Climbing The Stumpjumper EVO's geometry adjustments allow for a high level of customization. After some experimentation, my preferred all-round setting ended up being neutral / low. That gave the bike a 64-degree head angle, 42mm of bottom bracket drop, and 443mm chainstays. Those numbers would have been radical just a few years ago, but we're seeing more and more bikes in this travel bracket released with similar head angles - the Transition Sentinel and Norco Sight are two examples that come to mind.
Now, 64-degrees isn't that far off from what you'll find on a DH bike, but thankfully the Stumpy EVO climbs much, much better than a downhill sled. That relatively light weight helps, and while the Horst Link suspension layout may not be quite as snappy as some of the dual-link designs out there, the latest version has a good amount of support for those out of the saddle sprints. Traction takes priority over an extra-firm, super efficient feeling ride, which helps keep that rear wheel from spinning out on those slippery, tricky root-filled climbs.
Pedal strikes are a little more common in that lower geometry setting, but I ended up sticking with it because of the cornering benefits. Plus, most of the climbs where I live are more rooty than rocky – there's a little more give when you hit a pedal on a stump compared to running into a solid chunk of granite.
I did spend some time with the bike in the slackest and lowest setting, but found that it felt too slack on mellower terrain for my liking. It gave the bike a lazy feel, and took away some of the easy handling that I enjoyed in the middle / low setting. Changing the head angle doesn't take that long, though, and I could imagine regularly switching it up for trips to steeper shuttle zones or a lift-served bike park.
So how does it handle big drop with 0.6 spacer ?
Reference: www.ridefox.com/fox17/help.php?m=bike&id=568
Ohh..my bad then. Sorry.
I can guarantee that if the internet hadn't made a stink about reach figures nobody would ever know or care about it. Back in the day when you went to a shop to learn about bikes and talked to the shop guys/gals did they ever once mention petty shit like that? Nope. But poor Mike K. is tasked with splitting hairs between 200 different nearly identical bikes each year.
Anyone who thinks the X2 is "dead" or "wallows" hasn't taken the time to figure out shock tuning. You have tremendous control over compression, rebound, and progression so the ONLY reason it would wallow or have any unfavorable characteristics would be because it isn't tuned to your liking.
There's a reason air is still on majority of EWS bikes. And the fact that even some world cup DH racers run air shocks is a testament that they're beyond good enough for any non-pro's trail bike.
Gah, I believe I specifically asked you to not get me started.
As for our frirnd here, mr @ironxcross, who thinks all of us are morons..., I'd suggest him to try the ext. My friend, who has it on his bike, has never been more satisfied by a shock and he had them all(well, most of them), coil and air and he feels the ext is totally different than any other shock, making his bike floating/flying on the downs.
What didn't you like about the super deluxe ultimate? I'm considering a new bike and it comes with either a fox factory build with a dhx2 or rockshox with a super deluxe ultimate. I'm undecided.
Or maybe it is all just in my mind. ))))
Sag % is just a starting point for your air pressure, if you're having these problems you definitely need to keep bumping the pressure up until it rides better. The key to making the X2 fun is having enough air pressure that you do NOT go deep enough into the travel to hit the HSR circuit unless it's a big hit. Put that thing at 15% sag, make sure your LSR is set closer to open than closed so it's nice and quick, and your bike will feel very different. Then you can find a middle ground where you really like it.
And I don't deny this EXT shock is probably good stuff, but if it is so good it's not because it's a coil it's because they made a good damper.
You say more compression makes it harsh, have you tried more air pressure as well same problem I assume? Compression dampers can only make nuanced changes to how it feels, they aren't going to defend against bottom outs at all. It sounds like you need to get your air pressure high enough to not bottom out, then open up the compression dampening until it's not too harsh. But totally possible it's your suspension design if you're on a different bike, I thought we were bickering about FSR bikes specifically.
The frame is extremely light and good adjustability + sizing.
They are going to sell a lot.
Bikes are supposed to be fun. Give me my fun front wheel.
Keep singletrack...single.
