[Blatant]

The XT/XTR 1x.

 

[SDMTB'er]

Yeah, the Med Trail was prob short for you. When I put the 120mm fork on mine it basically increased the reach by half an inch and the 85mm stem puts me in a similar position to my 429SL. So now it's my 25.5 pound all-around fun/XC bike. Still heavier by a pound than my Mach 4c with similar build so I dunno. I ride faster on the Mach4 but better and have more fun on the Trail.

And my wife knows not to say **** about my bikes lest I bring up her closet and/or jewelry cases. lol

I am 5'11 in shoes and have a L 429 Trail. If you go medium, it's reach is shorter than the M 429 Carbon SL. I feel so relaxed on the Trail - just did a 30 miler today and no achy wrists, hands back, etc. I have a 50mm stem on mine with 760 bars.

 

[SDMTB'er]

I believe you've got to change out the spindle for the Next cranks to work. The spindle is available individually from Race Face.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a love hate relationship with RF NextSL cranks. I have had two sets that developed play between the spindle and the crank arms so you feel this clunking sensation every pedal revolution. Not good. However, I love the weight savings...

 

[invol2ver]

yes you need a wider spindle for the next sl's. i just changed my affects out for some

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Rode my SB with 29er wheels and 0 offset cup for the first time. I much prefer 29er. Much more lively and less vagueness going downhill. Aggressor front, Purg rear vs Rekons and Trail Bosses. I'm not giving up on b+. I'm going to try Dirt Wizards or DHFs if they are burley enough, this winter. I wonder how many times I can remove and install the headset cups before the head tube ovalizes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[tobyrider]

LOL!! You're probably right on the sizing of the Trail. I was an early adopter so I went with the recommended size from Pivot which worked on all my other Pivots. I did notice recently Pivot updated their sizing recommendations and I would have chosen on a lg based on the updated sizing, but.. live and learn.. or maybe not I just ordered another bike with no real test ride based on sizing recommendations. Doh!

Yeah, the Med Trail was prob short for you. When I put the 120mm fork on mine it basically increased the reach by half an inch and the 85mm stem puts me in a similar position to my 429SL. So now it's my 25.5 pound all-around fun/XC bike. Still heavier by a pound than my Mach 4c with similar build so I dunno. I ride faster on the Mach4 but better and have more fun on the Trail.

And my wife knows not to say **** about my bikes lest I bring up her closet and/or jewelry cases. lol

 

[tobyrider]

Same love/hate here. I've warranted two set and they aren't fast about it at all, but I dig the versatility and the weight savings/bling factor.

I have a love hate relationship with RF NextSL cranks. I have had two sets that developed play between the spindle and the crank arms so you feel this clunking sensation every pedal revolution. Not good. However, I love the weight savings...

 

[godfather]

I am 5'11 in shoes and have a L 429 Trail. If you go medium, it's reach is shorter than the M 429 Carbon SL. I feel so relaxed on the Trail - just did a 30 miler today and no achy wrists, hands back, etc. I have a 50mm stem on mine with 760 bars.

I'm about 5'11" standing flat footed, and ride a large 429T as well. Also running a 50mm stem and 760 bars. Seated, the cockpit feels pretty good, but the slack seat angle hides the short reach. The SB geometry is much closer to where I wish the 429T was. I'm super happy with the suspension performance, chassis stiffness, pedaling performance, but I'd love a steeper seat angle, longer reach, and slightly longer front center, maybe even 1/2 degree slacker in head angle. Going to try to get on an SB in the next week or two. If it pedals nearly as well and can be built at 27lbs or under, it may replace the 429T. Otherwise it might be a Yeti 4.5 that gets a spot next to my Evil Wreckoning.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SDMTB'er]

I'm about 5'11" standing flat footed, and ride a large 429T as well. Also running a 50mm stem and 760 bars. Seated, the cockpit feels pretty good, but the slack seat angle hides the short reach. The SB geometry is much closer to where I wish the 429T was. I'm super happy with the suspension performance, chassis stiffness, pedaling performance, but I'd love a steeper seat angle, longer reach, and slightly longer front center, maybe even 1/2 degree slacker in head angle. Going to try to get on an SB in the next week or two. If it pedals nearly as well and can be built at 27lbs or under, it may replace the 429T. Otherwise it might be a Yeti 4.5 that gets a spot next to my Evil Wreckoning.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I haven't come across (yet) any reason to have more reach on the 429T. Given that the 429T is a light duty trail bike with XC influence, I think the geo makes sense where it is. I can say that things are relative for me compared to my 429 carbon and having the slacker head tube, shorter chain stays, and longer reach makes for a very confidence inspiring ride without giving up the climbing capabilities of the 429 C. That is what I was going for - I wanted climbing efficiency with the ability to tackle SoCal chunk without wishing I had my Mach 6.

Re: ST angle - remember the longer travel SB will sit into its travel more especially when you are climbing up rocky sections effectively slackening out the ST angle. The 429T won't do so as much. I would imagine how the ST angle actually feels on the trail as you are climbing is pretty negligible between the bikes, but the longer reach, longer fork, and slacker HT angle could make keeping the front end down in steep switchbacks a bit more effort than the 429T. It also sounds like the super short chain stays may make it easy to power wheel lift up stuff, but that also will make it hard to keep the front wheel down when you are powering up stuff. Complete speculation on my part though as I haven't demo'd the SB on anything than a parking lot. I do know though that everything is a trade off.

