Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 232
  1. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Joel RW View Post
    check out this thread, Mach 6 Project bike
    thanks Joel

    have u got anymore shoots with you'res Rail50 wheels ??

    thanks for youre answer

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zjchaser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    417
    I'm surprised to see so many 160mm pikes. Is the A-C measurement on the pike not longer than the float 34 for both the 150 and 160 versions? What sort of HA are you ending up with on the 160mm pike setups?
    AJ

  3. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joel RW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by FREDMIT View Post
    thanks Joel

    have u got anymore shoots with you'res Rail50 wheels ??

    thanks for youre answer
    Mach 6 Review Thread-img_0068.jpg
    Pivot mach 6!

  4. #104
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,119
    Quote Originally Posted by zjchaser View Post
    I'm surprised to see so many 160mm pikes. Is the A-C measurement on the pike not longer than the float 34 for both the 150 and 160 versions? What sort of HA are you ending up with on the 160mm pike setups?
    The most accurate numbers I've come up with is a 160 Pike's A2C is 7mm taller than a Fox 34's 150.

    Anyone get anything different?

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7
    The Fox 34 160 measure 540 mm almost so much than the 150

    pike 160 measure 550 mm

    thank you Joel for your photo ....you ve got a very nice machine

  6. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,649
    MikerJ is correct, the Fox 34 150 275 is 544 A2C while the Pike 160 is 552 A2C. Travel for travel the Pike is 2 mm shorter A2C than Fox. Should make a difference of about 1/3 degree in the HA. Not that significant, but noticeable to some.

  7. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: davemk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    415
    Those are the listed A2C lengths, they all can vary up to +/-5mm. If you run the the same sag % (25-30%) then the sagged A2C difference is only about 5mm total. Maybe some people are more sensitive to geo changes than me, but I can't feel a 1/4 degree HA change when I ride. You can get a bigger HA change by putting a beefier tire upfront on your bike.

  8. #108
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,119
    Quote Originally Posted by davemk View Post
    Those are the listed A2C lengths, they all can vary up to +/-5mm. If you run the the same sag % (25-30%) then the sagged A2C difference is only about 5mm total. Maybe some people are more sensitive to geo changes than me, but I can't feel a 1/4 degree HA change when I ride. You can get a bigger HA change by putting a beefier tire upfront on your bike.

    Yep. With that possibility of a +/- 5mm on the A2C, and if the fork went to the plus side on top of a 160mm Pike that additional +5 mm on the A2C could throw things off.

    On a bike that is plenty slack I would not go the 160mm. I like a lower BB and every time I've tried a longer-than-spec'd fork on a frame I could feel the difference and did not like the handling.

    10mm of travel on top of 150mm probably won't make that much difference to justify the gamble for me.

  9. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    846
    This interesting and all that but damn...just ride your bike! in the end you will adapt and just becomes meaningless techno babble!

  10. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    64
    yeah, RIDE the bike. agreed.

  11. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Macharza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by techfersure View Post
    This interesting and all that but damn...just ride your bike! in the end you will adapt and just becomes meaningless techno babble!
    +1 You're so right

  12. #112
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,119
    Quote Originally Posted by techfersure View Post
    This interesting and all that but damn...just ride your bike! in the end you will adapt and just becomes meaningless techno babble!
    Gotta disagree. MTBR banter is a surrogate for riding, albeit a poor one, when we are buried under feet of slush.

    When a real winter gets here, will post far less, as we'll be on skis.

  13. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    846
    Gottcha! love bike tech,but when debating over a few millimeters here a few degrees there when most riders will never ever feel the difference and even pros like Neko Mulally who I have the pleasure of riding with and a friend chuckles at these minor differences riders debate over in setup and geometry..." just ride your bike " is a quote he to is fond of too.

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,649
    Quote Originally Posted by techfersure View Post
    This interesting and all that but damn...just ride your bike! in the end you will adapt and just becomes meaningless techno babble!
    Would love to if it would ever get here!!!

  15. #115
    Ambi-Turner
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    117
    I've got 85 miles and over 13k of vertical on the bike in the first five rides.
    All familiar trails with a great mix of flow, chunk, XC and steeps. I was riding a Carbine 275 for eight months before (Superfly 100 and Niner Rip9 before that).

