pointing this out is that he knows full well that the Internet will go bat-shit crazy when it gets wind of a new axle standard. To be fair, I kind of did myself. Didn’t we just go to Boost 148 like, I don’t know…last friggin’ year? And besides, people are making a lot of impressive trail/all-mountain/enduro bikes without moving to another wider hub. Did they really need to do this?

“To make this bike? Yes,” says Cocalis. “We’ve been working on this bike for five years now and kept shelving it. They rolled over things well, but the prototypes weren’t satisfying to us.”

What was lacking?

“Mainly, they weren’t stiff enough. Neither the frames nor the wheels.”

Pivot’s engineers were, like a lot of other manufacturers, stymied by flexy 29er 142x12 wheels. They struggled to make chainstays reasonably short while still fitting a front derailleur on a frame and getting it to clear the wider tires most of us want to ride. The advent of 1x drivetrains eased things up a bit in the rear triangle. Boost 148 helped even more—pushing the chainrings out a bit, granting even more breathing room for bigger tires on short chianstays and stiffening up the rear wheel by spreading the rear hub flanges out a bit, and improving the spokes’ bracing angle.


DH-Bike Rear Spacing Mated to a Trail Bike Drivetrain

Still, as a lot of people have pointed out…Why stop at 148 millimeters? Why not go even wider, further improve that spoke angle and give even more breathing room between the chainstays? Why not just use downhill rear wheel spacing? People asked these things on the forums and the guys at Pivot asked themselves the same thing. Boost 148 helped them, sure. They admit they couldn’t have created the Mach 429 Trail or latest Mach 6 without it, but they wanted even more breathing room for that long-travel 29er project they’d been working on for so many years. Finally, Cocalis decided to build a new prototype using 157x12 spacing. He approached manufacturers, including DT Swiss and Industry Nine, about building a hub. Sure, he could use a regular downhill hub on the frame, but the flange spread on older DH hubs was narrower than that of Boost 148. It could be stiffer.

X
Using the existing 157mm DH axle and hub width future-proofs the Super Boost Plus concept. The brake rotor location, cassette location and hub spacing is interchangeable. The spoke flange spacing, however, has been increased by up to 14mm in the Super Boost Plus hubs. SRAM's new DH hub flanges are similarly spaced.


Wider spoke flanges: The hubs that came about from Cocalis' urging have a significantly wider spread between the flanges which also better balances spoke tension between the drive and non-drive side. Holding the hubs in your hands, it’s obvious. We’re only talking millimeters here (as much as 14 millimeters), but in the world of bike design, millimeters matter. When Cocalis approached SRAM about making a hub they told him they’d been thinking the same thing too—in fact, they had one already in the works. Since then, the new XO DH hub has come out and, yes, it'll work here.

X
"Super Boost Plus 157 is based on standard cranksets in the market. The system maintains the same Q-factor (crank arm width) as standard trail bike cranks in the market, such as Race Face Affect SL (173mm), and Race Face Turbine (177mm)." - Pivot Press release


Q-Factor concerns: When Trek released Boost 148 in conjunction with SRAM, they answered the inevitable “Why not just use DH spacing instead?” question by saying that the resulting Q-factor would be horrendous for people pedaling all day. They also contended that ankle clearance would be scarce. Cocalis did, in fact, try putting DH cranks (with spacers) on his prototype rigs, but found himself hitting all sorts of things with his feet on his daily test runs—things he’d never smacked into during years of riding the same trails. On one technical chute on the rugged trails of South Mountain, near his Phoenix headquarters, Cocalis actually found himself suddenly wedged in. That wouldn’t do.

Standard Cranksets: Pivot wound up addressing the chainline problem by focusing on the chainring. In essence, they needed more chainring offset. To that end, you can use a regular Race Face Aeffect SL or Turbine crankset on the Switchblade with the Race Face Narrow Wide 1x chainring flipped. Done. Problem solved. Race Face new Next SL cranks work with the system too, though you need to outfit it with one of Race Face’s custom interchangeable spindles since that particular crankset has a very low Q-factor to begin with. E-13 also has cranks that work with the system and Pivot is talking to SRAM and Shimano (among still others) about getting on board with crank/chainring options. In short, it’s moving forward.

Future proof: Pivot is—half-jokingly— calling this 157x12 axle and non-DH crankset combination “Super Boost Plus 157.” It’s a name that will probably make anyone who just bought a Boost 148 bike see red. I have to admit, I banged my head against the wall when I got wind of this not long ago, but then I thought about it some more. There really is nothing new here. In an odd way, it’s the most retro way possible of making a stiffer rear wheel and a stiffer, shorter rear end with more tire clearance. You can absolutely run a new Switchblade frame with any old 157x12 hub. Just about every manufacturer already makes one. You wouldn’t, however, get the benefit of the extra wheel strength and stiffness provided by the wider flange spacing on Super Boost Plus 157 hubs, but the older hub would work.

Likewise, you could use an older DH crank on the new frame. You might feel a bit bowlegged and you might smack your feet into more things while riding, but a lot of people probably might not even notice. Again, it'd work. Nor does Super Boost Plus 157 require a new type of crankset or bottom bracket. PF24 has been around for a long time now and the system would work with a regular 73-millimeter threaded shell. Plenty of existing cranks work fine. In short, what’s on this new Pivot really isn’t a “new standard”. Super Boost Plus 157 is just a new or, at least, novel way of using existing parts.


And This Is What it Gets You...

Pivot Switchblade
Plenty of tire clearance for plus-sized tires, some of the shortest chainstays in the 29er world, stronger wheels and room to grow should someone add more cassette cogs in the future.


It’s worth noting that Super Boost Plus 157 is open for anyone to use, though Cocalis doesn’t envision it outright replacing Boost 148 on most 29ers or 27.5 bikes. As far as he’s concerned, it makes a world of sense on plus-sized bikes—many of which don’t have much in the way of mud clearance. Many of which rock longer chainstays. Many of which can’t accommodate 2x drivetrains....

While the Switchblade is joining a party that already has guests (the Santa Cruz Hightower and Ibis Mojo 3 immediately come to mind), I have to admit, it brings a few things to the party that other models don’t.


Aggressive Geometry

X


The Switchblade comes in five sizes (from extra-small to extra-large) that will accommodate riders as short as 4-foot, 11-inches with plenty of standover room to spare. I wound up riding a medium—the first time in years that I could comfortably fit a bike that “small.” In fact, I initially thought the bike was a size large, despite the fact that most of my bikes have at least a half inch more top tube to them. Weird, but it worked well. The overall geometry is of the long-in-the-front, short-in-the-rear and low-at-the-BB variety.

Pivot models tend to sport fairly low bottom brackets—the DW Link rear suspension allows the bike to ride fairly high in its travel; as a result you can run the lower bottom bracket without incurring a ton of pedal strikes. At least in 29er trim. Some test riders found themselves (during the bike’s development process) smacking pedals frequently on the rocky trails around Phoenix, so Pivot sends the bike with both a Zero Stack lower headset cup (meant for the 29er set up) and a taller, (17-millimeter) lower cup that slackens the head angle a bit and raises the BB slightly, making it a good choice for the slightly smaller and squishier plus-size tire and wheel combo. I actually ran the bike—in both the 29er and plus-size trims—with the 17-millimeter lower cup and the Switchblade never felt too slack on the steep climbs or tippy in the least.


Several Kits at Launch...More to Come

Pivot Switchblade
The Switchblade is just now rolling into bike shops and, at this point, the bike is available in several different trims—1x and 2x, 29er and 27.5+--ranging in price from $6,299 to $10,099. I rode the XTR/XT Pro version with a wheel upgrade. Pivot will offer less-expensive build kits mated to the same carbon frame in the near future and Cocalis says that they’ll likely also produce a more affordable still version based around an aluminum chassis at some point. In short, if the prices here have you shaking your fist at the computer screen, there will be Switchblade models that won’t bleed your wallet to death in the future.
What It Costs:

Pivot Switchblade





First Impressions

I just returned from three long days of riding this thing in Moab and while a long weekend on a bike does not constitute a thorough test by any stretch of the imagination, a gaggle of us media hacks did pound the hell out of the Switchblade. On day one we rode the Switchblade in 29er trim down Upper Porcupine Singletrack, Lower Porcupine Singletrack and the original Porcupine Ridge trail. On day two, we rode the bike in its plus-bike guise down Mag 7. On day three, each journalist got to choose which wheel and tire combo to ride up Hymasa and down Captain Ahab. I chose to return to the 29er set up on the last day…to get a better sense of the pros and cons of each set up.

I’ve been focusing on this whole Super Boost Plus 157 thing for the past few paragraphs because I know it’s going to be the factor that overshadows all else about this bike, but in a sense that’s a shame. While Pivot contends that they couldn’t have achieved everything they wanted with the Switchblade (massive tire clearance paired to very short chainstays and the ability to run dual chainrings, which 40 percent of their customers still favor), the bike is bigger than the axle story line.

Pivot Switchblade Photo by Lear Miller


Let’s start with the basics here. As with other Pivots, the Switchblade utilizes Dave Weagle’s DW-Link rear suspension system. It’s a very efficient pedaler—I ran it in Open mode for many of the climbs and rarely found myself even thinking about reaching for the lever to firm things up. We ran higher tire pressures than I normally would even consider, but there were also plenty of small drops from one rocky place to the next. Countless run-ins with big, square-edged rocks that all seemed to be pointing the wrong direction. Peeling a tire off a rim in those unsparing conditions didn’t seem like a great plan, so I opted for the security of the higher pressure and, to the rear suspension’s credit, I still got on really well with the bike. Much to my surprise. The Switchblade is equipped with a Fox 36—a telltale sign of the direction this bike leans. It’s a solid choice as the Switchblade is the kind of bike that urges you to storm into unforgiving terrain at unwise speeds. Pivot equips the Switchblade with a 150-millimeter travel fork, but it will also accept a 160-millimeter fork.

