[ZHendo]

I'd get the Gambler.

What shock are you running in the Glory? It should be better than some of those other bikes in the rough. I'd be inclined to think there's a setup issue. But either way, the Gambler tops your list if the geometry and sizing agrees with you. Slays the rough, jumps pretty well, and has one of the stiffest rearends (axially and torsionally) that I've felt on a DH bike.

I'm running a Vivid Air, which I think may have something to do with it. I have considered a coil, but honestly I don't love the Glory in general. Tubing feels/sounds paper thin, and I have doubts about longevity. I don't love the bike, so rather than putting more money into it, I want to get something that I actually want.

The thing that sucks about the Glory is that the suspension curve is actually designed for an air shock - it's digressive at the end of the travel to compensate for high ramp up of an air shock, so that limits the options I would have as far as coils go.

I know how to set up my suspension and I have it set up in a sweet spot right now. As I said, it's not glaringly bad at anything, but just not great, especially relative to that Trek. I haven't ridden any of these other bikes, so I'm fishing for commentary on which bikes might be better in what ways vs. my Glory

 

[Udi]

I'm running a Vivid Air, which I think may have something to do with it. I have considered a coil, but honestly I don't love the Glory in general. Tubing feels/sounds paper thin, and I have doubts about longevity. I don't love the bike, so rather than putting more money into it, I want to get something that I actually want.

The thing that sucks about the Glory is that the suspension curve is actually designed for an air shock - it's digressive at the end of the travel to compensate for high ramp up of an air shock, so that limits the options I would have as far as coils go.

I know how to set up my suspension and I have it set up in a sweet spot right now. As I said, it's not glaringly bad at anything, but just not great, especially relative to that Trek. I haven't ridden any of these other bikes, so I'm fishing for commentary on which bikes might be better in what ways vs. my Glory

The Vivid Air will have everything to do with it.
The Glory has a decent axle path, anti-squat curve, and leverage curve. The digression is minor to the point of being negligible (from 2.75 to 2.85 @ 180-200mm travel, which is still lower than its average LR of 2.91) so it's not "designed for an air shock". It will however suffer in bump sensitivity in the first third of travel due to your shock, which has a very high spring rate initially (a shock with a Vorsprung sleeve for example is notably superior, but still inferior to a coil shock). To put it bluntly, the Glory is a kinematically superior frame to most of the others you listed, your shock choice is probably the only thing making the frame bad - and if you put that junk in one of the other frames they're not going to be any better. Knowing how to set up your suspension is great, but you also need to know how to be able to choose the products that work optimally in the first place - because setup can only go so far in compensating for a bad design (of either frame or shock, in this case shock).

Anyway if you don't like the frame then by all means swap it out (I don't own one personally - just believe strongly that numbers don't lie). I think the Gambler is by a solid margin the best bike on that list, it has very modern geometry combined with a nice predictable leverage curve that still offers a decent amount of progression. It will be superior in bump absorption compared to everything else on your list due to its combination of axle path and LR curve - while minimising detrimental effects on geometrical stability by spreading bump absorption between those two (AP and LR) better than the other bikes. The TR500 has some digression at the start of the stroke which I don't think is great, as it's a very commonly used part of the stroke (compared to the end stroke) but they've flattened it out compared to the TR450 so it's an improvement.

Of all the bikes you've mentioned, if I wasn't getting the Gambler, I'd honestly get the Glory (it does some things better than the Gambler, afforded to it by its suspension design)... for a bottom line I'd just say that if you put a good shock and build kit on any of those frames they'll be pretty good. Just don't use a Vivid Air, or you'll be saying your next frame sucks too.

 

[kidwoo]

Maestro is efficient

Agreed.

 

[csermonet]

I think the Gambler is by a solid margin the best bike on that list, It will be superior in bump absorption compared to everything else on your list due to its combination of axle path and LR curve - while minimising detrimental effects on geometrical stability by spreading bump absorption between those two (AP and LR) better than the other bikes.
Of all the bikes you've mentioned, if I wasn't getting the Gambler, I'd honestly get the Glory (it does some things better than the Gambler, afforded to it by its suspension design).

