Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 77
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JMW503's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    292

    Mach 6 Demo Impression Thread

    Pivot has them on their demo fleet and some folks have been lucky enough to try 'em out.

    Here's my first thoughts after an hour ride at Sandy Ridge in Oregon.

    1. Very stiff frame, but that's what I expected
    2. Bike climbs very well; again, it's what I expected
    3. Switchbacks - no difference from my 5.7c, which is a good thing
    4. Pops off of lips and I was pleasantly surprised about how flickable it was.
    5. Rolls fast (duh) and the Float fork and Float X shock eat up the small, medium, and large stuff.
    6. Powers through rock gardens.
    7. The bike loves berms and is a rail machine
    8. 27.5 - I noticed the wheel size, as it felt a bit larger. But remember, I only had the bike for an hour and I was noticing it less towards the end. Pretty sure I wouldn't notice it at all after a proper ride.
    9. How the bike looks - it's more even more gorgeous in person.

    Over-all, a pretty awesome bike. However, it wasn't life changing awesome for me. Now, to be fair, I have a really dialed 5.7c built out for Enduro/AM and the difference was not great enough for me to commit to another purchase anytime soon. Like Ken said, the Mach 6 rides like a 'roided out 5.7c which is a great description and I definitely like the additional 10 mm's. So, when time for the next bike, the Mach 6 is the leading candidate.

    I always do custom builds, so since I had a chance to ride a spec version, I thought I'd share a few critical comments regarding the build, Yes, I get that Pivot needs to be cost effective and their spec builds are for the everyone, not for a single individual, so consider these just my opinion for those considering just getting a spec build.

    1. BB height - yep, its low and I had a number of peddle strikes. Me thinks 13.6 is too low for a bike that has 30% sag. Easy solve - I'd just build with a 160 mm fork (Pike) which will raise it to about 13.85 ish and shouldn't effect the rake.

    2. Bars aren't wide enough - it's an enduro race bike and 740 is too narrow. While I run my bars at 770, me thinks spec'ing with 760's makes WAY more sense. Folks can always cut them if desired.

    3. XT build 38 ring is absolutely the WRONG choice for a 27.5 bike designed for enduro. A custom 34/26 or 34/24 makes more sense, since the bike is not an epic XC rig, but needs to get up the hill quick, spin fast to hit the jumps, and blast out of turns. With the bigger wheels, it just felt like a 40 tooth ring on a 26er. Sure I could peddle it, but just out of place for the Mach 6 IMO.

    4. Kenda tires - Sigh, how I hate Kenda tires. The Nevegal up front was average, but really only because I was dialing it down, since I didn't want to damage the bike. The Honey Badgers are just plain lame. No traction and mediocre grab in turns. Again easy solve , with my bias towards Trail Kings and High Roller II's

    5. Grips - toss them

    There you have it. Just some quick impressions after an hour demo ride. Great bike that should be bought if one is in the market. Anyone else demo'd it, please post your comments so folks can get some different insights and impressions
    Last edited by JMW503; 08-04-2013 at 10:32 PM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    66
    Here's another perspective coming from a 29er.

    Was also at Sandy Ridge today. I came mainly to check out the Yeti SB95c, but was fairly underwhelmed. Rode the Mach429c which was nice and predictable. Then I hopped on the Mach 6 and it was just awesome.

    I'm short, 5'6"... intermediate+ rider. Coming from a 29er hardtail I'm looking for a trail bike (not really enduro) but I have to seriously consider the Mach 6 now. 27.5" wheels felt a little smaller for sure, but I didn't notice a huge decrease in "roll-over" effect. Bike was light and playful and pretty squishy but seemed to climb surprisingly well, even out of the saddle. Coming from a 71 degree HA on my hardtail, I didn't think the 66 deg HA felt exceedingly slack. It just felt right.

    First time on the KS Lev, which was nice and smooth. Disappointed it's an additional upgrade.

    Also had a few pedal strikes.

    I was paying more attention to the wheel size, honestly, but I was really impressed by the bike.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Foxbat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    177
    I came out too, specifically to ride the Mach 6. I've been demoing a bunch of bikes recently looking for the "perfect" trail bike. It doesn't exist but I happily chase that unicorn. Is the Mach 6 it? Here are my thoughts:

    Mach 6 in general:

    Descending: Snappy and speedy. Rewards pumping rollers and popping over obstacles. This bike likes to manual and jump. A side effect of this was at first, the rear shock felt like it had been setup too stiff with square edge hits feeling a little rough. As I picked up speed, the suspension felt much smoother. 150mm of travel on the 650B wheel really gives you a lot of leeway hitting obstacles fast. I had a couple of pedal strikes as well but I think the advantage to cornering the low BB provides is worth it. This bike rewards an aggressive rider.

    Climbing: Climbed well both in and out of the saddle. DW-Link bikes are climbers and this was no different. I kept both the fork and shock in descend mode and the bike was still very efficient. It was particularly responsive pedaling hard out of the saddle due to the anti-squat behavior of the DW-Link.

    Fit and Finish: I was very impressed with the fit and finish. The suspension pivot hardware was well thought out and clean. No random looking bolts and washers. The frame guards on the downtube and drive side chainstay were nicely integrated with the frame. Bike designers today should not force the rider to devise protection from chain-slap or rocks. Cable routing was clean and I liked the custom cable clamps. I do wish that the rear derailleur cable used a full length housing rather than the exposed cable on the rear triangle. The blue and matte carbon finishes were impeccable.

