We hit the road on two bikes with the same engine but different frame materials and geometries. What is the best method for ascent and descent?
Riders looking for an enduro, enduro electric mountain bike are confused, but that means finding the right bike for your ride can be tricky. It doesn’t help that brands have different focuses.
Some put geometry first, hoping owner-led spec updates will unlock the bike’s full potential, while others opt for better performance that leaves nothing to be desired.
Still others try to deliver performance on a tight budget through careful selection of frame parts, geometry, and materials. The debate about the best electric motor for mountain bikes continues to rage not only because of tribalism, but also because of the advantages in torque, watt-hours and weight.
So many options mean that prioritizing your needs is critical. Think about the type of terrain you’ll be riding – do you like super steep alpine-style descents or do you prefer to ride on softer trails?
Then think about your budget. Despite the brand’s best efforts, no bike is perfect and there’s a good chance it will need some aftermarket upgrades to improve performance, especially tires and the like.
Battery capacity and engine power, feel and range are also important, the latter depending not only on drive performance, but also on the terrain you ride, your strength and the weight of you and your bike.
At first glance, there wasn’t much difference between our two test bikes. The Whyte E-160 RSX and Cube Stereo Hybrid 160 HPC SLT 750 are enduro, enduro electric mountain bikes at the same price point and share many frame and frame parts.
The most obvious match is their motors – both are powered by the same Bosch Performance Line CX drive, powered by a 750 Wh PowerTube battery built into the frame. They also share the same suspension design, shock absorbers and SRAM AXS wireless shifting.
However, dig deeper and you will find many differences, most notably frame materials.
The Cube’s front triangle is made from carbon fiber – at least on paper, carbon fiber can be used to create a lighter chassis with a better combination of stiffness and “compliance” (engineered flex) for improved comfort. White tubes are made from hydroformed aluminium.
However, trace geometry may have a greater influence. The E-160 is long, low and sagging, while the Stereo has a more traditional shape.
We tested two bikes in a row at the British Enduro World Series circuit in Tweed Valley, Scotland to see which one works best in practice and give you a better idea of how they perform.
Fully loaded, this premium 650b wheel bike features a mainframe made from premium Cube C:62 HPC carbon fiber, Fox Factory suspension, Newmen carbon wheels and SRAM’s premium XX1 Eagle AXS. wireless transmission.
However, the top end geometry is a bit restrained, with a 65-degree head tube angle, 76-degree seat tube angle, 479.8mm reach (for the large size we tested) and a relatively tall bottom bracket (BB).
Another premium offering (after the long-travel E-180), the E-160 has decent performance but can’t match the Cube with its aluminum frame, Performance Elite suspension and GX AXS gearbox.
However, the geometry is more advanced, including a 63.8-degree head tube angle, 75.3-degree seat tube angle, 483mm reach, and an ultra-low 326mm bottom bracket height, plus White turned the engine to lower the center of the bike. gravity. You can use 29″ wheels or a mullet.
Whether you’re racing your favorite trails, instinctively choosing a line and entering a state of flow, or just riding blind, a good bike should at least take some of the guesswork out of you and make trying new descents easier and more fun. hills, be a little rough or push harder.
Enduro e-bikes should not only do this when descending, but also make it faster and easier to climb back to the starting point. So how do our two bikes compare?
First, we will focus on the general features, especially the powerful Bosch motor. With 85 Nm of peak torque and up to 340% gain, the Performance Line CX is the current benchmark for natural power gain.
Bosch has been hard at work developing its latest intelligent system technology, and two of the four modes – Tour+ and eMTB – now respond to driver input, adjusting power output based on your effort.
Although it sounds like an obvious feature, so far only Bosch has managed to create such a powerful and useful system in which hard pedaling greatly increases engine assistance.
Both bikes use the most energy intensive Bosch PowerTube 750 batteries. With 750 Wh, our 76 kg tester was able to cover more than 2000 m (and thus jump) on the bike without recharging in Tour+ mode.
However, this range is greatly reduced with the eMTB or Turbo, so climbs over 1100m can be challenging at full power. The Bosch app for smartphones eBike Flow allows you to customize the assistance even more precisely.
Less obviously, but no less important, the Cube and Whyte also share the same Horst-link rear suspension setup.
Known from Specialized FSR bikes, this system places an additional pivot between the main pivot and the rear axle, “decoupling” the wheel from the main frame.
With the adaptability of the Horst-link design, manufacturers can customize the bike’s suspension kinematics to suit specific needs.
That being said, both brands make their bikes relatively advanced. The Stereo Hybrid 160′s arm has been increased by 28.3% in travel, making it ideal for both spring and air shocks.
With a 22% improvement, the E-160 is better suited for air strikes. Both have 50 to 65 percent traction control (how much braking force affects the suspension), so their rear end should stay active when you’re at anchor.
Both have equally low anti-squat values (how much suspension depends on pedaling force), around 80% sag. This should help them feel smooth on rough terrain but tend to wobble as you pedal. This is not a big issue for an e-bike as the motor will compensate for any loss of energy due to suspension movement.
Digging deeper into the bike’s components reveals more similarities. Both feature Fox 38 forks and Float X rear shocks.
While the Whyte gets the uncoated Performance Elite version of Kashima, the internal damper technology and external tuning are the same as the fancier factory kit on the Cube. The same goes for the transmission.
While the Whyte comes with SRAM’s entry-level wireless kit, the GX Eagle AXS, it is functionally identical to the more expensive and lighter XX1 Eagle AXS, and you won’t notice a performance difference between the two.
Not only do they have different wheel sizes, with Whyte riding larger 29-inch rims and Cube riding smaller 650b (aka 27.5-inch) wheels, but the brand’s tire selection is also drastically different.
E-160 fitted with Maxxis tires and Stereo Hybrid 160, Schwalbe. However, it is not the tire manufacturers who distinguish them, but their compounds and carcasses.
Whyte’s front tire is a Maxxis Assegai with an EXO+ carcass and sticky 3C MaxxGrip compound known for its all-weather grip on all surfaces, while the rear tire is a Minion DHR II with a less sticky but faster 3C MaxxTerra and DoubleDown rubber. The cases are strong enough to withstand the rigors of an electric mountain bike.
The Cube, on the other hand, is equipped with Schwalbe’s Super Trail shell and ADDIX Soft front and rear compounds.
Despite the excellent tread pattern of the Magic Mary and Big Betty tires, the Cube’s impressive list of features is held back by a lighter body and less grippy rubber.
However, along with the carbon frame, the lighter tires make the Stereo Hybrid 160 a favorite. Without pedals, our big bike weighed 24.17kg compared to 26.32kg for the E-160.
The differences between the two bikes deepen when you analyze their geometry. White went to great lengths to lower the E-160′s center of gravity by tilting the front of the engine up to allow the battery section to fit under the engine.
This should improve the bike’s turns and make it more stable on rough terrain. Of course, a low center of gravity alone doesn’t make a bike a good one, but here it is complemented by White’s geometry.
A shallow 63.8-degree head tube angle with 483mm long reach and 446mm chainstays help maintain stability, while a 326mm bottom bracket height (all-large frames, flip-chip “low” position) improves stability in low-slung corners. .
Cube’s head angle is 65 degrees, steeper than White’s. The BB is also taller (335mm) despite the smaller wheels. While the reach is the same (479.8mm, large), the chainstays are shorter (441.5mm).
In theory, all this together should make you less stable on the track. The Stereo Hybrid 160 has a steeper seat angle than the E-160, but its 76-degree angle exceeds the Whyte’s 75.3-degrees, which should make climbing hills easier and more comfortable.
While geometry numbers, suspension diagrams, spec lists, and overall weight may indicate performance, this is where the character of the bike is proven on the track. Point these two cars uphill and the difference is immediately apparent.
The seating position on the Whyte is traditional, leaning towards the seat, depending on how your weight is distributed between the saddle and the handlebars. Your feet are also placed in front of your hips instead of directly below them.
This reduces climbing efficiency and comfort because it means you have to carry more weight to keep the front wheel from becoming too light, bobbing or lifting.
This is exacerbated on steep climbs as more weight is transferred to the rear wheel, compressing the bike’s suspension to the point of sag.
If you’re only driving the Whyte, you won’t necessarily notice it, but when you switch from the Stereo Hybrid 160 to the E-160, it feels like you’re stepping out of a Mini Cooper and into a stretched out limousine.
The seating position of the Cube when lifted is upright, the handlebars and front wheel are close to the center of the bike, and the weight is evenly distributed between the seat and handlebars.
Post time: Jan-18-2023