There hasn't been a whole lot of news from Diamondback over the last two years, a quiet period that began shortly after the launch of the Mission 27.5, their aluminum-framed, 160mm all-mountain rig. What was the reason for this radio silence? It turns out an entirely new suspension platform called Level Link was being developed, a dual short link configuration that's claimed to “create a light and efficient pedaler that descends like a big bike.” Those are bold claims, which is why we've been putting the Release, Diamondback's first model to feature the new design, to the test over the last few months.
Release 3 Details• Intended use: trail / all-mountain
• Rear wheel travel: 130mm
• Wheel size: 27.5''
• Head angle: 66°
• Hydroformed aluminum frame
• 73mm threaded bottom bracket
• Sizes: S, M, L, XL
• Weight (as shown, size L w/o pedals): 31 pounds (14.06 kg)
• MSRP: $3,900 USD
•
www.diamondback.com /
@diamondbackbikes The Release's aluminum frame has 130mm of rear travel paired with a 150mm fork up front, giving it a relatively slack head angle of 66 degrees. There are three models in the line, with prices ranging from $2,500 for the base model on up to $3,900 USD for the Release 3 reviewed here, which comes well spec'd with a Rock Shox Pike RCT3 fork, Monarch Plus shock, Guide RS brakes, and a 1x11 drivetrain.Frame DetailsI can't remember the last bike that came in for review with two different colored rims, but it looks like Diamondback is trying to start (or restart) a trend with the Release's black and red color scheme. Looks are subjective, but I'll go on record as saying that I wish the rear wheel matched the front, if only to avoid the inevitable “What's up with those wheels?” line of questioning out on the trail.
At first glance, the shape of the Release's aluminum frame is a fairly straightforward affair – there aren't any outlandish tube shapes or wild angles, but a closer look reveals that the area around the bottom bracket has some interesting details. For one, the lower portion of the seat tube is curved to the non-drive side, and the lower link is offset in that direction as well, to provide additional chainring clearance. The rear swingarm is also asymmetrical, with a brace on the non-drive side for extra stiffness.
The Release has a 12x148mm rear end, but the decision to go the Boost route wasn't done arbitrarily. Luther Beale, the bike's designer, said that the wider spacing afforded the room necessary to have both short, 425mm chainstays
and room for wider tires, along with the option of running a front derailleur. An extra three millimeters of room to play with on each side (compared to 12x142) may not seem like much, but for designers who are used to working with tenths of a millimeter, it's significant.
Save for the stealth dropper post routing through the seat tube, there's no internal cable routing to be found – all the housing runs along the top of the down tube. This means there's no room to mount a water bottle inside the front triangle, but according to Diamondback, although our bike didn't have them, mounting holes will be in place on the underside of the down tube for the next run of frames.
Other details include ISCG 05 tabs for mounting a chain guide, expanding collet hardware at the majority of the pivot locations, and a threaded 73mm bottom bracket shell – always a welcome sight.
Suspension DesignThe Release's Level Link suspension design is a major departure from the link-driven single pivot designs that Diamondback had been relying on up until this point. Comparisons will inevitably be drawn to Santa Cruz's VPP layout, and for good reason. It's the expiration of the patent on the VPP design that made Level Link possible, since it relies on two counter-rotating links. By changing the length and location of those links designers can precisely control the amount of chain growth that occurs as a bike goes through its travel. There's more chain growth early on in the bike's travel for better pedaling performance, and then the amount of growth decreases to allow the shock to absorb larger impacts.
The most visibly obvious difference between VPP and Level Link design is the positioning of the lower link. Santa Cruz's link is positioned diagonally, running from a point just above the bottom bracket to a point on the chainstay that's inline with the center of the crank arm, while the lower Level Link yoke is located entirely above the bottom bracket, affixed to the seat tube and then extending at a slight downward angle toward the swingarm, an angle that becomes parallel to the ground when the bike is at its sag point (hence the name).
GeometrySpecifications
Specifications
|
Price
|
$3900 |
|
Travel |
130mm |
|
Rear Shock |
RockShox Monarch Plus RT3 |
|
Fork |
RockShox Pike RCT3 150mm |
|
Headset |
FSA N057E |
|
Cassette |
SRAM XG 1150 |
|
Crankarms |
Race Face Turbine 30t |
|
Bottom Bracket |
Race Face outboard bearing |
|
Rear Derailleur |
SRAM X1 |
|
Chain |
KMC X11L |
|
Shifter Pods |
SRAM X1 11 speed |
|
Handlebar |
DB 35 780mm width |
|
Stem |
DB 35 40mm length |
|
Grips |
DB4L lock-on |
|
Brakes |
SRAM Guide RS 180mm rotors |
|
Wheelset |
Diamondback Blanchard 28R |
|
Tires |
Schwalbe Hans Dampf 2.35" |
|
Seat |
WTB Volt Pro |
|
Seatpost |
KS Lev Integra |
|
| |
SetupIt took a few rides and a bit of experimenting in order to dial in the Release's rear suspension. I started by running the Monarch Plus at 30% sag, the usual starting point for most trail and all-mountain bikes these days. With that amount of sag there weren't any issues on the climbs, but the suspension felt too firm on the descents, and more than once I found myself checking to see if I had inadvertently put the rear shock into the middle compression setting. I eventually settled on putting two volume spacers into the air can of the Monarch Plus to prevent it from bottoming out too quickly, and then dropping the air pressure until I was running 40% sag. That number may seem excessive for a 130mm trail bike, but it worked well on the trail, without any wallowing, and came closer to achieving the feel I was looking for.
