Whyte G-170 - First Ride

Jul 10, 2017
by David Arthur  


British bike brand Whyte Bikes has been carving itself a solid reputation for several years with progressive bike design, both in terms of geometry but also in several other critical areas to bike design. For 2018, the company has two brand new bikes, the S-150 that you’ve read about previously on PB, but they’ve also been working on another exciting new bike, the G-170.

It replaces the G-160 I reviewed last year and is aimed firmly at the enduro market. It’s unashamedly a race bike, built on feedback from Whyte's sponsored enduro racers to meet the needs of racing at the top level. It's also Whyte's longest travel carbon frame to date, with 170mm travel at both ends and, yes you guessed it, it's long, slack and low.
Whyte G-170 Details
• Intended use: Enduro
• Rear wheel travel: 170mm
• Fork travel: 170mm
• Wheel size: 27.5’'
• 65º head angle
• 12x148mm rear axle
• Sizes: M/L in Carbon, S/M/L/XL in alloy
• Available in carbon or aluminum
• MSRP: $3,199 - $6499 USD with three models
• Contact: Whyte Bikes


Whyte G-170
Whyte G-170
The G-170 has a full carbon frame with space for a bottle cage and is designed around a single-ring drivetrain.


Whyte has built on the solid foundations laid down by its G-160 but evolved and refined every detail. It’s also committed to carbon fiber for the first time on a long travel platform, using the same factory as that make its popular T-130 C. There will also be an aluminum main frame option to provide a cheaper entry-level model. Carbon was chosen because of the weight and stiffness benefits it offers, but there’s no denying there’s an appetite among a large section of the mountain bike consumers that crave carbon, and it ensures Whyte can go head-to-head with the big players in this sector.

A signature feature of Whyte Bikes over the years has been the complete absence of the front derailleur. Whyte is a firm believer in the benefits of single ring drivetrains, with recent advances (most notably by SRAM) providing most of the range of a typical drivetrain configuration, and freeing up the area around the bottom bracket and seat tube to be better used to provide extra stiffness and tire clearance.

There’s also the familiar QUAD 4 suspension design, a four-bar setup with a chainstay pivot and short rocker linkage driving the top tube mounted shock. It’s been revised with a lower profile and collet design with oversized hollow axles to increase stiffness and reduce weight, and oversized high-quality Enduro bearings are used in the main pivots. Whyte has also ensured the suspension is fully compatible with metric air and coil shocks, and there's even space for a water bottle. The rear triangle is made from aluminum and a seat stay bridge increases stiffness. All cables and hoses are fully internally routed, with deep rubber grommets to keep everything in place and prevent rattling.

Whyte G-170
It's the first time Whyte has offered a long travel carbon fiber mountain bike

There are carryover details from the G-160 that we like, including the integrated seat clamp, which Whyte calls the InterGrip. It enables Whyte to keep the standover height low, and in using a longer travel dropper post up the size range you can choose a bike based on the reach. That’s a good thing because the carbon frame is only being offered in two sizes, medium and large - the alloy frame comes in four sizes from small to XL. There’s a Boost rear axle matched to Boost forks across the range, and tire clearance is massive, capacious enough to accommodate up to 3" tires. Whyte tells us 2.6" tires fit just fine, and it’s also offering a complete Plus wheel package, including wheels, Maxxis High Roller 2.8" tires, sealant, disc rotors and tools to swap the cassette over.

Whyte G-170
Whyte has specced its own 30mm wide carbon rim on the range-topping Works bike

The G-170 is available in three builds, the G-170 S with an aluminum frame for $3,199 USD, and two carbon models, the G-170C RS at $4,799 and the range-topping $6,499 G-170C Works that we rode and is pictured in this article. That bike gets a RockShox Super Deluxe Debonair shock and Lyrik RCT3 fork combo, Hope Pro 4 hubs on Whyte's own 30mm carbon hookless rims, and a full SRAM X01 Eagle groupset with Maxxis tires, RaceFace bars and stem and Reverb dropper post.


Geometry changes

Whyte has had its finger on the rapidly changing geometry button for many years now; it’s a small and nimble company that has managed to keep abreast of the evolving standards more than many of the larger brands. The main focus on the G-170 has been taking feedback from Whyte's sponsored enduro racers to produce a bike that can really compete with the best bikes on the enduro circuit.

