First Look: Starling Cycles Adds Adjustability & Tweaks Geometry

Nov 22, 2022 at 11:02
by Mike Levy  
Starling Cycles

With small diameter steel tubes and a single-pivot suspension layout across their range, small UK brand Starling Cycles says that their goal is to "eliminate complexity," which flies in the face of many adjustable-everything, ultra-light carbon frames with features lists longer than they need to be. Now Starling is making a bunch of rolling changes to their three most popular bikes, the Murmur 29er, Twist with mullet wheels, and the Swoop with 27.5" wheels.
Starling's Updates
• Two travel modes on each frame
• Stronger headtube, refined main pivot
• Steeper seat angles, less BB drop
• 10 color options
• More info:

Starling is calling these their third-generation frames, and the changes include updated geometry, new colors, and most notably, two different travel configurations on each frame that can be easily altered by owners. The front triangles are made with 853 heat-treated steel tubing that Starling braze themselves, while the steel rear-ends come from Asia.

Starling Cycles

Trail or Enduro Modes

Starling had been offering each of their frames in two different travel configurations, with the customer choosing which suspension length best suited them when they ordered their bike. With the new third-generation frames, Starling is using a set of bolt-on forward shock mounts that allow you to choose between two different travel settings; 135mm or 150mm on the Murmur, 135 or 165mm on the Twist, and 130mm or 160mm on the Swoop. Changing between travel settings will require a different shock and fork, of course, but at least you won't need to splash out for an entirely new frame when you want to make a wholesale change to your equipment.

Starling Cycles
Starling Cycles

Starling Cycles
Starling Cycles

Using the Murmur as an example, the 135mm-travel mode uses a 210 x 55mm shock and a 140mm fork, whereas the enduro mode delivers 150mm via a 230 x 60mm shock and a 160mm fork. Other frame updates include a beefier headtube, refined cast main pivot area, and moving the main pivot bearings from the front triangle to the swingarm.

Starling's geometry for the new Murmur in 150mm-travel enduro guise. The trail version has a 37 mm BB drop.

New Geometry and Colors

There have also been changes to the geometry chart, although it's more a case of tweaking than totally starting over. Many reviewers have praised how their bikes handle, especially the Murmur, so Starling only wanted to make small changes. That includes a steeper seat tube angle - the 150mm Murmur went from 76.6 to 77.5 degrees - that Starling says they updated due to feedback they've had from riders looking for an "improved pedaling position."

Starling Cycles

The bottom bracket drop, which is how far it sits below the axle line, has also gone from 35mm to 30mm, meaning that it's actually a bit higher off the ground. That's been done "to add a little more clearance and a little more maneuverability to our very stable geometry." Chainstays, wheelbase, and reach are all unchanged, but the stack has lowered a bit as well.

There are also ten different colors to choose from, including metallic paints and graphic options, and Starling will be happy to paint your front and rear triangle different colors if that's what you're into.

Starling Cycles
Starling Cycles


  • 112 6
 but that cable routing..mmm external
  • 33 5
 external cable routing is fine, i see it just as a way to make it easier to work on
  • 22 2
 As it passes between the gussets and shock mount I call it internal enough. If you protect the chainstay with a neoprene wrap, that one is covered too. But I'm not too sure about the way it wraps around the downtube. I can see myself catch that with my feet. But nothing a few more wraps can't solve. I like this brand more than enough to accept that.
  • 26 4
 @ilike01: wooooshhh
  • 9 4
 @vinay: good spot - so still requires a brake bleed, plus all the disadvantages of external.
  • 4 9
flag iiman (Nov 22, 2022 at 13:23) (Below Threshold)
 @AyJayDoubleyou: nah, not really. You can remove the shock to place the hose, that's 1 bolt, and for the gussets you just need to disconnect the hose for a second or two, if you do it well you won't loose oil or need a bleed.
  • 10 0
 @iiman: I actually wonder if the holes in the gusset might just about be big enough to sneak a lever or caliper through?
  • 2 0
 @AyJayDoubleyou: pretty sure you could just undo the shock to access the cables/pass anything through
  • 1 0
 @mountainsofsussex: i fit an mt5 caliper through a smaller hole. probably can be done
  • 1 0
 @AyJayDoubleyou: looks like you could fit the caliper right through there to me
  • 4 3
 @iiman: If you need to disconnect the hose, what's the point of "external" routing? I'd rather have it hidden than have it exposed and still potentially have to dick around with bleeding.
  • 1 0
 @nickfranko: That gusset at the head tube looks bigger now.
  • 3 0
 @nickfranko: I didn't say it's got a point, just that the work to do is much less than 100% needing a bleed
  • 5 5
 Or if it's a real problem, just route outside of the gusset!!
  • 4 0
 With fully internal routing, can you keep the hose connectors on? Because removing those seems like the biggest issue.

