Hope HB.916

Hope HB.916 first ride review: The Perfect Bike?

by 98

Hubba hubba Hope. The Hope HB.916 is one of the nicest looking bikes we’ve seen for quite some time. But does the 160/170mm enduro bike live up to its aesthetic promise?

  • Brand: Hope
  • Product: HB.916
  • Price: Complete bikes from £6995.00, framesets inc. shock, headset & BB from £3,595, Complete minus drivetrain from £3,595
  • From: Hope Tech
  • Review by: Benji for a week
Hope HB.916

Three things I loved

  • Perfect geometry
  • Rides light
  • That weave

Three things I’d change

  • Not a fan of DMR Deathgrips
  • Cheaper is always nice
  • Um.
Non-driveside pic FTW

The HB.916 is very much not a new HB.160 (their previous enduro bike). Everything about it is different. Well apart from what it’s made from (carbon) and where it’s made (Barnoldswick, Lancashire). Actually, the rear travel is the same (160mm) so maybe I’m exaggerating the HB.916’s newness for journalistic effect. Surely not.

The Hope HB.916 is like a complete new project. High pivot with idler and all. Well, high-ish pivot. The idler is not that far above the chainring, certainly compared to other ostensibly similar designs from Deviate, Commencal, GT, Norco et al.

HB = Head Badge?

The looks

I don’t often like to spend time writing about the manufacturing of a bicycle. I usually just prefer to jump straight into how it rides. But clearly, with the made-in-UK weave-tastic CNC-fest Hope HB.916, how the bike is made a big part of the whole thing.

Essentially, it is stunningly well put together. Nothing on this bike is lightly fudged or bodged or sticking plastered. It looks amazing. Crisp yet smooth. It feels like the very definition of precision engineering. It’s so well constructed that it makes you look at the price tag, look back over the bike, and go “yeah, fair enough really”.

Not very high pivot idler

I like to think I’m not that bothered about bike aesthetics. And I don’t think I am when it matters. It’s not that the HB.916 is a ‘pretty’ or ‘cool looking’ bike (although it is very definitely both), it’s that it exudes something well thought about, well designed and well put together. No compromises have been made.

The front triangle is one piece carbon fibre and like all the carbon parts on the bike, proudly displays its weave top layer. Often, carbon with a visible weave looks hideously naff and a bit nineties. Somehow the weave finish on the HB.916 looks great.

Brilliant new brakes

The whole bike is not carbon. CNC’d aluminium is used for the rocker linkage and also on the stays where the pivot hardware resides which allows Hope “to keep pivot bearings fitted into aluminium and spaced as wide as possible to increase bearing life”. Which is nice. Again, kudos to the Crayon Crew at Hope who somehow managed to merge the use of carbon and aluminium without the finished product looking disjointed or with the common ‘wish this was carbon too’ feeling to the aesthetic.

Other stuff: internal cable routing, bespoke rubber frame protection, ‘Butty Box’ downtube storage, water bottle bosses. The headtube also accepts an angle-adjust headset if you want to tweak the head angle a degree. Oh and there’s a neatly done flipchip in the seat stay if you want to run the bike as mullet/MX. Hope have also quietly ditched their proprietary 130mm back end. The HB.916 is regular Boost 148.

New Hope stem

The high pivot idler

First of all, I’m fairly certain the overriding feature of the way this bike rides is the Öhlins parts. It’s always the dampers that have the biggest effect on how a bike rides, regardless of how many pivots it has and where they’re placed etc.

This is not to say the design of a bike’s back end is irrelevant. It does have an effect. It just may not be the most important part of the package. Or a part that can’t be overcome or improved/worsened by what you do with the dampers.

Öhlins front damper

As you are possibly already aware of (and bored with hearing), a high pivot with idler design is meant to offer a rearward axle path without minimal effect on/from chain forces. Rearward axle paths are theoretically desirable as they take impacts in a betterer way that more vertical/forward axle paths. In essence, the rear wheel moves in similar plain to the fork; backwards and upwards. Like a backwards slash, if bike is viewed from the driveside … \

The idler is there to stop (or reduce) the effect of the chain pulling the cranks backwards under suspension compression.