    650B: What size of wheel does this bike have? 650B doesn't feel all that different than 26" to me like 29" does. I don't understand the Internet jihad between the wheel size camps. This was a fun bike independent of wheel size.

    Sizing:

    I rode both a medium and large as I wanted to compare them side-by-side under real trail conditions. I'm 5'9", 31" inseam, 160lbs for reference.

    Medium: Playful and flickable. With a short stem slammed all the way down to the headset, it felt aggressive and well balanced. It felt nimble and handled the tighter switchbacks at Sandy well. I think the slack head angle is nicely offset by the low BB and short chainstays. I thought this bike would be too small but it felt just right.

    Large: More stable but less playful. Even with the shortest stem swapped onto the bike, it felt a little long and tall. I could easily carry more speed over rocks and roots without much effort but it took more work to weave through obstacles. It was still very poppy and would jump without much effort. I thought this bike was the right size but at Sandy but afterwards I feel like playfulness and flickability trumps speed.

    Competitors:

    Santa Cruz Bronson (size medium tested): I rode this the week before at the Sandy Ridge demo. Descending, the VPP suspension is a little more plush, riding deeper into the mid-stroke of the shock. The trade off is that it is not nearly as playful and poppy. This contributes to a feeling of the Pivot accelerating better and carrying speed with less effort. Climbing was very good despite just leaving the shock and fork in descend mode.

    Ibis Mojo HD 160 (size large tested): I just didn't connect with this bike. Descending felt off. Despite good geometry numbers on paper, it felt tall and skittish descending. I had the bike for a couple of days and tried different suspension settings with little luck. Like the Mach, the bike is poppy but cornering seemed like a weakness. Climbing, the two bikes are almost equal. The bike snaps forward under hard pedaling and there is little wasted effort.

    Build Kits:

    I agree with the previous comments about the front chainrings equipped. Just changing the big ring to a slightly smaller size would help. Also, I think they should be spec'ed with shorter stems. Coming from a DH background, a long stem just feels strange and I haven't noticed much determent to climbing with a short stem.

    Overall, the Mach 6 is a great enduro/trail/am bike. It feels well balanced between responsiveness and stability while being nicely executed. Well done Pivot.

  4. #4
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,357

    Re: Mach 6 Demo Impression Thread

    Awesome reviews guys, lots to digest here. thanks for all the great write ups, +reps!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,529
    I'd like to see some frame and build weights.
    We Ride In God's Country!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    169
    @JMW503 Thank you great review. Looks like you prefer similar style of riding and your bike is set up similar to mine. So couple more questions on Mach 6

    Tech Climbing compared to AM build 5.7 ? Which one would you say is better? ( I only compared it to firebird 27.5 and my 5.7 climbs better on tech and smooth climbs)

    Square edge hang ups: how is 6 handling that compared to 5.7 and Firebird? ( that 's where firebird 27.5 had an edge on my 5.7 based on my test ride)

    Is BB really that much lower vs 5.7?

    Overall feel? does it feel as snappy and fast as 5.7 ( that's where Firebird lost me, was sluggish compared to 5.7 on the trail)

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    49

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,228
    Damn I want that Al Mach 6! Thing looks beastly! It's got a real industrial meanness look to it. I would love to rip around on that thing. I can understand one of the employees wanting to buy it.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JMW503's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    292
    For those of you interested in a new AM/Enduro rig, you really do want to put the Mach 6 at the top of your list. Per my post above, it wasn't a big enough difference maker from my 5.7c AM build to justify another multi thousand dollar purchase anytime soon. HOWEVER, had this bike been available in March 2012 when I got my 5.7C, I would have purchased the Mach 6 instead. While it's an evolutionary improvement from the 5.7c (vs revolutionary), those evolutionary points are important ones for me (HA, 10 mm more travel, ISCG 5, Enduro/AM geo, lower BB starting point).

    Ok, Liyam, now to answer your questions:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilyam3 View Post
    Tech Climbing compared to AM build 5.7 ? Which one would you say is better? ( I only compared it to firebird 27.5 and my 5.7 climbs better on tech and smooth climbs)
    Overall, both are comparable. My rig is 2.5 lbs lighter, has a Trail King on the back wheel, and I have a 36 ring up front, so yesterday it climbed better. But that is down to set up. With the same build, I'd say they are even.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilyam3 View Post
    Square edge hang ups: how is 6 handling that compared to 5.7 and Firebird? ( that 's where firebird 27.5 had an edge on my 5.7 based on my test ride)
    Haven't ridden the FB 27.5, but the Mach 6 was better than the 5.7c on square edge as I'd expect from a 27.5 wheeled bike, but again, more in an evolutionary way. Just a bit smoother and tighter than it's 26" cousin, but not monster truck like a 29er.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilyam3 View Post
    Is BB really that much lower vs 5.7?
    About 15 mm lower than a 5.7c with a 32 150mm fork, ~25mm with a 34 150mm. Also factor in the Float X (linear stroke) vs an RP23 (progressive stroke). BB height is personal IMO. My happy place on a DW Link bike is between 13.7 and 13.9 with the pedals I use (DX's M647's) and riding style. Yes I had pedal strikes yesterday, but I'd probably adapt if I had a 150mm up front. Just easier for me to build it with a 160mm and call it good. Key here is the pedals struck, the BB didn't hit anything which is far more important (this is a real issue with the Intense Carbine 26 inch which they solved with the Carbine 27.5. A better bike than the Bronson IMO).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilyam3 View Post
    Overall feel? does it feel as snappy and fast as 5.7 ( that's where Firebird lost me, was sluggish compared to 5.7 on the trail)
    As snappy as the 5.7c but faster due to the larger wheel size.