ClimbingThe Release's 780mm bars and 40mm stem are right in line with my personal preferences, and I felt at home from the instant I swung a leg over the bike. The same goes for the 450mm reach for a size large – the Release's geometry fits in with the recent push for longer front centers, and it was a comfortable fit for my 5'11” height.
When it came time to climb, the Release proved itself to be a very efficient pedaler, and even when running the aforementioned 40% sag there was never any need to reach down and flip the blue compression lever into a firmer setting. Whether I was seated or standing, no matter how awkwardly I mashed on the pedals the rear shock remained relatively unaffected, free of any bobbing or unnecessary movement. It's not that it's switching a rear shock from one compression setting to the other is a difficult task, but when it's not necessary it becomes even easier to pay attention to the fun stuff, like actually riding.
Of course, as efficient as the Release's rear suspension is, there's no escaping the fact that it weighs 31 pounds without pedals, and that extra heft meant I was more likely to sit and steadily grind up a steep climb rather than standing up and sprinting to the top. Even though it has slightly less travel than what would typically be considered an all-mountain bike, the Release's geometry, especially the 66-degree head angle, will feel very familiar to riders who are accustomed to spending time on longer travel machines. The same climbing techniques are required - a little extra muscle to steer the front end through twisting climbs, and a little extra 'oomph' to power through extended technical bits – but as long as you have the horsepower, the Release will steadily clamber its way on upwards.
DescendingThe Release has a stout and sturdy feel to it – this is a bike that can handle being thrown sideways into corners and launched deep into the landing of a drop without even a hint of unwanted flex. The rear suspension feels very supportive, which makes it especially enjoyable on trails filled with berms and rollers to pump and manual, trails where riding bikes with loads of travel can make it feel like you're bouncing on a waterbed.
On rougher terrain the Release loses some of its luster - it isn't quite as adept at smoothing out the small bumps and square edged hits, and the threshold at which the rear end began to go through its travel seemed fairly high. At times the back wheel felt more likely to bounce over roots and other mid-trail obstacles rather than suck them up, making for a slightly jarring ride. Granted, this is a bike with 130mm of travel, but there are other bikes in the same category that have a more supple suspension feel – Transition's Scout comes to mind, or on the pricier end of the spectrum, Yeti's SB5C.
 | The Release has a stout and sturdy feel to it - this is a bike that can handle being thrown sideways into corners and launched deep into the landing of a drop without even a hint of unwanted flex. |
At slower speeds the Release felt reluctant to leave the ground, especially compared to the Scout, a bike with the manners of an excited puppy, one that's happiest bounding down the trail popping off of natural lips. It's not that the Release isn't maneuverable – those 425mm chainstays help take care of that, and it'll rip through corners with ease – but it has a glued-to-the-ground feeling that makes bunny-hopping over roots and rocks, or doubling up natural features require more effort. However, when it comes to hitting man-made jumps, the Release will happily take flight, lofting as high and as far as you want. Speed seemed to be the key to waking up the Release, along with a take-charge riding style – this is a bike that behaves best under a more aggressive rider, rather than one who's only along for the ride.
Component Check• Wheels: The Release rolls on a house-brand wheelset, and while Diamondback's Blanchard 28R rims have a nice and wide inner rim width of 28mm, getting a tire on and off is a frustrating experience – the fit between the tire bead and rim is extremely tight. I can't remember the last time I broke a tire lever, but I managed to snap two during my time on the Release. It wasn't just the Schwalbe tires either – it also took a solid round of thumb wrestling to get tires from Maxxis and Specialized installed.
• Schwalbe Hans Dampf tires: The Hans Dampfs were
the tire of choice not too long ago, and they still work well in most conditions, although wet roots tend to be their nemesis. They're a safe spec choice, but given the Release's rowdy manners, I'd say it's an ideal candidate for the ridiculously fun Magic Mary front / Rock Razor rear combo.
