Recapped: The Complete 2018 Pinkbike Field Test

Jan 20, 2019
by Sarah Moore  


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.





TRAIL


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

Pros

+ Versatile and capable
+ Excellent traction
+ Doesn't hold descenders back from climbing to the top
Cons

- Expensive
- Slightly tight rear tire clearance





Editors' Choice: Trance vs Sensor vs Habit vs SB130







TRAIL / ENDURO


Specialized Stumpjumper 29

Jack of all trades, master of none?

• 140mm (R) / 150mm (F) travel
• 29" wheels
• Carbon frame
• 66.5° head-tube angle

Full Field Test article

Pros

+ Great generalist
+ Active suspension provides tons of traction
+ SWAT sure is convenient
Cons

- Geometry is a bit conservative
- Not all that efficient under power
- Specialized's dropper post is a miss





Trek Remedy

"This is one of the few 150mm bikes that I'd be happy to do huge days on."

• 150mm (R) / 160mm (F) travel
• 27.5" wheels
• Carbon frame
• 65.5° head-tube angle

Full Field Test article

Pros

+ Versatile, well-rounded package
+ Impressive suspension performance
+ More of a long-legged trail bike than a bruiser
Cons

- Knock Block is silly
- Run of the mill pedaling manners
- More of a long-legged trail bike than a bruiser





Kona Process 153 Carbon

"I was in the air and manualing on the Kona more than on any other bike."

• 153mm (R) / 160mm (F) travel
• 29" wheels
• Carbon frame
• 66° head-tube angle

Full Field Test article

Pros

+ Surprisingly adept climber
+ More fun than fast
+ Extremely stiff and solid feeling
Cons

- More fun than fast
- Not a featherweight
- Suspension isn’t as deep or supple feeling as some other bikes





Santa Cruz Bronson

"Heels down, plow through all the things..."

• 150mm (R) / 160mm (F) travel
• 27.5" wheels
• Carbon frame
• 65.1° head-tube angle

Full Field Test article

Pros

+ Ideal all-rounder, as long as you have the proper terrain
+ Efficient, calm and composed climber
+ Excellent cornering performance
Cons

- Not the bike for riders looking for the absolute longest and slackest option
- There's no 29" version...





Yeti SB150


• 150mm (R) / 170mm (F) travel
• 29" wheels
• Carbon frame
• 64.5° head-tube angle

Full Field Test article

Pros

+ Very stable at speed and in the steeps
+ Excellent grip in wet and loose conditions
+ Good pedaling performance
Cons

- Expensive
- EXO casing tires aren't the best choice for a race bike
- Slightly limited rear tire clearance





Editors' Choice: Stumpjumper vs Remedy vs Process vs Bronson vs SB150







SUPER ENDURO
(or whatever it's called these days)


Pivot Firebird

The Firebird 29 is built for speed, whether that's in the bike park or between the tape at an enduro race.

• 162mm (R) / 170mm (F) travel
• 29" wheels
• Carbon frame
• 65° head-tube angle

Full Field Test article

Pros

+ Fantastic looks
+ Great pedalling performance
+ Excellent suspension
Cons

- Geometry could be more progressive, especially for climbing and larger sizes
- No easily accessible bottle cage mount
- Price





Devinci Spartan

A full on race rig with elite level stiffness.

• 165mm (R) / 170mm (F) travel
• 29" wheels
• Carbon frame
• 65° head-tube angle

Full Field Test article

Pros

+ Good pedalling performance and climbing position
+ Lyrik fork is easy to tune and a great performer
+ Stiffness could be good for harder/heavier riders
Cons

- Harsh suspension performance
- Stiffness of parts package may contribute to fatiguing ride
- Tires and brakes unsuited to bike's intentions





Scott Ransom

The bike’s 64.5° head angle means that it’s a comfortable descender. When you consider the long wheelbase too, it’s clear what sort of riding this bike is aimed at.

• 170mm (R) / 170mm (F) travel
• 29" wheels
• Carbon frame
• 64.5° head-tube angle

Full Field Test article

Pros

+ Good looking, well-specced bike
+ Fantastic on big hits
+ Light weight
Cons

- TwinLoc system compromises suspension
- Geometry could be more extreme given its intended purpose
- EXO casing tires on an enduro race bike





Editors' Choice: Firebird 29 vs Spartan 29 vs Ransom







3 Affordable Full Suspension Mountain Bikes Tested

Pinkbike added a trio of affordably priced trail bikes to the cadre of high-end dream machines we reviewed during our Whistler Field Tests. All three have aluminum frames and were priced under $3,000 USD, but that's where the similarities ended.

