PINKBIKE FIELD TEST REVIEW
Unno Burn
Words by Henry Quinney; photography by Tom RichardsUnno is a brand whose reputation precedes them. As a mountain biker, I seem to know a lot about the brand, whether it's their inception under the leadership of designer Cesar Rojo, their initial forays into domestic carbon fiber production or their boutique bikes that seem to have little regard for convention.
Quite honestly, it was an exciting prospect to ride one of these sought-after machines. Unno says they "started again from zero" to update their enduro platform, and the Burn is nothing if not out there. To look at it, there seems to be elegance mixed with brutish features, pragmatism mixed with absurdity.
Unno Burn Details• Travel: 160mm rear, 170mm front
• Carbon frame
• Mixed wheels
• 64° head-tube angle
• 76.5° seat-tube angle
• Reach: 470mm (S2)
• Chainstay length: 445mm
• Weight: 33.4 lb / 15.1 kg
• $8,897 USD
• More info:
unno.com The Burn features its own novel suspension layout and it's not just radical in its looks - Unno suggests running this at around 30 to 40% sag. They can do this because the bike has a very progressive kinematic curve.
This level of progressivity will ensure that there are no harsh bottom-outs. Although much of the progression happens in the beginning portion of the stroke (one of the reasons for the Burn's sensitive initial travel), a kinematic like this can make it difficult to use full travel other than during very large impacts. This might not be a bad thing if you demand lots of initial activity and want to save the rest of the travel for a rainy day, but there is a reason why most bikes don't offer this level of change throughout the stroke.
Our test bike, which was a size S2, was the Race model and retails for just less than $9,000 USD. There are frame-only options, plus an entry point Elite and Factory model to sit on either side of the Race in their pricing. Our bike featured an SRAM GX AXS drivetrain, Formula Cura 4 brakes, Fox Factory suspension, alloy Crankbrothers Synthesis e-bike wheels, and a Duex enduro one-piece bar. The bar itself is an interesting prospect. Despite it looking quite wild, dimensionally it's nothing too out-there. Its flat shape obscured its actual rise, which is achieved by the sleeve of the stem extending quite a long way down the steerer. The bike features in-frame storage, a universal derailleur hanger, and through-the-headset cable routing.
The geometry of the S2 impressed us with its sheer balance. Its high stack, middling-to-short 470mm reach, and 445mm stays all played their role in this. Although the reach might not be in the same vein as other bikes meant for those around 175 to 185cm in height, which might typically have 480-485 mm of reach, it proved a hit with us. There was one significant outlier though - the seatpost and seat tube.
At 460mm the seat tube is very long. This in itself isn't the end of the world, and you can get it low enough to give enough clearance. The plot thickens, though, because the seat tube sits directly above the shock - it's not only very high but also with a short insertion depth. This means that while the post is high, you also can't fit in a long dropper (our test bike had a 150mm post when something over 200mm would have been preferred). With the saddle dropped it was too high, and if you lowered the seat post itself to an appropriate length for a descent it would then be too low for pedaling when at full extension. It's further exacerbated by the fact that it doesn't use a seat tube collar but rather a wedge to clamp against the post.
ClimbingThe Unno offers a great platform for climbing. Due to the fact that it's so happy to get into its stroke its tracking is very good, and, even with anti-squat values of around 120 to 90% depending on where in the sag range of 30 to 40% you are, the grip is good and there is a great degree of composure in terms of how the rear wheel handles the terrain. It's very happy to follow the contours of the ground and also give a decent degree of efficiency. It's also the joint lightest bike on test.
The 76.5-degree seat angle isn't the steepest, but the climbing position itself was comfortable and upright, thanks to the high stack. On the steepest climbs the tall front end did occasionally make the front end feel a bit light, but otherwise the Unno was a capable, efficient climber, as well as being one of the lightest bikes in this roundup.
Descending The Burn looks fast, and in the right situations (steep, rough tracks) it comes to life. The squat links that connect the front triangle to the swing arm are neat and provide a taut, stiff platform to really drive the bike. The geometry plays in that too. It made for a bike that had lots of the rider's weight going through their feet, and it meant that you could focus on applying weight with your hands when you want to initiate a turn or pump the bike, rather than ever being pulled forward or having large amounts of weight in your hands by default.
The geometry cuts a sensible balance, and one that feels like it's been honed in on during real-world riding and years of reflection. It's interesting to see something so balanced with a suspension system so extreme. There are other examples of both virtues and vices juxtaposing one another. For instance, the frame storage sits beneath a panel that holds the water bottle. It works well and is both simple and effective. Yet, it leaves the bottle rattling on the underside of the top tube. The suspension gives a feeling that thrives on sleep-slow tech, but then the seat tube is so long, with such short insertion depth, that it means you'll struggle to get the saddle out of the way for the very trails the bike was meant for.
