The Pole Bushmaster is the Stamina's Short Travel Sibling

Mar 1, 2019 at 7:39
by Pole Bicycles  

PRESS RELEASE: Pole Bicycles

Pole Bushmaster specs and details are out. Here's Joe Nation riding the Stamina but just think about how the Bushmaster is going to go on a trail if Joe can make the 180mm travel Stamina go like this!

Bushmaster is the long waited new short travel trail bike from Pole, and as the name says, this bike does well in the bushes. Bushmaster is designed for people who want to ride technical but flat trails like a snake and have fun in the bush. We started designing Bushmaster by designing the Stamina first. We wanted to test the new frame construction first from the top and then go back to shorter travel. On Bushmaster, we took 2% off from the speed and made it more fun, so it’s still fast but yet more fun. Bushmaster still has a long wheelbase, steep seat tube, and slack head angle but it does manual easier, and it gives you more time on riding on the edge.

“Lachesis, also known as bushmasters, is a genus of venomous pit vipers found in forested areas of Central and South America.”

Pole Bushmaster render

Pole Bushmaster render
Pole Bushmaster render
Pole Bushmaster follows the new design style of Pole with dust sealed links with double axles. The frame is RAW machined 7075 T6 aircraft aluminum with black details on links and hardware to make the bike stand out.

Key features

• New Pole geometry
• Dust sealed bearing seats
• Three water bottle mounts
• Stiffmeister compatible
Presale pricing

• TR 4,028.23€
• XC 5,370.97€
• LE 7,584.68€
• Frameset 2,580.65€
Prices excluding VAT (Europe +24%)

Pole Bushmaster Specs

Pole Bushmaster Geometry
You can find out all the spec, geometry, and details about the Pole Bushmaster on www.polebicycles.com

How did Pole come up with Bushmaster?

Stamina was an eyeopener for Pole even though all of our bikes have been very successful, we learned that even now starting from a clean desk is worth the effort. Bushmaster was named and on our roadmap before Stamina. The idea was to create a shorter travel trail bike after we launched the Machine. Our Founder and head engineer, Leo's insight, was to create a more playful, shorter travel trail bike with Pole DNA. Just before the project had started Leo got an idea that we should make a mule "Stamina" to test if we could push the limits of the bikes yet further. So instead of creating one bike, he wanted to create two! When we had done first laps with Stamina, we knew right away that we have made a breakthrough. We learned that a 180mm travel 29" still pedals like a trail bike and it is also fast. Then we decided to release Stamina as well.

Matti Lehikoinen rides the Pole Stamina

Later we got challenged by Steve Matthews when he claimed that he had figured out a perfect front and rear center balance for cornering. We already knew that it is not like that, but we stood up and wanted to do science with Steve. We took his theory and tried to test it in practice. We got a bike that had exactly his portions and compared it to Stamina, which should not work. In the result, we found out that our portions are 3% faster than his. You can read the full story about the test here.

With Bushmaster we take a notch off from the speed and focus for a balanced playfulness and leave that 1% advantage to for the races. This bike is our answer to the playfulness and speed.

Pole Bushmaster render
Pole Bushmaster render
Pole Bushmaster has less than half the screws than the Machine

Engineer's take

bigquotesStamina opened my eyes how much we can actually make a difference by just changing the frame construction. Stamina took us to a new era of the frame design how to go faster, and our goal on Bushmaster is to make a bike that is truly fun and fast. On Stamina, we started to remove the bolts from the frame as we became more confident on the new frame profile. We have applied for some patents on the new frame construction, and now we can start the production on both frames. Yes, it's lighter, stiffer and all that jargon, but Bushmaster might be an eyeopener for the people who have been doubting Pole's geometry and our innovative approach as it's going to hit the fun argument more than speed argument. Bushmaster is not going to be a statement that we go back to conventional frames. Bushmaster has just 15mm shorter wheelbase than our bikes normally would, but we can make a difference with that 15mm shorter Pole.Leo Kokkonen



238 Comments

  • + 195
 This pole comes RAW, ready to master any bush.
  • - 9
flag fruchtriegel (Mar 1, 2019 at 9:07) (Below Threshold)
 that is the best comment in my ten years of pinkbike, you sir. made my day! thanks :-)
  • + 12
 You've got to have the stamina if you're going to ride the bushmaster. Especially when it comes in raw.
  • - 3
 what if you prefer no bush?
  • + 5
 Names aside, this bike looks rad, love to try one
  • + 21
 @RollinFoSho: names aside??? The name is the whole reason I came straight to the comment section.
  • + 5
 I wonder do they have the Blacked.com version.
  • + 1
 @RollinFoSho: use ur pole to slay the smooth freshly buffed stuff too!
  • + 1
 I like bush, but maybe others don't Smile
  • + 1
 @RollinFoSho: or Brazilian...
  • + 5
 names are backwards though, should have been Bushmaster for the longer travel, Stamina for shorter travel Pole
  • + 1
 I came here for that. I'd rather do Bush than Dukakis - obscure US political BS reference for the grandpas.
  • - 2
 @RollinFoSho: women
Seem to know more about natural attractions...interesting to hear that ur attractive when u feel u wouldn't be...
  • + 0
 @RollinFoSho: ref the bush comment...natural smells. ya dig?
  • + 60
 I applaud the fact that they have used a unique manufacturing process, due their dislike of how factories dispose of the carbon excess after production, ocean fill, and gone for a non-carbon bike, and yet their top of the line offering is offered with carbon wheels and finishing kit, DOUBLE STANDARDS.
  • + 8
 Hard to argue
  • + 5
 No need to bother making a carbon frame when you charge 2.600 euros for an aluminum frame! Add on top of that the VAT (which isn’t reflected in the price) and you’re well inside carbon frame territory.
  • + 5
 Still No Canfield Riot.
  • + 5
 @Chadimac22: Manufacturing in the EU costs a bit more than in Asia.
I get your point but a Yeti frame costs 4000€ here (thats over 4.5k USF which is insanity)..and most Poles come with EXT shocks for not much more (add that to other carbon frames and youre way more expensive)

Also who said that Alu is cheaper to make? High quality Alu frames (Knolly/ Nicolai/ this Pole) are not easy to manufacture.
  • + 53
 Actually Pole has openly and consistently said that they don't see a problem with carbon in applications like handlebars and rims because raw material utilization rates are hugely better in simple shapes like this. Simply it creates much less waste. They never set out to demonize carbon as material. They said they disapprove how manufacturers handle their waste and don't take responsibility of their supply chains. It is not about double standards, nor about being a judgemental prick but about making informed choices.
  • + 2
 @Docster: Why do you say that?
  • + 8
 @haaps-01: Hard to argue
  • - 27
flag Gavalar66 (Mar 1, 2019 at 10:04) (Below Threshold)
 @haaps-01: no need to be disrespectful to forum users and their opinions, if you can't communicate a feeling without swearing then keep it to yourself.
  • + 1
 @NotNamed: carbon frames have to be hand laid piece by piece... that’s a lot of human labor. The Pole frames are cut out by a CNC machine. So it’s not a case of being “easy” but it is definitely less labor intensive for a CNC machine to form a frame vs. hand laying carbon fiber.
  • + 20
 @Gavalar66: I am not disrespecting you but I am correcting your facts. When Leo came back from China evaluating factories, I received a phone call from him. He was totally devasteted, saying he couldn't pull the trigger on carbon production. I asked if it was labour conditions or environmental factors that concerned him. He said it is environmental, labour conditions appear to be fine. We had a very serious discussion will there be a high end market without carbon. My advise to him as a friend was never to do against your heart and values, and try to discover more innovation by taking advantage of shorter development cycles related to aluminium. CNC manufacturing was nowhere insight at that point. He took a huge gamble that ultimately lead him to innovate and develop what are now probably worlds fastest mountain bikes. It is easy to prejudiced and judgemental, but knowing these people and what is driving them, they certainly don't deserve that.
  • + 1
 @haaps-01: which I accept and digest, my first post started with my applauding their innovation of a stand out product, my gripe was that you reverted to swearing.
It's never welcome in an open forum, forums exist to lay down and discuss differing opinions, I hope they enjoy success with what they are wanting to achieve, you obviously know the people behind the success of Pole, passion is a wonderful thing, as are manners.
  • + 8
 @haaps-01: Strong comment. But I'm feeling a bit at odds with this claim I keep hearing that Pole makes the "fastest bikes on the planet". What's the metric?
  • + 0
 @BenPea: Stopwatch. I have done lot of clocking Pole Machine and Evolinks. I am consistently 2-3 seconds per minute faster than on a conventional bikes. Race results also speak for themselves. 2017 there weren't many Evolinks in the market even, yet Pole bikes took 5/7 Finnish Enduro championships. On those 2 classes were no Pole riders. More than that, I see rider evolution accelerate significantly when they change to Pole. When I first by chance first tested prototype Evolink at Malaga famous downhill track 911, I was immediately significantly faster than on my own YT Tues Carbon. All over the world previously cautious riders became raging lunatics. My friends I have coached to be 10-15% faster. It is easier bike to ride with a good form. This seems to accelerate rider improvement.
  • + 19
 @haaps-01: I hope they're compensating you, because you're good.
  • + 4
 @haaps-01: So certain riders, in certain conditions on specific courses make for the fastest bikes in the world?! None of what you said can justify the blanket statement of "the fastest bikes on the planet". I have no doubt they're good bikes but they definitely didn't set the riding and racing world on fire.

