Descending The Chilcotin 170 is a far better-sorted bike compared to its predecessor. The lengthened rear and shorter reach (of the medium on test) gives it a more settled ride, one that is also happier to play into the main strength of the bike - excellent tracking. The rider's weight is more centered, and you don't have to ride as aggressively to get the bike to do what you want it to. It's gone from a bike that you had to extract performance from to a bike that gives it without hesitation.
With the air shock, I think this bike is too progressive, but with the coil option it sits very near the sweet spot. Sometimes you can ride a bike and not really know where it is in the stroke because wherever you are has sensitivity, grip and support. That is the case with the Knolly. It's a very confidence-inspiring bike when set up correctly and handles fast rough trails unbelievably well. In its element, it's one of the easiest bikes I've ridden in a long time through rough sections of trail and begins to justify the added complication over a standard four-bar.
Cornering is solid, too. The slack-enough geometry will give you the stability and security you need on true downhill tracks but is also very easy to weight and find grip on through turns. The bike is also amply stiff when carving turns. That said, I did notice the front threatening to wash slightly in the Slack mode. Plus, it makes the leverage ratio more progressive still. In short, I found the bike to work best in the steeper geometry setting.
Part of its easy-mannered cornering aspects stem from its vertical rear axle path. It's incredibly predictable, and it really feels as if you can let the bike run and know exactly where and when the bike will use its travel. The lack of excessive chain growth also makes for a bike that is incredibly neutral through the feet without the complications of an idler. It feels very centered and lets you run through things and feel engaged with the trail yet isolated from the noise of hitting rocks and roots as hard as you can.
It's not all sunshine and rainbows, though. While this bike does track excellently and gives a neutral feeling that I really enjoy, it does tend to hang up when braking. That means riding it on fast, rough trails becomes more involved as you have to choose your moments to apply hard braking more carefully. Is this a worthy trade off? It's really hard to say. On trails that feature high-frequency chatter, absolutely. But when you're trying to slow the bike down over square edges you will find yourself punishing your rim or rear tire.
I don't know if this could be lessened with a higher value of anti-rise (the Knolly is low-to-middling at around 50%, where I tend to prefer things around 80%+). The tendency for the shock to feel like it wants to extend under braking means that you'll put your rear wheel through a lot of potential damage. I'm constantly hitting the rim on this bike with downhill tires at around 25 psi. It's something you can get used to to a degree, but it also means you have to consider how and when you will brake, which isn't always easy. I also snapped the shock bolt during testing and I wonder if this could be attributed to hanging up hard and often.
Knolly explained that they felt this bike represented real progress for the Chilcotin, and I absolutely agree. I would love to see these changes go even further, though. An additional half-dozen millimetres on the chainstay and a slightly less hardline braking character would make this bike potentially exceptional. I'm not opposed to the vertical axle path, and at times very much enjoyed it, but the combination of high-progressivity and a tendency to hang up means that the descending characteristics of the Chilcotin could be something of an acquired taste, and might punish those, such as myself, who have a more muted, heels-down-eyes-up style.
MTB forums looked like this: web.archive.org/web/19961111144106/www.mtbr.com
Just the latest Canyon Strive, tried the Medium on the shortest reach configuration (470 reach ) and the Small felt way better with the long reach configuration at 455.
If instead the see an S1, S2, S3, S4... yes they will still look at the geo, which is what they should do, but they'll actually pick a size that fits what they want vs getting hung up on a "Large" being too big or having to move down to a "Medium".
Knolly never made a small for the previous gen Chilcotin... really, they still don't. Instead they make an M, L, XL & XXL... or Sizes 1, 2 , 3, 4.
I've been able to ride confortably bike with 490mm reach. You need to revise your cockpit and longer chainstay definetly help with front end traction, but wait a little bit before defining an ideal reach.
People are focused on reach only, but not using other measurements to put bike fit into the correct context:
Look at our Endorphin, also just recently launched. Reach for various Endorphin sizes is:
S4 (Large) is 490mm
S3 (Medium) is 465mm
S2 (Small) is 440mm.
The Endorphin sizes fits the same as the Chilcotin: the difference is that Endorphin's effective seat tube angle is slightly slacker and the frame is designed to run a stem that is - on average - aboutr 5-10mm longer than the Chilcotin. However, as far as the rider is concerned, the fit between both bikes is similar even though the reach measurements are ~20mm difference between models.
