Review: The 2022 Canyon Strive is Longer, Slacker, & Still Has a Shapeshifter

Besides, those bikes ridden by Jack Moir et al. last year weren't exactly stock. They ran longer shocks to increase the rear travel to 160 mm, along with 180 or 190mm forks plus a 15mm headset spacer to slacken the head angle (and the seat angle with it) by about 1.5-degrees. Dimitri Tordo, meanwhile, chose to ride the shorter-travel Spectral last year

Despite its predecessor's racing success, Canyon has been working on a replacement (the new Strive) since the end of 2019.

Now that Canyon has the Spectral and Torque covering trail and park duties, the new fourth-generation Strive was designed to be a no-compromise enduro racer from the start. It's got 160mm of rear-wheel travel, a 63-degree head angle with a 170 mm fork, and a steeper seat angle too. And despite Jack Moir (6'1") famously sizing down to a size large on the old bike, the reach numbers have grown. A lot.

---

Geometry & Sizing


Let's dive into the geometry details first because that's the big story.

At 190 cm (6'3"), I usually ride an XL (or XXL) without needing much thought. But when Canyon sent me the above geometry chart, I had to think really hard. The XL has a 520-530 mm reach (the reach is adjustable via headset cups). I've ridden bikes that long before and they're manageable, but I definitely don't need that much room to feel comfortable. Besides, the 435 mm chainstay is on the shorter side, so I opted for the size large, reasoning that it would feel more balanced with more pressure on the front tire. Canyon's sizing chart puts me slap bang in between sizes, and I'm sure I could ride either, but due to the short back end, I opted for the Large. I'm hoping to get an XL too for some back-to-back testing, so keep an eye out for that.


Canyon chose to stick with the same chainstay length for all frame sizes, apparently because the race team members all preferred the shorter back end as it made it easier to pick up and place the rear wheel on tight EWS racecourses. If you're interested, Jack Moir has apparently been trying the medium and large but is leaning towards the medium with the +5mm reach adjust headset cup. Fabien Barel is apparently riding a medium too, and Dimitri Tordo is on the small. The race team were also apparently behind the decision to go full 29er, as even the shorter team riders felt they would make up more time with the rollover of a bigger back wheel than from the ability to ride more dynamically on steep tech, which is more of an advantage in downhill than enduro.

As soon as I got hold of the bike, I broke out the tape measure to check Canyon's numbers. This is something I always do, and usually, it just confirms what I already knew. But this time it revealed some important differences. The chainstay on my bike measures 442 mm, and the wheelbase measures 1,312 mm in the neutral headset position - both longer than claimed. For me, that's great news as it should offer a bit more stability and front-wheel grip. Incidentally, that wheelbase is near-identical to a size large Pole Evolink from 2017, which I thoroughly enjoyed at the time despite everyone telling me it was too long to ever work. I suppose it shows how far we have (or haven't) progressed that, five years on, you can get the same overall wheelbase from Canyon. A size large Canyon Strive of the time had a wheelbase over 100mm shorter.

In the low setting, I measure the head angle at 62.5-degrees and the effective seat angle at my pedalling height at 75.7-degrees, with a bottom bracket 335mm from the floor. By my measurements, the Shapeshifter raises the BB height by 10mm and the frame angles by 0.7-degrees. Canyon quotes the change at 15mm and 1.5-degrees, but (a little cheekily in my view) this refers to the change in dynamic geometry, as the bike runs significantly less sag in the climbing mode.

---

Frame Details


As already alluded to, the new Strive has an adjustable headset, which offers +/-5mm of reach adjustment from the neutral position. The bike ships with the neutral cups and the +/- 5mm cups are included in the box. Swapping them over is a quick and easy process. Unfortunately, the alternate cups were missing from my test bike so I only rode it in the neutral setting. Nevertheless, I think this is a great feature, especially for those who are in between sizes. But remember a 5mm change in reach is very subtle - we're talking about a 1% difference here.


For now, there is only one frame material available and it's Canyon's CFR carbon, their top-tier stuff. The whole frame is carbon fiber, including the back end and rocker link. All the major frame members are brand new, but the rocker link, Shapeshifter components and the pivot hardware are the same as the previous bike, which should make it easier to find spares. For similar reasons, Canyon has swapped to SRAM's universal derailleur hanger.

