Forum menu
What the flying eck is that seat tube doing!?
It’s a MK1 Nomad with some sort of energy drink print on the downtube
Someone forgot to order the lights for the photo shoot too.
Will you look at the gap betwixt rear wheel and seattube?
That's rank.
The big seat tube offset and slack actual STA looks to have been done to get the pivot points where they need to be. I'm not saying it's good.
Whilst most brands seem to be getting their aesthetics together, Whyte still manage a gopping design. There's far too many good looking bikes that also work well to pursued me to buy something that looks like that, no matter if it rides well. At least the new decals are an improvement.
Hardtails aside though, to be fair...
They’ve gone a bit off the boil with the colours as well, but the S120 and T140 still look good. Just shame they’re so damn heavy as it is the main reason I sold my T130C.
I adore my G-160, but it's deffo nicer to look at than these above.
But then again, i don't buy bikes because they're pretty, i buy them because of how they ride.
if and when the G160 goes, i'm thinking the T-140 may well be topping the list though.
Anyone else noticed how the T-140 has a deep lower headset cup, looking like it's designed around a much longer fork...? Also the fact that the geometry (BB height aside) is EXACTLY the same as the S-150 was... 🤔
The big seat tube offset and slack actual STA looks to have been done to get the pivot points where they need to be. I’m not saying it’s good.
And possibly has that challenging-looking bend low down so that the upper section can be straight to allow good seastpost insertion?
From the Bikeradar piece...
After reaching out to Whyte engineer Sam Shucksmith, we have learned that the G-180 is a replacement for the G-170 that uses similar suspension kinematics to its award-winning predecessor, with a little extra anti-squat and 10mm extra suspension travel (slightly confusingly, the G-180 has 170mm rear travel and the G-170 had 160mm).
WTF Whyte? I would really quite like a 180mm rear travel 29er and you got my hopes up there, only to dash them again with your stupid naming convention.
These do absolutely nothing for me. Whyte always manage to look a bit off and I can never put my finger on it. If they were in Halfords next to the BSO's they'd fit right in. I'm the same with Bird.
Also, RaceFace AR30 rims on a 180/170mm 29er?
Good luck with that.
I don't mind the looks but being tall, the seat angle is a no for me. With the seat extended I'd be sat somewhere behind the rear axle.
There’s something about the way Whyte curve the seat tube to the BB, tuck the shock up under the top tube but bend that tube too, and then bend the downtube to fit a water bottle, which makes them look, at best, not great, and at worst, bloody awful.
Saying that, I can no longer tell if my Levo looks good or bad because I have so much fun on it on my commute as well as MTBing proper, so I look upon it with the most rose-tinted glasses imaginable.
All disgusting.
Christ - The G1-80S a £500 increase over the G-170S
Whilst most brands seem to be getting their aesthetics together, Whyte still manage a gopping design. There’s far too many good looking bikes that also work well to pursued me to buy something that looks like that, no matter if it rides well. At least the new decals are an improvement.
They're doing something right, they'd pretty much sold out of all of this years models.
Just when I thought whyte couldn’t make anything uglier than the Prst-1 🙁
I've got an S150.
It rides great, it looks okay, but then my bike before that was an On One so its all relative.
These do absolutely nothing for me. Whyte always manage to look a bit off and I can never put my finger on it. If they were in Halfords next to the BSO’s they’d fit right in.
Long may this opinion continue, its probably the reason I managed to get mine for £1,900
I think my S150 looks great, and rides even better
Aesthetics aside for a moment, they seem to have taken their eye off the ball with the geometry.
They used to be pretty progressive but IMO the mediums are a bit too short, there's too much of a gap to the larges and the seat tubes are too long anyway.
And back onto the aesthetics - perhaps there's value in having a "signature look", and the S150 looked OK, to be fair. But why don;'t they just give in and make them look "like a Trek" or whatever?
Their HTs still look quite nice, can anyone explain the differences between the models? I'm very out of touch and it's a bit confusing
It used to be 901 in steel, alu or Ti the last time I looked at them !
razorrazoo
Free MemberWhilst most brands seem to be getting their aesthetics together, Whyte still manage a gopping design
They've actually gone backwards. the G160 had a slight kink, the 170 onwards has gone full Giant Acid
They’re doing something right, they’d pretty much sold out of all of this years models.
So has everyone else.
Continuing a long line of meh looking Whyte bikes...
They used to be pretty progressive but IMO the mediums are a bit too short, there’s too much of a gap to the larges and the seat tubes are too long anyway.
At what point is 'progressive' too long, or low, or slack?
Will we now start to see some more balanced geometries appear?
Might the Next Big Thing be 'shorter and more sprightly geometry through tighter head angles for less wallow, bigger ground clearance for rocks, and a shorter reach for easier reactions at speed'?
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49335763186_a28fa46b81_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49335763186_a28fa46b81_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2iaCFyE ]2020-01-05_09-25-04[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/152318156@N08/ ]Steve Weeks[/url], on Flickr
I like the G160
matt_outandabout
Full MemberAt what point is ‘progressive’ too long, or low, or slack?
Will we now start to see some more balanced geometries appear?
Might the Next Big Thing be ‘shorter and more sprightly geometry through tighter head angles for less wallow, bigger ground clearance for rocks, and a shorter reach for easier reactions at speed’?
We're not there yet. Expect head angles to converge around 63 degrees for bikes tending towards descents before somebody pulls that marketing spin. Couple of years yet.
At what point is ‘progressive’ too long, or low, or slack?
