Review: 2023 Bold Unplugged - Tracloc, Hidden Shock, & Two Smoking Barrels
Bold is a Swiss brand that operates with logistical support from Scott, as well as shared technologies. Remember when all Scott's shocks disappeared inside their frames? Well, a lot of that was undoubtedly due to Scott acquiring a majority share of Bold in 2019. In some ways, it would be easy to pigeonhole Bold as a novelty act, but that would be unfair.
Certainly, it is novel to put the shock out of sight, but it's housed within a frame that is radical in its own right. I've been testing it for the last few months and it's provided a lot of food for thought.
Bold Unplugged Ultimate Details
• Wheel size: 29" front / 29" rear
• Travel: 160 frame / 170mm fork
• Carbon frame
• 63.2 / 64.5-degree head tube angle
• 437 mm chainstays
• Sizes: S / M / L / XL
• 14.9 kg / 35.1 lb
• Complete bike - $10,999 USD
• boldcycles.com
• Wheel size: 29" front / 29" rear
• Travel: 160 frame / 170mm fork
• Carbon frame
• 63.2 / 64.5-degree head tube angle
• 437 mm chainstays
• Sizes: S / M / L / XL
• 14.9 kg / 35.1 lb
• Complete bike - $10,999 USD
• boldcycles.com
Lots of space for a water bottle in the front triangle.
Frame Details
This is a big bike, in more than one sense. Yes, it's a big, 160 mm travel 29er with a 170 mm fork. But it's also got a long reach, a high stack and deep-feeling suspension housed in a big, chunky frame with a big shroud over its big headset assembly.
The bike is a strange mix of some genuinely clever, pragmatic design and some proprietary and convoluted technical features. There is the 1-degree adjustable headset, which I would love to see on more bikes. Headset cups, as opposed to flip chips in the suspension system, make an effective change to slacken the bike, without the effects bleeding into and potentially compromising the seat tube angle. It's not an adjustment in complete isolation, but it's still very effective. There is also a high-low bottom bracket setting to further fine-tune the bike. Although, as stated, this will affect the seat tube. However, on a bike that is already amply steep there is some room to play with. The frame can also accommodate 27.5" or 29" wheels in the rear with the flip of a chip, which is a nice touch.
On the downtube, you'll find a large trap door to access the shock. Here you will also find a multi-tool, inner tube and pump that's housed on a tray within a Save-The-Day Kit. I love internal frame storage, and commend Bold for this. It's there, it's organized and it's quiet. Plus, it would be a crime to strap or tape things to a frame that clearly has seen so much work to cut a clear, uncluttered, and uncomplicated shape.
![photo]()
The rear axle lever also doubles up as a T25, T30, and 6 mm key. Again, I love this. However, for a bike this expensive it would have been nice if they had replaced all the 4 mm Allen interfaces on the cockpit - which is most of them - with T25 bolts. It would mean you had a one-stop shop for all adjustments. As we all know, a T25 will drive a 4 mm but it never feels particularly good doing it.
The headset uses not merely internally routed cables but special spacers and a shroud. This looks fantastic, at least to me, but it does inhibit bar-height experimentation slightly. You have to use a normal circular spacer above the stem and run it without the shroud, which looks, in a word, horrible. However, it's a short-term pain for long-term neatness. The steerer on our test bike came amply long. It's also worth noting that this bike doesn't have routing to support a cable-operated rear mech - so you're baked in to AXS.
![photo]()
This is a big bike, in more than one sense. Yes, it's a big, 160 mm travel 29er with a 170 mm fork. But it's also got a long reach, a high stack and deep-feeling suspension housed in a big, chunky frame with a big shroud over its big headset assembly.
The bike is a strange mix of some genuinely clever, pragmatic design and some proprietary and convoluted technical features. There is the 1-degree adjustable headset, which I would love to see on more bikes. Headset cups, as opposed to flip chips in the suspension system, make an effective change to slacken the bike, without the effects bleeding into and potentially compromising the seat tube angle. It's not an adjustment in complete isolation, but it's still very effective. There is also a high-low bottom bracket setting to further fine-tune the bike. Although, as stated, this will affect the seat tube. However, on a bike that is already amply steep there is some room to play with. The frame can also accommodate 27.5" or 29" wheels in the rear with the flip of a chip, which is a nice touch.
On the downtube, you'll find a large trap door to access the shock. Here you will also find a multi-tool, inner tube and pump that's housed on a tray within a Save-The-Day Kit. I love internal frame storage, and commend Bold for this. It's there, it's organized and it's quiet. Plus, it would be a crime to strap or tape things to a frame that clearly has seen so much work to cut a clear, uncluttered, and uncomplicated shape.
The rear axle lever also doubles up as a T25, T30, and 6 mm key. Again, I love this. However, for a bike this expensive it would have been nice if they had replaced all the 4 mm Allen interfaces on the cockpit - which is most of them - with T25 bolts. It would mean you had a one-stop shop for all adjustments. As we all know, a T25 will drive a 4 mm but it never feels particularly good doing it.
The headset uses not merely internally routed cables but special spacers and a shroud. This looks fantastic, at least to me, but it does inhibit bar-height experimentation slightly. You have to use a normal circular spacer above the stem and run it without the shroud, which looks, in a word, horrible. However, it's a short-term pain for long-term neatness. The steerer on our test bike came amply long. It's also worth noting that this bike doesn't have routing to support a cable-operated rear mech - so you're baked in to AXS.
Geometry
Some features might scream gimmick the geometry says business.
