Powered by Outside

Foes Racing Updates Mixer Frame for 2023

Aug 15, 2022
by Foes Racing  
The revamped 2023 Mixer


We designed the Mixer for anyone who wants a high quality, USA-made, enduro bike that can handle anything from steep rocky descents to full day rides with lots of climbing. We want our customers to care about the quality of their bikes as much as we do. That is why we hand-form, weld, heat treat, machine, assemble, and individually check all of our bikes in southern California.

The Mixer's mixed wheel configuration is here to stay

Improved cornering: Due to the smaller rear wheel tracking in a tighter radius than the 29” front wheel, cornering is more predictable.

Better descending and roll-over capabilities: The higher front axle allows for faster transfer of weight off the front wheel. The superior rollover capabilities of the 29” wheel carries momentum over difficult terrain. The rear wheel tracks along because of momentum and is less likely to get hung up on the trail.

Stiffer rear end: 27.5” wheels are stiffer and stronger than 29ers, which leads to a more confidence-inspiring ride.

Greater clearance: For shorter riders, most 29” frames can get a little cramped when trying to ride aggressively. The extra clearance from having a 3/4" lower axle from the 27.5" wheel in the rear gives you a roomier ride.

More playful and better acceleration: The smaller radius of the 27.5” wheel, which also affects acceleration, reduces the gyroscopic forces felt by the rider in the air.


The Mixer received a new, hydroformed toptube and a redesigned downtube for 2023. Both features, paired with our Delta Box, which surrounds the bottom bracket, increase the rigidity and stiffness of the frame while looking great in the process. We redesigned the internal cable system to utilize removable cable guides, this will make internal cable routing a painless process. The rear triangle features a SRAM Universal Derailleur Hanger to make the hunt for replacement parts as easy as possible.

The mixer features replaceable ISCG-05 tabs and the Delta Box increases stiffness in the front triangle.
The rear dropout is SRAM UDH compatible.

Updated Geometry Chart - Metric
2023 Mixer Geometry Diagram

bigquotes“The new Mixer is one of my favorite frames to build. It has challenged me as a builder and a designer. My goal with this frame has been to utilize the mixed wheel setup to build a bike that handles well in any situation!”
-Brent Foes


The Mixer utilizes the Foes signature modified single-pivot, low leverage suspension design. We believe our design offers better ride quality, prolongs service life, and simplifies the bike, giving you more time riding and less in the shop. The frame runs a metric 230x65 shock which gives you 165mm of travel at the rear axle. The frame is designed to run either a 160 or 170mm fork, depending on ride style and personal preference.

We build all our frames to-order so you can choose the look and setup that suits you. We can pair your frame with your choice of fork and shock combination.Our frames start out raw, but you can customize your ride with a wide range of custom paint colors and decals. The Mixer frame is available factory direct or through our dealers worldwide.


For more info, go to FoesRacing.com
Photos & words by Korban Williams

Author Info:
Foes-Racing avatar

Member since Dec 23, 2016
4 articles

  • 97 11
 Looks badass, but that geo chart was definitely in the Mixer... inches and mm together in one geo chart. Yikes. Generally, as a yankee, I am all for telling metric to suck it.... but I have no idea what any of those geo numbers mean in inches. I appreciate Foes representing the US of A, but as an American, don't forget that I'm also lazy so that geo chart will remain an indecipherable mystery to me, up there with who built the pyramids, where is Jimmy Hoffa buried, etc.
  • 47 2
 Indeed, highly annoying when all other bike companies use mm.

Anyway, I looked it up and the large has a reach of 444.5mm. So still using geo from 7 or 8 years ago…
  • 24 1
 @Rickos: And a 74 degree seat tube angle... WTF?!
  • 9 0
 @Rickos: that's foes for ya.
  • 16 19
 @Rickos: gotta hand it to them, they are not influenced by trends vs what they think works.

Who knows what's best, but with several of the top pro's downsizing and with Lee's RAD principals in play, they are right on the money with the geo IMO....
  • 27 6
 @RadBartTaylor: Even with some pros downsizing a little for tight international EWS tracks... it's no where near as short as these bikes are. Some like Jack ride bigger bikes at home. Look at those numbers... they're ridiculous, my 11 year old kids don't ride bikes that short!

Also, a pro rider can handle a shorter bike at insane speeds... I can't... I need/want/love the stability of bigger bikes, especially on really scary gnarly trails. Most amateurs really like/need that stability. It's what has made bikes just so capable these days.

And no one... no one... wants a 74 degree seat tube angle on a sagged 165mm travel bike... oh god... taking me back to 2007 with this shit, haha!

And the bottle cage mount on top of the top tube!!?? Haha..
  • 7 0
 @islandforlife: @islandforlife: "And the bottle cage mount on top of the top tube!!??"

Even less likely to get the cow shit on the bottle, which so many are afraid of. Unless you're the cow of course.
  • 12 12
 @islandforlife: I don't keep track of what all the pros ride, but of the the ones that do size down e.g. Jack and Richie, this bike is much closer in size to what they ride than what most manuf recommend.

