I see that JE James are knocking out some Orange Four Pro spec bikes for £2K (a 31% reduction on the original price)

A search for information on the Cotic Flare throws up lots about the Flare Max (29/B+) but virtually nothing on the “standard” Flare.

So, did the shorter-travel smaller-wheeled idea not really take off then? Is the thinking that 29ers are a better option for a shorter-travel bike or that longer travel bikes don’t really carry any penalty?

Do we need a list of them all?
From where I’m sat it’s the whole + thing that is falling away. Nobody can make a decent tyre for the right weight.
Also first link from my google search of Cotic Flare was

THE COTIC Flare IS OUR 130MM TRAVEL, 27.5″ WHEEL, LIGHT AND LIVELY TRAIL BIKE.
The Flare combines the DNA of our Rocket enduro bike with the light, subtle feel of our legendary Soul to bring a fun, nippy, endlessly addictive ride into your life. It uses 27.5″ wheels to keep the weight low, and handling agile and responsive.

The Flare balances light weight with toughness. It can be a singletrack scapel one minute, a rock smashing bomber the next. This is one of the most versatile bikes we make. If you love our hardtails, then this is the FS bike for you.
https://www.cotic.co.uk/product/flare

Personally, i think a lot of people on 160/170mm travel gnarpoons are overbiked, which is ok. But mebbe they’d get something to so the same riding, a bit lighter and more effective use of the travel with say a 130/140mm travel bike. I do wonder if when people wander into their LBS they get sold an Enduro bike, ‘cos that’s whats being sold to us by the industry. Other opinions are available, all bike ridings good, i remember when all this was fields, i have 20/20 vision through my rose tinted spectacles, enduro is the current growth mtb sport, blahbeblahdeblah…

Sure, Cotic still sell the Flare, but it’s hard to find any reviews of it. Even a thread on here ended up being about the Flare MAX (29/B+). Last year 120/130 650B bikes seemed to be the thing, but this year they seem to have died a death. Or maybe I’m just not looking in the right places.

A search for information on the Cotic Flare throws up lots about the Flare Max (29/B+) but virtually nothing on the “standard” Flare.

Perhaps because it’s the more novel/interesting of the options so it gets more coverage?

I don’t think plus tyres are as bad as the internet makes out, at SSUK there was a good split of ‘normal’, plus and fat bikes (being the nichemongers that such an event attracts) riding some fairly rough bridleways. Saw a lot of punctured normal tyres, but the fat and plus bikes just bounced off the rocks.

I also don’t agree with the “29ers are better for short travel” statement. They’re probably better for everything it’s just that marketing and the cool kids went for 650B whilst the designers figured out that actually you can make a 29er with a 66deg head angle.

Certainly is hard to find reviews of the flare, loads for the max though, everyone is loving 29 and B+ at the moment. Not many crop up on here or on the trails, flog plenty on Cotic Riders FB page. I’ve test ridden a Flare and loved it, but sadly can’t justify the cost, no matter how good it is.

Orange Four is similarly rare it seems, I’d have bought one if they got down to the price Five’s were being knocked out at a month or two ago.

Bird Aeris One20 is similar, and similarly hard to find reviews for. Anyway, I’ve plumped for a very slightly used one of those at a bargain price from a fellow STWer.

I do think people are tending towards 650b for endyooro and 29ers for almost everything else. It’s true that there’s not much weight penalty to longer travel bikes and shocks and forks are so good now hardly any loss in efficiency.

But, for most people, 130mm of full sus is probably enough. Ideal for me, hence wanting one of the above.

I don’t want to turn this into a plus tyres argument but.. having ridden around 3000km on WTB and Maxxis tyres in all sorts of lumpy, rocky and muddy terrain, it seems a little unfair to say they can’t be made at a decent weight… whether plus will be overtaken by 29v2 who the heck knows..

Chubby at 120ish (like my flaremax) seems like a whole lot of fun. 29 at 120ish (like my smuggler) is also a whole lot of different fun. 650B at 120… hmm would choose one of the other options.

I’ve prefer all of those to riding a 160mm 650B bike 95% of the time. However being a sample size of 1, probably not statistically significant.

