Introducing the 2016 Pivot Mach 6 - Aluminum

Aug 24, 2015 at 2:37
by Richard Cunningham  

Pivot Cycles is no stranger to aluminum construction. Owner/designer Chris Cocalis is one of the most accomplished aluminum frame makers in the business. Beginning with the Mach 4, Pivot's first five models were wrought from the stuff, and they featured a number of innovative construction techniques that set stiffness-to-weight standards which approached the best carbon frames of their day.

That said, even Chris admits that carbon composites have all but eliminated the demand for metal mountain bikes, which explains why when Pivot launched its Mach 6 into the ultra-competitive all-mountain/enduro category, it was carbon fiber from head to tail. Like most bike makers, Pivot's first carbon offerings had evolved from existing aluminum-framed models - so the Mach 6 was a bold statement: Pivot was playing the carbon game for keeps. Or so it seemed.


Pivot Mach 6 Aluminum X1. 2016
Pivot Mach 6 Aluminum - X1 build.

Mach 6 Aluminum

With sales of his carbon XC, DH and trail bikes setting new records for Pivot, why would Cocalis backtrack to make an aluminum Mach 6? The official answer is that some hydro-forming techniques have emerged that can produce variable wall thicknesses which can be prescribed at almost any location along the tube's length. At the same time, those frame members can be profiled and tapered to add stiffness where necessary, or slimmed to reduce weight. Cocalis figured that by employing those forming techniques, Pivot could once again challenge the strength-to-weight values of elite carbon fiber frames with an aluminum chassis. Another motivating factor (no surprise here), was that an aluminum chassis could substantially undercut the sticker price of a comparably equipped Mach 6 Carbon. Finally, a large number of elite level riders have not warmed up to carbon and would prefer a metal mountain bike. Enter, the Mach 6 Aluminum.



Details:

• Frame: variable-thickness hydro-formed aluminum tubes, dw-link suspension, ISCG05 tabs, 148 x 12mm Boost axle spacing, 92mm PressFit bottom bracket.
• New, cold-forged wider and stiffer linkage designs with Enduro Max cartridge bearings
• Suspension Travel: 155mm (6.1”)
• Wheel size: 27.5"
• Shock: Custom-tuned Fox Factory Kashima Float DPS Shock with EVOL air sleeve
• Fork: Fox 36 Float (designed to work with forks from 150 to160mm travel, 40mm offset)
• External and internal cable routing
• Internal stealth dropper post compatible
• New removable front derailleur mount for Shimano’s side-swing front mech'
• Post mount disc brake attachments
• Same geometry as Mach 6 Carbon
• Medium frame weight: 7.4 pounds (3.36kg) including shock
• Sizes: X-small, small, medium, large, X-large
• MSRP: Complete builds start at $3499 USD, Frame and shock - $1999..
• Contact: Pivot Cycles
Pivot Mach 6 Aluminum detail. 2016
Pivot's Mach 6 Aluminum incorporates the wider Boost fork and rear hub spacing.

According to Pivot's press release, both the Mach 6 carbon and the new aluminum model have been designed to incorporate the new 148mm "Boost" rear hub spacing, which adds plenty of room for tires up to 2.4 inches wide, without lengthening the chainstays. Additional benefits of Boost are more symmetrical spoke lacing for the rear wheel and a better chain line for one-by drivetrains. Pivot states that most Shimano cranksets will operate with Boost spacing (all narrow Q-factor cranks fail the test), and some Race Face cranksets can adapt, but SRAM customers will need the extra three-millimeter-spaced Boost cranksets to get the proper chain line. In the back, Pivot says that only a Boost hub will work in order to obtain proper brake rotor and hub flange spacing. Boost forks, however, are not required.

Both the Mach 6 Aluminum and Carbon models share an all new linkage and yoke arrangement, which is said to dramatically increase the frame's lateral stiffness and shock stability. The suspension rocks on Duramax bearings which are cageless, with extra balls added to enhance their load carrying capacity at low rotational speeds. Here is the official word from the Pivot Press release:

bigquotesAll-new linkages offer huge gains in overall stiffness - the upper linkage alone is 40-percent wider, 150-percent stiffer, and utilizes larger bearings at the frame attachment point. The new, redesigned clevis is now lighter, stronger and provides increased clamping force on the shock body.


Pivot Mach 6 Aluminum detail. 2016
The Mach 6's wildly shaped seat tube and swingarm mast tubes can be best appreciated when viewed from below.

Pivot's new hydro-forming and variable wall thickness technology is less apparent in the curving top and down tubes, but is definitely showcased by the lower section of the seat tube, where it bulges to reinforce the dw-link rocker pivots - and by the swingarm, which uses a wildly formed central strut that widens to pick up the asymmetrical chainstays and then tapers to brace the seatstay assembly from the left side of the junction. All of the cable housing runs are full-length and external, with the exception of the internally routed right chain stay and a seat-tube port for a Stealth-style dropper post.

Suspension is specifically tuned for the Mach 6's dw-link suspension, as it uses a variable leverage rate that requires an air-sprung shock. The standard damper is a Fox Kashima Float shock with the DPS damping system. Pivot explains it like this:

bigquotesThe Mach 6 Aluminum is spec'd with the 2016 Fox Factory Kashima with the new EVOL air sleeve, custom tuned specifically for enduro and trail riding. DPS stands for Dual Piston System - the shock features two separate sets of valving, similar to what you would find in Fox's external reservoir Float X design, while the EVOL sleeve significantly reduces the force required to initiate travel, for the ultimate in small bump compliance and better bottom-out resistance.