The internal cable routing uses foam tubes rather than in-built carbon or plastic tunnels to help guide the cables from the head tube to the ports just above the bottom bracket. That might make cable swaps a bit trickier than some bikes, but Canyon say this solution is lighter.

Canyon's home town of Koblenz is said to have a similar climate to the UK, so mud protection is something they want to emphasise. They use a special bearing grease which is sent from Germany to their bearing supplier for use in the bearings, which they say improves bearing lifespan.

The frame is category 4 rated. According to Canyon, that basically means "the frame is not approved for regular use on those features which set aside DH riding or freeride from enduro (huge jumps, cliff drops, gnarly gas to flats). So if the frame fails here, then this is excluded from the warranty." If you need a category 5 bike for regular bike park riding, Canyon has the Torque for that.

Thanks to beefier tube profiles, Canyon claim to have increased the stiffness of the front triangle by 25% compared to the previous Strive but chose to keep the back-end stiffness about the same. That longer, stiffer front end and those adjustable headset cups mean the new frame is about 300 g heavier than its predecessor, with a 2,700 g claimed weight including hardware but no shock. That's not exactly heavy, though. Canyon say the Shapeshifter system makes up about 200 g of that weight.


Shapeshifter Explained




If you're not already familiar, Canyon's Shapeshifter allows the rider to change between a low, slack and supple "shred" mode and a higher, steeper and firmer "pedal" mode, all without taking their hand off the grip.

It's easy to think of the Shapeshifter as an overengineered flip-chip, but it's much more than that. It changes the static angles by about 0.7 degrees and the BB height by 10mm (similar to many flip chips), but the larger change is to the suspension. By moving the upper shock mount further from the pivot on the rocker link in the pedal mode, it reduces the leverage ratio acting between the axle and the shock, and so drops the travel from 160 mm to 140mm.

But the effect is not the same as going from a 160mm bike at 30% sag to a 140mm bike at 30 % sag. The percentage sag changes too. This is because, with a lower leverage ratio, you have to push the shock further (so it generates more force) and with less mechanical advantage, so the force required to reach the same travel at the rear axle is much higher. So if you're running 30% sag (48 mm) in the shred mode, you'll have about 37 mm (26% of 140 mm) sag in pedal mode. This means the wheel rate (the suspension stiffness at the wheel) is about 30% higher in the pedal mode. The same is more or less true of the damping; the damping forces (both compression and rebound) are about 30% higher in the pedal mode.

The combined effect is that the bike not only sits higher when unloaded, but the stiffer suspension means it sits even higher at sag, with more support and a firmer feel when pedalling or pumping. Plus, with the new Strive, you get more anti-squat in the pedal mode too, which further helps it to stay high in its travel and resist bobbing when pedalling. It's a far more comprehensive change of attitude than you get from a flip, chip, lockout or even Scott's Twinlock.


As a result, the pressure in the spring needs to suit the rider to an extent. Canyon recommends the same pressure as you'd run in the Fox X2 shock, which is about the same number as the rider weight in pounds. You may want to experiment to make sure it compresses and extends without too much fuss (too much pressure and it can be hard to engage shred mode), but it's not something that needs to be finely tuned.

Suspension Design

Canyon use a Horst link layout with a vertical shock, much like the previous Strive, but with a longer shock to deliver 160 mm of travel. The pivot locations have been tweaked too; there's a new back end with a lower chainstay pivot. Canyon say they wanted to reduce pedal kickback so they designed the anti-squat levels (which are closely related to kickback) to drop off more quickly as the bike moves through its travel. The anti-squat at sag is similar to the old bike (about 100%) but the downside of the new design is that any changes to the dynamic ride height (which can happen when sprinting, climbing, carrying a heavy rucksack, or just running too much sag) will affect the anti-squat and therefore the pedalling efficiency.



Anti-rise - that's the amount the braking force is used to resist the suspension's tendency to extend (or rise up) while braking - is higher than most Horst-link bikes. The levels remain very consistent at between 76% and 78% throughout the relevant part of the travel (the first two thirds). This is higher than most Horst-link bikes (which are more often in the 40-50% region), which means the suspension won't rise up as much under braking. Many single-pivot and VPP bikes have similar anti-rise levels, but most have anti-rise curves that drop off through the travel, which may increase the suspension's stiffness under braking because the further the bike moves into the travel, the less the braking force helps to compress it. The Strive's more consistent anti rise levels might make the suspension less stiff when braking compared to VPP.

