Actually pink bike is currently reviewing a number of the bikes you mention.

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/tags/field-test/

I've got a Pivot Trail 429 with the XT build on order.

I was very impressed with its ability to climb without using the lock outs.

I’d consider a Scott Spark as perfect for your requirements too. I’d also add a second set of wheels to your budget. A 120mm bike with race tyres on will be pretty quick, a 120mm bike with 2.5” Enduro style tyres will be pretty capable and heaps of fun. I’ve found that changing tyres probably does more to change a bikes character than anything else.

I would second the spark. You have it in two builds, the RC which is more of a race bike with 100 mm suspension, which is more than enough for me, or the non RC build with 120 and dropper seat posts. You have both in hmf and hmx carbon and a variety of equipment. 5000 should buy you a mid-top model depending on how you shop. An additional plus on Scott is the twin-loc which allows you to change the suspension configuration with a thumb click between three options; locked, traction and descend.

I live in NH and ride a Scott Spark with 120mm front and rear. It weighs 27 lbs. Of course everyone wants to recommend what they chose. I heard for new Spark for 2021 will have a 130 mm fork. There is an XT version for 4800 at least this year. I would love to get out of my SRAM GX and go to the new XT.

For me the bike is perfect, I have 2.35 xc tires and 26 mm internal rims, so it has more traction than a pure xc bike. I had rented a 150mm bike for 3 days and it was way too much. I prefer more of a capable climber and all a rounder than a bike that leans toward just the downhills.

We like to do rides where we ride between 12 and 20 miles and cover lots of ground. I think most mountain bikers these days are not really endurance types, they just want to go downhill and the mountain bike brands have made bikes for them. On the flip side most slowtwitchers come at mountain biking thinking they just need an XC bike and that is probably inadequate if they want to ride more advanced terrain.

My daughter has a Trek Top Fuel which is a 115/120 bike and my wife has a Yeti SB100 which is a 100/120 bike, we all like that sweet spot of about 5 inches of travel.

The only bike on your list I would avoid is the Santa Cruz. While Santa Cruz is hugely popular due to having better dealer re-supply inventory than most bike brands, variety of models, and frame quality, they are overpriced by roughly $1000-$1500 per model and the newest Hightower has gotten really poor marks for climbing. I rode one and the rear suspension feels like a waterbed. They are a trail bike brand and they dont do XC that well.

Unfortunately Scott has terrible availability in the US. If you want a Scott you have to order it and wait. This has led to a lot of dealers nto carrying them because you can never get a re-order on one. I have no idea why they have invested so much into racing when they dont supply the US market with any inventory.

I don’t have either bike but I’d be leaning towards the Epic Evo or the Scalpel. Both have the travel you are looking for and my riding buddies that do have the bike speak highly of them.

I like them both for the ability to run two bottle cages inside the triangle on a FS Mtb.

For reference I’m on a Niner Jet 9 Rdo and find it a capable rig for N.H. trails and run 29x 2.8 rubber up front and 2.6 rear.

---

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson

epic evo. have one love it

Agree with the Pivot Trail 429.

In my opinion the Pivot Trail 429 is the best bike in this category. A close second would be the last-generation Trek Fuel Ex 9.9 (if you can find one) and the Revel Ranger.

Of the bikes you mention, the YT Izzo, Specialized Epic Evo, and Transition Spur all lean very heavily on antisquat to reduce pedal bob. Basically, they use the tension created from the chain while you are pedaling to actually extend the suspension. They all have starting values of ~130% and then it drops from there. What this means is that on steep, technical climbs you'll essentially be riding a hard tail. This isn't a good thing IMO as you'll have less traction and square-edge hits will cause you to lose more speed.

The Revel Ranger is based on the Canfield CBF linkage which has a "perfect" antisquat value of 100%. That basically means that it's agnostic to chain forces and will be active under pedaling. In my experience riding the Ranger, it does not bob when seated however it does bob when you pedal standing. The suspension is extremely active and, IMO, well suited to rooty terrain.