As to whether the Switchblade is stiffer than the competition—I dunno. I’d need to run it side by side with its contemporaries and I’d need a lot more time than a long weekend to come to any absolute conclusions, but “This bike is flexy!” was never a thought that sprang to my mind. Not once. It’s a tight-handling machine.

Pivot Switchblade Photo by Lear Miller


29er or 27.5+? Which did I prefer? That’s hard to say. Shod with 29-inch hoops and tires, the bike feels more…I don’t know “nimble” isn’t the right word here as the bike handles tight corners identically with either wheel size. I’ll put it this way, since the 27.5+ version offers a crazy amount of traction, I noticed that the 29er version felt like it changed direction a bit quicker or at least required less effort at the handlebar to make those quick, split-second steering adjustments.

On the other hand, the 27.5+ added a huge margin for error when lofting the bike into loose, rubble or when smashing the bike into and over rocks and ledges. Which wheel size is better? That’s a personal judgment call. Bikes like the Switchblade and the Mojo 3 and new Tallboy make a strong case that plus-size doesn’t have to equal “dumbed down”. Not by a long shot. People can hate all they want on these things, but they should ride the better versions of the new breed before they start painting with broad brushstrokes.

Did I smack my ankles into those wide chainstays? I did not. Did the chain derail every time I backpedaled in 1st or 2nd gear? It did not—despite the very short chainstays. Would I want to run the bike with a front derailleur? Nope, but it’s cool that you have the option here.

So there you have it—the Switchblade is an interesting bike. A very good bike. What’s more, it’s versatile as all hell—the kind of bike that spans a lot of genres. The whole Super Boost Plus 157 thing is going to make some people nod their heads (finally, DH spacing on trail bikes...we should have done that all along) and simultaneously turn other people off. I understand the latter gut reaction: The world needs another new wheel size or wheel standard like it needs a good case of the clap. Then again, this isn’t a new standard at all. Super Boost 157 (or whatever the hell it’ll wind up being called) works with existing parts. It makes sense. While Pivot could have made a very good bike with Boost 148 (and, yes, plenty others have), the extra width has allowed them to bring a hell of a lot of cool features together on one bike—features that don’t often party together.

Pivot Switchblade Photo by Lear Miller



Visit the high-res gallery for more images from this article.





293 Comments

  • 273 24
 In today's busy world, reading each article that Vernon Felton writes may be too time-consuming. So, as a public service, I'm providing everyone with a handy template covering every story he's ever written and ever will:

Here is a new product I'm reviewing. It contains a feature that is going to make riders really mad, called _____. And, when I first heard about _____, I sure was [insert semi-profane phrase indicating righteous anger]. The fact that I almost use profanity assures you that I really on your side, dudes, not just a predictable shill for the bike industry.

But then I talked to the people marketing ____, and I reluctantly realized how wonderful it really is, and how silly I'd been to question the motives of the bike industry. Now I'm not mad, instead I feel like spending, and you should too, because just like you I like to party!
  • 66 4
 I don't know who you are, but I would l like to buy you a beer for that comment.
  • 23 3
 @Phillyenduro ---cheers sir. Comment of the day
  • 120 19
 In today's busy world, reading the comments for each article on Pinkbike may be too time-consuming. So, as a public service, I'm providing everyone with a handy template covering 2/3rds of every comment on any new product story:

This new _______ product isn't as good as my [insert outdated, older bike/component/standard]. The bike industry are a bunch of robber barons, plotting to steal our hard earned cash through sophisticated conspiracies to make our bikes obsolete every 6 months. I'm [inset number over 35] years old, and do super awesome shit on my [insert old bike with old components]. Although I have no experience with ______, I feel that I can safely speak authoritatively about how much it sucks, and how much better my [insert older version of same technology, without recognizing obvious contradiction that it, too, was new and revolutionary when it first came out]. Nuff said, really.
  • 24 0
 Vernon's articles are entertaining. And so are these comments. That's what I'm here for.
  • 10 12
 Never going to wider tires. Had 2016 SC with 148 rear spacing and I sold it real quick. It's common sense, the wider surface area; the more grip and slower the speed. So unless you want to be a fat cruiser on the trail, I suggest stick to reg tires!
  • 9 5
 @pigit77: I call bullshit. The GMBN test, and most ride reports suggest that speed is a wash or more speed on the plus bike, particularly descending, and some say ascending. For downhills, even a full fatbike can be just as fast descending trail bike terrain as a standard bike; it's the climbs that'll get ya. I've seen rolling resistance differences quoted at ~1% between plus/non plus standards, but much depends on tire selection. The real weakness of bigger tires is puncture resistance in rocks, NOT rolling speed.
  • 10 0
 @fpmd: i just skip to the comments. and if they're funny then ill read the article.
  • 8 0
 @pigit77: why not ride a cross bike?
  • 3 0
 @pigit77: Larger surface area grips better because the rubber can conform around more surface imperfections, like how a big piece of velcro is harder to open than a small one.

But unlike velcro, a larger surface area also prevents the rubber from having to bend as sharply at the edges of the contact patch, so even on sand it rolls faster than a smaller tire. Big tires roll much faster on loose terrain actually; given the same weight larger objects sink less into loose material.
  • 5 0
 @Phillyenduro this is THE BEST comment of 2016. At least 2016.
  • 2 5
 lol!! i'd prefer this type of writing than cunningham's.
  • 4 11
flag Janosch (May 29, 2016 at 1:55) (Below Threshold)
 @fpmd: He's like an cheesy reality show host. There's nothing entertaining in that. If this is your first Vernon article, than you could say it's sort of entertaining. But if you were reading his stuff for a long time, you could see it's all the same. If you read one article, you read them all.

And I don't know why he bothers with this bicycle thing any more. He's been doing it for a long time and I understand it's not easy to come up with original and interesting stuff again and again. But, if he would be honest and just admit that he's tired, washed-up and that he had enough, I'm sure everybody will understand. Nobody would be angry or disappointed. Quite the contrary.
  • 4 0
 Now with MBA Action-esque photos flooded with unnatural light
  • 2 5
 Thank you, this guy is so tedious, he digresses constantly.
  • 1 0
 @AllMountin: roll resistance is one thing, aerodynamics is another. if you're going reasonably fast, the plus tires require noticeably more energy to go to the same speed.
at slower (heh. slow, even) speeds, its about the same. as far as handling both feel different though the plus tires are more cushioned, feel a little off due to that (maybe we need time to adapt), and def. allow for more errors/easier
  • 53 16
 That was funny. Not accurate at all, but I'll give you points for humor. But, hell, since you took a swing at me here I thought it might be worth actually addressing your key point. In the past four years I have written more than 1,000 articles online. How is that possible? I'm a busy guy. As the web editor at Bike, I averaged 3 posts per day, 7 days a week. True, some of these posts were fairly short, but plenty were damn long. I've also written gear reviews, features, etc. for the past 20 years. Yes, there's a point to all this....

Of the well more than 1,000 pieces that I have written in the past four years alone, a whopping 2 of them contain a fragment of the argument that you characterized as my schtick. That would amount to a whole 0.002 percent.

And what we're talking about here is my contention that something annoyed me, then I thought about it some more and realized it wasn't as bad an idea as I thought. The rest of your characterization of my writing is...crap.

I have not at any point argued that you or anyone else should buy anything. You don't want to buy stuff, that's fine by me. You don't need to. You can ride the stuff you rode yesterday (or what you rode 10 years ago, for that matter) and be completely happy. I, for the record, couldn't give a rat's ass whether you buy a new product. It's not my job to sell you on the idea of parting ways with your money. My job is to ride things, consider them objectively, weigh pros and cons and write honestly. I've made a career of doing that and I did that here as well.

In short, I'm okay with some general snarky responses to a piece or someone generally disagreeing with what I've written, but if you are going to call me out as a "shill", you should know what you're talking about. Your general premise should be somewhere in the general proximity of "on target".

I thought long and hard about even responding to your comment. The general rule of thumb is not to feed the trolls. But then I realized some of the 227 people who up voted you may actually think you'd done your due diligence, so I thought that it was time to actually roll out some facts.
  • 10 5
 @vernonfelton: Well said vernon. I enjoyed this informed article and the other one posted as 'evidence' when I read it a few months ago. Keep up the good writing and reviews.
  • 3 17
flag Janosch (Jun 1, 2016 at 1:48) (Below Threshold)
 @vernonfelton: 10 years ago, couple of us were doing some work for a priest from one of the Eastern Ortodox Churches. After the work was done, we were all sitting and drinking beer with him. It turned out he was a really smart and interesting man. One of the things he said was: "It's not the handsome guy who get's to fu*k the girl. It's the one who is most annoying."

In other words, you didn't get where you are because of the quality of your content. It was the quantity. Like you said, you were a busy guy. I read your longer articles, little "side projects" for Adventure Journal and half-assed articles that were supposed to be gear reviews. And like I said, you read one, you read them all. But wait... More 1,000 articles in pas four years? "How is that possible?!" I wouldn't brag about it if I were you. Especially in the times with enormous amount of low quality content floating on the web. Also, as a web editor of a bike magazine, you had a lot of content to play with and recycle. So, it's not so hard to pump out 3 posts per day. You probably could've written even more.
  • 12 0
 @phillyenduro I've been following @vernonfelton's work somewhat closely for the past 5 years. I find his critiques the the bike industry to really mirror my own concerns. I don't see him disagreeing with himself in his articles or videos as you pointed out to be his formula. The part you wrote about him talking to marketing folks and the silliness of questioning them AND going out and spending is pretty ridiculous. Are you trying to take a personal swipe at him? Isn't it appropriate for him to laud Pivot for using the standard we've all wanted if we had to move up from 142?

In case you've missed the memo, all publications for the bicycling industry have to play "the game" to get access to the gear and ad dollars. Look no further than the Theranos Inc. tech/bio company voiding 2 years of blood tests largely because Theranos tightly controlled the media access for this tech darling that basically got a "pass" from the tech news media. That media played the game and didn't push the hard questions and life decisions were made based on now voided blood results. The Wall Street Journal broke this story and faced law suits because of it. www.wired.com/2016/04/theranos-investigated-fraud-weird-private-company

One of the bike industry publishers got leaked photos of the new Shimano dura ace groupset and published the photos despite law suit threats and ad pulls from Shimano. Standing up to the companies and not playing their game is rare. Somone please link that story for me.

