Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 1630
  1. #1
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched

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

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon trail bike - Mtbr.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

  2. #2
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    IPA will save America

  3. #3
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,604
    Just reading the dealer release info - looks like a pretty cool ride... Been wondering if that was what was going on in Moab! Wonder how long the first shipment of these will last...? How did you like it on the chunky stuff FC?
    R.I.P. Corky 10/97-4/09
    Disclaimer: I sell and repair bikes for a living


  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MarinCRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,026
    Nothing particularly interesting or innovative. Pretty boring bike actually, it doesn't stand out among the competition at all.
    Sure, it probably rides great but so do all modern bikes, however the market on these is very saturated and I'm not sure if they're going to sell well, especially at these prices.

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

  5. #5
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,515
    I actually thought the bike was pretty interesting and attractive. I'm always curious about the constant use of YT as a counterpoint. I wonder how many people have actually ridden one before making that point. After checking the YT site over the course of a year, it appears they never have any stock (except small sizes) and I've never personally seen one on a trail.
    Just like a raindrop, I was born to fall.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,238
    Meh, not really seeing much difference from my Blade with 27.5, 2.6 Rekons on it. A hair diff in geo here and there, not enough to notice. A little lighter, but mine's 27.8 with pedals, so maybe not even half a pound. I'd rather have seen a 27.5 with a little less travel; they've gone all-in with big travel but IMO need a 120-130/130-140 bike with 27.5 wheels. But I guess they didn't ask me so there you have it.
    Ibis Ripmo
    Ibis Ripley V4
    Ibis Mojo HD4
    Pivot Mach 4SL
    Pivot LES SS
    Colnago C60 Disc

  7. #7
    ZEN RIDER!
    Reputation: Mt.Biker E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    950
    fc how does it compare to the Calling?
    Life in every breath

  8. #8
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant View Post
    I actually thought the bike was pretty interesting and attractive. I'm always curious about the constant use of YT as a counterpoint. I wonder how many people have actually ridden one before making that point. After checking the YT site over the course of a year, it appears they never have any stock (except small sizes) and I've never personally seen one on a trail.
    I never seen a YT. Pivot's customer service, performance and stiffness are known factors to me. Reading between the lines of reviews for YT bikes, I had enough concerns to not consider them. A high end well finished carbon frame with the latest compression manufacturing processes is going to cost over 3k. I have Chinese rims and I know the company will most likely take care of me if there was an issue, but there would be a lot of down time. My Fox fork has some of the Kashima coating flaking off. No response from Fox when I inquired. It's hard for Fox to ignore a large reputable Pivot dealer.

  9. #9
    Say Car Ramrod!!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,799
    Pretty underwhelming bike. Would take a switchblade over this for sure.


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

  10. #10
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Mt.Biker E View Post
    fc how does it compare to the Calling?
    It's better than the Calling. Mach 5.5 frame is much lighter and tire clearance is massive. More travel all around too.

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

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

  11. #11
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    I'll have another article with a ride report releasing later today.
    IPA will save America

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    28
    Does anyone know if this will be at the dirt fest this weekend?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,605
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant View Post
    I wonder how many people have actually ridden one before making that point.
    My friend got a Jeffsy. Had no issues getting it [large frame]. Loves it and he's faster than ever on it. I'd have no hesitation buying YT if they had a bike that checked all my boxes. Build quality is on par with any other major brand and I like the parts spec more than a lot of complete bikes I've looked at.

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

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,605
    Glad to see a reasonable STA on the bike. I could ride with without having to buy a setback dropper! I hope updates to the M6 follow a similar pattern and I might just get a new M6 when they come out.

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

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  15. #15
    ZEN RIDER!
    Reputation: Mt.Biker E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    950
    I liked the blue on the Aluminum test bike. Black and purple bits not so keen on.
    Looking forward to the ride review.
    Life in every breath

  16. #16
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Glad to see a reasonable STA on the bike. I could ride with without having to buy a setback dropper! I hope updates to the M6 follow a similar pattern and I might just get a new M6 when they come out.

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

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

  17. #17
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Mt.Biker E View Post
    I liked the blue on the Aluminum test bike. Black and purple bits not so keen on.
    Looking forward to the ride review.
    I think Pivot has too many blue bikes so they're steering clear of that. Cocalis wants to bring an alloy, low-cost bike to market but very difficult to get the stiffness, weight numbers and still make money. So he'll do that for the Switchblade first and see how that process goes and how sales are.
    IPA will save America

  18. #18
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Wcslv View Post
    Does anyone know if this will be at the dirt fest this weekend?
    It will not be there.

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

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

    fc
    IPA will save America

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,605
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    Water bottle size is large on all sizes.

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

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rom3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    620
    Picking mine up today. Curious how it will compare to my Sb5c.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    19
    Stunning looking bike..

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

    Confused..

  22. #22
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    Tech conversation with Chris Cocalis.
    IPA will save America

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,605
    Quote Originally Posted by EV07 View Post
    Stunning looking bike..

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

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

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  24. #24
    GUIDANCE COUNSELOR
    Reputation: NoahColorado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,808
    Jonesing for another bike to compliment my Switchblade, 429sl, and Vault. Torn between this, Phoenix, and Les. Obviously all for different reasons.

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

  25. #25
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Why are you confused? There is a lot of room between a 140mm bike and a 170mm bike for a Mach 6.
    Rear travel has some wiggle but it is getting tight in there because the front forks are very close.

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

    Old Mach 6 - Fox 36 with 160mm

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

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,605
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    Rear travel has some wiggle but it is getting tight in there because the front forks are very close.

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

    Old Mach 6 - Fox 36 with 160mm

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

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

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

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    Pivot is big enough now to have a bit of overlap so people can find the right fit for their local trails, and style. Choice is great.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for ďI suck at brake control.Ē Hereís a free tip: get better."

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Why are you confused? There is a lot of room between a 140mm bike and a 170mm bike for a Mach 6.
    As FC wrote,i'm saying this from a fork travel point of view (150 (SB)- 160 (5.5) - 170 (FB).

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

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

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,371
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Perfect. Keep that feature on the new Mach 6 when it comes out Pivot. Keep the STA reasonable like this bike and a solid tire clearance in the rear and I'll update my current Mach 6 to the new version.
    Do you really think they need and will bring to market a 27.5 bike between the new 5.5 and firebird ? Given that the 5.5 is designed around a 160mm fork? I'd guess the new 5.5 will be just about as capable as a Mach 6. It's only giving up 15mm in the rear and what .25 head angle ?

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,605
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    Do you really think they need and will bring to market a 27.5 bike between the new 5.5 and firebird ? Given that the 5.5 is designed around a 160mm fork? I'd guess the new 5.5 will be just about as capable as a Mach 6. It's only giving up 15mm in the rear and what .25 head angle ?
    I really don't get the focus on the forks. I can put a 170mm fork on the 5.5 that doesn't make it a Firebird.

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

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,605
    If you feel the need to add more separation make the new Mach 6 a 160mm/160mm 29er.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  32. #32
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Focusing on the fork doesn't make sense. If they had a 160mm forked hardtail is that competing with a 5.5 or a Mach 6? No.
    ...

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

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

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

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark16q's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    362
    Nice looking bike, development of this might explain why the Mach 4 has seen no love for a few years. More bike than I want and hope this stuff trickles to a new Mach 4 soon.
    Ď19 orbea oiz tr
    '16 Scott Genius 700 Premium traded in
    Cervelo R3sl
    Seven Alta
    Curtlo h/t

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,371
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I really don't get the focus on the forks. I can put a 170mm fork on the 5.5 that doesn't make it a Firebird.

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

  35. #35
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    If you feel the need to add more separation make the new Mach 6 a 160mm/160mm 29er.
    That would be a cool project that only a few can tackle. The Wreckoning needs peers out there.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,605
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    I just don't think there will be a massive difference between a 140 /160 Mach 5.5 and a 155 / 160 revised Mach 6
    20mm of suspension travel is big difference.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  37. #37
    ZEN RIDER!
    Reputation: Mt.Biker E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    950
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    It's better than the Calling. Mach 5.5 frame is much lighter and tire clearance is massive. More travel all around too.

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

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

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

  39. #39
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    Quote Originally Posted by ez061825 View Post
    Stoked for this bike and placing an order. What are people's thoughts on running the Fox X2 rear shock instead of the stock EVOL? I don't have experience on the x2, but have always found the EVOl a little underwhelming. Thanks.
    Evol can be undergunned for big, fast hits. Fox X2 is awesome but it can be overkill. And it doesn't pedal that well as the climbing switch constricts the rear suspension quite a bit and the Mach 5.5's great tech climbing ability.

    Need a better middle ground.
    IPA will save America

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    329
    Ordered mine this morning. Frame only isn't available until July so I had to order a complete one. Really wish Pivot would sell them as frame only when they release new bikes.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: grrrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,307
    Assuming still press fit BB? Surprised (in a good way) that they went with 148mm rear spacing.

  42. #42
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    Quote Originally Posted by grrrah View Post
    Assuming still press fit BB? Surprised (in a good way) that they went with 148mm rear spacing.
    Same BB92 pressfit.

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

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

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,310
    I am intrique by this bike. this should by lighter than the switch blade

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    812
    FINALLY

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

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

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    66
    Folks looking for the Mach 6? What is the ideal travel for you if a new one comes out?

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

  46. #46
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,152
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    Rear travel has some wiggle but it is getting tight in there because the front forks are very close.

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

    Old Mach 6 - Fox 36 with 160mm

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


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

    What a new M6 needs is...

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

    Slightly longer TT/reach.

    STA about 74

    Maybe more rear tire clearance.

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

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

    External cable routing except for the dropper.


    And BTW, the 5.5 - very nice bike

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,446
    Quote Originally Posted by BmanInTheD View Post
    I'd rather have seen a 27.5 with a little less travel; they've gone all-in with big travel but IMO need a 120-130/130-140 bike with 27.5 wheels. But I guess they didn't ask me so there you have it.
    I concur!!
    Carpe Diem!!

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    558

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

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,746
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    Rear travel has some wiggle but it is getting tight in there because the front forks are very close.

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

    Old Mach 6 - Fox 36 with 160mm

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

  51. #51
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,332
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    Same BB92 pressfit.
    Well that is disappoint.

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

    You're turning black metallic.

  52. #52
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    20mm of suspension travel is big difference.
    To most folks, not really. Even that 140mm rear and 160mm front seems barely discernible on this bike. Also, rear shock options can cloud this difference even further. with the EVOL DPS rear shock and the X2.

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

  53. #53
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    Quote Originally Posted by w1kk3d View Post
    I'd be down for that!
    I'm riding this one these days. 29er, 160/160, 28 lbs.

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

  54. #54
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,332
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    To most folks, not really. Even that 140mm rear and 160mm front seems barely discernible on this bike. Also, rear shock options can cloud this difference even further. with the EVOL DPS rear shock and the X2.

