As some on here like this sort of bike I thourghts i’d put up a bit on the demo I had last night:

One of these: PoleEvoLink140

I had a go on both the the 29er 140mm and the 27.5 140mm.

Now, I’ve never really been a fan of 29er’s for the type of riding I tend to do, I just found the current crop cumbersome. However, with the Pole I found myself a lot more comfortable.

The best way to summaries it all is these bikes just simply ‘fit’. Its hard to fully put into words – sort of you sit in the bike, rather then on top of it. Makes my other bikes feel very short. Climbing was good, no wander on the front end and I sat with a straighter back. Again, very comfortable.

Downhill, the main thing I noted is they are very good at ploughing – just off the brakes, through the rough. It didn’t seem to get hung up in the holes. Grip was good too, but it was a damp, muddy, slippery day – so hard to judge on that front. My times on the DH sections were only a few seconds off summer times so judging by the clock, these bikes appear to provide a lot of confidence for the rider (i.e I was on a bike with different geomotery, different fork / shock with a rough set up in not the best conditions and still got respectable times vs previous efforts – lot to be said for that).

It was harder to manual, and I’m putting this to the length; it is long But… I got used to it after a while, picking up the front end over little ruts etc. So bit of a moot point. Adjusting your riding style seems to be needed, moving round the bike a bit more then usual.

I didn’t have a lot of time to fiddle with the fork (DVO and MRP efforts) but I got on better with the MRP off the cuff.

Finish was really nice too and I really like the more simple logo design.

Looking forward to having more time on one, and I can see this is the way forward for geometry in the future. It has also got me to rethink my prejudges against wheel size for this type of ride.

Cheers

Cool, thanks for sharing! And for getting through it without a joke about riding a long pole.

What’s your comparison with the “current crop” btw?

I had a brief go of a 29″ 140 at the weekend. My first experience of a slacker 29″ and I’m in love. Despite not quite being used to getting the weight as far forwards as needed, and some epically rubbish conditions, it just felt soo controlled. I’d be really interested to try their ‘XC’ bike for my general kind of riding.

Northwind – tried a Tallboy, RIP 9 and a stereo amongst others. I currently ride a solo.

Not knocking those, all good bikes. They just never seemed to fit me properly. I felt ‘perched’ on them with the bars in the lap.

I’ve been told the bb drop / chainstay length / extra reach on the pole has a lot to do with what I’m talking about, but thats a little over my pay grade!

A friend of mine has one. He’s flipping fast and it seems to suit his brutal riding style well. Everyone who had a little play on it was impressed.

I like the look of these and interesting that the chainstays are actually quite long in this day of going short. Also interesting that they say if you’re between sizes go for the smaller size.

I’m a big fan of these more progressive bikes but the Pole range just doesn’t have the aesthetics for me, not to say I wouldn’t have one but I’d be a bit disappointed it didn’t look better.

Podge – I’d tended to have agreed before I saw it in the flesh. Somehow it works in real life.

Aesthetics play an important part in a bike buy for me – I like clean lines. The Pole’s front end seems to account for that. Try to get to see / sit on one, the photos don’t really do it justice.

Mike from switchbacks in Spain is kinda sponsored by pole, he said he’s now using the 29er for DH in malaga and loves it,but mike could ride a Tesco’s shopping bike faster down trails than most. in the looks department it’s a 2007@ specialized enduro but uglier. Met the owner in bubion a few years ago v good rider but a bit of a arse. Whenever I mention other slack head angle bikes that predated his bikes and bikes with similar Suspention linkages he sulked as if he was the first person to think of a sub 64 degree trail bikes.

They are far too affordable at 1800 euro for me to be test riding one, I’m not sure I could resist the temptation. Would probably go for the 110 or 113 though.

Where did you get the demo from? I really shouldn’t ask as it’s probably dangerous.

mrhoppy, the guys at http://velobrands.co.uk/ set up a demo at my local trials. They have just taken Pole.

Word has it they will be doing a lot more demos round the country, dealership days and the like. Should be opportunities to get a go.

They have just taken Pole.

*tries not to smirk*

Interesting bike, wouldn’t mind trying one myself.

I’ve been very interested in these as well – which 27.5 did you try? I thought the 140mm was 29 only, and the 130mm was 29/650b+, with the 150mm being a 27.5 only?

idb – looking at the website, looks like I tried the 150 25.5 and the 140 29er.

Trouble is the 150 cam with a DVO on it that was a little on the harsh side. I couldn’t figure out how to sort it in the time frame I had available; seems like the dials on that fork are counterintuitive!

I’d want more time on them to work out the differences between the two – give me time to mess with the settings / setup.

@chrisdiesel “Met the owner in bubion a few years ago v good rider but a bit of a arse. Whenever I mention other slack head angle bikes that predated his bikes and bikes with similar Suspention linkages he sulked as if he was the first person to think of a sub 64 degree trail bikes.”

Nothing has changed. I’m still the same arse, maybe even worse because I’m constantly getting older 😀

At the time we met was May 2015 and that time there were no sub 64 degree trail bikes. Even now there are only Geometron and Pole on production which has sub 64 degree angles. The thing with the new school geometry is that the head angle is not only thing that needs changes. If it would be that easy I would never founded Pole Bicycles.

As for the linkage: there is not similar linkaged bikes on the market if we are not talkin entirely 4-bar linkages. Pole 4-bar linkage is concentric short link system. There is not similar system out there. There are similar short links but they are not concentric to cranks. There are also very remarkable constructional differences as well.

As what comes to the forks, we are going with Rockshox Lyriks and Yaris for 2017

😆

The geometry is cool and all that but I have to ask the most important question: Why is a Finnish company called Pole?

Thought you took a 29er to Enduro2 Neil?

Why is a Finnish company called Pole

I think it means pedal in Finnish.

I’ve tried some crazy long bikes and find that I don’t get on with them on really steep terrain, there is a reason that riders like Reading https://dirtmountainbike.com/bike-reviews/downhill-bikes/matter-fit-nicolai-g19.html, Minaar etc etc are shortening their crazy long bikes with either custom frames or headset reach adjusters – and there is a reason why downhill bikes on average are consistently lower in the reach than enduro bikes.

The nail is the coffin for me, in terms of Mojo and Pole, is that Porter can’t even explain in coherent English why his geometry is not catching on so easily with the DH crowd.

Chris Porter from Mojo takes this view. “On flatter descents you can keep your head behind the front wheel slightly and still have a long reach. On steeper descents in order to keep yourself tucked in behind the bar and feel ‘behind’ the front wheel, you need a shorter reach or the front wheel needs to go further away.”
Read more at https://dirtmountainbike.com/bike-reviews/downhill-bikes/matter-fit-nicolai-g19.html#b07FGe6qv6GxXYdX.99

Also….. that Pole…. 2007 called – it wants its SX Trail back.

Also, Porters ideas on fork offset are also totally **** nutty. I’ve been comparing two forks, same damping setup – one 170mm Lyrik with a 42mm offset and the other a 160mm Pike with Giants 46mm offset. The 42mm offset Lyrik, despite being taller, feels steeper and less confidence inspiring on steep terrain – yes it slows down steering a bit but not much. The 46mm Pike gives you this feeling that your can drive the front wheel into the ground through the bars and gain more grip, you feel more behind the front wheel.

So my personal experience seems to clash with Porters idea that you should drop the offset to slow steering and kick the head angle out to get the front wheel further out, if anything I think the head angles should be being kicked out and we should be moving increasing offsets.

The Perched on feeling doesn’t just come from reach, it’s about the BB height and stack as well. My Large Reign feels a hell of a lot more sat in than Large Whyte G-160’s and the only reason that I can think why is a combination of the bottom bracket height, stack and fork offset.

If Minnar wants a shorter frame why is he on an xxl and not an xl?

Porter doesn’t come across well in print, he makes far more sense in person and Dirt is hardly known for clear writing so I wouldn’t exactly trust them to have got the quote quite right.

Tom_W1987 I think you’ve completely misunderstood what Porter was saying there.

He has generally moved away from shorter offset now too after lots of testing and moved to a lower head angle for reasons described.

Jacks bike has a shorter reach mainly to do with the SA and how that is measured but it stands to reason that WC track steepness, especially modern tracks, is way different to a bike for all round use. Which is inde d the other reason for it being a bit shorter. You do want the bars closer to you you can’t stay over the front to the same degree when hitting big obstacles at their speeds on crazy steep stuff no matter what the head angle.

You can achieve the same thing with bad rise, stem rise, spacers, anglesets etc..but also the Dirt article you will have got the info from is a bit flawed.

Fact is, off-road mtb has loads of variables and it’s impossible to get one right answer, which makes it very interesting.

I ride a size up in a GeoMetron as you know but with angleset and bar roll my cockpit is the same as the smaller size but I prefer the wheel further away, others might hate it.

It’s all good fun. Chris also hated 29 wheels, now he rides one on the front and you’d have a hard time taking it off him…

Really interested in these. After the success of my 650b+ hardtail this year I was considering saving up for a SC Hightower frame next year to replace my Aeris, however the 130 or 140 Evolink has really caught my eye.

Granted they aren’t exactly pretty frames but I’d love to try one. Will be keeping an eye out for demo days.

Tom_W1987 I think you’ve completely misunderstood what Porter was saying there.

He has generally moved away from shorter offset now too after lots of testing and moved to a lower head angle for reasons described.

Jacks bike has a shorter reach mainly to do with the SA and how that is measured but it stands to reason that WC track steepness, especially modern tracks, is way different to a bike for all round use. Which is inde d the other reason for it being a bit shorter. You do want the bars closer to you you can’t stay over the front to the same degree when hitting big obstacles at their speeds on crazy steep stuff no matter what the head angle.

You can achieve the same thing with bad rise, stem rise, spacers, anglesets etc..but also the Dirt article you will have got the info from is a bit flawed.

Fact is, off-road mtb has loads of variables and it’s impossible to get one right answer, which makes it very interesting.

I ride a size up in a GeoMetron as you know but with angleset and bar roll my cockpit is the same as the smaller size but I prefer the wheel further away, others might hate it.

It’s all good fun. Chris also hated 29 wheels, now he rides one on the front and you’d have a hard time taking it off him…

Chainline – Member

He has generally moved away from shorter offset now too

And tbh this is Porter in a nutshell; whatever he thinks today is the definitive and obvious truth and everything else is shit, and you’re an idiot if you disagree. Then tomorrow he changes his mind. 29er wheels being the latest in a long line.

It’s good to be open to new ideas but if you spend years slagging what other people are doing off then suddenly fall in love with it and volte face, you look like a ****, and maybe you should think twice before doing it again.

Also, Porters ideas on fork offset are also totally **** nutty. I’ve been comparing two forks, same damping setup – one 170mm Lyrik with a 42mm offset and the other a 160mm Pike

How are you managing to have the same damping set-up in a 160mm Pike and a 170mm Lyrik?
I rode a 170mm lyrik and a 160mm Pike back to back recently (swapping bikes with a mate) and found the damping differed massively between the two. so much so infact that I ended up riding the (borrowed) Pike locked out to keep it from diving during a quick session on some dirt jumps mid ride.

The 46mm Pike gives you this feeling that your can drive the front wheel into the ground through the bars and gain more grip

eh? like you can with every fork you mean?

If you really want to “test” the difference fork offset alone makes for yourself you need access to two identical forks (or possibly better still two sets of lowers) and remove all other variables. This. I would think. would be easily achievable for someone in Mr Porters position.

Personally I tend not to listen to anything Porter or Jones say about bicycle geometry, sizing or wheel size. it’s a preference choice and both seem stuck on finding ultimate stability over Maneuverability. Neither of these older gentlemen have playfulness, flamboyance/flair or an ounce of style in their skillsets. Pretty much the polar opposite to my own preference.

I also cannot take anything Chainline says seriously after reading him admit in the Nicolai Geometron fanboi thread that he’s a “waaay slower” rider than Porter.
His words. not mine.

Minaar etc etc are shortening their crazy long bikes with either custom frames or headset reach adjusters – and there is a reason why downhill bikes on average are consistently lower in the reach than enduro bikes.

Did you know that the chainstay on those bikes is always the same? They don’t balance the long front centre to the rear centre.

You should check the latest World Champs results. All three podiums were on “long” reach bikes. Just look at Danny Hart’s ride how calm he is on the bike. Val Di Sole is one of the steepest in the WC circuit. There were a hundred different bikes with many different geometries but still same bike was on all podiums.

The nail is the coffin for me, in terms of Mojo and Pole, is that Porter can’t even explain in coherent English why his geometry is not catching on so easily with the DH crowd.

Chris Porter does not represent Pole and I don’t agree all his stuff. My mother tongue is Finnish but let me try to explain.

Quick answer is that they might only change the reach and head angle. You need to add more length to the chainstay as well and the axle path needs to shift more forward throughout the travel to compensate the changes you make. Also the BB height is a key factor here. These guys have learned to ride bikes certain way and it’s safer not to change too much at one go.

Here’s a blog post because rest of the answer went too long I explain here more about the fork offsets etc.

Tom_W1987 I would say that if you are happy with your ride and don’t desire for something new, you should be happy about that. I did a s*it loads of work to get my head around bike kinematics and geometry, did countless hours of testing, bleeding and breaking bones to find what I was looking for. I’m after an unicorn – a one mountain bike what can do all the rides you need to do without a compromise.

it’s a preference choice and both seem stuck on finding ultimate stability over Maneuverability.

I think that I understand what your’re trying to say. The thing with the new geometry is not manualing all the time for sure but everything else is just easier and safer. It’s just we haven’t yet hired any of the “stylish” mainstream riders yet to promote and make a cool edit of it 😀

Here’s Pole’s ambassador Antti Lampen riding the EVOLINK 176 at our local spot. 176 is the world’s longest bike and I think he can maneuver it with style.

[video]https://youtu.be/yvDKAPfb8aE[/video]

Sorry Mr Pole. Pointless little bunnyhops down singletrack and hucking little jumps to dead sailor rear wheel landers is not a “style” I’ve ever aspired to.

Like I said. it’s all personal preference so each to their own. Eh?

neuronontypical nw there is a typical stw forum comment and the point I exit. Because I admit to being slower the CP nothing I say can be taken seriously ok you’re right…

You can be slower for all sorts of reasons, self employment, family responsibilties, disabilities, none of which have any bearing on your ability to understand, design diagnose issues or improve a bike. I don’t race anymore, I don’t feel the need to ride at anyone else’s pace, anymore.

And yes, I do have a fully adjustable offset triple clamp for testing as does CP, which if you’d read that other thread you’d know already.

CP also doesn’t shoot from the hip anything like he used to either, which is why as he’s still testing in different situations he hasn’t publicly offered any opinion on the 29 front.

He’s also not obsessed with stability, which you must know as I assume you’ve ridden some of these very slack very long bikes which on turn initiation are anything but.
enjoy the thread..

There’s no need to be defensive chainline. and certainly no need to exit the thread. I wasn’t saying either you or Chris are wrong. You just have very very different preferences to mine. Nowhere did I mention any obsession.

There’s more than one way to initiate a turn.

😉

Back on topic…

Bike radar just put out this: http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/category/bikes/mountain-bikes/full-suspension/product/pole-evolink-140-review-50854/

They seemed to like it.

Nevertheless, despite access to all the latest and greatest bikes, this has been our tester’s weekend weapon of choice for months now. And really, that says it all.

Chainline, I’ve followed the other thread and enjoyed your input on that.

As I said in my original post, this bike challenged a lot of my own prejudice around 9ers and opened my eyes to progressive geometry. Maybe others on this thread need to consider that for themselves rather than shutting the door on it.

ok, maybe I over reacted. I try to stay balance because these bikes are not for everyone and not ‘the answer’ I don’t think there is one for an off road bicycle. I can’t go back I know that.

Here’s a blog post because rest of the answer went too long I explain here more about the fork offsets etc.

Interesting article now for the important question when are you planing on releasing an xl for the taller person on the 140

Did you know that the chainstay on those bikes is always the same? They don’t balance the long front centre to the rear centre.

That isn’t true. Greg’s XXL V10 has longer chainstays:

http://m.pinkbike.com/news/behind-the-bike-developing-the-xxl-santa-cruz-v10-2016.html