Suggestion - create some realistic test conditions with multiple runs, multiple riders, multiple bikes on multiple courses. If Pole comes out on top all of the time then they are truly the fastest bikes.
  • + 3
 @bogey: hey... in his statement, he also wrote "probably" Smile
  • + 5
 Yeah the whole argument of which materials are most sustainable is a bit of an industry smokescreen for what they don't want us talking about: Consumerism. How many are being made far outweighs how they are made.

Anybody who wants to have less of a environmental footprint can do so by simply replacing their bikes less often.
  • + 1
 @bogey: I believe I have done more verification testing, than it is reasobable to expect by any consumer. I have paid retail for both Machine and Evolinks. Which bike is absolutely the fastest is not the thing that makes me tick, and it probably is not within my reach to prove. But what is exiting, is taking fellow riders forward. If bike inspires confidence, you try out more things. You play more and harder. That combined with tiny bit of advice how you take benefits of new school geometry, seems to create lot of smiles and small epiphanys.
  • + 2
 @ripcraft: if the bikes are junked or left sitting in a garage I agree with you but don’t most of us sell our used bikes and parts so others can put them to good use? This is a good thing, no?
  • + 2
 impossible...save the environment sales pitch as its just opens you up to be discounted. if course we all car but let's be real, every mfg process creates waste, uses energy,...just cancel a flight or two per year, staycation, video conference..grow ur own weed, fill growlers...
  • + 2
 @bogey: A very good point. I think consumers themselves aren't trying to replace bikes more than they need to. Its more of a product of an industry pushing the idea that constant evolution is necessity. Part of this is indeed natural progression, but its also to some extent marketing. Its slowly starting to happen, but the industry in theory should reach a point eventually where the rate of progression slows down, and the and an "optimum" design, as far as suspension design and geometry is concerned, similar to as has been seen on dirt bikes. That being said, I do think personal preference plays a larger part in mountain bikes, so there will and should be a certain variance in approach, which leaves it to consumers to know what kind of design suits them.


I have this kumbaya picture in my head of the industry in which we could spend less on buying new bikes and perhaps more on parts and maintenance at our LBS'


btw I realize I didn't completely address your argument, but i have to get ready to go for a ride. I'll be back :p
  • + 2
 @jrocksdh: fill growlers??? That means something very different in the UK. You've distracted me from replying to @ripcraft: this is exactly the opposite of where we're headed, MTB is no different from any other profit making industry, irrespective of some of us perceiving ourselves as countering the flow of consumerism (and I do myself, to a point). There will be new or repeat customers who will jump on every latest incremental evolution in geo, suspension dampers, weight reductions, electronic tech for gears etc. The possibilities are endless for manufacturers and it seems to me that the scope for endless "progress" is immense, much like cars and other items invented many decades earlier than MTB and which are still being obsoleted on a regular basis.
These guys have the capacity to shape our preferences, sometimes to offer something actually better for us, but also sometimes just for the sake of shaking money out of our pockets. So, huge amounts of potential progress, which then gets dragged out over the longest period of time possible, à la iPhone, so that it takes a decade to get to what they could have done in 2 years. Sorry for the ramble, some of this is probably accurate.
  • - 8
flag WAKIdesigns (Mar 2, 2019 at 12:39) (Below Threshold)
 @haaps-01: Finnish Enduro Championships - hahahaha. As if 90% of stops on Swedish series wasn’t pathetic enough being effectively Huck Country, XC races with hucking sections. So... When are you hosting a Mega Avalanche event?
  • + 0
 @BenPea: This is great you guys, don't you love how its possible to have a respectful conversation on pinkbike once the peanut gallery has moved on? I kid. Sort of.

I agree with most of that, except for some matters of personal opinion. I should mention that i'm a garage builder who is getting ready to build my second design after riding the first for I think 5 seasons? something like that. I've spent a ridiculous amount of time over the last 6 months or so studying suspension and tinkering on linkage, a simple suspension computer program. Also reading a f*ck ton of online reviews and comments, here and elsewhere, and noting some trends. It has created a sensitivity, i'm afraid.. to mountain bike marketing bullshit.


I'VE DECIDED ITS TIME TO TAKE A STAND.


Anywho, on your points, I personally don't like the idea that bikes have become such a -for lack of a better word- consumerist.. um..y object. I know the what its like to form a deeper connection with a bicycle. And friends, i'm here to tell you it's beautiful.

Also, as far as progress goes i'm mostly referring to geometry and suspension designs, I do agree that refinements will always continue as they should. But in regards to geometry and suspension goes I think humourously, that some consensous has been reached, but no one wants to point it out. Most big players have somewhat settled around 65 degree head angles (this is "enduro" and aggressive trailish bikes I speak of), a pivot around the top of the chainring (even many popular short link designs have trended toward less manipulation of this pivot point, vpp type designs being a notable exception.. perhaps theres others I havn't checked them all). Its suprising how many create braking characteristics reminiscent of the good old fashioned single pivot. In most instances, they simply don't make a big deal about the braking, and interestingly people just don't notice, or its just not that big of a deal. Perhaps single pivots ride just fine afterall.
.. The other day, A LINE WAS CROSSED. A company lied. I tried to point it out. Nobody noticed.


So i'm here today, to tell the 4 people that are still reading these comments, and to say to the so called "bike industry"

THE. TIME. HAS. COME.
  • + 1
 @ripcraft: hehe, interesting. I bought my bike in 2006 and the frame is still going strong, god knows how. So I could talk about this deep connection you mention, even if it's a completely different bike today (same generic headset on it as the day it was born though). But I don't see people keeping bikes any longer unless a massive global recession hits. The system isn't rigged that way.
So you're putting together some single pivots?
  • + 3
 @ripcraft: people think geometry is not developed yet, with Leo Kokkonen and Chris Porter carrying the candle in the dark (as if there was some scheme made by the industry - Chris Porter even insinuated that “short” bikes are a way to save money by using shorter cardboard boxes taking less space in containers). Those people simply don’t take their head out of their Enduro/ Downcountry asses. Average BMX racer puts down more power and jumps bigger stuff on a kids bike that Leo and Chris have ever sent on DH bikes. Average mountain biker is blinded enough by supposed complexity of his bike design and riding terrain that he cannot connect two dots between MTB and Slope Style, and go: holy damn, he rides at like 30-40km/h and flies upside down a 10m jump on a DJ bike with 30% of the wheelbase of Gemoetron! How is that possible? I tell you how: skill. The fundamental factor determining performance on the bike. Long trend was started by Cesar Rojo who claims new school long is too long, especially for amateurs. Off course only to be trumped by starling in a test for short travel 29ers... Did you read the mess of Leo vs Vorsprung?