• SRAM X1 / Race Face Turbine 1x11 drivetrain: Despite the lack of a chain guide, there were no dropped chains during the test period. I did manage to snap a link on the KMC X11 chain, but I'll chalk that up to my winter diet of donuts and cake, and otherwise the drivetrain was trouble free.
Pinkbike's Take:
 | The Release is an interesting machine, one that's difficult to categorize. Its slack angles give it the handling of an all-mountain rig, but the reduced travel and rear suspension feel make it a better choice for ripping through berms rather than plowing through rock gardens. It's not going to be for everyone - there will inevitably be those who want the extra margin for error that another 30mm or so of travel provides, while others will find their gaze drawn to bikes with quicker handling and a little less heft. But for riders looking for something a little different, a rugged all-rounder with very efficient pedaling performance, the Release might fit the bill. - Mike Kazimer |
Visit the high-res gallery for more images from this review
About the ReviewerStats: Age: 33 • Height: 5'11” • Inseam: 33" • Weight: 155lb • Industry affiliations / sponsors: None Twenty years deep into a mountain biking addiction that began as a way to escape the suburban sprawl of Connecticut, Mike Kazimer is most at home deep the woods, carving his way down steep, technical trails. The decade he spent as a bike mechanic helped create a solid technical background to draw from when reviewing products, and his current location in the Pacific Northwest allows for easy access to the wettest, muddiest conditions imaginable.
276 Comments
But yes, why would I ride a 130mm bike that weighs 31lbs – and looks like a Stumpjumper from 6 years ago.
Makes fun of the colors even though there is an awesome contrast color shot of the bike and rider - don't hate - that thing looks awesome with the right kit on and the test rider had exactly that.
PB reviews an entry- and mid-level price point bike that actually performs and people complain about how it's ugly, looks cheap and how the brand is devalued by selling in the mass market as well.
*sigh*
I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm pedaling around a 31lbs bike with 66deg of head angle,
I'm gonna want the 160mm of travel that should come with it
looks cheap and nasty to me in the closer up pics. Isn't the whole point of 130 bikes to be poppy and light
Though for sure they missed an opportunity with such a polarizing paintjob.
Steepness dictates HA. Size of biggest hit dictates travel.
And 40% Sag would only make sense if the frame had a considerably progressive suspension design, but that doesn't seem to be the case either, as the tester had to put in 2 volume spacers to prevent it from bottoming out or feeling harsh all the way?
I'm always a fan of a VPPish double link design, I really looooooved the old Lapierre DH 920 for example... the one before Pendbox that is. But like @markg1150 says... here the numbers just don't add up. The engineers should refine their work and make that beast out of carbon. I can see a lot of potential if it's done right.
This bike reminds me of when Giant first put out the Reign. Seems like a lot of people are dismissing it out of hand considering it's source? (well and maybe just the choice of paint?) In 10 years maybe this bike will also prove itself as a worthy choice compared to it's peers like the Reign.
At the very least, it didn't break chain stays, or tear off a brake mount..?
DB doesn't have that mega bling factor but, they make great stuff when it comes to the nicer bikes... down side, they're killing their brand with those cheap Dick's Sporting Goods level POS's...I guess that's where the money is. (???).
I see your point but, I think the business model makes sense. The low end bikes really aren't THAT bad for the price points either but, with that huge diversity in their line and sales from 1000+ brick and mortal retail stores it allows them to still R&D and produce some really sweet bikes. The company is run by great people who ride just like any other bike brand. I'd say the only flaw is that there really aren't any places for most people to see and buy the nicer bikes. I suppose it's a trade off. If they only sold the high end bikes in shops I don't think they'd sell very well but, if they sell the low end stuff in mass it allows them to still build and sell the higher end stuff to the people that find and love it.
For some reason I thought you meant using a dropper post to get it to actuate. Sounded like you were wanting a bidet
I remember riding in Arizona in 109* heat, I'd have taken water shooting out of my seat or anyplace else at that point!!!
Of all the suspension designs you picked just about the most boring, wooden feeling one to fanboy over. I mean come on; the suspension design is one of the worst, they come spec'd like XC bikes, the company has zero customer service ability, and they look like absolute garbage.
Looks are a personal preference, but you can't excuse the rest of that.
It's not that DW didn't have the time or money to fight them in court. It's that he didn't have a case... so he dropped it.