With a bike that has a head tube as slack or slacker than some downhill bikes, plus a considerable 490 mm of reach and a large 644 mm of stack height, this is a bike that loves steeper trails. Throw in the middling to short chainstay length of 435 and that isolates its intentions further.
As we increase the height of our front end, it can mean that we're not only less likely to go over the bars but also we'll find it easier to scoop out weight under the front axle for wheel lifts, as well as put our weight over the rear axle for steeper sections. As you can imagine, it firmly biases the bike towards steeper gradients, where the trail is helping load the front as you push your weight away from the bars, as opposed to flatter turns where rearward weight distribution can give a slightly lighter less positive feeling on the front wheel.
A higher stack height does have other benefits, though, and it can be a way to temper larger reach values and keep the effective top tube in check. Yes, bikes have got bigger in their length overall and wheelbase. As the reaches have swelled, it can sometimes give a stretched-out, superman-like pose while pedaling, especially as you try and keep the front wheel tracking through steeper pitches on bikes. A larger amount of stack can be a tool to raise the contact points in parallel to the steering axis and bring them back towards the rider and more within range as it reduces the effective top tube length. This can, when it is the right window, mean that you can extend and push the bike more instead of being too outstretched.
The seat stays on this bike aren't outrageously short by any means, however, it does make you pause for thought. Good geometry is all about balance. Yes, that may well be subjective to the terrain you are riding. When you have high stack values and head angles of around 63.5-degrees, for anything other than the steepers trails riders might look to longer stays to keep the front weighted.
The things that longer chainstays can achieve is that they can let you have your slack, long geometry, while also letting you apply a lot of your weight through your feet into the center of the bike and onto the front wheel. Conversely, if your stays are too short, and the stack too high and reach too long, it can sometimes feel like you're having to drive the bike with your hands a lot and really focus on deliberately and consciously riding over the front of the bike.
Handily, this bike comes with bags of adjustment, and fine-tuning is very much an option. That said, those dimension changes are based more on angles than reach.
![photo]()
Some features might scream gimmick the geometry says business.
With a bike that has a head tube as slack or slacker than some downhill bikes, plus a considerable 490 mm of reach and a large 644 mm of stack height, this is a bike that loves steeper trails. Throw in the middling to short chainstay length of 435 and that isolates its intentions further.
As we increase the height of our front end, it can mean that we're not only less likely to go over the bars but also we'll find it easier to scoop out weight under the front axle for wheel lifts, as well as put our weight over the rear axle for steeper sections. As you can imagine, it firmly biases the bike towards steeper gradients, where the trail is helping load the front as you push your weight away from the bars, as opposed to flatter turns where rearward weight distribution can give a slightly lighter less positive feeling on the front wheel.
A higher stack height does have other benefits, though, and it can be a way to temper larger reach values and keep the effective top tube in check. Yes, bikes have got bigger in their length overall and wheelbase. As the reaches have swelled, it can sometimes give a stretched-out, superman-like pose while pedaling, especially as you try and keep the front wheel tracking through steeper pitches on bikes. A larger amount of stack can be a tool to raise the contact points in parallel to the steering axis and bring them back towards the rider and more within range as it reduces the effective top tube length. This can, when it is the right window, mean that you can extend and push the bike more instead of being too outstretched.
The seat stays on this bike aren't outrageously short by any means, however, it does make you pause for thought. Good geometry is all about balance. Yes, that may well be subjective to the terrain you are riding. When you have high stack values and head angles of around 63.5-degrees, for anything other than the steepers trails riders might look to longer stays to keep the front weighted.
The things that longer chainstays can achieve is that they can let you have your slack, long geometry, while also letting you apply a lot of your weight through your feet into the center of the bike and onto the front wheel. Conversely, if your stays are too short, and the stack too high and reach too long, it can sometimes feel like you're having to drive the bike with your hands a lot and really focus on deliberately and consciously riding over the front of the bike.
Handily, this bike comes with bags of adjustment, and fine-tuning is very much an option. That said, those dimension changes are based more on angles than reach.
Suspension Design
Perhaps the most obvious question regarding this internal suspension is how to set sag. The system uses a magnet that's driven by the external part of the main pivot that slides it along a marked-out percentage scale. The shock itself, a Fox Float X Nude, is very similar in looks to some of Fox's standard offerings but there are several key differences. Firstly, as you dial through the remote lock-out TracLoc system, it not only increases compression damping on the fly but also reduces the volume of the air spring being used. This means that the bike will not only feel firmer but also will sit higher in its stroke, meaning the angles of the bike will be steeper, namely the seat tube and head angle, which in turn should help keep more weight over the front on climbs.
The shock uses a trunnion mount to secure it to the frame and an eyelet on the rear end for the linkage to drive. The bolt does come thread locked from the factory, however, I did have the lower, active end come loose once which generated a clicking sound. I'm not sure how I feel about bikes that need to be disassembled to check the bolts. It's not the end of the world, but for some people having the remove the trunnion bolts and cycle the rear end to be able to access the lower bolt via a small window might prove tedious.
![photo]()
The assembly for the main pivot has the crank axle running through it. To preload this part to spec requires removing the bottom bracket and torquing it up with a tool that comes with the bike.
Why you might want a bike with an internal shock depends on the owner. For some, aesthetics will merely be enough, but for most people I think they're looking for a bike that rides well, first and foremost, and if they can happen to make it look good then that's just a bonus. Others, of course, will be put off from the start by the added complexity.