    One last point, get the Float X option as it's worth the extra money. It's smother than the Float and since it has a separate reservoir, the oil stays cools, which is a HUGE difference maker on the big descents. The Float is a great trail shock and a good enduro shcok while the Float X is a much better enduro shock. Just a much better over-all experience. That said, I'd just get the frame and mount a Cane Creek DB Air 2 to go for complete nirvana which is what is going onto my 5.7c next month.
    Last edited by JMW503; 08-06-2013 at 05:39 PM.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Magilla_Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    253
    I almost pulled the trigger on a 5.7c a few months ago to replace my 2009 Mach 5. Looking at the above, I'm glad I waited! Trying to work out which unnecessary organs will fetch the best price, but the Mach 6 will be mine!

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,529
    So thee only difference between these two builds on the Mach 6 is the XTR vs. XX1? Did I read right? There's more that a pound difference? 27lbs 5oz for a 6" travel bike? Really? Hmm. Hard to believe...
    We Ride In God's Country!

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JMW503's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    292
    The weight difference between XX1 and XTR groupsets is closer to 300 grams +/-. The other 100 grams is probably down to the two bikes having different brands of inner tubes, with the XX1 build having the lighter tubes. So a 1 lb. difference seems completely reasonable.

    Regarding 6 inch bikes with 27 - 28 lb build weights - not at all insulting you - but I'm honestly surprised that you are surprised. Manufacturers have released a ton of new carbon wonder bikes as of late, with claimed weights from 27-28.5 lbs (e.g. Scott Genius 700 LT). That's pretty much the baseline for carbon 6 inch bikes now days. Just as a point of reference, my 5.7c AM build (XTR, TALAS, 34 160mm (reduced to 150mm), ENVE bars and wheels, tubeless with tires in ~850 gram range) weighs in at 27.8 lbs WITH a KS LEV dropper and DX 670 pedals. It's under 27 lbs when I run with XTR pedals and lighter tires (e.g. X Kings for summer hardback long haul rides). Any bike with frame weights in the 5.5 to 6.5 lb. range can easily be built up to weigh in between 27-29 lbs with pedals, dropper, and ALU wheels. Of course, mount 3 lb. DH tires and all bets are off.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,266
    Realistically 30lbs and change is closer to truth for a six incher! and yes a carbon frame,that is perfectly acceptable for a bike worthy and built with durable dependable components and tires apropos for it's intended purpose,the cost to weight savings ratio is hardly worth the expense which on any given day is meaningless for your average rider unless you have deep pockets and want to be the lightest kid on the block! IMO 30lbs or so is a pretty damn good number for the kind of usage I put one through,these six inch multi taskers
    are the work horse of Mtn biking and bring the most bang for your buck if you build one with longevity and durability in mind!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JMW503's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by techfersure View Post
    Realistically 30lbs and change is closer to truth for a six incher! and yes a carbon frame,that is perfectly acceptable for a bike worthy and built with durable dependable components and tires apropos for it's intended purpose,the cost to weight savings ratio is hardly worth the expense which on any given day is meaningless for your average rider unless you have deep pockets and want to be the lightest kid on the block! IMO 30lbs or so is a pretty damn good number for the kind of usage I put one through,these six inch multi taskers
    are the work horse of Mtn biking and bring the most bang for your buck if you build one with longevity and durability in mind!
    :^) The weights I stated are relative to carbon 6 inch bikes. Even with an XT or XO build and ALU wheels, the Mach 6 would still be low to mid 29 ib builds with pedals and a dropper which is pretty amazing compared to just a few years ago.

    This sub-discussion in the thread is not about the relative merits of how one builds a bike and what is "good enough" for the average rider. Rather, myitch was stating skepticism regarding the Mach 6 weights posted by Bike Rumor and that Carbon 6 inch bikes can come in at 27.5. Yes, due to the wonders of current engineering, they can, but it'll be a hi-end hit to one's wallet to get that weight. It's that individual's money, and how or why they choose to do a build like that is up to them. I personally can care less, as long as the gear wasn't stolen and the owner has fun riding.

    As for durability, I wouldn't assume ALU is more durable. I ride 2-4 times a week year round on some pretty gnarly terrain and my bike is doing just fine (this includes racing). As for my wheels, I've trued my rear wheel once since March of '12 and that was after breaking a spoke (f'ing branch/rock combo). I didn't actually go carbon for the weight, but for the strength and stiffness top to bottom.

    And as for weight, it's always interesting for me from a technical perspective, but certainly doesn't drive my decisions (my pedals are 1.25 lbs which is not exactly weight weenie land). As to whether it drives someone else's decisions is totally up to them; I have no opinion one way or another. The Mach 6 is a new bike, some folks care about weight, some don't. The point of the thread is to give everyone data from our demo experiences and any other info on the web to help folks out who won't have the opportunity to demo the bike due to time and geography, especially the folks outside the US.

