- New Bird Zero 29
Slack so competing against the Orange Crush 29er – https://www.orangebikes.co.uk/bikes/crush-29-pro/2019Posted 9 months ago
-80 is not a typo. Its designed to run 2.5s or bigger on nothing smaller than a 30mm ID rim – no compromises. That gives you a BB of 295>300 which is not really any lower than most comparable bikes running plus tyres. 27.5 Plus tyres however need not apply (although the sadistic can run them if they want, they will fit).Posted 9 months ago
What would be the standard crank length to be used with these new skool long low slack badgers? It used to be 175mm. Should we be switching to 165 to avoid pedal strikes?
To be fair I was being a bit flippant with my remark about Swinley, -80 isnt that low when wheels are now a good 40mm bigger radius compared to 26×2″ and no one batted an eyelid at 11.5″ BB’s back then.
It’s a compromise between climbing and descending, I’d take a bit of ratchety climbing (I’m a singlespeeder at heart) in return for quick descending on that sort of bike any day.Posted 9 months ago
Exactly. You only need to go back 15 years and you’ll find, much like all the best ideas, ~295 BB heights are not radical or indeed new! In reality ours runs a touch lower than that but nominally that would be where we’re at. I think we might be up there in a very small group of bikes running a -80 drop (I don’t actually know another 29er – answers on a postcard please), but the net result, assuming that you run it as intended is tried and tested.
OK bikes tended to run maybe 80-100mm of travel so sagged height is a little higher, but its not huge, and we’re running 32T rings rather than 44 toothed triples we had back then, and bash guards on chain devices… so we probably need care a little less about the BB clearance than we used to as well.Posted 9 months agoconcrete24Member
I have been riding for about 25 years – and in that time have had four bikes: ’94 Specialized Hardrock, ’98 Proflex 1000, ’04 Specialized Stumpjumper Pro and now ’13 Cotic Soul, (the most fun and capable of the four by far).
I am looking at new bikes for next year and have decided on 29 over 27.5. With that in mind and with my relative lack of exposure to modern geometry can someone give a brief comparison on where the major differences are likely to be in riding the Zero versus the Solaris Max please? I understand the steel\alu arguments and am more interested in climbing versus descending confidence and general ability to ride natural trails and bridleways. I have ridden lots of different terrain all over the world in the past, but with three small kids, I mainly ride 2-3 hours in the Surrey Hills if that helps relate it to anything!
Anyway, thanks for anything that would help – both bikes look great to me but it feels from this thread that they are for different types of riding?Posted 9 months agochakapingSubscriber
They’re for very similar kinds of riding.
Cotic has longer seatstays, will probably feel more “planted” and less playful – combined with the “soft” ride feel of steel it’s a bike that you can go very fast on. Or ride rough stuff and stay comfy for people like me with back issues to consider.
Not ridden the Bird, so I won’t speculate as to how it’ll feel. Have ordered a Solaris Max though.Posted 9 months ago
The old Solaris and Soul were more conventional (90mm stems, etc) geometry. The new ones (“longshot geometry”) are a similar principal to the Bird’s geometry.
The New Cotics are still very long/low/slack compared to most bikes, Bird just turn everything upto 11, to get anymore extreme you’d have to look at stuff like Geometrons and Sick.
Now depending on your POV the Bird is either the best geometry and future proofed against where the industry will inevitably end up. Or it’s an extreme bike that mere mortals won’t appreciate (and potentially still where the all bikes will end up).
Both brands have test bikes, give them a go.You might like the new style geometry of both but prefer some nuance of either.
IME the difference between a bike 5 years ago (like your soul) is that you can go faster on a longer bike and it remains stable. But it’s only better if your riding involves going fast for the sake of it of you ride somewhere where stability is a virtue (Lake district, Peak, Wales, etc). You can pedal them all day around bridleways too, but they kinda feel underpowered, like your legs are never going to match the frame. Unlike a more old-skool XC bike which can make even riding round a field feel involving! Even in the Surrey Hills you’ll find trails and rides that could suit either style of bike.Posted 9 months ago
I had a go on the 29 and Zero AM yesterday thanks to Ben. I’m pretty much sold on the 29. I need a bike that will cover rides at the Golfie and hopefully long days in the mountains and much as you can tell anything on a short test ride it feels like it’ll tick all those boxes. Felt very stable and confidence inspiring but also a lot of fun and so fast. Didn’t have any issues with the bottom bracket although you might do if you ran tyres smaller than the 2.6 that were on it. I won’t have the funds til later in the year unless I buy a frame now and build it myself but the full builds seem very good value so I may just do that.Posted 4 months agoNorthwindSubscriber
Mmm, not totally sure the world’s ready for a 2.5 only frame? Bit of a lack of rear tyres I reckon, still holding out for a 2.5 slaughter (which exists I think but you can’t buy it), minion semi or rockrazor. Unless I’m missing something there?
it’s definitely made my list thoughPosted 4 months ago
Pretty sure the one I tried had a Maxxis Aggressor on the back. Looks like it would suit my lack of tyre changing attitude. I’m just about to hit the buy button, just need to work out where to get it delivered to. Once I’ve got it I’m happy to plunder your tyre stockpile to do some testing for you. I’m sure a large 2.3 would be fine.Posted 4 months ago
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.