Fit and Geometry
One of the biggest changes for the 2016 Troy is the significantly re-vamped geometry. Basically, the Troy got bigger. The Medium 2016 Troy that I rode was actually slightly larger than the Large 2015 version. The reach on a Medium has gone from a relatively short 415mm (16.3”) on the 2015 model, to 440mm (17.3”) on the 2016 model, which makes it one of the longest bikes on the market.
That lengthening doesn’t feel quite as dramatic though, since Devinci has gone from spec’ing a 60mm stem on the 2015 version, to a 35mm stem on the 2016 version. The seat tube angle also comes in slightly steeper (74.5°) on the 2016 version, so the top tube length stays pretty reasonable: 602mm (23.7”) on the Medium.
The Troy still retains the flip chip geometry adjustment feature, and it’s essentially the same as the 2015 version. Flipping the chip changes the headtube from 67.4° to 67, the bottom bracket drops about 5mm, and most of the other lengths and angles change by a little bit as well. On both the 2015 Troy and the 2016 Troy, I found that I preferred the low / slack mode, but people that are concerned about pedal strikes or spend more time climbing steep, technical trails might prefer the high setting.
The 2016 Troy also gets slightly shorter chainstays: 426mm (16.8”), which is at the short end for bikes in this class. The 338mm (13.3”) bottom bracket height is also pretty low, and when combined with the short stays makes for a bike that likes to go around corners quickly.
The Ride
As I mentioned at the outset, the 2015 Troy was a fun bike, but I felt like the suspension got overwhelmed at times. It was a great bike for “normal” trails at a “normal” pace—its active suspension did a great job of smoothing out the terrain, even if it wasn’t the most efficient pedaling bike or the most inclined to really smash through rough stuff with speed.
The 2016 Troy is a different beast entirely. I’d tentatively say it bears more in common with the 2015 Devinci Spartan than it does with the 2015 Troy. The longer geometry of the Troy makes it more stable, and the stiffer rear end means that it’s happier to get thrown sideways into corners.
But the biggest difference is the rear suspension; gone is the tendency to bottom out off of medium-sized hits. In fact, gone is the tendency to bottom out at all. The new Troy was one of the more progressive bikes that I rode at Interbike, and it handled big hits as well (or better) than anything else in it’s class. I was running around 33% sag on my demo bike, and while I used all of the travel, I never felt a harsh bottom out, even on my “Huck to Flat” test.
As an added bonus, I also found the new Troy to be a more efficient pedaler. I still don’t think it’s quite best in class, but it was very good. It firms up nicely when you lay power into the pedals, and it doesn’t bob excessively while spinning on smoother climbs.
The downsides? Well, to start, the improvements to the suspension and the extra stability afforded by the longer front end mean that this thing is a ton of fun to recklessly smash through rocks at speed, and there’s lots of opportunities for that sort of thing at Bootleg. Why is that a downside? I flatted twice within the first 30 minutes aboard the Troy. Yes, I’m a hack. And yes, a tubeless setup would have helped.
But really, the main downside that I see for the new Troy is that it’s a bit less friendly for noodling along at a moderate pace. Similar to the changes to the 2016 Santa Cruz Bronson, the Troy is a more capable bike, but at the cost of some small bump sensitivity and comfort.
Comparisons: 2016 Devinci Troy vs. 2016 Santa Cruz Bronson & Specialized Stumpjumper FSR 650b
Compared to the Bronson, the Troy is pretty similar. The Bronson is slightly slacker, but the Troy is slightly longer. I didn’t find either one to be significantly more stable. The Bronson pedals a little better, but the Troy handles big hits better, and is a bit better at pumping through terrain. While I wouldn’t call the Bronson flexy by any means, I’d give the nod to the Troy in terms of frame stiffness. The Bronson I rode was lighter, but it was also $2,000 more expensive, so on a dollar-t0-dollar comparison, they’re in the same ballpark, weight-wise.
Compared to the Specialized Stumpjumper FSR 650b, the Troy pedals better, is stiffer, and handles big hits better. The Stumpy is lighter (but, like the Bronson, much more expensive), and it’s much more supple over small bumps. The Stumpjumper is maybe a bit more akin to the old Troy: it’s happier at a normal trail pace, and it’s a very comfortable bike to ride. The new Troy gives up some of that comfort in the quest to make the bike happier at speed, and when the going gets legitimately rough.
