Video: Devinci's All-New Troy - First Look
Modern trail bikes have become the answer for almost everything from a lap on your local flow trail to that rowdy enduro race thanks to advances in suspension and geometry. The latest one to add to the list is Devinci's all-new Troy, a 140mm-travel trail bike that’s meant to do all the things, even if some of those things are kinda sketchy.
The top-of-the-line Troy is the 'Carbon XT 12S LTD' model that comes with a 160mm Fox 36, 10mm more than the other four complete bikes, and sells for $6,199 USD.
The top-of-the-line Troy is the 'Carbon XT 12S LTD' model that comes with a 160mm Fox 36, 10mm more than the other four complete bikes, and sells for $6,199 USD.
Troy Details
• Travel: 140mm / 150mm fork (160mm on LTD)
• Wheel size: 29"
• New carbon fiber frame
• Split Pivot suspension system
• ISCG-05 chain guide tabs
• Super Boost hub spacing
• Weight: 33 lb / 15 kg
• MSRP: $2,799 USD to $6,199 USD
• www.devinci.com
• Travel: 140mm / 150mm fork (160mm on LTD)
• Wheel size: 29"
• New carbon fiber frame
• Split Pivot suspension system
• ISCG-05 chain guide tabs
• Super Boost hub spacing
• Weight: 33 lb / 15 kg
• MSRP: $2,799 USD to $6,199 USD
• www.devinci.com
While the less expensive models come with Maxxis's EXO and EXO+ casing tires, the 33 lb LTD gets sturdier DHF and DHR's with Double Down casing.
Frame Details
While it looks similar to the previous Troy, with a vertical shock compressed from above via Split Pivot suspension, it's actually an all-new animal from front to back. And unlike its predecessor, this one is designed around 29" wheels for all sizes - there's no longer a 27.5" wheeled Troy in Devinci's catalog.
The Canadian brand has done well on the new-frame checklist, with two-bolt ISCG 05 tabs around a threaded bottom bracket, internally routed lines (although not pass-thru), and room for a large-sized bottle inside the front triangle. There's also room for a 2.6" wide rear tire, which is why Devinci has stuck with the 12 x 157mm Super Boost hub spacing used on the previous Troy, although they also say that this version is slimmer externally for more clearance.
The lower shock mount wrangles cables.
Routing is internal, with wide ports to hopefully make maintenance easy.
The flip-chip at the lower shock mount supplies half a degree and 3mm of bottom bracket change.
Heel rub protection on the chainstay.
Devinci used a flip-chip at the lower shock mount on the previous Troy and they've brought that over to the new version as well; it provides half a degree of angle and 3mm of bottom bracket height adjustment. The upper mount is Trunion, of course, but rather than just being a couple of spacers at the other end, the shock hardware unit does double-duty as a cable guide that keeps them in check between the front and rear triangles.
Devinci uses a Split Pivot suspension system for the Troy's 140mm of travel.
Rear Suspension
The new Troy’s 140mm of travel is controlled via a Split Pivot suspension design that sees the rear pivot rotate concentrically around the axle, with a rocker arm that compresses the Fox Float X2 from above. It’s a pretty straightforward layout that’s said to separate the acceleration and braking forces while also offering a good mix of energy and small bump compliance. And with the latest, ultra-adjustable shocks, you should be able to set it up to match your needs.
With Split Pivot suspension, the rear pivot rotates concentrically around the axle.
All models of the new Troy come with an air-sprung shock, but anyone looking to assemble their own aggressive trail bike will be pleased to hear that it will play nice with coil springs as well.
Geometry
Compared to the previous version, the new Troy is 15mm longer across the board, with a large-sized bike getting a 480mm reach in the slack setting that almost everyone will automatically put it in. At 65-degrees flat, it’s also a degree slacker than the old bike, although the geo adjustment lets you steepen that by half a degree and raise the bottom bracket by 3mm.
One thing to note: My test bike is the LTD version that comes with a 160mm-travel fork, 10mm more than the other four bikes. That relaxes the geo by about half a degree and lifts the bottom bracket by just a smidge. Devinci is also doing size-specific chainstays on the Troy, with the extra-small to medium bikes getting a 435mm rear end, the large 440mm, and the extra-large a 445mm.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
how is this 33 lbs ??
@Maxxis: I've wanted a DHR II 2.4 WT DD Maxxgrip for ages but Maxxgrip has only been offered in the DH casing or EXO. Is this new? When can I buy? Also if new please offer the Dissector in same flavor.
