Browse product groups:

2021 Pivot Firebird Pro XT/XTR Coil with Alloy Wheels
(discontinued)

Discontinued
s1600 2021 Pivot Firebird Pro XT XTR Coil with Alloy Wheels Orange
c70 2021 Pivot Firebird Pro XT XTR Coil with Alloy Wheels Orange.jpg?VersionId=0HcFGbEe
c70 2021 Pivot Firebird Pro XT XTR Coil with Alloy Wheels Glacial Green Metallic
c70 2021 Pivot FIrebird v3 Pro XT XTR Air with Carbon Wheels Orange
c70 2021 Pivot FIrebird v3 Pro XT XTR Air with Carbon Wheels Glacial Green Metallic.jpg?VersionId=kL HQWoOZBRG5v9iG9mVx0ZxoDMf7g
c70 ORANGE WATER BOTTLE MOUNTS
c70 ORANGE WATER BOTTLE MOUNTED 3.jpg?VersionId=xDsVW
c70 ORANGE WATER BOTTLE MOUNTED
c70 ORANGE TRAVEL DECAL.jpg?VersionId=VLYPoi7FAJsi qabRU1tCm3yYQo
c70 ORANGE MODEL DECAL
c70 ORANGE HEADTUBE BADGE.jpg?VersionId=oOpDf6FBLh
c70 ORANGE FLIP CHIP DECAL
c70 ORANGE DOCK TOOL MOUNTED.jpg?VersionId=lkt5N45JkTiDeZNAZryda zEUC eEsE
c70 ORANGE COCKPIT.jpg?VersionId=xNIYdZ4TlLE35arGc3uR5
c70 ORANGE COCKPIT RIGHT.jpg?VersionId=IG.Ht15sPwAD
c70 ORANGE CABLE ROUTING
c70 GGM SHOCK LAYOUT 2.jpg?VersionId=JLkxZvZ8QLST058m
c70 GGM SEATSTAY DESIGN
c70 GGM MODEL DECAL
c70 GGM HEADTUBE BADGE.jpg?VersionId=kd1zIP4jc9puGCXusZRCj6DpUF
c70 GGM HEADTUBE
c70 GGM FLIPCHIP DECAL
c70 GGM DOCK TOOL MOUNT
c70 GGM CHAIN GUIDE
c70 GGM CHAINSTAY PROTECTOR
c70 Test Session Pivot Firebird with Updates.jpg?VersionId=4JCU5QQAo36ghSB807
s1600 2021 Pivot Firebird Pro XT XTR Coil with Alloy Wheels Orange s1600 2021 Pivot Firebird Pro XT XTR Coil with Alloy Wheels Glacial Green Metallic.jpg?VersionId=bw0J s1600 2021 Pivot FIrebird v3 Pro XT XTR Air with Carbon Wheels Orange s1600 2021 Pivot FIrebird v3 Pro XT XTR Air with Carbon Wheels Glacial Green Metallic s1600 ORANGE WATER BOTTLE MOUNTS s1600 ORANGE WATER BOTTLE MOUNTED 3.jpg?VersionId=4j9MM.jhhcLsA5KjWLmRF5B s1600 ORANGE WATER BOTTLE MOUNTED s1600 ORANGE TRAVEL DECAL.jpg?VersionId= iD3dsUOvs.QBkbgssD0wiOMgIG s1600 ORANGE MODEL DECAL.jpg?VersionId=qYGute8GS n9ksOxkk.B3prppA0C s1600 ORANGE HEADTUBE BADGE s1600 ORANGE FLIP CHIP DECAL s1600 ORANGE DOCK TOOL MOUNTED.jpg?VersionId=W i6SqMP2sBCaZ s1600 ORANGE COCKPIT.jpg?VersionId=NJVXFFUDp0Rf8M s1600 ORANGE COCKPIT RIGHT s1600 ORANGE CABLE ROUTING.jpg?VersionId=8iyYHXQoSeX s1600 GGM SHOCK LAYOUT 2 s1600 GGM SEATSTAY DESIGN s1600 GGM MODEL DECAL.jpg?VersionId=fJCjgXS0oQo07bR4qTjVzNM8cAi3ZS s1600 GGM HEADTUBE BADGE s1600 GGM HEADTUBE s1600 GGM FLIPCHIP DECAL s1600 GGM DOCK TOOL MOUNT.jpg?VersionId= s1600 GGM CHAIN GUIDE s1600 GGM CHAINSTAY PROTECTOR s1600 Test Session Pivot Firebird with Updates.jpg?VersionId=9TzDV
Related:
Pivot
Where To Buy
Free shipping on orders over $50 (continental U.S. only).
International shipping available. Some exclusions apply.
Free shipping on orders over $50 (continental U.S. only).
International shipping available. Some exclusions apply.
Vital Test Sessions - Pivot Firebird
Dressed to impress, our testers were left to wonder what could have been?
Rating:
Vital Review
Rate review:
2
BHowell
8/9/2021 1:12pm

80 comments

Post a reply to: Vital Test Sessions - Pivot Firebird

avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
boaz
2 years ago
Sounds like a lot of people wanted to hear something specific about this bike and didn’t get to see it. Thanks vital for being thorough and trying to remain objective about your experience in the face of the criticism. This for me boosts (maybe super boost?) your cred. Thanks for the review!
1
c50 GOPR0019 1428638095
wizard_man
2 years ago
Why didnt they just try some different spring rates on the shock? If it stands up in the back or rides too high wouldnt you just try softer spring rates? Or just slow down the HSR a lot on the shock?
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
trexyz
2 years ago
I really enjoyed the review. Very detailed…as usual. What I don’t like is the price. Pivot bikes are great but the price was always high. I was looking for a new bike and Firebird (previous model) was on my list, I’ve done a lot of research and finally I decided to buy a Megatower. I got a really good deal and the bike is insane…I love the details and I’m pretty sure that the quality of the frame is high but there are a lot of bikes in this range (5000-6000) that you can buy.
c50 149187 936024901533 10205078 50991835 3734911 n
jeff.brines
2 years ago
While I understand the desire to put multiple riders on a bike in a relatively short period of time, I'll be honest and say "this could be better". Anyone looking to spend $5K+ on a bike knows swapping stem & bars is relatively minor, as is monkeying around with suspension (or swapping tires). I can't remember the last time I bought a bike and *didn't* swap tires, bar, stem & play around with suspension over the course of weeks to get it dialed to my liking.

While it makes a "shootout" much harder, maybe its time we let that kind of testing go? How much real world application does a shootout really have? In my experience you need more time to actually figure out if you jive with something. This goes for all pieces of outdoor gear.

A bike tester should be aiming to figure out who a bike is for being 95% of bikes are very (very) good these days. That takes time, and is challenging.

Clearly the Firebird has EWS-winning level pedigree. While I'm not trying to discount the findings here, I'm just not convinced they are as universal as this review has implied...

Just my hunch.

