I’ve got no desire to buy one, if I was in the market for a new bike it’s a much more appealing bike than the Lux and in terms of value it’s a great bike.
The Lux Trail or the Epic Evo are on the top of my list!
If only they were available!
Why would you say that, do you have any intel? Wasn’t the Lux Trail just released, and not yet been available for purchase? At least here in the US.
I think the Lux Trail is a model for a full cycle. No intel, but it seems different enough from the Lux that it didn’t seem like a place holder.
The Epic Evo and Lux Trail both look like excellent options. One rowdier and one racier option 
No real change in kinematics, reuses the previous model rear triangle, minor changes overall.
It’s basically the equivalent of long shocking the previous model and sticking a 120mm fork on it.
I disagree. Most of the new geometry for bikes comes from the front triangle; this one is longer and slacker. It’s a screaming deal.
That makes sense, but could also be an indicator of bike engineering choices/lazy engineering rather than being a temporary model (facelift as opposed to new model)?
Seems to me if they were after a racey, more capable XC bike and really liked the kinematics of their existing Lux, that would lean towards keeping the rear the same?
Just spitballing. I assume the bike fits as per the top tube length (i.e. seat far forward on the rails and it feels good)…
Yes!
Think they both would excel at XC Marathon races like the Downieville classic where it’s basically 12 miles of constant uphill followed by 14 miles of pretty technical single track, mostly downhill!
Not trying to overdo it here or just be argumentative but have you tried a slacker HA bike in the slow twistys? I have been riding a Status that is very slack at nearly 63 degrees (I’ve over-forked it, fyi)! On the super steep climbs, I certainly notice the front end wandering and I don’t clean as much stuff on that bike uphill (it makes it up to me by making the steep downhill very comfy) but for flat tight and twisty it really doesn’t bother me one bit, in fact I’d go so far to say that I like it. I’m a huge advocate of 51 rake on the fork, it makes a big difference to me.
All this to say that I was skeptical of this bike being a daily driver, but it’s been fine. Like @JSTootell says I don’t look to go fast uphill on that bike perse as mine is probably approaching 40lbs too (I’m scared to weigh it) but it corners well on everything but the extreme uphill tech.
I think there’s two different things being discussed here.
I demo’d a few “trail” bikes in the 65° HTA range and have ridden a mates Epic Evo, none of that is the same as long term ownership, but enough for a taste. I am sure you could get used to it, but the amount of space and the lines required for some of the tight stuff, or climbing corners, made it feel excessively slow for my preference.
I am sure you can get used to it, but I don’t believe it is faster up hill and that’s a really important factor for me.
ETA: not argumentative, I don’t mind a healthy debate as long as it’s good natured 
. I love discussing mountain bikes.
Agreed. Slack doesn’t mean overly slow steering, especially when there is some pace to it!
For anyone doubting that a slack bike is fast on berms, flat corners, tight corners, off camber corner, and so on. Just take a look a 4X & Dual slalom racing! That’s probably the pinnacle of fast cornering for off pavement biking.
And almost precisely the opposite of technical climbing lol.
The absolute perfect playground for a slack, super fast bike. High speed descending at it’s finest.
I think the other thing not talked about here is STA. My recent bikes have been '18 RM element, '20 Kona Process 134 and '21 Specialized chisel. I’d argue the easiest to climb on steep, techy terrain is the Kona (76deg STA). The other two require your chin over the stem to keep the weight forward to avoid wandering. I get where people are coming from but perhaps try progressive geo and see if it works for you.
For sure!
I guess my main point is that slack HA, short offset fork + steep seat angle makes for a capable climbing bike(we are not talking a Harley with ape hangers here, just a couple of degrees). I do agree with you, that if your daily riding & racing consist of lots of steep, tight uphill switchbacks that geometry may not be ideal.
But for other types of climbing, technical or not. I don’t see a big drawback. Also it seems like brands like Scott are going slacker & slacker for their race rigs too.
