First Ride: Knolly Chilcotin 6.0

Feb 1, 2024
by Henry Quinney  
photo

Canadian brand Knolly is releasing an all-new Chilcotin. The bike, which is named after the vast mountain range in BC, is in its sixth generation and sees a raft of changes that combine to offer something quite distinctive from the previous version. The geometry concept undergoes a significant change and the aesthetics receive a well-executed facelift. In fact, although the seat tube is carried over from the previous generation everything else has undergone a redesign, all while keeping this appropriately Knolly with their FourByFour Layout.
Chilcotin 6.0 Details

• Build options: 160f/155r & 170f/160r
• 29" Wheels
• Head angle (170/170): 64.25/63.75°
• Seat tube angle (170/170): 77.5/77°
• Rear-center length: 438, 442, 446, 450mm
• Reach (170/170): 458, 483, 509, 534mm
• Price: $4,499 USD - $5,799 USD
• More info: knollybikes.com

The bike will be available in two travel options, each with four different build kits. Both versions come with 29" wheels front and back and are available in small through extra-large. Being the same frame, you could run either with a fork from 160-180mm.

photo

Frame Details

The new Chilcotin sees a slew of changes to its revised frame. The top tube is now lower slung and straight, giving it both a sharper, more compact look and a lower standover, the bearings are a full complement from Enduro, the rocker is now a one-piece monolink and all the bearings are house with flat-tooling in mind, which should make for easier installation and removal. There are also size-specific chainstay lengths that are UDH compatible, tool and bottle mounts, a lower shock mount to work with Fox's roller bearing kits, and a larger 180mm post mount. There is also the advent of the size small.

Geometry

photo
photo

The geometry of the Chilcotin has also seen some really big changes. Firstly, the introduction of size-specific chain stays shouldn't be understated. The brand is a large proponent of longer reaches, so having that offset to a degree by longer stays is a great way to keep the front more evenly weighted. Although when comparing the geometry chart to the outgoing model it might seem that reaches have increased again, which they have, this can be more easily offset by the introduction of the size small, allowing more riders to size down should they wish.

photo

The sizing is proportional and reach values, effective top tube lengths and rear centers are all where you would expect them to be, however, I would also observe that the sizing labels aren't where a lot of riders would expect it. I would go as far as saying that in reality, the Chilcotin is available in sizes medium through extra-extra-large when compared to other brands. There is nothing wrong with this, but I would say that t-shirt style sizing might not be relevant should you be buying your own Knolly. For my testing, I'm 183cm (6") and rode a medium very happily, whereas I typically ride a large.

One thing riders of all shapes and sizes will enjoy though is the option to spec long-droppers. A combination of the short tubes and long insertion depth means that you might just be able to use your longest post yet. I've outfitted mine with a 240mm OneUp V2 post for testing, whereas with some other frames I can only just fit a 210mm in if I'm lucky. That 3cm of extra room will make a difference, even if it's a benefit you reap more as you adjust to it over time.

The seat tube angle is steep enough, but at extremes, its actual measurement might shuffle the rider's weight back towards the rear of the bike. This is often a trade-off between uninterrupted tubes and suspension layout packaging and will be looking to cater to riders that want extra-seatpost drop even if it means a slightly more rearward position.


Suspension Design

Would it be a Knolly without their FourBy4 system? The brand clearly believes that this is the best way to satisfy their particular demands, but that's not to say it isn't something of an outlier with its characteristics.

This version sees a further increase in anti-squat but also to leverage ratio. The idea is that you can have the efficiency of high anti-squat but then use the higher leverage ratio to offset this and still offer decent tracking. The bike also has a low-value of anti-rise to ensure independent braking, even if that might translate to more mass transfer when getting hard on the anchors. While I don't have exact figures, these attributes are present in riding the Chilcotin, and I look forward to providing a better-informed review in the spring. The immediately obvious benefit is tracking while not using the brakes, and even though 170mm is a bike with a lot of travel, it somehow feels like it has even more.

photo

Ride Impressions

The new Chilcotin represents a decent step in the right direction from the previous version I tested in 2022. While it wouldn't be unfair to raise the point that I'm riding a size down from the last test, I would also say it's worth noting that the sizes have also grown significantly (by around 20mm in reach). All in all, the bike feels far better rounded, and I put some of that down to the shorter reach value I now have plus the size-specific stays. This combines to make you feel like you can trust the front more.

I would say that it is a good climber, and tracks better than the high anti-squat values that go hand-in-hand with Knolly's suspension concept may suggest. In fact, when it comes to singletrack the rear wheel very willing to hunt out grip. As stated, tracking in certain situations is excellent and I'm looking forward to continuing my test into the spring.


Pricing & Availability

The Chilcotin will be available in multi-build kits across four different frame colors. There is an additional fifth color, but the pink is a team issue only. All bikes come with the same DT Swiss M1900 wheels, Maxxis Assegai and DHR2 Exo+ tires, and an SDG Telis Seatpost. The bike is available now in limited runs.

photo
photo

photo
photo

Chilcotin Shimano Deore 160/155: $5999 CAD/$4499 USD - 170/170: $5999 CAD / $4499 USD - Marzochi Z1, RockShox Super Deluxe Ultimate, Shimano Deore drivetrain and brakes
Chilcotin SRAM GX/PSE 160/155: $6999 CAD/$5299 USD - 170/170: $7099 CAD / $$5399 USD - Fox Performance Elite 38/36, RockShox Super Deluxe Ultimate, SRAM GX drivetrain and Magura MT5 brakes
Chilcotin SRAM GX/Factory 160/155: $7299 CAD/$5499 - 170/170: $7399 CAD / $$5599 USD - Fox Factory 38/36, Fox Factory X2, SRAM GX drivetrain and Magura MT5 brakes
Chilcotin Shimano XT 160/155: $7699 CAD/$5799 USD - 170/170: $7799 CAD / $5899 USD - Fox Factory 38/36, Fox Factory X2, XT drivetrain and brakes

Author Info:
henryquinney avatar

Member since Jun 3, 2014
322 articles

259 Comments
  • 208 4
 Holy crap a Knolly that looks as good as it rides... Al frame, proper cable routing, reasonable 4,500 build with parts that make sense. Pinkbike commenters rejoice.
  • 98 4
 It is amazing how much better this bike looks with a straight top tube.
  • 34 27
 Superboost...
  • 41 2
 lol insane the difference between this bike and the Scott reviewed right below it. I know which one I'd prefer
  • 8 6
 @howejohn: What about it?
  • 16 7
 @Skooks: He was listing all the things Pinkbike commenters like, and I was listing the one unfortunate con.
  • 7 0
 @howejohn: cant win them all I guess
  • 7 0
 @howejohn: take this with superboost or the ransom if you complain
  • 29 2
 @nicoenduro: This is absolutely a dope bike. I would take this in a heartbeat over the ransom. The superboost spacing isn't going to make the bike explode. Personally, I only buy frames at this point, and if it doesn't fit the wheels I already own, I'm not going to buy it which makes it a con.
  • 11 3
 @howejohn: I also buy bare frames and don't really care what hub spacing they use. Most of my other bikes (Knollys)use 157mm though, so the Chilcotin being super boost is a big plus for me.
  • 12 6
 @howejohn: super boost is a letdown here Frown I like the idea but there are too few adopters to make it hassle free.
  • 11 2
 @howejohn: your wheels last for several frames?
  • 8 0
 @dfbland: problem solvers is the shiz
  • 9 1
 @mattmatthew: agree, just feels like the problems we need them to solve shouldn't have existed in the first place
  • 7 1
 @dfbland: Still requires re-dishing though. It's not like you can move a boost wheel to superboost at will.
  • 4 1
 @howejohn: it is annoying, but been running a boost to superboost spacer kit for 2 years zero issues.
  • 2 0
 @BermJunky: I wish. My bike has a rear wheel from a demo 29, a hunt front wheel and I’ve got an old ibis rear wheel in my storage unit when I blow up this demo wheel in the spring.
  • 10 2
 @howejohn: Hot tip,
I've been able to get great deals on good to high end 157 wheels both new and used. The red headed step child of hub spacing standards makes for good deals. It also makes your 148 (assumption) wheels decent ROI when selling.