I for one, appreciate Vernon's critical and even-handed approach to bike reviews and editorials on the bike industry. Vernon is the closest thing we've got to real bike journalism.
  • 14 2
 @Janosch: It's possible because I am a professional writer and have been one for more than two decades. I work 7 days a week and take my job seriously. And, no, I'm not bragging. I'm pointing out a fact since someone mischaracterized how and what I write. Facts were in order. I take pride in not regurgitating press releases and most people who've read my work recognize that, though I completely understand that you might simply not like my writing. It's not for everyone and you, of course, are free to consider me a washed-up hack. It's a free world.

I find it interesting, though, that you characterize my work for Adventure Journal and Outside as "side projects", as if writing for those publications is somehow a slight as opposed to being an accomplishment. You sound, from the tenor of your posts, more like someone that has a personal grudge than someone who is responding to what I've actually written or how I've written it. Ride on.
  • 10 12
 @vernonfelton: Glad you were amused, and appreciate a good counter-punch. My hyperbole was hyperbole. But, whether you deem it "crap" or not, the fact is 227 of your readers agreed that your writing can come across as inauthentic. When your bro-speak voice is paired with content that tends to side with the industry over riders, it can rankle. And if you think anyone who points that out is a troll, you're missing out.
  • 11 5
 @Phillyenduro: Thanks for the response. My "bro-speak voice" is actually my actual voice. I write the way I talk, as anyone who's met me can attest, which may simply indicate that I have an annoying bro-ish speaking voice. So it goes. Cheers.
  • 13 4
 @Phillyenduro:

"...the fact is 227 of your readers agreed that your writing can come across as inauthentic..."

There are millions of people in the US that think that Donald Trump has a lot of good ideas. Baywatch was the most popular show in the world for a long time. The fact that 227 people agree with your trolling doesn't mean you're brilliant.

Its way easier to criticize what other people do than do something original yourself. You're entitled to your opinion, but I think a lot more than 227 people found the article useful and informative. I did
  • 3 0
 @vernonfelton: love your insight Vernon, your thoughts and words are appreciated. And welcome to pinkbike, broville
  • 69 6
 "Plenty of tire clearance for plus-sized tires, some of the shortest chainstays in the 29er world, stronger wheels and room to grow should someone add more cassette cogs in the future."

This sounds like a recipe for success.
  • 135 18
 Super Boost Plus. Fuck me dead. As a boost 148 429 trail owner I enjoyed the six months of relevance and industry support boost 148 had before its death.
  • 21 0
 @Bigbossman: "future proof"... Hahah!
  • 22 0
 @CliffRacer: there's no such thing as "relevance" in the bike industry anymore.
  • 21 3
 My E29 has a 142 rear and chainstays about as short, plus it can run a double ring, plus it has good clearance, plus it can fit 27.5+ tires, plus it is plenty stiff. I don't see the need for all this new wider stuff. The new demo still uses a 142mm rear axle and I've never heard anyone complain about it being flexy, and thats with the weird pivot locations and lack of a seatstay bridge.
  • 30 0
 740mm bars on an enduro bike and a cable that still goes under the bottom bracket? Well, they almost got it right.
  • 4 1
 Though that photo didn't exactly show what looked to be great tire clearance down at the chainstay yoke
  • 8 2
 Not for nothing but use to run 26"x3.0" with a 135x10 hub - ya know, Bender Style - while I like the tread for wider lighter tires I'm unimpressed and annoyed with all the new "standards" for hubs and drop outs.
  • 2 9
flag jclnv (May 27, 2016 at 9:25) (Below Threshold)
 @bcmrider: under the BB is the best routing. Go look at the cable and hose eating the seat tube on any Santa Cruz etc for proof of that.
  • 12 1
 I don't want to speak for everyone, but I've definitely noticed the flexy wheel problem on older 29ers. Boost and this new standard should make it possible to make a nice stiff wheel without needing to make the wheel heavy or insanely expensive. Thats a good thing.

It probably comes down to how big you are and what type of riding you do. I live in the PNW (berms!), and weigh 225lbs. Someone who weighs 50lbs less and/or rides mellower trails might not have the same experience.
  • 11 1
 @jerrytek: I'm 210 and I ride at the top of the rockies, wherethere are tons of rocks, off-camber, and square edged hits. My stock specialized wheels on my E29 were plenty stiff enough, and now with my cheap nextie carbon rims they are as stiff as I'd ever need them to be, all with a 142 rear end.
  • 9 1
 I had a discussion with another builder about why not just go to 157 a year ago when the 148 boost was the hot topic and I was shut down that it wouldn't work, chain lines, flange spacing wouldn't provide any advantage,yada,yada. Then I brought up the stupidity of existing flange spacing on existing DH hubs. Crickets.
Now Cocalis and I cannot be channeling each other since that is impossible, but apparently great minds think alike. I know many on hear will be cussing this as a useless, stupid new direction. But if you really look at the progression from 135-142-148 now 157 . It had to happen. I also think we are reaching physical width limits. SO this is likely the end game of hub width/spacing standards. Until humans get shorter feet and wider hips anyway.

Smart to keep the option of Shimano FD intact as this will be an issue if you try and force all us old fat guys into 1X . 6 knee surgeries do not make for comfortable out of saddle or grinding climbing. Hike a bike sucks w/o cartilage.
  • 25 0
 Hey guys. Hey! Hey, you left 135mm off of your diagram. Guys?
  • 5 1
 @hamncheez: "cheap carbon rims" is an oxymoron. One of the definite perks of wider spacing is that you can build an acceptable stiff/light wheel with an affordable alu rim. Before, most non-carbon 29er wheels were either heavy or flexy. Regardless of the setup, wider bracing angles put less focus on the rim for stiffness.
  • 3 1
 "cheap carbon rims" is an oxymoron - agree. But during the last year I have witness no less than 3 carbon rim failures (all Enve), my 5 year old Stan Ex's (which are not cheap) however still are running strong running those same trail at the same speeds. I'm all for progression when it works, but when it's 4X more expensive and not as durable at that point some serious re-considerations need to be had
  • 4 1
 @jclnv: Disagree. Santa Cruz cable routing is the best, IMO. So clean and straightforward. Add a bit of electrical tape on the one small area where the cable housing MAY rub the seat tube.
  • 2 0
 @jerrytek @Grmasterd how is this not cheap? I love my rims, and no failures yet

www.nextie.net/mountain
  • 8 0
 @CliffRacer: I'm holding out for the Super Boost Plus Premium so I don't look like an eejit like the rest of you
  • 3 0
 @Bigbossman: Parkay...
  • 1 0
 @jon123rjk: And SCB send a clear 3M patch kit for cable rub areas anyway.
  • 2 0
 @jon123rjk: Well I hear it's bad enough that they're going to change it. Not only do the cables eat the frame, they're also right in the way of the bottle cage. Plus they have to flex every time the suspension cycles. Friction everywhere.

Crap.
  • 1 1
 @jerrytek: well said. I'm $1.55 and have four 29'ers with four big hoop wheels sets and one 27+. For me a well tensioned cross country rim can build up a wheel stiff enough for the riding style of most those bikes. My riding buddy has 50+ lbs on me and always has, and he's always equipped his bikes appropriately.
  • 2 0
 @hamncheez: you may be the first clyde ever to say stock specialized wheels were stiff enough!
  • 1 0
 @hamncheez: Nextie Wildcats 38mm Asym rims-BEST EVER . Amazing easy to build. Absolutely take a beating.
  • 2 1
 @El-Train: some people use their weight in support of the abuse they will exert on a bicycle part and will equal it to the abuse a more aggressive rider can do. In a lot of cases this is a false view as I have had plenty of Clydesdales tell me a set of Stan's Flows are plenty stiff and strong, and have lasted them years. I only weigh 150, 160 as of more recent, and every Flow I've ridden is a noodle in comparison to others comparable rims, and I've destroyed 3 usually in a few months time. The same goes for any non-DH Specialized tire- soft, flexy, not-durable.
  • 2 0
 @jerrytek: asymetric rims give stiffer wheels than boost even does. add the two and its plenty stiff enough without going wider, perhaps stiffer than "super boost" with regular rims. I bet most of us cant even feel the difference anyway.. heck vernon can't and he rode a zillion bikes.
  • 1 0
 @jerrytek: 600usd wheelsets at chinese builders and they're really nice, with novatech hubs. its about as much as average alu wheels but about as good as the 2k carbon wheelsets.
  • 2 1
 @mtnbykr05: I think flows are shit too. Not strong at all.
  • 1 0
 @hamncheez: the new demo is actually 135x12
  • 97 45
 Holy sh@t im over all this new standard crap. The mtb industry has lost me im afraid. Im 44 years old and been riding for 30 something years and around 28 or so of those years its been on 135mm QR and ive loved every day of it. My go to bike atm is a Cotic steel hardtail with a 135 QR rear end and it sure gets a spanking. Its a 1×11 drive with 140mm forks and dh brakes and i ride it put it away and ride it again. Simple eh!!!
  • 114 7
 @slowrider73 Nah, this is a BRILLIANT reuse of, and compatibility with, what's already available, to make a really strong wheel, a stiff rear end, all with a chainline that gives you more tyre options. Love it.
  • 6 0
 Just about to rebuild my BFe for the same reasons!
  • 6 16
flag viatch (May 27, 2016 at 4:46) (Below Threshold)
 true that ! and superboost my ass ! you can just rename 157 something that existed before and how come they have waterbottle cages on here and not on the mach 6 ??
  • 11 4
 I also love that the industry might use a standard that already existed... didn't we all say that 157 was already a thing when boost came out??? Oh and I also ride a bfe... 135 should be pretty future proof as cyclocross now uses it too (for discs).
  • 23 2
 The real question is if it comes with a metric shock.
  • 14 3
 Miss where Chris Cocalis HIMSELF - a veteran of the industry, not just some rider - said "It isn't a new standard, don't call it that" ???
Methinks you glossed over that part.
If you don't like it, don't buy it.