Now if you look at a psychological profile of a person to invest in a new tech, it requires a certain level of stubbornness to leave the mould. Commitment. You just can’t commit, spend as much money as SWorks and say: Oh, this bike sucks... you will invest in getting used to it. You will get biased.

Mountain Biking tech became extremely complex. Confusion is tremendous and everyone: big and small, capitalize on it. Even if someone gets out of their limb and buys a HT they are likely to chose a long travel one. But the issue is that it is the simpliest of bikes BMXes, DJs, that open our eyes on how to ride a bike fast.
  • - 1
 @ripcraft: and even if we were meant to optimize something here, people do not understand the difference between exercise, practice (training) and performance. Pole or a DH/ XC bikes are made to perform. Problem is most of us exercise, we just go out and ride. Then some people actually practice/ train. Most of our time on 2 wheels is exercise/ training. So why do we ride race bikes, not the bikes that suit practice? Preferences are preferences but laws of physics apply. It is harder to manouver a long bike, it requires more strength to do so, all efforts take time like shifting weight over BB. Heavy DH tyres have plenty of gyroscopic effect. If you don’t use them, the geo will write cheques the rest of the bike won’t be able to cash. So you end up with a bike that gets less influenced by terrain but also you. What incentive you have to practice then? Sprry, anyone who buys these things will get faster initially and then they will plateau dramatically.
  • + 2
 @WAKIdesigns Mate, gotta disagree with you there. While of course a bmx and DJ are much shorter, there are many many other factors that make them ideal for junping and going fast where they go fast. They are much lower and have applications that are vastly different, as well as very manicured terrain and shorter rides. As a way of proving this: Would you rather ride down a techy trail (lets say something in Finale) on a slopestyle bike or a “downcountry” bike with equal travel? And then, on ehich would you rather go down A-Line? Sure, you would be more hardcore and skilled to use the other bike, but why would we make shit harder for ourselves? It kinda feels like your telling people they need to do that.

While I do agree that skill is #1 for performance, I think that newschool geo is quite good for those applications. It just happens those are popular MTB segments nowadays. Trust me, there is a reason “down country” isn’t replacing XC. A newcomer of course will probably struggle less and learn more on a more conservative bike, not on lets say a Pole or a Mondraker, but more skilled and fit riders can benefit hugley from these designs. I know a really good pro-rider whose favorite bikes have been banshee runes and whyte s-170.

I believe that what we are getting to as an industry is the realization that different skill levels and body types benefit differently from wheelsizes and geos. My 165cm friend who is just starting out will probably hate a Stumpy EVO but me, being 180cm, 91kg and years of riding will probably enjoy it.

Also, consider terrain. Would you need a pole stamina if you live in a flatland? Would you rather have a 2008 jekyll in La Parva?

If you’re going to bash Pole for saying the have the ideal GEO for everything bash every company as they say the same thing and every bike will be better for a different application. But to suggest everything is a fad and conspiracy is kinda crazy.
  • + 1
 @BenPea: My first fully is a sp. Pivot in line with the bb, just slightly above the chainring. "Yoke" to flatten the levage rate. Geometry identical almost to the kona process when they first began extending the reach (second gen I believe it is, nobody remembers the first), 155r160f, 66.5 ha. Air shock. Steel but not actually heavy. about 30lbs, size "small." About as "neutral" a bike as can be created, in a manner of thinking, perhaps, a year or so ago.


Second will be a horst link. Somewhat traditional looking walking bar, low verticalish shock. More "active" braking. I really never noticed "brake squat" (I think that's the easiest term to visualize), Except for In 1 spot near me. Its a somewhat sustained chundery, straitish pitch, where one can certainly pick up some speed, most, maybe even all riders are required to brake in this section to control speed, it quickly becomes tight and rutted subsequently. I notice how even during light braking in this section the compliance to the chunder becomes slightly compromised. I almost never notice it otherwise. I suspect the truth of the matter is that its at worst an annoyance. But is something that can be noticed, so there is value to the idea that it can be improved upon. I also observe that a few big players (Specialized, Trek off the top of my head) have consistently stuck with designs that produce actual more active braking characteristics, especially in downhill and "enduro" applications where it could be argued that active braking characteristics are of greater value. Say what you want about the bigger brands, but it is possible that their size allows them to take a more scientific approach. Perhaps even, a more "correct" approach.


I also wanted to fit a water bottle.
  • - 1
 @JaToledo: Hey man I like where your going but I disagree on a few points. I don't agree with the blanket statement that "more skilled and fit riders can benefit 'hugley' (sorry man I couldn't resist, that's a funny new word you unintentionally made up) from these designs."These designs referring to the more radically long and slack examples. I think you might be buying into some hype there. There are some well known incredible bike handlers who have expressed little to no interest in these trends. And yes, a few outliers does indeed disprove the hype. It makes it at best a matter a personal preference. For fun, lets compare it to racism. If you are a racist, your a dumbshit. If your a racist, but deny it because you have met some lets say, black people that you thought were just fine afterall, and think this clears you of racism, despite the tendency to form your opinions around generalizations about black people (most if not all conservatives think like this, while only a lot of "liberal" folks also do, both of which would vehemently deny it, liberals more ironically so, but hey, at least they are sort of trying not to). My point is one of psychology as I think WAKI would degree. I'll get back to you on what my point is when I figure it out.


I think pointing out the Stumpy EVO is an interesting point. Ties into my observation that bigger companies could be taking a more scientific approach. What do scientists do? Experiments. Most of their models (the ones they have committed more financially to) take an approach that is essentially the industry consensus that I have spoken of.
  • + 4
 @ripcraft: The science in active suspension is simple. If the bike has 100% anti-rise, the suspension does not want to compress nor extend during braking. Just like Pole Stamina and Bushmaster has. Neutral breaking characteristics mean that the rear is active under braking which equals more grip. This has been known for ages in mountain biking engineering and any engineer wants to shoot this target. What is NOT common knowledge, is that how geometry, suspension, and kinematics behave altogether with frame characteristics and how do they all affect each other. What I mean is that if you change one feature, you end up changing all of the features. Balancing all the features and managing to create a bike with the least amount of compromises is not something that is not de facto in bigger brands. It's more "who" and with "what" insights designs the bike. Cheers!
  • + 1
 @ripcraft: Hugely is definitely a word. Google it. It's in the Cambridge, and Oxford dictionary. Just sayin'.

Not to be confused with "bigly" which would be a word Donald Trump frequently uses and made up Razz
  • + 0
 @polebicycles: Thanks for replying, lets dig right in! 100% anti-rise is yes in a way "neutral", but what "neutral" actually means is that braking forces are evenly coupled to the suspensions movement throughout its stroke, about the theoretical or actual pivot point, expessed as a relationship with a percentage. Many things can influence this, which is why even single pivots vary in anti-rise too, and yet CAN achieve 100% anti-rise at a certain point in their stroke, if designed to do so. The way the forces interact with the contact patch and the axle path itself also come into play. Rearward travel designs naturally have higher anti-rise, because braking forces are more aligned with the axle path, to greatly oversimplify things. They tend to squat, which some people like (the personal preference factor). The jury is still out, but this could be in theory proven to be a better approach for certain applications.