Bottom Line
The previous Troy was great for moderate rides on moderate trails. The new Troy can do that too, but it’s better seen as something akin to a shorter travel version of the Devinci Spartan. Or, in other words, it’s a mini enduro bike that’d be right at home racing in most of the North American enduro races, where a longer travel bike tends to be overkill.
Some riders who were happy with the compliant ride that the prior iteration of the Troy afforded might be disappointed in the changes. But for those looking for something more aggressive in a 140mm- platform, the Troy is a very solid option.
The 2016 Troy punches a bit above its weight class, and would be a good choice for someone who is questioning whether they really need 165mm of travel for the trails they ride. The Troy is lighter and more efficient, which makes it that much more enjoyable over the course of a long day of pedaling. Yes, having that extra travel is nice, but a bike like the Troy will do 95% of what that longer travel bike will do, and ultimately doesn’t give up that much stability to get there.
All in all, the 2016 Troy seems to be a case of “Ask and ye shall receive.” Pretty much everything I noted as a shortcoming in my review of the 2015 Troy has been addressed, and the outcome is a damn fun bike.
Noah, you’re reviews are great reads. I appreciate your attention to even the small details both to the plus and minus of a ride. I’ve had my eyes on the 2016 Devinci Troy and Evil The Following. I ride primarily in the NW (Bend, Oregon and Sandy Ridge Trail system regularly). I know the bikes aren’t exactly in the same class but they both seem to ride aggressively and above their weight (so to speak). I’m 6’2″ 250# and looking for a bike that is confidence inspiring with a big fun factor. I’m coming off a KHS sixfifty 2500 and would like to take my riding to the next level. It sounds like you had more time on the Evil than the Troy but hoping you give some thoughts between the two. Thanks
Hey Jackson,
I did get more time on the Evil, but I’ve got a decent sense of both bikes. And yeah, you’re spot on that both bikes are pretty aggressive for their respective classes.
The first thing I’d say you need to settle on is the wheel size. Regardless of geometry and suspension travel, the different wheel sizes just ride differently. There’s lots of discussions of the differences floating around, including some in the comments of the Following review. Some people have a strong preference one way or the other, but for you, it’s a bit tricky. On one hand, you’re pretty tall, and I know some taller guys like the bigger wheels since they get the benefits of being able to roll over stuff better, and they’re better able to force the big wheels to do what they want, which is harder for smaller riders. On the other hand, the 29ers tend to be flexier and less durable, which is going to be even more noticeable for someone of your stature.
While there’s all kinds of other details that might hone in on which bike you’d like better, the first thing I’d look at is whether you want something a bit lighter, or a bit burlier. The Troy is definitely the burlier bike (and it comes with a lifetime warranty, which is rare these days). If you’ve had issues with bikes not holding up, I’d end the discussion right there and recommend the Troy.
Beyond that, I’d say for smashing through root infested descents, I’d rather be on the Troy. All other things aside, it’s tough to beat having more travel in that situation. The Following does better in that situation than any other short travel 29er I’ve ridden, but at the end of the day, it’s still a relatively short travel bike. For going uphill, I’d give a slight nod to the Following – both bikes do fine on the climb, but both bikes are also pretty clearly designed with descending as the priority. For most other situations, I’d say the Following is faster, mostly by virtue of having 29″ wheels – they just carry speed and roll over stuff really well (albeit with the durability and flexy downsides noted above).
Hope that helps!
Hi Noah,
I really enjoy reading your reviews – they’re very informative and the comparisons are great. I have a similar question to Jackson above. I currently have a Kona Process 111 (albeit one size too big) and am considering either another Process 111 (in the right size) or a Process 134DL or a Troy Alloy – all 2016 models. Unfortunately I have not been able to test ride a 2016 Troy. Have you ridden either of the two Process bikes? Can you provide any feedback on how they compare? The Process 111 will definitely feel better in the correct size, but I am quite interested in the 27.5″ wheel size.