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

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

    You're turning black metallic.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,605
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    To most folks, not really.
    If you can't tell the difference between a 140mm rear travel bike and a 160mm rear travel bike [same suspension design/same spec] you are riding it on terrain that doesn't need the extra travel. If you are riding through chunk and going off drops 20mm extra travel is significant.

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

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,605
    The two PF92 BB Pivot bikes we have/had were totally trouble free. I put a RF PF BB into my Mach 6 back in early 2014 with some Next SL cranks. 3yrs and around 21 months of solid riding later that BB is still silent and spins great. I keep expecting to need to replace it, but so far no need. My GF had a SRAM XO1 crank and a RF Turbine on her Pivot over a period of a bit more than 2yrs and no issues either with her PF92 BBs.

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

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P3300051.jpg 
Views:	1910 
Size:	163.9 KB 
ID:	1137899
    Evil certainly makes beautiful bikes!

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

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

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

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

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,605
    Quote Originally Posted by w1kk3d View Post
    I think efficiency of the suspension has a lot to do with it too. I have a Mach 429 Trail and I swear it has more travel than it does.
    Sure. 140mm of great suspension is better than 160mm of crap suspension. But that would be a silly comparison. Compare the 429T to the SB with the same design/quality suspension and you'll notice the difference the extra 19mm of travel makes.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  59. #59
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    This bike really feels like it has 150mm rear. It is active yet controlled and hard to bottom out. Some of that is due to the 2.6 tire.

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


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

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,371
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Sure. 140mm of great suspension is better than 160mm of crap suspension. But that would be a silly comparison. Compare the 429T to the SB with the same design/quality suspension and you'll notice the difference the extra 19mm of travel makes.
    Once you get to longer travel bikes the difference is less pronounced for me. Anyway, I was trying to talk about the whole package and how differently would a new 5.5 ride to the current Mach 6. In this instance there is 15 mm of rear suspension difference and no difference in front fork travel. And maybe a quarter degree in head angle. I'd venture the new 5.5 wouldn't be giving up much at all. Once intense brought out the Recluse they made the new Tracer a bigger bike. The Recluse essentially replaced the last Tracer with 20mm less in the rear and 10mm less in the front. If pivot make a Mach 6 27.5 bike bigger than current it will be encroaching firebird territory in my opinion. That's my 0.2 cents.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    IME 20mm matters. I have 2 similar bikes, one 130/150, the other 150/160, and when the going gets rough, mm's matter.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for ďI suck at brake control.Ē Hereís a free tip: get better."

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,746
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    The two PF92 BB Pivot bikes we have/had were totally trouble free. I put a RF PF BB into my Mach 6 back in early 2014 with some Next SL cranks. 3yrs and around 21 months of solid riding later that BB is still silent and spins great. I keep expecting to need to replace it, but so far no need. My GF had a SRAM XO1 crank and a RF Turbine on her Pivot over a period of a bit more than 2yrs and no issues either with her PF92 BBs.

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

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,746
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    I'm riding this one these days. 29er, 160/160, 28 lbs.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P3300051.jpg 
Views:	1910 
Size:	163.9 KB 
ID:	1137899
    I really want to get on one of these soon

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

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,605
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    Have you pulled the cranks and checked the drive side bearings by hand? Something you might want to check if you haven't recently. Most bearings will spin find without load, but once under pressure it is a different result. I have had a ton of issues with both RF and Sram BB's.
    Bike pedals well with no play or drag in the BB.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,605
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    This bike really feels like it has 150mm rear. It is active yet controlled and hard to bottom out. Some of that is due to the 2.6 tire.
    Probably 10mm of that travel feel is due to the large tire.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,746
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Bike pedals well with no play or drag in the BB.
    I only share this as a PSA. If you do not pull the cranks and check the bearings by hand you won't know. You need to put pressure on the bearings with your fingers to feel it. No way to tell with the cranks on even if you take the chain off and just spin the cranks.

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

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    49
    From what I've read online bottom brackets with angular contact bearings are the way to go because they are much less sensitive to side loads. That will resolve your seizing issue

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SDMTB'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,161
    Here's my two cents - if the Mach 5.5 is as good as the Firebird for its intended use, this bike will be a hit. I own the new FB and it is such an amazing bike even for trail use (don't always have to be smashing downhills). It doesn't climb well for a 170mm bike, it climbs well period. Like, PR smashing on climbs well.

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

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

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

  70. #70
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,829
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Sure. 140mm of great suspension is better than 160mm of crap suspension. But that would be a silly comparison. Compare the 429T to the SB with the same design/quality suspension and you'll notice the difference the extra 19mm of travel makes.
    I have both bikes. The difference in travel is noticeable.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  71. #71
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,829
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    The two PF92 BB Pivot bikes we have/had were totally trouble free. I put a RF PF BB into my Mach 6 back in early 2014 with some Next SL cranks. 3yrs and around 21 months of solid riding later that BB is still silent and spins great. I keep expecting to need to replace it, but so far no need. My GF had a SRAM XO1 crank and a RF Turbine on her Pivot over a period of a bit more than 2yrs and no issues either with her PF92 BBs.

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


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  72. #72
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,152
    Quote Originally Posted by SDMTB'er View Post
    Here's my two cents - if the Mach 5.5 is as good as the Firebird for its intended use, this bike will be a hit. I own the new FB and it is such an amazing bike even for trail use (don't always have to be smashing downhills). It doesn't climb well for a 170mm bike, it climbs well period. Like, PR smashing on climbs well.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SDMTB'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,161

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched

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

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


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

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,371
    Quote Originally Posted by SDMTB'er View Post
    Here's my two cents - if the Mach 5.5 is as good as the Firebird for its intended use, this bike will be a hit. I own the new FB and it is such an amazing bike even for trail use (don't always have to be smashing downhills). It doesn't climb well for a 170mm bike, it climbs well period. Like, PR smashing on climbs well.

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

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

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

  76. #76
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    I bet it was designed with a 74 degree seat tube angle along with a 150mm fork.
    EXACTLY!!!!

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

    fc
    IPA will save America

  77. #77
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,332
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    Agree. I'm so sick of PF92 bashing. I ride in the NE all year long.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    http://forums.mtbr.com/drivetrain-sh...l#post13129134

    http://forums.mtbr.com/pivot-cycles/...l#post12998774

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

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

    You're turning black metallic.

  78. #78
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,332
    Quote Originally Posted by SDMTB'er View Post
    Interesting comment on feel of DW Link - I actually have a slight preference for the VPP for small bump compliance. It feels "springier" if that makes sense - like if you took 2-3 psi out of your tires. Also have had zero issues with the RS stuff - had MAJOR reliability issues with FOX to the point where I bought spare shocks and forks because there were so many issues. Exception Fox 36 and Float X2 - they are super solid on my FB.
    I find the shocks to often be far greater influences in these areas. Although many companies claim that the shocks they use are "custom tuned" for the suspension, it's nothing like a true custom tune and you can usually get much better suspension traits by going the custom route. To this extent, I Think some of the DW bikes suffer a bit from this. They often come with very light compression damping, because you know, DW doesn't need a lot of compression damping to pedal well, and that's true, but it doesn't negate the need for compression damping for chassis stability, g-out resistance, weight shifts, etc. This is a problem with most bikes, but reducing the low speed compression damping probably exaggerates it, and the high speed factory setups are usually pretty restrictive, so it can be hard to get a really plush travel setup, then factor in that most of these bikes have air shocks, which pushes the compliance further down in terms of good quality of travel. Suspension on my RFX is far better than my Specialized E29, but I have two tuned shocks for the RFX. Before I got it tuned, it wasn't much better, if at all, in terms of suspension compliance. Pedaled way better, but couldn't say stock that it was plusher or absorbed bumps any better.

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

    You're turning black metallic.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    178
    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-black_5.5.jpg
    It's a great looking bike! I'd like to try it.
    {thought we needed more pics in this thread}

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SDMTB'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,161
    Is it me, or is the finish on the red matte? Not sure if that was a good call if so - can't buff out scratches (if one cares about that kind of thing).

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    178
    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-tmp_21227-fb_img_1495249075265%7E2794910606.jpg
    Looks matte to me.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rom3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    620
    The red is matte. Just finished building mine up and im going to take it out tomorrow morning for a spin. Not really thrilled that the X2 is not available at launch considering that many of the press photos and reviews had the X2 in them. I really liked what the X2 did for the switchblade. I do like that this bike is based on 2.6 rubber. It is really what got my attention when it was announced. I have been running 2.6 on my Yeti 5c and really like how they perform on the 31mm internal NOBL wheels. Current build weight is 28.3 lbs.

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

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-1080.jpg

  83. #83
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    http://forums.mtbr.com/drivetrain-sh...l#post13129134

    http://forums.mtbr.com/pivot-cycles/...l#post12998774

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

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


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: edbraunbeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    482
    Awesome looking bike and can't wait to demo one.

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

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

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

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    968
    Thanks for the review Francis, this bike has piqued my interest.
    I see so many hyped reviews on Maxxis' "new" 2.6" tire size, but not having seen any in person, just assume they're really 2.4's and would be about as wide/voluminous as a 2.35" schwalbe. Maxxis 2.8's are 2.66" wide.

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

    I look forward to demoing the new 5.5.

  86. #86
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,152
    Quote Originally Posted by k1creeker View Post
    Thanks for the review Francis, this bike has piqued my interest.
    I see so many hyped reviews on Maxxis' "new" 2.6" tire size, but not having seen any in person, just assume they're really 2.4's and would be about as wide/voluminous as a 2.35" schwalbe. Maxxis 2.8's are 2.66" wide.

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

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

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dude!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Rom3n View Post
    The red is matte. Just finished building mine up and im going to take it out tomorrow morning for a spin. Not really thrilled that the X2 is not available at launch considering that many of the press photos and reviews had the X2 in them. I really liked what the X2 did for the switchblade. I do like that this bike is based on 2.6 rubber. It is really what got my attention when it was announced. I have been running 2.6 on my Yeti 5c and really like how they perform on the 31mm internal NOBL wheels. Current build weight is 28.3 lbs.

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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1080.jpg 
Views:	5046 
Size:	189.0 KB 
ID:	1138095
    Looks good man!!! Looking forward to your review!

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,623
    Looks awesome!

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    49
    Glad to see this released and looking forward to ride reports!

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

  90. #90
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,332
    Quote Originally Posted by stibar01 View Post

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

    You're turning black metallic.