EDIT: As reviews progress, I feel one thing that will help Vital stand out from the rest is adding more data & quantitative components. I remember Turman using Litpros awhile back. That was KILLER. This, in combination with suspension telemetry, static weight distribution, rider proportions etc might really help us make heads or tails of why findings were what they were. I know its a PITA, but the point of a Vital should be to set the bar with the highest quality reviews out there.(my youtube reviews I do on the side shouldn't hold a candle)
5
1
c50 34C87FFA EB78 4C00 BAB0 4E1C5BAEF309 1608659719.jpg?VersionId=oxWB Z9SA2.7FKQnRRz
levie125
2 years ago
To offer a slight counterpoint. My last two bikes were over $5k and I did not swap anything on them when they were brand new. Two reasons why. The first is my spouse took a lot of convincing from me to make a purchase this large and I was not about to beg to spend more money on tires, bars and a stem (Conservatively estimating that at around $350). The final reason is that I'm an average sized rider and most bikes fit me out of the box.

I think Vital is fair to rate a $5k plus bike on how it comes out of the box from the company without hanging a bunch of personalized items on it. If it is good enough to sell at that price to you and I, then it is good enough for Vital to test. Tires may be my only concession as they do provide testers the most consistency between bikes. I definitely agree with your comments on the shootout format as potentially being to quick in nature.
2
c50 149187 936024901533 10205078 50991835 3734911 n
jeff.brines
2 years ago
We'll just say "agree to disagree". Few thoughts...

What bar/stem are you buying!? "Conservatively" $350? Unpopular opinion but alloy 31.6 bars are where its at. They usually cost sub $100. I've got drawer with all sorts of stems from over the years, but if I had to buy one that shouldn't cost more than $80?. Point is, when you are spending $5K+ for a bike, $180 for "fit" isn't all that material. In fact, I'd wager anyone buying a new bike should *always* plan on setting some money aside for fit because its impossible to know if your own body's weight distribution and riding style will "for sure" jive with the bike (or hell, maybe your arse hates the saddle). To me, this is like buying new ski boots. Maybe they fit out of the box, but I'm always going to count on a few punches & a custom liner at minimum. I'd be an idiot to give a review on a new swanky pair of boots without getting the boot to first fit my wonky foot.

Here is the bigger point...

When I read a review, I'm trying to find a product that will ultimately help me go faster, more in control and do so more consistently (those three factors = fun). Its a huge bummer if a reviewer gets caught up on a relatively small piece of componentry that has more to do with his/her preference or body dimensions, forcing the reviewer to focus more on a swapable part, less on the big picture. Again, I'm not totally sure that was the case here, but to do a follow up review with such small changes feels less-than-real-world. Anyone would quickly swap to a different stem (minimum) if they felt their weight was in the wrong place (or play with suspension).

Anecdota/point of gnarcissim here - I've run into this before many times having done numerous reviews in my lifetime. I cringe to think of all the bikes I would have hated (or had less than positive marks for) had I not made some changes. In fact, I'd say the last three bikes I've owned would have received poor marks had I not swapped all three of these items and spent a considerable amount of time with my suspension. (Trek Top Fuel, Specialized Enduro, Transition Spur). All three bikes are bikes I either still own or would happily own again.

Ultimately, bike reviews are getting more and more nuanced, with more attention on objective data. Its going to be hard to parse the subjective from the objective but ultimately, this should be the goal. Being fast, by itself, probably isn't good enough to tell the world how a product worked (outside durability testing). Timed laps, telemetry, measurements etc. This will be the future for whoever seizes on the opportunity to put in the work. I'd wager an entirely new way to fit a human on a bike is lurking between the lines here...
2
c50 34C87FFA EB78 4C00 BAB0 4E1C5BAEF309 1608659719.jpg?VersionId=oxWB Z9SA2.7FKQnRRz
levie125
2 years ago
Jeff,
I thoroughly enjoyed your response! For clarification, my $350 was including new tires too. I enjoyed Vital's tire test they did a few months ago and how they measured rolling resistance. You must have a background in STEM because you like backing up qualitative information with quantitative facts. I also approve of your use of "gnarcissim!" On a heavier note, I just "tested" out a fox 36 with a ACS3 coil. Un-quantifiably fun as hell although I could try a smiles per mile correlation to refine my results.
1
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
Skeen
2 years ago
For a counter-counter point, the article notes that the bike ships with 800mm bars yet the testers were given 760. They should have tested all bikes with the same bar width IMO… to remove that variable. I respect your need to follow a budget, and on the hand a $100 bar for a $5000 bike is 2% extra… most riders would be willing to pay this to make their expensive purchase as comfortable as possible.
1
c50 IMG 20211027 155910 1655061393
Primoz
2 years ago
Regarding what should be included in the reviews, the weight distribution and other parts of quantative testing will, likely, benefit a VERY small percentage of prospective buyers. The same buyers that will be able to know quite a bit about the bike from geometry and suspension system alone. A worthwhile addition in the dataset, but for a very limited amount of people.

I've mentioned this in the sustainability thread I think, but it would be REALLY nice for bike reviews to include taking the bike apart and comparing how easy one is to service against the other, if the bearings are sealed additionaly, etc. etc. Real world usage benefits that are felt by all the riders on the given bike.
c50 149187 936024901533 10205078 50991835 3734911 n
jeff.brines
2 years ago
Eh, I disagree. Go to pinkbike. Look how many people geek out on geo numbers. Go to any trail head. You'll hear my reach bla bla bla or my head angle bla bla bla. Mountain bikers are an incredibly discerning bunch of people.

Trying to put something more quantitative into the mix is likely important in understanding why something behaved the way it did or even telling a different story than what the pilot felt in the first place. (I suppose this is one reason I love racing)

I know I'm probably more "serious" about this than the masses. Kind of my personality I guess. I straddle qualitative and quantitative worlds professionally (my day job) so this is kind of right up my ally.

When a test can bring forth data to help explain a conclusion, it seems more powerful & leads me to trust what I read a bit more. Isn't that what we should be aiming for?
1
1
c50 IMG 20211027 155910 1655061393
Primoz
2 years ago
Of course we should aim for that, more trust, more better, always.

And I'm not saying more 'seriousness' is not a good thing, it's more of a pareto thing, how to cater to most people with the least amount of effort.

As for discernible bunch, I have to almost FORCE people to have their suspension serviced on a yearly basis when it comes to the local riding group. And we're talking about people with quite a few years of experience, the beginners are worse of.

Basing opinions off Pinkbike and Vital MTB commenters I fear is quite a bit of a Redmond Reality Distortion Field effect - of course the people int he comments will talk about reach and headangles in large numbers because a) the industry made the terms popular and sells bikes through them and b) the ones interested will take the time out of their day to do that. Us doing this here is 100 % QED.

That is the reason why I said it might be more worthwhile to check how well a bike stands up tot he test of time, because the beginner (or the lower half of bike riders skill wise) will not be bothered to geek out to a level where the conclusions will be worthwile, won't notice a difference in two bikes (these days bikes ride down hill pretty well, as you noted already, regardless of which one you choose), but what they will notice is if one bike will spend a lot more time in the local bike shop (as the same people will also not be wrenching on their own) where the cost will also be higher due to the repair taking longer because of a convoluted suspension system, requiring additional steps to make the repair work.