I find your argument (an many others) redundant....the same argument could be said opposite, we don't ride as fast as pros therefore we don't need bikes as long / stable? It's every bit as valid of a position....

I don't buy the Pro rider can handle shorter bike statement though....even the shorter bikes (like this) are PLENTY stable, especially guys going armature speeds and being able to turn and throw that bike around is key on gnarly trails like much of the Whistler valley stuff, I am MUCH more comfortable on a shorter bike on tech stuff with lots of moves.

Seat tube angle is partially a function of the shorter reach, if it was any steeper you'll get into short ETTs. I agree, it's lower than I like, but it's a tradeoff to a certain extent.

I tried the RAD thing, works great for me, I'm 6-4 and riding a 470-480 reach bike, more comfortable, more confident and having more fun than I have in a long time.
  • 2 0
 Exactly!! I know what fits based on mm's, you know, the journalistic standard. Mountain Bike Action went from mm to inches once. After 20 years, I was like,"How long is a 17 inch chainstay? What's 3.9 inches of travel?" They've been around a long time, they know better. Smile
  • 3 0
 Huh funny because it’s specifically my mtb background that has allowed me to think metrically
  • 13 2
 @RadBartTaylor: Oh for sure, ride what you want and like, everyone is different, that's great, but your individual anecdotal experience is opposite of the majority or riders. And yes, most shorter bikes are quite stable... but longer bikes are even more stable while proving to be plenty maneuverable.

Also, just a couple quick points... Richie Rude is a hair under 6' tall, rides a medium with a 460 reach. A Foes medium is 420, their large is 444, Richie would have to be on their XL to get 470. But then he's riding a 482 f*cking seat tube! Anyway you slice it... these geo numbers are f*cked.

And no, sorry, no one wants to be on a enduro bike with a 64 degree angle seat tube with 165mm of travel... that's just... no.

My own anecdotal personal experience aligns with most riders these days... I'm 5'11, on a size large with 490 reach and riding better, faster, in more control and setting more PR's than I ever have.

My last 4 bikes reach's over the last 4 years have gone from 435 to 477 to 475.5 to 490. Of course reach isn't the only number you need to look at as your effective reach is affected by a number of other things, but I won't get into that here suffice to say that, though my effective reach on my last couple of bikes is lower than the stated reach due to shorter head tubes and added spacers etc... my effective reach has still grown substantially. And again loving it for everything I ride across the Sea to Sky BC region, from everything in the Whistler Bike Park to more casual trails.

End of the day.. the Foes numbers are still ridiculous even by your own preferences for a shorter reach. Anyway, as long as we're all having fun riding bikes, that's all that matters!
  • 2 0
 I love that their website makes you call if you want to buy… in a non-ironic, serious way.
  • 5 11
flag RadBartTaylor (Aug 16, 2022 at 18:21) (Below Threshold)
 @islandforlife: guess what, put RR on a 444 Foes and he still wins, it's closer in reach to his M Yeti than the L Yeti recommends, go figure.

Do you know what anecdotal experience means? I cited a theme that's been talked about amongst top pros lately (shorter bikes) along with lee's RAD principal which is a quantitative way of fitting bike to rider, that is an evidence based opinion...which my experience (happens) to align with.

Have an open mind and you shouldn't be so confident your answer is 'right' when many people disagree, including guys that design and ride bikes for a living....just sayin'!

I will agree having fun is the key, more than one way to do that....
  • 8 1
 @RadBartTaylor: meanwhile Yoann Barelli is on a Size 4 Gnarvana with a 490mm reach at 177cm (5’9”) tall.

You’re also ignoring the fact that pros don’t all ride those tiny bikes other than at the races. They ride longer bikes for “fun” and the short one to race tight single track. DH guys are not racing smaller bikes.
  • 6 0
 Quick way to convert stuff from metric to inches and vise versa, thanks to doing CAD work everyday.

Millimeter measurement ÷ 25.4 = Inches
Inches measurement x 25.4 = Millimeters
  • 4 0
 As long as people continue to discuss air pressures (in tires and suspension) in psi and coil spring weights in lbs, the whole call for metric is pretty irrelevant. It shouldn't be too hard to learn to live with it.
  • 13 2
 @RadBartTaylor: the RAD fit thing is utter cowshit
  • 1 0
 @stubs179: I'm a mediocre all around but at 173cm height on a 472mm reach bike I feel better that I've ever been on any bike; much faster and more confident as well.
  • 2 7
flag RadBartTaylor (Aug 17, 2022 at 8:25) (Below Threshold)
 @stubs179: how many pros do you know that do that?

there will always be exceptions, the trend seems to be shorter bikes. Why aren't they riding longer bikes? I mean, if you judge your opinion based on what the common consensus is, what manuf recommend and Yoann, you'd think several of the top guys would be on bikes larger....but when in doubt, we see many sizing down.

