Review: 2021 Specialized Stumpjumper EVO - More Travel & More Adjustability

 the headset 1º cup change is a solid move

 @mtbmaniatv: as long as its solid and doesn't creak.

 I totally understand why people hate the big red S. Mostly because they’re a legal bully and a big brand. But their bikes just WORK. I’ve had like 4 or 5 now and every time i try another brand, i find my way back to Spesh, they fit better than Trek, and the suspension feels supportive...

 Came here to say this. Always enjoyed hating on the Spesh... from their crappy house-brand components in the 90's, capture of the Horst link patent, proprietary standards, failure-prone Stumpy upper links, and design-for-dentist engineering. But they created the Enduro, and have been making some pretty appealing bikes lately. Internal conflict....

 @dynamatt: But apparently they don't just work? Have seen lots of people online, complaining about cracked frames on their new Enduros.

 Yeah, they've been knocking it out with every release it seems. Generally speaking, I think Trek and Specialized pumping out killer bikes is a good thing. It makes everyone else step their game up or get left behind.

 @BenTheSwabian: no, look at the top tube, it's completely straight compared to the old one which had a sort of junction at the side strut.

 @BenTheSwabian: Perhaps but their warranty is incredible. No BS and done fast. The last time I cracked a frame it was right before they released an updated model. They gave me the option to wait a few weeks for the new one instead of giving me old stock.

 Respect their engineering, hate their business practices (IP bullies, 'concept' stores with little choice, the way they treat their dealers like a piece of meat instead of partners)

 @BenTheSwabian: had an alloy Evo for a while, was disappointed not only because of the rear suspension performance (bad progression, very low anti squat) but also the thing creaked no end, the bearings got shock quickly and the shock bolts were made of butter

 It is funny how a lot of comments don't like Specialized, but in the Pinkbike poll it was the most-owned bike. Specialized makes good stuff. I'm just not big fan of their proprietary shock mounts. I want more options in shock choice.

 @tacklingdummy, thankfully this one doesn't take a proprietary shock - you should be able to fit most 210 x 55mm shocks on there.

 @mikekazimer: You are right. I retract my statement. From the pictures it does show standard shock. Thanks for the pointing out my mistake.

 Let's hope they still destroy shocks, otherwise there will be nothing to complain about

 @lkubica: Have no fear with the high leverage ratio they and still running a yoke mount it will continue to shred shocks apart for sure with a heavy rifer at the helm. Funny that they never seam to mention this bike is will have active suspension if you are a twig like kazimer but if you weigh over 180 you should probably be looking elsewhere. I am surprised with all the information out there it is not discussed more that high leverage bikes are better for lightweight people and low leverage ratio bikes are usually better for heavier ones. With that all said this does look like a very sick bike for most riders.

 @mixmastamikal: Another fun thing that gets brushed over all the time are the implications of shock stroke. By using a 55 mm stroke shock for a 150 mm bike and wanting it to progressive the initial leverage ratios are inherently higher. The only thing that will maintain the same amount of progression and lower leverage ratios across the board is a longer stroke shock. Ideally heavier riders would be able to use a 60/65 mm stroke on a bike in the 150 mm range and a 70/75 mm stroke on a bike in the 170 mm range.

 @tacklingdummy: proprietary shocks are long gone

 Ugh, geez. This again.

 The status is an amazing bike and the price is as good as dtc. I love the bike.

 @Purpledragonslayer: The Status would be good in carbon. Looks like Cannondale Habit with better numbers and mullet wheel size.

 I ride a 2019 stump evo (evo-ed to 160mm front) and 2021 epic Evo. I'm happy.

 @fracasnoxteam: if you ever get bored of it, you can put a 210x55 shock on your stumpy and have basically this exact new bike! I rode a 2020 stumpy with a 160 fork and 210x55 shock and it was amazing. Zero issues with tire rub or anything.

 @mikekazimer: you mentioned using the 0.86 spacer for bike park but it’s not recommended per FOX website.

So how does it handle big drop with 0.6 spacer ?

Reference: www.ridefox.com/fox17/help.php?m=bike&id=568

 @ironxcross: what about the reach?, the 2018-2020 stumpy was living in 2014 from a reach pov

 @eugenux: I think he was referring to the Evo model, which was pretty much up to date reach wise

 @Arierep: he evo-ed the evo?
Ohh..my bad then. Sorry.

 @tacklingdummy: carbon can piss off

 @mtbmaniatv: Who wouldn’t want this if it was trouble free?? It’s brilliant!

 @dynamatt: I feel like the 'legal bully' stems from, yea that one shitty time they sued a bike shop for being called Sworks? or Roubaix, something...that one sucked....but anything else was just protecting their IP, which is not a bad thing. Seems like its been pretty quiet for a while...Trek has done as many legal showdowns with people-remember Dave Weagle?

 @dynamatt: right on. I’m not a brand loyalist but for me, their bikes just feel right and they’re hyper-available at most LBSs so getting in a test ride or demo is easy. I wish there were more options to test some of the smaller brands—in particular the direct order ones.

 @eugenux: What about it? I'm 6'1 I rode a large with a 45mm stem and it felt great, and not noticeably different than the large Hightower I owned around the same time. PB armchair engineers have become way too obsessed with the reach figures if you ask me. The 2018-2020 stumpy is one of the best and fastest trails bikes ever produced, if you're gonna pass on riding it because of some amount of millimeters discussed on the internet then that's your loss.

I can guarantee that if the internet hadn't made a stink about reach figures nobody would ever know or care about it. Back in the day when you went to a shop to learn about bikes and talked to the shop guys/gals did they ever once mention petty shit like that? Nope. But poor Mike K. is tasked with splitting hairs between 200 different nearly identical bikes each year.

 I was on the specialized hate band wagon...then I bought an Enduro. X01, carbon wheels, ohlins suspension. Monster truck is an understatement. I love this thing. More often than not I choose it over my gambler.

 @ironxcross: not really just some theoretical number..going from 435 to 460(upsizing the same model), then going back to my M size on another bike with 455mm reach. No more OTBs from me since going larger on the reach derpartment and also much more comfy on having/riding my "handlebars to my chest". It is amazing what 20mm extra can do. Soo.., sorry, but this is not from my armchair ideeas but, my experience riding my bikes in the last two years.

