Forum menu
that hemlock review...
 

[Closed] that hemlock review on biketragic?

Posts: 1442
Free Member
Topic starter
 
[#495211]

did i dream it all or was there a cotic hemlock review on bikemagic where the bike broke on it's first ride and a pic of the broken linkage that was too weedy to do the job properly?
it seems to be missing now?


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 10:34 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Twas in the mag - seat or chain stay IIRC


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 10:35 am
Posts: 1442
Free Member
Topic starter
 

whoops it's on bikeradar.
sorry internet user fail.


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 10:35 am
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I read the review in MBUK. They received the fix then the seat stays bowed which worried them alittle.


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 10:40 am
Posts: 0
 

Can you expand a touch hora? Have been hoping to demo a Hemlock.

Cheers


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 10:44 am
 jim
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

[url= http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/hemlock-09-33753 ]http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/hemlock-09-33753[/url]


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 10:45 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

[url= http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/hemlock-09-33753 ]didn't go to well![/url]


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 10:46 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Ouch!


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 10:49 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Frame broke & collapsed and seatstays bowed during the test and they still gave it a 2 out of 5!!! Must have a very awesome paint finish or something :-/


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 10:51 am
Posts: 45
Free Member
 

It was then discovered that a crucial washer had been omitted on medium frames during factory assembly. Cotic addressed the problem immediately and the chainstays on all faulty bikes have been recalled and replaced.


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 10:55 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

"It was then discovered that a crucial washer had been omitted on medium frames during factory assembly. Cotic addressed the problem immediately and the chainstays on all faulty bikes have been recalled and replaced"

I remember Cy saying somethign about this on here a while back. He said he was onto sorting that batch of medium frames


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 10:56 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

"Travel is adjusted by interchanging the rocker plates, though you’d need suitable forks for each version as it’s designed to run forks spanning 130-160mm travel"

Where did they work that one out from? Have they missed the entire point of the hemlock?


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 10:57 am
Posts: 2554
Free Member
 

Even after the problem was addressed, the stays still bent PERMANENTLY 🙁


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 10:57 am
Posts: 54
Free Member
 

Hi
I was with Deejay last week in the Peaks when he demoed the one from 18bikes-the chainstays snapped :x.
He may be along shortly with some piccies.
I had a go on it before it broke-I was really surprised how light it was and how well it rode even though it was a bit small for me.
Pity cos I think both me and Deejay would have been in the market for one!
Cheers
Steve


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 11:03 am
Posts: 7563
Free Member
 

Even after the problem was addressed, the stays still bent PERMANENTLY

That bend wasn't caused by the original chainstay failure was it?


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 11:04 am
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

brant- hear what you are saying. Why havent MBUK/bikeradar carried out a follow up test or added a footnote to that? It seems abit unfair to Cotic by their silence/omission of such?

Im not implying anything either way by the above- just a test or note either way to clarify. As I feel it doesnt do any justice to a small manufacturer or brand. A bigger brand like Santa Cruz could get over something like that. Just feel its an injustice and a follow up note would help immensely. No Im not a Cotic customer or own one either.


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 11:22 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Meh they've done it before (well WMB but same guys), there was a bit of backlash from some readers as they slated a P7 cause the sliding drop out broke calling it a design flaw - when in fact, the bloke in the workshop at Orange fitted the wrong bolts.

They never really followed up that test stating this so they hardly have a history of playing fair on these things. They didn't even tell Orange until after it went to print!


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 11:32 am
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

[i]They didn't even tell Orange until after it went to print![/i]

Thats not on. Its also unfair leaving a review hanging out there (probably gives them a sacrificial lamb that shows the rest of their reviews as gritty/real).

Follow up test me thinks. If its compounded then fair enough.


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 11:34 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I think what they should do is leave the bike 'unrated'.


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 11:38 am
Posts: 23334
Free Member
 

It's seems fair to me. It broke. Doesn't matter why.


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 11:42 am
Posts: 7563
Free Member
 

Having almost uniquely sat firmly on both sides of the fence I can see it from both sides. Still not sure who's right though!


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 11:44 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I think what they should do is leave the bike 'unrated'.

Why - the manufacturer had every opportunity to put up a good bike for test - the mag/site tested what they were given


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 11:44 am
Posts: 1442
Free Member
Topic starter
 

it wouldn't happen with a marin/whyte review 🙂

the bike as tested was flawed, the pointed out those flaws and also the potential of the bike when sorted, i thought it was a reasonable view to take?


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 11:50 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I think reporting on the bike and leaving it unrated and then reporting on any developments and progress is fairer.

Like someone said, it broke so why rate it even a 2? It doesn't achieve anything...


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 11:53 am
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Thing is, its a potential worry to Brant as well with your stuff coming up- you can't avoid giving them one however you could find out who are most abusive riders on STW (people with a track record of cracking frames etc) and lend them one each first!

Seen the Lapierre review on bikeradar- 5 out of 5


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 11:56 am
Posts: 3722
Free Member
 

I love mine and it was one of the mediums that didn't get the washer at the factory, so they replaced it under warranty. I've never felt any bowing when braking either, but maybe I'm not 'core enough!


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 12:00 pm
Posts: 20663
Full Member
 

Bikeradar's quote: [i]"Potentially versatile and good value, but too fragile for hardcore all-mountain use"[/i]

Hmm, try telling that to Ian and Kate Potter who ride them (and hire them out) in the Pyrenees!
Don't really see the point in that review TBH, as mentioned why not leave it unrated then update the review later. It's not unique to any one brand at all - early FSRs broke (LH chainstay), early model GT LTS and STS frames were notorious for breaking, Cannondale didn't get their "crack n fail" nickname for nothing etc etc.