  15. #15
    EMR
    EMR is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    51
    I was hoping someone could clarify some numbers for me. All numbers based off large frames. The mach 6 has a 24.36 tt, yet the reach is listed as 16.30. The 5.7 has a 24.20 tt and a 16.45 reach. As for the mach 4 tt is 24 and the reach is 16.66. And the firebird has a 24 tt and 15.72 reach. Curveball, the Bronson has a 24 tt yet a 16.9 reach. The 4, bird, and Bronson all have the same tt, yet different reach. The bird and Bronson both have the same tt as well as similar head angles, yet reach is over an inch in difference. Is this just the bb placement?

    Does the head angle play a factor in reach? I know reach is detemined by bb, so numbers can vary, but do you notice the shorter reach on the mach 6 compared to the 4 or 5.7? At 5'11", do you think a large is appropriate for the mach 6?

    I'm really interested in the 6 as I loved the firebird, but wasn't blown away by the 5.7... This was because I rode the firebird before the 5.7. Does the 6 pedal better than the firebird? I would love to demo, but the tour has come and gone on the east coast.

    I know numbers are just numbers and a demo is the way to go, but I really dig the 6 on paper, but can't get on the bike without paying the entrance fee.

  16. #16
    EMR
    EMR is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    51
    Oh yeah, anyone know the seat diameter for the 6? Wondering if the dropper I have would swap over.

  17. #17
    Appalachian Singletrack'n
    Reputation: Endomaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,421
    What you are missing is the effect seat tube angle has on the tt/reach relationship. A bronson has a 2 degree steeper seat tube angle than a FB or
    M6 thus pushing the tt forward and increasing reach.

    At my 31.125" bb to top of seat height a half degree of seat tube angle is about 1/3 inch of reach when comparing bikes.

    Quote Originally Posted by EMR View Post
    I was hoping someone could clarify some numbers for me. All numbers based off large frames. The mach 6 has a 24.36 tt, yet the reach is listed as 16.30. The 5.7 has a 24.20 tt and a 16.45 reach. As for the mach 4 tt is 24 and the reach is 16.66. And the firebird has a 24 tt and 15.72 reach. Curveball, the Bronson has a 24 tt yet a 16.9 reach. The 4, bird, and Bronson all have the same tt, yet different reach. The bird and Bronson both have the same tt as well as similar head angles, yet reach is over an inch in difference. Is this just the bb placement?

    Does the head angle play a factor in reach? I know reach is detemined by bb, so numbers can vary, but do you notice the shorter reach on the mach 6 compared to the 4 or 5.7? At 5'11", do you think a large is appropriate for the mach 6?

    I'm really interested in the 6 as I loved the firebird, but wasn't blown away by the 5.7... This was because I rode the firebird before the 5.7. Does the 6 pedal better than the firebird? I would love to demo, but the tour has come and gone on the east coast.

    I know numbers are just numbers and a demo is the way to go, but I really dig the 6 on paper, but can't get on the bike without paying the entrance fee.

  18. #18
    EMR
    EMR is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    51
    ^^^^makes sense, thanks for the info.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JMW503's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by EMR View Post
    Oh yeah, anyone know the seat diameter for the 6? Wondering if the dropper I have would swap over.
    All Pivot MTB's are 30.9. Just as an FYI, Pivot's "Tech" section on their site has a boat load of info. No Mach 6 specific torque specs yet ...

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Foxbat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by EMR View Post
    I was hoping someone could clarify some numbers for me. All numbers based off large frames. The mach 6 has a 24.36 tt, yet the reach is listed as 16.30. The 5.7 has a 24.20 tt and a 16.45 reach. As for the mach 4 tt is 24 and the reach is 16.66. And the firebird has a 24 tt and 15.72 reach. Curveball, the Bronson has a 24 tt yet a 16.9 reach. The 4, bird, and Bronson all have the same tt, yet different reach. The bird and Bronson both have the same tt as well as similar head angles, yet reach is over an inch in difference. Is this just the bb placement?

    Does the head angle play a factor in reach? I know reach is detemined by bb, so numbers can vary, but do you notice the shorter reach on the mach 6 compared to the 4 or 5.7? At 5'11", do you think a large is appropriate for the mach 6?

    I'm really interested in the 6 as I loved the firebird, but wasn't blown away by the 5.7... This was because I rode the firebird before the 5.7. Does the 6 pedal better than the firebird? I would love to demo, but the tour has come and gone on the east coast.

    I know numbers are just numbers and a demo is the way to go, but I really dig the 6 on paper, but can't get on the bike without paying the entrance fee.
    I rode both the medium and the large with a 50mm stem. At 5'11", I'd lean more towards a large with a similarly short stem. I'm afraid you'd find the medium too cramped in the cockpit.

    As for how the Mach 6 pedals? Pretty damn well. I didn't ride the Firebird or 5.7 but it was very close to the Ibis Ripley which is very well regarded for its pedaling quality.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Foxbat View Post
    Competitors:

    Santa Cruz Bronson (size medium tested): I rode this the week before at the Sandy Ridge demo. Descending, the VPP suspension is a little more plush, riding deeper into the mid-stroke of the shock. The trade off is that it is not nearly as playful and poppy. This contributes to a feeling of the Pivot accelerating better and carrying speed with less effort. Climbing was very good despite just leaving the shock and fork in descend mode.