157 makes sense, and if youre buying a frame, youre already dealing with swapping and building. Just peruse the BuySell, and your local retailer
  • 2 1
 @dgwww: Just real quick, what is the hassle exactly?
  • 10 2
 @vitaflo: its a 4.5mm offset, thats pretty easy to go 2mm, and run the same wheel in both. In fact the 157 spacing usually has more clearance, and I've run several bikes without re-dishing, no issues at all.

trust me, you and your girl won t notice the 4.5mm to the left at all...
  • 1 0
 @BermJunky: No, but my fancy hubs do!
  • 2 0
 @jaytdubs: amazing how good it looks with a proper length chain stay for an XL frame.
  • 1 0
 @FatTonyNJ: touché!
  • 3 0
 @BermJunky: Yup. I build custom quality wheels and it's pretty rare a wheel dies in action so they move across frames.
  • 1 0
 @vitaflo: re-dishing isn't a big deal, especially when having a plethora of different standards you're trying to deal with (freehub bodies are a bigger pain in the buns).
  • 1 2
 @vikb: wow good for you
  • 3 0
 But for 2 times the price you get the New ransom !!!
  • 4 1
 @howejohn: although super boost is not ideal, it’s a much more manageable problem than all of the other things pink bikers hate
  • 4 0
 @howejohn: Not sure if this is meant to be a complaint, but to some of us it is a feature and part of the reason why buy a Knolly. I'm on a Rocky now, and wish it had SB spacing.
  • 3 3
 @onawalk: Not as common, can be hard to find spare parts, if you blow up a wheel, you might have trouble finding a replacement easily while on the road etc. Its the same problem with having a car that is rare in your country. Also might affect resale negatively as its more rare, now you are dealing with prospective buyers' opinion about SB, as opposed to boost which is just the industry standard.

There are economies of scale at work with whatever the most popular standard is, this makes for easier repair, sourcing, warranty etc.

I like the idea of SB but because its isn't the main option it will always be less desirable, at launch I really wanted it to take over, but that didn't happen. So we are stuck with boost, which was a dumb half measure.
  • 7 2
 @dgwww: Thats an awful lot of maybe and possibly and what ifs.
Truth is, I run a bike with 148, and 1 with 157. There has been no difference in any of the issues you mentioned. In fact, youre more likely to encounter the issues you mentioned with a higher end hub than a hub with different spacing. Ever try to get parts quickly for a Ck, Hadley, Project 321, I9 Hydra, etc? most shops dont have that lying around. Need a free hub for an SLX 157 hub, pretty well any shop has a freehub for you.

We can make up all sorts of excuses one way or another, outside of your resale argument theres not much in it. To be honest, the resale argument works both ways, you can find good deals on 157 frames and wheels (as I mentioned before) cause its less popular.

148 was prolly a silly half measure, but the issues regarding 157 seem pretty overblown to me, and I run one
  • 2 5
 Superboost deal breaker.
  • 3 0
 such a refreshing change from the horror show which was the new Scott
  • 1 2
 @onawalk: your comments would mean alot more if you didn't run one. Confirmation bias in my opinion. Again, I think 157 makes more sense than 148 but it is rare in comparison, lets not forget that there are components (like cranks & chainrings) which are dependent on that spacing as well, which are also more rare & harder to come by. In my view, more rare = more expensive & more hassle. This isn't limited to MTB, its sort of a universal reality with durable products. The oversupply of 157 frames / parts is a result of low demand - could mean 157 is shakier as a standard long term. When Knolly was sticking to their guns on 142 , while the rest of the industry moved to 148, demand for them dropped as a result. I think there is a risk that this could be happening with 157 as well.
  • 5 0
 @dgwww: But I run both, 148, and 157.
Youre simply just making up an argument in order to prove your point.

I run both, I've had to get parts for both, I've bought wheels for both. Small sample size, but yours is exactly 0, so.....
Youre welcome to have an opinion, but maybe check in with yourself to see if its a fair assessment
  • 1 2
 @onawalk: Just checked in with myself. I still think its a fair assessment that its confirmation bias if you are personally invested.
  • 4 0
 Hi @dgwww:

Just some information that may not be commonly known yet:

Regarding cranksets and chain lines:

Both main drivetrain manufacturers (Shimano and SRAM) are converging on a single 55mm Chainline for both 148mm Boost and 157mm Super Boost drivetrains.

E.G.:

SRAM Transmission has only 55mm CL option for both 148 and 157. While none of this is confirmed, it is speculated that this will be the path forward for whatever new drivetrains they introduce.

Shimano converted: Deore, SLX and XT (6120, 7120 and 8120) cranksets from 52mm to 55mm. They also introduced XTR 9125 in 55mm as well.

Going forward the only difference is rear wheel hub width. For sure, a rear wheel is not an insignificant bicycle component. But with the shift to a common 55mm chainline, this eliminates one of the two major concerns about different chainlines. 148 ---> 157 (Boost --> Super Boost) adapter kits are available in a pinch and cost about $10-15 on Amazon or through aftermarket manufacturers.
  • 4 0
 @dgwww: 157 parts are very easy to find, especially because it's also the same standard ran on DH bikes.
  • 3 0
 @Noelbuckley: I dont think theres much point here Noel, @dgwww knows exactly what hes talking about, even though he has no actual experience with the standard. He pretty sold on it being pointless, cause you know, he doesnt run it...
  • 2 0
 @dfbland: theres not much point,
@dgwww doesnt seem to understand that the parts between 157 hubs, and 148 (the ones youd need to replace anyway) are completely interchangeable. Obviously 148 hubs, and 157 hubs from the same manufacturer runs different bearings and freehub assemblies.....so youd be totally screwed if you really needed a part
  • 1 0
 @dfbland: As I understand it, the width is the same as the old DH standard, but the hub flanges aren't (or at least weren't) in the same place. See here: enduro-mtb.com/en/super-boost-plus-standard
  • 1 0
 @Noelbuckley: When I was last shopping for another Knolly, a different crankset was needed, which was a factor in my choice. Having everything using the same cranks is new information and makes SB more appealing for sure. Whats your take on being one of the few manufacturers using SB & how that affects your business ?
  • 2 0
 @dgwww: the flange placement depends on the manufacturer, and is a zero issue. You also don't need Superboost specific cranks either (I've had more headaches with offset for 14Cool .
  • 1 0
 I don't know how that emoji popped up (stupid fat thumbs)
  • 6 0
 Regarding rear hubsets:

Generally the hubshell and its axle are the only difference between 148 and 157 hubs. Bearings and free hub bodies will be hub model specific and the same across all hub widths. You don't need a "super boost flanged" hubshell to work with 157: any 157 hub will work including every DH hubset on the market. Pretty much every hub manufacturer makes their most common MTB hubs in 142, 148 and 157.

If you are using hub adapters to convert a 148mm wheelset for a 157mm frame, no dishing on the rear wheel is required. You use the 4.5mm spacers on each end of the axle and are good to go (and the rotor spacer). If you are using a 55mm chainline crankset, the chainline will be appropriate as well.

