Some comments on the 2018 Silverback Slade Comp

The Silverback Slade Comp is a fairly decent spec yet inexpensive 27.5+ recreational MTB.


I bought a 2018 Silverback Slade Comp a few weeks ago, but unfortunately had to return it due to an irreparable problem. More concerning is that the replacement has essentially the same problem, and is indicative of more widespread problems with other frames from the same batch.

This has given me the opportunity to compare 2 examples of the same model, and I would have to say that there are some fairly concerning trends visible. I’ll cover these first, then move on to a serious issue with the frames on both bikes.

The bike

For not much money, you get a great looking bike with dropper seat post, Suntour XCR 120mm air fork with crownset lockout and rebound damping control, midfat tubeless ready rims and tyres (27.5 x 2.8″), hydraulic disc brakes (180/160mm), Boost spacing front and rear (15/110 and 12/148) and a 2×9 groupset.

On the other hand, for not much money, you also get a bike with very average paint finish, that weighs over 16kg (inc pedals), a fairly uncomfortable seat (YMMV), quite messy cable routing, and it seems, a fair amount of grief dealing with multiple issues from new.

There’s a lot to like about the bike. With a much longer wheelbase than my current 2102 Trek 3900, and larger wheels, the Slade is remarkably faster on bumpy terrain and downhill. I’m a fair weather recreational rider so not overly concerned about the weight, though lighter is of course always better.

Minor Issues

The first bike had several issues that showed that not enough care had been taken during manufacture and assembly (either at the factory, or at the retailer).

  • No grommet on the seat dropper cable seat tube entry hole (cable had nicks from the sharp edges).
  • The front derailleur had been set up with too much clearance between the large chainring and the guide (even though there is a label clearly indicating the correct clearance). As a result, the guide was lifting the chain when using small sprockets. No big deal, and the retailer fixed both of these issues immediately.
  • The cable clamps on the front of the downtube had not all been fitted correctly. One had been reversed so the countersunk screw was sitting against a flat surface. This is a tiny detail but one that speaks a lot about the level of interest or care taken during assembly.
  • There was a small dent on the underside of the top tube (most likely before the paint finish was applied).
  • Paint finish is a bit rough around cable lugs etc.
  • Welding between the seat stays and seat tube not great.
  • Front fork lockout stopped working after 1 ride. More concerning was that the tech at the retailer seemed to think the fork air pressure had an effect on this, which is really not the case (lockout and suspension pressure are in opposite legs of the fork). Worse was the tech’s attitude about this – I’d have to say that within seconds, we’d pretty much established that I was an old fart and he was too young to know much about what he was saying.
  • Rear wheel very slightly out of true.

On the second bike, there were fewer issues.

  • Two cuts into the left chainstay close to the bottom bracket, these appear to be from the facing tool when the bottom bracket had finish machining after painting the frame.
  • Again, the cable clamps on the front of the downtube had not been fitted correctly. One had been reversed, and 2 different types of screws had been used – and all were of the wrong type.
  • Bright nick in the front wheel rim edge by the tyre bead.
  • Deep scratches in the paint on the right crank – exactly as would have been made by carelessly using a crescent/adjustable spanner to fit pedals.
  • Gears not indexed as positively or as smooth as the first bike.

Most of the above are just cosmetic or minor and/or easily fixed and inconsequential, but none of them should exist on a bike sold as new (rather than ex-demo).

The one, big, very major frame issue:

On both bikes, the seat and head tube are very clearly NOT coplanar – the worst of the two bikes has an error of about 1.5°

I used 4 different methods to assess the problem since I can only do this with equipment I have at home.

In all cases, the bike is set upside down, the wheels appear to be true and central in the forks or stays, the fork appears to be straight and steering is free with no evidence of a bent steerer tube. The front wheel is set parallel to a straight edge held against the rear tire sidewall casing (not the tread knobs).

