Field Test: Starling Murmur - The Steel Rock Crusher
PINKBIKE FIELD TEST
Starling Murmur Trail
Words by Alicia Leggett; photography by Tom Richards
Starling Murmur Trail
Words by Alicia Leggett; photography by Tom Richards
The Starling Murmur was the bike we were all curious about as we headed up to Pemberton to test all these bikes. We spend plenty of time covering the newest carbon ultra-linkage machines and speculating about the latest changes and trends, but it's easy to forget about the simple things, and that's where the Starling comes in. The Starling Murmur is a beautifully designed, steel, single-pivot bike with elegant tubing, a coil shock, and endless attention to detail.
With 29" wheels front and rear, a 64.6-degree head tube angle with a 160mm fork, 445mm chainstays, and a 485mm reach on the size L test bike, the Murmur is, by the numbers, a true aggressive trail bike. What the numbers don't show is the craftsmanship and care that went into the bike's creation.
Starling Murmur Details
• Travel: 140mm rear / 160mm fork
• Steel frame (geo chart)
• Wheel size: 29"
• Head Angle: 64.6°
• Seat Tube Angle: 76.6°
• Reach: 485mm (L)
• Chainstay length: 445mm
• Sizes: M, L (tested), XL, XXL
• Weight: 34.06 lb / 15.45 kg
• Price: £2,162 (frame and Ohlins TTX coil shock) - note that pricing has changed since we filmed the video
• Starling Cycles
• Travel: 140mm rear / 160mm fork
• Steel frame (geo chart)
• Wheel size: 29"
• Head Angle: 64.6°
• Seat Tube Angle: 76.6°
• Reach: 485mm (L)
• Chainstay length: 445mm
• Sizes: M, L (tested), XL, XXL
• Weight: 34.06 lb / 15.45 kg
• Price: £2,162 (frame and Ohlins TTX coil shock) - note that pricing has changed since we filmed the video
• Starling Cycles
Starling is a small British outfit that began in 2015 when founder Joe McEwan began welding bikes in his garden shed. Now, the Murmur front triangle is still hand-welded from Reynolds 853 tubing in the UK, and it's paired with a chromoly rear triangle made in Taiwan by ORA.
While it's available as a frame for £1,880 or with an Ohlins TTX coil shock for £2,162, Starling offers a variety of parts so customers can spec their Murmurs with components from Ohlins, EXT, RockShox, Magura, Shimano, Hope, Middleburn, and others. While there isn't a full range of brands for each part, it's safe to say that just about anyone could build a bike to suit their fancy using the parts available. Starling also offers custom frame and swingarm colors.
Our test bike came fitted with an SLX drivetrain, Magura M7 brakes, Ohlins suspension, and a set of gorgeous Middleburn cranks. While the 'enduro' version typically comes with a 160mm fork and the 'trail' version with a 140mm one, ours arrived with 150mm up front, so our test bike sits in the middle of the two Murmur options and has slightly steeper numbers than the ones listed above. It also arrived with an 11-speed cassette, but Starling's bike builder tool online does offer a 12-speed SLX drivetrain.
Starling bills the Murmur as both a versatile trail option and the enduro racer's choice, depending on how the bike is built up. Each bike is made to order, so some tweaks are possible, such as a non-boost rear end for a bike that typically comes with boost spacing. Also, custom bikes are central to what Starling does, so Starling will build up a fully custom bike for those who want specific sizing or geometry.
Just looking at the bike, it's clear that Starling doesn't skimp on the details. Now, onward to see how it rides.
Climbing
The Starling Murmur is a trail bike, but it's a different type of trail bike than most others we tested. The coil-sprung single-pivot suspension was less efficient than some of the more complex designs, and between the length of the bike and the single-pivot design, the bike definitely didn't feel snappy on the climbs. Whether or not that's a true negative just depends on what we're looking for.
I feel that if you're trying to race to the top on the Murmur, you're doing it wrong. The Murmur is a calm climber, without much bob, and it excels where traction is hard to come by. The extremely supple Ohlins shock keeps the bike glued to the ground, and the stability on the descents also translates to easy tracking uphill and around corners.