Also please note that because we taper our chainstay close to the rear pivot, heal clearance is the same as most 148 Boost bikes on the market.
  • 3 0
 @dgwww:

The move by both SRAM and Shimano towards 55mm chainline will simplify the crank situation for OEM customers, resellers and end user customers alike. It will take time to percolate throughout the market, but it's a simpler system that works for everyone.
  • 86 5
 I'd take this over the ransom any day
  • 20 0
 For the price, you could take two of these over the Ransom any day.
  • 73 2
 486mm reach on a medium? I guess I need to start growing again lol
  • 27 0
 I don’t understand this movement, I’ll def blarb here that it sucks having short arms, especially as someone who’s 5’10…always find myself on Mediums, and likely a small w/ this frame...
  • 20 17
 Or buy a size smaller.
  • 9 0
 @RonSauce: once you go medium you never go back, bro!
  • 3 1
 @RonSauce: Yeah but then the chainstay will be shorter too.
  • 13 3
 @iforte312: then its not the bike for you.
  • 10 3
 Seriously.

The previous gen was looking like it would be the replacement for my aging Range (2018 frame). Guess that won;t be an option anymore.

I like to prioritize low speed steep tech handling over the race-pace stability of these longer frames. I'm good enough to compensate for a shorter reach/chain stay length at speed. I'd rather maintain the feel and maneuverability of a more moderate length bike. Of course, not everything needs to be designed for me (and people looking for similar attributes)... but options are starting to get limited.

I'd have to go down to a Small (in either travel configuration) to get a reach number that I'd even consider. I'm not tall, but at 5'9"... usually a medium is a safe bet.
  • 8 8
 @whichoneispink: It's because longer frames with shorter stems ride better, especially with the shorter fork offsets you find nowadays. Quick handling and high speed stability can now be had in the same package.
  • 8 2
 @mariomtblt

I'm 6'1 and find the previous generation Chilco in large with a 490mm reach too long. Only manageable with a 31mm stem, which is too short IMO. Guess I'm a small now!?!?

It's not necessarily as easy as just sizing down though, because then your seattube is too short, headtube / stack is too low, effective top tube is too short due to steep STA, etc.
  • 7 4
 @chriskneeland: In which universe short offset gives quicker handling, on the contrary... The short offset slows the handling down but it also shorten the front-center and makes up for ridiculous inbalance for ultra long reach and 73 ha frames.
  • 10 0
 @lkubica: Go try a shorter bike with a 52mm offset and a 50mm stem, then try a longer one with a 44mm offset and a 30mm stem and get back to me.
  • 3 3
 @chriskneeland: And what will this prove except that a shorter stem makes handling quicker to compensate slower handling of shorter offset? You don't have to try it, it just a little physics and math.
So you make a bike with longer reach and then shorter this reach with a shorter stem, shorter the wb with offset and you are left with a bike with flatter ha and a little more wb.
Anyway you said that shorter offset means quicker handling and I was just referring to this false statement. Now you say that you also needa shorter stem...
  • 1 0
 @chriskneeland:

I've got exactly that setup - 465 reach Banshee Phantom with ~65.5* HA, 51 o/s, and 50mm stem & a 490 reach Chilcotin with ~63.5* HA, 44 o/s, and 31mm stem. Very different bikes and use cases, but I generally find the handling of the Phantom to feel more natural / intuitive.

Now, would I prefer that setup for a smashy smashy bike like this? Not necessarily, just saying it has its place and is not necessarily worse just because it has a certain length / offset / stem (IMO, it's arguably it's the better setup for the Phantom).
  • 5 1
 @lkubica: Transition designed their entire line around the idea with their SBG geometry. And Mondraker's been doing it for over a decade. And every other brand has been adopting the trend for the last 5-8 years for a reason.
  • 1 0
 @scotteh: You don't find the Phantom over steers with the 50mm stem and 51mm o/s? That was the biggest difference for me. When I went to a set up with a 30mm stem and 44mm offset the bike calmed down but still didn't feel like I had to force it. I feel like I struck the perfect balance.
  • 1 0
 @scotteh: damn Im 6 foot and love 490 reach,
  • 4 0
 @RonSauce: right, this works for someone who is 5'10" but someone who is 5'6" can't really size down anymore with this bike. There are drawbacks to going with super long reaches for each size.
  • 3 0
 @chriskneeland: I agree that the Phantom is more likely to tuck the front if you steer with the bars at speed, but generally best practice with modern bikes is to lean the bike rather than turn the bars which helps mitigate this.

What I don't understand is how much of the difference in feel and handling is attributable to head angle vs. offset (and the resulting trail figure) vs. reach vs. stem length vs. wheelbase, because it's a dynamic system and they all have an impact on steering.

For example, say you have two bikes:
1. 64* HA, 44 o/s, 480 reach, 30 stem
2. 63* HA, 51 o/s, 460 reach, 50 stem

Even though we've just changed 4 significant variables, they might end up with the same trail figure, same wheelbase, and same effective fit (reach + stem). It's above my paygrade to figure out what the perfect combo is, but I will say the shorter reach + longer offset + longer stem combo seems to work well for more all around trail bikes vs. enduro crushers.

Paging @R-M-R because he's a whiz with this stuff...
  • 4 0
 @scotteh: So you're changing every variable and want a one-liner answer? lol

You're absolutely right that it's a dynamic system and you can achieve similar results via different configurations. It's also difficult to factor in the human. For example, if we take the configurations you suggested, my intuition is #2 will feel more stable because its front-centre is almost as long, trail is greater, and the stem is longer. The rider might lean back slightly to compensate for the difference in reach, largely taking that variable out of the calculation.

We could match two variables, such as front-centre and trail, and the one with the shorter reach and longer stem would be more stable. So yeah, the tidy answer is that you can arrive at a pretty similar ride feel via different pathways. The early days of Mondraker's experimentation showed some interesting results that aren't captured in these numbers: they placed the hands and the front wheel in the same locations via combinations of reach and head-tube angle and found the steeper HT° had less understeer than the slacker HT°, which led them to the solution of longer reach, steeper HT° (steeper than their other prototypes, but slacker than typical for the time), and short stems. The understeer may have been related to trail and suspension binding may even have been a factor; I can't say I understand the exact causes and relationships.

Why stop there, though? Maybe we can vary the wheel size and tire width, put in a steering damper and recentering device, change the BB height ... and we haven't even explored the dynamic geometry capabilities of front linkage suspension!
  • 1 0
 @whichoneispink: so then just get a small,
how could you get hung jup on things with your GD T-rex arms?
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: outstanding as always, cheers!

FWIW, I've never thought you were that bloviating douchebag PVD (though he makes admittedly cool bikes that I would be interested to ride lol ).
  • 4 0
 @scotteh: We should all be grateful for his work and enjoy the fruits of his labour from a safe distance.
  • 1 0
 @Quinn-39: Consider trying a medium if that is ever possible. My experience with Knolly sizing over 2 frames is to go with their recommendations, but I could understand that trying one first would be better than listening to some rando from the internet.
  • 1 0
 @workingclasswhore: username check out
  • 2 0
 ETT is 623mm. That not ape country.

Reach is the measurement from the BB to the top of the HT... it's not how long your arms are.

And whilst the ETT is more than I prefer at 176cm tall ( 605mm ETT is my ideal) the nice long reach and high stack the Knolly comes with would feel terrific for high speed and rough descents.

ie: Much the same geo as a medium Pivot Firebird but with slightly longer reach.
  • 2 1
 @y9pema: same here. I think @scotteh must be all leg to be having this issue. Carry on everyone.
  • 1 0
 @islander: nope, actually the opposite, all arms. i have a +4 ape index and fairly short inseam (32" iirc). all my buddies of a similar height find i run my seat 1-2" lower than they do. can still fit a 200mm dropper, i just don't like being stretched out.
  • 1 0
 @Grizzly134: For sure. I did the same when I got a Norco Torrent... recommended size was 480mm long, I've since swapped out to a Chromag with shorter reach.

