@@thmsvd in my experience (the old ones, baron) wasnt really that great. Kinda slow rolling but not the best grip at the same time. Also they didnt even last half a season and there were a lot of cracks in the tire by that time too. Especially for the price (I paid 100€ for 2 i think) i felt scammed.
so much of this test is the rider tackling the technical challenges, and presumably getting to know the different bikes. I think you'd get a more accurate showcase if the rider had three attempts, and you showed the best of each. Also be good to have some onscreen graphics of the bike & model instead of just audio
Kinda love when Matt Beer explaining things in this 2022 field test season. He seems like not much of a talker like the other, but straight to the point and clear explanation
I think a more useful and effective test would be just timing the climb without the extra obstacles, which would take variations in the rider performance more out of the equation.
I could try the same technical climb with my current bike and have the same result as this video. You have the bikes... give us some numbers like timed uphill runs while keeping your wattage and heart rate near the same on each climb, have multiple testers, and compare results much like the DH timed runs...
Your next test is to test Matt's claim. Do 29er's have a bigger contact patch then the 27.5 if both have the same air pressure? And of course the same rider.
Yes, but obviously there's more to it than that since the two highest bikes were both mullets. The 27.5 back wheel will have lower effective gearing so will be easier to pedal, to match the effective gearing of a 29er you'd have to go up 2 teeth on the chainring (32t on a 27.5 is roughly the same as a 29er with 30t).
No, 29 does not always have a bigger contact patch. It depends on the trail. Draw a curve with a 27.5 radius, cut out a 27.5 "wheel" and a 29 wheel. Which wheel has a bigger contact patch with the curve? I carry more climbing speed with a 29, but I clear more technical climbs with a 27.5 rear wheel.
They both have one thing on common, they're sized HUGE. Canyon Strive and Commencal Meta AM/SX are bikes where you seriously want to look into sizing down
I have the meta sx as my guiding workhorse. It's hard work on the climbs and tight technical stuff. It's long and heavy that's for sure. But! It does it. And once you start going down you instantly forget about the climb. It works and it is built to keep working for the next 10 years. I sold my DH bike because the meta sx feels equally or even better capable than a 10 year old DH bike. It all depends on what you will ride. To give you an idea, I live in the Julian Alps. Not super high but extremely steep terrain with very hard enduro lines.
@@janeblogs324 my 2020 meta did crack after 2 seasons of abuse. But the 2022 model seems to be much much better. And even cracking the frame.... Commencal just sent me a new frame. No hassle, just straight on good customer service.
@@snakebiteparadise5504 my issue is when you buy a 2nd hand frame the warranty vanishes. If you search the commncial frame breaks, they would be near death experiences. The way they are collapsing will mean every single frame will break, they need a recall
Tough to compare the bikes since you're able to practice the climb with each iteration 🤔 (could explain why the Intense won too) Other questions: Did you do some practice runs first to level the field? Why run the lockouts instead of getting traction from being open?
5:30 literally says he's running the suspension wide open. If it looks like it doesn't go deep in the travel it's because it's long travel bikes and Matt rides really efficient and light. And that's another thing, Matt is such a good rider the 'practice' wouldn't make much of a difference. If that were the case, each bike would nearly be a perfectly linear progression of getting higher each time. That very rarely happens on these climb tests. Also, realistically, these are for entertainment purposes. If you're actually deciding on these bikes from this 'test'... I'm very concerned lol. The best thing for a consumer from these "tests" is the roundtable, where the bikes go head to head, instead of just being reviewed in a vacuum.
@@TeddyParker Being good at riding bikes doesn't mean practice won't help lol. By that logic Amaury Pierron could just show up to a world cup with no practice laps and take the win. And obviously practice is not the only factor, the bike certainly plays a role as well as human error, so you could not expect the results to be perfectly linear like you suggested. It's not hard to believe the results might be slanted towards the latter bikes.
