Viewing 27 posts - 1 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • Has anybody ridden an Orange Four and a 26" Five ?
  • roverpig
    Full Member

    I keep looking at the Four as a potential replacement for my trusty 2013 (26″) Five. But on paper they look so similar that I wonder whether it’s worth the effort. I’ll try and sort out a demo at some point, but has anybody ridden them both and if so, do they feel as similar in practice as they look on paper?

    tonyg2003
    Full Member

    I have a Four and had a 26inch Five for years (I still have frame in shed).

    The Four is far more modern. Stiffer (boost), slacker, lighter and generally a complete laugh to ride. I enjoy it much more than the Five so I retired the Five.

    roverpig
    Full Member

    Thanks. Interesting that it feels slacker. I think the angles are the same on paper. How does climbing compare ?

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    Cotters
    Free Member

    I placed my 26″ Five next to a Four and there is almost no difference in geometry imo.

    pnik
    Full Member

    I test rode a large four when i was looking to replace my 2012 Large Five. It didnt feel different/better enough for me to be honest. I didnt realise how much the sizing has changed though my 5 was always a bit small not helped by a slammed steerer, the four was again a bit small. For reference i’ve got an XL Segment which is great, i rode a couple of other 27.5 and decided to go all the way to 29, the difference wasnt worth the cost of change for me. T130 and aeris 120

    legend
    Free Member

    roverpig – Member

    Thanks. Interesting that it feels slacker

    confirmation bias can be a bugger sometimes 🙂

    roverpig
    Full Member

    To be honest, if it felt the same as a 2012 Five going down but was a bit more efficient going back up that would be a win for me. I’ve tried a few newer bikes, but keep going back to the old Five as it just seems to fit me and is fun. Just wish it were a bit more efficient on the climbs and the rear didn’t flex quite so much. Mind you, it’s all academic until they bring back neon orange.

    andybrad
    Full Member

    better than the 2013 five i had. But only just.

    too low and not slack enough imo. like a 26″ five with offset bushes

    gelert
    Free Member

    I’ve got the 2013 Five and a 2014 Alpine – both 26 and both size M. I much prefer the Alpine for everything. The Alpine is just all round faster and better at everything. I can easily find the limit on the Five, I rarely do on the Alpine.

    I’ve tested the Four a few times – it’s a right hoot to ride – it definitely climbs better than the old 26 Five. It’s stiffer. It doesn’t feel any worse going down at all but the head angle is just not slack enough for me. It also doesn’t loop out like all Fives. I would replace my 26 Five with one hands down. It is a direct replacement. It’s just a much better one. It feels so fast to ride the Four. The power delivery is awesome. I loved the Four.

    I think if the Four was 65 degrees I’d be very tempted. I don’t think it’d do it any harm at all.

    The new Five 2017 is as bad at climbing as the old Five – it’s more efficient now but still loops out on anything remotely steep even with all your weight forward – it’s a real fight. My Alpine cleans climbs the Five fails on.

    The new Alpine 6 felt the same as my Alpine 160 and it climbed exceptionally well. I’d have one. Felt ace.

    Until I rode the Stage 5 and then the 6 in Medium. The Stage 6 is just unreal.

    They better not get much longer though. I’m struggling to steer them. I’m used to putting weight forward but my arms seem to be getting too short for the new sizing.

    They can all go slacker but they’re on the limit of length for me.

    roverpig
    Full Member

    Thanks for all the feedback. Very interesting. Presumably the downside of the Four not looping out so easily is that it’s not as easy to lift the front when you want to.

    finbar
    Free Member

    If anyone on this thread is thinking of selling a 16/17″ 26″ Five, drop me an email…

    tonyg2003
    Full Member

    Just to add (should have said this first) my old Five is a 2009 and hence my Four is definitely slacker than a Five of that vintage!

    roverpig
    Full Member

    Thanks for all the comments folks. I’m beginning to think (yet again) that I might as well just stick with my 2013 Five for a bit longer. It sounds as though the Four is a good upgrade from the 2009 Five, but maybe not worth it from the 2013. More stiffness and better climbing does appeal, but maybe not enough to be worth the change. I’ll still see if I can get a play on one, but maybe a Stage Four would make more sense. At least I’d notice the difference.

    wl
    Free Member

    Might not help but I love my 2017 Five – for me significantly better than my 2013 Five (which I also really liked). Strikes a nice balance between agile, fun and also fast and stable and great on steep stuff. Spec might help – I have 36s and a Float X. Not quite sure what this ‘looping out’ on climbs is. Not saying it doesn’t happen on some Fives (whatever it is), but mine climbs fine on all of Calderdale’s steepest, techiest drags. Stage 5 is also great but I prefer the slightly shorter and more nimble Five. Personally, I’d have an Alpine 6 before I’d have a Stage 5. I found it easier to steer on slow, very tight stuff. Just a bit too much bike for 95% of my riding. Five would give more versatility than a Four, I reckon. Unless you like big jumps, a Five would be fine in the Alps, for example.

    snorkelsucker
    Free Member

    You’d definitely notice the (slightly) longer front centre on the Four; that is probably one of the biggest changes to more modern bikes and probably why some people have suggested it feels slacker. The reality is that compared to the 2013 Five, it isn’t, but the cumulative effect of longer top tube, effective top tube, steeper seat angle all make it seem slacker.