Would love to try them of course.
  • 17 1
 "... the high anti-squat values that go hand-in-hand with Knolly's suspension layout ..."

Knolly has historically had among they lowest pedaling anti-squat values on the market. If you're suggesting you expected the values to be high because it uses a Horst (plus extra shock linkage) design, a Horst - like any suspension type - can have any value the designer chooses.
  • 12 0
 Knolly don't really like the term anti-squat and prefers to talk about the pedalling dynamics. The numbers I received for the last Chilcotin, and the conversations I had with Knolly, would reflect what I said. Then again, you are right in what you said. Perhaps "concept" or "ideals" would be a better word that layout. I'll have a think and amend. Thanks!
  • 31 2
 @henryquinney: Designers can spew whatever philosophy they want, but the numbers don't lie.

Historically, Noel has used extremely low pedaling anti-squat because he claimed you can damp out the bobbing with a climb switch, but a bike with high pedaling anti-squat can never eliminate the kickback while pedaling, which he claimed was more detrimental to overall pedaling than bob. The former part of the argument is true and the latter is debatable, but not unreasonable. My preference is for the efficiency of high pedaling anti-squat without excessive low-speed damping. Personally, I'm not terribly bothered by kickback while pedaling, but I see his point and how some would prefer the feel of his designs.

The newer models have slightly higher pedaling anti-squat, but still outliers toward the low end. Pinkbike's reviews are among the most-read in the industry and many readers take your words as truth. Please take the time to apply journalistic rigor and not just repeat whatever lies, truths, misconceptions, and marketing spin manufacturers may throw your way. I would be happy to assist.
  • 12 3
 @R-M-R: Well, yes and no - although I do largely agree with you. I asked, they claimed, and the values they have provided in the past backs up their claims. The important bit is how it rides, and I'll be as rigorous as ever. In my notes, I've already written up a fair bit about this relationship and how the riding experience relates. I hope you enjoy reading the review in full when it comes.
  • 16 7
 @henryquinney: "No" to what part? I have simulations of all their past models and my margin of error is in the very low single-digit percentage range. I also use a more accurate and consistent model of the rider for centre of mass location than what I'm aware of any other suspension designer using - most just use the default 600 mm above BB provided by Linkage for all sizes.

The values most companies supply to Pinkbike are dodgy at best. Pedaling anti-squat values depend on the chosen location of the centre of mass and can double or halve throughout the travel and across the cassette. Pinkbike publishes charts - or even single values - often without stating any of these values. For some bikes, I could provide two charts for a given bike that show an average pedaling anti-squat of 200% or 50% - or even a negative value, if I were to provide a single value at some undisclosed point in the travel - and none of it would be false.

I'm not just some comment section, keyboard engineer, you know Smile
  • 1 8
flag LaXcarp (Feb 1, 2024 at 10:31) (Below Threshold)
 @R-M-R: A 3rd way to introduce some anti-squat (or equivalent in this context) is to go with an oynx style design for the rear hub, which is what I've been doing on my Knolly Warden.
  • 11 1
 @LaXcarp: How does that introduce pedaling anti-squat?
  • 6 1
 @R-M-R: dude I'm with you. I'll believe claims of high antisquat when I see it modeled out.

I think Henry is trying to walk the line w the companies desired presentation w some subtle nods to their kooky low AR values. See paragraph below.

"Would it be a Knolly without their FourBy4 system? The brand clearly believes that this is the best way to satisfy their particular demands, but that's not to say it isn't something of an *outlier* with its characteristics."
  • 11 1
 @freestyIAM: To be fair to Knolly, though, it's valid to question the role of pedaling anti-squat for several reasons:

1. The relationship between pedaling anti-squat and chassis stability when pedaling is not linear. Many believe it is something like a bell-curve function, but there are actually local minimums due to resonance. It's complex!

2. There are damping systems available (ex. climb switches), which are being automated (ex. Flight Control, Live Valve, etc.).

3. Various riders value various characteristics and ride various terrain, so no one solution suits all customers.

4. Resistance to bobbing does not necessarily equate to efficiency - much less comfort, and less still enjoyment - especially in extremely rough terrain.

So, to be clear, I'm not saying low pedaling anti-squat is intrinsically and universally good or bad, nor am I saying the Knolly 4-By design intrinsically has any such characteristics. I'm saying it's a complex subject, Knolly has a unique perspective that will suit some riders (any will be poorly suited to others), and cycling media should better understand the subject before repeating values and philosophies. To be fair to Henry and to Pinkbike, both are better than average about this among cycling press and I believe Henry has admirable desire to be informative and transparent, but there's room for improvement in technical understanding and relating that to the audience.
  • 4 1
 @freestyIAM: But it is simply dumb, I had a Knolly and loved it's low PK characteristics which was achieved by low AS and it was a compromise I am always willing to make. So it would be best for PB to just say it the way it is. If a bike was designed with low AS and the designer is afraid to tell this cause in general people like high AS on paper it is very very weird.
  • 10 1
 @lkubica: "... the designer is afraid to tell this ..."

That's exactly what it is. Well, some designers don't understand the physics of the machines they're designing, but let's talk about the ones who do. Marketing has led to an arms race of hyperbole in which every product has to be the no compromise, best ever at everything. In reality, everything is a compromise and it would be interesting to see what would happen if a company said something like

"We prioritized Characteristics A and B, which come at the expense of C and D. If that suits your tastes, you'll probably prefer our product over typical products that give equal weighting to A, B, C, and D, and you'll almost certainly prefer ours over products that prioritize C and D."
  • 1 10
flag LaXcarp (Feb 1, 2024 at 12:49) (Below Threshold)
 @R-M-R: BY removing the distance of float before pawls engage from the hub, you are also removing the ability for chain growth that occurs . Removing that creates a similar affect to increased anti-isquat. You can also change antisquat characteristics based on chainring size as it adjusts the chain upper pivot point similar to modern designs with a high idler.
  • 12 0
 @LaXcarp: First statement is false. Second is true, but there's a lot more going on with indirect drivetrains than just chain angle.

To expand on the first statement: Pedaling anti-squat is relevant only when pedaling. When pedaling, the hub is already engaged, so engagement delay is irrelevant. You're thinking of kickback when coasting, which can occur in certain situations, but is a separate concept.
  • 5 2
 @R-M-R: PVD, is that you? Smile
  • 2 0
 @R-M-R: LOL I had no idea, I mentioned that I would like to try a PVD bike a few weeks ago in a comments section, and that started a battle between Peter and some detractors that I think might actually still be going on.
  • 4 0
 @FatTonyNJ: Looking in his general direction is enough to start a battle with him.
  • 3 0
 @R-M-R: I kind of appreciate his distinct viewpoint. I work in a fairly technical field (non-bike related), and you need a certain amount of out-there, opinionated experts who sweat the minutia. Even if they can be prickly at times.
  • 3 0
 @FatTonyNJ: Yes, absolutely! His contributions to privateer framebuilding have been considerable. Just a shame it has to come with the problematic interactions.
  • 2 0
 @R-M-R: you seem much more levelheaded than PVD… he can barely stand us “total idiots” (biking public)
  • 3 0
 @2444666668888888: I assure you, I'm also a complete jerk.
  • 2 0
 @R-M-R: Sounds like you're ready to do a technical analysis of the frame to run concurrently with @henryquinney 's eventual LT review. I have my own personal thoughts of your back and forth, and am happy to stoke the fires of your discussion Big Grin
  • 1 4
 @R-M-R: Its not false, its over simplifed for you to say antisquat is only pedaling dynamics. Its anytime your chain is creating tension on your drivetrain. here, I'll let pinkbike tell you: www.pinkbike.com/news/definitions-what-is-anti-squat.html
I also stated eliminating hub float has "similar affects" to antisquat in that you are loading and unloading your hub/chain system constantly while your rear wheel is navigating terrain (w or w/o pedaling), so now the next time you rock your feet forward (either to pedal or riding dh) you are either getting a stiff chain (and stiffer suspension) or you are getting free float and that has an affect on how your bikes feels and pedals and suspension feel. I didnt make this stuff up so a bike engineer and his followers should understand this concept instead of blindly downvoting.