It happens this speaks to me in the versatility dept. more than any other bike in recent memory.
  • 7 3
 @Spittingcat: I have to agree, as a 37yr old guy who has let 650b /29 pass me by with little concern while still happily rocking my 26 Remedy this 27.5+ or 29 157 is I believe the new bench mark and appears to be the best of both worlds depending on the riders preference/riding style/terrain. Great looking bike too! My Opinion.
  • 10 3
 This isn't a new standard. 157 hubs are readily available
  • 11 10
 Back in 1999 i had a kona stab dee-lux with monster T's on it and cramed in a a pair of Nokian Gazzaloddi 3.0 inch tyres. Had 135mm rear with a 1× 9 sp with a 44 tooth chainring and It all worked. Nuf said really!!
  • 8 11
 27plus is the truth . so much traction im for any movement that makes it more available
  • 16 17
 I'm with slow rider. Screw this. It is getting stupid. My bike becomes obsolete faster than my computer. Fuk off bike industry.
  • 4 11
flag projectnortheast (May 27, 2016 at 7:00) (Below Threshold)
 So now if I want to swap from my current 9r to this frame I need a new wheelset and a proprietary crank spindle for my raceface next sl cranks... gosh I'm sick of this make one bike that can run any tire size crap...
  • 11 4
 @slowrider73 I ride with a guy who used to have the same thoughts about his 90's Dekerf. It took us years to get him to upgrade. Although he'll still stubbornly stand by his old steed and say how great it is, he honestly loves his newer Specialized and bombs the trails far better.

If I was buying a new bike I would demand the latest greatest tech. So I would hope the industry would keep working on things - that's how improvements are made. Otherwise we'd still be riding canti brakes with updated 'grippier' pads.
  • 11 2
 @slowrider73: So you'd buy a bike today that had the same geometry as a '99 Stab dee-lux? No? That's what I thought.
  • 12 3
 Meh, I'm glad engineers are starting to design the best bikes rather than making compromises just so they can adhere to some parts standard.
  • 3 4
 I'm old too, 45. Always ridden qr135. I was out of riding for 7 years or so. Came back to it in early 2012, bought a Cotic BFe (20x140 fork) and a Solaris (15x120 fork) last year. Both are heavily obsolete now. But with my research trying to find a good rim, I found some strong 26er rims (Syncros DS28 ) and 29er rims (e*thirteen TRS+ 23.4 and 28mm inner. 2 sets of wheels) And uh, I've have zero issues. I was at Rays this year, hit the expert jump section on both bikes over and over. I didn't feel any massive flex in the wheels riding the 29er compared to the 26er. Have 6000+ off road miles the last 4 years and have yet to fix a rear hub (all Hope's) or complain of wheel flex..
  • 20 4
 bottom line is NOONE is making you buy this stuff . if your sick of new trends then log off and go ride your bike . youll never know any better .
  • 2 1
 @ReformedRoadie: Nope. 200x51.
  • 11 9
 Yeah. I'm out. I'm tired of the industry, just not even fun anymore. With eagle, and this boost and plus bullshit. If anything I'll just get a nice fun hardtail later on.
  • 7 1
 Honestly though, what was wrong with 135,142,150? Xc, am, dh. It was all peace and chicken grease
  • 20 1
 I really don't see how it's such a big deal. Worry more about riding and less about reselling or having the latest and greatest.

And tbh, the anger seems really misplaced here. Pivot gave some extremely well thought out reasoning for why they changed things around, and didn't treat the readers/customers like a bunch of idiots or feed tons of marketing drivel. They used an EXISTING hub width and ended up with customizability, mud clearance, and stiffness. IMO this is what a new standard should provide in the first place - not a half-measure that then locks you into 1x or some other design compromise. It took real creativity and engineering to come up with all these solutions, and I appreciate that the Pivot guys seem so stoked about it and that they're excited to stand behind it and share it with people.
  • 7 1
 I just wish that instead of all the bike companies jacking each other's dongs over Boost 148, one of them would have tried making the case (via engineering speak) that the same benefits could be seen via the existing 157 standard. So all they had to do was flip the chainring and the Q-Factor issue was cured? Really? Trek never thought of that? I foresee bike sales coming to screeching halt until all this dumbassery blows over.

Anyways, 142x12 is the shit - thru axles are just a better way to secure a wheel, and that's enough of a benefit for me.
  • 5 0
 But the bottom line here, this bike seems very interesting. A 29er that I want to try. Now we just need to see Eliot Jackson shred the absolute sh*t out of it so that we know it's legit.
  • 20 3
 Listening to people bitch about something that they've never tried - just because its different - is so damn annoying.

For some reason, people have this strange idea that standards need to be the same on all bikes for decades (or more, as slowrider73 is still loving his 135 QR setup). That isn't the way things work in the automotive, moto, or other industries. Why should we expect bike companies to stick to the same basic specs indefinitely? If a new standard fixes an issue, great! Its annoying if you want to keep using the same components across different frames, but thats life. Technology progresses: disk brakes are better than rim brakes. Wider axle standards and thru-axles are better than old QRs. Dropper posts, new school geometry, etc: these things work really well. Lots of people like them. Its not just a marketing conspiracy to make your bike obsolete.

I'm not going to rush out and get this. But the rationale behind it - and boost - makes perfect sense: it allows you to make a stiffer 29er wheel, and fit those wheels into the frame without long stays and long wheelbases. Its a valid solution, especially if you want the ability to run 27.5+ and 2x transmissions.

It comes down to this: bikes today are really f*cking awesome. The technology is incredible. Its also expensive, but nobody is making you buy the new stuff. If you like your 26er, great! You can probably buy 26er, 135 QR, etc stuff really cheap right now! Have fun riding your older bike. But please don't bitch about everything new that comes out. At one point, that stab dee-lux, monster T fork, Nokian Gazzaloddis, and 9 speed transmission were all new and exciting. Back in 1999, some old guy was undoubtedly bitching about how all this stuff was not nearly as good as his rigid clunker.
  • 5 4
 @bkm303: The haters are gonna hate, neg rep me all you want as everyone already did but for those of us who race multiple disciplines and "upgrade" every year and sell off our race rigs every year buying a frame and building up over the winter is part of the fun for us, well for me anyway. Once you have a build that you know is your exact preference it sucks instead of just buying a new frame and swapping parts to have to build another 1500 dollar wheelset to a new hub etc..
  • 3 0
 @manchvegas: just as i used to go 135 on my trail bikes and 150 on my DH bike, ill now happily upgrade to 142x12 on my trailbikes and 157 on my gravity bikes. after feeling the massive upgrade moving from 135 to 142, im dead keen to try 157.
  • 4 0
 @jerrytek: i very much agree - the rationale behind it all is sound, totally makes sense. The one thing that is frustrating is that the157 standard was out there and could have been used, but wasn't because of QFactor/chainline issues, and that was cured (according to this story) by flipping around the chainring. (sounds like it needs to be a cinch chainring though). The cool thing about 157 too is that there's 157mm of real estate, which would allow for 12 spd, wider bracing angle, etc - but 148 came and sorta took over. I think the real question is going to be "what's the new standard?" and I can understand that frustration.
  • 5 2
 @whofarted-clark:
Again, why do we need everything to conform to standards? I've never understood why people are so adamant about bike specs being standardized (or the idea that a different standard somehow makes older ones obsolete). The idea that this is going to make 142 and 148 obsolete is silly. Why should that necessarily be the case? Why is more standards bad? And why should bike designers have to conform to these standards? If making the hub wider works, why question it? Hub and wheel manufacturers will have to make compatible parts, but i don't understand why consumers freak out about this so much. Bikes are machines, not Legos.
  • 7 0
 @jerrytek: Oh, I'll respond to that one: ever compared the difference in price between a car part available at Auto-zone, to one that you can only get at a dealer? THAT'S why we don't want every bike having custom componentry hanging off it.
  • 3 0
 @groghunter:
Thats because you are buying proprietary parts. But that isn't going to happen with bikes. Bike manufacturers work with component manufacturers all the time, and different standards are not inherently more expensive. Its never been a problem before, so why should you expect it to be in the future? Even if there were 10 common hub standards, I don't think it would make a huge impact in price. Looking at the history of the industry, I don't see any trend towards increasing focus on proprietary parts. When companies like Specialized and Giant have done this, it hasn't really worked. Thus, I don't think your analogy works.
  • 3 0
 @groghunter: my point had nothing to do with the ride quality of the old kona, hell my "new school" geometry Cotic hardtail is better to ride. I was simply trying to show that i had no problem with very wide tyres in a narrow dropout with a chainline that worked and a strong wheel. Ive embraced some of the advancements the industry has made ( i also ride a Banshee Rune 2015), like 1×11, long low slack geo, long travel single crown forks, but SOME of these new standards i feel are unnecessary. N+W chainrings ( with clutch derr) and dropper posts are an amazing addition to a bike and these are very much advancements cause they're new in theory and practice.
That old Kona had a 69 deg head angle i think so thanks for reminding me of some sketchy moments!! ????
  • 2 1
 @slowrider73: & my point is you brought up the Kona as an example that all the changes were unnecessary, but it says in the article that pretty much the entire reason they went with the parts they did was to make the geometry work. Sure, the Kona might have had lots of easy to replace components, but they couldn't have given it the geo that this bike has, which is far better than what that Kona had.
  • 2 0
 @jerrytek: That's an odd conclusion, because you never really question my analogy, just the conclusion. But I think you're wrong, in that companies have had some very successful custom parts. Specialized had special shock lengths & attachments for over a decade, & trek is still making DRCV. We may have all woken up to the fact that hedshock is shit, but Cannondale had a very successful run with it.

