Trek Remedy vs Cannondale Jekyll- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    150

    Trek Remedy vs Cannondale Jekyll

    G'day All,

    Its new bike time and have my sights on a 2019 Remedy 9.8 or a '18/'19 Jekyll 2 27.5

    Bit of background - previous bikes: Transition Covert (27.5 160/160) Santa Cruz Heckler (26 150/150) Cannondale Prophet (26 140/145) and loads more before that.

    I'm in Brisbane Australia - we do not have the 8000ft rides you lot do in the States. Do a lot of 2 to 3 hour trail rides but love the regular shuttle days doing lots of semi and full down hill stuff (but i don't own a DH bike anymore).

    Im in my mid 50's - but dont let that fool you. Fast and hard and scare the shit outta myself is what i love.

    Would rather give up a little on the climbs if it gains me a good advantage on the downs.

    Im struggling to decide (great deals available on both but typical Australia - no chance to test ride). I know the Remedy will have the advantage on the ups (but by how much?) and the Jekyll will have the advantage on the way down (but, how much).

    Would really appreciate input from anyone with experience on either and/or both bikes.

    Cheers, iain

  2. #2
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    If you're a size S and M, go Jekyll. L or XL, go Remedy.

    I got time on a Jekyll in M, and wish it had a steeper STA as there was too much weight bias on the rear while seated. Weight bias was absolutely perfect out of the saddle though, and that's where it mattered. Just a bummer that it wasn't perfect. It was especially noticeable riding with slower folk, pacing off of them, as I wasn't really able to climb out of the saddle efficiently unless I was going at my own pace.

  3. #3
    Dirty Old Man
    Reputation: scatterbrained's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,035
    I'd go with the Remedy, but I'm biased.
    . . . . . . . .

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    237
    Have the Remedy and it rips. Hops off of everything. It is my only bike so I use it for all of my riding.
    2019 Transition Sentinel
    2019 Trek Remedy
    2014 Trek Remedy 8 29er
    2011 Trek Scratch Air 8
    2011 Reign 2
    2008 p.2

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by scatterbrained View Post
    I'd go with the Remedy, but I'm biased.
    Hi mate,

    Thanks for the reply.

    Why are you biased - do you work for / sell Trek?? Why would you select the Remedy over the Jekyll for a bike this is mainly for the downs (but is comfortable on the up)

    Cheers, iain

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    If you're a size S and M, go Jekyll. L or XL, go Remedy.

    I got time on a Jekyll in M, and wish it had a steeper STA as there was too much weight bias on the rear while seated. Weight bias was absolutely perfect out of the saddle though, and that's where it mattered. Just a bummer that it wasn't perfect. It was especially noticeable riding with slower folk, pacing off of them, as I wasn't really able to climb out of the saddle efficiently unless I was going at my own pace.
    G'day Mate,

    Thanks for the reply.

    Interested in your S/M vs L/XL comment - care to expand (im a medium btw).

    STA - i'm no geo snob - but i thought the 18/19 Jekyll have a relatively steep HTA at around the 74.5 degree mark (don't quote me). That angle, and steep generally, tends to be the trend as an 'aid to climbing and body position over cranks' (again, don't quote me).

    I guess im wanting a bike that i can do a 2 - 3 'trail / all mountain' ride on (whatever the hell that definition means) - but really comes alive when the trail turns downhill and most of the ups are in the back of a shuttle truck.

    If the Remedy is only a bee's dick (tiny amount) behind the Jekyll on the downs and vica versa on the ups - then its a toss up. Does either bike suck in either aspect - especially - will the Jekyll suck on a trail ride?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    254
    Remedy is one of the top trail bikes out there. Total blast on everything, both up and down. It won bike of the year from pinkbike, over the Jekyll, in 2017. I don't think either bike has changed much since then.

    Unfortunately, I've never ridden a Jekyll, so I can't directly compare. It was never really an option for me because the bottle location sucks and almost requires a Camelback. I frequently do short rides after work where I prefer using a bottle. Also, the frame design is kinda fugly. If you can [edit] get over [/edit] those 2 things, it seems like a pretty good bike.

    I don't really agree with Ninjichor on sizing, but maybe he's ridden both.
    Last edited by iliveonnitro; 06-16-2019 at 09:30 PM.

  8. #8
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    Quote Originally Posted by jawry View Post
    G'day Mate,

    Thanks for the reply.

    Interested in your S/M vs L/XL comment - care to expand (im a medium btw).