It’s the little things…

The HB.916 is not the highest of high pivot designs. Its axle path is not *that* rearward and it stops being rearward completely in the latter half of the stroke. Nor is the leverage curve as progressive as other modern enduro bikes. It ‘only’ has around 26% progression. Which makes it fine for air or coil shocks (the latter can actually work just fine with designs that have much less progression).

One thing that’s easy to miss is that the bike is not a Horst Link (like the HB.160). It’s an axle-concentric layout. Think Dae Weagle’s Split Pivot or Trek’s ABP. What effect does this have? I’m going to say “not a lot” but if you forced me to come out with an opinion upon pain of death I’d say axle-concentric designs seems to bob a bit less. I can’t say I’ve ever felt any difference to braking or ‘anti-rise’ stuff. Sorry. Maybe it’s just me.

Axle-concentric

The more important stuff

Important stuff. By which I mean geometry, dampers and brakes.

Let’s deal with the last first. The brakes are Hope’s new Tech 4 levers paired with the V4 calliper, running on new-material pads. And they are completely brilliant. Very probably the best brakes ever made in fact. No really. It’s pretty annoying that we’ve just published our disc brake group test recently.

The dampers (journo speak for fork and rear shock) are both from Öhlins and I ended up running them completely open. It did take me a little while to get them to come to life, as it were. Basically, they felt really harsh (almost stiction-y but not) until I reached a very healthy amount of sag, circa 20% fork, 33% shock. I’m sure faster/better riders than me may like them run less sagged but I think it’s worth saying that a lot of mortals should experiment with running significantly softer pressures than they usually do on other brands’ dampers.

Alloy rocker and hardware

How did it ride?

Can you feel the idler? More specifically, can you feel the idler doing bad or good stuff? Well, I could tell when I’d forgotten to oil the chain. I don’t think the pulley drag is any worse than that from the rear mech, it’s more that the idler tinkling noise is easier to hear because of where it is in relation to yourself. Hey, treat it as a lubrication reminder! Once the chain was lubed, the idler never made its presence unduly felt.

The overriding quality of the ride of the Hope HB.916 was one of balance, comfort and responsiveness.

It was a real hovercraft at slower speeds and climbs. Just a really nice place to be. The steep seat angle and decent reach work really well when seated and making progress. The bike really took a lot of body tensing out the whole activity of going uphill.

Öhlins rear damper

Whilst the bike, and indeed the wheelset, is not appreciably lighter than similar travel bikes that I’m used to riding of late, the HB.916 rode incredibly light. I realise this is a real pseud-y journo thing to come out with. Nevertheless, it is true. The bike just feels like it wastes fewer of your precious watts. And even when you’re freewheeling, the bike feels impressively sprightly and chuckable. It is very much not a plough.

How much of this sprightliness is due to the rear suspension design or the use of carbon fibre is up for debate. My 2p: it’s the Öhlins and the geometry.

I would definitely testify to the fact that the Hope HB.916 is a noticeably calm and quiet bike. That sort of stuff is unarguably a result of the rear suspension and the frame construction. Getting back on another bike after being on the HB.916 feels and sounds like you’re breaking bits of it as you descend down stuff.

The HB.916 does not feel like a delicate piece of engineering that needs servicing and rebuilding by a dedicated tinkerer every few weeks. It feels like a reassuring marvel of modern mountain biking that can totally rip any terrain you care to take it to.

‘Butty Box’

Overall first impressions

It makes climbs feel easier. It skips along singletrack. It can ride down anything you point it at.

We had to give our HB.916 test bike back for Hope to take to Tweedlove. I want it back now please. I NEED to find a chink in its weave-tastic armour. Otherwise, it may well be The Perfect Bike.