  91. #91
    The Bubble Wrap Hysteria
    Reputation: mtnbiker4life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,721
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark16q View Post
    Nice looking bike, development of this might explain why the Mach 4 has seen no love for a few years. More bike than I want and hope this stuff trickles to a new Mach 4 soon.
    IMO, the M4s top tube needs to have less of a swoop. Make the new M4 120mm and look just like the M5.5..........perfect XC/Trail bike

  92. #92
    Pivotal figure
    Reputation: kenbentit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    6,361
    Remember this response on that thread regarding the BB shells not parallel? Straight from the source (Chris)

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

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

    Regarding press fit in general, we take a strong engineering based stance on why we use press fit. This design has served us well as it continues to give us more space to work with and allows for wider pivot placement, and larger down tube cross sections for a stiffer, stronger, and lighter frame. Executed properly, it also offers better control over the chain line, improved bearing alignment and supports the bearings better. Of course the design also allows us to mold a full carbon frame without bonding in an aluminum BB shell. This is one of the main reasons why it has become the industry standard for carbon frames. From a carbon frame design standpoint, it is superior. However, it does require very tight tolerances which Pivot is able to hold. Unfortunately, not all companies and factories are as precise and it can lead to problems. Itís interesting, however, as a threaded shell that is not done correctly has its own issues that lead to creaking BB's, bearings that are not well aligned, drivelines that are not straight and chain-lines that are out of spec. Both threaded and press fit BB's are excellent designs if executed properly and installed properly as well. In the case of Pivot, we run tighter tolerances than most in the industry and the press fit design allows us to build a better bike overall. From a purely engineering design standpoint, a threaded BB on a carbon frame requires the frame to basically have an open through hole with about the same amount of carbon supporting it and tolerance as the press fit design. Then the manufacturer needs to bond in a threaded BB shell. This machined shell usually has a separate left and right side and the parts mate with each other. These parts can be mis-aligned with each other, and the bond can creak and come loose over time. Itís a round shell inside a round hole so there is no mechanical lock between the two, other than the bonding area. It works fine most of the time, but (in general) it is still the highest warranty failure area for manufacturers running threaded shells in their frames. Even if that was perfect, the frame is now heavier and it has a narrower threaded shell bonded inside your frame so that you can now have bearing cups. The bearing is pressed inside the cup with threads hanging off the cups that screw into the bonded shell inside the frame. (even reading it sounds strange) These cups hang outside the frame and are leveraged outside the frame which leads to higher stress loads on the cups, bearing, and threads, plus its heavier. If your car or motorcycle were made this way, it would be heavier and less reliable.
    Itís ok to put bearings directly inside the linkage, inside your hubs and even in your headset, so why doesnít it make sense to do it inside your BB? Well, it does make sense. It just needs to be done correctly, with the right tolerance, the right installation procedure and the right BB design as well.
    Hopefully this answers any questions regarding the press fit BB design and we look forward to resolving your issue.
    Ken B (Pivot)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    http://forums.mtbr.com/drivetrain-sh...l#post13129134

    http://forums.mtbr.com/pivot-cycles/...l#post12998774

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

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

  93. #93
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,332
    Quote Originally Posted by kenbentit View Post
    Remember this response on that thread regarding the BB shells not parallel? Straight from the source (Chris)

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

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

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

    You're turning black metallic.

  94. #94
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Wow, that was a long post that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.
    It kind of does. I read: our priorities are stiffness and the ability to achieve design goals such as short CS/b+ over 30mm bearing life. Any hu I'm not an engineer and popping in a BB once a year is not a big deal to me. I remember people complaining about external BB when they came. Damn I'm getting old.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  95. #95
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,332
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    It kind of does. I read: our priorities are stiffness and the ability to achieve design goals such as short CS/b+ over 30mm bearing life. Any hu I'm not an engineer and popping in a BB once a year is not a big deal to me. I remember people complaining about external BB when they came. Damn I'm getting old.


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

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

    You're turning black metallic.

  96. #96
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,829
    I agree with you although I was more concerned about pressing in a metal shell than the smaller bearings. I can speculate why bike manufacturers are going with certain standards. One is avoidance of the creation of another standard. Another is close ties with certain parts suppliers. I'm glad that I love my Switchblade or the expensive wheel build, the annoyance of selling a B+ wheel set with a proprietary hub, limited crank and hub choice and chain line issues initially with SixC cranks would have pissed me off to no end.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by SDMTB'er View Post
    Here's my two cents - if the Mach 5.5 is as good as the Firebird for its intended use, this bike will be a hit. I own the new FB and it is such an amazing bike even for trail use (don't always have to be smashing downhills). It doesn't climb well for a 170mm bike, it climbs well period. Like, PR smashing on climbs well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Just my Opinion once again.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: edbraunbeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    482
    I wonder if they'll offer more subdued decals for the rims. Just a little too flashy for me.

    EDventure

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,238
    ^^^You can easily peel them off. And if you wanted, I bet you could get some black decals from Reynolds that would go well with the matte carbon finish of the rims.
    Ibis Ripmo
    Ibis Ripley V4
    Ibis Mojo HD4
    Pivot Mach 4SL
    Pivot LES SS
    Colnago C60 Disc

  100. #100
    ZEN RIDER!
    Reputation: Mt.Biker E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    950
    I'm curious as to how the geo & ride change if you went Fox34 140mm or 150mm.
    I'm not looking for another bike with a 36 on it.
    Life in every breath

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Mt.Biker E View Post
    I'm curious as to how the geo & ride change if you went Fox34 140mm or 150mm.
    I'm not looking for another bike with a 36 on it.
    ??? The 36 is 2 better.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for ďI suck at brake control.Ē Hereís a free tip: get better."

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Mt.Biker E View Post
    I'm curious as to how the geo & ride change if you went Fox34 140mm or 150mm.
    I'm not looking for another bike with a 36 on it.
    Well if you go with a 150, HTA and STA steepen by half a degree, BB drops by about 1/8th of an inch. With a 140mm, you can double those numbers.
    Ibis Ripmo
    Ibis Ripley V4
    Ibis Mojo HD4
    Pivot Mach 4SL
    Pivot LES SS
    Colnago C60 Disc

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Mt.Biker E View Post
    I'm curious as to how the geo & ride change if you went Fox34 140mm or 150mm.
    I'm not looking for another bike with a 36 on it.
    You can estimate about 1/2 degree per 10mm on the fork.

  104. #104
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    ??? The 36 is 2 better.
    ...
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Travis Bickle again.
    "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.

  105. #105
    Pivotal figure
    Reputation: kenbentit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    6,361
    Is that even legal??
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    ...
    Desert Sunset Calls/Upward, Pain, Perseverance/Welcome Solitude

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rom3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    620
    Here are some of my thoughts of the bike after spending a weekend with it.

    Having owned a switchblade and being a fan of it I was not sure what to expect from this bike. The only thing I was really anticipating is that it would simply be a little different. The 5.5 right from the get go really surprised the hell out of me. Right away I noticed the bikes agility and responsiveness to rider input. The suspension is dialed and handled square edge, small bump and big hits very well. Turn it up hill and the bike pedaled extremely well not getting hung up on any of the short punchy technical terrain that makes up a majority of terrain here in Sedona. Every time I challenged the 5.5 it responded better than I was expecting which made me want to push it harder to uncover it's flaws. Despite my attempts I really found very few things about the bike that I did not like or felt was lacking. It was very apparent after awhile that this bike was designed and tested here in the desert and was also intended to have fun on.

    For anyone coming from a switchblade you will find that the 5.5 shares a lot of the same geo and you should feel at home right away. Long reach, short chainstay and stiff chasis are the same foundations between the bikes but the 5.5 offers a noticeably different experience. Where a bike like the switchblade gives you the versatility of 29" or 27+ the 5.5 feels more focused and purpose built. For me the 5.5 was more agile and fun to ride. Going from a 2.8 tire to a 2.6 might not seem like much of a difference but if you spend a lot of time on both as I have you will know there is a very noticeable difference between the two. Where the 2.8 allows you to smash over terrain and be a less particular with line choice while providing a large improvement in rollover the 2.6 feels much closer to a 2.5 in it's ability to be directed and having an overall firmer feel when pushed hard. The 2.6 strikes a really nice balance IMO for riders wanting the grip and added rollover ability of a 2.8 tire but still wanting a more agile tire that feels like a traditional 27.5 size. With a 31mm internal rim the Maxxis 2.6 measures out at 2.55" while on the stock 35mm rim it measures out at 2.60". My personal preference with 2.6 and 2.8 tires has been to run a 31mm internal rim like the NOBL TR38 which are stiff but provide enough give when needed to avoid being overly harsh.

    The DW link suspension with the Fox float performed really well on the trail. I slowed down the rebound a bit and ran the shock at 30% sag. This setup worked well for most everything I threw at the bike and provided a nice pedaling platform while climbing in and out of the seat. The new 2018 Fox 36 was setup with my usual air pressure and settings I run on the older 2017 and it did not disappoint. I cannot say it was noticeably better than my 2017 model but it did perform great. Maybe more time spent on it will reveal any real differences on the trail. I would really like to try the X2 on this bike and hopefully Pivot will have them available soon. I think this bike with a X2 would be a blast on rougher trails and DH riding. Overall I would say this suspension design is really good. It strikes a nice balance and provides an efficient platform that is responsive and forgiving when needed. While not being as efficient overall as the switch infinity on my Yeti Sb5c it comes close while providing a more forgiving ride in the rough at times.

    I am glad Pivot did not do superboost on this bike as trying to build / get wheels thru pivot or third party was a complete and unnecessary pain in the ass. I am glad whoever was in charge of graphics on the 5.5 did not go way over the top. I do not think you need to put every spec the bike has on a graphic on the frame along with tons of pin stripes and graffiti. I like the Matte red finish. I like the water bottle placement "better than my Yeti". I like look of the frame. Pivots have started to become more visually pleasing to me. The STA was good and did not create any issues when climbing. The press fit BB did not creak, catch on fire or explode. Overall I like the bike a lot and look forward to spending more time with it.
    Last edited by Rom3n; 05-22-2017 at 03:49 PM.

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Rom3n View Post
    Here are some of my thoughts of the bike after spending a weekend with it.

    Having owned a switchblade and being a fan of it I was not sure what to expect from this bike. The only thing I was really anticipating is that it would simply be a little different. The 5.5 right from the get go really surprised the hell out of me. Right away I noticed the bikes agility and responsiveness to rider input. The suspension is dialed and handled square edge, small bump and big hits very well. Turn it up hill and the bike pedaled extremely well not getting hung up on any of the short punchy technical terrain that makes up a majority of terrain here in Sedona. Every time I challenged the 5.5 it responded better than I was expecting which made me want to push it harder to uncover it's flaws. Despite my attempts I really found very few things about the bike that I did not like or felt was lacking. It was very apparent after awhile that this bike was designed and tested here in the desert and was also intended to have fun on.

    For anyone coming from a switchblade you will find that the 5.5 shares a lot of the same geo and you should feel at home right away. Long reach, short chainstay and stiff chasis are the same foundations between the bikes but the 5.5 offers a noticeably different experience. Where a bike like the switchblade gives you the versatility of 29" or 27+ the 5.5 feels more focused and purpose built. For me the 5.5 was more agile and fun to ride. Going from a 2.8 tire to a 2.6 might not seem like much of a difference but if you spend a lot of time on both as I have you will know there is a very noticeable difference between the two. Where the 2.8 allows you to smash over terrain and be a less particular with line choice while proving a large improvement in rollover the 2.6 feels much closer to a 2.5 in it's ability to be directed and having an overall firmer feel when pushed hard. The 2.6 strikes a really nice balance IMO for riders wanting the grip and added rollover ability of a 2.8 tire but still wanting a more agile tire that feels like a traditional 27.5 size. With a 31mm internal rim the Maxxis 2.6 measures out at 2.55" while on the stock 35mm rim it measures out at 2.60". My personal preference with 2.6 and 2.8 tires has been to run a 31mm internal rim like the NOBL TR38 which are stiff but provide enough give when needed to avoid being overly harsh.

