# Is anyone still interested in a quick review comparing the Evoke to the LeChamp TI?



## aaronis31337 (Apr 7, 2008)

If so, let me know and I'll post one.


----------



## cski (Mar 11, 2010)

aaronis31337 said:


> If so, let me know and I'll post one.


Yes, please do share. Thanks.


----------



## santacruzdave (Nov 9, 2008)

Yes, thanks!


----------



## Mike Overly (Sep 28, 2005)

Still interested. Bikes are within $100 of each other, so a listing of the big differences appreciated as well as your subjective take between the two.


----------



## aaronis31337 (Apr 7, 2008)

*Moto TI vs Kestrel Evoke review*



aaronis31337 said:


> If so, let me know and I'll post one.



Well, I now have about 3 hundred miles under me on the Evoke, and about 10k on the LeChamp TI. I think I have a good idea about the pros and cons of each bike.

I'm going to break this comparison down by value, style, ride, fit, and performance. For the record, I have the LeChamp with the full ultegra ('08) and the Evoke SL.

Value:

The evoke cost $200 less than the moto. Both come with great parts, but the edge goes to the Kestrel. The Ritchey parts on the Moto are strong and light, but the Evoke comes with top-knotch carbon EVERYTHING. From the seatpost, bars, and hybrid stem. Given this, and the less expensive cost, the winner goes to the Kestrel.

The Kestrel also comes with better than average carbon. T-800 vs T-700 that's used on other high-end bikes. But the question is: is the TI still better? The TI sure will last longer if you abuse your bike, or take a spill.

Style: This is a bit subjective, but the styling of the bikes is totally different. The TI looks very industrial and shiny. When you're in the saddle and look down, you see a lot of shine and metal. It's a great look and I really enjoy it. The black on silver is a nice contrast. The tubes are lovely as well.

The Evoke on the other hand is a nod to Darth Vader. Every component is black and it looks dangerous and sleek. There is no paint save for the logos -- which are all over the place. I really like the look and I would say it's different, but not better than the Moto. 

Winner: Moto, but not by much.

Ride:
There are a lot of things that effect the ride of a bike. The most important thing is the tires. I learned this the hard way. Given this, I can say that the ride on the Evoke is better, but not by much. The evoke rides nearly completely silent. It soaks up most vibrations, but the biggest different you'll notice is the general lack of noise. In contrast, the Moto has a echo that reverberates through the metal tubes. It's not annoying, in fact I kind of like it. In terms of soaking up the vibrations, they are equal. Of note, when you go over larger bumps you'll notice that the Kestrel takes a little the edge off. On bumpy roads this will make a different in the total rider fatigue. 

Note: I consider myself a ultra distance rider. My last double century was at Solvang and I noticed than many other riders used TI bikes. In fact, I've never seen so much TI at once place.
Winner: Evoke, but not my much,

FIT: I spent a lot of money getting the Moto to fit right. Both bikes are 56cm (i'm 6 foot even) but the Moto seemed on the big side. I got shorter reach bars and a shorter stem to get the comfort right. 
The Kestrel fits MUCH better right out of the box. I still just bought a 90mm stem off e-bay, but I plan to take the Evoke on my next double with the standard spec. 

Winner: Evoke

Performance:
Let's face it, if you're buying a bike from BD you probably don't have the power to challenge either of these bikes. When doing a lot of climbing, I cannot tell a difference between either bike. The handling is a different story. The Evoke's over-sized head tube and tight frame really inspire confidence is twisty descents. This really stands out when you weight 180lbs+ like I do.
Winner: Evoke

Please note:
I'll say this again, wheels and tires have more to do with ride and performance than the attributes of each bike alone. 

So, which would I buy if I could only have one? I'll bet you'd say the Evoke. Truth is, I think I'd rather have the Moto. I like the fact that the frame is super strong and repairable. The differences between the two are really marginal for all the categories (although they really do exist). 

If you're a racer, you might like the extra performance of the Kestrel, but for the rest of us I'm sure you'll love the Moto.

Pics are already posted on another post from earlier this month.

Let me know if you have any questions.


----------



## Mike Overly (Sep 28, 2005)

Outstanding review. Thanks very much for taking the time to compare these bikes in this kind of detail. The titanium I've ridden is awfully close to steel in ride quality, and since I haven't laid a bike down in over 30 years, I think I'll risk a carbon bike for the rain and give my 32-year-old steel rain bike a rest some days. So far I've yet to ride a carbon bike that I like as well as steel here in the (relatively) flatlands, but at this price I have grounds to run my own extended comparison with the "rain bike" excuse  .


----------



## cski (Mar 11, 2010)

FIT: I spent a lot of money getting the Moto to fit right. Both bikes are 56cm (i'm 6 foot even) but the Moto seemed on the big side. I got shorter reach bars and a shorter stem to get the comfort right. 
The Kestrel fits MUCH better right out of the box. I still just bought a 90mm stem off e-bay, but I plan to take the Evoke on my next double with the standard spec. 

Thanks for the review. So the "FIT" section is more concrete, could you tell what your inseam and reach are ? And how long were the stems on the Evoke and Moto respectively ? Thanks again !


----------



## aaronis31337 (Apr 7, 2008)

CSKI,

Sorry, I cannot get you info for my reach and inseam, but rest assured it's pretty normal.
The Moto came with a 110mm stem. The Kestrel doesn't have anything labeled, but it seems to be a 110 as well.

Here's another update. The exterior carbon weave on the Kestrel has a lot of flaws in the fork and some other folds. It's really no big deal and it's only cosmetic and visible under sunlight, but it's not something you'd expect to see on a top tier bike. 
I think the t-800 is made in a different factory and doesn't have any problems like this.


----------



## aaronis31337 (Apr 7, 2008)

I would like to update my note on the handling of each bike. 

I just finished the NCal Devil Mountain Double on the Evoke. It handles much sharper than the Moto. The Evoke also feels more predictable.


----------

