Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 976
  1. #1
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched

    It's kind of a reverse mullet bike. Business in the back with 140mm travel and Rekon tire, party in the front with a Fox 36 160mm with Minion 2.6 tire.

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon trail bike - Mtbr.com

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-pivot_mach5_5-7515-900x600.jpg

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-pivot_mach5_5-7465-900x600.jpg

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-francis-8489-900x600.jpg

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-francis-8376-900x600.jpg

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-francis-8238-900x600.jpg

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon trail bike - Mtbr.com
    IPA will save America

  2. #2
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069
    IPA will save America

  3. #3
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,588
    Just reading the dealer release info - looks like a pretty cool ride... Been wondering if that was what was going on in Moab! Wonder how long the first shipment of these will last...? How did you like it on the chunky stuff FC?
    R.I.P. Corky 10/97-4/09
    Disclaimer: I sell and repair bikes for a living
    http://www.endlesscyclesonline.com

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MarinCRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    823
    Nothing particularly interesting or innovative. Pretty boring bike actually, it doesn't stand out among the competition at all.
    Sure, it probably rides great but so do all modern bikes, however the market on these is very saturated and I'm not sure if they're going to sell well, especially at these prices.

    I mean, over 3k for frame, complete bikes costing over 10k is insane when you have bikes like YT with top of the line specs for little over Pivot frameset price.

  5. #5
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,539
    I actually thought the bike was pretty interesting and attractive. I'm always curious about the constant use of YT as a counterpoint. I wonder how many people have actually ridden one before making that point. After checking the YT site over the course of a year, it appears they never have any stock (except small sizes) and I've never personally seen one on a trail.
    Just like a raindrop, I was born to fall.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    549
    Meh, not really seeing much difference from my Blade with 27.5, 2.6 Rekons on it. A hair diff in geo here and there, not enough to notice. A little lighter, but mine's 27.8 with pedals, so maybe not even half a pound. I'd rather have seen a 27.5 with a little less travel; they've gone all-in with big travel but IMO need a 120-130/130-140 bike with 27.5 wheels. But I guess they didn't ask me so there you have it.
    You can't buy happiness. But you can buy a bike. And that's pretty close.

  7. #7
    ZEN RIDER!
    Reputation: Mt.Biker E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    804
    fc how does it compare to the Calling?
    Life in every breath

  8. #8
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant View Post
    I actually thought the bike was pretty interesting and attractive. I'm always curious about the constant use of YT as a counterpoint. I wonder how many people have actually ridden one before making that point. After checking the YT site over the course of a year, it appears they never have any stock (except small sizes) and I've never personally seen one on a trail.
    I never seen a YT. Pivot's customer service, performance and stiffness are known factors to me. Reading between the lines of reviews for YT bikes, I had enough concerns to not consider them. A high end well finished carbon frame with the latest compression manufacturing processes is going to cost over 3k. I have Chinese rims and I know the company will most likely take care of me if there was an issue, but there would be a lot of down time. My Fox fork has some of the Kashima coating flaking off. No response from Fox when I inquired. It's hard for Fox to ignore a large reputable Pivot dealer.

  9. #9
    Say Car Ramrod!!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,728
    Pretty underwhelming bike. Would take a switchblade over this for sure.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I wish my grass was emo so it would cut itself...

  10. #10
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Mt.Biker E View Post
    fc how does it compare to the Calling?
    It's better than the Calling. Mach 5.5 frame is much lighter and tire clearance is massive. More travel all around too.

    They're both very fun pump track, rowdy trail bikes.

    The Calling feels lower to the ground is a tad more playful. It has a better rear shock too with that trunion mounted metric Rockshox. It is SO smooth and controlled.
    Last edited by fc; 05-18-2017 at 11:18 AM.
    IPA will save America

  11. #11
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069
    I'll have another article with a ride report releasing later today.
    IPA will save America

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    24
    Does anyone know if this will be at the dirt fest this weekend?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant View Post
    I wonder how many people have actually ridden one before making that point.
    My friend got a Jeffsy. Had no issues getting it [large frame]. Loves it and he's faster than ever on it. I'd have no hesitation buying YT if they had a bike that checked all my boxes. Build quality is on par with any other major brand and I like the parts spec more than a lot of complete bikes I've looked at.

    He had a problem with the Pike on his bike and YT got it sorted quickly for him.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,318
    Glad to see a reasonable STA on the bike. I could ride with without having to buy a setback dropper! I hope updates to the M6 follow a similar pattern and I might just get a new M6 when they come out.

    Bonus points for having room for a water bottle inside the frame.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  15. #15
    ZEN RIDER!
    Reputation: Mt.Biker E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    804
    I liked the blue on the Aluminum test bike. Black and purple bits not so keen on.
    Looking forward to the ride review.
    Life in every breath

  16. #16
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Glad to see a reasonable STA on the bike. I could ride with without having to buy a setback dropper! I hope updates to the M6 follow a similar pattern and I might just get a new M6 when they come out.

    Bonus points for having room for a water bottle inside the frame.
    Water bottle size is large on all sizes.

    they can all take a reservoir shock like an X2 or FloatX and still do a water bottle.
    IPA will save America

  17. #17
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Mt.Biker E View Post
    I liked the blue on the Aluminum test bike. Black and purple bits not so keen on.
    Looking forward to the ride review.
    I think Pivot has too many blue bikes so they're steering clear of that. Cocalis wants to bring an alloy, low-cost bike to market but very difficult to get the stiffness, weight numbers and still make money. So he'll do that for the Switchblade first and see how that process goes and how sales are.
    IPA will save America

  18. #18
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Wcslv View Post
    Does anyone know if this will be at the dirt fest this weekend?
    It will not be there.

    All their top dealers are flying to Moab right now to experience these 15 bikes in existence.

    But they said some units have been shipped to dealers already for sale.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,318
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    Water bottle size is large on all sizes.

    they can all take a reservoir shock like an X2 or FloatX and still do a water bottle.
    Perfect. Keep that feature on the new Mach 6 when it comes out Pivot. Keep the STA reasonable like this bike and a solid tire clearance in the rear and I'll update my current Mach 6 to the new version.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    343
    Picking mine up today. Curious how it will compare to my Sb5c.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    12
    Stunning looking bike..

    Wondering if Pivot gonna launch a new Mach 6 soon..But if someone wants more travel there's already the Firebird.

    Confused..

  22. #22
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069
    Tech conversation with Chris Cocalis.
    IPA will save America

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,318
    Quote Originally Posted by EV07 View Post
    Stunning looking bike..

    Wondering if Pivot gonna launch a new Mach 6 soon..But if someone wants more travel there's already the Firebird.

    Confused..
    Why are you confused? There is a lot of room between a 140mm bike and a 170mm bike for a Mach 6.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  24. #24
    GUIDANCE COUNSELOR
    Reputation: NoahColorado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,314
    Jonesing for another bike to compliment my Switchblade, 429sl, and Vault. Torn between this, Phoenix, and Les. Obviously all for different reasons.