@@shrimpfriedrice494 ah yes, when i think of the challenge of getting up a steep nibbly climb with a log on it for extra trials street cred... i think of world cup courses at Amaury Pierron speeds again, the test doesnt matter. its not scientific. it could be down to sheer dumb luck as much as it could be down to bike design or practice or rider skill. with so much loose terrain. thats how MTBing is and no, the Intense one because Intense uses conservative geometry that pays dividends in this specific scenario. how many people will use it in a scenario just like this? not sure. but i'm def not gonna order a bike to fit the niche of doing log trials on a climb with banana peels. It also makes it out like any of the bikes would be 'bad' in any way. That's maybe the real joke. These are all ridiculously amazing bikes. The only tests they do that are really compelling are the budget tests. Because those bikes can actually be hot dogshit
And to the surprise of nobody, the DW link based bike gets the highest. the commencal was surprising, climbing is not something Commencal Metas are known for. Though with the extra traction of the high pivot bikes I wonder if a Deviate Highlander (the Claymore's 150 travel little brother) might have been able to clear the whole climb just by having a little more manageable geo combined with the high pivot traction.
great video, i would say it is best to do the climb 2-3 times on each bike, at min 3:21 he ( the rider idk his name) rode over this rock. the bike could have made it further
Yeah, it's pretty weird to make such an already not-scientific test less scientific by only doing 1 attempt per bike. The more attempts, the more accurate the results would be.
I feel like this test wasn’t very useful, it seemed more gimmicky than useful. I also think you need a control bike that you’ve runt the coarse on a few times, and each bike should get 2 runs with the best run being the one you go with. This would help to remove the variance caused by the rider getting better and making small mistakes that could end the run prematurely
Guys sort out your production. The audio buzz has been terrible the last few videos, and where is the colour grading on this video, the guys look so washed out. Who approved this?
as far as getting any useful data from this "test" if that's what you're calling it, maybe some useful data for Matt? Otherwise complete waste of time and energy. I'm sure it'll boost your engagement numbers though with all the flaws.
Which is funny, I demoed the Meta SX (same bike they tested) this last spring and honestly felt it wasn't a great climber. I demoed it on the same trail as a RM Altitude, Canfield Lithium, and Propain Tyee and it was by far the worst climber of the bunch. The Altitude was the best climber (the canfield pedled slightly better but was much heavier), The Meta was the most playful downhill though, with the Altitude as a VERY close second.
Wouldn’t a more fair test have been with all three of the testers riding the bikes on the climb instead of just one rider? And only one ride up on each bike?
Feels like this was more of a demonstration of rider suckage than test of each bike's capabilities. I got nothing but amusement watching rider climb fails. I wouldn't give its own Pinkbike compilation, but a fail is a fail and I'm saturated with schadenfreude.
Love this vid, just a word of caution, don't strain yer muscles. Something could snap, hamstring for example and you could be out for weeks/months, take it easy
So why did the tester have the seatpost on all the bikes fully extended? Would it not have helped to drop the seatpost so he could move his weight around the bike a bit more and make it over the log and around the switchbacks etc? He kept falling off cos his weight was fixed in one position, not how most people would tackle a steep techy climb....
Nice job taking the route off the established trail. Yeah, it's just your few bikes and, of course, no one will try and duplicate this impossible climb.
Maybe. I have a strong suspicion an Ibis Ripmo could clear it. DW link traction (like the Intense) and much less crazy slack geo and a not crazy long wheelbase.
@@mrvwbug4423I find myself liking bikes like the Ripmo or Orbea Rallon with a tad bit more conservative Geo better than the new ultra slack rigs of today.
Sorry… but that was the shittiest test. You must do, at least, two runs with each bike. One small fail from the rider (not the bike) and that dictates the de result of the the bike. We all know that it ain’t a scientific test nor it pretends to be. But a minimum of correctness must exist.
Crap test! It looked more like an inability to control the bike rather than an actual competitive test of the bikes. I’m left thinking that he needs to practice tech climbs and am no wiser about the actual differences between the bikes…
It's all down to rider technique, which was poor in this vid. Any of those bikes could do it. I could do it on my Zerode Taniwha Trail 445. This is the sort of climbing we do in Denmark. Vid does in no way show the capability of these bikes. Sorry guys. 👎 from me.
Levy should’ve grabbed the Intense and just gone to town at the end 😂
Need to do a second run after the first. Knowing the route makes a big difference.
