Trail Bike of the Year!

Kowalski675

POAH wrote:

I'd rather spend a bit more money and get a decent fork than have to try and sell a shoot one and buy new.

When I'm spending as much as I could buy a decent car for I'd rather have a decent fork already, without having to spend even more...

lawman

Kowalski675 wrote:

lawman wrote:

But as Al says, if Mondrakers market research says Fox is more desirable to the consumer then it's on their interest to fit them

Then they need to do some more up to date market research, because it seems you could count on the fingers of one of Abu Hamza's hands the number of people who have a good word to say about Fox products (either in the press, or consumers) since they introduced CTD, particularly the Evolution spec units, which seem to earn universal derision in all tests.

lawman wrote:

At the end of the day, if it still rides great inspite of an average spec then does it really matter?

Depends whether you object to being ripped off and taken for a c**t or not, I guess...

From the view of a few hundred folks on the internet who have little do with their time? From the view of the journalists who get paid to go to Finale Ligure to test bikes for a living? There's more to it than you or I could possibly know about why they decided to fit the components they did. Component spec is not the be all and end all of performance, in fact I'd go so far to say that if a company have made a bike that rides so brilliantly well in spite of it's below average components at a certain price point then they should be applauded for making such a bloody good bike in the first place.

Value for money and being ripped off are very open to an individuals interpretation, I'm far more bothered about how well my bike rides than what spec fork or rear mech it has. Sure a great fork will improve a bike, but going back to my point if its attached to a bike so steep or flexy it wants to throw you into the bush every 2 seconds what good is it? These reviews and tests are about finding the bike that rides the best, not looks the best on paper or looks great value for money to some people. A poor riding bike with a supposedly superior on paper spec is pretty shoddy value for money in my opinion.

Kowalski675

lawman wrote:

Value for money and being ripped off are very open to an individuals interpretation, I'm far more bothered about how well my bike rides than what spec fork or rear mech it has. Sure a great fork will improve a bike, but going back to my point if its attached to a bike so steep or flexy it wants to throw you into the bush every 2 seconds what good is it?

Whic still completely ignores the point that the bike should have a better fork for the price they're charging for it, and would ride even better than it already does if it had the kind of fork you should be getting for that price of bike. Fit a crap fork by all means, but don't expect people to pay a premium for it. Regardless of whether one manufacturer has got their geometry calculations better than others, that doesn't make their frame any more expensive to manufacture than anyone elses (unless that extra two inches of aluminimum tube really is that much more expensive than the rest...), so there really is no justification for the poor component spec.

supersonic

To me a fork is an integral part of the way a bike rides.

Testing bikes is a hard job. How do you rate a bike when there is so much personal preference? How does value effect a rating? Since the Mondraker is so good, why not charge 10k for it? Just what exactly is a 'good riding' bike? I like steeper than average headangles on all my bikes, so does that mean, as a tester, all slack angled bikes are crap and ride poorly?

lawman

Kowalski675 wrote:

lawman wrote:

Value for money and being ripped off are very open to an individuals interpretation, I'm far more bothered about how well my bike rides than what spec fork or rear mech it has. Sure a great fork will improve a bike, but going back to my point if its attached to a bike so steep or flexy it wants to throw you into the bush every 2 seconds what good is it?

Whic still completely ignores the point that the bike should have a better fork for the price they're charging for it, and would ride even better than it already does if it had the kind of fork you should be getting for that price of bike. Fit a crap fork by all means, but don't expect people to pay a premium for it. Regardless of whether one manufacturer has got their geometry calculations better than others, that doesn't make their frame any more expensive to manufacture than anyone elses (unless that extra two inches of aluminimum tube really is that much more expensive than the rest...), so there really is no justification for the poor component spec.

Doesn't look like anyone's any getting ripped off on the fork tbh, a quick browse on the web and Mondraker aren't alone in specing a 32 on bikes around the same price as the test winning Foxy. Norco, Lapierre, Trek and Scott all fit the 32 on their trail bikes, Trek and Scott actually fit the Evo open bath cartridge where as the other, supposedly smaller brands fit the performance series of forks with the FIT damper, which is pretty good imo. I can only assume the 32 chassis is what they're referring too as crap in the review, it is very flexy in 150mm configuration and on a bike like the Foxy that flex is seriously going to hold it back. Seems to be a trend around the this price point that brands are fitting Fox, so they can't all be doing it for no reason.

