Over the past few months I’ve been trying to weigh whether I thought the extra complication and faff of the high pivot was worth whatever descending benefits provided to the Optic, and I think I’ve come to a semi-confident conclusion. For the right person, someone who wants a little bike that can push beyond its purview when truly ridden hard, the tradeoffs might just be worthwhile.
The benefits here are not profound, making all other 120-130 bikes feel puny in comparison. It’s more of a subtle leg up on the competition, with a smoother, more composed ride through rougher patches of trail while still remaining poppy and fun in chill terrain. Going back to back with other bikes in a similar travel range, the biggest difference is in the feedback felt through the feet, with less chain influence on the pedals through successive hits. Getting the bike to sing requires a bit of a heavy hand, rewarding a committed ride style and heavier presence through the feet than other bikes. This is a hard sensation to sum up well, but suffice to say it prefers it when you ride hard.
The Optic jumps intuitively, both on bigger lips and off of smaller side hits, with none of the weird unpredictability that some high pivot bikes can generate. I think this is largely due to the relatively neutral rearward axle path, as opposed to bikes that just keep getting longer the more you push into them. There’s enough growth to counter the very short chainstays, but not so much that things get weird. I might have made the starting rear center a little longer myself, but the bike does retain a lively and cutty feel as a result of the shorter back end.
The chassis of the Optic feels stout without being harsh, which lends more confidence towards the already pugnacious nature of the bike. The only real downside to the carbon frame was some persistent noise that I never really eliminated. It mostly seemed isolated to the internal cable routing, almost as if the tubes were too big for the hoses snaking through them. This led to some chattery noise on high frequency hits, but wasn’t loud enough to annoy most. I’d probably just add a rubber plug on either end of the hose if it were my bike, to try to keep things tight at the upper entrance.
Over the test period, I’ve spent an equal amount of time with the bike in its full 29″ and mixed wheel modes, to see if a singular preference won out. I’d have a hard time choosing one all-out favorite, though it’s telling that I haven’t been tempted to put the bigger rear wheel in anytime recently. If cornering speed, balanced handling, and pedaling efficiency are your goals, then I’d go with the 29er. If you want to lean into the funky idiosyncratic nature of this bike, square off corners, and manual pump through picky little sections of trail, then the 27.5″ rear might just be the ticket. Luckily, the nature of the bike doesn’t drastically change between the two, it just comes down to whether you like the mixed wheel feel or not.
0 Comments