Airborne Hobgoblin FS 29″er: Final Review- by Guitar Ted
It has come time to wrap up the Airborne Hobgoblin test. For a review of my First Impressions, go here. The plan had been to post a Mid-Term, but with the consistency of the Hobgoblin over the past testing period, I found no reason to delay a Final Review. So- here it is! 🙂
The Airborne Hobgoblin is sort of an “old school” 29″er with it’s steeper head angle, longer chain stays, and higher bottom bracket. The long-ish stem is a throw back to older geometry as well, so does all of that make this bike a poor handler? Not at all. I kept being surprised by its climbing strengths, which are basically due to the active suspension and longer stays. Stay seated, click down into a proper gear, and churn away and the Hobgoblin does the rest by keeping that rear tire biting. Getting out of the saddle isn’t a deal breaker, but you do induce some suspension bob if you try to mash up a steep. However; I did some standing climbing at times, and I wasn’t put off by the slight suspension movements.
The front end gets around corners well, but the longish back end gets hung up sometimes, and I can’t help but wonder what a 17.5″ long stay would do for this bike. I bet that cornering would improve a bit. That said, I could power away out of a corner, feel little to no flex in the chassis, and the suspension was ready and willing to not sag too far into its travel, but spring me out of that corner with authority. This worked going up, down, or in flat corners. It is one of the traits of this bike I liked the most. Accelerating anywhere was always met with a scoot forward that was impressive for a full susser.
Conclusions: The Hobgoblin scores very high in climbing, descending, torsional and lateral stiffness, and suspension feel, (if you like your suspension active). In these areas, the Hobgoblin has no peer that I have ridden in full suspension bikes. 
I credit this to the funky rear suspension which worked really well to keep bobbing to a minimum, but was always very active, smooth, and was stiff where it needed to be. The damper here…..I am not totally sold on it. I think the Hobgoblin rear suspension has a lot of potential here and it could be unlocked with a more featured damper. (But….that would cost more money!)
Where I feel this bike is compromised is in total weight, (31+lbs), the geometry, ( a hair steepish), and with the longer chain stays than are the norm in 2013/14. But weight could be lessened easily with a simple tire swap and going tubeless. The geometry is “okay” if you dig fast, tight, buff single track. If your cup of tea has playful, aggressive, and big moves in it, the Hobgoblin will show its warts more. This bike plays into the hand of a rider that likes stability, great climbing traits, and a steady hand. Long days in the saddle will be rewarded with a less beat up body due to the active nature of the suspension. Maybe an endurance rig or a plunking around bike?
The Hobgoblin has a quirky layout but it will reward the right rider with a stout chassis and a unique rear suspension that is active and works well for what it is. It is worth mentioning a lighter, higher spec version is also available, as well as a frame set, so choices exist in this design which may suit someone better. As this sits I find it to be an interesting bike that maybe isn’t for the aggressive, playful rider, but may suit those who crave a stable dance partner. If you can live with its geometry layout and deal with the weight, I would say it is well worth a hard look.
Note: Airborne sent over the Hobgoblin for test and review at no charge to Twenty Nine Inches. We are not being paid, nor bribed for this review and we will strive to give our honest thoughts and opinions throughout.
Thanks for the review.
I would point out that the weight of a bike is relative to other factors, mainly to the price of the bike.
At the price of the Hobgoblin, you CANNOT find another full suspension bike with a significantly lower weight. If you do find a comparably weighted bike, that bike will likely be more expensive or not have as good of components.
Comparable bikes from Trek, Giant, Specialized, Jamis, and Scott all cost hundreds of dollars more and are not spec-Ed near as we’ll as the Hobgoblin.
I do not own a Hobgoblin, but I am looking at a full suspension/XC bike. My research shows that there IS NO bike that weighs significantly less than the Hobgoblin for anywhere near the price.
@Jeff Harris: While all that may be true, I can not know the reader’s expectations, which may vary widely. So, weight may play an important part in a specific individual’s decision making.
And weight, regardless of price, affects how a bike rides. A reader may want to know that, and may decide to spend more to get a lighter bike,(or in the case of this Hobgoblin- build their own from a frame set, or get the upper end offering, which I did mention), so I feel the weight comments are justified here.