![photo]()
Perhaps the most obvious question regarding this internal suspension is how to set sag. The system uses a magnet that's driven by the external part of the main pivot that slides it along a marked-out percentage scale. The shock itself, a Fox Float X Nude, is very similar in looks to some of Fox's standard offerings but there are several key differences. Firstly, as you dial through the remote lock-out TracLoc system, it not only increases compression damping on the fly but also reduces the volume of the air spring being used. This means that the bike will not only feel firmer but also will sit higher in its stroke, meaning the angles of the bike will be steeper, namely the seat tube and head angle, which in turn should help keep more weight over the front on climbs.
The shock uses a trunnion mount to secure it to the frame and an eyelet on the rear end for the linkage to drive. The bolt does come thread locked from the factory, however, I did have the lower, active end come loose once which generated a clicking sound. I'm not sure how I feel about bikes that need to be disassembled to check the bolts. It's not the end of the world, but for some people having the remove the trunnion bolts and cycle the rear end to be able to access the lower bolt via a small window might prove tedious.
The assembly for the main pivot has the crank axle running through it. To preload this part to spec requires removing the bottom bracket and torquing it up with a tool that comes with the bike.
Why you might want a bike with an internal shock depends on the owner. For some, aesthetics will merely be enough, but for most people I think they're looking for a bike that rides well, first and foremost, and if they can happen to make it look good then that's just a bonus. Others, of course, will be put off from the start by the added complexity.
Test Bike Setup
Setting up the Bold felt like quite a protracted experience. That was for two reasons.
Firstly, I struggled for some time to get the bike to track when climbing as I wished. It felt too firm to follow the contours of the ground even in its fully open setting with the low-speed compression adjustment fully open. To try and get a better feel, I experimented with more volume spacers in the shock while also running it at lower pressure. However, this presented several problems. Firstly, how difficult the air-can is to remove and install. I eventually settled on removing the circlip, placing it in a backpack and inflating it until it popped. Then, once the can was removed, you'll find out that even though they look exactly like Fox X2 volume spacers in nearly every way, they're actually about 1mm different in their dimensions, meaning they won't fit.
Setting up the Bold felt like quite a protracted experience. That was for two reasons.
Firstly, I struggled for some time to get the bike to track when climbing as I wished. It felt too firm to follow the contours of the ground even in its fully open setting with the low-speed compression adjustment fully open. To try and get a better feel, I experimented with more volume spacers in the shock while also running it at lower pressure. However, this presented several problems. Firstly, how difficult the air-can is to remove and install. I eventually settled on removing the circlip, placing it in a backpack and inflating it until it popped. Then, once the can was removed, you'll find out that even though they look exactly like Fox X2 volume spacers in nearly every way, they're actually about 1mm different in their dimensions, meaning they won't fit.
Location: Squamish
Age: 31
Height: 183 cm / 6'
Inseam: 82 cm / 32.5"
Weight: 81 kg / 178 lbs
Industry affiliations / sponsors: None
Once you wrestle the air can back on, which I found was done best using a soft-jaw-equipped vice, you can then fit the shock back into the bike. This isn't too difficult, but I do think that the frame should come with some kind of trim around the edge of the downtube hole. I cut my thumbs and fingers on it once or twice, which wasn't great. It also begins to look tatty and lifting the lacquer very early on which is disappointing. There is the same problem around the shock-bolt window. It is hard not to scuff it up. This is something that on a bike as expensive as this isn't as good as I would hope. It at times can feel like a half-baked version of luxury.
It's also worth not removing the cable from the compression dial, but actually removing the whole dial via the small steel grub screw when tinkering with the shock. I think this is preferable because it stops you from going through a cable every time you wish to work on the bike, which is very tedious.
Once I was back on the trail, though, I found that decreasing the volume of the shock still didn't give me the precise feel I wanted. It helped tracking slightly, but it also meant that the initial part of the stroke was very unstable and it felt like you were falling through the first half of the travel before hitting the wall of support. After this, I went back to the drawing board. I eventually ended up running my bars slightly lower and the flip cheap in its high setting, with the headset cups in slack. This chip steepens the head angle by 0.4-degrees.
This helped in two regards. It helped me hook my weight onto the front when climbing more, but it also meant that with more weight over the front, the shock was less preloaded by my mass and extended into holes better. It also had the added benefit of feeling like my weight was more central on all but the steepest descents and I feel better rounded the bike's capabilities.
The Ohlins RFX 38 is a fork I'm familiar with and I ran it with 140 psi in the main chamber and 200 in the ramp-up. Although this is a little outside of the 1:2 ratio Ohlins suggests, I feel it gives me a very controlled fork that, while happy to go deep into its stroke, also provides a lot of composure. I run both compression adjustments open. The shock was set up with 190 psi and its stock 2-volume spacers. I ran the compression adjustment fully open.
Climbing
Once I dialed in the setup and adjustments of the bike, I got it into a place where I was pretty happy with how it climbed. That said, I still think it could be more supple in the open mode. I believe that if you're going to make a bike that is underpinned with a remote lockout system, then you should offer three distinct feelings. In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to a super-soft setting for tech climbs, a middle mode that ramps up the compression for descending, and a full locked-out mode. It might be slightly more convoluted for your casual rider but it could be a way to maximise the system.
As it stands, the Bold is a decent climbing bike and a very efficient system. However, I think the remote is more about the fact that the shock is concealed and a standard-issue climb switch isn't an option more than it is about this system working best with a climb switch. You could take the wires out and leave this bike in fully-open the whole time and still have a bike that climbs perfectly well.