Pivot also warns that the Mach 6 Aluminum (and the 2016 carbon Mach 6) was designed to work with the progressiveness of an air spring. and that coil shocks cannot provide the necessary spring curve, and will result in excessive bottoming. That should not be a huge issue, as the performance of air-sprung shocks has been elevated to near-perfection by pro-level enduro competition. Another possible concern is the yoke type rear shock attachment, which Pivot has designed to work with conventional shock eyes. The good news is that Pivot's yoke is compatible with most popular shocks, including the Cane Creek DB InLine.

Pivot Mach 6 Aluminum detail. 2016
New forged-aluminum shock extension and stiffer dw-link rockers

Pivot Mach 6 Aluminum detail. 2016
Direct-mount 160mm brake caliper and Boost rear spacing.
Pivot Mach 6 Aluminum detail. 2016
Clearance for 2.4-inch tires and Enduromax bearings throughout.

The new Mach 6 Aluminum is available in five sizes, from X-small through X-large, to fit riders from 4-foot, eleven inches (150cm ) to well over six feet tall (+190cm ). Beyond the switch to Boost hub spacing, the Mach 6's geometry is the same as the 2015 carbon version, which is a good thing. Pivot will offer a wide range of builds, from pro-level Shimano XTR and SRAM XX1, to more attainable Shimano SLX and SRAM X1-based ensembles. Pricing and weights of all build options have not been released, but complete builds will start at $3499 and Mach 6 Aluminum frames with the Fox Kashima Float Evol shock wil retail for $1999 USD. Watch PB for an upcoming review of Pivot's latest long-travel trailbike and in the meantime, enjoy their video edit on both the 2016 Mach 6 Aluminum, and the Boost-updated Mach 6 Carbon:

Views: 7,922    Faves: 25    Comments: 1


Videographer: Cameron Sylvester, Nomadik Motion

"The most versatile enduro bike in the world just got stronger, stiffer and now offers two frame material options for the ultimate in rider choice. Pivot is proud to introduce the new Mach 6 Carbon and Mach 6 Aluminum - choice of Bernard Kerr, Aaron Chase and the Pivot-Vittoria Pro Enduro Team. - Pivot Cycles"


And, Here's the 2016 Mach 6 Carbon:

Pivot Mach 6 Carbon XTR 2016
Mach 6 Carbon XTR: The molds have been re-cut to add Shimano Di2 compatibility and to adapt to the new dw-link rockers, The new swingarm is designed around the wider Boost hub standard, with more tire clearance and additional stiffness.

Pivot Mach 6 Carbon 2016
Many minor changes have been implemented to the 2016 Carbon Mach 6, but its appearance is virtually the same as the 2015 model, The new Boost-width swingarm ensures that there will be plenty of clearance for tires up to 2.4 inches.



MENTIONS: @pivotcycles


210 Comments

  • + 192
 aluminum is back in. just waiting on 26 to be the best wheel size again. any day now.
  • + 30
 ohh finally i can afford a mach 6.....wait..BOOST!....Anyways !!!
  • + 56
 When I first opened the page and started reading I said to myself, "This is going to be my next bike for sure".

But when I got to the part where I read: "Boost axle spacing, 92mm PressFit bottom bracket.", my heart stopped like a knife had gone through it.

Back to dreaming of owning a Norco.
  • + 18
 i hear u bud, dont get all this press fit bb and now a new rear axel width, its all getting stupid and too much
  • + 7
 I'm not sure how much $ a bike brand actually saves by going with PF BB shells. Does a threaded BB shell cost so much more $ in bulk orders that using PF becomes a practical cost cutting measure? I think the performance difference between the two don't justify the use of PF BB shells, given that the cost difference isn't too different. I'm not a designer so i don't know, but it seems the only reasons for going with PF is cost and ease of manufacturing an unthreaded cylinder.
  • + 17
 Same here. Was super excited, then read "Boost" hub spacing, dreams were smashed at that point. This Pivotal move was a bad idea IMO.
  • + 9
 Is there any validity to this comment --Additional benefits of Boost are more symmetrical spoke lacing for the rear wheel and a better chain line for one-by drivetrains--? I never knew these were issues with the current standard. If it's better than why the adapters for sram? Anyone have any science to back this up?
  • + 7
 Wider hub flange spacing (aka more symmetrical spoke lacing) has always been known about as beneficial for wheel stiffness. The sad thing is it was well known about when they introduced the 142mm spaced rear config a few years back, which didn't deliver any performance gains. That's when the real crime was committed. If we had gone from 135mmx10mm to 148mmx12mm, there would have been only one move. Instead there's two.
  • + 19
 142x12 didn't require new hub shells, and almost every decent hub could be converted for next to nothing. Cost me $80 to convert my Chris King rear hub to 142mm, and it only tool an allen wrench and about 10 minutes of my time. To go 148 would mean an entirely new hub, so hub along would be $400 + new spokes, nipples and rim, likely $600. That's why there's a backlash against Boost.

The necessity of a stronger/stiffer wheel is arguable as the vast majority of riders will hardly flex a wheel, leaving the only tangible benefit to boost being the ability to run "plus sized" tires, which many new boost equipped bikes cannot.
  • + 11
 Boost is a solution to a problem that shouldn't have existed, if SRAM had actually designed their wheels with a proper spacing between flanges ... Take Hope/Novatec/CK/DT Swiss hubs, jbend spokes, any good wheel builder will make a MUCH stronger wheel than anything you could get with a Boost hub from SRAM ...

And clearance for 2.4 tyres, I've put 2.4 tyres on all of my bikes without any problem, with 135x12 spacing. Told you, a solution to a problem that doesn't exist Smile
  • + 24
 Transition Patrol costs the same amount and doesn't have boost spacing.
  • + 7
 i really wish the sram fanboys would engage in debate. tell us why we are wrong. i invite and appreciate a good discussion, as i'm sure many other reasonable pinkbikers do also.
  • + 11
 Same here it sounded like a winner until boost and press fit. I'll stick with Santa Cruz
  • + 1
 Why is everyone bagging the boost thing?
  • + 8
 Because there is no need for it.
  • + 1
 I think it's around $30 a frame to de press fit over a threaded
  • + 7
 That's why it's top on my list. Alloy Patrol threaded BB and 142. I thought I would have another choice but Pivot blew that chance
  • + 18
 Only boost I want is for my WRX
  • + 5
 And the Patrol fits a 2.5 tire without boost. Last I checked a 2.5 is bigger then a 2.4.
Heck 2.4 fits on my solo/5010 without boost also
  • + 5
 Went patrol as well. No press fit bb and no boost, wide tires and no need to buy a wired bb. Awesome bike.
  • + 2
 I hear ya on the pressfit! Stuff sucks. I.love my knolly warden. Threaded bb, water bottle mounts. And aluminum! Love it.
  • + 1
 Yet... Let's hope they don't throw it on the carbon patrol
  • + 2
 You all are misisng the point completely. Shit will change. Bikes didn't start out with 142 axles or threaded Outboard bearings or 780mm bars, bikes evolved to where they are today. Boost is part of the evolution. For all the pinkbikers that sit on here and complain about new products are missing the fact that we ride bikes for fun.
  • + 2
 y u poop on our pity party
  • - 7
flag Protour (Aug 24, 2015 at 23:41) (Below Threshold)
 The boost isn't the issue here. This bike, like most others in its class, has too steep of a head angle and a press fit BB. Burn it.
  • + 0
 What bike WOULD you ride Protour? Oh, you don't ride, so why would you care? STFU and jog on!
  • + 2
 coil shocks are back in too.
  • + 7
 @protour all the Canadians I've ever met have been super cool. What happened to you?
I'm off for a shower, it is Tuesday after all
  • + 2
 boost: to make bigger wheels near as stiff as the 26" wheels they replaced.......truth.

nice looking bike but would not buy with such little tyre clearance.
  • + 64
 Boost? It's not a 29er. Pressfit? It's aluminum. Why, why, why do bike companies insist on downgrading their product to meet internal industry demands? These are supposed to be incremental improvements, but when used this way they incrementally damage the quality of the bike (PF BBs in aluminum frames) or make no positive difference whatsoever to anybody whose name isn't SRAM. (Boost spacing in a 650b frame)
  • + 1
 The only reason I'd go boosting is if I could run 2 diff tire sizes. 26+ & 27.5 or 29 & 27.5+
But this only allows for 2.4 max so that's won't work here. I think scott allows 2 sizes...
  • + 34
 If press fit reduces cost and weight, then why is this frame slightly more expensive and slightly heavier than an aluminum Bronson frame?
  • + 13
 @dlxah You know this fact, but for every person that does there are probably 20 that don't! Profit!!!
  • + 8
 Why am I getting down-voted? That was a genuine question. They're both short link URT linkage designs with the same number of pivot points. They're both roughly the same amount of travel. Why does the press fit frame have a $100 higher MSRP ($1999 vs $1899) and weigh slightly more (7.4 lbs vs 7.36 lbs) than the threaded BB frame? What accounts for those differences?
  • + 15
 Don't take it personally. ..this is pinkbike. Easier to down vote rather than discuss. Even worse bc you asked a question vs making a statement.
  • + 9
 Heh yeah, I guess that's what I get for trying to have an intelligent discussion in the comments section of a PinkBike article.
  • + 4
 @dlxah I'd bet at least part of the MSRP difference is sitting in the shock and bearings.
  • + 2
 If the bb is there reason for the weight and price difference then pf must be more expensive and heavier, but maybe the discrepancy comes from other points in the design phase. Maybe SC made the bb heavier, but cut more weight from stays to more than make up the difference. You are getting down voted because what i just said is obviously possible. It may not be true. We don't have enough info to know for sure. Also a lot of us don't care. It isn't much weight and we won't be buying them new anyway, so the price difference isn't a huge issue.
  • + 22
 "Boost width" allows 2.4, my "outdated" Ragley hardtail allows 2.5. I can definitely see the boost benefits! (Sarcasm)
  • + 1
 @Facingtraffic That's a good point. I suppose the shock alone could easily explain the $100 price difference. I don't know what shock the Pivot includes for $1999, but it sounds like it's a Factory series?

@taletotell Yeah, I was thinking something along those lines too. It's possible Pivot tried to make their frame a little burlier than the Santa Cruz. But modern Santa Cruz frames are pretty much unanimously praised for their stiffness and durability, so how much burlier would you really want the bike to be? At some point you're just adding weight to the frame for no added benefit.
  • + 10
 Pivot fan and I like the idea of the Al offering but this Boost is just bad bad bad. I like narrow(er) Q factor and even think the 168 on the SRAM is livable but wide for XC/Trail riding. Now, only Boost width (170+) is ok due to wider stays and chainline. So for the bikes where Boost might actually make "some" sense for a slightly stronger wheel say 29er XCish - but you'd also probably want some control of pedaling fit - now you're stuck w/ wide Q factor. Bottom line: Trade somethings I do care about (Q factor & part interchangeability) for a negligible .0000005% improvement on spoke bracing angle and the ability to maybe run a wheelsize down but in plus-size. Not interested. Bad tradeoff = Rubbish.
  • + 16
 Have we considered that maybe some riders actually do want Boost and PF BB shells?!

HAHAHA who am i kidding!!
  • + 2
 we're seeing more 650b bikes spec'd with boost (the new troy, and now this one). Like it or not, I think 142 rear ends are going to disappear...
  • + 18
 This is why I voted with my wallet and bought a nomad
  • + 3
 ^ smart man this one
  • + 27
 BOOST = Bunch Of Obvious Sales Tactics
  • + 1
 I'm getting scared. I bought a 12x142 axle for my 12 year old Chris King rear hub, hoping this year to upgrade my 12 year old 135QR dropout frame to something new and 650b. Then of course this Boost talk started, and it looks like more than just talk. At least for 650b if you need more strength, I would rather get a bit more drive-side spoke bracing angle back with offset spoke holes than having to throwing out my hub and upgrade investment. I guess I will be buying a 2015 or older frame and have it be obsolete from the get-go, then I won't have to worry about this happening later.
  • + 1
 Its 27.5 2.4 not 26.. @src248
  • + 1
 @dlxah Despite being similar multi-link designs, DW-Link and VPP bikes ride quite differently. Try them out and you'll see. Being different designs, licensing costs for suspension designs will obviously not be the same. This is on top of any material and manufacturing differences. I believe Pivot produces less bikes than SC so probably needs to sell at a higher price to maintain profit margins as well (economies of scale and all that). Not that it matters because bikes are frequently sold at a different price than MSRP so either one could be cheaper depending on where you are buying from, what time of year it is, remaining inventory, etc.
  • + 1
 @BaeckerX1 The licensing cost is another good point. Pivot has to pay a cut to DW, but Santa Cruz owns the VPP design. And you're right that volume may have something to do with it as well.
  • + 60
 I stopped reading at Boost/PressFit BB.
  • + 7
 @dirtdoctor - Same here. If they would ditch the press fit and the boost, then add a shorter chainstay position for 26, it might be the perfect frame!
  • + 2
 kinda like a Liteville 301
  • + 2
 the Uzzi
  • + 11
 Pivot lost my business right when the words "Boost" and "Press-Fit" showed up in the article.
  • + 2
 Seriously! I was hoping to run my straight steerer shiver forks, quick release hubs, and truvativ hussefelt cranks off of my Santa Cruz Bullit on my next bike. Guess I'll have to upgrade my equipment at some point.
  • + 39
 Reach on the size large is 2mm smaller than a size small Kona Process... 2012 wants its geometry back!
  • + 7
 I really expected to see more reach and a little steeper seat tube angle. The M6 rides very well but I couldn't get a good fit on it.
  • + 4
 I have to say, Pivots are great bikes in theory, but every person I know who's actually owned one has ended up selling it fairly quickly due to some disappointment or the other. I remember the reviews of the carbon version from last year talked about it not being that confidence inspiring on the downs, which is pretty bad on a bike with this much travel.
  • + 4
 Pivot Mach 5,7 was an almost perfect trailbike indeed. But I agree that Mach 6 has too many weak spots.
  • + 3
 I still love my Mach 5.7C - just dropped a Pike and a DBInline on it to get another year or two of life out of it. Still a great bike, but a little more reach would certainly be nice - kinda forces you to a slightly longer stem and a more forward position.

Of course, I also bought it in 2012, so I can excuse the "2012 geometry!"

Now, if they'd just make a 5.7C in true 27.5" (not the crap conversion that works with tiny tires only), with a bit more reach and internal dropper and cable routing, and I'd be one happy camper.
  • + 29
 "...even Chris admits that carbon composites have all but eliminated the demand for metal mountain bikes..."

In what world is that even remotely true? I live in Bellingham, home to a half dozen high end mountain bike shops. Looking at the "serious mountain bike" section of the floor in those shops, I'd say you're looking at about 2/3 aluminum, 1/3 carbon - not in the closeout section, but for brand new stock. If carbon had truly "all be eliminated" demand for alloy frames, would these retailers stock those alloy frames?

I think carbon, if well done, is great. But I think the segment of the market where carbon dominates is a very narrow niche. That blanket statement makes very little sense to me. I'd suspect that what happened here is Pivot discovering that going all carbon was just a little more boutique than they really wanted to be...
  • - 4
flag ryan83 (Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13) (Below Threshold)
 I respectfully disagree. As is already the case carbon will continue to trickle into mid-level bikes and will eventually be an option at the lower end of the real mountain bike spectrum (the $2,000 level). We'll see carbon rims, cranks, etc. as standard as manufacture's figure out cheaper ways to glue resin together in a mold and bake it.
  • + 10
 I agree. Some of us prefer a well spec'd alloy bike! I see a lot of carbon frames around with crap components.
  • + 6
 you guys are arguing two different things - whether carbon has already eliminated the demand for aluminum, vs whether carbon will eventually eliminate that demand. if it's the case that aluminum can't get much cheaper, and CF can get cheaper and cheaper in the future, then you are both right
  • + 2
 Just want to point out that resin is glue, and fibers are the carbon weave.
  • - 7
flag someguy101 (Aug 24, 2015 at 10:44) (Below Threshold)
 Baked is better than welded! Say it with me.
  • + 6
 I think this is only the beginning, you're going to see many going this route with more Alu offerings so they can protect the price point on Carbon as it gets cheaper to manufacture, also helps the price point in the mid-range...I'd be surprised if it's not just as expensive to manufacture Alu as Carbon today already. By down grading the spec just a bit, attach a lower price point with some new Hydro work and Voila you have a bike at a price that doesn't throw the Interweb into a frenzy and still pretty much offers the same performance at a lower margin but higher volume which protects and/or increases Market Share...still have the high margin, high dollar, small market offerings at the top end. The only thing that could/would throw this strategy off is if the market moves to a lower cost Carbon offering ala Santa Cruz at a (more) competitive price point.

