Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 238
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DrewBird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    930

    Tell me bad things about the Mach 6

    I'm dangerously close to purchasing a Mach 6. Beyond the ride quality, I want some feedback on "living with the bike." Things like annoying or quirky cable routing or cable rub, creaky suspension, bolts working free over time, fragile paint etc. if you could change aspects of the design what would they be?

    Also, how is Pivot's customer/warranty service? My other 2 bikes are from Ibis, so I may have been spoiled in this regard...

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    76
    They only bad thing I can think of is that I don't have mine yet..

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,268
    Cable routing is not the greatest and it rubs on the rear shock a little even with the standoff's. No other issues that I have seen over the few weeks I have had it.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,791
    The M6 is pretty new. I think you can't really get a good answer to your question until the end of the summer. A lot of people are still waiting on their bikes to show up and a bunch of M6 owners won't get in many miles until the snow melts.

    The M6 has rec'd great initial reviews, but nobody can really comment on the long term performance of the bike. It's just too new.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  5. #5
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,610
    Well I'm stretching a bit here

    - cables bulge out a bit towards the right leg close to the rear shock when the bike is compressed

    - stock Kenda tires are ****

    That's all i can really think of. Pivot's CS is good to answer the other question
    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  6. #6
    Ambi-Turner
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    124
    I've had mine three weeks. Cable is rubbing paint off of shock mount. Rear tire (Nevegal 2.35 on P35 rim) is dangerously close to chainstay. I will probably run a 2.25 next. I didn't care for a lot of the stock components, but it was still a better deal to swap them out than building a frame. There is nothing that should stop any serious buyer looking for a serious trail/AM rig.

  7. #7
    Appalachian Singletrack'n
    Reputation: Endomaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,421
    Fit - As much as i wanted one, the bike just didn't fit me. The STA was too slack and the reach too short if i sized up the bike felt way too big to me. Interesting to hear about the tire clearance, the bike i rode had some sort of xc tire on the back and it had good clearance but it was a smallish tread.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,562

    Re: Tell me bad things about the Mach 6

    Quote Originally Posted by Endomaniac View Post
    Fit - As much as i wanted one, the bike just didn't fit me. The STA was too slack and the reach too short if i sized up the bike felt way too big to me. Interesting to hear about the tire clearance, the bike i rode had some sort of xc tire on the back and it had good clearance but it was a smallish tread.
    How tall are you and what is you inseam? Short or long torso?
    Which sizes did you try?
    Which bike do you ride now?
    Thanks!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DrewBird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by Endomaniac View Post
    Fit - As much as i wanted one, the bike just didn't fit me. The STA was too slack and the reach too short if i sized up the bike felt way too big to me. Interesting to hear about the tire clearance, the bike i rode had some sort of xc tire on the back and it had good clearance but it was a smallish tread.
    I'm curious about this too. I'm 6'2.5" and was very happy on an XL Bronson (recently stolen, $%&#! bike thieves.) So looking at the Mach 6, an XL looks fairly comparable except I notice it has a much shorter reach (~1" shorter) despite having similar TT length. I assume this is because of the slack seat tube. Combined with the short rear end this makes me think I'll be much more over the rear wheel than I was on the Bronson. This would probably make the bike super fun and maneuverable but might also make it prone to front-end wander on climbs. Any feedback from folks who have the bike?

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    258
    - Cable routing with the standoffs rubs on the shock and knocks the o-ring off
    - Rubber chainguard on the seat stay is coming off (got the bike in October)
    - Rear shock bolt comes loose. Make sure it is torqued properly
    - Running a 2.35 Nobby Nic as a rear tire - no clearance issues

  11. #11
    Appalachian Singletrack'n
    Reputation: Endomaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,421
    I rode a large Im 6'1" average proportions i like a reach in the 17-17.5" range I refuse to ride stems over 50mm on a trail bike. I sat on an XL, I would need a dropper stem and a flat bar along with a stepladder for that frame. I came off a large Firebird for the last 4 years which my main complaint on that bike was the slack STA/short reach and its a pig.

  12. #12
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4,120
    I posted a question like this a few months ago. Got next to nothing on problems.

    Ordered the bike and its just about ready to ship.

    Hope nothing nasty pops up.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by Endomaniac View Post
    I rode a large Im 6'1" average proportions i like a reach in the 17-17.5" range I refuse to ride stems over 50mm on a trail bike. I sat on an XL, I would need a dropper stem and a flat bar along with a stepladder for that frame. I came off a large Firebird for the last 4 years which my main complaint on that bike was the slack STA/short reach and its a pig.
    This is what I'm worried about. At 6'2", average proportions I haven't been able to get on an XL 6, going to have to order it without a test fit. Coming off an XL Mojo HD which, like your Firebird, is too short. I like the fit of an XL Bronson which has a longer reach, and the stack and head tube isn't over an inch longer like on the Mach 6.

    Edit: Just saw Drewbirds post too, check out the head tube measurements, its over an inch longer on an XL Mach 6 compared to an XL Bronson.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robertj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    401
    ~4wks on my Mach6. Killer do-it-all bike.

    The only thing/nit I can think of is some cable rub near the top of the rear shock body. Cable rub is one of those things that is easily solved with some protective tape if desired.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DrewBird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by robnow View Post
    This is what I'm worried about. At 6'2", average proportions I haven't been able to get on an XL 6, going to have to order it without a test fit. Coming off an XL Mojo HD which, like your Firebird, is too short. I like the fit of an XL Bronson which has a longer reach, and the stack and head tube isn't over an inch longer like on the Mach 6.

    Edit: Just saw Drewbirds post too, check out the head tube measurements, its over an inch longer on an XL Mach 6 compared to an XL Bronson.
    Yep, sounds like we're in about the same boat. I'm not that worried about the longer HT, as I was running my Bronson with a 160mm fork and had ~1" spacers, up-angled stem and lo-rise bars. So I think a slammed stem on the Pivot w/150mm fork should work OK; probably still go with lo-rise bars.

    For the reach, note that the effective TT length is about the same, but the seat post is more slack on the Pivot. So the Pivot moves the rider back relative to the wheels, putting you more over the rear wheel. This is what I'm wondering about; with that diff. plus ultra-short stays, will it be a challenge to keep the front down on steep climbs?

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joel RW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    310
    I'm happy with mine, the paint decals on the top tube are a bit delicate and the shock rub is an issue. Here's a few things I did.



    Make your cable as short as possible should look nice and straight like this



    It will still rub against the top of the shock but shouldn't touch the frame, if you bend and rotate the outer you can direct the movement, haven't touched mine since.



    The shock mount pictured may need to be greased and hopefully it won't develop play but this is just a theory



    ardent race 2.25 pictured, previously ran high roller 2.35 which would touch the frame occasionally, the marks you can see are just mud, theres no real damage apart from some small rub marks.



    Clearance underneath



    XL frame, rear brake cable stop you can see under the top tube is completely useless, the cable kept falling out. I wrapped both cables in a self bonding rubber tape, protects the frame nicely and stops that long cable from touching.
    Pivot mach 6!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,791
    Thanks for the pics...can you take the decals off the M6?
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    98
    Here's an alternative (better) cable routing for the Machs. Maybe not as photogenic as the Pivot routing, but much more functional when the suspension is working. No cable rub whatsoever.

    When I purchased the bike, my lbs mechanic asked me if I wanted the "Pivot routing" or the "Good routing"...


  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,791
    I would prefer external cable routing, but I couldn't bring myself to use zipties on a M6.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DrewBird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by Joel RW View Post
    I'm happy with mine, the paint decals on the top tube are a bit delicate and the shock rub is an issue. Here's a few things I did.
    Hey Joel, can you post a couple pics of your complete bike? I haven't found a ton of pics of the XL size, which is a bit different than other sizes with the split TT/HT. Is the useless brake line routing issue unique to XLs? Is there a way to run RD cable in unbroken housing? With the amount of mud I ride in that'd be preferable. Is your Pike 150mm or 160?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,494
    Bottom bracket is too low.
    Nice KOM, sorry about your penis.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Mrwhlr View Post
    Bottom bracket is too low.
    That's funny. I've read M6 reviews that report it having a way low BB and others that talk about it having a high BB.

    My current bike has a 14" BB so the M6 is lower than it with no rider. I understand DW link sits higher its travel than other suspension designs so there may not be a practical difference between two bikes with different BB heights.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,562
    My converted 650b TRc with a 140mm 26" fork has a BB of 13.4", unsagged. I rarely get any pedal strikes, it's just right for my usual trails.
    I get more of them on my SC TB with a 120mm fork.
    On M6 3h demo I got a few, nothing really bad, but still... M6 has a 13.6" BB. I actually like the fact, since I was afraid the M6 BB would be too high. It seems to be perfect for SoCal riding.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,268
    BB is personal preference. I have my Enduro which is 13.1" to my HD at 13.8" with the M6 in the middle. They all ride well and have different advantages and disadvantages.

  25. #25
    fc
    fc is offline
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    23,553
    This is a good thread since I'm reviewing the bike.

    BB height I think is a bit high for the modern rally bike. 13.0 to 13.3" make awesome handlers an this bike is at 13.6". But it does give it extra rock clearance for folks who live in rough terrain. I ride in Norcal so I'd much rather have 13.1"

    Cable routing... ay caramba. It's clean but it has to deal with all that suspension movement.

    Decals - holy moly there's a lot of them. 27.5, 155 mm travel, 650b do not have to be decals.

    Seat tube angle is slack at 71.5. The modern bike is much better off with a 74 degree seat angle to make the pedaling position ideal. And since 99% of these bikes will have a dropper post, the seat is out of the way anyway during descending.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DrewBird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    Seat tube angle is slack at 71.5. The modern bike is much better off with a 74 degree seat angle to make the pedaling position ideal. And since 99% of these bikes will have a dropper post, the seat is out of the way anyway during descending.
    Francois, thanks for chiming in. I wonder if you could clarify your preference for a steeper seat tube? Is this just to give an ideal hip-pedal relationship, or related to front/rear balance on the bike?

  27. #27
    fc
    fc is offline
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    23,553
    Quote Originally Posted by DrewBird View Post
    Francois, thanks for chiming in. I wonder if you could clarify your preference for a steeper seat tube? Is this just to give an ideal hip-pedal relationship, or related to front/rear balance on the bike?
    A steeper seat angle seems to put my hips and my weight in a much better pedaling position. The knee seems to go right over the pedal in the 3 o clock power position.

    The downside is it's not ideal for descending when the seat is all the way up.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,562

    Re: Tell me bad things about the Mach 6

    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    A steeper seat angle seems to put my hips and my weight in a much better pedaling position. The knee seems to go right over the pedal in the 3 o clock power position.

    The downside is it's not ideal for descending when the seat is all the way up.

    fc
    But does the STA really matter if the ST is bend and does not come straight from the BB?
    I can imagine that riders with shorter inseam will be more over the BB and those with longer one will be farther back. While on a bike with less relaxed STA the difference will be not as pronounced.
    But theoretically, what really matters is where the seat is when fully extended for climbing or pedaling in seated position.
    If it is too far back it will negatively effect pedaling doesn't matter what the STA is.
    Or am I missing something here?

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    This is a good thread since I'm reviewing the bike.

    BB height I think is a bit high for the modern rally bike. 13.0 to 13.3" make awesome handlers an this bike is at 13.6". But it does give it extra rock clearance for folks who live in rough terrain. I ride in Norcal so I'd much rather have 13.1"

    Cable routing... ay caramba. It's clean but it has to deal with all that suspension movement.

    Decals - holy moly there's a lot of them. 27.5, 155 mm travel, 650b do not have to be decals.

    Seat tube angle is slack at 71.5. The modern bike is much better off with a 74 degree seat angle to make the pedaling position ideal. And since 99% of these bikes will have a dropper post, the seat is out of the way anyway during descending.

    fc
    i live in Norcal as well and a 13" BB sounds downright scary and dangerous, plenty of rock trails around here. Would be scared to clip a rock while cornering with outside foot down, put you on your side in a heartbeat. Especially with a 6" bike, at full compression that pedal is going to be AWFULLY low

    Steep Seat tube angles are cool for a long travel Slack bike when going up steep climbs to keep it from wheeling, but thats about it. It positions you too upright and makes the reach too short, which is terrible for long rides or flat'ter terrain.

    Slack Seat tube angle puts the seat farther back meaning you have to get even farther back to get "behind the seat" for steep stuff, meaning you will need a seat dropper even MORE. What it does is allow you to stay centered or neutral IN the bike without the seat being in the way for flowy trails and jumping

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,562

    Re: Tell me bad things about the Mach 6

    Quote Originally Posted by Yody View Post
    Slack Seat tube angle puts the seat farther back meaning you have to get even farther back to get "behind the seat", meaning you will need a seat dropper even MORE. What it does is allow you to stay centered or neutral IN the bike without the seat being in the way.
    This makes sense. Let's say 2 different bikes with the same TT length, different STA, everything else the same.
    Slacker SA bike should also have longer reach...

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,494
    The BB is low because it's an AZ bike, not some pump track shuttle turd.
    Nice KOM, sorry about your penis.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DrewBird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    930
    I think that's right. It's also the case that no one makes a setback dropper post. I always found myself running my saddle pushed most of the way back on the rails on my Bronson (73 deg. ST), so I'm thinking I'd be able to run it closer to center-of-rails on a M6. (Test ride this weekend, so we'll see...)

  33. #33
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4,120
    Steep STAs perch you "on top" of the bike, as opposed to slacker STAs that put you "in" the bike. I've got longer legs and on a steep bike I feel like I'm perched up too high. The higher I go the more forward lean I have, which leads to more pressure on the hands.

    Lower BBs handle much better than higher BBs IMO.

    Low, slack, and in the bike is where I want to be. Leave that tall, perched feeling for the roadies and canaries.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,268
    Has anyone else actually measured the ST angle? The "effective" angle is whatever. The actual angle is significantly slacker. I would agree with Francois that is should be steeper. The problem for them is that to make it steeper shortens the effective TT as well. Only way to fix this is move the BB back (would also lengthen the reach which would be nice) which then lengthens the wheelbase (maybe no so nice). Tough decisions to make for the designers.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robertj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    401
    I think the "virtual" SA is perfect for me on my Mach 6; it puts my saddle in the middle of the saddle rails with KOPS in perfect position with the seatpost fully extended. Same positon as my Mojo HD. For me, Pivot found that "magic" combination of geometry and suspension characteristics for climbing, descending, and all round riding. I agree with the other posters about a "too steep" SA that puts the rider too far forward; not good for general riding, and not good for KOPS with my long legs.

    -"virtual" SA because the seat tube does not intersect the bottom bracket; this is something a few manufacturers are doing.

    Claimed SA for Mach 6 (L): 71.5
    Claimed SA for Mojo HD (XL): 71.5

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    656
    Good discussion on this. I am still building my new M6, but came from 2010 and 2012 Enduros. Steeper seat angles and longer chainstays. I have long legs, so maybe I will like this set up better. I have always felt a bit on top of my Enduros, so this feedback makes sense.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    118
    In currently on a 2014 sworks enduro with 650b wheels and fork but am very tempted to buy a mach 6.
    It's a size large enduro.
    Numbers are deceiving, especially with specialized.
    Their seat tube in relation to the bb is very far forward so people think that the tt is short, but the 'reach' it's big and i think this is why the Command post is a layback/setback design.
    I can imagine the m6 being a similar feel to my old mojo hd's, which i liked. ....until it kept cracking!
    The one thing that did bother me slightly with the dw was that the anti sqaut design did sit up alot on very steep stuff which forced the saddle to hit me in the crown jewels a lot.
    Reviews are saying the m6 dw is even more progressive, does this mean that the anti squat is more pronounced than a hd?
    Im very close to buying this frame and pouring all the kit from the sworks on to this.
    Will my shimano 73mm cranks fit with a conversion bb or is the width different?
    Also i have a 30.9 stealth reverb atm, will this fit or is the post a 31.6?

    Thanks,your advice is appreciated.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by waldo1 View Post
    In currently on a 2014 sworks enduro with 650b wheels and fork but am very tempted to buy a mach 6.
    It's a size large enduro.
    Numbers are deceiving, especially with specialized.
    Their seat tube in relation to the bb is very far forward so people think that the tt is short, but the 'reach' it's big and i think this is why the Command post is a layback/setback design.
    I can imagine the m6 being a similar feel to my old mojo hd's, which i liked. ....until it kept cracking!
    The one thing that did bother me slightly with the dw was that the anti sqaut design did sit up alot on very steep stuff which forced the saddle to hit me in the crown jewels a lot.
    Reviews are saying the m6 dw is even more progressive, does this mean that the anti squat is more pronounced than a hd?
    Im very close to buying this frame and pouring all the kit from the sworks on to this.
    Will my shimano 73mm cranks fit with a conversion bb or is the width different?
    Also i have a 30.9 stealth reverb atm, will this fit or is the post a 31.6?

    Thanks,your advice is appreciated.
    73mm cranks will fit. Seattube is 30.9.
    Go for it!

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,268
    Quote Originally Posted by waldo1 View Post
    In currently on a 2014 sworks enduro with 650b wheels and fork but am very tempted to buy a mach 6.
    It's a size large enduro.
    Numbers are deceiving, especially with specialized.
    Their seat tube in relation to the bb is very far forward so people think that the tt is short, but the 'reach' it's big and i think this is why the Command post is a layback/setback design.
    I can imagine the m6 being a similar feel to my old mojo hd's, which i liked. ....until it kept cracking!
    The one thing that did bother me slightly with the dw was that the anti sqaut design did sit up alot on very steep stuff which forced the saddle to hit me in the crown jewels a lot.
    Reviews are saying the m6 dw is even more progressive, does this mean that the anti squat is more pronounced than a hd?
    Im very close to buying this frame and pouring all the kit from the sworks on to this.
    Will my shimano 73mm cranks fit with a conversion bb or is the width different?
    Also i have a 30.9 stealth reverb atm, will this fit or is the post a 31.6?

    Thanks,your advice is appreciated.
    What they mean by progressive is that the initial stroke is very supple and then the spring curve ramps up as you move through the travel to keep it from bottoming. Anti squat is different, but it feels good while pedaling!

  40. #40
    fc
    fc is offline
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    23,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    Has anyone else actually measured the ST angle? The "effective" angle is whatever. The actual angle is significantly slacker. I would agree with Francois that is should be steeper. The problem for them is that to make it steeper shortens the effective TT as well. Only way to fix this is move the BB back (would also lengthen the reach which would be nice) which then lengthens the wheelbase (maybe no so nice). Tough decisions to make for the designers.
    The actual seat tube angle looks to be about 68 degrees. The actual SA is slack because the the seat tube starts forward of the bb to make room for the suspension pivots.

    So I assume they draw a line from the bb center to the center of the seatpost at a prescribed height. That is the virtual seat tube angle and it is only accurate at that set height. Probably 6 inches of post showing.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  41. #41
    fc
    fc is offline
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    23,553
    As far as Seat Tube Angles is concerned, I think 71 degrees is the safe, old-school bet. It'll work for sure.

    But there are new geometries now that are dropper post optimized. Bronson is at 73, Enduro is at 74+, Kona Process is at 74 and the sweet new Orbea Rallon is at 74+. And having ridden all these, I would say steeper is better for climbing and tooling around. And when the going gets going, drop the post.

    So it is not a deal breaker but the 73 degree neighborhood is better than the 71 Seat Angle hood.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,562

    Re: Tell me bad things about the Mach 6

    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    As far as Seat Tube Angles is concerned, I think 71 degrees is the safe, old-school bet. It'll work for sure.

    But there are new geometries now that are dropper post optimized. Bronson is at 73, Enduro is at 74+, Kona Process is at 74 and the sweet new Orbea Rallon is at 74+. And having ridden all these, I would say steeper is better for climbing and tooling around. And when the going gets going, drop the post.

    So it is not a deal breaker but the 73 degree neighborhood is better than the 71 Seat Angle hood.

    fc
    I still don't get it.
    Let's assume the sitting position for a certain rider is ideal on both bikes, one with steep SA and another one with more relaxed SA.
    I always assumed that if the wheels, saddle, bars and BB were in the same places and the 2 bikes were identical in everything else, except for the SA, then they would handle exactly the same.
    The only difference is when the saddle is raised/lowered. On a bike with a slacker SA the seat will be moved farther back when raised.
    So theoretically, in this particular case it doesn't matter what the SA is. And it also shows that one cannot say a bike with a steeper STA will climb better, unless we take into the consideration the whole geometry.

    Can somebody correct me if I am wrong?


    Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

  43. #43
    ZEN RIDER!
    Reputation: Mt.Biker E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Steep STAs perch you "on top" of the bike, as opposed to slacker STAs that put you "in" the bike. I've got longer legs and on a steep bike I feel like I'm perched up too high. The higher I go the more forward lean I have, which leads to more pressure on the hands.

    Lower BBs handle much better than higher BBs IMO.

    Low, slack, and in the bike is where I want to be. Leave that tall, perched feeling for the roadies and canaries.
    ^this
    its 2014 time to leave that old school geo in the past! Especially considering this is an Enduro bike. If it performs and feels good who cares
    Life in every breath

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,791


    My 5yr old Nomad has the same 71.5 STA and the Pivot M6 does in the geo chart. It climbs tech just fine.

    Thing is the M6's ST doesn't connect with the BB so the STA has to be a virtual measurement which will depend how high you place your saddle. The higher the saddle the slacker the STA and the lower the saddle the steeper the STA.

    Question is - how did Pivot measure the 71.5 deg value in the M6 geo chart?

    -- is that the virtual STA at a specific saddle height?
    -- is it the actual STA of the seat tube which due to the fact it's not lined up the BB means we need to figure out the virtual STA [which will be steeper] to really compare bikes?
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  45. #45
    fc
    fc is offline
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    23,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Mt.Biker E View Post
    ^this
    its 2014 time to leave that old school geo in the past! Especially considering this is an Enduro bike. If it performs and feels good who cares

    Who cares what the numbers are? I bought this bike and it rides great!! True statement.

    But hey, you guys asked.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  46. #46
    fc
    fc is offline
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    23,553
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post

    My 5yr old Nomad has the same 71.5 STA and the Pivot M6 does in the geo chart. It climbs tech just fine.

    Thing is the M6's ST doesn't connect with the BB so the STA has to be a virtual measurement which will depend how high you place your saddle. The higher the saddle the slacker the STA and the lower the saddle the steeper the STA.

    Question is - how did Pivot measure the 71.5 deg value in the M6 geo chart?

    -- is that the virtual STA at a specific saddle height?
    -- is it the actual STA of the seat tube which due to the fact it's not lined up the BB means we need to figure out the virtual STA [which will be steeper] to really compare bikes?

    Yes, it is at a set saddle height. What it is, we don't know.

    Their 71.5 measurement is virtual at that set height. Any higher saddle height will be slacker.

    Nomad at 71.5 is cool. But for sure a new Nomad or SC bike will have a steeper Seat Angle.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,965
    Knollys have a seat tube angle of about 68 degrees but the seat tube is in front of the BB making the effective seat tube angle 74 degrees.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,562

    Re: Tell me bad things about the Mach 6

    I will say it again.

    If the wheels, saddle, bars and BB were in the same places and the 2 bikes were otherwise identical, except for the SA, then they would handle exactly the same.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,268
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    The actual seat tube angle looks to be about 68 degrees. The actual SA is slack because the the seat tube starts forward of the bb to make room for the suspension pivots.

    So I assume they draw a line from the bb center to the center of the seatpost at a prescribed height. That is the virtual seat tube angle and it is only accurate at that set height. Probably 6 inches of post showing.

    fc
    Mine measured out at 66 to be exact. Personally I would say not to get too wrapped up in the STA. Yes, I like the steeper angle of my Enduro 29 better, but it is far from a deal breaker. Just push the seat forward on the rails and have at it. The bike climbs like a mountain goat. I was getting farther up steep loose climbs than my buddies on their HT's earlier this week and I wasn't even wearing spandex!

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    This is a good thread since I'm reviewing the bike.

    BB height I think is a bit high for the modern rally bike. 13.0 to 13.3" make awesome handlers an this bike is at 13.6". But it does give it extra rock clearance for folks who live in rough terrain. I ride in Norcal so I'd much rather have 13.1"

    Cable routing... ay caramba. It's clean but it has to deal with all that suspension movement.

    Decals - holy moly there's a lot of them. 27.5, 155 mm travel, 650b do not have to be decals.

    Seat tube angle is slack at 71.5. The modern bike is much better off with a 74 degree seat angle to make the pedaling position ideal. And since 99% of these bikes will have a dropper post, the seat is out of the way anyway during descending.

    fc

    These are my concerns as well. I've found lower and steeper STA works good for me too and nice for loading the front end (better attack position) in corners and steaming down the hill. My SB66 had similar STA/HTA/BB height w/160 fork and needed dropper fork to make the climbs comfortable (non wander) and found myself descending a lot in 130 fork position (not enough travel) to allow for lower ride height. Trail/AM bikes with BB >13.4" is too high IMO as well, even for rocks and chunk.
    Ride On!

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Things Fitting Perfectly Into Other Things...
    By CHUM in forum Off Camber (off topic)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-23-2014, 05:54 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-13-2013, 10:04 AM
  3. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-27-2013, 01:55 PM
  4. Mach 4 and Mach 5.7 Frame Weights? (Alloy)
    By ccarbot in forum Pivot Cycles
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-07-2013, 04:58 PM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-18-2013, 10:44 PM

Posting Permissions

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