The Whyte G-170 S hails from the UK, wears 27.5-inch wheels, has aggressive gravity-specific geometry, 170-millimeters of rear-wheel travel and a 180-millimeter fork. Norco's Fluid FS 1 is more trail oriented, with 29-inch wheels, 120 millimeters of rear wheel travel and a 130-millimeter fork, and the third member of the cast, Transition's Scout Alloy NX, splits the difference between the two, with 130 millimeters of rear suspension, a 150-millimeter fork and numbers capable of handling all but the pointiest lines in the valley.

There are a lot of bikes to choose from in the $3,000 range, so we picked three different examples that embraced the best qualities of the genre to give the uninitiated bike buyer a feel for what's out there, and for which features are most important.

Full Field Test article





12 Bikes Hucked to Flat in Gratuitous Slow Motion


Full article with photos





There's a reason we chose Whistler for the 2018 Field Test...


THE RIDERS


2018 Pinkbike Field Test
Mike Kazimer
Discipline: Trail/Enduro
Height: 5'11"
Inseam: 33"
Weight: 160 lb
Notes: Managing Tech Editor, self proclaimed winner of all Mike vs Mike videos.
2018 Pinkbike Field Test
Sarah Moore
Discipline: Trail
Height: 5'7"
Inseam: 27"
Weight: 160 lb
Notes: Content manager, so nice it's almost concerning, and damn fast.

2018 Pinkbike Field Test
Mike Levy
Discipline: Trail/Enduro
Height: 5'10"
Inseam: 33.5"
Weight: 168 lb
Notes: Technical Editor, shit disturber, drives a ridiculous blue Mini.
2018 Pinkbike Field Test
Richard Cunningham
Discipline: Trail & value bikes
Height: 5'7"
Weight: 170 lb
Notes: Senior editor, industry legend, builds and flies airplanes in his spare time.

2018 Pinkbike Field Test
Paul Aston
Discipline: Super Enduro
Height: 6' 1"
Weight: 165 lb
Notes: Technical Editor, never ridden a bike that was too long for him.
2018 Pinkbike Field Test
Daniel Sapp
Discipline: Trail, Trail/Enduro
Height: 5'9"
Inseam: 32"
Weight: 152 lb
Notes: Technical Editor, his southern drawl compensates for our Canadian accents.

2018 Pinkbike Field Test
Alex Evans
Discipline: Super Enduro
Height: 5'10"
Inseam: 32"
Weight: 170 lb
Notes: Content Manager, refuses to turn on the heat in the winter, nabbed a Top 5 in UK DH Nationals back in 2005.
2018 Pinkbike Field Test
Support Staff
Thanks to Ryys Syryczynski, Chris Ricci, Trevor Lyden, Scott Barkemeyer, Tyler Lelacheur, Peter Wojnar, and everyone else who helped out on this project.


It was a tad hazy, with smoke from nearby wildfires making for some interesting views.

We had some mishaps.
But mostly it was a good time.

The Privateer made a special guest appearance to jump over Levy in his Mini for the bottom-out video.

We made some new friends, too.
And we found some loam.

And we got artistic.

Until next year...





Thanks for watching our antics this year—it's back to regularly scheduled reviews now, although we still have a few little video surprises coming up as well some select video reviews in the near future. We'll be back next year with another round. Aside from more hucks to flat and "field testing" Levy's ability to eat Haribo, what do you guys want to see next year?


210 Comments

  • + 149
 Field test but no fields tested, the farmers will be furious.
  • + 3
 We're used to it, nothing new. Just have to pedal a bit faster if you see a gun.
  • - 15
flag oldtech (Jan 19, 2019 at 5:37) (Below Threshold)
 Stink bike LIES!
  • + 0
 @stinkbikelies: come on man. What now? Why so you assume malice to what can be adequately attributed to subjective entertainment business.
  • - 2
 @WAKIdesigns: if I want bullshit I'll go to the farm with a shovel
  • + 3
 @stinkbikelies: If you honestly think that everything posted here is bullshit why not just remove it from your favourites and move on. Why are you expending your energy to be shitty in the comments? What do you stand to gain from this?
  • + 3
 @Patrick9-32: RC puts down some pretty quality content
  • + 58
 Pinkbike, will you or do you ever have legit clyde-type riders testing bikes? A +200lb rider is where the suspension can really be pushed and brake power truly tested. IMO at least. Would just be interesting to see if a bigger rider reaches a similar opinion on the review
  • + 38
 Readers: less donuts, more riding.