 @dynamatt: From one who raced professional DH and DS for them all through the late 80's into 1999, they are an incredible company, i also worked in the R&D dept for many years, and let me tell you, ALL shitball moves against other companies, brands, naming, blah blah blah, comes directly from one guy, Mike Sinyard! The people that dedicate their lives basically to the brand are one in a million, its to bad Mike has caused so much hate on the brand, single handed. I still support and ride their bikes because they are some of the very best on the planet, but the inner rulings of the company are actually nutty, all great ideas, and bad can be over ruled/determined by one guy..... go figure...... Ride On!!!!!

 @ironxcross: No way to get bored ;-)

 @eugenux: Yes, most of evo owner evo-ed the evo. It already looked like a prototype, so why not.

 @ironxcross: That's the kind of BS people say who never actually tried a long and slack bike (aka Norco Sight or Commencal Meta TR29 levels of long and slack). If this kinda stuff doesn't matter and is a fad that nobody cares about, as you claim, then why aren't you riding a bike from 2001?

 @ironxcross: No, back in the day they talked about your inseam and seat tube length and then rummaged through a box of stems to find one that fit you better.

 @mtbmaniatv: This. Been running a Cane Creek Angleset on my 66 deg Ripmo V1 now on my AF. Playing with the different head angles is fun and when you get to the 63.5-65 range it seems more like personal preference.

 @dynamatt: The resale is garbage - this coming from a Spec convert....

 @mikekazimer: how do you compare this bike to the Transition Sentinel (although they now come with the latest 2021 Fox X2 shock, rather than the one you tested and had issues with)? On paper they both seem very similar.

 @BenTheSwabian: Well I currently ride a 2020 Enduro... but ya one of these days I'll get around to trying a long and slack bike to see what the hype is about.

 @ironxcross: need to sling your leg over a Geometron G1, storia shock on the back is a cut above everything else.

 @sir-hc: I'm sure they're good fun, but don't get me started on the coil bandwagon either. Air spring technology has come so far in the last 10 years that I really don't think coils have any place on a trail bike. DH/freeride still for sure.

 @ironxcross: let me guess, you read that in the last super duper 2021 air shock release article?

 @ironxcross: Throw an EXT shock on your Enduro and get back to me on that.

 @ironxcross: air shocks still wallow like crazy on fsr bikes

 @Purpledragonslayer: Actually, you internet morons, I've had two FSR bikes in the last 6 months and I rode 100+ miles on each with Ohlins coils on them (trying several spring rates) before swapping for an X2. And no it's not since 2021, air shocks have been superior since the release of the Float X2. I've tried using other air shocks and other coils and every single bike I've had since the X2 came out I've ended up putting one on and every single time all I think is "dammit, wish I did that sooner".

Anyone who thinks the X2 is "dead" or "wallows" hasn't taken the time to figure out shock tuning. You have tremendous control over compression, rebound, and progression so the ONLY reason it would wallow or have any unfavorable characteristics would be because it isn't tuned to your liking.

There's a reason air is still on majority of EWS bikes. And the fact that even some world cup DH racers run air shocks is a testament that they're beyond good enough for any non-pro's trail bike.

Gah, I believe I specifically asked you to not get me started.

 @ironxcross: I have a factory float X2 and absolutely hate it. I even had a shockwhiz hooked up to get the settings bang on and it still wallows and bottoms out. 25% sag, maxed out volume spacers and compression almost full closed I can bottom it out on drops and really gnarly rock gardens. Sent it to fox to get it serviced to see if there was anything wrong with it and they said it's fine. I'm not the only one, many people have had a similar experience to me. No I'm not a heavy rider either. 150 lbs. What works for you doesn't work for everyone.

 @ThunderChunk: that's the first time I've heard of an x2 to behave in such a manner. I had mine tuned a little but still, not something incredibly different than the base set-up and iy was miles better than the current super deluxe ultimate I have on my bike. Best (air)shock I ever had.
As for our frirnd here, mr @ironxcross, who thinks all of us are morons..., I'd suggest him to try the ext. My friend, who has it on his bike, has never been more satisfied by a shock and he had them all(well, most of them), coil and air and he feels the ext is totally different than any other shock, making his bike floating/flying on the downs.

 @BenTheSwabian: you are mistaken.

 @eugenux: I believe the suspension design has a big part to play in how certain shocks perform. The X2 is very linear, almost like a coil. I think I would benefit from a more progressive shock. My settings aren't even close to the base settings in order to have a rideable bike.

What didn't you like about the super deluxe ultimate? I'm considering a new bike and it comes with either a fox factory build with a dhx2 or rockshox with a super deluxe ultimate. I'm undecided.

 @ThunderChunk: I find it to be less nuanced than the x2. It is supportive (I have 1 volume spacer in it) but, somehow, after 4 years on X2, it seems..well..less. What I feel is that I know less about what is happ beneath my wheels. As a shock, it works great..it does the job well..but there are less info that get to me. To put simpler, it feels more like a blunt instrument. It took all of 15 minutes to set-it-up and only played with 2-3 clicks of compression in 6 months. By comparison, the x2 needed days of adjusting (spacers, psi, hsc, etc), usually only arriving at a preffered set-up while spending 3+ days at a bike-park.

Or maybe it is all just in my mind. ))))

 @ThunderChunk: I'm sorry but it's just simply not set up correctly if at 150lbs you are having trouble with bottoming out. I'm not denying you're clearly having a bad experience with it, but you can't possibly tell me that it is the X2's fault when there are heavier riders running the same shock on the EWS and even DH world cup without issues... assuming it's the right base tune for your bike.

Sag % is just a starting point for your air pressure, if you're having these problems you definitely need to keep bumping the pressure up until it rides better. The key to making the X2 fun is having enough air pressure that you do NOT go deep enough into the travel to hit the HSR circuit unless it's a big hit. Put that thing at 15% sag, make sure your LSR is set closer to open than closed so it's nice and quick, and your bike will feel very different. Then you can find a middle ground where you really like it.

And I don't deny this EXT shock is probably good stuff, but if it is so good it's not because it's a coil it's because they made a good damper.

 @ironxcross: I believe it's my suspension design that doesn't work well with the X2. My LSR is at 21 clicks so almost full open. The rebound is actually great, I don't feel any chatter and it plows through tech no problem. The problem is with the compression. If I add any more clicks it feels too harsh.