I was initially concerned that the upper bushing, which sees a lot of rotation, would dull sensitivity compared to a bearing mount. But when I removed the lower shock bolt, the friction at the upper one is tiny, similar to a bearing - the shock readily swings under its own weight.

I measured the Strive's vertical travel at 160 mm, exactly as claimed, which isn't always the case.

---

Specifications

The spec sheet above says 165 mm cranks and 780 mm bars, but that's a mistake. All bikes will come with 170 mm cranks, the Small and Medium get 780 mm bars while the Large and Xl have 800 mm. My bike came with a 170 mm dropper post but the Large and Xl bikes should get a 200 mm version.

---

Climbing

If you leave the Strive in the shred mode, it's an average climber among enduro bikes. There is a little pedal bob but nothing dramatic, while the seat angle would have been considered steep until recently and feels comfortable enough for flatter climbs (assuming the saddle is slammed forwards). But switching to the pedal mode takes it to the next level. I noticed this most when switching from the pedal mode back to the shred mode in the middle of a steep climb, where the sagging and squatting at the rear made the climb feel steeper and put more strain on my back and hamstrings.

At 76.5-degrees, the effective seat angle isn't the steepest even in the pedal mode, but because the bike rides so much higher its travel with the firmer suspension and higher anti-squat, it's steep enough to feel comfortable and purposeful even on those bottom-gear climbs. I think it could be steeper still, especially for taller riders - I chose to slam the saddle all the way forwards. Set up like this it's a near-perfect position for me, but it would be nice to have this position with the saddle in the middle of the rails so there's room to adjust.

In the pedal mode, the stability and efficiency of the suspension is superb even by the standards of a 140 mm travel system. But unlike a lockout switch, the suspension still does its thing on bumpy terrain. For technical climbs, it's superb because you not only have better climbing geometry, but firmer damping which is needed to stop the bike oscillating when riding seated over low-frequency bumps, and a higher bottom bracket which makes pedal strikes uncommon. On a trail ride, you could leave it in pedal mode all day, and I used it for jump lines and rolling terrain as well as climbs. I tried riding up a set of stairs alternating between the pedal and shred modes, and in the longer-travel setting it was noticeably smoother and easier to reach the top, so there may be times where the extra squish is useful when climbing. But unlike with a lockout, you don't have to worry about a few bumps when climbing and I soon got into the habit of using it for every steep incline.


When it comes to a sudden climb in the middle of a descent, the need to actively unweight the rear wheel to engage pedal mode can be a little taxing, especially with your heart rate in the red; in these situations, a simple remote lockout would be slightly better (remember when Fabien Barel raced with a remote lockout and Shapeshifter?). But generally, using the system is easy. Sure, I pressed the dropper by mistake or set off down a descent in the wrong mode a few times on the first ride, but by the second or third time out, I had the knack of the controls.

Does the Shapeshifter make the Strive two bikes in one as Canyon claim? It definitely makes it more versatile, and with faster tires, it could be a stand-in trail bike. It's certainly one of the better climbing enduro bikes in the high setting. Is it necessary? With a steeper seat angle and maybe a remote lockout you could achieve some of the Shapeshifter's benefits with less complexity, but not all of them.

Descending

Hit the other button and the Strive relaxes and hunkers down at the rear. The suspension is very supple at the start of the stroke, offering a reassuring ground-hugging feel when pattering over matted roots and small stones. Yet when plopping into a catch berm or hole, the suspension never wallows or squats too much; it always gives you something to push against and drive forwards, maintaining its angles as you push around a turn.

With two volume spacers, it's pretty hard to bottom out, but it doesn't feel like there's a sudden ramp near the end, more of a continuous, smooth ramp of support. When rattling through really chunky sections, it's not the most plow-like, but I could afford to remove another spacer or increase sag to unlock more compliance, so that's a setup choice, not a limitation.


How much of this supple-yet-supprtive goodness is down to the Fox X2 shock vs the linkage design is hard to say, but I'm sure I haven't got the best out of the shock yet. Most of my suspension setup work has been spent playing around with spring pressure front and rear, and I've only tried a handful of the 30,000 or so combinations of clickers so far. Having two four-way adjustable dampers is arguably overbearing for a bike that arrives in a box, so it will be interesting to see how accurate and informative Canyon's setup guide is.

It's when braking that the suspension impresses most. It doesn't rise up and pitch forwards as much as many Horst link bikes, so the bike feels stable and settled even when during short, sharp braking periods. But at the same time, the suspension feels very supple even when on the brakes over rooty and rocky surfaces. I think Canyon has got the balance about right with the braking response.


