[Closed] New Cotic FlareMax

Valid points indeed martin & rover. Thanks.

I blame weird leg to torso ratio for the problem 🙂

/Johan

"But the new bike is designed to be long. It seems a bit strange to say “I like the new bike,but it’s too long, so I’ll size down”. Cy clearly thinks that somebody your size should be on a bike that long.

I understand what you are saying though. At 6′ I look at it and thing “nice, but maybe I should go for a medium”. But then I think that sort of defeats the point of the new bike."

I don't think height alone is a reliable way of sizing for bikes, particularly if you're on the cusp of two sizes. Riders with longer torsos and shorter legs suit longer reach for their height and vice versa. The great thing about bikes with long reach for their seat tube length is that you can size up or size down and make up the height with seat post - but it can require buying a longer dropper.

But I've never met anyone who has regretted replacing their dropper post with a longer one with more drop - it's always better having more room to move!

Fair enough but I’ve always ridden (and been happy on) a large. If Cy adds 30mm to the reach of a large it’s presumably because he thinks it’s beter that way. So buying a medium because it is the same length as my old large doesn’t make sense to me. It’s all personal preference though.

If the current XL sizes up the way you want… and is cheaper… and you need to buy less new kit to get it built up… seems like a no brainer to me!

As for sizing on the new one… I think getting a demo will help people get their head around it better than our chat on here… I expected the new longer Medium FlareMAX to be "the one for me", but having now ridden the Large in anger… I love it… didn't feel too long at all (and I fully expected it to).

As for sizing on the new one… I think getting a demo will help people get their head around it better than our chat on here… I expected the new longer Medium FlareMAX to be “the one for me”, but having now ridden the Large in anger… I love it… didn’t feel too long at all (and I fully expected it to).

But this is exactly what gets me curious for the third option, getting the new XL even though it seems crazy long. I could hang on to my dropper but it would give a good 50+ mm jump in reach which seems a bit dramatic (although I'm on a 55 mm stem atm so maybe not that bad).

EDIT: not getting along with forum formatting

/Johan

Only thing that would concern me now is room for longer dropper posts in the shorter seat tubes. I'd like a longer dropper but to run one internally there isn't enough room as the bottom of the post (or connector bit) catches the seat tube pivot so I can't quite get the post low enough in the seat tube for me.

An external dropper would work just fine however, and i've not tested all internal droppers on the market either.

But this is exactly what gets me curious for the third option, getting the new XL even though it seems crazy long. I could hang on to my dropper but it would give a good 50+ mm jump in reach which seems a bit dramatic (although I’m on a 55 mm stem atm so maybe not that bad).

For a group of people engaged in a supposedly extreme sport, mountain bikers are strangely conservative (and I include myself in this). We think a 5cm change (or 3cm allowing for a shorter stem) is radical, but if you stand in your normal riding position and move you hands forward by 3cm I'd be surprised if you could tell the difference. I'm not denying that it would feel different at first, but it would probably feel normal after a few rides.

That said, I'm not the best at lofting the front over things as it is, so a longer bike makes me nervous too. I notice the Bikeradar review of the new Flare Max comments on this, although I sometimes think those guys can be guilty of reading a geometry chart then feeling what they expect to feel.

I have to say I was scared and astonished by the figures in the new geometry at first but then when I factored in the stem the large with a 35mm stem is the same size as my modest steel hardtail with its 70mm stem. Not scary at all really.

I'm just under 6'4" and think an XL would fit just right with a 40mm stem. I do think the XL looks a bit of a gate though.....

Its surprising how the little changes can feel. I need to test something longer as I’m my head I believe I’ll prefer it.

I tried a shorter stem on my bike, went 50mm from 80mm, it felt ridiculous, like my feet were too close to the bars when I stood up. Sat down was fine because I’d altered the seat position on the rails.

I’d need to go with a 35cm stem on the new Flare Max, nervous about how it would feel stood up though.