Do people really not pedal much anymore?
Anyway, Devinci was more conservative this round. Not wrong, just not for me this time.
I have a '16 Carbon and swapped the Pike for a Lyrik at 160mm and have not wanted a new bike since, as much as this new one turns my eye.
Also, I LOVE that purple color. Nice work!
Again it's not bad geo at all but not what I'm looking for for my next trail bike.
Much luv brother!
It all depends on the rider.
Are u looking for a new dealer in my area
Pdmbikes@gmail.com
I just installed Michelin (was running minion since 2015) and add a FTD2 insert in the back. I like them but am now sliding on roots that I never did before so yeah.... I hope I can try a Dissector 2.6 Maxgrip DD next year!? And as someone else wrote here, I would like to have Maxgrip in Exo+ for the front (I remember having DHF EXO DD Maxgrip for at least 2 years but I think this is the only one we can have like this and now I want Assegai) as I don't need the extra weight of DD in the front anyway! PLease do an Assegai EXO+ Maxgrip @Maxxis !!! And yeah, would also like more Dissector's option in 2.6!
shop.maxxis.com/collections/bicycle
It does seem like a lot but I guess it's the intentions of the bike. Made to ride hard and without warranty issues.
Definitely a business decision to err on the side of caution with the frame weight which some others (e.g. SC 'C' level frames) do too. Between a burly frame and burly tires you're looking at pound or pound and a half.
Just like the Sentinel frame weighs a pound more than a Ripmo (carbon) frame. Is it stronger? Hopefully.
Would love to see this bike around a 6,000$ spec for 30lbs with the preferred tire choice I previously stated. Maybe in 2021 I suppose
With the same build wouldn't this bike (full carbon frame) only be about a pound heavier than a Ripmo?
That extra pound in frame weight could be a combination of the needs of this specific design, engineered stiffness/flex, but maybe more likely tolerance for frame failures. Not to say a Ripmo is fragile. Nobody I know has ever had a frame issue. And my guess is that bike will feel more than a pound lighter due to the increased anti-squat.
Anyway, yeah it's hard for some riders to justify moving from alu (i ride an alu ripmo) to carbon for only a pound of weight savings. And my bike is not flexy in the least.
Not sure what’s up with the larger diameter seatpost though? Why add the weight? Bike is already stiff as hell.
31 lbs to be honest and to only expensive part is the Direttissima...
Also my first enduro bike was a super light one (I was coming from trail bikes and not super fast/hard rider) at 28lbs. All aluminium except crank and handlebar. I cracked the frame.
My next AL frame weight a third more then my Spindrift weight.
Also- your 440 CS are not short by any means. Ditch the super boost please. The heel rub is unbearable.
When you have to spec heel-rub-protectors on both side or the rear triangle, you may have gone too wide.
Dude are you conscious that almost every modern DH bike have the same rear spacing that sb+ i.e. 157mm hub ???
How many time on it ? Any heal rub report ?
Stop spreading a**hurt BS yourselves.
1,2 You listed tire width twice- but I don’t see many manufacturers spec’ing narrow tires these days.
3 Your chainstays are not short
4 no one was asking for 36t chainrings.
SuperBoost is a joke. Even the term was tongue in cheek. Stop trying to make it happen.
You can 100% take a 157 wheel off your DH bike and toss it on the Troy and it would work. Or, you could take a Superboost wheel off the troy and put it on your DH bike. They are 100% cross-compatible, but the SuperBoost wheel has the added benefit of better spoke angle.
@cyclesdevinci thank you for using an updated, existing standard on your bikes!
Also it is not easy to fing sb hub despite standard already 2-3 years in place
1. You are less likely to have the wide chainstays interfere with your feet and cause handling issues.
2. More aerodynamic. Narrow is faster. Not alot but enough to make a difference if you lose a DH race by. 05 seconds.
3. What do you marketing hype stuper boost lovers think about Bruni winning the world championship downhill race on a 135mm hub just a couple years ago? Face it, you have nothing but marketing hype. You suckers will willingly swallow any hype pill that the industry puts in your face and regurgitate it once their pros are running it on their bikes.
Super Boost is essentially the new BB30. The manufacturers are one again promoting an unnecessary standard to benefit their own needs(stronger frames), while at the same time inconveniencing customers in more than one way(heel rubbing and making old 148 wheels useless).