If we can do that AND have the hardcore geekery covered as well, I think we're golden.
c50 149187 936024901533 10205078 50991835 3734911 n
jeff.brines
2 years ago
Welp. Fine. Lets see if we can break Vital's Paginate function (while completely clogging the comments up for the more sane individuals here)

1) You are on Vital (and pinkbike). We are the audience. For those who might not understand a new metric or piece of data, that's up to the test team's communication ability to articulate in a way that makes sense no matter your level (or just do what I do and put a disclaimer there). Hell, I'd wager most people just scroll to the conclusion (myself often included). When a bike is more interesting, I read more. Adding more quantitative information wouldn't change this. As far as it being harder, yes, it is. But what is wrong with offering ideas as to how to make something better?

2) All bikes are REALLY good these days. REALLY REALLY good. Most intermediate riders are going to notice if their sag is right & their tires new more than they will notice the difference between a Spire and a Firebird (in terms of how well/fast they ride).I'm a full fledged mtn bike addicted squid and I'd 100% ride any of the bikes in this test (and I'd also know I really don't have an excuse when I don't win my local race or whatever). Again, all bikes are GOOD. This is why I feel "subjective reviews" are losing their value. The delta is tight as fuck and its going to get tighter and tighter.

As to serviceability, I'm not sure there is that much of a difference bike to bike these days. Every bearing sealed as far as I know, and they are all replaceable with a pair of knipex and a few sockets. There are outliers, but real service testing is gong to be reserved for those who actually spend 100s of hours on a particular bike year in year out.

Otherwise its like "yup, the bearings came out" and "up, new ones went in" and "there are "X" pivots on this design".

Component service pretty standard too...no?
c50 IMG 20211027 155910 1655061393
Primoz
2 years ago
If we can? We just did. Where we're going we don't need no pagination!!

1.) agreed, fully. With everything.

2.) disagree on a few points. We've had a rider in our group (he was between a beginner and an intermediate rider at the time) doing a group enduro race on a fully closed rebound. Said his kid played with the knobs after finding out (the kid was 3-ish at the time...). In the past two years I've done two rear shock services where there was some air in the damper in one case and _NO_ damping in the other. Neither commented about any problems, I almost had to beg them to do the service (the little air case was after owning the bike for a season and a half, first service.). I went ballistic a few months ago because one of the riders in our group used about 100 mm of the 160 mm of travel on his shiny new Fox 36 on his new Stumpjumper. His reaction was 'it's fine, I like it that way, I still have some reserve). We're not talking about using up1 40 mm. We're talking about using up 100 mm. That same person was basically surfing up climbs with 50 % sag on his previous bike a few years ago and had to be convinced he needs to pump up the shock. 'It actually rides better now' was the reply. Another friend of mine needed me to ride his bike to find out his crank was bent. He still tried replacing pedal axles, because 'maybe it's not the crank, this is cheaper'. We've measured tyre pressures on peoples tyres with my trusty Schwalbe gauge (which reminds me Is till haven't checke it with a calibrated pressure sensor... :/ ) and we measured I think 0,6 bar int he front and 0,9 bar in the rear. This was not a fatbike. How that person did not have any flats is beyond me.

The amount of people needing to be told they need to check their chains only to measure the shiny half a year to a year old Eagle chain being stretched beyond the 0,75 % value is also concerning. Etc. And in some cases we are talking about different kinds of engineers, so we are talking about people that generally know how to deal with numbers.

I'd love to agree with you that people will notice minute details. Sadly my experience (limited of course...) is different. And I think it's not the fact people don't know how to notice these things in some cases. I think it comes down a lot to simply not caring.

As for bearings, yeah, they are mostly sealed (RS in the 2RS designation standing for rubber seals), but those barely have a contact. Bearings are mostly designed to spin around at a few thousand RPMs and to not exhibit a whole lot of torque loses while doing that. The standard 2RS seal does that. There are better seal options when it comes to mountain bikes as well (I think I could share a few cross sections from one of the bearing suppliers as to how many different seal shapes there are, but Enduro does a fairly good job as well), but I'm not talking about that. With the leverages we see in suspension systems and with the limited angle of rotation we see with bikes, any additional protection for the bearing is paramount. What I'm talking about is an additional O-ring/Quad-ring between the swingarm and front triangle, protecting the bearing. A cover over the main pivot bolt. This is something Canyon does on the older Strive. One strategy would be to have a protective lip on the swingarm covering the gap with the main frame. Some companies are gluing rubber sheets over the area to also prevent rocks falling between the two parts of the frame (Specialized does it on the Stumpjumper, Ibis did it on the 27,5 inch Firebird, Haibike does it on one of their e-bikes).

Granted, details like that cost money and are often not as simple to implement for smaller companies, but little details like these can go a long was in protecting the bearings and prolonging their life. With bikes being this good (as you noted too), these little details should and will provide a differentiating factor.

Also, while servicing other people's bikes is a chore, I partly do it to see how different bikes are put together. There is a big difference in what different bikes are like to wrench on, how they have these details taken care of, etc. I also sometimes wonder, if the designer of a given bike has ever held an allen key in his hands, let alone used it on a bike.

As for subjective vs. objective comparison between bikes, yes, yes to all. How do I know the reviewer testing the bike has the some outlook on bikes that I have? Or the riding style? Though if you're trying to be objective with testing times, how does the reviewer gel with this given geometry? Maybe someone will prefer and be faster on a longer bike, while it's the opposite for someone else. I'd love objective testing, but I think it's hard to achieve it in this category. It's easy with computers, more FPS, more better. But what makes a MTB objectively better? Except for lower weight.
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
horse
2 years ago
Very confusing review, makes it difficult to have a professional respect for the Vitalmtb test riders. Do they need some fundamental lessons in suspension setup? or are they simply not experienced riders?
3
2
c50 601465 10152020946064260 1868061448 n 1565116833
BHowell
2 years ago
Not sure what is confusing but happy to help clear up anything.

The rider's suspension settings were are all listed in the review and are based off FOX's tuning guide, just as they were for the other three bikes in this test that used FOX suspension.

Perhaps where the waters get muddy is that Pivot recommends running it softer than FOX recommends and we already felt that was too soft. We were taken aback at the struggles in (only) the steep, gnarly terrain. To that end, we felt compelled to revisit and revise our review with further testing and tuning. I'd think this would give readers more confidence in the objectivity of our reviews.

As for the rider's qualifications, those are listed on the main Test Session page. Two of our four testers raced elite enduro, super-d, and downhill. They know their way around a bike.
1
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
horse
2 years ago
Like another comment has clearly pointed out, for an objective review you need to remove basic variables which are always dictated by individual preference and are easily interchangeable. i.e. set-up your contact points consistently across bikes, use the same tyres across bikes.

Regards the fork set-up, your video clearly shows footage of riders with a fork set-up too soft. So regardless of who's set-up guidance you followed it clearly isn't well set-up.

This review simply comes across that the bike was set-up poorly and thus didn't ride to expectation.

Man people including myself are interested in this bike and this review isn't helpful.
1
c50 shirt mask box 300 1629850291
Brian_Peterson
2 years ago
I don't see anything wrong with performing the test with the using the manufacturers recommend settings. A lot of riders will use that as a starting point. My question is why are Pivot's settings so different from the Fox recommended settings?

