[ronny]

Bike set up:

Weight: 36.5.lbs
Med/large frame with DHX-air.
Zoke Z1 light fork. 150mm of travel with ETA/RC2.
Juicy 5 discs, 8" front and back
Easton EA 50 handle bar, Race Face Diabolus 70mm stem. Odi lock on grips.
F.u.n.n. Head Banger headset
Mavic D-521 wheelset, Formula front hub, xt rear. Kenda Nevegal 2.35 tires.
Shimano Hone crankset. 22/32 bash, Specialized mag platform pedals. Shimano 545 clipless.
XTR E-type front derailleur,
Sram X-9 trigger shifters and X-9 medium cage rear derailleur.
Sram PC 991 Chain
XT 11-34 cassette.
WTB post and seat.

I have included some pics and have absolutely no idea what I am doing with a digi cam, so I hope these turned out half decent.

This frame has been getting a fair bit of attention lately and after talking with the lads at Chumba, many times, I decided to go with the Evo for my next heavy duty trail rig. I am 5'10" and weigh around 220-230lbs with gear. I will start by saying, this is a very different bike from anything I have ever been on before. In terms of fit, looks, and function, the Evo is a very unique frame.

http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179928&stc=1&d=1152561895

When I first recieved the frame, I thought I got the wrong size, because the center to center tt only measured 22". As the seat post is extended, the tt length effectively increases to the 23.5" tt length. The bike seemed very strange to me with the seat post extended. I felt like I was sitting on the back of the bike and my pedal stroke seemed to feel different. Apparently, these are common observations that first time Evo riders, tend to make. After a few rides, I have become much more comfortable on the bike. I actually like the seat tube design, as it allows the bike to feel much more comfortable when pointed downhill. When you lower the seat post, the seat tucks away in a better position than a conventional seat tube arrangement.

First the good.

My Evo's maiden voyage was on a trail that has a gradual up hill climb that varies from relatively smooth, to loose and rocky. At 36lbs, this is not the fastest climbing build, but still gets you to the top. The Evo exhibits very little pedal bob and is a capable climber for a 6" rig. There is a chainstay pivot on the rear end and the Evo gets good traction, when climbing over roots and loose rock. With a 150mm fork, the front end is a bit light and you will probably have to change your riding position, when the climbing gets steeper. The HA is quite slack on the Evo and is even slacker, I believe, than the published prototype numbers on the website. Forks with A2C heights around 520mm, will still give aggressive geometry on the Evo. Think Pike and Zoke AM 3.

http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179912&stc=1&d=1152561283
http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179929&stc=1&d=1152562082
http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179931&stc=1&d=1152562377

Yes, the Evo climbs pretty well, but it absolutely shines, when riding back down. I was very impressed with the descending abilities of this bike. The trail that I rode has exposed rocky descents, twisty technical single track, and a few rock gardens on the way back down. The Evo is very agile and is the best cornering trail bike that I have been on yet. This is where the stiffness and frame geometry comes into play. Just a tiny bit of body english and the Evo responds instantly. This bike wants to go fast and makes quick work of gnarly rock gardens and roots. I love to flow the dh part of the trail and the Evo makes it pretty easy to do so. Having the Z1 light up front helped to smoot things out. This rig was very stable at speed and absorbs bumps of all sizes, very nicely. I hit a couple of rock drops on the trail, around 3ft high and the Evo sucked them up like a dh bike. The Evo feels very comfortable and intuitive going dh. On rougher trails, a dual ring chain guide would be a nice addition to the Evo. I was picking direct lines over the roughest parts of the trail and the chain was all over the place.

http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179935&stc=1&d=1152563172
http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179939&stc=1&d=1152563333
http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179940&stc=1&d=1152563728

The Bad:

I realize the frame design requires an e-type front derailleur, but these things cause a lot of problems. First, the e-type sits too high up and there is a lack of adjustability. If the derailleur is damaged, the crank arm has to come off. With a standard Front D, you can easily remove it and slide it up and down the seat tube, for quick adjustments. An e-type might make it interesting when a rider wants to put on a chain guide. The bb width is pretty wide and for those that are used to narrow bb widths, the Evo will feel different at first.