Due to the long reach it won't (shouldn't) feel like your feet are close to the bars. IMHO it's stood up where you'll notice (in a good way) the space provided by the long front center more than sat down, as sat down you're using short stems and steep seat angles to maintain similar seated 'reach'.

A long reach puts the bars further in front of bottom bracket. Reach doesn't change with the seat tube angle (unlike top tube length, steepen the seat angle and the top tube gets shorter but the reach stays the same) and indicates the amount of room you'd have when standing on the pedals.

Edit:

Just as mark described above. Need to improve my reading comprehension!

Thanks both,

I’m sure I’ll prefer a longer reach, just need to arrange a demo. I almost want to try something too long to see where the limit is.

I wonder if Cy will do a piece on the longshot geometry on the website. I like reading his reasoning for his designs.

View this post on Instagram

I don't know how you even post pictures on the new setup, Has to be a contender?

If any existing FlareMax owners are wanting to upgrade to the new one I'm looking for an older generation FlareMax size large.

Love the bike, but 1x transmissions are not for me...

I wonder if Cy will do a piece on the longshot geometry on the website. I like reading his reasoning for his designs.

Yes I'm hoping for some nice analytical geek speak at some point. I'm less impressed with "longshot geometry" though. Not the actual changes, that's fair enough, but the seeming need to give every change a stupid name. It's a bit longer, lower and slacker than the previous model. You know, just like pretty much every bike released in the last year or two. I admire them for making a change that's actually big enough to make a difference. But "speed balanced" "longshot" it's all just marketing tosh. Still, it's probably supposed to be ironic or post-modern or something 🙂

I think the "stupid name" came from Dave of Radventure… and it's a bit tongue in cheek… "why call it anything" is always a valid shout… but, hey, chill… silly names are fun… and labels help people understand and differentiate, to some degree, no?

When Cy is back to full health, I'm sure he'll talk people through the geometry changes in a far less shallow way… if depth is what you prefer.

Sorry, my "rant" was also supposed to be a bit more tongue in cheek than it probably sounded. This urge to name stuff is hardly unique to Cotic and I get that it's supposed to be a bit of fun. It does bug me in general as it's often used as a way of trying to pretend that an evolution is something new. My phone has a retina display for FFS. What's that, some super new cool display made from the eyeballs of mermaids? No it's just an OLED display with a slightly higher resolution than the last one you tried to sell me. F*** off.

But it annoys me in the same way that people saying less when they mean fewer, or using an adjective instead of an adverb annoys me. I realize that most people don't give a flying fig and I probably shouldn't either.

<p style="padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent; line-height: 1.2em; color: #444444; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; margin: 1rem 0px !important;">"If any existing FlareMax owners are wanting to upgrade to the new one I’m looking for an older generation FlareMax size large.</p>
<p style="padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent; line-height: 1.2em; color: #444444; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; margin: 1rem 0px !important;">Love the bike, but 1x transmissions are not for me…"</p>

I have an older(?) last generation (the first design?) large Flare Max. I chose a mid travel 29er as it suits my riding style of long XC mixed in with some mild gnar. For me that meant the choice of running a 2x11 setup because I still like to run 38x11 on long steep roads and get up to speed. Seems like I'm all outa fashion and stuff. Again.

Christ there's more text in the guff around copying and pasting than in my two penneth comment!

Me likey. It all adds up to a frame i'll certainly have to consider later this year.

That Stanton looks intriguing also..

I don't care if they give it a name, they're hardly pretending to be the first onto the longer geometry thing. They've dragged their heels a bit TBH, but it's good to see them going all in now.

The new FlareMAX is pretty much my perfect trail bike. They've made exactly the revisions I would have chosen (I knew it'd be worth doing their questionnaire!).

Unfortunately I'm unlikely to be in a position to buy one for some time.