I would not be worries about wheel size at all;
I would say the whole package - what it matter, there are bikes with 25,7 that are not playfull and vice versa plenty of 29 that are playful and feels small;
the only disadvantage of modern geometry and wheels that bike racks are not getting bigger
Very practical and intelligent approach from Specialized. Switching to 29" wheels whilst offering 27.5"options. Plus, the adjustable frame geometry pieces work well with this sort of convertibility. Cheers to Specialized for thinking of all wheel sizes and geometry settings!
Early in the video, it says - run the correct inserts and this bike can be ridden 27/27
Legend has it the method was developed on the outskirts of Saigon in the late 60's.
Yet to be affirmed/denied via Snopes
Never mind issues like... the enduro from a few years ago were released as the latest/greatest only to be re released 6 months later in an attempt to fix kinematic issues.
These are the places I see Specialized pushing the market forward and moving things from background trends (Pole, Geometron, etc as examples) to mainstream. Going from memory so some of these are probably off but;
First major with a long travel 29 - 2015 Enduro
SWAT - 2017 SJ
First major to offer progressive geometry - 2017 SJ Evo
First major with multi adjustable geometry - 2021 SJ Evo
There are smaller companies that have done some of these things for a long time, but taking the risk to do it at scale is a completely different proposition.
Scott voltage FR had adjustable geometry via angle set cups, different settings in the shock linkage and adjustable dropouts. It's not a new concept.
You should ask Salespunk how many different brands of bikes he’s ridden. You might be surprised that he has all the flavors of kool aid...
I know he used to be into the Santa Cruz Nomad, but that was only after trying out an Ibis Mojo HD first, etc...
I would still posit that they are pushing the mainstream market further than what Scott did since the SJ is a mainstay of their line and not a niche bike like the Voltage FR.
And really I would not compare myself to some useless tour bikers Of course they strap all their stuff to the bike, because they just pedal straight on roads and carry ton of stuff with them, of course you not gonna go trail riding with 30kg+ backpack...
Then on the trail I am usually leaving all the smart people talking about tokens, clicks, unsprung mass, center of gravity far behind me...
Racers do a lot of things differently from hobby riders. And yes your point of strapping everything as low as possible is valid for going Downhill! But if you go up, you'll have to drag heavier bike up. And yes I saw lot of knobs with bananas strapped to their frame, so what
I don't know since when MTB bikers turned into whiny roadies?
Wanna be faster, shave your legs and gets some spandex too!
I am also pretty aggressive rider and tried couple rides without the backpack and only difference I've notice was the bad feeling in the back of my head, because there was nothing protecting my back...
And we are only talking about downhill, but going up, you have to use more power to motor up the heavier bike, no doubt...
And honestly if you are NOT a pro race chasing every tenth, it makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL!
I am not hating on Swat as it's pretty smart, but just pointing out that everybody is possessed by the weight nowadays and then straps kilos of ballast to the bike...
Still one of the best bikes out there I'm sure, specially the expert model. I don't know if I'd think of it as "leg up", more of a different options and that's a great one option.
If the weight wasn't a issue why nobody is racing steel frames, but carbon?
Fanny packs look shit I agree on that...
And it's difference if you carry the weight on your body while pedaling up, compared to carrying it on your bike, can't believe I have to say that. Try to push your bike up as it is and then strap a water bottle to it and try it again...
Just look how much tighter the jerseys got over years, the XL nowadays would be Medium 10years ago...
I don't think it's generally helpful to think of it as a whole system anyways. It is probably better to think of the body and bike as independent systems for this problem. I think the advantage of carrying weight on the frame, as you mentioned, is that the body doesn't have to support the mass. Which is correct. But also, if you look at the research, adding such little weight relative to your overall body mass changes your metabolic rate so little that you would likely not even be able to measure it. However, this is just during standing with the weight, I think FatSanch has a good point here. This effect will become larger as your body accelerates while riding.
This is where I think the other guy may actually have a point (although for the wrong reasons). In terms of a metabolic penalty for moving weight attached to your body, having it closer to your BODY's center of mass (which is around the lower 1/3rd of your back) will significantly reduce its impact on you. So in this sense, locating weight so far away from your body's center of mass (locating it in the frame), will cause your body to exert more energy to manipulate it, compared to having it on your back.Then again, how much do you need to manipulate your bike while riding? And how much of that energy forms the greater amount of energy being spent? So many questions, so few answers.