Specification

  • Frame // Hope Tech Carbon, 160mm
  • Shock // Ohlins TT Air TM
  • Fork // Ohlins RFX38 Air, 170mm
  • Wheels // Hope Fortus 30SC rims & Hope Pro 4 hubs
  • Front Tyre // Maxxis Assegai 29×2.5in WT EXO+ TR
  • Rear Tyre // Maxxis Minion DHR II 29×2.4in WT EXO+ TR
  • Chainset // Hope
  • Shifter // SRAM GX Eagle
  • Rear Mech // SRAM GX Eagle
  • Cassette // SRAM GX Eagle
  • Brakes // Hope Tech 4 V4, 180/180mm rotors
  • Stem // Hope Gravity 35mm
  • Bars // Hope Carbon, 800mm, 35mm
  • Grips // DMR Deathgrip
  • Seatpost // OneUp Dropper Post V2 210mm
  • BB // Hope
  • Size Tested // H3
  • Sizes Available // H1, H2, H3, H4
  • Weight // 15.9kg

Geometry of our size H3 test bike

  • Head angle // 64°
  • Effective seat angle // 77.9°
  • Seat tube length // 440mm
  • Head tube length // 120mm
  • Chainstay // 440mm
  • Wheelbase // 1,286mm
  • Effective top tube // 629mm
  • BB height // 342mm
  • Reach // 487mm
Coming in your inbox once a week

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive Singletrack editorial wisdom directly in your inbox.

Each newsletter is headed up by an exclusive editorial from our team and includes stories and news you don’t want to miss.

We hand pick these deals and refresh them every week.
Singletrack may earn a small commission from any purchases you make

While you’re here…

Review Info

Brand: Hope
Product: HB.916
From: Hope Tech
Price: from £6,995
Tested: by Benji for 1 week
Thanks for popping by - why not stay a while?IT'S FREE

Sign up as a Singletrack Member and you can leave comments on stories, use the classified ads, and post in our forums, do quizzes and more.

Join us, join in, it’s free, and fun.


Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 98 total)
  • Hope HB.916 first ride review: The Perfect Bike?
  • kimbers
    Full Member

    The hope wheels are still pretty weighty?

    Lighter wheels can help make a bike feel a lot livelier

    (I keep my weighty wtb wheels for uplift days and it’s always great putting the mavics back on)

    chakaping
    Free Member

    That lightweight V10 is surprisingly sensible.

    Formula R0 brakes (bit weak) and carbon chain device are the only two issues that jump out at me.

    Apart from that the tyres might be lightweight trail ones?

    dangeourbrain
    Full Member

    Does everyone race enduro these days then? Or is it just the “perfect bike” for the wannabe?

    Anyone who has ever pedalled slowly up a hill, got cold standing around at the top waiting for their mates before heading down a trail/track/line on a map has I’m pretty sure ridden Enduro. If they’re aware and annoyed they were slower than a random 17 year old they’ve never met down the same, I think that makes the distinction of a race.

    Formula R0 brakes (bit weak)

    Those things were like putting a stick in your spokes with all the subtlety too, at least, they were before they broke them with the silly race levers.

    Sharkattack
    Full Member

    I notice that V10 thread ends as soon as the bike is finished. Not even a first impressions post. It’s probably still sitting in his office next to his triple monitor investment banking setup. He tells clients about his DH racing career.

    Tom Howard
    Full Member

    Pretty sure there was another thread, with pics of him riding it etc, but I don’t think you are far wrong.

    chakaping
    Free Member

    Those things were like putting a stick in your spokes with all the subtlety too, at least, they were before they broke them with the silly race levers.

    Am I getting them mixed up with the R1 or RX that was a bit weedy (coming from The Ones)?

    kimbers
    Full Member

    Prefer this over the Atherton bike

    I’ll have to win the lottery tho

    dangeourbrain
    Full Member

    Am I getting them mixed up with the R1 or RX that was a bit weedy (coming from The Ones)?