We tested the large frame, which had a 485mm reach, and I found it to be quite long, especially on the climbs, and that was exacerbated by the flat handlebar. I had to slam the seat as far forward as possible to avoid back pain, and even so, it took some forward and backward movement to feel like I could be over both the front and back of the bike when I needed to be. I'll concede that the bike was a little large for me, as I'm toward the bottom of the large size range. However, sizing down probably would have brought worse problems, as the medium bike has a 450mm reach, which likely would have felt far too short for me. At 5'10" (178cm), I'm in range for both the medium and the large sizes, according to Starling's size chart, but am caught right in the middle.
Mike Kazimer also thought that a higher rise handlebar would have been more appropriate, but at 5'11" (180cm) he got along better with the fit of the Murmur - he didn't feel too stretched out during seated pedaling.
Descending
The Murmur surprised me on the descents. Immediately, when I pointed it downhill, it felt notably stable, predictable, and trustworthy. I expected it to be nice and ride well, sure, but most bikes do that nowadays. What I didn't expect was just how easy it was to hold tough lines, find traction, and point straight downhill. Its generally comfortable ride made it inviting to loosen up the braking fingers and let it pick up all the straight-line speed it wanted. I would not go so far as to call it a playful bike, but it had more hop to it than I expected, with the 445mm chainstays lending themselves to a more balanced feel than the numbers would suggest.
As for the steel, I didn't notice any overt flex, but I did feel that the bike had a gentler feel than the other bikes on test, and between the length and the frame material, the bike felt pleasantly surfy as it tracked through corners. Speaking of tracking neatly, the bike had the reassuring tendency to ride exactly where I wanted it, holding a line cleanly and keeping traction where most bikes would want to skitter sideways.
Timed Testing
Our timed lap for the trail bikes was about three minutes long and was a mix of choppy, rooty sections and some fast flow. It started with an optional rock roll, a little drop, some fast corners, and a small double. As it serpentined its way down the hill, it included some steeps, a few root hops, and a few slight uphills. While none of the track was overly technical, the bikes that excelled on the test lap had to be capable on both fast, rough sections and in quick corners.
Don't forget that timing is just one of many ways to judge a bike, and fast doesn't always mean it's the best for everyone.
Alicia Leggett: "I didn't feel consistently fast on the Starling, and my times back that up. The Starling ranked 5th out of 6 for my timed test laps, and while it felt quite quick through steep corners and through chunky sections, it felt almost sluggish on the quick climbs and on parts of the track that favored bikes with more nimble handling."
The bike, as a whole, was more versatile than I expected. Still, there were times when it wasn't quite a magic carpet. When the trail turned undulating and there were short choppy climbs, it didn't have the snappy feel that would make me want to power through sprints. As quite a long and slack bike, it also isn't the perfect tool for those rides that are all about quick and nimble maneuverability.
When descending, I didn't remotely mind the bike's length. As I mentioned in the climbing section, the long reach was a drawback for me on the climbs, but I enjoyed the stability on the descents, and the length didn't actually seem to hurt the bike's all-around ability. At a very reasonable 34 pounds with svelte tubes and a thoughtful spec, it also didn't feel like the tank that its capability and frame material would suggest. Instead, it proved itself to be a solid choice for all-around trail riding, a realistic option for those who want a 140mm bike that can double as an enduro machine, and a truly enjoyable bike to ride.
Pros
+ Extremely stable on the descents
+ Beautiful craftsmanship
+ Great selection of parts to choose from when building a custom bike
+ Built to last
Cons
- Odd sizing, especially for someone around 5'10", and no sizes smaller than medium
- Not the most efficient climber
The 2021 Fall Field Test is presented by Rapha and Bontrager. Thank you also to Maxxis, Schwalbe, and Garmin for control tires and equipment.
Author Info:
Member since Jun 19, 2015
Must Read This Week
The truth is every other on and off-camera personality at pinkbike is better than me too, but for some reason, (likely deep-seated sexism?) I notice it way more with her.
Oh well. Imma go do some bicep curls and think of some new piece of bike-bling to buy to take my mind off my laziness and lack of skill.
You might want to think about that a little harder.
www.facebook.com/StarlingCycles/videos/1380399148727271
You could make an infinitely stiff frame (well, you couldn't, but you know what I mean) and there would be no side loading whatsoever on the shock.
