Field Test Review: 2024 Chromag Lowdown - The Speed Couch

Oct 11, 2023 at 13:54
by Dario DiGiulio  

PINKBIKE FIELD TEST REVIEW

Chromag Lowdown



Words by Dario DiGiulio; photography by Tom Richards


Long thought of as "the hardtail brand," Chromag pulled a bit of a fast one on everyone with the release of their now 3-model deep full suspension lineup. As the longest travel bike in that lineup, the Lowdown is decidedly built for serious terrain and hard riding, which is a fitting designation considering that Chromag is based in Whistler.

In keeping with the Chromag way, the bike has a chromoly steel front triangle with all the styling and extreme geometry one would expect, though the rear triangle is made out of 6066 aluminum to enhance stiffness and cut some weight. The Lowdown sports 158mm of rear wheel travel, and is paired with a 170mm fork, putting it at the low end of travel for this Field Test - though its capability does not reflect that.
Chromag Lowdown Details

• Steel front triangle, aluminum rear
• Travel: 158mm / 170mm fork
• 29" wheels
• 63.5° head angle
• 79° seat angle
• Reach: 449, 471, 490 (tested), 513, 530
• Chainstay: 440mm
• Weight: 37.9 lb / 17.2 kg
• Price: $6,000 USD
• More info: chromagbikes.com

This was the only bike on test with 29" wheels front and back, which either speaks to a strong trend in the industry or the generally odd crop of bikes that we ended up with this time around. Chromag recently announced a mullet link for the Lowdown, which will allow for a 27.5" wheel to be run in the rear, should you want to stay en vogue. Similarly modern is the geometry of the Lowdown, which features progressive yet sensible numbers - with a few exceptions.

The Lowdown's reach numbers are extreme, no way around that. We tested a Medium/Large with a reach of 490mm, a number you see on some brands' XL frames. All this means is you'll have to double check the geo chart for the option that you'll actually want to ride, as opposed to simply going with your typical t-shirt sizing. The stack heights are a bit low, due to the distinctively stubby Chromag headtube, but at 625mm on our test bike things didn't feel too out of sorts. Every frame size gets a 440mm chainstay; this felt very balanced with the 490mm reach on our bike, though the bikes at the ends of the geo chart might suffer a bit from that one-size approach.

Angles on the Lowdown feel quite correct, and are on the progressive side of normal for the bikes on test here. The 63.5° head angle and 79° seat angle come together to make for a bike that handles speed and steeps comfortably, and climbs well with good body positioning and balance between the wheels.

The Chromag isn't the lightest bike, clocking in at 37.9 lb / 17.2 kg, but the $6,000 USD price tag and durable frame should make for a bike that is easy to live with and not nearly as precious as some of the other second-mortgage builds on test.

photo





photo
photo

Climbing
Despite being one of the heavier bikes on test, the Lowdown climbs deceptively well, especially through rough and technical terrain. A big part of that is the grip generated by the soft top end of the suspension, as well as that nicely sorted geometry. While there is some pedal bob while pedaling on more even surfaces, it's far from feeling boggy or lethargic, an aspect helped by the fairly vertical seat angle.

Folks who prefer a more upright climbing geometry might prefer a higher stack up front, but luckily the stock riser bars and steer tube length allow for the end user to raise that cockpit up a ways. Once done, the weight distribution feels more balanced, and that long reach is reigned in a bit.

The chainstay length is consistent across sizes, but luckily it's not quite as stubby as others on test. That medium length rear-center, plus the steep seat angle and the long reach, make for a bike that feels planted and controlled on steep technical climbs.

photo

photo
photo

Descending

We've said it again and again, but the two characteristics that define the Lowdown are its comfort and ability to track at high speeds. Both of these attributes were very apparent during testing in the bike park, where the Chromag's relatively heavy frame seemed to transmit much less feedback to the rider, especially compared to some of the stiffer alloy and carbon bikes on test. There may be something to the steel front triangle here, but it could just as easily be the fairly soft alloy wheels that come stock on the Lowdown. Regardless, that comfort made for a bike that was easier to ride at high speed, especially over chattery brake bumps and rocky tracks.

The tracking element came into play on cambered sections of track and in longer corners, where it felt like the Chromag required a bit less effort to keep things in line compared to other bikes on test. As the only 29er in the bunch, that larger rear wheel definitely plays a part, as the increased contact patch, rollover, and gyroscopic forces all contribute to that stability through fast sections.

The primary downside that we all experienced was in slower speed technical terrain, where the Lowdown's front end felt... low down. The low stack height, coupled with the very long reach, made for a body position that put a lot of force through the fork, leading to some sketchy moments when things all seemed to pack down over the front. This was only really apparent when riding the brakes in stepping terrain, and could be alleviated with a more supportive fork or by sizing down - if your bias is towards that kind of terrain.

Overall, the Lowdown felt like a predictable, burly, and easy to live with bike that was just as happy pedaling to far-out tech as it was ripping laps in the bike park. Punching above its travel numbers, and delivering a comfortable ride while doing so, Chromag's big beefy metal bike really did impress. It's probably not the number one choice for a race bike, but the capable and laid back feel was more than happy to ride gnarly lines all day.

photo

Technical Report

Chromag BA30 Wheelset: A flexible aluminum wheelset can add a lot of comfort and control to a bike, smoothing out the ride relative to some of the stiffer carbon wheels out there. That seemed to be the case here, with Chromag's house-brand wheels smoothing the edges a bit beyond the already comfortable speed couch. That said, they might be too flexible for some heavier riders, and are worth keeping an eye on when it comes to long term durability. They're burly enough to shirk off some bad lines in the bike park, but spoke tension is worth keeping an eye on.

RockShox SuperDeluxe Shock: We were all quite impressed with the predictable and well-mannered 158mm of travel on the Lowdown, part of which has to do with the tune they chose for the shock. It felt neutral and controlled, while offering excellent top-end grip and plenty of support to pump for speed when need be. Add to that its quiet performance, and it was a very pleasant ride.

RockShox Reverb Seatpost: Like many of the bikes on test at this year's Field Test, the Lowdown came specced with a seatpost that only barely matched the capability of the bike. 175mm of drop is plenty for most, but on a bike with a very long reach, meant to fit larger riders on gnarly terrain, we'd like to see something in the 200mm range come stock.

photo




Pros

+ Comfortable and fast on rough tracks
+ Very capable climber, especially in technical terrain
+ Active suspension tracks the trail very well


Cons

- Low stack height combined with long reach led to awkward feeling in slow steep tech
- Might feel too flexible and relaxed for some
- Heavy, despite strong climbing attributes



Author Info:
dariodigiulio avatar

Member since Dec 25, 2016
181 articles
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup

288 Comments
  • 153 6
 I've been on a Lowdown all summer and agree with most of the things the test has said. I have a set of carbon wheels on mine and the precision of carbon and the wangy flex of steel is an unreal combo.

In a whole summer of riding (~120 days including bike park) I've not had to tighten a single pivot bolt and the bearings all still run smooth. Something I've not had on any bike I've owned in the past.

And the weight? Who cares, heavy bikes just make you fit.
  • 167 2
 wangy
  • 21 87
flag Snfoilhat (Oct 19, 2023 at 8:48) (Below Threshold)
 You've stepped up into the bike review game, so help me understand, please. The carbon rims are precisely remaining in the plane between the hub endcaps, while the tires and the fork and the alu rear triangle to which they're attached are flexing, necessarily, but you're feeling, in some positive and specific way, the flex in the main frame -- all at once, while riding, and are teasing those different deflections apart? That would be something. I wonder if a review like this is more useful to people than saying only you like it after a lot of hours on it.
  • 29 0
 Wang'r of a comment
  • 7 0
 I have one too here in SoCal and I love it! I agree with the review too. The only thing I'd say is that the nimbleness it's all relative to the rider's strength. I am sure Richi Rude wouldn't have a problem maneuvering with this bike lol
  • 89 0
 @Snfoilhat: Not really sure what you're trying to get at? I tried it with alloy wheels, I liked it. I tried it with carbon wheels, it felt more precise and I liked it more. Even if it's all placebo doesn't mater to me I had fun on my bike.
  • 24 53
flag Mtbdialed (Oct 19, 2023 at 9:13) (Below Threshold)
 this is ONE POUND lighter than my ebike....lol theres not worrying about a bit of weight, and there is this heffer.....
  • 39 3
 I don't get the moaning of heavy bikes in this travel category. It's such a non-factor. If we're talking about XC bikes then this becomes an important characteristic but on the big-squishys it's just not. Sure, gotta push out a couple more watts to get to the top of that climb but so what, you're climbing position is by far more important for that.
  • 53 1
 people might want a stiff ride, but wangy flex is the inevitable reality for older riders.
  • 10 0
 @PeakHopper:Both matter. On my 170/180 Niner dropping 1.5 lbs made a noticeable difference on the climbs. That in turn gave me more energy for the descents.
  • 15 22
flag Mtbdialed (Oct 19, 2023 at 9:28) (Below Threshold)
 @PeakHopper: like I said......there isn't worrying about a 33 or even maybe 34 pound enduro if its built like a brick shit house....but nearly 38? come the f*ck on.....
  • 39 7
 @Mtbdialed: go watch wyntv ews bike weigh in. There is barely any top ews racer on a bike less than 37 pounds. If u can’t handle a 38lb bike that’s a rider problem
  • 14 10
 @Mtbdialed: Amen. When they start weighing as much as a DH bike, it’s a bit too much. I remember renting a base-level Kona Process in Moab a few years back. I don’t know how much it weighed, but it was between 35-40 pounds. The first ride was great — it plowed and climbed surprisingly well for a bike that big and heavy. But man, I felt the weight the next day, and the next day even more.