    Ibis Mojo HD 160 (size large tested): I just didn't connect with this bike. Descending felt off. Despite good geometry numbers on paper, it felt tall and skittish descending. I had the bike for a couple of days and tried different suspension settings with little luck. Like the Mach, the bike is poppy but cornering seemed like a weakness. Climbing, the two bikes are almost equal. The bike snaps forward under hard pedaling and there is little wasted effort.

    Overall, the Mach 6 is a great enduro/trail/am bike. It feels well balanced between responsiveness and stability while being nicely executed. Well done Pivot.
    I am demoing a bronsonc in a few days. But based on what people having saying it seems I will like a Mach 6 more because its more playful. So I now I hold off again and wait for another demo.

  22. #22
    dog
    dog is offline
    sit! stay!
    Reputation: dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,126
    Quote Originally Posted by EMR View Post

    I would love to demo, but the tour has come and gone on the east coast.
    actually, you should check again... it seems there are 2 demo truck/trailers now... Not sure if the one on the east coast has any M6's though... i want to try a Phoenix, but may also try the M6 or FB with the big hoops... and a demo will be held conveniently close to me this month
    i need to develop my crashing skills...

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,228
    Interesting observations JMW. A couple comments...

    It's funny 740mm bars are considered narrow now. I run Dirty 30s on my downhill bike, but 725mm (28.5") RaceFace on my Mach 5.7 which I think is perfect for an all around bike like the Mach. I can still ride it as fast as I want and not worry about catching it on trees or rocks. The original bar that was specced on it was super narrow though, I binned that. I'm actually happy to see them spec a 740 as it's way wider than what they used to spec. I agree that larger bars can be cut down, but due to rise and sweep they can only be cut down so much. 740 with a short stem seems pretty spot on to me for a bike like this. I know it's an enduro bike, but it's not a downhill bike with a dual crown. It's still going to be maneuvered in some tight spaces/switchbacks.

    Regarding gearing, they were previously speccing these bikes with gearing that was much too hard for your average weekend warrior or someone who has these crazy steep climbs at altitude like we have in CO. I changed out my 2x10 gearing once SRAM came out with those new gear options. I'm running their 24/38 with bash up front and loving it with the 11-36 in the back. It's such a wide gear range with little overlap, plus I get my bashring. I have all the gearing I need to granny up some steep, technical climbs, but still bomb downhill without spinning out 95% of the time.

    Personally (other than tires) I think they nailed the spec, especially with tubeless ready rims across all models. I agree with you on the Kenda tires, not a fan, but they probably have a deal with Kenda so we won't see those changed anytime soon.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JMW503's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by BaeckerX1 View Post
    Interesting observations JMW. A couple comments...

    It's funny 740mm bars are considered narrow now. I run Dirty 30s on my downhill bike, but 725mm (28.5") RaceFace on my Mach 5.7 which I think is perfect for an all around bike like the Mach. I can still ride it as fast as I want and not worry about catching it on trees or rocks. The original bar that was specced on it was super narrow though, I binned that. I'm actually happy to see them spec a 740 as it's way wider than what they used to spec. I agree that larger bars can be cut down, but due to rise and sweep they can only be cut down so much. 740 with a short stem seems pretty spot on to me for a bike like this. I know it's an enduro bike, but it's not a downhill bike with a dual crown. It's still going to be maneuvered in some tight spaces/switchbacks.

    Regarding gearing, they were previously speccing these bikes with gearing that was much too hard for your average weekend warrior or someone who has these crazy steep climbs at altitude like we have in CO. I changed out my 2x10 gearing once SRAM came out with those new gear options. I'm running their 24/38 with bash up front and loving it with the 11-36 in the back. It's such a wide gear range with little overlap, plus I get my bashring. I have all the gearing I need to granny up some steep, technical climbs, but still bomb downhill without spinning out 95% of the time.

    Personally (other than tires) I think they nailed the spec, especially with tubeless ready rims across all models. I agree with you on the Kenda tires, not a fan, but they probably have a deal with Kenda so we won't see those changed anytime soon.
    Year, bars are personal, but again, this is marketed as an enduro race rig. I don't know a single serious racer that runs lower than 750 mm. Better to spec larger bars so folks can cut if desired vs. having to by another bar.

    Regarding the rings, remember, with the 27.5 wheels, a 38 ring runs the equivalent of a 40 ring on a 26 inch bike (ring/cog X wheel size) and it feels like it when pedaling. That's great for a XC or Trail, but not an enduro rig. Additionally, with a 34 or 36, one spends more time in 24, 28, rig and 32 cogs during climbs, especially during races. A 38 means more time on the 36 cog during quick bursts up steaps; not good for the chain and teeth. Just a matter of efficiency and options. Again, the bike is marketed as an enduro race bike and no way would one race with a 38 ring. Regardless, even the non racer will get far more enjoyment out of the bike with a 36 or 34. Pivot is simply spec'ing the stock Xt/XTR drive train; just saying it would be better if they went one step further and spec'd a more appropriate ring. Not a deal breaker and certainly not slamming Pivot.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by JMW503 View Post
    Year, bars are personal, but again, this is marketed as an enduro race rig. I don't know a single serious racer that runs lower than 750 mm. Better to spec larger bars so folks can cut if desired vs. having to by another bar.

