Bikes for Enduro... The restart

[Rigardt@Scott]

I thought the Following was a 67.4 in high and 66.8 in low? Either way I think there is too much attention paid to the HA and the SA numbers alone. It's all you hear talk of. The 'old' numbers of the Following V1 were good enough to make them come out with the MB and keep it virtually the same. I'd say the area of 66.5 is probably the perfect alrounder but it is about how the package works as a whole. Having said that the best bikes I've ridden and enjoyed the most for the trails here in SA are slightly more than that. Last 65 angle bike I rode was so hard to get any fun out of and that was touted as a quiver killer in the review. Which was done in Squamish. Which is no where near what we ride here. 

 

 

I think those are the geo numbers with a 120mm fork, I have a 140mm for fitted, so that slackens things out a bit. Crown to Axel is also makes a difference. The numbers I'm quoting there are my own measurements, and from memory, so could be a bit out. I do know that in the low (X-LOW) setting it was touching 65 on the HA side of things...

 

But yeah, agreed - reviews of bikes tested in Squamish cannot necessarily be translated to our trails. We have a few trails that maybe come close, but if I am honest with myself I ride those trails very rarely, and when I do I'm way outa my comfort zone, so I can't buy/build a bike around that.

[Rigardt@Scott]

Part of the problem I found recently was I was running way too much sag. Pumping the shock up so that I am now on 30% ( yes my sag was way, way out) has helped hugely. Next, the flip chip thing.

 

That does make a big difference. I had my sag set to somewhere between 25 and 30%, and then gained a bit of weight without changing anything on the bike. It didn't pedal so well for a while and I couldn't understand why - kinda chalked it up to me being less fit and the few extra kg. Then I saw I was bottoming out the rear, and sag was around 35%, put a few extra psi in, and presto - problem solved.

[Dirt Tracker]

I think those are the geo numbers with a 120mm fork, I have a 140mm for fitted, so that slackens things out a bit. Crown to Axel is also makes a difference. The numbers I'm quoting there are my own measurements, and from memory, so could be a bit out. I do know that in the low (X-LOW) setting it was touching 65 on the HA side of things...

 

But yeah, agreed - reviews of bikes tested in Squamish cannot necessarily be translated to our trails. We have a few trails that maybe come close, but if I am honest with myself I ride those trails very rarely, and when I do I'm way outa my comfort zone, so I can't buy/build a bike around that.

 

That makes sense I hadn't thought about that. I rode a friends one with a 140 fork on it and Jonkers. It was such a capable bike on all the trails and so fun in the high setting not sure slacking it out would give you much plus points. Sure it being a 29er helps on a 120mm rear end but that's the point, it's about the whole. Hell of a bike, you must be pretty happy. 

[Rigardt@Scott]

That makes sense I hadn't thought about that. I rode a friends one with a 140 fork on it and Jonkers. It was such a capable bike on all the trails and so fun in the high setting not sure slacking it out would give you much plus points. Sure it being a 29er helps on a 120mm rear end but that's the point, it's about the whole. Hell of a bike, you must be pretty happy. 

 

It took me a while to get the bike where I wanted it in terms of set-up. I played around with the geo, stem length, bar width, fork travel, tyres, etc. quite a bit. Now that it is set up well (high setting, 140mm fork, 55mm stem (5mm spacer under stem), and 790mm bar) I am extremely happy with it. I don't think I am anywhere near the bike's limit, but my previous bike was a longer travel 29er than this, and I can without a doubt say I feel much more comfortable on the chunkier stuff, drop off, steep stuff on the Evil than my previous bike! The only place my old bike outperformed the Following is on the climbs - but not by a long way.

 

I don't ever wish I had more travel - and that says alot when a 100kg+ guy is on 120mm of travel.

[stefmeister]

I think those are the geo numbers with a 120mm fork, I have a 140mm for fitted, so that slackens things out a bit. Crown to Axel is also makes a difference. The numbers I'm quoting there are my own measurements, and from memory, so could be a bit out. I do know that in the low (X-LOW) setting it was touching 65 on the HA side of things...

 

But yeah, agreed - reviews of bikes tested in Squamish cannot necessarily be translated to our trails. We have a few trails that maybe come close, but if I am honest with myself I ride those trails very rarely, and when I do I'm way outa my comfort zone, so I can't buy/build a bike around that.

I'm not always for over forking a bicycle as you mentioned, it slackens ALL the angles. While a slacker HT will not necessarily translate into a bad climber, it's the accompanied slackened STA that also shifts more weight over the rear wheel.

The Following has a very slack actual STA, and if you have longer legs, it will result in all that weight being over the rear wheel.

Personally, I think the slack HTA thing is a myth perpetuated by the XC crowd, which many of them still hold on to even though modern XC bikes are adopting the newer trends.

My perspective on geo (relating more to climbing) is that there should be a relationship between fork travel, HTA, STA and reach. The further out the front wheel is due to either HTA, travel or both, the steeper the STA angle ought to be.

Steeper STA shortens the effective top tube length, thus requiring more reach (i.e. longer wheelbase), so for XC race bikes etc it's not necessarily the answer, unless one goes back to longer stems.

[Pipsqueak]

Part of the problem I found recently was I was running way too much sag. Pumping the shock up so that I am now on 30% ( yes my sag was way, way out) has helped hugely. Next, the flip chip thing.