And the thing is, there’s no need for it. You can build a very solid bike for 33 pounds.
  • 10 10
 @TheR: not with tires that can handle hard riding. If jack moir and Jesse M can win with 39 pound rigs I don’t see why a full grown man would need anything sub 35. Even female pros have heavier rigs
  • 16 1
 @gjedijoe: @rrolly: I can notice tire weight, maybe rims, but I have never noticed frame weight. I say this all the time, but if I ride with or without a bottle of water on my frame, I can't notice the kg of weight different, just like I can't notice if I've taken a dump. I literally rode with zero water yesterday and no backpack and I didn't notice anything compared to the ride I did the day before with a full bottle, but that's just me. I'd love to do a back to back, though, but I doubt that'll ever happen. I think if I went from a light carbon bike to a heavy one like this, same wheels/tires, I could maybe notice the weight, but probably more on jumps than anything.
  • 4 1
 @rrolly: oh come ooonnn...unless the weight was all in the tires that's just bullshit. And if it was you would have needed the additional energy on the downs for sure.
  • 2 0
 @PeakHopper: Yep, terrain dependent, but with more winch-and-plummet type riding, frame weight on the climb matters way less than climbing characteristics of the frame. I just bought a Capra alloy, it's almost the same weight as this, but climbs very well.
  • 5 0
 @jesse-effing-edwards: I think you hit the nail on the head. It matters where the weight is.

A heavy frame isn't really going to matter in this travel bracket, but I believe most riders of above-average skill will quickly notice a pound or two difference in unsprung mass.
  • 10 0
 @Mtbdialed: Does your E-bike have a ZEB and Double Down tires on it? Will it goes down Whistler double blacks and be a good time?
  • 3 2
 @Muckal: there is something called rotational weight look it up
  • 10 1
 @TheR: there's absolutely nothing wrong aiming for 33lbs, but comparing to dh bike is , well I don't know how to put it. DH frame will typically be a bit shorter ( keeping wheelbase under control) Enduro frame needs to handle similar abuse with less suspension, so kinda even here. Shock weight about same. Fork weight the Enduro saves a pound. But the Enduro has often bigger rear rim and tire, a dropper post, a giant cassette and derailleur. You can save weight on tires, but again Enduro tends to go for reliability, so inserts may come into play. Overall, expecting the Enduro to be lighter than full DH is a bit of a hopefull proposition, but not necessarily realistic.
  • 5 4
 Interesting. I only have 93 days of summer in my part of the hemisphere.
  • 11 2
 @gjedijoe: I don’t get the comparison between me (or most people) and an EWS racer. I’m not that strong and I’m nowhere near as good as they are, so that’s irrelevant to my riding. In fact, it’s all the more reason I would want something lighter. But my bikes are in the 32-34 pound range, and they hold up just fine. My current bike has a Zeb, an aluminum frame, aluminum cranks… Under 34 pounds. Event if I went to something heavier in my tires, I’d be around 35 pounds. I don’t see any need, personally, for any bike heavier than that.
  • 7 4
 @gjedijoe: oh yeah, you're right.....I AM RACING WORLD ENDURO!!!! FFS mate, what a ridiculous comparison....
  • 3 12
flag Mtbdialed (Oct 19, 2023 at 10:44) (Below Threshold)
 @WheelNut: well, I would never run RS suspension, so no Zeb. lol

but yes to DD tires. yes it would be a good time in whistler, but I would probably take my DH bike instead....which is coincidentally still lighter than this Chromag! DH tires and a fox 40, 36.5lbs.....

just to give you another metric to how this bike is a silly weight.
  • 3 0
 Seconded on the steel bike + carbon wheels feel. Cotic Flaremax + WAO. Feels planted and nimble.
  • 3 0
 @gjedijoe: I think you misunderstood Muckal.

From my read, Muckal understands rotational weight is what actually matters... that's why he said: "unless that weight was all in the tires...."
  • 2 6
flag Mtbdialed (Oct 19, 2023 at 10:57) (Below Threshold)
 @gjedijoe: nothing to do with whether I can or cannot handle a 38lb bike. It's that I do not want to, and there are just as burly options out there in the low 30's. I have a mondraker foxy that tips in at 30.2lbs with pedals and DD tires. Ridden that thing for 3 years, 1.4ish million feet of descending and it hasn't wimpered once.

so it can be done. That is all I am saying. for instance, my wife has a steel road bike that only weighs 1.5 lbs more than my carbon road bike.
  • 3 2
 @Mtbdialed: EXACTLY!!! You COULD do it, but why would you when you don’t HAVE to!
  • 6 3
 @TheR: I don’t see a need for an enduro bike under 37 pounds unless you are trying to do 360’s and backflips. Yes most of us are not as good as an ews pro but that means we are less smooth and harder on our bikes at slower speeds. I would much rather see bike companies making burlier heavier more reliable bikes than trying to cater to weight weenies who want to see a certain number on a scale.
  • 2 0
 @TheR: one hundred percent terrain dépendant. I live in the Pacific Northwest ( incidentally for us in Canada it should be the Pacific Southwest) with my time divided between Vancouver and Quadra island. On Quadra, an old school xc hardtail is much faster than my short travel trailbike. Very steep and chunky slow rolling terrain. In the sea to sky, I see no reason to want less grip and control than an Enduro racer, he ce the heaviest tires and coil over shock etc. Horses for courses.y bike is in between and kinda sucks at both, but is really nice generally speaking.
  • 1 0
 @bertimusmaximus: sitting here at 61, I concur.
  • 1 0
 @steviej who cares i had fun on my bike is the better of the two takes you posted since it’s more likely to be true
  • 2 0
 @WheelNut: Bro not Pro here, I do like my midweight eMtb (Fuel EXe Mullet) that's somewhere in the 43-45lb range with DDs, Zeb, increased travel etc. It's been great on Fromme and would be a great whistler trail bike. I imagine a Relay or Heckler might be similar, maybe even better. I agree burly tires and fork are required, I'd much rather have that weight than the heavier motor/battery of a full-power eBike.
  • 4 0
 @uponcripplecreek: totally agree. I want to ride faster and not crash, why wouldn’t I look to see how the fastest people in the world are doing it? I would say not crashing is my biggest goal, if an extra 4lbs means I have more traction and better suspension performance I’ll take it. Crashing on the kind of trail that a 170mm fork is designed for is a potential life altering injury every time. Enduro bikes are not made for beach cruiser trails
  • 2 1
 @steviej

How did you find the sizing on the Lowdown? I find it to be an extremely compelling bike but just can't wrap my head around the numbers given how different it is to what I'm familiar with.

For example, I have M/L Rootdown which has a 463mm reach. This is longer than my M sized 'main' bike which has a 455mm reach. Meanwhile Chromag's sizing charts tell me to be on a M/L Lowdown which has a massive reach of 490mm. Even sizing down to the M would result in a longer reach bike than anything I've ever ridden.

Just curious what approach you took to sizing your Lowdown. Did you choose something more in line with your previous experiences or did you put your faith in the size-chart recommendations?
  • 4 0
 @Mtbdialed: My trail bike is 41lb, lol. I'll show myself out :/
  • 3 0
 @shlotch: I wouldn't compare static reach on a hardtail to a FS bike to start. But I also wouldn't be too scared of riding a longer bike, looking at numbers in isolation doesn't tell the whole story of the bike to me!

I went with the size that was close in numbers to what I was riding previously. If you're in any doubt I'd reach out to the crew at Chromag they're been amazing in every dealing I've had with them.
  • 1 0
 @bhuckley: thanks a lot. Physics is just not up for debate.
  • 3 0
 @rrolly: Same here. I dropped 600 grams between cassette and wheel weight on my enduro bike, and it's noticeably easier to hop over things on the downhill. Seems to generate and carry speed better on flatter trails too.
  • 2 10
flag TheR FL (Oct 19, 2023 at 13:37) (Below Threshold)
 @gjedijoe: Dude, I don’t even know how you would get a bike over 35 pounds, unless it’s steel (as the case here), a low-end model, or you’re really, really trying. Or maybe you’re on a XL or a XXL. But no judgment on you, personally. If that’s what you feel you need, go for it.
  • 1 1
 @uponcripplecreek: I guess the other thing it’s dependent on is how big the rider is (170 pounds or 250 pounds). Or maybe L vs. XL. I don’t know. I ride all kinds of crap here in Colorado, including bike parks. Everything on the same bike. Holds up fine — I have sturdy bikes. If I lived back in the Midwest where I’m from, I think you’re right and I’d have something even lighter.
  • 6 0
 @TheR: XL Enduro (S5) with dh casing Conti tires, coil shock with a stout spring, Zeb converted to coil, GX components, strong alloy wheels, bottle cage and a tiny trail tool. I’m at ~37.5 pounds on the old bathroom scale. My trail bike is 30 on the same scale and that’s pretty accurate as far as I know so I believe the bigger bikes weight. One is for smashing, one isn’t.
  • 3 0
 @TheR: I linked the ews bike weigh ins, they definitely are not low end builds. With dh or double down and coil shock I think most big travel bikes weigh more than 35lbs, especially with no carbon parts. The idea that “lighter weight=better” in anyway is just completely wrong, as the fastest guys in the world are on 39lb bikes. Geometry and the balance of a bike can make it feel lighter than it is, especially at proper speeds
  • 1 0
 @steviej: Sweet - thanks!
  • 7 2
 @gjedijoe: Again, dude, you are comparing the riding needs of professional athletes to an average dude on Pinkbike. Do you have any idea what kind of power a guy like Richie Rude puts down? And also if a tire flats, that costs them in their profession. If a tire flats for me, it’s a bummer.

