Review: Knolly Chilcotin 151

The bike, unsurprisingly, offers 151mm of rear travel but there is also a 167mm option that is built around the same frame. Our bike came with a 160mm travel fork. In Canada, the Chilcotin region is known both for its all multi-day riding epics and high-consequence terrain, and not just because of the grizzly bears that populate the area. For a bike to truly merit the name it needs to be both efficient, comfortable and offer confidence-inspiring geometry to give the rider a real sense of security. But just how did it get on? We’ve had this bike over the spring months in Canada to find out.

Our test bike, the full-alloy Knolly Chilcotin 151 GX Fox Factory build, sits in the middle of the range in terms of price. There is a slightly cheaper build for $5,699 USD built with a GX drivetrain and RockShox suspension or a more expensive XT and Fox Factory build. The suspension is top line, the brakes are amply powerful for a mid-travel bike and there are no parts that would be need to be swapped straight away to open up the bike’s capabilities.

I think the bike, with its 151mm of travel, is sensibly equipped. Most of the parts aren’t the one’s you might find on an enduro race bike, and this is a good thing because it’s not meant to be a long travel brute - there is the 167mm version for that. Instead, it’s meant to be versatile. Small spec differences such as the EXO+ tires or the 36mm fork add up and make the bike more suited to what it was intended for - aggressive trail riding. If you need thicker casings or the latest, biggest, baddest fork, you’re probably well on your way to just changing the shock stroke and going for the bigger bike all round, which leads me nicely onto my next point - the frame.

Frame Details

The Knolly’s frame will almost certainly divide opinion. Its metal tubing almost embodies aspects of brutalism. Some parts of the bike are intricate and finely made, whereas other parts look slightly unrefined. In isolation, there are many parts that don’t look all too distinctive, but when standing back and looking at the BB area, it becomes a bike that looks elongated and stretched out.

The bike seems to be something of a medley of different traits as you look over it. One moment you’re looking at smooth and deliberate shaping of the linkage components, held together by titanium hardware, and the next you’re looking at a spaghetti junction of welds and metal tubing. Its cables and hoses, which disappear neatly into the frame at the head tube, and can be run in either orientation, then erupt and sprawl out the back of the seat tube before working their way down to the end of the stays.


The frame itself doubles up its duties and services the needs of both 167mm Chilcotin owners as well as the 151. They do this by changing the stroke of the suspension. Personally, while understand this approach, I do think it leaves a little too much for one geometry adjustment to counter, in this instance the axle to crown difference as you change fork length. I prefer longer travel bikes to have steeper seat tubes and shorter travel ones to have slacker ones. With Knolly’s solution of merely changing the fork travel, it does the inverse of this.


The reasoning for my preference is all about what I intend to climb the bike up and where it puts my weight. On an enduro bike, I am more likely to crawl up steep fire roads before descending, where the gradient of the terrain counteracts a steep seat tube to put your weight between the two axles. However, on flatter or more undulating terrain, the very type I am more likely to ride on a slightly shorter travel bike, the forward weight bias puts more weight into my hands.

The Chilcotin does have a geometry adjustment chip, but instead of it being Slack and Steep, it’s labeled as Neutral and Slack. This terminology shouldn’t be overlooked. Going into slack on this bike offers a very significant adjustment to the feel of the bike when descending.

Geometry

The Knolly has many of the hallmarks of a mid travel enduro bike. Whether it’s the 64.5-degree head angle, or the stack of just under 630mm, it doesn’t look on paper like a large departure from what you might expect.

There are a few dimensions on the chart that do draw your gaze. Most notably, the 492mm reach on a size large. Whilst this isn’t that much larger than some more aggressive bikes, it features this length paired with comparatively short 438mm chainstays. These dimensions alone, irrespective of the head angle or stack, could potentially dominate the feel of the bike as the weight of the rider is going to be very rearward. Of course, that in itself isn’t a bad thing - it rather just depends what terrain the bike will be ridden on.

A frame sharing duties between two models of differing travel is nothing new, and I don’t think this is a problem in itself, but that's not to say it doesn't have a knock on effect.

As a consequence, the effective top tube of the bike, so how big the bike feels when seated, is relatively large. How we measure effective top tube isn’t a perfect art, and there can be a disparity between brands. That said, for me at 183cm I found the distance between the contact points to be too big, and I subsequently moved the saddle forward on its rails, which also steepens the effective seat tube angle further.

When testing bikes, sizing is so important. As a reviewer, I think it’s important to listen to a brand, how they size their bikes and how you fit into their size chart. It might just be they’re pursuing a particular trait, or have their own ideology when it comes to geometry that is a little unconventional. When sizing this bike, I asked Knolly to send me the size they felt was most appropriate, and the large should be very appropriate for me as, at 183cm, I stand exactly in the middle of the 178 - 188cm window for this frame size.

Suspension Design

As stated, Knolly's Fourby4 system is a linkage driven four bar. They do this because they feel it offers a greater level of tuning rather than including the shock within the four bar layout, which would make it harder to isolate certain characteristics of the suspension.

Knolly breaks down the needs of a suspension system into four main quarters - traction, pedalling, braking and rear shock control. Often, adjusting one will consequently change the value of another. An extreme example of this would be a single pivot - where everything is very much intertwined.

The brand also feel that it’s best to use a pedaling platform on a shock. I’m really coming round to this approach. I think a mountain bike should be made to best climb mountains and non-paved terrain. Part of that means offering a platform that doesn’t extend too much under pedaling load. Bikes with a high value of anti-squat can often lose out in terms of sensitivity and grip on rougher terrain because the shock resists going into its stroke and is too far orientated towards resisting pedal-induced-bobbing, even when tracking over lumps and bumps, which means it can compromise both comfort and tracking. If you happen to climb a smooth road on your mountain bike I think flicking one switch is a very convenient solution for a mid travel bike that is expected to do so much and can increase the versatility of our bikes even further.

I also experimented with the Neutral and Slack modes. With the Neutral mode, while I did find it to be perhaps too large, it definitely felt far better balanced with more weight on the front wheel. The low bottom bracket height of the Slack mode, combined with this long reach and relatively short stays, made me feel like I was pushing through the front a lot, especially under braking into loose sections.

I ran my normal Fox 36 settings, which are very close to the base damper settings. I started running base settings on the shock, but eventually came to open up the compression settings completely, which I’ll come to explain in due course. I ran around 30% sag.

Climbing

I really like the way the Chilcotin climbed. It seemed to offer a great middle ground of so many traits. Some bikes track better but feel softer under pedaling load, while others handle accelerations better, but struggle to let the wheel follow the ground and deliver constant grip. This bike managed to balance both of these traits so well. It feels solid under pedaling as it resists diving and lurches even when out of the saddle. That’s not to say it didn’t react, but rather I never felt any need to reach for the compression lever. On fire roads, it was quite happy just doing its thing and was never the source of any complaint. That said, if you do want something ultra-efficient on tarmac climbs the lever is pedal-switch is always there.

On more technical climbs, it follows the shape of the ground well, and doesn’t wallow as you throw the bike or move your weight forward on stepped roots. Its solid platform maintains grip really well, especially considering how muted it is in its response to pedaling load. Whether seated, hovering your weight above the saddle or standing up, I was always dutifully impressed with the composure the Knolly Fourby4 system worked. It’s hard to ever get a suspension system that gives everyone what they want, but I think Knolly have managed to give a platform that is going to give most riders what they like in most situations - and that isn’t an easy thing to do. So far, so good.


As mentioned previously, the bars were a little too far away for me in its stock setup. The changes I experimented with (a shorter stem, higher rise bar and moving the saddle forward) made the bike feel much more “in range”.

As we rise or shorten the cockpit, it will affect how much weight is applied to the front wheel - which is going to become something of a theme when descending the bike. I would rather prioritise having controls in my range of movement, and being able to extend my arms to weight them as I please, rather than having a longer stem and lower bar, which in theory should put more weight on the front, but is predicated on me being able to reach them effectively. I think the bike's weight distribution is salvaged by its steep seat tube angle, and I lay the blame at the feet of the very long reach and subsequently long top tube, which just dominates the conversation about how this bike fits.