Why wouldn't you recommend the DHR? I am not questioning or doubting you at all, I know you have a valid reason and I am genuinely curious since I own one. I have always thought the geo was still relevant, and though the LR was predictable as well. Is it because no carbon and 26 still? Sorry for the hijack hendo

 

[Udi]

Why wouldn't you recommend the DHR? I am not questioning or doubting you at all, I know you have a valid reason and I am genuinely curious since I own one. I have always thought the geo was still relevant, and though the LR was predictable as well. Is it because no carbon and 26 still? Sorry for the hijack hendo

I didn't see the DHR on his list. I have nothing against alloy or 26" either (my current DH bike is both of those things, I actually sold my carbon DH bike for an alloy one and prefer it).

For whatever it's worth, I've ridden both the DW-DHR and Gambler setup for me (by me) on the same track, and the Gambler does almost everything better in my book. The DHR pedals slightly better but bump absorption, general suspension performance, geometry (or moreso the adjustability) all go to the Scott. Nothing against the DHR, it's still a great bike.

 

[norbar]

I didn't see the DHR on his list. I have nothing against alloy or 26" either (my current DH bike is both of those things, I actually sold my carbon DH bike for an alloy one and prefer it).

For whatever it's worth, I've ridden both the DW-DHR and Gambler setup for me (by me) on the same track, and the Gambler does almost everything better in my book. The DHR pedals slightly better but bump absorption, general suspension performance, geometry (or moreso the adjustability) all go to the Scott. Nothing against the DHR, it's still a great bike.

Just out of curiosity can you compare it to the legend? I will probably switch next year to 650b and the legend seems the most tempting since I will finally get a proper size but I'm willing to look at other options, even if I can't stand the gambler looks.

 

[csermonet]

I didn't see the DHR on his list. I have nothing against alloy or 26" either (my current DH bike is both of those things, I actually sold my carbon DH bike for an alloy one and prefer it).
.

Yeah it actually wasn't on his list originally, it was suggested by a few of us. Thanks for the reply, now I am curious to try a Gambler LOL

 

[TrumbullHucker]

Yeah it actually wasn't on his list originally, it was suggested by a few of us. Thanks for the reply, now I am curious to try a Gambler LOL

my DWDHR turned into a different animal when i put a vivid coil on it... so damn smooth. like light and day compared to fat shaft ?0.625"? DHXRC4

 

[csermonet]

my DWDHR turned into a different animal when i put a vivid coil on it... so damn smooth. like light and day compared to fat shaft ?0.625"? DHXRC4

i've got no real qualms with my DHR at all, I am running one of the small shaft non kashima rc4's. do you have a 1st or 2nd gen vivid? I had a 1st gen on a kumicho many moons ago and i really loved that shock, and i know have a 2nd gen air on my trail bike, love that too. I vaguely remember udi saying the best match in his opinion for the dhr would be the small shaft(fat shaft doesnt lend well to progressive linkage) with the boost valve delete. so for the sake of being cost effective i would probably go that route

 

[TrumbullHucker]

i've got no real qualms with my DHR at all, I am running one of the small shaft non kashima rc4's. do you have a 1st or 2nd gen vivid? I had a 1st gen on a kumicho many moons ago and i really loved that shock, and i know have a 2nd gen air on my trail bike, love that too. I vaguely remember udi saying the best match in his opinion for the dhr would be the small shaft(fat shaft doesnt lend well to progressive linkage) with the boost valve delete. so for the sake of being cost effective i would probably go that route

2nd generation vivid. the fat shaft RC4 would ramp up too quickly, and the HSC always felt too stiff..
small shaft RC4s; i have no idea. probably better (a little more linear?)

 

[csermonet]

2nd generation vivid. the fat shaft RC4 would ramp up too quickly, and the HSC always felt too stiff..
small shaft RC4s; i have no idea. probably better (a little more linear?)

What tune did you get on the vivid, L/L?

 

[Udi]

The small-shaft RC4 and Vivid coil (with similar tunes) should be pretty comparable performance-wise. I think both should work reasonably well in that frame for stock shocks, and there's probably no huge need to swap from one to the other.

I agree with @TrumbullHucker on the fat-shaft RC4 ramping too much and having a damping excess (deeper in the stroke particularly), it's because of the way the boost valve and volume reduction (more drastic with the fat shaft) interact with the DHR's leverage curve (heavy progression in final third). The Vivid and small-shaft RC4 are good simple upgrades to solve this.