To achieve more "active" braking, what you need to achieve is de-coupling the braking forces from the suspensings movement about its pivot point (actual or theoretical), As far as Anti-rise goes, this means going BELOW 100%


But to oversimplify things even more, and perhaps in a way agree with you, Anti-rise as a percentage can be thought of as a sliding scale, in which 100% can be more accurately and honestly I think described as "middle of the road" braking characteristics. Perhaps that's the hidden meaning of "neutral" afterall.
Whoa.
  • + 2
 @privateer-wbc: Yes, "hugely" is a word. "hugley" is not. But you did make me go back and triple check to make sure I'm not going crazy, ha!
  • + 4
 @ripcraft: Yep, the neutral 100% is good and we need to take note the suspension characteristics and the geometry where the head angle plays a huge role. We can not just look at one and forget the other. Does the rider need to pull back or can he stay neutral on the bike? Is the suspension progressive or linear and how are the rebound and compression damping set up? We can put everything on paper and crunch numbers on sheets but the real-life testing is the best way of determining what is best.
  • + 2
 @ripcraft Moved a letter there mate, I’m sorry.

Yes, it is true amazing bike handlers have expressed little interest in these new geometries, Ratboy’s a giant and rides a medium Habit. But then again Graves has said that for races he rathers the Large over the medium because it’s longer and he uses a medium back home for shits amd giggles (aka riding with friends or for pleasure). This goes back to the important point I was making. There is no one better geometry. There is no fad. Different geos’ benefit different riders in different situations. I imagine if Josh were to race again, he might upsize to something more stable, but of course he’ll rather the M for jibbing and having fun. And you’re quite brave for going against pole in an engineering discussion, kudos for being ballsy haha
  • + 3
 please note I never said all riders with skills and fitness will benefit, I said they can benefit, and thats the entire point
  • + 0
 @JaToledo: No worries man, I've made a few typos here and there too, just having a little fun. Thanks for contributing to this discussion.

What I disagree with is the idea that ALL riders CAN benefit from the more radical approaches to geometry. I agree that some can. But others perhaps cannot. It simply might not suit certain riders riding style and preferences. My issue is thus when designers with radical approaches make sweeping claims of superiority, although this is in most cases carefully implied, rather than boldly announced, perhaps unintentionally.. i'm actually not a big fan of conspiratorial thinking. I don't doubt that these guys absolutely love the bikes their making, its just that, as you alluded to, its a bit of a matter of opinion. Something I've (and others I suspect) noticed in reviews of bikes with these more radical long slack designs is you'll almost always find a statement to the effect of "requires a more aggressive approach, to keep weight over the front end". I've read things even to the effect that these bikes require a different approach to cornering, requiring the rider to set up earlier. Clearly we are no longer talking about "neutral" handling characteristics. I think that "neutral" handling characteristics can be thought of as a riders perception of when a bike just feels right. The size fits, the weight distribution, angles and everything just feels right. Minimal adjustments to riding style and technique required. The rider doesn't have to think, because god dammit nobody wants think about anything while shredding downhill. The beauty of those perfect "flow" moments is noting how for those moments of time we are simply living and feeling in that moment. Anything that interrupts that (thoughts) should be minimized. this is why I believe in the idea of "neutral" bike handling (which for this discussion is separated from braking characteristics). That said, what feels "neutral" can indeed be a matter of personal opinion.

hmm...
  • + 2
 @JaToledo: I refuse to accept that anybody knows more than me about something I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable about, until they explain themselves well enough to change my mind.

I guage my own knowledge by attempting to explain things Smile
  • + 1
 @privateer-wbc: now can somebody explain to me how to delete a double post Razz
  • + 1
 All’s good man. This is cray talk though:
Maybe a bike that majes you adjust your riding to it could make you faster and more comfy once you adjust. Although said bike also might make it slower and more fatigue. It is difficult to predict hoy a different bike will respond to a different input. And thats why there must be testing and there must be open mindedness to the fact that maybe some riders will improve. I think there’s no one right call on this topic
  • + 2
 @JaToledo: Interesting point man! And certainly quantifiable, to a point. We have certainly gotten faster as bikes have evolved. Higher speed does indeed indicate that bikes have gotten more comfortable, at least in their ability to inspire confidence at speeds that are approaching the absolute limits of what can be done on a bicycle. A long wheelbase as in Pole's approach is the most obvious way to accomplish this. Their experiment that showed their bikes produced 3% faster times may demonstrate this, though I think the experiment was limited in scope, and the results interpreted somewhat influenced by genuine enthusiasm. Its quite reasonable to accept the premise that SOME professional level riders can see very real gains in speed from simply having more wheelbase. I hadn't noticed the length of their chainstays previously which certainly helps with weight distribution, and adds further to wheelbase. I really didn't need to ramble on about any of that, longer wheelbases have always created stability in vehicle dynamics.

A lot of us ride for fun though.What may be best for reaching the limits of speed might not actually make for the most fun bike to ride, to a particular rider. I've heard it observed that long wheelbases can make shorter, lippier jumps feel a little strange because the difference of timing between when the individual wheels hit the lip becomes quite obvious. Certainly makes sense, seems slopestylers and bmxes prefer shorter bikes as they feel more as if the entire bike is hitting the lip at one time, which simplifies technique to a degree, I think, i'm a pretty mediocre jumper myself. But I do know that a lot of us enjoy hitting jump trails on our "enduro" bikes. Some of us also enjoy tighter, twistier trails too, which can bring out some adverse effects of a longer wheelbase.


I could go on, but I probably shouldn't. I really wish there was a place on pinkbike designated to respectfully discuss theory, that the industy would be willing to contribute to openly and thoroughly. Probably a pipe dream though.
  • + 1
 @ripcraft: Slopestyle bikes are short because they are easier to spin/flip, that´s physics, they also run their suspension most of the time at the maximum pressure limit with a lot of damping. Neither of those would work very well for anything else as my trails are not perfectly smooth and shaped jumps and berms. How I would say is better to look at bike geometry is this, long bike gives you stability all the time, it won´t punish you for movin you COM 10mm more forward or backward than ideal in that situation, so it allows you to ride in much more dynamic way, you can move around on the bike and once you get used to that the bike will be anything but boring/dead. Most people who don´t get this concept are the ones who tried it for one a two short rides, rode the bike in the same manner as their short bikes, so wery little range of movement,mostly hanging of the back of the bike when it comes to anything but flattest trails. Of course the bike doesn´t work, you are supposed to ride it, not be a passenger. Also if you come from more oldschool geometry the suspension setup is completely different and you will never get the behavior you are looking for if you try to apply the same approach to it. To get this right takes few weeks, maybe even month of playing with suspension settings, stem spacers, handlebar position, tyre pressures etc., if you don´t put the time in, you will never get the result, those who did know this by now. I get it, it´s hard to change habits and change to something else, after all that 10-15 YO bike has brought you so much fun and happiness, of course you are connected to it. I used to ride BMX as a kid and had a lot of fun on it, but I still wanted to try MTB and I´m glad I did, same goes for progressive geometry, it´s just more fun everywhere.
  • + 50
 Ok, Pole really is trolling us with these names....
  • + 8
 I ran to get the popcorn ready.
  • + 17
 Just like Cove back in the day. STD, Handjob, Shocker, G-Spot
  • + 35
 NEWS ALERT: "Pole working with NASA on Uranus probe"
  • + 14
 You think the names are trolling, what about that closing remark? "but we can make a difference with that 15mm shorter Pole."
  • + 8
 I don't see why the Stamina is better than the Bushmaster, after all it's not the size that counts, but how you use it.
  • + 16
 ...and suddenly...going 'downcountry' takes on a whole new meaning
  • + 3
 Are we trolling Pole or is Pole trolling us... good strategy none the less.
  • + 4
 @number44: Do we really need another dropper post?
  • + 1
 @number44: I thought it was with Peter North that Pole was working with???