This is absurd, not many industries have the gall to do this to their customers but the bike industry continually does it.
I should also point out that we are talking about trail bikes here, not DH bikes. Bikes that you might pedal around all day, and it's no issue at all to have your feet hitting the frame all day long while you pedal?
This is not an issue for many riders who aren't duck-toed but it is annoying for a significant amount of people. I think it's an issue worth debating, and it is another example of bike companies not putting the customer first. You can build a 148 bike with adequate strength, but they are changing it simply because it's easier to build one with super boost. Probably also puts less area on the bearings so they can potentially save some costs there instead of running top quality bearings.
So as far as the debate about the drawbacks about super boost, it appears the responses to my 5 valid points against it were:
nothing, nothing, nothing nothing, and nothing. Super Boost has nothing but drawbacks for the consumer. It's just the latest scam by the profit- driven marketing/ engineering jackasses in this industry who forced the inferior bb30 on us. Boycott superboost on trail bikes.
I had heels problem with my first boost bike in 2016 in fact... I demoed a Commental Meta that was even worse but it really depends of the bike. Now on superboost (knolly warden LT) and no problem at all!! I have a boost crank and seriously, I never touch the rear triangle with my heels! This new troy will probably be the same. People were complaining about noodle 29'' wheels so that would be the answer to it.
If people had been more aggressive in calling or the poor engineering behind BB30 wouldn't have taken over a much as or did and small bike shops around the world wouldn't have lost hundreds of thousands(actually likely millions) in labor costs trying to fix the massive amount of BB30 problems that happened for years due to a essentially defective design that the bike manufacturers forced upon the industry just to save a little bit of money in manufacturing costs.
We cannot trust all bike manufacturers to act in good faith, some of them are like politicians who will lie to your face in order to justify an engineering idea that doesn't really benefit consumers but saves them a few bucks.
Telling you they are doing this to make bikes stronger sounds good at face value. But when you examine the details of it and see that is really just to save money on warranties and manufacturing costs and it actually makes consumers waste their money or have a bike that they hit their heels on a thousand times every bike ride.
It reminds me of when bmx companies started making 40 pound freestyle bmx bikes in the late 90's. Did consumers ask for our want 40 pounds bmx bikes? Hell no. But some manufacturers just put them out their because they couldn't make lightweight and strong bicycles. But now they can. Just like how mountain bike makers CAN make strong frames with narrow rear ends, but it's not as easy so they just make it wide and in their marketing simply stress that it is stronger and pretend there are no problems when in actuality the problems are significant.
Wishing you a great rest of the season. After all, riding bike should be all about having fun, and hopefully as far removed from politics as possible!
I hit my heels on 148 and 157 bikes, which over the course of a days riding slows a rider down alot and is annoying. At least 10% off the population is pigeon toe'd, your company is essentially putting you hand in the air and is giving those riders a big middle finger salute and telling them to screw off cause our concerns are more important than yours.
Wouldn't be bad if it was a DH bike but it's a trail bike.
He actually won that race by a pretty narrow margin, i wonder if the aerodynamics of his narrow rear end made the difference over wider and slower bikes like Devinci?
Proves this is all a bunch of engineering/ marketing bs that helps bike companies and not consumers.
and yeah, i think the industry hype on chains is way too big, Gwin won without one, clearly there is something there...marketing bs these chains.
As for Bruni, come on, he would have won on any width rear-end. Aren't you the one that said having athletes on it means nothing? But if that's your kind of argument, then how about Stevie Smith that won the WC overall in 2013 on a 150mm rear-end. Would you agree that a season worth of consistent results involves more pedal stroke and aerodynamics than a single World Champ race?
Consider this our last reply. Hopefully, you will be able to go out and actually ride your bike instead of arguing about something you haven't even seen yet. Cheers.
I won't buy it, and I've already tried it on a knolly. Seemed too wide for me, to the point of stupidity, honestly. There are no good reasons for consumers to be excited about this. There are reasons to make bikes wider but those reasons are justified by the desires of bike manufacturers and this was never asked for by consumers. Wheels are already stiff and not many frames break if made properly. For this reason It is a fact that SB+ for trail bikes is regressive engineering, not progressive engineering. The companies should be trying to enhance the riding experience and make bikes faster, not detract from the experience(heel rubbing all day long,
useless expensive148 wheels) and make the bikes slower. I view SB+ for trail bikes as a slow cancer that is creeping into the industry just like BB30 did, so I'm providing factual points to make people aware of the downsides of it. If you don't like or disagree with my opinions you are free to ignore them, just a i am free to not like this bike and state the reasons why. I haven't even addressed the negative effects on q factor yet, anybody want to go there?
pls
You are talking about fact ? I don’t see a single opposable fact on all your posts and your own experience is not generalizable to the whole MTB crowd.
