Enduro Rig Inout

Yooo,

Was hoping someone could chime in with some first hand knowledge on some of the bikes I’m considering. Been on a Stevo for 3 seasons now and love its all around nature, but despite going to a Vivid, using a CC link, etc. I can’t really get it to give me that bottomless, magic carpet type feel on fast, chunky trails - which is my preferred type of riding. I’m usually on a Spur if I’m riding more pedally, flow trails.

Been considering some other options that hopefully won’t give up too much on the climbing side of things as it’ll also be my travel/do everything bike.

Anyone gone from a Stevo to any of the following bikes?

Deviate Claymore
Megatower v2
Norco Sight (2024)
Trek Slash (2024)
Chilcotin 170
Raaw Madonna

I’ve dug deep into the reviews of these so mostly looking for input or experiences between the Stevo and above bikes. Demo is the answer I know, but aside from the Claymore I haven’t been able to find any demos of the others nearby (Truckee/Reno).

Cheers!

new Rocky Mtn altitude. That is all

If you're considering high pivot bikes consider the Kavenz VHP16. There's a great review of it on Blister. I have one and it's perfect for the kind of riding you describe without being a total DH sled. Also it can be adapted between 140, 150, 160, and 180 rear travel with a shock and quick mount change.

I have 22 Slash and Spire.
Slash climbs better, Spire's faster down.

I’d look at the Banshee Titan if I was in this market. LOVE my Prime.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Can't directly compare all the bikes you listed, but from what you seem to be looking for, i'd really suggest test riding a rearward axle path (aka high pivot/idler) bike. The stumpy evo is definately NOT that (and is a progressive geo trail bike, not a sled).

This is why high pivot / idler bikes are trending and where they thrive. The wheel moves back and out of the way instead of vertically up (or forward). Many of them can start to feel like couches though, unless you are in mega rowdy terrain. IMO the kavenz setup does a great balancing act between magic carpet but still nice and responsive too, FWIW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Can't directly compare all the bikes you listed, but from what you seem to be looking for, i'd really suggest test riding a rearward axle path (aka high pivot/idler) bike. The stumpy evo is definately NOT that (and is a progressive geo trail bike, not a sled).

This is why high pivot / idler bikes are trending and where they thrive. The wheel moves back and out of the way instead of vertically up (or forward). Many of them can start to feel like couches though, unless you are in mega rowdy terrain. IMO the kavenz setup does a great balancing act between magic carpet but still nice and responsive too, FWIW.

---

Interesting, there just so happens to be a large “Kavenz” for sale on PB too…haha. The 490mm reach worries me a bit, haven’t ridden anything more than 480mm.

Is the 437 chainstay length at sag Marshall?

Bit more info needed on desired traits. Did you find the Claymore stiffened up a bit when braking chunky stuff? You want at least ‘reasonably’ efficient climbing to get you to the top? What’s your height? A lot of brands still haven’t figured out rear end geo for tall guys like me.

Long story short—I’ve been riding / borrowing / demoing every 150+ bike I could last 2 yrs, and getting first hand info from riders I know, and eventually narrowed it down to megatower, kavenz, spire, and sb160. sb160 demos available at PineNut cycles in SLT incidentally.

From a tall guy perspective, some of your list (eg Chilcotin) have a super low stack height unfortunately.

My focus is Tahoe riding but I regularly ride OR/WA/BC, and for me the versatility of the SB160 won out. It’s a weapon, totally understand why enduro magazine gave it bike of the year award. It combines the plushness of megatower/range/slash with a more supportive feel when you’re pumping a smooth flow trail. Some of this comes down to whether you want a HA below 64 deg. For me 64 deg / 170 fork works great up & down — ie versatile — but if I moved to Whistler/squamish I’d go slightly slacker.

Your stumpy Evo is a trailduro bike. Most of your list will feel plusher. You should also zero in on what wheelbase works best for you. It greatly influences stability in the chunk.

Thanks for the input frorider. Very much average height (5’11) here but good point. Back in the Tahoe area myself so think tracking and bump soaking for fast chunk - think Flintstones, Butcher Ranch, Big Boulder, etc. Also ride N* a handful of times a year and it’d be great to have something more plush for longer park days.