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 12:01 pm
Posts: 10654
Full Member
 

Rumor has it MBR once tested a Spesh Enduro.
It bent, then snapped, then exploded into flames causing death.

It got 10/10. 😉


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 12:03 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

If I were a bike manufacturer I would very closely check and double check any bike, frame, or component I was sending in for a major magazine test. Things like missing washers, wrong bolts, and poorly set up brakes and suspension should just not be an issue if this was done. Surely this makes sense?? A review like this, easily found via a search online, could have a massive impact for a smaller manufacturer like Cotic. If I were them I would be beating down the door at MBUK/BikeRadar to perform some sort of retest.


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 12:06 pm
Posts: 3712
Free Member
 

It broke, was fixed, was flexy and then bent. 2/5 seems on the generous side of fair to me.

It's a shame - I've tested one, came close to buying one and would have considered one if I ever need to replace my Blur 4X. It's not so much the breaky thing that worries me (I'd be on a L and they've fixed that), it's the flexy, bendy thing.


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 12:07 pm
Posts: 31089
Full Member
 

I've broken the forks and the rear wheel on my Hemlock, but the frame is fine and dandy.


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 12:27 pm
 cy
Posts: 724
Full Member
 

I appreciate the general feeling of support guys. Thanks. To be fair to Future, I had a meeting with them to work through the issues as they saw them, and whilst we've had to agree to disagree on one point they did give me the opportunity to say my piece before going to print.

Here's the official Cotic line:

[url= http://www.cotic.co.uk/news/hemlock_rear ]Hemlock Future Review Statement[/url]


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 12:29 pm
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I remember the Enduro (circa 05) braking its stays frequently?


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 1774
 

[i]"Travel is adjusted by interchanging the rocker plates, though you’d need suitable forks for each version as it’s designed to run forks spanning 130-160mm travel."[/i]

That is just wrong IMO. The point of the Hemlock is that you can effectively have two different types of bike (via changing the rocker) whilst keeping the same fork up front. Shorter rear travel for punchy techy "hardtaily" riding. Longer rear travel for fast, lumpy 'n' jumpy descending. Or a "UK" set up and an "Alps" set up.

Shame about the production faults with the frame. Not good for anyone on any side of any fence.


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 2554
Free Member
 

[i]Even after the problem was addressed, the stays still bent PERMANENTLY

That bend wasn't caused by the original chainstay failure was it?
[/i]

Not my understanding but having read Cy's official rebuke/report it sounds as if the original problem has been rectified and the second problem doesnt exist. A follow up test should be done


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 12:46 pm
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

[i]A follow up test should be done[/i]

Longterm STW test?


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 12:52 pm
Posts: 54
Free Member
 

A follow up test should be done

I'll do it - my day rates are very reasonable...


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 12:54 pm
Posts: 1774
 

There'll be a Hemlock in Singletrack issue 51 (July 23rd)


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 1:06 pm
Posts: 4307
Free Member
 

it's the flexy, bendy thing.

Being a bit of a Cotic fanboi, I went to the Cotic Big Day out a couple of weeks ago. Ended up riding behind a 16/17 stone real big muscular lad (think he posts on here), who was caning the large demo Hemlock uphill - big ring, out the saddle and hauling like f'ck. I could see no flex from the rear, and when we stopped I asked him how stiff/solid it felt and he reckoned it was at least as good as his Mk2 Heckler. If he couldn't feel any issue with is power output, then very few other riders will.

If you've not looked at the latest version of the rockers, you ought to. They're absolutely massive. Flex really is not an issue anymore.

Oh, and Gary. Just out of interest - why did you bring this up randomly? Are you no longer happy with your Trance and looking for something different?


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 1:09 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I rode Cy's own bike at the sherwood demo day, I'm a big bugger (100kg)and ride quite hard. The back end does not flex in any noticable fashion, in fact it felt very hard tailey and direct with the short rockers(compared to my Heckler) and intend buy one when funds allow. I was also liked the Thor forks which were on it and took all of 30 seconds to set the air pressures.

edit...Jon that was me!


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 1:14 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

IMO, I find it really disappointing that follow up tests & reports to articles like this aren't done & published - especially when the manufacturers/suppliers have gone to the trouble to rectify things (is it just me, or do WMB/MBUK seem to be quite bad in this respect?).

I remember the P7 review, because I was about to buy a P7 frame, and it nearly put me off. When I spoke to Orange about it, they explained the situation and modification they'd made (and I did buy a P7 frame).

I'm not a Cotic owner, or in the market for one at the mo. But, having read the statement on Cotic's site, I wouldn't have any worries. Personally, I think the fact the frame has passed BS EN 14766 is a better test of its mechanical integrity than a journalist with a 'measuring stick'!


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 1:14 pm
 juan
Posts: 5
Free Member
 

Ben is that a real test?
The last st mag I wanted, had the test commencal VS orange. It was only 2 pages short. It's a bit cheapish to make your mind...


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 1:16 pm
Posts: 3449
Free Member
 

the bike as tested was flawed, the pointed out those flaws and also the potential of the bike when sorted, i thought it was a reasonable view to take?

Agreed, also what higgo said. They tested what they were given, said what happened, and acknowledged what Cotic have done about it. Seems fair enough to me.


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 1349
Free Member
 

Blimey I've never seen a magazine put broken bits in picture before (or even mentioned it). They must have had an Ellsworth fail on them over the years ;0)


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 1:20 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Juan, is that aimed at me? I've test ridden a few bikes and the Hemlock is the one I prefer, and it is UK designed. Not interested in French bikes thanks! I would buy from a test ride rather than a mag review.....


 
Posted : 23/04/2009 1:21 pm
Page 1 / 3