Foes Racing Updates Mixer Frame for 2023
The revamped 2023 Mixer
PRESS RELEASE: Foes Racing
We designed the Mixer for anyone who wants a high quality, USA-made, enduro bike that can handle anything from steep rocky descents to full day rides with lots of climbing. We want our customers to care about the quality of their bikes as much as we do. That is why we hand-form, weld, heat treat, machine, assemble, and individually check all of our bikes in southern California.
The Mixer's mixed wheel configuration is here to stay
Benefits:
• Improved cornering: Due to the smaller rear wheel tracking in a tighter radius than the 29” front wheel, cornering is more predictable.
• Better descending and roll-over capabilities: The higher front axle allows for faster transfer of weight off the front wheel. The superior rollover capabilities of the 29” wheel carries momentum over difficult terrain. The rear wheel tracks along because of momentum and is less likely to get hung up on the trail.
• Stiffer rear end: 27.5” wheels are stiffer and stronger than 29ers, which leads to a more confidence-inspiring ride.
• Greater clearance: For shorter riders, most 29” frames can get a little cramped when trying to ride aggressively. The extra clearance from having a 3/4" lower axle from the 27.5" wheel in the rear gives you a roomier ride.
• More playful and better acceleration: The smaller radius of the 27.5” wheel, which also affects acceleration, reduces the gyroscopic forces felt by the rider in the air.
• Improved cornering: Due to the smaller rear wheel tracking in a tighter radius than the 29” front wheel, cornering is more predictable.
• Better descending and roll-over capabilities: The higher front axle allows for faster transfer of weight off the front wheel. The superior rollover capabilities of the 29” wheel carries momentum over difficult terrain. The rear wheel tracks along because of momentum and is less likely to get hung up on the trail.
• Stiffer rear end: 27.5” wheels are stiffer and stronger than 29ers, which leads to a more confidence-inspiring ride.
• Greater clearance: For shorter riders, most 29” frames can get a little cramped when trying to ride aggressively. The extra clearance from having a 3/4" lower axle from the 27.5" wheel in the rear gives you a roomier ride.
• More playful and better acceleration: The smaller radius of the 27.5” wheel, which also affects acceleration, reduces the gyroscopic forces felt by the rider in the air.
.
The Mixer received a new, hydroformed toptube and a redesigned downtube for 2023. Both features, paired with our Delta Box, which surrounds the bottom bracket, increase the rigidity and stiffness of the frame while looking great in the process. We redesigned the internal cable system to utilize removable cable guides, this will make internal cable routing a painless process. The rear triangle features a SRAM Universal Derailleur Hanger to make the hunt for replacement parts as easy as possible.
The mixer features replaceable ISCG-05 tabs and the Delta Box increases stiffness in the front triangle.
The rear dropout is SRAM UDH compatible.
 | “The new Mixer is one of my favorite frames to build. It has challenged me as a builder and a designer. My goal with this frame has been to utilize the mixed wheel setup to build a bike that handles well in any situation!” -Brent Foes |
The Mixer utilizes the Foes signature modified single-pivot, low leverage suspension design. We believe our design offers better ride quality, prolongs service life, and simplifies the bike, giving you more time riding and less in the shop. The frame runs a metric 230x65 shock which gives you 165mm of travel at the rear axle. The frame is designed to run either a 160 or 170mm fork, depending on ride style and personal preference.
For more info, go to FoesRacing.com
Photos & words by Korban Williams
Author Info:
Member since Dec 23, 2016
Must Read This Week
Anyway, I looked it up and the large has a reach of 444.5mm. So still using geo from 7 or 8 years ago…
Who knows what's best, but with several of the top pro's downsizing and with Lee's RAD principals in play, they are right on the money with the geo IMO....
Also, a pro rider can handle a shorter bike at insane speeds... I can't... I need/want/love the stability of bigger bikes, especially on really scary gnarly trails. Most amateurs really like/need that stability. It's what has made bikes just so capable these days.
And no one... no one... wants a 74 degree seat tube angle on a sagged 165mm travel bike... oh god... taking me back to 2007 with this shit, haha!