However, I think from a racing standpoint and to extract maximum performance from that chassis - the fat-shaft is actually the better option since it has a stiffer early stroke and compensates better for the excessive leverage in the first third of the travel (this applies to the DW-DHR, Evil Undead and Revolt - similar curves) which causes wastage of initial travel and some instability - but you have to eliminate the damping progression by removing the boost valve, and increase the chamber volume as much as possible to reduce spring rate progression. I found running the maximum safe IFP depth with the BV removed was a winner, and the BV being out of the way allowed the IFP to sit a bit lower before topout as well.

Of course that's just for the diehard who wants to extract the last 2% of performance from the bike, the s/s RC4 and Vivid coil should do the trick for most people.

 

[TrumbullHucker]

What tune did you get on the vivid, L/L?

M/M with a ?#500? spring.. always forget my spring weight for some reason lol

@Udi funny that you should say that about the first third of the stroke with the F/S RC4.. i found myself 2 clicks firmer on both my boxxer and vivid this weekend at highland. i do remember my F/S RC4 pedaling a tiny bit better/ less pedal bob

 

[ZHendo]

The Vivid Air will have everything to do with it.
The Glory has a decent axle path, anti-squat curve, and leverage curve. The digression is minor to the point of being negligible (from 2.75 to 2.85 @ 180-200mm travel, which is still lower than its average LR of 2.91) so it's not "designed for an air shock". It will however suffer in bump sensitivity in the first third of travel due to your shock, which has a very high spring rate initially (a shock with a Vorsprung sleeve for example is notably superior, but still inferior to a coil shock). To put it bluntly, the Glory is a kinematically superior frame to most of the others you listed, your shock choice is probably the only thing making the frame bad - and if you put that junk in one of the other frames they're not going to be any better.

Interesting that you say this - when I was originally shopping around for the bike I had quite a few people tell me the Vivid Air was a great shock for the Glory. Sounds like I wasn't talking to the right folks - I never actually looked at the charted suspension kinematics. With the seemingly good performance (not reliability...) track record that I heard of for the Vivid Air, I spent a lot of time dialing it in and finally got it to where it felt best. Not having ridden other DH bikes in a few years, the Session 9.9 was the first bike I had ridden to compare my Glory to, so I suppose I just didn't know what I was missing out on. Regardless, I really appreciate the explanation and it makes total sense to me.

The DHR has been added to my list in light of the love that it has gotten from folks posting here - I did some research and honestly can't find a bad word about it. The Scott is still on the list, but given your comments I'm now curious why it has the reputation of being a "plow bike"...if the suspension kinematics are so predictable, shouldn't that handling trait be more related to shock setup?

 

[csermonet]

The DHR has been added to my list in light of the love that it has gotten from folks posting here - I did some research and honestly can't find a bad word about it.

take in to account you can no longer buy them new(from Turner at least)

 

[ZHendo]

take in to account you can no longer buy them new(from Turner at least)

yeah i caught a string of posts mourning their disappearance in the last few days. I would be ok with new-ish used, especially given that the bike has generally been considered quite reliable.

 

[Udi]

Interesting that you say this - when I was originally shopping around for the bike I had quite a few people tell me the Vivid Air was a great shock for the Glory. Sounds like I wasn't talking to the right folks - I never actually looked at the charted suspension kinematics. With the seemingly good performance (not reliability...) track record that I heard of for the Vivid Air, I spent a lot of time dialing it in and finally got it to where it felt best. Not having ridden other DH bikes in a few years, the Session 9.9 was the first bike I had ridden to compare my Glory to, so I suppose I just didn't know what I was missing out on. Regardless, I really appreciate the explanation and it makes total sense to me.

The DHR has been added to my list in light of the love that it has gotten from folks posting here - I did some research and honestly can't find a bad word about it. The Scott is still on the list, but given your comments I'm now curious why it has the reputation of being a "plow bike"...if the suspension kinematics are so predictable, shouldn't that handling trait be more related to shock setup?

