PerformanceMy first ride on the Cube was by now a familiar scenario after already riding the likes of the Commencal Supreme and Canyon Sender, whose reviews are coming up. That singletrack mind to only go fast is very much there and you can almost feel the bike’s urgency to go as you’re stood at the top of a run. Getting further into the run is where the Cube begins to have a different character to the others. You begin to feel less an active part of the ride, almost as if the bike would go the same speed without you on it. That runaway feeling needing a lot of body language to keep in check.
On longer, smoother, more open turns the Cube really is a rocket. You can not even bother with the brakes and just set up high and really lean it in, opening up the corner to give you more time for the exaggerated choreography that is needed. In precisely those turns the Cube is probably the fastest of all the bikes we tested and is certainly the most stable and unflustered. But a DH track is not just exactly those turns.
Tighter turns, or ones in quicker succession, really need some muscle to flip the bike over from side to side. Or coming in ferociously hot to a very tight turn requires the same level of muscle. Something that when doing full runs is very much noticeable. The Cube can be a really tiring bike to ride.
When the terrain undulates is where the Cube also needs some serious body language. That high progression and ratios in the suspension translate into a lot of vertical chassis movement, something that needs to be controlled with your natural suspension in your arms and legs. Don’t put the work in on the Cube and it won’t let you get away with it. It’s sometimes a weird feeling to be so active in the movements yet feel less of an active part of the ride.
With the bike’s geometry and suspension, a lot of the input from the rider is diluted before it becomes an action. And with the speed that the bike wants to do, it leaves you having some serious internal discussions about if you’re up for that much commitment. While that level can be a lot of fun, I’m not entirely sure it’s something people are going to be up for every run of every day, something that is really highlighted when going back-to-back with the other bikes and comparing the speeds and how much you need to invest in the bike.
Trying to control the big bouncy chassis of the Cube leaves you with not many tools left over to fine tune and tweak. The high ratios need a lot of damping and a big spring, which in turn needs more damping, pushing you into a corner of setup if you really want to reduce the chassis movement at speed. The traction the suspension offers is incredible, but traction is certainly not there all the time at race speeds, where chassis composure takes precedence.
The progressive nature of the suspension also lends the Cube to riding dynamically low in its travel, which combined with the low BB means that it’s often making friends with the ground. And this makes me wonder if it’s how Cube landed on an adjustable head angle. Perhaps dynamically the bike is too slackened out and they were struggling with front end grip, something that can easily happen when you let your guard down and aren’t aggressive with getting your weight a bit more forward.
That lead me to running the adjustable headset in the steep position. It made the front wheel a bit more manageable with the bike riding a bit deeper in its travel and put a bit more load on the front wheel, which again helped in those aforementioned scenarios when it got a bit choppered out. It is a quick change to do and you don't even need to take the top crown off. But after a few times of playing around with the head angle, the plastic top cap gave up and split, so I swapped it out to an aluminium one for the remainder of the test, especially with the advice from Cube that this headset needs more preload than a regular one. This didn't do anything for my thoughts that plastic isn’t the material of choice for DH headsets, with the cups being a proprietary part.
Normally I would be adding a bit more air into the fork, especially if the Fox 40 was specced on some of the other bikes with a more stable chassis. On the Cube however, a slightly softer setup on the fork actually complemented the rear and helped me keep my weight more central and more of it on the front wheel. A stiffer fork often felt like it pushed my weight too much onto the rear and only exacerbated the problems. That tendency to end up a bit in the back seat remains on the Cube and you have to consciously maintain or pre-empt keeping a good riding position.
I’ve had experience in not only riding but developing bikes in the past with high levels of progression and leverage ratios, and it was a bit of déjà vu from those experiences with the Cube. Looking at some of the other DH bikes that have been released recently, or even what the race teams are now running goes a little against the high progression idea. Just as there is a too linear a bike, there can also be too progressive a bike. And I wonder if Cube has gone too far away from the happy window where all the factors are balanced.
Bat outta hell...
Scalded monkey...
Enduro Magazine had a race bike test over the summer and found that slightly shorter bikes were actually faster on their test track which had lots of fast turns in it. Even Richie Rude rides a size M SB150, which was the fastest bike in their test.
Longer bikes are easier to ride fast in a straight line, but I think now that I have a bit more skill a shorter bike that is more maneuverable is actually faster overall. Next race bike will have a reach of 450-460.
The increased effort it takes to handle the bike is due to your efforts being lost in the suspension, not it being too long.
@mtb-thetown: I prefer a more compact frame also. 5'11" and riding a 2017 Taniwha Large (which is more like a medium by today's standards). It fits good and is very agile.
@ayanamishinji01 is it though?
@sewer-rat seat tube angle irrelevant on a DH bike surely?
I'm also surprised that British riders and companies have embraced the long bike trend since nearly all the trails I see there are fairly flat but with super fast turns.
- Swap all the components from the Stereo to the Enduro frame and you will have a better Specialized Enduro than the one specialized sells for 7k and an extra frame and shock.
- Conclusion. They might not be 80% of the performance, but they are 200% of the value.
If that’s right, just why? Why would you take a bike designed to see the most extreme riding possible and fit a part that is almost obviously not going to be as reliable as an aluminium / interference fit alternative?
Maybe the plastic cups are more friendly to the carbon headtube / frequent change overs, cost maybe.
If I owned this bike, I think of want to keep a few spare sets of cups stashed away.