The seat tube/tt adjustment might not be for everyone. It takes some getting used to and feels different from anything else I have tried. I do feel it is a very functional design.

Rear tire clearance might be an issue for larger tires. There is adequate clearance for my 2.35 Nevegal.

So far, my impressions of the Evo are very positive and I recommend this bike for the rider who wants a little more bike than their current rig can offer. The Evo is another viable option, in the ever expanding 6" trail bike category. Chumba has come up with a very innovative design that stands out from the rest, with very little compromise. I would like to thank the guys at Chumba for fielding all of my questions and being so helpful. These are the reasons why it is nice to buy from the smaller companies.

I will post another report in a couple of months.

 

[ferday]

sweet ride ronny, i heard you talked to ker about a ride, we are back in a couple weeks from our DH trip, i look forward to seeing the bike in person and getting a nice ride in!

looks like prarieview/jewell, one of my favorites for sure...

 

[ronny]

More pics from the Evo voyage.

http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179947&stc=1&d=1152566011
http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179948&stc=1&d=1152566095
http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179950&stc=1&d=1152566214
http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179952&stc=1&d=1152566308

 

[ronny]

sweet ride ronny, i heard you talked to ker about a ride, we are back in a couple weeks from our DH trip, i look forward to seeing the bike in person and getting a nice ride in!

looks like prarieview/jewell, one of my favorites for sure...

Thanks. The trail was Prairie view. I was talking to Kerry just a couple of minutes ago. The weather is turning sour and I wanted to hit up Station Flats or Powder Face tonight. With the hail storms we have been having lately, I won't be chancing it.

Have fun on the trip and I will see you guys soon.

 

[ronny]

More pics.

http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179964&stc=1&d=1152566896
http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179965&stc=1&d=1152566953
http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179968&stc=1&d=1152567080

 

[duke777]

Nice ride report, AWESOME trails and views you have there!!!!!:thumbsup:

 

[ronny]

A few more.

What the hell.

 

[umbertom]

great write-up, ronny
there hasn't been a bad review of the evo yet

 

[ronny]

great write-up, ronny
there hasn't been a bad review of the evo yet

El Chingon didn't give the Evo a good review. This bike won't be for everyone. It takes time to get used to it. Speaking for myself, at least. I am still adjusting. Downhill, I find it very comfortable, but I am still adjusting to the feel of the bike, while riding the flats and climbing. The design works, but just feels different than anything else.

 

[scrublover]

I saw a frame at one of my local shops. Looked good except for:

Tire clearance in the chainstays didn't look so hot. Odd, because it looked great on the seat stays. What's your take on a max rear tire you could cram in there?

And the teeny tiny bearing sizes. Nice and sealed, but they sure looked awfuly small. I'd rather have some larger diameter bearings on a frame with that kinda travel, meant for some rough abuse.

 

[ronny]

I saw a frame at one of my local shops. Looked good except for:

Tire clearance in the chainstays didn't look so hot. Odd, because it looked great on the seat stays. What's your take on a max rear tire you could cram in there?

And the teeny tiny bearing sizes. Nice and sealed, but they sure looked awfuly small. I'd rather have some larger diameter bearings on a frame with that kinda travel, meant for some rough abuse.

I am running a 2.35 Nevegal in the back, with decent clearance on either side. Tire clearance is one thing I forgot to mention. If you want to throw a true 2.5/2.6 in the back, it will be tight. I find the 2.35 Nevegals to be a large trail tire.

The bearings really don't seem that small to me. Larger bearings do help with stiffness and durability. Time will tell, how well the bearings hold up.

 

[spicymaguros]

...