 

[jazzanova]

I haven't come across (yet) any reason to have more reach on the 429T. Given that the 429T is a light duty trail bike with XC influence, I think the geo makes sense where it is. I can say that things are relative for me compared to my 429 carbon and having the slacker head tube, shorter chain stays, and longer reach makes for a very confidence inspiring ride without giving up the climbing capabilities of the 429 C. That is what I was going for - I wanted climbing efficiency with the ability to tackle SoCal chunk without wishing I had my Mach 6.

Re: ST angle - remember the longer travel SB will sit into its travel more especially when you are climbing up rocky sections effectively slackening out the ST angle. The 429T won't do so as much. I would imagine how the ST angle actually feels on the trail as you are climbing is pretty negligible between the bikes, but the longer reach, longer fork, and slacker HT angle could make keeping the front end down in steep switchbacks a bit more effort than the 429T. It also sounds like the super short chain stays may make it easy to power wheel lift up stuff, but that also will make it hard to keep the front wheel down when you are powering up stuff. Complete speculation on my part though as I haven't demo'd the SB on anything than a parking lot. I do know though that everything is a trade off.

In my experience, longer reach / longer front center also means the front end will stay planted on climbs more.
I have tried 2 different size bikes (but the same model), the reach + stem distance was the same. One with a 35mm stem, the other with a 60mm. It was harder on the smaller bike to keep the front down.

 

[Blatant]

Interesting thing about steep climbing on the 'Blade: The front end is light, but it's not floppy. I'll take light over floppy any day.

 

[godfather]

I haven't come across (yet) any reason to have more reach on the 429T. Given that the 429T is a light duty trail bike with XC influence, I think the geo makes sense where it is. I can say that things are relative for me compared to my 429 carbon and having the slacker head tube, shorter chain stays, and longer reach makes for a very confidence inspiring ride without giving up the climbing capabilities of the 429 C. That is what I was going for - I wanted climbing efficiency with the ability to tackle SoCal chunk without wishing I had my Mach 6.

Re: ST angle - remember the longer travel SB will sit into its travel more especially when you are climbing up rocky sections effectively slackening out the ST angle. The 429T won't do so as much. I would imagine how the ST angle actually feels on the trail as you are climbing is pretty negligible between the bikes, but the longer reach, longer fork, and slacker HT angle could make keeping the front end down in steep switchbacks a bit more effort than the 429T. It also sounds like the super short chain stays may make it easy to power wheel lift up stuff, but that also will make it hard to keep the front wheel down when you are powering up stuff. Complete speculation on my part though as I haven't demo'd the SB on anything than a parking lot. I do know though that everything is a trade off.

The seat tube angle is more than a negligible difference. 5-7mm of additional sag will not slacken the seat tube angle enough to take away the 1.5 degree steeper angle. A reach of 16.6" on a large frame is pretty darn short, even by moderately modern standards. Sure, it all creates advantages at one end of the spectrum, if that's what you're looking for, but there are some shortcomings as a result also. For me, the reach is a significant compromise when you consider how this bike is designed to be ridden, as an aggressive, short travel trail bike. It's not an XC bike, a long travel XC bike, or even an endurance rig. It's a trail bike. It's designed to be ridden hard and fast. Until the release of the SB, the reach numbers on nearly all Pivots were behind the times.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dirtrider127]

but it's not floppy. I'll take light over floppy any day.

That's what she said

 

[SDMTB'er]

The seat tube angle is more than a negligible difference. 5-7mm of additional sag will not slacken the seat tube angle enough to take away the 1.5 degree steeper angle. A reach of 16.6" on a large frame is pretty darn short, even by moderately modern standards. Sure, it all creates advantages at one end of the spectrum, if that's what you're looking for, but there are some shortcomings as a result also. For me, the reach is a significant compromise when you consider how this bike is designed to be ridden, as an aggressive, short travel trail bike. It's not an XC bike, a long travel XC bike, or even an endurance rig. It's a trail bike. It's designed to be ridden hard and fast. Until the release of the SB, the reach numbers on nearly all Pivots were behind the times.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not just sag but how the bike moves dynamically during climbing going over rocks, etc. the 429 T will maintain its original ST angle more so than the SB given the kinematics and how the rear triangle is adapting to the terrain. It would be cool to somehow see a side by side of the ST angle as a function of rear travel.

 

[SDMTB'er]

Interesting thing about steep climbing on the 'Blade: The front end is light, but it's not floppy. I'll take light over floppy any day.

Shouldn't be too floppy with a 140 fork. I meant the same advantage short chainstays provide with lifting the front wheel can also be annoying when you are putting down the power around switchbacks.

 

[SDMTB'er]

In my experience, longer reach / longer front center also means the front end will stay planted on climbs more.
I have tried 2 different size bikes (but the same model), the reach + stem distance was the same. One with a 35mm stem, the other with a 60mm. It was harder on the smaller bike to keep the front down.

Hmmm - I wonder how wheel base affects this? [emoji848]

 

[SDMTB'er]

One thing I am not digging about the SB - the seat tubes are super short leading to seat posts that look strange to my eye.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Interesting thing about steep climbing on the 'Blade: The front end is light, but it's not floppy. I'll take light over floppy any day.

Yes. My Following often felt floppy.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

One thing I am not digging about the SB - the seat tubes are super short leading to seat posts that look strange to my eye.

My long inseam loves the the short ST as long as the frame can handle the leveraged loading. Looking forward to the 200mm Fall Line.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[coolhand80]

Same love/hate here. I've warranted two set and they aren't fast about it at all, but I dig the versatility and the weight savings/bling factor.

How long did you warranty replacement take? I have the same problem with my next SL cranks and have been waiting almost 5 weeks now

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk