I know there are a few around... so how is it? More specifically, how's the ride compared to your previous bike? Had any issues getting that long reach around corners? Had to 're-learn' how to weight the front wheel? Or is it just... a bike?
I'm thinking it's just a bike. Regardless of the reviews I've seen so far. I am interested in throwing a leg over one though. This is the bike I'm aiming to replace my SB4.5 with. The bike that probably sits in between the SB4.5 and SB5.5
I really rate my current bike which I've owned since June '16. It can quite easily cover the local, from the front door XC loop as well as trips to visit burlier techy trails in the Lakes, Scotland, Alps, etc.
I'm hoping that the SB130 addresses some of those minor flaws in SB4.5 with an increase in front and rear travel. Specifically the rear, as when things get chunky, with fast repeated hits, the 114mm DPS shock gets understandably consumed.
I hope to throw a leg over one in March. Its a lot of money though so it needs to be better than my current bike to justify the cost really. If that makes sense. So equally as good at climbing, covering the miles but providing that bigger bike feel to the descents.
No first hand experience here (though am keen to try one) but the SB130 isn't that radical geometry wise, I wouldn't worry too much. I'm just building up my new Evil Offering which is almost identical to the SB130 on the key geometry numbers, as is the Whyte S-150 that I have been riding the past few months. Maybe, previously if you were thinking about sizing up on a bike to get a longer reach, it's wise to stick with the recommended sizing now because of the increased reach, but compared to many now, the SB130 is conservative...
Bike Mag reviewed it in their Bible of Bike Tests recently, against the Evil Offering, the SB150 too and loads of other bikes etc... They seemed to like it!
Yes, Bike liked it. As did Pinkbike. But Bike suggested (in other videos from the 2019 Bible of Bike Tests) that the SB130 required a significant weight shift forward to get it to turn... I mean ultimately, I should and will demo one. But I was interested in the experiences of this who ride one. I'm squarely in the 'size M' bracket and I don't intend to size up, but my nearest demo bike is a Large, so I won't get an exact feel for the bike. It is substantially longer than my SB5C in reach and wheelbase...
I know every time I check Silverfish for SB130 frames or bikes they don't have one in stock. Which makes my life (and bank balance) a lot easier 🙂
It is interesting that Bike Mag stated that you need to ride the front more. Like mboy said the geo, fork offset is not dissimilar to a lot of current bikes. Does this mean that a lot of new skool geo and offset bikes require this to ride them?
It is interesting that Bike Mag stated that you need to ride the front more. Like mboy said the geo, fork offset is not dissimilar to a lot of current bikes. Does this mean that a lot of new skool geo and offset bikes require this to ride them?
Yes, slack HA, long reach & short (sub 50) stemmed bikes force you to ride them super aggressive over the front end IMO. Otherwise you will really struggle for grip.
I ride a really big bike, but can't run a super short stem on it (run a 50) as my riding style just doesn't suit it - but even with the 50, the harder you ride and more aggressive you are over the front of the bike, the better they work.
That is both a positive, and a negative to the newer school geometry bikes.
Does this mean that a lot of new skool geo and offset bikes require this to ride them?
It was he case even before fork offset became this weeks industry "thing". I bought a Foxy Carbon in 2015 and coming from a much, much shorter Ibis, the concept of riding over the front of the bike was truly alien. The fact is that despite all the bumf about being more centred on the bike, with most bikes that are on the longer side for a given size (470mm+ reach in a large for example) you have to consciously make more effort to get over the front of the bike and the slacker they the more this is the case. It's easy enough to adapt too, I've just found that (on the Mondraker in particular) it demands more core strength to ride like that all the time, so the bikes can feel a bit more tiring on longer descents or longer rides.
Don't get me wrong, the way bike design is going is making them better, faster etc, but they generally all demand you ride a little different and the more extreme the geometry the more exaggerated your body position needs to be.
It simply comes down to weight distribution. Not enough weight on the front tyre will mean it slides out when cornering. Long reach and short chainstays (as was the fashion for the last few years) will cause this on any bike. Shorter offset forks bring the front wheel back in a bit and therefore reduce the understeer slightly. Longer chainstays also help to balance the bike.
Yep, that makes sense.
Indeed, I generally ride over the front / ride the fork when descending yet 'they' seem to suggest this has to be exaggerated further. I got the impression they think it got a little unruly and difficult to control if just pootling along. Which does inevitably happen on longer rides when you tire.
Which is perhaps the same and no different for any bike with these geos.
My SB4.5 is now generally conservative in its geo with 67.4 HA and a 444mm reach. So yeah, in order to ride off the front of the SB130 with 65.5 HA and 480mm reach I'll have to lean forward more.
I suppose I'll find out when I demo one.
That is both a positive, and a negative to the newer school geometry bikes.
In a nutshell... New school MTB's are becoming more like an MX bike with each iteration of "acceptable geometry"... If you get on an MX bike and expect to be able to delicately flick it into corners like you might a BMX, or even an old school geometry 26" wheeled MTB, you'll be very surprised! A handful of years ago, an 1100mm wheelbase was about the norm for a 5-6" trail bike in a medium size, these days most in that size are now over 1200mm, some more than 1250mm. OK an MX bike is still closer to 1500mm wheelbase, but they do have 12" of suspension travel and slightly longer swingarms which makes up for a lot of that wheelbase difference vs a modern "Enduro" MTB bike. If you reduced the fork and shock travel to 6" on an MX bike, and shoved the rear wheel forwards on its adjusters, you're probably sub 1300mm on the wheelbase length... In other words, about where we are with modern MTB's! Certainly the head angles are now similar at around 64-65deg typically, where 10yrs ago most FS MTB's with this kind of travel were 4-5deg steeper.
The upshot...? Well as has been pointed out, you gotta put a bit more effort into riding it! But the rewards if you do, are huge... Only you will know where your own personal limits and what you consider too long to be, we're all different here. At 5ft10 I've found around 455mm reach with a 40-45mm stem (like Hob Nob, I've found running too short has an adverse effect on handling for me, but then I like bars with a lot of sweep which does effectively shorten the stem length anyway), but I know people my height that prefer more like 500mm reach, and slacker head angles than I'm used to. They can probably ride their bikes harder than I'm capable of too though, or typically ride harder/steeper trails than I do.
I guess the only way to find out what works for you is to get out and try the bike! But go into it with an open mind...