So confusing - now you tell me it is NASA. I hear Space-X is about to advertise for Seven Astronauts soon, NASA gave up on that number.
  • + 14
 The jab at Steve from Vorsprung seemed childish and unnecessary. Anytime I see arguments like "this bike is 3% faster than ...", etc, my eyes just roll back. This isn't an exact science here.
  • + 5
 Dont they say the whole reasoning behind the Stamina is that travel size doesnt necessarily affect pedalling performance or liveliness. Why does a shorter travel version of it exist then? Im a big fan of pole bikes but doesnt quite make sense according to their logic
  • - 1
 Because with 180mm of travel you can take on far more demanding routes........ This is for people who aren't likely to be going on World Cup level downs.
  • + 6
 @mgolder: yah but if theres no compromise to climbing with having 180mm of travel why not just get that one so you can have the better descending aswell
  • + 0
 They're likely making that statement in reference to Stamina vs "x" other suspension design in a shorter travel format. So while they don't give up any liveliness/efficiency on Stamina vs. "x", they can gain liveliness/efficiency with a shorter travel version of the Stamina itself?
  • + 16
 Because size does matter. A shorter stroke tends to pop quicker but in the rough it tends bounce around more sending you into the wrong hole sometimes as there just isnt enough shaft length for a proper rebound and compression. They also tend to stack up in some serious High Speed Compressions. Ouch! Sure, you can get a Bushmaster and make it look like the travel is longer. But there is no replacement for displacement.
  • + 0
 @Facingtraffic: i see your point still feel like they contradict the stamina by making this bike though
  • + 1
 playfulness, poppiness
  • + 1
 @Boardlife69: exactly so get a stamina since theres no compromise to climbing anyways
  • + 6
 Climbing performance and liveliness don't correlate directly.
  • + 6
 I'd assume there would be at least moderate weight savings to be gained, with a product designed for less travel.
  • - 1
 @SnowshoeRider4Life: sure they do the liveliness of a bike comes from how quick to respond it is and how fast it accelerates on flats/ups those are both qualities that make a good climber
  • + 4
 @endurogan: i disagree and its from where the forces come from. Pedalling is about forces from the rider to the bike. liveliness is about how the bike responds from forces to the bike from the ground.

VPP is another great example of this. Great pedalling bikes but not known for liveliness until you get shorter in travel etc.
  • + 4
 I thought about this some more. It's because customers simply want less travel. It's already hard enough to commit to a 600mm+ reach/1500mm+ wheelbase, and then you add a whopping 180mm of travel to that. The shorter travel and slightly pulled back wheelbase is the gateway to converting to Stamina
  • + 3
 A 180mm bike will never be more agile and poppy than a similar 140mm bike.
180mm on flatter/ less demanding trails is little Bit exhausting and annyoing to ride.
  • + 11
 @Boardlife69:" Because size does matter. A shorter stroke tends to pop quicker but in the rough it tends bounce around more sending you into the wrong hole sometimes"

I tried this excuse, but she wasn't buying it.
  • + 1
 There's nothing magic about the Stamina or any other bike. If there is ever a case for short travel to exist, it's just as valid with Pole's design as any other design. If we say there's no need for a shorter travel Stamina, then there's no need for any bike with less than 180 mm.
  • - 2
 Sales.

There will always be those that pretend like the reason for why they suck at climbing or turning is the bike, and those are the people that are all into the shit like "playfullness" or the new version of that called "downcountry". Good for Pole for appealing to them and making more money to continue developing the actual good bikes like the Stamina.
  • + 4
 @endurogan: and on top of that, 30% sag on 140mm is alot less than 180mm. So less compressed suspension to unload/rebound.
  • + 0
 For evryone trying to explain to me the benefits of a short travel, I already completley understand the benefits im just making the point that by poles own definition of the stamina this bike shouldnt need to exist.... I do understand why it exists but its existence is a complete contradiction of the way they market the stamina
  • + 1
 Wheelbase.
  • + 7
 Another sick bike from Pole! Congrats Leo and Co.! I have a first generation EVOLINK176 and it is the best bike I have ever had! I'll upgrade to a Stamina in the future!
  • + 1
 Cheers! I remember the day you bought the bike. There is only a handful of them 176's in the world so it might be a collector's item at some day.
  • + 1
 @polebicycles: Oh I don't plan on ever selling it. Once I upgrade it the frame will go on the wall!
  • + 5
 I've ridden the Stamina, amazing bike for sure but a little too much for my riding. The bushmaster should suit me more, will probably end up buying one. Just the pre-sale with some renders is a little bit too Kickstarter-esque for me...
  • + 1
 Curious on your thoughts on the Stamina as a shuttle/park/dh bike? I'm 2-4 hours away from lift access and our local truck shuttle places require some pedaling, so full dh bike is hard to swallow for a lot of riders here.
  • + 1
 @cole-inman:
Well I think it's really good for pedalling, but I was on a bike with a shock for a 70kg rider and I'm closer to 90 so it did bob a little.
Can't really comment on dh performance with my skills other than that everything felt really easy.
  • + 5
 So, the builds on the Pole website are spec'd with XC tires, 2.2 width... They made a Long Travel XC bike. More curious, they put Trickstuff Directissima Brakes on the top-end model, which still has 2.2 XC tires... I don't get it. That said, I'm still saving for an Evolink 140. Not slamming Pole here, but those builds make no sense.
  • - 2
 So swap em out.
  • + 2
 Not quite...

It's just that middle spec (XC) that gets the Maxxis Ikon 2.2's. The lower build (TR) gets the Maxxis Aggressor 2.3 and a Minion SS 2.3. The top spec (LE) with the Trickstuff brakes gets the typical DHF/DHR II 3C in 2.3.

I do agree though it's a strange mix of tires until you get to the top build. I'd be switching out tires on any of these builds anyway... which is also pretty typical since almost no maker actually specs their bikes meant for hard charging with tire casings also meant for hard charging.
  • + 2
 As someone who just finished building and Evolink 131, you're going to be very happy with that purchase.
  • + 1
 A sorted product line would be eventually replacing the dated Evolink with different variations of the bushmaster: 140/140 XC, 140/160 AM, 160/160 Enduro. 180/180 machine.
  • + 0
 @islandforlife: oh word, I saw a few days a ago it was all skinny tires
  • + 1
 @grnmachine02: Awesome! I've had a hardon for the Evolink since I found out about it. Finally gonna be able to make that happen soon and I'm pretty stoked.

Did they allow you to modify the spec at all? For instance a Lyrik RC2 instead of the RCT3 they have it spec'd with?
  • + 1
 @Dudeclimbsrocks: I actually just bought the frame and built it up. I would think they would be open to changing the spec, but they are still a relatively small company (as compared to some of the other players in the bike industry) so they may not have quite the buying power of the big guys.