1. Eyeball:

Both bikes showed a problem – the shoulder of one tire would appear well outside of the other, even if aligned at the bottom/top.

This is the first bike:

This is the second bike:

The misalignment is not quite as bad as the first bike, but still very easily visible. But how bad is it really?

2. Straight Edge:

Holding a straight edge against the tire casing on the rear tire and setting the front wheel to be parallel to the straight edge showed an offset between the front tire casing and the straight edge at the brake disc edge height of about 10mm for the first bike, and about 7-8mm for the second. As best I could tell, the straight edge aligned with the inner face of the brake disc on the second bike. Rotating the straight edge up away from the axle showed more clearance between the front tire casing and the straight edge as it moved further away from the axle. Using this method it is only possible to assess the offset for the part of the wheel that is accessible by straight edge.

Photo shows first bike:

3. Straight edges on each wheel:

I have 2 heavy 1250mm aluminium straight edges, these were held snugly against the tires and had enough area to fit comfortably over 2 or more tread knobs. The distances at the top and bottom of each straight edge was measured to a vertical laser plane and the angles calculated. The error measured this way is calculated as 1.3°.

This is the second bike:

4. Laser level offset to rims:

A laser level is set up well behind and about 200mm offset from the bike wheels. Bike has a small wedge under one handlebar grip, this is adjusted to make the rear rim vertical and thus parallel to the laser plane. Laser is rotated horizontally until parallel to the rear rim, so all four points (top, bottom, front, rear) of the rear rim are offset from the laser equally. This dimension is 202mm. The seat tube appears to be parallel to the laser plane.

The front rim front and rear offset to the laser plane are also equal, and both measure 192.5mm, so the wheels are parallel but offset at axle height.

The front rim top and bottom measurements are 185mm and 200mm respectively. This means there is a difference of 15mm over the 600mm diameter of the rim, which calculates to an angle of about 1.4°.

The measurements (for the second bike) at each location are shown in the graphic below:

I would estimate that the offset at the tire contact patch is a bit more than the 15mm measured at the rim, on the first bike it appeared to be about 20mm, and a little less than that for the second bike.

Interpretation of these results is left as an exercise for the reader 🙂

Does it matter?

The offset at the tire contact patch is a bit more than the 15mm at the rim, on the first bike it appeared to be about 20mm, and a little less than that for the second bike. On pavement the bike appears to ride OK but I would expect tire wear to be excessive. On gravel, and in mud, painful personal experience shows the front wheel tends to wash out to the left and steering is not precise.

I have a 2012 Trek 3900 that has zero discernible alignment errors when checked by eye or with a straight edge. Likewise for budget Silverback bikes like the Stride.

When researching this topic I find countless articles and videos on using a string to check rear stays/dropouts and very little other discussion – alignment of head tubes appears to be taken as always being perfect and is never raised as a specific issue, possibly because this is not repairable or not at all common. I must admit I’m a bit surprised at what I’ve found and even more surprised to find it on consecutive examples, it really is quite unexpected.

It has also been very disappointing as every bike I’ve owned in the past has been ready to go straight out of the box and given years of trouble free service. I bought this bike a few weeks ago and have spent a lot of time on this and other issues, and very little time riding it and I am nowhere near having a roadworthy MTB. And this is after the retailer workshop “checked” the bike before delivering it as a replacement for a bike with the same problem.

I’ll be returning the second of these two bikes in the next week or so, and very disappointed to be doing so. I often prefer to support alternatives to the big name brands, as competition is always good, but would have trouble rationalising purchasing another Silverback, even if not all the issues are attributable to them directly.

On the other hand, I did raise this issue with Silverback in Germany directly and their response has been very interesting, they are communicative and seem to be concerned about this issue and I’m hopeful they will deal with it effectively. I’ll follow up with what they decide to do.


After some correspondence with Silverback, they offered to replace the frame – the new frame was airfreighted and arrived early November.