My anxieties about "sizing down" melted away from run one as the proportions of the size large were very easy to get used to, and I was feeling confident and centered on the bike from the off. The bike never felt too small, unstable or prone to tripping, which should be no surprise given its real-world wheelbase with the neutral headset is within a centimetre of an XXL Nukeproof Giga. I'd like the bar height to come up by 10 mm or so - with a longer reach, you need a longer stack height, and despite the 20mm of spacers and 30mm rise handlebar, it was just a fraction too low for me. A higher-rise bar would solve this but given the rest of the bike is well-proportioned for my height it would be nice to be able to get the cockpit in the right range from the off and have room to adjust it up and down.

While the 442 mm rear-centre is longer than advertised, it's still a bit shorter than some of the bikes that go this long in the front centre. Does this mean the front-wheel understeers in every turn? Not really. A 10mm increase in chainstay length (which would make it one of the longest on the market) would only increase the pressure on the front wheel by 1.5%. In order to get a significant increase in front-wheel traction, you need a much more extreme change in the rear centre than what's offered by most bikes with size-specific chainstays.

Only Forbidden seems to be doing that right now (the Dreadnought's rear-centre changes by 42mm across the sizes and the XL has a 480mm rear-centre at sag, which has downsides as well as advantages). In my view, front-wheel grip is much more about rider confidence, suspension and stability than a few millimetres of rear-centre length, and the Stive delivers that in abundance. The slack head angle lets you really lean on the front with no worries about it tucking or being deflected; the rear suspension offers support to stop the bike squatting back in a turn, and the stable braking behaviour means you don't have to lean back when getting on the brakes, only to find your weight too far back when you get off them again. The Fox suspension offers class-leading small bump sensitivity too, helping the tires find consistent grip through choppy sections. All this makes it easier to stay centred on the bike, commit to turns and rip into the corner.


While the Strive feels at its best on steep, technical terrain, it's no slouch on flatter flow trails and trail centre descents. The suspension feels balanced and supportive when pumping through rollers or berms, and you can always use the Shapeshifter if you want a firmer platform to push against. Despite its race-ready intentions, slack head angle and planted feel on downhill tracks, it's surprisingly versatile and enjoyable when the trail mellows out.

Every bike is more than the sum of its parts. How the suspension, geometry, stiffness, weight distribution, componentry and more all come together on the trail isn't something you can extrapolate from the numbers alone. In the case of the Strive, its balance between stability and manoeuvrability, suppleness and support made it easy for me to ride fast, aggressively and confidently from the first ride and every ride since. That overall feeling is obviously subjective, and someone else may not have the same view. So for a second opinion, I recruited one of my riding mates, who happens to be about the same height and weight as me, to ride the Strive for a day. I made sure not to tell him what I thought of it before he finished. He too found it easy to get on with and ride fast almost from the off. Interestingly, he commented unprompted that it brakes very well. That made me a bit more confident in my view that this is a particularly easy bike to ride fast.


Issues / Room for Improvement

The complexity of the Shapeshifter is a concern and something which would make me think twice about wanting to own this bike. Don't get me wrong, it does what it's meant to do, worked perfectly throughout testing and is a useful feature, but I think you could get most of the benefits (though definitely not all) with a steeper seat angle and a simple remote lockout. I also think that Canyon might as well have given it a more extreme seat angle if you can always slacken things out for flat pedalling sections, which is the only time when an 80-degree effective angle really feels too steep. In 2022, I shouldn't have to slam the saddle forwards to feel comfortable, especially on a bike that has a dedicated climb mode.

On the other hand, the Shapeshifter is basically a simplified shock and linkage, but one that you use a few times per ride instead of a few thousand times. Canyon suggest getting it serviced at an authorised dealer every 200-hours of riding or so, but I doubt if it will need it that often. Trawling the forums, it looks like a few people had problems with the first-generation system, but version 2, which is shared with the 2019 iteration of the Strive, seems to be more reliable. Bike Yoke make a purely mechanical version for 90 Euros, which could be a good option to keep you riding if you do have any problems or while the gas spring is being serviced.

Another gripe is that the upper shock mounting hardware is shared with the Shapeshifter linkage, which means removing the shock requires you to push out a hollow pin that spans the shock eyelet and the link its mounted to (Canyon will sell you a tool to do this for £27.95). This makes removing the shock or swapping volume spacers a bit more involved than with other bikes.