 @ThunderChunk: Wait is this on a stumpy, enduro, or other bike? If you're on something else then ya I'm not sure, I've only used the X2 on stumpy (but with a 55mm stroke), enduro, and Ibis HD4. Very possible there are other bikes where it is not great.

You say more compression makes it harsh, have you tried more air pressure as well same problem I assume? Compression dampers can only make nuanced changes to how it feels, they aren't going to defend against bottom outs at all. It sounds like you need to get your air pressure high enough to not bottom out, then open up the compression dampening until it's not too harsh. But totally possible it's your suspension design if you're on a different bike, I thought we were bickering about FSR bikes specifically.

 Just Specialized fits perfect for me. Maybe they know my sizes

 True. Im happy with my normal Stumpjumper but they took it to the next level.

The frame is extremely light and good adjustability + sizing.

They are going to sell a lot.

 IMHO the most the most important part - available now!

 Agreed. This bike in a 27.5 would be great. Don’t want a 29er. @blowmyfuse:

 @ricochetrabbit: I get the mullet bike thing, I'm a short arse and hate buzzing my bum but having to have to bring two spare tyres of different sizes on trips is a pita.. What's wrong with a small front tyre/wheel for non racers?!?

 @blitz66: just overfork, also there are plenty of bikes available with 27.5 size;
I would not be worries about wheel size at all;

I would say the whole package - what it matter, there are bikes with 25,7 that are not playfull and vice versa plenty of 29 that are playful and feels small;

the only disadvantage of modern geometry and wheels that bike racks are not getting bigger

 @blowmyfuse: I agree (for once!) with the demand for more wheels options, like the old Evo. Luckily, the article states that Specialized sells a rear link that allows the use of a 27.5" rear wheel. Combine this with a longer travel front fork (170mm or 180mm) with a 27.5" front wheel, and it becomes a 27.5" Evo, but with more front travel whilst retaining the published geometry, which is super cool!

Very practical and intelligent approach from Specialized. Switching to 29" wheels whilst offering 27.5"options. Plus, the adjustable frame geometry pieces work well with this sort of convertibility. Cheers to Specialized for thinking of all wheel sizes and geometry settings!

 @ricochetrabbit: You can run the mullet link rear & put a fork spacer under the head tube for 27" front, easy.

 @zyoungson: yeah, what this guy said.
Early in the video, it says - run the correct inserts and this bike can be ridden 27/27

 @blitz66: Hey just an FYI a 29er tube will work in a 20" wheel. I only carry a 29in tubes for myself (29er), my wife (27.5), Son #1 (24") and son #2 (20"). You just poke the tube back in through itself with your finger and then install. I saw Matt Jones or some other pro guy talk about that. Certainly fine for just getting out of the woods.

 @Svinyard: It's called the "Recycled condom" trick.

Legend has it the method was developed on the outskirts of Saigon in the late 60's.
Yet to be affirmed/denied via Snopes

 @Svinyard: I use that trick! Don't think it works for tyres though! I always bring a spare tyre on trips so I don't get stung with bike park/trail centre prices for a maxxis minion I could have got at home for half the price!

 @nickmalysh: Except they’re not. Are they so new that the stock hasn’t updated online or have they already sold out everywhere? Or could they not make enough.

 They've done a good job here, I love it and the ability to swing the HTA in such big swaths is what we need for geo tuning...nothing this .5 degree nonsense. I'd love to see them care about the kids scene a bit tho. They are so far behind its not even funny. Norco basically made this same/similar Geo for kids a year ago with custom Manitou kids suspension etc and killed it. Spesh and the rest of the big guys need to step up.

 I test rode the original alloy version and it was a revelation for me. I wound up on a Transition Patrol with similar geo but more travel and a better price. It has totally changed my riding. I'm not a huge fan of carbon frames, but this one is looking tempting for the next bike.

 " in reality they are the most progressive of the big manufacturers and really listen to what riders want."

Never mind issues like... the enduro from a few years ago were released as the latest/greatest only to be re released 6 months later in an attempt to fix kinematic issues.

 @Eatsdirt: and other companies would have ignored it for 3 years because they didn't want to remake the molds. Every company has issues and Specialized have been very heavy handed protecting their IP. Faulting them for taking on the costs associated with making a mid cycle change IMO is misplaced. How many times has Giant or SC thrown out carbon molds 12 months after release?

These are the places I see Specialized pushing the market forward and moving things from background trends (Pole, Geometron, etc as examples) to mainstream. Going from memory so some of these are probably off but;

First major with a long travel 29 - 2015 Enduro
SWAT - 2017 SJ
First major to offer progressive geometry - 2017 SJ Evo
First major with multi adjustable geometry - 2021 SJ Evo

There are smaller companies that have done some of these things for a long time, but taking the risk to do it at scale is a completely different proposition.

 @salespunk: Your post tastes like Kool Aid, but I'm sure these new bikes ride just fine in the grand scheme of things.

 @salespunk: first enduro 29 was 2013 FYI, also spesh has taken a while to get on board with modern (proper) geo en large. And there have been plenty of other brands recently to offer geo adjust & adjustable stays, I think scott had 27/29 adjustment in 2018 before mullet bikes were really a thing.

 @Svinyard: Do they really need to step up, or should you go & buy a norco/ commencal?

 @salespunk:

Scott voltage FR had adjustable geometry via angle set cups, different settings in the shock linkage and adjustable dropouts. It's not a new concept.

 @zyoungson: That's a great statement. Add YT to that group now too and Rocky Mountain. We have 2 commencals, 2 spawns and bmx bikes as well. That's what we are doing (like you recommend)...BUT...the masses just walk into the LBS where they bought their own sick bike. And then they by hot garbage like Spesh Riprocks with 3in tires, horrid geometry and coil forks...because they can sit their kid on it. Same for most of the other big brands. Then those bikes turn into used bikes and kids have a bunch of bikes that are so far below average that it sucks. They can make cheap bikes (Scott Scale rigid is decent) but they need to have great geometry and offer an airfork model with hydro brakes...and never do Plus tires again. It's getting better but geez how hard is it to make a freaking kids bike when you are as big as those guys are??? The more competition we have the better the bikes will be.