    The DW link suspension with the Fox float performed really well on the trail. I slowed down the rebound a bit and ran the shock at 30% sag. This setup worked well for most everything I threw at the bike and provided a nice pedaling platform while climbing in and out of the seat. The new 2018 Fox 36 was setup with my usual air pressure and settings I run on the older 2017 and it did not disappoint. I cannot say it was noticeably better than my 2017 model but it did perform great. Maybe more time spent on it will reveal any real differences on the trail. I would really like to try the X2 on this bike and hopefully Pivot will have them available soon. I think this bike with a X2 would be a blast on rougher trails and DH riding. Overall I would say this suspension design is really good. It strikes a nice balance and provides an efficient platform that is responsive and forgiving when needed. While not being as efficient overall as the switch infinity on my Yeti Sb5c it comes close while proving a more forgiving ride in the rough at times.

    I am glad Pivot did not do superboost on this bike as trying to build / get wheels thru pivot or third party was a complete and unnecessary pain in the ass. I am glad whoever was in charge of graphics on the 5.5 did not go way over the top. I do not think you need to put every spec the bike has on a graphic on the frame along with tons of pin stripes and graffiti. I like the Matte red finish. I like the water bottle placement "better than my Yeti". I like look of the frame. Pivots have started to become more visually pleasing to me. The STA was good and did not create any issues when climbing. The press fit BB did not creak, catch on fire or explode. Overall I like the bike a lot and look forward to spending more time with it.
    Awesome initial review, thank you very much for that. I just ordered an XX1 build and will review as well. Where did yours come out on weight?

    PS - I was also disappointed no x2 on release. Fox is even sold out of kashmina transfer droppers, so looks like a rough start to the model year for them.

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wooly88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by Rom3n View Post
    Here are some of my thoughts of the bike after spending a weekend with it.

    Having owned a switchblade and being a fan of it I was not sure what to expect from this bike. The only thing I was really anticipating is that it would simply be a little different. The 5.5 right from the get go really surprised the hell out of me. Right away I noticed the bikes agility and responsiveness to rider input. The suspension is dialed and handled square edge, small bump and big hits very well. Turn it up hill and the bike pedaled extremely well not getting hung up on any of the short punchy technical terrain that makes up a majority of terrain here in Sedona. Every time I challenged the 5.5 it responded better than I was expecting which made me want to push it harder to uncover it's flaws. Despite my attempts I really found very few things about the bike that I did not like or felt was lacking. It was very apparent after awhile that this bike was designed and tested here in the desert and was also intended to have fun on.

    For anyone coming from a switchblade you will find that the 5.5 shares a lot of the same geo and you should feel at home right away. Long reach, short chainstay and stiff chasis are the same foundations between the bikes but the 5.5 offers a noticeably different experience. Where a bike like the switchblade gives you the versatility of 29" or 27+ the 5.5 feels more focused and purpose built. For me the 5.5 was more agile and fun to ride. Going from a 2.8 tire to a 2.6 might not seem like much of a difference but if you spend a lot of time on both as I have you will know there is a very noticeable difference between the two. Where the 2.8 allows you to smash over terrain and be a less particular with line choice while proving a large improvement in rollover the 2.6 feels much closer to a 2.5 in it's ability to be directed and having an overall firmer feel when pushed hard. The 2.6 strikes a really nice balance IMO for riders wanting the grip and added rollover ability of a 2.8 tire but still wanting a more agile tire that feels like a traditional 27.5 size. With a 31mm internal rim the Maxxis 2.6 measures out at 2.55" while on the stock 35mm rim it measures out at 2.60". My personal preference with 2.6 and 2.8 tires has been to run a 31mm internal rim like the NOBL TR38 which are stiff but provide enough give when needed to avoid being overly harsh.

    The DW link suspension with the Fox float performed really well on the trail. I slowed down the rebound a bit and ran the shock at 30% sag. This setup worked well for most everything I threw at the bike and provided a nice pedaling platform while climbing in and out of the seat. The new 2018 Fox 36 was setup with my usual air pressure and settings I run on the older 2017 and it did not disappoint. I cannot say it was noticeably better than my 2017 model but it did perform great. Maybe more time spent on it will reveal any real differences on the trail. I would really like to try the X2 on this bike and hopefully Pivot will have them available soon. I think this bike with a X2 would be a blast on rougher trails and DH riding. Overall I would say this suspension design is really good. It strikes a nice balance and provides an efficient platform that is responsive and forgiving when needed. While not being as efficient overall as the switch infinity on my Yeti Sb5c it comes close while proving a more forgiving ride in the rough at times.

    I am glad Pivot did not do superboost on this bike as trying to build / get wheels thru pivot or third party was a complete and unnecessary pain in the ass. I am glad whoever was in charge of graphics on the 5.5 did not go way over the top. I do not think you need to put every spec the bike has on a graphic on the frame along with tons of pin stripes and graffiti. I like the Matte red finish. I like the water bottle placement "better than my Yeti". I like look of the frame. Pivots have started to become more visually pleasing to me. The STA was good and did not create any issues when climbing. The press fit BB did not creak, catch on fire or explode. Overall I like the bike a lot and look forward to spending more time with it.
    Awesome review. I look forward to hearing further thoughts.

    Have you ridden a 429 Trail? If so, was climbing on the 5.5 noticeably worse?

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rom3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by ez061825 View Post
    Awesome initial review, thank you very much for that. I just ordered an XX1 build and will review as well. Where did yours come out on weight?

    PS - I was also disappointed no x2 on release. Fox is even sold out of kashmina transfer droppers, so looks like a rough start to the model year for them.
    27.4 lbs without pedals.

    Quote Originally Posted by wooly88 View Post
    Awesome review. I look forward to hearing further thoughts.

    Have you ridden a 429 Trail? If so, was climbing on the 5.5 noticeably worse?
    The only other Pivots I have owned are the Switchblade and Mach 6.

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Rom3n View Post
    27.4 lbs without pedals.



    The only other Pivots I have owned are the Switchblade and Mach 6.
    Can you compare to the Mach 6 ? How's the difference in reach feel ? I'm convinced it would be similar in capability despite the 15mm less rear suspension. But that's my eRiding speculation. Thanks.

  111. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rom3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    Can you compare to the Mach 6 ? How's the difference in reach feel ? I'm convinced it would be similar in capability despite the 15mm less rear suspension. But that's my eRiding speculation. Thanks.
    It feels more capable and balanced than the longer travel Mach 6. The longer wheelbase, Longer reach, lower BB, 2.6 rubber and updated suspension design for me feels much better at speed and in the rough. There is no question I would take this bike over a 6 for any trail given the option. IMO the geo on this bike is very much improved.

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Rom3n View Post
    It feels more capable and balanced than the longer travel Mach 6. The longer wheelbase, Longer reach, lower BB, 2.6 rubber and updated suspension design for me feels much better at speed and in the rough. There is no question I would take this bike over a 6 for any trail given the option. IMO the geo on this bike is very much improved.
    Thanks. Does the slightly steeper seat tube angle aid climbing over the Mach 6?

  113. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    Evol can be undergunned for big, fast hits. Fox X2 is awesome but it can be overkill. And it doesn't pedal that well as the climbing switch constricts the rear suspension quite a bit and the Mach 5.5's great tech climbing ability.

    Need a better middle ground.
    After doing some research seems like the Float X, as compared to X2 might be the right fit? I don't need the extra adjustability, and the X has 3 pedal modes as opposed to just the climb switch on the x2, but also has the extra reservoir as opposed to the stock float. Thoughts?

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Rom3n View Post
    Here are some of my thoughts of the bike after spending a weekend with it.

    Having owned a switchblade and being a fan of it I was not sure what to expect from this bike. The only thing I was really anticipating is that it would simply be a ....
    rome3n,

    Where did you rent this bike from in Sedona? I will be flying out there later this week for a mtb vacation and currently have an evil insurgent rented. Of course, now they came out with the 5.5! I will be heading to my local shop tomorrow afternoon for a ride around the parking lot.

    Would be great to test for a day before I purchase. Currently on a 429c looking for something with more travel to add to the fleet.

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rom3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    Thanks. Does the slightly steeper seat tube angle aid climbing over the Mach 6?
    Both bikes are good climbing bikes. The 5.5 overall is a better climbing bike IMO. It could be a combination of the STA, travel and revised suspension design combined. This is the only bike that has gotten close to the climbing efficiency of the SB5 for me and that says a lot.

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rom3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by tom9286 View Post
    rome3n,

    Where did you rent this bike from in Sedona? I will be flying out there later this week for a mtb vacation and currently have an evil insurgent rented. Of course, now they came out with the 5.5! I will be heading to my local shop tomorrow afternoon for a ride around the parking lot.

    Would be great to test for a day before I purchase. Currently on a 429c looking for something with more travel to add to the fleet.
    I did not rent this bike I bought/built it. If you want to check it out while in town feel free to hit me up while you are here.

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Rom3n View Post
    I did not rent this bike I bought/built it. If you want to check it out while in town feel free to hit me up while you are here.
    Makes sense! You must have the first bike out the door. My local shop is getting theirs in this afternoon and building it up tomorrow (tuesday). I may just pull the trigger for a welcome home from vacation gift to myself.

    I may in fact hit you up if your riding in the area. will pm.

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Rom3n View Post
    Here are some of my thoughts of the bike after spending a weekend with it.

    Having owned a switchblade and being a fan of it I was not sure what to expect from this bike. The only thing I was really anticipating is that it would simply be a little different. The 5.5 right from the get go really surprised the hell out of me. Right away I noticed the bikes agility and responsiveness to rider input. The suspension is dialed and handled square edge, small bump and big hits very well. Turn it up hill and the bike pedaled extremely well not getting hung up on any of the short punchy technical terrain that makes up a majority of terrain here in Sedona. Every time I challenged the 5.5 it responded better than I was expecting which made me want to push it harder to uncover it's flaws. Despite my attempts I really found very few things about the bike that I did not like or felt was lacking. It was very apparent after awhile that this bike was designed and tested here in the desert and was also intended to have fun on.