Thanks
Sam
Hey Sam,
Unfortunately I haven’t gotten any real time on any of the Processes (aside from bouncing around in the parking lot). All I can say is: 1) I have a few friends with various different Processes, and they all like them. I haven’t heard of any problems / issues. 2) The bikes (like most Konas) are a bit overbuilt. You gain durability, but they’re not particularly light. 3) The sizing on them definitely is definitely “modern” meaning longer reach, relatively low BB, etc.
Hi Noah,
Having tested both 5010 and Troy, how does both compare? Is there much difference in terms of going down? In your opinion, which bike best suits the one bike solution for most riding? I enjoy all your reviews! Keep them coming!
Hi Noah,
i like your very detailed and understandable reviews. Especially the comparison with other bikes in the same class is very helpful for me.
Actual i own a SC Bronson 1 in XL (i am 6.2) and i absolutely agree with your review to this bike. The bike is not nearly bad, but i´m searching for a bike which uphills still good and downhills better in the 140-150mm class.
In addition i want the bike a bit longer and so i have 4 bikes which fulfill these requirements:
Bronson2, Evil insurgent, Devinci Troy 2016, Mondraker Foxy 2015.
For Devinci and Mondraker i could get a good price and so these are my to favorites. Could you say something to the comparison of these two bikes?
With the Foxy i have the fear that it is a bit too long and bulky for the technical trails here in Germany and Austria.
thanks
johannes
Hey Noah great review…..my questions is similar to others just looking for a little real world experience i guess. Just wondering if you have also spent any time on the 2016 devinci spartan? I am going back and forth between these two. I ride mostly in BC and Alberta and try to hit parks about 8-10 times a season. I am worried that the spartan will be a bit too slack and sluggish on my normal trail riding yet shine at the parks…versus the troy shining on my regular trails yet feeling undergunned and over ridden at the resorts. I am riding blue’s to blacks at the resorts…not looking to do huge drops or big doubles or anything…but I do like to go fast and push it a bit.
lastly, I am a bigger rider as well….over 200lbs when fully geared up….will i be too much for the troy?
thanks for the response.
dan
Hey Dan,
I don’t have any time on the 2016 Spartan, but I do have a ton of time on the 2015 Spartan which is basically the same thing as the 2016 except for different paint and a few different parts. The frame itself is unchanged. I have a review of the Spartan on Blister, so check that out if you haven’t already.
To answer your last question first – if you’re a bigger guy, either the Spartan or Troy will treat you well. They’re both pretty burly bikes in their respective classes, and they’re both fairly progressive. For bigger guys, I think they’re actually some of the better options that I’ve ridden. The only thing I’d say on that front is that in terms of sizing, the Spartan runs small. The Troy is one of the longest bikes in its class, but the Spartan is relatively short. A medium Troy is like a large Spartan, so consider sizing up if you go with the Spartan.
From what you’ve said about where you’re riding, I’d lean slightly towards the Troy. It’s still a pretty stable bike that’ll handle rough terrain and high speeds well, but it’s definitely a bit more uphill friendly than the Spartan. And just to clarify, I’m talking about the 2016 Troy (the one in this review). The 2015 Troy (which I also reviewed last summer), while a great bike, is a very different beast. It’s much mellower and less inclined to go fast and smash into things with reckless abandon.
Not sure where you ride in BC and Alberta, but using Fernie as a reference point: I would take the Troy over the Spartan for the vast majority of “pedal” trails around town. For the steepest stuff the Spartan would probably be preferable, but the Troy wouldn’t be completely undergunned, and it’d be a lot better on the vast majority of trails that aren’t running straight down the fall line. At the resort, the Spartan is definitely going to be a bit better just since it has more travel, but I’d still happily ride the Troy on most of the trails there. The exception would be higher speed stuff, especially later in the summer when the braking bumps are big enough to swallow a small car – that’s where the extra travel and slacker head angle on the Spartan really come in handy. But then again, when it comes to those sort of conditions, nothing really beats a proper DH bike.
