Stumpy alloy is massively heavier. Thats a bummer. Was hoping it would be a 1lb weight penalty, but looks to be almost 4lbs! S4 carbon weight = 6lb 4oz, where S4 allow = 9lbs 8oz.
What I find confusing about the new Stumpjumpers is they offer it in a coil version with a 27.5 wheel and they've corrected geo for the smaller wheel using the upper link just like with the previous Stumpjumper, which significantly reduces progression. So the most linear bike in the entire lineup comes with a coil.
What I find confusing about the new Stumpjumpers is they offer it in a coil version with a 27.5 wheel and they've corrected geo for the...
What I find confusing about the new Stumpjumpers is they offer it in a coil version with a 27.5 wheel and they've corrected geo for the smaller wheel using the upper link just like with the previous Stumpjumper, which significantly reduces progression. So the most linear bike in the entire lineup comes with a coil.
Only going to correct 1 thing on this statement and that is the geo is corrected for the 160 fork on that version. They've listed the same geo with 150 on 27 vs 29 rear wheels.
Only going to correct 1 thing on this statement and that is the geo is corrected for the 160 fork on that version. They've listed the...
Only going to correct 1 thing on this statement and that is the geo is corrected for the 160 fork on that version. They've listed the same geo with 150 on 27 vs 29 rear wheels.
10 mm additional axle to crown usually equates to about 3 mm additional BB height.
What I find confusing about the new Stumpjumpers is they offer it in a coil version with a 27.5 wheel and they've corrected geo for the...
What I find confusing about the new Stumpjumpers is they offer it in a coil version with a 27.5 wheel and they've corrected geo for the smaller wheel using the upper link just like with the previous Stumpjumper, which significantly reduces progression. So the most linear bike in the entire lineup comes with a coil.
As a former SJEvo owner with a real affinity for the brand, I find that entire SJ15 confusing.
I suspect that ridden at 5/ 10ths, in the top spec, it probably feels amazing. However, the STA, the BB height, the CS length, the suspension design in conjunction with a coil shock in some specs, the lack of cable shifter routing in the CF frame...it's just all so far from what I personally want.
The brand peaked in 2021.
The only new bike that truly excites me is the upcoming Sentinel, as I presume, they will get it all correct based on past experiences.
What I find confusing about the new Stumpjumpers is they offer it in a coil version with a 27.5 wheel and they've corrected geo for the...
What I find confusing about the new Stumpjumpers is they offer it in a coil version with a 27.5 wheel and they've corrected geo for the smaller wheel using the upper link just like with the previous Stumpjumper, which significantly reduces progression. So the most linear bike in the entire lineup comes with a coil.
As a former SJEvo owner with a real affinity for the brand, I find that entire SJ15 confusing.I suspect that ridden at 5/ 10ths, in the...
As a former SJEvo owner with a real affinity for the brand, I find that entire SJ15 confusing.
I suspect that ridden at 5/ 10ths, in the top spec, it probably feels amazing. However, the STA, the BB height, the CS length, the suspension design in conjunction with a coil shock in some specs, the lack of cable shifter routing in the CF frame...it's just all so far from what I personally want.
The brand peaked in 2021.
The only new bike that truly excites me is the upcoming Sentinel, as I presume, they will get it all correct based on past experiences.
1. The stevo has had a rabid fan base, but we all have cascade links and wrp yokes. This bike will be sick once/if people make some mods for them… 2. Geo is super workable. Worst size is s4 and you can buy an s5/s6 chainstay for it. Cahal is doing just that. 3. I feel like speci is lying by omission here with regards to the stumpy and StEvo. A rep said they were saving the name for something truly Evo worthy. If that’s true, a lot of the criticism that we have for the reg Stumpys could be let go of. If speci puts out an up-market status with a piggyback genie (and maybe more progressive geo? Longer cs, steeper st, etc) I think people would be more chill about how conservative the stumpy is. Of course they aren’t going to launch them at the same time as that would make the regular Stumpys look super boring, so instead we get this (for some) lackluster trickle. Just remember, their lineup is big enough that there is room for the stumpy 15 to be boring
10 mm additional axle to crown usually equates to about 3 mm additional BB height.
Question- The Bronson and Hightower share a front triangle and links(confirmed) but the Bronson has consistantly lower AS throughout the travel. Is this purely because of the lower rear axle height or does the 3mm difference in CS make a difference too? Ta
The pricing should not be surprising but wow... that top AL model is very close to second cheapest NEW CARBON Hightower. Heh... I know what I'm getting.
Stumpy alloy is massively heavier. Thats a bummer. Was hoping it would be a 1lb weight penalty, but looks to be almost 4lbs! S4 carbon weight...