There are changes to the geometry to provide a better front to rear balance to boost confidence on very technical terrain. It has tweaked the stack, reach and chainstay lengths to provide a more neutral riding position. The G-170's reach has actually decreased compared to the G-160 in order to help achieve that balance. Reach numbers are as follows: S: 442mm, M: 458mm, L: 479mm, XL: 502mm.
Whyte G-170

The chainstays are 5mm longer at 430mm, and the 65° head angle is 1° slacker than the old G-160. Whyte sizes its bikes by lengths, so although the carbon G-170 is only offered in two sizes - M and L - there’s generous standover clearance and long dropper posts. The entry-level aluminum G-170 is offered in four sizes. The seat angles are steep, measuring 75.19° on the large and 75.5° on the medium. The geometry chart shows the four sizes that the aluminum framed model is available in, but remember, the carbon version is only offered in M and L.


Five Questions with Whyte Designer Ian Alexander

What was the genesis for the development of the new 170?

Like almost all of our design projects, they are usually a continuation of the thinking that went into the bike that the new one is replacing and this is certainly true of the G-170. The work and development that has gone into the G-160 hasn’t stopped since we launched the G-150 in 2013 and a process of riding and testing has inevitably led to a close look at a lot of the areas where we wanted to either improve and do a better job but also at the same time utilise the new developments in rear suspension such as the new generation of metric shocks and new 27.5” tire size developments which are of course not insignificant. Geometry has also evolved as enduro racing has fed-back into our design process.

Geometry has been a clear focus for Whyte over the years, longer and slacker than most production bikes, how much have you pushed the boundaries with this new bike?

Geometry and the evolution of it with the G-170 have been very much about the feedback we’ve been downloading from our race team riders, chief among whom is Sam Shucksmith who has had a key role in the engineering of the G-170 as both a Whyte design engineer and a Whyte-Sram Enduro team riders. We've tried to refine the front-rear balance of this bike with some adjustments to the length of the chainstay and the front length (front centre length) but also in conjunction with a change in the dynamic ride height of the bike. The static ride height is actually the same as the old bike so it's been brought about by a larger leverage ratio at the start of the stroke (generating more rear wheel travel) inducing the ride-height to be lower at sag by 5mm which has enabled us to run 170mm cranks instead of 175mm. Overall the new bike runs and feels much lower but with the rebalancing of the rider's center of mass, the new bike gives G-170 riders a big step in that all important centralized front-rear balance.

The previous 160 had an aluminum frame, why the move to carbon for the 170?

Carbon composites give us a great opportunity at engineering a chassis that cannot be achieved with isotropic materials like aluminum alloy. The inherent advantage of composites means we can accommodate the massive structural considerations of a long 170mm fork and the forces that such a big fork can transmit into the chassis, but at the same time allow us to easily create shapes, spaces and clearances to accommodate the usually contentious issue in full suspension bike design of giving provision for the humble 750ml water bottle… which actually turns out to be an incredibly important issue for a lot of riders and yet seemingly dismissed out of hand by a surprisingly large number of bike brands. The aesthetics and design opportunities presented with a moulded frame allow us to explore a truly contemporary and modern frame shape and design which just isn’t possible with alloy tubes and when that’s coupled with the amazing properties of carbon composite materials allows us to make a frame that is incredibly strong first and foremost, but also presents us with the opportunity to lose weight over the equivalent aluminum version.

You’ve kept the same basic suspension layout, but refined the linkage design - what have you aimed to achieve with the suspension on the new bike?

We wanted more set-up choices for both our Whyte-SRAM team but also the enduro customers wanting to buy a bike that they could evolve not just one set-up but have a bike that they could change and develop across a long and varied season of racing. One area where the old G-160 didn't offer this range of setting up potential was in its leverage ratio which was very linear indeed at around 2.5:1 falling slightly to 2.65:1 and whilst we could get a good air-shock set-up with very minimal damping required, with the new G-170 we needed to be able to offer compatibility with the latest metric coil shocks as well, and that of course means adding in significant progression into the leverage ratio to account for the totally linear spring rate of a coil spring. The G-170 kinematic is a big step in this regard and this, of course, means that our team riders and by extension all our customers are at a great advantage when it comes to the variations in set-up opportunities.

You’ve also launched the S150 29er, with 29er wheels back in fashion again, how do you see the two bikes sitting alongside each other rim the range? Basically, how does a customer choose the right bike and wheel size for their riding?

I think you make a choice between trail bike and enduro bike... the S-150 has a foot in Enduro racing thanks to its shape, its spec, its kinematics that works with both air and coil shock set-ups as described above and not least, the hugely stable steering geometry that we have engendered with the reduced offset 150mm 29” RockSox Pike fork, but the G-170 is very much the tool for the more extreme EWS style tracks in so far as it has a big range of adjustments in suspension and chassis set-ups.




