I have posted my personal tester reviews and lots of pics of the bike (becuase everyone loves pics):thumbsup:


Now most of my bikes have been Specialized, but that does not mean that I am stuck with that brand. I am always the one to keep an eye out for better and more innovative bikes that come out, and for the most part I have demo’ed other brands and did not like one thing or another about the way it handled or rode. Maybe I'm just picky who knows:yesnod:

A while bike I saw that Chumba Wumba was in need of product testers/reviewers (http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=200847)so I said that would to see what the upcoming brand had to offer. Until recently I have never heard of that brand until I started seeing them at the Fontana races, but even then didn’t think anything of it besides it’s just another bike brand.

Well I have riding the Evo for about a week now and must say that it is a well built bike. From the initial look at the bike it seemed like your average 38 pound all mountain bike, because of what seems to be extra plates that were welded at what some would consider weaker or possible cracking points on the frame. That was not the case it was roughly around 32 pounds and the only thing that made the bike that heavy was the Marzocchi all mountain 2 fork.

The one thing that I noticed the most was the way it handled and cornered. Surprisingly I would almost say that it cornered way better than all of my Specialized bikes I have ever owned. I don’t know exactly what it was, but it made my local trails a hell of a lot more enjoyable. The bike was setup with a Marzocchi all mountain II fork and a fox DHX 5.0 air in the rear. Which I thought it complimented the frame well. Most of the trails I would normally ride with my Demo 9 were about the same in comfort level with the EVO. Meaning that the suspension design was very compliant when going over things like rock gardens, ruts, and things of that nature. It basically did everything I wanted it to do without hesitation from the all mountain aspect.

I also took it on some XC rides just to see how well it would climb and if everything was balanced out when I rode out side of the seat. Now like I mentioned before most people would not want to do long rides on a all mountain bike just because of the weight factor. To me it wasn’t a really big deal because it was only 32 pounds which was lighter than my P.2 and especially lighter than my Demo. So I took it out on a 19 mile XC terrain ride and did a lot of climbing and in and out of my seat. Now I think Chumba says that their frame design has a good center of gravity, which now I can really say that it does. There were quite a few people around so I how some of them would react when climbing on their bike. For the most part they would have to get out of their seat, because of loss of balance and things of that nature. For me I felt pretty comfortable when sitting or standing on climbs depending on how steep it was. So for the most part it did well in that category also.

In conclusion I really liked the bike and it’s probably be the first time this has happened on a demo ride, but at the same time I haven’t tested out all the type of bike out there either. Now a few things that I was not really to happy about the bike were some of the components, but since I am not really focusing on those things I am not to really worried about it. Besides it just a demo bike and usually people would spec it out better.
Overall I would recommend this bike and if you’re looking for all mountain bike that handles well, corners well and climbs well you should consider it. Actually if I had the money right now I would buy it and sell my P.2, because I would see myself riding it more than my P.2.

I am not sure but think they are still looking for demo riders I guess that would be the best way to see what I was talking about. If so then I would talk to Allen or even the Path bike shop in Tustin (I think they are doing the demo thing). Anyways He’s a really cool dude and by no means do they pressure you to bring the bike back immediately. All they want it to make sure that you get plenty of riding time so you can see and feel the facts yourself. Which to me tells me that they really back their products and are confident with their frame.

Here the some more pics of the bike.

always liked the cat logo.......nice write up....I am really interested about that bike....thanks for the review

Thanks for the review, it sounds like a great bike!

-Nate

Thanks for the review.

I just picked mine up from Fed-EX tonight. No, I dont have pics. No digi cam at the moment. I got the white Zoke Z1 light for a fork. I also have a Pike, so one of the forks will be sold, after I get some riding in.

I wasn't into the looks of the Evo, at all, at first, but it looks nice in person. A lot of machining went into this frame and it is burly. The only thing I am worried about is the size. Damn, the tt is short. The effective tt length increases as the seat post is extended. I am wondering if I got the wrong size or not. I measured an effective tt length of 22" center to center and a five inch head tube. I wanted the medium/large. Hopefully it works out. I want to ride this thing.

i like chumba wumba's but i dunno if i like the downtube on that. nice review

My review of the Chumba is not so rosey. The first thing you will notice on the Chumba, is the super slack seat tube angle. The higher up you put the seat, the further your torso gets from the handlebars, and vice versa. Not a big deal if you rarely lower your seat, but for some, the difference makes for awkward geometry. The next problem you will find is the amount of chain growth experienced upon full compression of the rear suspension. What this means is that in certain gear combos, you run the risk of ripping off your rear der. on bigger hits. The build on the frame is burly. I have no doubt that this bike can survive some serious abuse. It climbs very well, but the rear end is a bit flexy, despite the burly stays, and rocker arms. I think Chumba would have done well to use larger bearings to remedy the lateral flex in the swingarm.