One criticism I have, is support. I mean, I'm not looking for hand holding, but the bike doesn't even come with a manual. I couldn't find any torque specs for anything anywhere, and it seems that most questions are answered with "Have you tried the Pole facebook group?" I suspect that will improve as the company grows however. If you can live with kind fending for yourself in terms of tech support, you'll be fine though.
  • + 1
 @tuume: That has to be new, yes? I looked everywhere for service documents in November and came up with nothing. Thanks though!
  • + 1
 @grnmachine02: Yeah, I think I spotted it from the Pole riders fb group at some point in January.
  • + 5
 Just wondering LE built Deretisima, bike yoke and roks poks
Why not EXT and intended, like on G1 from “Nic” and in same price range
Anyway nice frame.
Lightly used made in china vvp bike for sale.
  • + 6
 I swear if Pole comes out with a womens bike they will call it the Pole Dancer.
  • + 2
 Dang, that looks pretty dope. Having ridden the machine, I love the platform and design. Personally I think these Poles work best as heavy hitting enduro bikes or park bikes due to the heavy frame construction, and would probably pick up a machine or staminaa before a short travel bike.
  • + 6
 "but we can make a difference with that 15mm shorter pole."
  • + 3
 Still the pole has 470 mm reach in M, probably more than enough for anybody.
  • + 1
 That's not what she said.
  • + 1
 she said she likes the steeper seat angle
  • + 3
 Have orangutans become a large part of bike market in the last few years? How is someone who is 190cm or taller supposed to ride a bike with a 440mm seat tube?
  • + 2
 I think the idea is to use a really long dropper, like a 560x200. Every photo of every size Stamina I've seen has a lot of exposed seatpost. That's why they upped the diameter to 34.9
  • + 1
 This is most definitely a good thing, because long travel droppers are the cat's pajamas.
  • + 2
 I just don’t get this “modern geometry” thingy on trial bikes? Just the thought of riding a 50” wheelbase 18” chain stay trail bike through tight twisty trails makes me exhausted.
  • + 2
 Maybe you need to try one first and realize what is and isn´t exhausting.
  • + 4
 Sorry, but I'm not putting something called the "pole bushmaster" between my legs and riding it
  • + 12
 I already have a "Pole Bushmaster" between my legs so I don't see the problem? Those without one would surely like one?
  • + 1
 There is nothing wrong with a little hair.
  • + 4
 One of the wickedest names to give a bike "bushmaster"
  • + 3
 I got a Nishiki Bushwacker from the 70’s as my bar cruiser
  • + 4
 Just waiting for the comments about carrying three water bottles...
  • - 3
 You can mount other things to those bosses you know.
  • + 2
 Bushmaster is designed for people who want to ride technical but flat trails like a snake and have fun in the bush.


