First Look: Starling Cycles Adds Adjustability & Tweaks Geometry
With small diameter steel tubes and a single-pivot suspension layout across their range, small UK brand Starling Cycles says that their goal is to "eliminate complexity," which flies in the face of many adjustable-everything, ultra-light carbon frames with features lists longer than they need to be. Now Starling is making a bunch of rolling changes to their three most popular bikes, the Murmur 29er, Twist with mullet wheels, and the Swoop with 27.5" wheels.
Starling's Updates
• Two travel modes on each frame
• Stronger headtube, refined main pivot
• Steeper seat angles, less BB drop
• 10 color options
• More info: www.starlingcycles.com
• Two travel modes on each frame
• Stronger headtube, refined main pivot
• Steeper seat angles, less BB drop
• 10 color options
• More info: www.starlingcycles.com
Starling is calling these their third-generation frames, and the changes include updated geometry, new colors, and most notably, two different travel configurations on each frame that can be easily altered by owners. The front triangles are made with 853 heat-treated steel tubing that Starling braze themselves, while the steel rear-ends come from Asia.
Trail or Enduro Modes
Starling had been offering each of their frames in two different travel configurations, with the customer choosing which suspension length best suited them when they ordered their bike. With the new third-generation frames, Starling is using a set of bolt-on forward shock mounts that allow you to choose between two different travel settings; 135mm or 150mm on the Murmur, 135 or 165mm on the Twist, and 130mm or 160mm on the Swoop. Changing between travel settings will require a different shock and fork, of course, but at least you won't need to splash out for an entirely new frame when you want to make a wholesale change to your equipment.
Using the Murmur as an example, the 135mm-travel mode uses a 210 x 55mm shock and a 140mm fork, whereas the enduro mode delivers 150mm via a 230 x 60mm shock and a 160mm fork. Other frame updates include a beefier headtube, refined cast main pivot area, and moving the main pivot bearings from the front triangle to the swingarm.
Starling's geometry for the new Murmur in 150mm-travel enduro guise. The trail version has a 37 mm BB drop.
New Geometry and Colors
There have also been changes to the geometry chart, although it's more a case of tweaking than totally starting over. Many reviewers have praised how their bikes handle, especially the Murmur, so Starling only wanted to make small changes. That includes a steeper seat tube angle - the 150mm Murmur went from 76.6 to 77.5 degrees - that Starling says they updated due to feedback they've had from riders looking for an "improved pedaling position."
The bottom bracket drop, which is how far it sits below the axle line, has also gone from 35mm to 30mm, meaning that it's actually a bit higher off the ground. That's been done "to add a little more clearance and a little more maneuverability to our very stable geometry." Chainstays, wheelbase, and reach are all unchanged, but the stack has lowered a bit as well.
There are also ten different colors to choose from, including metallic paints and graphic options, and Starling will be happy to paint your front and rear triangle different colors if that's what you're into.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Of course with this bike, if you don't want to disconnect the hose then you'll just route the hose outside the gussets.
Edit: @phutphutend was faster
Just checked. For the Twist in "Enduro" mode, in size Large, the bike has 612mm of stack? And in XL, it has 623mm of stack?
And the Twist in "Trail" mode, its 594mm of stack on ALL SIZES?!?
That is absolutely tiny. Keep in mind that at these head tube angles, every 10mm of stem spacers reduces your reach by ~4mm. And also keep in mind most forks have a rated maximum amount of stem spacers (usually 30-40mm).
But on the Trail model in XL in particular... 594mm is just absurdly low. For comparison, the Raaw Jibb (another smaller, all metal brand), has 649mm of stack for their XL. That 55mm stack difference means that with most forks, you couldn't install enough stem spacers to get the the Jibbs stack height. And even if you did, you'd have lost ~27mm of reach...
Yes, and no.
It would take 30mm of stem spacers, and a 25mm riser bar to get the XL twist trails grips to the same height as the XL Raaw Jibb with 0 stem spacers, and a completely flat bar.
It would take 30mm of stem spacers, and a 65mm riser bar to get the XL twist trails grips to the same height as the XL Raaw Jibb with 10 stem spacers, and a 30mm bar (a very, very normal setup for taller folks on a bike).
So with the taller people out there likely using more than 10mm spacers and/or a bar with more rise than 30mm, it would take a very tall bar to make the Twist comparable in hand position. They do exist, but options > 50mm aren't very common.
It's a bit more complicated.
If the bar's rise is vertical, the grips move up while the steering axis moves up and rearward, nearly preserving the "butt-to-bar", while creating a longer effective stem length. (I don't use the term "reach", as that has a specific meaning and pertains only to the frame geometry.)
If the bar's rise is aligned with the steering axis, the butt-to-bar shortens and the effective stem length remains constant.
This is why I created the "normalized reach" parameter in 2017: it's the frame reach calculated at a constant stack. The stack is arbitrary, but it has to be constant for a comparison. When talking to consumers, I usually choose a stack at their current stem height. For clients, I usually choose the industry average stack for a given expected rider height.
Anyway, the point is that you can get your preferred foot-hand-butt relationship via various combinations of frame reach & stack, spacers, stem rise, bar rise, bar roll, etc., but even seemingly similar solutions, such as spacers vs. bar rise, can result in different fit and handling.
Note: ProTaper makes nice handlebars with up to 76 mm of rise. I'm sure there are others out there, but I'm familiar with these and they're light, strong, and not overly expensive for the specs.
Totally agree.
I was going to bring up the concept of your hands location in regards to the steering axis, but decided I didn't need to make my already long comment longer. But glad you brought it up.
But 100%, thats why tall guys don't like getting a bike to fit with a 75mm riser bar and 90mm stem. Which again, particularly on the L and XL, these bikes have a remarkably low stack.
Which, isn't to say these still aren't good bikes. I honestly love the external cable routing, and the ease that they can change from trail to enduro modes. But as a tallerish fellow (6'1", or 185cm), It was the one thing that really stood out to me, and thought it was worth mentioning/pointing out to others.
When someone is struggling with the concept, I usually present the following thought experiment:
Imagine a bike with a large reach value, but zero stack, meaning the head-tube is level with the BB. Obviously, this would be a very strange bike, but just imagine. The rider will need to add most of a metre of spacers to get their hands to a comfortable height. The cockpit follows the steering axis; by the time it's at the right height, it's moved rearward into the rider's lap. So much for that "long" reach.
Many designers keep the stack low so riders have the option of a low bar height, but it's rare to see someone on a particularly long bike without any spacers - let alone a flat handlebar - and it's common to hear tall riders wanting more bar height. Conversely, small riders - especially on long-travel 29ers - often have an extremely upright posture. My opinion is that many bikes suffer from stacks that do not adequately scale with rider height at the extreme ends of the spectrum. (Also bar width, crank length, Q factor, etc. ... but let's stick to stack for now.)
As you said, none of this is to say Starlings are good or bad bikes; we're just discussing how the numbers work and helping consumers - and other designers! - to make informed choices.
I started with slammed bars, but have migrated to 10mm of spacers and 25mm rise bars.
It has helped my riding a lot and my suspension setup is now much easier, because I don‘t need overly stiff forks.
I agree that stack should increase corresponding with reach and most frames go short on headtube length for taller sizes. Once you‘ve tried it, you propably don‘t want to go back.
Don‘t know if custom geometry would solve this with a Murmur, but it probably will.
But also, it's better to have a low stack than one that's too high. It's easy to add high rise bars/spacer, much harder to go downwards. I have seen bike reviews in the past that have downgraded a bike for too high stack. Never for too low.
Stack is one parameter that is more down to personal preference than anything else. Some people like high bars, some low. There's very little logic or relationship to rider body size. Personally I like low bars, I'm from the Sam Hill low bar era so learned to ride like that.
But how does this work for you with modern geometry? I used to like a lower bar but it was to compensate for a short reach to get more front end grip. Now I have a longer bike where my weight is better distributed, I don't need to lower my bar to get front end grip, I can have a higher bar for increased comfort.
There could easily be some typos on the geo chart, that is true. I could only go off of the info I could find
I agree that too high of stack could be a very big problem on smaller sizes. And you're right, I have heard complaints about it on reviews from small, and medium size (bike size) riders. But on size L and XL, I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain of too high of stack. But I have heard loads of taller guys complaining about too short of stack bikes. Maybe thats bias on my part though.
But for perspective, my wife rides a 2022 Marin Rift Zone 29 in size small, and is about 5'5". That bike has a stack of 602mm. I'm 6'1", and by the Starling Twist's sizing chart, I should probably be on an XL. And that somehow has a stack height 8mm lower than my wifes bike?
If I stand and hinge exactly the same way at the hips, my hips will be quite a bit higher than my wifes, so why would my hands be so much lower (instead of proportionally higher)? This is why I'm thinking its got to be a typo on the geo chart. Right?
Amazing so many 'geo experts' in PB comments didnt spot the obvious mistake LOL.
BB height would be somewhere in between so if measured of that stack should still be higher that the Murmur or am I confused?
There were some typos on the Twist geometry chart, corrected now...
The front end (fork, HT length, head angle) is the same on Twist and Murmur, but Stack on the Twist was somehow 22mm less than the Murmur?
A 29er axle is approx 22.5mm higher than a 27.5 axle. The Twist lists bb drop as 8mm, thats against the 27.5 rear wheel, so bb drop would be 30mm relative to the 29er front wheel axle.
So 22mm difference in stack, 22mm difference in relative BB drop for the different wheels. Looks like they used the wrong BB drop when working out stack.
Its a really rare error to fall into, I only know this error as Ive done these sums a few times to check bike geo (youd be amazed at some of the mistakes/lies some bike manufacturers make).
The rest of Starlings geo is pretty close to the math when you do the calcs so its clearly just a mistake. I did note they dont state a change in wheelbase or reach between trail and enduro, which is not correct. Be nice if they listed the correct values there.
Numbers alone do not dictate how a bike rides, it is a sum of its parts. I think its easy to focus on specifics and get lost on the point of what we are trying to achieve.
Id rather companies stated the truth, but backed that up with explanations on feel and impact. For example, 'changing Enduro to Trail will increase reach and lower stack by X. Riders who want to keep the same feel can simply add a 10mm spacer under the stem which will make the numbers more similar. Or dont to make the position more aggressive for trail blah blah etc.
Stack is affected by fork length, so we present the accurate value. The impact on reach is petty negligible, so we just present the nominal value.
Personally, I think we have plenty of adjustment in stem, bar height and roll, saddle rails, to fine tube bikes to fit most people. As long as the starting point is there or thereabouts.
The problem was a miscalculation in the Twists original Geo chart. It has since been fixed
The true stack of the XL Twist in Trail mode, is 638mm (not 594mm like it originally said). The large is 629mm.
That is much, much more normal/reasonable for both.
And again, I wasn't trying to harm Starling in any way. But had that been true, it is something I think any taller rider would have wanted to know.
I probably should have caught the fact that it was barely more than the axle to crown height... but I just took it at face value. My bad!
I find my Murmur very versatile in some ways, but less so in others. On the right tracks its the best-feeling bike I've ever ridden, but it has limitations (which the new model partially addresses with 150mm rear travel vs 140mm previously).
Not pinkbike quality but still might be interesting.
+1 for this. Great bikes but not for everyone. I sold mine after I couldn't get on with it racing.
Racing is such a metal game, often if it's not working out, the bike is fair game to change. I've done it myself, bike was perfectly good but I just needed a change to reset my head. Not that I'm that great a racer, but we all want to do our best...
The Starling went hell for leather over terrain in straight lines, very composed as a wheels on the floor kind of bike if that makes sense.
For me it just didnt work in the corners and felt a bit dead/ un playful for what i like to ride. Raced a few times on the Hightower and it just worked better for me, lots more fun.
Out of interest what rear shock did you have on the Starling?
Tried a DHX2 with a a few different poundage springs made by both Fox and EXT and also a Fox X2 as well to see if I preferred air or coil. It honestly felt better suited to a coil but with a firmer spring.
Either way, if it rides well, it rides well.
The issue, is that when other firms publish their curves (and Linkage defaults to), they zoom in on the relevant ratio zone. For example, the left hand scale zooms in on 2.3 to 2.8 region. If you show the full curve, 0.0 to 2.8, then you realise the curves are much flatter. For all but the most extreme single pivot configurations they are flat.
Again we need to take a step back and think before we make judgement on the data we see.
I'll write a Tech Blog about this sometime...
The geometry is on the pulse of modern times, what more is there to want.
I'm really glad that there are companies out there that make these types of bikes. No one will say it's ugly
I really want one of these boutique brands, and every time The industry shows me the innovations they are working on, i get pushed a little more each time towards these pricier bikes.
10/10 totally want that
www.vitalmtb.com/community/Paul-Aston,49857/setup,46120
Top tip.. aluminiums a lot lighter!
I’d still love to try an SST someday though. For me it came down to the fact that I had a fork that works with the Starling and I’d have to buy one for the Reeb.
Also, compliance is great for offroad handling. Just look at what the motorbike industry has been doing for decades now. One of KTM's key marketing claims is that their current MX bikes have a chassis that offers better handlich through increased compliance (flex).
www.radon-bikes.de/en/mountainbike/fullsuspension/swoop