Actual HTA was same as DH coming in at 63* with the same lyrik 180mm fork listed on the build. No complaints here though!
With regards to this review its worth noting BB height depends entirely on tire size, and reach is VERY hard to measure accurately as it is a virtual number. CS is pretty easy to measure within 1mm with a tape measure and within 2mm seems good. There is not a ton of inclinometers better than a half degree (all the cheap digital ones you see that were designed for setting table saws show to the .1 but absolute tolerance is .5deg). On a DH bike its also very easy to adjust the head angle by .3deg just from crown/stanchion position. I would guess since its a carbon bike the HA is dead nuts and it was setup preference or measurement error that lowered it.
I'll test it for sure, but the review sounds exactly like the caracteristics of every cube bike I've ridden to date. High in the front and a suspension platform that needs way too much dampening. But first it has to show up at all, delivery is sceduled for july...
Unacceptable in 2021. Six _thousand_ euros (what's that like 7 grand in dollars?) for rattly cables? Get the f*ck out of here; and we'll hear when you're finally gone because the cable noise will be gone.
Ya mean with something like neat and tidy cable clips on the outside of a frame? Nah man, that sounds dumb.
Their 4-pot caliper is awesome though, and the 203mm discs are 2mm thick, so its a nice braking set up.... i just replaced my MT-5 levers with Shimano's.... #shigura
The modulation is great, but you do have to get used to the setup. If you come from a set of worn SRAM G2's, they will feel like a catapult.
If their entire marketing budget is basically "hey look, its Danny Hart" can we actually buy or build ourselves the bike he uses?
Solely comparing reach actually isn't a very precise way of comparing frame sizes although everyone is doing this.
Sure, you can get used to running with no chain and maybe pull a Gwinner of a run, but at the same time, if given one or the other to race and ride DH, I'm picking fast engagement over something like Deore every time.
And regarding race results, team infrastructure, chemistry, mindset and support likely matter far more than the bike itself. Look at Jack Moir being super successful on his stitched together, outdated, too small, unridable-geo-by-pinkbike-standards, Canyon Strive.
Danny: What?
*On longer, smoother, more open turns* the Cube really is a rocket. You can not even bother with the brakes and just set up high and really lean it in, opening up the corner to give you more time for the exaggerated choreography that is needed. In precisely those turns the Cube is probably the fastest of all the bikes we tested and is certainly the most stable and unflustered. *But a DH track is not just exactly those turns.*
I think its just one way to make more money for bike comppanys, just like super boost...
For consumer its bit of a shit show on frame warranty point of view, bought non boost Imperial shock frame 4 years ago and frame has 5 year warranty on it, it breaks down and what you get? A new boost frame that takes metric shock? There you go, you can sell your nice 800€ Imperial öhlins shock for 300€ and non boost mavic deemax wheel set for another 300€... Buy new set of boost wheels and shock and boom you are just around - 700-800€ short...
Not happened to me but just thinking all the possible scenarios...
Interestingly it has made buying shocks easier and parts easier too.
I would argue trunnion has made a bigger difference due to the shorter length needed to get the same stroke.
No it isn't win-win. Less bushing overlap, which is pretty much the number one cited reason for metric, especially for coil shocks.
Seems like an odd decision. If someone _has to_ size up in order to get a comparable wheelbase, then maybe that means the bike isn't sized/shaped correctly.
In other words, who cares what the numbers are, you should be choosing test bikes based on the same thing regular customers would use: the manufacturers recommendation, allowing for (consistent) adjustments to ensure good fit: if someone's size L has a tiny old-skool reach, then obvi size up and mention it; but don't size up just to make a different number match.
What would be more "intuitive"? What are better markings?
Changing any kind of flip-chip or headset cups isn't something that everyone just does on a whim, like changing tire pressure or seat height. You should know what you're doing, and if that means knowing what the markings mean, so be it.
Did you measure from full top-out? Or from where it sagged under it's own weight (because a coil-sprung bike like this, with a proper progressive leverage curve, will sag a few mm if not 6-7mm, and a handful of mm less at the shock lines up real well with all the "discrepencies".
You do realize there are many many many types of "plastic", and those ones that disintegrated may be a completely different material than these. And perhaps even a different design: these seem more like spacers, since it's supported on all relevant sides by the headtube, not like an external cup that has to hold the bearing in place all by itself.
And the main frame is literally a type of plastic as well...
Why? Was it bottoming out? I don't recall seeing any mention of that in the article.
I also think you're mixing up "stable" and "firm". Based on the descriptions of this bike having lots of traction, it sounds very stable overall. Just because there is more suspension movement that doesn't mean that something is less "stable".
Obvs more squish, more burly components, etc etc, that wasn’t my point!
That's hugely personal preference. I don't see why anyone would trade traction for "chassis composure", although I'm not even sure that means what you want it to mean. Are the wheels not part of the chassis? If there is lots of traction, doesn't that mean the wheels are composed and sticking to the ground? If they are sticking and giving traction, then I think you could say that the chassis as a whole _is_ composed.
A race bike that needs to be ridden hard and fast to come alive... sounds great for a racer!
This is so often listed as a con for trail/AM/mini-enduro bikes, indicating they're not "all-around" enough and will suck on mellow terrain, but how could it ever be a con for a _downhill RACE bike_ which pretty much lives on the very opposite of mellow terrain?
So why did you think it needed more air?