Since then, however, the process of moving the build over to the new frame has been a disaster:

  • The replacement frame is a Sphere, and not a Slade; it may not matter, but there was no warning or discussion about this, and it is not what I paid for or expected to be getting.
  • The replacement frame looks nothing like the original Slade, being bright red and dayglo orange. Not really what I was after considering I quite liked the utilitarian look of the original. Again, there was no explanation, warning or discussion about this.
  • Sphere geometry is slightly different, most notable would be a higher BB.
  • Sphere frame may be lighter, not confirmed yet. Neither do I yet know if it is straighter.
  • The real showstopper though, is that the bottom bracket (and hence the entire groupset) is totally incompatible; the retailer is trying to resolve this with no success so far.
Silverback Slade Comp, (the original defective frame(s))
Silverback Sphere Expert (the replacement frame)

There are multiple issues with the bottom bracket/crankset. Silverback indicated that I would just have to move the existing components over to the new frame, which would be straightforward and easy.

In practice, however, there are multiple bottom bracket compatibility issues – the Sphere bottom bracket is press fit, the Slade was threaded. The replacement crankset has to be suitable for the 148 Boost frame, as well as able to take the Slade 2x chainrings; there may also be further issues around the fact that the Sphere is described as a “single chainring specific design”. I don’t know what that entails, and have asked Silverback to clarify, but haven’t heard back, but it doesn’t sound good. The fact that the bike has now been with the retailer who is trying to sort this mess out for 2 weeks, and they’ve ordered in 3 different cranksets, indicates this is far from an easy build over.

IMHO it would have been easier, cheaper and far less hassle for all concerned if Silverback had just shipped a replacement bike – they would have come out of this looking like they supported their customers, retailers and product, instead of looking like they want to send some random frame and didn’t even know their own product well enough to realise it was quite different.

Its been pretty disappointing, I went to quite a lot of trouble to fully inform Silverback about what may be a quite widespread problem with one model and size of their bikes, and so far, they’ve been unable to respond with any kind of appropriate fix for even one bike!

And then, it gets even worse!

After further discussions with Silverback last night, they’ve now said: ” …our engineers … have advised that the Sphere frame is only 1x compatible. There may be a way to get 2x to work however this will not be ideal

There has been no further communication from them – no suggestions for a way forward.

This is worse than useless, Silverback shipped a warranty replacement frame that never had a chance of working, wasting everyone’s time, and are at present not showing they have any interest in correcting the situation.

It is also very difficult for the retailer, who are working on their side of the problem with what seems like no guidance from Silverback. They’ve been trying to get things sorted and have been looking at Shimano BBs, as the 2018 Slade Comp used a Shimano SM-BB52.

These have had the problem of the chainrings being too far inboard on the Boost 148 frame. This may be fruitless as the bottom bracket is actually a Race Face press fit BB92, which has the bearings outboard of the frame to provide the extra offset for the chainline on the Boost 148 frame. These appear to be a variation on a BB92 PF standard, possibly wider than normal.

And it continues (20/12/2019):

After some delays the retailer has been in communication with Silverback, suggesting that Silverback approve that the retailer supply and fit a 1×12 SRAM groupset or propose an alternative. I consider that to be an acceptable way sort this.

However, Silverback has said they will supply components to get the bike working. We were just waiting on confirmation of what they were going to supply, and as I cynically predicted, this was interesting.

Silverback are really not looking at this from the customer’s perspective. They are just trying to do the minimum possible to get the bike running, and don’t seem interested in the eventual configuration of the bike or how long this is taking. This quite frankly, sucks. The time is well past when it would have been cheaper and quicker for all concerned to just ship a complete replacement Slade.

And Now:

Yesterday we had confirmation that Silverback are going to supply a Shimano 1×11 groupset, similar or the same as the Sphere specification – a 11-42 cassette, and a 32T chainring.

