I don't think that is really fair. One bike fails, happens to be during a PB test, and the bike gets dragged through the coals. None of the PB folks can ride like the factory Rocky guys, and they ride this sh*t out of that bike.
It's fair in the sense that Rocky provided a test bike to PB that failed under normal use with very low mileage. So that's really on Rocky. What was PB supposed to do pretend the frame didn't fail? Reading the review itself it seems pretty balanced all things considered.I don't think that is really fair. One bike fails, happens to be during a PB test, and the bike gets dragged through the coals. None of the PB folks can ride like the factory Rocky guys, and they ride this sh*t out of that bike.
i'm kinda with you on this, and i do think it was probably a freak one off thing. i doubt it will impact Slayer sales much if at all given the other tests and who else rides these things to the max, like Vanderham and Storch, etc.They changed the tires to the control tires and left the axle lose. If they wanted to do an honest and fair review, they should have reviewed it with a new triangle or gotten a new bike, and then made aure the bike was actually put together correctly. The idea of pinkbike not assembling the bike correctly, hitting big jumps at a bike park that will torque the rear end and therefore snap it, and then refuse to test another bike over fear of breaking another one is kind of chicken sh*t. The 2 Mikes have alot of influence on mountain bike buyers, and by them condemning rocky like that, due to their own lack of QC, is total crap. They also do their viewers a diservice by refusing to review a bike that we wanted to see reviewed, and in my eyes that effects their credibility.
A friend of mine just bought a Slayer 50 Carbon and I plan on getting the alloy 50 pretty soon. Pinkbike doesn't rule the world, and I have more faith inVitalMTB and Bike Mag at this point.
It's hard to do a root cause analysis if your sample size is 1. Assuming there have been no other failures of this type they may not be able to say a whole lot beyond what has been said already.i'm a bit surprised that RMB hasn't said a word yet, and maybe they won't. personally i think they should have some analysis and official statement just to show they care enough to have considered the failure worthy of their investigation and consideration.
Sorry for geeking out and turning this into a tech forum, I too broke my 2018 slayer top tube and wanted to make some points.I'm a slayer slut owning 2 x 2017 slayer which I love. The main problem with 2017-2019 Slayer is that they are too light. They are built for a good time not a long time.
That has advantages for me as I can have a light heavy hitting bike. But you can break them of you stuff up big features.
I broke nos 1 slayer on the top tube where the wall thickness was only around 1mm.
New Slayer has fixed that week point by changing the pivot location and adding a cross member.
However they have cheaped out and gone half carbon for new slayer. Wtf? Why, why use a weaker material for the parts that arm most likely to fail? I know why$$$$. Lers make it weaker/heavier and charge the same $$ but make more margin per bike.
New slayer is dead to me because it's now only half carbon.