The primary difference in ride quality between aluminum and steel comes down to the 'Damping Capacity' of the material. Steel has a much higher damping capacity than aluminum, causing it to transfer less of the high frequency vibrations than aluminum would, which is what most people are feeling when they note a 'harsh' feeling ride. Triangles inherently are very stiff structures, and aren't going to 'flex' noticeably vertically on a bicycle frame, no matter the material. There is however torsional flexing which is a lot more noticeable, but usually noted as a negative trait, not positive (although torsional flex can be a good quality for a hardtail mountain bike for not getting as beat up on rough downhill) But any effect of torsional flex in a full suspension triangle is likely going to disappear under the effect of the pivot(s) flexing. (also should note that most of the vibrational damping in a frame is pretty irrelevant vs the damping in tires, but that's a whole other conversation...)
On top of that, Steel is a far stiffer material than aluminum (about 3x stiffer). Now it's true that this is assuming the same tube thickness and diameter. And with steel frames they tend to have thinner tubes than aluminum, but the difference is still not enough to make a bicycle noticeably 'flex' vertically.
My main point is that so many people 'regurgitate' that there is more noticeable vertical flex in a steel rear triangle (specifically in hardtails, but I see the same though process being applied to fullies as well) than in aluminum, when what they are really feeling is the increased damping capacity of steel. I'd bet under the hardest riding impacts, the rear triangle wouldn't even flex enough for the rear axle to move even a millimeter relative to the BB (or the main pivot in the case of a full suspension bike)
I hope some of you find this informative rather than just downvote it because it disagrees with some preconceived notions.
Yes, steel is denser, stronger, has higher Young's modulus, and so on, but probably most relevant is endurance behaviour:
Steel can handle a far higher stress (higher strain, after calculating everything out) to the same number of loading cycles as compared to aluminium. This means more flex can be designed into a steel structure without a risk of fatigue failure. This is why Starling seatstays can be so thin.
This is not to say that it couldn't be done in aluminium (Trek Fuel 90 had aluminium flex stays in a rocker-driven single pivot design for example), it's just good engineering practice* not to, especially because the loads in bike frames are so variable, this makes it hard to design for in a material that is overall also on the brittle side of things. Present day, this is also much easier to implement in carbon fibre.
*aluminium doesn't have a fatigue limit because of its (micro)structure, though in practice, depending on the load, it can be millions of cycles to failure
As Buggyr333 says, vertical flex in frames is very small (I reckon the millimetre estimate for hardtail "travel" is accurate); the most relevant dimension is lengthwise twist. I actually think that this is a super hard target to hit, I don't think the level of engineering that it's possible to put into a bike frame is that high, but there are black art aspects to this: how much brass or steel rod to fill a joint with, whether to pick a certain tube or one that's 0.05mm lighter or heavier, and so on.
The other thing to point out is that torsional stiffness doesn't become irrelevant in full suspension: a LOT of design goes into swingarm flex in motorcycles (at least for high performance track racing) because it makes a big difference to traction at higher lean angles, where bumps aren't in line with the plane that the suspension moves in and it cannot work as effectively. Joe talks about this on his blog; if I recall correctly, the seatstays are designed to provide this function when riding off camber.
I’m not a fast rider and I do love a technical climb and gnarly descents.
I’ve extensively rustproofed mine by spraying excess “LPS #3” corrosion-inhibiting guck in all the frame tubes. I’ve tested that for 20 years on steel winter bikes riding in Ontario salt. Works great.
pilotshq.com/products/lps-3-premier-rust-inhibitor-mil-prf-16173e-g2
Keep her on board PB!
but also:
"The Murmur is a calm climber, without much bob, and it excels where traction is hard to come by. The extremely supple Ohlins shock keeps the bike glued to the ground"
Isn't all that, like, really efficient? Little bob, lots of traction, calm (smooth); those all sound like efficient ways to get up a trail. This bike has them all, but isn't efficient as some? What exactly are you all looking for as "efficient"?
Do the rocks up there still have decent grip even when wet? The "sheen" coming off the rocks in the photos instinctively sends me into panic mode. The limestone around me might as well be ice when I see rocks like that.
On my Murmur XL, I started with a DVO Topaz T3 (air) shock.
Coming off an ‘07 KTM 525, I was intensely curious about a coil shock.
The DVO Jade-X with 550lb spring (I’m 100kg bone dry, unclothed in an updraft) TRANSFORMED my Murmur.
The Topaz was superb. The Jade-X is exceptional. Roots and rocks: bring ‘em on. I often choose to ride the eroded lines going up or down just for fun.
I doubt anyone would be too sad about the rear suspension on a well set-up single-pivot KTM.