El Chingon didn't give the Evo a good review. This bike won't be for everyone. It takes time to get used to it. Speaking for myself, at least. I am still adjusting. Downhill, I find it very comfortable, but I am still adjusting to the feel of the bike, while riding the flats and climbing. The design works, but just feels different than anything else.

With all respect to El Chingon, I don't think his review of the EVO was very good. He claimed that the EVO "climbed very well," but did not mention anything about pedaling efficiency, nor did he comment on descending capability and overall handling.

He mentioned something about chaingrowth - which i find to be inaccurate as I did measure the chaingrowth on the frame I received, and it doesn't seem problematic at all or any worse than my other previously-owned high end frames.

Also, he mentioned that the EVO wasn't laterally stiff - now I can't really take that comment seriously given my experiences with the bike. This is probably one of the stiffest frames I've been on in a while - and so far, other than El Chingon, everybody else seems to agree.

Perhaps he just didn't spend enough time on it, usually it takes more than one ride, and you have to have the bike dialed in to give a fair assessment of it. I started building mine up, and I will post pics soon!

 

[ronny]

I had mine at the shop and asked about potential chain growth on the Evo. I stood back while a guy cycled the suspension, and there didn't seem to be any noticeable chain growth. EL C was talking about completely letting the air out of the shock and then cycling the suspension. The Evo has the HL pivot as well, which helps with chain growth.

In all fairness to the stiffness statement; I can push on the back of my Evo and watch the frame flex a bit. With that said, I can use a bit of leverage with my 200lb+ body and watch just about any swing arm flex, to a certain degree.

I have only been on a couple of rides so far and it feels pretty stiff. A bit of flex isn't the end of the world either.

I wanted to try a different bike and the Evo fits the bill. Every design has a weakness or two. It is too early to tell what, if any real problems the Evo will have. So far, I find it performs very nicely.

 

[spicymaguros]

I had mine at the shop and asked about potential chain growth on the Evo. I stood back while a guy cycled the suspension, and there didn't seem to be any noticeable chain growth. EL C was talking about completely letting the air out of the shock and then cycling the suspension. The Evo has the HL pivot as well, which helps with chain growth.

In all fairness to the stiffness statement; I can push on the back of my Evo and watch the frame flex a bit. With that said, I can use a bit of leverage with my 200lb+ body and watch just about any swing arm flex, to a certain degree.

I have only been on a couple of rides so far and it feels pretty stiff. A bit of flex isn't the end of the world either.

I wanted to try a different bike and the Evo fits the bill. Every design has a weakness or two. It is too early to tell what, if any real problems the Evo will have. So far, I find it performs very nicely.

Ronny,

With regards to the flex statement - I agree with you. From reading El Chingon's post - it sounded like he was making lateral flex on the EVO as an issue. I've spent some time on a six pack, moment, Nomad, etc., and I just don't think you can honestly say that the EVO is noticably more flexy than any of those bikes. Now there is such a thing as built in flex, which means that the frame is engineered to perform more like a track car (race cars have a certain amount of flex built into them), than a cargo truck. I wonder if El Chingon thinks that his frames shouldn't have any flex at all.

 

[scrublover]

The bearings really don't seem that small to me. Larger bearings do help with stiffness and durability. Time will tell, how well the bearings hold up.

yeah, that was the main point i was thinking of. at least so long as they are a standard size, and easy to replace i guess it wouldn't be too bad.

i'm not shopping for anything new, but this frame did catch my eye, for sure!

but i think the small bearings and the limited tire size would be the deal breaker for me.

 

[spicymaguros]

..

yeah, that was the main point i was thinking of. at least so long as they are a standard size, and easy to replace i guess it wouldn't be too bad.

i'm not shopping for anything new, but this frame did catch my eye, for sure!

but i think the small bearings and the limited tire size would be the deal breaker for me.

The bearings are not that much smaller than any other high-end brands...same with the tire clearance, that seems to fit 2.5 very comfortably...i doubt you would need to run a 2.6 for this bike in the rear....so i can't really see your reasons as making much sense..