Appreciate the response. Many who have reviewed the Hobgonlin have made mention of the weight of the bike.
My point is that the HG weighs exactly what any well informed rider should expect at the price point.
Any bike that weighs 3-5 pounds less would also cost hundreds more.
All of the “entry level” FS bikes I have looked at all weigh within 2 lbs of each other.
But the HG has the best spec sheet and the best price by far.
Jeff: This may not be appropriate, but I’m going to butt in here anyway. It seems to be a theme here.
Guitar Ted clearly stated “We are not being paid, nor bribed for this review and we will strive to give our honest thoughts and opinions throughout.”
All of your arguments may be true regarding cost,weight and specifications of the Hobgoblin. However, the laws of physics don’t care about that and Guitar Ted seems to have presented his opinions based on the dynamics of the bike. That’s what I think most readers are looking for here in a review. If the reviewed bike sounds like the best deal for our budget, great. If not keep saving. That is the great thing about TNI, we get to take what we want and leave the rest.
I don’t think I can ever remember reading a representative of “Comparable bikes from Trek, Giant, Specialized, Jamis, and Scott” feel the need to openly disagree with a review before on TNI.
Nice form sir.
Jody,
Amen!
@Jody –
I think what Jeff reacted to was that there was perceived lack of discussion of the value in relation to the cost of the bike. Its one thing to call a bike heavy, its another to acknowledge that with its spec build, 30lbs isn’t bad. As Jeff pointed out, this bike is on par with with weights of similar builds. Throw in some lighter tires, go tubeless, and maybe a carbon bar or seat post and you are close to 26-27lbs.
Like you, I think TNI is one of the fairest review sites around and love reading it. While I think Guitar Ted did a bang-up job on this review, I also think he described the bike in a way that could be considered bias, if you wanted to belabor the point. (Old school geometry? The 2014 Giant Anthem 29er & racing Specialized 29ers have nearly the same geometry.)
If there is one point Jeff and I would likely stand side-by-side on its that mountain biking used to be “blue collar” in way and recently it seems to be going the way of road biking with bikes being more about showing off than anything else. That is not good in my opinion. Its getting to point where if you don’t produce an expensive carbon-fiber uber-bike your bike will given a “meh” review, regardless of the VALUE of the bike. For 90% of mountain bikers, a $1700, 30lbs, full suspension bike (with a well reviewed suspension) is a mind-blowing value. I think Jeff wanted to see those that acknowledged.
Me, I just think Guitar Ted needs to ride Cuyuna. 🙂
TNI reviewers spend a lot of time on trail thinking about and by default comparing bikes. You can’t take that knowledge base out of a review. So this brand new first time bike works. But for someone who follows the minute by minute changes in bike design, who rides on trail what is offered for sale by talented people it could easily have been more and a better value. Slacker head tube angle and shorter chain stays for the same price don’t cost anything and the bike would handle better. Good info for riders and a bit of a wakeup call.
@Joshua:
Thanks for bringing up the ongoing loss of the “blue collar” affordability of the mountain biking industry. I think Airborne may be the best example of getting a bike that the rest of us can afford. I personally had been very close to ordering the Goblin hardatil sibling of the Hobgoblin but the steep, old school geometry holds me at bay from pulling the trigger on what is otherwise one of the best deals in the MTB market. Airborne has done an excellent job at putting together components versus cost. If they would just bring their geometry along with that I would buy one. I have to spread my cycling dollars across myself and my junior racer who outgrows frames faster than I can buy bikes. Airborne looks awesome for Dad but not if the geometry doesn’t give me something a frame a few years old already does.
DISCLAIMER: I work for Airborne.
@Jody:
Can you tell me what geometry you think IS more appropriate for the Goblin?
The Goblin is a pure XC-style 29er, with a HT angle of 71 degrees. This falls dead inline with or in the middle range of HT angles on other pure XC bikes from Specialized, Giant, Jamis, Rocky Mountain, etc. For folks who want a slacker version of the Goblin for trail usage, stay tuned because a slacker trail version of the Goblin with a longer travel fork is coming soon.