Testers: less riding, more donuts?
  • - 23
flag thevondals (Jan 19, 2019 at 6:11) (Below Threshold)
 You nailed it ... First thing i did is look at riders weight, to see who was over 200lb to get their review. Nobody. 165lb is a high schoolers weight.
  • + 7
 @PinkyScar: I'm not heavy, I just descend like a brick.
  • - 38
flag JohanG (Jan 19, 2019 at 8:02) (Below Threshold)
 @thevondals: I'm 6' 162 right now, pure muscle. Maybe try keto diet?
  • + 15
 For sure, I can totally understand why a larger/heavier tester would make sense. Something to keep in mind, though, is that there are a lot of big guys that don't ride nearly as hard or fast as some little guys out there. @thevondals I weighed 120lb in high school, I think haha
  • - 7
flag utley06 (Jan 19, 2019 at 9:17) (Below Threshold)
 @JohanG: I weighed 162 in jr high.. not everyone has a petite stature princess..
  • + 35
 @mikelevy: for sure, but then there are 220lb guys who also shred hard and fast and really put their bikes through it, what about them? Asking for a friend. ;-)
  • + 19
 Fwiw it's a big deal that they included such a wide number of users regardless of weight. I'm 6-4 200lbs and would like to hear from bigger riders but it's pretty awesome they had so many testers. Normally on almost all other sites we are lucky to just get a couple. Good on PB for getting the crew out and investing the time. No small feat.
  • + 9
 @mikelevy: Bring Radek out of retirement.
  • + 2
 Totally agree and this would be much more helpful for the larger riders checking out these reviews. Even a 185-190 pound reviewer could help give more insight. It's a huge jump from 160-165 pound reviewers to a rider who weighs 200 plus. In really good shape, I'm still over 200 pounds with gear, and I look at the Spartan in these reviews and think how it would feel under a heavier rider. Going by the stiffness comments and shock set up for the Spartan, I think there is a good chance it would feel supple and bang on for a 200 pounder.
  • + 3
 Even if it's not a 200 lb rider, someone bigger than 170 for sure.
  • + 1
 @PinkyScar: more discrimination from midgets; midgets don't think weight scales with height. They think anyone over 200# is fat. No, I'm a foot taller than you.
  • + 2
 @megaold: The Giant goes through all the things, including trees, large rocks, and anything else that's in the way!
  • + 1
 @mikelevy: Just gotta convince him that he doesn't need a motor in his bikes to do that anymore!
  • + 8
 @Weens:

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.
  • + 1
 @mikelevy: I'd be happy to be your test mule( 200LBs on a good day)
  • + 11
 @Darkwoods: I'm 6'-2" and weight 210lbs and definitely not fat. I would gladly have some of the lightweights call me fat to my face. None of this passive aggressive cowardly internet crap.
  • - 11
flag WAKIdesigns (Jan 19, 2019 at 15:05) (Below Threshold)
 @Darkwoods: you have to be joking. At 200lbs, you better be taller than Paul Aston or squat 500lbs. As we can see with testers like Paul or Mike Kazimer, they obviously couldn’t give much damn about caloric intake and the barbell is a rather alien tool to them. But they are young and skilled, so they don’t need to care about those things.

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...
  • + 1
 @mikelevy:

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.
  • + 3
 @Darkwoods: I'm in the same boat, I weigh 215 and haven't weighed under 195lbs since high school (close to 15 years ago). It's really difficult to find reviews from heavier riders, especially where it is super important like suspension and brakes.
  • + 8
 @WAKIdesigns:

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.
  • + 9
 @WAKIdesigns: Richie Rude is 93kg and he is definitly not as tall as Paul Aston.

So yeah, having a bigger rider test bikes wouldnt be a bad idea. Not everyone is flyweight bud.
  • + 2
 @TheBearDen:

Richie Rude can squat some weight thoughWink 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".
  • + 6
 6’3” 245lb here, a bigger rider is going to have more limbs to absorb things and someone who is strong and has good technique shouldnt be smashing the bike in to things, only time I feel like the bike is being pushed beyond its limit is going way too deep on a jump or heels down sending it thru a rock garden, aside from that its all reletive
  • - 7
flag JohanG (Jan 19, 2019 at 17:47) (Below Threshold)
 @utley06: What's up, tubby? Lot of fats on this website. Not really surprising considering your obsessions with coasting down hill.
  • + 3
 The only thing I’m learning from this thread is that apparently if you’re over 200lbs you are extremely thin skinned
  • + 1
 @Darkwoods: Ummm....doesn't he have some special diet or something that helps make him stronger?
  • - 2
 @Darkwoods: average Canadian is 174cm, a word “medium” found on clothes bikes, helmets means something after all, and if a 170-180 lad is 90kg, he either has some hard goods around his bones or what starts to look like man boobs. I know that in various parts of the world, the word “lean” meqns different things, but even if you were exceptionaly fat bone, you are after all exceptional, so was your grand dad. Not saying it doesn’t happen, just like Kaz and Aston do not represent the average by any means, but in most cases 90kg is the prelude to being chubby. Fat weighs way less than muscle. Richie Rude has at least 5 pounds more of strong and dense muscle than I do and I would not call him too lean. But if Richie wouldn’t have all this muscle, with the same weight, he’d have man boobs. Me at 75kg have waist circumference 6cm shorter than me at current 83 (178cm tall) If Richie is lean, then what is Nino Schurter then? Anorexic? 200lbs is upper zone of not fat, unless 20-25% body fat is the standard in your circles. It may be in Poland but it isn’t in Scandinavia. No point in getting offended or intimidated. It’s cold facts.