    For anyone coming from a switchblade you will find that the 5.5 shares a lot of the same geo and you should feel at home right away. Long reach, short chainstay and stiff chasis are the same foundations between the bikes but the 5.5 offers a noticeably different experience. Where a bike like the switchblade gives you the versatility of 29" or 27+ the 5.5 feels more focused and purpose built. For me the 5.5 was more agile and fun to ride. Going from a 2.8 tire to a 2.6 might not seem like much of a difference but if you spend a lot of time on both as I have you will know there is a very noticeable difference between the two. Where the 2.8 allows you to smash over terrain and be a less particular with line choice while proving a large improvement in rollover the 2.6 feels much closer to a 2.5 in it's ability to be directed and having an overall firmer feel when pushed hard. The 2.6 strikes a really nice balance IMO for riders wanting the grip and added rollover ability of a 2.8 tire but still wanting a more agile tire that feels like a traditional 27.5 size. With a 31mm internal rim the Maxxis 2.6 measures out at 2.55" while on the stock 35mm rim it measures out at 2.60". My personal preference with 2.6 and 2.8 tires has been to run a 31mm internal rim like the NOBL TR38 which are stiff but provide enough give when needed to avoid being overly harsh.

    The DW link suspension with the Fox float performed really well on the trail. I slowed down the rebound a bit and ran the shock at 30% sag. This setup worked well for most everything I threw at the bike and provided a nice pedaling platform while climbing in and out of the seat. The new 2018 Fox 36 was setup with my usual air pressure and settings I run on the older 2017 and it did not disappoint. I cannot say it was noticeably better than my 2017 model but it did perform great. Maybe more time spent on it will reveal any real differences on the trail. I would really like to try the X2 on this bike and hopefully Pivot will have them available soon. I think this bike with a X2 would be a blast on rougher trails and DH riding. Overall I would say this suspension design is really good. It strikes a nice balance and provides an efficient platform that is responsive and forgiving when needed. While not being as efficient overall as the switch infinity on my Yeti Sb5c it comes close while proving a more forgiving ride in the rough at times.

    I am glad Pivot did not do superboost on this bike as trying to build / get wheels thru pivot or third party was a complete and unnecessary pain in the ass. I am glad whoever was in charge of graphics on the 5.5 did not go way over the top. I do not think you need to put every spec the bike has on a graphic on the frame along with tons of pin stripes and graffiti. I like the Matte red finish. I like the water bottle placement "better than my Yeti". I like look of the frame. Pivots have started to become more visually pleasing to me. The STA was good and did not create any issues when climbing. The press fit BB did not creak, catch on fire or explode. Overall I like the bike a lot and look forward to spending more time with it.
    Since you also have the Switchblade, would you say to go for the same size on the 5.5 if i am 181cm. I demoed the Switchblade in L and had the feeling the front wheel was not planted on steep climbs. At the moment have an Intense Primer size L and the front wheel is glued to the ground no matter the climb

    Do you also feel the Switchblade with 29" goes faster over rough stuff as the 5.5., or are the 2.6 tires on 5.5 similar over the rough chunky stuff?

    Thanks!
    David

  119. #119
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    Impressions are here:

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon first ride review - Mtbr.com

    So I ride a small Switchblade am pretty happy with it with a 50mm stem for my 5'8" and 30 inseam dimensions. Cocalis insisted on it I suspect to get me a quicker bike with a shorter wheelbase (an inch I believe).

    For the Mach 5.5, I was on a Medium. I felt perfectly comfortable with a 35mm stem and 780mm bars. Bike feels quick and wheelbase is dialed.Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-francis-7841.jpg

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-francis-7954.jpg

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-francis-8060.jpg

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-francis-8186.jpg

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-francis-8238.jpg

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-francis-8376.jpg

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-francis-8410.jpg

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-francis-8489.jpg

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon first ride review - Mtbr.com
    IPA will save America

  120. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rom3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by dvd31 View Post
    Since you also have the Switchblade, would you say to go for the same size on the 5.5 if i am 181cm. I demoed the Switchblade in L and had the feeling the front wheel was not planted on steep climbs. At the moment have an Intense Primer size L and the front wheel is glued to the ground no matter the climb

    Do you also feel the Switchblade with 29" goes faster over rough stuff as the 5.5., or are the 2.6 tires on 5.5 similar over the rough chunky stuff?

    Thanks!
    David
    At 5'9 I think you should ride a med. The bike is pretty long and feels best for me at 5'8 with a med and 32-35mm stem.

    Your riding style and the trail would really determine which would be faster in the rough. The 29er will give you a little better roll over and likely better all out speed in fast sections while the 5.5 would be a bit more agile to maneuver and give you better grip in tighter / slower sections.

  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dude!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,187
    A thought experiment based on the discussion of seat tube angle...

    Firebird has a 74 degree, which everyone seems to like.
    Mach 5.5 has a 73.5, which everyone says it dated!

    I wanted to do a simple thought experiment...

    The Firebird has 170mm front and rear. Using 20% sag for the front and 30% sag for the rear. The front will sag 34mm and the rear would sag 51mm. This would change the static geometry numbers. The front end would be 17mm higher in the dynamic sagged setting. Using front center (BB to front axle) as the horizontal distance, I estimate that the Firebird would be slacken by 1.25 degrees when seated.

    The Mach 5.5 has 160mm front and 140mm rear, and based on sag the front will sag 32mm and the rear will sag 42. In this case the front end would be 10mm higher in the dynamic sagged setting. Using front center again as horizontal distance, I estimate the Mach 5.5 would slacken by 0.76 degrees when seated.

    The difference is about 0.5 degrees. Hence both bikes based static numbers and adjusted for sag will result in a similar seat tube angle in the dynamic seated position. Hence if you like the Firebird at 74, than there will be minimal difference with the Mach 5.5 at 73.5. Now this will change when out of the saddle, but the focus here is on in the saddle, because of pedaling.

    Cheers!!!

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    5
    Great review, much appreciated. I know you have limited time on the 5.5, but how would you compare the 5.5 to the Switchblade (in 29) for steep, technical climbing? Also, if you were riding 70+ miles, would you reach for the 5.5 or the Switchblade?

    Thanks.
    Last edited by jfboat; 05-23-2017 at 07:07 PM.

  123. #123
    Pivotal figure
    Reputation: kenbentit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    6,361
    If you're not looking for the wide range of adjustments then the Float would be an easy choice just based on cost & weight. The reservoir on the X2 comes into play on longer descents (isolates the damper to minimize heating & maintain more consistent damping). I personally run the X2 but I also ride a lot of really rough trails and descents so it makes sense for me (and I like to experiment with suspension settings) (
    Quote Originally Posted by ez061825 View Post
    After doing some research seems like the Float X, as compared to X2 might be the right fit? I don't need the extra adjustability, and the X has 3 pedal modes as opposed to just the climb switch on the x2, but also has the extra reservoir as opposed to the stock float. Thoughts?
    Desert Sunset Calls/Upward, Pain, Perseverance/Welcome Solitude

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    199
    But now what will everyone complain about?

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Rom3n View Post
    At 5'9 I think you should ride a med. The bike is pretty long and feels best for me at 5'8 with a med and 32-35mm stem.

    Your riding style and the trail would really determine which would be faster in the rough. The 29er will give you a little better roll over and likely better all out speed in fast sections while the 5.5 would be a bit more agile to maneuver and give you better grip in tighter / slower sections.
    I'm 5-8 as well and have had multiple 29ers including a 2017 Primer right now. I'm not arguing the rollover argument but for *me*, I'll take a 27.5 bike all day long in Sedona and Moab conditions. I rode all the Hogs stuff today and rode some features I haven't in a while but also felt off kilter several times due to the perceived feeling of sitting up so much higher on the bike. It may not be that drastic but it seemed like it.

    I also have a Mach 6 that isn't going anywhere because I think it does everything well. If it gets stolen, I'll look at the 5.5 though because that red is dead sexy!!
    Carpe Diem!!

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Dude! View Post
    A thought experiment based on the discussion of seat tube angle...

    Firebird has a 74 degree, which everyone seems to like.
    Mach 5.5 has a 73.5, which everyone says it dated!

    I wanted to do a simple thought experiment...

    The Firebird has 170mm front and rear. Using 20% sag for the front and 30% sag for the rear. The front will sag 34mm and the rear would sag 51mm. This would change the static geometry numbers. The front end would be 17mm higher in the dynamic sagged setting. Using front center (BB to front axle) as the horizontal distance, I estimate that the Firebird would be slacken by 1.25 degrees when seated.

    The Mach 5.5 has 160mm front and 140mm rear, and based on sag the front will sag 32mm and the rear will sag 42. In this case the front end would be 10mm higher in the dynamic sagged setting. Using front center again as horizontal distance, I estimate the Mach 5.5 would slacken by 0.76 degrees when seated.

    The difference is about 0.5 degrees. Hence both bikes based static numbers and adjusted for sag will result in a similar seat tube angle in the dynamic seated position. Hence if you like the Firebird at 74, than there will be minimal difference with the Mach 5.5 at 73.5. Now this will change when out of the saddle, but the focus here is on in the saddle, because of pedaling.

    Cheers!!!
    Exactly

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    51
    luv to here the switchblade w/2.8 compared to the 5.5. love my sb set up tis way.

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rom3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by jfboat View Post
    Great review, much appreciated. I know you have limited time on the 5.5, but how would you compare the 5.5 to the Switchblade (in 29) for steep, technical climbing? Also, if you were riding 70+ miles, would you reach for the 5.5 or the Switchblade?

    Thanks.
    The 5.5 has really good traction and balance in steep technical climbs. In general I believe a 27.5 with 2.6 tires would be a better choice for this type of terrain as you are typically trying to balance the bike, keep traction and accelerate from slow speeds and often stopped positions. If I was doing a long ride of 70+ on a normal trail I would most likely bring a 29er as they take less effort to maintain momentum.

  129. #129
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    Quote Originally Posted by ez061825 View Post
    After doing some research seems like the Float X, as compared to X2 might be the right fit? I don't need the extra adjustability, and the X has 3 pedal modes as opposed to just the climb switch on the x2, but also has the extra reservoir as opposed to the stock float. Thoughts?
    The Float X should be a good middle ground but that shock really hasn't been updated in 5 years. Just a few improvements.

    So the current Float X is no bueno. Should be some new shocks coming in the horizon very soon though.

    Good news is the Mach 5.5 can take a reservoir shock and still allow a water bottle.
    Last edited by fc; 05-23-2017 at 11:57 AM.
    IPA will save America

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    5
    Interesting that on the Pivot's site, they list the 5.5 under "XC/Trail" and "Enduro/Trail" similar to the 429T (and Mach 4), while the Switchblade is only listed under "Enduro/Trail" and "plus."

  131. #131
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,332
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    The Float X should be a good middle ground but that shock really hasn't been updated in 5 years. Just a few improvements.

    So the current Float X is no bueno. Should be some new shocks coming in the horizon very soon though.

    Good news is the Mach 5.5 can take a reservoir shock and still allow a water bottle.
    Not for fc per say, but just in general:

    If you are spending on the far side of 10 grand, for the love of god send that Float X to avalanche and get it valved for your weight, riding and bike (and do your fork at the same time too). No matter what the OEM says, shocks like the X2, Float X, whatever, have to be able to fit a very wide range of riders, which causes serious compromises. It doesn't make them unridable by any means, but it does prevent you from being able to get that firm low speed compression support with awesome supple chunk-riding, you have to make compromises and generally not run the rebound too fast or the compression too hard. Every couple years, a new shock comes out and people go mad, believing that it'll finally be that huge performance increase they are looking for. Shock internals are not progressing that fast though, the technology is still decades old off-road valving, do yourself a favor and get it valved correctly and you'll know what it means to have something that just flattens out the terrain and feels smoother faster you go in the rough. Each new shock that comes out is not chock full of magic and spells. Especially, and I can't emphasize this enough, if this bike is in the running to be your "go-to" bike, spend a few hundred extra and get the suspension optimized. It makes a big difference.

