- New Cotic Flare?
So – if you had a soul, & were looking for an FS, would you go flare or rocket?Posted 1 year ago
To replace or as well as? Flare to replace, Rocket as well as.Posted 1 year ago
So – if you had a soul, & were looking for an FS, would you go flare or rocket?
Ha, my dilemma as well. Cy suggested rocket cos it’s different enough from the Soul. Main problem is justifying a FS at all as the Soul is so flipping capablePosted 1 year ago
What kayla1 said.Posted 1 year ago
Looks good, funny how the geometry seems fairly conservative when two years ago it would be LLS. I’d drop the large and get an xs instead but guess they know the market. £200 extra ish for uk made front triangle seems reasonable. I think the not that steep sa will cost sales but I’m not sure it should. I moved my seat right forward on the rails past the max marks on my flaremax and think it feels worse on everything but super steep stuff. Wonder if cotic would sell you one with the fork wound down and a 29 front wheel.Posted 1 year ago
I think it still looks fairly out there for a short travel bike. There can’t be many 125mm travel bikes with such long reach / slack head angle.Posted 1 year ago
Af’noon all. Thanks for the interest in the new bike. As a few of you have mentioned, it’s a sign of where the market has got to that the Flare doesn’t look massively ‘out there’ when it’s long, lower BB and similar angles to the previous generation Rocket! We actually (like the Soul) purposefully kept this on the livelier side. If you want more confidence or stability then we have both the FlareMAX and the Rocket for that, so this was all about keeping this bike as a great all rounder. Keeping it on the shorter side (relatively speaking) for tighter turns, and technical moves. It very much has it’s own feel and identity, and we didn’t want it to be just a ‘short travel Rocket’. In some ways it’s a tough sell because the FlareMAX is so capable and the Rocket is surprisingly usable all round. But ride one and it shines through – it’s just a whole heap of fun.
Seat angles, that is a bit of a ‘thing’ right now. I think there’s a balance to be struck. The seat angle quoted is for the actual seat angle with the saddle at pedalling height for an average leg length, so it is representative of what you feel on the bike, not some notional number at the stack height line or some other such nonsense. Depending on your leg length, this is correct to within a couple of tenths of a degree either way.
We have tried the whole super steep thing, and it’s not our preference. Whilst Cotic seat angles have got steeper these last couple of years by a degree or so, and we do like that, we also find that for longer steady away type climbs the really steep seat angles are tiring, constantly weighting your shoulders and arms when you want to ‘sit in’ a little and just spin. Like everything with design, it’s a compromise, but this one is born from our preferences.
CyPosted 1 year ago
Interesting comments from Cy. If Cotic are measuring SA at ride height and others are doing it at stack height then it’s not really comparing like with like.
I agree about steep SAs not being for everyone. I’ve ridden a few steeper bikes and always feel that they are great if you want to attack everything for a short blast, but for all day rides I prefer something more traditional. One of the things I love about my FlareMax is that it almost seems to have a “get you home” mode. You can attack if you want and I’ve set a fair few PRs on climbs since getting mine, but when you are getting tired at the end of the day it’s great to just be able to sit in and spin up the climbs.
Anyway, back to the topic, it looks as though this is the play-bike of the droplink range.Posted 1 year ago
A few other observations on real world seat angles: As Cy said, Cotic are measuring at pedalling height not headtube height – that makes a big difference with the amount of offset and the far slacker actual seat tube angle on many current bikes; if you have longer chainstays you don’t need such a steep seat tube angle to keep the front end down; a bike with a more progressive suspension curve will collapse less into the rear travel during seated climbing; a longer wheelbase bike won’t vary in angle with suspension movement as a shorter bike.
It all adds up!Posted 1 year ago
I’m sure it’s going to be a right giggle on the downs But It’s def. going to be a bike for weightweenies to hate though. Esp. If your in the less travel should means lighter weight camp.