Stumpy alloy is massively heavier. Thats a bummer. Was hoping it would be a 1lb weight penalty, but looks to be almost 4lbs! S4 carbon weight = 6lb 4oz, where S4 allow = 9lbs 8oz.
It seems like 2.5lb is about the average weight penalty for an aluminum frame without the frame being a flimsy soda can.
Adding in frame storage is probably a massive weight penalty too.
I think I called Xfusion for 3k in a previous post, but I also claimed they'd still ruin it with SX and they didn't so... Fair play Spesh.
Still WHY WHY WHY couldn't they sort out base Deluxe or maybe Deluxe S+ shock if it's gonna be 3k. It's the only thing the bike needs. Sigh. Whatever could have been much worse.
Ultimately I think that decision just guaranteed a lot more YT and Canyon and Polygon sales and shit. Could be wrong but I don't think the average rider getting their first FS bike is looking at 3k. Probably 2500 max and ideally 2k. I guess I'd have to compare to Trek and Giant. Maybe this is the new standard. Whether I like it or not...
What I find confusing about the new Stumpjumpers is they offer it in a coil version with a 27.5 wheel and they've corrected geo for the...
What I find confusing about the new Stumpjumpers is they offer it in a coil version with a 27.5 wheel and they've corrected geo for the smaller wheel using the upper link just like with the previous Stumpjumper, which significantly reduces progression. So the most linear bike in the entire lineup comes with a coil.
We get it- you like a progressive bike 😅
I’d think you’d be stoked on this because you get to make another link 🙂
Stumpy alloy is massively heavier. Thats a bummer. Was hoping it would be a 1lb weight penalty, but looks to be almost 4lbs! S4 carbon weight...
Stumpy alloy is massively heavier. Thats a bummer. Was hoping it would be a 1lb weight penalty, but looks to be almost 4lbs! S4 carbon weight = 6lb 4oz, where S4 allow = 9lbs 8oz.
wow... saw that too
And I always thought the RAAW Madonna was portly with its 3.9kg / 8.6lb. That thing is so purposefully overbuilt, while the SJ seems quite "normal"?
Stumpy alloy is massively heavier. Thats a bummer. Was hoping it would be a 1lb weight penalty, but looks to be almost 4lbs! S4 carbon weight...
Stumpy alloy is massively heavier. Thats a bummer. Was hoping it would be a 1lb weight penalty, but looks to be almost 4lbs! S4 carbon weight = 6lb 4oz, where S4 allow = 9lbs 8oz.
wow... saw that tooAnd I always thought the RAAW Madonna was portly with its 3.9kg / 8.6lb. That thing is so purposefully overbuilt, while the SJ seems...
wow... saw that too
And I always thought the RAAW Madonna was portly with its 3.9kg / 8.6lb. That thing is so purposefully overbuilt, while the SJ seems quite "normal"?
I don't think the in-frame storage helps on this one
New Hightower release seems like further evidence that we are in a period of only marginal changes for geometry/suspension design. And the trend of "category creep"...
New Hightower release seems like further evidence that we are in a period of only marginal changes for geometry/suspension design. And the trend of "category creep" seems to continue--the Hightower has gone from a 135mm travel bike in Gen 1 to a 150mm travel bike in its new iteration, much like how the Trek Fuel EX or Specialized Stumpjumper have become longer-travel bikes over the years.
I can't help but feel like the travel creep phenomenon is similar to how trucks keep getting larger and larger bonnets and looking more ridiculous, while the trays slowly shrink at the back.
Wonder if brands will ever have to do a reset and move the travel back down, or just insert a new name into the 130-140 and eventually the high tower just becomes the DH bike
Building a light and strong and reliable aluminium frame is expensive. Building it 1-2ibs heavier saves on butted tubesets,intricate forgings/cnc and complicated forming,you get less warranties and you still get to charge the same for it.
I can't help but feel like the travel creep phenomenon is similar to how trucks keep getting larger and larger bonnets and looking more ridiculous, while...
I can't help but feel like the travel creep phenomenon is similar to how trucks keep getting larger and larger bonnets and looking more ridiculous, while the trays slowly shrink at the back.
Wonder if brands will ever have to do a reset and move the travel back down, or just insert a new name into the 130-140 and eventually the high tower just becomes the DH bike
Marketing guy- More travel is better isn't it? No one buys a bike because of how it climbs anyway......we can just say 'climbs like a 140 bike' and they believe it. And if it does pedal badly we can just sell it with electronic suspension and charge more......win win.