    And if you do this, it's less about the actual shock, and a lot more about the internals that the tuner puts in there, as an example, find a RC4, send it to Avalanche or Push for their MX tune, and what you get back will blow the socks off any brand new X2 coil or Vivid coil.
    "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.

  132. #132
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Rom3n View Post
    It feels more capable and balanced than the longer travel Mach 6. The longer wheelbase, Longer reach, lower BB, 2.6 rubber and updated suspension design for me feels much better at speed and in the rough. There is no question I would take this bike over a 6 for any trail given the option. IMO the geo on this bike is very much improved.
    Interesting. Love my M6, especially on the downs. The rear suspension has such a great feel, especially with the x2 I'm running. I would have thought the 5.5 would have felt less capable. Good to know.
    Last edited by Miker J; 05-24-2017 at 05:20 AM.

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,310
    how is the dwlink on Mach 5.5 differ from Mach 5.7? did Pivot changed the dw link ?

  134. #134
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,152
    So, what's up with the 2.6" tires?

    I'm plus tire naive. IMO that's the biggest thing differentiating this bike from many other mid travel trail bikes. Yet there is little mention of these tires on all this talk. We know about DW, the 36, STAs, HTAs, etc... and how all that translates to feel on the trail. Its the 275 mid/plus I'd like to hear about. That's what I'm not sold on.

    How are they different from, say a 2.3" DHF/DHR ?

    I suppose they offer more traction on loose over hard, and probably a touch of damping. Does that come at the expense of durability and quickness?

    Personally, I don't find traction to be lacking with the 2.3" Minions. Cornering or spinning out on climbs usually happens due to operator error.

  135. #135
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    So, what's up with the 2.6" tires?

    I'm plus tire naive. IMO that's the biggest thing differentiating this bike from many other mid travel trail bikes. Yet there is little mention of these tires on all this talk. We know about DW, the 36, STAs, HTAs, etc... and how all that translates to feel on the trail. Its the 275 mid/plus I'd like to hear about. That's what I'm not sold on.

    How are they different from, say a 2.3" DHF/DHR ?

    I suppose they offer more traction on loose over hard, and probably a touch of damping. Does that come at the expense of durability and quickness?

    Personally, I don't find traction to be lacking with the 2.3" Minions. Cornering or spinning out on climbs usually happens due to operator error.
    Yes, slower. Racing a few weeks back and being just a few spots from first, was able to ride back up a long 15 mile stretch where I got to see hundreds of riders coming the other way, the divisions of bikes were interesting, in how XC bikes with normal tires, plus bikes, enduro bikes, fat bikes, were all fairly segregated (the slower bikes were further back). I raced my fatbike in a gravel-grinder last weekend and wasn't far off the leaders, but it was obviously a slower way to ride. When you push the plus hard, the gyroscopic stability and massive rotating weight will be come pronounced. For some people, they may be able to go faster on a few sections, due to more confidence, but generally, it's not the fastest way. Some people are ok with not being the fastest.
    "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.

  136. #136
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Picard View Post
    how is the dwlink on Mach 5.5 differ from Mach 5.7? did Pivot changed the dw link ?
    About 0.2
    "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.

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    About 0.2
    How does it affect the bike?

    Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,371
    I had a 5.7c and have a Mach 6 now. Mach 6 more plush. 5.7 had a pretty firm platform. I prefer the Mach 6 feel. I'd imagine new 5.5 closer to Mach 6 and Switchblade. I was underwhelmed with the 5.7.

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,310
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    I had a 5.7c and have a Mach 6 now. Mach 6 more plush. 5.7 had a pretty firm platform. I prefer the Mach 6 feel. I'd imagine new 5.5 closer to Mach 6 and Switchblade. I was underwhelmed with the 5.7.
    did you have to adjust 5.5 rear shock before ride?

    is the 5.5 stock rear setting plush out of factory?

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Picard View Post
    did you have to adjust 5.5 rear shock before ride?

    is the 5.5 stock rear setting plush out of factory?
    Per my post I have a Mach 6 and have ridden a switchblade plenty. Never ridden a 5.5.

  141. #141
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Yes, slower. Racing a few weeks back and being just a few spots from first, was able to ride back up a long 15 mile stretch where I got to see hundreds of riders coming the other way, the divisions of bikes were interesting, in how XC bikes with normal tires, plus bikes, enduro bikes, fat bikes, were all fairly segregated (the slower bikes were further back). I raced my fatbike in a gravel-grinder last weekend and wasn't far off the leaders, but it was obviously a slower way to ride. When you push the plus hard, the gyroscopic stability and massive rotating weight will be come pronounced. For some people, they may be able to go faster on a few sections, due to more confidence, but generally, it's not the fastest way. Some people are ok with not being the fastest.

    Thanks. Good info.

  142. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,310
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    Per my post I have a Mach 6 and have ridden a switchblade plenty. Never ridden a 5.5.
    Do you keep both Mach 6 and 5.7?

    Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,371
    No I sold the 5.7c.

  144. #144
    Pivotal figure
    Reputation: kenbentit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    6,361
    The biggest point with the 2.6 tires is that they're the new "Wide Trail" tread pattern that's optimized for a wider rim. The idea with these is that when you have a hard impact the tire's tread will bottom on the rim instead of the sidewall which helps minimize flats and damaged rims.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    So, what's up with the 2.6" tires?

    I'm plus tire naive. IMO that's the biggest thing differentiating this bike from many other mid travel trail bikes. Yet there is little mention of these tires on all this talk. We know about DW, the 36, STAs, HTAs, etc... and how all that translates to feel on the trail. Its the 275 mid/plus I'd like to hear about. That's what I'm not sold on.

    How are they different from, say a 2.3" DHF/DHR ?

    I suppose they offer more traction on loose over hard, and probably a touch of damping. Does that come at the expense of durability and quickness?

    Personally, I don't find traction to be lacking with the 2.3" Minions. Cornering or spinning out on climbs usually happens due to operator error.
    Desert Sunset Calls/Upward, Pain, Perseverance/Welcome Solitude

  145. #145
    Pivotal figure
    Reputation: kenbentit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    6,361
    The biggest change is that the 5.5 is using an updated version of the "mid-travel link" that's on the 429 Trail. It's basically the same functionally as the clevis on a Mach 6/Firebird/Phoenix but more compact. On the 429T the shock is attached to the link with the bushing installed, on the 5.5 there is no bushing: it uses a pin and spacers to clamp the shock in position against bearings pressed into the link. This makes the suspension more sensitive to small bumps (very much like replacing the bushings with a bearing kit). The actual DW link is the updated style with 4 separate bearings and bolts (the 5.7 used 2 shorter bolts for the front triangle attachment and one long pin on the rear triangle attachment)
    Quote Originally Posted by Picard View Post
    how is the dwlink on Mach 5.5 differ from Mach 5.7? did Pivot changed the dw link ?
    Desert Sunset Calls/Upward, Pain, Perseverance/Welcome Solitude

  146. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,310
    Is the Mach 5.5 rear shock plush?

  147. #147
    Pivotal figure
    Reputation: kenbentit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    6,361
    "Plush" is a very subjective term and has as much to do with the shock itself (model and setup) as it does with the bike it's attached to. Not really sure how to answer this question...
    Quote Originally Posted by Picard View Post
    Is the Mach 5.5 rear shock plush?
    Desert Sunset Calls/Upward, Pain, Perseverance/Welcome Solitude

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,310
    Does anyone keep 2 pivot bikes ?

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    51
    Are these real questions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Picard View Post
    Does anyone keep 2 pivot bikes ?

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,310
    Quote Originally Posted by tobyrider View Post
    Are these real questions?
    YES. I am asking a real question.

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,605
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Interesting. Love my M6, especially on the downs. The rear suspension has such a great feel, especially with the x2 I'm running. I would have thought the 5.5 would have felt less capable. Good to know.
    Take the new bike enthusiasm with a grain of salt. A 4yr old bike is basically obsolete on the internet. People are always super stoked about the new ride they dropped many $K on.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,623
    I saw 2 5.5 frames in the fresh this morning when I was collecting my new Switchblade. They look to be really nice bikes and I particularly like the black version.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  153. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,310
    plush means the rear shock doesn't cause pogo stick affect jam up my ass. I have sensitive ass because I am a sensitive person.

    does the rear shock for Mach 5.5 jam up anyone ass when you are seat?

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,238
    With your trouble with the language and the questions you ask, no one can tell if you're serious or trolling. Just like every other thread in which you post.
    Ibis Ripmo
    Ibis Ripley V4
    Ibis Mojo HD4
    Pivot Mach 4SL
    Pivot LES SS
    Colnago C60 Disc

  155. #155
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,152
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Take the new bike enthusiasm with a grain of salt. A 4yr old bike is basically obsolete on the internet. People are always super stoked about the new ride they dropped many $K on.
    Ha, yeah.

    But that red 5.5 does look fast.

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,605
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Ha, yeah.

    But that red 5.5 does look fast.
    It looks lovely. If I wanted another 27.5" bike I'd try and find a demo. I'm buying a 29er next.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  157. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    17
    Ok, the bike has been out for a week, now. Pivot told me they are actually for sale. However, I see NO reviews, Youtubes, etc from everyday riders, only from trade rags. My dealer won't even get one until next week, at the soonest. So have any of you (non-bike mag writers) actually ridden one, even for a demo, yet?

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by SubiOwner View Post
    Ok, the bike has been out for a week, now. Pivot told me they are actually for sale. However, I see NO reviews, Youtubes, etc from everyday riders, only from trade rags. My dealer won't even get one until next week, at the soonest. So have any of you (non-bike mag writers) actually ridden one, even for a demo, yet?
    Picked mine up yesterday. First ride is tomorrow.

    Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched-mach553.jpg

  159. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by swinkey View Post
    Picked mine up yesterday. First ride is tomorrow.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	mach553.jpg 
Views:	967 
Size:	141.1 KB 
ID:	1139227
    Sweet!! Looking forward to your thoughts, pluses and minuses, on the bike.

  160. #160
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Picard View Post
    Does anyone keep 2 pivot bikes ?
    Switchblade and 429T


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    27
    How tall are you? and is that an M?
    I ordered a Large and i'm Just under 6'1.
    Thought about a Medium for the shorter wheelbase.
    Last edited by Robin Segers; 05-27-2017 at 12:07 PM.

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin Segers View Post
    How tall are you? and is that an M?
    I ordered a Large and i'm Just under 6'1.
    Thought about a Medium for the shorter wheelbase.
    @swinkey
    Last edited by Robin Segers; 05-27-2017 at 12:07 PM.