What this means is that in certain gear combos, you run the risk of ripping off your rear der. on bigger hits.

Come on Chingy...what would you know about ripping of derailleaurs?:rolleyes: :D

My review of the Chumba is not so rosey. The first thing you will notice on the Chumba, is the super slack seat tube angle. The higher up you put the seat, the further your torso gets from the handlebars, and vice versa. Not a big deal if you rarely lower your seat, but for some, the difference makes for awkward geometry. The next problem you will find is the amount of chain growth experienced upon full compression of the rear suspension. What this means is that in certain gear combos, you run the risk of ripping off your rear der. on bigger hits. The build on the frame is burly. I have no doubt that this bike can survive some serious abuse. It climbs very well, but the rear end is a bit flexy, despite the burly stays, and rocker arms. I think Chumba would have done well to use larger bearings to remedy the lateral flex in the swingarm.

El Chingon: I just ordered an EVO, so I have done a lot of homework on this bike, and talked the ears off of the staff over at Chumba with a million and one questions. I think some of your descriptions aren't quite accurate.

First, there is almost no chain growth at all, one of the staff, I believe the manager, who's worked at several other high-end manufacturers told me the axle path is near parallel, meaning the growth should only be a link or two max. Second, larger bearings in terms of surface don't increase lateral stiffness as much as the width of bearings do. And you will find that the EVO's dual bearings are some of the widest in the market. Honestly, from all the people I've talked to, including the people who were at the demo, the bike shops, and the staff at Chumba, say this is one of the stiffest bikes they've ever rode. About the seat tube angle, I can see that being a mild irritant, but I don't really put my seat down more than two inches so its not a big deal for me. Anyway, not sure if your review of the evo is really fair. Plus, I don't want you talking crap about my new to-be bike. = )

notice on the Chumba, is the super slack seat tube angle. The higher up you put the seat, the further your torso gets from the handlebars, and vice versa. Not a big deal if you rarely lower your seat, but for some, the difference makes for awkward geometry. The next problem you will find is the amount of chain growth experienced upon full compression of the rear suspension. What this means is that in certain gear combos, you run the risk of ripping off your rear der. on bigger hits. The build on the frame is burly. I have no doubt that this bike can survive some serious abuse. It climbs very well, but the rear end is a bit flexy, despite the burly stays, and rocker arms. I think Chumba would have done well to use larger bearings to remedy the lateral flex in the swingarm.

Hey Chingon here is my take on some characteristics you pointed out:

I LOVE the slack ST angle. Pop it up high and it extends your arm and torso....better for breathing and climb. A lot of XC racer have 120mm or longer stem plus bar ends to "stretch" out their arm and torso to increase their lung volume. Drop the seat it literally changes into DH geometry. Notice all full DH bikes have supper short TT? that way the seat is WAY out of the way and you can huck and drop at will. Few times I drop the seat all the way down the seat was almost in between my knees on some drops...and the drop felt like nothing. No more seat get stuck on my shorts and push me for a superman flight, definitely confidence inspiring.

I weight 210lbs and could not flex the bike much but I don't ride it that hard either. I was told that the frame does have small amount of flex designed into it. If the frame is too stiff then it would start breaking other parts of your bike like your wheels(it’s designed around AM components and purpose). Too little flex it will not be able to absorb harsh hits especially when cornering therefore traction would suffer.

As far chain growth goes I really have not noticed on my bike at all. But I didn’t pay attention to that either. I run all 3 rings and everything seems to be working great for me. But I assume the longer the rear wheel travels the longer the chain growth will be.

Just my $0.02

well, never ridden one, but they are UGLY.

well, never ridden one, but they are UGLY.


Beauty is in the eyes of beer holder........:thumbsup:


Ops....sorry kid, you can't drink beer yet......well I guess you can hold it.:D

well, never ridden one, but they are UGLY.

well at least they are different, not the same seat tube rocker design used on the xc bikes all the way to long travel bikes by ellsworth, turner, kona, trek, khs, with just different paint ...