Haven’t ridden the Claymore yet, will demo Thurs or Fri. I hear it can stiffen up while breaking but it also preserves the geo versus a non-hp bike so maybe that effect will be a wash and just a tradeoff?

Chainstay lengthwise I’m leaning towards 440-450 depending on how balanced it feels with the front end of the bike.

Assorted non-specific thoughts:

Just bumping up to a longer travel rig with a 38 / zeb is going to make a substantial difference over the Stumpy (assuming you have a 36 / lyrik on there), regardless of what the suspension at the back of the bike is doing. A 170mm 38 is substantially more capable than a 160mm 36, even though it's only a little bit more travel.

I think your answer will mostly come down more to how much you're willing to sacrifice climbability. Magic carpet plowiness and climbability tend to have an inverse relationship. Also keep in mind that as you start getting into bigger bikes that can smash through stuff more, you'll likely end up wanting substantially heavier tires that can hold up to that smashing (disregard if you're already running DH tires on the Stumpy). But again, heavier tires climb worse.

If you're pedaling much vert or doing much distance on a regular basis, I wouldn't want a bike with an idler pulley. The little bit of drag is noticeable, it gets worse when the chain is dry, and the chain gets dry quite a bit faster than non-idler bikes. By the numbers, the drag is only a 2-3% reduction in efficiency, but that means you're either a few minutes back at the top of the climb, or you're constantly working a bit harder than your riding buddies. Not a big deal for the occasional climb, but kinda annoying if that's your life on every single ride.

High pivot bikes work really well on super chunky trails with big rocks/roots that you're smashing though. They're less game-changery on trails that are rough but with lots of smaller bumps. They're maybe a bit worse on super twisty trails. Also probably a bit worse on jumpy, "playful" trails. Consider whether the upsides outweigh the downsides for the trails you usually ride.

Just now learning that Stevo is code for Stumpy EVO. Is that a way of denying team Special Ed?

Hey GoSlow, even if you only ride N* for (say) 6 days on this bike, it does suggest you go toward the plush sled end of the spectrum like the Range or the Rocky Mtn. For me these days the park riding is mammoth or bachelor & I can get by with a versatile enduro bike rather than something more park oriented.

Also keep in mind that ‘high pivot’ bikes vary a lot in terms of ride characteristics. Some are more of a mid pivot. Some are rearward travel thru most of the arc. For me personally the Range is too descent oriented but a great bike—but regardless it’s not like all high pivot bikes ride like the Range.

I haven’t ridden the Cannondale HP, but I think it’s an example of a HP that has very different kinematics than the range. The Hope is another example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoSlowGoFar

Interesting, there just so happens to be a large “Kavenz” for sale on PB too…haha. The 490mm reach worries me a bit, haven’t ridden anything more than 480mm.

Is the 437 chainstay length at sag Marshall?

---

I have had a Kavenz for 2,5 seasons; added a Raaw Jibb this season.

L Kavenz is 480, not 490 reach.
437mm is at sag, unless the bike is latest gen / or updated seatstays. Both can have +10 or +20mm drop-outs.

The Kavenz is really great, but after picking up the Raaw I'm really noticing the drag (or something else) when on the Kavenz. Espescially after adding the lower chain guide needed for Transmission. But I'm not feeling it when riding as such, just notice it on times / speed when climbing.

That being said, the Kavenz does tech climbing very well, great traction. And I have better climbing times on the Kavenz than on the Strive I had before the Kavenz.

The Jibb handles descents very well for 135mm of travel, and although the Kavenz is better going downhill I guess the Madonna is pretty similar. Probably better going all out, while the Kavenz is a bit more nimble. But the Jibb is in no way demanding, I can't imagine the Madonnna being either.

The Raaw is 100% silent. The Kavenz will have some noise from the idler, but not annoying to me,

All this to say; buy both Kavenz and Madonna with confidence. Both are a breeze to build up, but the Raaw even more so. I belive Raaw has sales on their gen 2-frames currently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sf

I have had a Kavenz for 2,5 seasons; added a Raaw Jibb this season.

