Why Steel? Aluminum may be lighter and carbon, stiffer and sexier, but steel refuses to fade away. Move your gaze to the fringes of the bike industry and you’ll find a handful of steel bike brands offering an alternative approach to the mainstream, particularly here in the UK, where there has been a resurgence of steel frame-building in recent years.
Cotic favors Reynolds 853 steel tubing, because it is strong, tough, and still reasonably light. And, let's not forget its fabled ride quality and promise of additional compliance that can make many older mountain bikers go a bit misty-eyed and nostalgic - especially if your first ever mountain bike was made from steel. (Mine? Diamondback Ascent with a True Temper frame). Cotic considered using aluminum for its original Rocket, but when they found a 35mm diameter seat tube was the maximum they could use with their suspension design, steel was the better option. It hit the desired stiffness figures, and they’ve not looked back since.
FlareMAX Construction & Features FlareMAX frames are adorned with some well-considered details. The custom-shaped Ovalform top tube for example, which provides the right blend of lateral stiffness and compliance, and a 44mm-diameter head tube with an external headset bottom cup. Rejoice in its threaded bottom bracket (the common-sense choice for gritty UK conditions), and it’s ISCG05 mounts, onto which a One-Up Top Guide chain device is fitted as standard. That's a nice touch. There’s no fitting a front mech to this bike. The FlareMAX is designed entirely around a 1x drivetrain, which has allowed Cotic to beef up the bottom bracket area for added stiffness.
The rear triangle breaks Cotic's all-steel tradition with a single-pivot 6066-T6 aluminium swingarm. The seatstays are steel, however, and they drive the Cane Creek shock directly, stabilized by the aluminum Droplink rocker. Rear spacing is Boost 148, using a Syntace X-12 thru-axle. The FlareMAX is designed for 29” wheels with clearance for up to a 2.5” tire, and is also compatible with 27.5” x 3.0” tires if anyone is still interested in going down the Plus route. Cables are routed externally on the main frame, running along the top of the down tube. The rear gear cable is tucked inside the seatstay and the dropper-post cable is also internally routed. There’s one bottle mount - on the underside of the top tube for a 500ml bottle - but due to their desire to accommodate a piggyback shock, space is tight for a conventional bottle placement. But, one
does fit - Just.
Personally, I think the FlareMAX is a really good looking bike. It’s not as oversized or curvaceous as some, but I like the simplicity and the myriad of well-thought-out details that reveal themselves when you look closer. This bike traces its roots back to the original Rocket. There is a clear progression and evolution that I like about it, and the blue with orange accents kills it for me.
Weight is a funny one. It's pretty clear to me that Dave loved the bike once he was actually riding it, and it's worth point out that this bike actually shipped with Hope Enduro wheels and our Tough Casing rear tyre option. We don't just build frames to last, we do the same with our bikes. You could drop half a pound off if you ride somewhere which doesn't need a Tough casing rear tyre. You could half a pound or more off using a different wheelset easily if you have another preference. That said, where we live around Sheffield and the Peak District in England, it's rocky and fast riding, and even guys riding carbon bikes aren't getting them appreciably lighter than our builds, because they have tough tyres and wheels. Sure, it's never going to be lightest option, but as a few people pointed out, I very much doubt you'd save much over a similar aluminium frame like the Smuggler or Process. The frame did get a little heavier for 2018 because I decided to up spec the down tube and seatstays, based on feedback of what people are doing on these bikes. Just because they are short on travel, doesn't mean they are short on capability, so people will smash on them and quite rightly. It's a trail bike for doing a bit of everything. And if you're wanting a lighter bike, there's carbon frames bikes out there for you. It'd be boring if we all made the same bike. It won't be a rad a FlareMAX obviously, but it would be lighter ;-)
As for the head badge, well, it splits opinion, but the worst thing you can be is uninteresting. If some people love it, some people are going to hate it!
When was the last time the lightest mtb was the fastest mtb, or the most fun? Pretty much never.
Constantly chasing lighter weight mtbs is meaningless
I completely agree with you. It's a whole lot easier and cheaper losing excess body weight. My HT is 32lb so another pound or two isn't going to break the bank. Also its relative to your weight and strength. At 95kg i'm quite happy on a slightly heavier build.
Thanks for making rad bikes.
Help and advice has always been forthcoming from Paul and Cy; a pleasure to have done business with over the years.
Nearly ten years ago now, Cy even arranged to have one single BFe frame stickered up and sent over direct to me in Japan from Taiwan so that I didn't have to wait for the frames to go first to the UK.
Top. top people. Top, top bikes.
PB editorial staff: Clearly you instruct your reviewers to give no-opinion reviews... b/c there is a concern that bike companies will no longer give you bikes to review? Is that why? Really?
How about PB develops the reputation of the most no-nonsense, hard hitting, opinionated, no-holds-barred reviews, so that PB becomes THE place consumers go for actual reviews, opinions, etc. Give your writers the room to actually say when something stinks, to truly compare bikes, etc. Manufacturers will have no choice but to have PB review their product, otherwise they’ll be seen as hiding flaws, etc. And when a ride is truly amazing, your readers will actually believe it!
