Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 401 to 500 of 504
  1. #401
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    I stumbled onto the Trek Slash 29er. It's a little longer travel than I had intended on buying, but seems like there is lot to like about [well except the proprietary headset/stem]. People are complaining about the slack STA so I figured I'd like it. Ha!
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  2. #402
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310


    Well that time of the year has come again. I hung up the Mach 6 in the garage until the spring and got my trusty SC Nomad Mk2 out to thrash in the PNWet slop. Nearly put my back out lifting it! Must weight 7-8lbs more than my M6. I keep telling myself that rolling all that extra heft around will make me stronger!

    I'll wait until the start of 2017 and then I'll do the following to the M6:

    - service fork
    - service shock
    - service dropper
    - updated suspension linkage and fresh bearings on all pivots
    - new E.13 44T cassette
    - new chain
    - new shift housing and cable
    - new bearings for pedals

    That will get me dialled for the 2017 prime-time riding season.
    Last edited by vikb; 10-24-2016 at 10:36 AM.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  3. #403
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310


    Thanks to Scott at Porcelain Rocket for humouring my Enduropacking schemes.

    Bicycle Touring Gear from Porcelain Rocket

    Adds a small, but handy amount of in-frame storage to the M6.

    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  4. #404
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    I feel like this is the last winter I'll ride my 2009 SC Nomad MK2 in the PNWet slop. The switch from the Mach 6 to the Nomad felt pretty crappy this year. Mostly due to the 7-8lbs weight difference - although the smaller wheels and nearly seized BB are also factors! I fixed the BB when I realized I had that problem.

    The M6 is so easier to accelerate up my local techy climbs and the Nomad, while it gets up them just fine, does not have that snap. So I figure I can either dump some $$ into the Nomad to carbonate it and drop most of the weight difference or I just have to suck it up and unleash the mud and rain on my M6. Next year will be year #4 for the Pivot so it's not like trashing a brand new whip in winter conditions.

    The Nomad is still a sweet bike so part of me wants to keep her rolling as long as possible. It's kind of fun to be at the front of the group on the climbs and on the downs with a bike that has obsolete wheels, suspension design and geometry - and weighs north of 35lbs!



    If you haven't see Nate Hills videos you should check them out. I don't watch many MTB vids all the way through because they are either overly sanitized marketing edits or they 15min shaky POV films of epic boringness. Nate's got a stabilized mount and puts out high quality real life riding edits that I'll watch cover to cover more than once. Especially if I am bored at work!

    Follow Cam Friday - Nate Hills

    They are a great cure for winter MTB blues.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  5. #405
    dog's best friend
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    698
    I would agree with you, Vik, on both your points. The M6 is a capable climber that has improved my game. On a recent trip to Sedona, my mantra was " I can't believe I climbed that!" The bike hooked up well and stayed calm on the ascents, allowing me to focus on navigating technical bits on the climbs. The M6, although a capable descender, was not as confidence inspiring as my previous Pivot, the vesion 1 Firebird. However, for me, the M6 is a great all rounder while the V1 Bird lacked in uphill climbing ease.

    Nate's vids are very well done and a pleasure to watch. My fave is the Captain Ahab series, upper and lower. Awesome display of rider skills!

  6. #406
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by telebiker View Post
    I would agree with you, Vik, on both your points. The M6 is a capable climber that has improved my game. On a recent trip to Sedona, my mantra was " I can't believe I climbed that!" The bike hooked up well and stayed calm on the ascents, allowing me to focus on navigating technical bits on the climbs. The M6, although a capable descender, was not as confidence inspiring as my previous Pivot, the vesion 1 Firebird. However, for me, the M6 is a great all rounder while the V1 Bird lacked in uphill climbing ease.

    Nate's vids are very well done and a pleasure to watch. My fave is the Captain Ahab series, upper and lower. Awesome display of rider skills!
    As the "Enduro" segment moves more and more towards DH and away from AM there are lots more pedal-able bike choices that would descend better than the M6. The new FB for one.

    That said I rarely shuttle and have next to zero interest in bikeparks so the only way I get to shred downhill is to climb up first and we will always take a techy singletrack climb over a fire road if one is available. Personally I care just as much about the climbs as I do the descents.

    The Mach 6 strikes such a great balance between the two aspects of my rides.

    I'm finding myself getting more and more comfy on the M6 headed down as I own it longer. In Moab recently I totally up'd my game on every trail with a fast techy descent compared to previous trips on other bikes. That felt pretty awesome. The bike is definitely far more capable than I am.

    I'm glad you are finding your climbing horizons expanded by the M6. I've never climbed better than on this bike as well. The riding position is ideal for me - both seated and standing.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  7. #407
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310


    A quick tire fit update [2014 Mach 6]. I got a 2.5" Vittoria Morsa for my GF's Knolly Warden on a fairly narrow rim [don't have exact inner width] and threw the wheel in my M6 to see about clearance. Doesn't fit I get hard rubbing.

    https://www.vittoria.com/tire/morsa/

    So to recap M6 fit for bigger tires:

    - 2.3" Morsa = works fine lots of clearance
    - 2.4" Conti Trail King = works fine just enough clearance
    - 2.5" Morsa = doesn't work hard contact

    If you don't need max volume the 2.3" Morsa is a true to width tire bigger than a 2.4" Maxxis. Rolls fast and grips well for an almost semi-slick.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  8. #408
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,231
    I'm Liking the e13 trs's on my Mach 6 definitely more volume than equivalent maxxis tires (no surprise)

  9. #409
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    I'm Liking the e13 trs's on my Mach 6 definitely more volume than equivalent maxxis tires (no surprise)
    Cool. They are on my list to try if I have more TK issues this summer.

    Does the new Boost carbon M6 have more tire clearance in the rear or is it the same as the original M6?
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  10. #410
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,231
    No clue. I have an original black mach 6. The only colour / graphics package I could stomach!

  11. #411
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,231

  12. #412
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    Nice. One of my few regrets with my M6 is the power ranger blue colourway I bought.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  13. #413
    Nothing seems to kill me
    Reputation: CUP-TON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    367
    I have a 2016 Mach 6 with the Boost and at first I was running a 2.4 Conti TK on at DT EX1501 30mm. I live in CO Springs and ride mostly techy rocky desert so I run around 26-30 psi to save my rims. I was getting some rub with the 2.4 TK on hard landings. I could not see where it was rubbing but I could hear it on the drops and it was driving me nuts. So I put a HR2 on it for now. 2.4 TK has been my favorite from way back to the Rubber Queen days when I had to order them from across the pond. I am still running one in the front and have had no issues with thus far.
    Hello, my name is human and I came down from the stars.

  14. #414
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by CUP-TON View Post
    I have a 2016 Mach 6 with the Boost and at first I was running a 2.4 Conti TK on at DT EX1501 30mm. I live in CO Springs and ride mostly techy rocky desert so I run around 26-30 psi to save my rims. I was getting some rub with the 2.4 TK on hard landings. I could not see where it was rubbing but I could hear it on the drops and it was driving me nuts. So I put a HR2 on it for now. 2.4 TK has been my favorite from way back to the Rubber Queen days when I had to order them from across the pond. I am still running one in the front and have had no issues with thus far.
    That's odd. I have been running 2.4" TKs for years on 35mm rims with no rubbing. I am using stiff carbon rims so there is perhaps less wheel flex to deal with. I'm on the non-boost M6, but I can't imagine there would be less rear tire clearance going to a boost frame.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  15. #415
    Nothing seems to kill me
    Reputation: CUP-TON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    367
    Pivot says a 2.4 TK will work. But I was getting slight rub somewhere. There is suppose to be a bit more clearance with the boost so it is a conundrum. There was a bit of wobble in the tire itself so I may try another. It didn't do it all the time, just occasionally on landings.
    The HR2 seems fine but it is wearing quicker and way less volume than I am used too.
    Hello, my name is human and I came down from the stars.

  16. #416
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    I tried a HR2. I couldn't be happy with the loss of volume. It just felt so puny compared to the TK. I don't need plus rubber, but I do want a true width 2.4" tire under my butt!

    TK's can get damaged casings which will rub, but that's a dead tire at that point. It's happened a few times to me. Not enough to stop me from running them, but enough to be irritating. If I found another tire that worked as well as the TK and was the same volume I'd switch, but so far the TK is hands down my favourite tire.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  17. #417
    Nothing seems to kill me
    Reputation: CUP-TON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    367
    TK 2.4 is my favorite also. Even the TK 2.2 could not come close to the 2.4.
    The tire along with the build was brand new. So maybe I will pull the front off and put it on the rear since it has a few miles on it and stick the one I took off the rear on the front. Like I said, the HR2 is okay and is somewhat predictable when it breaks loose. But I want my big volume back.
    Hello, my name is human and I came down from the stars.

  18. #418
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    69
    I've got a Spec. Ground Control Grid 2.6 on the back of my 2016 Mach6. Measures a hair over 2.4 wide on 23mm rims (inside width) - a bit disappointing. Anyway, still have enough clearance from all stays to slide the tip of my pinky finger in between the tire and the stay.

  19. #419
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310


    It's been a while since I posted in this thread. I bought a new bike at the start of the year...a Knolly Endorphin.

    Details here: New to the KNation!

    Hit me up in that thread if you want to talk about the Endo.

    Don't worry the Mach 6 is still my favourite bike for so many reasons. I ride a fair bit year round here on Van Isle and we ride the same trails a lot so after 3yrs I was just getting a bit bored of the M6 and wanted something fresh. A buddy asked me what I wanted to improve over the M6 and my answer was nothing. I just wanted a new bike to stay stoked about my local trails.

    I've mentioned in this thread that I was keen on a 29er and that's still true. I almost bought two [Evil The Following and a Lenz], but got hung up on the tire clearance of the Evil and having to make so many choices on the Lenz. I realized with the Lenz that I needed to think more about what I wanted from a 29er.

    The Knolly ended up being an impulse purchase because I wanted to try out the 4x4 suspension and it was on sale. It scratches the new bike itch and uses the same "standards" as the M6 for wheels/fork so in the long run I'll have lots of parts to keep one or both those bikes rolling. I'm still riding a 10yr old 26er as a winter bike so ya I hang on to my bikes a long time.

    I'm still pondering a 29er as the next bike. I just need to wait until something really grabs my attention and makes me pull out my credit card.

    Bikes that are on my mind:

    - Evil The Following Mk2 [with room from a real 2.4" tire]
    - Evil Wreckoning [probably too much bike]
    - Trek Slash [probably too much bike and Knock Block! ]
    - Knolly 29er [ETA 2018]
    - Canfield Riot Carbon [if it's not poorly designed and uber heavy]
    - Lenz [need to visit the factory and chat with them in person]
    - YT Jeffsy Mk2 [shorten the CS and make room for a real water bottle]
    - Pivot Mach 6 Mk3 [long travel 29er???? ]

    Finally what do I want from a Mach 6 revamp to Mk3?

    - keep the STA reasonable [73.5 deg is okay like the new 5.5]
    - room for 2.6" rubber [real width not Maxxis!]
    - 29er wheels could be cool, but 27.5 is fine
    - 160mm/160mm
    - room for a full size water bottle in frame
    - keep under DT bottle mounts as well
    - offer a stealth black on black colourway option
    - 18.5" reach on a large with a 19" ST length
    - external cable routing except for stealth dropper
    - stock with X2
    - ~13.5" BB
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  20. #420
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    735
    Good info Vik and congrats. I fortunately or unfortunately got to demo my buddy's brand new Wreckoning last night on a section of trail I have ridden at least 20 times on Strava. I have had my Mach 6 since August of 2013 and made the decision this month to put a little money back into it and ride it for the summer. Probably would pull the trigger on a Jeffsy 29 right now, but they aren't available. Getting the Luftkapp upgrade to my Pike this weekend as I am heading to Whistler, new drivetrain, and a few minor things.

    Well, I am seriously re-evaluating everything after last night. Blew up my PR on this segment by 10 seconds on a 2 minute tight roller coaster type of DH trail on this Wreckoning. On top of that, I was right on the back wheel of my buddy and coasting most of the way. Even worse, it was mud and wet roots all over the place, so cornering and speed were not great. AND, it was an XL, which was way too big for me and not even tuned to my weight. Geeze. 2 minutes on that thing made me seriously depressed.

    That Wreckoning suspension feels like a DH bike. The speed these new 29'ers carry is crazy. One or two pedals out of a corner and I was coasting while my buddy was pedaling quite a bit...and I was still gaining easily on him. First time I have ever ridden a 29'er and it just felt solid and fast. Plenty lively and fun too.

    Would love to see a new Mach 6 29'er with some modern geometry. I guess I could look at the Switchback. The Wreckoning has always turned me off a bit due to the weight. This was an $8000 build with carbon everything and it is 3-4 pounds heavier than my bike. Hard to justify and go backwards on weight. Evidently, the weight doesn't seem to matter on this bike. I haven't climbed on it, but I can tell how fast it is and how effortless it is to keep speed.

    Thought I still loved my bike until last night. Decisions, decisions....

  21. #421
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Well one thing to consider is that unless you race speed is only part of the equation and the playfulness/fun factor is the other. The Endo's longer WB definitely feels nicer at speed than my M6's shorter WB, but the M6 is far more playful and fun.

    From my limited ride time on FS 29ers the speed is clear, but that seems to come at the expense of the poppy/playful trail feel that shorter & smaller wheeled bikes have.

    One of the reasons I like the Canfield Riot is the short CS and WB so you get the big wheel roll over, but keep the agile/playful feel. Too bad it's poorly designed and weighs a ton while still being flexible. Great geo and suspension system - poor execution as a production frame.

    Going down faster isn't all that important to me. Going up faster or feeling fresher at the back half of a long ride would matter a lot more.

    I'm no 29er expert so take all these comments with a grain of salt. It's just what's going through my mind at the moment.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  22. #422
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    735
    I would agre with your viewpoint. From my limited time, it felt very playful and poppy. Surprisingly so and seemed to corner as good or better than my M6. Speed alone would't give me a PR as there are a ton of sharp corners and hairpins on this trail. The speed is great, but I don't want a plow bike, I want something I can pop off of everything and still feel like a 27.5 bike. Even though the suspension seemed much more plush than my M6, it was popping off of everything no problem. From all the reviews I have read on the Jeffsy, same type of positive reviews on the playfulness. Yeti 5.5 seems not quite as poppy and playful. Fast as can be, but stays on the ground.

    I have been sitting on the sidelines as things are changing and improving quickly on the mid and long travel slack 29ers, just not sure how much longer I can wait after my ride last night. I am like you, I have been waiting for the perfect 29er to come out and am still waiting. Seems like all of them have just a few things that need changing. I know I would definitely feel fresher with this setup (Lyrik and X2) compared to my M6. It was so much more plush.

  23. #423
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    My friend has a Jeffsy and it's not in the same ballpark as my M6 for playful/poppy ride. But it rolls nice. I've tried it and if it was a super fun ride I would own one. I've been hoping YT would shorten the CS on the next version of the Jeffsy and not grow the CS as the frame size grows. I need a large and they bump up the CS length on the larger frame sizes.

    I should note that the Jeffsy had a somewhat similar feel to the Switchblade I tried. Not very agile, but in the right terrain it generated a lot of speed and momentum.

    Everything I've read about the Wreckoning has described it as steamroller. That's been putting me off as I don't often get to open a bike up to warp speeds on our local trails. Interesting that you felt the opposite. I need to get a test ride in on one and see for myself.

    We've got an Evil dealer up in Cumby where I will be this weekend and if the don't have a Wreckoning I can try I am relatively close to Fanatik in Bellingham.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  24. #424
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    735
    I don't know if I would say opposite, but it was more playful than I thought it would be - not just a steamroller. Very light on the front end and even with the plush suspension, was happy getting off the ground. That is a bummer on the Jeffsy, all of the reviews I have read have highlighted the playfulness of the bike. I have not been able to demo one. Unfortunately, YT is killing themselves with great reviews and no bikes to sell due to their supply chain issues.

    Will probably demo a Switchblade in a few weeks, but for some reason, I have not been that excited about that bike.

  25. #425
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgman25 View Post
    Will probably demo a Switchblade in a few weeks, but for some reason, I have not been that excited about that bike.
    I went into the SB demo expecting it to be a slam dunk and figuring I mostly needed to figure out the sizing. Came away from the demo feeling "meh", which when you are looking at a $$$ frame with a very rare/limited compatibility rear hub made me back away from the purchase. I've talked to several other people who had the same experience. OTOH some people really dig their SB so it's worth the effort to find a demo.

    On the YT my buddies exact words are "...damn it's fast, rolls over everything, but I have to really work it through the tight stuff..." To be fair our trails are tight, slow speed tech. I have to travel to find a flow trail. So I think my perspective on 29ers is sort of evaluating them in their worst case scenario.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  26. #426
    GreeneDog
    Reputation: airtym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    269
    Hey Guys, I have a question about sag with the M6. With gear I am 210lbs and ride mostly single track here in New England. I will bring to the bike park and occasional race an enduro event. I am pretty much a set it a forget it guy. I was listening to a podcast today with Chris Cocalis from Pivot. He mentioned that most of use home mechanics don't set the sag right on our Pivots. I believe I have been guilty of this. Compared to recent years, this year I am ridding a lot more and am growing an opinion about the M6 which is that its not as good as I thought suspension wise. After hearing Chris talk about this today I figured i would ask the group.

    How much sag % are you using for your setup(riding weight, ride type, sag%).

    210lbs - All Mountain - 22%
    2013 Specialized Demo 8 II
    2014 Pivot Mach 6 Carbon

  27. #427
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,231
    28-30% rear 25% front. If you're at 22% in the rear that's is not enough. I ride North East rocky chunk.

  28. #428
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    28-30% rear 25% front. If you're at 22% in the rear that's is not enough. I ride North East rocky chunk.
    Yes 22% is not enough. I run 30% on both ends set while in the attack position and the M6 suspension works amazingly well for me for step techy riding. I don't mess with my M6's suspension day to day. It's working great for all the riding I do.

    If you are running 22% sag and disappointed with how the M6 is performing it's your suspension setup that's at issue. Beyond that sag is just one part of the suspension setup process. Your fork/shock both have a number of adjustments plus volume spacers that can modify how fast the airspring ramps up.

    If you are not starting from a solid understanding of how your suspension works I would track down someone locally who is well regarded for their suspension expertise and get them to help you setup your bike. The difference between a properly setup bike and a poorly setup one is night and day. Write down all the settings they suggest so you have a baseline you can return to should your settings change - intentionally or by accident.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  29. #429
    GreeneDog
    Reputation: airtym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Yes 22% is not enough. I run 30% on both ends set while in the attack position and the M6 suspension works amazingly well for me for step techy riding. I don't mess with my M6's suspension day to day. It's working great for all the riding I do.

    If you are running 22% sag and disappointed with how the M6 is performing it's your suspension setup that's at issue. Beyond that sag is just one part of the suspension setup process. Your fork/shock both have a number of adjustments plus volume spacers that can modify how fast the airspring ramps up.

    If you are not starting from a solid understanding of how your suspension works I would track down someone locally who is well regarded for their suspension expertise and get them to help you setup your bike. The difference between a properly setup bike and a poorly setup one is night and day. Write down all the settings they suggest so you have a baseline you can return to should your settings change - intentionally or by accident.
    Thanks for the quick responds boys. I do start my factory setting on all my suspension with recommended setting and feel pretty good about those but I agree the sag is definitely not helping. I always like a little firmer suspension but I believe in this case 22% has been hurt me. In prep of asking this question I did three laps on a 2 mile route last night at 22%. I'll change to 30% and run the same thing later this week. I'll let you all know the result. Thanks, Josh.
    2013 Specialized Demo 8 II
    2014 Pivot Mach 6 Carbon

  30. #430
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    I run a number of volume spacers in my fork and shock to get a supple top and then rapidly get firmer as you move through the travel.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  31. #431
    Nothing seems to kill me
    Reputation: CUP-TON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    367
    Float X - 30% rear, med on 3 pos lever, #2 on open mode dial. rebound is 9 in from full open, I think. I leave it here unless I have a long fire road climb. Then I just switch to firm on the 3 pos lever.

    Float 36 Fit 4- 25% front, medium on the blue dial, about 50% on the black. Rebound set about 8 or 9 clicks from full open.
    I just bought some volume spacers for the fork but have not installed them yet.
    Last edited by CUP-TON; 05-24-2017 at 10:34 AM.
    Hello, my name is human and I came down from the stars.

  32. #432
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4,752
    Quote Originally Posted by airtym View Post
    Hey Guys, I have a question about sag with the M6. With gear I am 210lbs and ride mostly single track here in New England. I will bring to the bike park and occasional race an enduro event. I am pretty much a set it a forget it guy. I was listening to a podcast today with Chris Cocalis from Pivot. He mentioned that most of use home mechanics don't set the sag right on our Pivots. I believe I have been guilty of this. Compared to recent years, this year I am ridding a lot more and am growing an opinion about the M6 which is that its not as good as I thought suspension wise. After hearing Chris talk about this today I figured i would ask the group.

    How much sag % are you using for your setup(riding weight, ride type, sag%).

    210lbs - All Mountain - 22%

    I go by the little red indicator that comes stock on the shock, and don't know what percent that ends up being. Typically, for a longer travel bike I run about 30% sag out back.

    Front sag is a different matter.


    Setting correct sag on the M6 is a bit tricky. The bike has a slack STA. If you set sag seated with the post at full extension your weight will be far back. You will sag farther in to your rear travel and lessen your front. You'd end up with relatively more psi in the rear, less up front. Setting sag seated (say that fast) was more common years back. Now, overall, I think it better to set sag from the attack position.

    If you are setting sag seated, at 22% you probably have way too much air in the rear.


    While I was not a big fan of the original stock Float X, my PUSH'd version, and now the X2, gives an amazing feel. I think the bike feels great, rear suspension-wise.

    NE rider here too.

  33. #433
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    I always set my sag in the attack position. That's where I'll be when I want my suspension working optimally so that's where I set it up.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  34. #434
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    735
    FYI, just got my Pike upgraded with a Luftkappe and serviced at Vorsprung on the way up to Whistler. Only one quick ride last night, but it was a great upgrade. Much better on small bump compliance and front end traction is greatly improved. The tire stays planted in the corners. Went up 10 PSI, but removed both tokens out of the fork and it was tuned to my weight and riding preference. Much more plush, but not coming close to bottoming out, so win-win. Highly recommend.

  35. #435
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    I asked my buddy Travis to demo an Evil Wreckoning for me and he did. The report was pretty glowing in pretty much every respect. The only issue seems to be tight tire clearance in the rear triangle. I've got a 2.4" Conti Trail King 29er tire mounted on a wheel I may bring up to Cumberland with me next visit to see about the clearance, but based on our measurements of the stock E.13 tire it's looking like a no go.

    Travis liked the bike so much he recommended just accepting having to run a 2.35" tire, but I'm going to keep the 29er I get a long while and not being able run a 2.4" tire with decent mud/rock clearance seems crazy these days with tires getting wider and a medium blingy build costing $7K+ CAD.

    So ya Evil I am thinking the Wreckoning Mk2 could be on my list of new bikes. Just put out a revised rear triangle with room for 2.5" tires!
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  36. #436
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,827
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I asked my buddy Travis to demo an Evil Wreckoning for me and he did. The report was pretty glowing in pretty much every respect. The only issue seems to be tight tire clearance in the rear triangle. I've got a 2.4" Conti Trail King 29er tire mounted on a wheel I may bring up to Cumberland with me next visit to see about the clearance, but based on our measurements of the stock E.13 tire it's looking like a no go.

    Travis liked the bike so much he recommended just accepting having to run a 2.35" tire, but I'm going to keep the 29er I get a long while and not being able run a 2.4" tire with decent mud/rock clearance seems crazy these days with tires getting wider and a medium blingy build costing $7K+ CAD.

    So ya Evil I am thinking the Wreckoning Mk2 could be on my list of new bikes. Just put out a revised rear triangle with room for 2.5" tires!
    There was a post recently on Instagram stating they had added bottle bosses & the rear now fits the newest 2.6" tires.
    https://www.instagram.com/p/BUagpZ1hIah/


  37. #437
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,533
    I think 2.6 is what all makers should shoot for unless it's a XC race bike.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  38. #438
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter View Post
    There was a post recently on Instagram stating they had added bottle bosses & the rear now fits the newest 2.6" tires.
    What???? Fukc that could be a problem for my VISA.

    Any chance you could point me at the 'gram in question?
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  39. #439
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    I think 2.6 is what all makers should shoot for unless it's a XC race bike.
    Yes! Even if you only want to run 2.35" or 2.4" rubber now you've got clearance for rocks and mud in the rear....ie. real world riding conditions.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  40. #440
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,827
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    What???? Fukc that could be a problem for my VISA.

    Any chance you could point me at the 'gram in question?
    I edited post above to add it...


  41. #441
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,533
    Oh no, I'm a pensioner with Dentist's tastes.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  42. #442
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310


    I'm digging the new Mach 5.5c. Reasonable STA [not too steep] and clearance for a decent sized rear tire while keeping CS short. If the M6 revamp looks like that and sticks with Boost [can convert my rear wheel with adaptor] I might be tempted to update my M6 to a MK3.

    But first I must get a 29er. I can't really justify spending more $$ on 27.5 bikes before I try some wagon wheels.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  43. #443
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Oh no, I'm a pensioner with Dentist's tastes.
    You have nice teeth. Sell the Warden and get EVIL.

    I'm hoping to be a pensioner soon and I don't even have a pension coming my way, but I am feeling EVIL.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  44. #444
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter View Post
    I edited post above to add it...
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jncarpenter again.


    You rock.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  45. #445
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    102
    ViK
    I too have been hearing some great things about Evil's big 29er. I've also been me reading a bit about the yeti 5.5.
    I plan to be in Moab in Sept and will be bringing my 2016 Mach 6, however I hoping to take 2 days and try a couple of 29ers. Was planning on the Yeti 5.5 and 4.5, but am now wondering about doing the 5.5 and the Wreckoning. Do you have any experience on the Yeti?

    John

  46. #446
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by crankarms View Post
    ViK
    I too have been hearing some great things about Evil's big 29er. I've also been me reading a bit about the yeti 5.5.
    I plan to be in Moab in Sept and will be bringing my 2016 Mach 6, however I hoping to take 2 days and try a couple of 29ers. Was planning on the Yeti 5.5 and 4.5, but am now wondering about doing the 5.5 and the Wreckoning. Do you have any experience on the Yeti?

    John
    I have no experience with the Yeti. I like bikes with shorter CS for our tight trails so Pivot and Evil having kept 29er CS 17" and below are more appealing to me, but that's a function of where I live and ride.

    Yeti bikes look sweet.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  47. #447
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,231
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post


    I'm digging the new Mach 5.5c. Reasonable STA [not too steep] and clearance for a decent sized rear tire while keeping CS short. If the M6 revamp looks like that and sticks with Boost [can convert my rear wheel with adaptor] I might be tempted to update my M6 to a MK3.

    But first I must get a 29er. I can't really justify spending more $$ on 27.5 bikes before I try some wagon wheels.
    You really think they'll make a new Mach 6 27.5 bike with 155 in the back and 160 up front ? I don't. I think the new 5.5 has made the current Mach 6 obsolete.

  48. #448
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    You really think they'll make a new Mach 6 27.5 bike with 155 in the back and 160 up front ? I don't. I think the new 5.5 has made the current Mach 6 obsolete.
    I don't think a 140mm [5.5c] bike and 170mm [Firebird] bike make a 155mm or a 160mm [Mach 6] bike obsolete but I guess we'll see.

    Knolly has 130mm, 150/155mm and 170mm 27.5" bikes in their lineup and they are all well differentiated.

    Santa Cruz has 130mm, 150mm and 165mm 27.5" bikes in their line up.

    I wouldn't buy a 140mm 5.5c as a direct replacement for my Mach 6 neither would I buy a Firebird for that role. If that's the case I'll buy something else to replace the M6 when the time comes.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  49. #449
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4,752
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I don't think a 140mm [5.5c] bike and 170mm [Firebird] bike make a 155mm or a 160mm [Mach 6] bike obsolete but I guess we'll see.

    Knolly has 130mm, 150/155mm and 170mm 27.5" bikes in their lineup and they are all well differentiated.

    Santa Cruz has 130mm, 150mm and 165mm 27.5" bikes in their line up.

    I wouldn't buy a 140mm 5.5c as a direct replacement for my Mach 6 neither would I buy a Firebird for that role. If that's the case I'll buy something else to replace the M6 when the time comes.

    Pivot could replace the M6 with a 29er.

    The current M6 is their all-rounder, Trail-Am-Enduro.

    IMO 29ers make better all-rounders.


    The SB was a nice idea but is just not working out all that well I'd say. There is no frame only option, the chainring/crank setup has issues, and the rear hub is too specific - riders who build up frames want to carry over parts to the next bike.


    A 29er Pivot with 140-150 out back and 150 or so up front. Skip on compromises need for chubby tires. Forget the FD and make a nice wide lower pivot for strength.

  50. #450
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,231
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I don't think a 140mm [5.5c] bike and 170mm [Firebird] bike make a 155mm or a 160mm [Mach 6] bike obsolete but I guess we'll see.

    Knolly has 130mm, 150/155mm and 170mm 27.5" bikes in their lineup and they are all well differentiated.

    Santa Cruz has 130mm, 150mm and 165mm 27.5" bikes in their line up.

    I wouldn't buy a 140mm 5.5c as a direct replacement for my Mach 6 neither would I buy a Firebird for that role. If that's the case I'll buy something else to replace the M6 when the time comes.
    If the 5.5 was a 5 with 130 out back and a 140 or even 150 fork like a Fox 34 I'd say there was good room for a 27.5 Mach 6 replacement but since it's 140/160 and specced with a 36 I don't see it.

  51. #451
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Pivot could replace the M6 with a 29er.

    The current M6 is their all-rounder, Trail-Am-Enduro.

    IMO 29ers make better all-rounders.


    The SB was a nice idea but is just not working out all that well I'd say. There is no frame only option, the chainring/crank setup has issues, and the rear hub is too specific - riders who build up frames want to carry over parts to the next bike.


    A 29er Pivot with 140-150 out back and 150 or so up front. Skip on compromises need for chubby tires. Forget the FD and make a nice wide lower pivot for strength.
    Pivot could definitely add a 29er to the mix. SC is adding a long travel 29er to their mid-travel Hightower. Knolly is coming out with one or more 29ers in the next year or so.

    So far there is no indication that these new 29er models will be displacing existing 27.5 models.

    Personally I have no heartache if the Mach 6 went 29er, but I don't think Pivot needs to get rid of the Mach 6 to add a longer travel 29er.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  52. #452
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    If the 5.5 was a 5 with 130 out back and a 140 or even 150 fork like a Fox 34 I'd say there was good room for a 27.5 Mach 6 replacement but since it's 140/160 and specced with a 36 I don't see it.
    Well that's the great thing about this question....we'll find out the answer soon enough. If Pivot sticks with a 140mm and 170mm 27.5 bike line up then people like me will just go buy a bike from someone else when they want to replace the Mach 6. That's okay. There are no shortage of awesome bikes out in that category.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  53. #453
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,231
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Well that's the great thing about this question....we'll find out the answer soon enough. If Pivot sticks with a 140mm and 170mm 27.5 bike line up then people like me will just go buy a bike from someone else when they want to replace the Mach 6. That's okay. There are no shortage of awesome bikes out in that category.
    I'm looking forward to trying a 5.5 as I really don't see it giving much up to the current Mach 6 - particularly since the head angles are so close and the front travel is the same. I remember my new at the time 140/150mm Turner 5 Spot replacing a 160/160 RFX and being more capable.

  54. #454
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    I'm looking forward to trying a 5.5 as I really don't see it giving much up to the current Mach 6 - particularly since the head angles are so close and the front travel is the same.
    I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who don't need a 155/160mm bike that will do just great on the 5.5.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  55. #455
    Cactus Cuddler
    Reputation: tehllama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    A 29er Pivot with 140-150 out back and 150 or so up front. Skip on compromises need for chubby tires. Forget the FD and make a nice wide lower pivot for strength.
    Too similar to the Switchback, so no point in doing that.

    As a 150mm bike, dedicated 29er (but with mud clearance to run 29x2.5" out back, and thus 27x2.6"), that would be the target (160/150mm bike).
    I completely concur with Vik on the likelihood of that happening, similar to Knolly rolling out a Warden29 in that same space.

    With the right suspension setup, both of those bikes will pedal as well as the tires can allow them to uphill, and proceed to smash everything on the way back down as well as anybody could as from an all-around bike.

  56. #456
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4,752
    Quote Originally Posted by tehllama View Post
    Too similar to the Switchback, so no point in doing that.

    As a 150mm bike, dedicated 29er (but with mud clearance to run 29x2.5" out back, and thus 27x2.6"), that would be the target (160/150mm bike).
    I completely concur with Vik on the likelihood of that happening, similar to Knolly rolling out a Warden29 in that same space.

    With the right suspension setup, both of those bikes will pedal as well as the tires can allow them to uphill, and proceed to smash everything on the way back down as well as anybody could as from an all-around bike.

    Seems to me we are in agreement then.

  57. #457
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    As I was reading the comparison between the HD3 and the HD4 a lot of what the author is saying has come to my mind when I think about my Mach 6 vs. the Knolly Endo I have or some of the other "modern" geo bikes. There sure is a trade off between how playful a shorter bike is vs. the stability you get by making a bike longer. I'm not suggesting one is wrong the other is right, but the question that I ask myself is do I care about going that little bit faster if that means I have a bike that is noticeably less playful on the trail?

    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/ibis-hd4-review.html
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  58. #458
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,533
    We went through crap with the XC race bike 71/73 obsession, and now it seems to be focusing on Enduro. Enduro has been getting steeper, and near DH like in some cases, and most manufacturers have a bike that caters to this. Probably a pretty small market in reality, although with a lot of these bike you may be able size down. Odd that they are bothering with a new 650b bike, when it's clearly on it's way out😉
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  59. #459
    GreeneDog
    Reputation: airtym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I always set my sag in the attack position. That's where I'll be when I want my suspension working optimally so that's where I set it up.
    Nice point Vik, I will double my settings tonight and see how they vary.

    So, I went back to the drawing board. Set my fork(Pike w/4 tokens) and Avalanche dampener up with the suggested settings, 7 clicks of low speed and a click faster on the rebound damping, 25% sag. Three position Charger(Avalanche) setting in the middle. Rear shock(Monarch Plus HV RC3 w/4 bands) again 1 click faster on rebound from suggested and medium switch and 30% sag. I went back and did the same laps I did the other day and was much faster and happier. Just for fun did a final extra lap with everything wide open no change in sag and that was great. Super plush just not as fast. But I now know that I am going in the right direction.

    Thanks for the help.

    Here are my laps from May 30 verse May 23(20%sag). The slow one on the 30 was the fun lap with everything open. The time is off, I thought I had paused it but it was still running.

    https://www.strava.com/segments/15025560?filter=overall
    2013 Specialized Demo 8 II
    2014 Pivot Mach 6 Carbon

  60. #460
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    We went through crap with the XC race bike 71/73 obsession, and now it seems to be focusing on Enduro. Enduro has been getting steeper, and near DH like in some cases, and most manufacturers have a bike that caters to this. Probably a pretty small market in reality, although with a lot of these bike you may be able size down. Odd that they are bothering with a new 650b bike, when it's clearly on it's way out😉
    New SC Nomad released...love it how PB says it's too extreme for Enduro racing. Not sure how many they'll sell and to who. Feels like we have hit Peak Enduro.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  61. #461
    Cactus Cuddler
    Reputation: tehllama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,760
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    New SC Nomad released...love it how PB says it's too extreme for Enduro racing. Not sure how many they'll sell and to who. Feels like we have hit Peak Enduro.
    Ironically enough, the same setup with wagon wheels is going to be heralded as the second coming of do-everything, but suffer from the same issue of needing speed in order to really make sense.

    I think there is a lot of legitimacy to the 'peak Enduro' statment - but I'm still somewhat mystified why it has taken so long to get here. It shouldn't have ever been hard to invent a 'park bike that pedals', especially since we're reinventing the concept of a 180/170mm coil fork and coil shock on similar suspension... so I'm beyond confused why hordes of suspension designers (Admittedly constrained within their own proprietary kinematic universe) hadn't achieved this level of success a whole generation back.

    What I AM legitimately excited about is that the bike industry has now bracketed the capability range of bikes that can pedal up mountains and ride anything down the backside. I think in the press statements, Santa Cruz has been impressively forthright about what the new Bromad really does well, and why the Bronson will continue to exist. I'm hoping the same treatment happens for the Hightower and whatever the Hightower LT will end up being [as that will be the EWS tool of choice].

    Since most people want some capability in the bank for that one time they run out of talent through a brutally rough section in their own neck of the woods (I am no exception), the compromises required to achieve that while still making it a good bike for the other 95% of the time is what is still driving bike design... minimizing those compromises on paper seems to happen through weight reduction - hence throwing carbon fiber composites at everything to improve things heading up. In practice, it seems that slackening out and moving the head tube forward actually does the most to keep confidence present in those sections with only minimal compromises. It seems that ~140mm of travel with the right setup can really be quite adequate for 99% of the time, so I think we'll actually start to see some useful segmentation again into Enduro-Race and Park-Pedal flavored bikes (basically single crown DH) that are just balls of compromise in order to descend optimally, then the true Trail/All-Mountain bikes that will be the mainstay of each bike company's lineup... It seems that Pivot has already opted for Firebird // Mach 5.5 to fulfill those needs.

    I feel like the elephant in the room is what role a long-legged trail bike should fulfill. Something that has maximally responsive handling behavior, ends up being a phenomenal technical climber - a lot of bikes like the Mach6 still have some use cases where a slightly steeper geometry with 6" of travel make a lot of sense, and for riders who aren't trying to hit warp speed on the descents, then they're not going to have a particularly good use for a slacker bike with less travel.

  62. #462
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,533
    It seems like a pretty narrow niche, but SC is huge and can afford to have a big lineup. I was a little surprised that it wasn't a 29er, but that might to DH.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  63. #463
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4,752
    Quote Originally Posted by tehllama View Post
    Ironically enough, the same setup with wagon wheels is going to be heralded as the second coming of do-everything, but suffer from the same issue of needing speed in order to really make sense.

    I think there is a lot of legitimacy to the 'peak Enduro' statment - but I'm still somewhat mystified why it has taken so long to get here. It shouldn't have ever been hard to invent a 'park bike that pedals', especially since we're reinventing the concept of a 180/170mm coil fork and coil shock on similar suspension... so I'm beyond confused why hordes of suspension designers (Admittedly constrained within their own proprietary kinematic universe) hadn't achieved this level of success a whole generation back.

    What I AM legitimately excited about is that the bike industry has now bracketed the capability range of bikes that can pedal up mountains and ride anything down the backside. I think in the press statements, Santa Cruz has been impressively forthright about what the new Bromad really does well, and why the Bronson will continue to exist. I'm hoping the same treatment happens for the Hightower and whatever the Hightower LT will end up being [as that will be the EWS tool of choice].

    Since most people want some capability in the bank for that one time they run out of talent through a brutally rough section in their own neck of the woods (I am no exception), the compromises required to achieve that while still making it a good bike for the other 95% of the time is what is still driving bike design... minimizing those compromises on paper seems to happen through weight reduction - hence throwing carbon fiber composites at everything to improve things heading up. In practice, it seems that slackening out and moving the head tube forward actually does the most to keep confidence present in those sections with only minimal compromises. It seems that ~140mm of travel with the right setup can really be quite adequate for 99% of the time, so I think we'll actually start to see some useful segmentation again into Enduro-Race and Park-Pedal flavored bikes (basically single crown DH) that are just balls of compromise in order to descend optimally, then the true Trail/All-Mountain bikes that will be the mainstay of each bike company's lineup... It seems that Pivot has already opted for Firebird // Mach 5.5 to fulfill those needs.

    I feel like the elephant in the room is what role a long-legged trail bike should fulfill. Something that has maximally responsive handling behavior, ends up being a phenomenal technical climber - a lot of bikes like the Mach6 still have some use cases where a slightly steeper geometry with 6" of travel make a lot of sense, and for riders who aren't trying to hit warp speed on the descents, then they're not going to have a particularly good use for a slacker bike with less travel.

    Good points.

    Following along with something you mentioned above is the new HD4.

    The HD4 has relatively aggressive geo, but at only 150mm out back for a 275, it might still be a good AM rig. Its interesting and a bike I'd really like to try.

    Compared to the M6 the HD3 I had (breifly) felt twitchy up front, and too xc-like. The M6 allowed me to confidently hang over the front to drive in the front wheel. I'm curious if the M6 HTA numbers are really accurate. At times I think they might be slacker than listed. So, this new HD4 might be just an updated version of the M6, especially if run with a 150mm fork.

    Another point alluded to in you post is bike's are being made to maximize the DH while still pedal uphill. Problem is "just" pedalling uphill on a bike meant to maximize the DH, is not really fun anywhere other than the DH. You can make a bike that is fun on the DH and up and the flats with only a modest compromise to DH fun.

    I think what separates a lot of this is the trails people ride. Dirt road climbing for an hour on the new Nomad to get to the good DH makes that bike ok, if that is your thing. I don't find that appealing. I prefer AM where the ups are as techy as the downs. So, a bike to handle that would be a different animal, like the M6, or maybe the new HD4.

  64. #464
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,533
    I love the long logging road climb, followed by great descending. Spin up, get some road riding so I don't have to for real, take it easy, or go hard for a workout, and then go down as fast as I can. The trouble is, at least where I live this ain't gonna work on most trails. I can climb up logging roads, with more or less single track thrown in to get to the top. Nomad is good so far. Going down, check, Nomad is FUN, WTF, tight corner, steep climb, arghh. Need a bike that can still climb and twist. I generally stay off the pure DH trails, as they usually have gaps, big drops, and spit you out at the bottom in minutes. If I'm going to grind up for 90 minutes, I don't wanna be down in 15. I've tried my old 5 Spot, M6, Warden, Endorphin, and a Wreckoning, and they all work. I would need to try the Nomad, but it does seem too Enduro.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  65. #465
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    For myself if I could only have one bike it would be a 160/160 bike with slack angles that pedalled well. You can take that anywhere and ride effectively short of true DH tracks. If I can have 2 or 3 bikes I can see the value in specialising a bit more since a lot of the time I don't need 160mm of travel out back.

    The Mach 6 is perfect in this regard as it feels like an uber trail bike more than it does a mini-DH rig.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  66. #466
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,231
    Having ridden my Yeti 5.5 all weekend on our tight, rocky, techy trails I have been blown away. Bike is still very maneuverable and so much less work than the Mach 6 on the steep techy climbs that require "power moves". And on the chunky rocky downs it's quicker too. Without pushing myself at all I set PRs everywhere I rode. Up and down. I'd never ridden a more modern longer 29er until Friday. It was eye opening. Vik don't discount the Yeti for 0.2" chainstay.

  67. #467
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    Vik don't discount the Yeti for 0.2" chainstay.
    The Yeti CS are 0.9" longer than a Riot and 0.45" longer than a Lenz. So depending what you are comparing it to the difference is a lot more than 0.2". I'll happily demo one if that opportunity comes my way, but so far I am not digging longer CS. I'm willing to change that opinion, but I need to demo what I can.

    I'm pretty sure I am faster on some terrain with the longer Knolly vs. the Mach 6, but the cost is a loss in playfulness that's very noticeable. Im still working out how I feel about that.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  68. #468
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,231
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    The Yeti CS are 0.9" longer than a Riot and 0.45" longer than a Lenz. So depending what you are comparing it to the difference is a lot more than 0.2". I'll happily demo one if that opportunity comes my way, but so far I am not digging longer CS. I'm willing to change that opinion, but I need to demo what I can.

    I'm pretty sure I am faster on some terrain with the longer Knolly vs. the Mach 6, but the cost is a loss in playfulness that's very noticeable. Im still working out how I feel about that.
    You said you weren't interested in the Yeti sb5.5 as it's chainstays aren't sub 17" that's all.

  69. #469
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    You said you weren't interested in the Yeti sb5.5 as it's chainstays aren't sub 17" that's all.
    I'm hoping to get down to BHam and demo a Riot. I'll hold out for a lighter/stiffer carbon version, but I want to confirm I like the geo. At 16.3" CS it's as short as you'll get for a 29er with decent tire clearance.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  70. #470
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,231
    When chainstays get super short climbing suffers for me.

  71. #471
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    When chainstays get super short climbing suffers for me.
    My shortest CS bike is 16.8" and it climbs extremely well. I like having that wheel tucked underneath me and the front wheel stays down no problem.

    Good thing they [still] make different geo bikes so various folks can get a bike they are stoked to ride.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  72. #472
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310


    Nice to see the Mach 6 V3 come out. Good looking machine.

    Mach 6 Carbon - Pivot Cycles | Pivot Cycles | Performance Redefined
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  73. #473
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    735
    Pretty predictable. Longer reach, steeper seat angle, new build parts. Mach 6 29er would be cool to see.

  74. #474
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4,752
    Nice. Chris addressed the "issues" with the current rig.

    Too bad not coil compatible, minus the 11/6.

    Never had a bike company treat me better than Pivot. Would love to give Chris my business. Right now I'm just hung up on needing to run a coil.

    There is a reason 11/6 was such a big hit, and I'd say it wasn't all about their fancy valving.

  75. #475
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    I'm trying to stay focused on getting a 29er [finally] and not get distracted with another small wheel bike.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  76. #476
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    735
    Ditto. Tired of seeing my group on new 29ers pull away from me on the climbs and the fast descents. I tried my buddy's Wreckoning on one section of trail in rain and mud and at night and I PR'd the trail. Crazy.

  77. #477
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgman25 View Post
    Ditto. Tired of seeing my group on new 29ers pull away from me on the climbs and the fast descents. I tried my buddy's Wreckoning on one section of trail in rain and mud and at night and I PR'd the trail. Crazy.
    I'm not sure a 29er will be any faster around here, but it will be nice just to ride something different on the same local trails.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  78. #478
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,231
    It will be faster. I thought the same until I got my 29er.

  79. #479
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    It will be faster. I thought the same until I got my 29er.
    I ride with folks on 29ers and they are definitely fast through some sections, but the small wheels seem to get through tight techy sections faster...and we have a lot of that here. Locally my guess is that it will be a wash in terms of speed. But we'll see. The 29ers I am looking at are comparable in build quality/weight to what I am currently riding in 27.5....some are a direct competitor just in bigger wheels. I have enough ride times on my local trails to benchmark the 29er when I get it.

    I travel to places where I can see the 29er wheels being an advantage - particularly if I get a longer travel flavour of bike.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  80. #480
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,231
    Our trails are 90% very slow rolling tight and rocky. I was going to get another 27.5 bike until I spoke to a yeti employee that used to ride the same trails I do. He convinced me to try the SB5.5 and to my amazement I've gotten a million PRs on every ride. I don't feel faster unless I'm going down a wide open rocky descent but I just am.

  81. #481
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    As always YMMV. The 29ers I have demo'd have not been faster than my 27.5" bike even [surprisingly] on terrain I thought would be perfect for the 29er. Only demos so I didn't have the bike a long time to get used to it, but I'm for sure not going into this expecting an improvement in speed locally.

    Of course comparing bike X and bike Y is not really comparing 27.5 to 29...it's comparing bike X to bike Y so I wouldn't spend a lot of time trying to generalize off a couple data points.

    If the speed is similar to my 27.5 I'll be happy.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  82. #482
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,181
    The main place where I noticed I was slower on a 29er when DH racing was on medium-radius turns at speed. The gyroscopic force simply meant I couldn't turn at the entry-speed, the bike wanted to keep going straight and would ride up and outside the turn/berm. If I went too fast into the turn, it simply skidded towards the outside. So it required me to bleed more speed before the turn, and then pedal harder after the turn.

    Super tight stuff? No problem, and think about it, you usually aren't going fast enough through super tight to make any significant gyroscopic force, so it wouldn't do anything anyway. Old goofy geometry 29ers were pretty bad in the tech, but we are way past that now (thankfully).

    Large radius turns? They are like on rails and often faster.

    Wheel-catchers and drops? These are fun on 29ers and the wheel-catchers simply don't exist in the same way, you can roll down some pretty amazing terrain and keep going. Nice for tech stuff.

    On jumps, I find the 29er jumps flatter and requires more pedaling in between jumps. Not a problem if you have the grade to easily gain speed, but if the grade is a little flatter, I find myself working harder getting back to speed for the next double or tabletop, sometimes to the point where I can't quite make the feature like I can with my smaller-wheeled bike. It's not to say you can't go big, you can and I have, but it's different and not quite as easy IME. The bike also doesn't "pop" off stuff as easily, in terms of more gyroscopic force to prevent quick line changes and heavier wheels further away from the center of mass. I find my light 29er pops off stuff like crazy, but my 27.5 AM also pops off stuff much easier than my old 29er AM, this appears to be mainly due to wheel-weight (tires+rims).

    I find that my 4" 29er can roll over some stuff better than my bigger bike, it can surely climb better, I think many of these benefits are leveraged in a lighter 29er bike. A heavier one with more travel, from what I owned and ridden, can be a lot of fun, not the fastest way down for me, but if I could only own one bike, I'd probably own something like like a trail-29er with ~140mm of travel. May not always be the fastest down, but the other benefits would be worth it to me. Being able to own a couple bikes, I split the difference and feel that I optimized each wheel size.
    "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.

  83. #483
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4,752
    Neat thoughts on the 29er issue. I've said to myself, also, that my next rig will be a 29er, but I often get distracted by these newer 275s. I've owned a number of 29ers and do think they work better than the 275 in many applications.

    Tradtionally 29ers have rolled/coasted better over chunk and seem faster overall on our rough trails. They have seemed to make better trail bikes. When you want longer travel however, that's where the 275 comes in.

    But, lately I've found a new variable to add to the equation of 275 vs 29. And that is these new 275 x 2.6" tires. On my medium travel 275 these 2.6" tires are like magic. The rollover they provide on rough surfaces feels equal to a 29er. They spin up relatively fast. They climb tech like no other tire I've had. Maybe a 2.6 on a 29er could be even better, but that might be too much tire and feel sluggish. These 2.6" tires are not like sloppy plus tires. On the correct rims they hold up to hard cornering. They are also quite durable. On timed loops they are also faster compared to their, roughly, 2.3" equivalents.

    Anyway, I'm torn as to what will be my next bike. If it is a 275 I'm certain it will need to take 2.6" tires, like the new M6. Really too bad that this new M6 won't take most coils, otherwise I'd happily get one.

  84. #484
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    I've been riding 26 x 2.4" and then 27.5 x 2.4" tires for years and when I say 2.4" I mean actually measuring 2.4" so in Maxxis speak that's like a 2.5" tire.

    I've also owned a 29+ bikepacking bike for ~5yrs now and dig 3" tires for that application.

    I haven't felt the urge to run tires bigger than the 2.4"/2.5" tires I have been running for trail riding, but I'd rather have the extra clearance for a bigger tire than not.

    I've already got a setup of 29er wheels built up with 35mm rims and a 2.4" [aka 2.5"] tire on there just waiting for a frame. Once Knolly announces their 29er info this fall I'll make a decision and get the ball rolling so I have a 29er to ride for the spring of 2018.

    I think it's great that bikes are coming out with clearance for big rubber. As long as they don't grow the CS to make 'em fit.

    FWIW - most of my friends ride 2.4" Maxxis sized tires or 2.3" tires in my speak. I just can't understand wanting to run skinny rubber, but I don't bother trying to convert them.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  85. #485
    Ride On
    Reputation: geraldooka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    513
    [QUOTE=vikb;13366733]FWIW - most of my friends ride 2.4" Maxxis sized tires or 2.3" tires in my speak. I just can't understand wanting to run skinny rubber, but I don't bother trying to convert them. [/]

    I have a fair amount of ride time on 2.3, 2.5 minions and even the monster TKs. The short answer is the smaller tires sacrifice absolute traction and a little float for easier faster rolling and a snappy or peppy ride.
    Michael

    Ride on!

  86. #486
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by geraldooka View Post
    I have a fair amount of ride time on 2.3, 2.5 minions and even the monster TKs. The short answer is the smaller tires sacrifice absolute traction and a little float for easier faster rolling and a snappy or peppy ride.
    I thought this ^^, but when I switched to smaller tires I have not been faster....just enjoyed a rougher less pleasant ride. That may be a personal thing, but I don't equate speed on trails to skinny rubber [within reason not talking plus rubber or fatbikes].

    Did you ever ride TKs? I didn't think you've gone to the darkside.

    Are you actually measuring your time on trails in an objective way like Strava? Feeling fast and being fast can be two different things.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  87. #487
    Ride On
    Reputation: geraldooka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I thought this ^^, but when I switched to smaller tires I have not been faster....just enjoyed a rougher less pleasant ride. That may be a personal thing, but I don't equate speed on trails to skinny rubber [within reason not talking plus rubber or fatbikes].

    Did you ever ride TKs? I didn't think you've gone to the darkside.

    Are you actually measuring your time on trails in an objective way like Strava? Feeling fast and being fast can be two different things.
    No, I don't Strava my rides. I don't know if I'm actually faster or not but that's not my criteria for measurement. Ultimately it's how it feels to me. I did try the TKs out on my rig briefly and sample the ladies ride on occasion. Essentially the bigger rubber feels more difficult to move around and the ride feels less fun. That's at the local trails here, if I were hauling ass down some long rock strewn shred fest I would likely prefer the bigger wheels/rubber. Fwiw the missus finds the TKs slower and harder to roll too but she likes how they feel when going down so she's cool with the compromise.
    Michael

    Ride on!

  88. #488
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4,752
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I thought this ^^, but when I switched to smaller tires I have not been faster....just enjoyed a rougher less pleasant ride. That may be a personal thing, but I don't equate speed on trails to skinny rubber [within reason not talking plus rubber or fatbikes].

    Did you ever ride TKs? I didn't think you've gone to the darkside.

    Are you actually measuring your time on trails in an objective way like Strava? Feeling fast and being fast can be two different things.
    Ha!

    I was a die hard 2.3" fan as they do give that snappy feel. When riding my loop I'd swear the bike with the 2.3" tires was faster. That bike was also about 2.5# lighter. But my watch says different. The 2.6" tires are faster.

  89. #489
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    When BQ did their bike tire speed test a few years back they asked the rider if they were on fast or slow tires each run. When they compared the rider's response with actual times they found the rider was always wrong on their assessment of being on a faster or slower tire.