A similar line of thinking is, for example, how bike power meters arent true power meters as they only account for rotational power and not the power you are driving down into the pedals to maneuver/weight the bike.
  • 3 0
 @R-M-R: I'd argue that given the intended terrain for Knolly bikes (the North Shore, and rooty/wet/janky riding), less anti-squat is probably to the rider's benefit.

In recent PR materials, I've heard their reps mention different types of terrain (eg. desert), but we know what a Knolly bike is truly meant for
  • 2 0
 @henryquinney: in my opinion Pinkbike would serve its readers well to access RMR as a consultant. Or to have him do a suspension series of articles. Understanding how things function helps us sort the right solution for each of our individual bodies and preferences.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: well if most use the same reference for AS then that is what makes it a helpful benchmark. If you decide to use a different reference it doesnt help us punters. the previous fugitive had an AS of 80% or so at 25% sag (in a 50t rear cog with 32t front). That's a good reference say to an Ibis Ripmo V2 which would be over 100% at same sag.
  • 1 0
 @professed: The point is consistency at the minimum. Consistency and correctness would be better. Presently, there is neither - not within the cycling media, nor within the industry.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: you seem to be really tuned in to bike geometry and handling. Can you help me understand how the BB drop remains constant at -26 but the BB height is Cleary changing. I am missing something?
  • 2 0
 @agnostic: Not sure exactly what you mean, so I'll provide some general information to start.

The geometry charts show the same drop for both travel options. This means the static heights are the same, but the dynamic heights will differ due to the version with more travel having a greater time-averaged droop.

Does that get at what you're asking?
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: should the drop value not change as the BB changes? Most other manufacturers show the drop number changing as the BB height changes. Transition website does a great. The drop number changes as the flip chip changes the BB height. I can't wrap my head around how the Kolly drop value stays static at -26 when the fork ATC changes and the flip chip changes the BB height. Did I explain it better this time?
  • 2 0
 @agnostic: The drop is how far the BB sits below a line between the axles, in the static (unloaded) state.

It's true a greater AtC will raise the frame a little, but mostly the front, not so much at the rear. If the charts are correct, we have to assume the flip chip precisely compensates for the different shock and AtC lengths, such the static BB position is the same for both configurations.

As mentioned earlier, this would match the static BB positions, which would mean the longer-term travel bike sits lower when comparing these configurations.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: I would have thought the drop value would change proportionally to the BB height. Interesting.
  • 2 0
 @agnostic: Yes, that is precisely what happens with the static BB height.
  • 17 3
 Wait 458 reach on a SMALL? Is that a joke? Other than the sizing starting at people from 6 ft and up it looks great
  • 2 0
 Yeah, that's larger than my current medium....
  • 1 0
 Yeah my Marin B-17 from 2018 has the same reach in a LARGE. I still have a lower BB though Smile . It makes one wonder what good are size specific chainstays if everyone is forced to ride the "wrong" size?
  • 10 0
 Looks like good updates all around.

I like that they added some decent chainstay length, and that it varies per size. That was one of the things that had me holding off from the old model, so glad to see that fixed.

Its a breath of fresh air compared to the Scott announced today Smile .

Although still bummed by SuperBoost.
  • 5 7
 Why bummed by SuperBoost?
  • 11 1
 @Skooks: because everyone owns a boost (sometimes carbon) wheelset they'd rather have than most general stock wheelsets
  • 5 3
 @skiboot1:

Exactly this.

I have a nice set of WAO Union wheels with Onyx hubs. I also tend to build from a frame up, but realize that is less common.

Also, the benefits of superboost seem really small these days. If we can make DH bikes with normal 148 boost spacing (current gen Specialized Demo), I don't really see a purpose for superboost to exist anymore (which was mostly billed to help give super short chainstays, and big tire clearance. These days longer chainstays are normal, so that benefit isn't a big deal anymore IMO).
  • 4 2
 @skiboot1: same- I wish everything was just 12 x 148 (including downhill bikes).
  • 10 7
 @skiboot1: Some of us *gasp* ONLY have superboost bikes going on several years now. Your experience is not everyone's.
  • 5 0
 @ebuck89:

Totally. If I had a 157 wheelset already, I'd of course feel different.

Its just there are so few brands using superboost now, even years later, means that I'd guess there are more people with 148 wheelsets laying around, than 157.

Which means I'm mostly bummed by the fact that there are two competing standards. Its just that one is way more prevalent than the other.
  • 6 0
 Is SB the bummer, or is 148mm spacing the bummer?

I kinda feel we got sold a bill of goods when 148 came along. The wider 157mm rear end has no engineering downsides that I've experienced. Heel clearance and chainline were all good. That said, I wish more bikes went with the wheel that is better at being a wheel, rather than what SRAM was marketing at the time that we're now stuck with.
  • 1 1
 @skiboot1: Not everyone Wink
  • 19 10
 Personally I miss the top tube kink. It complemented the angle of the rocker link. This whole straight top tube thing has really permeated the mtb world. It seems to be all anyone can think about. If we aren't careful, all bikes will end up looking the same, and rather boring like Santa Cruz.
  • 5 0
 Yea it never bothered my and I've always liked the looks of my knolly. Then again, I am a function over form in my priorities so dont really care either way.
  • 13 0
 Agree. I have a Fug 138 and thought I'd get a case of upgrade-itis as soon as the new Fugitive frame drops...but I don't know. I think I like the kink better. DON'T KINK SHAME, COMMENT SECTION!
  • 4 1
 I have a feeling that brands have access to numbers, and nicer looking bikes sold more than kinked one. Looks at IBIS, I bet whatever next gets released will be straight tube like HD6
  • 2 0
 Yes, if the market wants that and it doesnt imapct the design philosophy, then its a good business move. They are releasing all their models with this updated generation of 4x4 and straight top tube
  • 4 0
 @666eric666: Agree. I have a carbon warden, and I love the kink !
  • 3 0
 I'm not hugely opinionated either way -- my strongest opinion is confusion over why people think a straight top tube looks so much better
  • 5 1
 Why do brands often use significant figures, do they really want to leave room for a 6.1 model? And then, why not the Knolly 6.00, to leave room for the 6.11 model? What changes would constitute adding 1, and what changes would constitute adding 0.1 ? If they just named it the 6, would they get into trouble introducing a 6.1 without having prompted the consumer? These are the questions that we NEED answers for.
  • 5 0
 If they simply called it a v6, some would get upset that it has an engine while others would ask why not a v8. Because smart are people.
  • 4 0
 @noapathy: ah, yes, the dreaded motor, I've heard some rumblings online about them
  • 2 0
 Hey all, we realized the confusion with the "6.0",
It's meant to signify the 6th version of the patented Fourx4 suspension found on Knollys.
At time of the press release mailed out we realized that there was confusion by publications.
This is the NEW Chilcotin, which is the 3rd version of this bike bearing the name using the newest 6th version of the Fourx4.
  • 5 1
 I have the old one, rode with Noel when he was prototyping the new one, it looked great and seemed to ride really well under him (I was wearing Time cleats and he was on Shimano so we didn't swap bikes). Looking forward to the full review to see what you think of it Henry.
  • 1 0
 Rachid - how are you finding the older gen now that you have some ride time on it?

