Canyon Launches 2022 Updates for the Neuron Carbon Models

Nov 5, 2021 at 9:00
by Ed Spratt  

Canyon has announced four new models for its 2022 Neuron range with updated components.

For 2022 Canyon has kept the carbon frame the same, but there are now four new builds including a women-specific version. The new range starts at the CF8 with unisex and women's-specific options to the top model of the CF9 SL. Suspension travel across all four models remains at 140mm of front travel and 130 mm out the back. Most sizes will be running a 29" wheel front and rear but sizes up to small will have 27.5" wheels.

The cheaper Neuron CF8 and CF8 WMN come kitted out with Fox 34 Performance fork, Fox DPS Performance shock and Shimano's SLX 12 speed drivetrain and brakes. The CF8 comes in at €2,999. The next model up, the CF9, comes in at a pricier €3,999, but it includes plenty of spec upgrades. For the extra cost, the CF9 includes Fox's 34 Performance Elite fork with a full Shimano XT 12 speed drivetrain and four-piston brakes. The wheels also see an upgrade to Dt Swiss' XMC 1700 carbon wheels.

Sitting at the top of the four new models for 2022 is the CF9 SL, riders opting for this choice will be looking to spend €4,799 for a lightweight trail build. The CF9 SL features Fox Factory suspension front and rear with SRAM GX AXS shifting and Code RSC brakes. Wheels are upgraded again with the lighter DT Swiss XMc 1501 carbon wheels and the cockpit includes Race Face's Turbine stem and Next carbon handlebars.

You can find out more about the new Neuron carbon models here.


  • 67 0
 They really do want to update everything twice before touching the Strive.
  • 34 0
 They probably struggling to come up with a good marketing spin on why they had to ditch the shapeshifter
  • 6 0
 @GZMS: Surely weight and **modern geometry!!!!1!!1!1!** would be good enough?
  • 8 0
 @xxinsert-name-herexx: may be.. but my guess it will be something like “new kinematics, which is efficient by this much, thus no reason to have shapeshiter” .. on the other hand, it be curious to see something like axs controlled shapeshifter, maybe linked to a dropper..
  • 8 0
 @GZMS: all they need to do is to add a tyrewiz, air wiz and full AXS and Flight attendant and you’d have 9 batteries to charge.
  • 14 0
 @GZMS: something something Jack Moir nah mate it’s mint Smile
  • 3 0
 @xxinsert-name-herexx: ya, a handlebar computer and light would make it 11!
  • 1 0
 @xxinsert-name-herexx: Good news a Flight Attendant one is coming for 8100 GB

Edit: limited to M-XL and only 60 bikes will be made/sold
  • 2 0
 @GZMS: if anything, what Canyon need to do with the shapeshifter is make the geo change between the two modes bigger. I really like the shapeshifter on mine (2020 CF9 with 160mm Lyrik), it makes a noticeable difference and makes the bike much more of an all-rounder. With the newer bikes coming with a 170mm fork, being able to steepen the geo a touch more in 'climb' mode would be good.
  • 2 0
 If it still has a 74deg STA from 2015, then it hasn't been "updated," regardless of what color they've painted it this year.
  • 36 13
 Good: Prices from 2010s
Bad: Geometry from 2010s
  • 35 3
 Not everyone needs the lowest, longest, slackest. The geo is perfect for those that put the miles in both down, and up.
  • 2 4
 @DBone95: it is marketed by Canyon as a kind of a do-it-all trail bike that "...scales the steepest climbs and descends with complete control..." (Canyon website). You're right, everyone doesn't need enduro bike geometry, but the way that it is marketed makes it seem like it has the lowest, longest, slackest geometry. Also, the top-end model comes spec with Code RSC's, which would make it seem like a do-it-all type of bike
  • 7 0
 @Goocha05: maybe canyon identified the anthropometric data of their buyers trended towards heavier riders who’d appreciate the stopping power for weight and not elevation change reasons. Never a reason to be under-braked.
  • 2 0
 @DBone95: This is true but the reach numbers seem short by today's standards. Agreed not everything needs to resemble the geo of a downhill rig but I think they could've been a bit more progressive..
  • 4 0
 @stumphumper92: Agree with you here. I don't think coming updates need to be extreme even, just tweaked, and they would still hit a major demographic with their bikes. As is, 67 HTA for a 140mm fork isn't unrideable, but just...not what I'm after. Only a 473mm reach on the size XL!
  • 13 0
 I think part of the reason they're able to keep value as high as they do is likely because they don't update their frames as often as their competition.

They hang onto the R&D, tooling, and production cost, stretching it out over the life of it's frames, giving buyers the opportunity for higher spec. It gives us another option!

They seem to have a good strategy here, avoiding a highly competitive market. As an owner of a 2018 Neuron I was looking forward to a frame update, but it seems that Canyon recognizes there are a number of countless options.
  • 2 0
 Yeah, someone clearly did the calculation of cost to develop "new standards" frame vs money lost to customers going to other brands that come out with flashy new frames every two years. Interestingly, I always thought Trek was good at this although that seems to have changes slightly in the past few years.
  • 11 0
 4k for carbon + that spec

Is that even possible ?????
  • 2 0
 And I thought my tracer had a pretty good price, but it’s an monster enduro bike so I’m not sure how much that hikes up the price. But props to canyon for making such sick bikes for cheap!
  • 8 1
 I’ve been riding neurons for three years now. They’re really good bikes, and absolutely impossible to beat price wise. My current neuron (it has was purchased when the 2021 models came out) has about 5000km on it, has been impeccably reliable. My daily loop is 60% easy paths, 40% technical single track, 100% off road. Aside from regular maintenance, and tyres/grips, all I’ve done to it is swapped in an answer 2020 bar, and converted the wheels to run schrader valves.
  • 9 2
 473mm reach on the XL. Looks like they've fitted all the bells and whistles to shift some old school frames.
  • 2 0
 Doesn't that just mean it is a RAD bike?
  • 4 0
 They will probably sell the crap out of them with bike shortages like there are. Would I buy one? Naw. Old-school geo is a major turn off. While geometry is free, design, testing, and tooling is certainly not. They provide a acceptable bike for the masses and have to say their unboxing experiance is fantastic, as well as their frames fit and finish. It would be nice to see a true update, because as we saw from the Spectral, once Canyon feels so inclined, they can build a legit bike. And like it or not... Jack performed well on the strive this year, which goes to show the time tested thought that it's not the bike, it's the rider.
  • 4 1
 That is incredible value, incredible build (and Axs is amazing), proper brakes and everything, than that geometry, oh dear. Basically unridable? A large is the same reach as my old 2010 Medium Specialized Pitch.
  • 4 0
 Buy this, it's light instead of a 50lb trail ebike that is nimble as a portly pig on tech.
  • 1 2
 I mean those are 2 completely different style bikes... If someone wants an ebike they're not looking at these lightweight analog bikes.
  • 4 0
 Canyon Appear to be killing it lately (at least big range and price wise)
  • 4 1
 is seat tube angle of 74.5 normal for xc bikes these days?
  • 7 9
 Cutting edge 2011 geometry right there... Smile
  • 1 0
 Seat tube angle doesn’t seem to go through BB. So will be slightly steeper. Depending on how high you have the seatpost
  • 5 0
 Yes it is normal.. eg the same is on epic evo, whats your point?
  • 3 0
 @GZMS: no point? Just a question :-) , as debating getting an xc bike this spring and know f*ck all about them
  • 8 0
 @alexisalwaysonfire: xc bikes have less sag , so under weight it is similar to enduros with 76-77degrees.. also , when you have long and low front center, you need to balnce that out by moving you ass back further, otherwise its backpain and handpain for you
  • 2 0
 @GZMS: Possibly stupid question warning...: Wouldn't they have less sag on both front and rear, so it would cancel out and the seat angle stay the same?
  • 4 0
 @Woody25: only on flat ground. When climbing (which is where seat tube angle matters most) the rear sags more and the front almost not at all , which slackens thing out. Less suspension means less slackening here, so the seat tube does not need to be as steep to begin with
  • 3 0
 @KennyWatson: Aha! Hadn't thought of that. You learn something new everyday Smile
  • 1 0
 @KennyWatson: great explanation!! Thumbs up to you!
  • 1 0
 Double Post
  • 1 0
 The Neuron is a pure trail bike. It would be nice to see a 475 rear size large with a 66 HTA and a 76.5 STA. Then ya got a banger.
  • 2 0
 It's not just sag and climbing. It's also seated pedalling on flat and rolling terrain. Longer travel bikes are usually either ridden steep up or steep down, so for them steep ST angles are practical for the climbing portion. An XC bike will be pedalled on flat trails for longer distances and for that very steep ST angles are horribly uncomfortable.
  • 1 1
 @bananowy: Disagree with that. My short travel bike has a 77 degree ST angle... and its fantastic.
  • 2 0
 How’s build quality and customer service with Canyon? The XT price point is spot on…so much want.
  • 1 0
 Crap and Crap, but it’s cheap enough to buy a bike and swap out the frame if it causes you grief.
  • 1 0
 I have a 2020 Neuron and have had very minor issues. When I've called on 2 occasions, they've immediately FedEx'd the parts I need at no charge. Best bike I've ever ridden.
  • 1 0
 All I can say is I want that thru axle it looks so noce to have the leverage when it’s stuck on.
  • 1 0
 Not exactly a Canyon Fan, but the price / value ratio for those builds sounds very reasonable for 2021.
  • 2 0
 Radon also updated their all-mountain model Slide yesterday
  • 2 0
 That color scheme is dope.
  • 1 0
 Leave it to Canyon to always have the most outdated geometry on the market.
  • 1 0
 I didnt know Upcountry was a thing.
  • 1 1
 I like the mullet coil shock one, for that money id ride it like i stole it.
  • 1 0
 Another canyon with excessively long seat tubes.
  • 1 0
 New release to be available two years from release….
  • 1 1
 Just copy pivot and call it a day
  • 1 2
 Looks like a rad bike, but the size small is 27.5. I'd want it in either a 29 or mullet.
  • 3 1
 If you actually want to make it properly small, smaller wheels (front and back) help significantly.
  • 1 1
 @dsut4392: I disagree. I have owned several 27.5, 29, and setup both my 27.5 and 29 bikes as mullets. I'm a small all day with most companies. The 27.5 smalls have too low of a stack height for me. Ridding position is totally different with downhills and pedal position with 27.5 vs 29. If you counteract a low stack height of a 27.5 with a 29, you have to over fork about 20 to 30mm. I think the bike becomes too unbalanced from a suspension perspective.
  • 1 1
It sounds like you're complaining about the size sticker on the know you can just buy a "Medium" if the "Small" isn't big enough for you?