 @Eatsdirt:

You should ask Salespunk how many different brands of bikes he’s ridden. You might be surprised that he has all the flavors of kool aid...
I know he used to be into the Santa Cruz Nomad, but that was only after trying out an Ibis Mojo HD first, etc...

 @Saidrick: depth of knowledge and an opinion is kool aid apparently. We’re talking about toys here lol

 @SeanC1: thanks for the clarification on Scott. I was not stating that it was a new concept, I was stating that Specialized was the first of the big manufacturers to combine them all on a single bike. Sounds like I was incorrect.

 @zyoungson: I was not stating that Specialized was the first to offer adjustable geo or that it was a new concept. I was stating that they were the first among the big brands (Giant, Specialized, Santa Cruz, etc) to combine several of the adjustments into one bike. I was corrected below that Scott did this previously.

I would still posit that they are pushing the mainstream market further than what Scott did since the SJ is a mainstay of their line and not a niche bike like the Voltage FR.

 @epideme: better than taping it to your frame or riding without it

 @epideme: Well I mean that stuff would have to go somewhere on a heavy frame too

 @epideme: You actually get better ride quality with more weight on frame.

 @epideme: The stat I have read (in several places) is that weight carried on your body effects you as much as 3x times the weight carried on your bike. Because of how you have to use muscle energy to support that weight on your back, vs letting the bike do the job. Makes sense to me - you don't see many cycle tourists carrying backpacks.

 @epideme: sarcasm? Low on the frame is the best place for storage as it improves center of gravity and sprung/unsprung mass ratio.

 I question whether the people hating on the frame storage even ride. I love riding without a pack. With the frame bladder and a bottle I could ride this 15+ miles with no pack at all. On paper this bike looks sick. They remedied a lot of the issues with the last generation Evo. That combined with the frame storage gives this bike a leg up on the competition. Haters gonna hate.

 @epideme: Are you familiar with the concept of a lever? Ignoring your ignorance of concepts like "center of mass of a system" and the like, a quick google search for 4th grade physics on levers will help illustrate why carrying weight low in a frame is a significant advantage for mountain bikers. Assuming you want your suspension to perform well, you want to change directions as easily as possible, you want to reduce likelihood of OTB crashes, you want to reduce muscle fatigue (weight on your back impacts how hard you work where you connect with the bike), then I can tell you confidently that you are wholly incorrect. Want evidence: every enduro racer in history carries additional weight as low as possible.

 Also important to point out that we often use sprung/unsprung mass incorrectly on pinkbike. That said, the concept remains: mass carried at the end of suspension levers of the system (rims, tires, cassettes are good examples) are technically "unsprung" mass, at least in the way this is discussed within automotive applications. That said, we talk about optimizing this weight because these things move in relation to the "sprung mass" which is effectively the center-of-mass of the system. Regardless, performance is improved by lowering "unsprung mass" - adding more weight (on your back) at the end of a leveraged system (your arms/legs as they connect to the bike) is a big time detriment to performance.

 @epideme: Again, you are incorrect. Moving 3kg of weight from very near the center-of-mass (low in the frame) to your back (about as far from the center-of-mass as possible, aside from your head) will make a big difference. Additionally, adding weight to your body means your muscles have to work harder than they would if the weight is in the frame. Look man, you're free to do what you want. I can only speak as an aggressive rider who 2 years ago switched from backpack to frame/hip pack. The difference was HUGE and noticeable on my very first ride. SWAT is a great solution to a very real problem.

 @epideme: brilliant

 @epideme: a light pack weighs about 600g. A SWAT door adds 250g or so. So carrying on the bike is the lighter solution. I can't believe I have to say this, but you have to carry it up the hill whether it's strapped to you or the bike, but on the bike it weighs less. Putting it on the bike improves suspension performance because it adds to the inertia of the bike, which allows the wheels to absorb bumps with less force transmitted to the rider. If you move that inertia to your body, your arms and legs have to do extra work as those forces get transmitted through the system. Plus lower cog is better. Plus packs look shit. Literally no drawback to carrying as much as possible on the bike.

 @WalrusRider: I dont like the suspension setup and the overall weight compared to some other setups.
Still one of the best bikes out there I'm sure, specially the expert model. I don't know if I'd think of it as "leg up", more of a different options and that's a great one option.

 @epideme: This may shock you, but Pros ride and wear what companies want them to sell. Very few companies are actually free from this effect. For an example look at Mojo Racings skin suit testing back in the day - clearly faster. But not what the 'brands' wanted as the image of DH racing. So we got rules about how baggy clothing had to be to be - rules that are constantly shaved as riders get clothing custom fit to just skirt the edge of legality.

 @KJP1230: I'm not sure either of you are fully correct. Your assumption that the centre of mass is low on the frame is only correct with respect to the bike itself. This may be a better assumption in cars (which you reference as an example), but with a bike the rider adds a lot of weight to the system which migrates the whole body centre of mass of the system closer to their torso.

I don't think it's generally helpful to think of it as a whole system anyways. It is probably better to think of the body and bike as independent systems for this problem. I think the advantage of carrying weight on the frame, as you mentioned, is that the body doesn't have to support the mass. Which is correct. But also, if you look at the research, adding such little weight relative to your overall body mass changes your metabolic rate so little that you would likely not even be able to measure it. However, this is just during standing with the weight, I think FatSanch has a good point here. This effect will become larger as your body accelerates while riding.

This is where I think the other guy may actually have a point (although for the wrong reasons). In terms of a metabolic penalty for moving weight attached to your body, having it closer to your BODY's center of mass (which is around the lower 1/3rd of your back) will significantly reduce its impact on you. So in this sense, locating weight so far away from your body's center of mass (locating it in the frame), will cause your body to exert more energy to manipulate it, compared to having it on your back.Then again, how much do you need to manipulate your bike while riding? And how much of that energy forms the greater amount of energy being spent? So many questions, so few answers.

Long story short, I think if you are pedaling and not manipulating the bike, best to locate weight on the frame. If you are manipulating your bike constantly, I can't conclusively say, but I would suspect it may be a toss up.

 @coast2coast-4: Nope - for overall performance of the system (cornering, for example) the center-of-mass of the system will be a moving point that is a combination of mass distribution for the rider + the bike + the gear. The goal is going to be to centralize this point between the tires and as low as possible (in general). By moving any weight lower in the system and closer to the center, you are effectively lowering and concentrating this center-of-mass.