    This bike is sublime. It does everything better than the Intense. Like other reviews have said, the climbing is very surprising and capable. Gobs of traction and super efficient, even when standing. I ride flats and can make climbs on this the Intense couldn't do. When it gets sandy, Mach 6 still grips (with same tire in the rear)

    Cornering and downhill is where this bike simply flies. My brain has a hard time keeping up with the speed it's so solid and seems to "take off" down the hill. I was 5 seconds quicker on a 2min descent on my first ride and not even pushing the bike The Fox shock is awesome. I was hesitant about it, but totally happy with it. I leave it in trail and will use "trail adjust" for climbs and descents.

    In the steeps, you can shift your weight back and let the rear end absorb everything and easily manual and bunny hop over sections. For cornering, the cockpit is just right to move a bit forward to weight the front wheel and carve away. Mind blowing!

    Bike does not feel slack at all and rips XC and tight switchbacks. I can't think of anything it dosen't do well, at least for trail riding.

    My bike was a X01 build with some pretty crappy components for this type of rig - long stem, skinny rims, skimpy rear tire, hideous saddle. The Fox fork is nowhere close to the Pike. I switched it out for a 150 Pike. Also, 175 cranks seem long for medium bike with a low BB. I will probably switch them for 170mm. Even with changing all of this stuff, it was still better to buy a complete bike than build a frame.

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Throttlemire View Post
    I've got 85 miles and over 13k of vertical on the bike in the first five rides.
    All familiar trails with a great mix of flow, chunk, XC and steeps. I was riding a Carbine 275 for eight months before (Superfly 100 and Niner Rip9 before that).

    This bike is sublime. It does everything better than the Intense. Like other reviews have said, the climbing is very surprising and capable. Gobs of traction and super efficient, even when standing. I ride flats and can make climbs on this the Intense couldn't do. When it gets sandy, Mach 6 still grips (with same tire in the rear)

    Cornering and downhill is where this bike simply flies. My brain has a hard time keeping up with the speed it's so solid and seems to "take off" down the hill. I was 5 seconds quicker on a 2min descent on my first ride and not even pushing the bike The Fox shock is awesome. I was hesitant about it, but totally happy with it. I leave it in trail and will use "trail adjust" for climbs and descents.

    In the steeps, you can shift your weight back and let the rear end absorb everything and easily manual and bunny hop over sections. For cornering, the cockpit is just right to move a bit forward to weight the front wheel and carve away. Mind blowing!

    Bike does not feel slack at all and rips XC and tight switchbacks. I can't think of anything it dosen't do well, at least for trail riding.

    My bike was a X01 build with some pretty crappy components for this type of rig - long stem, skinny rims, skimpy rear tire, hideous saddle. The Fox fork is nowhere close to the Pike. I switched it out for a 150 Pike. Also, 175 cranks seem long for medium bike with a low BB. I will probably switch them for 170mm. Even with changing all of this stuff, it was still better to buy a complete bike than build a frame.
    Good info since the main concern of most (me included) is the bike will be too slack for normal trail riding. I am tossed between the M6 and the Bronson. Have you ridden both bikes? I normally ride a Large frame but it seems the Pivots might run larger than most. If am 5-10. How tall are you? I like a 50mm stem and I am concerned the Medium will have too short of a top tube.

  17. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,269

    Re: Mach 6 Review Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by endoguru View Post
    Good info since the main concern of most (me included) is the bike will be too slack for normal trail riding. I am tossed between the M6 and the Bronson. Have you ridden both bikes? I normally ride a Large frame but it seems the Pivots might run larger than most. If am 5-10. How tall are you? I like a 50mm stem and I am concerned the Medium will have too short of a top tube.
    I found the Mach6 to be a great climber as well, especially considering its travel. It really did not feel like 66 degree HA. It also felt a bit lighter than its actual weight, which I contribute to DW link.

    I am 5'9" and the medium fit me just right. BTW, the reach on the M Mach6 is even lower than on SC Solo or Bronson...
    I ride a medium SC TRc and a TB, so I am used to short TT.
    I have ridden a M Bronson and M and L Solo. I think I am definitely between sizes on SC bikes, the M felt nice on DH, but it was a bit cramped climbing. The solo had a 50 or 60mm stem.
    If you decide for a Bronson, a large might be a better fit for you.
    With Mach, it gets a bit more complicated, since the TT is longer, but the reach is shorter. But the bike has a slacker ST, which might contribute to a better fit on M.
    Well, for me, I would definitely go with a medium on Mach, on Bronson or Solo it depends, but I might be more inclined to get a large.