Whyte Bikes held the launch for its new G-170 at Afan in South Wales, an area teeming with trails of various grades of technicality, providing the idea opportunity to put the new bike through its paces. To give us more time assessing the new bikes descending prowess, we had the luxury of an uplift thanks to Afan Forest Safaris, meaning we could shuttle more runs and hopefully gain a greater insight into the G-170.

Although not the most in-depth ride, it was enough to form some good first impressions. The most immediate and obvious impression was how different it felt in handling compared to the G-160 I tested last year. The G-160 was a formidable bike, long and slack, but I never felt it really came to life unless its front wheel was pitched down seriously steep terrain, and a lot of body language was needed to shape it through turns. The G-170 feels more nimble, lighter on its tires and more engaging to quick direction changes, necessary on one of the black graded trails we rode. There's more agility at lower speeds as well, the steering is light and the front wheel is much easier to pop and manual compared to the reluctance of the old G-160, the front wheel of which was tricky to get off the ground. There’s more precision in how it moves around the trail and flows from one corner to another than I ever really felt with the G-160. It’s a much more playful bike.

Playful is all very well, but a bike built for enduro racing needs to be fast, to track the ground at speed and handle itself on blind technical trails. While it’s nimble at low speeds, it’s stable and reassuringly planted at higher speeds, allowing you to really let loose, helped by the longer chainstays. There's more progression in the suspension, and this extra support lends the bike better composure and pace through the rough, and it's supple on the smooth bumps and ramps up nicely to soak up the bigger impacts.

The G-170 certainly lived up to expectations - hitting a black graded trail for the very first time, with sharp corners, drops, deep chutes, sudden light changes and unsighted roots, the G-170 put in a commanding position to not only get through the trail smoothly and cleaning, but attack the corners and sections with better line of sight. I rode the top-end Works version with some every nice kit and the weight savings and stiffness from the carbon frame and Whyte’s own 30mm wide carbon rims inject some serious agility into how the bike lets you tackle technical trails. It also feels efficient on the pedalling sections of the trail, with plenty of support from the RockShox Super Deluxe Debonair shock in the middle setting.

A few runs aren’t enough to form a conclusive verdict - I’d love to spend more time exploring the G-170’s potential - but it’s clear from my time on the new bike that Whyte has built on the solid foundations of the old G-160 but improved it in many ways. It’ll suit the requirements of any top level enduro racer competing on the big stage, but I’m willing to bet it’ll also suit almost anyone in the market for a long travel trail/park bike.

Must Read This Week

170 Comments

  • + 236
 A yellow Whyte, a white orange, a Yeti with no fur, a small Giant, bikes keep getting more confusing.
  • + 91
 An ordinary specialized
  • + 56
 A mojo that's lacking a certain something
  • + 84
 A round Cube, an old YT, a first Last, a flying Bulls, a one-man Centurio, a mountain Canyon, a real Ghost, a non radioactive Radon and still no Star Trek. I feel pranked
  • + 25
 A santacruz not made in santacruz...
  • + 33
 @minimusprime: A Santa Cruz without reindeer
  • + 3
 Is there much difference between Whyte's and YT's?
  • + 2
 @drinkgoodbikes: different colours, slightly different wheels
  • + 2
 @watchtower: most intelligent response i've read in a while...
  • + 1
 A not nuke proof nukeproof
  • + 2
 not a "single pivot" pivot?
  • + 51
 Just out of curiosity (not trying to be a troll) how can adding 10mm travel and making it longer and slacker create a more nimble bike at slower speeds? My best guess is some form of pixie dust and Unicron tears, but it's hard to tell without riding it...
  • + 18
 It's hens teeth, inside the BB shell to be precise.
  • + 36
 Unicorn tears is a good guess, but my hunch would be that the slightly shorter reach when compared to the G-160 (478mm vs. 495mm for a size large) may be part of the reason for the more playful nature, along with the more progressive suspension curve. I haven't ridden the bike, though, so that's purely speculation.
  • + 6
 I've got a G160 and judging by the top tube numbers above, the G170 is >30mm shorter in the top tube on a medium. Like you say, it is slacker though. Interesting to see a brand go for a shorter top tube than the previous model.
  • + 6
 His previous ride was a raleigh superbe roadster
  • + 28
 easy... with marketing, you can make anything come true.
  • + 5
 @walterwhyte: Whyte was known for radically long top tubes / reaches. This may indicate that they've found a practical limit, at least in the eyes of their racers (if you believe that their input on this design was significant, as the article indicates).
  • + 4
 @mikekazimer: That does seem like it could be a possibility, but I think unicorn tears and pixie dust seems more realistic than a company deciding to make a shorter reach on a new bike Smile
  • + 5
 @mikekazimer: I hear they designed this bike while listening to Soldier Boy. No particular song, just the classics.
  • + 1
 I heard that aside of magic pieces of metal damping vibrations, Axxios is creating plates that make your bike more nimble and stable at the same time.
  • + 4
 It's not the stand over height doing it. Damaged groceries zone
  • + 6
 It's no Orbea Rallon.
  • + 2
 @jclnv: thankfully not
  • + 2
 @WaterBear:
No XL on the g160 though. The new XL is 7mm longer than the previous L (+20/25mm would have push them in niche-market territory). Looks like a new distribution of their sizes to me as their longest bike is longer than before.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: 3M has had a tape that does that for years, I still don't understand why more people don't use it.