Anyway, point is DW is not the only person with good idea's to develop better mountain bike suspension. And it's totally possible that Giants bike riders, designers and engineers created their own version of a dual mini link suspension design without using DW's patent as a cheat sheet. (as it's been noted many times, DW did not invent the dual mini link and so he could NOT patent that, he patented a specific application of it.) So maybe Giant goes to patent their design and finds DW's work. Met with him to evaluate "if" they needed to pay him royalties. Decided that "no" they were not infringing upon DW's specific application. But for whatever reason they for sure did start a co-development of the G+ suspension design. (Maybe they saw DW's genius and thought they'd get the jump on next generation suspension design? Maybe they weren't 100% sure they'd win a patent suit and did it just to keep DW's lawyers at bay? IDK) Anyway, Giant says G+ did not meet the criteria laid out in their contract. DW said something like what Giant wants is contrary to the laws of physics. Something like that. Anyway, so Giants perspective is DW isn't holding up to the contract and stop paying him. Then DW sues for breach of contract AND patent infringement. He also was suing Trek in the same manner, even though Trek also had been developing BEFORE they contacted DW and also got their own patent. He lost the suit against Trek. And he dropped the suit against Giant.
Maybe this is a case that DW's lawyers just can't compete with the financial power and corporate entities of Trek and Giant? Little guy getting screwed by the big guy? That is totally possible? OR maybe it's a case that even though Trek and Giant are financially powerful corporate entities, that "also" they did nothing wrong? So far, from what information is publicly available from the courts, the latter has factual support to be true. So I see no reason to blindly support DW just because he says different. Sorry, I don't know him. I don't have any reason to believe him over the bike companies. I work in product development. I come up with what I think are new and creative idea's all the time! (some of them really suck, sometimes they end up too much like what somebody else is doing and we do not pursue them, but some are awesome and at least one of them made a million!
And also, typing all this out after having lots of beers and watching McGregor get his big mouth choked out by the only other guy with probably a bigger mouth just gave me another "maybe" good "bike" related idea. Totally gonna do a kickstarter on this one. Probably go down in flames, raise no funding, OR before that I'll find out somebody already did it. BUT at least I'm not gonna wait till somebody else moves on it first this time!
As for the topic of these comments, SC and Intense will be just fine. People are not going to buy the DB over a SC just based on the VPP platform. People have their brand preferences/stigmas. While there will be a small percentage of people that may switch when patents expire any competent business will forecast and make the adjustments to compensate. Also like slave2trails said, it will take the new adaptations time to catch up to how dialed in the original patent holders have it and while the patents are now open the original patent holders sure aren't going to divulge all the little "tweaks" they have developed.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=23SaezKikDw
It seems to me like a lot of people feed off negative connotations around DB as a brand.
Granted the high-tower is carbon and much lighter the designs here are very similar.
From a scientific perspective there are alot of variables that are factored in to "bike-performance"
Not to say you will feel the same thing on either bike......... but rather the fact that modern vpp designs are being introduced into DB bike make me think that they are trying to reach a broader market with their high/mid-end mountain bikes.
Would be interesting if they started manufacturing carbon, but perhaps that's not economical for them to invest in at the moment.....
I love the shape of the bike, not so much the color scheme or paint job though. But hey, if it shreds it shreds.
Nonetheless the Diamondback looks cool, my first serious mountainbike was one. I like the colour scheme as well. Bit different.
Pink bike has recently tested or showed several "trendy" brand bikes that weighted more and cost WAY more...
For sure, DB should have done one more model 4500-5000 range and further addressed the weight/wheels. But for what this costs everything is fine except the department store color scheme. Especially the white links... WTH?
Probably going to put a dent into Santa Cruz's aluminum bronson/5010 sales due March/April?
Also, the irony that now a horst link bike is being touted as superior to a VPP bike??? But I'm sure it has nothing to do with the name on the downtubes...
But I think a good number of people will just see the VPP and compare on cost and spec alone. And then compared to a "foundry" build on an intense, or a "RS Sektor " build aluminum bronson/5010 there will definitely be a fair number that grab a Diamondback with great suspension , drivetrain, abd brakes and then save up for a carbon framed Bronson. Etc...
It doesn´t makes sence to me so large and successfull company suddently doesn´t renews it´s patent?
I have an "old" Mount Vision and I also like it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=23SaezKikDw
1998 called, they want their bike back.
The only utter nonsense is the thinking of folks like yourself who don't seem to grasp the basic facts of the different axle/hub standards and seem to think that 148 is something only SRAM will be supporting. Shimano is already producing cranksets for the new chainline standard and hubs will be following.
On my DH bike, I run a 150mm spaced one and I do not run the faux 150mm Hope hubs, that are basically "longnecks", I am running a proper wider hub body, where you can actually have an advantage of a stronger wheel. I do not see the advantage of 148 over 150. In all fairness, if you can have a normal BB with 148, what is exactly the problem of having it with a 150? Is the math that hard?
Oh well; as a Santa Cruz fanboi, I guess I should be happy, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. (My XL Aluminum Santa Cruz 5010 weighs 28.5 lbs, I shopped carefully and have $4000 into it, SC FTW!)
*Stole*
The word you were looking for was *stole*
Join Pinkbike Login