Trail Bike of the Year!

poah

Angus Young wrote:

POAH wrote:

my bike cost me approx. £2250 to build...

And you can't afford knee pads?

got no money left

ej2320

POAH wrote:

my bike cost me approx. £2250 to build that's with a pike, monarch RC3, "decent wheels", SLX drive train/brakes with RF NW, carbon bars, decent tyres and pedals.

frame and shock comes in at £650 so obviously I've saved a bit there does make me wonder how much profit is being made and how building your own if you can find a decent frame at a decent price.

I agree with that

I bought my Covert frame brand new but by spending a fair bit of time sourcing parts and finding the best deals I saved about £600, compared to the factory build

Although a lot of that was down to getting the Pike for £530
Transition had the Pike costing the same as a Fox 34 Kashima (They gave the option Fox 34 or Pike, implying they buy them in at the same price).. Not sure if that's just an American thing

Kowalski675

lawman wrote:

I'd be very interested to know who here has actually ridden a CTD fork for a decent amount of time, people seem very quick to dismiss them. I find it strange that they refuse to believe the Mondraker was a worthy winner yet are staggeringly quick to agree with the mags on Fox products...

Nobody's suggested that it's not a worthy winner, or great to ride, just that it's unacceptably poorly specced for its high price, and would be better still if it had the suspension it should have for nearly three thousand bloody quid...

Thewaylander

Kowalski675 wrote:

lawman wrote:

I'd be very interested to know who here has actually ridden a CTD fork for a decent amount of time, people seem very quick to dismiss them. I find it strange that they refuse to believe the Mondraker was a worthy winner yet are staggeringly quick to agree with the mags on Fox products...

Nobody's suggested that it's not a worthy winner, or great to ride, just that it's unacceptably poorly specced for its high price, and would be better still if it had the suspension it should have for nearly three thousand bloody quid...

But people are pointing out compared to anything but the direct sales companies it really isnt that bad a spec...

Kai in the Borders

lawman wrote:

I'd be very interested to know who here has actually ridden a CTD fork for a decent amount of time, people seem very quick to dismiss them.

I had a 2013 Lapierre Spicy 516 for a year and it came with the Fox Float 34 CTD Performace fork. Quite easily the worst fork I've used and a liability on a 160mm bike. The 'descend' setting was almost unusable on steep / tecnical descents as it would just dive through the travel with there smallest amount of provocation. Most of the time I had to leave it in 'Trail'.

I even sent it to Mojo to upgrade the FIT cartridge to the 2014 version. It was an improvement, but I still didn't get on with the fork. I'm sure you can get them to work well, but it's take time and money.

I hope that Fox sort this out soon as they do have a good name and it seems crazy to see so many bikes compromised by this set up. My own experience with fox forks hasn't been great I'm afraid (stanchions wore out on a previous Float, I think they were made of cheese) whereas I've had four RS forks and they've all been great and durable. My son is still using the Reba I bought in 2007 and the performance is great.

Neal_

My Spectral 8.0 landed 2 weeks ago and I'm made up with it. I'm 176cm tall, 81cm leg and the size calculator suggested a small but add 1cm to each of these and it suggests a medium which is what I've got. Due to the steep seat tube angle the top tube is short compared to my C456 but the reach is only a couple of mm less and if I'm being honest the C456 is a bit too long. I'd compared the measurements with other bikes I've ridden so was confident the medium Spectral would be ok and it is. I did consider a large but didn't think it was necessary and didn't want to risk not being able to lower the dropper enough. I think their size calculator has always suggested the smaller size when you're borderline, maybe it's a German thing.

The Spectral really is ace though and properly light, loads of nice details on the frame where you can see they've saved weight and the DT wheels are comedy light compared to what I've got on the C456. Not been out on it loads yet but did a couple of laps of Llandegla on Friday and it was feckin brilliant, PB's galore and grinning like an idiot all day. Off to Afan tomorrow for the weekend and doing Bike Park Wales on Saturday, to say I'm a bit excited would be an understatement

sandy771

I was a bit disappointed with the review. I picked it up as I was thinking of getting a Trance sx and wanted to see what the review was like. The criticisms were basically the evolution (fair enough) length of the stem and width of the bars. I imagine that these last two are quite personal

I would much rather see the reviewers have (say) £200 to spend changing components on a bike to suit them and then reviewing the upgraded machine (and saying what they spent). Much more realistic imo to describe the bike as it could be (within reason) than to mark down what could be an awesome bike because it has narrower bars than you would like. I am not saying that the trance would come any higher up the ratings if this was done on all the bikes in the group, but it would make the review more realistic imho.

poah

sandy771 wrote:

I was a bit disappointed with the review. I picked it up as I was thinking of getting a Trance sx and wanted to see what the review was like. The criticisms were basically the evolution (fair enough) length of the stem and width of the bars. I imagine that these last two are quite personal

I would much rather see the reviewers have (say) £200 to spend changing components on a bike to suit them and then reviewing the upgraded machine (and saying what they spent). Much more realistic imo to describe the bike as it could be (within reason) than to mark down what could be an awesome bike because it has narrower bars than you would like. I am not saying that the trance would come any higher up the ratings if this was done on all the bikes in the group, but it would make the review more realistic imho.

but then you are not reviewing the bike as supplied. someone might be able to afford the bike but not the extra £200. reviewing as is makes it a level playing field

sandy771

POAH wrote:

but then you are not reviewing the bike as supplied. someone might be able to afford the bike but not the extra £200. reviewing as is makes it a level playing field

I would argue the opposite - basic upgrading to an extent takes away reviewers personal preferences (and there were multiple reviewers fo rthe different bikes). If Fred likes wide bars and his demo cube comes with 680mm then he is going to mark it down, put a 780 bar on and he can review it properly.

njee20

sandy771 wrote:

POAH wrote:

but then you are not reviewing the bike as supplied. someone might be able to afford the bike but not the extra £200. reviewing as is makes it a level playing field

I would argue the opposite - basic upgrading to an extent takes away reviewers personal preferences (and there were multiple reviewers fo rthe different bikes). If Fred likes wide bars and his demo cube comes with 680mm then he is going to mark it down, put a 780 bar on and he can review it properly.

I'd agree with this. Marking a bike down because the bars/grips/saddle/tyres aren't you personal preference totally undermines the review IMO.

poah

sandy771 wrote:

POAH wrote:

but then you are not reviewing the bike as supplied. someone might be able to afford the bike but not the extra £200. reviewing as is makes it a level playing field

I would argue the opposite - basic upgrading to an extent takes away reviewers personal preferences (and there were multiple reviewers fo rthe different bikes). If Fred likes wide bars and his demo cube comes with 680mm then he is going to mark it down, put a 780 bar on and he can review it properly.

you are missing the point - the idea is to test bikes as is not modified.

jonnyashworth

I agree that a bike should be reviewed as it is supplied. However I think that if it is noted in a review that a bike rides poorly due to it stem length, bar width or stock tyres it wouldn't hurt for the reviewer to give a suggestion to the mark it would have achieved if one or more of these components was changed.
I have also changed my mind on which bike I would buy from the test now :shock:
I was down at Rockets and Rascals today having a good look over the Foxy and from seeing it in the flesh I would choose it over the Canyon. I would definitely upgrade the fork and wheels immediately and probably the shock in time but it looks like an absolutely brilliant bike.

benpinnick

If you don't review them as is where does it stop? Shock tune? Buy a complete bike thats got great components and change the frame? I agree that the tester has to test as is, although the personal preference should be tempered against outright performance for the task in hand...

jonnyashworth

Perhaps it should stop at.... stem, bars and tyres!
Im guessing most testers probably put their own saddle on dont they?

supersonic

Marking down a bike because it doesn't fit is much worse.

rockmonkeysc

supersonic wrote:

Marking down a bike because it doesn't fit is much worse.

True. Riders are different shapes. Making bikes fit the rider evens things out. Most buyers will swap the stem, saddle and bars anyway.

nick-gti

I think he's referring more to the canyon having small frame sizes.

I'd still consider the Foxy as my next bike simply because it still won despite the poor spec. I do agree you would expect more from nigh on 3k. But a lot of the bikes on test fell down on poor bar, stem choice and cheap tyres with poor compounds, that's a decent chunk of change to put right on any bike.

The Rookie

How representative are we of many bike buyers, at many trail centres I see very expensive bikes quite obviously set up poorly for the rider or ride, so would that person really be swapping bars and stem? In some cases even saddle and grips?

I'm with the school of thought on the Mondy that you could sell the Fox as unused/as new and put the fork of your choice on there and then, minimising the upgrade cost compared to using it first.

Thewaylander

Or have a nice bike shop swap it for you at purchase.

PS they just announced the carbon Foxy, if you think think alu one is pricey prepare to wet your panties...

lawman

Thewaylander wrote:

PS they just announced the carbon Foxy, if you think think alu one is pricey prepare to wet your panties...

I've never really been a fan of Modraker's but the new Foxy looks great! Pretty pricey though, £2699 for the frame only and £4399 for the basic fully built bike, though it comes with a Fox 34, largely XT and a Reverb for that price, which is about right for a mainstream, non-direct sales brand. Interesting that all of the reviews I've read have said that the new Fox forks are far better than the 2014 and 2013 versions.

EdW

lawman wrote:

Thewaylander wrote:

PS they just announced the carbon Foxy, if you think think alu one is pricey prepare to wet your panties...

I've never really been a fan of Modraker's but the new Foxy looks great! Pretty pricey though, £2699 for the frame only and £4399 for the basic fully built bike, though it comes with a Fox 34, largely XT and a Reverb for that price, which is about right for a mainstream, non-direct sales brand. Interesting that all of the reviews I've read have said that the new Fox forks are far better than the 2014 and 2013 versions.

That's about average for a high end carbon fs frame these days. The new Nomad frame is £2800 at no-one seems to be complaining about that.

Angus Young

Looks very sexy on their site.

adamfo

Carbon Foxy

The Rookie

A carbon foxy would be a foxy piece of carbon - perhaps?

I love the 'invividual' look of the Mondy's, not sure I'd ever buy one though!

benpinnick

adamfo wrote:

Carbon Foxy

they lost me at Crank Bros wheels... seriously?

jonnyashworth

I don't mind the crank brothers wheels and think that Mondraker are certainly taking steps in the right direction. Its just a shame that their price point jumped up so much this year or I'm sure we would be seeing loads of them out on the hills!

Angus Young

benpinnick wrote:

they lost me at Crank Bros wheels... seriously?

What's wrong with Crank Bros wheels? Are they suspect?

benpinnick

Yes, very.

cooldad

Crank Bros in the name is the clue.

kirby700

I personally think all bike tests should have a "control tyre" fitted. Yes marks should be lost for fitting some shitty ones but one tyre that works in brilliantly in one part of the country will be bloody shocking in the slimy claggy mud of Yorkshire and bike on test shouldn't be marked don for it. I've read the article several times and cant see why if fox shocks are so bad why the hell anyone keeps buying the bikes?
I was really wanting the new Kona process 134 and will be possibly in the market after all the reviews and seeing one in the flesh but I struggle with the spec and the weight of the thing so much so I'm even considering the Boardman Pro.