We are talking enduro not DH.

Just like bar width - guys on here went on and on and on about how wide is better, more control, riding better than ever.....look where we are at now, you don't know what you don't know, but we are starting to see trends.
  • 1 4
 @5afety3rd: insightful
  • 6 2
 @RadBartTaylor: RAD sizing is utter nonsense. It’s based on completely arbitrary values and outright doesn’t account for some important factors.
  • 1 7
flag RadBartTaylor (Aug 17, 2022 at 13:49) (Below Threshold)
 @Muscovir: easy to throw shade - it's a reasonable & quantitative way we have to measure bikes vs humans.

Important factors like what?
  • 6 1
 @RadBartTaylor: It's cool that you're into RAD sizing, but obviously it's not for everyone and most people think RAD ≠ rad.

RAD seems to say that if my 480mm reach bike is perfect for me, then a 450mm reach with higher handlebars would be equally good as long as my perfect RAD number stays constant. And it says frame size is the least important. I and many others view that as BS. A longer wheelbase that fits my body and ticks all the other boxes = more stability, better flow, faster times, more fun, etc. There's no way a shorter reach or wheelbase bike with higher bars (putting me in "old lady on a city bike" posture) is going to be anywhere near as good.

The fact that pros sized down is irrelevant to most normal riders. They are so good that they're looking for any incremental gain to save time - if they feel they can turn a smaller bike a split second faster in a race, SOME of them will try it. They have such high level skills that they can compensate for the reduced stability. I'm a good rider but apparently I don't have that skill level. 480mm reach is my sweetspot and if I switch to even a 465mm reach (like my old bike), the ride is not going to be the same - it is worse - regardless of how much I monkey with cockpit, etc. to try to attain Lee's arbitrary RAD number.

You've made your opinion clear. Just like I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince anyone by being argumentative in the comments, so maybe let it go.
  • 2 7
flag RadBartTaylor (Aug 17, 2022 at 15:25) (Below Threshold)
 @Chippps: incorrect, this was addressed 4+ years ago with RAAD, Rider Area Angle so you need to educate yourself on how it works:


The funny thing is I'm not arguing any particular opinion, simply suggesting folks who think Foes and Lee are wrong be a bit more open minded. We hear the same silly argument like you use, aka pros have more skill and can ride shorter bikes....while a shorter wheelbase may be less stable in theory / on paper, there are many factors at play, weight distribution, angles, suspension setup, etc.....a bike with 30mm less reach & corresponding wheelbase isn't going to make a bike 'unstable', it's still stable enough since there are EWS riders out there riding Small bikes that rip harder than you are I....

Believe Lee's #'s or not, it's debatable (but trends are trends with some top level riders), but if you love your bike now, calculate your unique RAD and stick to it. It's the only way to know how a bike truly fits with all the variables taken into account; frame reach, frame stack, stem length, stem height on ST, bar height and bar sweep.....
  • 4 2
 @RadBartTaylor: my point was, what the “pros” do is irrelevant. RR wins on a Yeti which means he could win on a tricycle.

Enduro = DH bikes that can be pedaled up hill these days. So, DH is very relevant or at least as relevant as what EWS pros are doing.

I’ve been ridding mtb’s since around 2000 and for me, longer bikes are way better in every way. I’m 5’11” on a 470 reach frame and 32mm stem. Perfect for me and my average skill.
  • 4 3
 @stubs179: I've been riding since 1989, I'm 6-4 and ride a sim size bike to you, I consider myself above average but that doesn't discount your experience, its yours after all and plenty of guys with 5 years of experience that would destroy me.

Just keep an open mind when it comes to this stuff, nobody is wrong or right.

You can use examples to illustrate logical points, using pros as an example who ride FASTER than us and they don't have issues with stability, so why would you expect to? Lots of short pro's on size S bikes that don't have issues with stability.