I've decided that it's a kick ass bike but for me to really love it, the reach would need to be ~15mm shorter. Right now the length is good with a 31mm stem but I don't like how it steers and find it a bit tough to weight the front wheel.

Looks like they've gone the opposite direction with this generation though, the new medium is only a tad shorter than the old large... Also a YUGE (nearly 1,300mm) WB in large.
  • 2 0
 @scotteh: I did the 27.5 rear wheel thing for most of 2023 and used it as my big bike, it was great. Many shuttle laps were crushed with the MX configuration. I'm finding that a 50mm stem works well for me at 185cm tall with shorter legs and a longer torso. I'd keep on the large on the new one as well but my V5 Chilcotin still has at least a couple of seasons of riding in it.
  • 2 0
 @rnayel: Gotcha - small rear wheel takes ~10mm off the reach, so you'd be at ~480 with the MX setup.

I loved the MX setup for shuttling and the length / handling with a 40 stem was great, but found the bb was too low for technical climbing (even with 165 cranks).
  • 6 0
 @scotteh: You can MX the Chilcotin like @mayel (nice to see friends in the comments! Smile but if you are set on an MX big bike, I think we'll have a better option in the not too distant future that might have you stoked!
  • 5 1
 I was in between sizes on the last one, stoked to see I actually slot into a medium (480mm is my preferred number at 5'10). Everything looks dialed, this might be the next bike for me.
  • 2 0
 I'm surprised with all the comments about reach. I'm still on ETT, because that's the riding position for probably 60% of my riding; and that's actually the seating position length wise at effective seat height.
So while these reach numbers seem long, the ETT is actually nominal for the frame size and comparable to the last model.
  • 2 0
 Most PinkBike commenters consider themselves enduro riders, who care more about riding in the standing position. The steep seat angles compensate for the super long reach and make it possible to reach the bars when sitting.
  • 3 0
 Yep, Noel mentions in the comments here somewhere, that the reaches have adjusted because because the seat tubes have steepened. So the reaches are pretty comparable to what they were before... which was still on the long side, but not crazy. If people just follow the size guidelines they'll be good.

His quote from lower down:

"Please note that there was a significant increase in seat tube angle between the previous Chilcotin and the new one. That alone accounts for about 20mm of increased reach, while keeping the ETT (Effective Top Tube) length the same.

The new bikes DO fit slightly larger than the outgoing ones, but it's only about 1/5 of a frame size. This was to make room for the new XS sized frames, launched with the Endorphin this past November."
  • 7 0
 that is a BIG ASS bike
  • 2 0
 Kind of curious how the "four by" pedals compared to the fsr, anyone in the know? Love my stevo but doesn't necessarily feel sprightly or eager to go up, definitely sags into it's travel a bit even on smoother climbs and road grinds.
  • 1 1
 FSR suspension can be designed to pedal very good... over 100% AS if the designer wants that. For the Stevo, I would look at eh Cascade Components link and/or RS SDU rear shock. Both will make vast improvements.
  • 2 0
 Looks awesome. Definitely interested in the new Warden when that drops. Only con for me (and probably others) is I can't move over my existing rear wheel. I have no strong feelings on SuperBoost other than ability to move parts between bikes, which I tend to do fairly often.
  • 3 0
 There are so many cheap takeoff super boost wheelsets out there, no way i would let that spacing deter me, pick up a nice set of DT Swiss XM 1700 for around 400$ and your good to go
  • 3 0
 Man that is a good looking frame, especially that greenish. Really interesting bike (Price reasonably IMHO) that I will definitely consider if I was in the market for on, good job Knolly !!
  • 5 0
 pricing on these builds is impressive ngl
  • 4 0
 I definitely consider knolly for a frame when considering replacing my also-bad-when-mashing-pedals-like-a-gorilla Ripmo.
  • 2 0
 I've always wanted an XXL Knolly and now they offer an XL that's bigger and longer than my XXL Megatower in every way but the head tube length (it's still a Knolly after all). Wow.
  • 3 0
 Much lower stack compared to the XXL megatower. I’d prefer the mega.
  • 2 2
 @danielomeara: this. Knolly finally makes a bike for the professional basketball players among us, but only if they want to ride bent way forward.
  • 2 0
 @danielomeara: It's always possible to use a bar with more rise and a shorter stem to reign in the increase in effective stem length the bar would create.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R "rein in" Redface
  • 1 0
 @danielomeara: not the xxl mega - chainstay and front center are way out of whack. My front wheel is light AF. Sold it immediately.
  • 1 0
 Anyone here own one of these? How well are the bearings sealed? Do they have dust covers or are they open to the elements? This is a really interesting bike but that's a lot of bearings to replace if you ride in a wet/muddy environment.
  • 5 0
 they use top notch bearing seals and materials with tight tolerances that are durable.
  • 2 0
 I have owned Knolly’s for many years in the wet Pacific Northwest and have needed very few bearing replacements. I did have issues with the bushings in the linkage wearing quickly (2-3 months of regular riding) but they were cheap and easy to swap. This new version uses bearings in the linkage which seems to hold up better, I’ve been on a prototype version of those for 3 years and only one replacement needed.
  • 5 0
 Can't wait for the new Fugitive!
  • 3 0
 " The idea is that you can have the efficiency of high anti-squat but then use the higher leverage ratio to offset this and still offer decent tracking. " I don't get it.
  • 5 0
 This bike is filthy, no—bullshit, shred machine.
  • 1 0
 You ain’t just whistlin Dixie.
  • 4 0
 This is like the antidote to the new Ransom. It looks a whole lot better to me.
  • 7 3
 besides the super boost, I like it.
  • 7 7
 The 63º actual STA would get a fast no from me under normal circumstances, though that problem has been hidden by the photos shown in this article with dropper partially dropped.
Longer seatstay may counteract front end lift issues for taller riders climbing.
  • 13 4
 Putting a 240 dropper on it means that you’re 2-3 business days behind the rear wheel.
  • 6 0
 But Knolly measures ett and sta not on the stack level but a bit higher, so it may not be as dramatic as you think.
  • 3 0
 @lkubica: Everyone's built different, but at 6', I've never found a bike climbable with my saddle lower than the stem, as shown in all the photos above.
  • 2 0
 @rpet: Same - seems like higher stacks are increasingly in favor, and I could definitely go with more stack on my Fugitive... but there is a sweet spot for bar height as part of the overall fit equation that generally has my hands between level and about 1" below my saddle... lower feels sketchy pointed down and hurts my hands and lower back, higher is comfy, confidence inspiring but hard to really motivate, for lack of a better term. Being too upright changes my pedaling dynamics, front end wanders more when climbing, and the less 'attack' oriented position makes me feel less like I'm charging.
  • 3 0
 @rpet: All bike brands measure sta below the stem level and all have slacker actual sta, especially all 29ers. So on all bikes you get slacker sta than they say. You are worried that on Knolly the actual sta means that the real stą will be much slacker then on other bikes. But this may not be true, cause Knolly does not measure ett and effective stą like other brands.
Pinkbike should measure effective sta for rider height if there were serious about their reviews...
  • 1 1
 That actual angle is just silly. their suspension design makes it impossible people with long legs to own a knolly
  • 2 0
 @lkubica: " ... Pinkbike should measure effective sta for rider height ... "

True, but easier said than done!

First, Pinkbike would need to establish a consistent rider height for each size. But sizes never match up! One brand's Medium may have a reach of 440 mm, while another has 485 mm. Maybe the ideal solution is to create an equation to relate rider height and frame dimensions - maybe even separate formulae for different sexes. They could take it a step further by asking for the demographics of the brand's customers and fitting that onto the bell curve distribution of the equation relating bodies to bikes. That's actually what I did and how I design bikes, but I'm not aware of any other companies doing this! It also doesn't account for changing tastes. For example, the equation I might have used in 1994 - had I been designing then - would look a lot different than what I currently use.

For geometry charts, I prefer to publish the measurements in the traditional format (ex. seat-tube angle measured level with the top of the head-tube centreline), plus the actual angle, plus the angle at the assumed (and published) saddle height for each size. Unfortunately, this confuses many riders - and even the ones who understand it can make few comparisons, as other companies rarely publish anything like this.

So ... what's the solution? Most people want familiarity and convenience, even if it's misleading. We could try to introduce a new standard, but we know how that goes!
xkcd.com/927
  • 11 0
 Hi rpet:

The Chilcotin's actual seat tube angles are:
Medium: 69 degrees
Large: 70 degrees.

Effective seat tube angle is as listed on our Geo page and ranges from 77-78 degrees.

Seat tube angles are frame size specific and designed for different rider heights for each frame. For (e.g.) a size large frame, the extended saddle height is set to about 800mm from the BB shell. This corresponds to the proper pedaling position for a rider around 6'2" or 187cm in height with a 33-34" inseam. The XL frame is even steeper in actual seat tube angle.

This approach (actual and effective seat tube angles) is now common across the industry as almost all modern trail and enduro frames require clearance behind the seat tube for the rear wheel under full compression.

Please let us know if we can answer any more questions and feel free to reach out to us or our resellers directly if there is anything we can help you with. Cheers,
  • 3 0
 @Noelbuckley: OMG this is genuinely the first time I've ever seen a knolly Actual seat angle published anywhere. Well done. Can you please start adding this to geo tables as standard?
  • 3 0
 @Linc: ha ha - yes, I know. We are working on adding this information to the geometry page and expect it to be up there in the next week roughly.

Meanwhile, please feel free to contact any of our friendly staff or one of our resellers and we will happily provide any geometry information that you need Smile
  • 2 2
 @Linc: I don't see why they couldn't just effectively rotate the seat tube forward about a point that leaves the linkage pivots in the same spot. Would move the point where it joins the down tube back and shorten the top tube. I don't see that creating any clearance issues.

My first mountain bike was a Chilcotin 167. Loved everything about it except for two things:

1: I have a 38" inseam and that seat tube basically put me right on top of the rear axle when climbing. Impossible to keep the front wheel on the ground.

2: Very low stack for a bike meant for tall people. Not a problem if you can throw a bunch of spacers under your stem (and don't mind losing some reach, but with a Knolly there's certainly room to sacrifice a bit), but I bought the bike used, so that wasn't an option.

Size specific chainstays are certainly an improvement over the previous model, but I feel like more should have been done.

I wanted to love the Chilcotin, but those two things forced me to sell it. Replaced it with a Privateer 161 and have been much happier with the 161. The seat tube angle alone was a revelation compared to the Chilcotin. Far less issues with the front end wanting to lift on climbs. Just wish it had more travel for those occasions when I decide to do a day of lift serve.

Next frame will likely be a Nucleon with the Supre drive if I'm honest. Been drooling over those for a while now.
  • 6 4
 Reaches were already too long. At 170cm the small is now too large haha. Knolly still shooting themselves in the foot with their designs. Fix one thing ruin some others.
  • 3 0
 I'm 169cm and their small size fit me perfect. Previous generations i've been on medium
  • 2 0
 this is more of a learn to ride these bikes. I was hugely against merida's new bikes... untill i spent some time on one... ill never go back to the lower reach numbers. also, merida frames are just fantastically well made... despite the headset routing.
  • 2 1
 @jankslayer, @NZracer91: I'm 183 cm and my enduro frame has a reach over 500 mm, which is longer than industry standard recommendations for my height and in line with Knolly's recommendations. It works well with a steep seat-tube angle; would feel too long when seated with an old-school ST°.

That's a sample size of one, though - four if you count everyone in this comment chain - so let's look at my database (it contains every mountain bike from the past decade and plenty of interesting models from earlier). Knolly's current reach recommendations are nearly a full size larger than the average recommendations of their peers. Not a total outlier, though: the Geometron / Nicolai product range and the Canyon Strive have similar reach recommendations for a given rider height. Recommended values of reach vs. rider height increased at a surprisingly consistent rate from 2013 to 2022, at which point it leveled out. Perhaps the trend will pick up again as seat-tube angles continue to get steeper, or maybe we're approaching the practical limit. If it's the former, this Chilcotin will be like getting a bike from the future! If it's the latter, Knolly's recommendations may be at the upper end, but aren't crazy.

Again, that's relative to industry averages. Short seat-tubes and long droppers mean we have a greater ability than ever to choose whatever reach suits our taste and make the rest of the bike fit properly.
  • 4 1
 @R-M-R: Obviously we're biased, but this is a super rational post.

It's surprising where Seat Tube angles have gotten to, but I suspect for the most part they have leveled out. At a certain point, they are just too steep and really play havoc on the wrists and knees. We'll see - I guess never say never, but it seems like we're starting to bump into the upper limits...

The super steep Enduro / FR bike seat tubes are also challenging on trail bikes, simply because you need to pedal these bikes across terrain, not just up and down. If the STA is too steep, then the bike simply becomes uncomfortable to ride on moderate terrain for any length of time.

I'd like to think that we're at the forefront of the front center geometry. Given that we have had riders from sub 5' tall (150cm) to well over 6'6" (198cm) testing our new models, everyone has been pretty stoked on the geometry, including seat tube angles, reach, head tube lengths (longer, but still relatively low compared to the average in the industry) and of course seat tube height and dropper post insertion lengths (which we would argue are among the best in the industry). This is where we want Knolly to be geometry wise.
  • 2 1
 @Noelbuckley: And even if your geometry really is an outlier now and in the future - not saying that's the case, mind you - that's fine, as there are plenty of middle-of-the-bell-curve brands to cater to middle-of-the-bell-curve tastes. Niche brands can cater to niche tastes.
  • 3 1
 @R-M-R: having tried many many bikes going from long to short reach the long bikes are more forgiving at speed and in the steeps to poor technique and body position when riding medium pace. Once you start riding hard and pushing you have to weight wheels correctly and move front to back at times quickly and percisely. Its just not possible to move the distance required fast enough to make the bike ride dynamically. Look to nearly all top pros and they are all riding relatively short reach bikes for their body size. It makes sense to upsize way too big if you are going to have poor technique on steep trails and ride the brakes praying not to endo, but that’s about it.
  • 1 1
 Agreed. Finally it looks great but the low stack height with long reach is a fail, at least for me. I’m tired of running 1.5” of stem spacers with 35mm risers
  • 1 1
 I think we all know the best way to judge a bike is by numbers
  • 1 1
 @shmarv: Noob Optimized Geometry. Get that NOG acronym all over it.
  • 3 0
 Love Knolly bikes. The Endorphin is still the best bike I've owned and the only one I regret selling.
  • 2 1
 I just got full carbon Revel Rail in XT build for less than 4K USD, as much I want to buy Canadian, the 2024 bikes make no sense while there is still post-Covid sales going on Big Grin
  • 4 1
 Can't believe how many people agonise over numbers , try adapting over the 5 mm difference, it won't ruin your world.
  • 1 0
 Too bad my local dealer in Indonesia didn't carry Knolly anymore. My 26 Endorphin stil going strong, now my daughter is using it in the weekend. Hope i still can find away to ride a Knolly soon.
  • 4 0
 Independent breaking?
  • 2 1
 Haha, that's what I came here to say! Doesn't seem like a desireable feature.
  • 2 0
 hahah the one word you can't misspell on a mtb review
  • 4 1
 it is a huge bike. Why even label it as a small? Should be m-xxl
  • 3 0
 Holy shit, they actually made a bike, that looks nice!
  • 5 5
 Those reach numbers are crazy, I never though that at 6'1 I would be looking at riding a medium from any brand. Do they expect people to ride those 10 and 14mm rulzeman stems or something?
  • 5 2
 Have you seen our sizing chart?
knollybikes.com/en-ca/products/chilcotin-170
Our spec stems are 40mm
  • 7 1
 That's the problem with nominal "Small, Medium, Large" sizing. It's why I introduced nominal sizing for mountain bikes according to a bike's ride characteristics, rather than a rider's body size. This can be as simple as 1, 2, 3, etc., or it could be descriptive, like "Agile, Balanced, Stable" - or whatever the brand manager chooses to call it.

Of course there will be a correlation between the frame's length and the rider's height, but if the seat-tube is short enough - as it is on Knolly's current range - almost any rider can ride almost any size, giving them the freedom to choose how they want their bike to feel. If you prefer a 480ish mm reach, choose the bike that matches your preferred length and ignore the nominal designation!
  • 9 1
 @R-M-R: Thank you for this comment and we would agree with it.

We may at some point move away from the traditional S, M, L, etc... sizing and just shift to a number. For now, riders should concentrate on the posted geometry for sizing decisions and if they have any questions, feel free to reach out to one of our resellers or us directly Smile
  • 6 1
 Hey AddisonEverett:

Please note that there was a significant increase in seat tube angle between the previous Chilcotin and the new one. That alone accounts for about 20mm of increased reach, while keeping the ETT (Effective Top Tube) length the same.

The new bikes DO fit slightly larger than the outgoing ones, but it's only about about 1/5 of a frame size. This was to make room for the new XS sized frames, launched with the Endorphin this past November.

In terms of your height: at 6'1" - assuming your inseam length is fairly standard (33-34") I suspect that you would find you fit quite nicely on a new Chilcotin size large frame. We have several test riders all in this height range (myself included at 6'1.5" and 34" inseam) and all prefer the fit of the new Chilcotin vs. the outgoing model. Please feel free to contact us directly or any one of our resellers and we would be happy to help with any and all fitment questions! Smile
  • 3 1
 @Noelbuckley: Cheers, and if you want to chat further, feel free to reach out to one of our representatives directly Smile (And by "one of our representatives" I mean me, because it's just me!)
  • 2 0
 @R-M-R: Are you sure you don't have an in-house research department ?
  • 3 0
 @Smashmouth: I do research in a house ...
  • 2 0
 @Noelbuckley:
I can confirm that the new sizing is a little larger that previous, I'm 5;11" 32" inseam and never ridden anything other than a large, I got a size M in my Chilcotin and it fits perfect. The new bikes are VERY well engineered and thought through, not built by accounting. I was a bit apprehensive buying a M, but the folks at Knolly were super helpful in guiding me through my size selection and they were spot on. If you want to see a pretty in depth look at the new bike check out the VanCan video that came out yesterday on assembling his new Chilcotin with Noel.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JMSWBrIF1o&ab_channel=VanCan
  • 2 0
 @jal-1973: Yeah, I feel that the medium is now the small, the large is now the medium etc... And for the smaller people, they have the endorphin. They basically added an XXL in the lineup.
  • 1 0
 @Noelbuckley: thank you for the reply. My current bike Is a Norco Sight, size large, which has very similar geometry numbers to the new Medium chilcoten, 485 reach, 621 stack, 64 degree head angle, 77 degree effective seat tube angle, 440 chainstays, etc... And I find it to be a great fitting bike for me with a 40mm stem. For me personally, I'm not sure I would want a bike with a longer reach than 490 (which is what my Kona process x had before I broke it), especially with how chainstays are getting longer. The wheelbase would be very long, and while I think I could ride it on the tight trails I like to ride, it would definitely take more man handling. I expect it would be great to ride in fast rough terrain though, incredibly stable, but for me personally, the medium looks right, it's probably the size I would feel the best and have the most fun on for this bike.
  • 1 1
 @Noelbuckley: all that said, if you want to prove me wrong I would be more than happy to test the bike out, I'll even make a video about it about it and post it to my YouTube channel haha
  • 3 0
 Someone's doing something right.
  • 3 0
 “Say, that’s a nice bike”.
  • 3 0
 The small has about a 460 reach... my 2018 Jeffsy XL has a 465 LOL
  • 2 0
 what a difference the straight top tube makes
  • 1 1
 Is the X2 on the XT build a 2024? Or if I order this am I taking it off immediately and sending into Fox for a "durability upgrade".
  • 1 0
 These should be the X2’s that don’t detonate. Should be.
  • 1 0
 Yes, awesome! Good updates all around. And it looks amazing too. Gorgeous, in a very sturdy and utilitarian kind of way.
  • 2 0
 Those reach numbers, tho!
  • 1 2
 Looks great, sounds great but the Superboost and lack of a mullet option are dealbreakers…being stuck with limited options on a $5k bike isn’t very smart for sales in an increasingly shrinking market.
  • 2 0
 Too bad or maybe too good I’m still riding my 7 years old Knolly Smile
  • 2 0
 Dem lines.
  • 1 0
 Where is the Screaming Green????????
  • 1 0
 Any idea if this is dual crown rated?
  • 3 0
 Yes it is.
  • 1 4
 I enjoy riding my current bike, last edition of the delirium, and having the ability to swap out wheelsets w/mounted tires for different conditions. I’ve always liked that about riding bikes. the superboost spacing messes all that up for me as far as I can tell, so, no sale, on any bike w/wider spacing than my current selection of 142 wheelsets. bikes generally last a helluva long time and, well, no thanks. Im good for the next 10 years.
  • 2 0
 finally
  • 3 2
 No water bottle mount behind the seat tube?
  • 1 0
 It would be a great spot for tools etc (with a nicely designed cover of course!)... surprised they didn't design something
  • 1 0
 Thanks for such a beauty, almost as a Banshee or a CB... compliments!
  • 3 4
 “ Chilcotin Shimano Deore 160/155: $5999 CAD/$4499 USD - 170/170: $5999 CAD / $4499 USD”

Da fark? Deore? 4.5K?
  • 2 1
 This is pretty normal pricing for a niche company in 2024.
  • 3 0
 @analog7: I know I haven’t bought a bike in years, but that’s absurd.
I just saw the ransom being far more expensive, which is even more absurd.
  • 1 0
 i agree. too expensive.. too bad
  • 1 1
 Perfect geo if you just size down
  • 1 1
 Stack height is much too low
  • 3 4
 Frame size small but no 27.5 option?
  • 10 0
 That's what the Endorphin is for
  • 2 0
 Patience...something is coming soon
  • 1 0
 @dchill: yes! at the moment
  • 1 1
 Thats the Warden
  • 1 1
 that's not a small. Not with those numbers
  • 3 0
 @fungusfreakland: hopefully an XS because that small is huge.
  • 2 2
 Too long
  • 1 2
 Looks like a session. lol
  • 1 4
 First the Scott,now this. You can make a fugly bike group test
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.054303
Mobile Version of Website