It's a fascinating bike and they've clearly compromised some elements or dimensions to grant the real estate to make their own suspension platform, and it poses a question right at the heart of the issue - is any suspension platform good enough for these compromises? Probably not. Is this suspension system a game-changingly wonderful take? I wouldn't say so.
It's okay in certain situations, such as the steeper technical trails, but it also struggles because while you may never hit bottom out, you do often hit that wall of support. During my testing, I experimented between 140-210 psi, which is a huge swing and didn't get bottom out in either. In fact, the 210 psi felt better if only because it gave more initial support, and I just learned to accept that I would largely be using less than full travel.
All these problems, and the intense ramp-up, mean that on flat-out fast trails, this bike can be fatiguing. You're not bouncing off the bottom out, but you may as well be. It can also lead to a hanging-up sensation in some instances that will not only punish mistakes but also your wheels. After our test period, the rear was in a sorry state.
Technical ReportFinishing Kit: The bike isn't cheap, so it's frustrating that you'd want to immediately explore options in terms of low-stack seat posts. Plus, if it were my bike, I would take the bars and grips off too. They're just a kook too far for me. That's not even to mention the E13 cassette and YBN chain in a combination that didn't offer as good a shift as I have come to expect from a full complement of SRAM parts.
Formula Brakes: The Foruma Cura 4 Brakes offered good power, even if the feel didn't give as much bite as I would personally like. That said, there was plenty of modulation and adjustment on offer, although sadly the latter wasn't tool-free.
But Ibiza is “Ee-bee-thu” in most of Barcelona and most parts of Spain, from what I’ve heard...but a few families I’ve talked to on Ibiza who have lived there for several generations insist it’s “Ee-bee-suh.” I say Ee-bee-suh on the island and outside of Spain, and Ee-bee-thuh in the rest of Spain...it seems to not upset anyone there yet, unlike Eye-bee-thur =P
PS. Truthfully, I love their products.
Yeah, sure, if the entire bike is designed around it. But if I'm running 40% sag that's going to influence my HTA and most importantly my BB height. Maybe not such a big deal on a DH bike. But I dunno about you, I buy enduro bikes to pedal up the hill too. And at 40% sag that usually results in a mighty-low BB height.
Ticks all the boxes.
This bike is actually pretty low leverage from sag to bottom out if you look at the chart. Sure it’s highly progressive from 0 to sag but that’s pretty meaningless when your weight is on the bike.
Also if it’s designed around 35% sag (40% isn’t what unno lists from what I saw online) then the geometry (BB, HTA etc) will be correct at recommended sag.
new product opportunity for cascade -> links that decrease progression, lols.
Though I agree the progressive hype is dumb.
At 35% sag This bike has ~42mm of shock stroke for ~105mm of wheel travel. (65mm stroke, 160mm)
At sag a SC megatower 2 (62.5mm stroke, 170mm) has ~43mm of shock stroke remaining for 120mm of wheel travel.
The Santa Cruz is far more likely to hit a “wall of support” than this Unno based on the numbers I see?
*fyi I picked the megatower out of thin air it could be that it’s also extremely progressive for an enduro bike but seem to remember positive reviews for that bike on both coil and air.
The Unno wheel has LESS leverage against the shock / will have a harder time compressing it.
I was trying to show that despite the high sag % the leverage from 35% to 100% is actually pretty normal for an enduro bike.
The downside of the burn, from what I can see, is that, because it’s so progressive near SAG, it’s going to be very sensitive to dialing in the correct spring rate (air pressure or coil spring #).
The fact they suggest a range of 30% to 40% sag is too large of a range imo.
Priceless reviewer-speak! That's like Alonso saying the updated Aston is just fine if you go slow.
(The Cura 4 brakes probably came with the stock organic pads. Power is certainly better with the metal ones. More bite than Code RSC for instance)
They know the target market is the people with too much money but can't ride for sh8 lol
bike pricing be wildin
www.theonion.com/f*ck-everything-were-doing-five-blades-1819584036
www.dailymotion.com/video/x18l8c
Thank goodness it has a so-so build kit for $9k.
In 2014 I had my first bike with a dropper, 125mm. Between big ups and downs, I still used the seatclamp as well, and calculated that 200-250mm drop would be nice.
"You shouldn't need that much"
"Learn to ride first", was all I heard at the time.