So far Intense and Pivot have made this move...maybe others but they are the two boutique brands I can think of. I would love a top-end Carbon bike and frankly could likely afford it but if I can buy a comparable Alu bike that is only a pound heavier for $1500+ cheaper it only makes sense.
  • + 2
 @g-42 You have half a dozen high end mountain bike shops?!?! I wish I could say the same :'(
  • + 8
 @arna86 - yep, it's kind of nuts. Bellingham has 80k people - and we have Northwest Bikesport, Jack's, Kulshan Cycles, Fairhaven Bike, Fanatik, the Kona Factory store. All full-service stores where you can buy anything from your entry level or kid's bike all the way to $10k carbon enduro bikes, right off the shop floor, and get them blinged out or repaired on site. That's in addition to two smaller outfits also selling some high end bikes. There's also a handful of other outlets for bikes, they just don't do the full-on store thing (we have an REI, a more family oriented bike dealer/repair store, a mostly-repairs and some custom builds store, a big box sporting goods place selling some entry level MTB stuff). Crazy. Even crazier, for each of those bike stores, we seem to have a craft brewpub making their own (rather excellent) beer - Boundary Bay, Chuckanut, Kulshan (two brewing and pub locations), Wander, Aslan. I'm guessing when Transition opens their new showroom in town, it will coincide with a new non-profit brewery collective that's also announcing their opening soon (just so there's balance in the force). Add to that a ton of local coffee roasters, and it makes for a pretty unique mix. Probably helps that we have great trails and an awesome trails association (and a community that's very much into supporting them with tons of volunteer work) and are situated right between two major cities (Seattle and Vancouver) - I have a hard time seeing how even we bike/beer/coffee crazy locals could keep all this going by ourselves. Fortunately, the powers that be are finally waking up to the economic potential of all this and are no longer insisting on treating MTB like a leper colony.
  • + 6
 @ryan83 - I don't think we're actually disagreeing. I'm with you, carbon is trickling down into mid range bikes more and more. My comment was more aimed at the quote in the article that seemed to imply that the carbon takeover had already been completed ("all but eliminated the demand for metal bikes") - if that were so, why are metal bikes at this point still dominant not just on the trails but also on the shop floor? The article seemed to imply that this move by Pivot was a bit of a renaissance for alloy, and my point was that it's hard to have a renaissance of something that's still dominant.
  • + 1
 I guess I'll play some devils advocate for carbon, as technology increases and carbon prices get lower you can achieve a longer lasting carbon"plastic" frame than aluminum. I have had multiple aluminum bikes that fatigue and have cracked after a couple years of bellingham riding and from what I understand carbon has a much longer fatigue life
  • + 1
 @wurtzj - I'm a big fan of carbon composites (my main thing is windsurfing - where carbon is an essential ingredient). Carbon doesn't fatigue the way aluminum does. So if used properly, it's got awesome potential for all sorts of goodness in terms of increasing performance as well as longevity. It's less impact resistant, so that requires a bit of care in design.

I agree with you that we'll see more carbon in bikes in the future. My point was that alloy bike frames are still dominating (i.e., RC's comment about demand for alloy bikes being all but eliminated seems, at best, a few years premature). I'm not sure Carbon will ever fully take over - there are some applications that just lend themselves to aluminum in a way that composites can't, at least not at decent cost/benefit. Both aluminum and carbon are energy intensive in different stages of their sourcing/production/manufacturing, and both require a fair amount of tooling for mass production. But large scale composite manufacturing is only really coming into its own, thanks to aerospace and automotive demand (there's a company here in WA that's making carbon fiber tubs for BMW mass production cars in an industrial, rather than artisanal, process - that sort of thing will eventually make composites much more mainstream than they are today).

I have to laugh when people talk about "plastic" bikes, so I definitely get where you're coming from with those quotes.
  • + 1
 I agree, there is room for both in the market for years to come. I see a lot of poorly build carbon bikes crack early in their life, my hope is my new carbon norco trail bike will outlast my last alloy bike that ran into fatigue issues a couple weeks out of warranty - luckily the company was rad and sent me a new updated frame free of cost.
  • + 26
 What a bunch of marketing drivel. This was a disgusting read on so many fronts.
  • + 4
 ^this! Exactly my first thought.
  • + 5
 RC living up to his reputation. At least they didn't post any pictures of him riding a bike this time.
  • + 26
 Aaron Gwin and Troy Brosnan laugh at all these boosted trail bikes as they dominate on their 135mm rear axle Demo
  • + 23
 "That said, even Chris admits that carbon composites have all but eliminated the demand for metal mountain bikes"

spoken like a true marketing manager - I won't be buying a plastic frame anytime soon.
  • + 2
 Alu is cheaper. I won't be on carbon until either I am wealthier out they are cheaper.
  • + 24
 "the performance of air-sprung shocks has been elevated to near-perfection by pro-level enduro competition."

Richard Cunningham? *scrolls to top* Yup, Richard Cunningham.
  • + 16
 Which is why many top level Enduro racers are running a coil, cause air is so perfect.
  • + 4
 ...and why Gwin dominated the WC this season on an air shock.
  • + 4
 Well to be fair, his suspension doesn't move all that much, so an air shock is great for that set up Wink

But for serious, I am a little surprised so many enduro guys are running coils.
  • + 7
 Maybe they just think the orange spring looks cool.
  • + 6
 I like how RC gives all the credit to ""pro-level enduro competition."

