Radon Slide 150 vs Slide 160 Carbon - 2013 vs 2014

Peter Nilges

 · 20.11.2013

Radon Slide 150 vs Slide 160 Carbon - 2013 vs 2014Photo: Stefan Hunziker
Radon Slide 150 vs Slide 160 Carbon - 2013 vs 2014
1000 euros separate the aluminium slide from the new carbon slide. In addition, the new model has a more consistent focus on enduro.

The new Slide 160 carbon frame weighs a whopping 700 grams less and also makes for an extremely dynamic appearance. Compared to its simple, current aluminium counterpart with smaller 26-inch wheels, the new lightweight enduro bike is a real eye-catcher. With the addition of the 160, the latest Slide also wants to orientate itself more towards the enduro and differentiate itself from the Slide 150. However, if you compare the suspension travel of the two bikes, which both come with a 160 mm fork, there are no noticeable differences at first. With 155 to 158 millimetres at the rear, the new Carbon Slide is only slightly ahead. The close relationship is also evident on the trail thanks to a similar character. However, there are differences to be discovered in terms of geometry. Thanks to the steering angle that is a good one degree slacker, the larger wheels and the lower bottom bracket, the Slide Carbon holds its own on demanding descents.

Enduro racers will love the smoother ride, a slightly lower front end and a lower centre of gravity when cornering. In rooty or rocky pedalling sections, however, you have to be more careful where you place a pedal to avoid hitting the crank. The seat angle has been steepened by a good one degree to ensure good climbing ability, which is just as important on an enduro bike. The fact that both slides are extremely lightweight also increases the uphill thrust. However, there is a red card for the choice of tyres. A Conti-XKing has no place on an enduro bike that is ridden properly off-road.

In addition to the different wheel size and frame material, technical details have also been fine-tuned. Internally routed cables and a press-fit bottom bracket provide an up-to-date look. We can only speculate whether this is solely due to the golden Kashima coating of the Factory Fox suspension elements, but the fork on the Slide 150 in particular was much more sensitive. The rear suspension also showed slight advantages in favour of the aluminium model, but this could be due to the not yet finalised shock setup of the pre-production bike. The same applies to the connecting bridge between the seat stays, which can touch the seat tube under extreme loads. A problem that, according to Radon, will definitely be solved in the series. Overall, the new Slide Carbon is the more potent enduro bike, both uphill and downhill. However, if you're not travelling at the limit downhill, the Slide 150 is definitely not a bad choice either.

How do you like this article?
  Radon Slide 150 2013: PLUS: Very high frame stiffness, Factory suspension | MINUS: Almost 700 g heavier frame, more all-mountain geometryPhoto: Daniel Simon Radon Slide 150 2013: PLUS: Very high frame stiffness, Factory suspension | MINUS: Almost 700 g heavier frame, more all-mountain geometry  Radon Slide 160 Carbon 2014: PLUS: Light and reasonably stiff frame, balanced geometry, dropper post with integrated guide | MINUS: Very low bottom bracket (risk of bottoming out), non-enduro-compatible tyresPhoto: Daniel Simon Radon Slide 160 Carbon 2014: PLUS: Light and reasonably stiff frame, balanced geometry, dropper post with integrated guide | MINUS: Very low bottom bracket (risk of bottoming out), non-enduro-compatible tyres  Radon Slide 150 2013: The characteristics of old and new are almost indistinguishable. The new rear suspension provides three millimetres more travel.Photo: BIKE Magazin Radon Slide 150 2013: The characteristics of old and new are almost indistinguishable. The new rear suspension provides three millimetres more travel.  Radon Slide 160 Carbon 2014: Compared to the fork, the rear suspension curve is slightly flatter. The fork has more bottom out protection.Photo: BIKE Magazin Radon Slide 160 Carbon 2014: Compared to the fork, the rear suspension curve is slightly flatter. The fork has more bottom out protection.

Downloads:

Most read in category Bikes