    The rx were poo.

    R1 were the xc race brake, still a good bit of power but definitely a step down from “the one”.
    The r0 were a little later and a step up from the “the one” , pitched as the dh brake of the range when the “the one” didn’t keep up with the competition at that end, they rebadged the “the one” to T1 and marketed it to trail and Enduro – which all those years back was trail heavy not DH-lite (and not even really lite these days).

    Then they changed the r0 levers to these weird pull lever things, which were pants, and formula disappeared for a while.

    zerocool
    Full Member

    @Adam – You can’t get a TVR from Barnoldswick. You’ll have to settle for a shiny bike instead

    malv173
    Full Member

    The pictures don’t do this bike justice. No that they are bad pictures, but saw one in the flesh at Fort William this year. It is bloody gorgeous.

    Plus it had the new V4s, and I’ve never wanted a bike quite so much. Not likely to be able to afford one, but if ever I come into a few quid, it’ll be a serious consideration.

    chrismac
    Full Member

    Geometry trumps weight every time in my experience. A bike that fits and is a comfortable place to sit is much nicer to get around on than a very light bike with old school geometry.

    Agree 100% but I would expect with some decent engineering then I should be able to have both.

    jordan
    Full Member

    Agree 100% but I would expect with some decent engineering then I should be able to have both.

    In this case I suspect there has been a lot of decent engineering involved to make it as light as possible while still being fit for purpose. Let’s not forget this is a purpose built enduro race bike fit to take on and win EWS courses. The fact that some say it is capable of being an all day trail bike is an added bonus. Granted some of the in house components may be a little on the heavy side but with frame only options the owner could spec whatever they wanted weight wise.

    thegeneralist
    Full Member

     I NEED to find a chink in its weave-tastic armour. Otherwise, it may well be The Perfect Bike.

    Um. You’ve already pointed out at least two key ones:

    internal cable routing, ….. ‘Butty Box’ downtube storage

    chrismac
    Full Member

    Granted some of the in house components may be a little on the heavy

    This is my point. If their components are on the weighty side then it’s not unreasonable to assume the same engineering team with the same philosophy have made the frame on the weighty side

    thegeneralist
    Full Member

    No, but we’re at the stage now where most 150-160mm ‘enduro’ bikes are good enough that they can be ridden all day on trail centres or in the mountains as well as thrown down an enduro race.

    Not if they weigh 15.9kg they aren’t.

    Paul
    Full Member

    Not if they weigh 15.9kg they aren’t.

    Well I must be doing something very wrong then, riding both my 15.5kg+ full suspension 150/160mm bike and gearbox 150mm hardtail on multi day trips, with full days in the mountains, with hikeabike, XC sections, climbs…

    Granted, I think that weight of my bike is with pedals so about 1kg lighter thank the hope, but 16kg would not put me off riding it all day, not one bit. If fact my next bike will probably be heavier than that, with supergravity tyres as well!

    What weight would make a bike suitable for using on day long rides in the mountains or at a trail centre? 14.5kg?

    Sharkattack
    Full Member

    Just for the record, I don’t care about the weight. I think modern bikes like this are perfectly reasonable especially considering what they’re capable of. You can ride them up and along all day and they’ve all but entirely replaced DH bikes for most people.

    I’ll take strength and reliability every time.

    Paul
    Full Member

    Just for the record, I don’t care about the weight. I think modern bikes like this are perfectly reasonable especially considering what they’re capable of. You can ride them up and along all day and they’ve all but entirely replaced DH bikes for most people.

    I’ll take strength and reliability every time.

    Exactly, and it’s not just the weight of the bike you’re pedalling up the hill, it’s the weight of the bike, plus you, plus your backpack, plus your water…

    An extra kg or 2 on the bike if the rest of the stuff weighs 80kg is a couple of % increase. Congrats, you’ll be up that 5 minute climb 10 seconds faster! 🤣🤣

    Sorry for the tangent, but it’s a ridiculous statement that a bike of 15.9kg can’t be used for all day rides.

    thegeneralist
    Full Member

    Sorry for the tangent, but it’s a ridiculous statement that a bike of 15.9kg can’t be used for all day rides.