And the bottle cage mount on top of the top tube!!?? Haha..
Even less likely to get the cow shit on the bottle, which so many are afraid of. Unless you're the cow of course.
I find your argument (an many others) redundant....the same argument could be said opposite, we don't ride as fast as pros therefore we don't need bikes as long / stable? It's every bit as valid of a position....
I don't buy the Pro rider can handle shorter bike statement though....even the shorter bikes (like this) are PLENTY stable, especially guys going armature speeds and being able to turn and throw that bike around is key on gnarly trails like much of the Whistler valley stuff, I am MUCH more comfortable on a shorter bike on tech stuff with lots of moves.
Seat tube angle is partially a function of the shorter reach, if it was any steeper you'll get into short ETTs. I agree, it's lower than I like, but it's a tradeoff to a certain extent.
I tried the RAD thing, works great for me, I'm 6-4 and riding a 470-480 reach bike, more comfortable, more confident and having more fun than I have in a long time.
Also, just a couple quick points... Richie Rude is a hair under 6' tall, rides a medium with a 460 reach. A Foes medium is 420, their large is 444, Richie would have to be on their XL to get 470. But then he's riding a 482 f*cking seat tube! Anyway you slice it... these geo numbers are f*cked.
And no, sorry, no one wants to be on a enduro bike with a 64 degree angle seat tube with 165mm of travel... that's just... no.
My own anecdotal personal experience aligns with most riders these days... I'm 5'11, on a size large with 490 reach and riding better, faster, in more control and setting more PR's than I ever have.
My last 4 bikes reach's over the last 4 years have gone from 435 to 477 to 475.5 to 490. Of course reach isn't the only number you need to look at as your effective reach is affected by a number of other things, but I won't get into that here suffice to say that, though my effective reach on my last couple of bikes is lower than the stated reach due to shorter head tubes and added spacers etc... my effective reach has still grown substantially. And again loving it for everything I ride across the Sea to Sky BC region, from everything in the Whistler Bike Park to more casual trails.
End of the day.. the Foes numbers are still ridiculous even by your own preferences for a shorter reach. Anyway, as long as we're all having fun riding bikes, that's all that matters!
Do you know what anecdotal experience means? I cited a theme that's been talked about amongst top pros lately (shorter bikes) along with lee's RAD principal which is a quantitative way of fitting bike to rider, that is an evidence based opinion...which my experience (happens) to align with.
Have an open mind and you shouldn't be so confident your answer is 'right' when many people disagree, including guys that design and ride bikes for a living....just sayin'!
I will agree having fun is the key, more than one way to do that....
You’re also ignoring the fact that pros don’t all ride those tiny bikes other than at the races. They ride longer bikes for “fun” and the short one to race tight single track. DH guys are not racing smaller bikes.
Millimeter measurement ÷ 25.4 = Inches
Inches measurement x 25.4 = Millimeters
there will always be exceptions, the trend seems to be shorter bikes. Why aren't they riding longer bikes? I mean, if you judge your opinion based on what the common consensus is, what manuf recommend and Yoann, you'd think several of the top guys would be on bikes larger....but when in doubt, we see many sizing down.
We are talking enduro not DH.
Just like bar width - guys on here went on and on and on about how wide is better, more control, riding better than ever.....look where we are at now, you don't know what you don't know, but we are starting to see trends.
Important factors like what?
RAD seems to say that if my 480mm reach bike is perfect for me, then a 450mm reach with higher handlebars would be equally good as long as my perfect RAD number stays constant. And it says frame size is the least important. I and many others view that as BS. A longer wheelbase that fits my body and ticks all the other boxes = more stability, better flow, faster times, more fun, etc. There's no way a shorter reach or wheelbase bike with higher bars (putting me in "old lady on a city bike" posture) is going to be anywhere near as good.
