Atherton Bikes Launch AM.130 and AM.130.X
In response to "a tidal wave of requests", Atherton Bikes have launched what they call "a light, modern trail bike".
The AM.130 joins the AM.150 enduro bike (which we recently reviewed) and the World Cup-winning AM.200 downhill bike in the young company's repertoire.
Those with excellent pattern-recognition skills will have guessed that the new bike has 130 mm of rear wheel travel. This is paired with a 140 mm fork, or in the case of the AM.130.X, a 150 mm fork for a slightly more gravity-biased ride.
The AM.130 takes advantage of the same highly-customisable 3D-printing process as Atherton's other bikes, but they say they've been "stripping out even more material where it didn’t directly contribute to the bike’s strength". There's no word on exactly how much lighter this makes the AM.130 than the AM.150, but the claimed frame weight is 3.1 kg without shock and around 14.9 kg for a size-medium full build.
That's not the lightest, but unusually for a trail bike, it passes the most stringent EFBE Cat 4 (Enduro) and Cat 5 (Downhill) tests, meaning it should have no issues handling big landings in the bike park. While many trail bikes have a warranty that doesn't cover bike park use, Atherton offer a lifetime original-owner warranty on the frame no matter where you ride it.
Atherton will make 22 (yes, twenty-two) sizes, with reach numbers from 410 mm to 530 mm in 10 mm increments. The effective seat angle goes from 77 degrees in the smallest to 79 degrees in the largest size, to avoid tall riders sitting too far off the back. The chainstay length goes from 430 mm to 436 mm across the size range, which in my opinion is hardly a noticeable change and is very much on the shorter side either way. The head angle is fixed for all sizes, at 65.5 degrees with a 140 mm fork or 65 degrees with a 150 mm fork.
There are four main build options in the AM.130 line-up, starting from £4200 ($3,990 USD) for a frameset with a Rock Shox Super Deluxe shock.
AM.130 frameset.
AM.130 Build 1
Full builds start with Build 2, with a RockShox Pike Select fork, Deluxe Ultimate shock and Sram GX gearing, priced at £6600. The top-of-the-range Build 1 gets a Pike Ultimate, Super Deluxe Ultimate and Sram X01; it goes for £7800 / €7410 / $7410 USD. Build X has the longer-travel 150 mm fork, with a Fox 36, Fox Float X2 and Sram GX; it costs £7300 / €6935 / $6935 USD.
The more gravity-focussed Build X with a 150 mm fork.
There is also the opportunity to upgrade selected components or to fully spec your own “dream build”.
For more information, check out athertonbikes.com
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Just in terms of base numbers a Scott genius is 13kg which is a trail bike with more travel at 150mm front and rear, or there's a YT izzo which matches the AM.130 for travel with 130mm front and rear but is far lighter at 11.4kg.
Doubtless there will be people who say 'weight isn't important!' well sure, to some people it isn't but if you're specifically marketing your bike as light weight in its category then it should at least attempt to be.
For the pinkbike crowd, a one pound weight penalty is very much worth the EFBE Cat 4 & Cat 5 rating!
The frame spec is 3.1kg. Yeti spec the SB130 at 7.1lb with a Float X (presumably also a medium which seems customary), and charge $4.2k USD for Vietnamese labor and overseas shipping. Some back of the napkin math puts a comparably equipped Atherton frame at 7.9lbs.
That's half a water bottle of sprung weight, or 1% of total bike+rider weight (essentially all that matters besides unsprung and rotational weight). Have you ever ridden with a half full water bottle and thought "well this bike is now rubbish, better dump it out?"
I have no dog in this fight, I can't deal with a short dropper post so the Atherton is not for me. But if a bike otherwise appeals to someone a pound in the frame seems a relatively silly thing to make a decision over.
@jdejace "Have you ever ridden with a half full water bottle and thought "well this bike is now rubbish, better dump it out?"" you are missing the point, 500g total is nothing, but 500g less frame weight makes it a lot easier to attain 2-3kg weight diference between 2 bikes, and that's huge.
But all this is not the point : this AM130 is aimed at wealthy riders who want more "local" manufacturing, have precise geometry needs, and like this look. And that's fine.
What I don't understand (cf @bunjiman82 ) is why make their 130mm bike as heavy and tough as the others in the line up.
Someone who wants only 130mm surely would benefit from a lighter bike, and if bike park use is frequent then I'd go for the 150mm and play with shock length/sag/offset bushings to make it an actual 130mm the rest of the time.
Here in the UK we don't really get the elevation so bike park runs aren't that long, and that makes shorter travel bikes much more feasible. If you are someone who only wants/can afford one bike, perhaps this may fit the bill?
I've seen 140/150mm bikes at Revs, which is a very slight difference, and acknowledged to be one of the more (if not most) challenging uk bike park...
The tubes are cut… so spiral wound at a constant wall thickness - I think this is an interesting area that Atherton could explore in the future… if they reduced the qty of sizes then they could likely model / design spiral wound tubes that have varying wall thickness where needed. Who knows how many grams that saves, or increase.
Then their lugs are double lapped, maybe the more xc frames could be single lapped?
I suspect they would not want to save weight in the lugs or machined surfaces as any failures in these areas could lead to terrible PR at this early stage in the business.
Not trying to be edgy by asking this, but what brands do this? I've never seen this an exclusion on a warranty
So, technically you could say that bikes without the Condition 5 certification aren't officially designed for drops over 120 cm. Really, though, I think frames with Condition 5 are likely to be stronger than those without, which should just give extra piece of mind.
Did the bike you built for Chuck Norris meet category 6 requirements?
Anyway the Canyon Strive and Spectral is also category 4, so I guess you shouldn't take those to the bike park either.
"Our Hugene is assigned to bike category 4. Regular and permanent use on North Shore trails and in bike parks should therefore be avoided. Use in rough terrain and moderate jumps are no problem. After intense use, you should check your bike for damage before and after each ride."
Source: www.propain-bikes.com/en/bikes/trail/hugene
I am being really nitpicky here, but it doesnt say "north shore sections" it says north shore trails. I don't know if that makes a difference to be honest.
Don't know, but Gee's bike is cat 7...
www.roadandtrack.com/news/a40783042/toyota-gr86-warranty-repair-denied
Complex suspension designs aren't my thing, but it matters to most people, and those other two bikes are single pivot flex stays. This Atherton bike has the most sophisticated suspension layout that the legend Dave Weagle ever cooked up.
Its been beaten to death on this website that people prefer alloy over carbon, and I feel like Atherton Bikes straddles that line, since its both (titaniujm alloy and carbon tubes). Its also right in-between- lighter than pretty much any aluminum 29er frame, but heavier than all but Santa Cruz carbon frames.
You can try to push your "weight doesn't matter" agenda but it doesn't stick with me.
Assume they are Cat4/5 rated since they are enduro frames used for racing…
Sounds like you’re familiar with their carbon frames. Those are truly light.
Not hating on Atherton bikes. Actually really like them
This is always the problem with taking a longer travel bike and making a shorter travel bike out of it. Sure it's as "burly" as the longer travel bike, so there is that. But most people looking for "light trail bikes" actually want them light. Especially for 7500-8grand!!!
If it's like their other bikes you get a BUNCH of sizes to choose from which is good and bad cause it's not very likely that you'll get to do back to back test rides of those different sizes to get the benefit and I know their Enduro geo chart seemed like there were some odd sizing choices made? Course you could go custom. But again, that's good and bad as it's a lot of money to spend on something that you could end up getting geometry that you don't actually like and then what do you do with it...? For most of us we'd be copying geo from another bike anyway. So you have to ask why your not just buying that other bike??
We do have less insertion than some brands but this is often due to other brands having significantly longer seat tubes which artificially boost their overall frame insertion. (It's definitely worth inputting your measurements to our fit calculator to see what dropper you could potentially run)
If you fancy chatting further drop us an email to sales@athertonbikes.com
can someone input on this?
I'm not sure how strong it is in this case, but I think you do often get a local bias with sales for smaller brands like these that have a more defined location/nationality to them.
Especially since the market is ripe with "aggressive trail", "all mountain" and flat-out enduro bikes that cover the gamut of intended uses. I'm not sure it makes much sense to build a cat 5 bike with less than 155-160mm of rear travel - I don't see anyone shredding jump laps or doing DH runs on 130mm bikes.