    Strictly speaking you are correct. And taken to an absurd limit a 60kg bike could indeed be used für an all day ride. It’s just that you wouldn’t get very far in that time.

    Each to his own but I’d much rather take a lighter bike * on a long day ride than a heavier one **
    * ideally sub 13.5kg
    ** 16.3kg with a set of pedals?

    An extra kg or 2 on the bike if the rest of the stuff weighs 80kg is a couple of % increase. Congrats, you’ll be up that 5 minute climb 10 seconds faster! 🤣🤣

    I’m not remotely arsed about whether it takes 10 seconds less. But I am bothered about whether I get up it at all, and on a gbadgery techie climb at my limit 2kg is a huge amount and would frequently be the difference between success and walking.
    ( sorry, I’m part of the rare breed of bikers that enjoys the ups and alongs as well as the downs.)

    a11y
    Full Member

    Sorry for the tangent, but it’s a ridiculous statement that a bike of 15.9kg can’t be used for all day rides.

    Agreed. Think it’s the historical greater focus on weight than there is now – still focussing on the past. Some mates I ride with always compared who had the lightest bike, forgetting that they’re all on mediums while I’m on XLs. That simple aspect makes quite a difference. More frame material = more weight. Taller/heavier rider = stronger (heavier) components. It all adds up.

    For the record, my two (alloy, XL sized) FSers are 15.0kg and 16.3kg. Happily ride either on full days.

    And amen to this:

    The pictures don’t do this bike justice. No that they are bad pictures, but saw one in the flesh at Fort William this year. It is bloody gorgeous.

    But then I saw the Atherton stand and the bar was set higher for me.

    Paul
    Full Member

    @thegeneralist fair enough, I agree that a lighter bike in general should be slightly nicer on a general all day long ride, but that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible on a heavy bike.

    In the G1 review linked below this Hope review, it says this:

    Now, I’m not the first tragic bike journo fanboy to bang on about GeoMetron bikes. But I would like to be one of the few (first?) bike reviewers to compliment the G1 on how nice it is as a cross-country trail bike.

    The G1 that was tested weighs 16.55kg. And yet is excellent at cross country trail riding.

    I’d rather have a heavy bike with sorted geometry for climbing and an efficient suspension system than a something 4kg lighter where I’m sat over the back wheel and which has suspension that bobs about like a boat in a gale force wind!

    Times have definitely changed in terms of weight but it’s also great that we have a choice of these super capable bikes with DH levels of performance that can still be pedalled all day, and also 120mm bikes with modern geometry that will fly uphill but can also handle techy, rough descents. I’m not going to tell someone that if they’re riding a 120mm bike that “you can’t ride down that”, same as I wouldn’t tell someone on a 17kg enduro rig that they can’t ride that to the top of Helvellyn. Because someone will come along and prove me very wrong! 🤣

    I’ve seen a steel starling FS bike with DH tyres and coil front and rear suspension, weighing the same as a small moon, being ridden up a climb that everyone else was walking 😁

    PJM1974
    Free Member

    Re the weight thing, I was quite crestfallen when I unboxed my new Specialized Enduro and noted that it was a hefty beast, substantially weightier than my 2016 Enduro and was concerned about how my 48 year old legs would cope winching the damn thing up hills, especially considering that I’d specced 25″ Wide Trail Minions at either end of the former. The geometry is one thing – having a much longer TT (old bike is a large, new bike is an S4) gives me a much better climbing position, but the suspension feels much less troubled by roots and trail detritus. I’d far rather tackle a challenging climb on the new bike than the old FWIW.

    Anyway, Hope seems to have made a nice bike.

    Mark
    Full Member

    internal cable routing, ….. ‘Butty Box’ downtube storage

    You’re listing these as negatives? How come?