Chubby at 120ish (like my flaremax) seems like a whole lot of fun. 29 at 120ish (like my smuggler) is also a whole lot of different fun. 650B at 120… hmm would choose one of the other options.

Yes, that would seem to be the way most people are thinking as far as I can tell.

I also don’t agree with the “29ers are better for short travel” statement.

I probably didn’t phrase that very well. I meant that, if you were looking for a short travel bike you’d probably look at a 29er (or B+) rather than trying to claim that 29ers were only good for short travel.

Not dried up, but 29in wheels are finding more and more fans – so something’s got to give.

I don’t want to turn this into a plus tyres argument but.. having ridden around 3000km on WTB and Maxxis tyres in all sorts of lumpy, rocky and muddy terrain, it seems a little unfair to say they can’t be made at a decent weight

I think people who say “Plus tyres aren’t tough enough” are probably just parroting what they’ve read on the internet.

I had my concerns, but they’ve proved to be perfect for woodsy riding and trail centres – and able to cope quite well with the odd rock or six.

It’s true they’re not up to the job of pinning it down rocky trails at race/strava speed, but most people don’t actually do that.

Horses for courses and a valuable addition to the armoury, IMO.

Orange Four is similarly rare it seems, I’d have bought one if they got down to the price Five’s were being knocked out at a month or two ago.

Bird Aeris One20 is similar, and similarly hard to find reviews for. Anyway, I’ve plumped for a very slightly used one of those at a bargain price from a fellow STWer.

yet the Whyte T-130 seems to get a lot of review time so it’s curious what is driving that – do whyte just have a good / bigger PR capacity?. The Aeris 145 is hardly any more widely reviewed than the 120 either.

That’s true about the T130, has it’s own megathread brewing. Good marketing I think, bit bigger budget for sure. They review well, but everything points to them being heavier than the competition and not necessarily any better.

Aeris 145 is hardly widely reviewed either, but my googling for the 120 brought mostly 145 stuff back.

I just think it’s quite niche and those who have them love them. Things like the Transition Scout have a massive following (something that I really really want at the mo).

Thing is most just get a 160mm bike in the basis that you’re can have your cake and eat it; they pedla well to climb Ok these days. Personally, been there and done that.

I’ve got no interest in plus tyres; having spent some time on them last year, I think they’re horrid bloody things.

Personally, i think a lot of people on 160/170mm travel gnarpoons are overbiked, which is ok. But mebbe they’d get something to so the same riding, a bit lighter and more effective use of the travel with say a 130/140mm travel bike. I do wonder if when people wander into their LBS they get sold an Enduro bike, ‘cos that’s whats being sold to us by the industry.

My brother is case in point … he rides nothing more technical than a fire trail.(and even then he wouldn’t keep up with my just turned 8yr old on a 60mm travel XC HT) .. but has a 160mm travel Remedy 8 he was (mis)sold… I take the T-130 down most stuff and only recently shoved in a 140mm airshaft..

I’d have thought they’re the opposite of niche, they should (and really are) just mountain bikes that you can use for nearly everything, which is what everyone used to ride before we pigeon holed bikes into all these different types. Santa Cruz 5010 is widely regarded as a brilliat all round bike, and is 130mm.

5 years ago, 100mm was short travel, it described XC bikes. 130mm was definitely ‘hardcore hardtail’ territory and considered fairly long travel.

I just want a bike I can do a bit of almost everything on, long XC days out, local bimbling, enduro type rides in local woods, trail centres, big mountains, uplifts. I think a modern 130mm full sus is perfect for that, and really not niche at all.

Or does everyone want a different bike for every place they ride?

I see that JE James are knocking out some Orange Four Pro spec bikes for £2K (a 31% reduction on the original price)

getting rid of last years stock. plenty of short travel 650b bikes around.

29 is just in trend at the moment amongst those who used to sneer at them.