All good!
Some people don't like to hear it put bluntly so I have appreciation for those who take it on board. With regards to the plow thing, I think if you've learnt one thing in the last few hours, it's probably that you should exercise caution when taking someone's opinion as fact (mine included). I'm not entirely sure what constitutes a plow bike since that's a subjective term, but I don't think the Gambler is one in the sense you're imagining. It just happens to absorb bumps a little better than average - I've found it still has reasonable pop off jumps (not dead like the Sunday for example, but not a trip to the moon like the singlepivot DHR either) and can be plenty playful. I've found it pretty good at gapping sections of trail too. Like you said, a lot of it is about shock setup, kinematically the bike is very straightforward and predictable.

If it helps you though, I would say with confidence that it jumps and pops better than the Glory, having ridden a fair few of both. It does have very race-oriented geometry so my #1 tip (and something many riders probably miss - probably leading to some of the plow comments) is: don't be afraid to tone it down. It's a hugely adjustable frame, and I personally run the +1 cup to make the head angle steeper (currently 62.7*). Pick the size that fits and set the geometry to suit your own tracks rather than leaving it in WC mode.

If you want a more general metric though, here it is. Bikes with more progression tend to have more pop, bikes with flatter leverage curves tend to have less, bikes with dual-progressive curves tend to have more pop off small to medium lips but less off bigger ones (so they are good for gapping sections of trail but can let you down if you expect the same help on bigger gaps). More progression tends to aid bump absorption too. The downside of a lot of progression is wallowing and geometrical instability, so it's best to use the axle path for some of the bump absorption while having some progression to fill out the rest of that equation (and get some pop) without being too wallowy. A more linear bike tends to be more geometrically stable and faster as a result - but they take a rider with good jumping/popping skills to clear gaps. It's about finding the balance of those things that suit you.

 

[ZHendo]

I'm not entirely sure what constitutes a plow bike since that's a subjective term, but I don't think the Gambler is one in the sense you're imagining. It just happens to absorb bumps a little better than average - I've found it still has reasonable pop off jumps (not dead like the Sunday for example, but not a trip to the moon like the singlepivot DHR either) and can be plenty playful.

That's exactly what i wanted to hear. I'm still trying to understand what people mean by "plow bike", but I think it's exactly what you're getting at with linear vs. progressive, which is why hearing that a progressive bike like the Scott is a plow bike was somewhat surprising. All of these questions are the sort that could be solved if I just demoed the bikes, but unfortunately that has proven shockingly difficult in the Seattle area.

You seem to have a good grasp of the Glory's handling traits vs. the Scott - where would you say the Glory excels, if anywhere? Just trying to calibrate where the Glory actually stands in ride quality relative to some of these other bikes.

 

[kickstand]

The Vivid Air will have everything to do with it.
The Glory has a decent axle path, anti-squat curve, and leverage curve. The digression is minor to the point of being negligible (from 2.75 to 2.85 @ 180-200mm travel, which is still lower than its average LR of 2.91) so it's not "designed for an air shock". It will however suffer in bump sensitivity in the first third of travel due to your shock, which has a very high spring rate initially (a shock with a Vorsprung sleeve for example is notably superior, but still inferior to a coil shock). To put it bluntly, the Glory is a kinematically superior frame to most of the others you listed, your shock choice is probably the only thing making the frame bad - and if you put that junk in one of the other frames they're not going to be any better. Knowing how to set up your suspension is great, but you also need to know how to be able to choose the products that work optimally in the first place - because setup can only go so far in compensating for a bad design (of either frame or shock, in this case shock).

All of this sounds like some of the problems I was having getting my v-10 dialed in this season. I'm running the vivid air. My plan was to go coil next season, I've always had the fox rc4 in the past, would you recommend the fox dhx2? The other option I've considered is the cane creek coil offering.

Thoughts? Large v-10, 650beez, 5-10 180lbs.

Thanks Mr. Smarty pants suspension guy.

Anyone else who would like to chime in please do so.

 

[Udi]

You seem to have a good grasp of the Glory's handling traits vs. the Scott - where would you say the Glory excels, if anywhere? Just trying to calibrate where the Glory actually stands in ride quality relative to some of these other bikes.

Well what I was going to suggest is - if the Glory fits you then why not strap in a decent coil shock and maybe even a coil fork (for reference the <=2013 run small, if you're over 5'9-5'10 you need to be on L) and find out for yourself where it shines? Worst case it buys you some time before swapping over (and you at least get a fair comparison with your next bike instead of forever wondering); best case you might actually like the thing.

