Staff Ride: Seb Stott's Canyon Strive CFR
STAFF RIDES
Seb Stott's Canyon Strive CFR
Seb Stott's Canyon Strive CFR
I've now been riding the Canyon Strive for well over a year, so I thought it was high time to give my thoughts on how it's been holding up. In truth, my thoughts haven't changed that much since the original review was published, which you can read here. That's good news for me because the Strive has been my main bike for the last sixteen months and I've continued to find it particularly capable, fast and fun for many different flavours of rides.
I've been using it as a sort of test bench for comparing components like tires and forks. I've raced an enduro on it, taken it to the Alps for a week of chairlift-fed riding, and used it as my go-to bike for the bulk of my local rides in the Tweed Valley.
I'm not going to repeat anything I covered in the original review here because, fortunately, most of it has stood the test of time, but a few issues and observations have come up that I'd like to share.
I've been using it as a sort of test bench for comparing components like tires and forks. I've raced an enduro on it, taken it to the Alps for a week of chairlift-fed riding, and used it as my go-to bike for the bulk of my local rides in the Tweed Valley.
I'm not going to repeat anything I covered in the original review here because, fortunately, most of it has stood the test of time, but a few issues and observations have come up that I'd like to share.
2022 Canyon Strive Details
• Intended use: enduroing
• Suspension travel: 160mm or 140 mm (r) / 170 mm (f)
• Wheel size: 29'' only
• CFR full-carbon frame (no alloy option)
• Shapeshifter geo/suspension adjuster
• 63° head angle, 505 +/- 5 mm reach in Large
• 15.9 Kg / 35 lbs (actual, size large)
• 2,700 g / 5.95 lbs claimed frame weight, w/o shock
• S to XL sizes (effectively M to XXL)
• Two build options: CFR and CFR underdog
• MSRP: $7,299 USD (CFR, tested)
• www.canyon.com
• Intended use: enduroing
• Suspension travel: 160mm or 140 mm (r) / 170 mm (f)
• Wheel size: 29'' only
• CFR full-carbon frame (no alloy option)
• Shapeshifter geo/suspension adjuster
• 63° head angle, 505 +/- 5 mm reach in Large
• 15.9 Kg / 35 lbs (actual, size large)
• 2,700 g / 5.95 lbs claimed frame weight, w/o shock
• S to XL sizes (effectively M to XXL)
• Two build options: CFR and CFR underdog
• MSRP: $7,299 USD (CFR, tested)
• www.canyon.com
Sizing
Canyon confused a lot of people with their super-long reach figures. But the seat tubes are short so if they just called the Xl an XXL, the large and Xl and so on, nobody would be so upset. Still, if the size small should really be called a medium, it's fair to say Canyon aren't really catering to the smaller end of the market with the Strive. Since the average UK woman is 164 cm, which is on the short side for the smallest Strive, it's questionable whether it can be called a unisex bike. But given that the Strive is a dedicated 29er platform, it's probably pitched at taller riders anyway, and Canyon does offer the Spectral and Torque with mullet wheels and shorter reach options.
I tested the large and the XL on the same downhill track and got remarkably similar lap times in either size, but I felt that riding fast took less mental effort on the large. This led a lot of people to speculate that someone of my height (191 cm) would be even better on the medium, but I don't think so.
In fact, I've since been playing around with the reach adjust headset cups, which allow the large frame to be configured with 500 mm or 510 mm reach, and I prefer the longer setting. It offers a little more stability when riding steep and technical descents. The difference between the neutral and long cups is very subtle (we're talking about a 1% reach difference here), but either one fits me nicely.
Switching the Fox 38 for a RockShox Zeb for a few months turned out to be a downgrade in my view.
Swaps & upgrades
I've been using the Strive as a tool for component testing so I've swapped a few parts out, but I haven't made many swaps I would describe as an upgrade. I spent a long time with the RockShox Zeb fork up front, but I preferred the stock Fox 38. I've also been testing the DVO Onyx SC D1 and EXT ERA V2.1.
