Joined
·
424 Posts
Here are the reviews I posted on the Interbike forum, and did a comparison to my Ciclon toward the bottom. I love the Ciclon and feel it bested every one of the trail bikes I tried, it not by much in a couple of cases. Hopefully this is some valuable feedback from a Ciclon owner who has ridden alot of bikes over the past week and a half.
Interbike reviews:
Bikes tested:
Felt Compulsion 17-inch
Turner RFX 17-inch
Knolly Endorphin 17-inch
Turner Sultan 17-inch
Niner RIP9 17-inch
Titus El Guapo Titanium 17-inch
Norco Fluid LT 16-inch
Cannondale Rush Carbon team Medium
Cannondale Taurine Team Medium
Cannondale Scalpel Medium
Giant Trance X (medium)
Giant Reign 6.7" travel (medium)
Fisher Hi Fi Carbon medium
Fisher HI-Fi 29er medium
Kona Dawg Deluxe
Comaprison tests (bikes that I own):
Turner RFX 2006
Ventana El Ciclon
These bikes were all tested at the Bootleg Canyon dirt demo. I was able to ride each bike on at least a ½ hour loop that included technical climbing and descending. I did get a longer 45 minute loop on a few of these as well. For those of you who do not know Bootleg Canyon, it is a fairly sharp, rocky place with lots of technical trails that tend to flow pretty well, and either are heading up or down. It is a good place to test bikes. The most aggressive trail I rode with some of these was Skyline, a fairly technical, rocky trail that is perfect for testeing trail bikes (anything over 6" on this trail is a bit much). I also rode up West Leg and descended East Leg on several of these bikes, to give myself a good idea of all-around performance. Those trails could be considered moderately technical, with lots of rock obstacles and a couple of technical sections, both climbing and descending. The rocks are sharp here, and I punctured several times. 30psi and XC tires just aren't enough for riding at Bootleg.
About me: 5 foot 9, 150lbs; CAT 2 road racer; mountain bike enthusiast (I don't race, just ride for fun). Current bikes that I own are Ventana El Ciclon and 2006 Turner RFX. I like technical, interesting riding, rides anywhere from 2-6 hours, and tend to like bikes that can be ridden all day (like my RFX), as opposed to shuttle-specific models.
Felt Compulsion, 17-inch: My first bike of the test. This was my first time on the Felt suspension system, and this is the new 5" trailbike. This bike was outfitted with crappy parts (a Pike 409) that really shouldn't have been spec'd on the bike. It also had a DHX Air. The fork felt like a pogo stick, and I couldn't tune it out. The frame was fairly impressive. It was laterally very solid, with little flex. Pedaling was very efficient, with little bob, and the bike had a definite trail-bike feel to it, a bit more relaxed than some, but wasn't wandery on the climb. The rear end felt fairly active, but I didn't seem that I was getting full travel. The O-ring said I was though. The suspension felt a bit like a falling-race, in that I went through the travel pretty fast once I hit something of size. Not necessarily a bad thing. It just didn't feel as bottomless as some other 5" bikes I have ridden. Descending, the bike went where it was pointed without question. It felt solid, but not remarkable in any one aspect. This would be a very capable trail bike.
Turner RFX: I have a 2006 RFX, so I am fairy dialed in with the way it handles. The newest RFX is a little lighter (not that I could tell) and feels pretty much the same. Perhaps a little snappier and easier to flick around, but other than that, the same basically-linear rear suspension feel and no-flex, no-nonsense frame. It pedaled OK on the climbs, but there was some bob there, and it was a little piggish. But not bad (I have ridden mine on 45 mile rides with 5000 feet of climbing, so "slow and steady" isn't necessarily a hinderance). On the descents, the bike pedals well, with only a hint of bob under accelerations, and just is simply a point-and-shoot bike. It goes where the rider puts it, and is as confidence-inspiring as 6" bikes go these days. Weight was a bit heavy at probably 32lbs, but mine built up right at 30lbs with EX 5.1's, Lyrik Solo Air, and nice parts, so it doesn't have to be heavy. This one had a Float 36 up front, which isn't my favorite fork. I much prefer the Lyrik and TALAS as far as air forks go. The Float ramps up quickly and the last inch of travel never seems to materialize.
Knolly Endorphin 17-inch: this is Knolly's 5.5" all-mountain bike. Mine was set up with DHX Air 5.0, Marz. 55 ATA fork, and DT EX 5.1 rims, which is a great do-everything setup. The head tube is 68 degrees. My large problem on this bike was the seat tube angle. Due to the shock placement and linkage, the seat tube starts well in front of the bottom bracket and angles back at what looks to be around 60 degrees. This means that an average height rider will likely get a "standard" seat tube of 72 degrees or so. But, I have very long legs (5 foot 9 and almost 33 inch inseam) and since my saddle is much higher than most, my saddle was also much further back than it should have been for climbing, meaning that the cockpit felt like it belonged on a 21-inch frame, not a 17. If this was my bike, I would have outfitted a negative setback post like the Thomson triathalon post, which could have brought my seat into line of where it should be. With that in mind, the bike climbed very poorly, as I couldn't get weight over the front wheel while in the saddle, due to feeling like I was stretched out on a rack (I am sure this wouldn't be a problem with a more personalized setup). The rear end was virtually bob-less, and traction was excellent. Quality with the production of the frame was evident, and the frame was very stiff laterally. Descending (when I lowered the saddle, which made the earlier climbing problems go away) this was the best 26" bike I rode. It was so confident on any terrain, and seemed like it had way more than 5.5" of travel. Simply a point-and-shoot bike that was unshakable at any speed, but more than that, it seemed to float over the rough stuff. I could flick it around trail debris, or take it head on, and the balance was perfect. It made the RFX feel a little boxy and unresponsive in comparison. This was a superb descender, and I bet would be fine as a trailbike, assuming I had gotten the seatpost issue straightened out. One other thing: the Marz. 55 ATA felt like crap. The damping was almost non-existent. The ride compared poorly to a pogo-stick. Maybe it wasn't set up properly, but I didn't see any adjustments besides the TST Micro (which I tried to dial in) and the preload and rebound air settings (which were accurate for my weight). If this is the production version of how a 55 ATA is supposed to work, Marzocchi is in big trouble.
Turner Sultan 17-inch: I rode this last year, and it was my 1st time on a 29er. This one was outfitted with a short-travel 80mm Reba fork. Right off, I noticed how well this thing pedaled. It climbed very well, traction was always present, and I could still loft the wheels or accelerate easily. The bike felt glued to the dirt, and went right where I wanted it to be. On the flatter sections of the trail, I was able to keep my speed up much better than on the 26" bikes I tried. On rollers, a 29er rider is coasting where 26" riders are pedaling. The frame was very laterally stiff: no flex was present. On the descents, the limitations of the 80mm Reba showed up. I was pitched pretty far forward due to the short travel fork. It needs something longer, like a 120mm Minute or 135mm White Bros. With that in mind, I was still able to blast descents at least as well as on any 5" bike I tried. Traction was superb on cross-hill rock slabs, and even on steep switchbacks, the 29er platform still performed very well. I was quite impressed, once I warmed up to the handling of the larger wheels.