I walked into a shop and was looking at the SC 5010 when the guy told me he enjoyed the Devinci Troy better. I am trying to get something more climb friendly because I have a Capra and the slack HA is causing a bunch of wandering when I go up the mountain (probably going to sell). I was looking at the because 5010 I was thinking of riding whichever bike I get from Durango to Moab through the huts and I heard it’s very efficient at pedaling.
He kept saying the Troy was a better ‘technical climber,’ which I think he’s saying cause it has more overall travel but did you have an opinion on that? Not sure why he really hated the Bronson because he didn’t even present it as an option which I would think is a better comparison to the Troy. One of my questions is was there a big difference in pedaling efficiency during climbing and flats between the two bikes (I know the Troy has it’s work cut out since it’s single pivot and more travel). Which one was more flickable and active through the burms and switchbacks?
Hey Phil,
That’s an interesting take from the shop guy. The first question that springs to mind is: is he talking about the 2016 version of all 3 bikes (5010, Bronson, Troy)? All three of those bikes got semi-significant redesigns last year, and the 2016 models ride a lot different than the 2015 models.
I’d say, of those three, the 5010 is the most efficient pedaler. Which isn’t to say that the Troy or the Bronson are inefficient by any means, but the 5010 is an efficient design and it has a bit less travel, so it comes out on top. Similarly, in terms of flickability and maneuverability through tight spots, the 5010 is fantastic. Where the 5010 loses out to the Troy and Bronson is stability at speed and the ability to plow through rough stuff. The Troy and Bronson both feel like considerably “bigger” bikes than the 5010. By bigger, I mean more oriented towards high speed descents, and a little less concerned with all around trail manners. The Troy and Bronson aren’t quite into full on “enduro” bike territory, but they’re not far off. They won’t be as floppy and wandery as your Capra, but they’re certainly not as composed on a climb as a more trail oriented bike like the 5010.
So, long story short, I don’t think you’d go horribly wrong with any of those bikes for a hut to hut type trip. Personally, I’d probably lean towards the 5010 just because, like you said, it’s a bit more efficient for cranking out some mileage while still being a ton of fun everywhere else. But the 5010 will be a big step down in terms of stability and crush-i-ness from your Capra, so if you’re concerned about losing out on some descending fun, then yeah, the Troy kills it.
Appreciate the response Noah. He was comparing the 2016 models. He talked about how he’s an xc guy at heart and hates how everything is getting more slack. From that history, I would have thought that he would prefer the 5010 to the troy but I guess you can make the troy a little steeper with adjustable geometry. He said he wasn’t a fan of the pedal feedback of the VPP too. I would have liked to demo but they don’t demo anymore and no one has them near me.
It’s tough to say without really wading into a longer discussion, but I’m not sure I agree with the shop guy’s issue with the Bronson. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I believe the 2016 Bronson actually has a bit less anti-squat than the 2016 Troy, which means it should actually have a little less pedal feedback. But in a more practical sense, from riding both bikes pretty much back to back, I don’t recall noticing any significant pedal feedback on either one.
And of course, none of that is to dissuade you from the Troy (or the 5010, or the Bronson). But personally, pedal feedback wouldn’t even enter into my considerations for which bike to get.
Among those three bikes, the way I’d look at it would be: do you want a bigger, more stable bike or a smaller, more maneuverable, more efficient bike? If smaller, go 5010 (and possibly add the new Devinci Django to your consideration as well). If bigger, go Troy or Bronson. Either way, the Devinci’s tend to be a bit heavier, burlier, and the fit on them is longer. They’re not quite as slack, and the split pivot design makes for a slightly more playful ride. The Santa Cruz’s are a little slacker, a little lighter, maybe a bit more stable at speed, and they probably pedal a little more efficiently. All of them are fantastic bikes that are in my top 3 for their respective classes.
Hey guys,
Great review, as always.
I’m getting back into mountain biking, after a few year hiatus, due to a back injury.
I’m leaning towards the Troy SX and have questions about the size.
My local shop is suggesting the medium, which sounds big, considering that I’m 5’5 and 145lbs. Are there benefits to going with a larger bike, over a smaller bike, and vice versa? Also, does the medium size recommendation sound right?
The small sounds right to me, but what do I know? I haven’t ridden a mountain bike in 5 years!
Thanks for the help,
Dave