TL/DR: Enough fake news. Tell it like it is!
This tells us nothing. Geometry not as "progressive"? So what? What does that mean? Maybe the "less progressive" numbers work fine for the Stumpy. Maybe the more progressive numbers don't quite work out on this kind of bike. Or vice-versa. Yes, there will be trade-offs in either direction. Delve into them, please. Otherwise, this paragraph is just a waste of space.
"A rival that is closer to home (but which PB has yet to review), is the Swarf Contour 29er - a similar steel frame with 115mm rear-wheel travel, a 465mm reach, and 66.5-degree head angle. It would be interesting to pit these two steel full-suspension bikes side by side in a future test."
Yes, that would be interesting. If only there were a website somewhere with access to these bikes and testers who might be able to do that for us...
I suppose its best to take anythign you say about carbon frames with a pinch of salt really.
Its probably more likely because Matt76 is old enough to remember GT and their thermoplastic RTS...
"Massively overpriced for what it is"
Ignoring whatever ride characteristic preferences one might have, replacing alloy with carbon is probably the most cost effective way of reducing weight on a bicycle.
Using everyone's favorite benchmark, the YT Jeffsy, going from the lowest spec 27 Al to the lowest carbon spec 27 cf saves 1000 grams at a cost of 1.2 grams/dollar.
Granted the cost effectiveness plummets once you move onto smaller components, but that has more to do with the labor involved and the geometric constraints than it does with the material itself. (Going to highest spec 27 cf race saves 400 grams at a cost of $1500).
I remember seeing one a local dh racer had when I was a kid, it looked totally space age at the time, he also said he had been through a couple!
You probably should not be reviewing mountain bikes
WTB makes me think of Weir and JKW.
Seriously, if I was an XC rider and didn't care anything about my bike being playful and fun, sure, long chainstays might be the cat's meow, but that ain't me.
So yeah, revise the geo and maybe it'd be worthy, otherwise it's just another bike that's build with old geo.
I don't really care how much my bike weight when I am on my own, or in a no drop ride with people from all kind of levels. When riding with some of my fittest friends, who are smaller, don't have kids, ride top of the line carbon bikes and spend a larger amount of time training I tend to be the always draggy rider on the longest climbs so I wouldn't want to add weight to an otherwise already hefty package. I understand I would have much more to gain by being lighter and ride a bit more but at this point in my life this is not the priority #1.
Best would be to have multiple bikes ha !
Carbon statt Kondition gel du?
youtu.be/j4LS8qRH17U
If you dont like curvy (but probably lighter) frames then this one is here for you, I personally love the look of this frame but understand its shortcomings and why a hydroformed aluminium frame can offer benefits (And negatives of course)
Ignore @j-t-g, Starling will ship to USA...
However, if it's designed with the larger diameter wheels(tyres incl), my guess would be that 'just' 27.5 would put the BB r-e-a-l-l-y low?
I want.
Not even going to complain about weight for climbing, but the STA... nope!
Or is that just a typo in the spec sheet?
On another note anyone ridden the regular 27.5 Flare? I haven't found any reviews of it anywhere.
It was awesome, felt incredibly composed at speed on Alpine singletrack (once I got the shock dialled in) and was more than nimble enough to flick around switchbacks. Never felt out of its depth (despite riding alongside Bronsons, Nomads, etc).
Also works incredibly well on the trails around me in the Scottish Highlands (i.e. it pedals as well as it goes down).
As mentioned by Waki, the BTR Pinner is better in some ways and beautifully built, but it’s a lot more money.
I don't support companies that rip off their customers. Sugar coat it all you want. If I won this bike I'd sell it to someone like you and use the cash for a myriad of other things.
The mental gymnastics people make to rationalize/justify themselves is laughable.
You couldnt be further from the truth when talking about Cotic, they are not a huge shareholder based company out to maximise every ounce of profit from the consumer, I hazard a guess that Cy probably makes a decent living as the owner but at the expense of a building a business from the ground up (and all that entails) and I imagine he is not a 'rich' man still (though I do hope otherwise, if hard work pays then that is fair enough)
You are basing your opinion on a bike you owned 25 odd years ago?! - 'Steel is Steel'? In which case then aluminium is aluminum and carbon is carbon?, why bother pay many magnitudes higher for 7075 when a low grade aluminoum is fine? Why pay for a Yeti frame? That 25 year old hardtail you had is probably exactly the same as a Cotic after all.
Reynolds steel is expensive, machining / prepping steel is expensive, manufacturing on a small scale is expensive - nobody is 'ripping you off' here and I am sure with your misguided opinion and the fact that you feel the need to tell everybody that Cotic are ripping them off means that they would prefer you were not a customer anyway. Blinkers back on now....
853 is a fair bit more expensive than aluminium, ASAIK.
And as mentioned below, believe me, making a steel FS bike is not a cheap option. Aluminium would have been way cheaper, but I believe in the qualities that high end steel bring to the bike. And if you don't agree, there's pretty much an entire industry worth of other brands bikes to choose from, so that's fine I reckon.