  18. #118
    Ambi-Turner
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    117
    I decided to measure the head angle on the bike and an angle finder (from Lowe's) and the Clinometer iPhone app both are reading 69 degrees. I tested the clinometer against a level and it's spot on for level and 90 degrees, but shows 49 when level shows 45. I'm running a 150mm Pike. This might explain why it feels so good on the XC trails.

    I'm just under 5ft 9in. Mach6 medium feels perfect. My medium Carbine 275 felt a bit cramped with a 50mm stem. The longer top tube really lets you move forward and backward to weight and unweight the front wheel depending on the trail. I wouldn't say the frames run big, they just have a bit more stretched out top tube, but when you run a short stem the reach feels right and the bike is more stable. A lot of trail/am bikes are going this route (Norco, Kona, Giant).

  19. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Throttlemire View Post
    I decided to measure the head angle on the bike and an angle finder (from Lowe's) and the Clinometer iPhone app both are reading 69 degrees. I tested the clinometer against a level and it's spot on for level and 90 degrees, but shows 49 when level shows 45. I'm running a 150mm Pike. This might explain why it feels so good on the XC trails.
    It's hard to get an accurate HT angle measurement without the bike in a fixture. Being off by 2-3 deg wouldn't be hard. I can't see Pivot screwing up by 3 degrees from the design to the fabrication of the M6 and a 69 deg HT angle would be obvious as soon as you headed down anything steep.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  20. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,649
    Mine reads 65.6 with a 160 Pike which is dead on Pivots measurement.

  21. #121
    Ambi-Turner
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    It's hard to get an accurate HT angle measurement without the bike in a fixture. Being off by 2-3 deg wouldn't be hard. I can't see Pivot screwing up by 3 degrees from the design to the fabrication of the M6 and a 69 deg HT angle would be obvious as soon as you headed down anything steep.
    Yeah, the numbers don't seem to be accurate and it sure doesn't feel like a steep HA. How can I get an accurate head angle and seat angle measurement?

  22. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Throttlemire View Post
    Yeah, the numbers don't seem to be accurate and it sure doesn't feel like a steep HA. How can I get an accurate head angle and seat angle measurement?
    Accurate so I would trust it?

    A dedicated fixture that mounts the frame level and keeps the bike from moving. Not something anyone is going to have laying around and not likely worth building unless you need accurate HT angles on a regular basis.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  23. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,649
    Make sure your phone cast is not interfering and is completely flat on the side. Also make sure you are using the stanchion and not the lowers for the measurement.

  24. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    I found the Mach6 to be a great climber as well, especially considering its travel. It really did not feel like 66 degree HA. It also felt a bit lighter than its actual weight, which I contribute to DW link.

    I am 5'9" and the medium fit me just right. BTW, the reach on the M Mach6 is even lower than on SC Solo or Bronson...
    I ride a medium SC TRc and a TB, so I am used to short TT.
    I have ridden a M Bronson and M and L Solo. I think I am definitely between sizes on SC bikes, the M felt nice on DH, but it was a bit cramped climbing. The solo had a 50 or 60mm stem.
    If you decide for a Bronson, a large might be a better fit for you.
    With Mach, it gets a bit more complicated, since the TT is longer, but the reach is shorter. But the bike has a slacker ST, which might contribute to a better fit on M.
    Well, for me, I would definitely go with a medium on Mach, on Bronson or Solo it depends, but I might be more inclined to get a large.
    I ride a SC Blur TRc currently in a large frame. I am right at that point where I am in between sizes on many bikes. The SC bikes fit me fairly well in large frames but as you stated the Pivot TT is a little longer. What length stem are you running on the M6?

  25. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,269

    Re: Mach 6 Review Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by endoguru View Post
    I ride a SC Blur TRc currently in a large frame. I am right at that point where I am in between sizes on many bikes. The SC bikes fit me fairly well in large frames but as you stated the Pivot TT is a little longer. What length stem are you running on the M6?
    I had only 1 demo ride on the Mach6.. Not sure what size of stem was on it, whatever Pivot specs with the bike, I assume.

    Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2 Weeks Ago, 12:03 PM
  2. Mach 6 first test review on Flow Mag
    By techfersure in forum Pivot Cycles
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-18-2013, 08:46 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-04-2012, 07:13 PM
  4. 2012 Mach 5.7 review (long)
    By A girl from Seattle in forum Pivot Cycles
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 02-14-2012, 01:57 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-15-2011, 06:57 AM

Posting Permissions

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