This system would be great with the ground-hugging grip of a coil, which doesn't fit the frame. It would benefit from less pressure with the stock volume spacers to give more distinction between the modes, but if you ride this bike in the same way I did you'll find it's already in a happy place with how much travel you're using, and you certainly wouldn't want to go through the stroke any easier. If you drop the pressure and increase the amount of volume spacers, as previously mentioned, it ushers in a feeling of instability as you break into the travel and then hit the support of the mid-stroke.
![photo]()
![photo]()
This bike definitely climbs better in its steeper-chip mode, although the biggest difference for me was putting the bars lower. As stated at the start of this section, this bike that I'm happy with how it climbs, I just feel they could do more to maximize the concept. I did dabble with the bike in its steeper headset setting, too. While it improved the climbing further, weighting the front even more, for me it wasn't a large enough gain to trade off the compromise in stability on the descents.
![photo]()
Once I dialed in the setup and adjustments of the bike, I got it into a place where I was pretty happy with how it climbed. That said, I still think it could be more supple in the open mode. I believe that if you're going to make a bike that is underpinned with a remote lockout system, then you should offer three distinct feelings. In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to a super-soft setting for tech climbs, a middle mode that ramps up the compression for descending, and a full locked-out mode. It might be slightly more convoluted for your casual rider but it could be a way to maximise the system.
As it stands, the Bold is a decent climbing bike and a very efficient system. However, I think the remote is more about the fact that the shock is concealed and a standard-issue climb switch isn't an option more than it is about this system working best with a climb switch. You could take the wires out and leave this bike in fully-open the whole time and still have a bike that climbs perfectly well.
This system would be great with the ground-hugging grip of a coil, which doesn't fit the frame. It would benefit from less pressure with the stock volume spacers to give more distinction between the modes, but if you ride this bike in the same way I did you'll find it's already in a happy place with how much travel you're using, and you certainly wouldn't want to go through the stroke any easier. If you drop the pressure and increase the amount of volume spacers, as previously mentioned, it ushers in a feeling of instability as you break into the travel and then hit the support of the mid-stroke.
This bike definitely climbs better in its steeper-chip mode, although the biggest difference for me was putting the bars lower. As stated at the start of this section, this bike that I'm happy with how it climbs, I just feel they could do more to maximize the concept. I did dabble with the bike in its steeper headset setting, too. While it improved the climbing further, weighting the front even more, for me it wasn't a large enough gain to trade off the compromise in stability on the descents.
Descending
I love interesting bikes, and this Bold is a very interesting prospect. Can it ride well enough to ward off the gimmick-skeptics? Can it cash the promise of its aggressive geometry and translate that to a bike that genuinely thrives in the steep? In a word, yes, but it's more complicated than that.
The more you give this bike, and the more you commit to the front the more that it will reward you. That, for good and bad, will make some people absolutely love it and leave some people in no man's land as they struggle to get enough traction on the front wheel to make it feel positive through turns.
Its raked-out long geometry excels at higher speeds. In fact, a combination of geometry and a suspension system that shrugs off big hits means that this bike thrives on fast chunder when ridden with a straight-talking riding style. While finesse isn't off the menu, and its rear end gives this bike a decent amount of maneuverability for last-minute choices as the trail comes rushing towards you, it's definitely an eyes-up, heels-down type of bike that loves to be pushed hard with little regard for its own well being. The suspension does a great job of giving a controlled stable platform through the roughest tracks, meaning that even when the bike is going deep off drops or battering rocks, it doesn't really suffer from being pushed around. The suspension also does a fantastic job of smoothing out bottom-outs really very well. These characteristics mate up very nicely with the Ohlins bolted on the front of the bike, too.
![photo]()
The position of the bike keeps you balanced on secure as you drop into steeper turns, too. That said, the shock that conquers all that is rough perhaps could do with being a little more accommodating as you roll through jank. Suspension is always a trade-off, and this is a system that gives you so much when you're going quickly and stomachs one high-velocity hit after another, but it does mean it's slightly less forgiving when it comes to slow-paced tech. That said, every system has its compromises. This isn't so much a drawback, as much as it is a flavor.
When turning the bike, I still feel that geometry this aggressive would do well to be balanced out with a longer rear end. You do fall into line, and eventually find yourself really loading your inside hand through turns as you try and keep the bike heading where you want it. However, sometimes this can be both fatiguing and require conscious thought. What you do put in does come back to you with interest and the more your ride this bike by the scruff of the neck the more it will thank you.
On the brakes, it feels quite neutral. Plus, your ability to brace against the high front with all your might does mean that it is efficient with a muted calm style. The mass transfer isn't pronounced, and it feels as if your weight is handled without question by the shock.
![photo]()
In the low bottom bracket setting, which is also slacker, it is a slightly different story. Firstly, you do feel just that bit more likely to wash the front. I don't believe this is just down to mere weight distribution, but also as you get on the brakes that lower BB combined with less weight on the front can leave your weight swinging through the cranks and overwhelming the front tire on looser terrain. It's not a big deal, but it's an inconsistency I would rather do without. Plus, its 63.6-degree setting in the high mode is amply slack for me. Maybe if I was riding exclusively steep trails then I would revisit the slacker setting, but in Squamish, I found that for descending and climbing the high setting is preferred.
I love interesting bikes, and this Bold is a very interesting prospect. Can it ride well enough to ward off the gimmick-skeptics? Can it cash the promise of its aggressive geometry and translate that to a bike that genuinely thrives in the steep? In a word, yes, but it's more complicated than that.