My wife is 162 cm tall, and has really struggled to find a trail bike that fits. Almost every 29er ends up with a standover height that she can't clear, because once you put a 150mm fork on a 29" wheel even the shortest head tube only lets you get the top tube so low. FWIW, her new XS Spectral CF 27.5 arrived on Friday.
  • 1 0
 @dsut4392: Not complaining about the size at all. LOL. I just think that Smalls are totally fine for 29 wheels. Stack height is a big metric for how your body position when riding. 29 stack height is totally different than 27.5 stack height. For a trail bike, they don't need to make the size Smalls 27.5 if every other size is 29 in the same model.

FYI: The standover height between the Spectral 29 and Spectral 27.5 for size Small is the exact same size at 751mm. The standover height in the XS in Spectral 27.5 is 746mm (29 doesn't have a S) and the S in Spectral 29 is only 5mm which is really insignificant. Standover height has more to do with the particular manufacturer's frame design than the wheel size. Look at different models of trail bikes with similar suspension travel. The standover height varies greatly with companies and model of frames.

Like I said, I'm a Small all day for most companies. Majority of mediums are way too long in the top tube length for me to have a comfortable pedaling position which you are in the majority of the time riding. But that is not set in stone, I have fit better for some mediums. However, in Canyon bikes I am a Small.
  • 1 1
 @tacklingdummy: thanks for reading the geo charts for me, I’ve been shopping for this bike for over a year, and never thought of doing that before spending up on the CF9 model [/sarcasm] Standover has a lot to do with frame design, specifically where the pivot points of the rear suspension are placed, as they are almost always constant across frame sizes. But the smaller the reach of the bike, the more the front wheel size becomes a limiting factor (for any given fork travel). Putting a bend in the top tube of the small sizes helps, but apart from the new Trek top fuel, the last bike I can picture that did this was the original Yeti SB5C.
The variability of standover measurements between brands also shouldn’t be ignored. For instance, the 2022 Stumpjumper S1 quotes a lower 730mm standover, but if you actually go and stand over one you’ll find it’s taller than the Spectral. My wife was looking for over a year (granted supply has been low) and the only 29er she found at retail that fitted was a Norco Sight. The same shop have been trying to get an Optic in for her since August 2020, and it’s finally coming next week, a fortnight too late . A Yeti SB140 XS or SB130 S should have worked, but couldn’t get hold of one to try and not going to buy sight unseen.
There’s a million bikes out there that fit someone on the upper end of the “small” size range, but hardly any for someone looking for something high spec that’s smaller.

As for the importance of stack height, you can always effectively increase it with spacers and stem choice, but it’s much harder to get it lower.
  • 1 0
 @tacklingdummy: Hi tacklingdummy, I'm trying to find a new or 2nd hand bike for my wife.
If you go by the manufacturers recommended size guide, at 159cm She is still to short by for many size S bikes?!
The Giant Reign 29 S lists size for 163 to 172cm. (4cm short)
NUKEPROOF REACTOR no S only M 170 - 181cm (11cm Short)
The female Neuron CF8 WMN S 165 to 174cm and only 27.5 (6cm)
My question is do you think thee guides are accurate?
She rode a mates S Evil 29 and thought the size was fine.
I noticed you said your a size S. Could I ask what height you are?
  • 2 0
 @JimmyT7: If she is 159cm, that seems like she firmly sits in small, possible an x-small, but most companies do not have an x-small. Best bet is to have her demo a few bikes or go to bike shops and ride them in the parking lot to see how they feel to her.

I am 170cm, but I would not just go on height. I have short legs and short arms. Most companies put me in mediums, but generally the medium top tube lengths are too long for me and has my body position too stretched when in climbing position and/or the reach is too long where my weight tends to be too be a little too far forward when in the downhill position. However, it really depends on the bike company's frame as each company and each model will have fit dimensions based on their own criteria and type of riding.

To me, fit really depends on how a person is proportioned and personal preference. Leg length, torso length, arm length, and just how you want to be positioned on the bike are most important. After decades of mountain biking, I know what size fits the best and what I like based on the most important fit metrics of a frame which is top tube length (seated climbing fit) and reach (downhill position fit). Stack height also has affect on what your seated position will be like. 29er stack height is much higher than 27.5 so your body position is more upright on 29ers than 27.5.

Sizing is just a general recommendation. I look at the recommendation, but take it with a grain of salt. Sizing varies greatly from bike company to bike company and model to model. A small of one company may be closer to a medium of another company or vice versa.

Sorry for the lengthy answer, sizing is a just serious pet peeve of mine. Lol.
  • 1 0
 @JimmyT7: don't go by the listed XS/S/M sizing, compare the measurements on, and most of all visit every shop you can to try different brands that are locally available to see what kind of riding position she likes.

The measurement that is least reliable on geometry charts is the standover, as the point on the top tube where different companies measure this is not strictly defined.

In terms of bikes my wife tried that she didn't think would be small enough in their smallest size: Specialized Stumpjumper, Stumpjumper EVO, Giant Trance X advanced, Trek Fuel EX, Kona Process 153, Canyon Spectral 29er. Bikes that did fit: Spectral 27.5 XS (Spectral Wmn is even smaller but reach was shorter than she liked), Norco Optic and Norco Sight (both 29 and 27.5). Bikes that would almost certainly fit but couldn't try: Yeti SB140 XS, Liv Intrigue.

She is loving her new Spectral 27.5, it pedals well, is confidence inspiring and a fun playful bike to ride whether it's mellow singletrack or big days at the local bike park
  • 5 6
 I'm really bored of Canyon bikes, they are so dull.
  • 2 0
 I'm lucky enough to have a Sender, a Spectral and a Stitched.- I can assure you they are definitely not dull to ride.
  • 4 0
 Gonna agree, probably just because they are everywhere.
Below threshold threads are hidden

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

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2022. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.014020
Mobile Version of Website