Recapped
2018 PINKBIKE
FIELD TEST
Whistler, British Columbia
Photography by Trevor Lyden
With our scabs and hangovers from Crankworx barely beginning to heal, we headed back up to Whistler to pit a dozen of the latest and most exciting bikes up against what are arguably some of the best trails in the world. The ingredients for the 2018 Pinkbike Field Test: Twelve new bikes, five technical editors from around the globe, a few cameras, and a whole lot of good times and good food.
Because arguing about arbitrary comparisons is one of our favorite things to do, we split the bikes up into three loose categories based on their intentions; trail, enduro, and super enduro. While the latter spent two weeks smashing out Garbonzo laps up in the Whistler Bike Park, the trail and enduro machines were treated to some of the finest singletracks - both up and down - that the Whistler Valley has to offer. Non-stop roots and rocks? Check. Butt-puckering steeps? Check. Tired legs and sore hands? You know it.
Below, you'll find all twelve Field Test video reviews, as well as a comparison video for each category that lays out the strengths - and weaknesses - of every bike. Aaaand we hucked them to flat in slow-motion on account of bro science.
Giant Trance 29
115mm of travel coupled with a progressive geometry and aggressive component spec.• 115mm (R) / 130mm (F) travel
• 29" wheels
• Carbon frame
• 66.5° head-tube angle
Full Field Test article Pros
+ Supple, effective suspension performance
+ Parts spec won't hold anyone back
+ Progressive head tube angle & reach for the category
Cons
- DVO dampers not proven (yet)
- Uncomfortable seat
- Seat tube angle could be steeper
Cannondale Habit Carbon
The second incarnation of the Habit is exactly what the original left us wanting for.• 130mm (R) / 130mm (F) travel
• 29" wheels
• Carbon frame
• 66° head-tube angle
Full Field Test article Pros
+ True trail bike versatility
+ Needs nothing component spec
+ Excellent small bump compliance
Cons
- Fussy suspension setup
- Low-ish BB. You may get tired of banging your pedals
- Tall seat tube cramps dropper post travel options
GT Sensor Carbon
GT's redesigned Sensor pays homage to the famous LTS.• 130mm (R) / 130mm (F) travel
• 29" wheels
• Carbon frame
• 65.5° head-tube angle
Full Field Test article Pros
+ Efficient pedaling action
+ Light weight for this price point
Cons
- Rear suspension isn't all that plush
- Level brakes are underpowered
- You'll need to factor in real tires into the MSRP
Yeti SB130
We see a lot of bikes come and go but the SB130 has become the "go-to" for aggressive trail riding. Its all around prowess in both ascending and descending technical terrain keep it as a top choice for a variety of riding.• 130mm (R) / 150mm (F) travel
• 29" wheels
• Carbon frame
• 65.5° head-tube angle
Full Field Test article
Testers: less riding, more donuts?
Some of the comments from readers saying to eat less donuts, are try paleo are moderately amusing, but I do notice a trend in comments from the lightweights stating if you weigh around 200 pounds, then, you're basically a fatty. Different body types dictate different amounts of lean muscle mass and height also plays a factor as well in weight. I'm only 5'10.5" but I'm not chubby at all at 200 pounds. I remember several years ago I got the running bug (even though I don't like jogging) and was around 195 and you could literally see my ribs. Friends commented on if I was ok and I'm a guy barely over 5'10" weighing 195 pounds, with very low body fat. I've seen many testers in the 160-170 pound range across biking forums that certainly aren't sporting single digit body fat, so body types definitely play into this as well, although I don't mind the humour on here because most keep it light.
Then as we have learned on Downtime Poscast with Jason Chamberlain of Specialized, amateurs don’t put nearly as much force on bikes as pro riders.
As to folks advising diets... my God...
I'm sure there are a few shredders out there that are heavy, but the majority aren't....That's just the way it is. No offense.
