# Chromag Doctahawk



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Chromag Bikes - Chromag Bikes | Bikes | Rootdown BA 29" / 27.5"

Love this, but I think 415mm chainstays are too short for me. The CSs are adjusted for size though. 62.5° with a 180mm fork, wow.


----------



## Gman086 (Jul 4, 2004)

Wow is right, SICK bike! Have you ridden a Canfield? My Balance has 420mm chainstays and is defnitely not too short. The long wheelbase and reach of the Doctahawk would add stability and the short chainstays would still make it snappy on tight corners; I would think you'd need that short to manual such a long bike. 62 deg hardtail tho - WOW! Me wanna try!!!

Have FUN!

G MAN


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Press fit Bottom bracket. Ugh.


----------



## KennyWatson (Sep 4, 2017)

Given that it's steel, and with the advent of thread together bottom brackets like those from wheels manufacturing, the pressfit issue is kinda irrelevant. 
I put the thread together style bottom bracket into my new Rootdown, I got it because I was paranoid about pressfit as all my previous bikes have been threaded. Now that I've actually done the install and understand how it works, I think it's a great setup and super robust. The pressfit is what allows for short chainstays and good tire clearance on a 29er. 

As far as the doctahawk goes, I like that chromag have put together something on the outer limits of modern geometry. I think it will help evolve all of their bikes. For me though a $1900 hardtail frame with a 180mm fork just doesn't make sense. Too much overlap with a full suspension rig. But again I still think it's awesome and in glad they have put it on the menu.


----------



## KennyWatson (Sep 4, 2017)

Also, I'm of the opinion that chromag do the short stays for a reason (aside from fashion). I find with the short stays I can really "place" the bike where I want it, and I have much more rear wheel awareness than my bike with 430mm stays. Also since with a hard tail the relationship between the rear axle and bottom bracket never changes the short stays really make you feel connected to the bike. 
Yes you can plow more with longer stays, and my rootdown would be faster in a straight line with longer stays. I'm not interested in trying to make my hardtail "plow". I have a full suspension bike that does that just fine, and that will always do it better. Hardtails for me are about a different approach to riding.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

If it was longer, lower and slacker with a bigger fork I'd be in. I don't ride XC though so this ain't gonna work.


----------



## Gman086 (Jul 4, 2004)

^^I know right? These steep HTA's in the 60's are so yesterday, need to get down into the 50's...

Have FUN!

G MAN


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

I'll wait until actual ride reviews come in. I'm not too optimistic. Probably would be tagged as extremely, extremely niche, if they were being nice, and not comparing directly to other hardtails for mainstream uses like AM riding. If they rated it positively for each time you hooted and hollared out of nervous excitement (e.g. from holding on after the bike became squirrely), it'd probably come out positive, with a clear disclaimer that it's probably not for folks looking to improve their hardtail PRs.

Who'd pay this much, 1650 USD, for a steel HT frame without a test ride? Not me, considering there's other options like the Pole Taival available. What's a fully custom steel frame go for?


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

ninjichor said:


> Who'd pay this much, 1650 USD, for a steel HT frame without a test ride?


Have you ridden extensively in the PNW? All your engineerding out won't help you understand if not.

If I had the pleasure to ride Sea to Sky corridor frequently I might consider a bike like this...


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

EatsDirt said:


> Have you ridden extensively in the PNW? All your engineerding out won't help you understand if not.
> 
> If I had the pleasure to ride Sea to Sky corridor frequently I might consider a bike like this...


That's exactly where I see this bike working. If you're riding down steep rock slabs in Squamish, then you need a lot of fork and rear suspension isn't as important since most of your weight is on the front end.

EDIT: I'll add Nelson too. They have some very steep terrain as well.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

I would love to be able to demo one of the crazy hardtail like this one or one of the Sick Bike Company or BTR hardtails just to see what they are like.


----------



## geraldooka (Jul 3, 2012)

What don’t you like about short chainstays Travis?