650b at 130ish is where it’s at though. Unless you’re tall 😉

Santa Cruz 5010 is widely regarded as a brilliat all round bike, and is 130mm

100% this and another 100% or more. Best bike I’ve ever had. Biggest travel I’ve had (and still have) is a 160/170 bike and while I love it, it’s very much at home in certain terrain and use and doesn’t get to its full potential very often. 90% of the time the 5010 is way more suited for the riding I do and majority of where I ride in the UK (even maybe abroad). So agile, fast climbing, descending and pedalling, and while I can barely jump, it’s much easier to jump.

I reckon they’re too middle of the road to get too much attention – not enduro race gnarpoon or fat Tyred or “fun” hardcore hardtail.

They’re probably the perfect one bike for most smaller people, if you’re taller I can see a 29er hitting the spot. I’m not sold on 29ers at 5’6 and a bit. I’ve ridden the cotic flare and the whyte 130. Both great and capable bikes with some hardtail sprightliness mixed with full sus forgiveness. The cotic was let down by the x fusion shock but I can see the cane creek version being ace. If I could only have one bike that’s what I’d probably go for, or maybe a scout.

That said, I’m lucky enough to own two bikes so I want more separation between them, a “hardcore” hardtail is the most fun for local riding. If im travelling further afield and I’m on my full sus I want something that’s a bit more capable – on demoing the 130 bikes I felt I still had to hold back a little rather than fully attack rougher descents and I can ride the hardtail over the same terrain almost as fast and with similar line choice as the 130 bikes I’ve ridden in that case.

Thing is, most of the current longer travel trail/enduro bikes pedal so well they don’t have much of a downside for climbing. On demo I much preferred the rocket over the flare for example – it was nimble and lively an absolute hoot descending and seemed perfectly fine to pedal around – my legs or lack of them are still the deciding factor in most cases – maybe they’re usually good enough to balance the extra travel out?

Short or mid-travel 650b is defo out of fashion this week. Orange Five is almost short travel nowadays. Love mine. Was torn between that and an Alpine but decided that for 95% of my riding (rough and techy natural stuff in the Pennines and Lakes) Five would be perfect, and it is. I’d happily take it to the Alps too. Stage Five 29er is probably faster (I demoed one and liked it) but it’s not as nimble, and for me was a bit less fun. Enduro and 29ers is what all the marketing is pushing right now though.

It’s all down to what’s fashionable.
And I think a few have got the flare/flaremax mixed up a little. The flare is 130mm/650b and the flaremax 120mm/27+etc.
I chose (and absolutely love) a flare, I had my eyes on a new with tyres (Hans Dampf) hope 650B secondhand but unused wheelset for only £220 so also based my decision on that model because of that bargain. My riding is fast tight forest singletrack and having come from a Curtis xc9 29er knew I needed something light, nimble and whippy without the cartwheel feel of a 29er. Sure the rocketmax is the flavour of the month but I’m hardly ever chucking myself enduro stylie around bike parks. Also I knew I’d never notice the difference between a boost (flaremax) or non boost (flare), what massive difference would I notice between a 6mm wider rear wheel and 10mm front? None I’m sure!

Surely you base your bike decision on your riding style and terrain and not what’s fashionable right???

would be interesting to ride a scout over the same trails and compare it to my suppressor. does the extra travel and different geo make a difference? maybe on the climbs but I DGAF about the climbs being better 😀

Judging by the number of Whyte T130s I saw at CYB back in June, I’d say the market hasn’t died down.

I had to wait 2 months for my 4 because the dealer told me that demand had outstripped supply at the time (March).Could have been BS I suppose, although I’m inclined not to think so.

Agree with the above, it’s all fashion. The 4 got rave reviews a couple of years ago and modern geometry 650b with short travel seemed the place to be. At the time you could buy the ace long travel 5 29 but not many did.

Now, fashion is all over longer travel 29ers so no one is looking at short travel 650b so no one reviews them. The Stage 5 is raved about and plenty seem to be buying but it’s basically just a update of a bike they’ve sold for years.

Good question! I personally think that the market is leaning away from them. Sales of 29er’s have spiked again and IMHO I think a short travel 29er is a better (much faster) ride.