That’s true on my Murmur. Admittedly I’m old (64) and not aggressive. The Jade-X (now Jade between rebuilds of Jade-X); don’t need a climb switch) give my bike a bottomless feel to the rear suspension. I do love gnarly terrain. Flow trails: ok. Not my choice.
Up front 160mm DVO Diamond D1. Love it.
Soon to bolt on a 180mm Fox 38 w/ Vorsprung.
The bike doesn’t _need_ a Fox 38 coil; I’m curious!
As the owner of a Starling Swoop the 27.5 version I found it is a better bike with a Fox X2 and I didn’t like the Ohlins. As for climbing I find it climbs fantastically when I am riding loads and very fit and is a bit of a pig when I have not ridden for a while. Mine is 3 years old and has been smashed hard on the huge descents of The Lake District where I live and frequent trips to the Scottish Mountains. The flex in the frame is very welcome for my 48 year old body and translates to insane grip and greater comfort on long very rough descents. The single pivot is zero factor with great geometry and shock tune. Reliability has been exemplary as has the paint job. Wheels and tyre choice make the biggest difference.
I am a person that has mostly bought my bikes based on craftmanship, build quality, reliability and durability. I have had a lot of bikes in my 30 years of MTBing. The 3 that have really stood out for me were 2 Nicolai’s and the Starling. All 3 were heavy but when the angles are correct and you know how to setup your shocks then weight is much less important. Every time a batter down a Lake District descent with rocks flying up and hitting my frame, I remember why I own a Starling. It does everything that is asked of it without needing silly gimmicks like carbon or wavey tubes.
Bikes made by engineers not the marketing department will alaways get my vote.
I get that you only got one size per bike for to evaluate, but any bike in a longer reach will have the fit issues described. Kind of a bummer that the long reach overshadowed the review.
I’d also be curious how snappier the bike would feel with SLX cranks. Those Middleburns are pretty in a mid 90’s way, but I’ll bet they’re also flexy like a mid 90’s crankset too.
I’m also sure they’re much less stiff than a hollow forged Shimano crankset.
Going back to trials as an example, Inspired Bicycles offer a crankset based around the SRAM GX crankset with a direct mount bash/chainring combo which - as a complete setup - is around 700g. Their BMX-style tubular crankset is 1.130kg. That's quite a chunk of additional weight.
Sizing: I was between a small and a medium (trying the swoop). There isn’t a small in the twist (their mullet), so the boys custom made me a twist with medium reach, small stand over. It’s frigging awesome.
12 or 11 speed: ahhh c’mon few years ago you’d never have known the difference
Climbing: probably would agree though I did come at this from a hardtail and I was actually expecting it to be WAY worse. I was pleasantly surprised
Enjoying these in depth reviews though guys & gal
@alicialeggett If you happen to come to Northern Italy you can try my "M size" Murmur!
Regarding the loss of snappiness - you stated that you had to slam the seat as far forward as possible. That does not make much sense as the power triangle is one of the determining things to have enough power on uphills. A changed bar, at least in my opinion, would have been a far better solution to "correct" the underlying problem.
Credit will be deducted for noting the obvious steel vs. aluminum material of construction.
Side Note: Why do 90% of people feel like they are in between sizes?!
I'd love to know the answer to the sizing question. I think it's more a psychology questions.
I'm perfect size for Large, but have also ridden Medium and XL with no real issues. You adapt pretty quickly, as long as you can get saddle to right height and don't whack you knees on the bars, you'll be able to make it work eventually!!
But people struggle to make a choice, especially when it involves a lot of money, so they become uncertain!!
www.starlingcycles.com/starling-cycles-sizing-guide
The wrong : Kazimer says a big guy might not like it for reasons but the big guy IS starling's bread and butter customer - all the way to 6'8"!! They nail it for the big guy. Then the timed test, this bike has maxgrip dhr and assegai. I assume that front is maxgrip too - that combination along with the super plush coil both ends just isnt what xc riders do and there is certainly a decent climbing component to the timing - it is a trail test after all. If anything were begging for different parts for this test, this is it tho you cant argue they don't play to the strenghts of the frame.
The right : on rails while turning, soft feel, good tech climbing, indeed a fairly long bike (tho everybody else has mostly caught up). maintenance is a dream. Also, too bad on Alicia not quite fitting.
Jeg bor i stavanger
Plus, it does seem to climb well. Sure you need to pedal harder, but traction is better too. That's what's your rear suspension is for on the climbs, isn't it?