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

What size is your Canfield Balance, Gman086?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

On my Moxie I slammed my stays to 416mm and spun the rear wheel much more while climbing over wet/damp roots. It's wet here at least 1/2 the year. Maybe I could adapt, I didn't try it that way very long.


----------



## Gman086 (Jul 4, 2004)

ninjichor said:


> What size is your Canfield Balance, Gman086?


Medium


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Gman086 said:


> Medium











Chainstay length should be proportional to the wheelbase length, to determine the fore-aft balance of the bike.

- If the CSL is too short for how long the WB is, the rider is forced to compensate for the excessive rearward weight bias by shifting their body weight forward. The front end will lack weight, which can make the bike squirrely when plowing and cornering.

- If the CSL is too long for how long the WB is, the rider is forced to compensate for the excessive forward weight bias by shifting their body weight back. The nose will dive on jumps and drops, and the front may tend to stick to the ground instead of roll over obstacles when plowing (OTB risk), if you don't. It's difficult to manual, as your weight will want to bring the front back down to the ground.

On the Balance, you have 420mm CS and 1176mm wheelbase. Considering the amount of travel, and how the WB and CS length changes under suspension compression, I'd say that your bike's fore-aft balance is in the sweet spot, between too long and too short CS, based on personal experience. It could use more WB length for speeds, but you generally can compensate for this by lowering your CoG, stretching out your body along the length of the bike. A longer bike will allow you to stay more upright, as it has more inherent stability. If Canfield offered a bike that wasn't designed for stunting, I'd love to try them, maybe something in the 1250mm WB range, as their suspension kinematics are extremely dialed too, and have great taste in shock (fan of the DVO Topaz). As long as they get chassis stiffness dialed, but I digress...

Point is, the rider has to adapt to the bike, compensating for its quirks. Much easier to get along with something with fewer quirks, but I suppose the world would be kind of boring if things were perfect.

In this case of the Doctahawk, the wheelbase in M/L is 1238 WB, with 415mm CS. The front wheel is much much further away from the BB, than on your Balance, making the front end far more lofty. It does make an effort to accommodate a rider forward position, with 40mm longer reach (476) than your Balance (438), and being a HT the reach will further extend under fork compression, and shorten the wheelbase. Still, 415mm is a CS is something that belongs on a bike with 1150ish wheelbase, in my perfect world.

See here for comments on a Pipedream Moxie review, another bike with 1238mm WB and 415mm CS:

https://enduro-mtb.com/en/pipedream-moxie-hardtail-review/

They rode the bike with the sliders all the way back (430), and the bike has 510mm reach, so it's even more accommodating to the forward position than this Chromagg. It was too unbalanced otherwise. I agree that 430 CS better balances the bike better, pretty close to the sweet spot (for 1254 WB considering the CS adds 15mm to the WB, I would give it 435mm CS).








- This rider's hips are almost forward of the BB. I get the impression that the rider has a lot of weight on the bars, and not so much on the pedals.

As someone who likes a heavy feet, light hands riding style, I'd find this forward leaning position to be a big turn off.

Here's a bike that's was claimed to be well balanced, on the same trail:








- Rider looks a bit more rearward on the bike, more able to transfer more weight through the cranks.

Knowing how media doesn't like to burn bridges for advertisers, they'd probably just say who the bike is for, rather than say it won't suit their audience. If the media recommends this for hardcore aggro expert level riders, people might have delusions, optimistically thinking they might fit in that group, lust after the bike, recommending it to others who are loose with their money, to get them to guinea pig it, seeing how a someone perhaps less aggro likes it before they commit to buying one themselves.


----------



## Gman086 (Jul 4, 2004)

^^Nice post and a good read, thanks! I don't disagree but I will say that things seem to change when comparing a full sussy with a hardtail. I remember the first time I tried a Honzo... I expected to hate it but was pleasantly surprised at how much fun it was even tho sized too big for me (large). From that experience I would have to say that chainstay length isn't as critical on hardtails. Any thoughts on that? It did really surprise me! Maybe I had adjusted my riding position to make up for lack of rear suspension?