    I'd kinda sworn off 27.5, but I did love the sprightliness of my M4. M5.5 seems like it could be a sweet "play" bike - you know, for whips and nay-nays. And those colors are hot!
    Last edited by NoahColorado; 05-18-2017 at 11:08 AM.
    NOAH SEARS
    MRP - Brand Manager
    Pivot Cycles - Team Rider

  25. #25
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Why are you confused? There is a lot of room between a 140mm bike and a 170mm bike for a Mach 6.
    Rear travel has some wiggle but it is getting tight in there because the front forks are very close.

    Switchblade - Fox 36 29er with 150mm
    Mach 5.5 - Fox 36 27.5 with 160mm
    Firebird - Fox 36 27.5 with 170mm

    Old Mach 6 - Fox 36 with 160mm

    Folks looking for the Mach 6? What is the ideal travel for you if a new one comes out?
    IPA will save America

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,318
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    Rear travel has some wiggle but it is getting tight in there because the front forks are very close.

    Switchblade - Fox 36 29er with 150mm
    Mach 5.5 - Fox 36 27.5 with 160mm
    Firebird - Fox 36 27.5 with 170mm

    Old Mach 6 - Fox 36 with 160mm

    Folks looking for the Mach 6? What is the ideal travel for you if a new one comes out?
    Focusing on the fork doesn't make sense. If they had a 160mm forked hardtail is that competing with a 5.5 or a Mach 6? No.

    Going from a 140mm rear travel bike to a 170mm rear travel bike is a huge jump.

    The existing 155mm travel or 160mm travel is a fine spot for the Mach 6 to be at. Long enough to tackle anything short of DH and pedal well enough for XC/trail use.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  27. #27
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,549
    Pivot is big enough now to have a bit of overlap so people can find the right fit for their local trails, and style. Choice is great.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Why are you confused? There is a lot of room between a 140mm bike and a 170mm bike for a Mach 6.
    As FC wrote,i'm saying this from a fork travel point of view (150 (SB)- 160 (5.5) - 170 (FB).

    But then again,from 140mm to 170mm rear there's a lot of room indeed..

    Truth is, i wanna pull the trigger on a 5.5 but if a new Mach 6 is right around the corner.. 150-155 rear seems ideal to be honest.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,232
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Perfect. Keep that feature on the new Mach 6 when it comes out Pivot. Keep the STA reasonable like this bike and a solid tire clearance in the rear and I'll update my current Mach 6 to the new version.
    Do you really think they need and will bring to market a 27.5 bike between the new 5.5 and firebird ? Given that the 5.5 is designed around a 160mm fork? I'd guess the new 5.5 will be just about as capable as a Mach 6. It's only giving up 15mm in the rear and what .25 head angle ?

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,318
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    Do you really think they need and will bring to market a 27.5 bike between the new 5.5 and firebird ? Given that the 5.5 is designed around a 160mm fork? I'd guess the new 5.5 will be just about as capable as a Mach 6. It's only giving up 15mm in the rear and what .25 head angle ?
    I really don't get the focus on the forks. I can put a 170mm fork on the 5.5 that doesn't make it a Firebird.

    So is there room between a 140mm rear travel 27.5 bike and a 170mm rear travel bike? Heck ya. $hit some companies would have a 150mm and a 160mm travel model. Not saying that's necessary.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,318
    If you feel the need to add more separation make the new Mach 6 a 160mm/160mm 29er.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  32. #32
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Focusing on the fork doesn't make sense. If they had a 160mm forked hardtail is that competing with a 5.5 or a Mach 6? No.
    ...

    I'm not focusing on it. Not ignoring it either. They're slicing the pie pretty thin. But rear suspension tune and behavior will be key since all these bikes have a HUGE sweet spot now with light weight and excellent climbing ability.

    The Mach 5.5 was intended to have a 150mm front fork. But in testing, they fell in love with the 160mm front configuration. A lot of what Pivot does is influenced by their testing grounds, South Mountain (rock garden) testing grounds in Phoenix, AZ.

    Where's the 160mm hardtail? Can I put a 200mm dropper on it?
    IPA will save America

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark16q's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    285
    Nice looking bike, development of this might explain why the Mach 4 has seen no love for a few years. More bike than I want and hope this stuff trickles to a new Mach 4 soon.
    '16 Scott Genius 700 Premium
    '14 Giant Anthem Advanced 1 27.5"
    Cervelo R3sl
    Seven Alta
    Curtlo h/t

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,232
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I really don't get the focus on the forks. I can put a 170mm fork on the 5.5 that doesn't make it a Firebird.

    So is there room between a 140mm rear travel 27.5 bike and a 170mm rear travel bike? Heck ya. $hit some companies would have a 150mm and a 160mm travel model. Not saying that's necessary.
    I just don't think there will be a massive difference between a 140 /160 Mach 5.5 and a 155 / 160 revised Mach 6

  35. #35
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    If you feel the need to add more separation make the new Mach 6 a 160mm/160mm 29er.
    That would be a cool project that only a few can tackle. The Wreckoning needs peers out there.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,318
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    I just don't think there will be a massive difference between a 140 /160 Mach 5.5 and a 155 / 160 revised Mach 6
    20mm of suspension travel is big difference.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  37. #37
    ZEN RIDER!
    Reputation: Mt.Biker E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    It's better than the Calling. Mach 5.5 frame is much lighter and tire clearance is massive. More travel all around too.

    They're both very fun pump track, rowdy trail bikes.

    The Calling feels lower to the ground is a tad more playful. It has a better rear shock too with that trunion mounted metric Rockshox. It is SO smooth and controlled.
    Thanks! I'm used to pedaling around an old Firechicken. Looking for something more playful and pedal friendly, but can still go downhill and do tech.
    How do they compare climbing? Weight a factor?
    Life in every breath

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    18
    Stoked for this bike and placing an order. What are people's thoughts on running the Fox X2 rear shock instead of the stock EVOL? I don't have experience on the x2, but have always found the EVOl a little underwhelming. Thanks.

  39. #39
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069
    Quote Originally Posted by ez061825 View Post
    Stoked for this bike and placing an order. What are people's thoughts on running the Fox X2 rear shock instead of the stock EVOL? I don't have experience on the x2, but have always found the EVOl a little underwhelming. Thanks.
    Evol can be undergunned for big, fast hits. Fox X2 is awesome but it can be overkill. And it doesn't pedal that well as the climbing switch constricts the rear suspension quite a bit and the Mach 5.5's great tech climbing ability.

    Need a better middle ground.
    IPA will save America

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    318
    Ordered mine this morning. Frame only isn't available until July so I had to order a complete one. Really wish Pivot would sell them as frame only when they release new bikes.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: grrrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,233
    Assuming still press fit BB? Surprised (in a good way) that they went with 148mm rear spacing.