The Fuel Ex (last gen) in the 9.9 trim is probably the ultimate bike for your application. You can find them lightly used for ~$5,000 (new retail was ~$9,500). 130/130 and 26lbs for a size large. The ReAktive shock just WORKS. It's almost like magic. If you're on smooth terrain you feel like you're riding a hard tail but if you hit any bump... whoop... the suspension is just there. It's not clunky like the Specialized Brain. It just works. It's awesome. The reason I say "last gen" is because the current Fuel Ex has grown to 140/130 and the geometry is a bit more gravity focused. The geometry of the last gen bike was perfect for mixed East Coast riding in my opinion. You could also look at the new Top Fuel but given the choice between a mid-trim Top Fuel and a lightly used last-ten Fuel Ex 9.9 I'd spring for the 9.9 in a heart beat.

The Trail 429 is another magical bike. The DW linkage is unique in that it responds to forces from different directions differently. So if you're seated and pedaling on smooth ground there's no pedal bob, if you stand and pedal there's just a tiny bit of pedal bob but that actually seems to disappear the steeper the hill is and the more forward your weight is. However, as soon as you hit a bump the suspension is active. It does use some antisquat (starts off around 115% and quickly drops down to 100%) but from the sag point the effective value is very close to 100% so chain forces are neutral especially in something like a 42t or 50t cog.

I can't speak to the new Cannondale Scalpel SE as I haven't ridden it yet but I do like what they did with the kinematics and the geometry strikes me as well-suited to east coast riding and it's pretty darn light.

Good stuff, thanks.

I will definitely check out the Trail 429 based on all the feedback here. I have two friends who ride them so I can try one out on local trails. Interstingly I just watched a review that said the slack seat tube angle seemed a little dated and hindered its climbing a bit, but I've also heard great things about the suspension. Both of my buddies love theirs.

I just watched the Pinkbike review of the new Scalpel SE and although it sounds like a great climber, espceially for the local terrain around here, it has a very tall seat tube which severely limits the dropper length. I may try to test ride it but that sounds like a deal breaker.

The Izzo is getting pretty solid reviews and like all YT's you get a lot for your money (the $5,200 build gets Eagle X01 and carbon DT Swiss wheels). I hear you about the anti-squat although most reviews are saying it climbs well. Unfortunately no way to test ride and I'm not crazy about buying the first generation of a brand new bike no matter how good the reviews are.

I'm definitely intrigued with the Revel. Again, no real way to test ride it and not the best in terms of bang for buck, but I've always heard great things about the canfield suspension.

I wouldn’t count out the Intense Sniper T

I have an older epic and love it. The new one sounds awesome, but I did have a friend get one and he thought it was actually too slack for some trails he rides (I did not think you could say a bike was too slack these days)
Another one to add to your list might be the spot Ryve, my buddy has one and love it, comes in 115 and 100 MM.
Now the last thing to think about it; I did the BC bike race about 10 years ago, so the race has no doubt changed. But I rode my carbon HT (not intentional, my FS got lost in the mail on the way to the race) 2 things that were awesome about that, I was very good on the climbs, and the biggest one, I had 2 water bottles, which meant I did not have to carry a pack. which I really enjoyed, it also allowed my teammate and I to switch his pack as needed. I was a stronger climber and so I would take it on most of the long grind it out climbs.
Either way, you are going to love BCBR!

I love the Epic, but I think even the Evo at 120 mm travel doesn’t match the OP’s description of his MTB terrain very well. I’d want at least 130mm of travel, and I’d probably go 140. But if I really wanted an XC race bike, I’d probably get the Evo.

Of course the right answer here is to get two MTBs, one of which being an XC bike.

A steep STA definitely allows you to stay seated climbing on steeper slopes *however* there's a tradeoff with wheelbase. For a fixed body position and weight distribution a steeper STA is going to demand more reach which, in turn, demands a longer wheelbase. The longer the wheelbase gets the harder it is to maneuver in tight terrain. IMO, the longer wheelbase, steeper seat tube, and slacker head tube formula does not work well on about 80% of east coast single track.