The frame only with no shock weighs 3.4kg compare that to a non-carbon Orange Four which weighs 2.9kg with shock. With decent strong kit and proper tyres to cope with the speed the bike will be capable of, your going to struggle to get under 30lb for the bike.Posted 1 year ago
I think 30lb is okay for a bike like this, its not an XC bike. Just a fun do anything bike. I like.Posted 1 year ago
Not saying if it’s right or wrong. There have been plenty of long threads on here about what is the point of short travel bikes if they weigh the same as longer travel bikes which still pedal well.
So in this case you can you will end up with the same bike weight if you build up the new 125mm travel Flare as you would if you built up the ‘more capable’ longer travel Rocket.Posted 1 year ago
The weight thing is really hard for bike brands these days. We went light on the previous Flare and then people went and sent drops in bike parks when ‘playing’ and we had a couple of failures. Basically travel now has to be seen to have nothing to do with the weight of the frame, because people do nuts stuff on ‘little’ bikes. In fact the sorter, livelier actually encourages this for some people because it’s easier to get off the ground. Check out all the 50 to 1 edits showing them absolutely sending things on 5010’s. It’s all about the ride feel and the type of riding you want to do. If you rode one back to back with a Rocket I think you’d be surprised at how different they feel despite only a relatively small difference in weight.Posted 1 year ago
There have been plenty of long threads on here about what is the point of short travel bikes if they weigh the same as longer travel bikes which still pedal well.
‘Cos not everyone wants a burly long travel bike, some might want something a bit less baggy but strong enough to do everything on. Using myself as an example, I’d rather have the pop and directness* of a shorter travel bike than the steamroller feel of a 150+ bike for the same weight. I can only afford one (expensive) bike so I need/want it to do most things I ask of it.
* chuckability?Posted 1 year ago
What he said ^Posted 1 year ago
Cy,how would it work with a 130mm fork? Thinking about going frame only and transferring some parts over from my Anthem.Posted 1 year ago
What he said ^
# everyday sexism… 🙂Posted 1 year ago
If you rode one back to back with a Rocket I think you’d be surprised at how different they feel
Cy- go on then, please expand. If I had 2k right now, I’d be considering both. I ride tight stuff and like doing the jumpings.Posted 1 year ago
# everyday sexism…
😆 Ta Stevet1!
Assume the person talking a bit of sense and wanting a burly do-everything bike can’t possibly be a female woman of the opposite sex*…
* © Rob Newman, I think, around 1990-something on The Mary Whitehouse Experience.Posted 1 year ago
Like I say not saying it’s right or wrong.Posted 1 year ago
That’s why I sold my 160mm travel bike and ride an Orange Four for that very reason it’s fun, direct and playful.
But the orange frame is prob 1 1/2lb lighter than the Flare and same goes for the 5010 which is carbon so lighter still and a solid 28lb bike is easy enough to build without having to resort to £300 cassettes and carbon wheels.
I’m guessing the new generations have a similar (relative) pedalling feel to the older gen and the Flare was notably more spritely on the hills than the Rocket, that’s certainly not down to a fairly negligible weight difference.
Don’t know that I’ll ever be certain I made the right choice on the Rocket – a Flare would be even more perfect for most of my riding, but I don’t think I’ll ever run out of travel with what I have and I bloody love it to shreds!
…just need to persevere with getting Mrs DD into MTBin so /she/ needs a Flare ;-PPosted 1 year ago
I was surprised when my MK1 flaremax was 32lbs on chubby wheels. It really didn’t feel heavy when riding it. And even tho it was ‘only’ 120mm travel, it rode like it had more. Even took it to Antur, it was fine!
New flare looks really nice.Posted 1 year ago
Thank’s for the response Cy. I have a Soul and it’s a great ride, I will certainly try and get a ride on the Flare to see how it compares. Interesting points on the chainstay length and seat angle, I guess there are so many variables in how bikes are measured it’s easy to compare to on paper but for them to be totally different in reality. The Soul rips though and I’m sure the new Flare does too!Posted 1 year ago
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.