Descending No doubt about it, The Full Moxie is happiest when you’re hurtling down a fun steep trail with lots of natural obstacles. With momentum behind you, it’s right at home with good balance and an appetite for tight turns and wide-open berms. To really make the most of its potential, the trails need to be steep and technically challenging because when they are, the Full Moxie rewards. It really does come alive and the weight fades away; it’s a good payback for the climbing efforts.
The geometry, great suspension and grippy tires make tackling technical descents hugely entertaining and very rewarding. It really is a very fun bike to ride and the stable ride, calm suspension, relaxed geometry all make it a very highly capable trail bike that excels on the descents. And as a skills boost, the Pipedream is quite impressive, helping me to master some tricky switchback descents that I’d previously struggled to conquer on other bikes. This bike can pivot on a dime, which helps to kick the myth that long 29ers can’t do tight corners into the long grass. So if you want a bike to make a better rider of you, take a closer look at the Moxie.
The handling is good and lets you focus on picking your line and where you want to place the tires, and the Full Moxie displays a pleasing level of agility that pins a massive grin on your face every time you’re descending. The balance is good, but as with many long bikes you do need to push your weight forward to get the front tire to grip and carve, but if you want to hang back the suspension is capable enough to soak up everything in its path. Going faster is rewarding on any bike, but with the Full Moxie it’s key to unlocking its full character and potential, and it’s really happy going flat out. There’s enough suspension travel to get out out of trouble in most situations; it’s predictable and will never catch you off-guard if you’re not paying attention 100% of the time as can sometimes be the case with lighter, more skittish bikes.
The suspension coped with everything nicely. It feels plush and soaks up impacts well giving a smooth ride through chundery roots. There’s ample progression to handle big impacts and drops well with no heavy bottom out. It’s easy to see the Full Moxie is aimed at trail riders wanting a bike for big rides in the woods, but the weight does favour a more gravity-oriented riding style where it’s about getting to the top as unflustered as possible and eking out one more run before the sunsets.
At most the frame will be about 1.5kg heavier than the lightest (but totally un-durable) carbon frame. Very similar to most ally frames and not much more than tough carbon frames.
Lots of brands (probably more savvy ones) put lightweight wheels and tyres on their bikes for tests. They are not appropriate for the riding being done, so the reviewers very quickly change them for something more suitable. However, the published weight is the one of the delivered bike with the incorrect tyres.
Reviewers shouldn't publish frame weights, rather run stock wheels and tyres! Weight will then suddenly be less important and all the comments will go away.
I do agree about a standard wheel and tire setup for testing. Wheels have an outsized impact on the overall performance of a bike. Since wheels can be a very expensive proposition to replace maybe just a standard tire setup would be more reasonable.
Honestly I don't think I'd feel 3lbs of static frame weight enought to make it a deal breaker. But on the flip side at 200lbs I have been hucking the carbon Trance and riding an old DH track for a year straight with no frame issues whatsoever...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fweWB0wNzpw
That will never happen tho.
I just wonder how much difference the frame material makes in terms of compliance when you have 2.3+ tyres and suspension front and back. Based on the comments I guess there is a difference. (When it comes to steel i'm careful and I take everything with a grain of salt, because I noticed that there are a lot of steel fanatics with pretty radical views, opinions
Either way I love the bike, it just climbs not as good as I'd expected (and I've been single pivot for yeeearrrs)
www.cotic.co.uk/news/2016/shocktuning
Just remember, Knolly makes very high end aluminum frames, not your usual big brand aluminum frame.
I would argue that you can feel the weight difference and hear the difference more than you actually feel the difference in compliance.
And the radical views? Thats just experience talking. Those views dont seem radical anymore. The steel builders have been at the forefront of the geometry changes that everybody and their mothers builders have adopted.
I noticed that steel can attract a certain kind of person that critizies everything and talks BS, sometimes with zero experience behind their "facts"/opinions (again not talking about anybody here).
@HollyBoni I sure can. Aluminum feels dead-stiff and just very "standard" or neutral. Carbon feels more hollow and plasticy and maybe a bit more lively-stiff, and steel feels more solid and simultaneously compliant. I think I notice the benefits of the steel around bumpy off-camber corners (feels grippier than other frames, which have literally been built up with the same parts), but can somewhat feel less precise at times. (hopefully my made-up terminology here, like "lively-stiff", gets the point across, ha.) That all being said, I think a lot of it has to do with how things are built. I have had burly steel hardtails that, although they feel solid like a BMX bike, are every bit as stiff and chattery as a burly carbon hardtail (Transition Vagrant vs. Chromag Primer, both horrendously stiff. Chromag was maybe a bit less "chattery" but "compliant" was not a word I would use to describe either, whatsoever.) Get on a lively XC carbon hardtail and it will feel super compliant, relatively speaking.