"For me that meant the choice of running a 2×11 setup because I still like to run 38×11 on long steep roads and get up to speed. Seems like I’m all outa fashion and stuff. Again."

You can run 34x10 and get almost as high a top gear or 36x10 and get a significantly higher top gear. Pair that with with a 50 tooth biggest sprocket and that'll get you up the hills too. HTH.

Chief, it would help if I could afford a 10-50 cassette! It's only offered by hope or sram eagle at the moment isn't it?

It looks too long to me, when the Trek Slash on the front page is getting rave reviews, then I wonder if these long bikes are too much. The review of Moodraker review on Pinkbike a while ago felt it was too long for 'normal' riding, and I wonder if this is the same. I can see how this new Cotic would be great for blasting down rocky Peak district trails, but for versatile 'normal' riding, I'm not sold.

Fair enough but I’ve always ridden (and been happy on) a large. If Cy adds 30mm to the reach of a large it’s presumably because he thinks it’s beter that way. So buying a medium because it is the same length as my old large doesn’t make sense to me. It’s all personal preference though.

Depends what you/they had on the old bike.

If I (6ft) had £££ to burn and an old XL Flare with a 35mm stem and angleset because that's the geometry I wanted, then dropping down to a new L would be entirely logical as I would only have the old XL as I'd wanted that reach.

I have neither money to burn or an old XL though so the point is moot.

It looks too long to me, when the Trek Slash on the front page is getting rave reviews, then I wonder if these long bikes are too much. The review of Moodraker review on Pinkbike a while ago felt it was too long for ‘normal’ riding, and I wonder if this is the same. I can see how this new Cotic would be great for blasting down rocky Peak district trails, but for versatile ‘normal’ riding, I’m not sold.

The shorter seat tubes allow you to choose a shorter or longer TT, but what makes a shorter bike better for "normal" riding, out of interest?

And what is "normal" riding?

The few reviews that are out so far all talk about "longer lower and slacker" with some specifically mentioning a lower BB. But according to the geometry charts on the Cotic web site the BB drop is the same on this as on the older model (with the same size fork). The stack is actually slightly higher. So, I'm not sure in what way it is lower?

I see that the seat angle has actually got slightly slacker despite a fair increase in reach, which does seem to be going against "conventional wisdom". I wonder if that's to help "all day comfort". I get that steeper seat angles can help on short steep climbs, but it does seem to come at the expense of a bit of comfort if you are spending all day in the saddle. But maybe that's just me.

IME if you go down a size you'll end up with too much flex in the seat post and potentially the handlebars will be too low. Just seems a bodge, to say if you want a shorter reach, then drop a size, almost like half admitting the TT is too long.

I'm going to define 'normal' riding, as bike that's capable over a wide range of terrain. Seems to me the long geometry will be great for blasting down stuff, but sub optimal in tight situations.

Just seems a bodge, to say if you want a shorter reach, then drop a size, almost like half admitting the TT is too long.

As always - ride before you buy!

I’m going to define ‘normal’ riding, as bike that’s capable over a wide range of terrain. Seems to me the long geometry will be great for blasting down stuff, but sub optimal in tight situations.

This was my expectation too and I have found that to an extent on bikes with a long front centre and short rear.

However - contrary to expectations - since moving to a bike with a long front AND massive chainstays I've been cornering better than ever in the woods.

I'm not saying the longer Cotic would be perfect for all situations, but I know when I demo-ed the outgoing large Flaremax (same sizing as new medium) it really wasn't what I'd anticipated.

Riding is believing…

www.cotic.co.uk/demo

Aesthetics is a funny thing. Lots of people rave about the look of the Cotic droplink bikes, but they've never really done it for me before. Something about the new Flare Max just looks right to my eye though. Not sure why.  Maybe I just prefer the darker blue, or maybe a bit longer and a bit slacker with the bigger wheels just looks better to me. But whatever it, that's the first Cotic full-suss that I've looked at and really though "wow that looks fun".