“it appears the responses to my 5 valid points”
On the whole post I only I saw you debating on 3 points and since you wish to discuss them on the forum you’re not the one to decide if they are valid or not.
1st point (the stupid one) : “ You are less likely to have the wide chainstays interfere with your feet and cause handling issues”
Guys from Devinci explained you several time that their implementation of 157+ have chainstays as wide as their 12x148 implementation.
So on Devinci’s bikes, 12x148 chainstays width = 12x157 chainstays width. Figures. Fact.
Following your only reference to a 157 + test you did:
”I've already tried it on a knolly. Seemed too wide for me, to the point of stupidity, honestly.”
You’re not a lucky guy, ain’t you ? You just chosen the worst example to illustrate your thought : Knolly’s 12x157 chainstays at their widest point are as wide as their 12x142 chainstays... Too bad. Here the link, please educate yourself.
www.knollybikes.com/engineering
Others takes on Knolly 12x157 on this very post:
Timo82 (1 days ago)
“I don't have ANY issues with heel rub on my SB Knolly Warden LT but I had before on my boost bike...
usedbikestuff (1 days ago)
“Then I found out that @knollybikes 157 rear triangle was narrower than my 142mm canfield riot outside of frame to outside and realized forums complain about nothing!”
So what about the “validity” of your first point ? Close to absolut zero.
2nd “point” (the funny one): “More aerodynamic. Narrow is faster. Not alot but enough to make a difference if you lose a DH race by. 05 seconds.”
You just throwing meta-words and concept that you just heard of but you don’t have the smallest idea of what you are talking about.
Drag ? What do you know about aerodynamic drag coefficients calculations ? Even billions dollar jet fighter must underwent physical modelling of drag in wind tunnels because even CATIA software is not robust enough to model it perfectly…
So from where the s..t are you talking about drag effect on a 9mm (2x4.5 mm) increase in width of a bike rear end travelling at sub 50 miles a hour, in the better case ?!?
If 157+ has an effect on drag for what you know it should as well be positive.
That’s my “valid” point : rear vorticity/backpressure will be reduced by a wider rear end in compensating for 29 wheels aerodynamic drag increase.
Please make my day and prove me wrong.
(for others, I’m just kidding)
3rd ”point” (the aggressive one)
“What do you marketing hype stuper boost lovers think about Bruni winning the world championship downhill race on a 135mm hub just a couple years ago? Face it, you have nothing but marketing hype.”
In fact, what you really demonstrate here is a lack of reasoning capacity…
Loic won on a 27.5 bike in 2018. So if I follow your “reasoning” 27.5 is faster than 29 and then 29er are nothing than marketing hype ? Okay.
But the following season (2019) he won the world cup AND the world championship with still 27.5 rear wheel and 148 mm rear wheel spacing… Hmm. If I still follow your “reasoning”, an increase in rear wheel spacing is positively correlated to a DH win increase for Bruni… So if I follow this trend, he should achieve a total dominance in 2021 with the new demo in 157 + spacing, don’t you agree ? That’s my 3rd “valid” point : 157+ is not a marketing hype and it makes faster bikes.
(for others, I’m still kidding)
From here, you have nothing valid, zero, nada, to prove that 157 spacing is not a legitim industrial bike standard.
Of course, you can still go on braging and repeat stubbornly the same hollow, depleted arguments -and please do it again 1000 more times – but sorry, you’re plagued, it will not become a truth by any means.
And lately :
“ I haven't even addressed the negative effects on q factor yet, anybody want to go there?”
Q-factor is the saaaaaaame duuuuuuuude !!!!
Only the chainline change by +3mm !!!!!
You can even run a very narrow XTR m9130 crankset on Knolly 157+ bikes bwahahahahahahahaha !!!!!!!!
With a 73mm BSA threaded BB !!!!!!
157 + is soooooooooo gooooooooood !!!!!