As to diets, as long as in-out sums are in check, the rest is religion.
  • + 5
 @WAKIdesigns:

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.
  • + 4
 @zyoungson: The problem is that weight has a real big impact on the way critical parts of the bike perform. A lighter rider might not experience frame or fork flex, lack of braking power, lack of compression/rebound damping, or durability that a heavier rider might experience. I've had forks that, even at 215lbs, were insufficiently damped, something that a 160-180lb rider wouldn't experience. So while there may be some (arguable) benefits to bigger riders having more strength and movement range, that doesn't negate the fact that problems may exist for heavier riders that lighter riders wouldn't experience. The reverse is also true for some components, a lighter rider may feel brakes are too powerful or a fork is overdamped, which is why it's important to have a wider range of reviewers with different weights, if possible (I think this is more difficult to manage than some would believe)
  • + 5
 @Darkwoods: you're arguing with a well-known troll. Waki finds if funny, for whatever reason, to say things he knows aren't true then argue about it. This is the same idiot that said he believes pro BMX riders generate more power than road sprinters. No one who knows what a watt is, is stupid enough to think that.
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.
  • + 3
 @matttauszik:

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.
  • + 3
 @Weens:

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.
  • + 1
 @shinook: Good comment. It is very true in regards to fork flex for heavier riders and suspension damping overall, and set up, as well as brake performance. Also, heavier riders just impose much more flex on the entire bike in general, which is why I would be interested in hearing from heavier riders in regards to the new Spartan in this test. Testers mentioned the bike was extremely rigid overall, taking away from comfort, which included the frame and Carbon wheel set, as well as the suspension needing to have a lot of sag to get suppleness out of it. Others commented that the lower priced Spartan felt really good, which doesn't have the stiffer carbon wheel set I believe and fewer carbon bits(?), so it would interesting to hear a heavier riders take on the same bike in this test, because there would be a bit more flex from a 200 pound+ rider and the suspension might feel better as well.
  • + 3
 Pick a man-bewb size and be a dick about it.
  • + 3
 @Weens: pro BMXers generate more momentary wattage than road sprinters. You can find that info on several sites and it is not hard to imagine that someone who makes his living out of 10 first pedal strokes will have more peak power, than someone who rides for 100+ miles to make one sprint at the end. It's rather obvious. Their physique is close to a track/ velodrome racer. If it wouldn't be so, they would be squatting 60kg like Peter Sagan and doing 3-4h rides, few times a week instead of squatting 200kg and throwing up their large intestine during sprint sessions. So do your research before you call people stupid.

@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.
  • + 0
 @WAKIdesigns:

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.
  • - 1
 @WAKIdesigns: If it's so easy to find sources, show one. It's impossible to put down more wattage than Sagan does with the gearing a BMX bike has. If you'd taken high school physics or grade 6 or 7 math, that would be rather obvious to you. Did you even graduate high school?
  • + 1
 @Darkwoods: I wouldn't be arguing with you, if your statement didn't seem insane to me by all standards. Because it does. This is me at 165 pounds www.instagram.com/p/BiMNHeSh5AJ . If you want to tell me that you don't have much muscle and with same height (you are whole 2cm taller) weigh 40lbs more still being "lean", you are fkng tripping mate. Complete skeleton of an average person weighs 30 lbs!
  • + 0
 @WAKIdesigns:

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.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: how tall are you? When I'm just as lean as you I sit at 180 and I'm 6'

This is a pure curiosity question.
  • + 0
 @Darkwoods, no I am applyign metrics of all the people I see around me, and people around me, for the given height weigh less than I do. Iam not lifting much, but I have just above average muscle mass. I said a few times that muscles weigh a lot, so no I am not surprised that Richie Rude weighs 205, because Richie Rude deadlifts almost 100kg more than me. This is how it makes sense. If you read my original comment I wrote that if you lift a lot it makes sense. If you don’t lift, it doesn’t. Of you have muscle mass of Richie Rude you are in 0.0001% of 5’10” folks who weigh 200lbs and are not fat. Which brings us to my original statement that: by average a 200lbs man who is not tall and not muscular will have man boobs. Most people are not tall and not muscular. Average is not every man in the world. So maybe it is you who is a bit oversensitive about yourself. Unless you identify with average, in which case you may as well indentify with transgender butterflies, because average rider at 5’10” who is not working out much and doesn’t have more than 20% body fat (ehich qualifies him as lean) will jot weigh more than 170lbs. 30 lbs under your estimate of normalcy. You can read on BMIs, fat percentages, bone densities, this is what will come up. Your anecdotal story is irrelevant. You are mot a regular person. I am much closer to a regular Joe than you.
  • + 1
 @TheBearDen: 5’10”. For comparison Jordan Feigenbaum weighs just above 200lbs, is 5’11” and deadlifts almost 650 pounds. So Richie Rude is also unusually heavy
  • + 0
 @WAKIdesigns:

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.
  • + 0
 @WAKIdesigns:

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 thoughWink
  • + 1
 @Darkwoods: I am not saying you are lying. I am saying that you are special. I don’t know how my measure of looking at people around me, which goes together with BMI, is faulty. I gave you a couple of examples fitting this scheme, including the monster like J Feigenbaum or his rather similar friend A Baraki are. I also talked lifting, not body building, since lifters tend to have more fat, stronger and denser muscles. Average XCer or dude like Kaz or Aston, has spun out most of their fat and excess muscle. They probably don’t eat loads either. They are just as unusually light as you are unusually heavy. Speaking of body types, Levy is evidently working harder to drop weight than those two struts are, and he will never get their watt to kilo ratio without going extreme. For them, it just happens. If you have such natural muscle mass, don’t waste it, go to hit the barbell Smile
  • + 1
 @shinook: Clearly bigger riders are going to be harder on components, but thats an easier fix. In the review they are talking more about frame flex which is not surprising considering manufactures generally beef up the frame on larger sizes and could be that Aston is a lighter rider but on an xl frame, also I think compliance is felt on the initial hit and less when the bike is deep in its suspension and you are going to feel harshness wether you are a light rider or not. It is interesting that someone like Troy brosnan is known for running custom linkages & unusually firm setups where taller riders seem to run regular setups or slightly on the soft side, and the way smaller guys slam the bike in to things where taller riders use more body movement I dont think they are putting as much load thru the frame as people might think.
  • + 11
 @WAKIdesigns:
@Darkwoods:

Spare us all of the first date banter and just skip to emailing each other dick pics.
  • + 4
 @kookseverywhere: hahahaha was thinking the same. Tall people are very sensitive, we, the midgets, can take waaay more abuse.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns:

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+.
  • + 1
 @Session603:

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.
  • + 3
 This is definitely something I can get behind.

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.
  • + 2
 @pipomax: So the Napoleon Complex is a tall person thing? Wink
  • + 2
 @WAKIdesigns: Umm, yeah, Nino is closer to the anorexic side. Do you really think he could take on Richie or anyone else like that? Do you think he is well-built or muscular? Have you seen pictures of him?! Chest, arms, etc. Sure, he can lift his bike, but given how light it is that shouldn't be too hard. I seriously doubt he can lift anywhere close to the several hundred pounds you keep going on about for everyone else . Comparatively speaking, he's tiny. He's a marathon biker... it's the same body type as a marathon runner, or anything else like that. Skin, bones, some muscle (but only as much as is necessary for the task that they do), and nothing more. The point you are missing is that there is no absolute golden standard definition of lean. Nino can be lean, and Richie can be lean; they aren't mutually exclusive! Just 'cause someone actually has a decent amount of mass doesn't mean they're fat.
  • + 3
 @mtbikeaddict: Napoleon Complex is just a myth and it exists largely due to biased against short people. Hence whenever someone tall behaves aggressively, people generally don't associate the behavior negatively with his height. What I can say is that some tall people have superiority complex.
  • + 0
 @pipomax: To some extent yes, but I've known plenty of shorter people who would get super touchy/aggressive whenever height (or anything alluding/similar to) was mentioned.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Whew, lucky Finland isn't considered Scandinavia just Nordic. Big Grin

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 Wink
  • + 2
 I'm not sensitive you prickeeed???? @pipomax:
  • + 3
 Oops, that was supposed to be a winky face not question marks. Great, I'm sensitive and a dumbass!!
  • + 1
 @gnarterrorist: *Pointe* shoes Wink
  • + 1
 @MelvieD: lol You mean " Wink "?
  • - 3
 I’m currently filling out my visa forms to move to Canada.