Also, you proved my point—you have to try to make the bike weigh more. Double downs or DH tire casings? I personally have not needed them on both tires though I go a little heavier in the back. Coil shock — they’re fine, but I don’t use them. Has nothing to do with weight and more with the ease and versatility of set-up. I haven’t needed tire inserts ever.

I said it before—none of my bikes have weighed over 35 pounds, and they’ve all been fine and held up nicely. It’s not that I’m a weight weenie or a “lighter is better” kind of guy. It’s because I know what I need, and why add anything more? There is a difference when you’re pushing an extra four pounds. You may be OK with that, but there’s a difference. And yes, I know where the weight is affects things differently (which is why I don’t use DH casings). But four-five pounds makes a difference. If I don’t need that extra four or five pounds, why would I run it?
  • 2 0
 @brighterlights: Rhymes with tangy or mangy?
  • 1 2
 @shlotch: is it made of wrought iron and do you have 1/2 gallon of sealant in each tire??? lol
  • 2 1
 I can't remember the last time I had an enduro bike under 16.5kg. I think my chromag stylus hardtail in a light build is 15.5. What sort of money are they spending or tiny bikes are these dudes riding where they've got a proper enduro bike that's under 15 kg. My current ebike would trigger this forum so badly, it's at least 30 kg.
  • 4 0
 @TheR: we are commenting under the review of a bike with a 170mm fork, the bike is intended be ridden on ews type trails at ews type speeds, if this were a trail bike with 140mm travel I would understand complaining about the weight, but the bike is purpose built for fast riders on rough trails. And I was referring to jack and jesse’s bikes which are both above 38lbs. I’ve rode behind Richie at my local park he is a beast but also way more precise and smooth than I am so i doubt the forces on our bike are that much different
  • 4 0
 @TheR: I need stuff that doesn’t break, same as the pros. Not for the same reasons though.
  • 1 0
 @Muckal: Telling you what I experienced. And I've been riding a long time. Some of the weight was wheel weight, which is to be expected, but not all. I noticed a difference in the decreased weight. Geometry plays a bigger factor, but weight is not irrelevant.
  • 12 0
 @Mtbdialed: Haha, may as well be! Big Grin

It is funny though to watch other people in here argue about bike weights - like any one person's experience somehow precludes it from all being circumstantial anyways. "I have never needed DH tires" somehow means no one ever does or whatever.

Some of us just live in places with terrain that is really hard on bikes. Not because we're cool or anything, but that's just our circumstance. If we want something to last more than a season or two, or don't want to be fixing or replacing stuff after every ride, you end up with a heavy bike. Lots of people have bikes ~40lbs here because that's what happens to work. Not because it's better.

If a lighter bike works somewhere else, have at it. Have a good time. No need to retroactively justify the expense of a light bike by claiming it's the only way or that it's always the better option. As long as what you have works well with where you ride, that's all that matters Smile .

Weird thing for people to get dogmatic about. Pick a weight and be a dick about it, I guess.
  • 5 5
 @somebody-else: @gjedijoe: I don’t know what to tell you guys. I have had nothing but Enduro bikes for the last 13 years. All of them between 30-34 pounds. (Smaller wheels back in the day, less weight.) The current one is 163 rear travel, 170 up front, aluminum frame. About 34 pounds. No issues with durability for any of them.

You’re never going to convince me that I need a 38-pound bike, and I’m not going to convince you you don’t have to be dragging around a boat anchor up there. And hell, maybe that’s exactly what you guys need. What the hell do I know about you and your riding? So have fun out there, and good luck!
  • 1 0
 @TheR: I’m jealous honestly. I wish I could get away with a lighter build, but every time I try… I’m killing tires, wheels and/or forks. Even had a carbon bar delaminated recently. 205lb riders aren’t nice on equipment LOL
  • 1 2
 @somebody-else: All good. You know what you need. My default setting is, “well, maybe I’m the one who’s crazy.”

And also, I never count out the possibility that maybe I’m not just rad enough.
  • 1 0
 @TheR: What kind of bike do you ride?
  • 1 0
 @dietridg: Canfield Lithium. Before that, a Kona Process 153 29. That one was carbon.
  • 1 0
 Does the bike always need to be washed after it is done wanging?
  • 1 0
 @rrolly: surely that's a biased sensation. I'm sure if someone managed to stick a 500g weight to your bike close to the CoG without you knowing, you would not notice it up or down.
  • 1 0
 @Glory831Guy: that's interesting since heavier rotational weight will carry more speed, according to physics.
  • 2 0
 @TheR: how much money I wonder to build a solid bike that weighed 33lbs considering how much tHe pros enduro bikes weighed on Ed masters weight video
  • 1 0
 @racerben: I bought the Canfield new for $3,250. I bought the Process used two and a half years ago for $3,500. Added a We Are One carbon wheelset at a net cost to me for $1,200. So $4,700. I have my “old” carbon wheels and bars on the Canfield, more for performance reasons than weight — took off maybe a half pound?
  • 1 0
 @racerben: I got a good deal on the Canfield from an online dealer looking to clear last years stock. But even Canfield’s site is selling their top of the line spec for under $5,500.
  • 1 0
 @racerben: This was basically my Process, in case you're having a hard time believing the weight:

m.pinkbike.com/news/field-test-kona-process-153-crdl-29.html

The listed weight in the Field Test is 31.7 pounds without pedals. One of the cons? “Not a featherweight.” My, how times have changed.
  • 4 0
 @TheR: If you can run trail casings with carbon rims and never have any damage to them I would argue you might not need a 170mm travel enduro bike and this catagory isn’t and shouldn’t be catering to you. Or perhaps you are just such a smooth talented rider that you don’t beat up your rig as bad, or maybe the trails you ride just are not very rough. With DH pros strapping weights to the bottom of their bikes to increase suspension performance I don’t see how 38lbs is a negative at all for what this bike is designed for
  • 5 2
 @gjedijoe: I have a Specialized tire in the rear. The casing is the heaviest of the two they offer. Up front I used a simple 3C Maxterra EXO. I’m good. The only tire I ever popped on the Kona was a double down on the rear.

As for my riding, yeah, I mentioned the possibility I might not be rad enough. But I’ve been doing this for 25 years now and ride a ton of different terrain. I think I have the right tools for the job.

Let me ask you this, though. How did we go, in just four or five year’s time, to the 31.7-pound Kona they tested having “Not a featherweight” listed as a con to “38 pound Enduro bikes are where it’s at?” That’s mainly what I’m skeptical of. And not necessarily for this bike (it’s steel). Again, no judgment on you. Just questions in my head.
  • 4 2
 @gjedijoe: Check out this poll. They asked in 2021, how much should an Enduro bike weigh. The vast majority of people said 32 and 33 pounds. I don’t know if we were all right back then, but what I find interesting is this shift in just two years time from 32 and 33 pounds being ideal for the majority to “yeah, I’m cool with 38 pounds.” I’m not saying it’s wrong. But it is interesting.

m.pinkbike.com/news/poll-once-and-for-all-how-much-should-a-bike-weigh.html
  • 3 1
 @gjedijoe: And then one final thought I had on the matter — on the flipside of me maybe not being quite rad enough to warrant the bikes I ride, I’m wondering if maybe some people (present company and the EWS crew excluded, of course) might not be quite as rad as they think they are and might be better served scaling back on the tire casings just a bit, or going with the air shock, or the Lyrik over the Zeb, etc. Assessing how much of that is part of their self image, and how much is actual necessity. Or who knows, maybe they are just heavy guys who are a complete wreck on the trail.
  • 4 0
 @TheR: the zeb is a bit heavier than a pike or a 36, so that adds weight, but I think generally enduro bikes are being designed as dh’s that can pedal, rather than trail bikes that can DH. To me personally this makes more sense as trail bikes have become so capable that if weight is a concern they would be a better option for most riders, especially if you don’t frequent a lift access bike park. Some of my friends prefer their pikes/36 fork over the zeb because they perform better on a majority of trails due to being more compliant but as I retired my old DH bike and my old trail bike for a “do it all” enduro I want something that performs more like a Dh, especially considering I’m not a pro rider and even on a DH I’m nervous going down some trails, I don’t ever want to feel undergunned. I also enjoy arguing with other bike nerd’s occasionally so don’t take anything as a jab at you I’m just bored at work homie
  • 2 1
 @gjedijoe: Yeah Man. That last comment of mine was tongue in cheek. I ride the bikes I ride for the same reason — I have one bike, that’s it. It has to be good enough to ride my local trails, my annual trip to Moab, and several trips to the bike parks at Keystone and Trestle each season. I’ve tried “less bike,” just not what I’m looking for here. Too much terrain. If I lived in Indiana, I’d have much less bike.
  • 1 1
 @gjedijoe: I don’t like the Pike. To stiff and unforgiving at times. Much prefer the Lyrik. Jury is still out on the Zeb. First reaction — very plush.
  • 1 0
 @TheR: Ive broken a frame and cracked plenty of rims without crashing, not cuz I’m super rad just the trails at my local park are super rough and i weigh 180lbs
  • 4 0
 @TheR: An XL enduro bike with conservative durability and good tires and inserts will weigh around 37-40 pounds. Its just a fact of life.
  • 1 0
 @icanreachit: I'm also on a FlareMax with carbon wheels are bars. So quiet and comfortable.
  • 1 0
 @Muckal: That's assuming you hit a slight uphill at the same speed. With the heavier bike you'll probably start the uphill at a slower speed.
  • 1 0
 @Muckal: And trust me when I say that the bike is still plenty heavy. It has a coil shock and Fox 38 upfront. The loss in wheel weight really did wonders for it's overall speed though on 'less intense' parts of the ride.
  • 4 0
 @konadan: This. I've never weighed mine, but I've got an XL, 29", aluminum RM Slayer with a coil shock , 800m bars, ZEB Ultimate and WAO wheels with Conti tires (DH casing) and 220/200mm rotors. Pretty sure I'm over 40lbs. It's also been as reliable as a 1998 Toyota Corolla (ie - indestructible)
  • 1 0
 @konadan: Yeah, I think that was one of my questions or comments through this — XL is going to be different.
  • 1 0
 @Emailsucks98: haha, lend me that bike for month and its dead. i found out that light and robust doesnt come together
  • 51 1
 For how expensive this bike is as a frame only option, it’s a bummer it’s not made in Canada. $3650 USD just seems a bit excessive for a Taiwanese, mostly steel bike. Other than that criticism, I would seriously consider this for my next build and am going to keep an eye on scoring a good price on one.
  • 12 0
 Yeah I was disappointed in the price for the Lowdown and Darco frames as well. Ended up getting a US made Ferrum steel full suspension frame with a Jade X, Sprindex coil, and a headset for less than HALF of what this cost. Granted its on sale but even full price for the frame is only about 2k I think. Its beautifully welded and uses easy to source hardware. Awesome bit of kit and happy I got it over other options.
  • 45 0
 I hear you, but: Taiwan’s standard of living and cost of living are rising, shipping costs are still high, and (most importantly) Taiwan is *reall freaking good* at welding frames.
  • 7 3
 @pmhobson: Fezzari's carbon frames are made in Taiwan but cost much less. I don't know the full cost sheet but just being made in Taiwan isn't the reason these frames cost as much as they do.
  • 3 0
 @FaahkEet: I'm thinking it's a volume thing. Taiwanese factories are pumping out high volumes of alloy and carbon frames at various price points to reflect the usual weight/complexity/quality/burliness tradeoffs, but steel frames have become a bit of a niche product.
  • 1 0
 @g-42: Maybe, but each carbon frame needs a custom mold so while there may be a lot of carbon frames they are coming out of lots of different molds.
  • 23 0
 For the money you can have a made in US Reeb Steezl.
  • 2 0
 @g-42: Their hardtail frames are 1000CAD, seems nuts a rear triangle and shock cost 3500, which is less than a whole frame by another smaller scale producer. I think they have to be pricy or it taints the brand, haha
  • 3 2
 @FaahkEet: do we know that Fezzari uses custom molds? They might be open (catalog) molds that already existed when they decided to release a “new” bike.

