A can of Five Orange worms

bikefish100

Northwind wrote:

Aye, some folks want to see massive changes but if you start over every few years with a new idea, you need to figure it out again. Whereas if you stay with an old idea you can sometimes polish it and finesse it to the point you're better off that way. Is that the case with Orange? Up to you to decide really. I think they've got good reasons to do what they do.

As someone mentioned earlier, the way they fabricate the frame is because that is the only way they can say they made bits of it in England. I'm pretty sure that if they used some more modern tech the sections could be made lighter and stiffer. I am very sure 99% of the bike industry haven't got it wrong.

t0pc4t

When I get my next bike I am definitely going to try a 5 (and a blood actually having seen one at the weekend) as I'm interested to see if the masses of people who have them are onto a good thing.

Logic suggests that if something is that popular there may well be something of value there, once I have ridden it I can make up my own mind on it. If it's good the next decision will be whether the undoubtedly high price tag is traded off by the fact that it looks like it's been made from girders by dirty roll up wearing coal miners (positive thing) and that it can be bought in neon pink (extremely positive thing, if an Orange 5 upsets people, the rage caused by a bright pink Orange 5 should be immense)

but that's when I get my next bike, which is a combination of having the money and being tired of my anthem, both of which put it a long time away

Bet the design's the same however long I leave it though

toasty

bikefish100 wrote:

As someone mentioned earlier, the way they fabricate the frame is because that is the only way they can say they made bits of it in England. I'm pretty sure that if they used some more modern tech the sections could be made lighter and stiffer. I am very sure 99% of the bike industry haven't got it wrong.

Why? You don't think 99% of the bike industry want to sell you a new model every 2 years? My 11 year old Enduro weighed about 30 pounds, had 4 bar suspension, 130mm travel (with a BETD link and Revs!) and rode not a million miles from a modern bike.*

Although it lacked hydroforming, it didn't explode. So much tech is marketing, a bit of shaping to the tube might allow 20 grams to be dropped, but it really doesn't define a good or bad bike. Go demo some.

A 2008ish Enduro looks completely different to a modern one, due to this it's resale value is dead, you'd probably get a few hundred for a £3k carbon S-Works frame. A 2008 Five would probably still get half it's retail price.

Edit: * On a related note, I later then got hold of a 2010 Pitch, and managed to strip a pivot bolt on one of it's first rides. Modern technology isn't a guarantee of awesome.

bikefish100

Lighter, stiffer and cheaper - sounds like good reasons to me. Some companies have knocked several hundred grams off their frames over the years, yet have still increased stiffness and strength. While it doesn't altogether define a good bike, manufacturers are striving to lessen weight, and increase stiffness and strength. And the consumers do buy into this! Scott, Giant and Cannondale framesets are a prime example of, and Spesh saying that. How are Orange going to do it? They can't, unless they move on and take advantage of modern technology. In a few years time when the far East is knocking out 6lbs 150mm full suss frames for peanuts, people are going to finally realise the 5 is a bit of dinosaur.

Working for a bike shop I have the luxury of testing many bikes. The 5 rides average at best, is heavier than the competitors, pedals badly, the back end twists quite a lot and are not as bombproof as people make out. But that is my opinion, I appreciate yours, we just disagree on a few aspects of the bike and design.

toasty

Why have 130-150mm trail bikes weighed 28-30 pounds for the past 7-8 years, if they've been getting lighter every year? Stories of snapping stays or bottom brackets are no more rare than they were.

It's definitely moved on, don't get me wrong. If you think a bike is a dinosaur because it doesn't have hydroformed tubing you're kidding yourself though. Tapered steerers and bigger axles make a difference, and most bikes have jumped on board.

Oh, and on the peanuts note. What planet have you been on for the past 5 years? A Five has probably got 20% more expensive for the frame? Those other companies have more than doubled in that time*, an £800 Rockhopper has 30mm XC30 forks on?! :shock:

* ok, except Giant frames, even then a Reign is £1400 now though!

bikefish100

130-150mm travel frames have got lighter over that time period, generally speaking. What has changed is that the general price for a given spec has gone up markedly since about 2008. Stumpy FSR 140mm, 5.5lbs for the frame now! Giant have hacked loads off the Reign, Trance and Anthem, Scott Genius is lighter than ever too. Even GT, tube manipulation has dropped a load of weight off what is a heavy set up.

Same with forks, the 130mm original rev was 1700g - is now 1600g, yet has 20mm more travel. Wheels are likewise, in fact eveything is getting lighter. Some top end 150mm bikes are around 23lbs, that did not exist 7 to 8 years ago.

Things move on - doesn't mean the old stuff is bad, but things are getting even better. 7.1lbs for a single pivot with no linkages is off the pace, there are, and we go back to it, cheaper, lighter, and stiffer frames for the money. Heckler for one.