The more you give this bike, and the more you commit to the front the more that it will reward you. That, for good and bad, will make some people absolutely love it and leave some people in no man's land as they struggle to get enough traction on the front wheel to make it feel positive through turns.
Its raked-out long geometry excels at higher speeds. In fact, a combination of geometry and a suspension system that shrugs off big hits means that this bike thrives on fast chunder when ridden with a straight-talking riding style. While finesse isn't off the menu, and its rear end gives this bike a decent amount of maneuverability for last-minute choices as the trail comes rushing towards you, it's definitely an eyes-up, heels-down type of bike that loves to be pushed hard with little regard for its own well being. The suspension does a great job of giving a controlled stable platform through the roughest tracks, meaning that even when the bike is going deep off drops or battering rocks, it doesn't really suffer from being pushed around. The suspension also does a fantastic job of smoothing out bottom-outs really very well. These characteristics mate up very nicely with the Ohlins bolted on the front of the bike, too.
The position of the bike keeps you balanced on secure as you drop into steeper turns, too. That said, the shock that conquers all that is rough perhaps could do with being a little more accommodating as you roll through jank. Suspension is always a trade-off, and this is a system that gives you so much when you're going quickly and stomachs one high-velocity hit after another, but it does mean it's slightly less forgiving when it comes to slow-paced tech. That said, every system has its compromises. This isn't so much a drawback, as much as it is a flavor.
When turning the bike, I still feel that geometry this aggressive would do well to be balanced out with a longer rear end. You do fall into line, and eventually find yourself really loading your inside hand through turns as you try and keep the bike heading where you want it. However, sometimes this can be both fatiguing and require conscious thought. What you do put in does come back to you with interest and the more your ride this bike by the scruff of the neck the more it will thank you.
On the brakes, it feels quite neutral. Plus, your ability to brace against the high front with all your might does mean that it is efficient with a muted calm style. The mass transfer isn't pronounced, and it feels as if your weight is handled without question by the shock.
In the low bottom bracket setting, which is also slacker, it is a slightly different story. Firstly, you do feel just that bit more likely to wash the front. I don't believe this is just down to mere weight distribution, but also as you get on the brakes that lower BB combined with less weight on the front can leave your weight swinging through the cranks and overwhelming the front tire on looser terrain. It's not a big deal, but it's an inconsistency I would rather do without. Plus, its 63.6-degree setting in the high mode is amply slack for me. Maybe if I was riding exclusively steep trails then I would revisit the slacker setting, but in Squamish, I found that for descending and climbing the high setting is preferred.
Bold Unplugged
Transition Spire
How Does It Compare?
How does this bike compare against my long-term loaner and test mule Transition Spire? In some ways they're so similar, in other ways, they're quite different.
The main differences, that has a large effect on the bike, is simply the length of the rear center and high stack of the Bold. It sounds silly as each measurement is only 10mm difference, but I really believe it to have a pronounced effect on the bike. The Spire feels a lot more neutral, and your weight is more centered, on both climbs and descents.
The Bold does have the novelty of the TracLoc switch, but as I've discussed I don't think they've made the most of this system and would say that while it may be slightly more efficient than the Spire on tarmac slogs, it's not particularly difficult to flick a switch if you really want that support. The Spire has more grip on the technical climbs and tends to break into its stroke easier. Its effective top tube is also short and it feels easier to manipulate your weight on.
The Bold perhaps has the edge when it comes to repeated hits, but that is also a tale of two halves depending on which shock you have in the Spire. Compared to the stock Rockshox Super Deluxe that came on the build originally, the Bold is far far ahead. However, whereas the Super Deluxe could sometimes wallow through the mid-stroke, the Ohlins shock currently on there suffers no such issue.
Prices in USD.
Which Model is the Best Value?
Saying any of these bikes are good value is a real stretch. Although the Ultimate, which has a price well north of ten thousand dollars, has a great spec it's not perfect, either. The cheaper Pro model sees that spec drop off quite substantially. A Performance 38 and SLX brakes, while very good, are solid mid-level components and for over eight thousand USD you would hope for me.
I could never justify buying a frame for as much as I can get a well-functioning bike so I haven't entertained that option too much. Although not great value, I would probably go for the Pro build and look at slotting in a GRIP2 damper should you need the adjustment (although you may well not).
![photo]()
Saying any of these bikes are good value is a real stretch. Although the Ultimate, which has a price well north of ten thousand dollars, has a great spec it's not perfect, either. The cheaper Pro model sees that spec drop off quite substantially. A Performance 38 and SLX brakes, while very good, are solid mid-level components and for over eight thousand USD you would hope for me.
I could never justify buying a frame for as much as I can get a well-functioning bike so I haven't entertained that option too much. Although not great value, I would probably go for the Pro build and look at slotting in a GRIP2 damper should you need the adjustment (although you may well not).
Technical Report
Ohlins TTX 38: The Ohlins forks, in my experience, lean towards a more damped feel, and do less of the duties through their spring. This gives a fork that can often go deep into its stroke and prioritizes chassis stability over geometry conservation. This teams up so well with the feeling of the rear suspension and, although that rear shock is made by Fox, the two complement one another well.
Maxxis Tires EXO+: I don't understand the conversation that happened with this bike. Ultra progressive geometry and a 170 mm fork with... Exo+ Minions DHF on the front and rear? It seems strange to me. This bike deserves thicker casings and, when something is this expensive, the customer shouldn't be expected to swap tires straight from the off. I like the DHF, but it seems an obvious miss to me.