It seems to me like you're just complaining of the price of bikes in general. Get used to it, they're expensive and they're not gonna get any cheaper.

Angus Young

Kowalski675 wrote:

POAH wrote:

I'd rather spend a bit more money and get a decent fork than have to try and sell a shoot one and buy new.

When I'm spending as much as I could buy a decent car for I'd rather have a decent fork already, without having to spend even more...

I rather have the bike that rides best.

lawman

Angus Young wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

POAH wrote:

I'd rather spend a bit more money and get a decent fork than have to try and sell a shoot one and buy new.

When I'm spending as much as I could buy a decent car for I'd rather have a decent fork already, without having to spend even more...

I rather have the bike that rides best.

This. As I've been trying to say there is absolutely no point in having the best fork, wheels, whatever components if the frame they're hanging off is crap.

The secret rider

I was with the foxy yesterday .... It's a heavy bike but looks fantastic

supersonic

But there is no point having a frame with the geometry and features you like if you hang a poorly damped, flexy fork off it. Or crap wheels. Or many other parts unless you change them. It's the package you need to look at, not just frame, not just components, but how they all work together and how it feels to you.

lawman

supersonic wrote:

But there is no point having a frame with the geometry and features you like if you hang a poorly damped, flexy fork off it. Or crap wheels. Or many other parts unless you change them. It's the package you need to look at, not just frame, not just components, but how they all work together and how it feels to you.

Absolutely, but it's easier and cheaper to fit a fork or wheels that meets your needs than change the frame. Main reason I don't buy off the shelf, get the frame and components I want without having to change anything immediately, perhaps more expensive at first, but cheaper in the long run.

Compared to it's mainstream competitors, the Foxy is specced pretty similarly to them. The biggest issue is trail bikes coming with flexy forks, manufacturers are still trying to make a clear definition between their trail and AM/Enduro bikes, and they seem to think spindly 32mm forks belong on long-travel trail bikes and the beefier forks only belong the longer travel, burlier machines.

Angus Young

supersonic wrote:

But there is no point having a frame with the geometry and features you like if you hang a poorly damped, flexy fork off it. Or crap wheels. Or many other parts unless you change them. It's the package you need to look at, not just frame, not just components, but how they all work together and how it feels to you.

So, in other words...

Angus Young wrote:

the bike that rides best.

Chunkers1980

So lolcat is also correct if it rode the best with a crap fork then how much better than the rest would it be with and ok fork, let alone a really good one. Just seems silly is I think the point being made

rockmonkeysc

At least with the Mondraker you can always sell the fork as new and get almost enough cash back to buy a better fork.
I wanted to buy a Giant Trance 1 27.5 which comes with a Fox Talas Evo fork but to make it a lot worse you can't sell it because it won't fit any other bike because of the odd steerer diameter.

lawman

Chunkers1980 wrote:

So lolcat is also correct if it rode the best with a crap fork then how much better than the rest would it be with and ok fork, let alone a really good one. Just seems silly is I think the point being made

The higher models do come with a better fork I believe, it comes down to trying to get the bike down to a price point. It also comes with a dropper post as standard which a lot of bikes around the same price don't come with, so corners have to be cut in order to get it fitted as standard. A decent dropper is £300, which is a lot of cash, If you wanted a better fork, you could sell the 32 and a Pike would probably cost around £200 more, so perhaps looking at the bigger picture they've done a decent job with the spec for a given price.

supersonic

All good points, but the bikes are tested as is. Is not a frame test. One component can make or break or bike - though I would expect a reviewer to point this out. Which, of course has happened in the Foxy test. However personally, that bike would never make any shortlist of mine at that price.

lawman

Agreed, I probably wouldn't choose the Foxy at that price point either, but if it rides so well with a poor fork that it wins the test then it must be a pretty good bike.