In regards to the HobGoblin review, GT did a great honest review and we appreciate any and all feedback. Listening to our customers and reviewers is what helps us improve.
Thanks a lot,
Jeremy
I call BS on the old school comments. If you don’t want to like the bike, just come out and say it.
One can write an “objective review” with creative language…(writing between the lines), which what MOST reviewers seem to do with Airborne. They have to include the caveat of weight as a penalty that somehow supercedes the incredible pricing. (to be fair, Ted did mention value in the ‘out of the box’ article – but has never touched on it again, when it’s a key point of Airborne’s business model).
I find the term “old school geometry” to be misleading as well, and yes – biased. If there were not other bikes from the big brands using similar geo, I could swallow that pill. But that’s not the case. GT is looking for a negative slant.
(Jody – pay attention here – these are current specs!) 🙂
The Epic comps sports a 70.5 ha and 44.8 stays, the Anthem sports a similar 71 ha and 46.2 stays, and the Superfly 100 comes in at 71 ha and 45.2 stays, likewise the Scalpel has a 70.5 ha and 44.4 stays. These are 2014 models. So, I’d say the geo on the Hobgoblin is hardly “old school”… (or is there a movement in the industry that is flying under the radar in regards to old school geo?). Fact is, the Hobgoblin sports a contemporary, or even “classic” (if I were to write between the lines!) XC geo, when compared to other major brand XC bikes.
I’d say the review is sort of a backhanded compliment, and not necessarily objective.
@Dan: If a reviewer has such an incredible knowledge base, but fails to point out the value of a bike compared to others, but will harp on imaginary geometry differences – I call that biased, or in the very least, misleading.
And for and XC bike – how does slacker = better? The “slacker is better trend” is a trend for more aggressive Endruo/Trail riding. The Hobgoblin is an “XC” bike.
Also, to be fair, I think Teds riding impressions were insightful, honest and accurate.
Cheers,
Jerry
Jeremey,
To me old school geometry has more to do with the chain stay length, specifically something closer to 430-435. I’ll keep my eye out for your trail bike. I rode a friend’s Cotic Solaris, which differs from the Goblin in chainstay length mainly and loved it. The existing golbin with shorter chainstay and 100mm fork would likely be just right, for me. The next guy may be different.
@Jerry: “Old School” geometry also includes….well, everything, not just the things you wanted to point at, (by the way, you aren’t the Jerry that Airborne sponsors, are you?)Anyway…
You are putting words in my mouth that are not there. I didn’t “mask that I did not like the bike”, or whatever it is you are insinuating. Here’s my quote referring to the geo, which seems to be where folks are getting their dander up about..
“so does all of that make this bike a poor handler? Not at all.”
Does that sound like I don’t like the bike? 😉
How about this: “As this sits I find it to be an interesting bike that maybe isn’t for the aggressive, playful rider, but may suit those who crave a stable dance partner.”
Does that say I do not like the bike?
I don’t see it that way, and I think what I wrote is fair and honest. Sorry if you don’t agree, but I stand by it all.
@Guitar Ted:
I’m going to double-dip here a bit.
To me, the argument over geometry is kind of odd. “Low and slack” is the hot thing right now, but its not the second coming. For a lot of people and places, the hard-core XC geometry of this bike is plus, not a minus. Using a term like “old school” gets people involved because it seems like you are saying that liking hard-core XC geo makes you a fossil.
I generally thought your review was positive and it introduced me to a new bike company and made think about this bike a bit (OK, a lot). If I was an Airborne employee, I would be happy with your review.
However, the reason I jumped in on the comments originally is because I had the same issue Jeff did: there wasn’t a explanation of spec/weight in comparison with competition or cost. I’m sure the folks at Airborne would argue that they don’t make the best bikes ever, but they do make the best bikes for the money. Whether or not that is true is subjective I suppose. But since this was Final Thoughts review, I felt like that sense of “lets compare apples to apples” was missing. Because of you compare those apples, the Hobgoblin comes out looking like a mighty fine apple.