"well, atleast they are different" is a nice way of putting it down. different isn't always good... and im going to be shallow and judge by looks. you wouldn't get with an ugly chick even if she was an undercover freak.... same for a bike. i wouldn't get it if it's ugly even if it rides well.

i dunno if i like the downtube on that.

it's obviously a throwback reference to the legendary nishiti alien, one of the most technologically advanced hardtails in the history of mountain cycling.

Beauty is in the eyes of beer holder........:thumbsup:


Ops....sorry kid, you can't drink beer yet......well I guess you can hold it.:D
hahaha :smilewinkgrin:

" i wouldn't get it if it's ugly even if it rides well.

I am assuming that you do not do any serious mountain biking, because anyone here can tell that you cannot base your bike purchases on looks before performance like bikes, clothing and anything else bike related.

Who in the hell want a nice looking blinging bike if it rides like sh!t. :nono: Unless your just using it to cruising around the lake, beach or places of that nature where performance will not be an issue.

"well, atleast they are different" is a nice way of putting it down. different isn't always good... and im going to be shallow and judge by looks. you wouldn't get with an ugly chick even if she was an undercover freak.... same for a bike. i wouldn't get it if it's ugly even if it rides well.

No, "at least its different" is a way to say that I admire innovation and companies that do something different - rather than always looking at cookie cutter walking beam designs(not that i have anything against them - their fine bikes, ive owned several) that just have different ranges of travel. i think the evo is gorgeous, and you really have to see it in person to appreciate the level of detail and machining that went into this bike - but to each their own.:thumbsup:

Duke,

I call em like I ride em. I actually like the looks of the Chumba, and aside from the fact that the bike fit me kind of small (See 6'2) I was considering this as my next trail bike. I like Chumba as a company, and like the burliness built into the frames. Good for big guys like me(225 lbs), but in all fairness, my review is 100% accurate according to the test riding I did. When it comes to chaingrowth, you will need to wait until your bike is built up. Let all the air out of your DHX air, and cycle the suspension. It grows more than a link or two. Just my .02. Like I said, Chumba is a great company.

I am assuming that you do not do any serious mountain biking, because anyone here can tell that you cannot base your bike purchases on looks before performance like bikes, clothing and anything else bike related.

Who in the hell want a nice looking blinging bike if it rides like sh!t. :nono: Unless your just using it to cruising around the lake, beach or places of that nature where performance will not be an issue.
are you kidding? you are pretty stupid to think i don't ride just becasue i won't buy something i don't like the looks of. I'm NOT going to spend money on something that isn't appealing to me. looks aren't everything, but to say the shouldn't play a part is just silly, but you are right... i don't ride. i'm only into the bling factor...

a "bling" bike usually performs really well too... "bling" parts are usually high end and perform well. If you aren't into trick parts good for you, but guess what... LOOKS SELL and companies know this and they use looks to sell. you're just sad cause you fell inlove with an ugly bike.

i never said that i would choose a bike JUST on looks, but when stuck in a toss up on bikes/parts... looks come into play. if looks didn't matter things would still be like it was back when Ford first went into mass production. "you can have it in any color you want as long as it is black."

i'm going to go sit around and look at my bike and wish i could ride.

one final woman anology.

looks do matter. like getting with an ugly chick and putting a paper bag on her face. they ride nice, but aren't easy on the eyes. I'm sure this bike rides well, but sadly looks are important and i wouldn't fork out money on something i don't like and the paper bag idea won't work for the bike...

No, "at least its different" is a way to say that I admire innovation and companies that do something different - rather than always looking at cookie cutter walking beam designs(not that i have anything against them - their fine bikes, ive owned several) that just have different ranges of travel. i think the evo is gorgeous, and you really have to see it in person to appreciate the level of detail and machining that went into this bike - but to each their own.:thumbsup:
right on bro. but still. saying that "i admire innovation and companies that do something different" comes across as "hey, i don't like the bike that much, but atleast they are trying something different." i get what you are saying, but i just don't like the bike. i've seen plenty of "different" bikes that i've liked, but this just isn't doing it for me.

as you said though. to each their own.

right on bro. but still. saying that "i admire innovation and companies that do something different" comes across as "hey, i don't like the bike that much, but atleast they are trying something different." i get what you are saying, but i just don't like the bike. i've seen plenty of "different" bikes that i've liked, but this just isn't doing it for me.

as you said though. to each their own.