Of course with this bike, if you don't want to disconnect the hose then you'll just route the hose outside the gussets.

Edit: @phutphutend was faster Smile .
  • 3 1
 It"s not the problem of being external or internal; it just looks awkward (and ugly). If they do it internal for the dropper post, why don't they do it internal as well for the rear brake (not compulsory) and gearing?
  • 2 3
 @phutphutend: Innit. I never even thought of routing mine through the HT gusset.
  • 28 0
 Wait, they lowered their stack even more? The brand that was already known for comically low stacks, lowered it more?

Just checked. For the Twist in "Enduro" mode, in size Large, the bike has 612mm of stack? And in XL, it has 623mm of stack?

And the Twist in "Trail" mode, its 594mm of stack on ALL SIZES?!?

That is absolutely tiny. Keep in mind that at these head tube angles, every 10mm of stem spacers reduces your reach by ~4mm. And also keep in mind most forks have a rated maximum amount of stem spacers (usually 30-40mm).

But on the Trail model in XL in particular... 594mm is just absurdly low. For comparison, the Raaw Jibb (another smaller, all metal brand), has 649mm of stack for their XL. That 55mm stack difference means that with most forks, you couldn't install enough stem spacers to get the the Jibbs stack height. And even if you did, you'd have lost ~27mm of reach...
  • 10 7
 Unfortunately, brands don't grow stack proportionately with reach.
  • 7 1
 @haen: most brands do as far as I’ve seen
  • 9 7
 super low stack = super high grip on front tire
  • 9 2
 Would a high rise bar solve a lot of these issues?
  • 4 8
flag mattmatthew (Nov 22, 2022 at 16:53) (Below Threshold)
 That's an easy fix, make the head tube parallel with the seat tube. Reach will be the same no matter how many spacers you put in! Solved!
  • 9 0
 @alanbonk: yes, but you potentially end up with 80mm rise slopestyle bars on a 140mm ebike. Point and case: my partners levo, it's a medium, with a silly 100mm headtube and zero stack headset cups. 20mm of spacers and an 80mm rise bar has given it a reasonably high front end, but still 40mm lower grips than my large merida with 38mm rise bars (difference comes from a long 140mm headtube with a 20mm tall top bearing cover, and a 20mm longer fork). High front ends are confidence inspiring, and if you need to weight the front tyre you can just lean forwards more, which if anything puts you in a more aggressive stance with your elbows further out.
  • 3 0

Yes, and no.

It would take 30mm of stem spacers, and a 25mm riser bar to get the XL twist trails grips to the same height as the XL Raaw Jibb with 0 stem spacers, and a completely flat bar.

It would take 30mm of stem spacers, and a 65mm riser bar to get the XL twist trails grips to the same height as the XL Raaw Jibb with 10 stem spacers, and a 30mm bar (a very, very normal setup for taller folks on a bike).

So with the taller people out there likely using more than 10mm spacers and/or a bar with more rise than 30mm, it would take a very tall bar to make the Twist comparable in hand position. They do exist, but options > 50mm aren't very common.
  • 1 0
 @ocnlogan: Protaper A76; Whisky Milhouse; Spank Spike 75mm. The lowest bar/stem connection is optimal for leverage. I'm only 18 hand tho
  • 7 0
 @alanbonk, @inked-up-metalhead, @ocnlogan ;

It's a bit more complicated.

If the bar's rise is vertical, the grips move up while the steering axis moves up and rearward, nearly preserving the "butt-to-bar", while creating a longer effective stem length. (I don't use the term "reach", as that has a specific meaning and pertains only to the frame geometry.)

If the bar's rise is aligned with the steering axis, the butt-to-bar shortens and the effective stem length remains constant.

This is why I created the "normalized reach" parameter in 2017: it's the frame reach calculated at a constant stack. The stack is arbitrary, but it has to be constant for a comparison. When talking to consumers, I usually choose a stack at their current stem height. For clients, I usually choose the industry average stack for a given expected rider height.