Joking about what exactly? "Paul Aston" Oh, I get it, I have to be taller than 6'1" to weigh 200 pounds and be lean? Ok, I thought you were supposed to be fairly smart and all that shit? I'm actually lighter now than when I was younger and not a desk jockey. I used to be really lean at 205-210. Now more around 205-200. I'm not some extremely rare, athletic specimen who can be lean at 200+ pounds, standing under 6 feet tall. It's called genetics and body type. My Granny showed me a newspaper cut out of one of my Uncles (from my mom's side) hockey team from his Junior days and he was listed at 5'11" 215 pounds lean at a time when there was very basic weight training and or no nutritional advancements like today, and he was still pretty damn lean even at 220 pounds. Just manual labour, hockey, and genetics for why he was well over 200 pounds at only 5'11". If you have a hard time believing me, then you should have seen some of the farm kids I grew up with. Shit brick houses who out weighed me lean close to the same height without ever stepping foot in a gym.
I don't get into pissing matches online and boasting about what I could lift when I was in college either, but yeah, I could put some weight on the bar and bring it back up.
So yeah, having a bigger rider test bikes wouldnt be a bad idea. Not everyone is flyweight bud.
Richie Rude can squat some weight though Rude is obviously in shape with a decent amount of lean muscle mass, but he also isn't someone you would look at and think, wow, that dude is just massive for weighing 205 lean at only 5'11".
As to diets, as long as in-out sums are in check, the rest is religion.
No one is calling Richie Rude too lean and it’s really not that exceptional for a human being to weigh 200 pounds at around 5’11” and remain lean. It was my uncle I was referring to by the way and he had more lean muscle mass than me at the same height but was also much more barrel chested.Once again different body types, bone and muscle densities. Genetics. Not man Boobs or whatever the f*ck else you are going on about.
You will argue until you are blue in the face, because that’s just what you do on this forum, but it is what it is. Some people just aren’t fat at a weight of 200 pounds+ who are not over 6 feet tall.
Same way no one who knows what the word 'average' means is stupid enough to think that people over or under the average are unusual, and yet that's the gist of his argument there.
Waki can, for the most part, form sentences and sound like he has some idea what he's talking about. Ergo, he's not as stupid as he claims to be. He sure does claim to be stupid though.
Richie Rude weight trains, is in good shape and I'm sure he eats well, and uses supplements. Bottom line is that he is not tall, weighs 205 pounds, and while Rude looks and is fit, he also doesn't look like a body builder either or someone who is overly bulky with too much muscle on a frame that is sub 6 feet tall. Contrary to what someone like Waki will maintain and throw up diatribes of rambling context, an individual doesn't have to be well over 6 feet tall to weigh 200 pounds or more and remain lean.
Hey Weens, I used to have an account on here for years, and it lapsed with changes to the website or something, but I have always been checking in and am well aware of Waki and his trolling. Once in awhile he contributes in a positive way, or throws something out that is kinda funny, so you need to wait for those rare moments on here lol. With that said, yeah, he likes to rant, lash out and hang on to vague points to try and win a debate on a biking website when there usually isn't an argument to begin with. Like this discussion. Waki states I have to be joking because I am 205 pounds lean at around 5'11" and better be over 6'1" to be able to weigh 200 pounds lean. Then when people point out that it is indeed possible, and not hard to find examples, he goes into diatribes talking about Canadian averages for size, manboobs, relative interpretations of what lean means to different people, etc. It's hilarious in a sad kind of way. Whatever it takes to appear to be coming off as right, or intelligent.
@Darkwoods - I would need to see a photo of you if you claim it is possible to be lean at 200lbs at 5,11. I am not really lean anymore and weigh 10lbs less that that. When I'll get lean again in 2 months I'll be 170. And I have heavy bones. Other fit dudes I know at this height tend to weigh 160 or less. So if you have 30lbs in your bones I want to see that, because 30 is not hair splitting.