Stumpy alloy is massively heavier. Thats a bummer. Was hoping it would be a 1lb weight penalty, but looks to be almost 4lbs! S4 carbon weight...
Stumpy alloy is massively heavier. Thats a bummer. Was hoping it would be a 1lb weight penalty, but looks to be almost 4lbs! S4 carbon weight = 6lb 4oz, where S4 allow = 9lbs 8oz.
wow... saw that tooAnd I always thought the RAAW Madonna was portly with its 3.9kg / 8.6lb. That thing is so purposefully overbuilt, while the SJ seems...
wow... saw that too
And I always thought the RAAW Madonna was portly with its 3.9kg / 8.6lb. That thing is so purposefully overbuilt, while the SJ seems quite "normal"?
wow... saw that tooAnd I always thought the RAAW Madonna was portly with its 3.9kg / 8.6lb. That thing is so purposefully overbuilt, while the SJ seems...
wow... saw that too
And I always thought the RAAW Madonna was portly with its 3.9kg / 8.6lb. That thing is so purposefully overbuilt, while the SJ seems quite "normal"?
That's a burly frameset for sure at 4.31kg . The new Fox Float (195x45) is around 320g so lets say 450g with the Genie mods and bigger size. That could mean this Stumpy alloy frame wo/ shock is about 3.86kg (8.5lb). That is almost the same weight as a Madonna v3 frameset. For comparison a non-sworks Specialized Enduro frameset wo/ shock is 3.45kg (7.65lb).
Stumpy alloy is massively heavier. Thats a bummer. Was hoping it would be a 1lb weight penalty, but looks to be almost 4lbs! S4 carbon weight...
Stumpy alloy is massively heavier. Thats a bummer. Was hoping it would be a 1lb weight penalty, but looks to be almost 4lbs! S4 carbon weight = 6lb 4oz, where S4 allow = 9lbs 8oz.
wow... saw that tooAnd I always thought the RAAW Madonna was portly with its 3.9kg / 8.6lb. That thing is so purposefully overbuilt, while the SJ seems...
wow... saw that too
And I always thought the RAAW Madonna was portly with its 3.9kg / 8.6lb. That thing is so purposefully overbuilt, while the SJ seems quite "normal"?
Stumpy alloy is massively heavier. Thats a bummer. Was hoping it would be a 1lb weight penalty, but looks to be almost 4lbs! S4 carbon weight...
Stumpy alloy is massively heavier. Thats a bummer. Was hoping it would be a 1lb weight penalty, but looks to be almost 4lbs! S4 carbon weight = 6lb 4oz, where S4 allow = 9lbs 8oz.
wow... saw that tooAnd I always thought the RAAW Madonna was portly with its 3.9kg / 8.6lb. That thing is so purposefully overbuilt, while the SJ seems...
wow... saw that too
And I always thought the RAAW Madonna was portly with its 3.9kg / 8.6lb. That thing is so purposefully overbuilt, while the SJ seems quite "normal"?
But that was sans rear shock, so probably still heavier, but as you say, stouter looking than the stumpy
Fun thing is that the 140mm jibb v2 is the same quoted weight. that frame is a closer rival to the specialized
I can't help but feel like the travel creep phenomenon is similar to how trucks keep getting larger and larger bonnets and looking more ridiculous, while...
I can't help but feel like the travel creep phenomenon is similar to how trucks keep getting larger and larger bonnets and looking more ridiculous, while the trays slowly shrink at the back.
Wonder if brands will ever have to do a reset and move the travel back down, or just insert a new name into the 130-140 and eventually the high tower just becomes the DH bike
I always felt that the suspension-creep happened for two reasons (and I'm happy to be proven otherwise):
1. Refined kinematics allowing for better pedalling performance allowing greater suspension travel without as many drawbacks
2. Better long-travel single-crown forks allowing for 170-180mm front travel without flexy noodles.
These two combined resulting in models like the Megatower creeping up in travel, and then the Hightower creeps up behind to maintain the gaps in travel from before.
So rather than the mid-travel models getting longer legs, its the long-travel models getting longer and the mid-travel growing to fill the gap.
As was definitely mentioned: introducing a new model at the bottom of the travel range is probable more marketable, because then all the other models can be marketed as "more capable than last year".
To me this progress is feeling a lot like what happened to skis in the PNW, when powder skis kept getting wider so ski designers figured out how to engineer in more torsional stiffness, allowing the super-fat skis to be more capable on not-bottomless-snow, and this made it more possible to increase the widths of mid-fat skis, so then the daily-driver skinny skis also increased in size to fill the gap. Pow skis going to 120+mm waist made mid-fat skis possible at 110+mm so daily-driver skis grew to 100+mm waist.