I think the line between independent components & what the moto world looks like is closer than you think, & certain companies are trying to dip their toe over it all the time.
  • 1 1
 @groghunter: many other manufacturers manage to get similar numbers on bikes with 142 12 rear ends.
My Kona was a bucket of shit compared to all new bikes but as you so wisely pointed out you could put any wheel in it from any bike. 142 12 has kind of settled in now as the industry standard and it has massive geometry and wheel choices so compatibility between bikes "in the shed" has never been better.
All im saying is that can we just keep it simple!
  • 2 0
 @slowrider73: Similar geo is not the same geo. small changes= big effect is the name of the game with bike frames.
  • 1 5
flag slowrider73 (May 27, 2016 at 19:05) (Below Threshold)
 @groghunter: im sorry i didnt know that about small differences in geo having a big effect on handling. My mistake mate! You win, im out ! Bahahahaha
  • 4 1
 I love this. This is the hub spacing we should have gone to immediately and bypassed the shitty extra few mm boost provided. I look forward to boost dying and this replacing it.
  • 2 0
 Cotic BFe, Hell's yeah!
  • 2 0
 @jerrytek: I think there is a valid point that is raised though. If a new standard is rolled out every six months then surely it wasn't thoroughly engineered enough if it is obsolete in months. The industry is just pumping and dumping for money.

Source: I work in it.
  • 2 0
 @poozank: counterpoint: never attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity.
  • 1 0
 @poozank:

Axle standards aren't like Highlanders. Two can co-exist. The problem isn't too many standards. The problem is the idea that once a new standard comes out that everything that existed before is suddenly obsolete. The specs of a bike should be determined by WHAT WORKS BEST FOR THAT BIKE.

Beyond cynicism, the fact that this bike has a strange axle spec made it possible to do things that wouldn't have been otherwise possible: super short stays, compatibility with 27+ and 29er wheels, and ability to run a front derailleur. That's undeniable.

Does this axle standard make sense for all bikes? Of course not. Just like 35" tires don't make sense for all vehicles. The problem isn't too many standards. The problem is that everyone loses their shit whenever companies don't conform to standardized norms. Its a strange obsession with standards that only exists in the bike market. We all need to get over it.
  • 2 1
 @jerrytek:

The problem isn't that everyone loses their shit when companies...

"don't conform to standardized norms",

the problem is not being able to continue to use components, hubs and possibly even frames if they have been marketed to users as being "future proof" and they subsequently turn out to be less than as advertised.

If the industry gets itself sorted out and stops giving mixed messages, some of us would be more than grateful.

Think the Cannondale approach to standards and marketing. Honest, open and successful.
  • 2 1
 @orientdave:

I've never seen a standard marketed as 'future proof', and if I did, I would be immediately suspicious. Why would any standard continue to be used indefinitely? The notion of 'future proof' is complete BS. Its a straw man argument.

If you want to continue to use components that are frame specific between different bikes - hubs, wheels, cranks, etc - then you'll need to account for that when you buy something new. Its not that difficult. For me, personally, I won't buy a Switchblade anytime soon because I have a set of really nice wheels that won't work with it. That's not ideal, but it doesn't mean that I'm going to gripe about Pivot's audacity to build a bike around specs that don't match what I already have. That doesn't mean that my wheels are shit. It just means that they won't work with this frame. Thats life.

As a general rule, if you are wondering if some new product will be 'future proof', here's a simple way you can can tell - - > Its not.

The thing that is getting lost in all the comments here: this looks like a pretty cool bike.
  • 2 0
 @jerrytek:

Hi Jerry,
The practicality of what you say is, of course, undeniable. We all find ourselves faced with choices over the frames and components that we buy and use; equally we know that new innovations become standard and that nothing is truly "future proof".

I personally have learned this lesson and make my choices accordingly, which, to take an example is why I buy Novatec 4 in 1 hubs. Boost is not for me thanks.

However, and this is important, there is also an undeniable and valid sense of frustration felt by consumers when things change. That "Who moved my cheese?", as the self help best seller said, moment leads to frustration that feels real.

And, equally, the use of certain language in marketing material does tend to lead the consumer into believing that their purchase will "stand the test of time", be "everything you will ever need" or, in a recent article here on PB, be "future proof" (FSA modular crankset). www.pinkbike.com/news/fsa-launches-new-modular-cranks-first-look-2016.html

While me may be gullible if we choose to believe it, it is, in the end, only the voices of disgruntled consumers who
cry foul of the marketing departmemts' use of language in this minefield that will ever lead to those same marketing departments being more responsible in their claims.

As I said before, Cannondale has been using proprietary components for years in many areas of its bikes and consumers are in no doubt about that. Bravo.

Nice bike Pivot.
  • 47 14
 "its not a new standard"

"we called it super boost plus, and have tried to get all the major component players on board"

Come f*cking on
  • 38 1
 Its not a new standard because it fits into a current standard. you can swap wheels with the current 12 x 157 without changing anything else by the look of it and get a stronger wheel. It is more like a different option within the old standard. When you look at the DH 157 hub there is a ton of wasted space between the disc rotor and the non-drive flange, this new hub fills that space with spokes.
  • 9 7
 @Patrick9-32: That "wasted space" is there for a good reason. It evens out the spoke tensions. I have no idea what the hell they are taking about saying this new standard evens out tensions compared to the old dh design. That is plain wrong. This new design isa step backwards, just put your old dh spaced wheel in there. It will work better and last longer.
  • 2 6
flag jaame (May 27, 2016 at 4:28) (Below Threshold)
 @gabriel-mission9: I thought half the thing with boost was the brake disc also sits 5mm further out, so a 157 won't put the disc in the same place as a 157 special super boost caramel plus RR. I haven't read it though... they lost me after the second paragraph
  • 10 4
 @jaame: Nope, the frame is fully compatible with normal dh 157 hubs. It says in the article. The only change they made was to move the non-drive flange further out. All this achieves is unbalanced spoke tensions, which means a less durable wheel. I do not understand the thinking behind it....
  • 9 1
 @gabriel-mission9: That's true if you locate the rim in the same place on both wheels. But what if the Pivot rear is a-symetric so the rim can be centered between the flanges? That way it would create a stronger wheel.
  • 2 1
 @zonoskar: That is true. perhaps this frame is offset? Dont think it is, but it could be.
  • 20 0
 You guys keep talking about swapping in existing wheels... you guys got a bunch of 29er wheels. or 650 wheels with 45mm rims, with DH hubs on them kicking around? Cause I gotta say, I'm fresh out.

This may be an existing axle length, but I'm guessing the amount of wheels already out there appropriate for this bike is slim to none.
  • 1 0
 157 DH was already gnarly as hell. Boost ads rigidity, but the spoke tension is not the same. My Kona with 157 DH (Not boost) has had zero problems with wheel-truing or rigidity. Sent it onto my fair share of rocks and drops, nada. Can't wait to see the new DT swiss hubs rolling through shops now...
  • 2 0
 @groghunter: Got a King 157 mm hub built up on a 40 mm Derby rim
  • 2 0
 @zonoskar: that's all manufacturers needed to do to make 142 as stiff as 148...
  • 2 0
 @kathwill: Derby 40s are 35mm internal. That's bare minimum for plus tires, & frankly not enough for 3.25s.
  • 1 1
 its not a new standard, nevertheless, they made my 142 bike outdated
  • 1 0
 @Patrick9-32: you'll notice boost 148 hubs are the same, there is a lot of empty space, but you cant make the spokes go further apart without compromising things...
  • 35 1
 Wait!? No cock block headset?
  • 9 2
 If you're riding 29ers then why do you need a block?
  • 3 0
 Doesn't need it, has that crooked...downtube.
  • 3 1
 Just don't bend over to pick anything up, or there will be more than one dirt road ridden that day.
  • 2 1
 @ReformedRoadie: can you imagine the flex? Unridable.
  • 2 0
 @jclnv: there are pills for that.


Wait, what are we talking about?
  • 22 0
 It's great that they used an exisiting standard and repurposed it, but wasn't the wider flange spacing available on a few 150/157 hubs prior to this? It also seemed pretty genius to simply turn the chainring around to achieve a chainline that worked with the 157 hub spacing.
  • 3 0
 I gotta wonder how close that brings the chain to your leg though. the the space between the chainring & the pedals on regular cranks was made that wide on purpose.
  • 2 0
 @groghunter:

It's a super common thing in the fatbike world. People use cranks that are spaced for 170mm bikes and flip the rings to make them work on 190mm rear end bikes all the time. It decreases the qfactor quite substantially. Doesn't create any issues between leg and boot clearance on a fatbike. Should be negligible on a trailbike and trail shoes
  • 17 0
 Nice review, great looking bike. Now I think anyone can agree that using an existing size axle is a good thing, even if the newer hub is a bit stronger, one could use an older style 157. Good on pivot for this, I know I'd put my old 157 in if I got this, just because I have one. I think I'll wait for 3-4 years before looking at new bikes, hopefully the industry can settle and chill out and decide.
  • 22 2
 An when I argued this out when the boost hype hit I was called a troll/hater
f*ck mtb
  • 5 0
 You hating troll
  • 23 4
 26' and 142 rear hub are enough for me.
  • 6 1
 I second that!
  • 12 2
 26', that's a big ass wheel.
  • 1 0
 Only depend how fat your wallet is. Get a proper job !!! haha
  • 12 0
 I love this part "room to grow should someone add more cassette cogs in the future". Funny, pivot worked with sram on this bike as it states in the upper part of the article. 1x13 is coming soon! Lmao. Break out your wallets and jump into the kool-aid filled pool!

Ahhhhh, refreshing!
  • 13 1
 I don't see why people complain so much about the industry standards changing. For me, I ride the bike I have until it's worn out or I have the cash to get something better. I don't worry about having the latest and greatest all of the time; I just worry about how much fun I'm having on my current bike then when the time comes to get a new ride or parts I get to have the awesome new stuff that keeps getting better and better. If you're racing and always looking for the smallest ways to improve your times I can see how the ever changing new stuff would get annoying, but I'm assuming that the average pinkbike user doesn't care about cutting .5 seconds off there time on a local trail. The way I see it, change = progression and this bike proves that. Am I wrong?
  • 8 0
 What's this, realistic reach measurements and seat tube angles on a Pivot? No 420mm reach on a 19" frame with the seat over the rear axle anymore? What are the Pivot fans going to do?