When bikes are really slack its notable on steep uphills cause it’s hard to keep weight even and the wheels tend to wander at slower speeds. Or at least that is what I notice when going from enduro to epic.
This new element uses a 44mm offset, not a 51. Like I said, it’s identical geometry to my Ripmo AF which is a great trail bike but it certainly is not the bike I would choose for a tight and techy XC race, even if it had the same travel, was lighter, and pedaled better. I don’t see how this thing wouldn’t feel like a yacht on the climbs.
It looks like a fine bike, I especially like the aesthetics, I’m just disappointed that it doesn’t follow the Element race bike heritage.
This is incorrect. The approach angle of a 29" wheel and tire is static and not related to bike geometry. What you are trying to say that the fork axis will be pointing farther forward with a slack HA and further down with a steep HA. This means when you bash into obstacles, the fork on the slack HA bike will absorb more of the impact, slowing you down and absorbing more energy. Where the fork on the steep HA will want to roll over the obstacle rather than getting jammed into it’s travel, that is a big reason why steep bikes climb so efficiently.
Yep, I made it sound confusing. I almost never buy complete bikes so I’d be getting a frame set and building it the way I want 100% which definitely includes a 51mm rake fork. Point I’m making is that choosing an increased fork offset can help make a lazy HTA a lot more lively. 44mm rake is what’s popular now but there are zero reasons not to choose 51 - Ibis is all about 44 too, but I prefer how my Ripley and Status handle with forks with longer offsets. I think it’s a subject that deserves more attention and (this is my opinion) can affect a bikes cornerning more than HTA.
Since I’m challenging folks here with these unpopular spec choices, I need to try a 44mm fork offset again. I have historically found them to be harder to corner but of course slightly more stable at straight line speed. My argument is that I want a bike to be lively more than stable so choose accordingly.
As for this exact model, I get your dissapointment if you’re looking for more of an XCO DNA, this probably isn’t that, but this sort of bike excites me a lot more than a purebread racer simply because (my originaly point), its the terrain that I prefer and target not only for riding, but for racing as well.
To each their own of course.
The Lefty Ocho has a 55mm offset!
I have a hardtail with a 44mm offset and the difference in handling characteristics is quite noticeable.
For sure, If I didn’t already have a Ripmo and Element, it would be a good “best of both worlds” situation.
I see what you were saying about fork offset now and I agree that a 51 offset would make this bike closer to what I am looking for.
Head angle and fork offset have a very complicated relationship but the sum of the two is the Trail.
When we talk bike handling, trail is more descriptive than just HA or fork offset. But there are many ways to get to one trail number.
By using longer offset forks on these bikes, you are making the same changes that steepening the HA with a static fork offset would make. Effectively reducing the trail number which reduces the inherent stability and steering effort. This of course makes the bike handle better at slower speeds like you would see when climbing, but also reduces stability at higher speeds like you would see descending.
When I updated my '17 Element this year, I knew I wanted more stability, but not too much. I had a few options:
- Slacken HA by 1 deg w/ a wolf tooth geoshift.
- Reduce fork offset from 51 to 46. (my go to fork the MRP Ribbon SL is only offered in these two offsets)
- Slacken HA by 1 deg AND reduce fork offset from 51 to 46.
I modeled the geometry in Solidworks and made a handy dandy chart to guide my decision:
I also just added the new element just out of curiosity.
The changes I was looking at for my element were a 5-11% increase in trail figure which is reasonable. Rocky Mountain increased the trail by 30% from the last generation. That is a massive increase and completely changes the character of the bike. Putting a 51mm offset fork would reduce the trail to 119.06mm but that is still enduro/trail bike levels of stability and not anything most racers would want on their race rigs. I went with just the geoshift and am super happy with the mix of stability and agility I get with the 97mm trail.
I’ll be interested to see if they reign the numbers in with the next iteration or just eliminate an XC bike from their line up which is what they seem to have done.