I ordered a roll off Amazon for like 20 bucks. Bike has never felt so nimble.
  • - 4
flag jclnv (Jul 11, 2017 at 8:42) (Below Threshold)
 @IllestT: You don't understand geo. The Rallon has the best on the market.
  • + 12
 @jclnv: Easy there, cowboy. There's not one magical "best geometry." What you prefer may be different than what another rider prefers, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's why there's more than one bike company out there.
  • + 3
 @WaterBear: so, long top tubes were cool a few years ago, and now they're normal, which means we are rebounding back to short top tubes being cool (more nimble and playful), along with 26" wheels. There's still hope for my 2005 Heckler to be normal again.
  • + 2
 @mikekazimer: agreed, whether your talking various terrains, styles of ridding or intended use, no one tool can rule them all regardless of what marketing copy may spew
  • + 1
 @mikekazimer: Apart from Mondraker they're the only guys putting short enough seat tubes on medium and large sizes for many riders to run full length droppers. 435mm rear centre while not long enough for me is still not silly short. 10mm lower BB than Slash and Enduro. 76 SA, 65 HA.

Not to mention the leverage rate and AS look perfect. The only downside I can see is the 51mm offset but they're all currently running that garbage. Overall they've done a better job than anyone I've seen but I await your alternatives.
  • + 1
 @jclnv: Hmmmm maybe but nope
  • + 2
 Guys if you think about it, this is probably the closest thing we have to a "modern freeride bike"
  • + 40
 Look at all the bottle cage room! I could fit a baguette in there!
  • + 32
 A bike for french lines
  • + 1
 Baguette2go
  • + 20
 Really??? "Carbon composites give us a great opportunity at engineering a chassis that cannot be achieved with isotropic materials like aluminum alloy."

Maybe if you're building something really off the wall, but this is a standard design, you're telling me it's impossible to make an alloy version at any weight?
  • + 9
 That struck me as dumb too, especially when there is an aluminium version which looks almost identical.
  • + 6
 Here's some other marketing word play - "...lower at sag by 5mm which has enabled us to run 170mm cranks instead of 175mm." If only my bike was designed to run 170mm cranksFrown Yet somehow White has figured it out.
  • + 4
 maybe they meant psychotropic
  • + 7
 @bcmrider: replace "enabled" with "forced"
  • + 14
 "Whyte's own 30mm carbon hookless rims" Just me or is there a noticeable proliferation of 30mm carbon hookless rims out on the market and various companies (bike or wheel companies) are now offering these. Some open mold factory in China probably ramped up major production and is inking deals left and right with companies that want to put their own name on them
  • + 10
 *Cough* light bicycle *cough*.
  • + 6
 Its their own carbon rims because they design the decal graphics
  • + 11
 I am a little confused about the max size of tires. You mentioned that 2.6 will fit fine but it also accepts 3.0 tires. Does it mean that it will also accepts 29 inch wheels considering that they are almost the same size with 27.5 X 3.0?
  • + 10
 This. I want 170mm and 29x2.5.
  • + 0
 @PHeller: My Wreckoning @ 161mm has gobs of clearance with 29x2.5" Minnions
  • + 3
 @clapforcanadaa: I need that extra 9mm. *sarcasm*

Could the Wreckoning run 275x2.6 without bashing the BB every couple of feet?
  • + 0
 @PHeller: Haha, 9mm does make a world of difference!