Reach needs to be looked at with at least the ETT (Effective Top Tube Length), ESTA (Effective Seat Tube Angle) and also the stack a little bit. The Endorphin comfortably fits riders as small as 4'11" with stock parts in size S1 (X-Small): who says we're not looking after smaller sized riders! Just wait to you see what we launch in a couple of months: big travel, wide range of sizes for riders down to the low 5' range
Again, my preference is for shorter reaches and longer chainstays. But I'm not so egotistical to think my approach is the only way. A 5'1" reviewer on NSMB rode the shorter travel endorphin in a XS. I would not call her a noob. nsmb.com/articles/knolly-endorphin
On slow tech steeps, there is a totally reasonable argument to be made for short chainstays and long reach, as long as you have a dialed bar height (typically taller) and sufficiently slack head angle. Saddle position is irrelevant bc you're out of the saddle. Similarly on steep tech climbs there's a reasonable argument for long reach and steep seat angles (albeit less of one for the short chainstays). Finally, riders can have very different riding styles even on the same trail and still be fast, comfortable and in control. Some prefer a heavily weighted front end with low stack heights, some centered and taller, some even rear biased - even at a pro level.
Is it perhaps possible that other non-noob people are shaped differently than you, ride different terrain than you, and have different riding styles than you? There is no one right answer. At least not yet.
My my, that is a long arse bike!
On my trails, I'd have to hop a few times to make an uphill turn or stop and pick the bike up
My alu Norco Sight, was 38lbs,
My alu Transition Sentinel, 38 lbs
My Knolly Fugitive (admittedly with lighter wheels/tires, but CushCore XC and a Fox 36) 34ish lbs
Buddies alu Spire 38lbs
Its just where bikes tend to end up when you ride the terrain here
Henry's "as pictured" weight does have the DH Casing tires and coil on it for the 37lbs.
That includes stamp 7 flat pedals
I find the weight reasonable for an aluminum bike this size and build, but everyone has different preferences and priorities. I’m a habitual breaker of things so I tend to lean towards reliability and not low weight. Time riding a little heavier bike is better than time walking back to the car in my eyes.
m.pinkbike.com/news/enduro-world-cup-bike-weigh-in-courtesy-of-edbull-media-house.html
Every one of my bikes (L / XL) have ended up at 34-36 lbs in San Diego. Only variations have been coil vs air suspension and beefy tires.
Carbon frame, wheels and reduced-weight components have only enabled adding durability elsewhere, where it was lacking.
My lightest recent build was a carbon Sentinel (alloy wheels, DH soft tires, RXF36 fork, X2, cascade link). Was just over 34 lbs also. Felt pretty ideal.
Currently on a Capra w/ RXF38 and a coil shock. I can't discern any stiffness benefit of the 38 fork, probably don't push it hard enough. But I can feel the 36 lbs weight only occasionally when popping off stuff.
We might ride the same stuff, but that doesnt mean we are equally as skilled, or ride at the same speed, or have the same assumption of risk, or ride with the same frequency, or choose the same lines, or....you get it.
Im in the Okanagan as well, lets go for a ride sometime!
Hands down, the lighter bike is faster, climbs easier, and leaves me with more energy to ride harder and usually longer. But, hands down the bigger heavier bike is faster on the downs and more stable in corners.
So while I agree people can get caught up on weight and put too much focus on it. The flip side is other people try to convince everyone it "doesn't matter" and that's not true either...
Secondly, if you objectively look at the numbers, a couple of additional lbs on your bike doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things, when compared to times and effort required to climb, and total system weight.
However, you "feel" like it matters, and you say you can "feel" the difference. So then it matters to you, but by any real objective margin, it doesnt really matter.
If the lighter bike leaves you feeling fresher at the top for the descent, but requires more input and focus on the way down, and the heavier bike requires more energy to get there, but has the ability to slow things down, then is there a net gain or loss from top to bottom?
Add to that, weight in different places, can effect things differently. Having a heavier tube in your tires, vs running a heavier tire has different benefits. the heavier tire should have a performance benefit as well as added protection to flats. That heavier tube, prolly only adds additional protection to flats.
Do your different bikes have the same geo, does that play a bigger factor than additional weight?
Do they run the same components, does that offer better performance than the weight?
Im not saying you dont feel what you feel, just offering a viewpoint to the idea that weight doesnt matter, and weight for the sake of weight, without taking other characteristic into account, doesnt matter
On the bike weights, yeah it just comes with the territory. Even if the territory is spitting distance south of BC. I think the base model Fugitive is around 33 lbs. which is quite competitive...with a carbon bike!
BUT, also say for tires; barring some new tech, if you want the toughness and performance of a DH casing then you have to accept the weight of a DH tire. Any lighter tire is going to be a compromise in one way or another. (but the flip side is the weight of a DH tire is also a compromise. You have to choose = weight matters)
If weight TRULY didn't matter we'd have competitive WCXC riders on near 40lb bikes too. And we DON'T! (NOR do we have DH'ers on 18lb bikes. Because weight matters!)