    Regarding the rings, remember, with the 27.5 wheels, a 38 ring runs the equivalent of a 40 ring on a 26 inch bike (ring/cog X wheel size) and it feels like it when pedaling. That's great for a XC or Trail, but not an enduro rig. Additionally, with a 34 or 36, one spends more time in 24, 28, rig and 32 cogs during climbs, especially during races. A 38 means more time on the 36 cog during quick bursts up steaps; not good for the chain and teeth. Just a matter of efficiency and options. Again, the bike is marketed as an enduro race bike and no way would one race with a 38 ring. Regardless, even the non racer will get far more enjoyment out of the bike with a 36 or 34. Pivot is simply spec'ing the stock Xt/XTR drive train; just saying it would be better if they went one step further and spec'd a more appropriate ring. Not a deal breaker and certainly not slamming Pivot.
    I don't know. My friend does pretty well in enduro races and races for a local bike shop team. Not to take anything away from him, he's fast, he's talented, but I can beat him down the mountain on my 28.5" bars 95% of the time. I plan on racing enduro next year (been busy after purchasing new house). 740 was considered pretty damn wide even 2 years ago. I get what you're saying, but I think that's a gross exaggeration about no enduro racers running less than 150. I'm all for wide bars, but people are going overkill with the wide bar craze. Plenty I've seen racing on Easton Haven and Haven Carbon bars which are only 28 inches.

    I don't get what you're saying about 38 not being right for enduro racing. Downhill are the important timed parts and the Colorado enduro trails are steep and fast. I've ridden most of them. Even in 38/11 I've wished I could go faster and pedal without spinning out at times. Rarely yes, but it's happened.

    Anyway, just my thoughts. Both things are pretty easy to swap.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
    Last edited by BaeckerX1; 08-08-2013 at 09:53 PM.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,529
    Great discussion here fellas. This Mach 6 looks good on paper, with the geo and all that. As for the build weight, if that 27lbs 5oz weight is correct with all those carbon bits (including those bank-breaking wheels), that would put the frame at about 5lbs even, maybe less I'm guessing. But I'd still like to see a pic of a frame hanging on a scale. That's the tell-all truth.

    Funny, when I called Pivot, even they didn't know the frame weight. Huh?

    I'd also like to know how's the tire clearance back there. I mean less 17" CSs? Can we fit something big like 2.35 Hans Damphs in there?
    We Ride In God's Country!

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,266
    Can't imagine that at least a Hans Damph not fitting,I have used them on my Carbine and now have a Highroller II,2.4 clearance close but work fine even though just a tad longer then Mach 6.

    Here in Eastern Pa I run a 38-28 X 11-36 and spend most of my time in 38 I find it to be the most efficient ring once you get used to it,like a single speed you need to keep momentum and spin on climbs,on tech climbs you can torque and motor your way through with less rotation which equals more control and have found it to be less taxing
    overall on long rides.and yes it is great for DH and on long descents while your buds are trying to find another gear and even the 28 is great in it's self as a bail out when starting to feel the wear but still somewhat efficient in of it's self.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,228
    Ya know I was just thinking about something we sometimes forget as dudes. Pivot doesn't have any women's specific models, but many women ride Pivots. The Dirt Divas race team here in Colorado...they're partially sponsored and get some deals with Pivot, for example. Keeping that in mind, I can totally understand them not speccing a full 30+ inch bar. The amount some smaller ladies with narrower shoulders might have to cut it down would probably be impossible on a 30 incher due to rise, sweep, and bend.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JMW503's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by BaeckerX1 View Post
    . I get what you're saying, but I think that's a gross exaggeration about no enduro racers running less than 150. I'm all for wide bars, but people are going overkill with the wide bar craze. Plenty I've seen racing on Easton Haven and Haven Carbon bars which are only 28 inches.
    like I said bars are personal. Just as a clarification, I actually wrote I didn't know a serious racer (I.e. Pro & Cat 1). Sure, there are others that go smaller. Again, my point wasn't that all riders need wide bars or that only the cool people go wide. Just that for a bike marketed as an Enduro rig, IMO better to spec wider bars and let folks cut them down if desired.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HighTitan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    727
    Give me a few days and Ill get some helmet cam footage of the Mach6!
    I like to ride bikes fast.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    486
    I think I'll wait for a carbon Firebird 27.5 or a long travel 29er that I hope come into existence one day soon. C'mon Pivot, you can do it.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: elsinore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    457

    Mach 6 Demo Impression Thread

    Really interested to hear more about this rig as details come out. The geo numbers look almost perfect, if anyone has a frame weight id be interested to hear where it sits. I'm guessing it will be comparable to the Bronson, like 5.5 lbs or so?
    For the folks who have ridden this frame, how is the bigger hit-ability of the Mach6? I've been on a Mojo HD for the past few seasons and one of my gripes with the frame has been constant bottoming issues when pushed hard (while running 30%sag) tuning the rp23 seemed to have little effect. I realize this is no freeride bike, but would be interested to hear how hard it can be pushed. I never really fell in love with the HD's descending performance coming from a Nomad. I'd think that with the short stays and long wheelbase (compared to the HD) of the Mach6 and slacker HA, it will be a pretty confidence inspiring in the steep chunky stuff.
    Anyone know if this frame is available now?