Same as we first had to resist Mondraker, Pole and Geometron geos until we tasted it, and concluded ok, this is actually good
Marshawn Lynch approved.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwGBErzcN5Q
Now some good intended critique of the review:
The editors' complaints about rattling bottle is not fair IMO. The bike is sold without bottle cage, and if you buy a cage that does not hold your bottle properly, buy a better one. It is not a fault in bike design. Same with the Commencal Meta SX review..
Regarding the seatpost length - this one has 460mm, while for example that Commencal Meta SX they tested before has 447mm in size L. So just 13mm difference..
..And the dropper post - yes 150mm travel seems a bit too short, although it is debatable (I am 6feet tall and ride 150mm with no issues). However, when I look at the cheapest model on Unno website, it has a 170mm OneUp post, so in fact it IS possible to use a longer than 150mm one with this frame!
Though someone could install a “chainring type bashguard”
And it is as expensive as an S-Works or a any other boutique brand…..
I could play around this bike and the cable guard on the headset looks so cheap and so big. Its more then ugly and unnecessary , its hideous. With the mate plastic that make it look super cheap.
For me its the seat tube length, angle and the internal routing that is done this way.
Either way, that yellow blur means you're riding the best.
(And obviously not cheap)
Thank you! Too many bikes have come out in the past few years trying to sell ridiculous progression and excessive sag numbers as the next big thing.
You know, I generally think that the PB comment section is full of people who want to complain that:
1) Everything is magnitudes of order too expensive; and,
2) Everything but the hot shit du jour sucks; and,
3) Reviews are basically long form paid advertisements.
And I think it's ridiculous. The comment section is 95% full of shit, and how more of y'all don't see that is totally mystifying to me.
Same time, I mean—I just don't think fair and even-handed is even remotely the same thing as pulling punches when a product doesn't even come close to meeting it's design or performance goals, as seems to be the case here. It's not y'alls job to keep these brands in business.
Maybe we interpret it differently, but the opening paragraph for the Descending topic made my eyebrows shoot up. It's a pretty decisive knock against the Burn and, IMO really settles how Henry felt about this bike. If that's pulling punches...
"Descending the Unno should be an enticing proposition but for some test riders the initial excitement soon blurred into confusion and then deflation."
Quinney you gotta start cussing I guess
@PeakHopper I'll be effing and jeffing in no time.
Thanks for expounding a bit, and thanks for the dialogue!
I feel like most readers got the memo, and the review had room to be fair to Unno. It's quite the win-win situation, brilliant work really. From business dealings to diplomacy, you achieve more when you forgo the full antagonistic angle. Pinkbike stays in business, readers get more memos, however they're phrased.
Fun fact, my relatively well to do country with few trails, no mountains and a decent number of bike lovers do mean that this is a bike that has a target demographic here (read: fancy, blingest bike for light, mostly low speed riding) and this review can help.
Sure there are the smack talkers who only every complain about price and outside magazine but by and large the comments section here is lightyears better than most others.
I hope this sets a trend
/ɡōSH/
adjective
lacking ease or grace; unsophisticated and socially awkward.
"a shy and gauche teenager"
@henryquinney Nice.
And you honestly do not give an actual number on how deep the seatpost can be inserted? WTF.
Btw, the bike looks really small under the rider on the pictures. Would have been convenient to see a geometry table here.
Fyi, a 460mm seat tube is 15mm longer than a typical 445mm seat tube on frames size large. It is to long - yes, esp. for short legged riders (like me). But it isn't as dramatic as put here.
Am not saying it as a theory, it is one of my actual custom builds and cant say that bb to seat tube top it would actually be longer than other bikes I rode, but the toptube is definitely the lowest I ve ever had.
They also mention the seat tube (which in my opinion is no big deal since I'm well served with 170mm), but that's all the reviews have in common. Is mostly praise in theirs.
This may explain why a stable climbing platform is more important than outright grip.
I like techy climbs but whenever a trail is techy/rooty/rocky, most people prefer to ride it downhill and you don't want to be the one being hit by someone going in the opposite direction. So most of the technical single tracks I would pedal on are pretty much flat or rolling hills rather than proper climbs.
Heck run a separate review for cool, different, interest bikes like this. Compound the lack of interest with a pretty poor review, and this thing is DOA.
It’s really interesting, to me, to see what compromises have happened because of the looks. The dropper restrictions, rattly water bottle and suspension limitations are really well explained, and to me, make for an interesting story, not least for the implications of why most mountain bikes look pretty similar.
The frame storage causes the rattle? Or is it that the bottle _cage_ allows the rattle?