A lot of bikes lean on a steep STA and antisquat to make up for less sophisticated suspension kinematics. The Trail 429 doesn't need a steep STA to climb well. A lot of reviews say a bike climbs well if there's no pedal bob... but that's a really narrow view that's only applicable to fire roads IMO. The climbing that matters is rocky, rooty, ledgy climbs that can sap your forward momentum (IMO). In that regard bikes that lean on antisquat do no better than hardtails. You need an active suspension if you want help making your way up and over that stuff.

I think you'd be quite happy with the Evil Following (Now in it's 3rd version). I've got the first version, and built it up from the frame at just a tad over 28 lbs. 120 mm travel front and rear, with incredible handling. I've raced mine lots, and although it's heavier than my Scott Spark RC WC, it handles the crazy stuff incredibly well, while climbing better than most.

If you can find one to rent, do it. The handling difference is apparent straight away.

I don't think my back can handle 7 days on a hardtail!

I'm used to carrying a pack now as my YT doesn't fit any bottles unless you buy their custom mini Fidlock bottle, which is next to useless. But it would be nice not to have to wear one for the race.

No I would not recommend getting a hardtail, more just pointing out the specialized/cannondale bikes that allow for 2 bottles.

I'm generalizing the hell out of stuff here but your Jeffsy and the Izzo (along w/ the Revel & Transition) most likely aren't quite suited to your area. They're amazing out West but if you're spending a lot of time on the stereotypical Northeast tech you won't have nearly as much fun on a long, slack bike. Totally doable but you just need to be a lot more cognizant of uphill turns/line choice.

I spent a lot of time on both the 429 Trail and the Trail 429. My only (really small) beef with the Trail 429 is the move to superboost. I (like many) have a gazillion dollars worth of boost (148) wheels but that's the price of... errrr progress right? I had a 140 (pike) and 120 (sc34) fork for it while waiting (and waiting) for the mach4sl. Damn fun bike all around and capable just about anywhere (albeit on the heavy side for traditional xc and not quite burly enough for the park). Regarding weights here, Pivot seems to overbuild stuff for better or worse - I'd much rather NOT have to use the warranty and I rode the HELL out of both models.

I'd be happy to ride one again just currently on a Revel Rascal which is f-ing amazing IMO. Again probably not the bike you're looking for (but maybe).

Another fun bike to think about would be the Orbea Oiz trail model.

Yeah one of the downsides of reading and watching reviews online is that most of the reputable sources are either out west or riding mainly bike parks and flow trails, so the longer & slacker movement gets a lot of love. I don't have a huge frame of reference as my YT was my first new mtn bike in years, but I do notice that tight technical climbs require some planning and aren't really it's forte.

Coincidentally me and a few buddies made our first trip to Highland Bike Park in NH a couple days ago, and were talking on the lift about the fact that the long & slack trend may have hit the tipping point for most east coast riding. That said, my Jeffsy was really fun there, and it was the first time I really understood what people mean by the term "flickable". With the dropper down and getting way back behind the seat you can toss it around like a BMX bike.

Guess I'll have to keep the Jeffsy and get an XC bike!

If you can swing it, adding an XC bike rather than trying to find a do-it-all bike is a better solution. That’s basically what I did by adding the Blur to my Stumpjumper, and I really like having two very different MTBs. Riding the same trails, it’s a different experience on each bike, which adds to the fun.

On a related note, an XC bike also makes for a good gravel bike, so it’s like N+1 turns out to be N+2.

Well I already have a gravel bike so N is quickly becoming 6 or 7 lol. But considering how little I ride my TT bike maybe I'll get rid of that to make room for another mountain bike.

This is very true. My F-Si is my go-to gravel bike.

Look at Mondraker also they have F-Podium 100mm travel and now they released the Podium DC 120mm travel slightly slack HT than the F-Podium.
I have had the F-Podium RR for about a year and love it and ride 2.35 tires
I ride in metro Atl trails and north Ga. and western NC its fine .
Next year I may go to the Mondraker DC or the BMC four stroke LT (120mm)

I picked up the santa cruz blur TR for this season and love it. Got a larger size and put a 50mm stem on it. What will change the character of the bike more than a little extra travel in the front is the tires. I have a set of race wheels with some recon's on for go fast time, and the stock set with some 2.5 assegai tires and its like two different bikes.