FWIW I do understand wanting to keep weight down, and I have somewhat less of a problem with a 130mm bike being cat 4. But the 150-180mm enduro bikes I see no excuse, they are outnumbering actual DH bikes at many parks nowadays.
I have to ask, what's the point of the incredible fine-tuning of reach and whatnot if you're going to basically ignore weight distribution? The bikes look amazing otherwise, and given how easily their manufacturing method would allow them to change that, it seems like a pretty significant oversight on a $4500 frame.
'Yes the custom can be made to whatever length you are confident in, however we cant change geometry. However it may increase lead time from the current 20 weeks as it will require the team to make new data from scratch.'
Sounds like the tech does not make custom full-sus geo easy.
The first twelve sizes meet @Uuno 's criterion of RC/WB >.35, but size 22 would need at least 453mm RC
With the atherton DW6 design this is much harder to do because of the many links down around the BB, and the proximity of the seat tube to the vertically oriented shock.
Either way I'm not really sure why they persist with this (very expensive) production method if they aren't really going to take full advantage of its single biggest design feature. Not sure if you were aware or not but this whole project was originally called Robot Bike Co before the Athertons got involved - www.pinkbike.com/news/robot-bike-co-r160-first-look-2016.html
They were very big on pushing the "you can have any geometry you want" barrow but seems as though that really just means different reach figures. I really like the construction concept for the theoretical flexibility in geometry, but it's not cheap, and if they aren't willing or able to alter the back end to keep things in some kind of proportion to the front, then as a taller rider who's had plenty of bad experiences on long FC/short RC bikes in the past, I'm not willing to pay a ton to have a rearwards weight bias that I don't like, especially on a supposedly easily-customized-geometry frame. It does look cool though and I bet if you're on the short side it's actually an awesome bike.
Should kinematics be the same across all sizes? Antisquat tyically decreases as you go up in size because its a fuzzy calculation made on assuming where the riders COG is, which is obviously higher for taller riders. Chain growth is a consistent thing to measure, and its the primary source of antisquat. To keep antisquat (an imprecise, rough, inconsistent measure) the same across sizes, then actual chaingrowth, the measure of how much the rear axle moves away from the bottom bracket for a given chainring size, needs to increase, but no bike companies that I'm aware of do this. Additionally, heavier riders can have more chain growth without it affecting suspension performance compared to lighter riders. More chain growth = more antisquat, all things being equal. Should that be taken into account too?
Since the Athertons don't have to use expensive molds and can justifiably charge a lot for their frames, why not demand utter excellence from them? Why not demand a truly custom bike, where every size is tailored in every way, not just reach and stack numbers? I'm starting to change my mind on this. Just because its hard doesn't mean its not worth doing.
As stated above, the easiest way to change rear-center by size is usually to change the main pivot location on the front triangle, relative to the BB. This design can't do that easily, since it would require also moving the top rocker main pivot, which has the seat tube in the way.
-Anyone who has ridden an ebike will talk about the benefits of a bit of extra weight in how a bike rides, especially if you are gravity oriented.
-Ive pedalled heavier bikes uphill with little issue, just get a bit fitter.
-Its rated for DH and yet is a trail bike. While its expensive, its clearly going to last forever.
-If you had ridden at Dyfi you would know that if Dan can use it there, then this is a bombproof bike
-Im tired of buying superlight bikes with superlight components that break, have cheap weak pivots and components etc
I wait impatiently for a big travel enduro from them in the 160/170 bracket.
Stack should be set so that the bar height is the same height as the saddle height they used to measure effective seat tube angle for that size.
It feels odd that you can do 22 sizes to get a great fit and then rely on spacers for a critical part of the geo.
The beauty of these bikes is you really can get the geometry dialled, so @Marcencinitas is spot on that 30mm is tiny. It just seems an easy thing to fix given an the other challenges they've overcome.
I'm 6'3 and have had enough bikes with silly amounts of spacers to know that they look so much better with a proportionally-sized head tube
Safari and Chrome on OS X @athertonbikes
Brexit - add 10%
Truss coming to power - add 10%
She just bought an Epic with a 385 reach off the buy/sell.
such a weird thing to find out when you've spent your whole life MTB'ing... not only ow many times has pink bike suggested that people should under bike because its more fun, does that mean i can sue pinkbike if i snap my frame and hurt myself?
That's wtf.
Not that there's anything inherently wrong with Asian carbon.
They make all kinds of stuff for all kinds of people. This one isn’t for you. It is for others tho, based on the comments
maybe let them try making team GBR track bikes for the next olympics. Why not?
All bicycles are designed with a specific type of riding in mind, and the components in the bicycles are built to withstand the stresses resulting from that kind of usage. If a bicycle is subjected to higher than expected forces, the frames and components may fail prematurely.
To make it easier for you to decide if a specific model is appropriate for you, we have created several bike categories and classified each bike into one of them. Below you will find a description of each bike category.
Note that these divisions are for reference only. There is a huge number of other factors that can have an effect on how much a bike can withstand. For example, a heavy rider that does not have good technique can destroy a bike that will hold up forever when ridden by a light, experienced rider. Therefore it is important for you to take this into account when choosing the bike category that suits you best.
BIKE CATEGORY 0
Intended use: UNDER PARENTAL SUPERVISION
Products in this category can only be used by children under appropriate parental supervision on smooth surfaces. They should never be used near stairs, on steep downhill slopes, near swimming pools or ponds, on public roads or in areas with the likelihood of traffic.
BIKE CATEGORY 1
Intended use: ROAD RIDING
Bicycles in this category should only be used on regular paved surfaces or alternatively on very smooth unpaved surfaces at speeds not exceeding 25km/h. The tires must maintain constant ground contact. These bicycles are not designed for any kinds of jumps or drops.
BIKE CATEGORY 2
Intended use: ROAD & GRAVEL
Bicycles in this category can be use on paved roads and on reasonably smooth off road trails. They are designed to handle small jumps and drops that exert forces equivalent to jumping a bike onto a flat surface from a height of approximately 15cm.
BIKE CATEGORY 3
Intended use: PUMPTRACKS & FUN
Bicycles in this category can be used on pumptrack lines for beginners and easy off-road trails. They are designed to withstand jumps and drops that exert forces equivalent to jumping a bike onto a flat surface from a height of approximately 25cm.
BIKE CATEGORY 4
Intended use: XC & TRAIL
Bicycles in this category can be used off-road on easy and moderately difficult MTB trails, and are designed to withstand jumps that exert forces equivalent to jumping a bike onto a flat surface from a height of approximately 40cm. These bicycles should not be ridden at speeds exceeding 30km/h on rough surfaces.
BIKE CATEGORY 5
Intended use: DIRT JUMP
Bicycles in this category can be used on all kinds of pumptracks and dirt jump trails. They are designed to withstand jumps that exert forces equivalent to jumping a bike onto a flat surface from a height of approximately 60cm. These bicycle should not be ridden on rough MTB trails.
BIKE CATEGORY 6
Intended use: ALL MOUNTAIN
Bicycles in this category can be used off-road on all kinds of MTB trails, and are designed to withstand jumps that exert forces equivalent to jumping a bike onto a flat surface from a height of approximately 60cm. These bicycle should not be ridden at speeds exceeding 45km/h on rough surfaces.
BIKE CATEGORY 7
Intended use: DOWNHILL FREERIDE & ENDURO
Bicycles in this category are designed to cope with the hardest MTB trails and are designed to withstand jumps that exert forces equivalent to jumping a bike onto a flat surface from a height of approximately 100cm. They can be ridden at hight speeds on rough terrain.
Looking at this classification I would always and only buy a bike from Category 3 with its Intended Use: FUN
however, one of the primary things I was taught in sales is K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple Stupid;
Sales is very much linked to psychology and can't help but wonder if rather than a USP, 22 sizes is to the detriment of the business, as would be customers are perplexed by excessive choice... initial excitment becomes excess analysis and ultimately confusion; even after purchase, buyers may continually wonder 'what if' regarding sizing choice
It might be better to use a conventional sizing model with 4 or 5 standard sizes (perhaps even dropping prices to reflect the reduced workload), then upsell custom sizing at additional cost for customers who request it
As for resale value... (which ties into brand perception)
Your response has given me a lot more confidence that you've put plenty of thought into this and I can appreciate that your unique approach may benefit the wider industry down the line as more data is gathered; after all, bike geometry has evolved massively in a few short years, so perhaps a tailored approach is the next logical step.
Honest question...
OR MAYBE EVEN PEOPLE WHO READ THE TITLE