First, "superboost" is not a new hub spacing standard in any way. It has been around for a very long time. Most DH bikes are 157 because it allows a stronger rear end. There is no compatibility difference between 157DH and "Superboost", they are fully interchangeable. Superboost just fixed a design oversight in the original 157DH hub layout where the flange spacing wasn't widened to take advantage of the extra hub width. The cassette, centerline and brake rotor are all in the exact same position.
I went from a 142mm rear end to a Superboost Pivot Firebird last year and have not once hit my heels. I am on a Spartan 29 now with Superboost and have still not hit my heels. I strongly suspect you have absolutely no experience with any of this.
enduro-mtb.com/en/super-boost-plus-standard/#:~:text=With%20a%20standard%2093%20mm,on%20a%20Boost%20148%20bike.
"Compatibility
Of course, a new standard brings with it compatibility issues. Super Boost Plus requires not only new 157 mm hubs, but also cranksets and chainrings that are compatible with the required 56 mm chain line. Luckily for SB+ fans and converts, all major drivetrain, wheel and crankset/chainring manufacturers are now offering Super Boost Plus compatible options.
Q factor
Due to the wider dropouts and chainstays, and to meet the required 56 mm chain line manufactures had to engineer wider cranksets for Super Boost Plus frames. The result is a bigger Q factor – the distance from the outside of one crank arm to the outside of the other crank arm. The bigger the Q factor, the wider apart your feet are on the pedals. With a standard 93 mm press-fit or 73 mm threaded bottom bracket, the Q factor of a Super Boost Plus bike sits at 173-177 mm, compared to 168-177 mm on a Boost 148 bike. However, this is only really a change for XC riders, as enduro riders usually run wider pedals mounted to 177 mm Q factor cranks anyway.
Heel rub can be an issue
One potential negative of wider chainstays and increased tire clearance is heel rub, due to the chainstays butting out closer to your heels and reducing the amount of space you have to move your feet on the pedals."
I think it's debatable whether 27.5 or 29 is faster, depends on the track and possible conditions. But it is an absolute fact that a narrow bike is faster than a wider bike if everything else is equal. Stop grasping at straws. That's why this is regressive engineering and not progressive. If they really wanted to improve things they would make bikes narrower but instead they are making them easier to build for themselves and ignoring everything else. Luckily I don't think most manufacturers will go this selfish customer unfriendly route, but the ones that do deserve to be called out for it.
You can also put your blinders on and pretend that aerodynamics don't matter but if you actually have eyes you can see that World Cup DH riders trim down their kits to the point of looking like they are wearing tights to be just a little faster.
from the Knolly page :
www.knollybikes.com/engineering
Q-FACTOR: 157mm hub spacing can be implemented using a flipped chain ring to maintain existing Q factors on XC / lightweight cranksets such as XTR, XO1 and Race Face Next SL
Ask Noel Buckley, Knolly CEO and owner of several engineering degrees, sure he knows one thing or two about 157+ the guy from enduro-mtb never heard about... Now if you prefer trust a third league internet media vs a guy who create his brand from nothing...
"You can also put your blinders on and pretend that aerodynamics don't matter but if you actually have eyes you can see that World Cup DH riders trim down their kits to the point of looking like they are wearing tights to be just a little faster"
And until you prove me wrong there is still no evidence that a wider rear end will not lessen aerodynamic drag...
Just in case you didn't get it the first time (obviously) : fluid dynamics is a too complex discipline and you need to take into account for too much parameters to make such hypothesis.
Universal Shimano qfactor is 176mm:
"The XT FC-M8000-1 (1x11s) is optimized for 1-way drive crankset, which is characterized II crank arm construction with a universal Q factor of 176 mm, a stable and rigid drive 24 mm steel shaft and a rigid, weight-saving Hollowtech."
shimano xtr m9130 crankset (SB specific crank, 56.5 chainline) : 171 mm qfactor
bike.shimano.com/en-US/product/component/xtr-m9100/FC-M9130-1.html
Race face 56.5 chainline (flipped DM ring, approved by RF, solutions in chart) qfactors:
Next SL: 170mm
NextR: 176mm
SixC(DH): 175mm
Turbine: 180mm
Atlas(DH):178mm
Aeffect: 175mm
Ride Cinch: 177mm
Average: 175.85
Conclusion : 157+ qfactor doesn't deviate from average trailbikes qfactor.