Riding WC DH tracks is a different sport
  • 7 0
 @RadBartTaylor: Hahaha.... Dude you've been the one saying RAD all over the comments, not RAAD. Piss off with the condescending "go educate yourself" BS if you can't even say what you mean.
  • 3 0
 @vinay: What I always found funny about the "Bikes are measured in metric!" standard is that basically every standard used on bikes is a conversion of a round number (or common fractional number) of an Imperial measurement. E.G. 31.8mm handlebar clamp diameter. Why pick 31.8mm (actually 31.75mm) instead of 32mm? Because 31.8mm = 1 1/4 inches!
  • 1 1
 @Chippps: I use "RAD" as a collective of all Lee's ideas, which I've studied and played around with so know them well. Your calling BS on something you don't understand....
  • 3 0
 @ShopMechanic: and that’s being phased out. It all goes back to post WW2 when all the machines for making tubing came out of the UK and USA. A lot of it stuck, but it’s being phased out over time.
  • 1 1
 @ShopMechanic: Bikes are measured in metric and in imperial. Some standards are imperial, but most common wheel axle standards are metric now. Learn to live with both and you'll be fine. Be dick and things get hard.
  • 4 0
 @RadBartTaylor: Im with you on the shorter RAD numbers. At 5-11 I’ve found my sweet spot is 455-460 reach. I had a 485 reach bike a couple years ago and didn’t find it any more stable, just harder to move around on. That’s one of the great things these days…so many options for everyone.
  • 2 0
 @endoguru: stability is a consequence of wheelbase, not reach. Reach is more about how you feel on the bike not about how the bike feels over rough sections.
(at least, this is how I understand it)
  • 1 0
 @eugenux: Sort of... a longer reach generally also means a longer top tube which also increases the wheelbase. A longer reach also puts you more "in" the bike vs "on top". Both longer wheelbases and being more "in" the bike contribute to stability. So, longer reaches generally do make for more stable bikes.
  • 1 1
yes and no..
my former big bike had 602mm ett and 437mm reach while the wb was 1187mm.
my current big bike has a 607mm ett, a reach of 472mm declared(469-470mm measured) and a wb of 1278mm.
pretty much same ett, vastly different reach numbers and wb. But I've ridden bikes with a smaller reach but bigger wb.. and one of them was a saracen myst which despite the similar reach numbers with my former bike, felt much more stable.
What a decent reach does to a mediocre guy like myself is to allow me to ride in a more agressive position(over the handlebars) without fearing an otb. I always tried to ride agresively on my former bike as well but, when the real rough stuff arrived, I saw myself always redraw a little(or a little more) above and behind the saddle..to not feel like I was going to be thrown off "over board" in the following second.
With a 470mm reach.. I never feel the need to do that, as no otbs look like there are in the ride plan(not yet anyway). So, I (feel that I)ride faster because I can control the bike much better but, I also ride faster because of that damn wheelbase, being almost 10 cm longer, ads a lot.. and I mean A LOT of stability. (suspension is pretty much the same, 165mm of x2 with 180mm of fox36 vs 170mm of x2 with 180mm of fox38; pretty much but not the same as the x2 feels better damped and the 38 feels smoother and a little more stiff)
  • 3 0
I have fallen for the whole Mondraker long reach approach. There’s no going back to short bikes for me.
  • 2 0
 @Digsafe: for trail bikes.. 120-140mm..there's no need to exagerate with the wb or the reach.
When you discuss enduro bikes that must act like dh bikes for us, the average and below average guys from a skill riding perspective, then long reach and long wb FTW!
  • 1 1
 @islandforlife: I don't know, I'm not bought into the longer wheelbase = more stable bike argument, it's thrown around a lot. Not saying you are WRONG per-se, but I honestly believe being balanced on a bike is key along with having suspension properly setup. Bikes are plenty stable these days, I mean all the DH / Enduro guys 10+ years ago didn't seem to have stability issues with bikes much shorter than they are today....nor did I frankly.

I think a handful of the top EWS guys downsizing today points to this - they ride much faster than us and still don't have issues.
  • 2 0
 @RadBartTaylor: you and I don't have the skills of a professional enduro or dh racer... or, at least, I don't so, comparing what I or we do with what they do is pointless.

I can tell you that bigger reach and wb works as I got PRs everywhere.. by seconds...and, in one rougher and longer trail.. by almost 20 seconds(and this is true for all my riding friends and buddies who got new bikes). Reach and wb simply works great for us, average guys. The fact that you personally choose to run a shorter bike is also fine... just, don't sell it for what it is not; keep it as your personal choice and that's it.
  • 2 1
 @eugenux: I disagree, it can set boundary conditions based on what top guys use. Your new longer bike was ridden by pros before you had it, say 5-6 years ago, now you have one so you are indeed riding a "pro" setup, if we had this discussion back then you could have said the same thing about your current bike, right?

We have example of riders going long -> Greg Minnaar
We have example of riders going short -> Jack Moir

There is no hard and fast consensus.

Everything you are riding now is what pros used to ride, so no, it's not pointless to think about it. The majority of bikes and their designs are proven on the world stage before they are brought to market, carbon fiber, 29er's, suspension design, suspension travel....maybe we should go back and ride bikes from the 80's?
  • 2 0
 @RadBartTaylor: Pros will always be fast, they have the skills to pay the bills. Yes some may be on the line of sizes and downsize for a more nuimble bike, but those bikes are still vastly longer than bikes of ten years ago. We're all riding much faster than we were ten years ago.

I still have my bike from 10 years ago, keep it around for buddies to jump on for fun. Rode it a few weeks ago... it was f*cking scary as hell... thing was tiny!! Had to ride wayyyy slower, way more cautious and pick my way down the trail. Still fun but a hug eye opener to how far bikes have come. The way we ride has changed sooo much.