Also, what led to this update 2 months later?
c50 601465 10152020946064260 1868061448 n 1565116833
BHowell
2 years ago
That is an interesting question, Brian. In our discussions with Pivot, we somewhat broached this topic. Pivot has its reasons for wanting a softer setup on the bikes, primarily is that in its testing, Pivot found the softer setup to appeal to more of the average rider. In discussing more aggressive riders, (such as Casey) in steep terrain, they agreed that going with the FOX setup was a better idea. Our tuning was done in conjunction with Pivot.

It took Vital so long to do a follow-up because we (1) worked with Pivot to ensure proper setup and (2) Casey rode the bike for a couple of weeks to really work on getting it dialed. Despite folks' impression of the internet's instantaneous nature, there is a lot of work that goes into this process.
2
c50 FED086C8 7E50 41E4 8B63 4892416C0CDB 1622483525
Lance_h
2 years ago
What a contrasting review,

Surprised that its so different from anyone I have talked to about these.
3
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
Explodo
2 years ago
On my Ripmo (comparing because of DW) if there's not enough sag in the rear then it feels like it's ready to throw you over the front on almost anything. Ibis even has text in their tuning guide about it. Maybe you had the rear too stiff.
4
c50 601465 10152020946064260 1868061448 n 1565116833
BHowell
2 years ago
In short, no. We had various springs for the bike and swapped them out for every rider. Our suspension tuning was done through consultation with Pivot. The bike was set up correctly.
1
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
Matt Dogg
2 years ago
Yeah this is an interesting one. My experience w/ Pivot's is that their frames are about the stiffest in the business, but we're talking 165mm of rear travel here and a coil shock so it should grip like crazy. They must have just erred on the side of all rounder with this bike instead of mushy runaway freight train. I do trust the quality and support of Pivot's frames over Orbea tho. Anyways, they're not slowing down the Pivot enduro team, that's for damn sure.
1
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
MTB_SF
3 years ago
Surprised by the hate for the 45mm stem. I'm 5-10 and run a 50mm stem on all my bikes with a 760mm bar, includinga Spire. I have a 35mm hope stem I've tried on 3 bikes and preferred a 50mm every time. Too short makes it feel like I can't put enough weight on the front wheel
4
c50 shirt mask box 300 1629850291
Brian_Peterson
2 years ago
I agree.. Short stems and short chainstays make for a combination that will take weight off the front wheel.. Unless you really make an effort to ride with your shoulders lined up with the bars in corners.. I tend to ride off the back of the saddle, so the longer stem helps me get a little more weight forward..
3
c50 601465 10152020946064260 1868061448 n 1565116833
BHowell
2 years ago
Roger that, sounds like you have your setup dialed. For our crew, we were having the opposite issue with the Firebird - too much weight on the front in steep bits. For us, we needed to move in the other direction.
2
1
c50 shirt mask box 300 1629850291
Brian_Peterson
2 years ago
A soft fork will definitely make for a forward weight shift.. Maybe a middle ground on the fork setting?

Yeah, I have too much fun seeing the cause and effects of things like this..
2
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
blacker_canyons
3 years ago
literally the only surprise in this product release after their drawn out, botched "viral" marketing campaign is that the other color is silver.
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
Skeen
3 years ago
I appreciate the detailed report on the bottle brushing the shock. Would there have been room to slide it a few mm higher up the down tube? Even a smaller bottle would be worth not worrying about that in my book.
c50 601465 10152020946064260 1868061448 n 1565116833
BHowell
3 years ago
The cage was already slid all the way up, so no, there was no more room to go. The grazing was ever so slight and I could not feel it at all when riding. This may also be something that only those on a small/medium frame with a coil will experience. But, since that's what we have and we are testing, we needed to call that one out.
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
Skeen
3 years ago
I used a problem solvers cage slider on a different bike. turns out the bottle touching the seat tube ever so slightly was enough to remove the paint in about 1 ride but that was a hard tail. Would you have any concern about long term wear on the shock or anything due to this? Its a fine balance between maintaining clearance and maximizing open space in a frame for mounting gear directly or some kind of storage device.
c50 water avatar 1607028280
haen
3 years ago
Does the seat tube angle change according to frame size? I'm a little confused by the language in the article.
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
Explodo
3 years ago
That orange is beautiful and I really like the bike, but I'll never buy a PF frame.

I just can't shake the feeling that every in/out due to maintenance makes the fit a little worse.
c50 149187 936024901533 10205078 50991835 3734911 n
jeff.brines
3 years ago
I'm with you and TR and agree press fit sucks relative to threads, but I'd still ride one. Its not THAT big of a deal. Don't forget, MOST bearings are press fit on your bike, car, motorcycle etc. Example: I've swapped bearings on an old rear hub probably 6 times, still fine. No suggestion of "tolerance loss" or "worse fit".
c50 88521480 1251936778
TEAMROBOT
3 years ago
Jeff, you're 100% right about headsets, hubs, and frame pivots. All press-fit, not a big issue. I don't know whether bb shells can really wallow out or expand from having too many cups pressed into them, so I don't know if it's a legitimate fear. But, I have seen old aluminum full-suspension frames with the bearing seats wallowed out from having pivot bearings pressed in and out of them too many times, and I can't think of a bearing that gets replaced more often on a mountain bike than the bottom bracket. If you can't tell, I really hate pressfit bb's.
1
c50 IMG 20211027 155910 1655061393
Primoz
3 years ago
Aluminium is not the perfect material to press in bearings, that's for sure, even more so when you press in steel bearings. For headsets it's generally a bit better, as you have fairly set and forget cups and just change out the bearings. Plus the bearings are angular contact with axial preload.

Carbon vs aluminium, carbon should be worse still as the epoxy resin is even softer. But with PF BBs you have the benefit of a plastic cup when it comes to wear of the frame.
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
WeaselSqueezer
3 years ago
I’ve replaced the PF bottom bracket in my 2014 Pivot Les SEVERAL times and there does not seem to be any concerns with frame tolerances. Creaking has never been an issue either, as I apply a thin layer of silicone to the PF cup prior to installation. I also use a ‘C’ clamp to install (no extra $$ spent on tools). As with any bearing, go slow and make sure it is going in straight.
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
MikeyOrange
3 years ago
Always had great luck with PF on my Norcos while using Wheels BBs, for 30mm spindles, as the bearing itself is the BB. The outer bearing race has a lip that presses into the frame and allows the bearings to be significantly larger thus allowing it to take much greater loads. No creaks ever... Ive transferred the BB to multiple frames. When the stock Sram dub BB goes in my Optic (soon) it'll be replaced with a Wheels.
c50 IMG 20211027 155910 1655061393
Primoz
3 years ago
Technically (when done correctly, tolerance-wise), PF beats threaded BBs. Conceptually they have a ton of advantages and not many disadvantages.
1
c50 88521480 1251936778
TEAMROBOT
3 years ago
Yeah, I love that I need a multi-hundred dollar at-home bearing press to replace a regular wear item. Way better than threads. Even better, if I don't have that multi-hundred dollar bearing press on hand, I get to wait for three weeks to make it onto my local shop's service queue to get 20-minutes of work done. It's all upside with press fits.
2
1
c50 88160290 1258334763.jpg?VersionId=QFbSroF
NoahColorado
3 years ago
C'mon Chaz, it's a $40 tool or $75 universal kit for press-fit BBs.