I don’t know that, but given Fezzari’s DTC, lower price approach, it wouldn’t shock me.
  • 2 1
 @pmhobson: they say they design, engineer and assemble their frames in Utah. But it isn't just Fezzari, they were just an example I knew immediately that had their frames made in Taiwan and cost less.
  • 5 0
 The quality of steel frames coming from Taiwan is pretty high. They save a bit on cost and still the frames are still stunning. There is a lot more talk on this in the hardtail world. 3700 for a frame is quite a bit pricey but I would much rather pay for something like this then a trek or something.
  • 5 2
 No idea what advantage a made in USA frame would have..
  • 2 0
 I'm pretty sure these Canadian built Kruch bikes don't cost any more than these.
www.kruchexperience.com/post/shrimpalicious-2-0-cowboys-seafood-and-lasers
  • 1 0
 @ihsik: Yeah thats one thing I didn't consider in my original comment here. They do have some top notch welders building their frames in Taiwan. The Rootdown frame welds and paint job I saw were just about identical to my canadian made frame. I would've just bought one of their Taiwanese frames but my Surface Voyager was 40% off at the time so just went that route instead. Don't think I'd ever pay full price for one of those though.
  • 5 0
 @hubertje-ryu: For me (and I think many others) the main draw to having a frame made in my home country is more to do with the impact of shipping more things across the world than the quality of the product. I don't think a frame made in a western country is going to be any higher quality than one made in Taiwan.
  • 4 0
 @Takaya94: Even. Bro mag says to buy a made in Canada frame because you want a made in Canada frame, not because you want better build quality. No one is better at mass producing bicycles than the Taiwanese.
  • 11 0
 Haha I can’t believe it autocorrected to Bro Mag. Not going to fix it.
  • 3 0
 @pmhobson: I went and looked up about Fezzari and despite some internet experts stating they use open molds I didn't see evidence at least for their mountain bikes like the Signal, Delano and La Sal. In fact there's an article on this site about them developing the previous La Sal using 3d printing to iterate the design before going to a mold. Just wanted to be certain myself and figured I'd pass that along.
  • 3 0
 @FaahkEet: cool. Thanks for tracking that down
  • 4 0
 @pmhobson: Taiwan are the best in the world at making steel frames in production batches. But UK brands like Starling and Cotic show they can be sold at a more reasonable price than this.
It's just a greedy markup based on the perceived spending power of the "Dad bike" demographic, IMO.
  • 1 0
 @chakaping: Chromag definitely has above average welders selected in Taiwan as well though. I've seen a rootdown and wideangle in person and they look beautifully built. Continuing on my last comment about Ferrum though, I just got and built up my Ferrum LVN 160 frame and damn. The welds looks almost as good as Chris Dekerf's work on my Chromag Surface Voyager. Its heavy but will definitely outlive me even after several crashes. Starling and Cotic are super nice, but the Ferrum LVN 160 is just a masterpiece for the price so if anyone needs a steel FS frame I'd check it out right now before the sale ends.
  • 33 3
 i know it is too late but the scripted talking is really painful. the 'sit around and have a candid chat' version of field testing comes across much much better in my opinion
  • 41 9
 There’s a late night roundtable discussion where we do plenty of chatting and arguing about all the bikes on the way. Until then, maybe the new format will grow on you.
  • 3 0
 @mikekazimer: awesome, glad to hear it. i guess we get a lot of that style of conversation on the podcast anyway
  • 3 0
 I miss the chats.
  • 6 0
 @mikekazimer: I liked the world where both the old PB Field Test format and the Bible of Bike Test format coexisted.

The calm, informative voice over (a la Travis Engel) combined with PB’s usual irreverence and sarcasm is a little disorienting.

Either way, glad y’all can keep doing this.
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer: Sounds like a bikemag/beta cover
  • 3 10
flag kbonesddeuce FL (Oct 19, 2023 at 9:49) (Below Threshold)
 @mikekazimer: buncha whiners on here
  • 1 3
 i said this about the commencal and downvoted like crazy....
  • 12 2
 I like the script. It keeps the video succinct and palatable. Mixing in Dario and Henry's table chats makes the whole video flow pretty nicely IMO. I always hated the fake "sit around and chat" videos. Pinkbike's weren't terrible, but back in the Bike Mag Bible of Bikes days those were the cringiest videos ever. Slouching on stools with their sponsored beer pretending like they hadn't already discussed each bike at length. Taking time to form an opinion and script the video gives it much more polish.
  • 27 2
 This new way, which is different for many reasons that are quite boring about production and editorial clarity, will be something we will hopefully continue to refine. This isn’t the final state, and it’ll see some tweeks in the future - but as a first shot I think these are pretty good and a solid foundation to build from, and far more efficient than the old style. I’ll bring it up in the next pod though to explain our reasoning.
  • 3 0
 @henryquinney: not opposed to polish, it is just that people talk quite differently than they write. so when you read what you wrote, it sounds very unnatural by comparison. every time you're talking to each other off-script, there is more back-and-forth, which makes it seem like a conversation, not as if you're just waiting your turn to give a canned response. VO almost never sounds good for the same reason. anyway, we all love the boat loads of free content and the all 4 of you (when including alicia) are absolutely crushing it on the podcast!
  • 2 0
 @Austin014: i disagree about the first point, obviously, but i couldn't agree more about those bike mag videos from way back when. holy hell were those things brutal
  • 1 0
 I would agree that this round of field test videos feel a lot more like everyone is reading a script than previous field tests. I'm not against scripted content, just feels like it's been delivered better in the past.
  • 5 0
 @henryquinney: I'm a big fan of the new formatting (also, no one should be complaining about free content)
  • 31 0
 @twonsarelli: People weren't reading off a script - at all - but we were trying to stick to more concise points to keep us, and hopefully the viewer with more succinct points. The problem is with the more expansive discussions is they can mean that the video editor - somebody who hasn't maybe ridden the bike and isn't a professional reviewer - has to cut down a very long (maybe 30 minute) conversation into key points. This can mean that things that we don't want emphasised get put forward as the main point, and things we really wanted to showcase might get down because they weren't articulated clearly. This new process is all about getting clear, efficient information that's easier to follow and building a stronger, more well-rounded review. Some of the old styles were great - but some were also duds (I was definitely involved in my fair share) - and we often only remember the good ones. We'll continue to refine this new way and hopefully make it into something of real value to a prospective buyer - and then have the childish argument in full glory on the podcast. I hope that makes sense.
  • 8 0
 @henryquinney: that’s a great explanation. Thanks for sharing.
  • 2 0
 @henryquinney: ok, gotcha. i'm surprised that you guys weren't scripted. it even appeared like you weren't looking directly into the camera on close-ups (i incorrectly assumed you were looking at your script just off-camera). anyway, like i said before, we're stoked to have all this content and we appreciate how hard you all work to make it digestible. perhaps i am in the minority, but i would welcome an unedited 30-minute round table discussion on every bike. you could even save some editing costs! ; -)
  • 14 0
 @pmhobson @twonsarelli: Thanks - the true heros of the whole field test are always the video team. This year Tom and Max have put in huge hours to make it come to life - especially Tom who is also responsible for the great studio shots. They're both amazing riders, but I think they prefer this new way also because they can just focus on making their best video - and not have to play god, so to speak.

I think also, Levy is taking some time away, and his sheer charisma (yes, I mean that sincerely) is obviously hard to replace. He could add something to any video - bikes or beyond.