Well, I liked the bike enough to pay $1850+tax.

Well, I liked the bike enough to pay $1850+tax.
good for you... want a cookie?

but you are right... i don't ride. i'm only into the bling factor...

...

Yes I can tell with your 2005 specialized hard disk pro. It just screams BLING....:rolleyes:

But that's cool everyone has thier way of choosing bikes i suppose.

Yes I can tell with your 2005 specialized hard disk pro. It just screams BLING....:rolleyes:

But that's cool everyone has thier way of choosing bikes i suppose.
my hardrock disk pro is called i'm broke... because i spent all my money at the time on a crf250 plus 700bucks worth of troy lee and sidi gear...

i got outta biking and started to get back into it for helping cross train for motocross, while making my leg stronger that had been suffering from getting tired much quicker and i could barely walk on after each moto, because it's F'ed up from breaking it. the mtn. bike was just for fun purposes and it kind of took over me and pulled me back out of motocross and put me back into biking... and i left biking for racing MX and harescrambles in the first place.

i'm in the looks for building a new bike... just can't decide what frame i want and can't decide if i want HT or FS. also, thinking if i should sell one of my guitars i don't play much and have another $1,200 to spend so i can get some "bling" parts

besdies i never said I have bling stuff... :rolleyes: don't know where you got that from...

it's obviously a throwback reference to the legendary nishiti alien, one of the most technologically advanced hardtails in the history of mountain cycling.
:nono: putting it back in the public eye is only giving it hope... just let the poor bike die.

good for you... want a cookie?

no, but I'd like you to stop posting - your low IQ is starting to annoy me.

no, but I'd like you to stop posting - your low IQ is starting to annoy me.

waht'is a iQ?

Funny that you would tell me I have a low IQ, because if you are going to attempt, and i say attempt because that was a lame excuse, to insult someone for having a "low IQ" i'd suggest that you type properly when doing a burn on my intelligence level. if you are going to tell me I have a low IQ i'd be sure that there aren't things wrong with your post... like not using capital letters and such.

just thought i'd help you out with your burns. but seriously... i make some dang good cookies

n0w i's goings to play in meye box of sand in meye bakyord!

waht'is a iQ?

Funny that you would tell me I have a low IQ, because if you are going to attempt, and i say attempt because that was a lame excuse, to insult someone for having a "low IQ" i'd suggest that you type properly when doing a burn on my intelligence level. if you are going to tell me I have a low IQ i'd be sure that there aren't things wrong with your post... like not using capitol letters and such.

just thought i'd help you out with your burns. but seriously... i make some dang good cookies

n0w i's goings to play in meye box of sand in meye bakyord!

Okay, I'll be careful about my "capitol" letters from now. Or, is it "capital?" :confused:

Okay, I'll be careful about my "capitol" letters from now. Or, is it "capital?" :confused:
oops my bad. typo. oh well. i wasn't trying to sound smart or anything. i just hate it when people try to burn someone and suck at it... cough cough* you

just for showing me I made a mistake i'm going to bake you cookies anyways! yay! lucky you! what kind would ya like?

i just hate it when people try to burn someone and suck at it... cough cough* ...

both of you guys suck at it equally! shut up allready!:madman: :madmax: :madman: :madmax: :madman: :madmax:

Spicymaguros,

this is really really off topic, but i saw where you are from and was wondering if you have heard of a guy/musician named Andrew Heringer? if you are into mellow acoustic music check him out. he is a local musician from where you live and was just curious if you'd heard of him. www.myspace.com/andrewheringer if you are bored and wanna give him a listen. his best song is "summer roof"

sorry, off topic, but i just thought i'd bring it up.

both of you guys suck at it equally! shut up allready!:madman: :madmax: :madman: :madmax: :madman: :madmax:
hey man, i'm not trying to burn anyone. i was just helping him out.