It's not really up for debate... longer bikes ARE more stable. But at the same time they are less nimble. So it's not whether or not longer bikes are more stable... it's what you prefer. A shorter and more nimble bike but have the skills to compensate for the lack of stability (comparatively) or just ride slower. Or you like a longer more stable bike and have the skills to compensate for a little less nimbility. And there's a million places in=-between as you can affect change to your affective reach with spacers, higher rise bars and stem lengths.
  • 1 0
 @eugenux: "my former big bike had 602mm ett and 437mm reach while the wb was 1187mm.
my current big bike has a 607mm ett, a reach of 472mm declared(469-470mm measured) and a wb of 1278mm."

Your seat tube angle of your new bike vs your old bike is what makes your ett similar between the two. If you compare two modern bikes with similar geometry (angles), longer reaches = longer top tubes. It's not rocket science, just look at different sizes of the same bike... the ett grows as does the reach.
  • 1 1
 @islandforlife: Depends on the question I guess, you can frame it two ways with two opposing answers:

1) Why do many pro's that ride fast use longer bikes than they did a few years ago (e.g. Greg M)? Simple, he's going much faster than most of use he needs the stability!

2) Why are some pros that ride fast starting to use shorter bikes (e.g. Jack M)? Simple, he's got the skills to pay the bills while you don't!

You can answer the question both ways using your logic.

I can easily say YOU aren't as fast as Greg M or the other guys still using longer bikes why do YOU think you need one?

My point is simple, a bike stable (enough) is good enough. Nobody is advocating for "short" bikes relative to 10+ years ago but rather it ends up being (for me and most) about 30-40mm shorter than the manuf recommendations which aligns closely to the RAD principle.

I have a lot of N=1 examples too, I don't bring it up, but based on my experiences the shorter bikes I've tried as of late and over the years turn better / are more flickable and I don't have ANY stability issues....that goes for Whistler Bike Park, Valley Trails, Mystic-Squirrel, Squamish, my local trails, Trans Cascadia Enduro, BC Bike Race, etc. etc. but that is worth the paper it's written on.
  • 1 0
 @islandforlife: of course; I was only trying to say that similar etts can lead to vastly different wheelbases, so, basically, you don't need to corelate ett with wb when deciding upon a size or thinking about a bike's geometry....(which was what you were sort of saying in that comment before)
  • 50 0
 Is 16 and a half reaches good or bad??
  • 63 0
 Sure man it's 0.00026 of a mile
  • 5 0
  • 8 0
 @littleskull99: 0.00208 US furlong for the American Horsemen among us.
  • 21 0
 Geo Chart looked off to me, mainly, as the PB Commenteers have noticed, the reach. Given all the available measurements, I used wheelbase to back calculate the reach number. I assumed a 555mm axel to crown from DVO/160mm fork. Rough measurements, for sure, but the reach numbers became much more reasonable after doing so.
S: 438.3
M: 463.7
L: 483.7
XL: 506.4

I'm guessing that the reach a typo. Seems like a really silly mistake but it doesn't make sense to go drastically shorter from the previous version. That's my armchair excel engineering at work.

I have the previous gen Mixer and love it. I don't think they'd go backwards on the geo from the previous gen. Context 5'10" (178cm) and I run a size M, have a 200mm dropper, and run w/ a 50mm stem. The thing rips. The top tube waterbottle was odd but I honestly prefer it now. It's a lot easier to snag. Love the bike and would buy again.
  • 3 0
 Those numbers look pretty close when you consider the top tube length too. Typo for sure.
  • 1 0
 Must be more than one value that's incorrect cause I seem to get huge reach when trying to calculate it. The calculation for a right trapezoid is b = a - d*cosF where b is reach, a is BB to front axle, d is axle to crown plus HT length and F is HT angle.
  • 6 0
 Where's someone from Foes to get in here and set the record straight? Without doing any math beyond converting the XL reach to mm, I'm with you guys: it doesn't seem right.
  • 3 0
 @AndrewHornor: This 100% - Foes not commenting (one way or the other) could be considered a PR fail. Also in full agreement regarding the use of freedom units (yes, sarcasm) instead of metric.
  • 24 0
 XL frame with the reach of most medium frames out there. Yikes
  • 7 0
 Yea what?! Big miss. 18.5 inches is 469.9mm. Very small for an XL
  • 3 0
 Yeah, I initially thought "is that a kid's bike?" then thought "well the tubes must just be real beefy." Looks like both were correct...
  • 4 1
 @Chippps: Mind immediately flips to Zoolander - "what is this, a school for ants"?
  • 7 0
 Foes is still stuck in the early 2000's when they were relevant
  • 19 2
 Stoked to still seeing Foes in the mix, but...

1) At this point, does anyone really need to sell in the benefits of a properly done mullet?
Stick to what makes the Foes a Foes.

2) And, please update your geo to reflect what most riders who would be interested are now accustomed to and want.
  • 13 21
flag RadBartTaylor (Aug 16, 2022 at 11:06) (Below Threshold)
 Regarding #2, should they sell what folks want or what they think works the best? Judging by what many of the top riders are on these days, they are damn close to what many of them ride after sizing down which probably aligns quite well with the RAD principles / measurements.