I'm sure the engineers had nothing to do with it.
  • + 21
 This is the kind of stuff i like reading: "undercut the sticker price". This is the kind of stuff i don't like reading: Boost 148.
  • - 1
 why is everybody so mad with boost 148? I mean if you buy his new Pivot Mach 6,you will be in the new standard and what ? if you break a piece you will just have to buy another piece than the one you used to buy before .. so in fact nothing really changes ...If you sell a non-boost148 to buy this bike here, I don't see where is the problem.
  • + 12
 I bought a 26" trek remedy in 2013, they phased out its wheel size and now they are phasing out it's axle size. As long as i can buy parts and frames to swap out my existing stuff when it breaks i am happy, but my choices of replacement frames and wheels due to my now "old" 2013 bike, choices are becoming more and more limited.
  • + 3
 I do wanna believe that some compagnies may understand our way of thinking so they continue to produce the "old stuff" Big Grin I got a giant trance from 2009, which has a 135mm rear axle, and I've never really experienced a big piss off due to new standards (not yet ...). So yeah at the moment there s no big problem out there
  • + 3
 Still, with 135mm spacing you gotta make sure any new wheelset can be converted. I have a 135 axle and have noticed less and less choice over the last few years. I'm the kinda person who uses equipment until it doesn't perform any longer, but due to "ingenious" marketing in mountain biking it is near impossible to do this.
  • + 17
 Finally! My dream all-mountain bike within reasonable price range! Now I just need to wait until people start selling them used....
  • - 3
 Or for a little more than price of a used one you can get a new YT with a warranty. Used mountain bikes = risky. Look no further than Fail of the Month.
  • + 5
 Or risk buying a bike with Boost components that might go the way of the dodo bird.
  • + 18
 that seattube needs a chiropractor
  • + 15
 Best improvement to this bike was reducing the amount of "Pivot" graphics on the frame.
  • + 11
 I love how they say "The Pivot Mach 6 is the choice of *all sponsored riders*" like that means anything lol. They're getting paid to ride these bikes, despite how good or bad they may be.
  • + 11
 They still can't make a decent looking trail bike...
  • + 2
 fugly
  • + 9
 What a nice bike! But I'll just stick with both YT Capra and Canyon Strive, both, together cheaper than this goddamit Pivot.
  • + 6
 A company focused on making high end at a (for some people) unattainable price point turns around and makes a sweet aluminum, reasonably affordable bike, And all you bizatches just complain about boost and press fit.

Thats a nice looking bike, I'd run it.
  • + 5
 Not everyone wants or can afford a carbon frame. I think its awesome that they are giving riders a CHOICE! That carbon model is pure sex though.
  • + 5
 A guy in our riding group is on his 3rd Carbon 429...just saying. Last break was not from a crash.
(in Pivot's defense, they have taken care of him)
  • + 6
 I was really hoping they would make the bike longer. I mean a 425mm reach on an XL bike?!
  • + 4
 sub 24" TT on a large frame is ridicarous.
  • + 2
 I like it. It doesn't do the consumer any good to have 10 companies making the same bike. A geo designed around a longer stem or more upright riding position could be just the ticket at some parks or for some riders.
  • + 0
 You can always downsize if you want a smaller bike, but when the XL bike has a reach of 425mm that's the same as a small patrol or reign etc you can't get a size to fit you if you want a larger size.
  • + 4
 scottzg: "A geo designed around a longer stem or more upright riding position could be just the ticket at some parks or for some riders."

I'm assuming you are talking about the park in your neighborhood where you take your children to play on the swings?
  • + 7
 What is this aluminum material?
  • + 3
 It's pronounced aluminium
  • + 3
 normally i love pivots ... but this seem to be the first one that i really don't like because of the look. i can't really explain but its the same reason i dont like the look of intense big bikes. (but i owned one, its just the look i don't like)
  • + 27
 so if I understand you correctly you are saying you dont like how it looks?
  • + 10
 I can't put my finger on it either, but something about the bike's look and angles, visually at least, isn't right. Maybe it is a photo editing error but the bikes look squished shorter than they should be and it just looks wrong to me.
  • + 4
 Looks like, a Canadian Tire. Super Expensive Ed., bike to me.
  • + 3
 If you look at the downtube on the orange aluminum version at the top you will notice that it is significantly lower than the bottom of the rear shock. Now if you scroll down to the carbon version you don't see the gap as much between the rear shock and the down tube. The downtube to me does give off that "squished" look you are talking about. Im sure they have their reasons with the numbers why the aluminum version is designed this way though. I much prefer the look of the carbon one at the bottom.