Kowalski675

lawman wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

lawman wrote:

Value for money and being ripped off are very open to an individuals interpretation, I'm far more bothered about how well my bike rides than what spec fork or rear mech it has. Sure a great fork will improve a bike, but going back to my point if its attached to a bike so steep or flexy it wants to throw you into the bush every 2 seconds what good is it?

Whic still completely ignores the point that the bike should have a better fork for the price they're charging for it, and would ride even better than it already does if it had the kind of fork you should be getting for that price of bike. Fit a crap fork by all means, but don't expect people to pay a premium for it. Regardless of whether one manufacturer has got their geometry calculations better than others, that doesn't make their frame any more expensive to manufacture than anyone elses (unless that extra two inches of aluminimum tube really is that much more expensive than the rest...), so there really is no justification for the poor component spec.

Trek and Scott actually fit the Evo open bath cartridge where as the other, supposedly smaller brands fit the performance series of forks with the FIT damper, which is pretty good imo. I can only assume the 32 chassis is what they're referring too as crap in the review,

No, it's the whole fork -chassis and damping. And not just on the Mondraker - they slag off all the Fox forks in the test, going as far as saying that the Sektor on the GT outperforms every Fox Evo or performance fork in the test. They say that the Mondraker is crying out for a decent fork and, frankly, they're taking the p**s fitting a crap fork to a bike that costs more than you can buy a decent car for. the frankly staggering difference in component spec between the CAnyon and Mondraker can't be justified by Canyon's direct sales model alone.

Kowalski675

supersonic wrote:

But there is no point having a frame with the geometry and features you like if you hang a poorly damped, flexy fork off it. Or crap wheels.

Indeed. And to hang crap components off an ally frame that costs no more to manufacture than a competitor's frame that's draped in much higher spec goodies is just taking the p**s, and, as I just said" the test says that the Foxy is "crying out" for replacement fork and wheels. Yes, it may ride well, but it would ride much better with the component spec that you should be getting when you're spending such a ridiculous amount on a bicycle. I don't know if Lawman's completely failing to see the point, or just being argumentitive for the sake of it.

Kowalski675

Chunkers1980 wrote:

So lolcat is also correct

No change there then.

Kowalski675

lawman wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

So lolcat is also correct if it rode the best with a crap fork then how much better than the rest would it be with and ok fork, let alone a really good one. Just seems silly is I think the point being made

The higher models do come with a better fork I believe, it comes down to trying to get the bike down to a price point.

When that price point is two thousand eight hundred f******g quid then it should have a good fork, simple as. Plenty of other bikes around that price (or less) manage it.

BigAl

Kowalski675 wrote:

lawman wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

So lolcat is also correct if it rode the best with a crap fork then how much better than the rest would it be with and ok fork, let alone a really good one. Just seems silly is I think the point being made

The higher models do come with a better fork I believe, it comes down to trying to get the bike down to a price point.

When that price point is two thousand eight hundred f******g quid then it should have a good fork, simple as. Plenty of other bikes around that price (or less) manage it.

At that price point, everything should be competent.

I've just bought an SLX groupset, with brakes, for £350 (Merlin). Would we all agree that this is perfectly good enough for our £3k bike?
I can buy RS Revs for around £350 from Merlin. And decent wheels for £300 and £200 for finishing kit. That's £1200 retail. OE manufacturers obviously get it for less (though obviously other costs are involved).

But you can do the maths. For £2.8k you should be getting most of the bells and whistles.

As I've said, I'd never buy a whole bike for that price. I'd always build my own

Kowalski675

BigAl wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

lawman wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

So lolcat is also correct if it rode the best with a crap fork then how much better than the rest would it be with and ok fork, let alone a really good one. Just seems silly is I think the point being made

The higher models do come with a better fork I believe, it comes down to trying to get the bike down to a price point.

When that price point is two thousand eight hundred f******g quid then it should have a good fork, simple as. Plenty of other bikes around that price (or less) manage it.

At that price point, everything should be competent.