Gentlemen's bet, but I bet pendulum will swing BACK towards shorter / more compact bikes like this in the near future.

And no, I didn't downvote ya because you bring up a good point from a marketing perspective....but more power to them for sticking to their guns on what they (obviously) think still works...
  • 2 0
 @RadBartTaylor: Fair point... (and props given)
I wouldn't consider myself progressive in terms of modern geo being a somewhat late adopter. I just know for me personally (regardless of what any pro/bro might be doing), it's been hard to go backward from where I am presently and feel the same level of comfort/confidence relative to fit.
  • 16 1
 Imperial measurements geo chart? I see it's made in USA, but come on: listing reach in inches? That's just silly.
  • 13 1
 this thing looks fairly indestructible.
  • 11 0
 @Fdanielfloyd Foes shizzle my nizzle.
  • 8 0
 Oh, they are still in business? Really didn’t know.

Funny how some brand names were the synonym for a product and then they almost vanish. E.g. Mavic for rims. So was Foes, at least for me, for DH bikes.
  • 10 2
 Ahhh good ole fashioned units of freedom as @chippps indicated I too am too lazy to look up these values therefore I shall not be buying a foes
  • 7 0
 and even if you translated those units to metric, you still won't buy it.
  • 8 0
 those reach numbers are like from 2012. gotta bump those numbers up, those are rookie numbers. 419mm reach on a medium.... eeeek
  • 4 1
 As is the whole frame design. Looks like a rig Bender could have been using...
  • 5 0
 I think the Geo chart is a typo or the wrong one. The 2022 Mixer large frame has a reach of 482mm and a seat angle of 75 degrees.
  • 4 1
 Anyone know what killer app SRAM has cimung fir UDH and when? I love standardized, cheap hangers but know that OEMs aren't making the change out of the goodness of their hearts.
  • 5 0
 In another comment thread on here a while ago, somebody suggested SRAM's planning a direct mount derailleur that will require a UDH frame. Seems plausible.
  • 2 0
 Had heard rumblings of an integrated derailleur that attaches directly to the frame without a hanger. It would be higher and closer to the cassette.. more out of the way of rocks and such... better shifting.. but SRAM needs most manufacturers switching to UDH compatibility first.
  • 1 0
 @barp: why else would they leave the design open for all to use, they just created their market, UDH is ever expanding and as someone who works in a high traffic riding destination, it makes my life easier, WheelsMFG has a stronger machined UDH btw.
  • 1 1
 @barp: check out wheelbased.com I’m pretty sure he has an article on the direct mount derailleur
  • 1 0
 @5afety3rd: I think it's more than just being open for all to use: for the change to have been so fast and so widespread product managers must know that there's a new drivetrain on the horizon, probably within current models' lifecycles.
  • 4 2
 479mm of reach in XL with a 75' seat tube angle. I know 2006 was a good year but making me go to a conversion website to have to figure it out was the nail in the coffin for me. I think this bike looks cool as hell. Please come join us in the present.
  • 4 0
 I love that Foes are still making rad stuff in the US but the geo needs updating and has done for years. I'll never tire of admiring the burly build quality though.
  • 1 0
 They also need curnutt shocks again as that was the big selling point, at least spec avalanche or something
  • 1 0
 @ctd07: I have a FXR 2:1 hanging on the wall. It has a curnutt shock and I loved it. Apparently the curnutt and manitou shocks had one major flaw that I never really encountered- as the shock warmed up the air pop-off chamber changed its pressure.
  • 2 0
 This simplicity, solidity and aesthetics are very appealing. I'd love to see an actual full spread review by a reputable mtb media source/tester... Hopefully that's coming.