If it _is_ the storage panel, then that means it both doesn't work well and is not effective, at holding a water bottle specifically, one solid half of it's job.
We made our base camp in Loudenville 20 meters away from the Skyvall lift a week early of the DH WC. It was a very nice place!
I'd assume that after you've spent big money on such a unique bike, your brain would be totally unable to dislike anything about it, and would be in full-on threat level midnight self-justification mode, haha.
Wouldn't be the first time wrong about setup anyway, but looks to me like a "this ulrawide and ultraflat handlebar will make you faster" situation all over again
It's nice to see people thinking out of the box. But if that just leads to sub-par performance for a premium price, it's kind of hard to get excited about that.
But I have been to places (ahem, Whistler, Squamish) where trails can be extremely steep. In these settings, its very nice to get that seat as low as possible. This can be the difference between an OTB crash or not, and broken wrists, arms and collarbones are a major bummer.
Steeper STAs make it easier to get behind the saddle.
even 180 is something I am not comfortable with . 200 would be the sweet spot for me.
@AddisonEverett
I recommend everyone who dont know why long droppers are nice to race the mega avalanche. Tell me how you liked it with no room and got eaten by their own bike when the snow is to mushy to ride but it is how it is.
if anyone doubts this, take the entire saddle and post out of your bike for a shuttle lap where you do not ever need to sit. now go try and ride it....it will f*cking suck. you subconciously use that saddle as a brace a lot descending!
and no, I dont have super long legs, I am built the other way....all torso and arms. lol. but my Mondraker Foxy has a comparitively long seat tube for an enduro, and I *can* get a 200mm dropper in it....tried it and found the saddle too low when all the way down. went back to the 185mm post. It has never once been "in the way on a descent" at 185mm
The DH bike thing is just an example if the saddle being too low, which now can very much be the case with enduros.
If you know that why do you even say 185 is enough? So your Bike also got 80° seat angle? And all the other geo that is the same?
Just stop that and let everyone buy what they want. High seat tubes are not necessary.
I really hope that you realize everyone just drops the post til it hits bottom....
If you can make a longer dropper fit without running into the shock, a long-ish seat tube will work for some.
Im 179cm and inseam of 81cm. I currently have a 430cm seattube and a slammed 170mm seatpost and that's just enough to get the saddle away when going down a gnarly trail. Would rather have a 410 seattube and 190mm dropper.
So for me a short seatpost and a long dropper is a must.
So why in earth would you design a long seatpost when you can make a short one and then just add a long dropper?
Then the bike could fit way more riders.
I got the same inseam like you. My first concern when considering a new frame is insertion depth. Yet this number is rarely given.
Depending on rear wheel size, travel, pivot locations, saddle position and chain stay length it is quite possible that your rear wheel hits your lowered saddle at bottom out if you need it that deep like we short legged riders do.
On my current frame that have a seat tube length of 410 (in a medium with 452mm reach) with a 180 oneupdropper I have around 28mm of dropper showing. For a frame with 440 seat tube that would limit my choice to only one brand and my absolute max drop would be 170. But with the quoted insertions depth of 230? then even with a oneup dropper then a shimmed down 180 (to 160) still does not fit.
SC megatower 2 for example has a leverage ratio of 2.8 at SAG and uses a 62.5mm stroke shock for 170mm of travel. The Burn uses a 65mm stroke shock for only 160mm and leverage ratio at SAG (35%) is 2.5
I dont reckon, come back in a year or two of regular riding
Even if the look would be too flashy for myself - I like the way it looks! It’s like a sports car, here again it’s too flashy for myself, but damn, looks like a rocket. And we all like the feeling of a brutal acceleration. And that’s how the bike looks.
(Not thinking about the perfomance - too long seapost would be a dealbreaker).
We can give praise where its applicable, just like we can take a steaming load on it's follies like the headset routing.
There is no more innovation that is to be done with linkages. If you go to a multi link suspension, i.e not a single pivot, all you are doing is getting the ability to tune the anti squat curve, progressivity, and wheel path. The more linkages in the middle, the finer control of the curve that you have. And there isn't a right setting for each one of those things, the more you gain in one area the more you give up in another.
Generally most people would be absolutely fine on a single pivot bike, even with direct shock drive. If someone big like Specialized came out with a new single pivot Enduro that had some fancy design to make it look cool, and they did all the setup correctly with the pivot location, shock selection, and geometry, it would get great reviews and people would be lining up to buy one.
What is it, Pretty or Ugly in your mind's eye?
Needs less standover…
Who drinks water anymore? Take that junk off!
Unno buyer- Let's say "I'm Bi-curious"