 

[scrublover]

The bearings are not that much smaller than any other high-end brands...same with the tire clearance, that seems to fit 2.5 very comfortably...i doubt you would need to run a 2.6 for this bike in the rear....so i can't really see your reasons as making much sense..

i'm just saying the frame i looked at had kinda' weeny looking clearance. all i'm saying is these two things would cross the bike off the list *for me* at least. my all mountain bike is also my DH/riding the lift bike, and i like the option to run a larger tire for that.

i run the fat tires i like now. if i can run the tires i like to, without running into clearance problems, why would i buy the frame? when i put the full DH tires on, i go up to a 2.6 2.7 size; the tires i'm running for that would in no way fit into the frame i saw in the shop. i think even some 2.4 and 2.5 tires would have trouble. one of my favourites is the panaracer fire fr 2.4, and i doubt it will fit in the chainstays very well; it's huge.

i'm riding a fairly beefy single piv bike right now, and it's pretty stiff for my weight, with a huge set of bearings, with a nice and wide stiff bearing axle. would i even notice the difference between it and an EVO frame? who knows. seems like a no brainer on a frame like this nthough: why not go for as larger bearing, especially if it gives more stiffness, and better longevity?

if you're building a frame intended for abuse, *why not* use large bearings, and give the option for large tires?

 

[duke777]

i'm just saying the frame i looked at had kinda' weeny looking clearance. all i'm saying is these two things would cross the bike off the list *for me* at least. my all mountain bike is also my DH/riding the lift bike, and i like the option to run a larger tire for that.

i run the fat tires i like now. if i can run the tires i like to, without running into clearance problems, why would i buy the frame? when i put the full DH tires on, i go up to a 2.6 2.7 size; the tires i'm running for that would in no way fit into the frame i saw in the shop. i think even some 2.4 and 2.5 tires would have trouble. one of my favourites is the panaracer fire fr 2.4, and i doubt it will fit in the chainstays very well; it's huge.

i'm riding a fairly beefy single piv bike right now, and it's pretty stiff for my weight, with a huge set of bearings, with a nice and wide stiff bearing axle. would i even notice the difference between it and an EVO frame? who knows. seems like a no brainer on a frame like this nthough: why not go for as larger bearing, especially if it gives more stiffness, and better longevity?

if you're building a frame intended for abuse, *why not* use large bearings, and give the option for large tires?

I've seen some dude put a 2.5 DH tire on the evo. The narrow part of chainstay is pretty....well narrow. You may need to mount the 2.5 tire with little or no air but where the tire spins there is quite a bit of room. The EVO may not be the bike for you. if you want put a 2.6 or larger tire on, I know it fit 2.5 for sure.

As far as bearing goes it's pretty big for AM bikes IMHO(you should see the "bearings" on yeti 575, they are just couple of carbon stubs), it will never be as big as a single pivote bike for obvious reasons. Also as far I know it it's built for AM riding not quite as beefy as a FR rig even though there are people racing DH on it. I heard they will come out with a more DH/FR and 7 inch version for interbike this year. :thumbsup:

 

[umbertom]

El Chingon didn't give the Evo a good review.

dang it :madman: lol
every review I've read so far has been good, I have to read "El Chingon" 's
the bike does seem to be geared towards aggressive all mountain riding and a true size 2.5 is enough for that kind of riding
now that 7inch model they're coming out with ... that'll be a nice dh/fr bike that can pedal

 

[uktrailmonster]

Now there is such a thing as built in flex, which means that the frame is engineered to perform more like a track car (race cars have a certain amount of flex built into them), than a cargo truck. I wonder if El Chingon thinks that his frames shouldn't have any flex at all.

I've engineered lots of track cars and there is nothing positive to report from chassis flex. There is always a trade off between weight and stiffness, but undamped chassis flex is all bad. Stories of flexible chassis being good in the wet etc are a complete myth IMHO.