Descending It only took a few laps on the Torque to realize how much fun this green machine would be in a bike park setting, somewhere with plenty of high speed trails and big jumps. Ratchet up the miles-per-hour and put a big lip in front of it and the Torque is right at home; it ended up being a much more entertaining ride than I'd expected. It's also very quiet, free of any distracting chainslap or cable rattling noises.
The mixed-wheel setup makes a lot of sense for a bike like the Torque. Canyon does offer a dual 29” wheel option, and there's a 27.5” version too, but during all my time on this mulleted machine I never found myself wishing for something different. For me, it handily ticks the 'freeride' box, a bike that's happiest on extra-gnarly terrain or boosting jumps, rather than trying to find the fastest line possible between the tape. Now, there's no reason you couldn't do some enduro races with the Torque, but it is a lot of bike, and probably overkill for some race courses.
There's a very smooth ramp-up to the Torque's 175mm of travel, and I didn't encounter any harsh bottom outs. It does sit a little deeper in its travel in extended sections of rough terrain, part of the reason it feels more like a freeride bike rather than a race machine – the scales are tipped a little more towards the plush side of things, rather than being super supportive.
Not surprisingly, its weight and length are more noticeable at slower speeds and on flatter bits of trail – on more than one occasion I found myself manualing rather than bunnyhopping through a section, simply because I was feeling a little lazy and wanted to save to some energy. There's also the fact that the chainstay length remains the same on all sizes - it'd be great to see an adjustable chainstay length feature, or chainstay lengths that change with each size. I spent a lot of time on a Commencal Meta TR last year, which happens to have the same reach number and chainstay length as the Torque; that may be why it didn't take long for me to get up to speed. If I had to pick, I'd prefer a slightly shorter reach and longer chainstays, but riders that prefer blowing up berms and letting the back end break free at every opportunity may disagree.
In keeping with the freeride theme I made a trip up to Vancouver's North Shore to see how it handled some old-school rock rolls and chunky, technical trails. The overall length was noticeable on some of the slower speed sections, but this is another instance where I'd say the 27.5” rear wheel and shorter chainstays ended up being a benefit by making it easy to weight the front of the bike, and then pivot the back end to get around a steep, weird turn, or reposition the bike to line up for another section of rocks and roots.
The crew have talked about that in the pod cast.
The problem seems to be that the experience is so variable. One person has a great experience but the next person gets the warranty guy on a bad day and has a very different experience.
EDIT - I think Dan Roberts used to do that, but it's dropped off from PB lately.
Plus so many more questions. Is it a standard, or does every manufacturer do their own shape and size insert? How long until it breeds 3 more "standards" in the name of marginal gains? What is the tool interface to install and remove it? What kind of single-job-specific, maybe proprietary, wrench or socket would replace my universal press and standard 6802/6803 drifts?
Pro: The bike is capable and fun, not a terrible climber considering that is not its design.
Cons: The chain guide rubs the chain on the lowest gear regardless of adjustment. Canyon we’re no help and sent the same component out again with no dialogue to support. I have installed a one-up guide instead.
The saddle is like sitting on concrete, an ergon saddle has been much better.
The bike arrived from canyon with a blocked brake hose and what looks to be a botched repair by the bike mechanic with silicone sealant around the union. No apology or help from canyon so repaired myself.
Fox 38 fork is fantastic but has been sent away for warranty repair as it is sticking on first 20mm of travel after very few hours of work.
So, the bike is great but canyon quality and service leaves something to be desired. Especially considering spending £4.5k on the bike
Assuming Canyon carbon bikes don't all break, whats the catch? Whats the downside? Why would i order a Trek Slash when this has more travel and weighs the same despite having a coil?
@redrook if both bikes have similar wheels, tires, and an air shock with lockout, I don't know if the Slash really would climb meaningfully better. Or any other bike with 150mm of travel.
@Dogl0rd you got me
Current EWS series champion rides a smaller frame size Canyon as they are too long for racing...
Sam Hill once said.... A medium guy is still a medium guy, oieye dont know why these bikes are all getting saaaw long!
Steve Peat rode his old 26er V10 the same speed as his new 29er one (ignore the last marketing run), but with unserviced suspension and old, narrow bars.
Bonus points if they can figure out how to do it so you could make the adjustment tool free in a couple minutes. Imagine you’re in a 3 stage enduro. Stage 1 is kinda flat and has awkward twisty corners (short front end better), Stage 2 is wide open with steep chutes and wide berms (long front end better) then Stage 3 is in the middle.
This is probably impossible but we can dream. And if some company figures this out they can take my money.
Again, it’s probably not realistic. Just my idea of an ideal world (and yes I know there is more to bike fit than frame reach).
You can always find racers who downsized, just like you can find racers who have upsized. Sam Hill, (insert any big name rider with a multi year contract), gets to have a HUGE say on what the production frame size is that the rest of us buy/ride so it would only make sense that he's riding the frame size/geo he thinks he should be on and shouldn't need to upsize...?
How many people have jumped on my old V10 which was an XL back in the 26er days and said it tiny. Bit it did ok for me for the last 6 years at the races.
It's too easy these days to mix up comfortable (those long ass frames) with slow (those long ass frames) for so many riders.
More time and fun is to be had from tighter corners on a nimble bike than going 28mph rather than 27.99mph down a fire road.
Always better to test something and go by GoPro evidence or freelap if you are lucky enough. Never Strava as it's way too inaccurate.
Still a great idea, even if you can't use it mid-race (which wouldn't be a requirement for me anyway).
Ride what is fastest for the conditions!
One statement is a sales pitch
The other fact of what he races.
Remember what his job is, he represents Canyon, only go by what he actually rides
Luckily, as far as mulleting 27.5 bikes goes, the 27.5 alloy Torque is a great candidate. 180mm front travel, so plenty of room to run a 170mm 29er single crown or a 180mm boxxer. The BB is low enough that sticking a 29er on the front could actually help the bike, but still would need an angle set unless you like 63 head angle, which isn't the worst thing in the world for a park bike.
Pro: The bike is capable and fun, not a terrible climber considering that is not its design.
Cons: The chain guide rubs the chain on the lowest gear regardless of adjustment. Canyon we’re no help and sent the same component out again with no dialogue to support. I have installed a one-up guide instead.
The saddle is like sitting on concrete, an ergon saddle has been much better.
The bike arrived from canyon with a blocked brake hose and what looks to be a botched repair by the bike mechanic with silicone sealant around the union. No apology or help from canyon so repaired myself.
Fox 38 fork is fantastic but has been sent away for warranty repair as it is sticking on first 20mm of travel after very few hours of work.
So, the bike is great but canyon quality and service leaves something to be desired. Especially considering spending £4.5k on the bike
I've seen this a couple times now, where websites reviewing the Tourque put out geo numbers different than Canyons website. Their effective TT number for the L is 717mm, which they confirmed to me by email.. but i see this 630mm number thrown around when reviews are done.
So.. whats up with that?? Its not exactly a small discrepancy. A tall person with long longs is NEVER going to get the seat far enough forward for real pedalling if the TT is 717mm. If its 630mm then ok.. but which is it??
Tape measure time Pinkbike...
I'm on a mullet bike running a Wild Enduro out back and it's drifty as he'll even with 454 chainstays and 505mm reach.
I'm looking for a monster truck on a budget cross shopping the Commencal Meta SX but wanted a dual 29r.
No way! What a surprise
Honestly, I expected a DC fork on a bike with this much travel.
vs
"It climbs poorly for a 175mm bike" (unfortunate)
When 435mm in 27 and 448mm in 29 became "a short back end"?
Spesh enduro is 442mm and wasn't consider as short
Demo 29 is 448 is that short?
Sender CFR 29 is 445mm and 435 in mullet
Your beloved balanced and composed Hugene is 445mm and your very best in test Spesh (again) stump EVO is 438-443 in 29
I don't get it?
Are the 453mm Geometron your Benchmark now?
thanks
The question would be what is your best ratio then?
It seems you're aiming for a 1to1 ratio but the longer the chainstays the trickier it is to maneuver the back wheel and the bike, isn'it?
I would enjoy discussing it at some point but I guess it's down to personal preference and riding impression
thanks anyway
best thing it also allows to speak to people remotely!