I’ve yet to meet these people.
  • + 1
 We are coming to Crankworx next August! See you then!
  • + 4
 @polebicycles, why the same chainstsay length for all sizes?
  • + 2
 Good question, especially considering that the method of fabrication gets pretty much zero advantages from uniformization.
  • + 1
 With full suspension bikes, the different chainstay length would hardly matter as the bike geometry and wheelbase is constantly changing all the time. We have two very different riders where one is 164cm and the other is 188cm and both are lightning fast. The others are in between and nobody wanted to change the bike after last season. I also ride both medium and large and don't see the point of changing the chainstay on the bike. On our hardtails, we have ongoing research about our theory that on hardtails the difference in chainstay lengths matters more as the grip needs to be made more with your legs. On full suspension, we can change the grip with the spring rates. It's all about balance and grip. Cheers! -Leo
  • + 3
 @polebicycles: most of all, your chainstay lenght is on the longer side of spectrum, if you went for something ridiculous like 430mm on the small and try to carry it over on the large frame, it wouldn´t handle well. It´s better to have longer CS and smaller bike than the other way around, front end grip is what matters, if rear wheel loses traction it´s a slide, if front wheel does, it´s crash.
  • + 1
 @Mondbiker: That's a very simplistic view of things. Weight can be shifted between front and back. You can put basically all your weight at the front, at least in theory, but not at the back, unless you stand on pegs like on a bmx bike. Now, front traction is mostly required for the initial part of a turn. After the first degrees of turn, and if enough speed is involved, it's all on the rear tire. So in this regard it's quite simple, the shorter the chainstays the more grip there will be and the faster you will be on longer corners at medium to fast speed. I have experienced this difference. I think it's safe to say that with 29" wheels, the shorter the better. 430mm for the medium size would be good, if possible. I know it because that's the size of the chainstays of my previous 26" bike. For larger sizes I'm not completely sure, but I think that whatever smaller size was manageable for a chainstay would be good for all sizes. It's always possible to get weight on the front. A smaller bike handles better in tighter situations, so if you have to upscale the frame for larger riders, do it at the front for fit alone. Well that's my theory at least.
  • + 0
 @DavidGuerra: you need to think about weight distribution a bit more man, because what you just stated is completely wrong. front wheel grip is important anywhere in the corner and balance is most important in the middle of the corner (apex), no about of damping is going to help you there because typically suspension is in pretty much in steady state and spring rates are the only thing that affect the balance there form suspension standpoint. If you read anything from people who know a thing or two about geometry you would know that there are two ways of weighting front wheel, through handlebars or through pedals, with short chainstays you can only weight it by handlebars, which requires you whole BW to shift forward (that´s why most reviews of disbalanced bikes like canyon strive race( or whatever it was called, the one with longer front center) said you have to be strong rider to get the best out of it. Well of course, you have taken the easier and safer way of weighting the front wheel out of equation and now have to do all the work with your weaker limbs. WIth your idea of good geometry you have bike that is very easy to loopout but very hard to weight front wheel, and no it´s not hard to weight rear wheel with long chainstays, your center of mass is pretty much above BB which is much closer to rear axle than front, all it takes is to move your ass 10cm backwards, and you have all the grip in the rear you could ever need or want (why would you want that I sure as hell don´t know). Front wheel however is a whole different topic. So no, short chainstays are thing of the past and thank god even larger companies started to understand the need of ballanced geometry.
  • + 1
 @Mondbiker: I speak from plain logic and from experience. I have had bikes with 430, 440, 445 and 450 chainstays. The three longer ones were always rear-drifty in comparison with the shorter one. They always surprised me with unexpected escapes of the rear end. A rear breakaway is not any better than a front one! I know where I can expect a front end drift and I can even play with it but rear breakaways can be can be very unexpected and will even bring you to the floor, at least if you are very used to a 430mm chainstay. Besides, in the situations where a front end escape can bring you to the floor, a longer chainstay wouldn't help you. It might come from the interaction with a more slippery object, a rut or a sudden off-camber. Also, unlike what you said no matter how short the chainstays, you are always weighing the front end with the bottom bracket. And after around 100 degrees of turn, it is indeed the rear that is doing all the work. I think you are the one who doesn't realize how physics work. Both from my experience and from plain physics, I can safely say that a shorter chainstay will ultimately always offer more grip. A longer chainstay can help you at the front at the cost of dilluting the rear grip, but it is still possible to weigh the front, even if takes more work. I used to think like you about 20 years ago and when super short 26" chainstays were the great trend but for 29" wheels I have come to the conclusion that as short as possible is the way to go (which is still not that short).
  • + 1
 @DavidGuerra: Iy you had problems with rear wheel drifting there was problem elsewhere on the bike not in the chainstay lenght. If anything it´s typically harder (a lot) to make the rear wheel loose traction. I don´t know where you came to this conclusion that rear wheel is doing all the work and I would like to find out as it´s crazy thinking. Rear wheel is important for cornering, yes, but unless you ride backwards it´s front wheel that leads the was and is more important for cornering in every phase, mid turn the importance of rear wheel is close to the front importance, funnily enough if the rear wheel has more grip than front mid corner it´s very sketchy experience and typically you end up going out of the trail and into the bushes. Your opinion that front wheel has more grip than rear wheel regardless of chainstay lenght is frankly absurd, and you statement, that you can easily put all your weight on the front wheel ridiculous. Let me ask you question, do you ride down the trail sitting on the stem? I think it is possible, I haven´t seen anyone to do it but you might be special, that is the only way of putting your whole weight on the front wheel (it still wouldn´t translate to 100% of your BW at front axle unless you have 90deg head angle and 0 offset forks).If your conclusions are from "physics", I hope you don´t teach this physics to anyone. It gets sort of impossible to even argue with you as your statements are too out of reality to give counterargument. Oh, and first 29ers had much longer CS than 26ers at that time and much lower BB in relation to axle height, which was the reason why they handled pretty well, since they manufacturers try their hardest to make them work less well, but now I at least see the customer they are aiming for. Bless them.
  • + 1
 @Mondbiker: These are obvious facts related to mass displacement. I don't know how I can make it any clearer, mabe you have never ridden a wheeled vehicle? As you enter a turn it's the front that is doing the main steering work. As the turn progresses more and more momentum is displaced to the rear. Because mass wants to continue its path. 90 degrees of turn is the point where the displacement begins to become settled and the both wheels start to work evenly in maintaining direction, although if the weight is more centered on the rear wheel that will be the one doing most of the work. If you only ride slow you will never notice this. Every fast car has larger tires at the rear, no matter if it's rear drive or awd. It's also the most basic knowledge in car handling, that the at the initial stage the front might be drifty, but as the turn progresses it's always the rear end that will break away.
For your "Your opinion that front wheel has more grip than rear wheel regardless of chainstay lenght", I don't know where that came from, it's not what I said and I have no idea what you mean with it. You seem to be clueless about bike handling. Have you ever seen someone doing a nose wheelie? Do you know what that is? Is that not putting all the weight on the front of the bike? Is the rider sitting on the stem?
  • + 1
 @DavidGuerra: Man, I will leave you with one simple advice, google size matters articles (there are 4), I hope that will help you with some of your misconceptions. I´m soooo glad you came up with car analogy as I race autocross lol. No, not every car has wider tires in the rear, even 4WD cars like nismo R35 has wider tires in the front or Audi RS3, it´s very common that FWD race cars have wider front tires Wink RWD mid engined cars can get away with narrower front tires because they only use them to steer and to do certain amount of braking and more importantly you can actively use rear tires to help front tires to steer by overpowering rear tires aka drifting. I suggested the same benefit of less grip in the rear to you and you vehemently stated that rear wheel sliding is as bad as front wheel sliding. So if you want to use car analogy, short chainstays cause bike to understeer, long chainstays (reasonably long in proportion to the front center of course) cause bike to behave in neutral to oversteery fashion (even though I have never ever felt any oversteer even with DHR2/Minion SS tire combination, not even in very wet and muddy conditions where SS has no place to be). And as they say, oversteer scares passengers, understeer scares drivers. Sooo, no, there isn´t a single point in turn where rear wheel is doing all the work or even most of the work unless you are in the formula drift series which you obviously aren´t( PS: there is sooo many informations about suspension setup/tire pressures/ chassis kinematics out there in a race car world if you want to educate your self that you will not be able to read it in a year, MotoIQ is good place to start if you want to)... And to that nose manual explaination, if you are nose manualing in the corners that would explain rear wheel sliding under you Wink I don´t know about you but I prefer manuals to nose manuals and can do them quite a lot better too, just like most people out there, try to explain that with your theory of not being able to get your weight above rear wheel axle. Cheers!
  • + 1
 @Mondbiker: "I have never ever felt any oversteer even with DHR2/Minion SS tire combination, not even in very wet and muddy conditions where SS has no place to be"
Thank you for stating that. Now I see where you are coming from. You suffer from under-riding, if you have never even ridden a bike to the point where the rear drifts away. I just don't understand why you bother to comment if your opinion is automatically invalidated by you not knowing what you are talking about. Try removing the training wheels!
  • + 1
 @Mondbiker: An illustration. Of course that with these relatively shorter chainstays there are still non-brake-provoked rear drifts, but still less than with 29'ers or dh bikes. It's true though, that with longer wheelbases it's also harder to recover from oversteering. Also notice the point in the turn when the rear drift begins.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrTMDEU05jc
  • + 1
 @DavidGuerra: if that is you I feel sorry for you having to ride bike that is 2-3 sizes too small for you, now I understand completely how you came to your ideas. Oh, don´t forget to tell most WC downhillers who ride SS in the rear how they under ride their bikes lol. Seriously man, rear more, comment less and get bike that fits you properly, many things will just click then Wink
  • + 1
 @Mondbiker: Hum, how old are you? You must be very young, that's a size L Prophet, it was already very hard to find a used bike with that size at the time. As for SS tires, it just depends on the course. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. They are tempting, but I have come to give up on them, they are just treacherous. Last year I competed with a 29" Mavic Quest Pro XL at the rear, which isn't even a proper SS, at a couple of enduro races, and had a hard slam at each from it. Well to begin with I only took that tire because the courses favoured it, but even there, it can work well 99% of the time but there will be one situation in which they will go away unexpectedly. The same thing happened the previous year with a 26" Kenda BBG. For my safety I just decided I had to renounce to any sort of SS tire. An aggressor is the closest I can get to it. As for DH courses, many are heavily bermed and you can even ride them with a naked rim...
Also, see how I commented nice without paternalizing you? Wink
  • + 1
 @DavidGuerra: Quest pro has actually much less agressive side knobs than any real enduro/dh semislick, so once it starts to slide it will slide all the way. Of course long chainstays don´t work on bike with extremely oldshool(don´t want to say ancient as I actually wanted to buy one not that long ago, but with 140mm lefty lol) geometry, if you posted this video in your first post this debate would never happen, it´s obvious that the balance on that bike is completely different, I don´t know how tall are you but looks like 180cm+ as you make it looks like a kids bike and with under 1150wb it should...You need to realize that bike with 150mm longer front center needs longer cs to keep the balance at least similar. And not that it matters, I´m 30yo.
  • + 1
 @Mondbiker: I wasn't "complaining" about that bike. Now that I think about it though, it does have longer chainstays than the Jekyll 26", which was my short chainstays standard, at 428mm vs the Prophet's 434 mm. The Jekyll remains the rear "trustability" standard which neither the Lapierre 920DH (445mm), the Nukeproof Mega 290 (450mm) nor the YT Capra 29" (440mm) have surpassed. Like I said before, from my impressions of riding these bikes, I think now that a shorter chainstay length is indeed directly proportional to a greater reserve of grip to be explored at the rear. I used to think that in the case of the Lapierre it was the greater rigidity or slacker head tube angle that was causing the driftier rear end but chainstay length may indeed be the explanation. The only thing that might mess up that consideration is the wheelbase size. With a shorter wheelbase it's easier to recover from a sudden loss of grip at the rear, and if it's very long one might not recover at all and end up crashing. All those other bikes had a longer wheelbase than the L Jekyll. And both Cannondales were fine fits for my size (1.85m). I now ride a XL Capra but I could do pretty much the same with any of those (or better, in tight corners). And didn't even feel cramped on them with 35mm stems...
  • + 1
 @DavidGuerra: You are comparing apples and oranges here though, aren´t you? Do your math (or don´t, up to you) what are the FC/RC ratios on those bikes you mentioned, ideally you want to calculate using sagged numbers to get as close to "real world" number as possible, the results might surprise you. I honestly think they will. And that is only part of the equation still, there is a lot more factors affecting geometry that all interact with each other but those are obviously very hard to analyze. Nothing gives you more insight in weight distribution of the bike than this though. So have fun.
  • + 1
 @Mondbiker: Also regarding sizing, you will have great difficulty even finding a DH bike from that time that is as large as the L Prophet. And everybody was ripping just fine. About the Mavic Quest, you're quite right I'm afraid. And with the Charge XL it's the same, even though it's safer and Sam Hill wins with them. Which is a shame because the casing on those tires is the best around. It resists everything, it's very supple and has a moderate weight.
  • + 1
 @DavidGuerra: heh, people used to rip DH on fully rigid bikes too. XL charge could be decent rear tire but from what I´ve heard they are pretty soft compound and slow rolling, claw as a front tire though...Too expensive for me anyway when you can get maxxis for reasonable price.
  • + 2
 @Mondbiker: I got a pair of Charge XL's for 28€ each at Probikeshop, same as the Quest, been using one at the rear to save my other tires. The rolling is not terrible but it's weak, the grip isn't outstanding, they degrade quickly. At the front I have come to prefer a larger volume tire, although a 2.4 DHR2 has a similar size and may be the grippiest tire ever, especially with a little trimming of the center knobs. In a rocky setting the Charge XL's are good due to the soft rubber and good resistance.
  • + 1
 @DavidGuerra: that´s decent price but postage spoils it for me. Still can get maxxis cheaper here (DHR2 for 25e in 2.3, 2.4 is few quids more).
  • + 1
 @DavidGuerra: Hey man, I like the way you think, could you weigh in on the discussion I've been having um... up there a ways Razz ^^^^^
  • + 4
 Scrolled right to the comments
  • + 1
 This is the most interesting Pole yet to me. Love the Geo and what the bike stands for, but I'm admittedly too much of a WW for one.
  • + 3
 Ok, I'll take one in pink with a purple headtube.
  • + 2
 Interesting they are using shorter offset forks when they discounted that trend in the Summer. Amazing looking bike!
  • + 3
 We never actually said that 42mm offset would be wrong. Our opinion is that it is not that significant detail and the whole bike needs to be thought through. We did not even mention the 42mm here, and if you look at the Stamina spec sheet, Stamina is made with 51mm offset. Cheers!
  • + 2
 Thanks for the insight! :-) @polebicycles:
  • + 2
 How on earth do you have the same 810mm front center on all sizes??? Fix yer numbers yo.
  • + 2
 Bummer! On Pinkbike it's a picture so I can't anymore. Website fixed. Cheers!
  • + 1
 @polebicycles: Looks like the XL front-centre should be 860 mm.
  • + 1
 What is the weight?@polebicycles:
  • + 1
 Its possible?@Naturel:
  • + 1
 It is a gorgeous bike, but I think this bike lengthening trend will reverse soon. It just depends on what trails one rides, but a shorter bike can handle anything.
  • - 1
 If a bike is designed to be fun, I'm all for that. Though I think using a different production technology (like welding aluminium tubes together to form a frame) could possibly bring the price closer to what people who only ride for fun would be willing to pay for it.
  • + 6
 Like the Pole Evolink 140?
  • + 2
 Sounds like the least "playful" bike ever, but I'd love to take one for a rip and be proven totally wrong.
  • + 2
 140mm is considered short travel now?