I'd like to give one a ride just to see how a pivot rides, so far there hasn't been one that has fit me. I'd be worried about smacking my shoes on that super wide rear triangle! even my 142x12 bike is scuffed to hell.
  • 7 2
 I tried a Pivot Mach 6 and loved the suspension set up. But only this. The frame was too short, and the seat angle way too slack. It's not this angle that has to be slackened, bloody hell! Isn't there steep mountains in America? Can't believe. Is everybody shuttling then? Can't believe it either. Do you guy whellie up the mountains? Steep seat angle please!
  • 3 2
 @EnduroManiac: no we just don't ride terrible pivot bikes. dude tried to get me fired at my old job, and i brought it up and he had tried to get everyone at my current job fired years ago too! HAHAHA!
  • 1 0
 @agrade I've got size 48 shoes. Just spent an hour on this bike last night and never hit my heals on the stays. I ride a Mach 4 currently and do hit my heals occasionally.
  • 1 0
 @EnduroManiac: They've updated the geo on the current model year Pivots.
  • 1 0
 @dthomp325: no dramatic change though. A little longer, which is good when standing, but worse when seating as the seat angle as not changed. Unfortunately.
  • 9 1
 "The hubs that came about from Cocalis' urging have a significantly wider spread between the flanges which also better balances spoke tension between the drive and non-drive side."

What?! This is the opposite of the truth. That gap between the rotor and spokes on a dh hub is there in order to even out spoke tensions. Now you have removed the gap and claim it evens out spoke tensions?
  • 1 0
 @gabriel-mission9 : Depends on the rim. With the super wide rims needed for 275plus tyres, you could go asymmetrical in the extreme, and make the most of that wider flange spacing yet keep the tension and spoke length closer to equal.
  • 12 3
 hey pinkbike. your hub flange width comparison sucks. the visual representation is lame, it should be accompanied by a numerical representation, obviously.
  • 6 3
 Your website is awesome tho
  • 10 0
 Nice cable running under the bottom bracket. Can I hang my laundry on that?
  • 9 1
 My bike with 9" of vertical and 2"of rearward travel has a 370mm chainstay.. and it's running 650b.. all done with a 135x10 rear axle..
  • 6 0
 Ay jedi is sick
  • 1 0
 135mm ftw
  • 6 0
 I'm scratching my head at the flange spacing:
1: the axle ends are in the same place with the new Pivot non-standard vs regular old 157
2: the centerline to drive side flange is the same (because it's limited by the freehub width) so spoke tension stays the same
3: the centerline to brake side flange increases, which would decrease required tension

but somehow they're saying the difference in tension decreases? It sure seems like moving the brake side flange out puts more load on the drive side spokes which would make the wheel weaker, unless the rim is not centered?

It begs the question why everyone made 150/157 hubs with the flanges they way they did up until last week, doesn't it?
  • 6 0
 I was wondering which is more important to wheel stiffness - the spoke angle or the evenness of spoke length/tension. Serious question...the older DH left a lot of unused space, but I assumed the thinking was to keep the angles/spokes/tension equal on both sides.
  • 1 1
 Couple of thoughts:

Old DH hubs were designed around old, flexier, rims, for far more abuse than this bike is intended for

Now that people are making asymmetric rims, the symmetrical spoke setup on a old 157 is less important for strength
  • 3 0
 Zero-dish/eve-tension builds a more reliable and stronger wheel, which is great for DH, but the wider bracing angle builds a significantly stiffer wheel. When the wider 150mm DH standard came out, 26" was the biggest wheel. As wheels became taller, the need for a stiffer wheel trumped the need for lateral strength.
However, to your point, I'd worry that the non-drive side spoke tension would fall below 30% of the drive side's tension. Chronic detensioning would be something to look out for. Unless they utilized the 2-to-1 lacing pattern (like on on I9's 24-hole stuff) to even the spoke tension. That or a helluva lot of loctite.
  • 7 1
 So a 135 wasn't good enough....142...148...150....157...157 super. Bike industry is mad and consumers are eating it up. I'll refer to RockShox's quote "97% of riders lack the skill to push this to it's limits"....we can refer that to 142 I'm sure.
  • 6 0
 Good call pivot! That means my On-One 456 evo2 should easily accept 24x3.25's. Maybe someday, my truck will be able to run a 37 in either a 16 or 20 inch rim... dare to dream!
  • 5 0
 well shit, this is a slap in the face of trek/boost 148 LOL! i'm all for it though if it means an old standard so already has interchangeable parts even if its not as "stiff". all in all, this just keeps getting better and better. cheers!
  • 6 1
 I've just finished a day of work doing maths and researching data and testing software and thought I'd wind down by reading this article. Instead, my head hurt a quarter of the way in.
  • 6 0
 Who cares if it's a "new standard" or a "repurposed standard"? I'll still have to buy a new set of wheels if I get this frame.
  • 5 1
 lol if you don't like it....don't buy it, no need to hate....its called innovation and having more options to choose from.....if it was up to the old dogs...we would be still riding 80mm QR 9mm forks and 135mm QR rear ends with narrow bars and tubes in your tires HAHA
  • 7 0
 I'm sick of all the people being sick of all the stuff they are sick of on Pinkbike.
  • 5 0
 Excellent, so glad I haven't jumped on the 147 bandwagon, Think I'll be keeping my bike for a good few more years and see where all this will lead to.
  • 1 0
 Same thing here. I'll wait things settle a little before buying something new. It might take some time.
  • 2 0
 I agree, 135 QR for me until the dust settles. Have to say this pivot is looking like a winner though makes more sense then the trek shenanigans. Hopefully the aluminum version comes out sub 3.5k.
  • 3 0
 The one thing I have consistantly read on plus size reviews (especially British reviews) is that they are terrible in mud because the tyres are too wide to cut through it and not wide enough to hold on top of it. Regardless of tyre seemingly.
Therefore I am slightly currious as to where it will go - well in the UK anyway. Its nearly June and I have not had a clean ride lately....
  • 3 0
 @ilovedust : Most plus tyres have pretty short, closely spaced, knobs, to keep them fast rolling despite the extra tyre you're dragging around. Great in the dry. Popping something actually designed to be used in softer muddy conditions, such as a WTB Bridger, makes all the difference. I did some utterly filthy rides on hellish deep wet clay trails in Gloucestershire and Herefordshire with one on the front and it kept gripping, and clearing, admirably. Better than my usual non-plus mud tyres it seemed, although some of that might be new toy bias perhaps.
  • 2 0
 @Spittingcat: I don't know, I demoed a pipeline out here in Kamloops which is about as dry as you can get. It didn't grip on our dust at all.
  • 2 0
 I have not liked the 29+ tires I have tried so far in Coastal BC winter conditions. The many smaller knobs and low pressures did not bite through the slick top layer into the grippy stuff below and resulted in lots of sliding. My buddy broke his hand on some easy wood work stunts trying a new 27+ because it just flew out from underneath him with no warning.

Not saying plus tires are a bad idea, but when people talk about endless traction they needs to be specific about under what conditions that's happening because I don't think that statement is universally true.
  • 3 0
 I think this is great, thinking outside the box to try and create the best overall experience on the trail. I'd really like to take a few rides on this bike and see if I can notice a difference. Good work Pivot for trying to make a better mousetrap!
  • 8 5
 Why do people react to innovation here like somebody put a gun to the head of a cute puppy and if they don't buy this new thing RIGHT NOW the puppy gets it?

You love your 135 rear end? GREAT! Still a crap load of parts available for it. Same with 142, 148, 150, 177, 190, 197.

This was easy enough to do (and others were already thinking about it) that three hub manufacturers - including DT Swiss and I9.. two of the best IMHO - made a version for them.

So why is everyone going all apoplectic? Oh that's right, it's the Pinkbike comments section. Rage is required!

Personally, I think this is where trail bikes are evolving and this is super cool. Someday we'll look back at 2.25 tires as "anorexic"... much like the 1.9 tires and 19mm inner rims of a decade ago.

Bring on more innovation!

Oh, and to completely blow your mind... I wonder if you could get a 26 x 3.8 or 4.0 in the back of the Switchblade.. because lots of people up here with dual squish fatties (Salsa Bucksaw and Foes Mutz) are converting from blutos to boost spaced Fox forks up front because they can fit a 26 x 4.0 tire.

Yeah that's right... the TRUE one quiver bike! Put some racy 29er tires on it for speed, 27.5+ meat for all around traction and then 4.0s for packed winter trail riding.
  • 3 2
 What innovation? Are you joking? making a hub wider is innovation?
  • 3 0
 @duzzi: No, but making a 29er with modern geometry (low bb, slack ha, short stays, steep seat tube) that can be built with stiff yet relatively inexpensive wheels, plus the flexability to run 27.5+ wheels and 2x drivetrains, is an innovation. A wider hub is one means to that end.

Everyone here is losing their shit over the hub spacing, and neglecting to mention that this looks like a really interesting bike.
  • 2 0
 @jerrytek: ^^^ yes! In the long run, these wide flanges bring down the cost to stiffness ratio for 29er wheels. So did boost, technically, but it looks like Pivot's solution is much more flexible and frankly better thought out.

I agree, it's a very interesting bike. Probably a blast to ride, and I can definitely appreciate Pivot's engineering and enthusiasm.
  • 3 0
 Ha how about being pissed about new "standards" we show more concern into tires? Not tire size but casing design, rubber compound. If I want to be competitive I have to ride a 1.3k tire to prevent punctures during an enduro race? Granted Maxxis has came out with the DD series tires that I can't wait to use. But holy crap bike industry there is essentially one company leading the way on tires and you can hardly buy what you want? That's what I'm pissy about!