Coot
  • + 3
 I was thinking the exact same thing, can't quite put my finger on it, its got to be the angles. However they got it right with the phoenix, thats an awesome looking bike.
  • + 2
 Good points, but to me, it is the wacky kinked seat tube near the bottom bracket. Makes it look broken. Wonder why they felt that had to do that on the al model, as seems it would weaken the integrity of the bike?
  • + 2
 on the photo, wheel base looks short, like if the pict has been shrinked
  • + 0
 I have no idea how they ride, but every Pivot aside from the Phoenix looks to me like a store-brand bike with bent tubes and braces to make them look "cool".
  • + 2
 According to another comment, the reach is ridiculously short. Looks short in the picture, that's why the whole bike looks off.
  • + 1
 For me I think Pivot bike are high quality and make competitive bike.... however if you compare the Mach6 geo to another bike in its class you will notice that the bike geo is a little different. For example the reach on a med Mach6 is 15.81in (401.5mm) vs a reach of 17in (432mm) of the Patrol. Also the head tube is 66deg vs 65deg on the patrol. Yes the numbers seem very close and maybe even unnoticeable to the average rider but I think the bike looks short in photos and its is. But you also have to factor the design intent between the 2 bikes, The mach6 was design to ride in technical trail like Sedona that require snappy steering and good steep climbing capability vs the patrol that was designed in the Pacific NW where trails are flowy downhill trails.
  • + 2
 can someone honestly say the mach6 looks good on these pics ? compare with this transitionbikes.com/2016/images/Bike2016_Side_Patrol_HighRes.jpg
  • + 1
 The tranny looks a bit better, not gonna lie.
  • + 0
 That transition has no appeal.
  • + 4
 When you look into the labor and machining process that goes into an aluminum frame It is just a matter of time before cast plastic(carbon fiber) frames are much cheaper than aluminum frames.
  • + 3
 The first trail they drop into at 34 sec is an " unauthorized trail constructed on crow land. "
The line @ 1:40 is now closed off. "Stava line"
The trail @1:14 is a green circle that people pedal up to get to the good's and others push strollers down.
I could care less what you ride on your own time but if you make an edit in here be a pro about it, the world is watching.
  • + 2
 This was intriguing until I read the details, and soon as I saw that it had a boost axle set up, I no longer cared at all about this frame. Apparently the new carbon is going the same way. Won't be riding a Pivot anytime soon. When will bike companies realize that people aren't ready to adopt a new axle standard for the masses? Why not just stop making wheels that are too weak? I have never tacoed a wheel that I built with straight pull spokes. Nor have I had any problems with tire clearance. You don't need a new axle standard to fix these problems.
  • + 2
 Are the attachment points on the bottom of the downtube for a water bottle cage?
I really dislike external cabling, especially running down the most vulnerable part of the frame, and then to put a bottle there? hello, giardiasis...
  • + 1
 Better than no bottle mounts though.
  • + 4
 wait this is not how it works, you go aluminum and then make a big news release about how you went carbon.
  • + 4
 i wish specialized would do something like this with their yokes, so shocks would be more readily interchangeable.
  • + 1
 That's the reason I just bought a mach 6. Tired of the specialized and any other bike manufacturer propriety crap. I will not buy another specialized until they change to a more access shock yoke.. and I've already purchased 8 specialized bikes in the past.
  • + 1
 I agree with the Specialized crap, as a current owner.
  • + 4
 Boxer Manny "PacMan" Pacquiao just bought a Mach 6 with DVO Suspension. DVO and Pivot posted it on their facebook pages.
  • - 2
 clearly demonstrating how little he knows about MTB. stick to boxing
  • + 4
 You know he is a Pinkbiker right?
  • + 6
 @gnarbar if you think the Mach 6 carbon is a bad bike you haven't ridden it.
  • + 4
 Can;t believe they didn;t lengthen it - 425mm reach on an XL? Shortest wheelbase in it's class?

No thanks, Awful geometry.
  • + 5
 Good job Pivot. Stoked that metal is still alive!
  • + 1
 Ya that's pretty metal...
  • + 4
 I found that the seat angle is too slack on this bike, requiring serious weight over f.axle climbing.
  • + 1
 Really wish it had a normal bottle mount inside the frame. Why waste them underneath?! I won't buy a bicycle that doesn't include a bottle mount inside the frame. I do love the color though! I wish you had orange option for the Mach4.
  • + 4
 Sick ride, but why would you run the cables on the underside of the DT?
  • + 3
 Maybe as an expensive frame protector?
  • + 0
 I would prefer that my frames design and geo be based around accommodating the rear tire, front derailleur, and chainring rather than ideal pivot placement while retaining a short chainstay, maximum tire clearance, front der and chainring compatibility; with the side benefit of increased lateral wheel and frame stiffness! Ya boost is a horrible way for bike manufacturers to get an edge on their competitors in an effort to sell more bicycles!
  • + 1
 I really like the Pivot Phoenix, but their new Match-Trailbikes look freaking ugly. Have to say that. I cant understand how somebody would like to buy it, if he could buy another one. But... the DH bike... Hell YEAH!
  • + 3
 Can someone explain why boost is apparently the antichrist? I honestly don't know anything about it.
  • + 7
 basically as time has gone on, we went from 5 to 11 cogs on the rear wheel, and added a rotor mount for the disc brake innovation. All along we kept moving the hub flanges in to accommodate these changes. Suddenly someone said, "hey let's widen our hub flanges back out to get the spoke angle back to how it was"
But then all the 18-25 year old know it alls on this site starting pissing and moaning, "Now my bike is obsolete and my parts aren't interchangeable with every new bike on the market. Evil money grubbing industry!"