I haven't played with different tire sizes, but since it does have a good 5mm on either side of the tire with a 29x2.5", I'd suspect it could.
  • - 1
 @PHeller: Yes and no. The design of the chainstays that hug the tyre profile could be very close or hit with a 27+. The bb is adjustable via flipchips so pedal strikes shouldn't be an issue.
  • + 9
 as a not proud owner of the G-150 , Whyte has worked on all points that ruined the G-150 (for me) -
* suspension curve was oh so slightly progressive in the beginning stroke then went too much regressive , which made the set up a bi**h . ended up with 4 bends in the shock. using the platform is a must on all situations but technical climbs
* seat angle and TT combination felt way longer then what was on paper , the long reach was OK - but made the front sluggish (round 450 on the medium) . i used a 35 mm stem and way too much spacers to try and balance things out
* the rear end without was waaaayyyy too flexy without the ST bridge

personally - i wouldn't buy another one of the G series , maybe the T-130 C which i tried during a demo day and felt really good . oh , the stand over was and still way too high
  • + 2
 I rather like my G150. I am running (I think) 6 spacers in the shock and still use all the travel. Climbs fine now (though I'm a spinner, not a pedal masher). I also upped the fork to 160mm to avoid pedal strikes. I've run the original stem and a 35mm, depending on terrain. I can feel the back end flex a bit, but I reckon that actually helps over rough terrain, allowing the wheel to track, rather than get pinballed. I've tried other bikes, but it does everything I need it to, from painful climbs to fairly serious downhill. And all the pivot bearings are still fine after 3 British winters. Not many other full bouncers do that..
  • + 6
 Another bike with a kinked seat tube that can't accommodate a 200 dropper. Seems companies started getting it in the early 2000s that we need to drop our seats all the way for the steeps but suddenly bikes are designed around 150 droppers. Booh.
  • + 3
 do people really need a 200mm dropper? i thought 175mm was already way enough ? the standover is not that high
  • + 6
 @zede: I would like to try a 200mm dropper as a 150mm is still to low for me. Before hitting a race stage I have to undo the seat clamp and drop my dropper down further, which negates the point of having one in the first place.
  • + 3
 @lewispea: spot on.....170mm reverb isn't enough!
  • + 7
 I find it very strange that people feel the need for 200mm droppers, for me (at 6' 1") I find 150 to be pretty spot on. Most pro DH riders have pretty high seatposts - just check Minnaars V10 - so I don't understand the need to have your seat down by your ankles.
  • + 4
 @NickB01: Come ride Laguna or North Shore or any trail that's 30+ % and you will understand. No doubt Minnaar could probably do it high posted...I am not Minnaar but I sure as hell want to ride as much of the steeps as possible.
  • + 3
 @lewispea: The double drop...I did that for years. It's stupid isn't it! I waited 9 years for a 200 to be available!!!
  • + 0
 @tcmtnbikr: that's the thing, when it's steep you go behing the saddle, so it doesn't matter whether saddle is low or super low. I think it might also depends on the geometry of the bike (standover + seat angle) but i never had problem. On my patrol 150mm feels a bit too much and on my Reign 100mm was enough.
  • + 2
 @NickB01: I have given this opinion before when people moan about huge dropper posts.

It's probably a psychological thing in reality, you wont see a dh racer with the saddle slammed against the top tube, and they usually ride much more testing terrain than the average person.

Maybe people are using them on really slack seat tube bikes?
  • + 2
 @Racer951: I ride my park bike with the seat slammed. If you plan to be hitting a lot of jumps you want the seat as far out of the way as possible. Then again my park bike doesn't have a dropper.
  • + 1
 @WaterBear: Thats a pretty specific bike setup though - I imagine you use chairlifts to get to the top and you are set to have as much fun as possible at the park without caring too much about how fast the bike is or comfortable over distance.

Some people seem to race enduro or ride trail / xc yet still want to get the saddle touching the top-tube,
  • + 4
 This is especially frustrating given they are marketing it as a "buy the reach you want, compensate for height with dropper post" bike. Furthermore, why would a large size bike have a seat tube angle that is slacker than the medium? Especially when the chainstays are the same length. If anything this should be the opposite to keep taller riders with more seat post extension more"balanced" on the bike. But what do I know, I'm not a bike designer.
  • + 4
 @NickB01: I'm 6'4" and during an Enduro race I like to have the seat high enough to efficiently pedal on the transitions and then have the seat completely out of the way for the steep descents. Having a 150mm post just doesn't make this possible for me without undoing the seat clamp and moving the post between stages. Especially as Enduro bike are normally much taller than full on downhill rigs, having my seat slammed is probably not far off from where DH rider have theirs extended.
  • + 3
 150mm droppers are nowhere near enough I don't know why anything less even exists.
  • + 2
 @lewispea: I'm with you, buddy. You too notorious
  • + 1
 @NickB01: It's not a fair comparison. DH bikes have a lot more of rear travel and often they don't lower the seat more because it can touch the rear tyre.
  • + 0
 its not just that though I need the seat slammed on my hardtail or I can't ride it where I can run the seat on my dh bike quite high and it doesn't bother me and somewhere inbtween on my trail bike. Might be something to do with how the bikes moving under you and how low you need to get your weight.
  • + 2
 @Racer951: I also jump my trail bike pretty frequently and have the described problem. I need to loosen the seatpost collar to drop my dropper post and get it slammed.
  • + 1
 @thenotoriousmic: I can't even ride a bike with a post that has less than 200mm of drop too. I get so nervous I might smash my jewels.
  • + 9
 If 170mm is "enduro" now, is 180mm still "park"? And 200mm is "DH"? But what about 175mm? ParkDuro? Is 190mm DHark?"
  • + 2
 I think you're on to something G
  • + 2
 Funny enough, my park bike is 180. A guy I know rides a 170 Patrol at the park, so I guess he's ParkDuro as you say Big Grin
  • + 5
 "Whyte sizes its bikes by lengths, so although the carbon G-170 is only offered in two sizes - M and L - there’s generous standover clearance and long dropper posts."