But there has to be something going on if the Starling has a coil and is lighter then the stumpy with air and frames are about the same weight then something about the Starling build is making the bike lighter.
So back to cost. We know the stumpy price, if this Starling build is about the same price then the fact that it's lighter is impressive. But if it's 2-3 grand more then maybe not so much.
And then depends how much lighter.
I can promise its a flat out downhill machine, National Champion and lots of other race wins and podiums attest to this. Just ask anyone who owns one!!
www.starlingcycles.com/bikes/twist-trail
The suspension works great. I think this came out perfectly in the review!
When I asked Remy about his coming in within several mm of a rough RAD calc...he said he had no idea about RAD etc but that he was just faster on the smaller bike after downsizing from the large. Rude's comment on rocking 460mm of reach on medium (just a bit more than Remy) was about bike balance mostly iirc.
At Remy and Rude's level I'd assume they are riding different sized bikes for direct comparison, (as well as providing input on the production frame sizing anyway depending on the timing and duration of the contract?), and not just using any sizing theory?
You are so spot on
It’s a bummer most pros don’t actually come out and share the why… but it is what it is
I’d imagine it’s a mix of the two between balance and also tight tracks
That ignores that there are a number of design choices that go into this bike that do go against a lot of established trends. Linear/basically flat rate + coil + frame flex at bottom-out. Frame flex in general. ~100% anti-squat and anti-rise. Geo is fairly traditional now, but chainstays are longish.
The sum of all that is a bike that rides differently because Joe made a bunch of choices that are different. The whole point of the paradox is that there is nothing different or special about starlings other than their boutique build. What is missed are the number of ways starlings are different, because they are differences that people normally think are weaknesses to "overlook." or design around. They probably are absolute weaknesses in a bike that is just poorly designed in one area. But when designed and tuned for them, it creates a bike that rides differently, and some people like.
I like my starling. Sure, I gave up zip out of berms on a flow trail or on mellow terrain, and it pedals like any modern bike with a coil. But it grips like hell, has let me recover several near-crashes, and the suspension is consistent--I'm much more confident pushing on a bike that responds the same at the limit than to have 5% "better" suspension performance, some of the time.
In any case, I didn't get the impression that the reviewers succumbed to the phenomenon.
Don't believe the comment sections, single pivots are just as good as anything.
I guess it's an endless discussion and I'm sure Kaz and the BC locals have the terrain for longer bikes. I have more fun and time faster runs on a shorter bike, which also rides fast in a straight line
i also spent some time on a starling - which was a great ride. nicely balanced, refined handling; something to be said about a steel rear end.
Still doesn’t answer the “more advanced suspension” question. I’ve ridden single pivots, they don’t suck, but there’s much better designs out there.
It’s just a couple of comments above this.
That's not to say Starling hasn't developed a really nice, unique, single pivot, but I do feel like hype is really driving the favorable opinions by their owners.
Then again, I'm guilty of it as well with my GG, lol.
And still others just want a suspension they don't have to rebuild every few weeks of sloppy winter riding, or can rebuild in 20 minutes flat, and in that case, a direct-driven single pivot is very much "better".
"My theory is that the better a rider gets, the less stability they need or even want. Therefore smaller bikes give some diff maneuverability choices as you describe. At least that's true in my experience."
Attempt not to ramble too much but geek out just enough:
I'm in a similar boat at slightly under 192cm with shorter legs - I'm on an L Murmur (STAINLESS STEEL!) with a 485 reach (632 stack, 1260 wheelbase) and the bike feels and performs how I like - It's setup to be pretty much right at my RAD (neutral) measurement with my preferred bars and stem.
I did the knuckle height measurement but I also get on my back with the bike upside down thing - straight arms and legs and make adjustments to get the bars centered on my first knuckles - akin to doing a deadlift - this allows having the biggest bike possible while being able to apply max torque to the bike with your upper body and hinge your hips properly. If you're too stretched out over the bike, it inhibits this.
Not sure how to say this but I'll try: If you properly get your knuckle height and use a string (or a tape measure), and rotate the radius around the bb; you can apply this principle and chose your rider position based on your stem, bar, spacer combo.
but the "deadlift theory" is actually more than just a theory.