Yeah, doesn't every bike deserve 2 runs?
Exactly. Practice effect is a real thing.
Alicia looked like she was keeping warm haha
That lose log was the stupidest thing you guys have come up with! Maybe next year the test will actually tell us something
The log was a paid actor. Tracer S making that a climb a little less impossible.
I would love to hear your opinions on the new conti tires that are being used for this test!
The only reason they use conti is because they where a sponsor.
@@thelittleewokboss9929 they happen to be really good tires too
@@thmsvd in my experience (the old ones, baron) wasnt really that great. Kinda slow rolling but not the best grip at the same time.
Also they didnt even last half a season and there were a lot of cracks in the tire by that time too. Especially for the price (I paid 100€ for 2 i think) i felt scammed.
@@timtb7906 these are not the same tires. The old ones sucked. The new ones are great
I am interested as well, these do seem really grippy on the impossible climb. I could see DHRs spinning on that climb
so much of this test is the rider tackling the technical challenges, and presumably getting to know the different bikes. I think you'd get a more accurate showcase if the rider had three attempts, and you showed the best of each. Also be good to have some onscreen graphics of the bike & model instead of just audio
Would YOU like to do that climb 21 times?
@@alecmoore hell no. I'd die
Needs a "control" XC bike to show it can be done.
Kinda love when Matt Beer explaining things in this 2022 field test season. He seems like not much of a talker like the other, but straight to the point and clear explanation
I think a more useful and effective test would be just timing the climb without the extra obstacles, which would take variations in the rider performance more out of the equation.
Good to see one-way bikes go two ways
Feel like it's more of a rider skill test rather than the bikes.
I've waited a year for this!!
Awesome bikes ❤❤❤🤘👍
So much science
Review the kona process x
can you do a review on the new Norco sight
cool stuff and impressive strengh and skill.
a still rather go to a place with lifts.
I could try the same technical climb with my current bike and have the same result as this video. You have the bikes... give us some numbers like timed uphill runs while keeping your wattage and heart rate near the same on each climb, have multiple testers, and compare results much like the DH timed runs...
omg! relax!
If there was a six pack at the top I think he would've been inspired to make it!
I think it was the grips on the intense!!!
shock lockout in or full open?
maybe not use loose logs?
this is a tough climb even without the logs?! I can barely make it up on my ebike.
Good to know, because on camera it looked fairly mellow.
So excited to get us this video they forgot to Colour grade it!
can you really color grade overcast PNW conditions?
@@mrvwbug4423 well yes, actually you can 🤫
North Shore Rack? Upcoming video?
Your next test is to test Matt's claim. Do 29er's have a bigger contact patch then the 27.5 if both have the same air pressure? And of course the same rider.
Yes
Yes, but obviously there's more to it than that since the two highest bikes were both mullets. The 27.5 back wheel will have lower effective gearing so will be easier to pedal, to match the effective gearing of a 29er you'd have to go up 2 teeth on the chainring (32t on a 27.5 is roughly the same as a 29er with 30t).
Match tire side wall tension, not pressure
No, 29 does not always have a bigger contact patch. It depends on the trail. Draw a curve with a 27.5 radius, cut out a 27.5 "wheel" and a 29 wheel. Which wheel has a bigger contact patch with the curve? I carry more climbing speed with a 29, but I clear more technical climbs with a 27.5 rear wheel.
@@hotdealwire does it mostly have a bigger contact patch?
I was all about the canyon bikes but I keep getting more and more keen on commencial - they seem to be more progressive and flexible
They both have one thing on common, they're sized HUGE. Canyon Strive and Commencal Meta AM/SX are bikes where you seriously want to look into sizing down
So flexible they crack the frame within a year
I have the meta sx as my guiding workhorse. It's hard work on the climbs and tight technical stuff. It's long and heavy that's for sure. But! It does it. And once you start going down you instantly forget about the climb. It works and it is built to keep working for the next 10 years. I sold my DH bike because the meta sx feels equally or even better capable than a 10 year old DH bike. It all depends on what you will ride. To give you an idea, I live in the Julian Alps. Not super high but extremely steep terrain with very hard enduro lines.
@@janeblogs324 my 2020 meta did crack after 2 seasons of abuse. But the 2022 model seems to be much much better. And even cracking the frame.... Commencal just sent me a new frame. No hassle, just straight on good customer service.
@@snakebiteparadise5504 my issue is when you buy a 2nd hand frame the warranty vanishes.
If you search the commncial frame breaks, they would be near death experiences. The way they are collapsing will mean every single frame will break, they need a recall
What’s the song in the intro?
Next year come to Terrace, BC and ride Flathead as your impossible climb 😂
Tough to compare the bikes since you're able to practice the climb with each iteration 🤔 (could explain why the Intense won too)
Other questions: Did you do some practice runs first to level the field? Why run the lockouts instead of getting traction from being open?
5:30 literally says he's running the suspension wide open. If it looks like it doesn't go deep in the travel it's because it's long travel bikes and Matt rides really efficient and light.
And that's another thing, Matt is such a good rider the 'practice' wouldn't make much of a difference. If that were the case, each bike would nearly be a perfectly linear progression of getting higher each time. That very rarely happens on these climb tests.
Also, realistically, these are for entertainment purposes. If you're actually deciding on these bikes from this 'test'... I'm very concerned lol. The best thing for a consumer from these "tests" is the roundtable, where the bikes go head to head, instead of just being reviewed in a vacuum.
@@TeddyParker Being good at riding bikes doesn't mean practice won't help lol. By that logic Amaury Pierron could just show up to a world cup with no practice laps and take the win. And obviously practice is not the only factor, the bike certainly plays a role as well as human error, so you could not expect the results to be perfectly linear like you suggested. It's not hard to believe the results might be slanted towards the latter bikes.
@@shrimpfriedrice494 ah yes, when i think of the challenge of getting up a steep nibbly climb with a log on it for extra trials street cred... i think of world cup courses at Amaury Pierron speeds
again, the test doesnt matter. its not scientific. it could be down to sheer dumb luck as much as it could be down to bike design or practice or rider skill. with so much loose terrain. thats how MTBing is
and no, the Intense one because Intense uses conservative geometry that pays dividends in this specific scenario. how many people will use it in a scenario just like this? not sure. but i'm def not gonna order a bike to fit the niche of doing log trials on a climb with banana peels.
It also makes it out like any of the bikes would be 'bad' in any way. That's maybe the real joke. These are all ridiculously amazing bikes. The only tests they do that are really compelling are the budget tests. Because those bikes can actually be hot dogshit
@@shrimpfriedrice494 not a comparison, dh WC is racing at speed with consequences, ie dying or losing with 1 small mistake
And to the surprise of nobody, the DW link based bike gets the highest. the commencal was surprising, climbing is not something Commencal Metas are known for. Though with the extra traction of the high pivot bikes I wonder if a Deviate Highlander (the Claymore's 150 travel little brother) might have been able to clear the whole climb just by having a little more manageable geo combined with the high pivot traction.
You do realise all the other bikes were hardtails in this test? Any link would've won
Epic degen comparison. Ty for stealing me 10 min.
Finally
get rid of the log and stupid rocks in the middle and let's be real.
ohh c'mon put that grim donut to climb that and prove once and for all that "lower longer slacker" is definitely the way to go man... hehe
great video,
i would say it is best to do the climb 2-3 times on each bike, at min 3:21 he ( the rider idk his name) rode over this rock. the bike could have made it further
It said his name at the start of the video
I thought they used to allow 2 attempts per bike on the impossible climb.
Yeah, it's pretty weird to make such an already not-scientific test less scientific by only doing 1 attempt per bike. The more attempts, the more accurate the results would be.
I feel like this test wasn’t very useful, it seemed more gimmicky than useful. I also think you need a control bike that you’ve runt the coarse on a few times, and each bike should get 2 runs with the best run being the one you go with. This would help to remove the variance caused by the rider getting better and making small mistakes that could end the run prematurely
Guys sort out your production. The audio buzz has been terrible the last few videos, and where is the colour grading on this video, the guys look so washed out. Who approved this?
Y’all better trademark the Impossible Climb discipline before the UCI runs with it
Pretty sure they've been popping up in a few of the XC world cup races. Some of those XC tracks are getting pretty gnarly.
