Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 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
    144
    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
    1,706

    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
    2,476
    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
    110
    @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
    3

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,215
    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
    2,476
    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
    863
    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
    50
    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
    50
    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
    1,418
    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
    50
    ^^^^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
    144
    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
    46
    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
    1,103
    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
    2,215
    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
    2,215
    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

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 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
  •