Shimano XTR Four-Pot Brakes: I love the XTR brakes, and have found the four pots to offer great power and modulation. Plus, they seem less prone to the wandering bite point that irks many. That said I, again, don't understand the logic of speccing a 180 mm rotor on the rear of this bike. It seems to be a complete disconnect with how the bike was designed. I'm not saying that brakes weren't powerful enough, but in summer months and long runs incoming, I think the extra power and heat management of a bigger rotor is a no-brainer.
Syncross Revelstoke Alloy Wheels: For such a light alloy wheelset, these do a solid job of supporting the rider and resisting impacts. That said, I think they could be further protected with the aforementioned thicker casings. All the Syncros kit on the bike was great. The long 200mm drop seat post was also very appreciated, as was the integrated storage and repair kit.
Ohlins TTX 38: The Ohlins forks, in my experience, lean towards a more damped feel, and do less of the duties through their spring. This gives a fork that can often go deep into its stroke and prioritizes chassis stability over geometry conservation. This teams up so well with the feeling of the rear suspension and, although that rear shock is made by Fox, the two complement one another well.
Maxxis Tires EXO+: I don't understand the conversation that happened with this bike. Ultra progressive geometry and a 170 mm fork with... Exo+ Minions DHF on the front and rear? It seems strange to me. This bike deserves thicker casings and, when something is this expensive, the customer shouldn't be expected to swap tires straight from the off. I like the DHF, but it seems an obvious miss to me.
Shimano XTR Four-Pot Brakes: I love the XTR brakes, and have found the four pots to offer great power and modulation. Plus, they seem less prone to the wandering bite point that irks many. That said I, again, don't understand the logic of speccing a 180 mm rotor on the rear of this bike. It seems to be a complete disconnect with how the bike was designed. I'm not saying that brakes weren't powerful enough, but in summer months and long runs incoming, I think the extra power and heat management of a bigger rotor is a no-brainer.
Syncross Revelstoke Alloy Wheels: For such a light alloy wheelset, these do a solid job of supporting the rider and resisting impacts. That said, I think they could be further protected with the aforementioned thicker casings. All the Syncros kit on the bike was great. The long 200mm drop seat post was also very appreciated, as was the integrated storage and repair kit.
Pros
+ Efficient climber
+ Excellent support through heavy, repeated hits
+ Integration looks great
+ The stored repair-kit in the downtube is brilliant
+ Will shine under aggressive riders
Cons
- Weight only really feels centered on steeper terrain
- Can feel unwieldy, and won't reward those who don't commit to the front
- Expensive
- Working on the shock proved frustrating
Pinkbike's Take
 | Bold has made something very commendable with the Unplugged 160. However, I'm still not exactly sure who will be the kind of rider to buy this bike. To ride it, it's set up for the rowdiest riders who want something to boost higher and charge harder, but are they the same group that wants internal everything and added complication? Maybe not. This bike also offers geometry and support that demands a firm touch. It doesn't reward an easygoing riding style or easygoing trails. It yearns for steep, rough trails and to a committed riding style, and maybe the group of riders who place form over function might not be flattered by this bike. In some ways, I kind of respect this approach. This bike is gorgeous, and once I finally got it set up it felt like it came alive. Although I'm not on board with the internal shock or the remote lockout, I am convinced that Bold has created a genuine work of art that you happen to be able to ride flat out down the gnarliest mountains, and that I can't help but admire. This bike is one for the connoisseurs and those that can appreciate both demanding riding and the finer things in life, even if it isn't without compromise. |
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
I had my Spark going through the worst possible winter and spring muck and is remarkable how smooth everything still is. I'm surprised to say this, but it has been the most fit and forget winter full suspension I ever had
my shock and fork get a lot of grit each ride and honestly performs best 10-20h service intervals (which i dont do
to be fair this depends a lot on the design too, some shock placements are better than others.
The issue is the price. I can see boutique manufacturers upcharging because if bring something innovative to the table, but $6000 for a frame that does nothing better is just a scam.
Of course, you can't really blame the companies because there is a whole market of people with money ready to spend it on the next "best" thing.
Shock: 'Course you will, sweet'eart.
Mechanic: I'll find ya.
Shock: What do you think this is, f*cking hide and seek?
These are concepts that already exist in other sports, so it's silly to completely redesign a frame to give the same effect as a piece of cloth/rubber.
It's like those rubber fork covers: they keep some dirt out, but because you don't see the stanchions, you'll not see the dirt when it does inevitably gets in, and you're too late cleaning it before it damages the fork.
But really, people don’t realize the abuse their shocks go through when it comes to contamination. The amount of damper bodies I see with scoring (big air loss risk) caused by a little bit of grit getting in the wiper is wild. I would love to have a hidden shock
Dude, your shock looks soooo maximal
Beautiful.
Like I can be convinced of a shorter CS on a "fun" trailbike or hardtail, but why on earth would a bike with 140mm or more of travel have tiny chainstays on the medium and above sizes? If you think they dont turn as well, im sorry but you need to change your technique.
I ride size large bikes are they all feel pitched forward over 440 length.
Different sizes = more production cost that the more popular sizes have to cover, which is Medium and large - chainstay tax, no thanks.
if you think you can ride so well enough to Require a long back end, whats your name ill be looking for it on the WC DH list, top 20 easy i assume?
If you feel pitched over the front I would say the problem there is too low of stack, which is another issue I see with most bikes. At 5'10" I am not a tall guy, but I still have 40mm of spacers under my stem, otherwise I feel super hunched over the bars. V1 Transition Sentinel is the bike, its CS is also too short.