There is a reason bike manufacturers fight like hell to get bottom brackets as low as possible, balanced against pedal strikes. Adding 3 kg of weight up high in the system negates many many millimeters of BB drop (as an example).

Also, the force of weight on the rider (as it relates to muscle endurance) will be a function of how far that extra mass is from the connection points in the lever (your hands and feet, for example). For evidence, go to a gym and try to hold a 15 lb dumbell straight out to the side at full arms length - it will get difficult quickly. Then try to support the same weight by balancing it on your elbow, instead of in your hand - much much easier. This is the same reason why (as a general rule) people with long arms have a much harder time producing maximum bench pressing - longer levers multiply the force of the mass.

There is no reason why having weight higher/further from the center of mass would be good in 99% of mountain biking. It would provide a de-localization of instant center of mass during dynamic movements, and at best would create more force that needs to be countered by the muscles of the rider to maintain bike performance - it will also have an outsized influence over the behavior of suspension, as a function of distance from the center of mass.

 @coast2coast-4: Further evidence: dropping moving weight from rims/tires has a larger impact on power efficiency and pedaling performance (as well as bike handling due to lower gyroscopic force) than dropping the same amount weight from a cassette. The reason is because the tire/rim are at the outside of the lever (in this case the rotational radius from the hub) than does the cassette. Want to try it for yourself? Try swapping from a GX cassette to an XO1 cassette - you'll drop about 100 grams. See if you can feel the difference (you probably cannot). Now try the same ride with the XO1 cassette (- 100 grams), and put a CushCore in your tire (+100grams). Same amount of rotational mass added to the same wheel - but you will definitely notice the CushCore weight right away.

There isn't really a whole lot of debate here. These are pretty basic physics principles. To suggest that carrying weight up high on your back wouldn't negatively impact performance in a dynamic system like mountain biking is crazy. If there were ANY advantage to that, professional riders who are focused on descending times would place weights on their bodies. They don't. They seek to shed grams all together and carry as much of this weight as low as they can, while also trying to centralize this weight, moving their center-of-mass to the ideal position between the wheels.

 @KJP1230: Hey, I get the concept of 'lever arms', I don't understand where in my argument you thought I misunderstood the concept. I think you are still mistaking where the actual COM is tho... I'm arguing that with respect to your body, it is at your back. Your lifting weights argument is kinda proving my point then with respect to moving a weight located on your back instead of a distance away from your body...

For cornering, sure having weight low sounds like a good idea. I don't know the concepts well on that point. But I do know body energetics, and I'm speaking to your point about how much 'energy' would be required to carry weight, independent of bike handling in corners.

 @coast2coast-4: If I add 3 kg of weight to my frame, that weight is applied as force directly from the frame to the ground (through the frame itself, and out through the tires.) If I add that weight to my back, that same weight will reach the ground through the tires, but now it will also travel through my muscles (arms, legs, etc.) as these are the connection points between the body and frame. Considering most mountain bikers are not constantly jumping their bikes, and probably spend 99.999% of the time with their tires touching the dirt, it is going to be a benefit to shortcut where the weight sits and where the force must travel to to the ground to counter balance this weight.

How long do you suppose in a given 1 hour ride you are spending going downhill? Lets call it 20 minutes. If I told you that you were going to go outside and do a combination of exercises that mimic riding a mountain bike downhill for 20 minutes, would you rather wear a 3kg weight vest, or not? Do you think there would be a difference in total performance between two identical athletes who perform these exercises for 20 minutes?

 @KJP1230: Yeah, but where I disagree in your example is that one athlete is not carrying 'nothing'. They also have a 3kg weight at a distance away from their body. Sure, it rests on the ground when they are not moving. But every time they accelerate, they have to accelerate that weight at distance far away from the COM.

 @coast2coast-4: if we assume that most non-slope style mountain bikers are focused on performance with their wheels mostly touching the ground, then you need to presume that all forces that will impact the ride are going to result from what is happening with the rider + gear + bike, and the tires (the contact point with the ground where force is applied and realized). The more you can lower the center-of-mass of the entire system, the better the tires will perform at creating consistent and predictable output in the form of cornering, maneuvering, etc. The goal should be to get as much mass of the system as close to center, and as low as possible to optimize performance. Period.

Because the ONLY points where the ground meets the system is the tires, you HAVE to consider the entire system (bike, rider, gear), and the center-of-mass of the entire system, as relating to these contact points. Therefore, it is obvious that getting as much weight as low as possible will create less dynamic change in this center of mass, and will work to effectively lower the center of mass. Weight further from this "instant center" point of the entire system, and especially weight that is both further and HIGHER than the instant center will have a disproportionate and negative effect.

I'm not sure why you are even arguing about this. Can you name one example of a dynamic sport where the goal isn't to optimize and consolidate the center of mass? Jui-jitsu, traditional wrestling, rally car racing, Formula 1 racing, GT racing, power lifting (low bar vs. high bar squat), Enduro mountain bike racing, DH mountain bike racing, MMA grappling, - gymnastics, free style skiing/snowboarding (all of which you see that moving arms/legs/equipment toward a consolidated center-of-mass increases stability and dynamism as a function of lower leveraged inertia), ski/snowboard racing (do racers race in a high or a low-as-possible position? The examples are literally endless.

Again, this is basic physics. Moving mass off your body will decrease muscle strain - especially weight that is higher off the contact points. Moving mass from high and leveraged to low and centered is an improvement for mountain biking (see: every comment ever on riding in attack position, centering oneself on the bike, frame design with low BB, etc.)

 @KJP1230: By extension, do you think we should carry weight stacked on our foot when we walk? It spends ~60% of the walking cycle on the ground. So you get to carry that weight for 'free' when it is on the ground....

 @coast2coast-4: Final simple example: is descending better with your seat up, or with your seat in a dropped position? It's obviously better with the seat dropped. Why? Because now you are free to move your body into "attack position" which seeks to create more balance between front and back tire (centering), and your hips and torso are free to move lower in the system (lower center of mass).

 @KJP1230: Yeah man, I agree with some of your points. But I feel like you are not understanding the point I'm trying to make, but that's fine. It's hard to communicate stuff like this over typing on the internet.

 @coast2coast-4: I understand the point you are trying to make, 100%. You just are not correct. Your basic argument started as: "If I weight 90kg, and the bike weights 14kg, then adding 3kg to my 90kg is much less of a change than adding 3kg to my bike." And I am saying that is not true because of the way bikes work.

The ONLY points where you and the bike are able to input forces to achieve your objectives are the tires. The ONLY points where you can input forces to affect the tires is the pedals and handle bars. Therefore, EVERYTHING above the tires' contact point is the system that is being moved. EVERYTHING above the handlebars/pedals requires additional force to support - you are not pulling the bike down the hill, you are RIDING the bike down the hill.

Based on all the examples of sports above, it is pretty clear to see that low center-of-mass, as well as consolidated or concentrated center-of-mass, as well as centralized (between contact points) center-of-mass is ideal. Again: there is a reason bikes are moving to more centralized rider position (chain stays matching reach numbers, for example), with as-low-as-possible bottom brackets. It is also the reason we have ultra-low standover, 200mm dropper posts, and why we ride downhill in the "attack position" of weight-centered, knees bent, hips hinged, back flat, chest low, elbows out. It's the reason why reviewers describe good descending bikes as "I felt like I was riding IN the bike, not on top of the bike". Hell, its the reason why an MTB coach will tell you to "lean the bike underneath your body to steer it" rather than tipping your body away from the bike (this tip is effective because it creates consistency for locating the center-of-mass low and between the wheels!)

C'mon man - its plain obvious. Do you see any amateur or professional racers in descending bike disciplines who choose to carry supplies on their backs if they have a choice in the matter? You dont!

 @coast2coast-4: Stick with me here: Imagine the simplest possible mental model. Imagine we are at the top of a 4% decline that goes straight down a paved road for 60 miles. Now imagine that I say to you that you are to get on your bike, stand up (no sitting, that is not how we descend on mountain bikes) and you are going to ride straight down the hill for as long as your muscles can support you. If I now tell you that you have to carry 5 kg while you do the challenge, would you rather me strap that weight to your back, or to the frame?

Now imagine the same challenge (60 miles, constant grade, downhill on smooth pavement, you have to be standing), and I tell you that at random times throughout the challenge you will need to make quick maneuvers to avoid hitting obstacles in the path. Where would you choose to carry the weight?

Do you see my point? In either case, its obvious that putting the extra mass on the bike is better. The same is true in mountain bike EXCEPT in cases where you are literally pulling the bike up and over something. Does this happen in biking, sure! Do we spend maybe a total of a couple of seconds doing this vs. minutes or hours of descending and inputing force into the tires in an average ride - also yes. I'm not sure how much more I can say to explain it: mountain biking is a bit easier to do when you are not carrying weight high on your back. Hell - even fanny packs are making a roaring comeback as people try to get the weight lower - they sure as hell are not more comfortable than back packs.

 I've been a pack wearer basically since the very first Camelbak in like 1989. Past few years rode with the EVOC FR Enduro. Amazing pack. Then, this year, decided to create the lightest weight kit I could and stash it in my SWAT box. Got a bottle mount. Got a Raceface Flank Core as I want the spine protection. Dang, it makes a MASSIVE difference for me. I really did think all the things you do. And now I know better, at least for myself. On epic rides while traveling, I'll still use the pack, mostly for the water capacity. But when I can avoid it, I will. In case you're interested, this is the kit I put together. Super lightweight and covers a lot of situations: www.pinkbike.com/photo/19095935 A bit over 300gr Less without the Lifestraw.

 @hamncheez: This new linkage is spaced much wider apart and should help greatly reduce those side loads

 @hamncheez: How so, there is a bolt at the shock mount allowing flex as opposed to the old ones where the shock was bolted directly to the yoke

 @zyoungson: The shock is still fixed at the other end; when the rear end flexes, the seat stays both rotate laterally (doesn't affect the shock because of the 90 degree mount) plus moves laterally- sideways. This still stresses the shock body more than a traditional mount, esp. a well designed rocker driven mount.

 for the down voters - this is a positive comment. lol.

 @MikeyMT: Don’t worry about it. Downvoted are most likely a result of SDS, or Specialized Derangement Syndrome. Runs rampant on this site.

 "Take all my money."

that's exactly what they are doing

 The Comp build it an amazing value as well. Full SLX and some quality Fox suspension. It's a no brainer at only $1100 more than the frame only.

 Would love to see a write up vs the Sentinel

 On the same boat here!

 same here...have a frame on order and they sound similar on paper.
@mikekazimer can you please comment?

 or vs sb130/150

 Like always, great review Mike.
Stumpy Evo in slack/high geometry which is probably what I'd use in Squamish is almost identical to the Sentinel's geo. Looks like the updated suspension kinematics also are very close with both companies increasing progressivity with a similar leverage ratio curve. Probably the closest bikes on the market right now. Would be great to hear a real-world comparison @mikekazimer

 Enduro just needs the steeper seat tube(77-78 at proper extension)...as all bikes need.

 @phops: nice to have options. Sj evo looks to be the better laguna beach tool....until the enduro gets a steeper seat tube. Climbing in Laguna is just gnar...esp on a Rads ride.

 Ya I wish my 2013 Enduro 29er allowed for an angleset back in the day....

 @hamncheez: now you can, 9 point 8 makes a integrated headset angleset. check it out on their site. Could save an older bike from obsolescence.

 @thelittle: Really? Interesting....

 @hamncheez: www.pinkbike.com/news/9point8-announces-the-slack-r-headset-angle-adapter.html

 @thelittle: unfortunately the 9.8 angleset doesn't work with a specialized headset

 @Artnshel: DANGIT

 I always figured the Stumpy was more on par with the SB130 rather than SB150, and the EVO vs 130 Lunch Ride numbers match up fairly closely (adjustability of this bike aside).

I'd still rather the Yeti though :-)

 @Artnshel: Really? I installed one on my 2018 Stumpy a month ago. Works amazing and changed the HA from 66.5 to 64.5.

 @jrfields: the top cup is a millimeter off in my 2019 levo.

 The hightower2 released 1.5 year ago is 6.0lbs with shock in size L.

Trail bikes definitely gained weight since 2016-2017 but "extremely light", no, that's not true.

Specialized XC frames are quite light, their trail frame is average weight.