  42. #42
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069
    Quote Originally Posted by grrrah View Post
    Assuming still press fit BB? Surprised (in a good way) that they went with 148mm rear spacing.
    Same BB92 pressfit.

    No Superboost 157mm rear hub on this one. That one was brought on by the 3.2-3.4 tire clearance parameters that they wanted for the Switchblade. So just Boost 148 and that is a wonderful thing indeed.

    Same heal clearance and same stiffness number as the Switchblade on the rear triangle.
    IPA will save America

  43. #43
    nimble biker
    Reputation: Picard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,469
    I am intrique by this bike. this should by lighter than the switch blade

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    682
    FINALLY

    A little slacker, a little longer, and a little steeper seat tube. It really looks like an updated 5.7c.

    The Mach 6 never really replaced the 5.7 for me. It had a shorter top tube in an age of stubby stems. There was no bottle cage: that alone kills it for me. I do long rides when it's nice to have a camelbak and a bottle, I do short rides when the bottle is just quicker and easier, I do rides when its over 100 out and you don't want a camelbak because it's so hot. I do races where saving 5 pounds in backpack weight is a big deal when you are climbing >7000'. Also handing your bottle to the water guy is easy, they are like a Nascar Pit crew: fast to refill but gonna spill a lot of sugary shit in an attempt to get that in there as fast as possible because its a race after all! Trying to refill a camelbak is a huge time penalty. I like camelbaks too, but I like options more. A do it all bike should give you options.
    Last edited by litany; 05-18-2017 at 04:07 PM.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    62
    Folks looking for the Mach 6? What is the ideal travel for you if a new one comes out?

    FC - For an updated Mach 6 155mm is fine. I want similar changes to the ST angle and reach as the 5.5 but not the Firebirds longer wheelbase. Also the cable ports and frame design. I think this is the best looking bike Pivot has made. I don't want the BB height or HT length lowered.

  46. #46
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    Rear travel has some wiggle but it is getting tight in there because the front forks are very close.

    Switchblade - Fox 36 29er with 150mm
    Mach 5.5 - Fox 36 27.5 with 160mm
    Firebird - Fox 36 27.5 with 170mm

    Old Mach 6 - Fox 36 with 160mm

    Folks looking for the Mach 6? What is the ideal travel for you if a new one comes out?


    Same travel. With the "newer" shocks and suspension designs 6" is the perfect blend of efficiency and cush for an AM bike, which is what the M6 is. It is the evolution of the old 5" on the old Heckler and 5 Spot.

    What a new M6 needs is...

    A wider main, lower pivot to stiffen up the back end. FDs are dead (and I was a hold out) so you don't need room for them.

    Slightly longer TT/reach.

    STA about 74

    Maybe more rear tire clearance.

    X2 rear shock should be stock. Kill the Float X.

    Bring back the original matte black with red highlight color scheme. Classic/timeless.

    External cable routing except for the dropper.


    And BTW, the 5.5 - very nice bike

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,303
    Quote Originally Posted by BmanInTheD View Post
    I'd rather have seen a 27.5 with a little less travel; they've gone all-in with big travel but IMO need a 120-130/130-140 bike with 27.5 wheels. But I guess they didn't ask me so there you have it.
    I concur!!
    2017 Pivot 5.5
    2017 Intense Primer
    2016 Santa Cruz 5010

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    417

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    If you feel the need to add more separation make the new Mach 6 a 160mm/160mm 29er.
    I'd be down for that!

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,059
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    Rear travel has some wiggle but it is getting tight in there because the front forks are very close.

    Switchblade - Fox 36 29er with 150mm
    Mach 5.5 - Fox 36 27.5 with 160mm
    Firebird - Fox 36 27.5 with 170mm

    Old Mach 6 - Fox 36 with 160mm

    Folks looking for the Mach 6? What is the ideal travel for you if a new one comes out?
    They need to focus more in the geometry than the travel. 140 to 155 sure that helps, but 66.5 to 65.5 with a steep SA and slightly longer stays would be a winner especially if they did it in 29 instead of 275. Then they have a mullet 29, long travel 29, mullet 275 and long travel 275.

  51. #51
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,212
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    Same BB92 pressfit.
    Well that is disappoint.

    The shimano 24mm spindle is obsolete IMO. Their interface is decent, but bigger spindles allow for lighter cranks and are backwards comparable with the older 24mm spindles with a number of solutions, but the intended 24mm BB92 spindle forces you to use tiny bearings with a 30mm spindle crank, increasing the chances of failure. As much as Pivot wants BB92 to be the standard, it ain't going to happen. Shimano isn't driving drivetrain development and their cranks have stagnated for many years. They are just now moving to narrow-wide on some of them.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  52. #52
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    20mm of suspension travel is big difference.
    To most folks, not really. Even that 140mm rear and 160mm front seems barely discernible on this bike. Also, rear shock options can cloud this difference even further. with the EVOL DPS rear shock and the X2.

    But now, I've been thinking about a 160mm Mach 6 29er all day. . That would be a slam dunk.
    IPA will save America

  53. #53
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069
    Quote Originally Posted by w1kk3d View Post
    I'd be down for that!
    I'm riding this one these days. 29er, 160/160, 28 lbs.

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-p3300051.jpg
    IPA will save America

  54. #54
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,212
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    To most folks, not really. Even that 140mm rear and 160mm front seems barely discernible on this bike. Also, rear shock options can cloud this difference even further. with the EVOL DPS rear shock and the X2.

    But now, I've been thinking about a 160mm Mach 6 29er all day. . That would be a slam dunk.
    20mm has usually been a pretty big difference to me. I remember demoing the 5.5spot and Sultan (140mm vs 120mm) and the 5.5spot felt like significantly more travel, deeper, better at absorbing bumps, etc. The Sultan wasn't harsh, but the difference was pretty big and the wheel size didn't make up for the lack of travel. I've always maintained that the bigger wheel can roll faster IF you can hold on, but it's not a replacement for travel.

    That said, quality is usually better than quality, so the leverage curve, damping, PSI, etc. might be better suited for your weight at 140mm vs 160, just by chance. So it's probably hard to draw comparisons unless you can really control all the variables, which I'd say is pretty unrealistic. Otherwise, they could feel similar or vastly different and both could be valid observations, just due to variables.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,318
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    To most folks, not really.
    If you can't tell the difference between a 140mm rear travel bike and a 160mm rear travel bike [same suspension design/same spec] you are riding it on terrain that doesn't need the extra travel. If you are riding through chunk and going off drops 20mm extra travel is significant.

    Maybe most folks are over-biked and don't need all the travel they have, but that's a different issue.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,318
    The two PF92 BB Pivot bikes we have/had were totally trouble free. I put a RF PF BB into my Mach 6 back in early 2014 with some Next SL cranks. 3yrs and around 21 months of solid riding later that BB is still silent and spins great. I keep expecting to need to replace it, but so far no need. My GF had a SRAM XO1 crank and a RF Turbine on her Pivot over a period of a bit more than 2yrs and no issues either with her PF92 BBs.