My review of the Chumba is not so rosey. The first thing you will notice on the Chumba, is the super slack seat tube angle. The higher up you put the seat, the further your torso gets from the handlebars, and vice versa. Not a big deal if you rarely lower your seat, but for some, the difference makes for awkward geometry. The next problem you will find is the amount of chain growth experienced upon full compression of the rear suspension. What this means is that in certain gear combos, you run the risk of ripping off your rear der. on bigger hits. The build on the frame is burly. I have no doubt that this bike can survive some serious abuse. It climbs very well, but the rear end is a bit flexy, despite the burly stays, and rocker arms. I think Chumba would have done well to use larger bearings to remedy the lateral flex in the swingarm.

So, is this the review done from the parking lot test, as previously stated in the Turner forum, or do you have some trail time on the Evo now?

If you have actually been on the bike for any length of time, then fine. I find it pretty hard to make any conclusive reviews from a parking lot test, or just hopping on a bike for a minute on a trail. For me, it takes some real trail time, not a quick ride up a hill, or parking lot test. You are a straight shooter on mtbr and I do respect your opinion. Hell, you are the only Turner owner that I have ever heard of that does not use hydraulic brakes.

I just got my Evo built up and rode it on the street and on some single track by my house. A couple hours of riding, all total, at least. I am not ready to fully review the bike yet, because it takes a lot of time to get things set up properly. I have been messing with headset stack height, seat post length, seat adjustments, front and rear shock adjustments, and the drive train. I was hoping this would be the bike, like my old Heckler, that felt right, off the start. Not quite. I will expand on this later.

I weigh at least 210lbs, without any gear and I did not detect any noticeable flex in the frame. I just sold my HL Pack, so I know what I am looking for. Chain growth? I can't answer that yet. I never felt it. I do notice it on sp bikes like the Gemini, Joker, and Heckler. Something to look for though.

What I can say, is that even with the pro pedal turned off, there is very little shock movement. A couple of mm, while seated and when standing and pedaling, the bob is very limited. It is early to say, but so far, the Evo feels like a more capable climber and pedalling bike, than my 6 Pack was.

I find the Evo to be a really strange feeling bike so far. With the post extended, it felt like I was going to fall off the back. It also felt like the power from my pedal stroke was going in a somewhat more horizontal, than vertical movement. The feeling was somewhat similar to a recumbent bike. I talked to the guys at Chumba about this "strange" feeling and it seems to be the first thing people mention after riding the bike. I moved the seat forward today and lowered the seat post a tad, and it feels a little better. This is part of the design though, and I was told it takes some getting used to.

I am going to write up a full length review, after a couple of more rides. I am taking this beast on a couple of trails in the Rockies, that are pretty much tailor made for this type of bike. Big baby headed rock gardens, roots, twisty single track, with sustained, technical and fire road climbs.

I will not hold back on the good and the bad. Nothing to lose for me here. If I don't like it, I am not giving any rosey reviews.

I like the looks of that Nishiti Alien.
:thumbsup:

So, is this the review done from the parking lot test, as previously stated in the Turner forum, or do you have some trail time on the Evo now?

If you have actually been on the bike for any length of time, then fine. I find it pretty hard to make any conclusive reviews from a parking lot test, or just hopping on a bike for a minute on a trail. For me, it takes some real trail time, not a quick ride up a hill, or parking lot test. You are a straight shooter on mtbr and I do respect your opinion. Hell, you are the only Turner owner that I have ever heard of that does not use hydraulic brakes.

I just got my Evo built up and rode it on the street and on some single track by my house. A couple hours of riding, all total, at least. I am not ready to fully review the bike yet, because it takes a lot of time to get things set up properly. I have been messing with headset stack height, seat post length, seat adjustments, front and rear shock adjustments, and the drive train. I was hoping this would be the bike, like my old Heckler, that felt right, off the start. Not quite. I will expand on this later.

I weigh at least 210lbs, without any gear and I did not detect any noticeable flex in the frame. I just sold my HL Pack, so I know what I am looking for. Chain growth? I can't answer that yet. I never felt it. I do notice it on sp bikes like the Gemini, Joker, and Heckler. Something to look for though.

What I can say, is that even with the pro pedal turned off, there is very little shock movement. A couple of mm, while seated and when standing and pedaling, the bob is very limited. It is early to say, but so far, the Evo feels like a more capable climber and pedalling bike, than my 6 Pack was.

