Forum menu
and if so, how did they compare ?
Some HT musing here, with my 2013 Soul, which is one of the last 26'ers, getting a little long in the tooth, though I can't justify changing it yet.
Had always thought I'd replace it with a same spec 650b one, so xt group, Reverb, but I do notice it a little short now compared to my 2017 Anthem. A medium Zero is similar geo to my Anthem and a bit longer than Soul, and specced up the way I'd like it a chunk less can than same spec on a new Soul...
Not ridden the zero but I used to own a 26 soul and I've demoed the 275 one.
It's a lovely bike and felt like an updated version of the 26 soul. Seemed to wheelie very well despite the longer chainstays which is obvs very important!
I liked it but it wasn't as confident descending / chucking around as the transition trans am I had then and the stif morf I just built up is a proper singletrack monster downhill without giving away anything for cornering or climbing. I didn't dislike the soul at all, it felt like a great bike but it wasn't as capable as the other two mentioned above. Suspect the bird will be a harsher ride than a soul but the geo is a bit closer to my bikes and I'd suggest it will "hoon" a bit better.
Having ridden a Soul 26 for five years (sole MTB for three of them) and replaced it with a Zero AM 18 months ago, I'd say that's a pretty good summary. The Soul 26 is a really nice bike for enjoying all manner of MTBing, it's fun and lively and engaging, dancing along singletrack or cruising long XC rides. What it isn't so good at is steep technical descents or being thrashed around corners right on the ragged edge.
I haven't ridden the Soul 275 but looking at the geometry it continues the same theme. Compared to the Zero TR the reach is shorter, the seat angle slacker and the bottom bracket much higher, which will make for a bike that takes less effort to turn and manual but has less inherent stability.
Over the years my riding has tended more towards hunting out steeper techier stuff and compared to my Spitfire the Soul came to feel nervous, hence the move to the Zero AM. It's taken a while but the Zero and I are getting on very well indeed (though you wouldn't guess that from the epic bruises covering my left shoulder and hip after suffering the most brutal crash I've had in years, descending an innocuous French footpath at 20+ mph...)
I haven't ridden the Zero TR but it's not that different to the AM - bit longer both in reach and chainstays and a bit steeper of head angle, and a bit less stiff and strong. I wouldn't expect it to be massively different in character, just a bit smoother and less thrashtastic. I find the reach pretty long on the Zero AM but that's a personal thing, I seem to prefer bikes of moderate reach (around 430mm).
That was a bit rambling but as my right arm is currently working ok (glad I crashed on my left) at least I can operate an iPhone!
Useful info, lots to think about. I will be keeping FS for bigger days and don't necessarily want both bikes to feel the same and cover same bases. Soul gets used for winter, night rides, the odd big day, bike packing, general stuff, while the Anthem gets taken to more techy and or longer rides.
Bird would be able to do all of the above. It'll be more stable than the anthem with the longer wheelbase, and with an angleset fitted by bird, would have a nicely slack head angle.
It's a very light frame, but still feels springy.
I've had my zero TR on the downhill and Enduro trails at inners, and on long XC days out in the tweed valley.
My problem with the soul, which is the opposite of Chief's above, is the head angle is too steep, and the reach is too short. It feels like hardtails are taking a while to keep up with modern geometry, the Zero is different to that (so are Orange's Crush and P7, and a few others now).