Long story short, I think if you are pedaling and not manipulating the bike, best to locate weight on the frame. If you are manipulating your bike constantly, I can't conclusively say, but I would suspect it may be a toss up.
There is a reason bike manufacturers fight like hell to get bottom brackets as low as possible, balanced against pedal strikes. Adding 3 kg of weight up high in the system negates many many millimeters of BB drop (as an example).
Also, the force of weight on the rider (as it relates to muscle endurance) will be a function of how far that extra mass is from the connection points in the lever (your hands and feet, for example). For evidence, go to a gym and try to hold a 15 lb dumbell straight out to the side at full arms length - it will get difficult quickly. Then try to support the same weight by balancing it on your elbow, instead of in your hand - much much easier. This is the same reason why (as a general rule) people with long arms have a much harder time producing maximum bench pressing - longer levers multiply the force of the mass.
There is no reason why having weight higher/further from the center of mass would be good in 99% of mountain biking. It would provide a de-localization of instant center of mass during dynamic movements, and at best would create more force that needs to be countered by the muscles of the rider to maintain bike performance - it will also have an outsized influence over the behavior of suspension, as a function of distance from the center of mass.
There isn't really a whole lot of debate here. These are pretty basic physics principles. To suggest that carrying weight up high on your back wouldn't negatively impact performance in a dynamic system like mountain biking is crazy. If there were ANY advantage to that, professional riders who are focused on descending times would place weights on their bodies. They don't. They seek to shed grams all together and carry as much of this weight as low as they can, while also trying to centralize this weight, moving their center-of-mass to the ideal position between the wheels.
For cornering, sure having weight low sounds like a good idea. I don't know the concepts well on that point. But I do know body energetics, and I'm speaking to your point about how much 'energy' would be required to carry weight, independent of bike handling in corners.
How long do you suppose in a given 1 hour ride you are spending going downhill? Lets call it 20 minutes. If I told you that you were going to go outside and do a combination of exercises that mimic riding a mountain bike downhill for 20 minutes, would you rather wear a 3kg weight vest, or not? Do you think there would be a difference in total performance between two identical athletes who perform these exercises for 20 minutes?
Because the ONLY points where the ground meets the system is the tires, you HAVE to consider the entire system (bike, rider, gear), and the center-of-mass of the entire system, as relating to these contact points. Therefore, it is obvious that getting as much weight as low as possible will create less dynamic change in this center of mass, and will work to effectively lower the center of mass. Weight further from this "instant center" point of the entire system, and especially weight that is both further and HIGHER than the instant center will have a disproportionate and negative effect.
I'm not sure why you are even arguing about this. Can you name one example of a dynamic sport where the goal isn't to optimize and consolidate the center of mass? Jui-jitsu, traditional wrestling, rally car racing, Formula 1 racing, GT racing, power lifting (low bar vs. high bar squat), Enduro mountain bike racing, DH mountain bike racing, MMA grappling, - gymnastics, free style skiing/snowboarding (all of which you see that moving arms/legs/equipment toward a consolidated center-of-mass increases stability and dynamism as a function of lower leveraged inertia), ski/snowboard racing (do racers race in a high or a low-as-possible position? The examples are literally endless.
Again, this is basic physics. Moving mass off your body will decrease muscle strain - especially weight that is higher off the contact points. Moving mass from high and leveraged to low and centered is an improvement for mountain biking (see: every comment ever on riding in attack position, centering oneself on the bike, frame design with low BB, etc.)
The ONLY points where you and the bike are able to input forces to achieve your objectives are the tires. The ONLY points where you can input forces to affect the tires is the pedals and handle bars. Therefore, EVERYTHING above the tires' contact point is the system that is being moved. EVERYTHING above the handlebars/pedals requires additional force to support - you are not pulling the bike down the hill, you are RIDING the bike down the hill.