    Gracias.

  33. #33
    ridin dirty
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    15
    To the demo'ers, did the 150mm fork feel like a good match to the rear travel? I'm sure Cocalis and Co. put a lot of thought into running the 150 but interested in the TALAS 160 to drop the travel for steep, tech climbing purposes. Using a 160 would also theoretically slacken the large to a 65.75 HA. Thoughts on if the TALAS would even be needed...

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JMW503's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by elsinore View Post
    Really interested to hear more about this rig as details come out. The geo numbers look almost perfect, if anyone has a frame weight id be interested to hear where it sits. I'm guessing it will be comparable to the Bronson, like 5.5 lbs or so?
    For the folks who have ridden this frame, how is the bigger hit-ability of the Mach6? I've been on a Mojo HD for the past few seasons and one of my gripes with the frame has been constant bottoming issues when pushed hard (while running 30%sag) tuning the rp23 seemed to have little effect. I realize this is no freeride bike, but would be interested to hear how hard it can be pushed. I never really fell in love with the HD's descending performance coming from a Nomad. I'd think that with the short stays and long wheelbase (compared to the HD) of the Mach6 and slacker HA, it will be a pretty confidence inspiring in the steep chunky stuff.
    Anyone know if this frame is available now?

    Gracias.
    Available in Sept/Oct, but you can order now. I didn't really open up the Mach 6 and take on bigger drops and jumps because it wasn't my bike, but I'm sure it would be fine. I thought it descended better than the HD at higher speeds and ate up the chunder. The Float X helped, but the design is also better than the HD in terms of stiffness etc. I like Ibis, but Pivot makes better bikes.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,399
    Quote Originally Posted by elsinore View Post
    Really interested to hear more about this rig as details come out. The geo numbers look almost perfect, if anyone has a frame weight id be interested to hear where it sits. I'm guessing it will be comparable to the Bronson, like 5.5 lbs or so?
    For the folks who have ridden this frame, how is the bigger hit-ability of the Mach6? I've been on a Mojo HD for the past few seasons and one of my gripes with the frame has been constant bottoming issues when pushed hard (while running 30%sag) tuning the rp23 seemed to have little effect. I realize this is no freeride bike, but would be interested to hear how hard it can be pushed. I never really fell in love with the HD's descending performance coming from a Nomad. I'd think that with the short stays and long wheelbase (compared to the HD) of the Mach6 and slacker HA, it will be a pretty confidence inspiring in the steep chunky stuff.
    Anyone know if this frame is available now?

    Gracias.
    Frame kits are starting to trickle in. Frames will be available in October according to reports.

    Your HD bottoming is an RP23 issue and not a design problem. Easily solved by running a Monarch Plus or other similar shock. I run 35% sag on my HD and only knock the ring off with 5'+ drops. Still super plush as well.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JMW503's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by fateddy View Post
    To the demo'ers, did the 150mm fork feel like a good match to the rear travel? I'm sure Cocalis and Co. put a lot of thought into running the 150 but interested in the TALAS 160 to drop the travel for steep, tech climbing purposes. Using a 160 would also theoretically slacken the large to a 65.75 HA. Thoughts on if the TALAS would even be needed...
    TALAS or Pike Dual Position need is really based on where and how you ride and if this is a single quiver bike. I thought it climbed just fine with the Float and wandered less than a 5.7c at 150mm. For more tech and steep climbs, dropping it would be nice, but I could say that about most bikes. Really a rider preference.

    As for 160mm, I'd imaging it'll ride quite well since it's only a 10mm change for either fox or RS. BB will rise as well. Again, user pref. Also, with the TALAS you can always get the 160mm and then swap out the Talas Lower Assembly Cartridge from the 160 mm/120 mm to the 150 mm/120 mm later if you don't like the ride. Not sure if you can do the same with the Pike.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,266
    I'm thinking if not happy with the 150mm Fox and possible pedal hits will buy a 160mm air spring cartridge,never found it necessary to have travel assist,when I did never used it.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: elsinore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    457

    Mach 6 Demo Impression Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    Frame kits are starting to trickle in. Frames will be available in October according to reports.

    Your HD bottoming is an RP23 issue and not a design problem. Easily solved by running a Monarch Plus or other similar shock. I run 35% sag on my HD and only knock the ring off with 5'+ drops. Still super plush as well.
    Thanks for the info on availability. I never was able to find a balance setting the HD up for descending though. The Nomad was simple. Almost any air shock could be run at 30% with bottomless feeling while I went through 4 different shocks on the HD. Never tried the Monarch but gave up after trying 4 different shocks, so I just never really loved the HD, felt like it was a 6" bike for xc folks. I don't want to knock the o- ring off on 5-10 footers if i don't have to.. Some of that had to do with its short wheelbase, I thought it just made for a nervous bike when riding gnar. Not that I feel it was a bad bike by any means, it was fantastic.