    STA - i'm no geo snob - but i thought the 18/19 Jekyll have a relatively steep HTA at around the 74.5 degree mark (don't quote me). That angle, and steep generally, tends to be the trend as an 'aid to climbing and body position over cranks' (again, don't quote me).

    I guess im wanting a bike that i can do a 2 - 3 'trail / all mountain' ride on (whatever the hell that definition means) - but really comes alive when the trail turns downhill and most of the ups are in the back of a shuttle truck.

    If the Remedy is only a bee's dick (tiny amount) behind the Jekyll on the downs and vica versa on the ups - then its a toss up. Does either bike suck in either aspect - especially - will the Jekyll suck on a trail ride?
    Sizing matters cause the bike grows in length as you go up in size:
    - 1" in front of the BB
    - 2" on seat tube
    - and a little on standover, head tube (stack height)

    I mentioned weight bias on the bike. This affects many things, notably:
    - cornering
    - suspension response
    - balance when airborne

    By pushing the front wheel away, your bodyweight gets distributed from the front wheel to the rear. Too far, and the front starts to risk washing out, hence why the Jekyll in L and XL can be a bit sketchy, considering the short CS already pushing the balance towards the rear. The Remedy has longer CS, so the front wheel can get much further away before the front starts to feel too light.

    It's all a balancing game. If there's a bunch of weight up front, the rider will compensate by getting weight back. XC bikes tend to have a lot of weight up front, in order to feel balanced while in the saddle and having hips back when out of the saddle. Downsides are that its front can dive on jumps and drops, and cornering at high speed out of the saddle requires certain technique, but generally all of them deal with moving weight back which matches many peoples' defensive/panic techniques.

    I find it to be a relief to have fewer things to compensate for and fewer compromises altogether. I learned that FS saps power no matter if it's 100mm of travel or 160mm, arguably being similar if you have tuning setup well, and it being the component selection that affect human motor efficiency. There's the question: do you tune suspension for when you're seated and having hips back, cruising XC/trail style, or do you tune it for being out of the saddle? It's a compromise in which you choose to set the sweet spot for susp...

    I used to be the type that lets the makers decide for me, following their recommendations, and just adapting. I've done this for many years, merely shopping based on feel, looking to buy only if a new product was without a doubt better than my current bike. I had built up a stable, which tended to have a few favorites, and in trying to figure out why, I discovered through "AM hardtails", like the Niner ROS9, that geo mattered a crap ton in terms of capability, way more than all the bling I was paying for to make things take less effort, so I can retain energy to compensate for the bike.

    My riding style got revolutionized once I tried to push the balance closer to perfection through geo, suspension setup, tire setup, to be more of a game to do something with the least amount of conscious effort, like turning, going over bumps, jumping, etc. I got tons more comfortable doing things I avoided, like blind drops and jumps in which I couldn't see the landing from the roll-in. I was able to go with heavier reliable and affordable parts, since I was spending far less effort man-handling the bike that it felt like the challenge was too little. It's as if all the dials and the pressure I ran in my tire all started to have much more meaning, now that I got out of the bikes way and let it do its own thing for the most part.

    I ride custom geo now, built upon all this knowledge, compromising on suspension kinematics and production-level quality in terms of alignment, tolerances/clearance, and finishing. The industry's sizing scheme is just F'd up, no doubt. This is not opinion, but fact I can write essays about. I believe they can shrink it down to 1 size and have adjustability at the head tube and seat tube, to keep a rider properly centered. Then there's the issue of having the suspension tuned according to rider CoG height, considering a taller person needs far more anti-squat than a shorter person, considering the rearward weight shift of a tall person's mass is far greater in force (same fulcrum point, by the moment/leverage arm is longer). I had to go custom geo, in order to further minimize the difference between seated and standing position for least compromise in setup, as no one makes geo like this; Pole and Geometron have started to move in that direction. In order to get the STA steeper, the bike simply has to get much longer; way too long for mainstream brands to consider, cause bikes stop fitting on racks, and athletes who train on road bikes transfer a lower % of their fitness over, due to specificity (unless they train solely out of the saddle, or on time trial bikes with steep STA).

    Anyways, I disqualified the S and M Remedy, and the L and XL Jekyll on grounds of poor fore-aft balance, based on the CS length and WB length. Basic multiple choice elimination, based on the above. The further in depth I go, the more likely I eliminate both, and have to consider being more lenient with my choices, accepting more compromise.