    Our PF92 BB experience has been great. I wouldn't hesitate to buy another Pivot with that BB design.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    I'm riding this one these days. 29er, 160/160, 28 lbs.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P3300051.jpg 
Views:	585 
Size:	163.9 KB 
ID:	1137899
    Evil certainly makes beautiful bikes!

    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    To most folks, not really. Even that 140mm rear and 160mm front seems barely discernible on this bike. Also, rear shock options can cloud this difference even further. with the EVOL DPS rear shock and the X2.

    But now, I've been thinking about a 160mm Mach 6 29er all day. . That would be a slam dunk.
    Agreed. I just purchased a Spec Enduro Pro 29 to replace my Mach 6. Swore off 29ers for a long time but the new gen of big wheels made me a believer. My Mach 6 was almost perfect, about the only thing I missed was better rollover that a large wheel provides. If Pivot releases a Mach 6 in 29er form, I would pick one up today.

    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    If you can't tell the difference between a 140mm rear travel bike and a 160mm rear travel bike [same suspension design/same spec] you are riding it on terrain that doesn't need the extra travel. If you are riding through chunk and going off drops 20mm extra travel is significant.

    Maybe most folks are over-biked and don't need all the travel they have, but that's a different issue.
    I think efficiency of the suspension has a lot to do with it too. I have a Mach 429 Trail and I swear it has more travel than it does.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,318
    Quote Originally Posted by w1kk3d View Post
    I think efficiency of the suspension has a lot to do with it too. I have a Mach 429 Trail and I swear it has more travel than it does.
    Sure. 140mm of great suspension is better than 160mm of crap suspension. But that would be a silly comparison. Compare the 429T to the SB with the same design/quality suspension and you'll notice the difference the extra 19mm of travel makes.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  59. #59
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069
    This bike really feels like it has 150mm rear. It is active yet controlled and hard to bottom out. Some of that is due to the 2.6 tire.

    With the Fox X2 shock, it feels like it has even more.


    With the spec at 140mm, one can feel that in terms of climbing, agility and height. (Aka, not too high)
    IPA will save America

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,232
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Sure. 140mm of great suspension is better than 160mm of crap suspension. But that would be a silly comparison. Compare the 429T to the SB with the same design/quality suspension and you'll notice the difference the extra 19mm of travel makes.
    Once you get to longer travel bikes the difference is less pronounced for me. Anyway, I was trying to talk about the whole package and how differently would a new 5.5 ride to the current Mach 6. In this instance there is 15 mm of rear suspension difference and no difference in front fork travel. And maybe a quarter degree in head angle. I'd venture the new 5.5 wouldn't be giving up much at all. Once intense brought out the Recluse they made the new Tracer a bigger bike. The Recluse essentially replaced the last Tracer with 20mm less in the rear and 10mm less in the front. If pivot make a Mach 6 27.5 bike bigger than current it will be encroaching firebird territory in my opinion. That's my 0.2 cents.

  61. #61
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,549
    IME 20mm matters. I have 2 similar bikes, one 130/150, the other 150/160, and when the going gets rough, mm's matter.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,059
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    The two PF92 BB Pivot bikes we have/had were totally trouble free. I put a RF PF BB into my Mach 6 back in early 2014 with some Next SL cranks. 3yrs and around 21 months of solid riding later that BB is still silent and spins great. I keep expecting to need to replace it, but so far no need. My GF had a SRAM XO1 crank and a RF Turbine on her Pivot over a period of a bit more than 2yrs and no issues either with her PF92 BBs.

    Our PF92 BB experience has been great. I wouldn't hesitate to buy another Pivot with that BB design.
    Have you pulled the cranks and checked the drive side bearings by hand? Something you might want to check if you haven't recently. Most bearings will spin find without load, but once under pressure it is a different result. I have had a ton of issues with both RF and Sram BB's.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,059
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    I'm riding this one these days. 29er, 160/160, 28 lbs.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P3300051.jpg 
Views:	585 
Size:	163.9 KB 
ID:	1137899
    I really want to get on one of these soon

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    Have you pulled the cranks and checked the drive side bearings by hand? Something you might want to check if you haven't recently. Most bearings will spin find without load, but once under pressure it is a different result. I have had a ton of issues with both RF and Sram BB's.
    Take a look at Wheels Mfg. they have a set of PF92 double row bearings for 30mm spindles that are awesome. It gives you two ceramic bearings per side and helps to keep the force on the thinner ball bearings for that type of setup down.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    Have you pulled the cranks and checked the drive side bearings by hand? Something you might want to check if you haven't recently. Most bearings will spin find without load, but once under pressure it is a different result. I have had a ton of issues with both RF and Sram BB's.
    Bike pedals well with no play or drag in the BB.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,318
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    This bike really feels like it has 150mm rear. It is active yet controlled and hard to bottom out. Some of that is due to the 2.6 tire.
    Probably 10mm of that travel feel is due to the large tire.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,059
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Bike pedals well with no play or drag in the BB.
    I only share this as a PSA. If you do not pull the cranks and check the bearings by hand you won't know. You need to put pressure on the bearings with your fingers to feel it. No way to tell with the cranks on even if you take the chain off and just spin the cranks.

    I figured it out after some race results where I was dropping 15 seconds per 4 minute stage compared to 2 weeks prior. Everything on the bike felt fine, but I decided to pull my cranks and check the bearings by hand. Sure enough bearings spun OK with no pressure, but as soon as I pressed down on the drive side it was almost seized. I have had a similar experience with RF and Sram BB's over the years after just a few hundred miles. With the miles and environment you ride, I would be shocked if there wasn't something going on down there by now.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    40
    From what I've read online bottom brackets with angular contact bearings are the way to go because they are much less sensitive to side loads. That will resolve your seizing issue

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SDMTB'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    998
    Here's my two cents - if the Mach 5.5 is as good as the Firebird for its intended use, this bike will be a hit. I own the new FB and it is such an amazing bike even for trail use (don't always have to be smashing downhills). It doesn't climb well for a 170mm bike, it climbs well period. Like, PR smashing on climbs well.

    That being said, there are several things that I feel like Pivot seems to lag just behind the competition on. Reach, threaded BB, STA are some of these. It looks like they are finally catching up.

    By way of example, I very much enjoyed my Mach 429 Trail when I had it but decided to move up in terms of travel / downhill capability so I was looking at both the SB and the SC HT. After owning 5 Pivots, I chose the HT because of the better steeper STA, lighter frame (vs. the SB), threaded BB, with more conventional (boost) hub spacing. Additionally, heal clearance was an issue on the SB. There are little things like this that Pivot needs to up their game on as the HT is just such a well designed bike (as is the Pivot Firebird). It isn't enough anymore to "have a bike that descends as well as it climbs..." Its the little things that matter now.