I didn’t know all you guys were into fat shaming! Might stay here.....
  • + 0
 @Session603 @Darkwoods: that was a good discussion and pictures were necessary.
  • + 0
 @gnarterroist: Sweden is doing rather well in BMI because of the social norms and veggie diet + work out mobbing present almost everywhere. For nearly 100 people strong office, we have no more than 3 chub chubs and only one fattie. And if you go around town, you see the same. The most fatties are immigrants. Disclaimer: I am an immigrant in Sweden and enjoy this privilege to be able to crap on other immigrants.
  • + 1
 @utley06: put down the donuts
  • - 4
flag utley06 (Jan 21, 2019 at 7:51) (Below Threshold)
 @stinkbikelies: If I weighed any less than 190 lbs I would look sick. You little guys need to understand that your "fat comments" are pretty ignorant and kinda sad. We actually look at you smaller framed men and have empathy for you and refrain from kicking your ass out of sympathy. I remember in high school all the smaller framed men pounding muscle milk and all kinds of synthetics so they could compete. It was kinda sad. I'm glad you found a sport like road biking where its an advantage to have a woman's frame. Good on you, I'm happy for you!
  • + 1
 @Weens: Just to be nitpicky: Peak wattage in BMX happens during initial accelleration, before running into gearing limitations. XC or road sprinters can put out more sustained power but that was not the point.
  • + 2
 @utley06: lol have another donut for me eh
  • - 2
 @kookseverywhere: lol suck a big dick for me eh?
  • + 1
 @utley06: don't be such a donut hole eh
  • + 1
 @Darkwoods: dude dopes. Full stop.
  • + 40
 Pinkbike really set the standards for Mtb journalism in 2018, keyword Downcountry.
  • + 20
 The Bronson - “Ideal all-rounder, as long as you have the proper terrain”. Still don’t understand what that means. Genuine question.....Is that an oxymoron or am I missing something?
  • + 33
 I means, "Move to BC."
  • + 5
 @mizzter-b it’s code for - it would be the perfect bike if it was a 29er.....
  • + 16
 It means that it's a mountain town all-rounder, not a flatlands all rounder.
  • + 1
 @brianpark: So is that like Down Country?
  • + 2
 @brianpark: you mean its a full on all mountain bike and not that suited for trail and XC?
  • + 4
 He means it’s good for every trail, as long as you ride the right trails. I say the same thing about my 10 year old hard tail 29er with a 70-degree head tube angle, “I can ride anything on this bike, except the things I can’t ride!!”

Hype...
  • + 0
 @skelldify: good for good trails. Not good for all trails.
  • + 2
 @brianpark: Fair enough, but what would a mountain town non-allround trailbike look like?

Isn't an allround bike defined by the variety of terrain which it is nice to ride on?
  • + 1
 [duplicate]
  • + 1
 @Ttimer: Giant Trance. Great bike, good "all round" bike for places with less rowdy terrain. Can still get down on some proper shit, but is out of its element with a shuttle day.
  • + 2
 @brianpark: "good for good trails. Not good for all trails."

It's almost as if... gasp> ...it's not an all-rounder but rather biased towards shredding the gnar Wink

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?
  • + 14
 I also feel that you guys should have a 200 pound tester. Makes a big difference when talking about flex in frames/cranks/forks as well as brake power/fade/modulation. 170 pounds as a max is unrealisitic for your average "6 foot something" rider.
  • + 7
 With the amount of riding these guys do, the new employee probably wouldn't stay above 200lbs for very long...
  • + 5
 @greendarthtater: They'd need to get on my donut diet.
  • + 8
 @greendarthtater: just keep him on the couch... hidden, waiting and ready in full kit, stuffing donuts through his full face. And when called upon, would slowly rise, mount his steed and send all the things... bike groaning beneath him.
  • + 3
 @mikelevy: don't forget beer in that diet, it is a very important part
  • - 13
flag Caddz (Jan 19, 2019 at 18:05) (Below Threshold)
 lighter riders shred harder? IMHO if you weigh less that 160 and are taller than 5’6” you don’t shred hard at all your basically a woman or a large child. You don’t have the strength to shred hard. I’m too fat and need a diet, but your weak and fragile.
  • + 5
 If I can help you.... I'm 6.5, 220+. Here's what to watch at new bike:
- 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
  • + 2
 Opinion: air suspensions feel different to riders who have to pump up the pressure. Also, a great way to test brakes is to throw them under a tubby shredder down a 10 minute DH run.
  • + 2
 @Caddz: You know you've just described Rachel Atherton and Jerome Clementz as Weak and Fragile.

Conclusion: You shred harder than them because you eat too much.
  • + 1
 @rickon: Well when you put it like that it sounds pretty stupid. Now where is my micro-brewed IPA and Pizza. All this fat shaming is making me hungry.
  • + 16
 Well done ladies and lads. See you next year!
  • + 13
 Nice test articles, but your crew topping out at 170 lb is on the light side!
  • + 24
 Had to double take that comment.

"Nice Testicles"
  • + 1
 @jlawie: on the light side?