One nice thing about PF shells is that you can put the ISCG-05 tabs further out, so you don't have to run a million spacers and long bolts to get your chainguide lined up with SB chainlines.
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
D(C)
3 years ago
You can also tap in a PF bb with a rubber mallet. I’ve done it many times. No special tools needed. I have no issue with it.
c50 IMG 20211027 155910 1655061393
Primoz
3 years ago
How much is the socket that is potentially changed with each new release of the axle diameter standard? Plus the ratchet to put the socket on?

As for pressfit tools, it's 22 USD for a headsetpress that works as a BB press too (tried it out for both cases, it works) if you go chineesium off AliExpress (while I don't have a proper headset press, I do have the fancy 175 € Unior bearing press kit that would cover the B . For removal you need a hammer and a screwdriver, or you could probably make a headset removal tool fit if you have a DUB crankset. That's 13 USD if you go chineesium.

Plus, no stripped threads!

@Noah I think ISCG tabs should be more or less in a given position, so I'm not sure how moving them further out would work, you might get some interference with the crank/chainring in some cases... Does the standard define the left-to-right position? It does define the way the holes are clocked compared to the chainline.

In all seriousness, a pressfit bottom bracket gives a wider interface for the downtube to join the BB shell. It's not as useful on aluminium bikes, might be more useful for carbon bikes. It makes carbon bikes MUCH cheaper (with no effect for us consumer, so there's that...) and gives one less point of failure (aluminium inserts for composites are notorious for corrosion issues and are expensive to both make and incorporate into the frame). With aluminium frames it's easy to make the BB shell too, make it roughly the correct size, weld the frame up then just ream the shell to the final hole diameter. It's an easy thing to do that should net very good results. In theory.

Most importantly, the bearing is supported by the frame shell, unlike with a threaded cup. Not a problem with Shimano bottom brackets, where the crankset axle is fairly thin ('just' 24 mm), so you can have quite a lot of meat going from the bearing cup towards the bearings, but increase that diameter towards 30 mm and that interface can get much thinner. Thinner also means more flexy. And bottom bracket bearings and/or cups flexing away spells all sorts of problems. I would really like to see how a DUB axle fares in a threaded BB vs. a PF BB (with correct frame tolerances of course!) under the same rider, mine is showing quite some wear after 2 and a half seasons of use.

Also, speaking form experience, I've sold a Giant after almost full 4 seasons with the original PF GXP bottom bracket (goes to show how well sealed GXP BBs were) with absolutely no creaking or issues throughout the time I've owned it. Giant is supposedly notorious for sticking to correct tolerances with PF BBs, so there's that...

Like I said, conceptually and technically PF BBs are better. In practice, in this industry, it's a bit more hit or miss.
c50 88521480 1251936778
TEAMROBOT
3 years ago
Primoz, I feel like you gave a really long explanation for why 30mm spindles are dumb, not a convincing argument for why press fits are good. You said press fits make "carbon bikes MUCH cheaper (with no effect for us consumer)," but the whole reason people complain about pressfits is because... drumroll please... they're worse for the consumer. They're harder to replace, they can become seized in the shell, and they're notorious for creaking. I've seen bikes at the shop that we simply could not get a press fit bottom bracket to work in after multiple tries. The frames needed to be warrantied because they were so far out of tolerance.

Noah, you caught me. I was speaking in terms of shop-quality tools, but you're correct that there are home mechanic tools available for less. Still, even with the best tools, there's often a level of expertise, alchemy, and luck required to get pressfits to play nice. Compared to threads, they're significantly less user-friendly for the average customer.
1
c50 IMG 20211027 155910 1655061393
Primoz
3 years ago
Preface: all of my ramblings is why PFs SHOULD work or SHOULD be better, not why they are. And the responsibility of why they are not is solely on the manufacturer's shoulders.

There's no alchemy in replacing BBs. The 'alchemy' is solely on the side of the manufacturer of the frame. Tolerancing, tolerancing, tolerancing. And I think we all know and can agree that that point, in general, is a total shit show in this industry.

It's quite likely that I'm a bit biased as the Giant I mentioned is the only PF bike I've had and I've had zero problems. I've also had a DUB BB die on me after 2 months now, luckily it's a BSA and I had the old one still in stock (it's a lot less dead than the last one), so I could put that one in (because there are no BBs to buy currently). Couldn't do that with a PF BB, that's for sure.

On the other hand I've also replaced a headset because it was creaking. Because of a tolerancing issue on one of the batches.

I'm surprised nobody has laminated a thin aluminium tube into their carbon bikes, that could then just be reamed out to the final dimension. Considering you're press fitting the BB and the surface area of the tube, it should hold plenty with no special geometry, unlike threaded inserts. There is no torque applied to the tube as well, so it should be cheaper to make the insert, easier to laminate it in and it gives you the possibility to make the tolerancing spot on. It SHOULD be that easy and it SHOULD work, but yeah, like I said, a shitshow.

Maybe we need to go to 24 mm axles, have an aluminium (instead of plastic) PF cup pressed into the BB shell with a tighter tolerance than we have now, then have... here's a wild idea, REPLACABLE BEARINGS?! As in you replace JUST the bearings, not the complete shell. Which should be cheaper, should produce less waste and should be easier to do. And maybe use angular contact bearings, like in headsets and just crank down on the preload?

Is this offtopic?

EDIT: re 30 mm axles, yeah, they are stupid and they're there to save a few grams. But they get eaten by the bearings, they are not sealed as well and since they are aluminium, the bolt seizes to them every single damn time. I have a special tool to remove the DUB bolt, it's a 1 meter long steel pipe. Put it over the allen key, rest it on the handlebar (with my hand in between both, so no scratches), then just crank down on the pedal with my foot. Otherwise it's a two man job getting that thing undone.

The lengths this industry goes to to save 5 grams is unbelievable.
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
blacker_canyons
3 years ago
you just sound like you don't know what you're talking about. a BB press doesn't cost hundreds of dollars. not to mention, the headset cups and all of the pivot bearings and wheel bearings are pressed in, as well.
c50 88521480 1251936778
TEAMROBOT
2 years ago
Hey Dan, headsets aren't really wear items in the same way bottom brackets are. I've had bikes for five years without having to replace the headset, and I've never ever ever had a creaky headset that needed multiple trips to the bike shop, black magic, retaining compound, and voodoo art to get it to stop creaking. Press fit bottom brackets suck.
1
c50 Daniel Limburg Profile Photo 1576258957.jpg?VersionId= HLO1Ip. MNJKnfOq2U
dan23dan23
2 years ago
It wasn't a comment about wear, it was a comment about installation. The complaint was that you needed a specific $100 tool for a PF BB, when you don't, you can use the same tool to install a headset. I've had PF BB's on my bikes for the past 12 years, and I've yet to have an issue with the BB. While the 12 years prior, I had multiple issues with threaded BB's wearing out prematurely etc.
1
c50 88521480 1251936778
TEAMROBOT
2 years ago
Bottom bracket bearings, press fit or otherwise, are a wear item for people in rainy climates, which means they need to be replaced regularly and preferably on the cheap by a home mechanic. By contrast, most riders buy complete bikes, meaning the headset comes pre-installed and the customer never has to deal with it in the lifetime of the bike. Not an apples to apples comparison. Most home mechanics would never need a headset press if not for press fit bb's, and even when they buy a headset press they may still face a disaster due to poor tolerancing from the frame manufacturer. I'm happy for you that you haven't had problems with press fit BB's. I have, and I've seen TONS of issues with them in the shop I worked at. One customer was without his Cannondale for 3 months because every attempt to fix it resulted in creaking within 2 rides. Ultimately, Cannondale had to warranty the frame. Press fit bottom brackets suck.
1
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
Eoin
3 years ago
Geometry charts are labelled wrong, unless it somehow got steeper head angle over time.