I think they're both excellent bikes kinematically for their application (DH), and I'd ride either of them very happily - provided I could get the sizing and geometry set to my liking. I'd probably choose them both over the other bikes discussed thus far (personally - for the things I deem important, which I've probably hinted at) if that helps you calibrate. I can elaborate but most differences are small and can be shock-compensated.

All of this sounds like some of the problems I was having getting my v-10 dialed in this season. I'm running the vivid air. My plan was to go coil next season, I've always had the fox rc4 in the past, would you recommend the fox dhx2?

I'd recommend the RC4 if you can get your hands on it. The small-shaft RC4 is a sure fire hit with most modern frames and the 8.5" travel V10 will be no exception. I'd prefer it over the X2 with the thinner shaft as the V10 has a lot of progression (bit too much in my book) so it's nice to give it something to fight against (that isn't damping, because that kills pop) so it doesn't wallow too much. Even a fat shaft would work well, possibly better if you are about going fast.

Just out of curiosity can you compare it to the legend? I will probably switch next year to 650b and the legend seems the most tempting since I will finally get a proper size but I'm willing to look at other options, even if I can't stand the gambler looks.

I'll message you on ze facetertronz, they're both pretty nice though.

 

[kickstand]

I'd recommend the RC4 if you can get your hands on it. The small-shaft RC4 is a sure fire hit with most modern frames and the 8.5" travel V10 will be no exception. I'd prefer it over the X2 with the thinner shaft as the V10 has a lot of progression (bit too much in my book) so it's nice to give it something to fight against (that isn't damping, because that kills pop) so it doesn't wallow too much. Even a fat shaft would work well, possibly better if you are about going fast.


h.

Thanks for the reply. I thought they took some of the progressive nature out of the v-10 on this go-round? Still progressive enough that you would still look towards the rc4?

How do you quantify fast? I am not into the freeride stuff, I do race, but I don't know that i'm fast. I was a podium cat 2 guy last year and a mid pack cat 1 racer this year.

The other option could be the cane creek?

 

[Udi]

Thanks for the reply. I thought they took some of the progressive nature out of the v-10 on this go-round? Still progressive enough that you would still look towards the rc4?

Yes. I checked the curve before replying for whatever it's worth (always do), and I'd run the RC4. Probably with a reasonable amount of pressure (say 140psi minimum) and BO fully open. The small shaft should be okay, particularly if you prefer a newer shock and don't have access to modification measures. The DB and X2 are fairly interchangeable in terms of functionality, I'd get the X2 if I had to choose between those but probably not what I'd run on this frame. I think mid pack cat 1 is plenty fast enough to benefit from optimisation. Feel free to PM if you want elaboration.

 

[Dogboy]

Isn't this the bike that Hart destroyed World Champs on in 2011? Not the exact bike of course, but the same model? Doesn't seem like it would hold anyone back.

 

[ZHendo]

Update from me - given the lack of demo bikes available at the moment and tough end-of-season bike sales market, I decided to pick up a brand new 2015 RC4 at a crazy price and swap it for my Vivid Air. I'll see how I get along with the bike with that change and potentially make the new bike call in the spring once I've been able to hunt down some of these suggested bikes for demos. Thanks all for the help

 

[mykel]

Udi

While we are on the topic - and my bike was mentioned...

Thoughts on the 2013 Podium?
I ride a large with flats, and the guys I ride with are all on clips and small or medium frames - so my experience is quite limited. 6'2" 210 with long upper body and wings.

I run a CCDB coil and 888Evo2Ti up front.
I have a firm Ti spring in it and have had the fork re-shimmed by Zoke, to provide a bit better small bump with more midstroke. (I have nerve damage in my right hand, so supple is good. )

I just ride rec, but most of the guys I ride with still race (mid 30's to my 51) so speed is good, just not warp.

My only complaint with the Podium is sometimes / not always, it feels like it is hanging up in conditions with embedded rock with loose rock and gravel. The embedded rock is not huge, more like a breaking bump in size. It will be good, then feel like it is hanging up / slowing, then will smooth out again.
I can not seem to put my finger on exactly what and when it happens.

Thoughts?