Cheers,

G


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

I like short chainstays on my hardtail because it makes it more nimble, poppy, easier to manual, etc. You don't actually have to shift your weight anymore forward on shorter chainstay bikes except for brief periods in some corners. On descents my weight is further back to drive more through the pedals to keep the rear on the ground. The downsides of shorter stays are stability at high speed and higher bump force felt at the pedals. Get a bmx bike and ride over something rough on the rear pegs and you'll really experience the difference.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Gman086 said:


> ^^Nice post and a good read, thanks! I don't disagree but I will say that things seem to change when comparing a full sussy with a hardtail. I remember the first time I tried a Honzo... I expected to hate it but was pleasantly surprised at how much fun it was even tho sized too big for me (large). From that experience I would have to say that chainstay length isn't as critical on hardtails. Any thoughts on that? It did really surprise me! Maybe I had adjusted my riding position to make up for lack of rear suspension?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> G

























These images should illustrate the difference between FS and HT, and how the geo changes dynamically. Notice how the CS length changes, horizontally measured. Not much, unless you're on a high single pivot.

In my experience, a HT's fork compresses on bumps twice, when the front wheel impacts, and when the rear wheel impacts. Not sure how common knowledge this is, but it's easily observable with video footage. A rider does adapt to compensate for this, but I haven't yet compared how natural this is for a rear-biased HT vs a front-biased HT (e.g. short front end XC oriented HT), as I have not tried a rear-biased HT yet. Perhaps Travis can answer this, as he has one of the few rare rear-biased HTs. I just know that it's whiplash-prone if the rear hits anything big. I have vowed to myself to not ride certain things again on my HT (Niner ROS9), and much prefer FS.









Honzo is 420 CS for 1184 WB in large, which is very close to your Balance, which has 420 CS and 1178 WB, which I deemed balanced. To speculate that a 415 CS 1238 WB bike would be fine, thinking HT aren't affected by CSL as much, based on the experiences you listed, takes quite a stretch of the imagination. The Honzo in L is slightly on the rear biased end of the spectrum, IMO, which isn't enough to make if feel unbalanced, but gives it a bit of character/quirkiness. Did you perhaps ride another Honzo with different geo?

What were you expecting to hate on the Honzo? Shorter travel and more compact geo is simply more responsive, with more ground feedback. You might handle the Balance like a Ford Ranger Dakar edition, and the Honzo like a Ford Fiesta rally car.

P.S. I hold a believe that for every 25mm/inch in wheelbase change, the CSL should be altered by 4-5mm to maintain the current balance.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Designer's thoughts on the Doctahawk: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/chromag-doctahawk-a-nerdy-geometry-explanation.html


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/chromag-doctahawk-a-nerdy-geometry-explanation.html

"My Descending Theories

1. I want a shorter ST length to leave room for a 170-200mm dropper post to get the saddle completely out of the way for very steep terrain.

2. Longer reach shifts my weight forward, moving weight off the rear wheel which is helpful for increased comfort on a hardtail in rough terrain.

3. I want as much travel as possible up front to make "riding the fork" while descending more comfortable. The extra mid-stroke support of the new Lyrik will allow for this without excessive diving.

4. I want a much slacker HA to feel comfortable riding in that more aggressive forward attack position without fear of going over the bars, especially with all that travel to cycle through.

5. The long wheelbase will help keep the bike calmer in fast rough terrain.

6. Front and rear center "imbalance" is less troublesome in real life than it is for some people on the interwebz, as is the imagined "problem" of disparate front and rear travel (if you ride both hardtails and squishy bikes you know this is silly. They really don't feel that different, and the hardtail just needs more energy/input/finesse).

7. Longer reach may make wheelie's more difficult, but I can mitigate that with good technique and relatively short chainstays.'

^^ From the one who designed the geo.

Edit: Ah damn, vikb beat me cause I was reading it.