@mikekazimer is it possible that KAZ sizing is a desire for a more comfy ride as a result of riding so much on so many different bikes
We can talk geometry until the cows come home so I'll just throw in one more consideration and leave it at that. Foot on pedal placement. I think I've been on platform pedals for nearly two decades but initially stuck with keeping the ball of my foot over the axle of the pedal. Also because the curved shape of the relatively stiff shoe (5.10 Impact) fits so nicely inside the concave pedals. It was only when James Wilson released the Pedaling Innovations Catalyst pedals that I made the shift to having my midfoot over the axle as that's how these pedals are intended to be used. It also implies it effectively increases your rear center and reduces the front center. It made my size small DMR Switchback (because I just wanted a seattube no longer than 16") from just doable to scary. More weight over the front implied more oversteer and less stability. Eventually I made the shift to a new frame (BTR Ranger 26" with large geometry but small seattube) with on paper 415mm chainstays, 460mm reach and a 1214mm wheelbase. The chainstays may appear short by modern standards but if you consider my feet are maybe 20mm in front of where others would place their feet, my weight balance may be comparable to what others would have on a bike with 435mm chainstays.
By modern standards I think my bike geometry is pretty midpack now (the 63deg head angle obviously steepens at sag) and for me it feels spot on. It is easy to play around with my balance. For more rough terrain I can imagine longer geometry could be easier to ride but it would also be harder to play near the edges of the stable region. I think that's also how the Geometron bikes are marketed. They're safe as it takes more to get near the limits where they become unsafe. Seems to me that it also becomes harder to play near those limits. So at the end of the day there are so many variables that it becomes near impossible to say for someone else what's "right". It not only depends on body dimensions and agility, speed and and terrain, but also on where you like to stand on your pedals and where you want to be on the spectrum of stable to twitchy. As someone else mentioned above, the only way to know is to rack up a lot of experience on one bike until you have decided what you want from your next bike and which direction you want everything to go. If even pro riders have to experiment with different geometries to find out what they like, how could any of us punters think we can get the definite geometry numbers through static measurements?
Lee is trying to quantify bike size relative to body size vs just getting a longer and longer bike.
If your objective is being 'comfortable' do what you gotta do to make that happen, but realize comfort and performance are not always the same thing, if you want to optimize for performance then it's worth trying new things.
Lee's RAD formula is arbitrary to say the least, what I asked is how he justifies his rad value is correct, based on what exactly? Yes I'm 185, with 189 arm span, so what? The way I see it, as long as reach doesn't exceed tt length I'm quite confident that I'll be able to ride a bike no matter how long reach is. If I can ride a bike with eg 700mm (640tt + 60 stem) bar to saddle length, while seated, what makes you thing that I can't ride 575mm reach (515reach + 60 stem) on the descends attached at only 2 points feet/arms instead of 3 while seated? Being hunched over the bars like trying to reach my tip toes isn't exactly a performance posture, what makes me ride more comfy, safer thus faster is when my back is straight my arms push up stance appart and legs sligthly bent, this brings my upper body where it should to get grip up front and move around the bike when cornering without getting of balance.
RAD is a theory - no such thing as correct as it's largely impossible to prove, but it certainly has some merits based on qualitative performance data and some quantitative body dimensions.
Riding position and posture has as much to do with flexibility and strength as anything. You may be more comfortable, but again, doesn't mean it's the best position to be in control.
I think your perception of what works vs reality are very different. While I'm not an advocate of copying exactly what Pro's do, they test, time and evaluate constantly so their opinions of what works best hold a lot more water than ours.
I also think a well performing bike is not always comfortable, being in an athletic stance in 'proper' position (as we understand it) doesn't always feel natural and certainly is not relaxing....if being relaxed is your goal than you *may* be giving up some handling because of it, that has been my experience.
My perception of what works vs reality... Yeah I ride both bikes and I'm pretty much well aware what is more comfortable and faster, up and down. My grasp of reality is just fine in my case, timed laps, progress, compared to other riding buddies and between both bikes.
Pro's opinion on what works for them holds true only for them, not me. For the same exact reason what holds true for me in my field it does not in any way suggest it must hold true for any other person not deeply involved in my line of work. That's not hard to understand.
RAD is as vague and arbitrary as much as you want it to be, still doesn't explain why is a good theory and how applies in reality, it's a diagonal line that can be anywhere from horizontal to vertical, according to lee, we were on the right sized bikes a decade ago, as he says bikes got longer people didn't, yes but who says we were right then and wrong now? Lee's method is full of assumptions to give you an even more vague result,
I can assure you that the majority of people above 1.85 cm disagrees.