I think its funny that the bike you are testing now (Pivot Mach 429 Carbon) is exactly the type of bike I would argue is killing mountain biking. Will the Pivot be (subjectively) a better bike than the Hobgoblin? I have no doubt it will be. Is $3000-$4000 better? Oh hell no. And to me, not bringing out the relative value (awesomeness minus cost)of any bike, whether a Airborne or Pivot, leads to slowly making mountain biking more expensive and more like road biking.
@Joshua: You have some good points, but really- This is a philosophical argument that really doesn’t belong in a review of a bicycle. Not saying things like this should not be discussed, and certainly, I did mention in the earlier post on this bike that it was a good value in comparison to many bikes, but price is soon forgotten after you hit the trail, and that’s where I am coming from in this Final review here.
So, I get the points made about value, and I get that mtb bikes are getting very expensive, but again, my review isn’t about the ramifications of escalating costs and comparison shopping. It’s about how this bike struck me as a mountain bike. I am placing the onus of shopping on the readers because I believe they are adept at shopping for themselves. 😉
It’s great that Airborne produces bikes at a good value price point. But value priced bikes are out there with geo for aggressive playful handling. This bike has 17.71″/450mm chain stays and 71 HT angle. The Whyte T-129 and M-109 have 16.9″/431mm chain stays and 68 and 69.5 HT angle. That’s not old school and it won What Mountain Bike Trail Bike of the Year award for 2013.
Although I do some writing and testing for TNI, these opinions are solely my own:
As for the red herring tossed out there that mountain biking is no longer a blue collar activity because bikes cost so much, I would like you to consider the following:
Let’s go back 32 years to 1981. The first year the Specialized Stumpjumper was mass produced (and it was not made in the USA). The bike sold for $756. It was a welded steel frame and (rigid) fork. It had a 15 speed (3×5) Suntour drivetrain, cantilever brakes and it weighed just under 30 lbs.
And, using an inflation calculator, $756 dollars in 1981 had the buying power of $2,011.34 in 2013. How many of you would buy a 30 lb, 15 speed (3×5), cantilever brake, rigid steel mountain bike for $756? How about for $2,011?
I would even suggest that most TNI readers would have no interest in such a bike today *that is currently being manufactured*, let alone be interested in paying $756 for one
You may not be able to buy an XT equipped bike for anywhere near the same price as you could 20 years ago, but you can buy a bike that is better than that 20 year old XT bike for roughly the same money, and that’s not even adjusted for inflation (which would be 1993 – $1.00 = $1.62 in 2013).
I am suggesting that we actually get more for our money than we did before in the ‘good ole days’. The thing is, the technology of the top end equipment is far advanced from what it was, and if you must have the best of the best, you must be willing to pay more for that.
$756 doesn’t buy you ‘the latest and greatest’ mountain bike like it may once have done, but it usually buys you a better bike than it ever did.
===================
If the Hobgoblin had been available in 1993, I guarantee it would have cost much more than $1,750 (again, that’s not even inflation adjusted back to 1993 @ $1,080).
===================
As for what gets tested here and at other MTB media outlets, many companies want to have their higher end bikes tested/reviewed. They know they will be compared to other higher end offerings and want to be considered on a more or less level playing field since others are also sending out high level items for review. I know it rankles some folks that the middle or lower end items are not featured as much, but reviewers are not always given the choice of what they will be reviewing.
The thing is, many times, there will be other bikes (in this case) that have the same frame, but with lower level components, available at a lower price point. I think it’s fair to expect that readers can, many times, extrapolate that if they get the bike with lower level componentry (or an alloy frame rather than carbon, that it will be a little heavier, maybe not quite as good performance (but that is not always dectectable), but probably a little better bang for the buck.
I also know, because I have witnessed the conversation first hand, that TNI is very willing, and even requests, to test the bikes that are more in the ‘everyman’s price range’.
=================
Back to the Hobgoblin: I don’t think the ‘old school’ comment was out of line relative to some of the most recent takes on 29er geometry. It doesn’t disparage or dismiss the performance of such, it just acknowledges that it’s been a standard take on 29er geometry for a longer period of time.