My immediate reaction was that this was completely unacceptable, because this totally changes the nature of the bike that I bought and transforms it into something far different. I’m not averse to 1x groupsets, but the Slade 2×9 groupset gave me a range of 538%, and at a cadence of 60, a top speed of around 27km/h. The gain ratios run from 7.0 to 1.3. Gear development works out to 7.4m in top gear, 1.4m in low.

The Sphere groupset has a range of only 381%! At a cadence of 60, the top gear speed is about 23km/h, the gain ratios run from 6.2 to 1.6. That is 6.6m in top gear to 1.7m in low.

(Calculations all from Sheldon Brown’s online gear calculator – )

This means that I would lose top end speed quite significantly, and lose climbing ability in the lowest gear as well.

For the type of terrain I ride – quite steep but generally grassy hills around the lakes, but accessed by long flat and exposed gravel road (where you always have a strong tailwind in one direction, if not both) the 1×11 groupset being supplied is completely unacceptable. It might be fine for riding on trails only (which I guess is the kind of market it intended for), but not for a mixture of road and trail.

Even a high range 1×12 groupset (which is what the retailer preferred to fit) would still have compromises, but a larger ratio (at 510%) would come much closer to the Slade groupset, even though there would still be a compromise at both ends and with larger steps between gears.

I think I made my position quite clear, and I understand the retailer is going back to discuss this with Silverback but I don’t see me getting this bike back any time this year; perhaps never. I’m really at the stage of having to walk away from all this – the only reason I’m so reluctant to do so, is because the original Slade (if it had a straight frame) was astounding value for money, a really solid spec with all the features I wanted that was only matched by bikes twice the price. Also the retailer has been pretty good through all this.

They’ve offered a demo bike while this disaster gets sorted, I’m becoming increasingly doubtful I’ll get my own bike sorted before summer is half over.

The delays caused by Silverback have now dragged this debacle into Christmas and New Year, which means even more delays as I’m pretty sure Germany shuts down completely over the holidays. And this is a bike I bought way back in August, and have only ridden a very few times.

Here are the spec sheets of the two models for comparison:

December 2019 – March 2020

Evo very helpfully loaned me a demo bike until mine is back on the road. So over the the summer I’ve had “to put up with riding” a Trek Remedy – a long travel full suspension bike. The bike clearly has been pretty badly beat up, with one wheel replaced and (judging from the dent in the chainstay) a crank replaced also – but it is still straighter than anything I’ve seen from Silverback.

It’s been great.

Thanks, Evo!

28/03/2020, update:

And this all gets even worse. This is just unbelievable.

Evo delivered my rebuilt bike on Wednesday, just hours before the NZ wide lockdown (no activity for the next 4 weeks, possibly longer). I can’t fault Evo for any of this, they have been absolutely superb and while things have taken longer than I’d like, that definitely isn’t Evo’s fault.

I’d describe this as a new bike, because although Silverback replaced the frame, Evo did the build over. That should have been straightforward, but due to Silverback being asleep at the wheel (I’m being charitable) the buildover also included new:

  • Complete SRAM NX 11-50 cassette, chain, derailleur
  • SRAM Dub bottom bracket, cranks and 32T chainring
  • Bontrager 31.6mm seat dropper post, cable and control

Silverback totally messed up here, not even realising the Slade and Sphere have different seat tubes (Slade is 30.9mm, Sphere is 31.6, most likely due to the thinner seat tube wall thickness on the Sphere).

Of the original Slade, only the wheels, brakes, forks, and handlebars are still being used (I already upgraded the seat and pedals).

Most of this has AFAIK been done at Evo’s cost, since Silverback would only agree to replace the frame, and after further discussion, to supply the inadequate Shimano 1×11 11-42T groupset.

As you can see, the bike really does look great – I was able to take it for a ride down to Bluff Point at Pencarrow just before it rained on Friday. It is great on the gravel road, comfortable, fast and easy to ride; and pretty good on the hills around the south coast. The 50T gear makes for great climbing and the dropper post works really smoothly. The forks and hardtail are a significant compromise offroad compared to the Remedy I’ve been riding for the past 3 months (no surprises there), but it is still more than adequate for my needs, and this bike is much better on the gravel. The Splade as configured seems a really good compromise for what I use it for – just about perfect.

Looks great, doesn’t it? Silverback’s designers did a good job, I should be happy that the end result is so good and now I can move on and enjoy it.

Not so Fast:

Unbelievably, when assessing wheel alignment, Silverback sent a replacement frame that is far worse than either of the previous 2 Slades that I had; the wheels show a 2° misalignment of the headtube, and in the opposite direction to the Slade frames.

Great job, guys…SMH.

As you can see from the wheel alignment, this frame is all kinds of ugly. Even eyeballing the wheels is disconcerting, the alignment doesn’t make any sense.

When sighting the headset spacers and seat post from the front of the bike, the difference in angle between the two is clearly visible. They should always be parallel when viewed from the bike centreline.

A flat ruler when held against the seat post shows the headset to be at an angle relative to the seat post. Measuring this angle after importing the image into a CAD application shows the angle as being 2.9°

Note that we don’t know whether the seat post is actually correct relative to the frame, so not much can be read into this measurement, other than it follows all the other evident trends here, and not in a good way.

A straight edge should be able to contact all 4 points – front and rear points on the sidewall – of both tires if the frame is correct, but on this frame, a straight edge held against the rear tire lines up with the inside face of the front fork dropout – which means the wheels are offset at axle height by about 22mm! (rear tire is 67mm wide, the front dropout is 110; (110-67)/2=21.5mm) as well as having about 20mm of twist over the diameter of the front wheel rim.

Measuring the rim edges offset to a vertical laser plane gives the results shown above – the wheel rims are offset 20mm and the wheels are not parallel, by about 20mm over the rim diameter of 600mm, this will be approaching 2°.

Measuring the centreline of what would be the contact patch for the front and rear tires from the vertical laser plane gives a difference of 32mm! That is insane! Even the folding bike I had as a child was much better than this.

Note that the handlebars needed a wedge under one end to get the rear wheel vertical. Measuring the height of the handlebars from a horizontal laser plane with the bike set up as above, gives a difference of 25mm over the 710mm handlebar width. This is an error of 2°, which while not too much can be read into because we don’t know how exactly square the stem etc is, if we reasonably assume the stem is accurate, this correlates with the other measurements above.

This means that when riding the bike upright, one handlebar is 25mm higher than the other.

When comparing the seat post to the handlebars on the image above in a CAD application, the angle is shown as being 2.5°.

Running 2 straight edges on both sides of the rear tire to the head tube shows that the seat tube is slightly off centre but the top flange of the head tube and the top tube is centred between the two straight edges; there are no gross or obvious issues. This would indicate the rear triangle and dropouts are probably correct and the error comes from a misaligned head tube.

Calculation using the measurements shown also indicates most of the error could be explained as a misaligned head tube – 30mm offset at the bottom of the front rim, 20mm offset at the axle, and 10mm offset at the top of the rim is in line with 0mm offset at the head tube, which is of course as it should be, and is what the straight edges show.

That calculates out to an angle of just over 1.9°, and I’ve seen reviewers get far more exercised about slacker or steeper head angles with less difference in spec than 0.5° in the forward/aft direction! If this was related to frame slackness a number like 1.9° would be polarising 🙂


When riding the bike, there is a clear misalignment, quite visible when you know what to look for.

The bike is not able to be ridden hands free; it falls to the left. When riding in a straight line, the front wheel is clearly steering to the right, and is offset from the centreline of the frame. Lining up and viewing straight down so both top and down tubes are about equally visible, the right shoulder of the tire approximately lines up with the right face of the top and down tubes, while the left shoulder of the tire projects about 1-2cm from the tube faces (and remember, this is a 2.8″ mid-fat tire).