Sorry for rambly post, this is written between meetings
Question- The Bronson and Hightower share a front triangle and links(confirmed) but the Bronson has consistantly lower AS throughout the travel. Is this purely because of...
Question- The Bronson and Hightower share a front triangle and links(confirmed) but the Bronson has consistantly lower AS throughout the travel. Is this purely because of the lower rear axle height or does the 3mm difference in CS make a difference too? Ta
Hard to really say because I haven’t looked at these two bikes too in depth yet. I’m honestly surprised the anti-squat is as different as it is at top of travel. Based on past experience with SC bikes, I would expect the rollover of the larger wheel to be the most notable thing for pedaling.
I always felt that the suspension-creep happened for two reasons (and I'm happy to be proven otherwise):1. Refined kinematics allowing for better pedalling performance allowing greater...
I always felt that the suspension-creep happened for two reasons (and I'm happy to be proven otherwise):
1. Refined kinematics allowing for better pedalling performance allowing greater suspension travel without as many drawbacks
2. Better long-travel single-crown forks allowing for 170-180mm front travel without flexy noodles.
These two combined resulting in models like the Megatower creeping up in travel, and then the Hightower creeps up behind to maintain the gaps in travel from before.
So rather than the mid-travel models getting longer legs, its the long-travel models getting longer and the mid-travel growing to fill the gap.
As was definitely mentioned: introducing a new model at the bottom of the travel range is probable more marketable, because then all the other models can be marketed as "more capable than last year".
To me this progress is feeling a lot like what happened to skis in the PNW, when powder skis kept getting wider so ski designers figured out how to engineer in more torsional stiffness, allowing the super-fat skis to be more capable on not-bottomless-snow, and this made it more possible to increase the widths of mid-fat skis, so then the daily-driver skinny skis also increased in size to fill the gap. Pow skis going to 120+mm waist made mid-fat skis possible at 110+mm so daily-driver skis grew to 100+mm waist.
Sorry for rambly post, this is written between meetings
I like the ski analogy. I feel like there was a golden age for powder skis around 2012-2014. The Bent Chetlers from that era remain one of my favorite skis ever. Since then, powder skis have walked back a bit in terms of how purpose driven they are. I think largely because it didn’t make sense to have so many skis made for conditions few were accessing. I wonder if we will see something similar with bike design where what’s considered a big bike gets a little smaller since most trails aren’t akin to bike park laps. That said, I’m all for fat skis and 170 mm enduro bikes. There’s something to be said for having the absolute best time in the terrain and conditions that you like most as opposed to making concessions and there in favor of other things.
I like the ski analogy. I feel like there was a golden age for powder skis around 2012-2014. The Bent Chetlers from that era remain one...
I like the ski analogy. I feel like there was a golden age for powder skis around 2012-2014. The Bent Chetlers from that era remain one of my favorite skis ever. Since then, powder skis have walked back a bit in terms of how purpose driven they are. I think largely because it didn’t make sense to have so many skis made for conditions few were accessing. I wonder if we will see something similar with bike design where what’s considered a big bike gets a little smaller since most trails aren’t akin to bike park laps. That said, I’m all for fat skis and 170 mm enduro bikes. There’s something to be said for having the absolute best time in the terrain and conditions that you like most as opposed to making concessions and there in favor of other things.
Right, my Hellbents remain the greatest ski ever made as far as I'm concerned. And I still pull them out for fun 1-2 days a year. Skiing was just going full retard back in 2012 but in the best possible way. I will admit a 110 ski is good in the PNW "powder" 99.99% of the time. If I lived in JH I'd consider a 120mm but anything beyond that is basically not worth it anymore.
It is a lot easier justifying having 3-4 pairs of different width skis tho, they are like 1/4 the price of a bike.
end of ski rumors lol, unless people want to keep going.
What I find confusing about the new Stumpjumpers is they offer it in a coil version with a 27.5 wheel and they've corrected geo for the...
What I find confusing about the new Stumpjumpers is they offer it in a coil version with a 27.5 wheel and they've corrected geo for the smaller wheel using the upper link just like with the previous Stumpjumper, which significantly reduces progression. So the most linear bike in the entire lineup comes with a coil.
As a former SJEvo owner with a real affinity for the brand, I find that entire SJ15 confusing.I suspect that ridden at 5/ 10ths, in the...
As a former SJEvo owner with a real affinity for the brand, I find that entire SJ15 confusing.
I suspect that ridden at 5/ 10ths, in the top spec, it probably feels amazing. However, the STA, the BB height, the CS length, the suspension design in conjunction with a coil shock in some specs, the lack of cable shifter routing in the CF frame...it's just all so far from what I personally want.