The fact that pros sized down is irrelevant to most normal riders. They are so good that they're looking for any incremental gain to save time - if they feel they can turn a smaller bike a split second faster in a race, SOME of them will try it. They have such high level skills that they can compensate for the reduced stability. I'm a good rider but apparently I don't have that skill level. 480mm reach is my sweetspot and if I switch to even a 465mm reach (like my old bike), the ride is not going to be the same - it is worse - regardless of how much I monkey with cockpit, etc. to try to attain Lee's arbitrary RAD number.
You've made your opinion clear. Just like I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince anyone by being argumentative in the comments, so maybe let it go.
www.pinkbike.com/u/leelikesbikes/blog/dialing-in-your-bike-for-your-riding-style.html
The funny thing is I'm not arguing any particular opinion, simply suggesting folks who think Foes and Lee are wrong be a bit more open minded. We hear the same silly argument like you use, aka pros have more skill and can ride shorter bikes....while a shorter wheelbase may be less stable in theory / on paper, there are many factors at play, weight distribution, angles, suspension setup, etc.....a bike with 30mm less reach & corresponding wheelbase isn't going to make a bike 'unstable', it's still stable enough since there are EWS riders out there riding Small bikes that rip harder than you are I....
Believe Lee's #'s or not, it's debatable (but trends are trends with some top level riders), but if you love your bike now, calculate your unique RAD and stick to it. It's the only way to know how a bike truly fits with all the variables taken into account; frame reach, frame stack, stem length, stem height on ST, bar height and bar sweep.....
Enduro = DH bikes that can be pedaled up hill these days. So, DH is very relevant or at least as relevant as what EWS pros are doing.
I’ve been ridding mtb’s since around 2000 and for me, longer bikes are way better in every way. I’m 5’11” on a 470 reach frame and 32mm stem. Perfect for me and my average skill.
Just keep an open mind when it comes to this stuff, nobody is wrong or right.
You can use examples to illustrate logical points, using pros as an example who ride FASTER than us and they don't have issues with stability, so why would you expect to? Lots of short pro's on size S bikes that don't have issues with stability.
Riding WC DH tracks is a different sport
(at least, this is how I understand it)
yes and no..
my former big bike had 602mm ett and 437mm reach while the wb was 1187mm.
my current big bike has a 607mm ett, a reach of 472mm declared(469-470mm measured) and a wb of 1278mm.
pretty much same ett, vastly different reach numbers and wb. But I've ridden bikes with a smaller reach but bigger wb.. and one of them was a saracen myst which despite the similar reach numbers with my former bike, felt much more stable.
What a decent reach does to a mediocre guy like myself is to allow me to ride in a more agressive position(over the handlebars) without fearing an otb. I always tried to ride agresively on my former bike as well but, when the real rough stuff arrived, I saw myself always redraw a little(or a little more) above and behind the saddle..to not feel like I was going to be thrown off "over board" in the following second.
With a 470mm reach.. I never feel the need to do that, as no otbs look like there are in the ride plan(not yet anyway). So, I (feel that I)ride faster because I can control the bike much better but, I also ride faster because of that damn wheelbase, being almost 10 cm longer, ads a lot.. and I mean A LOT of stability. (suspension is pretty much the same, 165mm of x2 with 180mm of fox36 vs 170mm of x2 with 180mm of fox38; pretty much but not the same as the x2 feels better damped and the 38 feels smoother and a little more stiff)
cheers.
I have fallen for the whole Mondraker long reach approach. There’s no going back to short bikes for me.
When you discuss enduro bikes that must act like dh bikes for us, the average and below average guys from a skill riding perspective, then long reach and long wb FTW!
I think a handful of the top EWS guys downsizing today points to this - they ride much faster than us and still don't have issues.
I can tell you that bigger reach and wb works as I got PRs everywhere.. by seconds...and, in one rougher and longer trail.. by almost 20 seconds(and this is true for all my riding friends and buddies who got new bikes). Reach and wb simply works great for us, average guys. The fact that you personally choose to run a shorter bike is also fine... just, don't sell it for what it is not; keep it as your personal choice and that's it.
We have example of riders going long -> Greg Minnaar
We have example of riders going short -> Jack Moir
There is no hard and fast consensus.