I did swap the handlebar from the stock version with a 30 mm rise to a Renthal bar with a 40 mm rise, simply because the steerer tube was too short to get enough bar height otherwise. I also swapped the 200 mm Canyon dropper for a 240 mm OneUp V.2 seatpost. While I was more than happy with 200 mm of drop, there are times when the extra 40 mm of room is useful. Certainly, there are diminishing returns, but I now consider 200 mm the minimum, not the optimum.
With the MRP SXG/AMG guide and TRP derailleur.
I also swapped the stock bash guide for an MRP SXG guide (with an AMG upper box) after the original unit started dropping the chain and then the top part broke on a rough descent. The MRP holds the chain on much better thanks to its lower box guide.
I had an issue with the stock Shimano derailleur which coincided with TRP sending me a TR12 shifter and derailleur to try out. Curious, I gave it a go, but I'm not overly impressed. The shifter is a bit clunky in that the upshift lever is slightly stiff, but the main problem is that the clutch/chain tension isn't enough to keep the chain quiet when descending, even if the clutch tension is set to maximum.
I'm coming back around to Shimano brakes.
Reliability
As already mentioned, the stock Shimano XTR derailleur developed an issue where the cage wouldn't spring back to tension the chain if the clutch was on. This basically meant I had to run it with the clutch turned off. This is fixable, but it occurred after less than a year of semi-regular riding (I've been riding lots of other bikes besides this one), which is a little disappointing. While some commenters seem to think that Shimano drivetrains are infinitely more reliable, over the years I've had about as many issues with Shimano drivetrains as SRAM, if not more.
Similarly, if you've been reading the comments under some of the Shock Week articles, you're probably wondering how many times the Fox X2 shock exploded. For what it's worth, I've had no issues with the shock on the Canyon, or any other X2 since the 2020 update.
The Shimano XTR brakes have been good enough to update my opinion on Shimano brakes in general. They have required a couple of bleeds to keep the wandering bite point issue at bay, but this isn't so hard, and in this case, solved the issue almost entirely. With that caveat, they have always offered superb power with a short throw and light lever feel which I really like. Coming from SRAM Code brakes, I found them a little grabby at first, but this is mostly due to the extra power on offer. Thanks to that power and impressive heat resistance, I considered downsizing to a 180 mm rear rotor but didn't bother as I simply got used to feathering the punchy brakes.
The frame bearings are all still smooth and play-free and the rubber frame protection has held up well. One annoying thing is that water can get into the chainstay and get stuck there, so after washing the bike I hang it up by the rear wheel to allow it to drain.
The only problem I had with the Shapeshifter system was the rubber grommet that holds the Shapeshifter's cable in place came loose, causing some rattle. But this was fixed with a dab of glue.
0% Loaded
1/2
Fair point.
Shapeshifter & Climbing Performance
In my review, I was a little conflicted about the Shapeshifter, and some readers called me out on that. On the one hand, I don't like the idea of adding an extra thumb lever, cable, air spring and linkage to improve climbing, especially when modern bikes with steep seat tubes and generous anti-squat climb so well anyway. The extra components inevitably add cost, weight and potential issues. And while the bike will still work if it fails, it's not a particularly good climber without the Shapeshifter set to the climb mode.
On the other hand, it does work. It dramatically improves the bike's climbing performance and has remained (mostly) trouble-free this last year or so, notwithstanding the small issue mentioned above. I have learned to use the system more effectively too. Sometimes I use the "shred" mode for flat and bumpy sections of climb, as it gives a less aggressive position and more comfortable suspension, but for the most part, I shift into the pedal mode at the foot of each climb without thinking about it. When I've been riding the Strive exclusively for a period of time, I almost never forget to return to the "shred" mode for the descents - mostly because I can feel the difference as I ride.
Honestly, this is fun.
A question mark still remains in my mind as to whether I prefer Canyon's approach to a bike with a steep seat tube, high anti-squat and a simpler, lighter frame (like the Merida One Sixty), but at the end of the day the Strive is one of the best climbing enduro bikes out there. I find myself looking forward to climbs and attacking them with more enthusiasm than any other bike I've ridden recently - and I'm including the YT Izzo and Nukeproof Reactor in that. Only the Merida comes close.