Descending


While the metal, burly looking frame delivered excellent performance on the climbs, how does it cope with what many people associate Knolly with - gravity-oriented bikes designed to be pushed hard on technical terrain? Truthfully, the Knolly is a fascinating bike, for both good and bad. It has certain traits that are easy to admire, and some that are hard to understand. Let’s start with the good.

All in all, I think Knolly has delivered a suspension system that is going to be good for a lot of riders. It has no nasty surprises, it’s consistent and easy to get along with and offers a great level of support and damping when charging through chunkier terrain, while also offering a reasonable amount of tracking. Much like its climbing characteristics, it’s not something that overwhelms in any one regard - but rather does most things very well. If you want something that’s going to climb well, support you as you drop your heels and hit things without care, the Knolly is going to be a good candidate. For a 150mm bike, it feels decidedly bigger and more confident than most of similar travel. It isn’t some that flutters through its stroke - but in lieu of that it does offer support and predictability. This is going to sound shallow, but it has the feeling of a shorter travel enduro bike, rather than a longer travel trail bike.

Again, the drawbacks of the Knolly come down to fit and dimensions. Although some small dimension changes rescued the performance on the climbs, I didn’t ever feel like I really got myself feeling as comfortable as I’d like.


At the heart of its problem is the issue of how rearward your weight is. Having a 492mm reach isn’t inherently bad, but it needs to be balanced with a longer chainstay. When you fit longer stays on a bike it’s going to express more weight on the front wheel through your feet, you can then add additional weight to complement this with your hands. This opened up two problems. Firstly, in its stock setup the bars were too far away for me to ever feel like I wasn’t reaching for them, and secondly, when I put a shorter stem and higher bar on the bike, further compromising how the front was weighted, I got a bike that lacked stability on the front, especially under braking. Either way, it wasn’t great. I didn’t want to run my bars lower because I felt I was already too stretched out and, in the stock setup, the bars were too far away and not high enough.

Throughout testing, I ran the bike in both settings. I would say this bike feels far, far better in its steeper position. It just has so much more weight expressed through your feet on the front wheel. It’s only half a degree of adjustment, steepening to 65 degrees, but boy, what a difference it makes. The front feels noticeably less fidgety, especially under heaving braking load on looser terrain. All that said, while I think it brings the balance to within range, I didn’t ever feel it was that easy to just get on and ride.


It also raises the BB by around 10mm to 344mm which, at the very least, was far more in keeping with what I’m used to. The higher setting also felt like my feet were applying weight above the contact patch on the tire, as opposed to pushing through and overwhelming it.

The issue of fore and aft balance is compounded by the traits of the suspension. The bike feels like it really resists braking forces - which can be a good thing. It means that your braking forces are kept independant and the bike isn’t going to lurch deep into its stroke when you apply the anchors. But it also means that as you apply the brakes it can begin to pitch more weight forward. Whether you like this trait or not is entirely personal preference. Some people prefer bikes to sink into their travel when on the brakes - others prefer the bike to keep those braking forces separated and keep the rear wheel tracking. But there is an important distinction to make when talking about these traits and their relation to geometry.

When you’re feeling strong on the bike, and your controls are in reach and your weight is neutral, this isn’t a problem in itself. In the Neutral mode, with your weight more central, it blends far better into the overall feeling of the bike. In the slacker setting, it gives a bike that is almost jarring to ride and that is only ever a moment away from undermining your confidence in it.

I genuinely believe that if the reach was shorter, or the stays were longer, or if the front was higher this wouldn’t be an issue and would come down to a small preference within the larger picture of how the bike rides. But, when already on the back foot and searching for a sense of stability it becomes an unwanted compilation. I eventually took all compression adjustment off the shock, which did lessen the transfer of weight under braking but it was still very present.


On steep trails, the rearward weight balance of the slack position begins to make more sense. If you’re riding steep, loamy trails that aren’t particularly rough then the consistent suspension platform and short stays means that the bike really comes alive, but even then, dimensionally I don’t think it makes absolute sense.

While riding this bike, it's not massively stiff. It’s not a big issue, and really comes down to personal preference, but for a frame that shares duties with a 167mm version there could be room to make it a little stiffer.

I’m in the fortunate position where I don’t actually make bikes and send them in for know-it-alls to tell me how to do it on websites, but I would love to see this Fourby4 platform with at least a longer stay or a shorter reach. It would help weight the front more, or help you resist load transfer more by put your controls more in range, and let your push on the front, almost as if you’re doing a press-up, and driving the front. As it is, there just isn’t enough weight on the front to avoid this lurch. This is problematic, because as you’re entering a turn or more technical section and you begin to scrub speed it adds an element of unpredictability. I think if there was more weight on the front it would open up the versatility of the bike hugely and give a bike that can be bossed and pushed around - instead of, as a rider, feeling like the bike is often getting away from you.

Failing that, if the Knolly do want to remain loyal to their geometry ideals, I would really like to see a bike that is happier to go into its stroke under braking, if only to prevent the rider's mass getting pushed more forward under heavy braking.

Maybe also if I was a bit taller than the controls would also feel more in range. We’re all different shapes and sizes but for me I could never quite feel settled. The medium would also have been slightly too small. The reach might have been a little short but usable, but the stack height would also drop to the low 620s - which is less than ideal to ride the steeper trails that this bike excels on.

How Does It Compare?


Recently, I reviewed another bike from a brand with their roots firmly in the pacific northwest - the Kona Process 153.

The Kona was such an easy bike to ride and, although not perfect, was a bike endowed with problems and virtues completely antipodal to the Knolly's. That said, it’s very interesting to see two bikes that are so very very different, even though they have almost identical travel and dimensions.

The Process, as I remarked in that review, is more aligned with an all-mountain and trail bike rather than a bike that is trying to replicate or replace enduro bikes. It’s a bike that is well suited to a whole variety of trails instead of a select few steeper ones, is very easy to ride and very comfortable.

The Knolly, on the other hand thrives in the steep - and is definitely better suited to somebody that is looking for a more efficient and quicker handling enduro bike than somebody who wants a trail bike with added versatility.

The Process though is far more balanced and I would say easier to ride. Although it doesn’t have the big hit resistance of the Knolly, and could do with more compression damping as standard - it’s easier to just get on and ride, it’s more predictable and far more confidence inspiring.

Technical Report


Fox 36 Factory: The 36 is not only a great fork but it's so well suited to bikes like these. The base settings and technical information Fox provide are largely excellent and are helping more and more riders unlock the potential of their high-end suspension - myself included.

Maxxis Tires: Although we don't spec control tires on these reviews, it seems like a lot of brands are settling on the Assegai and DHR2 combo. The Exo+ casing, much like the Fox 36 on the front, is great not because it's on the extreme end of what bike's are capable of, but because it offers a good compromise and cherry picks the attributes from both ends of the spectrum. Yes, you might need downhill tyres on your trail bike, and some people will, but for most people in most places this is the right tire for this bike.

SRAM Code RSC: The Code can sometimes come in for a bit of flack for not being powerful enough. Whilst it may be true that there are more powerful brakes out there, I love the feel, tunability and ergonomics of the Code RSCs, especially on mid-travel bikes. For the small weight penalty for downhill brakes, I can see little to no reason to use anything lighter on a bike that has such broad aspirations.

Rockshox Reverb Stealth: After what seems like an eternity of cable actuated droppers, it felt quite nice to have the solid reassuring feel of a hydraulic system again. Of course it has no real performance benefit, and won't save you precious seconds on your custom made Strava Loop that the local shredders don't ride, but I appreciated it and its closed system during the warm wet months of spring.

---

Pinkbike's Take

The Knolly was one of the most interesting bikes I've ridden in a little while. It's different - for both good and bad. Its looks are out there and Knolly definitely aren't afraid of going their own way in both geometry and suspension. Although I didn't like everything about this bike, I do admire a brand that isn't afraid to do their own thing while also being very open to talk about their reasoning - which the team at Knolly absolutely were. If you can get this bike to fit you well, you could have something that will offer gravity-leaning versatility and a great deal of efficiency and composure on the climbs. However, you might also find the weight distribution just a little too rearward on anything but steep terrain and the weight transfer under braking, when combined with the relatively large reach figure, a little overbearing. —Henry Quinney

Posted In:
Reviews and Tech Reviews Trail Bikes Knolly Knolly Chilcotin