Pro riders know how to ride a bike better than us and their decisions to ride a slightly smaller bike is worthy of consideration, it's not a rule, it's worth considering. Just like your line of work where you are an expert, your opinion matters, you are a subject matter expert, that doesn't mean it's fact....but it holds more water than somebody who is not an expert.
I'm 193cm and just bought a bike with a 475mm reach, my other bike is ~480, I think RAD has merit....bikes slightly shorter feel better to me, most bikes from 3-5 years ago felt better to me to be honest and believe it or not.....they also generally align to my RAD calculations (go figure).
"Fit better" is subjecting as is being comfortable, that doesn't mean it's the right size....I had just as much fun riding bikes 5 years ago on bikes that were 30-40mm shorter than I do today, they fit just fine.
My RAD is supposed to be in the 860-870 range and I like bike shorter reach than 500, just bought one that is 475! We all have preferences, but don't dismiss it when you are comparing bikes of different eras.
I had the same fun back then as now but can't go back, no way. It's like when you see how magic tricks are done, you can't unseen it.
Out of curiosity when to the shed and measured every bike I own and some of my riding buddy, jimbo is 770mm, on one 456 ht is 820, orbea ewild xl 895, ghost overforked ht 856, privateer 900mm, I would be really interested to see what xl jeffsy was but sold it, by far the worst bike I owned though. I reject rad and any other sum of rough estimates on fitment because is as accurate as any size recomendation range from manufacturers.
Your logic can be used both ways, why wasn't Sam on a size XL back then if what you say is true about longer bikes being better?
Just like young truckers use rule of thumbs and learn from pro's like yourself, they don't need to copy you exactly but it's worth considering. I race and compete, not a 'pro' but want to find a bike that feels like those bikes did 4-5 years ago, that was my sweet spot and personally seeing the pro's follow sim logic and seeing how RAD is in the ballpark also, it's worth a shot....I may hate it, I may love it, maybe it won't make a difference....
I agree with @Svinyard at least this is something we enjoy
Let's not forget that "RAD type" sizing is all about dynamic riding - so riding style really matters in what size bike works best for you.
Personally I see "dynamic" as just mountain biking; and I can see why some people would want a bigger bike.
For me, once I adjusted my cockpit to try to be the RADDEST, my XL Troy felt better than it ever has. Then I bought an L Murmur with same reach and 10cm less stack and its just so RAD to ride.
And also technique is huge in riding - I'd say just as important as in skiing...And I also learned some key points in riding technique from Lee (and Alex) - particularly "row/anti-row." So these guys really changed mtb for me in a really good way.
I still didn't see any pro suggesting rad or publishing his rad measurements of his bike, you say they downsize, not all of them but what about rad? You know how much bang on or roughly close they are? Pretty sure you have no idea, not even them I bet!
but what I see are pros adjusting bar/fork height to fit the course that alters the rad significantly as I already measured all of the bikes in the shed, according to rad no one bike fits me, downsize, upsize the whole thing is a mess. L that are to small, L that are quite big and xl that are pretty close but with a broader rider recomendation from the manufacturer. Wich is the correct size? I know which one fits me better though as I've tried them all
Point is there's no definitive size guide for people, variations are huge, if you take a M mondraker dune from 2016 and a spesh enduro are far appart, dows downsize guide works for both options? I guess not, so the rule of thumb doesn't apply, nor the recomendations of manufacturesr
Rule of thumb can apply in standardise forms, not in between variables you even don't know or don't take in to account.
Everything we addressed still stands... the bike has great traction. It's a calm but not snappy climber. It loves to be pointed in a straight line over rough terrain and is the bike for someone who wants to get up to get down and have an enjoyable time doing all of it. Turns out we can still write about how the bike rides while acknowledging we wish there was a 475mm reach version.
A smaller chainring might alter the anti-squat in a way that benefits climbing, in addition to making that 11 speed cassette more tolerable.
I think you miss read the review. It’s not that the bike doesn’t climb well. It’s more that it’s not a “snappy climber.” Go get an XC or downcountry bike for snappy climbing.
This bike is for somebody that wants to go out and ride their bike all day long. Any trail, any mountain.
It’s not meant to be a racer, it’s meant to be a great trail bike that you can ride for years and years.