As for the ever changing standards, I agree to an extent, but if they don't experiment with them, then again we stagnate. We'd all be riding 1 inch threaded steerers, quick release, square taper BBs and V brakes if things didn't change, and people have always moaned when they came along!

Edit: I am talking about frames, not whole bikes with regards to price. I am quite aware what planet I am on! Frame prices are starting to drop, especially with carbon, and we will see companies producing very cheap, competent stuff. I stand by that in 5 years that cheap full suss frames will be widely available.

Northwind

bikefish100 wrote:

As someone mentioned earlier, the way they fabricate the frame is because that is the only way they can say they made bits of it in England. I'm pretty sure that if they used some more modern tech the sections could be made lighter and stiffer. I am very sure 99% of the bike industry haven't got it wrong.

I was more referring to the suspension platform. But tbh though the sheet metal construction is overcomplicated but it's not drastically worse in performance than tubes- a little heavier, and a lot flexier in the rear than many equivalent bikes but it works.

toasty

Comparing a Heckler to a Five, the frame difference is about 200 grams, which is about 1.5% of the weight of an All Mountain bike, in a not hugely important place.

Until Stumpjumpers/Reigns/Remedys start getting higher reviews than the heavier single pivots I don't think Orange are in any danger. In a way I think a lot of companies have shot themselves in the foot with too much technology.

rockmonkeysc

4 bar links work far better than a single pivot in one very important area, they pedal much better. They also give the designer better control over the rear axle path.
One thing I noticed when I rode a 5 was that it pedaled really badly without the pro-pedal on. My reign X pedals & climbs much better even with a coil shock & no pro-pedal.

bikefish100

In a way I think a lot of companies have shot them selves in the foot with too much technology.

I actually do agree, I think you can push it too far - some seem to use the forming or odd designs for looks rather than performance. One such example is the Sunn Kern:

http://dirt.mpora.com/old_images/blogs/ ... Stand1.jpg

Though the top and down tubes look conventional, the sus isn't! Seems a complicated way to execute a single pivot! At first glance looks like a 4 bar, but has a complicated multiple linkage driving the shock through the seat tube. The new Meta though similar, looks much more elegant, and I guess (though I don't know the weights), could be a lighter and stiffer system. Speculating though, however I think the new Meta is lighter than the old one.

The new Stumpys look very elegant too, nice clean lines, you really get the feeling that there is no excess lard and all shapes have a purpose - nothing for show. Function that has nice form if you like, rather than form that has no function. Not one I have ridden yet though.

So is tech can definitely be a downer if used wrongly, though I guess you also meant the parts and components too.

toasty

4 bar links work far better than a single pivot in one very important area, they pedal much better. They also give the designer better control over the rear axle path.

Pedal better? Every FSR 4 bar I've owned was bouncy as hell and totally relied on pro-pedal, I'll agree that they're perma-plush, but I've certainly never found any bonus to climbing. Why do you think Specialized puts so much focus on it's brain technology? I quite liked Maestro/VPP/DW, for climbing, but it leaves the suspension feeling a bit wooden. Purely my opinion, after owning quite a few 4 bars.

No idea why this thread has swapped to comparing a bike covered to run 36mm Fox to trail bikes running 32mm Fox anyway.

supersonic

RockmonkeySC wrote:

4 bar links work far better than a single pivot in one very important area, they pedal much better. They also give the designer better control over the rear axle path.
One thing I noticed when I rode a 5 was that it pedaled really badly without the pro-pedal on. My reign X pedals & climbs much better even with a coil shock & no pro-pedal.

This is, I am afraid, fundamentally wrong. 4 bar links can pedal differently to a single pivot, or indeed the same. This depends on a few factors. One is where the virtual pivot actually is! If the VP is in the same place as the pivot on a single pivot bike they will pedal EXACTLY the same.

You are right about axle path though, and varying this is what say DW does, to reduce anti squat later in the travel (and therefore pedal kickback). 4 bars also allow the instant centre to be in a different place to the VPP, so allows some tuning of brake perfromance.

But the fact remains is that a 4 bar can have significantly less anti squat than a 4 bar - FSR does, and will bob more than a high forward single pivot like the Orange 5. The trade off is pedal feedback in some gears.

Northwind

Toasty wrote:

Until Stumpjumpers/Reigns/Remedys start getting higher reviews than the heavier single pivots I don't think Orange are in any danger.

But this happens often already?

toasty

It does? Where?

The 2 Orange Five reviews on Bikeradar are 4.5, have any of those 3 ever scored a 5?

supersonic

Not many single pivot bikes about anymore - and by that I mean non linkage driven ones. Even though are not my cup of tea in longer travel form, is a shame as many do like the way they ride, and the simplicity.