The comment testers/engineers are entertaining tho if nothing else.
  • 1 0
 I’m neither reputable nor media but I it together some thoughts on mine
  • 2 0
 Who is Foes trying to convince of the "benefits"? Themselves or us? Reads like the 29 vs 27.5 comparisons that were on the Giant website when they went full 27.5 in 2013. Same with the reach, way to release the new 2023, 2014 Mixer. Basically has the same reach as my 2014 Norco Revolver.
  • 2 0
 Foes’ geometry chart on the press release is faulty, it should read that the actual reach measurement is: S=431mm, M=460mm, L=482mm, XL=508mm, and the seat tube angle is 75º. The effective seat tube angle is closer to 77-78º. The seat tube is NOT longer than the reach! My photo team built the bike out, shot the images, and wrote the release (but not the geo chart). Hope that helps. Btw the featured bike is currently up for grabs if anyone is interested.
  • 1 0
 I've owned a Hydro and an FXR and both were great. Buuuuttttt, whereas Foes construction and detailing are second to none, the geo is really dated, even on this new release. Foes, have a think, because no one buys short reach bikes anymore and for good reason...For this alone, I'd now buy a Saracen which are cheaper, still single pivot with linkage, way better geo and reach numbers and easier to maintain (the bearings aren't a pig to service like they were on the Hydro).
  • 1 0
 Really enjoying he metric system vs imperial system debate, the I love RAD vs RAD is BS debate, the pros ride shorter bikes debate, the USA vs rest of world debate, the calculation of reach using trig and assumed wheelbase measurements, etc etc. But in 2 seconds I saw on Foes web page the actual geometry chart, in mm, which is actually modern and reasonable. Carry on!
  • 1 0
 Pretty old thread here but gotta comment about the negative critical posters on here, first the geometry chart is obviously wrong, second find the review on single tracks of the original enduro model, third Foes was building mullet 27.5 29 bikes before any of the big brands and now look at your favorite Chinese built brand Santa Cruz almost all of there bikes are mullet 4 to 5 years after Foes. Just because they don't sponsor and pay some professional rider to ride their bikes and mass produce carbon bikes in a foreign country doesn't mean there not great bikes. To the negative commenters about the bike, sometimes it's better not to say anything and be thought a fool than to use your keyboard and remove all doubt
  • 4 0
 I always loved Foes aesthetics. Classic looking frames that are timeless.
  • 4 0
 All that, and no bottle cage mount? (somebody had to say it)
  • 7 0
 There is one in the DIY vasectomy position in front of the seat tube
  • 1 0
 No room... frame is wayyy too small (according to ppl who actually took time to decode the geo)
  • 2 0
 @korev: Haha, well spotted! I didn't even think to look there.
  • 4 0
 A downtube that big with no battery?
  • 1 0
  • 3 0
 Epic fail on The imperial geo chart