  9. #9
    Dirty Old Man
    Reputation: scatterbrained's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,035
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    Sizing matters cause the bike grows in length as you go up in size:
    - 1" in front of the BB
    - 2" on seat tube
    - and a little on standover, head tube (stack height)

    I mentioned weight bias on the bike. This affects many things, notably:
    - cornering
    - suspension response
    - balance when airborne

    By pushing the front wheel away, your bodyweight gets distributed from the front wheel to the rear. Too far, and the front starts to risk washing out, hence why the Jekyll in L and XL can be a bit sketchy, considering the short CS already pushing the balance towards the rear. The Remedy has longer CS, so the front wheel can get much further away before the front starts to feel too light.

    It's all a balancing game. If there's a bunch of weight up front, the rider will compensate by getting weight back. XC bikes tend to have a lot of weight up front, in order to feel balanced while in the saddle and having hips back when out of the saddle. Downsides are that its front can dive on jumps and drops, and cornering at high speed out of the saddle requires certain technique, but generally all of them deal with moving weight back which matches many peoples' defensive/panic techniques.

    I find it to be a relief to have fewer things to compensate for and fewer compromises altogether. I learned that FS saps power no matter if it's 100mm of travel or 160mm, arguably being similar if you have tuning setup well, and it being the component selection that affect human motor efficiency. There's the question: do you tune suspension for when you're seated and having hips back, cruising XC/trail style, or do you tune it for being out of the saddle? It's a compromise in which you choose to set the sweet spot for susp...

    I used to be the type that lets the makers decide for me, following their recommendations, and just adapting. I've done this for many years, merely shopping based on feel, looking to buy only if a new product was without a doubt better than my current bike. I had built up a stable, which tended to have a few favorites, and in trying to figure out why, I discovered through "AM hardtails", like the Niner ROS9, that geo mattered a crap ton in terms of capability, way more than all the bling I was paying for to make things take less effort, so I can retain energy to compensate for the bike.

    My riding style got revolutionized once I tried to push the balance closer to perfection through geo, suspension setup, tire setup, to be more of a game to do something with the least amount of conscious effort, like turning, going over bumps, jumping, etc. I got tons more comfortable doing things I avoided, like blind drops and jumps in which I couldn't see the landing from the roll-in. I was able to go with heavier reliable and affordable parts, since I was spending far less effort man-handling the bike that it felt like the challenge was too little. It's as if all the dials and the pressure I ran in my tire all started to have much more meaning, now that I got out of the bikes way and let it do its own thing for the most part.

    I ride custom geo now, built upon all this knowledge, compromising on suspension kinematics and production-level quality in terms of alignment, tolerances/clearance, and finishing. The industry's sizing scheme is just F'd up, no doubt. This is not opinion, but fact I can write essays about. I believe they can shrink it down to 1 size and have adjustability at the head tube and seat tube, to keep a rider properly centered. Then there's the issue of having the suspension tuned according to rider CoG height, considering a taller person needs far more anti-squat than a shorter person, considering the rearward weight shift of a tall person's mass is far greater in force (same fulcrum point, by the moment/leverage arm is longer). I had to go custom geo, in order to further minimize the difference between seated and standing position for least compromise in setup, as no one makes geo like this; Pole and Geometron have started to move in that direction. In order to get the STA steeper, the bike simply has to get much longer; way too long for mainstream brands to consider, cause bikes stop fitting on racks, and athletes who train on road bikes transfer a lower % of their fitness over, due to specificity (unless they train solely out of the saddle, or on time trial bikes with steep STA).

    Anyways, I disqualified the S and M Remedy, and the L and XL Jekyll on grounds of poor fore-aft balance, based on the CS length and WB length. Basic multiple choice elimination, based on the above. The further in depth I go, the more likely I eliminate both, and have to consider being more lenient with my choices, accepting more compromise.
    Have you ridden the bikes, or are you just making this judgement based on the geo chart?
    . . . . . . . .

  10. #10
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    Post #2: "I got time on a Jekyll in M".

    Clarification: I own a Jekyll 2 27.5 (2018), and have tinkered with it enough to get a good understanding of it.

    I did make judgement based on the geo chart.

    Good judgement is the result of experience. Experience is the result of bad judgement (not necessarily your own). Judgement is different from speculation, as it is based off of conclusive knowledge.

    If you want to challenge my judging standards, and you have a Remedy in size S or M, feel free to test me. I am confident that I can predict how you have compensated for the Remedy's geo shortcomings.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    If you want to challenge my judging standards, and you have a Remedy in size S or M, feel free to test me. I am confident that I can predict how you have compensated for the Remedy's geo shortcomings.
    Weird flex.