I remember when 140mm was a freeride bike.
  • + 1
 Transition Bottlerocket!
  • + 1
 @reximus42: Transition Preston FR!!
  • + 1
 Bushmaster is also a badass vehicle-mounted weapon. Also appropriate. I know the reference through reggae lyrics. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster
  • + 1
 Sees article. Gets excited. Goes to xe.com and converts 2,580.65€ into Canadian dollars. Excitement is replaced by despair.
  • + 2
 Tecknical but flat trails. That's like saying a skinny ckick with flat breast has nice curves
  • + 2
 Technical corners... Off-cambers, no berms, fast, loose... Wherever the achievable speed exceeds the available traction to follow a certain direction, that's a technical situation.
  • + 0
 @DavidGuerra: yeah you can do that on pavement too!
  • + 0
 @Naturel: well I'm a sarcastic son of a bitch for starters. Can't stand modern plastic bikes with shit loads of platform. I f*cking hate cars ,trucks are worse just a f*cking cancer. shall i go on Wink
  • + 1
 @Naturel: I checked out your profile . That stunt noice !!!
Hot sauce . Can be too hot must be a balance of heat and flavour.
Kind of like trails they need a balance of flow and gnar .
All gnar only one percent will ride it . All flow you never learn teck.
Cheers.
  • + 1
 Wondering if 64d hta will become the new 66 in a few years. Geo seems to be moving a bit more towards the motoworld where everything is pretty stable.
  • + 1
 Never thought I'd ever have desire to ride pole.... However this may have the sway factor. Sexy as fuck!
  • + 1
 It's named after a gun manufacturer... BSA... Royal Enfield,... they actually made guns... but Pole??
  • + 1
 If I had the cash in hand I would buy one straight off the bat without even test riding the bike!
  • + 1
 132 comments and no has mentioned that the Bushmaster has less than half the screws of the Machine...
  • + 4
 Looks like nobody cares even though I worked my ass off for this Big Grin -Leo
  • + 1
 Hey nice work @polebicycles the aesthetics are coming together on this one.
  • + 1
 Cheers!
  • + 2
 Only if it had a bit shorter chainstay...
  • + 0
 I do wonder what the bike would be like with shorter stays. Not everyone is looking for uber stability at Mach 10 on a midtravel bike. Im guessing stays down around 435 would be interesting.
  • + 0
 @Svinyard: I think it would be a bit more playful and easier to move around, requiring a bit less body language.
The new Edit v3 from Airdrop has exactly 435 chainstay with steeep 78.7 seat angle and 64.5 HA, but it's not as long as Pole. I wonder why Pinkbike haven't said anything about it...
  • + 2
 "Stiffmeister compatible"
  • + 2
 Looks cool but I'm curious if their bonding is truly better than a weld.
  • + 2
 Evolink 140 but more expensive I guess?
  • + 1
 Almost... geometries are different. Looks like they backed away a little from the edge with this one compared with the evolink. Not as long. But ya, other than that...
  • + 0
 I’m gonna hold off until 36er! Don’t wanna be stuck with this old standard!
  • + 1
 Leo, you working on a 110 mm version of this?
  • + 7
 Should I?
  • + 2
 @polebicycles: Haven't you heard? Downcountry is the new craze.
  • + 2
 @polebicycles: Yes, the world deserves Pole Donuthole
  • + 2
 @polebicycles: I was thinking about getting rid of my Tallboy to get your 110 (I already have the evolink 158 for park riding) but if you are doing a "machine" style, that would be very interesting. I bet there is a market for it.
  • + 3
 @polebicycles: YES. PLEASE!!!
  • + 3
 Sounds good! I'll put this request to our pipeline then. Smile
  • + 1
 @polebicycles: yeah, put me on that list :-)
  • + 1
 Please do a review on this bike
  • + 1
 Any North American distribution channels yet???
  • + 1
 We sell consumer direct. Click and buy or contact service@polebicycles.com for more info. On Facebook, you can find Pole Bicycle Riders Group where you can chat with people who have ordered their bikes to NA. Cheers!
  • + 1
 Releases a new bike... has video of some riding the "old" bike.
  • + 1
 Glad to see Cove Bikes still employed to name other bikes
  • + 1
 @polebicycles
Thank you for that, will do!!
  • + 1
 What are the frame weights?
  • + 1
 it´s stiffmeister compatible. sign me up!
  • + 1
 Could I get one of these with like, a normal reach and a short chainstay?
  • + 1
 Just go one size lower than recommended... You will have no seat tube length issues.
  • + 1
 @DavidGuerra: chainstay too
  • + 1
 @me2menow: A M Bushmaster is identical to a L Nukeproof Mega 290 in chainstay/reach. The seat stays of the Bushmaster are pretty steep, so what's keeping the chainstays long is probably the linkage itself.
  • + 1
 Anodizing - can it be done? Please?
  • + 2
 Giggity
  • + 1
 Why would anyone want a 15mm shorter pole?
  • + 0
 When you ride a short pole, you compensate for nothing.
  • + 0
 Pole is starting to remind me of Tesla.
  • + 1
 How much does it weigh?
  • + 1
 Mmmmmmm@Naturel:
  • + 1
 Def longer@Naturel:
  • + 0
 That's a pole I'd be happy to ride.
  • - 1
 That's also the owner's porn name.
  • - 1
 Downvoted, eh? Sorry to out you bro!
  • - 1
 It's March 1st not April 1st
  • - 1
 Marketing bullsheet - 2% slower my fat over weight white ass!
  • - 3
 Is Pole just f*cking with us now?
  • + 5
 @Almazing - they announce a new bike, but then show a video of an existing bike and basically tell people to imagine how neat the new bike will be, based on how neat the existing bike seems to perform in that video. Yep, they're just f*cking with us now.
  • - 2
 I'm gonna have to downsize to ride this pole.
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



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

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.147567
Mobile Version of Website