"Q-FACTOR: 157mm hub spacing can be implemented using a flipped chain ring to maintain existing Q factors on XC / lightweight cranksets such as XTR, XO1 and Race Face Next SL"
That's not very impressive considering most people wouldn't be likely to run those cranks on an aggressive bike with 157 spacing. And their bikes don't come with those cranks, they come with cranks that are spaced wider which makes your pedals more likely to hit things. It also makes for less than ideal pedaling efficiency, that's why road bikes keep the q factor as narrow as possible. 157+ is a horrific development for pedaling efficiency in many respects. You have the inefficiency of a bad q factor combined with hitting your heels on the frame all day long. Eddy Mercyx would be horrified if he rode this bike.
If you don't think the rear end of something makes a difference in aerodynamic testing you lack basic common sense about aerodynamics. Pretending that a 157+ is just a aero as a 135 is pretty disingenuous, but I'm getting used to your grasping at straws.
"But it is an absolute fact that a narrow bike is faster than a wider bike if everything else is equal"
Yeah, absolute fact indeed...
So following your reasoning, a fox 40, which got 40mm stanchions and a 716.5 mm height (from axle to top crown) got a 71.65 cm2 increase (figure a 8.46 x 8.46 cm surface) of its cross-section versus a RS boxxer with 35 mm stanchions (a full 10 mm width difference)...
Any evidence guys with fox 40 are slower than guys with boxxers ?
And you really believe than a 4.5 mm increase of rear axle width will change something - aerodynamically ?
If you're in for aerodynamics 101 please go back to physics school and learn f.....g fluid dynamics and drag calculations...
But please be kind and keep your absolute facts for fox news.
"That's not very impressive considering most people wouldn't be likely to run those cranks on an aggressive bike with 157 spacing."
Yes it's absolutely impressive since you can have the qfactor of an XC bike on a 157mm width real axl...
That's progressive engineering, what is so hard to understand ?
Even the guy from MTBR state that it will not change anything for trail bike riders (your own citation):
"However, this is only really a change for XC riders, as enduro riders usually run wider pedals mounted to 177 mm Q factor cranks anyway."
So no, sorry, there is absolutely no evidence that "157+ is a horrific development for pedaling efficiency in many respects" .
It's just in your mind.
And you can repeat it as much as you like, it will not become a truth.
You can summon Eddy F. Merckx or Bernard F. Hinault or even His Greatness Louison F. Bobet, 157+ has still the same qfactor as a 142/148 trailbike or even a XC bike if you want to put a lightweight crank on your bike.
I gave you the figures. That's a fact.
You don't acknowledge a difference in aerodynamics. You don't acknowledge when people hit their heels on wide frames it slows them down. You don't acknowledge q factor efficiency. You don't acknowledge it makes expensive 148 hubs useless. You don't acknowledge that existing frames and wheels are already stiff enough. You don't acknowledge that customers never asked for this. You don't acknowledge that bike companies did this for their own reasons and customer needs had exactly 0% to do with that. All these things are obvious but you acknowledge none of them. I feel like Biden in the debate with Trump. Do you ride a SB+ bike? That might explain your stubbornness.
" it's not worth it"
I agree that it's not worth debating for yourself since you cannot bring valid points to the conversation.
You don't acknowledge it makes expensive 148 hubs useless. You don't acknowledge that existing frames and wheels are already stiff enough. You don't acknowledge that customers never asked for this. You don't acknowledge that bike companies did this for their own reasons and customer needs had exactly 0% to do with that.
Lmfao, yeah he's not biased.
"I never said anything about forks but I know for a fact that a narrow bike is faster"
Bike with fox 40 are wider than bike with boxxers but they win races at least as much.
So cross section differences between boxxers and fox40 makes no winning difference despite being one order of magnitude greater than crosse section increase generated by 157+ vs whatever you like.
So no, a narrow bike is not always faster. We are living in a non-linear, counter-intuitive world, sorry.
So I don't know if you are really able to catch it, but this show that what you believe about aerodynamic is defintelively not applicable to MTB... i.e. your common sense is useless for complex drag calculations.
And 157+ don't change anything on race results.
"You gave up on your weak q factor argument pretty quickly."
I get it ! You're upset with numbers.
Come on, make my day, I gave you the figures, explain me what I gave up with clear and intelligible terms for once.
"You don't acknowledge it makes expensive 148 hubs useless. "
Oh yeah ! This one ! I acknowledge this one !
148 will die, slowly phagocytized by 157+ in the same way 142 has phagocytized 132 and 148 for 142 ! I get it ! You don't believe in evolution theory !