WTF happened? I don’t want to run conversions just to see the geometry
  • 1 0
 Foes are nice cuz they are super stout, no flex in the rear end. I think the numbers are off, the reach for a large is in the 480mm area I believe. The top tube is nearly 630mm for a large too
  • 1 1
 FOES what a brand ,very bad in terms of selling the product,a very bad staff selling the product ,cause I remember the DH forks that look like f*cking insane ,compared to the traditional fox40 and marzzochi ,and rockshox stuff ,they looked like motorX forks ,I land that rear shocks (curnout ,or something similar in the name )looked also insane ,it’s a petty cause the bikes and the the suspensions looked amazing ,maybe Brent didn’t have the support or didn’t have the will or time or whatever,but if he did bikes would looked amazing in this days ,but it’s life ,like the one from the Millard’s (don’t know if it is this name ,but similar )they are ahead of the game ,to bad industry as just bought all the reviewers ,they are nothing more then marionette’s (I know everybody has to make a living),but the reviews are getting so obnoxious,lame ,not even funny ,like the people from cars and motorcycles,it is becoming,unbearable,to listen,I feel that someone who is making good things is gonna be leftover,from this corporate stuff ,the real fun is when a reviewer says this is the best fork,this is the best shock ,better transmission ,better …….,and in the next year what do they say?Yes they say it is better then the other ,but wait ……..,they start to say the problems that the “same”product had last year ,when they praise them ,see ?,they should be addressing that ,but OK they do get invited for the presentation and talk and whatever ,maybe all hold hands and say FOX ,ROCKSHOX,SHIMANO,DTSWISS,and all clap in the end ,and the buyer in the end gets to pay all this bull shit ,how products are so expensive?so many moths to feed that’s how ,take care and ride no matter what bike or Strava time :-))))
  • 3 0
 Geometry still measured in imperial? What is going on?
  • 3 0
 And measuring geometry in squirrels, really doesn’t help.
  • 2 0
 As an American, this is the type of product I expect from a company that mixes inches and mm in the same chart. SMH.
  • 3 0
 With these geometry numbers, are they their own foes?
  • 2 0
 Foes should built the HT DJ that Everyone want Intense to build... a new "Tazer" per se DJ
  • 1 0
 Cracking looking bike. Makes me think looking the the geo numbers of this that a mullet setup on my MK3 Nomad might be the way to go.
  • 2 3
 Holy cow . Not another " aggressive" Enduro bikes with wagon wheels . Steep seat tube angles are important if your sitting. This is not a bike for sitting on it's for shredding . Made locally sweet ! Luv the info on smaller wheels are :
Easier to flick around
They also pump better
Shorter wheelbase for tight trails
Thanks for being a bit different.
  • 1 0
 be lookin like a stanton switch fs lol finally shorter steeper higher has come out and a large is now 445 reach again woohoo
  • 1 0
 I ride a 2017 Foes FXR 27.5 in mullet mode, it is a fast bike in part due to it being compact versus the longer type bikes of today.
  • 2 0
 Intense 951 in mx enduro set up
  • 2 1
 If your seat tube length is longer than the reach...... then your seat tube is too long
  • 1 0
 And/or your reach is wayyy too short.
  • 1 0
 The world needs more Foes and brands like them! High quality and unpretentious
  • 1 0
 Foes is still a bike company? Honestly surprised as I've not heard the name in like 20 years.
  • 1 0
 For sure looked interesting at first glance, but mullet-only and geometry straight out of 2015? Hard pass.
  • 1 0
 It's not a foes for me without their own 2:1 shock... This is just another generic Enduro bike.
  • 1 3
 I’m sorry but where goes another one how about the real people that really love the sport the trail builders,here’s a shovel ,here’s this and that ,thank you now let’s make a profit from praising them ,bla bla bla bla bla bla bla ,and guess what X likes on the pages (not the builders ,or even the place),but on brands and sites like ,yes this one ,equals ,(they say )some money ,hey you have X likes and X followers,I’m a brand can I publicize in your site ,I will give you X amount,thank you ,and the working people get ?ok s 20 second fame and some tools (probably),I know that some do real give to the community,but all that (supposed)money that brand make and share with people that don’t even know what a wheel is ,it’s ridiculous,and yes the money that Pro’s win in their disciplines,it is another strange thing ,when most of the people,that are not on the teams ,probably make more money ,that most of the athletes,ridiculous,Like a broken a shoulder,they say to bad ,after a week they don’t give a f*ck about you ,they want the next best thing ,your out (look at Aron Gwin,Troy,daprela,etc)it’s like a coliseum if you give them a show you will be the best ,everyone is hugging you kissing you ,want to hang out with you ,but in the end if you have a problem in your life that circuses people ,will just forget you and leave you to your own (like life :-))) ),what I’m trying to say ,and it is not easy,after this wine ,is that HOW could this new (not all) harvest of riders will stand ,cause I guess that they will be more pushed to work more and paid less (the 2010/16,days are over )seeing a bunch of people gaining money(or whatever currency )doing nothing for the sport ,my wish is that they all get broke,the sport becoming a sport (not wishing,but it will)and maybe it could really be a respectable one ,like how XC is an Olympic sport ,and let me tell you about XC ,another peace of money grabbing from (don’t know where:-)) ),when they don’t even make athlete’s starting in some different time rolls ,they just made that stupid short track thing ,not to make a starting grid but have more time people watching (but yes it’s more interesting to watch),but they start in a grid from raking ,so …….?,some folks don’t even stand a change they lose in the first 300 meters a minute or two ,again the same people ,WHY not have separate times in rows in the main event ,cause people loose maybe 3 or 4 minutes in the first lap to the front guys ,it’s ridiculous,but ok it’s a fair sport ,and deserves to be an Olympic one ,but wait ………………,wait ……………..,DH racing isn’t,can you see this stupid thing ,it is so funny,I don’t have any riding category (just ride )but I do have the courage to say that there isn’t a SPORT like DH racing (ews ,for me the best riding discipline in mountain biking)and not considered being an Olympic one it’s just a thing that you can’t think off,streeth slaking and half pipe skate and bmx are Olympic ones I guess and the spots in classification is made by members from a jury (another business),they think you did well make a very good thing ,when most of the jury’s didn’t haven’t done that to judge you :-)))),so ride on and ride again and again and again
  • 2 0
 Cool story bro
  • 1 0
 @blackthorne: Or put another way: TL;DR
  • 2 0
 I’ve never seen a Foes in the wild.
  • 1 0
 The geo is interesting. Like 10 years ago geo numbers. Not sure why they went with such short reaches.
  • 4 3
 I'm sure it's a great bike but it looks so 90's...
  • 6 1
 I'd say it's 10+ years ahead of an orange, the welds are about 50 years ahead.
  • 1 0
 The rebirth of the 2K6 Foes FLY ?
  • 3 2
 Ill stick with my 27.5 , 27.5 thanks
  • 2 0
  • 2 0
 April 1st i think?
  • 1 0
 Foes new 2023 frame designed in 2014!
  • 1 0
 Do people still buy Foes bikes?
  • 1 0
 could I run 29 on the back?
  • 1 0
 This would be a perfect free ride bike. Make a 27.5 version!
  • 2 0
 Depending on axle to crown height. It wouldn't be hard. I'm running a new Transition Patrol (mullet) in full 27.5 instead of buying a fork I just built one for the same price. 180mm travel, 37mm offset crown with 29 lowers, bike retains stock geo with full 27.5 setup.
  • 1 0
 Certainly looks burly enough for freeride - look at the size of those tubes! ...but the geo and bottle placement are kinda wack in this day and age. If Foes copied the geo of the Commencal Supreme and release a 29er DH bike, they'd probably have many buyers being the only Made-in-USA DH bike available.
  • 1 0
 That thing sucks haha
  • 1 0
 Hydro ?
  • 1 3
 165mm travel sounds more.
But it's only about 4".
  • 5 0
 Better get your conversion method straight,after all it was the brits that invented IS.
  • 2 0
 After 30% sag it's about that...

Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.062803
Mobile Version of Website