Anyway, the point is that you can get your preferred foot-hand-butt relationship via various combinations of frame reach & stack, spacers, stem rise, bar rise, bar roll, etc., but even seemingly similar solutions, such as spacers vs. bar rise, can result in different fit and handling.

Note: ProTaper makes nice handlebars with up to 76 mm of rise. I'm sure there are others out there, but I'm familiar with these and they're light, strong, and not overly expensive for the specs.
  • 3 0

Totally agree.

I was going to bring up the concept of your hands location in regards to the steering axis, but decided I didn't need to make my already long comment longer. But glad you brought it up.

But 100%, thats why tall guys don't like getting a bike to fit with a 75mm riser bar and 90mm stem. Which again, particularly on the L and XL, these bikes have a remarkably low stack.

Which, isn't to say these still aren't good bikes. I honestly love the external cable routing, and the ease that they can change from trail to enduro modes. But as a tallerish fellow (6'1", or 185cm), It was the one thing that really stood out to me, and thought it was worth mentioning/pointing out to others.
  • 6 0
 @ocnlogan: It's so nice to see many people are getting it! My normalized reach parameter didn't resonate with consumers in 2017, but we're getting there.

When someone is struggling with the concept, I usually present the following thought experiment:

Imagine a bike with a large reach value, but zero stack, meaning the head-tube is level with the BB. Obviously, this would be a very strange bike, but just imagine. The rider will need to add most of a metre of spacers to get their hands to a comfortable height. The cockpit follows the steering axis; by the time it's at the right height, it's moved rearward into the rider's lap. So much for that "long" reach.

Many designers keep the stack low so riders have the option of a low bar height, but it's rare to see someone on a particularly long bike without any spacers - let alone a flat handlebar - and it's common to hear tall riders wanting more bar height. Conversely, small riders - especially on long-travel 29ers - often have an extremely upright posture. My opinion is that many bikes suffer from stacks that do not adequately scale with rider height at the extreme ends of the spectrum. (Also bar width, crank length, Q factor, etc. ... but let's stick to stack for now.)

As you said, none of this is to say Starlings are good or bad bikes; we're just discussing how the numbers work and helping consumers - and other designers! - to make informed choices.
  • 3 0
 @R-M-R: Definitely onboard with what you're saying about a normalized reach value - reach in vacuum is pretty meaningless. As a fairly short dude with short legs and a long torso/wingspan for my height, I've been right at the edge of getting my cockpit low enough, but I realize I'm definitely an outlier. Right now I'm on a 485 reach with a 120mm headtube, and I'm able to get my bars just low enough with a 10mm rise bar, 0 degree low-stack stem, and no spacers. I could flip bars upside down if my headtube was 20mm longer, but I'd argue that's wonkier than taller people running more rise, though that's obviously subjective. So idk, I think it's good to have options, but as the outlier I wouldn't want all bikes to necessarily scale in the same way. But if I have to run my handlebars upside down to put them where I want, I'll still ride and have a great time on my bike and life will go on... Like you said at the end of the day it's about trying to get everyone to make informed decisions.
  • 3 0
 I‘d love to buy a Starling, have been very intrigued for a couple of years. I am not short and have long arms and legs. Stack height on my Large Madonna has been revelatory - 657mm with 480mm reach.
I started with slammed bars, but have migrated to 10mm of spacers and 25mm rise bars.

It has helped my riding a lot and my suspension setup is now much easier, because I don‘t need overly stiff forks.
I agree that stack should increase corresponding with reach and most frames go short on headtube length for taller sizes. Once you‘ve tried it, you propably don‘t want to go back.

Don‘t know if custom geometry would solve this with a Murmur, but it probably will.
  • 1 0
 every other measurement is the same as the Murmur so could except seat post insertion so the table could be wrong.
  • 3 0
 Build Marino 728 reynolds personal geo and no problem.. Wink
  • 2 4
 I think there might be some typos in geometry charts, I'll check!

But also, it's better to have a low stack than one that's too high. It's easy to add high rise bars/spacer, much harder to go downwards. I have seen bike reviews in the past that have downgraded a bike for too high stack. Never for too low.