The brand peaked in 2021.
The only new bike that truly excites me is the upcoming Sentinel, as I presume, they will get it all correct based on past experiences.
Current Evo owner and while, yes, when talking about the baffling changes on new SJ, I’m inclined to agree about them peaking in 2021 but I just did 3 days in Morzine on the Status 170 DH and it’s wild how Spesh came out with the least cool bike (SJ) and the most cool bike in the same year. The Chisel was a pleasant surprise from them too.
I can't help but feel like the travel creep phenomenon is similar to how trucks keep getting larger and larger bonnets and looking more ridiculous, while...
I can't help but feel like the travel creep phenomenon is similar to how trucks keep getting larger and larger bonnets and looking more ridiculous, while the trays slowly shrink at the back.
Wonder if brands will ever have to do a reset and move the travel back down, or just insert a new name into the 130-140 and eventually the high tower just becomes the DH bike
I always felt that the suspension-creep happened for two reasons (and I'm happy to be proven otherwise):1. Refined kinematics allowing for better pedalling performance allowing greater...
I always felt that the suspension-creep happened for two reasons (and I'm happy to be proven otherwise):
1. Refined kinematics allowing for better pedalling performance allowing greater suspension travel without as many drawbacks
2. Better long-travel single-crown forks allowing for 170-180mm front travel without flexy noodles.
These two combined resulting in models like the Megatower creeping up in travel, and then the Hightower creeps up behind to maintain the gaps in travel from before.
So rather than the mid-travel models getting longer legs, its the long-travel models getting longer and the mid-travel growing to fill the gap.
As was definitely mentioned: introducing a new model at the bottom of the travel range is probable more marketable, because then all the other models can be marketed as "more capable than last year".
To me this progress is feeling a lot like what happened to skis in the PNW, when powder skis kept getting wider so ski designers figured out how to engineer in more torsional stiffness, allowing the super-fat skis to be more capable on not-bottomless-snow, and this made it more possible to increase the widths of mid-fat skis, so then the daily-driver skinny skis also increased in size to fill the gap. Pow skis going to 120+mm waist made mid-fat skis possible at 110+mm so daily-driver skis grew to 100+mm waist.
Sorry for rambly post, this is written between meetings
I agree with this.
But I'll offer a counter point.
Low-mid travel suspension is become better than ever also, and tyres and strong carbon rims. So because of improvements like HBO and strong 120mm forks we have bikes like the smuggler that can smash black trails and jump well, whereas previously you'd be lucky for a 120mm bike to not snap in half doing jumps on it.
So yes I agree long travel is easier to pedal, but short travel is easier to rip. Yet it seems like bikes growing is definitely the trend.
As a current St Evo owner as well as a Madonna V3 owner, the Madonna pedals 2-3x better than the Stumpy and tracks the ground like Velcro. I have a hard time wanting to ride the Stumpy that weights almost 11 pounds lighter than the Madonna because it doesn’t pedal or track as well as the Madonna.
Some of the new suspension gizmos are pretty rad but it seems that they are trying to make up for poor kinematic design that comes from trying to maintain a certain design aesthetic and not from trying to push the design envelope. Trek has been the best at that in the last 12 years IMO, too many gimmicky designs to solve problems that could have been solved with proper kinematics.
I think I called Xfusion for 3k in a previous post, but I also claimed they'd still ruin it with SX and they didn't so... Fair...
I think I called Xfusion for 3k in a previous post, but I also claimed they'd still ruin it with SX and they didn't so... Fair play Spesh.
Still WHY WHY WHY couldn't they sort out base Deluxe or maybe Deluxe S+ shock if it's gonna be 3k. It's the only thing the bike needs. Sigh. Whatever could have been much worse.
Ultimately I think that decision just guaranteed a lot more YT and Canyon and Polygon sales and shit. Could be wrong but I don't think the average rider getting their first FS bike is looking at 3k. Probably 2500 max and ideally 2k. I guess I'd have to compare to Trek and Giant. Maybe this is the new standard. Whether I like it or not...
Yeah, the amount of the previous generation stumpjumpers with chrome stanchions I see at my local trails is crazy, I think those years they were like $2500 and available at all our local bike shops. Sort of feel bumping the spec a bit and the price will probably hurt them a bit on that front.
I always felt that the suspension-creep happened for two reasons (and I'm happy to be proven otherwise):1. Refined kinematics allowing for better pedalling performance allowing greater...