More quotes:

"On the negative side, the bike MUST be ridden aggressively and with a lot of pressure on the front wheel, otherwise it'll just run away on you and you'll lose traction. There were some scary moments early on where I got lazy and "sat back" to try to rest... Bad idea. The trails I prefer riding generally demand your full attention anyway, and I'm a trail "smasher" at heart, so this is fine with me. Consequently, there is more demand on your upper body, so do some extra push-ups.."

^ Matches my predicted fears....

"Evidence of this came in the form of final tire pressures - I ended up at a nearly-balanced 22psi front/23 psi rear, instead of my previous 20/30; a big difference in comfort and traction."

:skep: I imagine this only working if the rider is in the perfect position to compensate for the bike, which in this case means riding the front wheel. If he goes to a normal bike, he'd would be rightly afraid of going OTB quite a bit. I presume this guy's "natural" position is the forward one this Doctahawk requires, hence it works just right for him. Only way I can explain his perspective on #6 in his descending theories... xD

From the comments:









LeeLau said, "Chromag didn't push the article to PB. PB picked the article up from the Chromag site. Chromag didn't push it because, like you said, those who know they can ride this bike in the way it was intended to be used, know what they want."

Not sure if I'm just confirming my own bias or what, but I didn't find anything disagreeable or contradictory to what I've said/predicted.

When I designed my custom FS frame, I did take into account the handlebar height, which this guy apparently missed, saying his head tube length was a bit short. When you slack out the bike that much, and raise the rider with the steep STA, it's amusing to see how the handlebar height still is under the saddle despite a long fork.


----------



## KennyWatson (Sep 4, 2017)

I find myself surprised by how fast I can go (for me, anyways) on a hardtail down steep, sketchy terrain by "riding the fork". In my mind this type of geometry facilitates that riding style. This riding style is a bit of an acquired taste and the corresponding terrain is geographically specific. Because of this it's no big surprise that this bike doesn't really compute to some people.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@KennyWatson Are you saying you'd prefer to shift more of the load to your upper body, from the rest of your body, such as your legs, because that's a riding style that you've developed a taste for?


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

One thing that surprised me with that frame is how steep the STA is with the longest fork option. 77* unsagged with a 180mm fork means it's going to be considerably steeper with the fork sagged and/or with a shorter travel fork, perhaps to the point of putting off folks who might want to run a 150-160mm fork for a slightly more conservative front end.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

KennyWatson said:


> I find myself surprised by how fast I can go (for me, anyways) on a hardtail down steep, sketchy terrain by "riding the fork".


Can you explain what that means? How is it different than the usual neutral position with heels dropped?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

David R said:


> One thing that surprised me with that frame is how steep the STA is with the longest fork option. 77* unsagged with a 180mm fork means it's going to be considerably steeper with the fork sagged and/or with a shorter travel fork, perhaps to the point of putting off folks who might want to run a 150-160mm fork for a slightly more conservative front end.


I've only been to the park in Whistler but, my understanding is that you are mainly climbing or descending. While climbing forks don't sag much if any. I don't think mine sags significantly even on the flats while seated.


----------



## KennyWatson (Sep 4, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> @KennyWatson Are you saying you'd prefer to shift more of the load to your upper body, from the rest of your body, such as your legs, because that's a riding style that you've developed a taste for?





jeremy3220 said:


> Can you explain what that means? How is it different than the usual neutral position with heels dropped?


I'll try to clarify. First of all what's being described is a (fairly small) change to the attack position (which in itself is a bit misleading because the attack position is not really a static thing) not the neutral position. I think it's always fair to say that depending on the bike and the rider, the attack position will have some "bias" one way or the other.

Since you have no rear suspension, you need to allow the rear of the bike to move when riding over uneven terrain and it needs to move more or less independently of your core/center of mass, or eventually you will get pitched off the bike, probably otb. If you don't agree with this point then stop reading this post. In my mind this concept is fundamental, you have to let your legs bend and be the suspension or it'll buck you into the next century.

what being described is the act of stabilizing your body/core via the bars to allow your legs to move more easily with the bike while your core stays stationary. The effect is you brace yourself forward to allow the bike to move, and you get the riding style being described.