@JeffJ:
I think you missed the point of what myself and Jeff were talking about with value. We don’t want to stop progress. We love it. We don’t want to stop insane-o-pants expensive bikes from being produced. We are just suggesting that reviewing those bikes as if they are gods made flesh and then comparing relatively affordable (blue collar) bikes directly to them is unfair.
Here is thing: talking about value and what is a value is not philosophical argument. This year Salsa flat out stated they were moving “up market” and killed the lower spec options on a few 2014 models (the Horsethief among others). GT released several new models this year and on one model (Force) they have stated will not be released at a lower spec version. Even Specialized, who seems to want to fill every gap with a model is slowly turning the Camber from “My First Full Squish Bike” into “My First Savings Account Destroying Bike” (seriously, only 2 levels sub-$3000). How can the “blue collar” mountain bikers, as you suggest, look for the lower spec bikes if they are being killed because others are listening to reviewers who seem to think every bike should be like the uber-bike in that category?
Road bikes are already there. How did that happen? Reviewers (to whom buyers often look to help decide what to get) started caring less about the value of bike and more about the technology and if it was X grams less than last year’s bike. Price increases didn’t matter if you shaved grams. At no point did any reviewer go, “Jeez, its a nice bike but is $4000 a good value? Is this something Joe Rider should even consider? Is the 100 grams worth the $500 price increase from last year?” Its to the point that if you created the best $2000 road bike on the planet it would not get a 5 star/A+ rating. The reviewers would complain its too heavy or doesn’t come with Shimano’s new Electronic Unicorn Rainbow Pixie Dust Shifters. Cause that matters when Joe Rider has a half-dozen Big Macs rattling around his midsection…
You review mountain bikes. You help people learn about those bikes in way they never can. They trust you. If a $2000 X7 spec bike is dinged for being heavy compared to a $6000 XX spec bike, that isn’t fair. And it will suggest to certain segment of your readers that the $2000 bike is not worthy of their consideration. Those people will have more money than sense and buy that $6000 bike. Next year the bike and bike component manufacturers will look at what they made the most money on and notice that the uber-stuff made them acres of cash. They will focus on that segment. One by one, your readers will be left at the wrong end of a growing price curve.
As I said in a previous comment, right now TNI is testing a bike (Pivot Mach 429 Carbon) that is the perfect representation of what is destroying mountain biking. I’ve ridden Pivots and they are made with the tears of mermaids or something. They are that good. But they are crazy expensive and there are maybe 100 people in the whole of the United States to which the Mach 429 Carbon should be considered a sane purchase. But the first review of the Mach 429 Carbon is sans the fact that the bike is overpriced and not a good value. I doubt very much the prohibitive cost of the bike will be raised in any discussion of the bike, or if so, only in passing.
The sad thing, I love mountain biking. But at the current rate of price hikes, I’m being priced out of anything of quality. By the time I go to get my next bike (I aim for 10yrs per a bike) I may have to give it up due to cost. And quite frankly, it’s because reviewers don’t have spine to tell readers they don’t need or want a $7000 bike. Riders read these reviews and don’t think about value. They just accept that in 4 years the average price of mountain bike tires doubled or that the mid-range mountain bike is now considered $4000, nearly 1/10th the annual income of the average American family.
Mountain bike reviewers can stop this cycle. You can temper full page glossy ads with wisdom. Start considering value (awesomeness + life cycle – cost = real value) as the ultimate determining factor.
@Joshua: I’m going to quote you here: “Mountain bike reviewers can stop this cycle.”
Really?
We do not control what we are given to review, and as JeffJ said, we actually ask for lower level bikes.
A lot.
So this comment you make is just not right, because we, (Speaking for TNI), can not stop the reviews of really expensive bikes. Or else we’d have very little to nothing to review. 😉 Besides, according to our stats, people like reading about the bikes “that are killing mountain biking”. Go figure…..
But whatever. This has turned into what I mentioned before- a philosophical discussion of what some feel is “ruining mountain biking”.
This is an Airborne Hobgoblin review. Big difference. Enough is enough. I get the point and no more comments of this type are going to be tolerated any longer on this post. If the following comments are Hobgoblin specific- that’s fine.
Since this seems to be a hot topic for some of you, I may see to it that a specific post is put up on the subject where ya’all can have at it.