Niner RIP9 17-inch: this bike was outfitted with the Minute 29er fork at 120mm of travel, and with the longer 4.5" travel in the rear end, it gave for a more big-feeling bike that was more balanced than the Turner. Still, it pedaled almost as well as the Turner, but was a much more capable descender. The Minute 29er isn't a bad fork, and felt not too dissimiliar to the Reba. Not as nice as a Lyrik, though. The RIP9 got ridden on both climbs and down the rocky descent of Skyline. On this bike, I was able to attack the rocky sections like I had on the RFX, yet it kept speed up when the RFX would get slowed down, and it pedaled much better on the rolling terrain. I had to stay on the brakes more than I wanted, as I was taking the trail so fast that it exceeded my comfort zone. This bike just powered through the rockiest terrain I should give it. And, on technical rock chutes, the bike was very stable, with no feeling of being dangerously stuck on the front end. It was almost impossible to make a mistake on this bike. When climbing, it far exceeded all but the short travel 26" bikes. Once up to speed, it just motored up the trail. If there was one drawback, it was a lack of flickability that a smaller-wheel bike has, but this also refers to a 29er wheels inherent stability that makes it so good for high-speed, rough riding. I felt that the RIP9 would compare in technical ability to any 6" bike, but climbed like a 4" bike. Maybe not the best choice for really slow, stop and go technical riding, but for our typically fast Western trails, they are a great choice. The RIP9 didn't feel quite as laterally stiff as the Turner, but was more than adequate. Tire spec was the Nevegal 2.2, which was grippy and hooked up very well. Overall, this was my favorite bike of the whole show, and a great example of what a longer-travel 29er is capable of. I would also like to ride a Ventana El Rey, and I hear that the El Rey feels a bit more XC-like, with a little better pedaling, and snappier handling, while the RIP9 has a bit more aggressive feel to it. The RIP9 is simply an outstanding bike. I didn't ride the JET9, but that would be the ticket for those of us who are looking for a lighter-weight trail bike with the equivalent of 4" of 26" wheel travel, and something that could do very well in a 24-hour race. Not that the RIP9 didn't pedal well, but it definitely felt on the bigger-bike side of things.
Titus El Guapo Titanium: 17-inch (medium): Titus may have made a sizing mistake with this one, as it felt more like a 16" bike than my typical 17/18" bike. The construction was beautiful, with clean welds and flowing lines. Unfortunately, I don't remember what the bike was set up with fork-wise, but I think it was a Float 36. This bike felt small on the trail. I had to be a bit more careful on steep drops and rock slabs, as the bike definitely felt like I could go over the bars easier than other models. It accelerated very well and was really sharp-handing underneath me. Once I warmed up to the smaller wheelbase, the bike felt very flickable and could skim trail obstacles with ease. It didn't have the burly feel of some of the other 6" bikes: rather, it was lighter and more nimble, and encouraged you not to take rough sections head-on, but to scoot around or over them. The suspension didn't feel as plush as some of the other 6" bikes tested, but more along the lines of the Turner 5.5 Spot that I have previously ridden. A very efficient pedaler, and it climbed well. I would say that this bike would do well for the all-day, marathon trail rider, rather than the person looking for a heavy-duty all-mountain bike that can also handle some light freeride. It is much more of the former: a light, great pedaling, go anywhere trail bike.
Norco Fluid LT: the bike from Norco that goes up to 158?mm on travel, with a 68.5 HTA, equipped with a DHX Air 5.0 and Lyrik 2-step Air, as well as an XT kit. This is designed to be Norco's do-it-all, ride all day bike (their Six is the freeride/slopestyle 6" bike in their line). I am not familiar with Norco, and it looked like this bike employed some sort of 4-bar design. The size I received was technically a small, but felt like a typical 17-inch sized bike. I was really impressed with the ride, right off the bad. This bike was very balanced on the techy climbs, and the suspension worked when it was needed, but didn't bob excessively. It simply motored up the trail, and felt like a 5" bike while climbing, not a heavy 6" brute. Very balanced as well. This was one of my favorite climbing bikes. Once I was at the top and pointed it downward, the Lyrik's smoothness (great spec!) kicked in. This is one great fork, and ate up everything on the trail. The DHX Air 5.0 was an impressive shock, and felt quite linear in feel without blowing through the travel too quick. I flew down East Leg on this bike at speeds close to uncomfortable, yet the bike was totally with me all the way, smoothing out the rough sections and allowing me to stay off the brakes. It just seemed very balanced and hard to make a mistake on. Definitely a confidence-inspiring ride. Like the El Guapo, this bike felt definitely more trail-worthy and less like a light freeride rig than some. One of the most impressive bikes of the test.
Cannondale Rush Carbon Team, Medium: Unchanged for 2008, this bike has 110mm of travel, a Lefty SL up front, and top-flight parts kit including Mavic Crossmax SLR hoops, SRAM X0 kit, and Juicy Ultimate brakes. I rode this bike last season and loved it, and my opinion didn't change. This may be the ultimate all-day bike of the test. It is very light, the Lefty steered better than any non Thru-Axle fork I tried, the damping was spot-on with the fork, and the balance was perfect for a trail bike. It has a 69degree HTA, and is very stiff laterally. The bike simply goes where the rider points it, very smoothly, and it feels more like a 5" bike in terms of travel and overall handling. I could tackle the worst rock gardens on this bike, and while I couldn't blast through them as I could on the 29ers and 6" bikes, I could still ride them smoothly and keep my speed up. When climbing, this bike absolutely motors as well, and is as good of a technical climber as I have yet tried. The rear end is active enough to track well, but not overly mushy. The hallmarks of this bike are stable, relaxed handling, front-end stiffness, and a confidence-inspiring ride in a really light build kit. And, I didn't care one bit for the Avid Juicy Ultimate brakes. They weren't powerful stoppers, and I was wishing for more brake. The Magura Marta SL or Formula Puro's would be better choices for a Rush Carbon trailbike build.
Cannondale Scalpel (2008), medium: my first ride on the new Scalpel. I used to own a Scalpel (it was my first Full Susp. Bike a few years ago) and I liked it at the time. I have since migrated to longer-travel designs, but the Scalpel has been a worthy bike over the past several years. The new one uses re-optimized virtual pivots for an increase in travel (100mm). Up front was the Lefty Carbon SL 110mm, and complete bike weight was under 23lbs, with the same parts spec as the Rush Carbon. This bike, however, had a flat bar, showing that it was a race bike first and foremost. Despite only having 10mm less travel in the rear than the Rush Carbon, the suspension feel could not have been more different. Whereas the Rush has a somewhat active pedaling style, the Scalpel doesn't move much when climbing, and feels close to a hardtail. This is good or bad depending on your preferred terrain, but as a race bike, it is desireable. The front end, with the flat bar, felt substantially more aggressive than the Rush Carbon, not like a trailbike, but more like a race bike that was designed to be pinned at all times. I had to re-adjust to the aggressiveness of the front end when climbing, but once I got it down, I was impressed at how the bike simply got up to speed and stayed there. The Rush Carbon handed rock gardens on the climbs better, as it was more active, whereas the Scalpel wasn't as active, and I had to take it a bit slower. On the descents, the Scalpel was pretty aggressive up front, and I had to back off a bit with my speed and technique. I could ride the same terrain, but not at quite the speed that I could on other bikes. It definitely wasn't as smooth as the 100mm of travel would indicate. It felt racy, both in handling and suspension travel. If the Rush felt like it had more like 125mm of travel, the Scalpel felt closer to a 3" bike. Enough travel to keep you off the brakes when descending terrain that is not too rough, and keep you pedaling in the saddle, but definitely not a point-and-shoot feel whatsoever. The front end was very stiff laterally, with virtually no flex, and was impressive. This is a race bike, and since I don't race mountain bikes, maybe I am not qualified to judge it. I am sure it is a fast bike on the course, but to be more of a trailbike, it would need better brakes and a wider, riser handlebar. I think it would start to come into it's own then.
Cannondale Taurine Team medium: This bike was ridden at Cannondale's nighttime ride out at Blue Diamond mountain park. This was an epic ride, through the desert near Red Rocks, with a full moon, winding through Joshua Trees and cacti. Niterider hooked us up with lights, although I got the old-school 15w light, while others had the bad-ass HID light setups (as bright as a high-end Xenon car light!). I hadn't been on a 26" hardtail for a serious mountain ride in years. The Taurine is Cannondale's high-end race hardtail, with a carbon frame and 110mm Lefty SL up front. Same spec as the Scalpel and Rush Team. The trail was fairly smooth, with a few technical climbing sections. It was the kind of terrain where I would normally look for a 4" bike, or a 29er hardtail or single-speed. Having not been on a hardtail in a long time, and not even wearing riding shorts (dirty from the day before) neither myself nor my ass knew what to expect. I was very surprised, and in a good way. Hardtails are pretty damn capable bikes. Sure, it required a bit more body English than I was used to using on some of the trickier rocky descents, but other than that, this bike flat-out flew. Handling was incredibly steady, the bike didn't beat me up whatsoever, and having all that travel up front really allowed me to ride the bike faster than I expected without getting thrown around. It was a smooth, fast, powerful ride. The only real downside I saw with going with a hardtail was the traction I missed on the technical climbs. Normally, on a steep, rocky climb, I sit in the saddle, spin, and let the suspension do the work. On a hardtail, the wheel was slipping where it would have been gripping on a full suspension. I ended up getting out of the saddle and using more fore-aft movements, as well as pedaling while standing up (a no-no on most Full Sussers) to get the traction I needed. Other than that, the bike was all I could ask for. It simply ripped the trail, did what it was told, and was very confident in doing so. I was impressed, but I think that a 29er format is slightly better for a hardtail in faster, flowing trails than the 26" bike. When I ride 29er hardtails, I feel that lack of climbing traction is less of an issue, and the bike tends to keep up speed better on flowing singletrack. With that said, the Taurine was a lot of fun!
Giant Trance X, medium: The new 5" travel bike from Giant. This one was equipped with a Float R. I had never ridden the Maestro platform, and was curious as to how it rode, after hearing very good things from several people. The Trance X, out of the gate, was a superb pedaler. Somehow, that suspension keeps the bike fairly active on the climb without any pedal-induced bob. It really roared up the technical West Leg climb and scooted over any and every trail obstacle in the climb. It was probably my fastest ascent of the day. On the way down (I took it down Mother's), the bike had a relatively stiff-feeling suspension that gave when it was needed. Definitely not as active or plush as a 4-bar system, but the suspension was there when I needed it, and pedaling efficiency was completely uncompromised. The bike was really balanced and laterally stiff, and reminded me of the Rush Carbon, in terms of handling, only with more travel. It descended like an anvil and felt more like a 6" bike on the rougher terrain. On a medium-sized 4-foot drop, it was very confident and balanced in the air, and was close to bottoming. I felt that the handling begged for more travel, that this bike could get away with a 6" rear and still be a very good pedaler. I was impressed by this bike, as it was on of my favorites in the test.
Fisher Hi Fi Carbon: Medium: 5" bike from Fisher, carbon front triangle, Fox Float RLC front fork, high-end parts spec (mostly XT). This bike was nice and light, probably less than 27lbs. It is supposedly based off a 4-bar design, but didn't feel as active as some of the other 4-bar bikes tested. I was getting full travel though, so shock setup wasn't an issue. With the carbon front end, the bike felt nice and direct, although not as stiff up there as the Rush Carbon or Trance. Climbing steep stuff was OK, as the rear end was fairly active, but traction wasn't what I expected (it could have been the tires). The front end felt high and I had trouble keeping the front end down on the steeper sections. It also bounced around a bit and felt nowhere near as balanced as the Trance. On flowing singletrack, the HiFi was more of an XC feel than the Trance, and kept speed well, as well as keeping pedal-induced bob to a minimum. It was pretty sporty on the singletrack. When descending, the bike wasn't real laid back. A little steeper front end than I would have preferred, although it handled all of the trail obstacles fairly easily. I would take the geometry of the Trance or the plushness of the Fluid LT over this bike when descending. It was fine though, and reminded me of the Stumpjumper 120 I owned a couple of seasons back. Solid, but not a world-beater on descents. Also, the rear end was noticeably flexier than the other 5-6" trailbikes. It just didn't track as well under pressure. The tires were extremely disappointing. They were semi-slick Jones XR 2.2's (they looked more like 2.0's) and the sidewalls were paper-thin. Completely the wrong choice for the jagged rocks of Bootleg. I flatted twice. With more aggressive tires, the bike may have come alive, but as it was, this was one of the more ho-hum bikes of the test. Nothing really stood out about it, but it wasn't a completely disappointing ride, either.
Kona Dawg Deluxe 17": 5" bike from Kona, basically unchanged for 2008, except for the lighter scandium front triangle. Geometry and suspension is the same as the 2007. I have ridden the Dawg several times in the past (we are a Kona dealer) and it always comes across as a solid, but unspectacular bike. This one was outfitted with a Float R. The bike just seemed to feel a bit boxy in comparison to the others tested. The rear end was a bit flexy, the suspension wasn't as active as I have come to expect from a 4-bar design, and it had a weird falling-rate sensation. The 1st 2 inches barely give at all, then it goes through travel very quickly. The bike, when climbing, just seemed a bit sluggish with a high front-end. It was capable, but not outstanding, although it cleared the technical sections with ease. When descending, the bike didn't feel like it had a full 5" of travel, as it seemed to blow through it all quite easily. The bike went where it was pointed, but wasn't really that steady, and I felt a bit more nervous than I had on the other 5" bikes I tried. I didn't feel that I could really attack the trail, and I didn't seem to get comfortable on this bike. As I noted above, the frame just didn't feel like it was as laterally stiff as it could have been, and was definitely more of an XC-feel than a burly trailbike. It was middle of the pack when climbing and at the back when it came to descending. I don't think Kona has updated their suspension on this model in years (unlike some others, who have been constantly tweaking things to get the linkage more in line with the newer generation of shocks) and it is starting to show. This bike wasn't my favorite two years ago, and now that many models have made substantial improvements in that time, it is really starting to look dated. My Ventana El Ciclon, also a 4-bar style design, couldn't be more different in performance than this bike.
Giant Reign 6.7" travel, medium (not sure of the model name): this bike was outfitted with a VAN 36RC2 fork, and coil in the rear. Not light at 34lbs, and more aimed at the light freeride or Super D crowd than the all-day trailbike riders. It was outfitted with Nevegal 2.35's, which were a great choice for the conditions. I took this down Skyline to Mother's. It was definitely slacker than any other bike I tested, and I would guess around a 67 degree head tube. When descending, it simply ate up the trail. I could take obstacles head-on with this bike at high speeds, doing really stupid things, and the bike would bail me out every time. It was very impressive. The suspension felt like that of the Trance, in that you didn't feel like you were getting the full 6.7" of travel until you really needed it, but the handling and frame stiffness was there for you. The VAN 36 didn't hurt either, as it is another of my favorite forks. I just flowed down the technical Skyline trail as if I was riding a bike down my driveway. This one made it look easy. For the weight of the bike, it pedaled well on the short, steep climbs, but wouldn't be a good choice for exteneded climbing. On slow-speed technical obstacles, the bike was a little slack, and it needed some speed to come alive. I can't say enough good things about the Maestro suspension, as it pedals extremely well and is just active enough to do what you need it to do. I probably prefer a big plusher ride at the expense of efficiency (I am used to riding a fixie on the road and therefore am a pretty smooth pedaler, but for the mashers out there, the Maestro may be a life saver). And, build quality is great on this bike. I would choose it if I wanted a light freeride/shuttle, aggro trailbike. This is one of the best.
Fisher Hi Fi 29er, Medium: outfitted with the Fox 100 29er RLT fork. This bike is new for Fisher, which makes sense for them to go their 29er platform in their top trailbike. It was a bit lower-slung than the RIP9 and Sultan, and just a bit flexier in the rear. The Fox fork was very nice up front, although I would prefer more travel (a 120mm 29er fork would be a welcome addition to the line). The bike was very XC in feel, with Fisher's G2 genesis geometry, and had a long front end that just didn't seem to work for me. I have long legs and a short torso, and have never had luck riding the Genesis geometry. The 29er platform was a big step up over the 26" Hi-Fi I tested, especially at Bootleg. This bike was the more confident descender of the two, and climbed with more traction and more speed. Still, I preferred the Sultan and RIP9 to the Hi-Fi 29er. They were both laterally stiffer and felt a bit more capable than the Hi-Fi. But, I would ride the Hi-Fi, no doubt about it. It was a solid, if unspectacular, 29er platform.
Ventana El Ciclon Medium: my current daily ride. I have it outfitted with EX 5.1 wheels/DT 240 wheels, TALAS 36 fork, XT/XTR kit, Formula Pruo brakes, and 7.875x2.25 stroke shock RP23 XY on the 5" rocker, which provides 5.6" of travel. Weight is 28.6lbs. I started out with the stock 5" rocker, which was plush and very active, then tried the 5/6 rockers, which brought the BB up and caused the bike to lose it's stellar balance. I decided on the longer stroke shock with the 5" rockers, and have set it up at only 20% sag, which gives me the same ride height, but will go deeper into the travel when I need it. I have to say that the Ciclon was a bit better than any of the other bikes I rode in the 5/6" category. It might be due to the personalized setup I have on there, but the Ciclon is so balanced when climbing, I feel I can conquer any rocky gradient and almost any angle. This bike feels like it has at least 6" of travel, but pedals very well, like a good trailbike should. When going up, the bike feels like it has 5" of active travel, but descending on this bike would have you convinced you are on a 6+ inch trailbike. It is laterally stiffer than any bike I tested, and at a reasonable weight. Kudos should go to Sherwood for putting together such a sturdy bike at a fairly light weight of 6.3lbs for frame and shock. The rear end is extremely plush and very linear. The bike seems to have a perfect balance of plushness without blowing through the travel too quickly. Descending on this bike is simply as good as it gets on a trailbike, as it can hang with any 6" bike I tried. It begs to be pushed harder, and really starts to blur the line between do-it-all trailbike and save-your-ass aggressive rig. Setting the fork at 160mm of travel doesn't hinder it too much, although climbing with the fork at 130mm is a better option. I have ridden it on some long rides (up to 5 hours) with tons of climbing, and it does just as well here as it does on technical, slow-speed singletrack. Is plusher, a bit grippier and more laterally stiff than the Trance X, and every bit as good of descender as the Norco Fluid LT
2006 Turner RFX Medium: I have this bike set up with the EX 5.1's right now, XT kit, double rings up front, and Lyrik Solo Air. The RFX and Ciclon are pretty similar builds at the moment, so I will either be building up the RFX with heavier parts, or selling one of these frames. They are pretty similar. The RFX is a bit heavier, and feels a little slower and steady on the climbs, but overall, handling is very similar between the two. The RFX runs standard with the 160mm fork for a 68 HTA, so it is better for freeride and in the air when you need that extra travel. Also, the sturdier build doesn't hurt here, either. The RFX is as laterally stiff as the Ciclon, with what feels like a slightly longer wheelbase, and is a little more stable on descents than the Ciclon, although not by much. I think the newer RFX beats this one in lateral stability by just a bit, but this one feels more planted and more of a descender, whereas the newest RFX is more heavy-duty trailbike (like the Ciclon). I have also ridden the RFX on 5+ hour rides with lots of climbing, and although it is a bit sluggish, it isn't bad, and descending on it is really fun. It definitely errs more toward the descending and freeride side of things than the Ciclon, but with all day rideability if you need it. I didn't find a huge difference beween my 06' RFX and the current one, save for a bit of weight savings. The Ciclon is the better trailbike of the two, the RFX wants a heavier build and to be ridden more aggressively (although the Ciclon can handle its fair share of abuse as well). I would compare my RFX as most similar to the Reign I rode, and the newer RFX.
Conclusions: I really like the 29er platform. The RIP9 was the most fun bike I tested! It is amazing to have a bike that pedals like a 4" bike but handles terrain like a 6" bike. The Sultan was great too. For Western, flowing trails, it may be the best bike around. Out of the 26" platform bikes, I loved the Trance X, would have loved the Knolly Endorphin if I could have gotten the seat position correct, the Compulsion was a great climber and very efficient, the Fluid LT was very versatile for a 6" trailbike, the Rush Carbon was the epitome of a ride-all-day trailbike, and the Reign was a super descender and burly build bike. I wouldn't trade my Ciclon for any 26" bike I tested., and my RFX is just as pleasing as any bike I rode. The others not mentioned weren't my favorites for one reason or another. I hope this helps any prospective bike buyers!
Interbike reviews:
Bikes tested:
Felt Compulsion 17-inch
Turner RFX 17-inch
Knolly Endorphin 17-inch
Turner Sultan 17-inch
Niner RIP9 17-inch
Titus El Guapo Titanium 17-inch
Norco Fluid LT 16-inch
Cannondale Rush Carbon team Medium
Cannondale Taurine Team Medium
Cannondale Scalpel Medium
Giant Trance X (medium)
Giant Reign 6.7" travel (medium)
Fisher Hi Fi Carbon medium
Fisher HI-Fi 29er medium
Kona Dawg Deluxe
Comaprison tests (bikes that I own):
Turner RFX 2006
Ventana El Ciclon
These bikes were all tested at the Bootleg Canyon dirt demo. I was able to ride each bike on at least a ½ hour loop that included technical climbing and descending. I did get a longer 45 minute loop on a few of these as well. For those of you who do not know Bootleg Canyon, it is a fairly sharp, rocky place with lots of technical trails that tend to flow pretty well, and either are heading up or down. It is a good place to test bikes. The most aggressive trail I rode with some of these was Skyline, a fairly technical, rocky trail that is perfect for testeing trail bikes (anything over 6" on this trail is a bit much). I also rode up West Leg and descended East Leg on several of these bikes, to give myself a good idea of all-around performance. Those trails could be considered moderately technical, with lots of rock obstacles and a couple of technical sections, both climbing and descending. The rocks are sharp here, and I punctured several times. 30psi and XC tires just aren't enough for riding at Bootleg.
About me: 5 foot 9, 150lbs; CAT 2 road racer; mountain bike enthusiast (I don't race, just ride for fun). Current bikes that I own are Ventana El Ciclon and 2006 Turner RFX. I like technical, interesting riding, rides anywhere from 2-6 hours, and tend to like bikes that can be ridden all day (like my RFX), as opposed to shuttle-specific models.
Felt Compulsion, 17-inch: My first bike of the test. This was my first time on the Felt suspension system, and this is the new 5" trailbike. This bike was outfitted with crappy parts (a Pike 409) that really shouldn't have been spec'd on the bike. It also had a DHX Air. The fork felt like a pogo stick, and I couldn't tune it out. The frame was fairly impressive. It was laterally very solid, with little flex. Pedaling was very efficient, with little bob, and the bike had a definite trail-bike feel to it, a bit more relaxed than some, but wasn't wandery on the climb. The rear end felt fairly active, but I didn't seem that I was getting full travel. The O-ring said I was though. The suspension felt a bit like a falling-race, in that I went through the travel pretty fast once I hit something of size. Not necessarily a bad thing. It just didn't feel as bottomless as some other 5" bikes I have ridden. Descending, the bike went where it was pointed without question. It felt solid, but not remarkable in any one aspect. This would be a very capable trail bike.
Turner RFX: I have a 2006 RFX, so I am fairy dialed in with the way it handles. The newest RFX is a little lighter (not that I could tell) and feels pretty much the same. Perhaps a little snappier and easier to flick around, but other than that, the same basically-linear rear suspension feel and no-flex, no-nonsense frame. It pedaled OK on the climbs, but there was some bob there, and it was a little piggish. But not bad (I have ridden mine on 45 mile rides with 5000 feet of climbing, so "slow and steady" isn't necessarily a hinderance). On the descents, the bike pedals well, with only a hint of bob under accelerations, and just is simply a point-and-shoot bike. It goes where the rider puts it, and is as confidence-inspiring as 6" bikes go these days. Weight was a bit heavy at probably 32lbs, but mine built up right at 30lbs with EX 5.1's, Lyrik Solo Air, and nice parts, so it doesn't have to be heavy. This one had a Float 36 up front, which isn't my favorite fork. I much prefer the Lyrik and TALAS as far as air forks go. The Float ramps up quickly and the last inch of travel never seems to materialize.
Knolly Endorphin 17-inch: this is Knolly's 5.5" all-mountain bike. Mine was set up with DHX Air 5.0, Marz. 55 ATA fork, and DT EX 5.1 rims, which is a great do-everything setup. The head tube is 68 degrees. My large problem on this bike was the seat tube angle. Due to the shock placement and linkage, the seat tube starts well in front of the bottom bracket and angles back at what looks to be around 60 degrees. This means that an average height rider will likely get a "standard" seat tube of 72 degrees or so. But, I have very long legs (5 foot 9 and almost 33 inch inseam) and since my saddle is much higher than most, my saddle was also much further back than it should have been for climbing, meaning that the cockpit felt like it belonged on a 21-inch frame, not a 17. If this was my bike, I would have outfitted a negative setback post like the Thomson triathalon post, which could have brought my seat into line of where it should be. With that in mind, the bike climbed very poorly, as I couldn't get weight over the front wheel while in the saddle, due to feeling like I was stretched out on a rack (I am sure this wouldn't be a problem with a more personalized setup). The rear end was virtually bob-less, and traction was excellent. Quality with the production of the frame was evident, and the frame was very stiff laterally. Descending (when I lowered the saddle, which made the earlier climbing problems go away) this was the best 26" bike I rode. It was so confident on any terrain, and seemed like it had way more than 5.5" of travel. Simply a point-and-shoot bike that was unshakable at any speed, but more than that, it seemed to float over the rough stuff. I could flick it around trail debris, or take it head on, and the balance was perfect. It made the RFX feel a little boxy and unresponsive in comparison. This was a superb descender, and I bet would be fine as a trailbike, assuming I had gotten the seatpost issue straightened out. One other thing: the Marz. 55 ATA felt like crap. The damping was almost non-existent. The ride compared poorly to a pogo-stick. Maybe it wasn't set up properly, but I didn't see any adjustments besides the TST Micro (which I tried to dial in) and the preload and rebound air settings (which were accurate for my weight). If this is the production version of how a 55 ATA is supposed to work, Marzocchi is in big trouble.
Turner Sultan 17-inch: I rode this last year, and it was my 1st time on a 29er. This one was outfitted with a short-travel 80mm Reba fork. Right off, I noticed how well this thing pedaled. It climbed very well, traction was always present, and I could still loft the wheels or accelerate easily. The bike felt glued to the dirt, and went right where I wanted it to be. On the flatter sections of the trail, I was able to keep my speed up much better than on the 26" bikes I tried. On rollers, a 29er rider is coasting where 26" riders are pedaling. The frame was very laterally stiff: no flex was present. On the descents, the limitations of the 80mm Reba showed up. I was pitched pretty far forward due to the short travel fork. It needs something longer, like a 120mm Minute or 135mm White Bros. With that in mind, I was still able to blast descents at least as well as on any 5" bike I tried. Traction was superb on cross-hill rock slabs, and even on steep switchbacks, the 29er platform still performed very well. I was quite impressed, once I warmed up to the handling of the larger wheels.
Niner RIP9 17-inch: this bike was outfitted with the Minute 29er fork at 120mm of travel, and with the longer 4.5" travel in the rear end, it gave for a more big-feeling bike that was more balanced than the Turner. Still, it pedaled almost as well as the Turner, but was a much more capable descender. The Minute 29er isn't a bad fork, and felt not too dissimiliar to the Reba. Not as nice as a Lyrik, though. The RIP9 got ridden on both climbs and down the rocky descent of Skyline. On this bike, I was able to attack the rocky sections like I had on the RFX, yet it kept speed up when the RFX would get slowed down, and it pedaled much better on the rolling terrain. I had to stay on the brakes more than I wanted, as I was taking the trail so fast that it exceeded my comfort zone. This bike just powered through the rockiest terrain I should give it. And, on technical rock chutes, the bike was very stable, with no feeling of being dangerously stuck on the front end. It was almost impossible to make a mistake on this bike. When climbing, it far exceeded all but the short travel 26" bikes. Once up to speed, it just motored up the trail. If there was one drawback, it was a lack of flickability that a smaller-wheel bike has, but this also refers to a 29er wheels inherent stability that makes it so good for high-speed, rough riding. I felt that the RIP9 would compare in technical ability to any 6" bike, but climbed like a 4" bike. Maybe not the best choice for really slow, stop and go technical riding, but for our typically fast Western trails, they are a great choice. The RIP9 didn't feel quite as laterally stiff as the Turner, but was more than adequate. Tire spec was the Nevegal 2.2, which was grippy and hooked up very well. Overall, this was my favorite bike of the whole show, and a great example of what a longer-travel 29er is capable of. I would also like to ride a Ventana El Rey, and I hear that the El Rey feels a bit more XC-like, with a little better pedaling, and snappier handling, while the RIP9 has a bit more aggressive feel to it. The RIP9 is simply an outstanding bike. I didn't ride the JET9, but that would be the ticket for those of us who are looking for a lighter-weight trail bike with the equivalent of 4" of 26" wheel travel, and something that could do very well in a 24-hour race. Not that the RIP9 didn't pedal well, but it definitely felt on the bigger-bike side of things.
Titus El Guapo Titanium: 17-inch (medium): Titus may have made a sizing mistake with this one, as it felt more like a 16" bike than my typical 17/18" bike. The construction was beautiful, with clean welds and flowing lines. Unfortunately, I don't remember what the bike was set up with fork-wise, but I think it was a Float 36. This bike felt small on the trail. I had to be a bit more careful on steep drops and rock slabs, as the bike definitely felt like I could go over the bars easier than other models. It accelerated very well and was really sharp-handing underneath me. Once I warmed up to the smaller wheelbase, the bike felt very flickable and could skim trail obstacles with ease. It didn't have the burly feel of some of the other 6" bikes: rather, it was lighter and more nimble, and encouraged you not to take rough sections head-on, but to scoot around or over them. The suspension didn't feel as plush as some of the other 6" bikes tested, but more along the lines of the Turner 5.5 Spot that I have previously ridden. A very efficient pedaler, and it climbed well. I would say that this bike would do well for the all-day, marathon trail rider, rather than the person looking for a heavy-duty all-mountain bike that can also handle some light freeride. It is much more of the former: a light, great pedaling, go anywhere trail bike.
Norco Fluid LT: the bike from Norco that goes up to 158?mm on travel, with a 68.5 HTA, equipped with a DHX Air 5.0 and Lyrik 2-step Air, as well as an XT kit. This is designed to be Norco's do-it-all, ride all day bike (their Six is the freeride/slopestyle 6" bike in their line). I am not familiar with Norco, and it looked like this bike employed some sort of 4-bar design. The size I received was technically a small, but felt like a typical 17-inch sized bike. I was really impressed with the ride, right off the bad. This bike was very balanced on the techy climbs, and the suspension worked when it was needed, but didn't bob excessively. It simply motored up the trail, and felt like a 5" bike while climbing, not a heavy 6" brute. Very balanced as well. This was one of my favorite climbing bikes. Once I was at the top and pointed it downward, the Lyrik's smoothness (great spec!) kicked in. This is one great fork, and ate up everything on the trail. The DHX Air 5.0 was an impressive shock, and felt quite linear in feel without blowing through the travel too quick. I flew down East Leg on this bike at speeds close to uncomfortable, yet the bike was totally with me all the way, smoothing out the rough sections and allowing me to stay off the brakes. It just seemed very balanced and hard to make a mistake on. Definitely a confidence-inspiring ride. Like the El Guapo, this bike felt definitely more trail-worthy and less like a light freeride rig than some. One of the most impressive bikes of the test.
Cannondale Rush Carbon Team, Medium: Unchanged for 2008, this bike has 110mm of travel, a Lefty SL up front, and top-flight parts kit including Mavic Crossmax SLR hoops, SRAM X0 kit, and Juicy Ultimate brakes. I rode this bike last season and loved it, and my opinion didn't change. This may be the ultimate all-day bike of the test. It is very light, the Lefty steered better than any non Thru-Axle fork I tried, the damping was spot-on with the fork, and the balance was perfect for a trail bike. It has a 69degree HTA, and is very stiff laterally. The bike simply goes where the rider points it, very smoothly, and it feels more like a 5" bike in terms of travel and overall handling. I could tackle the worst rock gardens on this bike, and while I couldn't blast through them as I could on the 29ers and 6" bikes, I could still ride them smoothly and keep my speed up. When climbing, this bike absolutely motors as well, and is as good of a technical climber as I have yet tried. The rear end is active enough to track well, but not overly mushy. The hallmarks of this bike are stable, relaxed handling, front-end stiffness, and a confidence-inspiring ride in a really light build kit. And, I didn't care one bit for the Avid Juicy Ultimate brakes. They weren't powerful stoppers, and I was wishing for more brake. The Magura Marta SL or Formula Puro's would be better choices for a Rush Carbon trailbike build.
Cannondale Scalpel (2008), medium: my first ride on the new Scalpel. I used to own a Scalpel (it was my first Full Susp. Bike a few years ago) and I liked it at the time. I have since migrated to longer-travel designs, but the Scalpel has been a worthy bike over the past several years. The new one uses re-optimized virtual pivots for an increase in travel (100mm). Up front was the Lefty Carbon SL 110mm, and complete bike weight was under 23lbs, with the same parts spec as the Rush Carbon. This bike, however, had a flat bar, showing that it was a race bike first and foremost. Despite only having 10mm less travel in the rear than the Rush Carbon, the suspension feel could not have been more different. Whereas the Rush has a somewhat active pedaling style, the Scalpel doesn't move much when climbing, and feels close to a hardtail. This is good or bad depending on your preferred terrain, but as a race bike, it is desireable. The front end, with the flat bar, felt substantially more aggressive than the Rush Carbon, not like a trailbike, but more like a race bike that was designed to be pinned at all times. I had to re-adjust to the aggressiveness of the front end when climbing, but once I got it down, I was impressed at how the bike simply got up to speed and stayed there. The Rush Carbon handed rock gardens on the climbs better, as it was more active, whereas the Scalpel wasn't as active, and I had to take it a bit slower. On the descents, the Scalpel was pretty aggressive up front, and I had to back off a bit with my speed and technique. I could ride the same terrain, but not at quite the speed that I could on other bikes. It definitely wasn't as smooth as the 100mm of travel would indicate. It felt racy, both in handling and suspension travel. If the Rush felt like it had more like 125mm of travel, the Scalpel felt closer to a 3" bike. Enough travel to keep you off the brakes when descending terrain that is not too rough, and keep you pedaling in the saddle, but definitely not a point-and-shoot feel whatsoever. The front end was very stiff laterally, with virtually no flex, and was impressive. This is a race bike, and since I don't race mountain bikes, maybe I am not qualified to judge it. I am sure it is a fast bike on the course, but to be more of a trailbike, it would need better brakes and a wider, riser handlebar. I think it would start to come into it's own then.