    For example, why didn't they just make the STA 74 degrees on the new Mach 5.5? Sure DW Link anti squat helps this issue, but what is the downside of a 74 degree STA like the Firebird has? Wouldn't it make it an even better climber? Splitting hairs, but these are the things that I think would make or break a sale going to the competition at this point. Hoping Pivot is wildly successful with this bike - it looks like a real shredder!

  70. #70
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,552
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Sure. 140mm of great suspension is better than 160mm of crap suspension. But that would be a silly comparison. Compare the 429T to the SB with the same design/quality suspension and you'll notice the difference the extra 19mm of travel makes.
    I have both bikes. The difference in travel is noticeable.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  71. #71
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,552
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    The two PF92 BB Pivot bikes we have/had were totally trouble free. I put a RF PF BB into my Mach 6 back in early 2014 with some Next SL cranks. 3yrs and around 21 months of solid riding later that BB is still silent and spins great. I keep expecting to need to replace it, but so far no need. My GF had a SRAM XO1 crank and a RF Turbine on her Pivot over a period of a bit more than 2yrs and no issues either with her PF92 BBs.

    Our PF92 BB experience has been great. I wouldn't hesitate to buy another Pivot with that BB design.
    Agree. I'm so sick of PF92 bashing. I ride in the NE all year long.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  72. #72
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SDMTB'er View Post
    Here's my two cents - if the Mach 5.5 is as good as the Firebird for its intended use, this bike will be a hit. I own the new FB and it is such an amazing bike even for trail use (don't always have to be smashing downhills). It doesn't climb well for a 170mm bike, it climbs well period. Like, PR smashing on climbs well.

    That being said, there are several things that I feel like Pivot seems to lag just behind the competition on. Reach, threaded BB, STA are some of these. It looks like they are finally catching up.

    By way of example, I very much enjoyed my Mach 429 Trail when I had it but decided to move up in terms of travel / downhill capability so I was looking at both the SB and the SC HT. After owning 5 Pivots, I chose the HT because of the better steeper STA, lighter frame (vs. the SB), threaded BB, with more conventional (boost) hub spacing. Additionally, heal clearance was an issue on the SB. There are little things like this that Pivot needs to up their game on as the HT is just such a well designed bike (as is the Pivot Firebird). It isn't enough anymore to "have a bike that descends as well as it climbs..." Its the little things that matter now.

    For example, why didn't they just make the STA 74 degrees on the new Mach 5.5? Sure DW Link anti squat helps this issue, but what is the downside of a 74 degree STA like the Firebird has? Wouldn't it make it an even better climber? Splitting hairs, but these are the things that I think would make or break a sale going to the competition at this point. Hoping Pivot is wildly successful with this bike - it looks like a real shredder!
    Good points. And to not derail too much...

    Initially considered the SB. Bigger hoops make the best all-rounders even though I dig my M6. But ultimately the non-conventional rear hub turned me off, as did all the extra engineering to accomidate plus tires I'd never use. And, I don't think you can get a SB frame alone.

    If the 5.5 could run 29 hoops that would be my next bike. Run the fork at 150 with 2.3 Minions. The suspension on Pivots feel way nicer to me vs SC.

    Loosing a FD allows for a much wider lower main pivot which ads strength to the tail end. Its great the 5.5 did this (though not sure if Pivot took advantage of the freed up space and widened that pivot).



    All that said I'd love to get a test spin on the 5.5. I'm just not sold on chubby tires. I'd like to hear more about rider's opinions on the 2.6" tires. 2.3 Minions hit the sweet spot for me. 2.5 Minions roll too slow. But the 2.6 does not seem like a bigger 2.5 - different, faster casing I think. But that might come at the cost of less durability.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SDMTB'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    998

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched

    Interesting comment on feel of DW Link - I actually have a slight preference for the VPP for small bump compliance. It feels "springier" if that makes sense - like if you took 2-3 psi out of your tires. Also have had zero issues with the RS stuff - had MAJOR reliability issues with FOX to the point where I bought spare shocks and forks because there were so many issues. Exception Fox 36 and Float X2 - they are super solid on my FB.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    I have both bikes. The difference in travel is noticeable.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    Agree 100%. I guess I'm coming from the standpoint that I typically keep 2 - 3 bikes in my stable at all times and I feel like there is enough overlap that I wouldn't see the need for the M5.5 if I already owned the M6.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,232
    Quote Originally Posted by SDMTB'er View Post
    Here's my two cents - if the Mach 5.5 is as good as the Firebird for its intended use, this bike will be a hit. I own the new FB and it is such an amazing bike even for trail use (don't always have to be smashing downhills). It doesn't climb well for a 170mm bike, it climbs well period. Like, PR smashing on climbs well.

    That being said, there are several things that I feel like Pivot seems to lag just behind the competition on. Reach, threaded BB, STA are some of these. It looks like they are finally catching up.

    By way of example, I very much enjoyed my Mach 429 Trail when I had it but decided to move up in terms of travel / downhill capability so I was looking at both the SB and the SC HT. After owning 5 Pivots, I chose the HT because of the better steeper STA, lighter frame (vs. the SB), threaded BB, with more conventional (boost) hub spacing. Additionally, heal clearance was an issue on the SB. There are little things like this that Pivot needs to up their game on as the HT is just such a well designed bike (as is the Pivot Firebird). It isn't enough anymore to "have a bike that descends as well as it climbs..." Its the little things that matter now.

    For example, why didn't they just make the STA 74 degrees on the new Mach 5.5? Sure DW Link anti squat helps this issue, but what is the downside of a 74 degree STA like the Firebird has? Wouldn't it make it an even better climber? Splitting hairs, but these are the things that I think would make or break a sale going to the competition at this point. Hoping Pivot is wildly successful with this bike - it looks like a real shredder!
    I bet it was designed with a 74 degree seat tube angle along with a 150mm fork.

  76. #76
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,069
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    I bet it was designed with a 74 degree seat tube angle along with a 150mm fork.
    EXACTLY!!!!

    All initial test rides were on a 150mm fork. All was well until they tried a 160mm fork and Cocalis and company fell in love with it.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  77. #77
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,212
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    Agree. I'm so sick of PF92 bashing. I ride in the NE all year long.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    PF92 BB 30 mm spindle options

    BB Shell Not Parallel !

    Vicb is always quick to point out that he personally hasn't had any problems, but that doesn't excuse a significantly inferior design. I also didn't have problems with M987 brakes, until I did.

    If 30mm spindle cranks didn't show up, I'd agree with you, but since they did, it negates the point of the BB92 designed around 24mm spindle cranks. RWC, guys that sell bearings to many of the BB makers, including the stuff they put out themselves, explain some of the issues in this thread (this was when RWC had to correct one guy that was constantly claiming there wasn't any issue). PF BBs work fine if you use a decent quality set, rather than some of the plastic crappy ones that came with cheap SRAM cranks, but starting out with bearings too small is shooting yourself in the foot before you ever get going. The point is that if they want to keep this wider BB standard going for just Pivot, fine, just make the goddamn holes big enough for the proper bearing size. Although Pivot makes great bikes overall, this is a great example of just being stubborn for no good reason.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  78. #78
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,212
    Quote Originally Posted by SDMTB'er View Post
    Interesting comment on feel of DW Link - I actually have a slight preference for the VPP for small bump compliance. It feels "springier" if that makes sense - like if you took 2-3 psi out of your tires. Also have had zero issues with the RS stuff - had MAJOR reliability issues with FOX to the point where I bought spare shocks and forks because there were so many issues. Exception Fox 36 and Float X2 - they are super solid on my FB.
    I find the shocks to often be far greater influences in these areas. Although many companies claim that the shocks they use are "custom tuned" for the suspension, it's nothing like a true custom tune and you can usually get much better suspension traits by going the custom route. To this extent, I Think some of the DW bikes suffer a bit from this. They often come with very light compression damping, because you know, DW doesn't need a lot of compression damping to pedal well, and that's true, but it doesn't negate the need for compression damping for chassis stability, g-out resistance, weight shifts, etc. This is a problem with most bikes, but reducing the low speed compression damping probably exaggerates it, and the high speed factory setups are usually pretty restrictive, so it can be hard to get a really plush travel setup, then factor in that most of these bikes have air shocks, which pushes the compliance further down in terms of good quality of travel. Suspension on my RFX is far better than my Specialized E29, but I have two tuned shocks for the RFX. Before I got it tuned, it wasn't much better, if at all, in terms of suspension compliance. Pedaled way better, but couldn't say stock that it was plusher or absorbed bumps any better.

    Go custom, just too much to hope that your OEM shock will match up with your weight, riding style, terrain, bike, etc., when it's intended for such a wide-range of rider weights.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    114
    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-black_5.5.jpg
    It's a great looking bike! I'd like to try it.
    {thought we needed more pics in this thread}

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SDMTB'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    998
    Is it me, or is the finish on the red matte? Not sure if that was a good call if so - can't buff out scratches (if one cares about that kind of thing).

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    114
    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-tmp_21227-fb_img_1495249075265%7E2794910606.jpg
    Looks matte to me.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    343
    The red is matte. Just finished building mine up and im going to take it out tomorrow morning for a spin. Not really thrilled that the X2 is not available at launch considering that many of the press photos and reviews had the X2 in them. I really liked what the X2 did for the switchblade. I do like that this bike is based on 2.6 rubber. It is really what got my attention when it was announced. I have been running 2.6 on my Yeti 5c and really like how they perform on the 31mm internal NOBL wheels. Current build weight is 28.3 lbs.

    I will be riding some very familiar trails tomorrow with a good mix of terrain so i'm looking forward to how it rides.

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-1080.jpg

  83. #83
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    PF92 BB 30 mm spindle options

    BB Shell Not Parallel !

    Vicb is always quick to point out that he personally hasn't had any problems, but that doesn't excuse a significantly inferior design. I also didn't have problems with M987 brakes, until I did.

    If 30mm spindle cranks didn't show up, I'd agree with you, but since they did, it negates the point of the BB92 designed around 24mm spindle cranks. RWC, guys that sell bearings to many of the BB makers, including the stuff they put out themselves, explain some of the issues in this thread (this was when RWC had to correct one guy that was constantly claiming there wasn't any issue). PF BBs work fine if you use a decent quality set, rather than some of the plastic crappy ones that came with cheap SRAM cranks, but starting out with bearings too small is shooting yourself in the foot before you ever get going. The point is that if they want to keep this wider BB standard going for just Pivot, fine, just make the goddamn holes big enough for the proper bearing size. Although Pivot makes great bikes overall, this is a great example of just being stubborn for no good reason.
    Well..... You may got me with the Race Face BB. I had a couple BBs swapped out but I was having preload and chainline issues after swapping my SixC crank to my 2X SB. What a PITA.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: edbraunbeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    438
    Awesome looking bike and can't wait to demo one.

    My only question is why they chose the burly fork (36/160). From the MTBR announcement, it looks like this was addressed by Chris in the launch presentation.

    That has me wondering just a little if this is too much bike for replacing SC 5010. I know it is relative to where you ride.

    EDventure
    Last edited by edbraunbeck; 05-20-2017 at 04:32 AM.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    958
    Thanks for the review Francis, this bike has piqued my interest.
    I see so many hyped reviews on Maxxis' "new" 2.6" tire size, but not having seen any in person, just assume they're really 2.4's and would be about as wide/voluminous as a 2.35" schwalbe. Maxxis 2.8's are 2.66" wide.

    I realize you're demoing the whole bike, but did you have a chance to verify tire width, and, how can maxxis (as stated in the article) achieve equal tire heights across 3 different widths of tire, but not get actual tire width to match stated width?

    I look forward to demoing the new 5.5.

  86. #86
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by k1creeker View Post
    Thanks for the review Francis, this bike has piqued my interest.
    I see so many hyped reviews on Maxxis' "new" 2.6" tire size, but not having seen any in person, just assume they're really 2.4's and would be about as wide/voluminous as a 2.35" schwalbe. Maxxis 2.8's are 2.66" wide.

    I realize you're demoing the whole bike, but did you have a chance to verify tire width, and, how can maxxis (as stated in the article) achieve equal tire heights across 3 different widths of tire, but not get actual tire width to match stated width?

    I look forward to demoing the new 5.5.
    Yeah, as this bike's big pitch is the chubby 2.6" tires I'd like to hear more on that. Is there enough of a change from a Maxxis 2.3 or 2.5 to differentiate it from every other mid travel 275?

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dude!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Rom3n View Post
    The red is matte. Just finished building mine up and im going to take it out tomorrow morning for a spin. Not really thrilled that the X2 is not available at launch considering that many of the press photos and reviews had the X2 in them. I really liked what the X2 did for the switchblade. I do like that this bike is based on 2.6 rubber. It is really what got my attention when it was announced. I have been running 2.6 on my Yeti 5c and really like how they perform on the 31mm internal NOBL wheels. Current build weight is 28.3 lbs.

    I will be riding some very familiar trails tomorrow with a good mix of terrain so i'm looking forward to how it rides.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1080.jpg 
Views:	1169 
Size:	189.0 KB 
ID:	1138095
    Looks good man!!! Looking forward to your review!

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,528
    Looks awesome!

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    32
    Glad to see this released and looking forward to ride reports!

    I'm wondering if the bike would be quicker and more playful with 2.35 tire setup.. Haven't checked mass on the 2.6s but I'd rather have lower rolling mass being a smaller rider. The 2.6s would be good for the wet season here though.

  90. #90
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,212
    Quote Originally Posted by stibar01 View Post

    I'm wondering if the bike would be quicker and more playful with 2.35 tire setup...
    You shut your dirty mouth! I for one, want as many people as possible to put huge tires on their bikes before I race them
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  91. #91
    The Bubble Wrap Hysteria
    Reputation: mtnbiker4life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark16q View Post
    Nice looking bike, development of this might explain why the Mach 4 has seen no love for a few years. More bike than I want and hope this stuff trickles to a new Mach 4 soon.
    IMO, the M4s top tube needs to have less of a swoop. Make the new M4 120mm and look just like the M5.5..........perfect XC/Trail bike

  92. #92
    Pivotal figure
    Reputation: kenbentit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    6,295
    Remember this response on that thread regarding the BB shells not parallel? Straight from the source (Chris)

    I've been following the thread for a few days and wanted to clarify a few questions/concerns. For starters, please contact Pivot and we can get this resolved for you. An email or phone call is all you need to do to get things resolved. Actually, contacting Pivot is always the 1st recommended step as we can generally resolve issues like this a lot faster than through MTBR or any other online forums or social media. We are always here to help and although we go through great steps to make sure that every frame is 100% perfect, we are still human beings and thus capable of the occasional missed detail.
    That said, the facing operation is handled by a CNC machine so this should not happen. Please contact us and we will make it right. 1-877-85-PIVOT (74868) or info@pivotcycles.com.

    Whether the BB is faced correctly or not has zero to do with a press fit or threaded BB. Facing is a separate operation and every type of BB should have parallel faces. This is normally a non-issue for Pivot but is something that many manufacturers fight with threaded BB shells as the machinery for facing threaded BB shells is not as precise and bonded in threaded shells on carbon frames are not normally faced at all after bonding.

    Regarding press fit in general, we take a strong engineering based stance on why we use press fit. This design has served us well as it continues to give us more space to work with and allows for wider pivot placement, and larger down tube cross sections for a stiffer, stronger, and lighter frame. Executed properly, it also offers better control over the chain line, improved bearing alignment and supports the bearings better. Of course the design also allows us to mold a full carbon frame without bonding in an aluminum BB shell. This is one of the main reasons why it has become the industry standard for carbon frames. From a carbon frame design standpoint, it is superior. However, it does require very tight tolerances which Pivot is able to hold. Unfortunately, not all companies and factories are as precise and it can lead to problems. Itís interesting, however, as a threaded shell that is not done correctly has its own issues that lead to creaking BB's, bearings that are not well aligned, drivelines that are not straight and chain-lines that are out of spec. Both threaded and press fit BB's are excellent designs if executed properly and installed properly as well. In the case of Pivot, we run tighter tolerances than most in the industry and the press fit design allows us to build a better bike overall. From a purely engineering design standpoint, a threaded BB on a carbon frame requires the frame to basically have an open through hole with about the same amount of carbon supporting it and tolerance as the press fit design. Then the manufacturer needs to bond in a threaded BB shell. This machined shell usually has a separate left and right side and the parts mate with each other. These parts can be mis-aligned with each other, and the bond can creak and come loose over time. Itís a round shell inside a round hole so there is no mechanical lock between the two, other than the bonding area. It works fine most of the time, but (in general) it is still the highest warranty failure area for manufacturers running threaded shells in their frames. Even if that was perfect, the frame is now heavier and it has a narrower threaded shell bonded inside your frame so that you can now have bearing cups. The bearing is pressed inside the cup with threads hanging off the cups that screw into the bonded shell inside the frame. (even reading it sounds strange) These cups hang outside the frame and are leveraged outside the frame which leads to higher stress loads on the cups, bearing, and threads, plus its heavier. If your car or motorcycle were made this way, it would be heavier and less reliable.
    Itís ok to put bearings directly inside the linkage, inside your hubs and even in your headset, so why doesnít it make sense to do it inside your BB? Well, it does make sense. It just needs to be done correctly, with the right tolerance, the right installation procedure and the right BB design as well.
    Hopefully this answers any questions regarding the press fit BB design and we look forward to resolving your issue.
    Ken B (Pivot)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    PF92 BB 30 mm spindle options

    BB Shell Not Parallel !

    Vicb is always quick to point out that he personally hasn't had any problems, but that doesn't excuse a significantly inferior design. I also didn't have problems with M987 brakes, until I did.

    If 30mm spindle cranks didn't show up, I'd agree with you, but since they did, it negates the point of the BB92 designed around 24mm spindle cranks. RWC, guys that sell bearings to many of the BB makers, including the stuff they put out themselves, explain some of the issues in this thread (this was when RWC had to correct one guy that was constantly claiming there wasn't any issue). PF BBs work fine if you use a decent quality set, rather than some of the plastic crappy ones that came with cheap SRAM cranks, but starting out with bearings too small is shooting yourself in the foot before you ever get going. The point is that if they want to keep this wider BB standard going for just Pivot, fine, just make the goddamn holes big enough for the proper bearing size. Although Pivot makes great bikes overall, this is a great example of just being stubborn for no good reason.
    Desert Sunset Calls/Upward, Pain, Perseverance/Welcome Solitude

  93. #93
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,212
    Quote Originally Posted by kenbentit View Post
    Remember this response on that thread regarding the BB shells not parallel? Straight from the source (Chris)

    I've been following the thread for a few days and wanted to clarify a few questions/concerns. For starters, please contact Pivot and we can get this resolved for you. An email or phone call is all you need to do to get things resolved. Actually, contacting Pivot is always the 1st recommended step as we can generally resolve issues like this a lot faster than through MTBR or any other online forums or social media. We are always here to help and although we go through great steps to make sure that every frame is 100% perfect, we are still human beings and thus capable of the occasional missed detail.
    That said, the facing operation is handled by a CNC machine so this should not happen. Please contact us and we will make it right. 1-877-85-PIVOT (74868) or info@pivotcycles.com.

    Whether the BB is faced correctly or not has zero to do with a press fit or threaded BB. Facing is a separate operation and every type of BB should have parallel faces. This is normally a non-issue for Pivot but is something that many manufacturers fight with threaded BB shells as the machinery for facing threaded BB shells is not as precise and bonded in threaded shells on carbon frames are not normally faced at all after bonding.