Is a shame Haro, Saracen and Decathlon don't do the budget ones of old anymore.

Northwind

Heckler has an average rating of 4 on bikeradar. Five has a 4 star that you didn't mention. As for beating that- equivalent bikes have- Blur LT, Zesty, both have 5/5s on Bikeradar. Are those 3 you mentioned the only competition :? Stumpies of various flavours have a stack of 4.5s, just at a glance.

toasty

Well the Five Diva got a 4, are we going as far as Safires too here? :P

Northwind wrote:

Toasty wrote:

Until Stumpjumpers/Reigns/Remedys start getting higher reviews than the heavier single pivots I don't think Orange are in any danger.

But this happens often already?

So, going by the response, no, but if you hunt around you can find another bike that scores higher. Good job there. Stumpies also have a considerably bigger stack of 4s and 3.5s.

They're clearly not the only competition, they're the 3 I was randomly comparing the spec with Orange Fives on the previous page to point out that the value isn't as bad as people are making out. On which note, you couldn't even buy a Blur LT full build for £2500, Zestys seem quite competitive this year though.

chez_m356

Toasty wrote:

It does? Where?

The 2 Orange Five reviews on Bikeradar are 4.5, have any of those 3 ever scored a 5?

has the orange ?????? biggest fanboi ever, if you ever get your hands on another orange, make sure you've got your plastic bag and handcuffs with you, then you can find yourself a nice dark closet and have fun

supersonic

Behave people! Be nice.

chez_m356

supersonic wrote:

Behave people! Be nice.

was merely implying he should go relax and enjoy himself, how does your mind work ?

benpinnick

This thread is growing quite quickly, so I thought it might be worth a recap. From what I can recall:

Orange Fives are too popular, but by %age of bikes ridden, only a small amount. They are built oop north somewhere, by drunken monkeys, but that might be better than abroad, unless you like curvy tubing, in which case you need something from Taiwan. In the grand scheme of things, they are heavy, but no heavier than most other comparable bikes, except the ones that aren't as heavy, which is some. The Five is in most peoples opinion the best Orange bike with a name that is a single number, but not necessarily the best orange bike. Orange bikes should all be orange. The Five is definitely the best Orange bike thats not orange, at least until the Seven comes out, but that might be a while, and no-one knows why its better, only that its got Two more than the Five, which must be better. When the Seven does come out, it will likely have a group discount option. I apparently ride in a group of Santa cruz riders, but since I can think of only one other regular group member with a Santa Cruz I am either blind, stupid, both of the previous, or riding with lunatics. If we figure out why its called the Five, we'll know what its got two more of. The Five is outdated and old, but completely new and up to date, every tube is replaced so its not even a Five anymore, maybe it should be renamed the Six, or the Theseus. It is however still ugly.

toasty

chez_m356 wrote:

has the orange ?????? biggest fanboi ever, if you ever get your hands on another orange, make sure you've got your plastic bag and handcuffs with you, then you can find yourself a nice dark closet and have fun

Orange fanboy? Nah, I'd have bought one by now if I were. Just seems silly that people will always jump in these threads to have rants about something they clearly have no idea about, just to join the flock and win the internets. Just having some fun, when Grantway was here I used to be other side of the fence

Rants about a bike being overpriced with absolutely no basis for comparison. Complaining about pedaling when compared to another model, after seemingly riding neither. Moaning about weight when they're virtually the same weight as every other bike in that category. Pointing and giggling at other magazines for giving a bike 10, when WMB/MBUK does virtually the same.

No idea why we seem to have backwards brand loyalty in this country. MTBR is bizarre, completely the other way around, making a point trying to buy American frames, then getting put out when they realise pretty much everything is made in Taiwan.

Orange are a decent company, doing something a bit different to everyone else. I bet they could join the flock and import some cheap carbon frames and sell them cheap like On-One, but I sort of respect they do what they're doing, and they're clearly doing it very well as pretty much all critics reviews unanimously agree.

I understand it's not the bike you bought Chez, I'm sure yours is great too, don't worry about it.

Edit: I've actually got a demo booked for the end of this month, I'll try and control myself. Got my eye on a 2011 Stumpy Evo though to be honest, hehe.

Northwind

Toasty wrote:

Pointing and giggling at other magazines for giving a bike 10, when WMB/MBUK does virtually the same.

I think you can justify giving a Five 10/10 personally, though I wouldn't . But I remember a 10/10 MBR review- "The wheels are too narrow and weak, and the brakes don't really work, 10/10". So that's what I make fun of.

Equally in the more recent review, they took a Five build that was in budget for their test, then spent enough on upgrades to take it massively overbudget, then gave it extra credit specifically for those upgrades. Then marked the Lapierre down for having organic brake pads that would cost £15 to replace and still leave it miles under budget. That sort of blatant cheating's worth a bit of pointing and giggling don't you think?