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,371
    I'll be that guy - holy stem spacers and seat post extension. If swinkey rides the bike configured like that he needs a bigger frame imho. And at 6'1" you need a large. All the manufacturers are making their bikes with modern longer reach geometry for a reason.

  164. #164
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,780
    Quote Originally Posted by swinkey View Post
    Picked mine up yesterday. First ride is tomorrow.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	mach553.jpg 
Views:	967 
Size:	141.1 KB 
ID:	1139227
    Hi Swinkey! Have fun with that in our forest. Is that a 150mm dropper? You have room for 170!
    IPA will save America

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Picard View Post
    Does anyone keep 2 pivot bikes ?
    Good question. Who would only have 2? LES SS, Mach 429SL, Switchblade, Firebird, Vault, Mach 4C (on loan at the moment). Waiting to have a go on a 5.5 to maybe replace Switchblade.
    Ibis Ripmo
    Ibis Ripley V4
    Ibis Mojo HD4
    Pivot Mach 4SL
    Pivot LES SS
    Colnago C60 Disc

  166. #166
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,332
    Lots of people still think they should "downsize" because of the goofy-bikes in the 90s with 9" long headtubes, high top tubes and no droppers, which meant going to a larger size meant a significant hit on handling if you were in-between. These days, I'd only want to downsize (if in between, which I usually am) if it's a bike intended for only DH riding, which means I never have to climb on it, which with the flats, is where you spend the most time on any other bike.

    There might be some people that are truly that mis-matched with torso and legs, but I see lots of people hesitant to go for the larger frame when deciding.
    "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.

  167. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    I'll be that guy - holy stem spacers and seat post extension. If swinkey rides the bike configured like that he needs a bigger frame imho. And at 6'1" you need a large. All the manufacturers are making their bikes with modern longer reach geometry for a reason.
    Nope. Those are the pics the shop took before I picked it up. I moved some spacers around and the seat has been dropped a few inches. I'll get the steerer cut once I get a few rides in.

    I'm 5'9". This is my 7th Pivot. All have been a medium.

     photo IMG_0226_zpsohtqhyzf.jpg

  168. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    Hi Swinkey! Have fun with that in our forest. Is that a 150mm dropper? You have room for 170!

    125mm. I'm happy with it.

    Santa Cruz was perfect today. Where were you?

  169. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,371
    Quote Originally Posted by swinkey View Post
    Nope. Those are the pics the shop took before I picked it up. I moved some spacers around and the seat has been dropped a few inches. I'll get the steerer cut once I get a few rides in.

    I'm 5'9". This is my 7th Pivot. All have been a medium.

     photo IMG_0226_zpsohtqhyzf.jpg
    Gotcha. So it's a medium ? I always keep a few spacers above the stem so I can sell the fork with a long steerer if I need to.

  170. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dude!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,187


  171. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Picard View Post
    Does anyone keep 2 pivot bikes ?
    Yep, at one stage I even had 3 of them! Current stable is a 2016 429SL, along with a 2010 (I think) Phoenix DH There used to be a 5.7C in the mix with that, but currently that mid-bike slot is taken with an HD3.

  172. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by BmanInTheD View Post
    Good question. Who would only have 2? LES SS, Mach 429SL, Switchblade, Firebird, Vault, Mach 4C (on loan at the moment). Waiting to have a go on a 5.5 to maybe replace Switchblade.
    Size up! I got dibs on the 5.5 next year! Let me know what you think about it. You gonna roll 2.6 tires?

  173. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,238
    Quote Originally Posted by tobyrider View Post
    Size up! I got dibs on the 5.5 next year! Let me know what you think about it. You gonna roll 2.6 tires?
    Haha, yeah, I'm on the border between S and M, being a midget and all, but the Small's work better around here for me, especially with the new Geo. The Small 429 Trail was too short, traded it for a Med. Maybe if I rode a bunch in AZ or SoCal a Med might be better.

    Gonna try to get a 5.5 with a Fox 34 150mm (for weight and geo) and maybe some Nox Farlow wheels (29mmID) with 2.5 or 2.6. I think if I go to small of a tire with a shorter fork might I might have too low of a BB. I've had a lot of time on the 2.8's, and while they're kinda nice some places, 2.6 might be a good compromise w/o feeling sluggish or lethargic like the 2.8's.

    BTW, raining in Ireland? Gonna ride there? Congrats on your recent activity!
    Ibis Ripmo
    Ibis Ripley V4
    Ibis Mojo HD4
    Pivot Mach 4SL
    Pivot LES SS
    Colnago C60 Disc

  174. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    130
    Just my initial impressions after three days of riding the 5.5

    I rode a 5.5 for a few days and have to admit that I didn't really come to like it. Biggest factor on the downside is the biggest factor of the bike: big 2.6" wheels. They are adding unnecessary sluggishness to the bike without giving any benefits. I did some timed uphill efforts and found out that I was faster on the 170mm Firebird.
    The Rekon is not a very grippy tire as well...

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by wooly88 View Post
    Awesome review. I look forward to hearing further thoughts.

    Have you ridden a 429 Trail? If so, was climbing on the 5.5 noticeably worse?
    I rode a 429 Trail as a testbike for almost four weeks. The 429 is by far the faster climber!
    I usually do timed runs on a xc racetrack to check out the climbing ability of my testbikes an compare it to my go to XC race machine (Yeti ASRc)

    The course is 6.6km long with about 200 meters of climbing.

    Yeti: 16m43s
    429T: 17m56s
    Mach 5.5: 20m04s

  176. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation: edbraunbeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by chilla13 View Post
    Just my initial impressions after three days of riding the 5.5

    I rode a 5.5 for a few days and have to admit that I didn't really come to like it. Biggest factor on the downside is the biggest factor of the bike: big 2.6" wheels. They are adding unnecessary sluggishness to the bike without giving any benefits. I did some timed uphill efforts and found out that I was faster on the 170mm Firebird.
    The Rekon is not a very grippy tire as well...
    I do kind of wish they offered a normal tire/rim combination as a build kit option. 36mm wide rims seem big for 2.35 tires.

  177. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by edbraunbeck View Post
    I do kind of wish they offered a normal tire/rim combination as a build kit option. 36mm wide rims seem big for 2.35 tires.
    I would love to ride the bike with a 2.5DHF front and a 2.3 SS rear on Flow Mk3 rims.
    The FloatX2 would be nice to have as well. I find it hard to match the super capable 36 and the tiny DPS rear shock.

  178. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    329
    I've got 3 rides on the bike and absolutely love it. I'm running a 2.35 Hans Dampf/Nobby Nic combo on Enve 70/30 HV rims, so I have the option to run wider tires if I want. I rode a plus bike once and hated it, so it might be a while before that happens.

    What impressed me most was how well this bike climbs. Yes, I can climb faster on my 429 Trail, but not by much.

    I hate the Fox fork (don't ask). I hate most Fox forks, so this will be replaced by a Pike as soon as I can get my hands on a 2018. Even with my Fox fork hatred, I had more fun on downhills this weekend than I've had in years.

    My biggest complaint is that something is rattling in my downtube. I haven't looked yet, but my guess is that it's my dropper cable. Hopefully that's an easy fix.

  179. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dude!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,187
    I have gotten only a few rides in on the new Mach 5.5. It is an interesting bike but I like it.

    I have been riding a SB5v2 and the Firebird v2. I really like both of these bikes and they have their respective places. The Firebird being long and slack, it has taken me a little bit to adjust my ride style. Each ride gets faster and more fun. The Firebird is an impressive bike that pedals well and gives me the confidence to push it. With the new light-weight full frame Fox helmet, it has been game on with the Firebird. The geometry is dialed on this bike. I feel very comfortable in the saddle.

    The SB5v2 has been on the other end of the spectrum, it just rips trails and though it can handle more aggressive trails, you see it limits. I love how it fits in the saddle. The one thing going back and forth between riding the Firebird and the Sb5v2, you start to notice geometry differences, particularly reach and front center, particularly out of the saddle.

    I was starting to look around a bit to replace my SB5.5 (just not a 29er guy), but nothing serious, and than the Mach 5.5 showed up. With a long weekend of riding planned, I was riding the SB5 and Firebird and in between trying to dial the Mach5.5 in with some heavy legs. It surprisingly has taken more time to dial in the cockpit than most. I think it is because of it being longer, but still a trail bike. I settled on the 40mm stem. I like the 40mm stem for climbing and the 50mm stem for descending.

    Now that I am closer to dialing it, though still need more rides, I have some initial thoughts. This sound crazy but it rides light.The SB5 rides heavy. The Sb5 sticks to the ground more and it eats up the trail. Though I can jump the SB5 it requires a lot more work and effort. The Mach5.5 just flies over everything and with a lighter touch can easily skip and change directions. The Mach5.5 feels more capable - granted it has more travel, but the geometry and its suspension allow you to push it further. The Sb5 eats up the trail noise better. Now I do have the SB5 with a Pike with an MRP, and that MRP is the real deal. The Sb5 gets bounced a bit more with larger features on the trail. The Mach 5.5 handles the bigger feature better, but not the trail noise as well. I need to dial suspension better now.

    It also not fair comparison, because I am long-term I9 hub rider and the DT SWISS aren't bad, but there is a slight lack of engagement, particularly when use to immediate engagement. However, I am pleasantly surprised by the wheel - but waiting for my NOBLs to arrive.

    The bigger wheels, I noticed them but at the same time didn't notice them. Since I didn't really notice them, but when I did I like it.

    I need more rides on it. It is a unique bike that's a lot of fun and very capable! Like the Firebird, I think it is the next evolution of a trail bike, I need to evolve with it some more.

  180. #180
    ZEN RIDER!
    Reputation: Mt.Biker E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    950
    I'm curious as to your thoughts compared to the Calling, even though you have limited time on it.
    Life in every breath

  181. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Picard View Post
    Does anyone keep 2 pivot bikes ?
    Quote Originally Posted by tobyrider View Post
    Are these real questions?
    Quote Originally Posted by Picard View Post
    YES. I am asking a real question.
    they are Picard questions which should be ignored.
    Mike
    Toronto, Canada
    2019 Scott Foil 10 Disc
    2019 Norco Search XR Steel
    2017 Trek Farley 9.6

  182. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Mt.Biker E View Post
    I'm curious as to your thoughts compared to the Calling, even though you have limited time on it.
    And with the Carbon Warden too, which btw are you still riding? Sounds like you treat bikes like some woman treat shoes!!

  183. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Dude! View Post


    rad

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dude!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by invol2ver View Post
    rad
    Yeah man - its a fun bike. Just got back from a quick one with the dogs. Not much more to say than its a lot fun to ride. This is one of those bikes that is meant to just go play on.