Nice looking bike and geometry, surely a great ride, but I've never really understood why Pivot have such boutique pricing, considering the middle of the pack geo/looks.
c50 601465 10152020946064260 1868061448 n 1565116833
BHowell
3 years ago
Fixed, thank you!

I believe the premium that Pivot charges have to do with their frame construction. Each size frame has a different carbon layup. This is supposed to deliver the same ride experience for the person on a small as on the XL. That said, it's funny they've focused on that stuff for so long and only now are doing size-specific chainstays.
c50 20201129 151906 1606923251
hd4rider
3 years ago
Surprised to hear you thought you could ride the bike in a neutral riding position. Those chainstay lengths seem short relative to reach/front end length.

Maybe it comes down to suspension design/axle path.
c50 601465 10152020946064260 1868061448 n 1565116833
BHowell
3 years ago
That makes two of us, haha!

This is precisely the reason I prefer to ride a bike blind. Charts can be nice for sizing and such but only tell part of the story. Putting tires to dirt is the only way to unpack a bike's performance.
c50 149187 936024901533 10205078 50991835 3734911 n
jeff.brines
3 years ago
Just doing some quick math, they are relatively much shorter in a large, XL than a medium. I know they do proportional chainstays, but they are not even close to keeping weight distribution "static" across all sizes.
c50 601465 10152020946064260 1868061448 n 1565116833
BHowell
3 years ago
Hey Jeff, I know you've given this area a ton of consideration and experimentation. Can you expand a bit more on your quick math?
c50 149187 936024901533 10205078 50991835 3734911 n
jeff.brines
3 years ago
Quick math = the following...

Front Center/CS Length
Reach/CS Length

Note how different the proportions get as the reach grows longer by 10s of mms whereas the chainstays only grow a handful of mms.

The best way to "test" this is to put a medium and large bike of the same brand and model on two scales (front wheel, back wheel). Then put the rider on the bike in "riding" position. Keep all variables static (sag, stem, offset etc).

Note the differential in what the scales say. What this means is a larger bike with shorter (proportionally) css will require more active weighting of the front wheel.

I don't have a magic number I look for, but I do know if the bike has less than 450mm cs length, and I'm on something more than 475mm reach, I'm probably going to get a lot more upper body fatigue if I'm really trying to race the thing. Its a bit ancedotal, but watching how quiet Sam Hill was on his old Nukeproof with a 450 reach and 450 stays was pretty wild. He's Sam Hill obviously, not some hack from Idaho, but its still an interesting data point.

A rider's own "biometrics" will weigh into this heavily, too. Which is why, again, I say put the bike on the scales then learn what you can learn in the field.

If you aren't racing or looking for outright speed, throw what I said out the window. The same way guys can ski on skis that are center mount, we can all ride bikes with wonky geo for various applications.

My $0.02.
c50 601465 10152020946064260 1868061448 n 1565116833
BHowell
3 years ago
Roger that. I recall seeing your input with the scales, something that would be cool for us to do at the Vital offices for sure. Fully on board with your take on biometrics too. I'm a medium-sized human with relatively short legs/long torso and feel that plays a role in all this.

I am very much on Team Size-Specific Chainstays, I feel more brands should do this.

I ran those numbers prior to asking you about them because I am not sure where the tipping point is to make something be considered wildly off. It sounds like for you, that ratio needs to be in the .94 area to be "balanced."

(For those reading but not wanting to grab a calculator - the proportional weight distribution regarding front-center between small through x-large varies by .03 (.55 through .52 range). The reach proportions vary a tad more (.96-.87, small through XL))

Thanks for chiming in my man!
c50 fb picture 616265455
Allen_Gleckner
3 years ago
I like using CS/wheelbase since that accounts for HA etc. But I’ve never tested it on scales to see if it’s a better metric.
c50 149187 936024901533 10205078 50991835 3734911 n
jeff.brines
3 years ago
One more thing to add here...

If you ever find a bike that you feel is effortless to weight properly, EG: you feel like you aren't moving fore/aft a lot to keep weight where you want, throw it on the scales. Write down the weight on the front, weight on the back.

Now look at the bike's front center and compare it to the rear center.

Front center is a much better gauge of how you will actually weight the bike being HA & offset is included in that number. Reach alone doesn't include these two massively important variables. When buying future bikes try and keep all this close (proportions).

To be honest, I'd like to see "mountain bike fitting" with weighting being the big data point. Lots of testing would need to be undertaken to figure out what *actually* works, for who and how it varies discipline to discipline. From there you could take certain inputs - like the kind of terrain a rider finds themselves in, if they race, skill level, arm length, torso length, inseam length etc. etc. and better fit someone on a bike or better steer them to a bike that will handle for their desires. Especially important now that bikes are all "pretty damn good" with the big difference between them little things with respect to fit.

Until we get fully adjustable chainstays, (or if we ever do) it'll be hard to play with balance too much. Really all we've got is cleat position, stem, offset (to some extent), stack/rise and some wiggle room on suspension. Obviously, a lot of these impact other riding & fit characteristics too.
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
grizzatom
3 years ago
The biggest flaw to your scale test is that you're altering the bike size without altering the rider size accordingly. Of course you'll see a F/R weight bias change when a rider of a constant size swaps back and forth between different-sized bikes. However, when you increase the height of the rider proportionally to the bike, you'll see that the weight bias does not change by a significant margin. This is due to the fact that a rider's center of mass is NOT static above the BB, where the rear center is measured from. The COM is variable, but always forward of the BB in "charge" position. As the rider grows taller, the COM moves even farther forward and slightly up. That is why manufacturers offer frame size recommendations, and that is why many are reluctant to offer "proportional" rear center geometry (along with the facts that altering rear center also adds cost to manufacturing and alters leverage ratio between frame sizes).

I've ridden many rear centers of varying lengths, and I've grown to understand the benefits/drawbacks of both ends of that spectrum, but there is no magic geometric value that is "best" for all riders. Proportional chainstays are being made into an inordinately big issue because too many riders are sizing up! They then realize that they can't rein in the beast because they don't have the natural upper body mass to weight the front wheel properly. You've seen this play out among the pros as well. Most have reverted back to the correct frame size after trying to tame a sled that was too big for them. If you're riding the correct frame size with correctly tuned suspension, the geometry/steering will function as engineered by the manufacturer, regardless of the length of the chainstays.

