You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Hi chaps,
This is one of the most confused reviews I've read in a while, from the title you'd believe the bike is pretty much without flaw. Except, a huge part of it is flawed.
For me, punctures mean my ride is over, as I ride light. I puncture maybe once a year. Designing a bike around something that would mean my rides end early is just pointless.
I don't get how the scoring reflects the review. And the final statement 'big tyres and big travel works.'. Eh? Until they continually puncture.
Can't we just get back to 2.5 or less tyres on bikes that actually work, and stop fannying around with something no one asked for or wants?
From the times I've had the unfortunate experience of nobby nics, making them bigger won't solve the problems.
On punctures if I can race 60km on a rocky laps on 2.1 ardent races (rough and a bit clumsy) with one of them being at 12psi due to a burp on a drop without punctures then there is no excuse for puncture prone tyres
Yeah it doesn't make much sense, and seems to contradict itself
I'm assuming it just needs some tougher tyres and it'll be better
+1 about NNs being naff in normal widths
Yeah, thats the issue with plus. Didn't take a genius to figure out that bigger tyres would be better. We've all been buying the biggest versions of the tyres we run for a while now. Alas the current crop of plus tyres are basically useless from my testing. They are either rubbish, too light tread patterns that would be awesome around town or in the dust of our long, oh so hot summer, or made far too light. The only tread on the market today which has any real promise from a grip perspective is the Nobby Nic, which from my own, personal and annoying experience is able to make a full 2 1/2 stages of a Welsh Gravity Enduro before falling apart and rendering itself good only for the bin 🙁
Personally I think 'Plus' is already dead, but I do think 2.5 > 2.8 tyres will replace the current 2.1 > 2.3s we have now. So like plus, but without trying too hard to be something that doesn't really work in real life.
I guess their point is you can change the tyres so don't judge the overall performance of the bike on them, just factor in another £100 to get some better ones.
They should have whacked on some 2.35 tyres and back to back tested. A bit like the recent STW review. The genius hasn't had the right geometry for a while now, and it's starting to actually look like it does, so a review of it with normal tyres would actually relate to back to how us normal folk will buy, and then ride it.
Reads fine to me - just suggests the current tyres let it down, but bear in MIMD how many people change tyres anyway. I've heard pretty reliable rumours of Butchers coming in 2.8 Grid fairly soon, and Maxxis etc all on the case with tougher casings.
Good testing is able to isolate a component issue from an overall - as in this test. Tyres are just a consumable, preference driven item anyway so never an important part of any test I read anywhere.
Pretty much any bike over £1500 comes without pedals, so you can fit the ones of your choice, frankly, these days, as tyres get more and more specalised, they should come without tyres too..... (and maybe not even with wheels 😉
PS, i can't say i'd use the word "reasonable" and 14.3kg in conjunction with each other.........
Also the reason some tyres get specced is to reduce book weight and make the demo bike roll faster....
With most bikes i ignore tyres, grips, saddles and bars as i know these are things I'll change.
The question is, is it an inherent flaw of plus sizes, or is it the tyres on the bike. If it just needs a change of tyres then the review makes more sense (though it still looks a bit bloomin heavy, for a £4000 bike)
Eh, it makes perfect sense. It says it's a great bike, the tyres work almost anywhere but unless you run them tubeless they puncture. So run them tubeless or get some of those beefy looking Vee Bulldozers/Crown Gems. Plenty of bikes out there that need more than a tyre set-up/switch to be almost perfect.
In answer to the "we didn't ask for it" idea, so what, I leave it to designers to come up with new stuff and I'll decide if I want it!
Butchers coming in 2.8 Grid
That's a 1kg tyre in 2.35 format. I dread to think how heavy the 2.8 would be.
Eh, it makes perfect sense. It says it's a great bike, the tyres work almost anywhere but unless you run them tubeless they puncture
But if the sidewalls are so thin they'd be horrible tubeless, they'd fold over if you're a half decent rider.
So assuming the massive support the tubes provide does lead to wibbliness we're back to achieving perfection with a tyre swap. Which you'll do anyway at some point.
It really doesn't read like a review in which every last component is slated and then gets 4 out of 5.
rickon - Member
Butchers coming in 2.8 Grid
That's a 1kg tyre in 2.35 format. I dread to think how heavy the 2.8 would be.
This ^ makes me stay well clear of +. Hefty tyres ruin a bike unless it pointing straight down a hill, light ones are great right until you have to come that same hill.
Can't we just get back to 2.5 or less tyres on bikes that actually work, and stop fannying around with something no one asked for or wants?
That's easy. Just don't buy a + sized bike.It's not not even like there are that many of them out there. Even for people that are looking for them the choices are limited.
Is this drifting towards kitten murder territory?
I have to ask, as I'm not a big enough spender to really know, if you are the sort who can swing a £4k rig would you actually bat an eyelid at the price of a couple of alternate pairs of tyres?
If so as a bike it sort of makes sense to me, more than likely you would just fit some 2.3-2.5" tyres for most of the riding you are actually likely to do, but you have the option to fit some silly wide, low pressure tyres for summer time uplift days and ploughing through rock strewn gnarr... Right?
Punctures? Nobby Nics? I'm shocked. No. I really am...