It is clear that the bike frame is crabbing, which also implies the rear tire is scrubbing and there will be excessive wear.

The only rational conclusion:

To me, this indicates that Silverback have no control over the quality of their product – I’ve had 3 essentially random frame samples and ALL of them – every single one – have unacceptable errors. Two from the same batch would be bad enough, but to then encounter a worse error on a much more expensive frame from a different model produced at a much later date is appalling. Even more so, given that they were supposed to check this frame before shipping as a replacement, and I explicitly raised that issue with them before they shipped it.

While they may be checking manufactured frames against tooling they clearly haven’t validated a fully built bike, or they would have seen that there is an error (either in design or manufacture). They may not know they are producing complete crap.

From my experience I would think every Sphere owner has real reason to be concerned, and retailers shouldn’t be very happy, either – a misaligment of this magnitude may even be a safety issue. I have seen no evidence that owners of other Silverback models should have any confidence in the brand, either.

Not sure where to go from here, I’ll let Evo enjoy their time off (since they can’t do anything for the next month – or two – anyway) but we’ll see what Silverback have to say. If my next email to them doesn’t ruin their day, they aren’t paying attention.

Powering the Z-Cam E1

Some comments about powering this camera.

TLDR: use only high quality and low resistance cables to power this camera reliably (or at all).

There are several cables available online that work with this camera, some of the ones I’ve seen recommended are relatively expensive. However, there are cheaper choices that will work, two of them were tested here. One of the best cables was only about $3.40, it certainly not necessary to spend $20 for a functional cable.

Unfortunately there are very many more cheaper cables that will NOT work with the camera – the Thin Cable (2) sample tested is fairly representative.

It is entirely feasible to make your own cable, the parts are inexpensive and you can then make cables with thick conductors and no longer than you need, which will improve performance.

The camera is more forgiving of poor cables if the battery is in place, especially at startup. However unless your power supply and cable are capable of supplying more than 0.800A at idle, or 1.300A while recording, the battery will eventually discharge.

For most of the testing I used a Wavlink powered USB hub, and you can see from the table that even at high current drains the voltage output form the unit did not drop below acceptable limits.

The Smooth Q gimbal is also capable of powering this camera (without battery, a useful weight saving).




  • LCD power drain not measured (all done with display on)
  • Lumix 45-150 lens current draw is approximately 0.100A
  • Estimate resistance of test equipment (meter and leads) to be about 0.250Ω and at the low voltages and high currents involved with USB, this can be significant.
  • Resistance of link used to measure voltage at camera port for cable tests not known and may have an effect.
  • Voltage measured at camera port with multimeter or USB tester.
  • Use of a pass-through USB tester to indicate voltage and current severely affected the camera performance, not recommended. Using a USB tester to measure voltage at the camera port was fine though.
  • Instances where camera failed with no battery and the DIY Cable (3) – camera will run if battery is present for startup and subsequently removed. Where Thin Cable (2) was tested, camera would not start under any circumstances.
  • Charging with Thin Cable (2) was limited to 250mA
  • The Z Cam PSU shows very stable voltage output under load.

The testing setup:

All testing was done using a Wavlink powered USB hub, except for the last table which shows the Z Cam PSU performance for reference.

For measuring the current drain of the camera in various scenarios, 2 multimeters and a very short cable was used, configured as shown.


For measuring cable performance with the camera in various scenarios, a Keweisi USB Detector was used. This was wired with a short cable inserted into the path near the camera port and is accurate enough to show what was happening. The configuration here shows the DIY Cable (3) being used while recording 4K30 with the battery inserted.



The cables used (links may not work as they age):

Fat Cable (1)

Fat Cable (1)

Search Ebay

Fat Cable (4)

Fat Cable (4)

Search Ebay

Thin Cable (2)

Thin Cable (2)

Search Ebay

DIY Cable (3)

DIY cable USB

Search Ebay

DIY Cable tail

Search Ebay

DIY cable balun

Search Ebay