Just stop already. Wow. Yeah, yeah. You have heavy bones and weigh 170 pounds lean??? This means I would have to have a similar body type as you and weigh close to the same when I am lean? Wtf are you on about? Then you point out you have buddies who are lean at 160 or less? Photos? I haven’t been 160-170 pounds since I was around 15 years old and I wasn’t even finished growing yet for f*ck sakes. Lol. You are so utterly clueless sometimes man.
So there are pictures of Richie Rude being 5'11" and the guy weighs 205 pounds and he doesn't look like a f*cking body builder at 205 either, but you are saying it's not possible for me to weigh 5 pounds less lean at the same height? Seriously? You are the one who is tripping and applying metrics existing for yourself to everyone is absolutely insane. It Literally is. Because Waki doesn't weight 200 or 205 lean, I can't, or no one else can who is 5'11"? You are seriously fuggered bud, and yes, I can tell you I have more lean muscle mass than you at 2 centimetres taller. Absolutely.
This is a pure curiosity question.
Body mas indexes only take an average and you DO NOT have to be a gym rat to weigh 200 pounds and be lean at 5’11”. Yes, the average bmi states 170 pounds as an AVERAGE, which is what you are grasping at here. As stating previously you will go around in circles and continue to argue but the simple fact is you just used yourself and buddies as a comparison which is ridiculous. I or someone else could carry up to 10 pounds more lean muscle mass in the legs legs alone without ever having worked out. It’s called genetics. As previously stated, your lean body weight is what I weighed as a teenager before I was done filling out and finished growing, yet you continue to pontificate, throwing up smoke screens about averages etc. The bottom line is someone like myself at 5’11” can have much more lean muscle mass than you and it doesn’t mean I or other people with similar builds have to be lifting weights constantly either. I was going to be a 200 pounder regardless and my Uncle who was 215 pounds easy wasn’t a gym rat and take away physical labour and sports, he still would have been over 200 pounds lean because of his genetics.
www.instagram.com/stories/blazedcreek
This is a pic of me and I would have been around 210 pounds for sure when this picture was taken and I can assure you I wasn’t deadlifting 650 pounds or squatting 500 pounds at the time. I was working ad labourer in forestry in the summer and was spending very little time in the gym. I’m a bit lighter now with my lean weight because I’m not as active, so I have less muscle mass, and I’m older but still lean at 200 pounds.
It is misleading to say It’s unusual for someone like rude to weigh 205 pounds at 5’11”. It’s not like he is one in a million to be at this weight at his height and be lean. You sure are making me feel special though
@Darkwoods:
Spare us all of the first date banter and just skip to emailing each other dick pics.
Fair enough and agree to disagree on a few things. I believe it is outside the realm of normal averages for someone like myself to weigh as much as I do at my height and remain fairly lean, but I don't see it as unusual either. It could be from the demographic that I grew up with as well because it just wasn't that rare for a 5'10" to a 6 foot dude to weigh around 200 pounds and be pretty lean.
. I meant bodybuilding as general term but understand lifting applications fit in and I certainly don't want to get heavier and that's been the goal for years. I find it very easy to add lean mass with resistance exercises if I don't limit what the proteins I eat and really increase the cardio. There is very little benefit in weighing 215 pounds at under 6 feet in the real world and I prefer to be really lean at 200 pounds opposed to more muscular at 210+.
Haha. Silliness ensues. I Just deleted the picture. Got carried away and wanted to show it’s very possible to weigh over 200 pounds at under 6 feet without being fat or chubby but who cares.
I used to be a lot lighter (160lbs) in my DH racing days then got heavier into my late 20's (200+lbs but still ride hard) and things have definitely changed.
Rims have become a consumable item.
Brakes are expected to overheat halfway down. It's sad that I can't definitively say my XT's from 10 years ago are better than many of the brakes today.
Pressures cap out at 30psi or else you start getting uneasy about how hard you can lean into a steep berm without your tire casings giving way (non-dh casing).
I have to run pressures quite hard and enjoy a dead suspension setup with slow rebound, but some entry-level suspension products don't have the adjustability range to have strong enough rebound damping for shocks set at higher pressures. (looking at your RS).