Basically it's a slightly wider hub that's just wide enough not to fit in your old bike. You could adapt your old wheels to fit in the new wider frames, but then you'd be missing out on the benefit of the wider hub flanges.
  • + 1
 Wish I could give you more props for this one
  • + 2
 Anyone know if the new stiffer linkages will be backwards compatible with my now obsolete 1.5 year old Mach 6? Or did the Boost mess that up too?
  • + 4
 That alloy Mach 6 is fugly.
  • + 2
 top tube & seat tube are gross. Cheeto based technology. hire qualified designers, please. aesthetics counts, too. YUCK
  • + 1
 All this talk about boost and pressfit and everyone has missed just how ugly that saddle looks, so out of proportion and big!
  • + 2
 The carbon one is funky looking in the XL, but the Aluminum one is just funky looking period!!!
  • + 2
 Boost and pressfit BB aside... Big fail is the cable routing along the downtube
  • + 2
 From carbon to aluminum, another press fit and boost 148! What has the bike industry now come to Madder
  • + 2
 sweet cable routing job underneath the bike perfect for on a tailgate to fark it up
  • + 3
 Thank you for not over labeling the new model. They do listen!
  • + 1
 Come to think of it, Pivot owners complained about the Power Ranger graphics, PF and cable routing... they solved those, well 2 out of 3 (didn't see Boost coming though)
  • + 2
 Why is Boost 148 bad? Doesnt it create a wider more stiffer wheel so its less likely to taco?!?!
  • + 6
 the argument is not that it's bad, it's that it's not good enough to warrant yet another standard
  • + 1
 Not bad but bike manufacturers keep coming out with these "standards"... kind of defeats the purpose if standards keep getting replaced with newer ones every couple of years.
  • + 3
 Hear that Yeti? Bring on the Sb6a!!
  • + 2
 Or just buy an SB66....
  • + 4
 Or do the sensible thing and don't buy a Yeti
  • + 1
 And why not exactly? @csermonet
  • + 5
 I got my SB66 frame brand spankin new for $900 on clearance and cannibalized a few parts from my old trailbike, upgraded my fork, my brakes, and a few knick knacks. Total I'm in it $1600 and I could sell the thing tomorrow for $3000. I wont because the thing is by far the best bike I've ever ridden. A high end build tailored to me for half what this stupid pivot costs. And the reliability issues you hear about with the SB66? I haven't experienced a single one after a whole season of use and abuse. I was afraid it would be too boutique, but I look at everyone else's carbon nomads and carbon mach 6's on the trails and cant help think those people are suckers after what I did. Just my two cents. Yetis are amazing.
  • + 4
 Yeti SB66. Check. Extra Swingarm. Check. Extra bearings, dogbone, nuts and bolts. Check. Ill stick with my Yeti for a very long time.
  • + 4
 @equilibrium34 what year? 2012 and prior are the problem children. They redesigned the switch link and added an extra row of bearings in it in 2013 (my model year). The cracking swing arms and chain stays are from before Yeti audited their welders in 2012 when they found the welds weren't to spec. Every company goes through this. I have a friend who replaced his swing arm on his Bronson C 3 times. He finally got tired of it and bought a GT Fury.
  • + 2
 Good people of Yeti - now give me an SB5A please.
  • + 2
 It is a 2013. I bought another one just in case. My last bikes arm broke after 8yrs and I failed to find a replacment. If i had a extra I would still be riding it. This should last me 10yrs.
  • + 3
 @equilibrium34 Not a bad idea. The only neg thing I can say about mine is the clear coat sucks, and Yeti should have lifetime replacement on the bearing kits.
  • + 3
 I do have an SB66, I love it and like you, haven't had any problems. But as a happy satisfied tribe member, i would love to always ride a Yeti, I just can't afford the carbon bikes.
  • + 1
 @MTBCAM I agree the clear coat is not great. I have a solution for you! Did it on my SB66 and it still looks spanking new! Once you get the hang of applying it easy as pie.

www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AXE635O?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o08_s00
  • + 2
 @Triber66 I should have paid more attention to your username haha. Ya man a SB6A would be cool, and I agree carbon bikes are too expensive still. Since I've upgraded my fork my SB66 is sitting around 30 pounds total weight. Any lighter than that and I think its handling in the air would suffer. I take it down all sorts of terrain but my favorite thing to do with it is the jump lines. I don't need my bike being unstable when I'm hitting jumps. Also I think with the way I ride (I push my limits a lot and I crash more than I should) I would crack a carbon frame in weeks. @equilibrium34 That stuff looks awesome and its dirt cheap, thanks for the suggestion dude!
  • + 2
 "large number of elite level riders have not warmed up to carbon"... this strikes me as odd
  • + 0
 If you are going to make a bike that ugly (really looks half assed), at least share some geometry numbers so that we have some reason to buy it besides the "press fit upgrade."
  • + 2
 www.pivotcycles.com/bike/Mach-6-Aluminum - Geometry is on the geometry tab of the page. Reach looks a little short though....
  • + 3
 y u no internal cable routing ?
  • + 3
 Can't wait to change all them pivot bearings twice a year!
  • + 3
 such high quality photographs. i was entertained
  • + 3
 That Mach 6 Carbon XTR sure is a fine lookin' lady! Daddy likey
  • + 3
 Nice but i'm going to wait for the magnesum one.
  • + 3
 no internal cable routing ? YE$
  • + 0
 I don't care if it rides like shit and falls apart after a season, it is sooooo PRETTY, I can live with that! Technical article to follow, NOT.
  • + 2
 there's nothing wrong with Aluminium
  • + 2
 External cable routing makes me cringe
  • + 1
 If only Yeti would follow suit and make the SB6a so I can maybe afford one.
  • + 2
 Lost me at the press fit bb. and boost.
  • + 1
 can anybody tell me what a boost rear hub means?
  • + 0
 knock knock! Who's there? ORANGE. ORANGE WHO? ORANGE you glad to see me? What an atrocious colour.
  • + 1
 Sweet the new Divinci Spartan
  • + 2
 Sick Iron Horse
  • + 1
 Perfect timing, I was just about to buy last years Mach 6!
  • + 1
 Just buy firebird and enjoy!!!
  • + 1
 I want to like this bike but it just looks unattractive
  • + 2
 The Pivot HD3
  • + 1
 ^^^Now that was funny
  • + 6
 Ibis employ an industrial designer who cares about the bike's aesthetics - and it shows. The only thing they have in common is DW-link, and one of them is plastic too.
  • + 1
 I agree. but it was still funny.
  • + 1
 Looks shit, it should not matter, but it does.
  • + 2
 Looks dated already.
  • + 1
 eeeegads!!!!!
  • + 0
 that seat tube looks like its gonna snap first ride...
  • - 3
 Thanks you thank you thank you!! Finally a bike designer/manufacturer seeing sense and not bowing down to pissing carbon fibre!! It's an extreme welcome relief. Great bike and great design. #longlivemetalbikes .
  • + 1
 Geo chart ?
  • - 2
 I like this bike details
  • - 1
 Neat

Post a Comment



You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.096241
Mobile Version of Website