Cannondale Taurine Team medium: This bike was ridden at Cannondale's nighttime ride out at Blue Diamond mountain park. This was an epic ride, through the desert near Red Rocks, with a full moon, winding through Joshua Trees and cacti. Niterider hooked us up with lights, although I got the old-school 15w light, while others had the bad-ass HID light setups (as bright as a high-end Xenon car light!). I hadn't been on a 26" hardtail for a serious mountain ride in years. The Taurine is Cannondale's high-end race hardtail, with a carbon frame and 110mm Lefty SL up front. Same spec as the Scalpel and Rush Team. The trail was fairly smooth, with a few technical climbing sections. It was the kind of terrain where I would normally look for a 4" bike, or a 29er hardtail or single-speed. Having not been on a hardtail in a long time, and not even wearing riding shorts (dirty from the day before) neither myself nor my ass knew what to expect. I was very surprised, and in a good way. Hardtails are pretty damn capable bikes. Sure, it required a bit more body English than I was used to using on some of the trickier rocky descents, but other than that, this bike flat-out flew. Handling was incredibly steady, the bike didn't beat me up whatsoever, and having all that travel up front really allowed me to ride the bike faster than I expected without getting thrown around. It was a smooth, fast, powerful ride. The only real downside I saw with going with a hardtail was the traction I missed on the technical climbs. Normally, on a steep, rocky climb, I sit in the saddle, spin, and let the suspension do the work. On a hardtail, the wheel was slipping where it would have been gripping on a full suspension. I ended up getting out of the saddle and using more fore-aft movements, as well as pedaling while standing up (a no-no on most Full Sussers) to get the traction I needed. Other than that, the bike was all I could ask for. It simply ripped the trail, did what it was told, and was very confident in doing so. I was impressed, but I think that a 29er format is slightly better for a hardtail in faster, flowing trails than the 26" bike. When I ride 29er hardtails, I feel that lack of climbing traction is less of an issue, and the bike tends to keep up speed better on flowing singletrack. With that said, the Taurine was a lot of fun!
Giant Trance X, medium: The new 5" travel bike from Giant. This one was equipped with a Float R. I had never ridden the Maestro platform, and was curious as to how it rode, after hearing very good things from several people. The Trance X, out of the gate, was a superb pedaler. Somehow, that suspension keeps the bike fairly active on the climb without any pedal-induced bob. It really roared up the technical West Leg climb and scooted over any and every trail obstacle in the climb. It was probably my fastest ascent of the day. On the way down (I took it down Mother's), the bike had a relatively stiff-feeling suspension that gave when it was needed. Definitely not as active or plush as a 4-bar system, but the suspension was there when I needed it, and pedaling efficiency was completely uncompromised. The bike was really balanced and laterally stiff, and reminded me of the Rush Carbon, in terms of handling, only with more travel. It descended like an anvil and felt more like a 6" bike on the rougher terrain. On a medium-sized 4-foot drop, it was very confident and balanced in the air, and was close to bottoming. I felt that the handling begged for more travel, that this bike could get away with a 6" rear and still be a very good pedaler. I was impressed by this bike, as it was on of my favorites in the test.
Fisher Hi Fi Carbon: Medium: 5" bike from Fisher, carbon front triangle, Fox Float RLC front fork, high-end parts spec (mostly XT). This bike was nice and light, probably less than 27lbs. It is supposedly based off a 4-bar design, but didn't feel as active as some of the other 4-bar bikes tested. I was getting full travel though, so shock setup wasn't an issue. With the carbon front end, the bike felt nice and direct, although not as stiff up there as the Rush Carbon or Trance. Climbing steep stuff was OK, as the rear end was fairly active, but traction wasn't what I expected (it could have been the tires). The front end felt high and I had trouble keeping the front end down on the steeper sections. It also bounced around a bit and felt nowhere near as balanced as the Trance. On flowing singletrack, the HiFi was more of an XC feel than the Trance, and kept speed well, as well as keeping pedal-induced bob to a minimum. It was pretty sporty on the singletrack. When descending, the bike wasn't real laid back. A little steeper front end than I would have preferred, although it handled all of the trail obstacles fairly easily. I would take the geometry of the Trance or the plushness of the Fluid LT over this bike when descending. It was fine though, and reminded me of the Stumpjumper 120 I owned a couple of seasons back. Solid, but not a world-beater on descents. Also, the rear end was noticeably flexier than the other 5-6" trailbikes. It just didn't track as well under pressure. The tires were extremely disappointing. They were semi-slick Jones XR 2.2's (they looked more like 2.0's) and the sidewalls were paper-thin. Completely the wrong choice for the jagged rocks of Bootleg. I flatted twice. With more aggressive tires, the bike may have come alive, but as it was, this was one of the more ho-hum bikes of the test. Nothing really stood out about it, but it wasn't a completely disappointing ride, either.
Kona Dawg Deluxe 17": 5" bike from Kona, basically unchanged for 2008, except for the lighter scandium front triangle. Geometry and suspension is the same as the 2007. I have ridden the Dawg several times in the past (we are a Kona dealer) and it always comes across as a solid, but unspectacular bike. This one was outfitted with a Float R. The bike just seemed to feel a bit boxy in comparison to the others tested. The rear end was a bit flexy, the suspension wasn't as active as I have come to expect from a 4-bar design, and it had a weird falling-rate sensation. The 1st 2 inches barely give at all, then it goes through travel very quickly. The bike, when climbing, just seemed a bit sluggish with a high front-end. It was capable, but not outstanding, although it cleared the technical sections with ease. When descending, the bike didn't feel like it had a full 5" of travel, as it seemed to blow through it all quite easily. The bike went where it was pointed, but wasn't really that steady, and I felt a bit more nervous than I had on the other 5" bikes I tried. I didn't feel that I could really attack the trail, and I didn't seem to get comfortable on this bike. As I noted above, the frame just didn't feel like it was as laterally stiff as it could have been, and was definitely more of an XC-feel than a burly trailbike. It was middle of the pack when climbing and at the back when it came to descending. I don't think Kona has updated their suspension on this model in years (unlike some others, who have been constantly tweaking things to get the linkage more in line with the newer generation of shocks) and it is starting to show. This bike wasn't my favorite two years ago, and now that many models have made substantial improvements in that time, it is really starting to look dated. My Ventana El Ciclon, also a 4-bar style design, couldn't be more different in performance than this bike.