That being said, I never bought into the whole 650B thing. I rode a 29er when 27.5’s got popular and I got harassed by everyone. I don’t think there is anything WRONG with 650B, they have their place for sure, but as a XC racerboi I’m looking for speed and the answer for me is a 29er. Now that the DH races are being won on 29ers again I think the market for both short travel and long travel 29ers bikes is rising big time.

I do LOVE a good 27.5+ bike though. + tires are a fricken blast on loose kitty litter terrain.

In the real world, people buy bikes, keep them for quite a long time and some even ride them. When bits break the owners replace parts and some people like tinkering/mixing parts before they break.

The pace of change is now extremely quick and there are so many variations these days, there is arguably far too much (unnecessary, false?) choice.

It is the same with cars -look how many permutations and slight variations of similar vehicles the likes of BMW or VAG produce.

Obsolescence drives new sales.

What I have noticed is that there is a tendency for good riders to be good riders whatever they are riding and vice versa 😉

If I won the lottery tomorrow I’d be out to buy an Evil Calling over any of the longer travel bikes just because it looks so much FUN.
Unfortunately though, I don’t do the lottery.

I demo’d the ‘standard’ flare last year and always meant to write a review about it.

One of the most fun bikes I have ever ridden, just felt right straight away and had an absolute ball bombing around Leigh Woods offpiste of an evening. Pedalled well and massively confidence inspiring on the way down.

In the end, I went with an even more unfashionable option – mainstream and short travel! Picked up a 2016 Fuel 9.8 off pink bike for sensible money and I love it, would not change it for anything. I’m not the strongest so having something light is a good thing and it’s plenty more bike than I need going down – rider is the weak link. Did I mention I really like it?

I thought 650b was for Gravel bikes now? Maybe they’ll go full-sus soon.

Already happened.

http://road.cc/content/tech-news/219528-exclusive-first-look-apro-ranger-full-suspension-gravel-bike-unveiled

I do quite like that…

The bike for everything? (but why not a 29er?)

Can someone define “short”, “medium” and “long” travel for me?

Can someone define “short”, “medium” and “long” travel for me?

Not me, that’s why I went with “shorter” in the original post 🙂

But it does seem like last year you couldn’t move for 650B bikes with 120(ish) mm of rear travel and sub 330mm chainstays. Light, poppy, good climbers that were still long and slack enough for fun on the way back down. Or so the marketing went. It sounded good to me, but this year they seem to have fallen off the radar. But I guess that’s just marketing. Last year’s hot thing is this year’s old-news.

It sounded good to me, but this year they seem to have fallen off the radar. But I guess that’s just marketing. Last year’s hot thing is this year’s old-news.

That’s why I change all of my bikes every year, binning the old ones to prevent somebody inadvertently using one.

It’s the only sensible solution.

I bought one, so obviously the whole market segment is now dead. 🙂

My rationale for the Flare was that I wanted something mainly for Dales XC with a fair bit of Lakes and a bit of trail-centring on the side. Flare Max looked like it might be a bit more effort on long, easy climbs (not sure this is the case, in retrospect).

Either way, with 140 travel up front, 130 with various lockouts at the back, it’s been quicker up and down on most surfaces compared with the HT it replaced.

Can someone define “short”, “medium” and “long” travel for me?

I’d say short is up to 120mm, mid above 120mm to 160mm and long above 160mm or there abouts?

But it does seem like last year you couldn’t move for 650B bikes with 120(ish) mm of rear travel and sub 330mm chainstays. Light, poppy, good climbers that were still long and slack enough for fun on the way back down. Or so the marketing went. It sounded good to me, but this year they seem to have fallen off the radar. But I guess that’s just marketing. Last year’s hot thing is this year’s old-news.

It’s long-travel 29ers this year. You must have noticed?

But, a long travel 29er has the same travel as a shorter travel 650b…..

scotroutes – Member
Can someone define “short”, “medium” and “long” travel for me?

For rear travel

Short up to 120mm
Medium 120-140mm
Long -140 -160mm
Too long – 160+ lol

Good review of the Orange 4 here: http://singletrackworld.com/reviews/review-orange-four-rs/

Article hints at ‘short travel’ being out of fashion at the moment, but I think gets to the heart of what these type of bikes are about.