  185. #185
    Pivoteer
    Reputation: tiSS'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,445
    I spent the holiday weekend riding my new Di2 Mach 5.5. I currently also own a Di2 Switchblade 29er. Both bikes are configured with Float X2s. The SB has the MRP Fox 36 Ramp Control cartridge. The SB with Minion DHF 2.5 WTs is coming in just shy of 31lbs, the 5.5 in stock trim comes in at just shy of 28lbs. Both include pedals. The SB is definitely built more toward the burly side of things. I have also owed a SB with Plus wheels, Mach 6 V2 and V1, and a Mach 4. A quick note, the 2.6 DHFs are coming in at about 970grams, the Rekon 2.6 at about 825grams. The DHF is a legit enduro tire, the Rekon is an amazing trail tire really hooks up and rolls well here in the southwest.

    I initially had little interest in the Mach 5.5 because I felt it was a small wheeled version of the SB. Chris assured me that it is a different bike, so I figured I would give it shot, besides I've liked every bike I have ever owned built by Chris, whether it was a Titus or Pivot. The 3lb weight difference was alluring as well. Even though I am fortunate enough to have so any great bikes at my disposal, I tend to be a one bike guy. And like everyone else, I'm always looking for the best one bike quiver.

    My first ride on the Mach 5.5 was one of my favorite trail rides, up Kiwanis to National West. The Kiwanis climb is 1.1 miles of fairly large steps, followed by a grunt of a climb up National. Once you get to the ridge on National, is rolling terrain out west until you get to the final descent. The final descent has a bit of tech, it's loose and rather steep for the Phoenix area.

    The first thing I noticed was that the Mach 5.5 seemed to be a bit more plush on the small stuff vs the SB, which makes sense since it has a more trail tuned vs DH tuned suspension. What I didn't expect was just how much the 3lb weight difference and tire size would make. I expected to get hung up more on the constant ledges, but that never proved out. The bike geometry felt very natural coming from the SB. I am running a 55mm stem which is 10mm longer than the SB. I had a very successful climb up Kiwanis through the tech, and the National was a bit easier as well. Once I crested National, the bike really came alive. National becomes pretty flowy west past the Ranger drop. I felt very comfortable on the Mach 5.5. The bike was exceptionally nimble, accelerated very well, and absorbed the terrain better than anticipated. I was having so much fun and the bike fit me so well, it just disappeared under me. The 2.6 tires worked very well. They don't feel like plus tires, yet the are a bit more compliant than regular tires. They corner like normal tires, none of the rubber band feelings that come with 2.8s.

    Sunday I rode my summer quick ride, National to the saddle and back. This is a bit more of a techy ride up and down. It has good "flow" for a SOMO trail. Climbing was light and spritely, and I felt better at the top than normal, again likely due to the weight and better rolling tires. Coming down felt very SB'ish. There are a few good hard hits on the descent and the 5.5 took them like a champ. I used all of the travel, but I never could tell that I was at the end of the travel. We detoured and headed down Mormon which is a nice fast and chunky descent. I tied my PR on this descent, which was set on a Mach 6. In fact, I had to slow to walking pace to pass a hiker, so I would have smashed my PR on this descent had I had a clean run. My time was just out of the top 10, and there are some really fast guys here in town. Needless to say, I was blown away when I saw this, this bike climbs outstanding, and really likes to get rowdy when time comes.

    Monday I decided to head out to Hawes which is a XC trail system. I don't often ride out here because it is not fun at all on a bigger bike like the SB or Mach 6. I figured this ride would round out my normal type of riding I would expect from this bike. Strangely, the Mach 5.5 felt like a slightly heavier Mach 4 here. The bike sprints so well, even with the Float X2 (which I never ran in climb mode all weekend, nor would I ever on the trail). One thing that I was really shocked by is how planted the front end was when climbing steep segments. I found myself maintaining my normal seating position for these types of climbs. I did not have to slide forward on the saddle, bend at the hips to weight the front end, or shift my weight in any fashion. I was able to sit and pedal and focus on the trail. Even the SB I have to shift my weight a bit. Another point of interest is that I do not have the best cornering technique. Hawes is crushed granite over solid granite, so traction is limited. With the slightly longer stem, I felt more comfortable in the corners and carried more speed than I can remember. The bike was uber confident, and pedaled lightly with ease. Overall I was very happy with how it performed on this type of terrain.

    So after all of that, which bike would I choose? I really like the 5.5. I think it is an easier bike to ride fast, it's more fun and poppy than the SB, and for me I fell more comfortable carrying corner speed with the bike. I connected with it immediately. Keep in mind that our terrain is very twisty, we have several switchbacks, and our trails are not was most would consider flowy. I think the lighter weigh and smaller wheels make the ride more fun. Now, if I lived in an area where I could really open the bike up, I think I would go SB. The 29er wheels would roll and maintain momentum better. But our terrain is about changing direction quickly, slowing, speeding up, etc.
    Employed by Pivot Cycles - www.pivotcycles.com

  186. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by Just J View Post
    I saw 2 5.5 frames in the fresh this morning when I was collecting my new Switchblade. They look to be really nice bikes and I particularly like the black version.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    Same thing here. They had two black 5.5's built up and one red opened, but not built. I liked them both, but the black was really nice and I tend to not like black bikes.

  187. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,371
    Brandon can you compare the 5.5 to the Mach 6 pls ?

  188. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dude!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Mt.Biker E View Post
    I'm curious as to your thoughts compared to the Calling, even though you have limited time on it.
    I just checked it out, the geometry is very similar between the two.

  189. #189
    mtbr santa cruz member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    147
    I pick mine up on Friday. Let's just say that I have been a little distracted on my business trip this week.

  190. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,739
    For me at least, this bike hits a lot of points. For a main bike to me, it must have:

    1) Reasonable geometry,
    2) be capable of climbing and descending well, and
    3) have a water bottle cage inside the triangle so I can use a normal water bottle and not have it covered in crap (i.e. bottom of downtube mounting).

    My current bike hits all of these, a Turner Burner. When it is time to replace it, if I stay with Turner, I would have to go to the longer travel RFX, which may or may not climb as well. The only other two options I see that I like are the Mach 5.5 or Ibis HD4, but the 4 appears to have been shifted towards more of an enduro bike.
    Riding slowly since 1977.

  191. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    641
    Is the fox 36 a plus fork or a standard 27.5? Would a recon 2.8 fit front and rear?

  192. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by chilla13 View Post
    Just my initial impressions after three days of riding the 5.5

    I rode a 5.5 for a few days and have to admit that I didn't really come to like it. Biggest factor on the downside is the biggest factor of the bike: big 2.6" wheels. They are adding unnecessary sluggishness to the bike without giving any benefits. I did some timed uphill efforts and found out that I was faster on the 170mm Firebird.
    The Rekon is not a very grippy tire as well...
    What tire pressure are you running

  193. #193
    Pivoteer
    Reputation: tiSS'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,445
    It is a standard 27.5 fork. No 2.8s will not fit, if 2.8s are what you are looking for then go for a Switchblade.
    Employed by Pivot Cycles - www.pivotcycles.com

  194. #194
    Pivoteer
    Reputation: tiSS'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,445
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    Brandon can you compare the 5.5 to the Mach 6 pls ?
    Will do, I am actually hopping on a Mach 6 for the next few days so I can offer a more current review.

    What I can say is that I am PR'ing everything on the Mach 5.5. Up down and all around. I am PR'ing good technical descents too, this bike is the real deal. BTW, I'm running 19/25psi in the tires. I do not find them to be slow on the trail, actually quite the opposite.
    Employed by Pivot Cycles - www.pivotcycles.com

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by invol2ver View Post
    What tire pressure are you running
    20/21 psi

  196. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by tiSS'er View Post
    Will do, I am actually hopping on a Mach 6 for the next few days so I can offer a more current review.

    What I can say is that I am PR'ing everything on the Mach 5.5. Up down and all around. I am PR'ing good technical descents too, this bike is the real deal. BTW, I'm running 19/25psi in the tires. I do not find them to be slow on the trail, actually quite the opposite.
    Well, depends on the tires you are comparing them to. My 29er Raceking Racesport are my point of reference because my Yeti ASRc is equipped with them.
    Btw I spend some time in the forest with the Mach 5.5; trails were very loamy. Perfect conditions for the 2.6" tires. I still think a tire like the Minion SS would be a better match for the DHF. The Rekon breaks loose much faster than the Minion. Can be fun though as long as you can control it.

  197. #197
    ZEN RIDER!
    Reputation: Mt.Biker E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    950
    Quote Originally Posted by Dude! View Post
    I just checked it out, the geometry is very similar between the two.
    Any thoughts on ride quality comparison?
    Life in every breath

  198. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3
    Can anyone compare ride characteristics of the 5.5 to the 429 Trail running 27.5+?

    I have demoed the SB but felt the front end was too light for steep punchy climbing. It also felt more slacked out than what I care for to run through tight technical terrain where I want to be able to throw the bike around.

    I was leaning toward a 429 Trail 27.5+ but now I am wondering if I should reconsider for the 5.5. I really liked how the plus tires just inspired no braking through loose turns. Additionally the 429 felt really flickable in tighter singletrack.

    Thoughts?

  199. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,371
    Quote Originally Posted by tiSS'er View Post
    Will do, I am actually hopping on a Mach 6 for the next few days so I can offer a more current review.

    What I can say is that I am PR'ing everything on the Mach 5.5. Up down and all around. I am PR'ing good technical descents too, this bike is the real deal. BTW, I'm running 19/25psi in the tires. I do not find them to be slow on the trail, actually quite the opposite.
    Thanks would love a bit more detail down the road. I have a non boost Mach 6 which I generally love although after riding the switchblade multiple times I do prefer the slightly steeper seat tube on our steep ledgy climbs. If it descends similarly I'm likely sold. I think the Mach 6 feels really good going down - particularly compared to say a HD3.

  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by tibbbing View Post
    Can anyone compare ride characteristics of the 5.5 to the 429 Trail running 27.5+?

    I have demoed the SB but felt the front end was too light for steep punchy climbing. It also felt more slacked out than what I care for to run through tight technical terrain where I want to be able to throw the bike around.

    I was leaning toward a 429 Trail 27.5+ but now I am wondering if I should reconsider for the 5.5. I really liked how the plus tires just inspired no braking through loose turns. Additionally the 429 felt really flickable in tighter singletrack.

    Thoughts?
    I don't have plus tires on my 429 Trail (I have the same tires on both bikes), but on tight, flowy, smooth downhill singletrack, the 429 handles better. 5.5 is flickable on pretty much anything, but the 429 maintains speed much better.

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Pivot Mach 5.5 Carbon launched
    By fc in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-20-2018, 06:20 PM
  2. launched off a wood berm
    By bhlass in forum Rider Down, injuries and recovery
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-19-2014, 04:53 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-21-2012, 06:37 PM
  4. MarathonMTB.com Team soon to be launched
    By Smiker in forum Endurance XC Racing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-08-2011, 11:40 AM
  5. KyMBA.org new website launched this week
    By SuperJETT in forum Midwest - IL, IN, OH, KY, IA, MO, MI
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-04-2011, 05:09 PM

Members who have read this thread: 204

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 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.