The designer must me a 6 foot plus giant to claim the above cos looking the size chart, this bike has some of the highest standover in the biz and quite standard seat tube length.

Learn from Kona's process geos if you wants to offer 2 sizes across the range.
  • + 2
 It's always been the same on Whytes, really high standover puts me off buying one. They seem to get some things so right, and other things wrong. When it all comes together, they'll make the best bikes in the business. That said my T129 is an awesome if flawed bike.
  • + 5
 We think 130mm is just right for most riders which is why your replacement for the 150mm should be 120mm and thats also why we have made 170mm because your next bike should be a 150mm which we find is best for most riders
  • + 2
 One day i'll understand why companies insist on putting these stupid curved down-tubes on bikes and then putting a bash guard on when they could easily use a straight down-tube which offers far more rock clearance on bikes where this portion of the frame has no relevance to shock mounting.

I think the bends look awful and surely it makes the bike more susceptible to damage?

Some of these look like they have been design by salvador Dali (i have that spelling is correct)
  • + 2
 I take it to be a question of available real estate inside the main frame, in some cases. By the time you've allowed for your pivot locations and the movement of a reservoir equipped shock, there's not always a lot of space for a full size water bottle mount (a requirement for many riders/buyers, as per the article) to squeeze in there too - a kinked out lower downtube provides that extra space, I guess... As to impact damage potential, I'd hazard it's no better or worse - most carbon bikes in this class (using all sorts of downtube shapes) have a downtube protector on the underside to ward off rock strikes flicked up from the front wheel, the protection is there for that reason, as opposed to being a bash guard in the traditional sense (a la crank mounting) for impacts with logs etc.
Asthetics wise, well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that - personally, I rather like Dali paintings..!
  • + 4
 Can someone educate me, why is a metric shock better than imperial?? Surely 2.25" stroke is 57mm. Ta daaaa I just made my bike faster and from the future.
  • + 1
 @Intensevp: My understanding is the "metric" shocks offer more room internally for new designs, technology and improvements, They've said they have went as far as they could go with the space available on the "standard" size shocks. I'm sure someone here on PB can add more.
  • + 3
 It's less about which system you use to measure, more about creating even steps within the range of measurement - the 'metric' shock models change length in regular increments. They could have achieved a similar thing with imperial by creating new shocks that steadily increased in length by 1/2" each or something, but chose to go with the metric system instead. I think the idea is to make life for bike designers easier.
  • + 1
 With Metric its about designing a bike around the shock rather than designing the frame and asking Rockshox etc to supply a shock in a particular size. Metric shocks also have more internal bushing so the stroke is much smoother.
  • + 0
 @elpsstoffo: from the SRAM website, it states as an OE shock. None for aftermarket. Didn't state any e2e length tho. Not sure about FOX tho....
  • + 6
 I believe that from a purely technical view point it's about creating a buzz with new shit to sell more new shit
  • - 1
 @Jagertom: marketing decided a shock that is say 8.268" long wouldn't sell as well as one that is 210mm, as well as the fact that all the dies for their existing shocks are wearing out and if they come out with a new standard they can justify a CEA for new molds and still bring in a larger profit margin and higher gross for the life of the product
  • + 3
 2.25" isn't exactly 57mm when things are manufactured to DIN or SAE specs... The slightest difference in tolerance can spell disaster in certain situations if there is a mixup... I work in the aviation industry where there has been a gradual shift towards metric standards, leaving only the American manufactured aircraft using imperial sizing... I would imagine considering that most bike components are now made in Asia,and that most of their tooling and equipment caters for metric production, investing millions of dollars in tooling just for shocks might be uneconomical... I wouldn't be surprised if the next logical step is to manufacture head tubes and steerer tubes in metric sizing, even though forks are produced on a larger scale... Considering the onslaught of the European manufacturers, I can see it's only a matter of time before the only imperial measurement on a bike is the wheel size (even though that is flip-flopping standard too isn't it!)
  • + 0
 More internal space for damping and/or oil flow makes better shock, that's the reason I'm told going metric.
  • + 5
 Also... 60mph is about 100 kph... 100 is more than 60... Therefore metric is faster and superior in every way
  • + 1
 In the uk we like to mix it up. Mph, mpg and penis length. @Spark24:
  • + 1
 They redesigned the shocks when they went to metric. Their naming scheme hides that fact, for whatever reason.
  • + 1
 @Intensevp: the real reason for Brexit ain't it!
  • + 3
 As useful shorthand, "Metric" when applied to rear shocks just means:
Longer i2i, which allows for more IFP volume space, and more bushing overlap
It's a recent frame and shock design, which takes into account the recent shift towards larger negative air springs, less low speed compression as a pedaling band-aid, and user configurable spacers to fine tune bottom out ramp up characteristics.
  • + 1
 ... The fact that even 5mm increments were used got pounced on by marketing folks, and that's why it sounds extra dumb to describe them with the current parlance.
  • + 1
 @Spark24: It's science!
  • + 1
 @Spark24: but only countries that use the imperial system have been to the moon...so...yeah
#EnduroSpaceSeries
  • + 2
 Don't get me wrong, I really like the look of this thing. But can't help that 170mm at Alan is a little overkill. It'seems probably more than capable of chewing up some chunkier terrain! Smile
  • + 19
 Alan? Alan?! ALAN!?!
  • + 2
 @dingus: it's not Alan, it's Steve. Steve, Steve, Steve! Love it.
  • + 4
 Just need to stop ATB Sales selling them dirt cheap out the back door !!!!!!
  • + 1
 Does that actually happen?!
  • + 1
 @walterwhyte: you bleddy hope so.
  • + 1
 Yep it definitely does, look at the map of whyte dealers in the Southeast and around Hastings . They did it with Marin to !!!!!!
  • + 1
 My mates g-150 ended up with a problem with the pivots getting play that two rebuilds wouldn't solve. Ended up with a refund. Another had a collapsed carbon rim and frame while on a cross country loop. Absolute trash
  • + 3
 A 7 inch bike interview without a single jump/ Downhill picture..
C'mon guys.. ^^
  • + 4
 so it's like a stumpjumper, but with a good geometry and more suspension ?
  • + 2
 The t130 looks great, and the new s150 also looks really good but theres just something im not feeling with this one, cant quite put my finger on it
  • + 2
 I'm sure it's great, but not what I would call a 'pretty' bike...but if a munter to be honest.
  • - 1
 Guess they took some inspiration from your mum
  • + 4
 Nice one! Is that out of chapter 3 of the book of banter for spastics? But if they were looking for inspiration from a mother for a bike...then I hear yours is often referred as one ????
  • + 2
 @Russyh: Yeah, recently downloaded the audio book too so I can learn shit banter on the way to the trails! Really cool. Only £4.20 as well, you really get a lot of banter for your buck!

And you're right, how else do you think they came up with the design for the YT Jeffsy Wink
  • + 1
 @Jack that doesn't make any sense fella why would a book on banter give them design for the YT Jeffsy...guess you checked out my profile for some inspiration towards some kind of come back....Was that chapter 4 out of the book of banter? You got to try harder champ!
  • + 1
 @Jack-McLovin: Your mom, YoungTalent, there's a joke in there somewhere. I just can't put my finger in it. Er, I mean on it.
  • + 0
 @Russyh:
Come on, bro. My comment about the Jeffsy is in a separate paragraph as I was referring to the second part of your comment...
  • + 2
 @Jack still makes no sense? But nice try. ????
  • + 3
 Another company chasing Ugliest Bike of the Year Award
  • + 2
 The TT-ST-SS combo is horrendous.
  • + 7
 ? Ugly? if it had Yeti printed on it you'd be drooling
  • + 5
 @Adam666: wait what? It's an opinion of an individual not a factual statement being made. Just because you disagree doesn't mean he's wrong or not entitled to making his own opinion.