Based on all the examples of sports above, it is pretty clear to see that low center-of-mass, as well as consolidated or concentrated center-of-mass, as well as centralized (between contact points) center-of-mass is ideal. Again: there is a reason bikes are moving to more centralized rider position (chain stays matching reach numbers, for example), with as-low-as-possible bottom brackets. It is also the reason we have ultra-low standover, 200mm dropper posts, and why we ride downhill in the "attack position" of weight-centered, knees bent, hips hinged, back flat, chest low, elbows out. It's the reason why reviewers describe good descending bikes as "I felt like I was riding IN the bike, not on top of the bike". Hell, its the reason why an MTB coach will tell you to "lean the bike underneath your body to steer it" rather than tipping your body away from the bike (this tip is effective because it creates consistency for locating the center-of-mass low and between the wheels!)
C'mon man - its plain obvious. Do you see any amateur or professional racers in descending bike disciplines who choose to carry supplies on their backs if they have a choice in the matter? You dont!
Now imagine the same challenge (60 miles, constant grade, downhill on smooth pavement, you have to be standing), and I tell you that at random times throughout the challenge you will need to make quick maneuvers to avoid hitting obstacles in the path. Where would you choose to carry the weight?
Do you see my point? In either case, its obvious that putting the extra mass on the bike is better. The same is true in mountain bike EXCEPT in cases where you are literally pulling the bike up and over something. Does this happen in biking, sure! Do we spend maybe a total of a couple of seconds doing this vs. minutes or hours of descending and inputing force into the tires in an average ride - also yes. I'm not sure how much more I can say to explain it: mountain biking is a bit easier to do when you are not carrying weight high on your back. Hell - even fanny packs are making a roaring comeback as people try to get the weight lower - they sure as hell are not more comfortable than back packs.
that's exactly what they are doing
Given current landscape all options I need to order ahead of time and though similar on paper imagine there are a few differences.
@mikekazimer can you please comment?
Stumpy Evo in slack/high geometry which is probably what I'd use in Squamish is almost identical to the Sentinel's geo. Looks like the updated suspension kinematics also are very close with both companies increasing progressivity with a similar leverage ratio curve. Probably the closest bikes on the market right now. Would be great to hear a real-world comparison @mikekazimer
Then the Stumjumper comes out and now its slacker than the Enduro to the point where the Specialized riders are racing that over the The Enduro
Then the SJ Evo comes out, and is DH focused super enduro bike. If you wanted to ride trails, you are recommended the regular SJ
Now that the 2020 Enduro is out, which is the DH focused super enduro bike, the SJ Evo is the "ultimate trail bike".
So whats in store for 2021? Is the Enduro going to be the trail bike, and they are going to release a new super long enduro similar to Grim Donut/Nicolai/Pole/Privateer 161, and that is going to be the flaship DH super enduro bike?
I personally hate these stupid iterations on geo. Just make the bike have the correct geo the first time around, and then spend your research money doing all the ebike stuff since apparently thats where the money is at these days.
I'd still rather the Yeti though :-)
Trail bikes definitely gained weight since 2016-2017 but "extremely light", no, that's not true.
Specialized XC frames are quite light, their trail frame is average weight.
Not knocking the Stumpjumper evo tho, 6.1 lbs is pretty good for a bike in this category.
Regarding it being as light as some XC race bikes. I knew I should have clarified that better. I was meaning to say XC race bikes from a couple years ago. The 2017 Epic for instance was pushing 6lbs. You are correct, the lightest of the lightest XC bikes right now are under 5. The Scott, the Orbea, etc. However I should say that many of the current 'xc' or lighter trail bikes (100-120mm) from many brands are at or above 6lbs for the frame. Something like a Kona Hei Hei comes to mind, Trek Top Fuel, etc. Bikes that definitely shouldn't be ridden in the park like this new EVO could be.
Yeah, the stumpy Evo seems quite light.
Btw, the new Swirls Epic Evo frame is only 3.65 lbs with shock and hardware. Orbea Oiz OMR 3.83 lbs with shock and hardware. Scott Spark HMX 3.96 lbs... these frames are pretty dang light.
flowmountainbike.com/post-all/on-test-2021-orbea-oiz-m-team/#:~:text=Orbea's%20claimed%20frame%20weight%20for,frame%20including%20the%20rear%20shock.
This article has a nice collection of xc frame weights.