    The beauty of a longer front centre is that it puts you in a more central position on the bike meaning its easier to ride more aggressively (once you get used to it). I had a 2012/13 Five earlier this year and whilst it was ok, it quickly got out of its depth when the speeds picked up and you felt like you were over the front of the bike so wan’t massively confidence inspiring.

    Having had 26″, 27.5 and 29″ bikes, you’d be hard pressed to notice a massive difference in speed between a 26″ and a 27.5″. You will notice a better geometry setup though. If it is outright speed you want, then a 29″ is the way to go.

    wl
    Free Member

    Agree with above. For speed alone (at least on trials without super-tight corners) 29 is the way. More speed doesn’t necessarily mean more fun tho – entirely personal.

    roverpig
    Full Member

    Personally I’m not so bothered about faster descending. The rate limiting steps there are corners and my own caution. But I wouldn’t mind a bit more speed (or rather a bit more efficiency) on the way up.

    chestrockwell
    Full Member

    Didn’t the 2009 and 2013 have the same geometry? From what I remember 2009-13 used the same geometry but 2011+ gained 30.9mm seat post and tapered head tube followed by maxel rear across the board from 2012.

    I had a 2009 with maxed and demo’d a 2014 650b. Much preferred the 2014 and I would imagine the 4 would be similarly pleasant for you.

    iainc
    Full Member

    Had an older 5 (2008) and demo’d a 4 earlier this year. It was night and day, not unsurprisingly. I nearly bought a 4 but then tried a 2017 Anthem, which for me was better in just about every way, so bought that.

    roverpig
    Full Member

    I had a 2009 with maxed and demo’d a 2014 650b. Much preferred the 2014 and I would imagine the 4 would be similarly pleasant for you.

    Thanks. I did get a demo on a 2016 Five and didn’t really like it. Maybe it just wasn’t set up for me, but it seemed much more focussed on the descents and less of an all rounder, which is what makes me think of the Four (or maybe Stage Four).

    Del
    Full Member

    the geometry of the legacy fives are all on the orange website, just google ‘2013 orange 5 geometry’ and you’ll get the product page. you can compare the 2009 – 2013 changes on the orange site just by changing the year in the address line.
    i think the equivalently sized current 4 has 10mm longer TT and 10mm longer wheelbase than the 2013 5, IIRC.
    There doesn’t appear to be much in it, but sometimes with bikes ‘not much in it’ can feel quite different!

    roverpig
    Full Member

    Yes, geometry is very similar. They didn’t publish reach figures back then, but basically it looks as though front centre is around 13mm longer on a new Four with all the other numbers being basically the same as my 2013 Five. BB drop is different, but that’s just to allow for the larger wheels. However, that doesn’t mean that it feels the same. Pivot is wider, stiffer and in a different place, for a start.

    Rik
    Free Member

    Two frames are a world apart.

    The bb drop is substantially lower (equivalent if same size wheels) on the Four and the reach is a lot longer on a given frame.
    Plus stiffer (boost), they moved the pivot slightly,

    roverpig
    Full Member

    If I’ve read it correctly BB drop on the 650B Four is 25mm compared with zero on the 26″ Five. So that it basically the difference in radius between an “average” 26″ and 650B wheel. Given the shorter travel the BB should actually be higher in practice than the 26″ Five. Not sure I’d call 13mm a lot longer either. But this is just going from geometry charts and I’m prepared to accept that they may feel very different in practice. That was the point of the thread really 🙂 Although some say they feel very different and some say they feel the same.

    wl
    Free Member

    Not ridden a Four but I can’t imagine it being any more versatile than the current Five. Not much in it weight and travel-wise, but just enough to make the Five properly Lakes/Alps friendly, where the Four is less so.

    chestrockwell
    Full Member

    I recommend trying the stage 4 as my Segment is ace. I’d have one over a 4, although if you are in the market now I’d just get a sale Segment.

    gelert
    Free Member

    The looping out thing is definitely real but it may have something to do with rider proportions as well. So if you’ve longer arms than legs you probably wouldn’t notice it.

    The Five has a really short chain stay but the seat angle is the same as an Alpine with a longer chain stay. The longer front end (and fork head angle) on the Alpine makes it’s front weight better.

    If you have longer legs and shorter arms the seat angle just gets even worse as well as the seat angle gets slacker. I have mine all the way forwards on the rails.

    With all that you have a recipe for looping out on steep climbs. I find I have to shift my weight forwards a lot more on a Five than on an Alpine, of any vintage after 2012/3 anyway.

    Longer chain stay = more stability at speed.

    I just feel the Alpine has better all-round proportions than a Five after riding them both for 2/3 years. It climbs better, descends better. It’s not less fun to ride either or less nimble.

    The Four, Five, Alpine aren’t just the same bike with different length suspension. They have different traits in their geo.

    I’m waiting for Orange to update all their frames for metric shocks. The Stage 4 is using a longer shock than the Segment it replaces. Longer shocks bring more control to all shock lengths. I’m surprised they didn’t update all the frames for 2018 with the new shock sizing.

Viewing 27 posts - 1 through 27 (of 27 total)

The topic ‘Has anybody ridden an Orange Four and a 26" Five ?’ is closed to new replies.