Keep in mind this is a dynamic position, not one that you ride around using on flat or smooth terrain - bracing your body forward all the time, that's be wierd and exhausting.

Your only contact points are the pedals and the bars, and allowing the rear of the bike to move without the help of suspension means allowing your weight on the BB to be more dynamic. If you just press your heels down and hope for the best you'll either have very sore ankles or get bucked. The net effect of this is on average you have a more weight-forward riding dynamic. And again this geometry helps make that doable without OTB events.

This is also partly why longer stays can have a calming effect, they reduce the amount of movement at the bottom bracket relative to the rear axle. So coming from a full suspension bike where your tendency to to weight the bottom bracket, it will feel more stable. It's totally valid but the effect becomes less noticeable when your body positioning changes to allow the rear end to move.



David R said:


> One thing that surprised me with that frame is how steep the STA is with the longest fork option. 77* unsagged with a 180mm fork means it's going to be considerably steeper with the fork sagged and/or with a shorter travel fork, perhaps to the point of putting off folks who might want to run a 150-160mm fork for a slightly more conservative front end.


That would be a wierd thing to do though, because chromag already make the primer and rootdown which are designed for a 150-160 fork at 64 degree head angle and 76 degree seat tube and appropriate BB height for that fork. So if you want a 150-160 bikes, buy a 150-160 bike, don't buy a 180 bike and de-fork it to 160 and complain it made the geometry wierd. ;-p

I also agree with Travis, during seated climbing (which is when STA is most noticeable), especially up steep grades, there is minimal sag, so it's not likely the "real world" STA is a whole lot steeper than advertised.

I have a rootdown and it's definitely not very comfortable on mild downhill grades while seated, lots of wrist pressure. Luckily I have little interest in type of terrain, as is the case for most people who buy these bikes.

Hope that helps.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

KennyWatson said:


> I'll try to clarify. First of all what's being described is a (fairly small) change to the attack position (which in itself is a bit misleading because the attack position is not really a static thing) not the neutral position. I think it's always fair to say that depending on the bike and the rider, the attack position will have some "bias" one way or the other.
> 
> Since you have no rear suspension, you need to allow the rear of the bike to move when riding over uneven terrain and it needs to move more or less independently of your core/center of mass, or eventually you will get pitched off the bike, probably otb. If you don't agree with this point then stop reading this post. In my mind this concept is fundamental, you have to let your legs bend and be the suspension or it'll buck you into the next century.
> 
> ...


Does fork travel change your technique or just geo? I learned to handle on a rigid bike, then a hardtail then full suspension so I feel like I already ride very actively. I'm not sure if this is a technique I'm already using or something different.


----------



## KennyWatson (Sep 4, 2017)

jeremy3220 said:


> Does fork travel change your technique or just geo? I learned to handle on a rigid bike, then a hardtail then full suspension so I feel like I already ride very actively. I'm not sure if this is a technique I'm already using or something different.


My opinion is that when you're riding something technical and the main goal is to keep the rubber side down and yourself on the bike, the geo and suspension you have are both going to influence how you go about maximizing your chances of survival.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

KennyWatson said:


> That would be a wierd thing to do though, because chromag already make the primer and rootdown which are designed for a 150-160 fork at 64 degree head angle and 76 degree seat tube and appropriate BB height for that fork. So if you want a 150-160 bikes, buy a 150-160 bike, don't buy a 180 bike and de-fork it to 160 and complain it made the geometry wierd. ;-p


Hmm, I guess that does make a lot of sense! :lol:
I'm not particularly familiar with Chromags line-up.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

KennyWatson said:


> My opinion is that when you're riding something technical and the main goal is to keep the rubber side down and yourself on the bike, the geo and suspension you have are both going to influence how you go about maximizing your chances of survival.


But does your technique change between a longer travel hardtail and a mid/short travel hardtail (160mm vs 120mm)? Are you still 'riding the fork' on the 120mm hardtail?


----------



## KennyWatson (Sep 4, 2017)

jeremy3220 said:


> But does your technique change between a longer travel hardtail and a mid/short travel hardtail (160mm vs 120mm)? Are you still 'riding the fork' on the 120mm hardtail?