Ha - be careful what you wish for! You may well indeed see people looking left and right. This is for notes IE. it will read something like "THERE IS NO f*ckING WATER BOTTLE - MENTION THE LACK OF f*ckING WATER BOTTLE" but that isn't dissimilar to what we used to have anyway. The only difference is we can perhaps lead each other a little less. Again, this is practice and I just want to shout out Matt, Dario and Mike for just f*cking getting on with this presenter lark. They're written journalists first and foremost and video-land is all about practice. I was so stoked with everybody embracing this new concept, if it it's perhaps more reliant on "presenting" rather than just having a ranging conversation with friends while a camera is on.
  • 2 0
 @henryquinney: fully understood. let's not forget, even jeremy, james and richard have had some moments that felt a bit awkward and they've been on camera together for something like 83 years (and i'm guessing a budget at least twice as big as PB)
  • 4 0
 @mikekazimer: I enjoy the new format.

Just commenting so that there is some balance.
  • 1 0
 @henryquinney: I like it. Well made.
  • 1 0
 @henryquinney: I much prefer this style of video. The other ones felt a bit like a heavily prompted podcast edited to a video to feel natural. Personally I don't mind the prompted or "scripted" feel without making it seem like a conversation. The natural conversation style feels a bit forced to me. When I meet people on the trail and they start talking to me the way outdoor gear editors do, I dose off and think: "Damn dude. We're just playing around with toys. Just ride your bike". And that's coming from someone who's all in on the tech and loves working on my bike almost as much as riding. I don't really have it in me to tell someone what they believe is a game changer is just marketing BS so I just nod and say: "Enjoy your ride bud"
  • 26 0
 id love to hear Dario’s comparison between this and the Steezl
  • 1 0
 I might do a little comparison article on the two, but essentially they are different beasts. The Steezl is more pointed, feels a bit more supportive suspension-wise. Lowdown is cushier, slightly better grip on the brakes. Frame quality points go to Steezl, as well as better mullet wheel integration. Bonus points for being made domestically. I think I'd go for the Reeb and try to swap the Lyrik for a Zeb or 38. Hard choice though, they're both excellent.
  • 14 0
 Haha this is one of a few reviews I've seen this year that can be summarised as "oh yeah...horst-link... just kinda works really". Wonder if I'll ever bother with one of the fiddly diddly, co rotating, semi high mid pivot, 30 bearings all of different sizes, proprietary chain guide, twin idler thingies MTBs. Nah. Doubt it.
  • 10 6
 The actual truth about suspension linkages is that they really don't matter for 99.9% of riders out there.

Read the review on Starling bikes - all of those use a single pivot, direct shock drive, which result in a REGRESSIVE rate, which goes against all established norms of bike design, and all reviews say they ride well.
The only complaint is that they are easier to bottom out on bigger compressions, which is super simple to fix: run an air shock instead of the specced coil one.
  • 9 0
 @KickFlipABike: I don't think its quite true that "suspension linkages don't matter for 99.9% of riders".

In the last 3 years I've switched between 2 different "high-end" bikes, both with very good reviews and very, very similar geometry. I get along much better with the current bike than I did with the former, and it mostly boils down to the difference between anti-squat, leverage ratio and anti-rise characteristics.

I prefer the more "plush" riding bike, rather than the more pedal-friendly/racy bike that came before it. The difference is not subtle.
  • 1 0
 @KJP1230: Personally, I quite like some brake jack over a suspension which stays active during braking. The bike sags a bit in the rear, giving a more secure geometry.
  • 2 1
 @KJP1230:

The issue with relating to personal experience is that the two different bikes are different enough to ride completely differently that makes it impossible to narrow down the performance due to the rear linkage.

For example, a bike with a less progressive leverage ratio but an air shock is going to ride similarly to a bike with a coil shock but a very progressive leverage ratio. You may be able to feel the difference when compressing suspension by hand where the seal stiction of the air shock may matter, but when your full weight is on it, that stiction doesn't really affect anything.

Anti squat is also very dependant on rear gear selection, which is also very dependent on bike weight and riding style. If you have a lighter bike, you can use taller gears to get up climbs, especially if you are stand up and crank type of guy, versus someone who sit and spins. The effect is also very dependent on shock setup (brand, tuning, and clicks) - higher rebound and compression forces make the shock bob less, which is the same effect as having more anti squat.

Anti rise is even more complex in terms of all the stuff that happens during braking that its almost pointless to analyze.

Overall weight distribution on the bike also matters quite a bit for how suspension feels (which is influenced by geometry and setup of components), as well as riding style itself (attack position vs on top of the bike, relying on suspension more versus using your legs, clips or flats, e.t.c).

The point is not to say that platforms don't change dynamics; they do, but its possible to set up most any platform to behave a certain way. Even slight changes like rotating the bar a few degrees can change how a bike feels and behaves.
  • 1 0
 @KJP1230: That may well be true but the linkage type doesn’t really determine riding characteristics any more.

Most desirable behaviours can be achieved with any design, be it Horst link, short link or linkage driven single pivot. As long as it is well engineered.
  • 3 0
 @Ttimer: I don't agree with that. For example, it's not possible to achieve a low anti-rise or a rearward/vertical axle path from a traditional single pivot design. Whereas both of these characteristics can be achieved with other layouts.

Similarly, some layouts can offer both high anti-squat AND low chain growth/pedal kickback, where other designs cannot separate these two characteristics and must instead find a balance or compromise.

Suspension design matters. I can absolutely prescribe certain axle paths, leverage ratios, antisquat and antirise characteristics that simply cannot be achieved by some designs, but can by others. Some designs offer engineers way more degrees of freedom or independence between these variables than others.
  • 13 0
 Commencal Meta SX Stack 643mm
Nukeproof Giga 297 Stack 631mm
Chromag Lowdown Stack 637mm
Ibis HD6 Stack 638mm
Trek Slash Stack 641mm
Pole Onni Stack 625mm
Nicolai Nucleon 16 Supre Stack 655mm
Unno Burn Stack 645mm

Seems like Stack is in the middle of the pack. The Giga and Pole are on the low end, while the Nicolai seems to be king of the Stack Height wars for this shootout. What is your ideal stack for a large bike?
  • 5 10
flag HeatedRotor FL (Oct 19, 2023 at 10:01) (Below Threshold)
 they chose the M/L, 490 reach with 625 stack(with a 105 headtube).... - those numbers prove that some brands still cant figure out how reach & geo need to relate to each other. - More extreme version of the new fuel(which you have to run a heap of spacers/high bar so it ends up real flexy in the front)

The geo of this bike is weird, super long and low(1280WB for a M/L)
I can feel the off balance from here, they clearly had fit issues with low front and struggling in the steeps... Come on chromag....
  • 6 2
 Just run more spacers under the stem, am I missing something with this? I guess you're out of luck if the bike ships with a fork steerer that is already cut down, and that does shorten the reach...but you can always go to higher rise bars.

My L Kona Process X has 625mm stack, which is pretty low. It also has 490 reach (on paper), which is the longest I've had. So I just run it with a lot of spacers under the stem and she feels great. No idea what the actual reach is, but feels pretty similar to 475ish mm bikes.

Bike manufacturers should provide reach measurements in like 5-10mm increments depending on spacers under the stem, that would make a lot of sense.
  • 3 0
 @HeatedRotor: a longer steerer tube is not going to flex enough to even be perceived, let alone feel “flexy”. If your front end feels “flexy” your headtube is broken, headset is loose, etc.
  • 1 0
 Ya know, its never really something I've thought much about. I just deal with it on my stock builds and cut the steerer tube extra long on my custom builds so I can just add or remove spacers till I feel comfortable. I should see what my current bikes are and think about that... hmm..
  • 2 6
flag HeatedRotor FL (Oct 19, 2023 at 11:41) (Below Threshold)
 @Keegansamonster: What? if you cant feel that flex then i guess your not riding fast enough, i can feel it just moving around in the parking lot.

Theres a reason Ebikes use Big stout headtubes, to support the steerer. My previous bike had a 140mm headtube and it was stiff as used no spacers.

Ive ridden many bikes, all shorthead tube/low stack bikes are the same.

All good if you cant feel it, but i damn sure can.(for reference i first rode the fuel on demo day, rode both carbon and alloy, they both were similar in flex due to amount of spacers needed)_
  • 1 0
 This is such an important question. I think people often just get an idea stuck in their head about a feature or number and mis attribute it a feeling to it. Stack is literally as important as reach for predicting how a bike will fit, yet I don’t think many people understand it. Shorter reach and high stack, longer reach and lower stack can get the ‘reach’ exactly the same with some spacers under the bar for a given bar height. It’s trigonometry. Banshee Titan is a good example. Its reach is the same as the yeti sb150 for a reasonable bar height. Folks don’t get it.
  • 3 1
 @Keegansamonster: do you know why fox warranty is void when using more than 30mm. Of spacers?
  • 2 0
 @uponcripplecreek: that started with carbon steerer tubes and frame manufacturers. Once frame manufacturers listed that due to the force that it can place on the headtube, fork manufacturers adopted it into their manuals so that their information didn’t directly contradict the frame companies opening them up to warranty issues with being OEM on frames. 30mm of headtube would take an insane amount of force to cause perceivable flex.
  • 2 0
 @HeatedRotor: sounds like you’re feeling CSU flex not steerer flex caused by stem spacers. The stanchions flex at the CSU, the base of the steerer flexes, headset bearings can flex/have play, but 30mm of exposed steerer above the headtube is not going to flex enough for you to feel.
  • 1 3
 @Keegansamonster: No, I know what CSU flex is, I also dont get the flex with big headtubed bikes(who nulls your point) Im also not a huge fan of This whole CSU flexing thing being acceptable by the commmunity, we keep making bigger stanchion forks but basically nothing is done about the interface between the Crown and the steerer tube.

regardless of all this, Low stack(from small headtubes) is not acceptable, Some brands call it a feature so people can upsize....
  • 3 0
 @HeatedRotor: many companies have tried to fix that issue. Ohlins made a 1 piece CSU during the original rxf series. However, it was a one piece machined aluminum CSU that was not cheap to make. People also complained because if your steerer was cut too short, the replacement was dumb expensive. They now also make the new rxf 34 with a one piece carbon CSU. EXT also makes their crown seat into the lower bearing creating a larger contact between the crown and the steerer tube as well as making most of the force go into the crown. Then fox played with oval steerer tubes to be stiffer laterally.

However, none of that is about feeling flex from 30mm of exposed steerer tube. I’m sorry but that’s just placebo. Go look at alloy handlebar flex tests. An 800mm alloy bar that’s not designed to be as stiff as a steerer tube flexes about 19mm. That would mean that even if the ratio was even, which it’s not, 30mm of exposed steerer could flex roughly .7mm. Now this isn’t perfect math due to a ton of variables, but it gives a general idea. You will not feel a flex difference on the same bike, with the same for, with one having 0mm of spacers and the other having 30mm.
  • 1 8
flag HeatedRotor FL (Oct 19, 2023 at 21:58) (Below Threshold)
 @Keegansamonster: cool - you can just say you dont ride well enough to notice these things, all good buddy. lets move on now.
  • 3 0
 @HeatedRotor: look at that, you have no logical response. I’m sure you ride your bike much harder than everyone on here.
  • 1 8
flag HeatedRotor FL (Oct 19, 2023 at 22:55) (Below Threshold)
 @Keegansamonster: Theres no point with a logical response because you refuse to believe the steerer flexes and/or that i cant feel it.
I wish i could shred super hard, I just dont think you ride almost at all. Im just at the level of being able to do all features barring a few extreme jumps - I ride nearly daily due to the flexibility of my job - with that same flexibility ive also been able to ride nearly every main stream AM/enduro bike.

Ever since i drove RC cars for a living(not now) ive been able to feel very Minutus changes in things about setup, especially suspension(suspension is my job, ive done alot of work for supercars in australia with the gen 3 project)

But hey, you seem to know everything. have at it - ill leave this convo here and let you continue to dream up whatever you wish, Have a good weekend champ.
  • 1 1
 @robotdave: Or just buy a bike that fits without the need for lots of spacers
  • 3 1
 @HeatedRotor: With a 63,5 head angle, adding 20mm of spacers means you are shortening reach by 10mm.

So it's quite easy to adjust to conventional, nowadays thought perfect reach-stack ratio.

I don't get this whining about low stack if the nominal reach is this long - especially from "professional" bike testers.

Just look at it as a "low mounted top tube" - that's all.
  • 2 0
 @chrismac70: There are far more important things to prioritize when picking a frame (price, travel, wheel size, adjustments, overall ride quality, etc.) vs. "will I need spacers to make the stack perfect or not."
  • 7 0
 Sounds like a solid bike.

Would like to see frame weights for all of these bikes on test.

Also, would like to have seen this bike in particular tested with CF wheels to try and suss out how much of the comfort was the frame and how much was the Al wheels. Seems like it might be about half/ half?

Thanks for the review PB!
  • 6 0
 Seems like a blast!

I'd be very curious to see a test with carbon wheels to see if its the frame or softer wheels that are making the Chromag so comfy. A (slightly) heavier front triangle would be well worth the tradeoff if it mutes trail chatter as much as the review indicates.
  • 1 2
 You too can test this by strapping waterbottles full of sand to your downtime.
  • 1 1
 *Downtube
  • 22 17
 I'm sure I'll get downvoted by the Chromag fanboys, but it's always cringy to me how much people preach that "Chromag is the Cool Guy brand" "Chromag is so rad" "Chromag is for people who are too darn cool for their own good" like why are you trying so hard to convince me its a cool brand... If it was actually that cool, I wouldn't need to be told so everytime one comes up.
  • 10 0
 I own a Chromag and think they're cool but they aren't THAT cool ha. The cult following is definitely strong with this brand. I will say the community is super cool and helpful though. The facebook fan group is super active and Chromags employees always talk to us directly and give us the inside scoop on new and unique stuff and deals before they're announced elsewhere. Definitely unlike other bike communities I've hung around. but yeah, it gets a little overhyped at times..
  • 4 0
 Nah, I am NOT cool and I got one. We are good to get one.
  • 18 0
 Go to Whistler on Chromag group ride or event, and you'll understand the loyal, cult like, following.... One of the "cool factors" is, that not much in the Chromag ethos has changed since day one... Combined with the outlier mentality of hardtailer's and you got a vibe that is just different...
  • 3 0
 That aspect of marketing is prevalent, and IMO, way overdone in all of mountain biking though. At the end of the day YOU'RE the one riding the bike, so it really doesn't matter how many rad ex-pro riders a brand sponsors, or even how righteous their manufacturing processes are. If you ride like a noob, and think you need a new bike every year, it doesn't matter how rad the bike you ride is.
  • 6 0
 @OlSkoolJake: I really do think the Hardtail notoriety is what carries their name so highly. People think of a rad, bad, tough rider its on a hardtail doing gnarly shit. The have catered to that market for a looong time now, so I think it's understandable where the culture comes from.

Fanboys are cringe and can be shown the door.

All that said, the Lowdown looks sweet and I wont be told otherwise!
  • 4 0
 There are dozens of brands making stuff that is really not all that different from one another. A lot of people buy one bike over another for brand reasons like anything else. Chromag does produce cool hardtails and gear and parts etc. and they always style points to whatever they do, plus they are in whistler and throw parties, which is more than you can say for a lot of bike brands out there which don't have much of a community impact. We could all just buy a Giant or Specialized and be done with it, but for many having an option with more personality is appealing. I think Chromag is a cool brand for sure. That said, this frame is really expensive and I personally don't think justified as the cost of that alu rear end and a shock shouldn't make it 4 times as much as an already pricy hardtail frame. I do like it though!
  • 4 1
 @PeakHopper: as a hardtail rider through and through... It's true we be badass and most other riders look at us like we be fookin' whack jobs.
#HardtailPride #HardtailsForever
  • 1 0
 @OlSkoolJake: right on brother...
  • 4 1
 "Well, how the hell do you be cool?
I feel like we've tried everything here.
Wait, Marge.
Maybe if you're truly cool, you don't need to be told you're cool.
Sure you do.
How else would you know?"
  • 6 1
 A few thoughts:

Thirty-eight pounds and only the second heaviest bike in the field? Good gravy.

Maybe the lack of playfulness on this bike is because it’s just too darn big for the guys testing it? I’m 5-11 and would not want a bike with a 490 reach, even if I usually ride a large. I think it would be too much for me and would probably size down.

I got in an argument one time on another MTB website where a guy insisted steel bikes are stiffer than aluminum. Other people seemed to agree with him, so I let it go. Seemed silly to argue a point every 10-year-old BMX racer kid knew, but it was a great moment in gaslighting history.
  • 1 1
 I agree with the sizing, they have it sorta out of whack (although there are 35mm integrated stem bars you can get).

However, weight is a good thing for anything downhill. You look at bikes like Canfield Jedi, which are 40 lbs, and all the reviews say they are fantastic in rough terrain, and thats in large part due to the weight. Higher weight means gravity does a better job at accelerating the bike, and the ratio of sprung/unsprung mass gets higher which means every bump has a smaller effect on deceleration.
  • 5 0
 @KickFlipABike: I think it’s OK for a DH bike like the Jedi to weigh in that neighborhood, both for the reason you state and because you never really have to worry about climbing. But on a bike you have to pedal up, the excess weight gets to you eventually. Or it gets to me, anyway. Obviously you can do it, and then there are advantages going down, but man. And I get it — it’s a steel frame and all. Just not for me. I still think overall it’s a cool bike and concept, though.

Since you brought up Canfield, I have a Lithium. It’s about the same as this bike in terms of travel and purpose, and it weighs in at 33.2 pounds.
  • 7 0
 @TheR:

Regarding your internet argument: I think you may have gotten caught up in the age-old paradox, where steel unequivocally is much stiffer than aluminum (approx three times stiffer), yet most aluminum bike frames are stiffer than a similar steel frame. That’s 100% down to the fact the aluminum bike is using larger diameter tubes.

A lot of people with that knowledge get bent out of shape and pedantic because most every steel or aluminum bike review is going to conflate the two different things. Like this one here, “ though the rear triangle is made out of 6066 aluminum to enhance stiffness. “ Not exactly a materials-science approved explanation. Maybe say “Chromag used aluminum in the rear triangle in order to increase tube diameter and therefore stiffness”?

And of course up top they say the bike has a nice stiff aluminum rear triangle, but has soft aluminum wheels. So which is it aluminum!!?
  • 2 0
 @KickFlipABike: About the sizing — Kaz mentioned in another comment somewhere that there would have been other drawbacks to sizing down. On a bike like this, though, which excels on descents, I would have sacrificed top tube and seat tube length for a more ideal reach so that the geometry fits me better where it counts — descending.
  • 1 0
 @Stumpclumper: That’s what I tried explaining to the guy — it’s the way the aluminum bikes are manufactured. In addition to the big tubes, there are (or were) often gussets that added to the stiffness. He wasn’t having it. He was a pedant based on other posts he had. Also didn’t want a carbon bike… that was over 10 years ago. Wonder how that’s working for him now.

For what it’s worth, people act like steel is this big, squishy experience, where in reality it’s still a very sturdy, hard metal. Maybe there are some subtle damping qualities, but it’s not like a spring or whatever.
  • 2 0
 @Stumpclumper: As for these guys’ explanation, they probably went with a press release from Chromag that explained why they used an Alu triangle, and that was probably the language used. I will say, there’s probably a difference in stiffness between a rear triangle and an aluminum hoop. Again comes down to construction.
  • 1 0
 I'm 5-10 and I had an opportunity this past Sept when I was in Whistler to actually throw my leg over a Lowdown M/L. Honestly, with the seat jacked up it felt huge. I normally ride M/L in their (older) hardtails but the 490 felt excessive. Think for us a M with the 471mm reach would be perfect.
  • 1 0
 Totally agree on the size.
Why test a L when the other bikes have a similar reach to size M?
And as they are stating you cant pick i size based on you clothes sizing anymore. And then they choose a L that is way of.
Like Canyon, buy a L and you have to be a giant riding that thing.
At 5'10 i would be choosing the M size, and i bet it would be more playful and better on slow technical terrain.
  • 1 0
 @Stumpclumper: main reason for aluminium rear is the cost of machining.

Stiffness argument
People don’t accept that bikes characteristics are influenced by multiple factors, so they know one and what to determine the bikes behaviour.
  • 1 0
 @JasperTS:

100% agreed - - in a full suss rear triangle, all those bearing seats, yokes, dropout interfaces, etc. 5 times faster in aluminum, and much easier to make lightweight and accurately.
  • 1 3
 @TheR: 490 reach is too long for descending at that size.

Long reach is great for flat trails as it allows you to weight the front to get grip, but when pointed down the hill, you want shorter reach and taller stack.
  • 1 0
 @KickFlipABike:

Agree that 490 is very long for a M/L, but a longer reach means less weight on the front all else equal, because the front center grows compared to the rear center.

Yes a longer reach naturally might lead you to put more weight through your hands (and lets you move around more), but I would prefer to be on a shorter, more balanced bike where I dont have to put my weight through my bars to turn.
  • 4 0
 @dariodigiulio Tomorrow I'm buying* you one of these two full bikes at T-type level (dentist bikes, which since I'm a dentist it's just lovely ⚡️). Steelz or Lowdown for your riding pleasure. What is it gonna be?

*Might actually be a minute on that, but time isn't real anyway.
  • 7 0
 Thanks for giving us the lowdown on the Lowdown.
  • 4 0
 Hopefully they did at least one test in Squamish and got the lowdown on Lowdown riding Lowdown
  • 5 0
 I've been riding BA30 rims for a while, and have built up numerous for customers. They are not what I would consider 'soft' rims at all as far as aluminum goes.
  • 2 0
 We will have to agree to disagree on that.
  • 8 1
 Can we have an all steel test. This, frameworks,and cotic rocket
  • 10 0
 Don't forget about Reeb!
  • 1 0
 Throw Ferrum in the mix as well!
  • 1 1
 @islandtrader: and Production Privée!!!
  • 7 0
 This! Cotic, Ferrum, Chromag, Reeb, Production Privee, Myth, Starling, Zocheli, Swarf, Contra, Project 12 etc etc... Let's go!
  • 3 0
 @Oxiros: Half of these are produced in barns. There’s no way they’d be able to assemble samples for a group test.
  • 7 0
 @sfarnum: Jesus was born in a barn and became a super hero Smile
  • 3 0
 What's the deal with the little zip-tied pad thing on the down tube? I have seen a Darco at my LBS and its looks amazing. The cables etc. on this Lowdown look really unrefined to me and the whole bike seems somehow way less attractive than what I've seen in real life, even though it's basically the same bike to look at. Nonethless, I kinda want one, just cause.
  • 2 0
 Shuttle pad it would seem. Tie is probably holding the hose more than the pad, pad usually has double sided tape.
  • 1 0
 @FaahkEet: Ah you must be right. They don't show that on the site plus there are cable guides.
  • 2 0
 @jesse-effing-edwards: Noticed that on the site too. Arm chair guessing maybe the pad was rider installed and wasn't fully adhering so a tie was added to help for now. Not sure why it appears to go above the cable housing though.
  • 2 0
 They just did a bad job with the cable routing. I have mine routed so they cross just behind the head tube, out of sight. It's very similar aesthetically to the Darco.
  • 3 0
 The pad was installed from factory and stayed put, I believe that zip tie was to hold the cables down better as they were rattling a bit on the frame. I'm always a fan of external routing when it's well executed, but forcing the brake and shift housing into the chainstay when things are otherwise uninterrupted makes absolutely no sense to me.
  • 5 0
 the super deluxe was the 'biggest, heaviest' shock that RS makes until about 3 minutes ago
  • 2 0
 Lol everyone on this thread talking about what the pros ride. Pros ride 10x harder than anyone commenting on this thread and need significantly more support from the platforms they are on. They west out equipment exponentially faster and are far more likely to break stuff. They are also 10x stronger than you, so an extra 2-3lb of sprung weight is needed to balance out the force they put on their bikes. For normal weaklings that extra sprung weight is a major hinderance. Bottom line… don’t worry about what the pros ride bc it’s irrelevant to your basic weekend adventures
  • 3 2
 "That medium length rear-center, plus the steep seat angle and the long reach, make for a bike that feels planted and controlled on steep technical climbs."

YES! Rear-center effects climbing, not front-center! A long front-center and/or slack head-angle does not make a bike tend to loop out or lift the front wheel, it's too short rear-centers that give this feeling, yet you hear about long & slack causing climbing problems all the time. Finally y'all are coming around to how bikes actually work!
  • 1 0
 but then you won't be able to wheelie on trail...
  • 2 1
 and then one day you'll learn about body position to make up for it. hence why brands still do short CS.
  • 2 2
 @HeatedRotor: @haen: Oh, look! You made cooperating posts!

You can certainly can wheelie with 440mm, or longer, chainstays, it just takes (wait for it) slightly different body position.

And since wheelie-ing is intermittent (especially when considering long stays only really effect getting up, not holding it, and despite how often I shout "wheelie everything!") while climbing is often sustained and needs maximum effort, it seems to make sense to tune the neutral body position (takes less energy to sustain) slightly more towards climbing/pedaling for trail & enduro bikes.
  • 2 0
 @justinfoil: Mine comment was supposed to be read as sarcastic with the "..." at the end. I agree with your initial post. My bike has 452 chainstays and I love it. I'm all for long size-specific chainstays.
  • 1 0
 @HeatedRotor: Ah yes, I will climb for an hour with the nose of the saddle up my taint, thank you.
  • 1 0
 @texag: That has nothing to do with CS.
  • 1 0
 @HeatedRotor: I misinterpreted your comment, my bad.
  • 1 0
 @haen: rock on, then!

So many people can't or don't wheelie anyway, never understood the hate for proportional chainstay to help different sizes turn similarly. The silly numbers game of just going shorter and shorter somehow took over the zeitgeist, enough that chainstay length (for one size) is _still_ one of the very few geo numbers called out in the sidebar on PB reviews. So dumb.
  • 4 0
 Man this bike is so sick, and this review convinced me that PB is way too nit picky for my taste. I love steel bikes
  • 2 1
 Isn’t a low stack height super easy to fix? Spacers under the stem, higher rise stem, higher rise bars? Seems a non issue. A super tall stack height on the other hand seems like it could be a problem that would be harder to solve. Seems an odd complaint by the author?
  • 2 0
 I think they liked it a lot? A bike that is a tank on the steep and fast may not be great in flat switchback and step ups
  • 2 2
 I have to throw my vote in for moderately flexy aluminum wheels. I'm 225lbs (i think that about 9kg?
) and ride somewhat noodley wheels, DT xm1500 in the rear. I've tried friend's all signing carbon wheels and they feel like poop on my enduro bike.
  • 3 0
 You might need to adjust your suspension settings, since the carbon wheels aren't taking up as much chatter as the aluminum ones were. Open up the compression settings a click or two.
  • 1 0
 @AddisonEverett: Thanks. I'll try that next time I try stiff wheels
  • 1 0
 Nice review. Curious how this would mullet. Slacken the front even more, but the ST will still likely be steep enough and it would maybe bring that front end up and shorten the reach a bit.
  • 2 1
 How, exactly, are you quantifying the alleged flex of these alu wheels, and the alleged stiffness of carbon?

These ^ tropes get repeated as pseudo-gospel, but I have yet to see even psuedo-science backing them up.
  • 7 0
 To be fair, its not that challenging to feel wheel flex when changing between setups.

I remember when I purchased my first 29er with relatively cheap, aluminum rims. I could literally feel the rear wheel flex, to the point where I was stopping constantly to check that pivots/axles were not coming loose.