Giant Reign 6.7" travel, medium (not sure of the model name): this bike was outfitted with a VAN 36RC2 fork, and coil in the rear. Not light at 34lbs, and more aimed at the light freeride or Super D crowd than the all-day trailbike riders. It was outfitted with Nevegal 2.35's, which were a great choice for the conditions. I took this down Skyline to Mother's. It was definitely slacker than any other bike I tested, and I would guess around a 67 degree head tube. When descending, it simply ate up the trail. I could take obstacles head-on with this bike at high speeds, doing really stupid things, and the bike would bail me out every time. It was very impressive. The suspension felt like that of the Trance, in that you didn't feel like you were getting the full 6.7" of travel until you really needed it, but the handling and frame stiffness was there for you. The VAN 36 didn't hurt either, as it is another of my favorite forks. I just flowed down the technical Skyline trail as if I was riding a bike down my driveway. This one made it look easy. For the weight of the bike, it pedaled well on the short, steep climbs, but wouldn't be a good choice for exteneded climbing. On slow-speed technical obstacles, the bike was a little slack, and it needed some speed to come alive. I can't say enough good things about the Maestro suspension, as it pedals extremely well and is just active enough to do what you need it to do. I probably prefer a big plusher ride at the expense of efficiency (I am used to riding a fixie on the road and therefore am a pretty smooth pedaler, but for the mashers out there, the Maestro may be a life saver). And, build quality is great on this bike. I would choose it if I wanted a light freeride/shuttle, aggro trailbike. This is one of the best.
Fisher Hi Fi 29er, Medium: outfitted with the Fox 100 29er RLT fork. This bike is new for Fisher, which makes sense for them to go their 29er platform in their top trailbike. It was a bit lower-slung than the RIP9 and Sultan, and just a bit flexier in the rear. The Fox fork was very nice up front, although I would prefer more travel (a 120mm 29er fork would be a welcome addition to the line). The bike was very XC in feel, with Fisher's G2 genesis geometry, and had a long front end that just didn't seem to work for me. I have long legs and a short torso, and have never had luck riding the Genesis geometry. The 29er platform was a big step up over the 26" Hi-Fi I tested, especially at Bootleg. This bike was the more confident descender of the two, and climbed with more traction and more speed. Still, I preferred the Sultan and RIP9 to the Hi-Fi 29er. They were both laterally stiffer and felt a bit more capable than the Hi-Fi. But, I would ride the Hi-Fi, no doubt about it. It was a solid, if unspectacular, 29er platform.
Ventana El Ciclon Medium: my current daily ride. I have it outfitted with EX 5.1 wheels/DT 240 wheels, TALAS 36 fork, XT/XTR kit, Formula Pruo brakes, and 7.875x2.25 stroke shock RP23 XY on the 5" rocker, which provides 5.6" of travel. Weight is 28.6lbs. I started out with the stock 5" rocker, which was plush and very active, then tried the 5/6 rockers, which brought the BB up and caused the bike to lose it's stellar balance. I decided on the longer stroke shock with the 5" rockers, and have set it up at only 20% sag, which gives me the same ride height, but will go deeper into the travel when I need it. I have to say that the Ciclon was a bit better than any of the other bikes I rode in the 5/6" category. It might be due to the personalized setup I have on there, but the Ciclon is so balanced when climbing, I feel I can conquer any rocky gradient and almost any angle. This bike feels like it has at least 6" of travel, but pedals very well, like a good trailbike should. When going up, the bike feels like it has 5" of active travel, but descending on this bike would have you convinced you are on a 6+ inch trailbike. It is laterally stiffer than any bike I tested, and at a reasonable weight. Kudos should go to Sherwood for putting together such a sturdy bike at a fairly light weight of 6.3lbs for frame and shock. The rear end is extremely plush and very linear. The bike seems to have a perfect balance of plushness without blowing through the travel too quickly. Descending on this bike is simply as good as it gets on a trailbike, as it can hang with any 6" bike I tried. It begs to be pushed harder, and really starts to blur the line between do-it-all trailbike and save-your-ass aggressive rig. Setting the fork at 160mm of travel doesn't hinder it too much, although climbing with the fork at 130mm is a better option. I have ridden it on some long rides (up to 5 hours) with tons of climbing, and it does just as well here as it does on technical, slow-speed singletrack. Is plusher, a bit grippier and more laterally stiff than the Trance X, and every bit as good of descender as the Norco Fluid LT
2006 Turner RFX Medium: I have this bike set up with the EX 5.1's right now, XT kit, double rings up front, and Lyrik Solo Air. The RFX and Ciclon are pretty similar builds at the moment, so I will either be building up the RFX with heavier parts, or selling one of these frames. They are pretty similar. The RFX is a bit heavier, and feels a little slower and steady on the climbs, but overall, handling is very similar between the two. The RFX runs standard with the 160mm fork for a 68 HTA, so it is better for freeride and in the air when you need that extra travel. Also, the sturdier build doesn't hurt here, either. The RFX is as laterally stiff as the Ciclon, with what feels like a slightly longer wheelbase, and is a little more stable on descents than the Ciclon, although not by much. I think the newer RFX beats this one in lateral stability by just a bit, but this one feels more planted and more of a descender, whereas the newest RFX is more heavy-duty trailbike (like the Ciclon). I have also ridden the RFX on 5+ hour rides with lots of climbing, and although it is a bit sluggish, it isn't bad, and descending on it is really fun. It definitely errs more toward the descending and freeride side of things than the Ciclon, but with all day rideability if you need it. I didn't find a huge difference beween my 06' RFX and the current one, save for a bit of weight savings. The Ciclon is the better trailbike of the two, the RFX wants a heavier build and to be ridden more aggressively (although the Ciclon can handle its fair share of abuse as well). I would compare my RFX as most similar to the Reign I rode, and the newer RFX.
Conclusions: I really like the 29er platform. The RIP9 was the most fun bike I tested! It is amazing to have a bike that pedals like a 4" bike but handles terrain like a 6" bike. The Sultan was great too. For Western, flowing trails, it may be the best bike around. Out of the 26" platform bikes, I loved the Trance X, would have loved the Knolly Endorphin if I could have gotten the seat position correct, the Compulsion was a great climber and very efficient, the Fluid LT was very versatile for a 6" trailbike, the Rush Carbon was the epitome of a ride-all-day trailbike, and the Reign was a super descender and burly build bike. I wouldn't trade my Ciclon for any 26" bike I tested., and my RFX is just as pleasing as any bike I rode. The others not mentioned weren't my favorites for one reason or another. I hope this helps any prospective bike buyers!