Thanks! 🙂
Hope that gets this back on track. 🙂
I’ve got a couple questions. Did you end up leaving the suspension setup “tricked” in the lock out position from your first impressions article? Also what did you mean by the bike having a quirky layout? Were you referring to the cockpit or the suspension setup? To be honest I am considering this bike and consider myself a casual rider on a budget. For some perspective I’ll be moving from a 10 year old Gary Fisher hard tail, hopefully to a full squish 29er… soon I hope, as me and my buddies are planning a trip to Copper Harbor in a month or so. Thanks for your review and insights. Happy riding!
Jim: great question! I did leave it “tricked” and rode it that way for a while, but then I did set it up “traditionally” and used it for the last big ride that way. If you think you may like an “active” suspension, set it up traditionally, but either way, I found no issues with the suspension design when hammering on it, or during out of the saddle sprints. It is remarkable in that way.
“Quirky” due to the shortish top-tube feel, long stem, and relatively short handle bars. Add in the odd suspension layout, which is unlike most, and I think “quirky” fits.
GT : Can you explain “quirky”? Is it feel? Handling?
For my tastes, I agree the bars are a little narrow and the stem a little long.
I haven’t ridden a HG, but I’d bet that it would feel even more stable with a shorter stem and wider bars.
@Jeff Harris: It refers to the layout of the bike, and yes, to a degree that affects handling. For instance, I could not ever really get the front end up off the ground without a huge effort, since the way it was shipped with the longer stem, (and I should add, it has a high-ish front end. I dumped the stem to the bottom of the long, spacer laden steer tube), and with it’s longish chain stays. (Measured at 456mm/18″ just now for verification)
Shorter stem/wider bars may work, I was also wondering about that myself.
For the record, I read all three of the reviews of this bike (looking for your thoughts on the Reba 🙁 ), and I thought the overall attitude was that it was a good bike for the price if the riding style suits you.
As far as prices, I recently bought a new hardtail for just under $2k (Giant XTC1, 2012: awesome) and to most people I know, this is an ridiculous amount of $ to spend on an bicycle. My wife told me not to tell her parents how much it was. It replaced my 18-year-old rigid-converted-to-HT.
I’d love to see some statistics about mountain bikes sold: average price, median price, etc. I’d bet the median price is about $1k.
Now I’m rambling.
Guitar Ted,
Any thoughts on the HobGoblin X0 specifically? The bars are 660mm instead of 640mm, and the bike is significantly lighter. I’m curious on what your thoughts would be, since the current pricing makes that HobGoblin X0 something on my short list as someone who’s never owned a FS bike, but see what looks like a potentially nice looking bike that might be just inside my price range.
FWIW, my current ride is a Karakoram hardtail, if that gives you a reference point for the 29er geometry I’m used to.
@Peteer01: It is a potentially nice FS 29″er. It is quirky, but if your riding style fits the nature of this bike, it is a good full sus 29″er that seems to be a solid design. I wouldn’t bite if your riding style is more aggressive, playful, and more about boosting and catching air because there are better 29″ers now out there for that.
@Guitar Ted,
I am absolutely thrilled with your prompt and detailed response. You guys are bookmarked now. 🙂
I am not about getting air, but I am starting to ride significantly more technical trails than I have in the past, and I am beginning to look into what options might make sense at the right price.
I’ll be participating a demo day ride next week where I’ll get to try a Niner FS, and hopefully a Niner Air 9 RDO as well. Between a combination of informative reviews like this, forums, friends and first hand experience, if I do spend money on a new bike this year, I hope it’s an informed purchase.
For now, the HobGoblin X0 is still on my short list, though I wonder if the travel is a sufficient bump from my current ride, which has a 120mm Manitou Tower Pro that I do like. (It was stock 100mm, but the XC28 was not a fork I can say kind things about)
@Peteer01: Thanks! 🙂
The Hobgoblin does feel like it has deeper travel than it does, but that said, the Niner’s probably will impress you should you be the type of rider that likes short, out of the saddle bursts as it reacts a bit better to standing and pedaling than the Airbourne does. Good Luck on your choice and I wish you many miles of smiles!