It's easy to read too much into the customer service horror stories (which you can find online relating to almost any brand) but the combination of the Shapeshifter's added complexity and Canyon's direct sales model isn't the most appealing from a long-term ownership standpoint. When I asked about this, Canyon had this to say: "Some readers may remember the very first Shapeshifter, introduced in 2014. Unfortunately, this suffered with some reliability issues... With this Fox produced component [introduced on the 2019 Strive], the reliability has been solid for our customers and racers for the past 3 years - and this new Strive uses exactly the same unit. If something goes wrong with your Shapeshifter, a Fox service centre should be able to get it up and running within standard servicing turnaround times."

Two things Canyon could implement immediately to improve the user experience are:

• Supply the bike with the shock removal tool, or at least put all the volume spacers at the bottom of the air can; that way they can be removed without taking the shock off.
• Leave the steerer tube longer, especially on the bigger sizes. You can always cut it down.

How Does it Compare?

With a full-carbon frame and a dedicated climb mode, you might imagine the Canyon leaves the Privateer for dust on the climbs. But even in pedal mode, the Canyon's seat angle is a bit slacker than the Privateer's and the suspension is a bit more active too. That means for winching up the steepest climbs around, the Privateer is a bit more comfortable, at least from my perspective. The Canyon's slacker seat angle, and the option to go slacker still with the lower setting, make it feel a bit more relaxed when pedalling along bumpy traverses, though.

On the descents, I slightly prefer the Canyon. It stays more level in its travel when braking, while the Privateer rises up a bit more at the rear (the Privateer has around 45% anti-rise at sag). This makes the Canyon more predictable and easier to stay centred, especially when braking hard into a corner before getting off the brakes as you enter the turn. The Canyon never felt harsher as a result of its higher level of mechanical intervention under braking. Quite the opposite, in fact; the Strive's rear suspension remains suppler in most situations, especially under braking. This could be to do with the combination of leverage and shock, which makes its suspension less stiff at the start of the travel (where it's more likely to be when braking) when compared to the Privateer. At the same time, the Canyon feels like it offers more to push against when pumping into a compression. I haven't tried the 161 with the new Fox Float X2 shock, but the Canyon's much more progressive leverage curve (33% vs. 17%) probably helps.

Geometry-wise, the Canyon is 20mm shorter but 1.5-degrees slacker. Overall, I think the Strive is a touch easier to hustle around tight corners or loft the front wheel, but I should stress that neither bike is a barge if you ride it proactively.

---

Technical Report


Shimano XTR brakes: My bike turned up with right-hand-front brakes (customer bikes sent to the UK will have UK/moto style brakes from the off) so I had to swap the hoses before riding. This means I can't entirely blame the initial wandering bite point on Shimano, as some oil can escape during this process. However, after I had bled them with the wheels installed in order to deliberately over-fill the reservoir, the brakes were phenomenal. Sharp, powerful and consistent. From experience, I'm confident that as the pads wear out the lever feel will go back to normal, but for now, these are by far the best performing Shimano brakes I've used; they're noticeably more powerful and crisp than the SRAM Codes I have on other test bikes.

Tool-free thru-axles: Canyon could have saved a few more grams by going for Allen key axles like most bikes these days, but I'm glad they didn't. A quick-release is far handier for storing, repairing or transporting bikes, especially if you're one of the 0.1% of UK mountain bikers who don't own a Transporter or Sprinter van. The rear axle is a particularly neat solution, offering a nice big lever that slots away inside the axle. But make sure you follow the instructions from Fox when first installing the semi-floating fork axle to get the maximum fork performance.

New Maxxis EXO+ tires: I think the old EXO+ is a bit fragile for an enduro race bike, but I get that DoubleDown is arguably overkill for how most people ride these bikes in the real world. However, the new, beefier EXO+ with its 60 TPI, butyl-reinforced casing feels more secure at low pressures and is perhaps a better compromise than the old version. You could always stick an insert or two inside for racing or rocky terrain. Weirdly, my bike came with the new EXO+ at the back, but the older version (given away by its 120 TPI hot patch) on the front, but I imagine the tougher new version will filter through on production bikes. The combo of a MaxxGrip Assegai on the front with the MaxxTerra DHR2 offers excellent traction in most conditions without feeling too draggy on mellow terrain.

---

---

---