    Regarding press fit in general, we take a strong engineering based stance on why we use press fit. This design has served us well as it continues to give us more space to work with and allows for wider pivot placement, and larger down tube cross sections for a stiffer, stronger, and lighter frame. Executed properly, it also offers better control over the chain line, improved bearing alignment and supports the bearings better. Of course the design also allows us to mold a full carbon frame without bonding in an aluminum BB shell. This is one of the main reasons why it has become the industry standard for carbon frames. From a carbon frame design standpoint, it is superior. However, it does require very tight tolerances which Pivot is able to hold. Unfortunately, not all companies and factories are as precise and it can lead to problems. Itís interesting, however, as a threaded shell that is not done correctly has its own issues that lead to creaking BB's, bearings that are not well aligned, drivelines that are not straight and chain-lines that are out of spec. Both threaded and press fit BB's are excellent designs if executed properly and installed properly as well. In the case of Pivot, we run tighter tolerances than most in the industry and the press fit design allows us to build a better bike overall. From a purely engineering design standpoint, a threaded BB on a carbon frame requires the frame to basically have an open through hole with about the same amount of carbon supporting it and tolerance as the press fit design. Then the manufacturer needs to bond in a threaded BB shell. This machined shell usually has a separate left and right side and the parts mate with each other. These parts can be mis-aligned with each other, and the bond can creak and come loose over time. Itís a round shell inside a round hole so there is no mechanical lock between the two, other than the bonding area. It works fine most of the time, but (in general) it is still the highest warranty failure area for manufacturers running threaded shells in their frames. Even if that was perfect, the frame is now heavier and it has a narrower threaded shell bonded inside your frame so that you can now have bearing cups. The bearing is pressed inside the cup with threads hanging off the cups that screw into the bonded shell inside the frame. (even reading it sounds strange) These cups hang outside the frame and are leveraged outside the frame which leads to higher stress loads on the cups, bearing, and threads, plus its heavier. If your car or motorcycle were made this way, it would be heavier and less reliable.
    Itís ok to put bearings directly inside the linkage, inside your hubs and even in your headset, so why doesnít it make sense to do it inside your BB? Well, it does make sense. It just needs to be done correctly, with the right tolerance, the right installation procedure and the right BB design as well.
    Hopefully this answers any questions regarding the press fit BB design and we look forward to resolving your issue.
    Ken B (Pivot)
    Wow, that was a long post that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  94. #94
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Wow, that was a long post that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.
    It kind of does. I read: our priorities are stiffness and the ability to achieve design goals such as short CS/b+ over 30mm bearing life. Any hu I'm not an engineer and popping in a BB once a year is not a big deal to me. I remember people complaining about external BB when they came. Damn I'm getting old.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  95. #95
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,212
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    It kind of does. I read: our priorities are stiffness and the ability to achieve design goals such as short CS/b+ over 30mm bearing life. Any hu I'm not an engineer and popping in a BB once a year is not a big deal to me. I remember people complaining about external BB when they came. Damn I'm getting old.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
    It was all about press fit, which was not what I was talking about. Taking it for what was written, you'd think I was blasting press-fit BBs above, especially when you look his summary at the bottom of his post. Nothing could be further from the truth. The issues with BB92 are well documented. BB92 is not the only kind of PF BB out there, therefore, trying to defend BB92 in this way is just bizarre.

    The point is that while BB92 is well-meaning with it's width, it was designed around a 24mm spindle as far as the bearing size. That right there should be enough information to figure out what is going on. A bigger spindle (than 24) means something has to give, in this case, smaller bearings. Can you switch out BBs more frequently, resort to more exotic designs that possibly hold up? Sure, but from an engineering perspective, it's kind of dumb, you are shooting yourself in the foot by starting out like this. Again, not an issue if you choose to only use 24mm cranks, but that's just not realistic these days, so Pivot stubbornly standing by the 24mm spindle is a little disappointing. Enough to make me not want their bikes? No. Every bike has advantages and disadvantages, but this is one more disadvantage than there needs to be IMO. And the bottom line is that BB92 designed around the 24mm shimano spindle will never take off. A couple manufacturers may try and promote it for a few years, but with 30mm spindle cranks offering a stiffer and lighter design, it'll just never happen. BB92 designed around a 30mm spindle? That has a future IMO.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  96. #96
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,552
    I agree with you although I was more concerned about pressing in a metal shell than the smaller bearings. I can speculate why bike manufacturers are going with certain standards. One is avoidance of the creation of another standard. Another is close ties with certain parts suppliers. I'm glad that I love my Switchblade or the expensive wheel build, the annoyance of selling a B+ wheel set with a proprietary hub, limited crank and hub choice and chain line issues initially with SixC cranks would have pissed me off to no end.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    364
    Quote Originally Posted by SDMTB'er View Post
    Here's my two cents - if the Mach 5.5 is as good as the Firebird for its intended use, this bike will be a hit. I own the new FB and it is such an amazing bike even for trail use (don't always have to be smashing downhills). It doesn't climb well for a 170mm bike, it climbs well period. Like, PR smashing on climbs well.

    That being said, there are several things that I feel like Pivot seems to lag just behind the competition on. Reach, threaded BB, STA are some of these. It looks like they are finally catching up.

    By way of example, I very much enjoyed my Mach 429 Trail when I had it but decided to move up in terms of travel / downhill capability so I was looking at both the SB and the SC HT. After owning 5 Pivots, I chose the HT because of the better steeper STA, lighter frame (vs. the SB), threaded BB, with more conventional (boost) hub spacing. Additionally, heal clearance was an issue on the SB. There are little things like this that Pivot needs to up their game on as the HT is just such a well designed bike (as is the Pivot Firebird). It isn't enough anymore to "have a bike that descends as well as it climbs..." Its the little things that matter now.

    For example, why didn't they just make the STA 74 degrees on the new Mach 5.5? Sure DW Link anti squat helps this issue, but what is the downside of a 74 degree STA like the Firebird has? Wouldn't it make it an even better climber? Splitting hairs, but these are the things that I think would make or break a sale going to the competition at this point. Hoping Pivot is wildly successful with this bike - it looks like a real shredder!
    This is your opinion, i ride a switchblade and could not disagree more with almost everything you said. But that is my opinion. What works for some does not work for others.

    This is why on the internet you cannot take one persons take and make it a rule. You have to ride the bikes and see if you like them.

    I am sure the 5.5c is a great bike and probably very capable. I have found that the DW bikes use travel very efficiently.

    I think the other issue is people are stepping up to bigger bikes with more travel and expect these bikes to handle like the 120 travel trail/xc bike they had. This is not what the bikes are intended for. They are supposed to be great all rounders with a bias to downhills.

    Just my Opinion once again.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: edbraunbeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    438
    I wonder if they'll offer more subdued decals for the rims. Just a little too flashy for me.

    EDventure

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    549
    ^^^You can easily peel them off. And if you wanted, I bet you could get some black decals from Reynolds that would go well with the matte carbon finish of the rims.
    You can't buy happiness. But you can buy a bike. And that's pretty close.

  100. #100
    ZEN RIDER!
    Reputation: Mt.Biker E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    804
    I'm curious as to how the geo & ride change if you went Fox34 140mm or 150mm.
    I'm not looking for another bike with a 36 on it.
    Life in every breath

Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched
    By fc in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-29-2017, 06:17 AM
  2. launched off a wood berm
    By bhlass in forum Rider Down, injuries and recovery
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-19-2014, 04:53 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-21-2012, 06:37 PM
  4. MarathonMTB.com Team soon to be launched
    By Smiker in forum Endurance XC Racing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-08-2011, 11:40 AM
  5. KyMBA.org new website launched this week
    By SuperJETT in forum Midwest - IL, IN, OH, KY, IA, MO, MI
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-04-2011, 05:09 PM

Members who have read this thread: 805

Posting Permissions

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