I've just bought an SLX groupset, with brakes, for £350 (Merlin). Would we all agree that this is perfectly good enough for our £3k bike?
I can buy RS Revs for around £350 from Merlin. And decent wheels for £300 and £200 for finishing kit. That's £1200 retail. OE manufacturers obviously get it for less (though obviously other costs are involved).

But you can do the maths. For £2.8k you should be getting most of the bells and whistles.

Exactly. It's as simple as that, there really is nothing more to add.

lawman

Kowalski675 wrote:

lawman wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

So lolcat is also correct if it rode the best with a crap fork then how much better than the rest would it be with and ok fork, let alone a really good one. Just seems silly is I think the point being made

The higher models do come with a better fork I believe, it comes down to trying to get the bike down to a price point.

When that price point is two thousand eight hundred f******g quid then it should have a good fork, simple as. Plenty of other bikes around that price (or less) manage it.

Oh I agree there, heck 5/6 years ago that much was getting you a full XT groupset, quality wheels the lot, but prices have risen a lot since then, and the spec for a given price point has fallen. As I said before, looking at other brands that sell bikes through dealers and distributors, I.e, not Canyon, Boardman etc, the 32 seems pretty common, so Mondraker aren't alone in this respect. Bikes are expensive. The direct sales brands have shaken up the value stakes, no doubt about that and the simple fact is cutting out the distributor and dealer from the costs equation cuts out a huge profit margin, so they can throw out the best deals, especially as they probably produce far more bikes than Mondraker do. I get the frustration at how expensive bikes are these days, but that's the way it is and there's little point bitching about it on the internet. Believe me if I could get the bike I wanted at the price it would have been 5 years ago, I would, but I can't so no point moaning imo.

BigAl

No 'frame only' deals is part of the problem.

I've loads of kit to hang off a new frame - but they just aren't available unless you go high end

I'd really like a 120/140 trail bike but I'm not paying £3k for one with a sh!t fork

supersonic

Manufacturers rarely seem to put much thought into spec. Well apart from thinking what might sell. It is true to say that we expect a certain level of kit for a certain price, not many would want altus gears and shimano 355 brakes on the foxy. Well I would if that's what it takes to shoehorn a pike onto it, because the simple fact is this budget stuff works bloody well and I'd take it over the sram gears.

It still annoys me that we see uprated rear mechs fitted to bikes. Is an old show room trick that will never go away. But many fall for it.

supersonic

Speaking of value -

http://www.on-one.co.uk/i/q/CBOOCODX01/ ... ntain-bike

poah

supersonic wrote:

Speaking of value -

http://www.on-one.co.uk/i/q/CBOOCODX01/ ... ntain-bike

if only it was in 26 size

rockmonkeysc

supersonic wrote:

Speaking of value -

http://www.on-one.co.uk/i/q/CBOOCODX01/ ... ntain-bike

That's a lot of shiny parts for the money but is the frame any good?

lawman

supersonic wrote:

Manufacturers rarely seem to put much thought into spec. Well apart from thinking what might sell. It is true to say that we expect a certain level of kit for a certain price, not many would want altus gears and shimano 355 brakes on the foxy. Well I would if that's what it takes to shoehorn a pike onto it, because the simple fact is this budget stuff works bloody well and I'd take it over the sram gears.

It still annoys me that we see uprated rear mechs fitted to bikes. Is an old show room trick that will never go away. But many fall for it.

You do see some odd stuff on some bikes, stupid long stems and narrow bars are still a common complaint, cheapy tyres as well. Every manufacturer is going to have a different idea on what makes their bikes more desirable and likely to sell, some have been doing it longer than I've been on this earth and many have been around a lot longer than most of us have been mtb'ing for. If they didn't know what they were doing they wouldn't exist.

supersonic

RockmonkeySC wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Speaking of value -

http://www.on-one.co.uk/i/q/CBOOCODX01/ ... ntain-bike

That's a lot of shiny parts for the money but is the frame any good?

The spiel and hyperbole seem good. The geometry seems up many people's street. The word on the street seems good. So yeah, I guess it is ;-).