Stack is one parameter that is more down to personal preference than anything else. Some people like high bars, some low. There's very little logic or relationship to rider body size. Personally I like low bars, I'm from the Sam Hill low bar era so learned to ride like that.
  • 2 0
 @mattmatthew: No, reach will remain constant when you have a 90deg head tube angle but you'll have other downsides if you go that route. Keeping seattube and headtube parallel will only keep the effective top length constant, which may be relevant for people who ride their bike seated.
  • 4 0
But how does this work for you with modern geometry? I used to like a lower bar but it was to compensate for a short reach to get more front end grip. Now I have a longer bike where my weight is better distributed, I don't need to lower my bar to get front end grip, I can have a higher bar for increased comfort.
  • 5 0

There could easily be some typos on the geo chart, that is true. I could only go off of the info I could find Smile . In fact, the more I look at the other Starling charts, I'm convinced something has to be wacky. The Murmur for instance has reasonable/normal stack values in L and XL (636mm and 645mm).

I agree that too high of stack could be a very big problem on smaller sizes. And you're right, I have heard complaints about it on reviews from small, and medium size (bike size) riders. But on size L and XL, I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain of too high of stack. But I have heard loads of taller guys complaining about too short of stack bikes. Maybe thats bias on my part though.

But for perspective, my wife rides a 2022 Marin Rift Zone 29 in size small, and is about 5'5". That bike has a stack of 602mm. I'm 6'1", and by the Starling Twist's sizing chart, I should probably be on an XL. And that somehow has a stack height 8mm lower than my wifes bike?

If I stand and hinge exactly the same way at the hips, my hips will be quite a bit higher than my wifes, so why would my hands be so much lower (instead of proportionally higher)? This is why I'm thinking its got to be a typo on the geo chart. Right?
  • 4 3
 @phutphutend: Stack calculated off bb drop, but you have 2 axle heights on the twist and the software got confused, forgetting the front end is higher. ;0)

Amazing so many 'geo experts' in PB comments didnt spot the obvious mistake LOL.
  • 2 0
 @mattmatthew: It don’t work like that
  • 2 1
 @dickyelsdon: Sooo, if it's calculated of the front axle it should be the same as the Murmur, if it's calculated of the rear axle it would he higher. No?
BB height would be somewhere in between so if measured of that stack should still be higher that the Murmur or am I confused?
  • 3 0
 @dickyelsdon: I always thought reach and stack are top of the head tube wrt to the bb. Wheels and tires don't matter there.
  • 2 1
 @WillW123: It's calculated from, BB.

There were some typos on the Twist geometry chart, corrected now...
  • 2 0
 @vinay: Yes that is what those measurements are. But how are they worked out? if calculating it from other geo numbers then odd sized wheels can throw up a rare error, and Starling found it.

The front end (fork, HT length, head angle) is the same on Twist and Murmur, but Stack on the Twist was somehow 22mm less than the Murmur?

A 29er axle is approx 22.5mm higher than a 27.5 axle. The Twist lists bb drop as 8mm, thats against the 27.5 rear wheel, so bb drop would be 30mm relative to the 29er front wheel axle.

So 22mm difference in stack, 22mm difference in relative BB drop for the different wheels. Looks like they used the wrong BB drop when working out stack.

Its a really rare error to fall into, I only know this error as Ive done these sums a few times to check bike geo (youd be amazed at some of the mistakes/lies some bike manufacturers make).

The rest of Starlings geo is pretty close to the math when you do the calcs so its clearly just a mistake. I did note they dont state a change in wheelbase or reach between trail and enduro, which is not correct. Be nice if they listed the correct values there.
  • 3 0
 @phutphutend: given the front end is one welded piece, changing from 64.5 to 65.3 rotates this whole piece. That changes the reach and stack. Doing the trigonometry tells me thats about 8mm more reach. 515mm in enduro would mean 523mm in trail (on the XL). Unless the 515mm was the trail mode? so 505mm in Enduro.
  • 1 2

Numbers alone do not dictate how a bike rides, it is a sum of its parts. I think its easy to focus on specifics and get lost on the point of what we are trying to achieve.
  • 3 0
 @phutphutend: I dont disagree at all. But I also dislike when companies 'mislead' with the numbers they quote. Clearly people shouldnt get hung up on them, but im not the one being selective in what is being published, stating its specifically 65.8 rather than '66ish' etc. :0)

Id rather companies stated the truth, but backed that up with explanations on feel and impact. For example, 'changing Enduro to Trail will increase reach and lower stack by X. Riders who want to keep the same feel can simply add a 10mm spacer under the stem which will make the numbers more similar. Or dont to make the position more aggressive for trail blah blah etc.
  • 2 1
 @dickyelsdon: True, but there's also a of people out there who don't really care and are actually confused by too much detail in numbers.