    Anyway, looks like the Mach6 is everything I wanted the HD to be! We will see I guess.
    Thanks again.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    78
    Sounds like it's the DW link that you don't like. I road the Nomad for years.. completely different feel from my HD. Not bad but just different. But for all round riding nothing beats the DW link. My opinion of course.
    Try the enduro..it descends like a dh bike. Only problem is it climbs like a pig.
    Good luck..

  40. #40
    dog
    dog is offline
    sit! stay!
    Reputation: dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,126
    I got to ride the M6 and the M5.7 (carbons) back to back today. Here are my impressions. For the record, I do not demo a lot of bikes and am not an expert at reviewing them either. I just know what I like... even if I cannot explain why.

    My riding - 95% hilly 5% mountainy

    I ride trails, but I like to ride the fun stunts and optional lines... I rode a 29er once and hated it, so I was apprehensive about the whole 27.5" wheel thing. I have a firebird and an M4X.

    The M6 had 2014 Fox suspension all around. I rode mostly in the D mode, but tried the others as well... I kept having to remind myself I was on larger wheels, which to me was a good thing. I did purposely hit a large sharp edge or two to experience the whole moster truck thing. It was noticeable. It definitely felt more trail bikish compared to my firebird (duh). I really really like the suspension. I took it over a small gap (9-10 ft to flatish) and it felt perfectly intuitive and balanced in the air and landing. I used all the travel, but it did not feel like it had. I had the seat post all the way in and dropped. I pushed the ring off and the rear tire buzzed the seat. It cornered well, it pedaled well up and along. It really felt very nice. I eve took it on the "advanced" dirt jump line at the park where the demo was happening. Let's just say I ended up casing each jump, but just barely. I would have to get better at dirt jumps to use it for that .

    If 99% of my riding consisted of long hours on the trail, long, technical, steep climbs and decents, lots of drops and run of trail jumps, etc. and I only wanted one bike, this would be it. I was very impressed. However, based on my riding preferences, I am holding out for the carbon firebird...

    The 5.7 just felt less lively to me. I have no explanation for that, but the 5.7 did have the 2013 Fox suspension on it. I was more worn out when i rode it, too. I kept the fork set to T. It is a nice bike, but I was more impressed with the M6. Not sure if my preference was related to the new DW suspension, the bigger wheels, or the 2013 versus 2014 Fox equipment. My gut is the I liked the new DW suspension and Fox bits.

    All in all I was mostly glad that I did not hate the bigger wheels.
    i need to develop my crashing skills...

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BikeThreads's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    59
    That was a great review dog, and now I'm even happier that I put a deposit on one earlier in the week

  42. #42
    Kiwi that Flew
    Reputation: deanopatoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    733

    Mach 6 Demo Impression Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by dog View Post
    I got to ride the M6 and the M5.7 (carbons) back to back today. Here are my impressions. For the record, I do not demo a lot of bikes and am not an expert at reviewing them either. I just know what I like... even if I cannot explain why.

    All in all I was mostly glad that I did not hate the bigger wheels.
    Great review Dog, thanks for posting.

    deano

  43. #43
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4,265
    Tuning in. On paper the M6 looks good enough to make the short list for 2014.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Macharza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    49
    Thanks for a good review. Already ordered mine /w Pike forks and Fox Float X

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    670
    Were you able to order the frame set with a Pike? I was told I could only order a frame set with Fox all the way around.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,266
    I too thought you could only do frame with Fox and I too was looking at the Pike,but when I enquired about the possibility of going with the a 160mm because of low BB I could change to a 160mm but it would not come with as a frame option but would exchange for a 200.00 additional cost through my shop and or for the Pike,for another 200.00 I will stick with the Fox 150mm and see how it works for BB height if not can order a 160mm air cartridge for it and really I think Fox may get it right this year and am willing to give it a chance plus the frame kit price was very generous.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    670
    Ah, that makes sense. I didn't want the Fox and I didn't want to play around with losing money buying things I didn't want and then trying to resell, so I went with the frame only. I will get the Pike or Sweep. Hard to ignore $400 in savings when comparing 2 forks that look very close to each other in performance. Plus, the Sweep will match the KS LEV Integra post better!

    Keep the reviews coming, very excited to confirm my findings and purchase decision. Can't wait to start my build.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    51
    Does anyone have any info on what the Mach 6's seat tube diameter is? I couldn't seem to find any info after a quick internet search.

  49. #49
    I am Doctor Remulak
    Reputation: AZ Mikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,406
    Quote Originally Posted by anwleung View Post
    Does anyone have any info on what the Mach 6's seat tube diameter is? I couldn't seem to find any info after a quick internet search.
    From the FAQ

    What size seatpost do you use?

    All Pivot frames use a 30.9 seatpost with a 34.9 seatpost clamp.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,529
    Where are you boys ordering your frames from? I'm assuming you can order just frame and rear shock?
    We Ride In God's Country!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Demo thread
    By twouareks in forum Specialized
    Replies: 1129
    Last Post: 07-23-2014, 05:58 PM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-13-2014, 10:30 PM
  3. Looking for an xsmall Pivot Mach 5.7 to demo
    By blueducky in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-04-2013, 12:21 AM
  4. Another Mach 5.7 Rear Shock Thread and Thoughts
    By Andrew Evteev in forum Pivot Cycles
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-20-2011, 08:58 AM
  5. Replies: 121
    Last Post: 05-21-2011, 02:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •