Matt Walker had a stellar week at Crankworx Rotorua with a third place in the Enduro, Air DH and Dual Slalom. All on his new Pivot Switchblade. Touted as an all-rounder, Matt's results certainly back that up, but when we sat down to do a bike check we discovered some more interesting quirks about Matt's bike set up as well as some new Fox parts...
The all-new Pivot Switchblade is certainly an aesthetically pleasing bike.
Despite being 183 cm/6'0", Matt runs a medium frame as he prefers the lively feel of a smaller bike.
| I think the bike industry is going in this longer is better trend, but in reality maybe it might feel more comfortable but is it actually better for racing and riding? I would rather have something a bit more playful.—Matt Walker |
One of Fox's new RAD forks. Still with 36mm stanchions, but a new lowers design and bleed ports which were previously only seen on the 40.
Matt also had a new RAD Float X2 shock. The main change looks to be one of the rebound controls has now moved to the bottom of the shock and a new air can shape.
Shimano's new XTR brakes to keep Matt under control.
A very 'bedded in' Deathgrip for that familiar feel.
Matt also runs Shimano's new XTR 12 speed drivetrain.
The new Switchblade has tonnes of neat touches like this rubber cover to keep rocks out of the linkage.
Reynolds Blacklabel Endruo rims paired with Industry 9's super high engagement Hydra hubs.
La Croix is the team's hydration choice.
Old faithful Shimano DX pedals.
Kashima all round.
Full Renthal cockpit.
I spent the previous 6 seasons on 29ers only and the past 2.5 seasons going down the rabbit hole of longer, lower, and slacker. Every season I was faster on straight-ish DH segments for sure but I kinda hated riding everything else and didn't love any of my bikes. Then I test rode a 27.5 Stumpy and loved it. The LBS that I'm loyal to is a Santa Cruz dealer so I decided to try a Bronson and I immediately fell in love with riding again. It's not as efficient as the 2020 Hightower that it replaced, It takes a little more pedal power to keep it up to speed on flat sections but I don't care. It's so much more fun on every other section of trail. I'm sure I'll own another 29er for long epics in the mountains but for fun rides the Bronson is my best buddy.
Anyhow, way off topic. I wouldn't mind if this Pivot was my next 29er. Absolutely mint!
What kind of climbing? Long fireroad climbs? Climbs that require tight turning and trials maneuvers? Steep climbs? Long and slack bikes with short chainstays climb like shit. You can't just lump all toboggan bikes into one category.
The new SC nomad is not fun on anything but steep trails. Picked up a 5010 and love that for all riding, but when it comes to steep trails and bike park, I take the nomad. On not so steep trails, the nomad is a pain.
I mean, whatever works for you, knock yourself out. It's not as simple as long and slack is bad (or good). There are many variables involved (including the terrain, rider, etc). The point is blindly saying there is only one way that works is....silly.
The bars were almost hitting the knees!
All types of climbing. The steep seat angle, long chainstays and long reach makes climbing a breeze. I have gone to lower gears because I can now climb stuff only my friend on his ebike can climb. On tighter climbing trails you just need to anticipate and you are fine. The whole "short chainstays make it easier to turn the bike" is just specialized marketing. They make it super easy to lift the front wheel and manual but don't add traction or stability on the way down.
But like I said before if you dig your Bronson more power to you. I will stick to Pole and Nicolai.
Same with the width of the handlebars. I read about it so many times. They run 760s because they want to avoid trees that keep charging at them at much higher pace than us. Enduro riders ride mostly natural trails so it only makes sense they want as much space as possible to widen that error margin.
And why they do it? Why best of them want to ride shorter bikes with narrower bars? Not because some fun. That's why they are on full 29ers and do not opt for 27.5. They choose so because they are much stronger than we so they can hold on to it. Because they are more skillful and can balance themselves even on smaller bike. It makes sense to me.
All this talking that marketing is evil because bike companies don't want us to have fun? Are we really comparing ourselves with pros? I'm tall guy and I'm just glad I can ride bike that fits me. You want to downsize to have more fun or whatever… Do it! Who am I to tell you what is right for you. Ride your damn bike. Keep safe everyone!
Does the knolly fugitive LT fall into that category? Because it climbs really well, tech singletrack and steep fireroads. I'm 6'4" on an XL btw. I'm sure I'll catch some hate from the tallguy/short-chainstay/slack-actual-seatangle police that are trending here.
Honestly if my rides were only winch and plummet I'd pick up the new Canfield One.2.
And so I guess you place the fugitive, based on your bias and armchair geo assessment, in the long/slack/short-cs/sucks at climbing category.
What if, and bear with me here, 430mm was long enough, and whatever the effective seat angle is was steep enough, to not be a hindrance (no fighting to keep the front wheel down, no loss of traction) while climbing? How can you categorically say that it sucks at climbing, because you would definitely be wrong. It climbs tech like a beast, and it's actually a really playful and nimble bike.... but it has 29" wheels and a 500mm reach so it is a long boring stable bike for beginners with no skills... But it also has 430mm stays, so it can't climb and it's sketchy at speed.... I just don't know which internet know-it-all to believe anymore!
Your point about short stays and steep STA makes sense. STA has a sweet spot too though. Too steep and the body position sucks on flat and rolling terrain. Just make the ETT longer then right? Sounds good but doesn't seem to work in the real world. Again, for a winch and plummet only bike it would be fine. Any bike that is pedaled around on flat and rolling terrain there's a sweet spot.
XC bikes climb like beasts. All other bikes suck in comparison. Of course all of the geo numbers add up to what will or won't be a good climber. My Bronson isn't the greatest with it's slackish seat tube but after I installed the Cascade LT link which makes the stays 5mm longer I did notice an improvement on steep climbs. The Foxy and Hightower 2 I owned were both better fire road climbers but the Bronson beats them in tight and tech climbs. My Bronson is heavy and certainly doesn't carry speed like a 29er on flat ground but it's more fun where I have the most fun on a bike. I love it for that reason. I'm not a "look for the fastest line" kind of rider. I look for the most fun lines. I'm glad you like your bike too.
Depends on the climb. On smooth climbs, of course a light xc bike is better. On some really steep and loose tech climbs, my fugitive definitely climbs better than any xc bike I've ridden. It's simple physics.
"My Bronson is heavy and certainly doesn't carry speed like a 29er on flat ground but it's more fun where I have the most fun on a bike. I love it for that reason. I'm not a "look for the fastest line" kind of rider. I look for the most fun lines."
I've visually assessed the geometry of the Bronson... Reach and chain-stays are too long... wheelbase is massive... verdict: not poppy and playful enough, shitty bike for having fun... case closed.
Thanks for the geometry lesson.
No i'm not butthurt, but I'm just making the same kind of baseless sweeping generalizations as you are, but you don't like it as much when someone else is doing it.
And, I don't care what you think, i just ride what I think is fun and what makes me happy. I'm not a boring go fast and straight kinda guy... I like to shred and schralp and boost all the way over the hill and through woods straight to your mom's house.
Nerd!
You're butthurt. Calling names and spewing insults is a clear indication.
The Earlier argument around climbing is rather silly.
Chainstay length doesn’t determine climbing ability for all situations and all trails
We climb chunky and tighter trails where I ride and the short stay bikes without overt anti squat seem to do best. Horses for courses
for me, trail is a fun and playful bike (120-150, 27.5) for just jibbing about while for those longer epic days i would totally choose one of those 120mm 29ers (even as a smaller rider).
but still, even playful bikes have benefited from recent geo-developments... so its not just marketing bs.
Fun to see Matt rolling a solid size down! Makes me want to try a Small at my height!
I’m 186 cms and went with an XL HT2 and do wish I’d gone large. Waiting on the new Sentinel but am also curious how the used bike market will fare what with the current state of the world.
enduro-mtb.com/en/bike-check-richie-rude-yeti-sb150
Tattoos, I'm not really into them. I mean I can tolerate them, bit not on the face please. Especially not if you're a woman and/or hoping to be employed by someone/date a human.
Same with the width of the handlebars. I read about it so many times. They run 760s because they want to avoid trees that keep charging at them at much higher pace than us. Enduro riders ride mostly natural trails so it only makes sense they want as much space as possible to widen that error margin.
And why they do it? Why best of them want to ride shorter bikes with narrower bars? Not because some fun. That's why they are on full 29ers and do not opt for 27.5. They choose so because they are much stronger than we so they can hold on to it. Because they are more skillful and can balance themselves even on smaller bike. It makes sense to me.
Are we really comparing ourselves with pros? I'm tall guy and I'm just glad I can ride bike that fits me. Ride your damn bike and keep safe.
I wonder how long this "longer is better" trend will continue. I think we reached the peak.
Which is what a lot of us ride and what a lot of us are.
People always tell me it's too long but I've got a 33mm stem and a slamset so it's just about perfect.
They mean fk all. There are no ‘standards’ for such descriptions.
Post purchase justification is savage tho...
If I went size large of my new bike, it would have had a 500 reach and 660.5 top tube, which would have been too long for me. I'm excited to get on what will be a relatively smaller bike (589 stack, 714 stand-over, & 1225 wheelbase) with still progressive geometry (475.5 reach, 635 top tube, 65 HA and 76.25 SA)... it's also rolling on 27.5 wheels.
Then again, it's april fools who knows if any of this post is true
But yeah the reach is 471mm on my XL bike so not massive or anything. Should have specified that it's not a super modern geo
@BiNARYBiKE the more pros I see with a setup close to what Lee McCormick recommends, the closer I am to thinking he is on to something...or at least close enough. I wish he would open up his advanced calculations that account for body measurements. Nevertheless, it seems like talented shredders get a lot out of a shorter bike (jibbing/airing the whole mtn) while the rest of us are looking for a safety sled and could use some coaching instead.
If I went size large of my new bike, it would have had a 500 reach and 660.5 top tube, which would have been too long for me. I'm excited to get on what will be a relatively smaller bike (589 stack, 714 stand-over, & 1225 wheelbase) with still progressive geometry (475.5 reach, 635 top tube, 65 HA and 76.25 SA)... it's also rolling on 27.5 wheels.
But, it's also why bikes with shorter chainstays work great for me (right around 430 give or take usually works for me). I can be on a longer reach/top tube bike as long as the rear end isn't too far away. You see a lot of bikes these days with a really long reach and really long chainstays... for me, on those bikes, there's not enough weight on the rear end, it's bouncing around all over the place and doesn't track well.
It all speaks to, and we say this over and over... it's not just about reach. Because of my height, I'm pretty much always right in between large and medium, so I have to take into account my little bit longer legs vs torso and look at stack, wheelbase, and chainstay length in relation to reach.
My new bike arriving in April, should be just about perfect - 636 TT, 471 R, 599 Stack (but will raise by 10mm to 609), 431.5 CS, & 1230 wheelbase, paired with a 50mm stem and somewhere between 780 and 800mm bars (still not settled), with a 65 HA and 76.25 SA... this is a medium and rolling on 27.5 wheels. Should feel very "balanced".
Also, I love riding on the island when I visit my family in Victoria. Been to Tzouhalem, The Dump, and Harbourview in Sooke. Psyched to explore more next time I'm out there
You need to think about the relationship between the cog, bb and bars. As you bring the bars in with the same cog, the tipping angle (its an imaginary angle that defines where your weight is) is to steep its actually easier to go over the bars. To lower your cog you need to squat which tires your legs
If you have a slightly longer bike (dh bike large is 460-470 still) then that means you do get a lot of weight on the front but also you increase your tipping angle meaning its harder to go otb
It is really up to the rider and how they like riding. I like stability and feeling inside the bike an opposed to on top of the bike.
Different brands also have different philosophies like kona love a short back end so the rider really needs to find a bike brand that suits them.
The difference for them is they have a choice on frame size and get to test back to back in varied conditions. We kind of only get one shot haha
I find im in the bike rather than on the bike on something around 470 reach. I also have a very wide ape index so im 178 tall and 183 arm span and broad shoulders. Finding a bike is a pain but i descend more than climb so i prioritise that.
Tbh i met the Saracen team and they agreed their medium was too small and i needed a large. When i stood in neutral position my head was not over the stem. I was looking down at the fork brace. That means it was too short
I have a spreadsheet to work out the right size bike for me and about 470 reach is bang on but i need a front end to back end ratio of 1.89 or so to be happy on the bike
I have same problem being 6'1 all legs (and arms) I ride my bike with super low bb settings and tons of spacers under stem, however reach numbers somewhat 450 (I believe modern M), while it is not ideal on long climbs only, however a lot of modern frames have less stack and more reach with make them less suitable for me on long descends;
True or False