I find the Evo to be a really strange feeling bike so far. With the post extended, it felt like I was going to fall off the back. It also felt like the power from my pedal stroke was going in a somewhat more horizontal, than vertical movement. The feeling was somewhat similar to a recumbent bike. I talked to the guys at Chumba about this "strange" feeling and it seems to be the first thing people mention after riding the bike. I moved the seat forward today and lowered the seat post a tad, and it feels a little better. This is part of the design though, and I was told it takes some getting used to.

I am going to write up a full length review, after a couple of more rides. I am taking this beast on a couple of trails in the Rockies, that are pretty much tailor made for this type of bike. Big baby headed rock gardens, roots, twisty single track, with sustained, technical and fire road climbs.

I will not hold back on the good and the bad. Nothing to lose for me here. If I don't like it, I am not giving any rosey reviews.


Thanks for the short update, little is better than none.;)

Im thinking hard about an Evo, I currently have a RFX and a unbuilt X5, but Im always looking for the "one". Kinda sound like Neo on the Matrix! I just might take a run up to Orange and talk to Ted to check out one of these frames yet.

Thanks for the short update, little is better than none.;)

Im thinking hard about an Evo, I currently have a RFX and a unbuilt X5, but Im always looking for the "one". Kinda sound like Neo on the Matrix! I just might take a run up to Orange and talk to Ted to check out one of these frames yet.

Two of the top performing bikes on the market. If money was no object, I think a burly RFX, in the area of 36-40lbs, with an X-5 around 28-32lbs, would cover all the bases. Actually, either bike could cover all the bases, with the proper build. What year is the X-5?

I just went on a decent ride with my Evo and will be posting a review soon. I am having drive train issues and want to get everything working 100%, before I post a serious review. I think my Evo was set up wrong from the get go and I need to get it set up properly, before I make any real decisions about the bike. I was more than impressed in one department. Stay tuned.

Two of the top performing bikes on the market. If money was no object, I think a burly RFX, in the area of 36-40lbs, with an X-5 around 28-32lbs, would cover all the bases. Actually, either bike could cover all the bases, with the proper build. What year is the X-5?

I just went on a decent ride with my Evo and will be posting a review soon. I am having drive train issues and want to get everything working 100%, before I post a serious review. I think my Evo was set up wrong from the get go and I need to get it set up properly, before I make any real decisions about the bike. I was more than impressed in one department. Stay tuned.


Thanks ronny, looking forward to your review. I know its hard spending big money on a bike or frame only to find out it doesnt fit or you just dont gell with it. I know, Ive been there many times. The X5 is an 06 model with the 5/6" plates and a DHX-Air shock. It sits as a bare frame at the moment. The RFX is built to 32 pounds, as a big hit bike I would like slacker angles, as a trailbike its not bad but probably on the heavier side and some dont like the way it climbs. Im not a good climber anyway so I wouldnt know about that.

Ive known Ted for many years and his stuff can only be described as perfection or art. He makes very nicely machined parts not to mention world cup performance and national champion caliber frames. I hope you can dial in the EVO to fit your needs and riding style. You really cant get any better as far as quaility goes. Definitely worth the time trying to dial it in. Funny though, Ive always had a soft spot for Hecklers.

The next problem you will find is the amount of chain growth experienced upon full compression of the rear suspension. What this means is that in certain gear combos, you run the risk of ripping off your rear der. on bigger hits.
Comparing an Evo and a Turner 6 Pack, both in a 32/20 gear combo, on the Linkage program shows that the 6 Pack has ~4 times as much chain growth.

Comparing an Evo and a Turner 6 Pack, both in a 32/20 gear combo, on the Linkage program shows that the 6 Pack has ~4 times as much chain growth.

That is what I guessed looking at the very low main pivot placement on the EVO. The parrallel linkage should give the attributes you have discussed many times before, but the low main pivot placement should give it a relatively reduced anti-squat and should pedal even more mushy than a specialized on smooth ground but should be butter through rough ground. The braking should be active but without much anti-dive (or anti rear extension if you prefer)

those are soooo ugly!

That is what I guessed looking at the very low main pivot placement on the EVO. The parrallel linkage should give the attributes you have discussed many times before, but the low main pivot placement should give it a relatively reduced anti-squat and should pedal even more mushy than a specialized on smooth ground but should be butter through rough ground. The braking should be active but without much anti-dive (or anti rear extension if you prefer)

One of the first things I noticed about the Evo, is how well it pedals on smooth ground. There is virtually no shock movement, unless you really start cranking and hitting the bumps. I noticed this with the pro pedal on the DHX air turned off. No mushy pedaling. I keep looking at the shock when I am riding and the suspension is very active while on uneven surfaces. The rear suspension reacts to the smallest bumps, but as soon as the trail gets smooth, the shock moves firms up when pedaling. Which, is a good thing.