Seriously, I believe this is your main issue with 157+... You're butthurt.
"You don't acknowledge that existing frames and wheels are already stiff enough."
Stiff enough for what ? On which scale ? Any figures about stiffness ? No. Just "common sense". As for all your argumentation.
"You don't acknowledge that customers never asked for this"
Monkeys never asked for bananas, nor bananas for monkey before they meet...
Deserts never asked for rain. Romeo never asked for Juliet. Beavis for Butthead.
But good, independant engineers did for 157+.
"You don't acknowledge that bike companies did this for their own reasons and not customers."
Devinci, Pivot, Mondraker, Knolly.
All engineering and rider oriented companies, with lifetime waranties on their frame and 0.5% market share togethers and against all every others...
Not your typical trekalized evil...
"All these things are obvious"
Sure they are for you, but you're alone....
"I feel like Biden in the debate with Trump."
Sorry, I feel like Bidden.
You argue like Trump : “More aerodynamic. Narrow is faster. Not alot but enough to make a difference if you lose a DH race by. 05 seconds.”
Just common preconception and anger.
"Do you ride a SB+ bike?"
Sorry to deceive, I'm still on my good old 12x142 27.5 warden C because it is well enough, but from an engineering standpoint, despite all your belief, 157+ make a lot of sense.
I know, I know, I'm a troll hunter myself...
Great for vorticity reduction !
Thumbs up laminar flow !
Not as much as new bike standards, obviously
Gnarilized: "Devinci, Pivot, Mondraker, Knolly.
All engineering and rider oriented companies, with lifetime waranties on their frame..."
Yeah, I imagine the lifetime warranty had something to do with the decision to go to 157 on trail bikes. Again, it's nearly an exact parallel as when bmx companies with lifetime warranties were making 40-45 pound bmx bikes cause they couldn't make bikes strong and light and they didn't want to deal with warranties.
I'm not saying there is no place for 157+ trail bikes. Some riders main priority is strength and they will sacrifice other things for that. But by the same token there should be progressive companies who are actually trying to make bikes narrower(back to 135 hopefully someday), because it's a handling advantage to have a narrower rear triangle that isn't contacting your heels all the time. Nobody in their right mind is going to argue that having a super wide rear triangle is going to help bike handling.
If you really want the sport to progress you can't just focus on strength. I think part of the reason manufacturers thought they could get away with this is because 157 is the macho dh standard, so all the aggressive riders will respect it. No, we're not all that dumb, there are other factors. I think some of the bmx companies actually thought the same thing 20 years ago justifying the heavy bikes, and there were actually a few guys that thought they liked the heavy bikes. But the sport evolved and now they all want light bikes.
Is there a devinci importer for the uk though? Had a quick Google and I can't see any devinci bikes for sale here.
I know many DW designs have gone 157 and probably with good reason but for the average consumer 148 is probably going to be more popular.
Have to question the logic of putting being "right" in front of selling bikes.
Just give the ews team a 157 rear spaces triangle and sell a boost bike to the masses?
And you can't talk about constantly swapping wheels, because "the masses" don't do that. They buy a bike, they replace broken stuff with things that fit, they get a new bike in 3-5, or 15, years.
148 isn't "more popular" because people are cross-shopping and picking a bike just because it isn't 157. There are simply more of them out there with 148. Same thing happened when 148 first arrived. By count, 142/135 would have been "more popular", because it was on _all_ of the existing bikes ('cept 150 on DH bikes, but that's small numbers)
That's why I question the logic if you're a bike brand trying to sell bikes.
I don't have any interest in their complete bikes and no more aluminium frame only option so I'll still wait for the carbon/alu frame only price in case of.... only because they are SuperBoost! I was looking at a Norco Sight, Commencal Meta TR or Meta AM aluminium frame only but after reading so much comments about noodle 29er wheels, I really wanted a SB bike if going 29er so happy about this new option!
Also depends of colorway...Meta polished frame is only available as a frame. 2021 Sight is super nice in black but in 2020 I would have buy a complete bike as they were way nicer!
I am on my third custom build and going on my fourth if selling my bike for a new 29er and I have done a lot of maths before doing it... haha
But we understand everyone has their own taste and preferences, this is why we do offer 5 colors throughout the Troy lineup.