Similarly, I just rebuilt some I-9 wheels and ditched the existing alu rims for more burly DT-swiss alu rims. The stiffness is so very apparent. Feels somewhat similar to moving from worn to new tires - just feels like I can point it precisely and it will stick.
  • 2 0
 @KJP1230: Not suggesting there isn't a difference. Asking for quantification instead of groupthink.
  • 2 0
 @mikesee: I agree on that point. It would be interesting to come up with some industry standard regarding rim deflection under certain load. I can't imagine it would be that complicated to mount a wheel parallel to the floor and see how much a rim + spoke design deflects by hanging a weight from the rim bead.
  • 1 0
 @mikesee: Here is a link to a German magazin testing Alloy and Carbon Wheels in a laboratory

www.bike-x.de/mtb/parts/16-mtb-laufraeder-im-labor-und-praxis-test

Look for Steifigkeit(german for Stiffness). (The Values are Lateral Stiffnes in the front , in the Back and Torsionall stiffness of the rear wheel)
  • 2 0
 I'm guessing they rode them and felt they were a bit flexy.
Would have been good to just have a paragraph saying "when we popped a set of carbon hoops in the bike felt..." though.
  • 3 2
 "Low stack height combined with long reach led to awkward feeling in slow steep tech"

You can use a higher bar/stem to combat the stack height...
This would decrease the (effective) reach a little bit too.
  • 1 0
 Reach gets all the attention but stack is hardly mentioned. Notice when they list the key specs of the bike at the top of the review, stack is missing.
  • 4 0
 “THe DrOPper iS toO ShORt” man oh man , never heard that before
  • 2 0
 is that radar gun a revised version that measures stanchion diameter on the fly?!
  • 1 2
 I don't get the whole shorter rear travel thing. You always sag more and in deeper travel at rear, the majority of the force transmit through shock. Riding those bikes gave off the feeling of imbalance and unable to sink in on the bike. Or Racey as the marketing would say.
  • 2 1
 The design has more to do with geometry than suspension performance. Shorter rear travel = shorter rear chain-stays. Longer front travel = taller stack and slacker head angle.

The main reason for MX bikes today is that you can keep the travel AND have shorter chainstays compared to a 29 rear.
  • 6 0
 Rear travel is generally measured vertically, where the front travel is measured along the line of the fork. This means if you measure it vertically with a 63.5 head angle 170mm in front is about 152mm, close to 158mm. So if a bike with a slack head angle has equal travel front and rear on paper it will feel like it has more travel in back, especially if it has a high pivot/rearward axel path
  • 2 0
 @KickFlipABike: Great point!

Also, in the bigger picture about "majority of the force" statement from the OP, there is a reason we see hardtails and even long-travel hardtails but not suspension frames with rigid forks. Though most of the rider's weight may be on the pedals, the bike+rider's momentum is moving forwards and bike hits most obstacles with the front wheel first. So the front wheel sees the biggest forces on a lot of stuff, and weight+speed means those forces are quite big and fast. Also, legs are better and more durable at absorbing impacts than arms.

It's amazing how you can fly through a rock garden on a hardtail and the fork could be using 80%+ travel while it feels like the rear is skipping over things. Shorter travel FS frame might just mean that you have to ride it a little more like a hardtail.
  • 1 0
 Considering almost all of Chromag’s bikes are hardtails, it seems like any amount of rear travel makes significant strides toward this “balance” you speak of.
  • 1 0
 @KickFlipABike:
Not really
That’s old fashioned thinking(making the rear short to be more agile)

Many modern mullets have long chainstays(mullets need balance to)

Sometimes (Santa Cruz nomad/megatower, commencal meta?v4 sx/am) the mullet have longer chain stays than full 29”

Mullets have many advantages over 29” not only the possibility of a shorter rear and ass clearance
  • 2 0
 Bike is cool, but check out Dario's frenchie enduro line setting up for the right hander just out of the pic!!
  • 3 4
 Still too much emphasis on reach numbers, especially since you didnt mention that the SA is 79 degrees which makes the ETT pretty much the same as any other bike - in this case 637mm. My Transition Scout has a reach of 485 (vs the chromag 513) but the ETT is still 623mm. Hell, my Trek 69er from 2007 has a 628mm ETT, but if you just looked at the reach it has of ~435mm it would be deemed virtually unridable by anyone over 5ft tall (72.5 deg SA if you were wondering).

(yes there is seated vs. climbing, but we all know that we are seated 80% of the time unless we are on lift access DH)
  • 1 0
 Is Kaz actually the voice over for the ‘Hello Buddy’ cold pop and cookery guy?
  • 1 0
 @henryquinney Do you think it would make it weird to add some stem spacers to improve the stack height issue?
  • 7 0
 I don't think it would make it weird at all. I don't think we had all that much steerer left to play with, and our reviews should be on the bike as it came, not the bike it could be. I think if it were my bike, I would want a very long steerer, and maybe even ride a flat 15 or 20mm rise bar to really bring that reach in, while also hopefully getting some more height at the front.
  • 1 0
 @henryquinney: Makes a ton of sense. I am a similar height to you, and it seems our preferences for setup align. Thank you for the feedback!
  • 1 2
 @henryquinney: was that seat angle "as the bike came"? Do you always try and test a bike before Dario so you don't have to change the seat everytime?
  • 1 2
 Does anyone else get pretty annoyed when they reference bikes that they haven't released a video for? Comparing the feel of one bike to another is pointless if I don't know anything about the other bike.
  • 1 0
 It's all heading back to bikes that look almost like my 2000's Turner 6-Pack Beer
  • 1 0
 Steel truly is comfortable as fuck. I love my portly Cotic FlareMax so damn much.
  • 1 0
 Looks like a well sorted rig
  • 1 0
 Wonder if Chromag will do this frame in Ti…
  • 1 0
 Unobtanium
  • 1 0
 Attention BROSCHWAG! Please make arcturians again.
  • 2 5
 "Every frame size gets a 440mm chainstay; this felt very balanced with the 490mm reach on our bike, though the bikes at the ends of the geo chart might suffer a bit from that one-size approach."

Wow, this is wild to see, since for years PB staff has brushed aside the same sentiment in the comments as unimportant.
  • 2 0
 no geo chart? really?
  • 3 1
 Looks like 90's bike.
  • 1 0
 At my age you learn to live with things not being very stiff
  • 1 0
 “The Speed Couch.” I like that.
  • 1 0
 now that's a heavy metal bike
  • 1 0
 I always notice when I've taken a dump
  • 1 0
 17kg? Might as well get a fat bike
  • 1 0
 Would love to see a mx or park version of this bike
  • 1 1
 I love they external cables and rear brake! Good job!
  • 1 0
 Arcturian
  • 1 1
 Where are other bike tests?
  • 3 6
 But do the chainstays change with each size. You know the thing you complain about on every other brand that doesn’t
  • 7 0
 they pretty clearly brought it up in the written review "Every frame size gets a 440mm chainstay; this felt very balanced with the 490mm reach on our bike, though the bikes at the ends of the geo chart might suffer a bit from that one-size approach."
  • 2 4
 @mtmc99: I know they mentioned it but it’s normally one of the big criticisms. This review felt a bit rose tinted to me
  • 3 0
 @chrismac70: It might be a function of the actual measurement they selected. The pinkbike crew complained about this in the Nukeproof Giga review, but that chainstay is also 5mm shorter than the Chromag chainstay - an all-around short chainstay for a big, big bike.
  • 2 0
 @KJP1230: I don't hold to the idea of "proportional" chainstay length, I think it is a lot more of a personal preference than a "taller people should have longer chainstays" especially since the chainstay length on bikes that get longer chainstays as the size gets bigger doesn't grow all that much compared to the reach. From what I've seen you'll have a 7mm difference in chainstay length across a 4 size run and almost a 100mm difference in reach across those same sizes. Taller riders still get proportionally shorter chain stays than shorter riders do. Personally, I like a bike with a 480-490 mm reach with a 40-50mm stem and 435 mm chainstays. Bikes with those feel amazing to me, I'm 6'1 with a 32 inch inseam.
  • 2 0
 @AddisonEverett: chainstay flip chips would be a great addition to a lot of bikes, to go along with a bit of proportional difference as well, IMO.
  • 2 0
 @AddisonEverett: Agree. I think we are still a while off being able to articulate every parameter for every person!

Think that 'desired' CS length can be a function of preferred way of riding, and some sort of relationship involving leg length, (real) ST angle at seat post extension, and reach/ETT.

What I think gets overlooked is that the quoted ST angle is the projection of the seat tube at frame stack height, but the actual angle is usually lower (shallower) with a forward offset from BB.

We are still measuring bikes like they are a diamond design which is not really that accurate - though I think it'll be a long time before anyone agrees to measuring a 'different' way. Reading a geo chart and understanding a geo chart are two different things.
  • 1 0
 @AddisonEverett: I wonder if SRAM's Transmission system will be the death of adjustable chainstay lengths.
  • 1 0
 @DaveRobinson81: for sure, especially when it comes to seated position geo and effective top tube. This might be my descending bias, but I don't feel as though chainstay length makes as big of a difference to me when seated and climbing, when actual sta and effective top tube have a bigger effect, and that could relate to why I like shorter chainstays since I pay more attention to my bikes handling characteristics when descending. I love discussions like this because I want to design bikes. Different sizing and scaling bikes is going to be tricky, because I would want the bikes to have as similar a ride feel in all sizes as possible, which seems a bit contradictory to my previous statement on size specific chainstays. I think tuning kinematics makes huge difference, and trying to have size specific tunes adjusted for approximate rider weights can give the effect I hope for. I'm still learning though and if anyone else has some guidance I'm happy to hear it.
  • 1 0
 @KJP1230: I hope not, it would be a shame to reduce the design freedom manufacturers have in order to accommodate a single product from one company, no matter how popular or shiny it is. That being said, I'm sure there is a way to accommodate a UDH/Transmission interface on a bike with adjustable chain stay lengths, just needs to be designed and implimented.
  • 1 0
 @KJP1230: just as a thought you could do with with bolt on drop outs, and have different lengths there. But it isn't the best system when compared to a flip chip style adjustment.
  • 1 0
 @AddisonEverett: I think that some 'designers' (using the term very loosely!) are already considering this as larger bikes get a steeper STA - I think what could be important is the relationship between the rear wheel and your ass when climbing. If you want a shorter CS, increase reach and have a steeper STA (to preserve ETT) - think the devinci chainsaw is a good example of this, and the Kona Satori was a bit ahead of the curve back in 2018. One thing that I have no idea if manufacturers are doing would be to make links (or adjustments) to alter leverage progression curves based on rider weight?!?
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.057105
Mobile Version of Website