Also, what's up with the Yeti comment? Do you also believe that every rider thinks the Yeti is the sexiest looking bike on the planet? Get real.
  • + 5
 @LiquidSpin: I believe he meant to say Santa Cruz..
  • + 5
 @MTBCAM8: i thought he meant YT.
  • + 1
 I got to view this bike today (and have a little spin) - the "look" might be a bit out there for some, but in fairness it looks far more interesting / pleasant when seen in real life, the pictures don't really do the frame shaping proper justice...
  • + 2
 @Corinthian: To each their own for sure. But with so many choices out there, everyone should be able to find a bike that not only works well, but looks good too. No worries if this looks good to you. But I reckon there are a lot of people who just can't get on with it's looks.
  • + 3
 What about the fork offset?
  • + 3
 Looks like a StumpJumper!
  • + 1
 weight ....seems to me blinged boutique bikes don’t need to be light. CBA to read all the bullshit sales bla bla so maybe the weights were in there if so ignore me
  • + 1
 nice looking bike but as it cant use a RE:act thru shaft shocks on this frame will it hurt new buyers looking for the latest tech
  • + 1
 This copy cat bike design culture is getting to be beyond a fucking joke now...
  • + 6
 I know, I mean everyone keeps putting the front wheel in front of the rear wheel. Can't anyone come up with an original idea anymore?
  • + 2
 @brunse: As clever as i'm sure you think that was, it's not about having an original idea, it's the motivation behind companies that continue to make the same thing over and over again, with nothing new to offer at all, whilst claiming at the same time that it does. I remember when Whyte did make original bikes with original ideas, this however is pure bullshit, there are literally hundreds, maybe even thousands of bikes out there now that are nigh on exactly the same as this, it's just f*cking embarrassing, and i can't understand why more people don't just post "Zzzz" or "Bored now" or just laugh at these pathetic wastes of time.
  • + 3
 @deadmeat25: Well I'm certainly bored now
  • + 3
 Cool. Reach numbers?
  • + 4
 Reach numbers are as follows: S: 442mm, M: 458mm, L: 479mm, XL: 502mm.
  • + 2
 @mikekazimer: Great, thanks. That is a looooong XL!
  • + 7
 @mikekazimer: Have we jumped the shark on reach? Things seem to be getting a bit silly.
  • + 2
 @jayacheess: I think that the bicycle industry is finally realizing that there are some riders that are actually over 6' (183cm) tall and making use of more than only 30mm between their XS and their XL sized bikes. You don't have to run a long top tube length if you don't want to, just go down a size. Me being 6'2" though, I am very happy with all of the choices of bikes I am able to choose from now.
  • + 5
 Reach is long, but with a very steep seat tube that means it won't feel that long seated, but plenty of space when standing up.
  • + 2
 @Vudu74: I'm glad the taller amongst us have bikes that fit them these days. The question is, do the bike companies know they're designing bikes for you or do they think the same 5'11" fellers like me are supposed to be using bikes with mile long reach measurements? Orange bikes recommended a large for my height and that bike was worlds too long.
  • + 2
 @WaterBear: I am not sure if the bike companies are really pushing the "long, low, slack" for marketing or hype or whatever their reasons are. They have a lot of highly in debt college graduates to figure that stuff out. I think that if you know what bike measurements your are comfortable with then that should be the numbers you chase, whether that is a an XL in one companies sizing and the medium in another's if the reach numbers work for you, use that. I am just happy that there are bikes out there now that when I stand up to pedal, I am not head and shoulders out of the front axle!
  • + 1
 @Vudu74: Going by numbers instead of size recommendations is, of course, what we all do.

I just hope for your sake that the bike industry is paying attention to rider heights as opposed to chasing sizing fads, as fads tend to fade with time.
  • + 1
 looks like the love child between a Specy Enduro and a Stumpjumper to me. nice frame, tho...
  • + 2
 looks like a plusher slacker stumpy
  • + 3
 Hello Whyte -Doc Holiday
  • + 2
 Good looking bike.
  • + 0
 Hahahaha! Lols I thought the same (sick face)
  • + 1
 Dentists ,plumbers more like lol.
  • + 1
 Looks hideous in my opinion
  • + 2
 Diamondback called...
  • + 1
 They want their Halfords bike back...
  • + 2
 Zzzz
  • + 2
 Its not that slack
  • + 1
 ????????????
  • + 0
 Not a pretty bird, is she?
  • + 0
 If you don't think that bike is nice you need them your head testing .
  • + 1
 I want one !!!!
  • + 1
 ugly as shit
  • + 0
 No video of the suspension working this time ?
  • - 1
 Looks a lot like the Orbea Rallon, doesn't it?
  • - 1
 the carbon bottle holder has to go
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2017. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.145463
Mobile Version of Website