Funny, I've been toiling with this with my Pyga. One of the best things about a Pyga is the design should put you in the centre - a balanced position on the bike. I put a 160mm fork on my 120, and all of a sudden its a dog to pedal. The back doesn't sit up and its lost the pop that it had. I figure I'll drop the fork to 140 and play with spacers.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Pipsqueak

[Bos]

Funny, I've been toiling with this with my Pyga. One of the best things about a Pyga is the design should put you in the center - a balanced position on the bike. I put a 160mm fork on my 120, and all of a sudden its a dog to pedal. The back doesn't sit up and its lost the pop that it had. I figure I'll drop the fork to 140 and play with spacers.

The longer the fork the slacker the seat angle, and the slacker the seat angle she more your bike sags, and once you start climbing, your weight goes even further back, and sags even more.. A travel adjustable fork really does make sense, although 140mm is a good compromise.

 

I am using my middle setting on my FOX rear shock all the time now. Its actually become my normal setting, and on dirtroads I use the firm, which is almost lockout. Open only for downhills. 

 

The difference in sag between open and middle, is about 10% in my case. (5mm)

[Headshot]

Funny, I've been toiling with this with my Pyga. One of the best things about a Pyga is the design should put you in the centre - a balanced position on the bike. I put a 160mm fork on my 120, and all of a sudden its a dog to pedal. The back doesn't sit up and its lost the pop that it had. I figure I'll drop the fork to 140 and play with spacers.

You can counter the problem with a few other tweaks. Like slightly more air in the rear shock - i.e less sag/ and more sag i.e les air up front. Angling your seat nose down slightly - I do this on all my bikes for comfort reasons but especially on my dual sus bikes. As you climb your seat angle levels out and you're less likely to slip off the back of the saddle.  If you're tall and can lower your bars by removing spacers under the stem, try that too. 

[Reden]

12.2kg claimed weight

Possible yes...

[Yo-Yo]

New Strive. Looks good.

 

[Capricorn]

New Strive. Looks good.

 

 

The recent Pinkbike review very politely slammed the geo. Seems steep ST newfangled geo is very catchy ...

Edited January 17, 2019 by Capricorn

[Yo-Yo]

The recent Pinkbike review very politely slammed the geo. Seems steep ST newfangled geo is very catchy ...

Yeah, but i’d view this as a longer legged trail bike rather than an out and out race bike. Pretty sure that market segment is quite small and they are more likely to sell more on these ‘conservative’ numbers to regular joes on regular trails.

 

I know everyone believes that they need a massive reach, 78 seat tube and 64 head angle but it’s not always a good combo and dependent on the bike as a whole and most people don’t ride shuttled enduro tracks all day every day.

[stefmeister]

The recent Pinkbike review very politely slammed the geo. Seems steep ST newfangled geo is very catchy ...

Somehow I have to agree. If you're going to complicate the bike with the shapeshifter, at least do it properly to allow best of both worlds. 65 - 67 HA would've been nice. 

[Odinson]

Yeah, but i’d view this as a longer legged trail bike rather than an out and out race bike. Pretty sure that market segment is quite small and they are more likely to sell more on these ‘conservative’ numbers to regular joes on regular trails.

 

I know everyone believes that they need a massive reach, 78 seat tube and 64 head angle but it’s not always a good combo and dependent on the bike as a whole and most people don’t ride shuttled enduro tracks all day every day.

 

Not quite. The Strive is exactly that - an out and out race bike. 

 

I think they missed the boat on the geo. Use the Shapeshifter to go from 64°-66° HTA and STA from 75° to 77°. 

[Dirt Tracker]

Not quite. The Strive is exactly that - an out and out race bike. 

 

I think they missed the boat on the geo. Use the Shapeshifter to go from 64°-66° HTA and STA from 75° to 77°. 

 

Yet the numbers / reviews are saying it's not really playing properly in that category. I agree that they seem to have missed the boat on what they could have done or how they could have pushed it. Surely a company like Canyon would hardly have let that one just 'get missed' along the development route. Maybe they were looking for something aimed at the everyman rather than a few hundred guys going #fullenduro. 

 

They obviously have some plan as the HA is 66 and SA is 74.5 on their other recent release, the Spectral but of course that's a trail bike and 650b. 

 

I was surprised they didn't grow the chainstays a bit on the bigger sizes. 

 

Edit: Canyon did say PinkBike were actually on the wrong size. So fit seems to be a key thing. 

Edited January 18, 2019 by Dirt Tracker

[Yo-Yo]

A couple of takes from some reviews online. 

 

"The Germans have also spent a lot of time refining the bike’s steering geometry: they’ve given it a head angle of “only” 66 ° or 65.5 ° on the team model, and they’ve specced forks with a short 44mm offset to increase the trail. A slacker head angle would have moved the front wheel further away from the handlebars, which would have made it harder to keep weighted when going through corners."

 

"In contrast, much of the geometry trends toward stability. The 435-millimeter chainstay and 336-millimeter bottom bracket let you stay planted when you want to stay planted. Aside from its relatively conservative head angle, the chassis is poised to plow. It pulled me back from my assumption that a bike with rear travel below 160 millimeters, a head angle above 65 degrees and the suspension feel of a mischievous thrasher bike could not compete as an enduro race bike. But I have no question that this bike can."

 

​I wish now I had gone to the test day last Wednesday up in Stellenbosch to see what they said and have a look at the new models.