  12. #12
    Professional Noob
    Reputation: eicca's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    678
    Iíll put in my .02 after having ridden both among many and worked on even more.

    There are WAY better options out there.

    Cannondale and Trek are both still utilizing rudimentary single pivot designs. Trekís can be traced all the way back to 2008. They both try to limp them along using proprietary trick dampers, and if your shock blows, your bike suddenly sucks.

    Having had a chance to try numerous models, and having friends that have also tried numerous models, I think youíll get a much better performing bike all around if you get something from Rocky Mountain, Pivot, or track down a used Canfield. Those companies tune their frames rather than relying on shocks, and the difference while riding is substantial.

    The Rocky Mountain Instinct rockets along uphill without any need for a climb switch, and descends with extreme confidence despite the ďlackingĒ travel. The Pivot Mach 5.5 is much the same. Both bikes donít rely on obnoxious proprietary parts or oddball frame garnishing like cable routing solutions or bearing fixtures. Theyíre simple and straightforward.

    My new Canfield Balance absolutely demolishes Trek and Cannonale in every conceivable way. It pedals like itís locked, even when wide open. It rolls faster. It maneuvers better. It jumps easier. It charges harder. And itís all in the frame design.

    So my advice is not to get too locked down on your options.
    => CannondaleExperts.com <=
    All the parts and accessories your Cannondale ever needs

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    387
    I own a MY17 Remedy in XL and it's a fine bike. I spent extra to put an X2 on it and carbon wheels. I love riding it and agree with the points about CS length being a factor, especially at my size.

    That said, I also own a Banshee Prime 29" and it comfortably out rides the Remedy in almost every single way. It's heavier and has no right to ride as well as it does.

    So, choosing now I'd look at a bike with a decent suspension design. DW Link from Pivot or Ibis are well worth it. Banshee are astounding. I tried their long travel 27.5" Rune in Rotorua which climbed supremely well all day and then decends like a boss.

    Geometry also matters, longer chainstays, decent STA and HTA plus general fit.
    Some brands just mess that up in my view and things become apparent at XL frame size when you're riding on the rear axles and have major fit issues.

    The Remedy really does need the shock changed to make it work well. Stock is ok but a coil or X2 makes a huge difference.
    Like I say, it's a good bike and I love mine as it's set up but selecting again now I'd eye up some other options. Knock Block is a gimmick, as is the cable management.

    Understanding demos are really hard to come by.

    And I'm in Straya myself if that helps.
    Good luck with your search!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    641
    I have a 2019 Remedy 9.8. Before making my purchase I tried:

    SC Bronson, SC Hightower, Specialized Stumpjumper (both wheel sizes), Ibis Mojo 4, Rocky Mountain Instinct, Trek Slash and Remedy.

    In my terrain (Idaho, and I travel around the region a lot), The Remedy was the most versatile. Basically it was a great all-arounder that felt comfortable everywhere. I ride a lot of natural trails with some decent elevation change so that balance was pretty important to me. I could maybe see changing out the rear shock if I was concentrating on decending, but the Re:Aktiv thru shaft seems to work great as a trail shock at least on the 19s, and I rarely mess with the climb switch. It's basically just set up to leave it in pedal mode. I can't speak to the 17.

    Enduro-MTB has a good multibike comparo that gives the nod to the Ripmo but is pretty accurate IMO in summing up the Remedy.

    https://enduro-mtb.com/en/best-trail-bike-you-can-buy/

    OP, you're saying you do a lot of shuttle riding, if that's the case I might lean elsewhere. I think the Remedy is at it's best as a bigger trail bike. If I were doing a lot of park and shuttle runs I would have leaned toward the Bronson or Slash. Those 2 are very clearly designed more for that end of the spectrum. Trying to be hyperbole free here for you, OP. I don't want to bash any other bikes, they were all pretty good with some pluses and minuses.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-07-2015, 06:01 PM
  2. Stumpy EVO 29 vs. Remedy 8 vs. Remedy 9.7
    By BadBoyRipper in forum Specialized
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-04-2014, 07:55 AM
  3. Stumpy EVO 29 vs. Remedy 8 vs. Remedy 9.7
    By BadBoyRipper in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 08:26 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-29-2012, 03:21 PM
  5. Cannondale - Jekyll vs Jekyll
    By jawry in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-22-2004, 04:42 PM

Members who have read this thread: 3

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.