Everything you are riding now is what pros used to ride, so no, it's not pointless to think about it. The majority of bikes and their designs are proven on the world stage before they are brought to market, carbon fiber, 29er's, suspension design, suspension travel....maybe we should go back and ride bikes from the 80's?
I still have my bike from 10 years ago, keep it around for buddies to jump on for fun. Rode it a few weeks ago... it was f*cking scary as hell... thing was tiny!! Had to ride wayyyy slower, way more cautious and pick my way down the trail. Still fun but a hug eye opener to how far bikes have come. The way we ride has changed sooo much.
It's not really up for debate... longer bikes ARE more stable. But at the same time they are less nimble. So it's not whether or not longer bikes are more stable... it's what you prefer. A shorter and more nimble bike but have the skills to compensate for the lack of stability (comparatively) or just ride slower. Or you like a longer more stable bike and have the skills to compensate for a little less nimbility. And there's a million places in=-between as you can affect change to your affective reach with spacers, higher rise bars and stem lengths.
my current big bike has a 607mm ett, a reach of 472mm declared(469-470mm measured) and a wb of 1278mm."
Your seat tube angle of your new bike vs your old bike is what makes your ett similar between the two. If you compare two modern bikes with similar geometry (angles), longer reaches = longer top tubes. It's not rocket science, just look at different sizes of the same bike... the ett grows as does the reach.
1) Why do many pro's that ride fast use longer bikes than they did a few years ago (e.g. Greg M)? Simple, he's going much faster than most of use he needs the stability!
2) Why are some pros that ride fast starting to use shorter bikes (e.g. Jack M)? Simple, he's got the skills to pay the bills while you don't!
You can answer the question both ways using your logic.
I can easily say YOU aren't as fast as Greg M or the other guys still using longer bikes why do YOU think you need one?
My point is simple, a bike stable (enough) is good enough. Nobody is advocating for "short" bikes relative to 10+ years ago but rather it ends up being (for me and most) about 30-40mm shorter than the manuf recommendations which aligns closely to the RAD principle.
I have a lot of N=1 examples too, I don't bring it up, but based on my experiences the shorter bikes I've tried as of late and over the years turn better / are more flickable and I don't have ANY stability issues....that goes for Whistler Bike Park, Valley Trails, Mystic-Squirrel, Squamish, my local trails, Trans Cascadia Enduro, BC Bike Race, etc. etc. but that is worth the paper it's written on.
S: 438.3
M: 463.7
L: 483.7
XL: 506.4
I'm guessing that the reach a typo. Seems like a really silly mistake but it doesn't make sense to go drastically shorter from the previous version. That's my armchair excel engineering at work.
I have the previous gen Mixer and love it. I don't think they'd go backwards on the geo from the previous gen. Context 5'10" (178cm) and I run a size M, have a 200mm dropper, and run w/ a 50mm stem. The thing rips. The top tube waterbottle was odd but I honestly prefer it now. It's a lot easier to snag. Love the bike and would buy again.
1) At this point, does anyone really need to sell in the benefits of a properly done mullet?
Stick to what makes the Foes a Foes.
2) And, please update your geo to reflect what most riders who would be interested are now accustomed to and want.
Gentlemen's bet, but I bet pendulum will swing BACK towards shorter / more compact bikes like this in the near future.
And no, I didn't downvote ya because you bring up a good point from a marketing perspective....but more power to them for sticking to their guns on what they (obviously) think still works...
I wouldn't consider myself progressive in terms of modern geo being a somewhat late adopter. I just know for me personally (regardless of what any pro/bro might be doing), it's been hard to go backward from where I am presently and feel the same level of comfort/confidence relative to fit.
Funny how some brand names were the synonym for a product and then they almost vanish. E.g. Mavic for rims. So was Foes, at least for me, for DH bikes.
The comment testers/engineers are entertaining tho if nothing else.
youtu.be/Isn3pq3l65A
WTF happened? I don’t want to run conversions just to see the geometry
Stronger
Easier to flick around
Lighter
They also pump better
Shorter wheelbase for tight trails
Thanks for being a bit different.
But it's only about 4".