Final setup
The Strive's bottom bracket is very low (around 335 mm). I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing as it probably contributes to the bike's blend of stability and agility, but pedal strikes are common. I ended up running a little less sag than normal (around 27%) while removing all but one of the shock's three volume spacers to retain good bump absorption. This offered a higher ride height and more support when cornering and climbing. Initial sensitivity and suppleness are still superb thanks to the X2 shock and progressive kinematic. I bottom out occasionally with this setup, but the X2's bottom-out bumper means this is no big drama.
I also tried fitting a 2.6" Continental Kryptotal tire in the rear to help raise the BB and improve traction, but clearance is tight with the seatstay bridge - stones occasionally scratched the carbon with this tire - so 2.5" seems a better compromise. Finally, I went down to one volume spacer in the Fox 38 fork to match the progression at the rear.
Aside from some experimental component swaps and playing with the headset, that's it. There's a lot to play with thanks to the four-way adjustable dampers, I ended up quite near the middle on most of the shock's clickers and there's a broad range that works pretty well. While there's a lot of tinkering potential, it's not too hard to get this bike in a good place.
Adjustable chainstay length is something I'd like to see on more bikes.
What could be improved?
If I were in charge at Canyon, I'd change the sizing nomenclature so the large was renamed Xl, and so on. I'd also leave the steerer tube longer so tall riders can find the right bar height without swapping bars. If I were redesigning the bike, I'd love to see slightly longer chainstays in the larger sizes (even though they measure 442 mm, not 435 mm like the spec sheet says) to give a slightly more balanced weight distribution and increase the tire clearance as a bonus. Or even better, adjustable chainstay length to match the adjustable reach.
Would I buy one?
Quite possibly. Right now in the UK, you can get the Strive CFR Underdog with a Fox Performance Elite fork and Shimano XT (offering near-identical performance to the bike tested) for £3,839, which is pretty hard to beat. I would also consider the Merida One-Sixty 6000, which costs about the same. I rode it for a much shorter time than the Strive but I found it similarly impressive. Those are the only bikes on my "What would I buy if I had to buy a bike tomorrow" shortlist at the moment.
Author Info:
Member since Dec 29, 2014
Must Read This Week
What makes it great is that if you forget it in "climb" mode, you still have a 140mm bike, and one click makes it the full 160.
So you get a big difference in geo and pedal effiency, and so far, it Just work.
After four months of riding, I really like the Strive CFR but you do have to be prepared/plan for pedal strikes. On my second ride, I had a pedal strike at high speed through some flats that tossed me off the bike and resulted in a broken and dislocated index finger. My finger will never be straight again...
this allows Canyon to optimize the downhill characteristics of the suspension design, as they can "alter" its climbing ability with a switch. Its a much better design philosophy than relying on a climb switch on your shock.
But I get your comment about simplicity.
This allows Canyon to sell you a bike with both of those outliers. With way less complexity than owning both those bikes.
For me, the NUDE / TwinLoc System has been decently reliable aswell. If you change the air seals of your shock once a year (as you should do anyways), it's a reliable system.
That being said, I've seen quite a lot of people on the forums complaining about the poor reliability of Canyon's ShapeShifter.
Good pedalling enduro bikes exist, cause most of us should prolly be on trail bikes, but marketing
Have you ridden a DH bike recently? My Spire is pretty close in geo and travel, but is designed around also being able to pedal, so it doesnt hold a candle to a DH bike, on DH trails
theres always a compromise to be made when trying to balance pedalling efficiency with full DH performance
As I originally said, enduro bikes are always going to be a compromise leaning more heavily towards climbing efficiency, or DH performance. You simply cant make an enduro bike as good as a DH bike, without sacrificing its ability to pedal well back up the hill. Thats part of what makes that category of bike so varied in their feel and performance.
A longer travel dual crown would help the DH performance on my Spire, but would take away from its climbing/trail performance, again, its always a give an take when it comes to anything "dual purpose"
us, with our generally questionable fitness and ability should be able to benefit from any possible advantage both going up, and going down as any pro.
Sure we arent racing to feed ourselves, but the ability to make your long travel bike climb better with the flick of a switch should benefit anyone who rides it
If those toys are your jive than buy it, nobody will prevent you or persuade you, so no harm with opinions,right.
The average shredder would be more at home on a trail bike or a dedicated park bike, depending on the available terrain. Looking at Canyon's lineup, i think that the Torque make more sense for the heavy hitting average joe than the Strive, but hey, isn't the strive's winning races under that Jesse guy? Must be THE ticket for me too
Some exceptions though...
Enduro bikes are compromised to some degree, its inherent in their design and purpose. Shapeshifter, Canyon feels allows them to produce a bike that leans more heavily towards its DH performance, as the shapeshifter allows them to change the balalance, feel, and geo of the bike to improve its climbing performance.
I have no issues with options, or opinions, but you cant have a informed opinion if you havent ever ridden a DH bike, to compare its Dh performance against.
Obviously, a 170mm bike be produced to "feel" like its 140 bike (we are talking about 30mm here...)
But to make a long travel bike perform as well at climbing, you are going to hinder its DH performance to some degree (whether its weight, geo, suspension kinematics, whatever) So, yes, 170 bikes can climb well, but it robs DH performance to some degree to do so, and thats cool, cause who doesnt like options.
The Spire, and Range are bikes meant for a similar purpose, but because Norco wanted to exploit the available DH performance, its ability to hang with the Spire on the climbs is hindered, in much the same way as when you point them down. Its not good or bad, its simply different, and different is good.
But dont kid yourself into thinking that either is a true DH bike, theyre just some of the better descending bikes you can climb on.
You're trying to compare 3 different categories, when we are talking about comparable characteristics between a 170 platform and a 140, not a 200 platform. Also, you started slipping in gradually, the DH bike comparison, trying to redirect the topic at hand. lol
A longer travel bike is made usually to excel at both these days; so companies designed the bike with a format as i stated earlier but will be more difficult in pedaling at a certain duration or Grade of trail, yet, not be detracted from it's engineering design. Therefore, it leads me to question this idea, yourself and others have saying this; when exactly, what is the geometry flaw in whether or not it'll climb good it surely won't descend good or vice versa .?
I'll be sure to frwd my post to you for evaluation and editing to fit your ideal wording in the future, if that makes you happy. NOT!
On a better note, i somewhat agree with the later part of what you stated but i personally don't need my bikes set up how a World Champion athlete has his/ her bikes set up TBH, Thank You.
Enduro bikes are designed to have more prowess going DH but retain powerful in pedaling with efficacy going up, with a slight penalty of weight + drag usually from tire choice and inserts. Hence, this is what we were discussing in the thread- that the (ShapeShifter) will benefit moreso, someone looking to make up copious amounts of time racing as opposed to the average riders just out for the evening / weekend shred with the Bros.
Hope that reals you back on path my friend!
All bike designers must make compromises. What compromises they make will depend on the brand ethos, style of bike etc.
But as @onawalk has explained these are all about adjusting one to the more favorable and sacrificing in some other area.
Take my bike for instance, it's a 135 trail bike that has fairly active suspension so it gets amazing traction both climbing and descending. But... It does not climb like some other more efficient trail bikes with identical travel. It moves more and that let's the wheel get better traction. But something like an Ibis will likely be better spinning up a road, but a little less plush everywhere else.
This idea that there is some idealized perfect geometry, suspension layout is false. All designs are a mix of compromises. As is pretty much all design honestly.
"than what are the geometry flaws that render this hindrance you and others describe and what needs to be done to correct it, without (ShapeShifter) gimmicks?? That is my questions to you."
These aren't flaws but design decisions because you can't have perfect efficiency without less traction while climbing. You can't have DH levels of plush without some horrible pedaling characteristics. You are under the assumption that there exists a 'perfection' we just haven't found yet, or that we have. Both are unfounded and not backed up by facts. All bike designers will have their targets for pedaling and descending but these will differ from company to company.
No where was mentioned there is, quote-"some idealized perfect geometry, suspension layout"!! What was said clearly and at least two times is -"A longer travel bike is made usually to excel at both these days; so companies designed the bike with a format as i stated earlier but will be more difficult in pedaling at a certain duration or Grade of trail, yet, not be detracted from it's engineering design." READ IT THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN FOR PEAT SAKES!!! It's not that damn difficult People.
