http://www.mtb-mag.com/en/comparative-test-15-enduro-bikes-back-to-back/

Now obviously everyone will point out it’s all wrong as their favourite didn’t win 😉 but it’s a good starting point for drawing up your list.

Spot on results apart from the GT in first. Nomad > Capra!

Enduro spreadsheets ftw

Inevitably missing loads of brands. Winning bike got an underwhelming score on bike radar, doesn’t have a dropper post interestingly, and the seat tube is such a weird shape it won’t fit a long drop one either.

Strange test that one. I read it and thought that there were a bunch of important bikes missing. How can you do that test without including the Orbea Rallon for example, if only because it’s geometry is at one edge of the envelope. There are other missing bikes but I’m doing the classic, where’s my bike thing. The GT is an impressive machine, definitely not an all rounder I would have said. I’ve not ridden the Nomad yet so can’t comment.

As much as i love my Nomad, i think there are a few other bikes that are 99% as good for a lot less money. I wanted one purely because it was my dream bike, when it comes time to replace it i doubt i would get another SC bike.

They got 15 bikes in a group test, they can’t get every bike in the segment.

There’s a few big names missing from the test. Some of bikes on the list seem a bit random and make me wonder if there was some financial incentive behind them being picked.
Why the nomad? For true Enduro shouldn’t it be the Bronson?

Doesn’t the sanction have a reverb?

Interesting about only 1 of 15 bikes having a shimano rear mech too. Bit confused as to why the front suss scores are different for every bike, given that there were multiples of the same fork?

[my bike should have won] if the sanction and the nomad were running the same fork the nomad would have won which, given that they were both custom builds, is a not insignificant point as the nomad was the only one with a fork from a manufacturer new to the game. [/my bike should have won]

How can you do that test without including the Orbea Rallon for example

Easy. It’s a small brand with very limited reach. Brands like Norco, Liteville and Orange would be more deserved and relevant.
How Canyon isn’t on there is a mystery. Makes a mockery of the test really as does the fact that some bikes were custom builds.

cokie – Member

There’s a few big names missing from the test. Some of bikes on the list seem a bit random and make me wonder if there was some financial incentive behind them being picked.
Why the nomad? For true Enduro shouldn’t it be the Bronson?

Because the Nomad is marketed as an “Enduro Race” specific bike. That’s probably why.

Some deep analysis there – stuff you just wouldn’t know by looking at the bike for 5 seconds.

Plus: suspensions.

Jesus, this sort of guff just drives home how subjective it really is.

And I’m saying that from an objective POV, since I don’t even have an “enduro” bike.

Not at all Wrecker! Orbea is a massive brand with a lot of R&D money to spend. They just haven’t made an enduro bike before or pushed for the UK market. The Rallon pushes the geometry of an enduro bike way, way more than Orange, liteville or Norco. Way more. The Canyon point I agree with though, that bike is innovative and the geometry is impressive too, it should have been in there as well as the Rallon.

Maybe they asked and those companies couldn’t be arsed providing test bikes. It is pretty stupid expecting them to include every bike in the test, 15 bikes is a decent number.

Maybe MSP, could well be the case. My point isn’t that they need to include every bike, just that there are a few bikes which are at the edges of the pack of enduro bikes. To be a good test it should include those I think. The Canyon, Rallon, Sanction etc.

The Rallon pushes the geometry of an enduro bike way, way more than Orange, liteville or Norco.

It doesn’t look particularly revolutionary to me, not incomparable with the Norco Range and a host of others. Adj geo have been done many, many times (Knolly springs to mind as a recent example).
I just don’t buy it that an obscure Spanish bike (which you happen to own) should be in there before the bikes I mentioned, or Kona, Ibis etc etc.

It is an interesting test. I think the fact that the scores are grouped so closely is pretty revealing. Basically: avoid the Nukeproof and the Rose, and then pick the one you like the look of seems to be a perfectly sensible strategy.

🙂

It’s about the most wide-ranging group test I’ve ever seen and it still gets criticised for not including more bikes. They can’t win. can they?

(Obviously Nicolai would have won if included)

Ridiculous test. How can you benchmark off the shelf bikes against bizarre custom builds on others?

Just noticed the Mega gets the 2nd worst score for tech uphills, yet they list its climbing prowess as a positive 😆

We tested only Enduro bikes with between 160-170mm of rear travel.

No you didn’t

Only one bike had less travel: the Lapierre Spicy Team (150mm).

Nothing to do with adjustable geometry, although it is great. The Rallon is very long and low. That is what I mean. FWIW when it came out it was properly revolutionary, although some other manufacturers have caught up with the long and low thing. Read any of the reviews of the Rallon and you will see why I think it should be included. I’m not saying it should have won, just that it should have been there. I didn’t mention Ibis because their new enduro bike maybe wasn’t available when they did that test. Similarly for the new Commencal. The Range and Process are fantastic bikes but not as long or low as the Rallon. Again I’m not saying that the Rallon has the best geometry, just that it would have been nice to see that geometry compared to the other bikes. Ie some indication of whether they thing that enduro bikes are going to keep getting longer, lower and slacker or if bikes like the Rallon have already gone far enough in that direction.