Weight is an aspect of performance, good and bad. It's also an aspect of economics, lighter parts that are also strong are more expensive. It's also a matter of physics, some things just can't be any lighter and still function as intended. But for all of those things weight matters. It's a consideration even when you pick heavy.
ALSO, saying "weight doesn't matter" is a current trend. Nobody said that in the late 80's or early 90's!
AND, also; yeah. I'm sure there are a few percentage of riders who can truly say they don't notice the difference of a 30lb bike and a 35lb bike. BUT, even then without a blind test I wouldn't believe them...
The Fugee at 33lbs is a great bike, I love it, but I'll be honest, its a slightly light weight build for me. Feels great on the climbs, and the undulating stuff. Its a blast to snipe side hits, and natural doubles into mild jank.
I feel like a Hazy IPA at 6% hits harder than a stout at 12%
what do you think, maybe its the rate at which I consume them....
Its not a right or wrong thing, just differences.
I might not be explaining my point very well.
Weight doesnt matter, cause theres very little objective evidence that it does when youre talking about mountain biking. If you want to concern yourself about it, theres no issue with that, you do you man.
Now I'll concede a lighter bike feels, well lighter, so it can "feel" faster.
I dont choose based on weight, I choose based on perceived value, reliability, and potential performance. I run carbon rims, not for weight (cause theyre heavier, and more expensive than the alu ones I had) I run em cause they are stiffer, require no maintenance in the last 3 seasons, and are more reliable when Im riding.
I run CushCore, on lighter tires, cause I prefer the damped feeling, and the ability to run lower pressures, and again reliability.
Heres another example
I have a long travel bike (carbon), and a short travel bike (alu)
My long travel bike is very stable at speed, surprisingly "quiet" (in more than just audible ways, like it slows things down, makes them less chaotic) on blue trails, it "feels" slow.
My small bike, very different "feel", it feels lighter (its not really) feels less stable, theres much more "noise" when riding the bike.
On a blue trail I'd swear im much faster on the small bike, cause it "feels" faster. Things seem to happen more quickly, I'm having to react more, it "feels" like more work.
In reality, Im going the same speed, theres objectively no real difference, but it sure "feels" like it. Feels like Im flying on the small bike, feels boring on the big bike.
So if it matters to you, then it matters. but unless youre trying to eek out tenths of seconds, or low single digit effort percentages, there are likley much bigger factors at play, than 100 gram differences in two comparable products.
I wasn't saying it's right or wrong, just that weight is a thing. It is a performance aspect of your bike. If weight didn't matter we'd have 40lb bikes on high-level XC podiums consistently and we DON'T. Just like we don't have 18lb bikes consistently on DH podiums. (OR ever maybe??) Long-term podium finishes are a large body of repeatable objective evidence. That's not just "feel". Weight affects the performance aspects of a mountain bike. Done. Period. Finé!
It's always an aspect of your bike's performance. You wouldn't have that performance from CushCore without the extra weight that comes with it. For you that is the right decision, for someone else it's DH casings and no inserts, for someone else EXO and pool noodles, or EXO alone, etc. None of those performance choices can be had without the weight or lack of weight that comes with them. It's integral. It's part of the decision at some level, you can't remove the physics of mass from the equation.
So you can say you don't care about weight, or "weight doesn't matter to me"? But I don't believe you can say weight doesn't matter.
In the end, I suppose it's semantics. I could be debating someone because "Tires don't matter" because some person only rides take-off tires from the dumpster behind the bike shop and they can still make their bike wheels go round and round with old, torn, bald tires and super thick tubes and liberal use of duct tape and for them they don't mind sliding through corners and having to get off their bike and walk up hills when they have no traction. That could be a legitimate choice somebody makes an opinion somebody has and an ongoing decision and it could be financially based. But in the end, those bald tires DO affect the way their bike rides and so TIRES DO MATTER! just like weight...
Omg, they’re so good!
Wonder how many potential Pivot buyers went to Ibis for the same reason.
What I can say about Knolly, is that (highlighted in the article) tere is very little feedback through the pedals, so charging through medium chunk at speed "feels" more stable, which "feels" like it slows things down a bit, so you have more time/capacity to pick your line, sidehit, gap rocks, avoid punctures, if that makes any sense.
I have a Knoly, and a Spire, and love em both.
I like the idea of the very adjustable Atherton bikes, but I dont typically get along with dual link bikes (new alloy version)
and the seat angle, what I really like, for me when its up, its in a good spot, and the slack actual angle means its quite a bit more forward (and thus out of the way) than a bike with a steeper angle.
Slack seat angles are really only an issue if when at full height, it puts you to far back. If you have longer than typical legs, it might put you in a more compromised position, but just slide your seat forward a touch
I stayed away from Pivot and WR1 for that reason
Thank you for the compliments!