 From what manufacturer is an xc race frame 6 lbs? Many brands like Specialized, Orbea, and Scott have xc frames well under 4 lbs.

Not knocking the Stumpjumper evo tho, 6.1 lbs is pretty good for a bike in this category.

 @p1nkbike @Mr-monterey I'd like to see some sort of verification that the Hightower 2 is 6.0lbs with shock. I have data in the spreadsheet that it's listed at 6.8lbs with shock. Trail bikes: Trek Fuel EX '21: 6.9, Niner Rip 9 RDO: 6.8, Hightower 6.8, SB130 6.9lbs, Sentinel 6.8lbs, Evil Offering: 7.2, Forbidden Druid: 7.5, Trek Slash '21: 7.0, SB150 7.1, Norco Sight '20: 7.5+, Ibis Ripmo: 6.7, Over Following 6.9. So, yea, it's extremely light at 6.1 for a 150/160 frame that's fully capable to race an Enduro. Even a half pound is a lot of weight difference in a frame in 2020.

Regarding it being as light as some XC race bikes. I knew I should have clarified that better. I was meaning to say XC race bikes from a couple years ago. The 2017 Epic for instance was pushing 6lbs. You are correct, the lightest of the lightest XC bikes right now are under 5. The Scott, the Orbea, etc. However I should say that many of the current 'xc' or lighter trail bikes (100-120mm) from many brands are at or above 6lbs for the frame. Something like a Kona Hei Hei comes to mind, Trek Top Fuel, etc. Bikes that definitely shouldn't be ridden in the park like this new EVO could be.

 @btjenki: Sorry that the Hightower 1 (at 6lbs w/ shock.. well 5.88 )

 @btjenki:
Yeah, the stumpy Evo seems quite light.

Btw, the new Swirls Epic Evo frame is only 3.65 lbs with shock and hardware. Orbea Oiz OMR 3.83 lbs with shock and hardware. Scott Spark HMX 3.96 lbs... these frames are pretty dang light.

flowmountainbike.com/post-all/on-test-2021-orbea-oiz-m-team/#:~:text=Orbea's%20claimed%20frame%20weight%20for,frame%20including%20the%20rear%20shock.

This article has a nice collection of xc frame weights.

 @btjenki:
As far as I know, the lightest trail bike frame out there is the Scott Genius, which weighs only 5 lbs with shock and hardware. Pretty crazy for a 150mm travel bike.

 @btjenki: What size frames are you using as reference for these weight numbers and what are your sources? Asking, one spreadsheet guy to another ;~>

 @Veloscente: The S Works and Orbea are in medium. The S Works includes shock and hardware. The Orbea includes shock, but I'm not sure about hardware--I misspoke on my previous post. The Scott Genius is in large. I am not sure about the others.

 @p1nkbike Yea, so you're confirming you're talking about the older Hightower (not current) that was lighter? (before the past couple years where brands are throwing more and more carbon into these frames) Because the new one in CC construction is pushing 7lbs.

@Mr-Monterey Yes, there are some very lightweight XC frames out there now! But I maintain that the majority of XC bikes and XC race bikes that the average racer has out there now (bikes built 2014-201 are not under 5.0lbs, most probably not much below 5.5. Current Giant Trance: 5.4lbs, SB100 5.5lbs, Trek Top Fuel 5.5lbs. The current Santa Cruz Blur, Intense Sniper SL, Scott Spark, Specialized Epic are all under 4lbs for sure.

@Veloscente I've used a number of sources. Product launches, forums, sites like www.bikologi.com/builder and sometimes even manufactures sites. Always important to try to verify with two sources. And confirm if manufactuers are including the shock (the number one way they skew weights!)

 @btjenki: Yes the hightower 1 w/ rockshox deluxe shock is officially at 5.88lbs (CC). I weighted my medium HT1 CC at slightly lower than this (5.7lbs), i suspect theres always a bit of variability at least with SC, or that they weight a L by default.

i weighted the HT2 C large at around 7lbs with super deluxe (which also seems slightly lower than spec). AFAIK the CC isn't much ligher (forums say 280gr lighter), but I have not had one to verify. I consider the HT2 on the slightly heavier side.

 Its great,... till you lay down the frame, make a crack in it and then you are offered great crash replacement 2000 frame. After spending 6 grand on bike. Yeah nah for me,..

But im talking the “old” 9M carbon, which disappeared from their line up,... so maybe the 11M is better!

Anyways, as big S is out of 27,5” wheels, im done with then regardless,... till 32” will flood the market!

 $10k- special have a very special shock.

 Me too! I actually thought, "Wow, pretty cheap!" Brain-washing complete!

 They charge $10k, then downgrade the cranks on an XX1 build: not only is it stupid expensive, it cuts stupid corners that insult consumer intelligence! Specialized have forever worn the crown of premium-price-for-cut-rate-spec. They *almost* resisted the impulse on this bike, e.g. w/ Deity stem & grips instead of mediocre, margin-padding, house-brand stuff, but then they just couldn't help themselves w/ the crank downgrade.

 @Veloscente: weren't x01 cranks a bit stronger than xx1? I can't remember for sure, but I think in the press release they said xx1 stuff is more xc oriented, and if you look at ews sponsored athletes that might be true since they're all using x01 instead xx1 there. On a component like cranks I think it makes sense. And yes, it's not cheap

 @crashtor: Exactly. X01 cranks are foam filled for more impact resistance over XX1.

 The rear hub has decent engagement too! Much better than the "house brand" or DT Swiss 370's lots of bikes in the price range have.

 Agreed! I've been waiting for a bike like this. Especially since I'm 6'5" and they have an S6 size! So excited!

 2nd aluminium version buyer right here! Didnt brough a 2020 Stumpy evo alum because they didnt have stock in europe.

 @LuccsPB: and also I will stop calling them Speiseeis.

 Agreed! Aluminum vs carbon just doesn't provide the value for me personally, I'm only interested in aluminum bikes at this point in my financial life.

 @S1mmo: different bikes

 @LuccsPB: vivis en Arg?

 @sanarau: Si sr! seguime en instagram. "lucaspbertoli"

 @Noeserd: You are a different bike

 Salty, huh

 @LuccsPB: como hacemos para entrar esta hermosura a este pais?