I always felt that the suspension-creep happened for two reasons (and I'm happy to be proven otherwise):
1. Refined kinematics allowing for better pedalling performance allowing greater suspension travel without as many drawbacks
2. Better long-travel single-crown forks allowing for 170-180mm front travel without flexy noodles.
These two combined resulting in models like the Megatower creeping up in travel, and then the Hightower creeps up behind to maintain the gaps in travel from before.
So rather than the mid-travel models getting longer legs, its the long-travel models getting longer and the mid-travel growing to fill the gap.
As was definitely mentioned: introducing a new model at the bottom of the travel range is probable more marketable, because then all the other models can be marketed as "more capable than last year".
To me this progress is feeling a lot like what happened to skis in the PNW, when powder skis kept getting wider so ski designers figured out how to engineer in more torsional stiffness, allowing the super-fat skis to be more capable on not-bottomless-snow, and this made it more possible to increase the widths of mid-fat skis, so then the daily-driver skinny skis also increased in size to fill the gap. Pow skis going to 120+mm waist made mid-fat skis possible at 110+mm so daily-driver skis grew to 100+mm waist.
Sorry for rambly post, this is written between meetings
I'll bite.
I don't feel we're really seeing bikes eek up in travel but we are sometimes seeing more product offerings and certain models gain more travel which may make it feel this way. Put another way, I'm not riding a longer travel bike now than I was 6-7 (10?) years ago as my daily driver, and I bet if we dug into the Vital Rider Survey data or similar we'd find the mix of what people ride hasn't changed much either. A bike models name is just the name. That's it. You buy the bike based of what it can do and what you need it to do. The rest is just marketing and a company trying to slice up its model lineup so it more appropriately meets the needs of the market. Bikes don't really pedal any better now than they did 5+ years ago and I'd argue most componentry isn't that much better either but we do have more segmentation, 36mm and 38mm forks, Code level brakes and Maven level brakes, 150mm droppers and 200mm+ droppers etc.
Now, to your point, I do feel a number of companies offer two bikes that I can pick from whereas before it was one. IE, I can go with the Sentinel or Spire, Stumpy Evo (not sure about SJ15) or Enduro, MegaTower, Nomad or Hightower etc. with the idea being I might be more likely to buy a bike being its baby-bear porridge for me - exactly what I want. This is more the trend I think we're seeing - its one of "hyper segmentation".
Finally, I have to call out the skiing analogy, in the case anyone reads it as gospel. I can expand on this if anyone cares, but torsional stiffness was not the breakthrough that allowed fatter skis to become daily drivers. Like most things, there are a number of variables that spurred skiers to go toward a wider and wider ski, but if I were to boil it down to one sentence I'd say it was the "McConkey Revolution" + "Culture". We've had wicked stiff stiff torisional skis since the...forever. Put metal in any ski and this problem is solved. What really drove ski width was "modern shaping" + "everyone can ski powder now...yay!"....if I go any further we're really going to derail this one
Stumpy alloy is massively heavier. Thats a bummer. Was hoping it would be a 1lb weight penalty, but looks to be almost 4lbs! S4 carbon weight = 6lb 4oz, where S4 allow = 9lbs 8oz.
What I find confusing about the new Stumpjumpers is they offer it in a coil version with a 27.5 wheel and they've corrected geo for the smaller wheel using the upper link just like with the previous Stumpjumper, which significantly reduces progression. So the most linear bike in the entire lineup comes with a coil.
Only going to correct 1 thing on this statement and that is the geo is corrected for the 160 fork on that version. They've listed the same geo with 150 on 27 vs 29 rear wheels.
10 mm additional axle to crown usually equates to about 3 mm additional BB height.
As a former SJEvo owner with a real affinity for the brand, I find that entire SJ15 confusing.
I suspect that ridden at 5/ 10ths, in the top spec, it probably feels amazing. However, the STA, the BB height, the CS length, the suspension design in conjunction with a coil shock in some specs, the lack of cable shifter routing in the CF frame...it's just all so far from what I personally want.
The brand peaked in 2021.
The only new bike that truly excites me is the upcoming Sentinel, as I presume, they will get it all correct based on past experiences.
1. The stevo has had a rabid fan base, but we all have cascade links and wrp yokes. This bike will be sick once/if people make some mods for them…
2. Geo is super workable. Worst size is s4 and you can buy an s5/s6 chainstay for it. Cahal is doing just that.
3. I feel like speci is lying by omission here with regards to the stumpy and StEvo. A rep said they were saving the name for something truly Evo worthy. If that’s true, a lot of the criticism that we have for the reg Stumpys could be let go of. If speci puts out an up-market status with a piggyback genie (and maybe more progressive geo? Longer cs, steeper st, etc) I think people would be more chill about how conservative the stumpy is. Of course they aren’t going to launch them at the same time as that would make the regular Stumpys look super boring, so instead we get this (for some) lackluster trickle. Just remember, their lineup is big enough that there is room for the stumpy 15 to be boring
Question- The Bronson and Hightower share a front triangle and links(confirmed) but the Bronson has consistantly lower AS throughout the travel. Is this purely because of the lower rear axle height or does the 3mm difference in CS make a difference too?
Ta
The pricing should not be surprising but wow... that top AL model is very close to second cheapest NEW CARBON Hightower. Heh... I know what I'm getting.
It seems like 2.5lb is about the average weight penalty for an aluminum frame without the frame being a flimsy soda can.
Adding in frame storage is probably a massive weight penalty too.
I think I called Xfusion for 3k in a previous post, but I also claimed they'd still ruin it with SX and they didn't so... Fair play Spesh.
Still WHY WHY WHY couldn't they sort out base Deluxe or maybe Deluxe S+ shock if it's gonna be 3k. It's the only thing the bike needs. Sigh. Whatever could have been much worse.
Ultimately I think that decision just guaranteed a lot more YT and Canyon and Polygon sales and shit. Could be wrong but I don't think the average rider getting their first FS bike is looking at 3k. Probably 2500 max and ideally 2k. I guess I'd have to compare to Trek and Giant. Maybe this is the new standard. Whether I like it or not...
We get it- you like a progressive bike 😅
I’d think you’d be stoked on this because you get to make another link 🙂
wow... saw that too
And I always thought the RAAW Madonna was portly with its 3.9kg / 8.6lb.
That thing is so purposefully overbuilt, while the SJ seems quite "normal"?
I don't think the in-frame storage helps on this one
I can't help but feel like the travel creep phenomenon is similar to how trucks keep getting larger and larger bonnets and looking more ridiculous, while the trays slowly shrink at the back.
Wonder if brands will ever have to do a reset and move the travel back down, or just insert a new name into the 130-140 and eventually the high tower just becomes the DH bike
Building a light and strong and reliable aluminium frame is expensive. Building it 1-2ibs heavier saves on butted tubesets,intricate forgings/cnc and complicated forming,you get less warranties and you still get to charge the same for it.
Marketing guy- More travel is better isn't it? No one buys a bike because of how it climbs anyway......we can just say 'climbs like a 140 bike' and they believe it. And if it does pedal badly we can just sell it with electronic suspension and charge more......win win.
The Madonna weight is without shock.
I’m pretty sure the Stumpy weight is with shock.
That's a burly frameset for sure at 4.31kg . The new Fox Float (195x45) is around 320g so lets say 450g with the Genie mods and bigger size. That could mean this Stumpy alloy frame wo/ shock is about 3.86kg (8.5lb). That is almost the same weight as a Madonna v3 frameset. For comparison a non-sworks Specialized Enduro frameset wo/ shock is 3.45kg (7.65lb).
we're also comparing a big burly enduro rig with oversized bearing to a trail bike...
But that was sans rear shock, so probably still heavier, but as you say, stouter looking than the stumpy
Fun thing is that the 140mm jibb v2 is the same quoted weight. that frame is a closer rival to the specialized
I always felt that the suspension-creep happened for two reasons (and I'm happy to be proven otherwise):
1. Refined kinematics allowing for better pedalling performance allowing greater suspension travel without as many drawbacks
2. Better long-travel single-crown forks allowing for 170-180mm front travel without flexy noodles.
These two combined resulting in models like the Megatower creeping up in travel, and then the Hightower creeps up behind to maintain the gaps in travel from before.
So rather than the mid-travel models getting longer legs, its the long-travel models getting longer and the mid-travel growing to fill the gap.
As was definitely mentioned: introducing a new model at the bottom of the travel range is probable more marketable, because then all the other models can be marketed as "more capable than last year".
To me this progress is feeling a lot like what happened to skis in the PNW, when powder skis kept getting wider so ski designers figured out how to engineer in more torsional stiffness, allowing the super-fat skis to be more capable on not-bottomless-snow, and this made it more possible to increase the widths of mid-fat skis, so then the daily-driver skinny skis also increased in size to fill the gap. Pow skis going to 120+mm waist made mid-fat skis possible at 110+mm so daily-driver skis grew to 100+mm waist.
Sorry for rambly post, this is written between meetings
Hard to really say because I haven’t looked at these two bikes too in depth yet. I’m honestly surprised the anti-squat is as different as it is at top of travel. Based on past experience with SC bikes, I would expect the rollover of the larger wheel to be the most notable thing for pedaling.