    Both big plusses in my eyes

    chrismac
    Full Member

    I’d rather have a heavy bike with sorted geometry for climbing and an efficient suspension system than a something 4kg lighter where I’m sat over the back wheel and which has suspension that bobs about like a boat in a gale force wind!

    I would expect to get both. It’s called engineering. Every other branch of cycling is improving performance and reducing weight why not in trail / enduro bikes. There is no sensible reason for trail / enduro bike to weigh more than a DH bike

    teethgrinder
    Full Member

    The down tube storage I could do without, but even the cover is machined beautifully. Does help with the routing though.

    Climbing is surprisingly good, but there’s a few short, steep climbs I can’t make yet compared to the 160, and fire roads need 1 or 2 cogs lower. Likely due to the big wheels and 165mm cranks. Mulleting the 916 made it more like the 160 for climbs, but need to try it more.

    It’s my first 29er and it’s a revelation

    Tom Howard
    Full Member

    Every other branch of cycling is improving performance and reducing weight

    Increasing performance, yes. Reducing weight, no. Road bikes are heavier because aero, wider tyres and disc brakes. MTBs are heavier because bigger wheels and tyres, droppers, bigger cassettes and a desire to not snap frames.

    I’d take all those things over the insignificant difference in total system weight any day.

    Enduro bikes can weigh more than DH bikes because they run DH wheels, tyres and inserts, droppers and big cassettes. Only the fork will weigh significantly more on a DH bike over an enduro. Even the frames are comparable.

    dangeourbrain
    Full Member

    Each to his own but I’d much rather take a lighter bike * on a long day ride than a heavier one **
    * ideally sub 13.5kg

    Where does that number come from? I’m not criticising I’m just intrigued as the how you got there and not say 13.8 or 12kg? I seem to recall the old rule of thumb was keep it below 35lb.

    ( sorry, I’m part of the rare breed of bikers that enjoys the ups and alongs as well as the downs.)

    You’re not that rare and I’ll tell you now, I’d trade my old 28lb XL orange 5 and my own mother for either my current 30lb evil following or 35lb process 153 for pedaling up or along. Sure they weigh more but the lighter one pedalled like a dog.

    Sharkattack
    Full Member

    Some people are clearly just obsessed by the number on the scales and can’t see, or will never experience, the vast improvements we’ve all enjoyed in the last 5 years.

    Sharkattack
    Full Member

    I would expect to get both. It’s called engineering

    It’s called defying physics. I want a longer frame that fits me properly, tougher tyres, longer travel, longer dropper, bigger brakes, wider bars.

    I can’t have all that and have it weight the same as my old 28lb Stumpjumper and I don’t care one bit because old MTB’s are crap compared to these new ones.

    DB
    Full Member

    I love the raw carbon but for some reason I don’t like the bike, cant quite work out why.

    thegeneralist
    Full Member

    Where does that number come from? I’m not criticising I’m just intrigued as the how you got there and not say 13.8 or 12kg? 

    Good question. It was a combination of aspiration and what is possible for me in my circumstances. My Anthem is around 12 or 12.5kg IIRC, however it is a vile vile thing on anything harder than a fireroad or easy blue. I totally agree with the posters above that just because something is light doesn’t make it good.
    My Occam on the other hand…. I *think* is a touch over 13.5kg with the light wheelset, Rekons, new Vecnum seatpost etc etc. Based on my ( admittedly very limited experience on decent bikes) it’s bloody marvelous. It does 80km in a day with perhaps 2800hm without too much bother. It sits happily on my shoulder for a Snowdon Double but more importantly it gets me down Cavedale dabless, the Champery WC [ very :-)] dabfull and did 40,000m of descending over in August without breaking*. ( admittedly it had the heavy wheels on for that, so wasn’t 13.5kg at that point)

    I reckon it is very close to the perfect bike for what I want. It could be 1kg or so lighter I’m sure, but I don’t have the desire to spend that sort of cash on it, and I guess I was trying to signify that actually for the first time in 20 years I really really like the bike that I have.