    Personally I've found my assessment of speed on trails off on numerous occasions. Most notably when I've damaged my rear tire and ridden down rough trails. With my weight shifted forward onto the front wheel. I would have told you I was going slow protecting the rear tire. My actual times have been PRs each time.

    If I just go my trail feel I'd rather have a 2.4" TK on the bike than a smaller tire. Just feels better and the data I have indicates it's not a slow setup at all. Every time I've put a Maxxis 2.4" tire on I couldn't wait to get it off.

    That said I hear that speed is not everything [I can't confirm this and it sounds wrong to me!], but I am willing to entertain the thought.

    One thing that gets overlooked in these comparisons is speed, weight and riding style. If a rider is 150lbs and cruising down the trail at a chill pace it's not surprising they don't feel the same about tires as a different rider 50lbs heavier and going a lot faster.

    My GF rides TKs on narrow rims. If I did that it would suck, but for her she's 125lbs, not cornering hard or fast so it's fine. Different horses for different courses.

    You've got an Ardent on the rear if I recall correctly are you planning on getting rid of that for winter and going full knobby or are you going to give it a shot? I wouldn't be able to make that tire work for me in the winter due to the lack of knobs.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  90. #490
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Ha!

    I was a die hard 2.3" fan as they do give that snappy feel. When riding my loop I'd swear the bike with the 2.3" tires was faster. That bike was also about 2.5# lighter. But my watch says different. The 2.6" tires are faster.
    The watch don't lie.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  91. #491
    Ride On
    Reputation: geraldooka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    513

    Vik's Mach 6 Builds

    I've had the DHR2 on most of the summer actually. On the bigger wheelset it's dhr/DHF 2.4 and 2.5 WT.

    Regarding feel it's like how I feel about driving our manual transmission Mazda 3. It's old and not terribly powerful and has a really stiff suspension tune and it's certainly slower than my now deceased fathers (may he rest in peace) Mercedes was but it's a heck of a lot more fun to drive.

    I'm not debating speed I have no evidence to prove otherwise!
    Michael

    Ride on!

  92. #492
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    You might ask why does it matter if a bike is fast if you are a middle aged dude who doesn't race? And that's a good question.

    My answer would be:

    1. I want to ride with fast people who are younger than [largely] and being able to keep a decent pace without killing myself makes that more pleasant for me and more pleasant for them in that they have to wait less.

    2. Being able to ride quickly means I can cover more distance in a given day which opens up more options for day rides and tours.

    3. Why be slower than you need to be given your particular engine? We are relatively weak power sources so I'd rather ride a fast bike that makes the most of my limited power than a slower one.....given my budget and the available technology.

    That said I won't trade comfort or safety for speed, but luckily wider tires enhance comfort and traction as well as being fast so there is no downside to the choice.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  93. #493
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by geraldooka View Post
    I'm not debating speed I have no evidence to prove otherwise!
    If you enjoy skinnier rubber go for it. No point riding a mountain bike if you are not digging it.

    Cool about the DHR....sorry I should pay attention, but Ardents make me sad so I try not to look at them when possible.

    The DHR is a legit winter tire around here.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  94. #494
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    I'm going to try Maxxis for winter tires. I'll run two 2.5" DHF WTs. Knobs are as wide as TK, but casing is narrower. *fingers crossed* I don't want to stick a fork in my eye.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  95. #495
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,533
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    You might ask why does it matter if a bike is fast if you are a middle aged dude who doesn't race? And that's a good question.
    Going fast is fun. I may be older, fatter, lazier, and frequently exhausted, but I still enjoy a shot of adreneline now and then.

    Going by feel is no way to judge speed. The other evening I was just trying to get to the end of a trail so I could put an end to what was a pretty blah ride. I felt like crap, and had been riding like it. What, a PR, with only 1 much younger, fitter buddy just beating my time. I had given up trying to go fast, and felt painfully slow. You never know.

    As for tires, the slowest way down a trail is crashing or washing out from too little traction.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  96. #496
    Ride On
    Reputation: geraldooka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    513

    Vik's Mach 6 Builds

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Going by feel is no way to judge speed.
    I agree! It is a great way to judge... Feel! My little wheelset feels more fun than my bigger wheelset and feeling like I'm going fast is fast enough for me.

    One might ask what's the fun in mountain biking if your not going the fastest. It should be noted here that I don't feel like I'm going slow (though I may actually be) when I'm riding on point on my little wheelset.

    There are probably too many reasons to list but here's a few:

    1. I love leaving the city and my computer screen and getting into the forest, if I'm riding alone I love the stillness, quiet, it's my meditation.

    2. I love getting my heart pumping, exertion, sweating, pushing myself beyond my comfort zone. Nabbing that elusive climb or drop.

    3. I love riding with my friends catching up, talking bikes, gear geeking out or just riding watching their technique for new lines. Then grabbing food and beverages after.

    4. I love bikes and it's related geekery. Talking about new bikes, running kinematics through X3, testing suspension, tires etc. I have yet to be bored of what I think is one of mans greatest inventions; the human powered bicycle.

    5. I love taking my son out riding, seeing his progression over the years, he makes me proud every time I ride with him. Yet he's so self deprecating I don't think he has any idea how challenging some of the stuff he does is for most people. It's awesome.

    I haven't had my coffee yet, which is probably a good thing, so I can stop polluting this thread with off topic banter. Back to Pivots!
    Last edited by geraldooka; 1 Week Ago at 09:33 PM.
    Michael

    Ride on!

  97. #497
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    I like your list Geraldooka, but I can do all that [except the kid thing] and go as fast as I am able so I see no reason to choose. Interestingly my GF who has never been a speed freak has started to become a bit of a speed freak as she's been riding with me when I chase some PRs.

    Our last ride I figured would be a super chill hang out session so I just rolled along and stopped to wait/snap photos and as she blasts past me she yells "Don't wreck my Strava time by stopping!"

    Getting down the trail fast is a skill and there is only one way to work on it and that's by going fast and keeping track of your times. As much as I hate to admit it [having bagged on Strava previously] I've improved as a mountain biker more in the last 6 months I've been tracking my times than the previous few years.

    That said mountain biking doesn't have to be the same thing for everybody. Pick and choose what you enjoy and what you don't.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  98. #498
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4,752
    While the narrow tires feels snappier, and thus overall faster, they were not more fun. They really only felt faster on the relatively buff, flat stuff. Also, something that makes them feel faster is that chattery feel they give in the rough - you know where you get the bobble head sensation and loose your vision on the trail. Yeah, that might "feel" faster, but not in a good or fun way.

    The bigger tires allow more control and I can push the bike harder on the rough ups and downs and that is ultimately more fun.
    Last edited by Miker J; 1 Week Ago at 12:37 PM.

  99. #499
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    One thing we need to be careful of is telling people how to have fun on a mountain bike. We have our own preferences and that's legit, but if someone isn't into going fast or doing jumps or whatever that's cool.

    If you are getting out on the trails on a bike that's all that matters.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  100. #500
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4,752
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    One thing we need to be careful of is telling people how to have fun on a mountain bike. We have our own preferences and that's legit, but if someone isn't into going fast or doing jumps or whatever that's cool.

    If you are getting out on the trails on a bike that's all that matters.

    Oooppps...


    Just read my post and I did not mean it the way it first came off. I made some changes.

    What I meant to convey was that my narrower tires felt faster, but despite that I personally had less fun on them.

    Along the same vein, I agree that going faster is not necessarily more fun.


    I think I edited the post so it did not come off wrong.
    Last edited by Miker J; 1 Week Ago at 06:15 PM.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-13-2013, 10:04 AM
  2. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-27-2013, 01:55 PM
  3. 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
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-18-2013, 11:44 PM
  5. another sizing question Mach 5.7 vs mach 5.
    By snoroqc in forum Pivot Cycles
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-11-2012, 01:43 PM

Members who have read this thread: 197

Posting Permissions

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