Stack is affected by fork length, so we present the accurate value. The impact on reach is petty negligible, so we just present the nominal value.

Personally, I think we have plenty of adjustment in stem, bar height and roll, saddle rails, to fine tube bikes to fit most people. As long as the starting point is there or thereabouts.
  • 5 0
 I'm simply replying here to the thread to wrap things up for anyone else reading through this, as its easy to get confused.

The problem was a miscalculation in the Twists original Geo chart. It has since been fixed Smile .

The true stack of the XL Twist in Trail mode, is 638mm (not 594mm like it originally said). The large is 629mm.

That is much, much more normal/reasonable for both.

And again, I wasn't trying to harm Starling in any way. But had that been true, it is something I think any taller rider would have wanted to know.

I probably should have caught the fact that it was barely more than the axle to crown height... but I just took it at face value. My bad!
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: would measuring reach from the bottom of the head tube accomplish the same thing? Love the idea by the way.
  • 1 0
 @plustiresaintdead: No, because fork lengths are not constant. To achieve the desired hand height, the rider has to add steerer spacers, stem rise, and/or bar rise to compensate, each of which have an effect on normalized reach, butt-to-bar, effective stem length, etc.
  • 23 1
 I'm seriously considering to trade my carbon high-pivot wonder of a machine for one of these. There is just something about the simplicity that resonates with me, and I think these Starlings look absolutely fantastic.
  • 7 1
 Same here
  • 1 2
 It's the antithesis of a carbon ebike. Would be fun to ride it through a flock of them and watch heads explode...
  • 2 1
 Do it, they're great bikes. I've had my Murmur for over 3 years now and wouldn't trade it for anything (except for a stainless steel one).
  • 2 0
 They look and ride fantastic, but do get a ride on one before you commit.
I find my Murmur very versatile in some ways, but less so in others. On the right tracks its the best-feeling bike I've ever ridden, but it has limitations (which the new model partially addresses with 150mm rear travel vs 140mm previously).
  • 2 0
 I recommend to also taking a look at the Pipedream Moxie. Another cool looking steel bike with some good reviews. @ Pinkbike: Could you please do a comparison between the Starling, Pipedream and Cotic bikes???
  • 1 0

Not pinkbike quality but still might be interesting.
  • 3 0

+1 for this. Great bikes but not for everyone. I sold mine after I couldn't get on with it racing.
  • 2 0
 @poppagee: out of interest what did you end up with?
  • 2 1
 @poppagee: Two National Enduro Champions on Starling, so good for some people for racing.

Racing is such a metal game, often if it's not working out, the bike is fair game to change. I've done it myself, bike was perfectly good but I just needed a change to reset my head. Not that I'm that great a racer, but we all want to do our best...
  • 1 0
 @fartymarty: bought a Hightower frame and swapped all the components across.
The Starling went hell for leather over terrain in straight lines, very composed as a wheels on the floor kind of bike if that makes sense.
For me it just didnt work in the corners and felt a bit dead/ un playful for what i like to ride. Raced a few times on the Hightower and it just worked better for me, lots more fun.
  • 1 0
 @phutphutend: agree in some respects for sure. I simply lost the ability to corner as good as i could and it wasnt as much fun as i thought it would be. Great bikes, so fast ! just not ideal for what i need.
  • 2 0
 @poppagee: Fair enough. I guess it depends on your riding style as well and what suits you / your riding style.