We all get the fact as indicated by everyone, that there is some give in these designs; but were talking considering were we have gotten to in the last 5 years... is pretty damn good and not far off from possibly converging with that holy grail of design. I would be very impressed if companies can actually reach what everyone deems perfect attributes in both, but for now I'll Give them a SCOR- (Pun intended) of 9.5 TBH.
All debate aside... i have a 140/160 with a 64.3 HA, it shreds DH and climbs amazing when i'm firing all cylinders + agile an playful. Could it climb any better? Possibly, with lighter wheels / cranks maybe. Could it DH any better? Yes, with a Coil Shock and stiffer spring rate up frt. Do I want either of those changes? Yes, but keeping the air shock and the coil for quick changes if desired.
Just get a Yeti SB 140 (MTB YumYum- YouTuber) will testify to its ability over said bike. He usually nails it on comparisons.
A long travel bike, can’t “excel” at both climbing and descending. It is compromised one way or another to attain the attributes the designers are looking for. If you hopped on a DH bike, or similarly an XC focused bike, those compromises become incredibly clear.
It’s not just the additional 30mm of travel between a DH bike, and my Spire, it’s that my Spire has had design choices (geo, suspension kinematics, frame weight/stiffness, components choices) that compromise the designs DH performance.
If you can see that, I can’t understand it for you.
At no point did I compare current long travel bikes, to those of 5-10 years ago, and I haven’t stated that current bikes aren’t better now, than they were 10 years ago.
Canyon made a design decision, to create a bike that leaned more heavily into DH performance, and provided a way for it to climb better. The only comparison to be made, is with that bike itself. Is it a better climber due to the shapeshifter, based on Sebs review yes it is, is it a better descender due to the shapeshifter, again, appears so. So Canyon, built a system that helps their long travel bike, pedal better than it would normally.
Does it pedal better/ descend better than bikes that don’t offer this, not for me to say, as I’ve never ridden it.
And to clarify, when he designers are making compromises for these long travel enduro bikes, they aren’t “bad” or “flawed” you keep mentioning that, and maybe that’s the disconnect, it’s simply just a compromise that needs to be made to make some thing that does 2 things acceptably.
I appreciate @BarryWalstead trying to reiterate my point, but neither of us can seem to help you to understand it.
I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavours
(20mm of spacers seems like a minimum though).
Manufacturers probably "lazily" justify the short steerers with "that's the intended geometry", partly also to try to make the bike look better.
*Except when Canyon for example mistakes 442 with 435 chainstays......
I'm not sure how it's possible that in the year 2023 most bike brands still haven't figured out the relation between reach an stack. Increased reach needs an appropriate proportional increase in stack height, especially for taller riders. With the low stack height of most brands' size XL bikes, riders 6ft and taller usually end up in a very unfavourable body position, somewhat slumped over the front.
Very hard to assume an upright, neutral stance if your bike only has 635mm of stack but you're 6'2".
I think it's also an interesting observation that bigger-big bikes tend to suit tracks you're familiar with, hence why racers go for lesser-big bikes as they tend to race on unfamiliar tracks
In addition, I think it also been pretty well established that, smaller bikes are easier to maneuver more quickly and precisely IF you have the strength and skill to make good use of that maneuverability AND also ride these bikes at insane speeds through big rough tracks.
Sizing up, or longer reach/wheelbase bikes give those that aren't pros the stability and confidence to ride big steep rough tracks at higher speeds with less chance of crashing.
Personal preference plays a lot into it as well.
Looking forward to your test results of the DVO / EXT forks.
They were cheaper then so it made more sense.
If I understand correctly, the main issue with the Zeb Vs 38 is the air spring. Swap that out for coil and it really bring it to life.
And you seems to have missed the point: might not be able to use a "shorter dropper not slammed down", because it might end up below the minimum insertion if the seat tube is too short.
So why make a tall seat mast on a model instead of making it low where there are options for anyone.
Are you actually advocating for higher seat post lengths?