I like the ski analogy. I feel like there was a golden age for powder skis around 2012-2014. The Bent Chetlers from that era remain one of my favorite skis ever. Since then, powder skis have walked back a bit in terms of how purpose driven they are. I think largely because it didn’t make sense to have so many skis made for conditions few were accessing. I wonder if we will see something similar with bike design where what’s considered a big bike gets a little smaller since most trails aren’t akin to bike park laps. That said, I’m all for fat skis and 170 mm enduro bikes. There’s something to be said for having the absolute best time in the terrain and conditions that you like most as opposed to making concessions and there in favor of other things.
Right, my Hellbents remain the greatest ski ever made as far as I'm concerned. And I still pull them out for fun 1-2 days a year. Skiing was just going full retard back in 2012 but in the best possible way. I will admit a 110 ski is good in the PNW "powder" 99.99% of the time. If I lived in JH I'd consider a 120mm but anything beyond that is basically not worth it anymore.
It is a lot easier justifying having 3-4 pairs of different width skis tho, they are like 1/4 the price of a bike.
end of ski rumors lol, unless people want to keep going.
Current Evo owner and while, yes, when talking about the baffling changes on new SJ, I’m inclined to agree about them peaking in 2021 but I just did 3 days in Morzine on the Status 170 DH and it’s wild how Spesh came out with the least cool bike (SJ) and the most cool bike in the same year. The Chisel was a pleasant surprise from them too.
I agree with this.
But I'll offer a counter point.
Low-mid travel suspension is become better than ever also, and tyres and strong carbon rims. So because of improvements like HBO and strong 120mm forks we have bikes like the smuggler that can smash black trails and jump well, whereas previously you'd be lucky for a 120mm bike to not snap in half doing jumps on it.
So yes I agree long travel is easier to pedal, but short travel is easier to rip. Yet it seems like bikes growing is definitely the trend.
As a current St Evo owner as well as a Madonna V3 owner, the Madonna pedals 2-3x better than the Stumpy and tracks the ground like Velcro. I have a hard time wanting to ride the Stumpy that weights almost 11 pounds lighter than the Madonna because it doesn’t pedal or track as well as the Madonna.
Some of the new suspension gizmos are pretty rad but it seems that they are trying to make up for poor kinematic design that comes from trying to maintain a certain design aesthetic and not from trying to push the design envelope. Trek has been the best at that in the last 12 years IMO, too many gimmicky designs to solve problems that could have been solved with proper kinematics.
Yeah, the amount of the previous generation stumpjumpers with chrome stanchions I see at my local trails is crazy, I think those years they were like $2500 and available at all our local bike shops. Sort of feel bumping the spec a bit and the price will probably hurt them a bit on that front.
They've spent 2 years making no money, the pressure to start righting the ship must be immense.
I'll bite.
I don't feel we're really seeing bikes eek up in travel but we are sometimes seeing more product offerings and certain models gain more travel which may make it feel this way. Put another way, I'm not riding a longer travel bike now than I was 6-7 (10?) years ago as my daily driver, and I bet if we dug into the Vital Rider Survey data or similar we'd find the mix of what people ride hasn't changed much either. A bike models name is just the name. That's it. You buy the bike based of what it can do and what you need it to do. The rest is just marketing and a company trying to slice up its model lineup so it more appropriately meets the needs of the market. Bikes don't really pedal any better now than they did 5+ years ago and I'd argue most componentry isn't that much better either but we do have more segmentation, 36mm and 38mm forks, Code level brakes and Maven level brakes, 150mm droppers and 200mm+ droppers etc.
Now, to your point, I do feel a number of companies offer two bikes that I can pick from whereas before it was one. IE, I can go with the Sentinel or Spire, Stumpy Evo (not sure about SJ15) or Enduro, MegaTower, Nomad or Hightower etc. with the idea being I might be more likely to buy a bike being its baby-bear porridge for me - exactly what I want. This is more the trend I think we're seeing - its one of "hyper segmentation".
Finally, I have to call out the skiing analogy, in the case anyone reads it as gospel. I can expand on this if anyone cares, but torsional stiffness was not the breakthrough that allowed fatter skis to become daily drivers. Like most things, there are a number of variables that spurred skiers to go toward a wider and wider ski, but if I were to boil it down to one sentence I'd say it was the "McConkey Revolution" + "Culture". We've had wicked stiff stiff torisional skis since the...forever. Put metal in any ski and this problem is solved. What really drove ski width was "modern shaping" + "everyone can ski powder now...yay!"....if I go any further we're really going to derail this one