Out of interest what rear shock did you have on the Starling?
  • 1 0
 @fartymarty: absolutely.
Tried a DHX2 with a a few different poundage springs made by both Fox and EXT and also a Fox X2 as well to see if I preferred air or coil. It honestly felt better suited to a coil but with a firmer spring.
  • 16 0
 Less BB drop and 11sp drivetrain! Two things I hope the bike industry re-adopts. (I can dream can't I?!)
  • 7 0
 Why 11spd over 10spd? Never felt i was missing anything with 10....
  • 5 1
 @woofer2609: why 10 over 9? microshift/box are great
  • 1 0
 @mior: 9 is fine as well, I'm running it on one bike, but Shimano doesn't make a 9 speed derailleur with a clutch. I am also running Microshift 10 speed Advent X and could have gone 9 spd instead, but the gear jumps on 1X 9 spd are a bit wide.
  • 1 0
 @woofer2609: i understand. where i live you only need a low, very low, 1:1 and high
  • 3 0
 XT shifter and derailleur with a Sram 10-42 cassette.
  • 1 0
 you can... I'm on 10 speed with a Saint shifter, XT M8000 derailleur and 11-46 cassette. Works well, 30t chainring gives uphill gears. Would be nice to have bigger (34t chainring) gears at times but isn't really an issue off road and there's gotta be some compromise. Cheaper and longer lasting makes it worth it.
  • 16 1
 The adjustable shock mount is brilliant, and very fitting for a steel frame. Seems like this could be a true all-rounder.
  • 8 1
 you could even mount a shock of a different stroke length to change travel. Love it!
  • 2 0
 They already had this option, it just became standard. Really cool indeed. Reminds me of the old Nicolai bikes.
  • 4 3
 My GG megatrail goes from 155 to 165mm and the equivalent of high/low geo adjust by moving 1 bolt. Takes 30 seconds, this seems less practical but still welcome bikes with adjustability
  • 5 1
 The only issue I see is that the higher the forward part of the shock is mounted, the less progressive the leverage ratio becomes. In fact, these already look like they'd have a regressive leverage curve.
  • 3 0
 @Wamprat: Keen eye! Even the most progressive motion ratio curves on swingarm chassis (i.e. without a linkage) are still nearly constant. A bike is more than its motion ratio curve, of course; just stating a limitation of this design, which is one of the reasons linkages exist.
  • 1 0
 @catweasel: It looks like this solution may give multiple mounting points, rather than just the two mentioned? I guess Joe must have considered just having two fixed points welded on though?
  • 1 1
 @Wamprat: I can't comment on the graphs, but you certainly never have to think about the leverage curve when you're riding them. No feeling of plunging through the travel like I've had on some bikes. Just predictable support.
  • 1 2
 Shock placement has been much more regressive than this. Cannondale Rush, Prophet etc, only the Gemini DH bike had a progressive setup. Similar with the Santa Cruz Superlight/Juliana, Bantam, Heckler and again the Bullit was the one with a progressive setup. Still, the Prophet and Heckler weren't considered too regressive and have even been used with coil springs. The setup in this Starling is still much more progressive than these were back then. Remember most of our forks are telescopic yet we aren't constantly blowing through our travel. The good thing about linear or regressive is that it helps for damping. The stroke speeds are highest in the first part of compression (just after the landing) or last part of the rebound (when the spring has turned the stored energy back into speed) so for the damping that's good. The very regressive shock placement back in the days was to overcome the initial stiction of air springs and the springs themselves were so progressive that they'd catch you in the end but you'd blow through the midstroke. So yeah, you can't really compare this anymore to the bikes of yore.

Either way, if it rides well, it rides well.
  • 3 0
 @Wamprat: Sorry, I accidentally downvoted you. You are right, it seems like regressive leverage curve. Front shock eye should be mounted lower to achieve at least some small progression...
  • 4 5
 @bd4e1: I've done some studies into shock position and regressivety. Essentially, for all Starling designs and frame sizes, it (technical term) make bugger all difference.

The issue, is that when other firms publish their curves (and Linkage defaults to), they zoom in on the relevant ratio zone. For example, the left hand scale zooms in on 2.3 to 2.8 region. If you show the full curve, 0.0 to 2.8, then you realise the curves are much flatter. For all but the most extreme single pivot configurations they are flat.

Again we need to take a step back and think before we make judgement on the data we see.

I'll write a Tech Blog about this sometime...
  • 9 1
 Just a solid bike, nothing special: solid construction, simple design, thoughtful features. No swoopy designs or garish graphics. A great bike that you can have and love for ages.

The geometry is on the pulse of modern times, what more is there to want.

I'm really glad that there are companies out there that make these types of bikes. No one will say it's ugly

I really want one of these boutique brands, and every time The industry shows me the innovations they are working on, i get pushed a little more each time towards these pricier bikes.