The Rallon pushes the geometry of an enduro bike way, way more than Orange, liteville or Norco. Way more.

Really? Comparing it to the Alpine, the Alpine has a longer ETT, similar reach, slacker HA & longer WB.

The only thing the Rallon has is shorter stays (questionable if that’s a good thing or not) and a slightly lower BB.

It’s not exactly ground breaking.

not read the article, but all I can glean from that spreadsheet is that with those arbitrary weightings, most bikes are all equally identical scores at ca 75+/-1 (and half the bikes are missing, as mentioned already)
personally, i’d increase the weighting for up. it’s injooro. aka riding a bike. not linking between downhills.

It’s not exactly ground breaking.

My thoughts exactly.
The Rallon is 1mm higher than the Range and when you consider that the L rallon is more akin to the XL Range, then you’ll see that the Range is longer and has better standover too.
I get that Doug wants his bike included, most of us do/would (except me, I’m on 26″ wheels!) but I’m not feeling the rationale.

Longer and lower than an alpine, unless I am reading the figures wrong Shorter chainstays too like you say. Obviously a very different bike to the alpine. It is exactly groundbreaking, that is my point. Admittedly more so when it was launched than now as other frames have caught up. It’s been a while since I sat down with all the geometry numbers of other bikes but for long, low and slack it was right at one end of the spectrum. I think the new canyon is about the same now. I would have loved to see one of the long and low nicolai bikes in there too.

Not a criticism of the other bikes and once again I’m not saying the Rallon is the best because I have one or for any other reason.

It looks like ‘these are the bikes we got hold of’ test, and credit for being able to test so many. In an ideal world it might have been better to do two tiers based on price point/ off the peg vs custom.

And the custom list could then be full of drool worthly Nicolai/Liteville/Devinci/Knolly offerings… and the winningest SB6…

The only thing is that we’d then be complaining that they were all running different spec builds… And if the reviewers did build them like for like, we’d all just go ‘Meh, but i ride (insert brand) and they are the best…’ 😀

my bike is best and they missed it out, look at that long low slackness, its enduro for sure, coz kneepads

Come on, you must know the Rallon isn’t an “obscure Spanish bike”?

It’s one of the most-respected Enduro race bikes and was pretty out there a year or two ago, as far as I can see.

Lots more long bikes have popped up now of course.

BB drop 10mm on the range and 14 on the rallon Wrecker?

Longer and lower than an alpine, unless I am reading the figures wrong Shorter chainstays too like you say. Obviously a very different bike to the alpine. It is exactly groundbreaking,

Comparing mediums, the alpine is 40mm longer in the WB, at least a degree slacker in the HA (f you run the Orbea in it’s slack/low setting), and the grand total of either 3 or 10mm lower in the BB. So slightly lower, but significantly shorter.

There are other bikes that arn’t tested that have a longer TT, reach, WB, slacker HA & lower BB than the Rallon – it’s certainly not groundbreaking at all.

Agreed Hobnob, the m rallon is between the m and l alpine. Around the same in tt. BBdrop 7mm more on the rallon. I hadn’t looked at the Orange sizes properly. I agree there are other bikes now that are close to the Rallon, I think I’ve said that a few times. The Canyon for one.

That said – it looks quite a nice bike, regardless of the numbers!

Surely can’t be a complete enduro bike test if it doesn’t include the world champions bike? Yeti sb6

my bike is best and they missed it out, look at that long low slackness, its enduro for sure, coz kneepads and fluro orange

BB drop 10mm on the range and 14 on the rallon Wrecker?

Orbea BB height 345mm
Range BB height 344mm

It’s one of the most-respected Enduro race bikes

Strange thing to say. Who by? Do you own an Orbea?

I would like to have seen a Nicolai in there, but that’s just a personal thing.

A good test, some notable omissions ,Rallon,orange alpine and few others , but then I guess its pretty hard to test every single bike of that style.

That test was published back in november, which might explain why some bikes are missing – I read it back then when I was trying to decide what bike to buy (went for a rallon in the end).

I fancied the Sanction as well, but on the GT website its listed in the ‘gravity’ section along with their downhill bike, so that pretty much implied to me that even GT dont see it as much of an all rounder.

All I can conclude from that, is that Enduro bikes are just getting more and more like downhill bikes. If Enduro course designers were sensible they’d change the courses to somewhat resist this trend IMO.

And while STW will get in a lather about some odd esoteric brand, the reality is for most of us the Specialized would be the best choice.

Orbea BB height 345mm
Range BB height 344mm

That height is for the orbea in the high setting, in the low/slack setting its 338mm or 14 mm drop

It looks as though they’ve used whatever tyres happened to be on whatever bike, which again means a lot of the comparisons are pointless.