The hub designs and shock designs make sense, so let this stuff in with open arms, were on the edge of progression with bikes and it's never been a better time to ride!
  • 3 0
 As a company that sells things they are presenting a new product they hope to sell you to make a living and earn some extras. As a consumer you have the choice to buy it or decide it's not the product for you. If enough people decide they don't like this it will disappear and the company will reform or disappear. Why all the stress? Like it: Buy it. Don't like it: Don't buy it. No stress. I think I like this bike and its angles and technologies though it is hard to say without throwing a leg over it. I'd love to give it a go. Looks nice Pivot.
  • 3 0
 Sell 157 mm hubs on 35 mm rims with a carbon rear triangle. Super stiff. And the poser that paid $12 large for it and then rides it on buff modern sidewalk like trails and couldn't feel the difference anyway can tell you all about it. But its so important that your bike is long low slack and wicked stiff when you're sutting at the cafe.
Rad bike and I hope they sell a ton so I can buy one on PB buy n sell next year for $3500!
  • 10 3
 I am entertained Big Grin
  • 5 2
 Oh my god!! What is all the stupid hub sizes!! Talk about confusing the hell of people. What was ever wrong with 135mm and 150mm. Most riders wouldnt tell the different between those 2 let alone all this new shit!!
  • 2 0
 "Plenty of tire clearance for plus-sized tires, some of the shortest chainstays in the 29er world, stronger wheels and room to grow should someone add more cassette cogs in the future."

inb4 bald eagle 13 superboostDHturbo htis next year
  • 5 2
 I literally just pulled the trigger on a set of new king/enve boost wheels yesterday for my new evil wreckoning. After a month of deliberation... the bike industry you bastards!!!!
  • 1 0
 Don't worry, they'll still be awesome.
  • 3 0
 While this seems a lot smarter than boosting your bike, I'm kinda happy to stick with my 142/135 ready bike till the dust settles. I dream of a new complete when there are actually standards again.
  • 2 0
 Man, I am really glad I didn't buy a boost or a plus bike yet. Apparently they're already obsolete. SUPER BOOST PLUS FTW!!!

But on a serious note- I am really getting sick as hell of this half-assed change stuff, like RC mentioned about a year back in that column on speeding. You want a stiff wheel? Go zero dish. Hope did it on their prototype. Anything else is a compromise that f*&cks the consumer.
  • 2 0
 They are not the first ones to employ a 157mm rear end with a Boost fork. Naked called it their Roost standard... which sounds much less dorky than Super Boost 157.

Also. Wouldn't pushing the non-drive side flanges out further just create LESS even spoke tension, thus resulting in a less durable wheel. I always though even spoke tension was desired...
e.g. Chris King used Boost to make their front hub have a "dish-less" flange offset.
  • 3 0
 Neat bike but man the ever increasing Q-factor is killing me. I ride 168 under protest, 173 I can't stand for...I do get that q-factor size is not nec. in the pbikers wheelhouse.
  • 6 0
 Im going to fit a 148 boost hub and wind that shit until its tight.
  • 4 0
 Where is the manual option that Bernard Kerr uses ? It s not mentioned in the article
  • 1 0
 Love new bike tech as the next person, but I'd rather just ride and enjoy what I have without worry of what the next 6 months might bring as a new "industry standard". When the time comes to replace it due to repairs out-weighing replacement, I'll then enjoy whatever benefits the current tech has to offer on that years bikes.
  • 2 0
 Don't panic. All he did was move the flanges on an EXISTING hub. This will make DH wheels stronger as well. Sounds like Pivot fixed the geometry issues that kept me off a Mach 6.
  • 2 1
 I turn my bikes over quickly so that I can ride the latest and greatest, this prevents me from getting stuck with old technology and standards that have diminished resale value. I held off on a new DH this year because I felt in my bones that some major improvement was on the horizon, and here it is. I can see this hub system paving the way for things like a decent 29 DH bike and is a no brainer upgrade to existing DH bikes. Very clever work from Pivot.
  • 1 0
 At least it backwards compatible. I may sound ultra geeky, but why can't somebody do some actual hub width stiffness camparison testing. Use industry nine set ups and provide us with some real numbers. I'm guessing there won't be much difference between 142 and 148. I'm so stoked to see the aggressive 29er segment grow.
  • 4 1
 I'm in the the process of rebuilding my 26" steel rigid SS. It has a 1 1/8 steerer tube, it also has v-brake bosses. The hub spacing in the rear is 135, is that okay?
  • 2 1
 Considering the industry really has not standards anymore...this bike looks pretty sweet. I think Pivot did a great job trying to incorporate all the options here.....but I fear that could be the biggest flaw in the bike. I think a bike needs to be designed for a specific tire size/hub size. Its really a shame that the MTB has all these options. Even for a structural engineer like myself, the options are overwhelming and unnecessary. To ride better, you need to spend time on the bike, not try a different tire set up! I will stick to my 26"er for a while yet until mountain bike manufacturers figure what option really is the most efficient.
  • 1 0
 I could give a shit about the new hub standard, but am stoked there's finally a Pivot besides the Phoenix with a non-midget reach measurement. I can finally possibly enjoy a DW link bike without having to buy a space bike (Ibis) or a Turner.
  • 4 0
 Pivot, please give me a xt di2 build straight from the factory. I'm ready for the future.
  • 3 1
 I'm not sure, but I think those wheels are made by PIVOT. It's kind of hard to tell... Are they PIVOT? I think they're PIVOT. I've looked at them a few times, and I'm pretty sure they're PIVOT.
  • 1 0
 How about happily running a 27.5+ rear wheel and 29" front?

I have a Boost bike with thick carbon stays and my size 12.5 feet rub on the seat stays all the time. This bike has even shorter chain stays and wider rear spacing - anyone with largish feet is gonna have a lot of contact.
  • 1 0
 I wonder what did Pivot gain by introducing this new standard. Everybody was expecting long travel 29er with modern geometery from them. They finally delivered - why kill the excitement with the new stamdard and no framesets available for sale? (Untill next year i hear) I wonder if they went the way of Hightower - 1x drivetrain, 148 spacing and $2500 frame - similar to what they did with 429trail - the best selling bike in their lineup- whoul they have achieved more sales and less controversy. Why mess with success?
  • 1 0
 I just ordered a IBIS Mojo 3 and coincidentally a review of it on their site has this:

It’s like a SWITCHBLADE covered in Velcro. Razor-sharp handling meets ridiculous levels of traction and control. It’s dumbfounding, actually. - Vernon Felton, veteran journalist, writing for Adventure Journal

Must be the name.
  • 1 0
 The years riding the 26'er where most parts were interchangeable are gone. Like so many others here we changed parts and enjoyed doing our own tests on products. In 2013 I bought a 26" SC Chameleon because as much as I wanted a full suspension the innovations seemed to be just gaining speed. I came to the realization recently that we'd never see a future like we had in the past with the 26'er.........I just bought the Switchblade yesterday and after a 6 hour session this morning I am full on impressed. I only hope any replacement parts don't cost me a fortune because of this "Super Boost" option. Nothing worse than a dying fad that later leaves someone thinking...."what was I thinking"

I didn't have to hold back today because I own the bike, a thought came to mind. Because I held out so long getting into a technologically advanced bike, I missed out on some comforts of life. As fun as hardtails are to ride they are punishing after several hours. Thanks PinkBike for all the reviews and great features of your website!
  • 4 1
 This sort of working man compatibility-hack should be a thoughtcrime. But it's actually SuperBoostDoublePlusGood.
  • 1 0
 rear hubs coencide with frames dropouts. some frames can exchange wheels, which is nice. its not hard to put a 150mm wheel in a frame, i dont see the need for 157 i am glad this is happening thouhg.
  • 6 6
 So after going to great pains to drive the point home that this thing does NOT use a 'new hub standard, they then proceed to explain to us that existing 157mm DH hubs have a flange spread that's narrower than the Boost 148, thus dude had to go to hub manufacturers and have 'em CREATE A NEW HUB!
So, ladies and gentlemen, we now have the 'SUPERBOOST 157'(applause).
Gotta love it when they contradict themselves in the same article
  • 4 1
 It's a new hub, using existing interfaces for axle, freehub and rotor... so not a new standard at all. We've had loads of different widths between flanges with all the existing standards before.... they just have to fit around fixed freehub and rotor positions, the distance between flanges doesn't have to be consistent between hubs for a particular standard.
  • 6 4
 I've never understood why people value adherence to standards so much in the bike industry. I've never heard anyone complain about Toyota and Ford using different axle standards in their trucks. I think bike consumers are way too used to building bikes ala carte. The fact is, a bike is a system of interacting parts. Any bike design is a compromise, and is designed to do certain things well. Strict adherence to standards limits the ability of designers to meet certain ends. If different hub spacing allows you to do create something that works, isn't that worth it?

If you have a set of expensive wheels that you want to continue using, then this bike probably isn't the best choice for you. But that doesn't mean that its a bad idea, or some sort of marketing conspiracy.

Almost every comment here is about the hub spacing of this bike. Lost in this conversation is the fact that this bike is damn innovative:
-flexibility to run 29" or 27.5+ wheels
-super short stays, but able to run a front derailleur
-geometry that looks great (at least on paper - numbers don't tell the whole story)
-built around on of the best suspension designs (DW-Link)

I don't plan to buy this bike, but it looks pretty damn cool.
  • 3 0
 @jerrytek: Part of it is that for so long, damn near all bikes WERE built ala carte. For a long time, unless you were a beginner rider, a complete bike would have too many compromises, or the frame brand you wanted didn't even sell completes.

Now, most brands sell completes, & they usually have decent builds. but people still want to grab a new frame now, & build it up, rather than having to wait 6 months in order to save up for a new complete. & even if modern completes don't have any terrible parts, not being able to pick every piece of a build is hard to change to, when you got exactly what you wanted in the past.
  • 4 0
 @groghunter:

I know what you mean, as I build most of my bikes from scratch, and tend to not keep them long.

But more standards doesn't make that impossible. It complicates swapping out a frame a bit, but that is already difficult (multiple wheel sizes, BB standards, seat tube diameters, axle standards, fork offsets, headset standards, freehub standards, etc.). If you're building a new bike from new parts, it shouldn't matter at all. Mixing and matching new and old parts will be a bit more difficult. But if the end product works better (as a system), isn't that worth it?

The funny thing is how unique this is to bicycles. I've never heard of someone complaining that they can't swap the frame from their toyota tundra with a ford f150. Or that the fork from their dirtbike won't fit on a bike from a different manufacturer. Likewise, a new standard in those industries doesn't mean everything else is obsolete.

You can still build bikes ala carte, it will just take a bit more planning. I envision things getting more complicated, but with design specs being determined more by what works best for that specific bike than adherence to whatever is the latest standard trend. On this specific bike, the axle standard made it possible to do some things that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. But on bikes where having a front derailleur mount or the ability to use both 27.5+ and 29" wheels isn't a huge concern, a narrower axle would probably be better (as 157 will have downsides). More diversity is fine, especially if it eliminates or mitigates limitations inherent in strict adherence to only one or a few standards.
  • 1 1
 I like the look of Pivot's and on paper they are great, but there is just something about them that lacks... I dunno... Zest, or something. I got to ride a Mach 6 for a couple weeks, and don't get me wrong, it was great, but I just came away thinking that it was lacking in something that I couldn't quite pinpoint.
  • 1 0
 I sold my Mach 6 for this very reason, the frame lacked feedback and sole. I moved all the parts over to a Trek Slash 9.9 frame and couldn't be happier now.
  • 1 0
 I agree. I expected to like the Mach 6, but didn't. I think it was because the seat tube angle is way too slack. Rode like a DH bike. This bike seems like a step in the right direction.
  • 1 0
 Agreed, the test rides I've taken on Pivots haven't impressed me. They weren't terrible, but they didn't win any A/B tests with other bikes.
  • 1 0
 @hopsalot: That is what I though about my 6 until I trashed the Float X for a CCDB Air CS which totally changed everything. Paired with a Pike one cannot go wrong.
  • 1 0
 @road-n-dirt: I spent $$$ to upgrade to the same set up, CCDB and a Pike, and while the bike rode much better the bike was still lacking confidence and fun for me. I think the TT is to short and the WB needs to be lengthened . It looks like Pivot fixed these issues with this bike, the boost 158 is innovative and I would be willing to give Pivot another try.
  • 1 0
 I like the M6 precisely because it has a short WB for its size. Great for tight forest trails.
  • 3 0
 Boost, Super Boost I am pretty sure the next big thing is going to be the Turbo boost
  • 1 0
 seriously....haha I feel bad for all the guys that just got a 429 trail in the last six months..this is just dumb

you can put 27.5+ wheels/tires on most 29'er trail bikes at 142x12 no worries WTF?
  • 3 1
 @veronfelton thanks for the eloquent and appropriate use of the phrase "bat shit crazy " in this article.

Remember, nothing changes if nothing changes. .
  • 5 1
 Thats it, im switching to rollerblading.
  • 3 0
 *The rest of the bike world collectively smacks forehead* - "Use the existing 157 standard? Why didn't we think of that??"
  • 3 0
 Great work Pivot! This looks like a top tier option for the 29/27.5+ combo!
  • 1 0
 Just want to make sure I understand... over three days you never did a back to back test on the *same* trail to compare the two wheel options. Not one time? Zero times? Three days.
  • 2 0
 The color, full XT, wheel size versatility, KS internal dropper, and full fox sus! I truly think I found my next bike!!! I can't wait to ride one!
  • 2 0
 I do not care about all this mambo jumbo tech talk. I love this bike. I think it will be great modern enduro weapon. Think that is what I was looking for.
  • 1 0
 It has become a simple truth in mountain biking as of recent. Your bike is outdated and imcompatible as you are paying for it. I am holding out for 28+ and boost 167.86 spacing.
  • 1 0
 Hey @pivotcycles, do you have an opinion on wider spoke bracing vs symmetrical? I thought original 150/157 DH hubs didn't maximize hub flange spacing in order to produce a symmetrical or dish-less wheel. Which is stronger?
  • 3 0
 Super boost plus death base turbo.
  • 5 0
 Yeah, I'm not gonna jump in for another 6 and a half months, thats when the new 165mm turbo boost rolls out
  • 2 0
 FFS, when I first bought my intense 6 years, I was "this will last me my whole life" - whatever
  • 3 0
 Around 10.000$ for a 'normal' mtb ...
  • 4 0
 This bike is no Shamwow.
  • 1 1
 1/2 the reason I got into mtb was because I love new tech, materials & all the fun conversations that they inspire. The other half was how much fun they are to ride, ALL of them! Looking fwd to the next...
  • 3 0
 Want, wanot, want, f'ING want!... Can't afford.. S#@t!
  • 2 0
 where is the pb's take? I don't know what to read before start commenting no sense
  • 3 0
 It's pretty. I really like Pivot's designs.
  • 1 1
 The names they're coming out with for new "standards" (repurposing old ones or new) are straight from middle school kids. Super Boost Plus Metric Advance Pro components coming to a bike shop near you soon!
  • 3 1
 Super Boost Plus 157...I just shat my pants and blew beer out my nose...wtf is going on???? hahaha!!!
  • 3 0
 I f*cking love this bike!!!
  • 4 0
 Two words: heel rub
  • 2 0
 The first question I'm asking any bike shop from now on is does the bike have dead squirrel clearance?
  • 3 1
 Stopped reading by "Super Boost Plus 157" and scrolled straight to the comments. Than stopped reading the comments too...
  • 3 0
 I still run aluminum frame, aluminum QR 26 inch wheels and a 3 by 9.
  • 3 0
 Canfield Bro Riot - 140, 66.5, 142x12 and a wtf 414 chain stay.
  • 1 0
 Super boost ultra awesome extra big amazing excellent large titanic fantastic more great 157 spacing, I believe is the official name. I could be wrong though.
  • 2 0
 Superb Boost Plus Max Sex Xtra Genius. That would have been a sweet name.
  • 2 0
 Not a single word about weight...
  • 2 1
 "a lightweight (2900-gram/6.4-pound) carbon frame"
  • 2 0
 I found this elsewhere - whole bike is about 27.67 lbs (M / 29").
  • 1 0
 @firewalkwithme: I know! That is the weight of an aluminum frame!!!!! Nowadays you have to spend 10,000 to get a pig weighting 28 pounds!
  • 2 1
 Found my next bike! to replace my Enduro 29er. Stunning looking, and I don't even mind the new wheel standard.
  • 1 0
 All that. And no one notices/mentions, the cable that hangs below the BB.
Snag that and your gonna have a bad day.
  • 1 0
 I haven't really liked the look of pivot bikes in the past, but this bike looks really really good.
  • 2 0
 FFS not another hub standard! You can't be serious Madder
  • 2 1
 We've been riding 1x drivetrains since the 90s brah with 24" wheels and 3" tires..
  • 2 0
 I bet the price tag will be 1/4 of most riders yearly salary, sweet!
  • 2 1
 This is not April 1st? Really? What a joke the MTB industry is. (And the "press" that goes with it)
  • 2 0
 At least it's not powered yet by a motor, call it eco-boost!
  • 1 0
 I didn't see, does it have adjustable geometry? Could you run a smaller 275x2.8 and not drag your feet?
  • 1 1
 Lear Miller! Big time! He should probably stick to taking wedding pictures, though. His riding pictures don't nearly compare best brotographer of them all, Mr Paris Gore.
  • 2 1
 I'll bet this bike is fun, but PinkBike comment section is wayyyyyy more fun!
  • 2 0
 Boost 157 max extra plus moar additional
  • 1 0
 Take my money! Just wished there were some burley 29er tires with a gum sidewall and proper tread to go with the retro blue
  • 1 0
 This whole article and no reference to Cocalis' earlier creation, the *Titus* Switchblade??? Come on, @vernonfelton
  • 2 0
 Finally understand boost at an elementary level
  • 1 0
 Just wait for the next generation Spitfire. It will have dropouts available for all 98 hub standards.
  • 5 4
 I'm waiting for my lbs to open so I can cancel my new build. I need this!
  • 2 1
 what were they building for you?
  • 4 2
 My head hurts...
  • 14 1
 Wear a helmet next time
  • 1 0
 I want one of these so bad...
  • 1 0
 1st Moab pic: Where the hell is the line??!!!
  • 2 0
 chainstay shoe rub
  • 1 0
 nice 6-10K bike, now show us the 3.5-4.5k version
  • 1 0
 does not exist
  • 2 2
 that's it, fuck it. I'm quitting mountain biking and buying a motorcycle. Cheaper and less design changes.
  • 2 1
 Industry standard bullshit & another f*cking ugly Pivot bike!
  • 1 0
 That is what I want! Great bike, smart wheels, good suspension.
  • 2 2
 Why would they build such a great bike and trash it with another new "standart"?
  • 2 2
 First I see the ugly bike, then all those hubs... pass me a bucket - I'm ready to puke.
  • 1 0
 Love the bike, but man, I still love my carbon E29.
  • 1 0
 How wide can they go? I want wider...
  • 1 0
 Que one of the big 3 to come out with a 156 or 160mm hub
  • 1 0
 Looks like a NOMAD, not a session.
  • 1 0
 You lost me at "Super Boost Plus 157".
  • 1 0
 I have no idea how I get by on a 135mm hardtail...
  • 1 0
 Now, will anybody bring back 20mm front axles?
  • 1 0
 I'm just going to wait till the Super Extra Boost+ 160 comes out next week
  • 3 2
 was this necessary?
  • 1 0
 We are SUPER phucked
  • 2 1
 Why? Do not like it? Do not buy it. Simple.
  • 1 0
 haters gonna hate
  • 1 0
 No frame no sale!!
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.061962
Mobile Version of Website