    I’m sure a 16kg bike would be significantly better on the downs, but I think it would involve too many compromises on the ups and alongs. So I want to register my view to the manufacturers ” fine, make awesome 16kg Enduro bikes, but please don’t think that everyone is willing to put up with the compromises for normal riding. Please keep making brilliant shorter travel, lighter weight bikes too ”

    * yeah OK a few spokes did break due to my dire jumping technique ☺

    dangeourbrain
    Full Member

    The occam does come up light but

    Based on my [experience] it’s bloody marvelous.

    Is the important bit. I think you’d be reasonably surprised to find how well the occam did 80k and 2800m even at a few kg heavier depending on where* that weight was.

    *I think this is probably why people tend to find “heavy” bikes unpleasant. Very often it’s not a heavy bike so much, maybe a few 00 grams above the axles and especially on the cheaper spec of the same the dampers are less capable (which can easily make a good bike rubbish) but much of the extra weight is in heavy cassettes, heavy wheels, heavy tyres which are often either utter rubbish OE things or so tacky they’re almost molten and ill suited to anything but throwing down a hill.

    Certainly my evil the difference between an xt 11 speed cassette and an xg 1195 is massive. As massive as the weight loss to my bank account of the same? Maybe not, but it genuinely changes the behaviour of the bike. Adding or taking off a full water bottle is 2-3 times the weight difference but completely unnoticeable to me.

    Tom Howard
    Full Member

    Up until very recently, Grizzly Munro Diaries was doing all the Munros on a Deviate Guide, which is well north of 16kg. He’s now continuing on a Zerode, Taniwha I think, that will be of similar heft.

    Admittedly there’s sponsorship considerations here but still, them’s some big ‘ills

    desperatebicycle
    Free Member

    Let’s not forget this is a purpose built enduro race bike fit to take on and win EWS courses.

    Ah-ha! If this is true then that explains a lot. It’s also not the “perfect bike” if its built for that, unless you do that. In which case. I’m oot.

    teethgrinder
    Full Member

    There’s some very good riders racking up podiums on the 916 in all sorts of enduros.

    I won’t be troubling them, but I’ll still enjoy riding it.

    dangeourbrain
    Full Member

    Let’s not forget this is a purpose built enduro race bike fit to take on and win EWS courses.

    Ah-ha! If this is true then that explains a lot. It’s also not the “perfect bike” if its built for that, unless you do that. In which case. I’m oot.

    True, a perfect Enduro bike would still be useless as a daily shopper.

    sanername
    Full Member

    I like the look of this, but it’d be wayyyyyy too much bike for me. Are there any rumours of an updated HB130? My 2017 Smuggler is starting to feel quite tired.

    desperatebicycle
    Free Member

    a daily shopper.

    Still trying to find the perfect one. Come on Singletrack help me out here!

    dangeourbrain
    Full Member

    IIRC There was a cargo bike in FGF a few weeks ago…

    ayjaydoubleyou
    Full Member

    I think this is probably why people tend to find “heavy” bikes unpleasant. Very often it’s not a heavy bike so much, maybe a few 00 grams above the axles and especially on the cheaper spec of the same the dampers are less capable (which can easily make a good bike rubbish) but much of the extra weight is in heavy cassettes, heavy wheels, heavy tyres which are often either utter rubbish OE things or so tacky they’re almost molten and ill suited to anything but throwing down a hill.

    can add head angle to that. How many times have you heard that a slack head angle made a bike climb poorly?

    Nothing to do with that slack bike of your mates that you tried was a 160 travel squidgy monster on little wheels and DH tyres, the reason your 29er xc bike went uphill faster was definitely the head angle…

    its an easily measurable metric that will broadly, correspond to the intended use of the bike, and therefore its overall adeptness at the task in hand.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 98 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.