I agree that devising a fit system that takes into account a measured F/R weight bias and each rider's biometrics would take things to the next level! However, rear center is just one small part of that equation.
c50 88521480 1251936778
TEAMROBOT
3 years ago
Grizzatom, respectfully, I disagree that a rider's center of mass is typically in front of the bb spindle when they're standing in a DH body position. Butts are typically behind the seat and above the rear tire. If your body position was truly centered between the axles, you'd be incredibly front wheel-biased when descending on a downhill slope, and pulling the front brake would result in an instant endo. In real life, riders put their COM far behind the front axle because they're anticipating weight shift towards the front of the bike whenever braking or bumps occur. When riders encounter braking or bumps, the bike will slow down faster than the rider on top of it. Inertia wants to keep the rider moving forward, thus, weight shift towards the front of the bike. https://d2p6e6u75xmxt8.cloudfront.net/2/2016/06/89148616841_46146846818…
c50 149187 936024901533 10205078 50991835 3734911 n
jeff.brines
3 years ago
Robot beat me to it.

I could write an entire dissertation on the subject. Ultimately yes, rider size does matter and will change the outcome. However, your big flaw is thinking size alone will somehow fix the weight distribution so long as the rider is on the "recommended size". Few reasons why...

1) As TR illustrated, your assumptions are a bit off from the get go. I could illustrate this using MS Paint but I'll spare you - Though your own specific height, arms, legs, torso etc all matter (a lot), rider size does not compensate enough to put your weight in the right spot by some magic variable just because you picked the right reach. To add, The larger the bike, the bigger the sweet spot will be (balance wise) but if its way out in front of you, its going to be harder to get there (again based on WHERE we carry our weight as humans). This is important. Another way to look at this - skiing. Mount points change even though skier size also changes. Why? Because of how we carry weight (I know, different sport, but there is a common thread)

2) Most companies do not objectively test with a big enough sample to verify handling traits across the entire lineup of sizes. It'd take way too long, is riddled with lurking variables and its far more an art than a science. Otherwise you can't explain reaches arbitrarily growing 20-40mm for no reason other than "I like it" over the last decade. My point here is height suggestions have little to do with weight distribution. In fact, I'd argue this is a relatively new idea for most bike companies (having been behind the scenes with a few - I've never even heard of it).

3) What I *really* want is adjustable chainstays. And I want them adjustable by a rather large margin - there are clever ways to do this. This actually allows me to vary the fit of the bike and allows the rider to pick the reach they feel most comfortable with, being reach is what the rider feels. From there, a person's own biometrics will dictate the rest, and if I can adjust the rear center, I can adjust front wheel weighting very easily. I know there are problems with this, as in the damper would require a different tune as you change the leverage ratio substantially, but in the land of $13,000 bikes, I think we can handle this.

The proof, for me, has been in my own experience. At 6'2" I'm often in between sizes. I've tried reaches all the way to 510mm, and as small as 460mm (this is in the last 5 years). I'd much prefer being on the shorter reach than the uber long reach, even if I am cramped. This isn't because of cockpit feel or "limosining through corners", its because until more recently, CSs were on the short side. I couldn't go too long without a ton of arm fatigue.

The sweet spot for me is reach of 470-480mm, 63-64 HTA, 37-44mm offset, 35-50mm stem, 445+ stays (current bike is 442 and its fine). On a bike like this, my legs, not arms, get fatigued going downhill. Legs are much stronger than my weeny arms. So I have more fun and rider more betterer. I could see extending my rear end further, too.

Again, this is for those racing. Looking to go fast down a hill for extended periods of time while staying in control and not "fighting" the bike or becoming overly fatigued. For those looking for playfulness, ride park endlessly with no care of lap time or even if I was looking to build a slalom bike - I'd throw this out the window because, for instance, slalom involves 30 seconds of riding - I can alter my body position IMMENSLY for this window of time.
c50 IMG 20211027 155910 1655061393
Primoz
3 years ago
I don't think the body CoG is as far behind the BB as you might think it is TR, maybe when adjusting for braking or really steep sections, otherwise i'd hazard a guess it's around or in front of the BB. The buts are behind the BB, but maybe not as far (even more so with longer reaches), plus the butt isn't the only part of the body.

As for CoG moving for taller riders, I'd say it's a nay. The longer reach and longer cockpits required for taller riders come from longer arms as well, so, relative to the handlebars, the majority of the body is further away (and with that the CoG). Plus the butt factor, with a taller rider with longer legs the butt will be further back. This would require actuall numbers being thrown around, but I would not be surprised if the CoG either doesn't move around that much or is actually further back for taller riders than for smaller riders. As to where it is actually I have no idea, I'm jsut saying I wouldn't be surprised.

Jeff interesting, I'm 6ft3 on 522 mm of reach (plus 40 mm stem and a 440 mm CS) and I have ZERO issues with my hands and arms, but I get insanely burning thighs lately. I think I do have a problem of riding off the back too much, but still. And given my distribution of muscles, the legs should not get tired at all, while the arms SHOULD get tired. Instantly :D #noodlearms

As for adjustable chainstay lengths... I think it would be a world of hurt. Travel changing, leverage ratios changing, you mentioned shock tunes, etc. I think the most realistic thing would be to have a completely separate rear ends, for example a 430, 450 and a 470 mm rear end that then has say +/-5 mm or +/-10 mm of adjustment either way. And deal with the leverage ratios and the travel amount through the rear end itself. With a horst link that would mean a different chainstay and seatstay and maybe keep the rocker the same (or at most use inserts for the shock mount on the rocker, to adjust for different rear ends too).

If that was the case you'd order your bike with a given rear end or order the front triangle with a shock and then multiple rear ends for example.

Considering how most people actually never change their adjustable geometry flip chips, this would A, make the most sense in the long run (for the few people that would actually use it), B, might not make sense at all, as it would cause confusion for most and only a small number of riders would take advantage of it, so it might not make financial sense (kinda like you already mentioned with testing - regarding that, where to even find enough riders in all body sizes that you trust and that cover the complete spectrum of riding styles?).
c50 149187 936024901533 10205078 50991835 3734911 n
jeff.brines
3 years ago
The whole idea behind scales is so you don't have to guess, you can actually measure where the mass is being carried. While I've obviously tested this extensively on myself, I've also put other riders through my "system" with similar results. If a taller rider is having problems weighting the front of the bike, the scales tell the story every single time.

As far as your fit goes, that may just be something that works for you, and your body's "geometry". However, one thing I failed to mention, is I put a clock on everything too. I'm not just having less arm fatigue but I'm faster with a much smaller standard deviation of times. I can knock out my fastest time over and over and over when the balance is there. On the longer reaches with the shorter stays, I may be close to my fastest time (but not quiet 'on it') all the while the SD is very high.

I could certainly ride a bike with a super long reach and feel comfortable, but when I'm actually pushing the limits of what I can do from a speed perspective, that's where I'd really start to notice upper body fatigue. I personally want my legs to be what is fatiguing fastest, being they are the strongest group of muscles on my body. It is a lot easier to stay standing than it is to stay in pushup position. Again, if I'm really not pushing the limits of what I'm capable of, or noodling around, all bets are off here.

What I'm calling for may not be for everyone, and may also not be something everyone takes advantage of. HOWEVER, if you are a racer, which a lot of people are, its a MASSIVE advantage to get to be able to set your bike up in a way that helps you naturally weight the bike as you want it to be weighted. I cannot emphasize this enough.

Every moto has a massive amount of swingarm adjustment. Nobody is revalving shit if they use the adjustment. I'd wager mtb would be the same, especially in the world of Float X2s and similar.