MTB community is becoming more like roadies every year 😂
Would've been great if it didn't have staged obstacles...
as far as getting any useful data from this "test" if that's what you're calling it, maybe some useful data for Matt? Otherwise complete waste of time and energy. I'm sure it'll boost your engagement numbers though with all the flaws.
Dropper posts all broke?
my commencal am22 climbs way better than it has any right to. love these bikes
Which is funny, I demoed the Meta SX (same bike they tested) this last spring and honestly felt it wasn't a great climber. I demoed it on the same trail as a RM Altitude, Canfield Lithium, and Propain Tyee and it was by far the worst climber of the bunch. The Altitude was the best climber (the canfield pedled slightly better but was much heavier), The Meta was the most playful downhill though, with the Altitude as a VERY close second.
@@mrvwbug4423 i wasn’t fortunate to try other bikes when i was searching so i had nothing to compare…ignorance is bliss amiright? lol
I don't think it helps having your seat so high
Are you guys testing the Commencal in the high or low setting?
That log was really unnecessary editions. Unless you wanted an excuse to stop early on
Wouldn’t a more fair test have been with all three of the testers riding the bikes on the climb instead of just one rider? And only one ride up on each bike?
I agree, Should be 2 riders and maybe best of 3 attempts on each bike.
@@NickBainas yes! That test was disappointing:-(
No Rallon? Cool test though.
You failed the transition jump so your test is flawed. Bit silly.
Feels like this was more of a demonstration of rider suckage than test of each bike's capabilities. I got nothing but amusement watching rider climb fails. I wouldn't give its own Pinkbike compilation, but a fail is a fail and I'm saturated with schadenfreude.
Matt seems an incredible technical climber from previous vids, so I assume it was just a lot steeper than it looked.
Yeah Matt's a wizard on a bike both uphill and down... definitely not a rider deficiency.
I'm now thoroughly convinced that sense of humor has been all but entirely lost. Jebus. Where can I send dollars to a Buy A Sense Of Humor Fund?
Love this vid, just a word of caution, don't strain yer muscles. Something could snap, hamstring for example and you could be out for weeks/months, take it easy
Lol…
????
🙀
Way to big a gear, could easily climb that just use more balance.
its not a valid comparation needs to be back to back.
So why did the tester have the seatpost on all the bikes fully extended? Would it not have helped to drop the seatpost so he could move his weight around the bike a bit more and make it over the log and around the switchbacks etc? He kept falling off cos his weight was fixed in one position, not how most people would tackle a steep techy climb....
you have a dropper for a reason...
I hate to say it but Matt added a lot of vanilla to this series. I liked the other three more. It seemed more lively.
Who was that homeless person wrapped in the sleeping bag?
that stupid log
Nice job taking the route off the established trail. Yeah, it's just your few bikes and, of course, no one will try and duplicate this impossible climb.
I bet the V1 Mega would have conquered that climb.
Maybe. I have a strong suspicion an Ibis Ripmo could clear it. DW link traction (like the Intense) and much less crazy slack geo and a not crazy long wheelbase.
@@mrvwbug4423I find myself liking bikes like the Ripmo or Orbea Rallon with a tad bit more conservative Geo better than the new ultra slack rigs of today.
Nice but too much 4us:)
Sorry… but that was the shittiest test.
You must do, at least, two runs with each bike. One small fail from the rider (not the bike) and that dictates the de result of the the bike.
We all know that it ain’t a scientific test nor it pretends to be. But a minimum of correctness must exist.
Crap test! It looked more like an inability to control the bike rather than an actual competitive test of the bikes. I’m left thinking that he needs to practice tech climbs and am no wiser about the actual differences between the bikes…
NOthing unique about these bikes, HORRIBLE TITLE!
washed out footage and rider :(
It's all down to rider technique, which was poor in this vid. Any of those bikes could do it. I could do it on my Zerode Taniwha Trail 445. This is the sort of climbing we do in Denmark. Vid does in no way show the capability of these bikes. Sorry guys. 👎 from me.
I agree
God this guy lacks Levi or kazimers energy or humor.
And that's a good thing