10/10 totally want that
  • 2 3
 I would say it's ugly. I'm sure it's a good bike but definitely not for me.
  • 7 0
 So much steel full suspension content on Pinkbike recently. #thumbsup
  • 3 0
 I like Starling bikes but by the time I'd get a frame to my door I'd be up near 4 grand, fathom in a ton of good frames at that or less and the attraction dwindles, plus no water bottle mounts in front triangle is a bummer. Still, I love the simplicity and steel.
  • 1 0
 There's a bottle mount above the shock
  • 1 0
 You can order extra bottle bosses even. They'll put them anywhere where they can drill holes in the frame if you ask them to.
  • 1 0
 @J26z: so there is, not ideal but better than under the down tube.
  • 6 0
 Green frame and öhlins suspenison....yes please
  • 6 0
 Good recent editorial from all these steel frame builders, thanks chiefs
  • 4 0
 You get the benefits of easy to work on internally routed cable with the beautiful aesthetics of externally routed cable. Best of both worlds
  • 2 1
 Love it, I reckon modern geo and single pivots makes the funnest bikes out there. Love the variable shock length and travel options. I always think it’d be nice to have a decent 40mm or so of chainstay adjustability, plus a bit of up/down on the rear axle. Surely not too much to engineer?

Top tip.. aluminiums a lot lighter!
  • 5 1
 Not my favorite aesthetic, but really rad concept
  • 3 0
 Just when I think I have figured my next bike, the Reeb SST, this comes along.
  • 1 0
 I’ve been cross shopping these two and the starling is a good bit cheaper it appears.
  • 1 0
 I was cross shopping the two and ended up with a Starling. Couldn’t be happier with the bike! They were very helpful throughout the order process.

I’d still love to try an SST someday though. For me it came down to the fact that I had a fork that works with the Starling and I’d have to buy one for the Reeb.
  • 4 0
 That's a flexy looking bike
  • 1 1
 Flex ≠ low strength.

Also, compliance is great for offroad handling. Just look at what the motorbike industry has been doing for decades now. One of KTM's key marketing claims is that their current MX bikes have a chassis that offers better handlich through increased compliance (flex).
  • 5 1
 Looking lovely those!
  • 2 12
flag Bro-LanDog (Nov 22, 2022 at 12:51) (Below Threshold)
 Must've forgot you're not on the reeb article. I'll forgive you.
  • 2 0
 @mikelevy These are brazed for the front triangle - not welded as the text suggests.
  • 2 0
 Dang, 100% right. Fixed and thanks!
  • 1 0
 The BB shell to lower pivot/ST/DT piece is definitely tig welded
  • 3 0
 That blue Murmur is my bike. I am a lucky man
  • 1 0
 For years Joe has been saying that low bb is not the issue - You just have to learn how to pedal. Well well well, here we have the raised bb.
  • 5 4
 Radon already has a bike called the swoop. WTF
  • 11 0
 Starling have had a bike called Swoop since the beginning, I suspect the answer is that Radon aren't bothered, nobody's looking at Starling and thinking German direct sales brand. Nobody's looking at a Radon and thinking it must have been made in a shed by a guy named Joe either.
  • 14 0
 @theedon: swoop swoop! That’s the sound of da police
  • 4 1
 @TannerValhouli: No, that's a juggalo mating call
  • 2 1
 Kind of want Cotic to do this, their front mount is already modular. Would allow for fine tuning to preference.
  • 6 0
 Those adjustments on a drop-link would make the leverage curve change wildly and set you up for some pretty weird handling. I just got my RocketMax frame and Cotic takes great care to recommend shock settings for my weight and riding terrain. That would be hard to do well with multiple shock positions.
  • 3 0
 @fentoncrackshell: Exactly this. Linkage driven setups like Droplink are way, way more sensitive to the stroke and front eyelet location than the single pivot setups on the Starling.
  • 1 0
 That saddle has so little fore-aft rail length. What’s up with that? Give people saddle adjustment
  • 2 1
 They should name this the Hipster, it looks homeless, but you know it's expensive.
  • 4 3
 I'd love to see these with a gearbox.
  • 6 1
 Already exist, they call it the Spur I believe.
  • 4 3
 just like Nicolai 15 years ago...
  • 1 0
 That's perfect! I want one!
  • 1 0
  • 1 0
 i wish i still had mine. maybe i'll get a new one soon
  • 1 0
 Hello open source frame design ….
  • 1 0
 mmmm baby shit orange
  • 1 0
 Hello Starling!
  • 3 3
 Nicolai, is that you?
  • 1 2
 At last, a bike with a BMX background
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 0.021115
Mobile Version of Website