[Closed] wmb trail bike of the year...

So, these mondrakers then, is the saddle rails/layback post/bar sweep the only adjustment available?, or do people fit stems to them?.

The best bike today with the best forks, wheels, drivetrain etc will be not so good in 2 years time when a "better" head angle, fork, wheelsize, whatever.
In reality it makes no difference whatsoever. People just go with what the bike industry tell them.
I've got a 2006 Sworks Enduro with Fox 36RC2.
How does this compare ride wise with these 2014 bikes? Not so different I'd imagine.

I've ridden a couple of FG Mondrakers - they do take some getting used to, but once you have got a handle on how they respond, they are bloody fast and stable bikes.

I can well believe that while there are spec compromises on the tested model, the geometry and stability that comes from the frame and FG layout would make it feel better than the others.

No, I don't work for Mondraker or Silverfish.

I was all set on a kona process dl, now i'm not so sure.

Sure I read it had won a test in a magazine previous - obviously not WMB though.

Northwind - Member

I think whotsisname, Jon Whitehouse is it? His article earlier in the mag showed a bit of kool-aid drinking...

I'm OK with an opinion piece expressing the opinion that 650b is great and the way of the future. However I was a bit put out that he decided to portray those who are as yet unconvinced as a bunch of Internet crackpots and conspiracy theorists. It does not say much about the strength of an argument if you feel the need to belittle and misrepresent its counterarguments.

There's still a couple of oddities, like the Kona- "We think another bike in their range is better". TEST THAT ONE THEN.

I'm never very sure how this sort of thing works. Do mags request specific bikes from specific companies or do they send out a general "we're doing a trail bike review, please send bikes" request and test what they're given?

In this months WMB - how many ads were Fox?

Same goes for recent issues. I wonder.

Another interesting point and completely off topic.

Somebody mentioned the mind taker forward geo and that he watched a guy struggle over jumps on it.

Are trail/enduro/all mountain/over mountain MTB's designed for jumps, trail centre or more for natural, rocky drops, rock gardens etc?

What fiasco was this, I seem to have missed this?

I was wondering that too. Seem to recall one of the mags saying a c456 was too flexy but too stiff in the same sentence. (dunno maybe it was laterally compliant yet vertically stiff or something)

did planet X/OO stop advertising and consequently get panned in all tests aswell? or something like that?

Are trail/enduro/all mountain/over mountain MTB's designed for jumps, trail centre or more for natural, rocky drops, rock gardens etc?

it's an offroad bike, I think it's designed for riding off road. I fail to see a difference between man made or "natural" trails from a bike design perspective (unless it's a BMX track)

Are trail/enduro/all mountain/over mountain MTB's designed for jumps, trail centre or more for natural, rocky drops, rock gardens etc?

It depends what you call natural or trail centre, some of the best bits on man made trails replicate great natural riding. Some of the natural trials are that are rebuilt/maintained look more like trail centres.

A good trail bike should be capable through most of that stuff really. Some of the vids/pics of the EWS stuff looks like a well rounded mix of natural alpine/mountain and some man made stuff.

I wonder how many ads SRAM products now run & feature in WMB etc.

Somebody mentioned the mind taker forward geo and that he watched a guy struggle over jumps on it.

Are trail/enduro/all mountain/over mountain MTB's designed for jumps, trail centre or more for natural, rocky drops, rock gardens etc?

The new wave of Enduro bikes tend to be at least partly developed by pro riders on the EWS circuit to help them do well. As a result, you have a hugely capable bike that responds best to someone of that calibre, hitting things at the speed they do. Slower or less confident/committed and you might find it feels wierd - or maybe the guy was just having an off day.

That review on the first page. How can you mark a bike so highly if the fork is 'crap'.

Surely the overall experience would be sub-par - 'traction' as the reviewer puts it would be marred?

The pricing also made many of the comments ridiculous. The top 650b bikes all cost closer to £3000 and the top 29ers cost closer to £2000. For a fair test the price needs to be similar. For example, the complaints against the camber Evo (apparently needs a longer fork to rectify the dreaded ha problem) and the t129 (flexy wheels) could easily rectified with an extra £500 to £1000. I'm sure it was a case of justifying what they had already decided.

I would assume it would be awarded on a performance vs value type equation. Based on this it appears this point is somewhere around £2.5 - £3K, though the many bikes in this price point have the 'disappointing' Fox Evo forks which seemingly has an adverse effect on the performance of all of these bikes bar the Mondraker.

hora - Member
That review on the first page. How can you mark a bike so highly if the fork is 'crap'.

Surely the overall experience would be sub-par - 'traction' as the reviewer puts it would be marred?

Actually that's only half a review on the first page. The first page of the review spends quite a lot of time saying "we expected this to be crap, but it took us completely by surprise".

In fact, WMB are obviously so aware that giving the gong to the Mondraker would wind people up that they have a separate article in the magazine describing the debates that produced the result. One significant quote from that is that: "...the bike that wins takes a pile of less-than-optimal parts" and simply transcends them."

Mind you, I doubt that WMB are particularly upset about all the discussion and publicity for them that this "shock" result has produced. 🙂 If the Cube or Canyon won then there'd have been a few sniffs about how reviews are obviously pointless when you can compare specs online but that'd be about it.

I was all set on a kona process dl, now i'm not so sure.

Sure I read it had won a test in a magazine previous - obviously not WMB though.

Well I have the Process 134 DL and it is a cracking machine.

The two issues WMB had were weight and the head angle. Well I'd agree that it is undeniably on the heavy side, but equally it climbs very well (including techy and steep stuff) and I can live with it as I'll upgrade lighter parts as and when they're needed. (Although a 'spare' light wheelset is probably first on the cards.)

The head angle comment is an odd one though. It is at 68 degrees which while it isn't fashionably slack it is a good option to allow the bike to cover various bases. I've taken it down some steep and technical stuff and it has handled itself very well indeed. And, as said before, it seems that 68 degrees on a more fashionable Santa Cruz 5010 isn't an issue whereas it is here!?

If you're interested in the bike then I'd look at some of the other reviews as they seem to be a bit more balanced and at least match my experience of the bike so far. As I said, it is a great bike.