It hardly matters if the tyres are not great. It's not the end of the world to change them. I have nobby nics on my anthem and when you learn how they grip they are fantastic for fast riding. They have a really predictable slide where some other tyres have more grip but an unexpected unpredictable breakaway point.
Anyone who dismisses a potentially good bike because of the stock tyres is a bit daft in my opinion. The manufacturer can't win because tyre and component choice is so personal and subjective.
Anyone who dismisses a potentially good bike because of the stock tyres is a bit daft in my opinion. The manufacturer can't win because tyre and component choice is so personal and subjective.
Unless the flaw is the alternative rubber is really heavy and will take away some of the good feel the bike has. For the enduro/race market are people going to put up with the negatives of massive heavy tyres/rolling weight for the mythical extra grip?
Probably not if they are good riders who know the difference but how many people on here would you credit with those attributes? A lot or riders want to pay for solutions to their short comings rather than learning how to ride whatever they are on.
It's very confused & contradictory...
A near-perfect enduro plus-rig
It’s not the fastest bike ever
Surely if you're racing, you would never buy a bike that is noticeably slower?!
A lot or riders want to pay for solutions to their short comings rather than learning how to ride whatever they are on.
If the choices are puncture prone tyres or really heavy ones I'll take option 3 and go back to normal tyres 😉
I haven't really got an argument here. Just my experiences. I use various tyres on various bikes and each has its pros and cons. I have magic Mary/ hans dampf on my nomad and chameleon and currently light skin nobby nics on my anthem. I think I have magic Mary/nobby nic on my trance but I can't remember. Every tyre I have ever had and has ever been produced has got its purpose. Fast light and fragile is fine on my anthem and would probably be ok in the nomad for summer rides or rides without sharp rocks. The magic Mary/rock razor combination I used on my nomad last summer was great until I needed grip on the rear in the winter mud. The rock razor was very fast but rear end braking was compromised but it's something you learn adapt your riding too. As I said they are all compromised in some respect you just need to find the compromise you can work with.
With regards to my comment about people spending money to solve their shortcomings. I ride with a few fantastic lads who in truth are not very good riders. They love nothing more than reading the latest reviews and think a product will magically make them a riding God. They turn up to a ride with said piece of equipment and soon realise they are no faster, better or more importantly enjoying it any more than before. But a few days later they will repeat the above. Now I don't care how anyone spends their money and there are a million riders better than me on worse bikes who probably say the same about me.
God knows where I'm going with this essay. I'm too tired to think anymore.
Are many disagreeing with the OP for disagreement's sake, as often seems to be the case around these parts?
It's a Bike Radar review - hence it must only have comedy value.
And no, I haven't read the link either. So I might be talking total cobblers.
Prince John's quote in full:
[b]It’s not the fastest bike ever, although point it in a straight line on rough terrain and you’ll think otherwise.[/b] It is, however,[b] bags of fun on virtually every downward pointing trail we took it on. [/b] Big travel and big tyres do work.
In summary, you'll enjoy it and feel fast.
More in full
Rowdy intentionsWhen things get rough, rocky and rooty, the bike allows you to get rowdy. It’s not the most naturally agile machine, but you can smash through obstacles at speed, while its light weight means you can still pop over bits you really want to avoid. Wide bars and short stem allow the bike to be wrestled round corners far more convincingly than you might imagine, [b]given the weight of tyre plus tube.[/b]
Unfortunately it’s also a bike that shows the Schwalbe tyres’ weakness all too easily – [b]the sidewalls are too thin, a product of trying to minimise weight.[/b] If there’s ever a bike to run tubeless straight away, or even invest in ProCore, it’s the Genius – we punctured its rear tyre more than pretty much any other bike in the last year…
[b]While punctures are a pain though, they're a signal of what this bike encourages – pure hooliganism.
[/b]
It’s not the fastest bike ever, although point it in a straight line on rough terrain and you’ll think otherwise. It is, however, bags of fun on virtually every downward pointing trail we took it on. [b]Big travel and big tyres do work.[/b]
So it's great given the really light weight tyres are heavy.
Punctures mean your doing it right
Big Travel and Big Tyres work, until they puncture and the light ones feel heavy already. And 14.5kg!! That is a lardy bike before you put on tyres that won't leave you sitting in a puddle with a pack of patches - for comparison if you could find 500 quid more you get the entry level Carbon Nomad which is a normal 650b bike with 160mm of travel with a similar Spec and 1kg lighter.
The only surprise here is that someone actually read a bikeradar review. They are all rambling, cliched, generic nonsense.
and finally
A lot or riders want to pay for solutions to their short comings rather than learning how to ride whatever they are on.
taken to its logical conclusion
for comparison if you could find 500 quid more you get the entry level Carbon Nomad which is a normal 650b bike with 160mm of travel with a similar Spec and 1kg lighter.
STW is happy again 😉
Lol more just suggesting how poor value the Scott was... At the usual £1/g saving rate that's coming in at 50p. That and you don't get flimsy rubber
If a Santa Cruz is better vfm, then you need to look at your pricing !
I know kimbers the stereotypes are all tumbling.... (last I checked the sc carbon bikes were lining up fairly well against the spec offerings)