PINKBIKE FIELD TEST REVIEW
Chromag Lowdown
Words by Dario DiGiulio; photography by Tom RichardsLong 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.
ClimbingDespite 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.
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.
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.
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.
And the thing is, there’s no need for it. You can build a very solid bike for 33 pounds.
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.
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.
From my read, Muckal understands rotational weight is what actually matters... that's why he said: "unless that weight was all in the tires...."
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.
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?
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.
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?
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 .
Weird thing for people to get dogmatic about. Pick a weight and be a dick about it, I guess.
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!
And also, I never count out the possibility that maybe I’m not just rad enough.
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.
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.
m.pinkbike.com/news/poll-once-and-for-all-how-much-should-a-bike-weigh.html
I don’t know that, but given Fezzari’s DTC, lower price approach, it wouldn’t shock me.
www.kruchexperience.com/post/shrimpalicious-2-0-cowboys-seafood-and-lasers
It's just a greedy markup based on the perceived spending power of the "Dad bike" demographic, IMO.
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.
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.
Just commenting so that there is some balance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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....
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.
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)_
regardless of all this, Low stack(from small headtubes) is not acceptable, Some brands call it a feature so people can upsize....
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Fanboys are cringe and can be shown the door.
All that said, the Lowdown looks sweet and I wont be told otherwise!
#HardtailPride #HardtailsForever
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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!!?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*Might actually be a minute on that, but time isn't real anyway.
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!
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.
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.
) 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.
These ^ tropes get repeated as pseudo-gospel, but I have yet to see even psuedo-science backing them up.
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.
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)
Would have been good to just have a paragraph saying "when we popped a set of carbon hoops in the bike felt..." though.
You can use a higher bar/stem to combat the stack height...
This would decrease the (effective) reach a little bit too.
The main reason for MX bikes today is that you can keep the travel AND have shorter chainstays compared to a 29 rear.
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.
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
(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)
Wow, this is wild to see, since for years PB staff has brushed aside the same sentiment in the comments as unimportant.
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.