As far as I know, the lightest trail bike frame out there is the Scott Genius, which weighs only 5 lbs with shock and hardware. Pretty crazy for a 150mm travel bike.
@Mr-Monterey Yes, there are some very lightweight XC frames out there now! But I maintain that the majority of XC bikes and XC race bikes that the average racer has out there now (bikes built 2014-201 are not under 5.0lbs, most probably not much below 5.5. Current Giant Trance: 5.4lbs, SB100 5.5lbs, Trek Top Fuel 5.5lbs. The current Santa Cruz Blur, Intense Sniper SL, Scott Spark, Specialized Epic are all under 4lbs for sure.
@Veloscente I've used a number of sources. Product launches, forums, sites like www.bikologi.com/builder and sometimes even manufactures sites. Always important to try to verify with two sources. And confirm if manufactuers are including the shock (the number one way they skew weights!)
i weighted the HT2 C large at around 7lbs with super deluxe (which also seems slightly lower than spec). AFAIK the CC isn't much ligher (forums say 280gr lighter), but I have not had one to verify. I consider the HT2 on the slightly heavier side.
But im talking the “old” 9M carbon, which disappeared from their line up,... so maybe the 11M is better!
Anyways, as big S is out of 27,5” wheels, im done with then regardless,... till 32” will flood the market!
Was planning to get Commencal tr29, however this announcement just make sense
Realistically this bike is perfect for at least 90% of us over the Enduro. I love to tinker with settings too so the scales my tip in the Stumpy's favor when I finally ditch my '17 Enduro.
Why is an American company not selling this bike inAmerica?
Awesome! I see that it's not advertised on the Spesh website, but you can still buy one here? Good to know. How's it ride? Can you give us a little more review??
Nuts awesome.
www.specialized.com/us/en/stumpjumper-evo-comp/p/175271?color=300732-175271&searchText=96321-5101
I was tossing it up but decided to be a Zeb instead.
Or are there three positions in the headset cup?
EDIT: I figured it out. The headset adjust is an extra cup that comes with the bike. so it comes at neutral and you can make it -1 or +1 with the cup.
The nice thing about the Ripmo is that its still awesome going downhill and more fun, poppy than "couch". That's great for a do-it-all AllMtn bike. It'll be similar enough to this Evo in a sense (tho not the Enduro obviously). NOW, the uphill is where its not even close tho...the Ripmo freaking pedals like Black Magic. You have to ride it (even in parking lot) to understand. This is why the Ripmo is a special bike, you still get decent travel and 160mm fork. So in DH performance its similar to other bikes enough tho a touch less gnarly in suspension and geo...but the uphill is vastly superior. So for a do-it-all aggro trail bike, its incredibly hard to beat...especially the V2. I don't own one btw but my buddies do and I steal it from time to time. I'd never buy the Evo over the Ripmo. Enduro yes, for big runs...but for a do-everything, Ripmo all the way. This is why the Ripmo has won bike of the year at Enduro Mag a few times for the Trail bike category.
Nice EVOlution from Spesh on this one.
Now to find out if the SWAT bladder and/or SWAT bags will fit in a 2018-2020 27.5 Stumpy frame...
What's the seat angle at 65.5° head angle?
this was my question as well - how do you know it wont fit the previous version?
BUMMER!!
thanks for the info
But also, their bikes are insanely good. Build quality is great, customer service/warranty is great from what I hear although I haven't had to utilize it recently... you get what you pay for to a degree.
Also I agree with Specialized's quality but the price keeps going up and the spec keeps getting worse.
Sure you can buy direct to consumer alu frame with with entry level spec for 2k - it is your choice;
Lets compare apples to apples
Also alu frames from last season on sale
Average joe smoe will not buy directly from spesh bike for 10k especially with S sizing;
However entry level bikes make 90% of bikeshop margine rather then hight end
www.ridefox.com/fox17/help.php?m=bike&id=802
Engineers; Wow Mr. Specialized you really are one clever fella !
The angles and travel?
Every year companies are shifting/changing standards for the sake of innovation and marketing. Makes last year's bike obsolete.
Planned obsolescence.
EDIT: @jpat22 was faster