Bb is real though. That’s some serious bullshit to not thread it. In the name of simplifying service for a vehicle that is only used off road it’s the right choice
Yeah you're right, they always complain about everything without even having riding it!
It just makes no sense to me to buy a bike where if my legs are 3" longer than the leg length the bike was designed around my seat angle might now be 72 degrees instead of 77 degrees.
I'm sure there are important suspension packaging issues that make this necessary, but personally I'd choose a bike with a different suspension layout.
There are obviously designs that’re better than others though and some manage to keep the actual and effective angles closer to one another. You may then find there’s another issue with a short cockpit when seated and long when stood.
You literally go around in circles with bicycle geometry.
wide rims over 35mm and 26 tires
short cranks
It's worth to try
At the end of the day, we make durable products and we stand behind them. If a frame would suffer from a manufacturing defect, we take care of it.
Companies cover themselves because there are always people abusing and doing things that don't make sense and try to profit of the company.
If doing that, I don't think it would be a problem but I think you're wrong for the bike shop... That's the easiest thing for Devinci to ask for, a receipt! Or even ask directly to the bike shop so no chance there! Probably 200+ to build a bike in a bike shop?! So I'll have to add that to the frame price and they won't offer the cheapest alumiium one so pretty sure I'll stick with the two other options I had before... Commencal Meta or the super cheap Norco Sight!
First sentence, that's exactly what you missed. No one will never know if you did get your bike build in a shop or not, so just tell you did!
No, we can't answer all the warranty claims and questions here. Best way is the following:
1- Check with your local dealer. This is the best and fastest way to deal with warranty claims and any other questions you may have regarding your bike.
2- For other issues, contact us at service@devinci.com
*Please note that with Quebec regulation, we had to run on limited staff and this season has been crazy so they are doing the very best to catch up and answer as fast as they can new request.
My LBS had to take it upon themselves to re-assemble the rear triangle of a brand new Wilson from your factory (this was 7 months after it arrived in the shop, and unable to be ridden in that duration).
A new Alberta representative is probably the solution.
All black Carbon with that XT build. Ideal. Maybe a carbon wheel option.
As we previously explained (when the Django came out last year), it has been hard for us to keep up with the increased demand for these products and we are currently completing the expansion of our factory. In the meantime certain high volumes bikes had to be outsourced and this 4th gen Troy is part of it.
BUT we are very stoked to have 3 new models 100% made in Canada that will be added to the lineup this year. Can't tell you all about it now, but @thetruejb to answer your question, nop, that ship has not sailed. We are still working hard to keep a good chunk of the prod here in Canada!
#Proudly Canadian
Does that mean it isn't tubes-in-tubes? Then hard no. You'll need wide ports to make room to shove in some foam tubes to keep things quiet. That's not easier maintenance.
And how about that 6 inch internal bit on the brake side chainstay? That's just silly. Without that, you might have been able to remove the brakes without cutting the cable, since the banjo/end-piece might fit through those wide ports in the front triangle, but no way it's fitting through those tiny holes in the chainstay. So definitely not easier maintenance there either.
Spartan was Papa Bear and Troy was Baby Bear on every one I've ridden.
The shop in Asheville now "selling" Devinci has zero interest in getting @cyclesdevinci bikes into their shop anyway. Can't believe I live here and we don't have a Devinci dealer any more.
being superficial and looks do more than functionality but that’s me....
Im waiting to test a Druid , a Hightower , à Salsa and waiting o the new Patrol and Bronson before I buy a new rig.
Presently I ride a Bronson V3 with Saints , big tires , good geo on bars and plastic wheels from Santa Cruz
Why not just have the cable exit the downtube a couple inches further back? Seems silly to have the cables clamped by the exit port and then clamped again a couple inches later by this shock mount thingy.
Article says bb height changes by 3mm but geo chart says it varies by 7mm, dafuk?
Buyer from the Los Angeles, CA
Thanks!
Are the metal frames welded in Canada?
The gx aluminum is sweet and priced right!
Big Nate I don't think anyone can take that from Eminent. I feel kind of bad for them, especially seeing their bikes deeply discounted. Can't imagine they'll survive.
Anyways I'm not a huge fan of the desert sand color but actually dig the combination of curvy and industrial on this. I had a quick demo on the (now old) Troy29 and didn't jive with it, but this looks like a solid update.
Aluminum 180/170mm Spartan with 63 HA, 78 SA and 490 reach... you will have my attention. No baby blue! Just let that color die already. Lol