The point at which a biek is too long, low or slack for a gievn individual.
Will we now start to see some more balanced geometries appear?
More balanced than what? This question doesn't make sense? There are a range of geometries available - from steep and short to Geometron, plenty of "balanced ones" in the middle for people to learn what's right for them and choose accordingly.
Might the Next Big Thing be ‘shorter and more sprightly geometry through tighter head angles for less wallow, bigger ground clearance for rocks, and a shorter reach for easier reactions at speed’?
I see this comment fairly frequently. Can you think of any other major MTB evolutionary trends which have previously reverted? Suspension? Disc brakes? Wheel size? Stiffer forks?
I think some brands have perhaps gone too low on the BB, but it's far from a universal thing. I do expect shorter travel 29ers to become (even) more popular though.
We’re not there yet. Expect head angles to converge around 63 degrees for bikes tending towards descents before somebody pulls that marketing spin. Couple of years yet.
But the same was said about 65 degrees not long ago. 63 was only ever going to be for proper DH bikes. Now look where things are heading...
I'm afraid Whyte lost a market when bikes for the vertically challenged were dropped, very few models in an S size.
mudeverywhere
Free MemberBut the same was said about 65 degrees not long ago. 63 was only ever going to be for proper DH bikes. Now look where things are heading…
Different situation. DH bikes have settled around 63 degrees for years because the bike shape plain works, therefore descending biased bikes that still climb will also end up there but with steeper seat angles. Expect longer, proportional CS lengths to balance the longer front centres too.
I'm 90% confident. Same way I said that the custom geometry frame I had built 4 years would be mainstream in about 5 years. We're nearly there.
the 170 onwards has gone full Giant Acid
That's surely a photoshop job?! 😆
Might the Next Big Thing be ‘shorter and more sprightly geometry through tighter head angles for less wallow, bigger ground clearance for rocks, and a shorter reach for easier reactions at speed’?
I've got this idea about a new, stronger, lighter and faster accelerating wheel size...
I think Whyte has lost their edge a bit. Struggling to see what the attraction would be now they aren't ahead of the geometry curve. According to most of the posts in this thread it isn't the looks. It's definitely not going to be the weight or pedalling efficiency. Price has gone up a lot. Because they're British? Hmm...
One thing I will say about the seat angle is having had a S150 with a fair bend in the seat tube, I measured it, it is accurate for me at my size XL saddle height. So it might look slack, and on paper be conservative, but it's not absolute bollox like some much steeper numbers being put out by other companies at the moment. That said I found the high front end and low BB sort of gave a false impression that the seat angle was slacker than it really was by tipping my weight back.
I must say, if I wanted to "buy British", I'd be looking at the new Sonder and Vitus bikes ahead of these anyway.
Better value, better geo and better looking IMO.
Happy with my actually British-made Oranges though.
🙂
Oops, double post
I must say, if I wanted to “buy British”, I’d be looking at the new Sonder and Vitus bikes ahead of these anyway.
Vitus is another company I'd never even glanced at. It's just a name slapped on a shops own-brand product and they were always pretty ugly.
The new ones look mint. Properly desirable bikes with very competitive pricing.
A lot of negative comments.
I could be wrong, but maybe opinions should be based on how the Whyte bikes ride, not just how they look (which is pretty subjective).
It does look like they've slapped £500 on top of a lot of the 2020 models though!
A lot of negative comments.
I could be wrong, but maybe opinions should be based on how the Whyte bikes ride, not just how they look (which is pretty subjective).
It does look like they’ve slapped £500 on top of a lot of the 2020 models though!
I think that would have been my thoughts 5 years ago but now that there are plenty of 'budget' companies making bikes that ride good AND look good for the same price you've got to consider both
maybe opinions should be based on how the Whyte bikes ride, not just how they look (which is pretty subjective).
as I previously stated:
There’s far too many good looking bikes that also work well to pursued me to buy something that looks like that, no matter if it rides well.
I know it's fickle, but for me there's so much choice at that price point that I can have a similar priced and specced bike that rides well and doesn't look like the aesthetic is an afterthought - an example already given in Vitus (who have conversely significantly raised the game in the look of their new f/s range. It may seem shallow to some, but if I don't like the way my bike looks I'll never be 100% happy with it (however I also need matching tyres, valve/logo alignment and same brand finishing kit if possible).
I must say, if I wanted to “buy British”, I’d be looking at the new Sonder and Vitus bikes ahead of these anyway.
Vitus is another company I’d never even glanced at. It’s just a name slapped on a shops own-brand product and they were always pretty ugly.
The new ones look mint. Properly desirable bikes with very competitive pricing.
I thought Vitus were originally French? Dunno if that's still the case with CRC/Wiggle owning them.
Whyte's will sell very well, as always, they also have a good market in the C2W scheme side of things with their network, so will sell this stuff, basically because it's decent and does the job, not the prettiest, but from a personal viewpoint, after owning a T130 it's the geometry sacrifice they make to keep the frame geometry and pivot points that cause me to look elsewhere, with the top tube mounting of the shock it means standover isn't as big as many others do (a huge selling point for me), and of course that brace to the seat tube to then get more depth for seatposts again reduces this.
I thought Vitus were originally French? Dunno if that’s still the case with CRC/Wiggle owning them.
They're about as French as Rene from Allo Allo now.
CRC bought the brand name and I believe they are designed by the same team that does Nukeproof now. Possibly based in NI?
Almost as ugly as those Boardman bikes but dearer.