 Specialized still has a marketing embargo in North America. The bike isn't listed in their website

 the release of the Status is one of the strangest things Ive seen. Everyone knows it exist, it is for sale all over the place but somehow still under embargo/not released

 @blkmrktrider156:

Why is an American company not selling this bike inAmerica?

 Bike is sold in America I have one and it rips. It’s just weird how pinkbike won’t do a full review @SeanC1:

 @trollhunter:
Awesome! I see that it's not advertised on the Spesh website, but you can still buy one here? Good to know. How's it ride? Can you give us a little more review??

 @trollhunter, there's one on the way.

 That's a ton of money, but could tempt me to move from other options. Common sense parts specs and not the 'I got a SRAM package deal' so we make 150% margin.

 @downcountry: $4k certainly IS a lot of money! But, it's all relative. You get a frame they usually charge $3,500+/- for plus an entire bike build with good parts. That's a rippin' deal.

 @jeremiahwas: Good point. I'd never buy the frame-only...I would love to know what the profit is on them. Buy the comp or expert and sell off the parts and you'll end up in a really good place.

 @Mondbiker: Sure they make nice hand crafted carbon, but they don’t do the field/pro testing that specialized puts their bikes through. Most companies don’t have the resources to go as deep as specialized does.

 @Mondbiker: I’ve found better reliability with Specialized they have a lifetime warranty on their frames and are really easy to work with. I don’t much care for magical carbon from the top of a volcano that has unicorn piss on it and has been crafted by a leprechaun for six months. That ends up snapping because they didn’t put enough carbon in the down tube then when you try to warranty it they say tough luck we only made 50 bikes.

 @mtbraxden: where are those snapped pissed on bikes? I haven´t seen any, Specialised though...I didn´t even have to search for it.

 Yes! Now I can replace my XXL 2018 Stumpy.

 Ha, thanks. I decided to stop aging a few years ago - so far it seems to be working out.

 @mikekazimer: I'm 36, is it still ok to stop aging or is it too late?

 @fracasnoxteam: How do you guys feel about being a 36 or 38?

I was tossing it up but decided to be a Zeb instead.

 @EnduRowan: I am already zeb equipped

 Nope, they move the bottom bracket further forward relative to the rest triangle so they don't need different tooling for the rear ends on each size.

 Hta alone doesn't determine how much you'll struggle to keep the front wheel down. A steep enough sta will keep enough weight on the front wheel when seated to avoid the dreaded lift.

 Oops, wrong comment.

 I guess that all the dislikes are from Spesh lovers who never rode anything else... I had FSR Enduro, now I have VPP Bronson and I've never looked back...

 I mean... Isn't that how engineering advancement and product development works? It's not like first mountain bikes ever built could have been like this.

 Yeah adding this to my list for cross shopping with the ripmo. My 2013 Remedy is getting a little long in the tooth.

 In terms of what?

 I think a fair amount of this relates to what its being used for. If its super, steep and gnarly...Ibis's DWLink isn't entirely tuned for that on the Ripmo...tho hell Pivot's DWLink won Hardline didn't it??

The nice thing about the Ripmo is that its still awesome going downhill and more fun, poppy than "couch". That's great for a do-it-all AllMtn bike. It'll be similar enough to this Evo in a sense (tho not the Enduro obviously). NOW, the uphill is where its not even close tho...the Ripmo freaking pedals like Black Magic. You have to ride it (even in parking lot) to understand. This is why the Ripmo is a special bike, you still get decent travel and 160mm fork. So in DH performance its similar to other bikes enough tho a touch less gnarly in suspension and geo...but the uphill is vastly superior. So for a do-it-all aggro trail bike, its incredibly hard to beat...especially the V2. I don't own one btw but my buddies do and I steal it from time to time. I'd never buy the Evo over the Ripmo. Enduro yes, for big runs...but for a do-everything, Ripmo all the way. This is why the Ripmo has won bike of the year at Enduro Mag a few times for the Trail bike category.

 @Svinyard: Thanks man! This is the kind of feedback I was looking for!!!

 Or ask lbs. They switched to S from traditional size because it was different from what used to be. That's what they said 2 years ago.

 @fracasnoxteam: yeah I imagine the lbs is just as perplexed as I am. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

 @iantmcg: It's not hard to figure out. At the end of the day, they're all just different ways to essentially say the same thing. Who cares if it's called Large, S4, 18", 58cm etc. (although I admit it is a bit gimmicky).

 @leon-forfar: yeah it is not hard to figure out by any means. Might be a bit of a tough one for people with more money than sense which is why I think it is dumb for Specialized to make this switch as those folks are a decent percentage of their customers. Not saying their bikes aren’t great though. You are right though, for most serious bikers the sizing scheme is irrelevant, I just go straight to the geo chart anyway.

 I heard information from a reputable industry source that an enduro style linkage trail bike is still in the works. I'd wait for that one.

 I wonder if the downvotes are Specialized employees or Pinkbike sales people hoping to not upset their advertisers, probably both. Not sure I said anything too controversial, actually it was quite positive towards the Enduro and Demo designs.

 @Caddz: I agree. I own the new enduro and its best bike ive ever had. I think a smaller travel version would be amazing.

 Nice pant

 C'est pas faux

 Having longer chainstays reaaaallly helps to keep that front end down. I got the cascade link for my Hightower and the extra 5mm made a noticeable difference on technical climbs

 Hta alone doesn't determine how much you'll struggle to keep the front wheel down. A steep enough sta will keep enough weight on the front wheel when seated to avoid the dreaded lift.

 It's been good so far - there's a rubber o-ring around the perimeter of that cup that should help. I'll update this if any issues come up.

 In the high / steep setting the seat angle is 76.6-degrees on an S4, and 76.9-degrees on an S3.

 @mikekazimer: wait, so the seat angle gets slacker the steeper the head tube is?

 @ShortJeffsyOwner: yes, isn´t it obvious? It´s not a flip chip, it´s headset you are adjusting

 Specialized's site now has a geo tool you can play with to see what the changes do to the overall setup

 It won't unfortunately

 @blkmrktrider156:

this was my question as well - how do you know it wont fit the previous version?

 @Spidersanta: the headtube has been completely changed in the new version to accommodate the adjustable cups. You just won't be able to fit them in the previous version.

 @blkmrktrider156:

BUMMER!!

thanks for the info

 You can.

 No its available directly through specialized

 Yes! So annoying