My review of the Chumba is not so rosey. The first thing you will notice on the Chumba, is the super slack seat tube angle. The higher up you put the seat, the further your torso gets from the handlebars, and vice versa. Not a big deal if you rarely lower your seat, but for some, the difference makes for awkward geometry. The next problem you will find is the amount of chain growth experienced upon full compression of the rear suspension. What this means is that in certain gear combos, you run the risk of ripping off your rear der. on bigger hits. The build on the frame is burly. I have no doubt that this bike can survive some serious abuse. It climbs very well, but the rear end is a bit flexy, despite the burly stays, and rocker arms. I think Chumba would have done well to use larger bearings to remedy the lateral flex in the swingarm.


I can see the potential for flex due to the pivot off the seat tube as the distance from the seat stay pivot to the downtube pivot is a farly large distance to cover by the rocker arms...

I was also wondering if you noticed any derailure slapping on the chainstay. It seems awefully tight in that area when in the smallest cog.

I was wondering if anyone has tried holding their hand around the seat tube and rocker and try squezzing the rocker into the seat tube? I'll try and find a dealer around Atlanta and try it out. I like the look of the frame but am always leary of new designs until proven. My Heckler is flexy using this test and it will flex when riding as well. Not a huge issue but it will throw you off line through rock gardens and root riddled trails...

I was wondering if anyone has tried holding their hand around the seat tube and rocker and try squezzing the rocker into the seat tube? I'll try and find a dealer around Atlanta and try it out. I like the look of the frame but am always leary of new designs until proven. My Heckler is flexy using this test and it will flex when riding as well. Not a huge issue but it will throw you off line through rock gardens and root riddled trails...

The Evo is rock solid when going through rock gardens at high speed and holds a line very well. Some guys are racing dh with the Evo. I weigh over 200lbs and came away very impressed with the the descending prowess of this bike. You can't "squeeze" the rocker into the seat tube with your hand as you describe. Maybe a 8ft tall Sasquatch could???

I can lean all of my weight into the Evo rocker arms and get them to move slightly. With that said, I can get pretty much any rocker to flex a bit, if I put all of my weight into the bike from the side. No surprise here at all.

The Evo is not a flexy bike.

The Evo is rock solid when going through rock gardens at high speed and holds a line very well. Some guys are racing dh with the Evo. I weigh over 200lbs and came away very impressed with the the descending prowess of this bike. You can't "squeeze" the rocker into the seat tube with your hand as you describe. Maybe a 8ft tall Sasquatch could???

I can lean all of my weight into the Evo rocker arms and get them to move slightly. With that said, I can get pretty much any rocker to flex a bit, if I put all of my weight into the bike from the side. No surprise here at all.

The Evo is not a flexy bike.

Thanks for the reply Ronnie, I really like the unique look of the frame and from the pictures I've seen the weld quality looks awesome. I just want to make sure that when I replace my trusty old Heckler I do so with a bike that won't make me regret it. Does anyone happen to know if a 5" travel fork would mate well to this frame for general trail riding?

Thanks,
John

Thanks for the reply Ronnie, I really like the unique look of the frame and from the pictures I've seen the weld quality looks awesome. I just want to make sure that when I replace my trusty old Heckler I do so with a bike that won't make me regret it. Does anyone happen to know if a 5" travel fork would mate well to this frame for general trail riding?

Thanks,
John


I would go with a 6 inch adjustable travel fork. The frame is designed with a 6 inch fork in mind so using a 5 inch fork might mess up the handling doing down hill.

I would recommend the fox 36 talas 07 which can change travel with a simple flick.

Thanks for the reply Ronnie, I really like the unique look of the frame and from the pictures I've seen the weld quality looks awesome. I just want to make sure that when I replace my trusty old Heckler I do so with a bike that won't make me regret it. Does anyone happen to know if a 5" travel fork would mate well to this frame for general trail riding?

Thanks,
John

John,

I did a prelimiary review of a 5.5 inch fork on a Med./Large frame here. http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=213739 Would not recommend going with any less travel than that though.