Still, it's MBR I'm laughing at not Orange. The magazine that fitted their own tyres to a test bike then took points off because they didn't suit it, the magazine that ran an Inbred with 140mm forks and complained it was too tall.

Though not the magazine that used the word GRAVDURO, which is much worse.

bikefish100

Rants about a bike being overpriced with absolutely no basis for comparison. Complaining about pedaling when compared to another model, after seemingly riding neither. Moaning about weight when they're virtually the same weight as every other bike in that category. Pointing and giggling at other magazines for giving a bike 10, when WMB/MBUK does virtually the same.

No basis? A shops own build is the only case you have put forward, and has been shown that other bikes of the same price as the standard versions are lighter and better specced in almost all cases.

The S at 31.5lbs with a Sektor and 9 speed is terrible value and is bloody heavy, while the Pro at nearly 3k and comes in at 30lbs. The Lappiere Zesty 514 beats it in nearly all departments, 27lbs:

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/lap ... e-ec031532

or a Stumpy FSR Carbon Expert, 27.5lbs:

http://www.rutlandcycling.com/36260/Spe ... -Bike.html

Scott Genius, 28.5lbs:

http://www.rutlandcycling.com/37198/Sco ... -Bike.html

So not just lighter, significantly lighter. These are proper weights, not claims. Oh, and they are all compatible with 160mm forks.

So before you have a crack at others for poor arguments, put your money where you mouth is, show some examples of 140mm bikes at these prices that are lighter. You have not proved a single point yet and, given you haven't even ridden the latest versions, your credibility is as bad as those you are pointing the finger at:

Just seems silly that people will always jump in these threads to have rants about something they clearly have no idea about

chez_m356

Toasty wrote:

I understand it's not the bike you bought Chez, I'm sure yours is great too, don't worry about it.

very true, i got something much better for half the price, a real british bike, yes i know your going to say its german, but so is the Queen, and you cant get more british than her

Toasty wrote:

Got my eye on a 2011 Stumpy Evo though to be honest, hehe.

is that the one that got a 4.5 star review ? :shock:

toasty

chez_m356 wrote:

is that the one that got a 4.5 star review ?

Nay, that was 2012 The 2011 had a decent wheelset.

bikefish100 wrote:

So before you have a crack at others for poor arguments, put your money where you mouth is, show some examples of 140mm bikes at these prices that are lighter. You have not proved a single point yet and, given you haven't even ridden the latest versions, your credibility is as bad as those you are pointing the finger at:

I'm purely saying it's comparable, not drastically more expensive as was implied. You've compared it to a carbon bike, with drastically lower spec, I really can't be bothered to go through point by point and compare Juicy 3s and Deore wheels to a set of Tech 2s and Pro IIs. Actually sod it, compared to the Stumpy:

The O5 has:

- Cheaper frame (I'd guess, mass produced carbon vs hand made alloy?)
+ Better wheels (crap plain gauge spokes and cheap hubs, proper Rovals they aint)
+ More expensive brakes
+ Better forks (totally bottom end Fox vs QR15 FIT performance jobbies)
/ Matching groupset, XT/SLX vs X9/X7

How is that not comparable? I'd argue anyone spending £3k would probably chuck those wheels on the Stumpy, at least the O5 is good to go. I had a Mojo last year, the novelty of carbon has worn off, I really can't be bothered spending £2k on a frame to be honest. Are you even arguing the spec is better, or are you purely sold on claimed weights?!

You also seem to be stuck on the fact it's 140mm, if it makes a huge amount of difference you can run it at 150mm if you like. Saying it's only 10mm from an Alpine is rubbish, there's a huge leap up to Fox 36.

I've never claimed it's the best specced bike about clearly, I'm just pointing out it's close enough to mass produced bike prices to actually warrant comparing. It didn't used to be, but doesn't seem to have skyrocketed up like other brands.

bennett_346

blah blah blah

chez_m356

Toasty wrote:

chez_m356 wrote:

is that the one that got a 4.5 star review ?

Nay, that was 2012 The 2011 had a decent wheelset.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/ ... o-11-39957 if your going to search, do it properly, hmmm i wonder why i see more stumpjumpers than any other kind of FS bike, could they be popular, i wonder why ?

cooldad

After reading this thread, I have an overwhelming desire to buy an Orange 5.

toasty

chez_m356 wrote:

hmmm i wonder why i see more stumpjumpers than any other kind of FS bike, could they be popular, i wonder why ?

I generally get on with Specialized because they're looooooong and low, I'm 6'6" and generally far too big for most brands :?

Thats the American colouring 2011 Evo which is what threw me I think