L Kavenz is 480, not 490 reach.
437mm is at sag, unless the bike is latest gen / or updated seatstays. Both can have +10 or +20mm drop-outs.

The Kavenz is really great, but after picking up the Raaw I'm really noticing the drag (or something else) when on the Kavenz. Espescially after adding the lower chain guide needed for Transmission. But I'm not feeling it when riding as such, just notice it on times / speed when climbing.

That being said, the Kavenz does tech climbing very well, great traction. And I have better climbing times on the Kavenz than on the Strive I had before the Kavenz.

The Jibb handles descents very well for 135mm of travel, and although the Kavenz is better going downhill I guess the Madonna is pretty similar. Probably better going all out, while the Kavenz is a bit more nimble. But the Jibb is in no way demanding, I can't imagine the Madonnna being either.

The Raaw is 100% silent. The Kavenz will have some noise from the idler, but not annoying to me,

All this to say; buy both Kavenz and Madonna with confidence. Both are a breeze to build up, but the Raaw even more so. I belive Raaw has sales on their gen 2-frames currently.

---

This is a comparison I’m very much interested in. Did you go with the v1 or v2 jibb?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sf

I have had a Kavenz for 2,5 seasons; added a Raaw Jibb this season.

L Kavenz is 480, not 490 reach.
437mm is at sag, unless the bike is latest gen / or updated seatstays. Both can have +10 or +20mm drop-outs.

The Kavenz is really great, but after picking up the Raaw I'm really noticing the drag (or something else) when on the Kavenz. Espescially after adding the lower chain guide needed for Transmission. But I'm not feeling it when riding as such, just notice it on times / speed when climbing.

That being said, the Kavenz does tech climbing very well, great traction. And I have better climbing times on the Kavenz than on the Strive I had before the Kavenz.

The Jibb handles descents very well for 135mm of travel, and although the Kavenz is better going downhill I guess the Madonna is pretty similar. Probably better going all out, while the Kavenz is a bit more nimble. But the Jibb is in no way demanding, I can't imagine the Madonnna being either.

The Raaw is 100% silent. The Kavenz will have some noise from the idler, but not annoying to me,

All this to say; buy both Kavenz and Madonna with confidence. Both are a breeze to build up, but the Raaw even more so. I belive Raaw has sales on their gen 2-frames currently.

---

I appreciate the input man. To be clear, when I was referring to the “Kavenz” it was a custom built bike that MO has for sale on PB based on the VHP16 so the dimensions are slightly different.

And I think you’re right - can’t go wrong with either. Mostly just caught between going HP or not. It seems like with the Kavenz there aren’t many downsides other than a bit more noise from the idler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GBB

This is a comparison I’m very much interested in. Did you go with the v1 or v2 jibb?

---

V1 on sale. The V2 wasn't released at the time. Hit me up with questions, but really; they are both great bikes in their travel ranges, and compare pretty much as any other good 135mm vs 160mm bikes would.

Every Kavenz review I've read is accurate as far as I'm conserned. A few of the Jibb reviews can be read as if the Jibb can be a handful, "need a experienced pilot" etc. I don't think that's accurate. I feel it's a lively bike, but one that can handle speed and chunk very well for a 135mm frame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoSlowGoFar

I appreciate the input man. To be clear, when I was referring to the “Kavenz” it was a custom built bike that MO has for sale on PB based on the VHP16 so the dimensions are slightly different.

And I think you’re right - can’t go wrong with either. Mostly just caught between going HP or not. It seems like with the Kavenz there aren’t many downsides other than a bit more noise from the idler.

---

Copy. If it's that titanium frame you should buy it - just because :)

I think - if you narrow it down to VHP16 vs Madonna - that you shouldn't really think HP vs non-HP. Think more vs less tech climbing, more vs less loooong fire roads, more vs less steep techy downhills and more vs less faster straighter trails. More tech up or down I'd lean Kavenz. Less I'd lean Madonna.