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 Wink This one here will be relevant to the majority though.
  • + 1
 @bananowy: leave me outta this
  • + 2
 @jlawie: ah damn, that was supposed to be @Asphaltsurfer Apologies.
  • + 1
 @bananowy: Smile no worries bro
  • + 1
 @bananowy: respectfully the “mean average” you quote is not representative of the “majority” (over half of all riders). The point being made is that people would like to see a range of riders and I would suggest 140 to 224lbs (10 to 16 stone) would be reasonable given the range of heights.
  • + 12
 Field test recap:

Needs a steeper seat angle and a slacker head angle.
  • + 1
 Needs more downhill bikes!
  • + 3
 Also tougher sidewalls.
  • + 11
 You have to do the BEST AGGRESSIVE HARDTAIL TEST!!!!!!! Please!!????
  • + 13
 Ow ow ow ow ow.
  • + 5
 @brianpark: but make sure it's people that actually can ride a hardtail, and not people that are an awkward mess
  • + 1
 We already know all there is to know. Long, slack, low and STEEL!
  • + 7
 How about next time, you attempt to blind riders to the bikes and their geometry before they ride them. I guarantee the reviews are strongly influenced by preconceived notions of how the bike will ride due to their knowledge of geometry and which bike they know they are riding.
  • + 15
 So we (and especially myself) usually don't look at geometry or weigh a bike until we're well into the testing phase, sometimes not until afterward for that exact reason. I've been surprised so many times over the years because of this!
  • + 18
 I think there are work safety laws in place to prevent this kind of thing. No Bird Box bike tests here.
  • + 3
 I’ll second @mikelevy on that. I do my best to not see a geo chart until I’ve done a fair amount of riding on a bike.
  • + 1
 @brianpark: Bird box challenge all the test mules to get full unbiased opinions of these bikes. If you can survive it that is.
  • + 1
 @brianpark: you can always wrap stuff around the tubes, instead of your eyes.
  • + 7
 @mikelevy: That is a great approach. However, in the written reviews, PB often refers to geometry or spec details as explanation for the way a bike rides. This creates the impression that your conclusions are based to some extent on the geo chart, rather than on the feel of the bike. Particularly noticeable when it comes to fork offsets, which are often called upon as explanation for bike behaviour. But i don't buy that, partially because riders are generally unable to tell offsets apart in a blind test, and because most people in the bike industry don't actually know what influence fork offsets have on ride feel.
  • + 3
 Just an idea. All tests should be done against a 2 year old bike that is regarded in its category. That way there could be some comparison as to what the readers of the articles may already know. In today's price range of bikes, it is hard to commit to any bike purchase without a true grasp of what you are getting in to. Thanks for the article. I'm stuck between a Yeti Sb150 and Orbea Rallon. Never road either one, but they sound right!
  • + 3
 Great job in 2018. This year it would be cool to see more location reviews. Pack up the team in that mini and spend a week riding areas and giving honest impressions of the trails. Also be funny to see how many reviewers you could fit in that mini
  • + 5
 I got four bikes inside of it once. It wasn't comfortable.
  • + 1
 @mikelevy: 14-inch kids bikes don't count. And what the f were they doing in your car? Are you running a toddler pound?
  • + 5
 @BenPea: Child labor, actually. My puppy mill got shut down so I had to change it up.
  • + 1
 @mikelevy: that's what you get when you partner with Vick.
  • + 3
 There are a lot of "where is X bike, what about Y bike.... you forgot Z bike" comments.... does anyone actually watch the videos associated with these articles? Min 1:18 of the first video they explains that they only tested bikes that we completely new chassis for 2019 and that the manufactures could get to them in time.
  • + 3
 @pinkbikeaudience — where are the Evil bikes? They spearheaded the aggressive 29” movement and The Calling is an absolute 130mm shreader that the industry is only now catching up to. They have the build kits and price to compete against the very best, so where are their reviews?
  • + 2
 My Wreckoning didn't come with a warranty.
  • + 0
 @danlovesbikes: Seriously? Where did you buy it?
  • + 1
 @cwatt: Well technically it did, it just wasn't worth the paper as they didn't honour it.
  • + 5
 Least expensive builds of the coolest bikes (~$3500-5500) price point and standardized tires on all bikes. Good job though. Really enjoyed all tests in 2018.
  • + 2
 tires are such a big variable, and also are inevitably changed at some point, so this makes sense.
  • + 2
 I'd like to see/hear opinions of bikes/components that aren't being "tested." Just ride a bike for the sake of riding a bike. Take a road trip with it, go to a small non-worldwidely-recognized bikepark for a day, ride it on your commute, that sort of thing without looking for +'s and -'s. Afterwards, tell us what it was like. Compare them to your own bikes and parts.
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.
  • + 3
 No 29er option for the Bronson still drives me nuts...... It's a 27.5 that was designed and built around that wheel size. If you want a 150mm 29er Santa Cruz offers one, it's the Hightower LT. Come on guys.
  • + 4
 We address your frustration in the video. It's a tongue in cheek criticism of one of the best bikes available today. Smile
  • + 3
 I think one of the most useful things would be a constantly updating yearly bike review archive, maybe split into the relevant XC, down country, AM, enduro, super enduro, super-duper enduro, FR, DH, etc. categories.
  • + 5
 The Giant has a list of "cons" that can essentially be fixed with a new saddle. I declare it the winner of the test!
  • + 1
 Firstly, it's impressive how much work went into this. But, I don't really care if the $8-$9k version of a bike works or not. I'd really love to dig into if the $4-$5k version of a bike works. Does that extra bit of weight and less supple suspension turn a winner of a bike into a bit of a pig? A perfect example for me was a Trek Remedy 8, that bike was no fun with cheaper suspension, it was just pedal strike city.
  • + 3
 Maaaaaybe this year you can make the XC-WEEK!!! Testing bikes and some products, after all... There are more XCers than enduro/dh riders in the (wherever) country you are.
  • + 2
 Unfortunately the PunkBike readers are rad, gnarly dudes that only ride downhill... they take the lifts or shuttles to the top, they don't pedal uphill!
  • + 3
 I prefer the prior AL 153 process. It is one of the best bikes of all time without a doubt. The new model just never had that dialed glued on rails rocket ship feel for me.
  • + 2
 I love my '16 153. It's a decent climber that just needs some Eagle love and on the descents, it's the most fun bike I've ever ridden (which isn't many lol). But, I did demo the newer version and it was great fun without getting any time to dial it in. That's the great part of owning a bike, spending time tweaking them, and dialling them in to your needs. That's when bikes become special.
  • + 1
 "Aside from more hucks to flat and 'field testing' Levy's ability to eat Haribo, what do you guys want to see next year?"
Chance for a normal PB'er/rider to be part of the review.
Me vs @mikelevy donut eating comp.
  • + 4
 I never need an excuse to win a donut eating competition Smile
  • + 1
 @mikelevy: Great, game on! When can we do it? Razz
  • + 2
 @mikelevy: Downing Country cholesterol
  • + 1
 Ooooo! I know! @mikelevy this can be your next episode of "Humbled".
  • + 1
 You know what's great? I am so glad I have my bike. It rides like a lively slightly lighter Kona process. It's just the right bike for me. Perfect. For the first time ever I feel no bike envy.
  • + 1
 Since you're in Whistler, maybe add a few DH bikes? I know new ones don't come out each year like the rest of the categories do, but just a taste added to the mix would be nice.
  • + 4
 Yup, for sure. We have a downhill bike group test that will be released soon. Stay tuned Smile
  • + 3
 I'd like to see a brake test rig article with similar pad compounds and rotors. And smoke.
  • + 3
 Enduro-mtb.com/en does group tests. They did a brake group test on the Hope test rig last year or so. You may want to have a look there. Using similar pad compounds and rotors wouldn't be fair. Test them as a system as they're intended by the manufacturer. Shimano, Magura and TRP/Tektro for instance use different thicknesses of rotors. And some brands spec metallic sintered pads whereas others advice against it.
  • + 2
 @Pinkbike What took you guys so long? I love these head to head reviews and testing. Especially the videos! I how to see more for 2019!
  • + 2
 New Mike Vs Mike idea.....who has the best car, cos that Mini looks awesome
  • + 6
 I drive a '94 4Runner, and I can actually drive over speed bumps without scraping, so I think I win.
  • + 5
 @mikekazimer: I think I have more fun and make more noise, though.
  • + 1
 Would be cool to see a behind the scenes vid. Seems like you guys had fun riding/filming and be a treat to see. Great tests either way.
  • + 2
 That is hilarious, thnx for posting, make all of audience jellaous about time spent during the year
  • + 2
 I’m as surprised as anyone that the overall winner is the Kent Flexor 29.
  • + 1
 Based on that review of the Strive, might want to change Aston's description a little bit. Wink
  • + 1
 What do any of you know, my brand is the best at xc/trail/enduro/superenduro/downcountry/crosshill.
  • + 1
 The YTs must have been out of stock at the time of the test?
  • + 1
 Where the DH bikes at??? Super Enduro? Whats that ha.
  • + 1
 One female test rider? I guess thats a start.
  • + 12
 Don’t assume her gender Californian... and for all we know one of the other testers could be a female.
  • + 1
 Moar 29er's needed, said all the bike companies.
  • + 1
 I wonder what happened to Vernon?
  • + 3
 Vernon is a marketing honch at Specialized now. We miss him!
  • + 1
 Hardtail class.
  • + 0
 Nice “work”!
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.142117
Mobile Version of Website