My Geometron you can adjust pretty much everything including seatstay length.
Or go custom with something like an Atherton?
I bet there are options out there for you. Whether it's worth spending the money for a new frame is what is actually up for debate!
Sorry ahead of time for the giant essay, but I've been shouting this into the void for a while now and I think this review really got me wanting to share.
TLDR: Chain stay length isn't to blame for too much rearward bias, it is too little stack height.
First, a caveat: I'm a lanky 6'2" and so definitely squarely in the XL frame size market... so my perspectives on stack might not scale to smaller riders on smaller bikes *we could ask @sebstott to do some math*
I have found, after many, many adjustments to my set up, that one of the most important ways to influence and improve the ability to weight the front and improve front wheel grip is by raising my bars. It sounds strange, and I get where the *idea* of lower bars lending to more front biased weight comes from (it makes intuitive sense), but the reality is that having a nice high stack on the bars allows me to push the front both harder (as in: put more weight on the front axle), and with less effort (as in: more quickly and intuitively shift my weight from back to front).
Like this: Stand facing a wall with your feet 2.5ish feet away from it and try to push into the wall as hard as you can with both hands somewhere around chest height. Note where your hips move when you really give it some umph. Then, without moving your feet, try pushing equally as hard but this time with your hands lower on the wall (somewhere around belly button height) and note how much more drastically your hips move... they go way BACKWARDS. With your hands reasonably high on the wall, it is much easier to push hard with your whole core engaged and your hips don't actually move much, while getting your shoulders braced for stability with your hands low on the wall requires you to move your hips way back.
I found that on my XL bikes with 25mm rise bars and 10mm of spacers I was having a hard time weighting the front, especially when the terrain got more technical and demanded more dynamic upper body strength (chunky or even buff but bermy and steep trails). As I braced myself and put some power through my shoulders and arms (in an attempt to force the front end into the ground for more traction) I was actually forcing my hips way further out the back, adding to the sensation of an unweighted front end. And what's worse, to get back into the right stance for bunny hops, pumping transitions, or otherwise dynamically playing with the front end, I'd have a relatively long journey for my hips to get back to centered above the BB (where they should be)
Now I'm running goofy 50mm risers with 20mm spacers under my stem and it is night and day compared to my old set up. With my new higher front end I can really push the bars while keeping my hips much more centrally weighted over the BB, and since they are already there my bike is much more playful because I'm always set up to pop and pump my front end, even when its gnarly and I'm really givn'er with my upper body.
I love my short chainstays (438mm on my 506mm reach canyon Spectral) and I don't think they have all that much to do with my ability to find the center of my wheelbase. Just took getting my stack nice and high to figure it out. I have plenty of ride time in on both a Banshee and a Pole (both have long chain stays) and I think the long stays do contribute to a feeling of stability (a trade off to "playfulness" ) but don't really make the difference on front wheel traction.
P.s. I love yer work bruh!
But... just to stick with the theme of over thinking and over explaining in my first post...
1) As far as climbing goes:
----------a) 90% of my rides are on very steep fire road climbs with very steep plummets back down. I don't get to do a lot of tech climbing or even much pedaling up single track- I do all my rides where the climb is the fun part on my xc hardtail so take my perspectives on climbing with a grain of salt.
----------b) That being said, when I do ride the handful of local trails with proper pedaling on technically challenging terrain, they are in the areas with less extreme gradients... and on theses less than super steep climbs I don't find my higher bars limit my technical ability. On proper steep tech climbs I think higher bars are less than ideal, no mater the length of your chainstays.
---------c) The Banshee and Pole with the longer rear centers did "winch" up the tricky steep tech better, and I think that has more to do with the added stability from the long rear ends (which as I said in my first post is noticeable when descending on those bikes too) but the stability is a trade off to the "playful" feeling of shorter stays and that short rears can bring more ease to being precise with front and rear wheel placement.
2) I think one of the most important factors of my harping on about stack is pretty specific to taller riders. I Don't know if my stack to reach ratio is really all that "mega" compared to what smaller bikes with smaller riders are on. Like I said in my original post, I am not taking the time to crunch stack/reach and stack/cs ratios (I think @seb-stott has tackled this a bit) but I have put my set up into that mad scientist calculator and while my RAD measurement is bigger than the creator (Lee likes bikes?) guy says it should be, but my RAAD angle is only just edging into the bottom range for "trail riding". I'm 6'2" and riding a 506reach/ 640 stack Canyon Spectral with 64deg HA and 20mm of spacers under my 6deg stem with 50mm rise bars and the cs length is 438 (which I guess isn't super short, but my previous bike had 435CS and I've ridden a few bikes with 450+ so I do have a bit of perspective on how the cs length affects feel). How this scales to a 5'10" rider on a size large with 20mm of spacers and 30 or 35mm rise bars is probably a pretty important piece of the picture, which I haven't taken the time to figure out because it doesn't really affect me. As an XL rider, I think we are often riding bikes with WAY shorter rear ends (relative to the front end) and way lower front ends (relative to reach and our body proportions) than more average riders.
3) I realize this whole discussion is a bit pedantic, but all I'm really trying to say is calling out chain stay length as the culprit of poor front (or rear) wheel traction on modern bikes with long reaches and slack head angles is in accurate. Yes, I think longer chain stays feel more stable while shorter chain stays feel more nimble (probably pretty universally agreeable), but I feel strongly that weight distribution and front/rear traction dynamics are defined a lot more by stack/ reach ratio than by front center/ rear center ratio (which seems to be becoming a scapegoat in reviews of long, slack bikes).
To me it seems like what is happening is that riders like Henry (and Alecia in the case of her Digit Datum review... although I'd have to revisit that one, maybe I'm remembering her comments incorrectly) are finding themselves on slack frames with longer reaches than they are used to and riding them with the same bar stack they would a smaller bike. I think it is the shorter stack that is causing the front wheel to be underweighted, not the short chain stays. Sure, longer chain stays could help a bit with rear center/ front center weight distribution, but that is kind of the wrong way solve the problem and forces all of us onto bikes that are longer between the wheels then they *need* to be.
I say bike geo should use stack/ reach ratio and BB height to dial in the weight balance for a bikes given intent (lower stack to reach= more climby trail bikes and higher stack= more gravity oriented terrain) and then dial in stability/ playfulness tradeoff with chain stay length (shorter= more nimble for jibbing, jumping, pumping or tighter terrain with lots of dynamic direction changes and longer= more plow, up or down the hill).
Apologies again for talking too much! Clearly I am not a journalist and I have no grasp on clarity or brevity LOL
2) Would love to see PB take a SJEvo S4 and test with both the S4 and the S5 CS's. Would be fun to read a review and the S4 isn't even that unbalanced compared to some bikes (i.e., 432mm CS on the new Levo SL, for example).
3) The shock removal bit in the video was a missed opportunity to have HQ dressed like an Obstetrician yelling 'push...', then panning to a sweaty Levy with a hair net saying 'I really wanted a coil' when HQ handed him his new bundle of joy. Anyways.
Physics have not changed and pedaling 15Kg/35lbs uphill is hard. Why on earth would I get this (at $11,000 plus!) when I can get an e-MTB for less money and just a couple of Kgs more?
Henry what? A more damped fork and you claimed it will go deeper into it's travel? You do realize that's not true unless you run a softer spring but that's your choice and not the fork
I've used the fork with more compression - but it's worth remembering that there is still plenty of damping - I just prefer to add it if needed, rather than reliant on it from my base setting.
For example, I would like to know more about the rear wheel axle path on this bike. Merely looking at the BB pivot where the chainstays are attached, it would appear the rear end will grow under compression (the fact the bike goes well on harder, rooty terrain would probably point this as at least probable?). If this is to be correct, wouldn't this somewhat explain why the rear stays are not as long in a static sag measurement (geo sheet) as some other 4bar, etc bikes?
While I do agree the specific shock+lever setup may be polarising and a limiting factor regarding future customisation, I feel the latter part of the article drives my point home as it appears you found the suspension/bike performance was not lacking on the trail.
Make a full sus bike that looks like a hardtail? Nope, still looks like a full sus bike.
Hide as many parts as possible, for that clean shaved look? I don't hate cables and shocks that much, I don't think many people do.
Make a regular mountain bike look like an ebike? Oh wait, yup, we can check that one off.
my point being, crank up the lsc good and just enough of hsc to give you a bit of a platform and you basically get an all mountain bike. you don't even need to open up the compression on the downs unless you want your bike a bit more lively, but controlled is probably faster.
It flops at slow speeds, sure. The product of the geometric trail and speed is what directly counters the floppiness, and if you keep speed on the climb, which you can much better with overall longer bikes, the wheel stays straight. Likewise, wider bars also make the front end easier to control.
The best technical climbing bikes (in terms of ease of tackling the climb filled with rocks and roots), are Pole and Geometron bikes, specifically because of their steep seat tube angle and rear ends, despite having downhill head angles.
marketing team: "lets just call it: optimized for single speed builds and noone will notice.."
It's come to this.
Could be out of place here, but its well done.
2023 KTM SX 350 F - $9,899 (local dealer new)
2023 Bold Unplugged Ultimate - $10,999
What in the hell's hell is this thing with the autoplay... !?
To gain a few more views every time we open the page... really... !?
p.s.: do you approve of DD casing thickness?
Thanks.
Bye.
The cover should be carbon and the same color like the frame !
I’m still chasing down that balanced trail bike
XXL is 454 CS- 530 reach
To actually answer your question I designed my own frame and had it welded by Egerie in France. I went this route as it wasn't that expensive and no frames on the market were ticking all the boxes for me. The only frames that would offer a ratio that I like at SAG would be HP bikes but I had some experience with those and while they offer some advantages I find that they tend to have some unwanted behaviors at the worst of times. Since I didn't want an idler pulley as I want one bike for Park and Enduro this close the case for the few frames that could have worked for me.
We all vary, by quite a bit actually, the "one size fits most" prolly isnt even true. Most medium shirts are way too tight in the chest for me, but fit great in the shoulders, I've got short as hell legs too, so most mtb pants dont work well.
The good thing is theres loads of choice out there, so you try and try and try till you find what works best for you. Just cause youre 6' tall, doesnt mean you have a 34" inseam
Super cool that you had a bike welded up for yourself, use what makes for you, or make it if it doesnt exist
But I'm glad you've found a formula that works for you. There's nothing more fun than a bike that fits you perfectly.
@onawalk I agree with you not everyone is the same and I like what Atherton are doing with their sizing as they take into consideration upper body and lower body size. Now standard manufacturing can't do that but like I said, keeping the balance as consistent as possible between sizes would make sense. You could still have bikes with a front length bias, or rear length bias, like you said different bikes for different people, but consistency amongst sizes for once given frame would make sense to me. In the ski world you can have skis with long tips and short tails or the opposite but this will remain true for all sizes of a given ski.