But surprisingly, most frames these days are much better built and much stiffer than frames from when I was lighter. Being a heavy guy makes me much more worried about the tires. It's alright on dry days but when it gets wet, the slick rocks make running hard tires a pain in the ass.
I've seen many a variety of body types there but some of the men are tall and wide too. They like their Pulla and it shows. Not sure how Sweden is doing now days with all them MacDonalds everywhere. Spose that was price you paid when going to the IMF for a handout.
Me, 189cm and about 77kg aka 6'2.5" and 170 pounds
Fasting might be better than diets for those wanting to loose a little and no, not the Gandhi style, 16hrs between eating per day will do the trick. Doesn't effect stamina either or the US wouldn't use Keto as part of their madness for their Sec Ops ppl.
Then there are giants and at 189 with slightly larger than average feet and hands, I would hate to think of the crap they go through to get gear for their sports. Gloves and Shoes can be annoying to find good fits for be it MTBing, Motorcycling or Skiing. Luckily I didn't have problems finding Point Shoes for my Ballet
I didn’t know all you guys were into fat shaming! Might stay here.....
Hype...
Isn't an allround bike defined by the variety of terrain which it is nice to ride on?
It's almost as if... gasp> ...it's not an all-rounder but rather biased towards shredding the gnar
Pulling your leg here, I think I get what you meant - the bike goes well both up and down, all day epic or shuttle session, but if your trails don't reward that active suspension, it will feel like a bit of a boat. That right?
- better stay with alu than low/medium quality carbon frame/rims
- forks only top options like 36,lyrik,...
- dh brakes
- dh tires
- 170+mm dropper
- at geo, know the reach number you want and search for bikes with 77+ seat tube angle
Conclusion: You shred harder than them because you eat too much.
"Nice Testicles"
Fact check:
170lb or 77kg is right between the averages for Europe (156lb/71kg) and North America (177lb/81kg). It's neither on the light or heavy side, it's bang on in the middle. With everyone except Daniel in the 160-170lb range, I'd say the group was representative of the average rider that the bikes were designed around (rider, not bodybuilder or couch potato).
Inb4 'they're short, and tall guys are heavier'; they're actually ranging from short-ish through exactly average (most of them) to quite tall (Paul). And the tallest is not even the heaviest. The shortest is among the two heaviest.
Just because you're heavier than average, doesn't make the average guys 'light'. It just makes you 'heavy'. Yes, it affects your suspension setup, but maybe that calls for a specific 'clydesdale bike review'. Maybe get Richie Rude to do it This one here will be relevant to the majority though.
Needs a steeper seat angle and a slacker head angle.
Additionally, factor in real cost to your opinions. Yes, the Yeti range is very very good, but if you had to would you spend your own money to get it? Such-and-such bike is a great at xyz; yes but is it worth an extra $1000 over a bike that's almost as good?
We love to see expensive shit like the Unno bikes but regular consumers I think could really benefit from more experienced riders telling us whether a certain advantage of one bike/component set is worth the money over another one.
Chance for a normal PB'er/rider to be part of the review.
Me vs @mikelevy donut eating comp.
If you use different tech because you think it is more accurate, you should simultaneously use strava to see how different your mean times were. Surely many people would be interested in those data.
Also, assuming some sort of random noise distribution in the Strava times, improving that signal to noise quickly necessitates an unrealistic number of runs on each bike.
My main point is, random variance really only affects your standard deviation size, not your mean, assuming you don't have a ridiculously small sample. You do need super super accurate tech to detect a tiny differences, but if the differences are that small, I would say that there is no practical difference.
Strava is neat and it has a place, no doubt there, but not when thousands of people are going to be looking at the timed results, with many of them basing their call on what a bike's time was. There's so much more to it. But yes, we'll use more Freelap timing in the future. Comparing times does certainly have a place
It's Freelap or nothing
It's even better when the bike has already been reviewed.