I still stand by that I love the bike, it just doesn't seem that efficient (or didn't until I wound LSC all the way in, and built some muscle) as I'd expected
The XT spec gets 4pot brakes.
But adding 2kg to the wheels, rotating mass that constantly needs to be accelerated on technical climbs makes a massive difference.
Conversley, heavy wheels help massively with downhill stability.
I can't believe reviewers still don't understand this.
single pivots aren't bad
What I noticed between heavier and lighter bikes is that the difference is very noticeable at first, but after riding the bike for a while you kinda just get used to it.
But again, I get used to it pretty quickly and i'm not hunting KOMs so I don't care that much about weight.
But really, i'm not trying to argue about this. Strap some weights to your bike and see for yourself.
"if you like ripping up technical trails the Full Moxie will frustrate you"
WTF? Which is it? Makes hard climbs possible or frustrates you? This whole thing is full of contradictions.
so many riders are stressed about bike weight but couldn't it be mostly in our heads, seeing as how depending on the ride we might have nothing on our backs or many pounds of weight clinging to us?
Loads of fun though, so next summer the hardtail will be set up on fast and light tyres
But as an early owner of a Starling, I would add that there is quite a few differences : Reynolds & Colombus tubeset, bespoke geo, handmade in UK... Could make a different riding experience too.
enduro-mtb.com/en/steel-enduro-full-suspension-mtb-review
No Murmur, but close.
The shock yoke will increase stress on the rear shock, and with the steel rear end allowing for even more flex I'm worried that it will further increase the rear shock stress. Thoughts?
I have killed 5 shocks over the last 20+ years - One on a Hot chili singlepivot 1997, one on a GT DHI, one on a Salsa horsethief with shockyoke and a rearend that could be riddden way out of its comfortzone, two on my early Starling swoop. There were plenty of bikes in between and while many other factors may have played a role, I remain worried.
Moreover, I doubt the rear triangle is even going to flex more than an aluminum design. Tubes aren't that much thinner as they need to fit between tire and cranks. So replacing aluminum tubes with steel ones within that same amount of space won't really decrease lateral stiffness. Even reducing wall thickness won't matter that much because tubes there are thin already. But that's my bit of armchair engineering. They may allow for a little bit of lateral flex at the axle end but that shouldn't necessarily imply that the shock mount is going to shift proportionally more too.
I actually wonder if the initial high failure rate was partially due to Specialized being the only OEM user of the inline at the time.
Yokes killing shocks on non specialized bikes is a myth imo
No rub under sprinting on mine, must have been due to early design as others suggest ?
Yet you have completely ignored the fact, that the real perceived reach is a function of the number of spacers run under the stem, the HA and stem length and handlebar setback. So in fact you have no clue what is your preferred reach. It may be as well 460 as 480.
according to their website....
www.pipedreamcycles.com/shop/the-full-moxie
What excess movement is the firm mode minimizing? Since allegedly there is "no excess of movement" even in open mode...
Sounds like the balance isn't actually great since you have to worry about managing front grip...
Sorry I'm confused. What tubeset are you using? Gussets are bad?
If it's a steel frame it's probably butted steel all decent steel frames are. I would call 4130 steel generic. If it's custom then tell us in detail why. Tripple butted? Yep there are old school mountain bikers that remember butting thickness , tube diameter, tube guage. Un like carbon fiber it's rather easy to explain the details of the frame construction. Hopefully your website is more informative.
Umm...?
Guess looks are subjective
I am sure someone will correct me if required but as far as I know, you can make (or have made) bikes in low volumes from steel far easier/cheaper than aluminium or carbon. This allows more flexibility in design and continual development if desired. They can also be more niche, the target market doesn't have to be massive to pay off any fancy molds or tooling etc.
Ultimately it comes down to what you want, if you want on trend geo, standard sizing or on a budget then there is nothing wrong with off the shelf Alu or Carbon.
But if you want or need something a bit different then there is probably a steel rig out there for you (or at least someone willing to build it you).
www.singletracks.com/mtb-gear/europe-is-aswim-with-stout-steel-full-suspension-mountain-bike-frames
Unless you don't weight that front wheel, because the balance is soooo good...
"the extra weight probably helps a little here, and even in my most tricky local climbs the Pipedream just feels so calm and collected it lets you focus on getting the power through the cranks."
So which is it? Weight good or weight bad? Because you said both, but also mentioned that traction is super important...
Or... Maybe... you just got mullet if that's what fits you and forget what's "trending" or not.
420 would be out of Balance.
A tubeset that might require some of those "ugly" gussets? Silly to want a brand name even though it would take away something else that's good about the bike
weight is just a number
Well that's a shame, climbing tech is fun if you have a good climbing bike, clearly this is not that kind of bike, so then what's it good for?