There are a lot of ways you can build an adjustable rear end into a bike, and every way I'd do it would target the dropouts itself. Not a whole chainstay/seatstay/etc. Look at how SC made a longer rear end for Greg. This is one example. Hell, there are also ways you can use a horizontal dropout with a piece that is machined that slides in the dropout for your brake/derailleur hanger.

Until you try this, and actually throw down to have a few different reaches of the same bike (that you like), its hard to really understand how important this stuff can be.

I've been fortunate enough to do so, and like I said, the results have been amazing.
c50 Yeti Schnappschuss 1516100317.jpg?VersionId=c89tkS2PjphEGUu19umlSmq
GeorgeMichael
3 years ago
I wonder how this compares to the Yeti SB150. Unfortunately, new bikes always only get compared with other new bikes when it would be more useful to make reference to bikes we already know. The SB150 will go into its 4th year next year.
c50 601465 10152020946064260 1868061448 n 1565116833
BHowell
3 years ago
This actually has much more to do with the person reviewing the bike. In this case, I have not ridden the SB150, and cannot draw a comparison. We're happy to compare a bike to a comparable model if we have real experience to back it up.

The only comparable bikes I've thrown a leg over in the last year would be the Transition Spire and Trek Slash. My Spire time was very limited (but it will be in the Enduro Test Session along with the Firebird) but I like the pedaling manners better on the Spire (so far.) The Firebird is definitely a harder charging bike on the downhills than the Slash.
1
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
Pedro_Sanabria
2 years ago
From the review it seems like the new Firebird it’s somewhat unbalanced at least on the medium frame.
So the winner was the Orbea Rallon even though it wasn’t the hardest charger. How does the Trek Slash stack up to it? About the same?
Also how does the Spire stack up against other known super enduros like Specialized Enduro or Nukeproof Mega?
c50 09528543 CAAE 46BD ACCA B4E7AB98E528 1585572935
krabo83
3 years ago
so, no x2 float option like their team is riding?
edit: ok, on their webside they‘re listing a x2 float option
too bad they’re still using superboost (only buy frames), gorgeous bike!
avatar.png?VersionId=TkOXSLqxgAC412Y 1F6UyzOaMSkN
RoJo1
3 years ago
Get a DH bike as well. Then you can swap rear wheel between them. Superboost is pretty handy if you own a DH bike as well.
Review This Product

Specifications

Product
Pivot Firebird Pro XT/XTR Coil with Alloy Wheels
Model Year
2021
Riding Type
Enduro / All-Mountain
Freeride / Bike Park
Rider
Unisex
Sizes and Geometry
S (Low, High)
M (Low, High)
L (Low, High)
XL (Low, High)
Wheel Size
29"
Frame Material
Carbon Fiber
Frame Material Details
Hollow Core carbon construction with size-specific ride tuning, integrated rubber frame guards, and full-length internal cable routing
Rear Travel
165mm
Rear Shock
FOX Factory DHX2, 205mm x 65mm metric, trunnion upper mount, spring rates: 400 lb. (S), 450 lb. (M), 500 lb. (L), 550 lb. (XL)
Fork
FOX Factory 38 GRIP2 29", 44mm offset
Fork Travel
170mm
Head Tube Diameter
Tapered
Headset
Pivot Precision Sealed Cartridge, ZS (zero stack) 49.6mm top, (zero stack) 56mm bottom
Handlebar
Phoenix Team Low Rise Carbon, 800mm
Stem
Phoenix Team Enduro/Trail
Grips
Phoenix Factory Lock-On
Brakes
Shimano XT M8120, 4-piston, with 203mm Shimano XT CenterLock rotors
Brake Levers
Shimano XT M8120
Drivetrain
1x
Shifters
Shimano XT M8100 I-SPEC EV, 12-speed
Front Derailleur
N/A
Rear Derailleur
Shimano XTR M9100 SGS, 12-speed
ISCG Tabs
ISCG05
Chainguide
Top guide
Cranks
Race Face Aeffect R
Chainrings
32 tooth
Bottom Bracket
Press-fit BB92
Pedals
N/A
Chain
Shimano CN-M8100, 12-speed
Cassette
Shimano XT M8100, 10-51 tooth
Rims
DT Swiss XM1700 wheels, 30mm, 29"
Upgrade option: Industry Nine Enduro S wheels, 30.5mm, 29"
Hubs
DT Swiss 350 with 36-tooth Star Ratchet, 15x110mm front/12x157mm rear
Upgrade option: Industry Nine Enduro S wheels with Industry Nine 1/1 hub
Spokes
DT Swiss XM1700 wheels
Upgrade option: Industry Nine Enduro S wheels
Tires
Front: Maxxis Minion DHF 29" x 2.5" WT/TR/3C/EXO+, MaxxTerra
Rear: Maxxis Minion DHRII 29" x 2.4" WT/TR/3C/EXO+, MaxxTerra
Saddle
Phoenix WTB Volt Pro (medium width)
Seatpost
FOX Transfer Factory Series dropper, travel: 150mm (S), 175mm (M-L), 200mm (XL)
Seatpost Diameter
31.6mm
Seatpost Clamp
Stanard single bolt
Rear Dropout / Hub Dimensions
12mm x 157mm Super Boost Plus (SB+)
Max. Tire Size
27.5"x2.8" and 29"x2.6"
Bottle Cage Mounts
Yes, one inside front triangle (on all sizes) plus one underneath down tube
Colors
Orange or Glacial Green Metallic
Warranty
10 years for carbon frame
1 year for frame paint, finish, and bearings
5 years for Pivot Cycles-branded Phoenix Components
Weight
N/A
Miscellaneous

Firebird version 3

dw-link suspension with patented position-sensitive anti-squat

Variable chainstay lengths and kinematics for each frame size

Vertical shock layout allows for a more compact frame design that's stiffer, lighter, and has a more centralized, lower center of gravity

Independent strength to weight analysis for each frame achieves consistent performance metrics

Variable tube sizing and custom-tuned carbon lay-up scales stiffness across all sizes

Proprietary ride tuning fits riders from 5'2" to 6'9"+ with frame sizes from Small through XLarge

Progressive shock rate optimized for high volume air shocks and coil applications

Flip chip adjustability with "High" and "Low" settings changing the BB height from 355.8mm to 350mm and steepens the head and seat angles by 0.6 degrees

Pivot Dock Tool System, an on-the-bike tool system created in collaboration with Topeak puts the essentials under the top tube or BB

Dock Tool System available as Dock Ninja CO2, Dock Ninja Tool Box T16+, or Dock Ninja Toll Box Mini 20 Pro

Compatible with mixed-wheel size setup and with 27.5" wheels in the "High" flip-chip setting (needs a 17mm extended headset cup for 27.5" in the front)

The maximum travel length that can be used on the Firebird is 180mm and it's not dual-crown compatible

Uses a SRAM Universal Derailleur Hanger (UDH)

FOX Live Valve integration built into frame

Price
With standard wheels: $7,499.00
With wheels upgrade: $7,599.00
More Info

Pivot website

Review This Product
What do you think?
Where To Buy
Free shipping on orders over $50 (continental U.S. only).
International shipping available. Some exclusions apply.
Free shipping on orders over $50 (continental U.S. only).
International shipping available. Some exclusions apply.
Bikes

Deals

See All »