Our 2024 models all feature size specific ACTUAL seat tube angles. This ensures that for even the tallest riders, the saddle is in the correct climbing position. Actual seat tube angles are:
S2 (small) 68.5 degrees
S3 (Medium) 69.0 degrees
S4 (Large) 69.5 degrees
S5 (X-Large) 70.5 degrees
Assuming a 240mm dropper post slammed at the collar (270mm stack height), these bikes have the following effective seat tube angles (larger sizes shown).
Chilcotin 155:
S3 (Medium) 79.0 degrees
S4 (Large) 78.5 degrees
S5 (X-Large) 78.4 degrees
Chilcotin 170:
S3 (Medium 78.5 degrees
S4 (Large) 78.0 degrees
S5 (X-Large) 77.9 degrees
Tall riders will find themselves in a comfortable climbing position and the frames adapt to this with their specific seat tube geometry. Please feel free to contact us or our resellers with any questions!
I'm eagerly awaiting an Endorphin (stoked) looks like a very fun bike!
The unique SA solution is great, I think it gets missed how out of the way the seat is when its slammed down. I coupled it with an Aenomaly Switchgrade, beauty!
Edit ~Just seen the answer further down !
I’m inclined to trust Henry’s assessment of ride characteristic, but I don’t think it’s attributable to the low AR, and I don’t think higher AR would solve the issue he is having.
I'm guessing that's why the new Chilcotin is trending big?
Cheers,
That is precisely one of the main advantages of this style of of seat tube. When you drop the seat it not only gets out of the way by getting lower, but moves forward and gets truly out of the way.
12.9 grade Socket Cap heads in UNF, UNC, Metric and Metric fine. These are rated at 175,000psi (1206MPa) tensile strength, 75,000 (517MPa) shear strength.
Found one for you guys
1. Strap a spare tube, candy bar, or a mini flask
2. Brush off the loam
3. Use/enjoy. Any peaty flavor is a bonus.
Nice review, I was curious to hear your feedback on sizing as at 6' I also settled on a Medium for the first time in my life and am very happy with the fit.
Cheers
For reference:
- RAAW Madonna V3 anti-rise 47% and progression 26%
- Knolly Chilcotin 6th gen anti-rise 50% and progression 28%
I am not trying to be argumentative, rather I'm just trying to understand how a few % differences can alter the ride characteristics of the bikes.
Hi all.
I didn't take any of it as argumentative at all. We all just love bikes, and I know we all want to learn more about them. However, with these comment threads, I tend just to answer specific questions when the article goes live and then move on. Else, this can turn into quite a lot of sifting and trying to make sense of many different angles. However, this is a great chance to explain my reasoning further.
Firstly, graphs aren't bike riding. While they give us an idea, they can also mislead us. If the last few years have taught me anything, it's that they indicate what the bike will be like, but for whatever reason, bikes with the same values can often feel markedly different. Which is great, if only because it keeps us PBers in a job! Ha.
When discussing this, I think it's also important to consider the many factors involved —axle path, leverage, crosstalk of LSC and HSC or lack thereof, braking, braking style, body position, grip, and speed. The list goes on.
Now, I agree with everything you've said that, on paper, low AR bikes should track better, keep the bike higher in the stroke and offer better tracking, but, to be honest, that's not what I find in the real world. I find they tend to just stop the suspension working. I've had the chance to ride some bikes with maybe 150% anti rise, and on the brakes I think the suspension is better, because sending the rider's mass into the shock really drives the suspension, instead of making the rear wheel feel like a seatbelt pulling you back under harsh acceleration.
Again, it's a combination of axle path and leverage, but I wonder aloud whether if this bike had more AR it could push through that ramp into the deeper parts of the stroke instead of making the suspension feel like it doesn't want to work on squarer edges or bigger hits. I want my suspension to work all the time, and for that reason I prefer the higher AR bikes, even if they do drive the rider's weight into the shock. Ultimately, that's just part of the challenge of setup. I think maybe because I run a very fast rebound setting the shock can return and settle more, so maybe I suffer less from pack down that can be associated with this.
I'm not going to really speak to "it doesn't do this for me" because if I did then it's just a slippery slope of pandering - I need to be honest with what I feel, as well as how I ride and I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Cheers
Chili alloy > Spire alloy all day long.
On sizing...Nicolai and Pole have similiar longer than the norm sizing, some others I'm sure as well.
Anyone know how commencal alloy quality is? Ive heard plenty alloy Special-ed HT's ovalizing.
weights a paradox, better for dwn -more werk goin up.
Thanks for another great review. nice looking Knollys for a change!!!
As someone with a background in physics / eng physics, I appreciate this comment