Surprised to see you need 720mm bb to rails. I'm about 180mm tall (so about 5'11) and once figured out XC height would be 700mm. I rarely ever ride with a high saddle (pretty much never unless I need to nurse a bike with a broken pedal axle) so for me there is no point being able to raise a saddle on the fly. I run a 400mm rigid seatpost in a 400mm seattube. I usually run it slammed but as mininum insertion for that one is 100mm, I could still reach the 700mm. Getting that One Up dropper would open up some wild options. I could get it in a Curtis RaceLite (12" seattube across all sizes), run the dropper for "epic" rides and slam a rigid seatpost for my regular rides.
I get that there are outliers, but for goodness sakes man, you're just being disagreeable for the sake of it.
I run a 210mm OneUp and I'm 5'11" with a 30" inseam and I'm happy with that. But... I would love to get even 20mm more drop for those times I am riding really steep terrain.
Do you really always and only use all the drop of full extention? I use partial drop literally every ride as well as full drop.
But talking about seat tube lengths is a different conversation when you aren't talking dropper posts isn't i
Also, what's it like being a time traveler from back in 2005? ;-)
Still, I actually use this height often, since I can easily move the seat 7 inches lower. I have not find myself ever wanting more drop, the seat is plenty out of the way for the nastiest stuff: to get any further down or back, I'd be in a terrible position on the bike to actually do anything useful, plus the back wheel starts to get in the way.
Sure, taller riders have more room for drop before the wheel tries to occupy the same space as their ass, but I also don't see the benefit of shifting your body _that_ much more, since you also need to shift it back as some point. The bigger bike already gives a bigger window of stability, shouldn't need to get your CG as close to the extremes of that window.
Pretty sure that tall DH riders aren't putting their DH bike's seat 10 full inches below their "XC height".
I'm 5'10", and couldn't imagine a time where I would benefit from 50mm more drop (to the 230mm you mentioned) than the 180mm OneUp that I have. If I had to get that low or far back, I'm in a terrible position to actually control the bike, no matter the steepness. The saddle would also be at the level of my knees at that point, meaning that using saddle pressure from the legs for fine tuning turns becomes difficult and/or painful.
I do use partial drop, for rowdy traverses where I need to transition rapidly between pedaling strong and absorbing hits. I do not use partial drop depending on the feature I'm descending, that seems insane: "oh, this roller needs 150mm drop, but this other steeper one needs 180mm, and that drop has a good landing so it only needs 110mm". Nope, not gonna happen. It just goes full down for descents, then it comes up to full height if I'm pedaling up or 3/4 height if I'm pedaling across.
@BarryWalstead : Sorry, I don't quite get your point. The discussion was about seattube lengths and I mentioned dropper posts as rigid seatposts would typically be 400mm max (so 300mm max above the seattube) and dropper seatposts now can extend further. @justinfoil and I are having a nice discussion trying to develop some understanding for each others choices and preferences. What is it you're trying to bring to the table? Taking troll-duties?
Can someone explain technically why bleeding would resolve the wondering bite point? How does dirty fluid cause bit point fluctuation?
Also make sure to bleed with free stroke adjustment (if your Shimano brakes have them) a few turns out. Once I get everything closed/sealed up again, I adjust it back in (it takes up a bit more volume when in).
Accomplishes a similar end goal, just don't have to worry about the caliper end. I do this when doing the quick lever bleeds. Full flush/re-bleed, I combine this method with what you described.
The reason people are claiming that some kind of secret or special bleed trick will do anything is that a badly bled system can cause a different kind of bite point wandering. The symptoms are similar but the causes and solutions are entirely different.
The prices is attractive but there are so many negative posts about weak customer support and broken frames.
Same thing if he was 5'10" and riding a medium vs a large.
You bet I am!
For what it's worth, I've had no issues with the shock on the Canyon, or any other X2 since the 2020 update.
WTF...
Will be a bog Night out celebrating
But, just because it's a sample size of one doesn't mean it's useless. For instance, if I were considering purchasing a new vehicle, I would find a review from a professional car journalist more valuable than an anecdotal review from my neighbor who bought that vehicle.
All this being said, I like to read. Reading about bikes is fun. If it is not fun for you, do not do it. But that's coming from a sample size of one, ye be warned.