If I was handed a 120mm hardtail I'd never ridden, I suppose id certainly try to lean on the fork and see how it goes. My wife has a 120mm Norco fluid 27.5+ bike. It's a medium so it has about 425 or 430mm reach and I think it has a 67 or 68 degree head angle. I pretty much end up riding it like a rigid bike, bit I think that's mostly because it's so short. I haven't ridden a long slack 120mm hardtail. I imagine you'd ride the fork, you'd just find the limit a little earlier.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

More info from Chromag on the D-Hawk:

https://nsmb.com/articles/how-about-chromag-doctahawk/

I'd type stuff about it here, but I'm feeling lazy and Ninjichor will type about 3 pages of text about it in one post if I just wait an hour anyways so.... 

I'm thinking of doing a chrome to purple fade. I have time to decide Brad has a few do to before mine.


----------



## geraldooka (Jul 3, 2012)

Chrome to purple fade... Killer. Can't wait to see you ride that unicorn!


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

What size, vikb?

Frankly, that article didn't give a single bit of measurable data. It's all subjective and trivial in academic value, with encouragement to see it from their point of view, that hypes up the value of the credentials and the feelings of the people behind the bike. Generally, bikes tend to come with claims that they have to prove, but there's no proving here, just "the bike has a place" and "have faith/trust in us" dialogue.

The points of the article summed up:

- Armchair engineers say this and that. It's not extreme when you see it like this. This being that the industry's already moving towards longer front centers and steeper STA, and the HA isn't so steep under sag.

- Made in Canada, welded by someone who did work on race cars, and has extensive bike fab experience before.

- I believe in this bike enough that I'm choosing it for a particular event, and we've already sold 12 and taking preorders for another batch, so it's not that niche.

*shrug* I was only saying the CS on the M/L was short for how long the WB was, and how that forces the rider into a forward leaning position to compensate. I wondered how many were willing to pay $1600 for it without a test ride, and was waiting for ride reports. Most my answers were answered by Dr. Tomahawk, and I discovered at least a couple people claiming to prefer to ride their fork (as opposed to being balanced, or riding off the back). And now you seem to claim to be one to order without test ride...

No judgement from me. Just wasn't optimistic, for all the reasons my long wordy posts explained above, based on my narrow perspective.


----------



## Rynee (Aug 11, 2014)

Another interesting interview with Ian ritz: https://cyclingmagazine.ca/mtb/chromag-doctahawk/


----------



## flatlandersk (May 21, 2009)

I am currently riding a large stylus with a 180mm Z1 bomber on the front. It climbs fine and rips down. with a 170mm dropper, the steeper the terrain the better. The bike is super capable. They list the HTA at 65 with a 160mm but with my bike setup all Jackie Chan, that is closer to 64 degrees. It's no 62 degrees but it's slack and high but still climbs fine. I'm of the old school though where we were putting long travel bomber on xc bikes, raking them out hugely and jumping off anything we could find. So a I can adjust to the added height the 180mm fork causes. I rode a 2015 Surface before this raked out with a 160mm fork. 

I've come close to pulling the trigger on one of the SICK cycles framesets to try out this exaggerated geo, but with Chromag dropping this frame, I could definitely see myself trying out since I love my Stylus.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

flatlandersk said:


> I've come close to pulling the trigger on one of the SICK cycles framesets to try out this exaggerated geo, but with Chromag dropping this frame, I could definitely see myself trying out since I love my Stylus.


Also you will actually get a frameset from Chromag unlike Sick.


----------



## flatlandersk (May 21, 2009)

93EXCivic said:


> Also you will actually get a frameset from Chromag unlike Sick.


Ain't that the truth. My buddy ordered a Wulf and it didn't show. 8 months later he finally gets his money back (from PayPal, not SICK)


----------



## flatlandersk (May 21, 2009)

vikb said:


> More info from Chromag on the D-Hawk:
> 
> https://nsmb.com/articles/how-about-chromag-doctahawk/
> 
> ...


I'd warn you that the purple metallic is a House of Kolors paint and they just don't hold up on a mountain bike. I have a purple Samurai in that paint and it's SOOO fragile. Any contact with something metal, even a bike chain when you are locking it up and the paint flakes. I had the same issues with a 2 coat custom paint job on my Surface. It was a House of Kolor flouro red overtop of a bright white and it was even worse than this Samaurai. I had to get a repaint.


----------



## GreenCowman (Jul 24, 2016)

Anyone on here have one yet? Really interested in getting one, thinking that a Doctahawk might be enough to replace my full squish but I'm nervous to take the plunge without riding one first.


----------



## kpw2011 (May 7, 2012)

Gvus2001 said:


> Anyone on here have one yet? Really interested in getting one, thinking that a Doctahawk might be enough to replace my full squish but I'm nervous to take the plunge without riding one first.


i second this, im interested in reading about rider experiences.


----------



## richiban (Feb 12, 2009)

Not much action in this thread so here are my thoughts. 

Context: 

Bike —> I have about 5 rides on my new Doctahawk (it is the updated version with the 420m chainstay). Size is M/L. I’m running a Lyrik Ultimate (the newest one) currently set at 160mm. Air spring being swapped to 170mm this weekend to try that. 

Me —> I’m just over 5’10” with longer torso and shorter legs. 90% of my riding is in around Vancouver (North Shore, Eagle, Burke), Squamish and Whistler. The vast majority of my riding involves starting with a fairly steep and techy singletrack climb followed by either fast and not terribly steep blue or black trails or slower and quite steep black or double back trails. Lots of this riding includes fairly tight turns and tight / janky switchback climbing moves. My other bike is a Yeti SB130LR in size Large. So the reach and fit of the M/L Doctahawk is very similar to my squishy bike.

Previous hardtails —> I owned a M/L 2019 Rootdown and then a 2020 L Rootdown in the last year and a bit before building the Doctahawk. I sold the 2019 M/L because it felt a bit short (wheelbase / reach) as compared to my buddy’s 2019 L. My L 2020 Rootdown was a sizing experiment. I rode that with a 32mm stem to make up for the much longer top tube. The L 2020 Rootdown felt very stable and was totally manageable but just didn’t feel quite as nimble as I wanted. Also the 2020 L Rootdown felt a bit taller than I wanted (standover and seat tube length).

Doctahawk impressions —> I went with a M/L Doctahawk because it is very close in fit to my SB130LR and basically splits the size difference between the new M/L and new L Rootdown / Primer. The 160mm travel Lyrik steepens the head angle and seat tube angle a touch, drops the BB, and lengthens the reach and a little. I can’t comment yet on riding this bike with a 180mm fork. In terms of ride feel, I noticed immediately that the front wheel is less prone to lifting sensation on steep climbs than my previous Rootdowns. Other than basic fit issues relating to now having a size of bike I’m happier with, that (and being able to run a 210mm dropper now) is the main difference I noticed so far. As compared to my previous hardtails, which I ran with 160mm or 150mm travel forks, there’s really no other night and day difference to speak of. The bike feels great and is incredibly easy to handle in all terrain I’ve tried so far. So take internet comments about this being a totally niche product with a hefty portion of salt. It certainly is a niche product in the sense that expensive hardtails are a niche and that hardtails with over 150mm travel are a niche. However, my experience so far is that this bike is not any more niche than anything else in the aggressive hardtail category (Rootdown,Primer, Norco Torrent, etc). So, if any aggressive hardtail is not for you, this bike will definitely not be before you. But, as compared to other frames I’ve ridden in the general category, there is nothing crazy about this bike. Keep in mind that I’m running it at 160mm and will update my thoughts once I get some time on the 170mm spring. But so far I am very pleased with the ride and find this bike to be comfortable, and sufficiently nimble while also remaining stable.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Great looking bike. Enjoy! 

Without really meaning to I ended up with Doctahawk-esque HT myself. Still waiting on the last couple parts before I can ride it. I'll be interested to see how these aggressive HTs ride. They certainly are a long way off the geo of my previous HTs.

Experimenting is fun! I love your clean build.


----------



## richiban (Feb 12, 2009)

vikb said:


> Great looking bike. Enjoy!
> 
> Without really meaning to I ended up with Doctahawk-esque HT myself. Still waiting on the last couple parts before I can ride it. I'll be interested to see how these aggressive HTs ride. They certainly are a long way off the geo of my previous HTs.
> 
> Experimenting is fun! I love your clean build.


Thanks. I think you'll find that if you ride reasonably steep terrain these "aggressive" hardtails don't feel at all out of place. I commuted to and from work a few days last week too and even on the road it felt comfortable (but obviously slow...chalk that up partly though to 2.6 tires and Cushcore Pro). They obviously aren't going to feel sprightly in the way that a racy short-travel XC bike will be but they sure are fun. Before I got into the Chromags I hadn't ridden a hard tail since I raced some XC in the 1990s!


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

richiban said:


> Before I got into the Chromags I hadn't ridden a hard tail since I raced some XC in the 1990s!


Ya that's a big jump in HT tech. I had a custom HT made last year...that pre-Doctahawk...I would have said was quite aggressive in geo, but the new bike is a whole other level in terms of long and slack. I live on Vancouver Island so we lots of steep tech here to ride. It should be fun!


----------



## richiban (Feb 12, 2009)

richiban said:


> Not much action in this thread so here are my thoughts.
> 
> Context:
> 
> ...


I've had the 170mm spring in the Lyrik for a while now and have decided to go back to the 160mm. The change from 160mm to 170mm raised the front end and slackened the bike sufficiently to make it feel too sluggish for my tastes. The 10mm increase to 170mm increased front wheel wander and lift sensation on moderate to steeper climbs, which results (for me) in less control. The bike in 160mm mode feels plenty capable, even in steep and janky terrain, but feels a bit more lively and balanced. YMMV.


----------



## OperatorBo (Mar 20, 2011)

this is my son's. I rode it once. the short chain stays make the slack head tube very manageable. more nimble than my Hightower on tight switchbacks. very stable bike on the downs. very compliant frame too.


----------



## Rynee (Aug 11, 2014)

New doctahawk owner reporting from the midst of Europe. Large frame, 180 mm yari, currently running 27.5x2.8 minions, 9spd xt and xt brakes. Had a very thorough deep dive last weekend, including a phantastic dawn ride starting in the dark and revealing the wonders of nature in a spectacular way. Amazing that this happens every day, and we usually cannot appreciate it...









The bike is just amazing, both up and especially on the downs (obviously). I've been riding a medium steel and large Ti honzo (2° angleset and 150mm fox36) in the recent years, which are excellent bikes. The doctahawk is a significant progression in the best direction. Both fast and slow downhill sections were great, in spite of the additional reach and wheelbase. Uphill was great but noticeably more exhausting than with the ti honzo, however that one has 29x2.6 minions and is obviously lighter. The slack head angle is definitely not a showstopper in any kind of application. Looking forward to putting more miles into that beast. Now some more pics :


----------



## yzedf (Apr 22, 2014)

I’m loving mine so far.


----------



## Rynee (Aug 11, 2014)

I had to call the docta in early morning hours today...


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

I met up with a visiting rider to show him around the local trails. He happened to be on a Docta. Sweet bike and I got to do a parking lot lap. I guess I've ridden a bunch of "modern" geo hardtails now as it felt pretty normal. 👌


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

OperatorBo said:


> this is my son's. I rode it once. the short chain stays make the slack head tube very manageable. more nimble than my Hightower on tight switchbacks. very stable bike on the downs. very compliant frame too.
> View attachment 1917972


So pretty! I have been thinking of stripping my very similarly built (wheels, fork, XX1 AXS) honzo ESD and getting this same frame. Stunning, and I hear it rides great too!


----------



## mambarider9 (Mar 17, 2014)

Finally finished my dream build 👏👏👏


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Looks great.


----------

