# Modern geometry vs. rigid singlespeed?



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Does "Modern" geometry work if you build the bike as a rigid singlespeed?

I'm in no immediate need of another bike or frame. But of course I occasionally look at current offerings. I'm quite happy with my rigid 26er ( :eekster: ) singlespeed with a head angle of 68 degrees or thereabouts: a converted gearie hardcore hardtail from 10 years back.

Now, everything along those lines seems to come with steep seat tubes and slack head angles, nearer 60 degrees. 

Acccording to forum discussions, at those slack head angles, you need to ride them with weight on the front wheel, if you want to be able to turn. Sounds like a recipe for killing my wrists in 10 minutes.

The steep seat tube moves the possible seat locations forward which is surely good for seated climbing - but I mainly sit on the flats and very gentle climbs, if there's no bumps in the trail.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

The 'modern' geo evolved to let folks be more comfortable in rough terrain. Especially with rigid its important to unweight the front. I think the high steep old style bikes are pretty scary on roots and drops - ive done it but i certainly cant go as fast and its unnerving to ride without a dropper. If you only ride smooth gradual trails i think 'modern' would be a step back in both fun and comfort. Wonder if youd be happy with a gravel bike?


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

I personally would not want the very slack new geo on a rigid. But the trails I ride don't really work for very slack bikes of any kind. They are tight, twisty and fairly smooth. One of my bikes has a 70* head angle, the other 68*. That is slack enough for me. If I am going to trails with more speed and rougher trails, then I just bring the FS bike 

If I was going to get a new frame for rigid. I was go with the timberjack and use a fork on the shorter end to steepen the angles just a bit


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

eri said:


> The 'modern' geo evolved to let folks be more comfortable in rough terrain. Especially with rigid its important to unweight the front. I think the high steep old style bikes are pretty scary on roots and drops - ive done it but i certainly cant go as fast and its unnerving to ride without a dropper. If you only ride smooth gradual trails i think 'modern' would be a step back in both fun and comfort. Wonder if youd be happy with a gravel bike?


It does get bumpy here.

Apparently, the slack bikes will just plow straight ahead, unless you WEIGH the front. How do you combine that with UNWEIGHing the front - which you need to do on a rigid bike.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

perttime said:


> It does get bumpy here.
> 
> Apparently, the slack bikes will just plow straight ahead, unless you WEIGH the front. How do you combine that with UNWEIGHing the front - which you need to do on a rigid bike.


Just my opinion and experience here, im no world class downhiller.

Ive ridden a geared kona honzo with float 36 160 on a fairly technical fast descent, but im still a fat old man, nobody youll see on a redbull movie. The slack bikes have very short chainstay for weight balance, climbing traction and to help Hoist the front, they have short seat tube so dropper gets seat way down so you can get back on the bike. Still can be a challenge to hoist front with a heavy fork and tire so far out front but i still found it easier To manual than a long chainstay vassago i once owned. The slacked honzos wheelbase was nuts, like a toboggan and you committed and carved turns with it like a snowboard. The modern bikes are made to be ridden with your weight forward, youre standing because its a hardtail, you are even more forward to make more use of the front fork. Personally i thought that particular honzo was sort of dumb, i thought it was utterly unthrilling unless going too fast in the rough steeps. The slack head angle makes the steering so dead unless youre leaned over and going fast.

I currently own a kona raijin and an ibis tranny 29. The raijin with the fox 34 140 is absolutely perfect for me and the trails i like but a bit dead on the road, head angle is right about 68. The tranny is nominally a 71 head angle with stock 100 fork, mine has a -1 angleset and a 120 Fork which brings it to 69 degrees and its great on smoother trails without being horrible on the road. I think the tranny is more enjoyable for smooth mellow singletrack but the raijin is much better if its even a bit rough.

I dont think id want a slacker hardtail for what i ride, but also wouldnt get anything steeper unless it was just for the road.

Also for balance/stretch/bike fit purposes, im 6' and the raijin is a 20", the tranny 29 is an xl (tranny is a short frame so i needed the xl for proper reach.)

Also, i know you want rigid but i love my float 34 so much. Wish id got one years ago. Steering is so much more precise over the 32 And I really like the extra travel and damping over my previous 32 120.


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

Check out the current Surly Karate Monkey frame.


----------



## hardmtnbiker (Feb 22, 2005)

I have 2 fully rigid SS my older Niner Sir9 is pretty steep 70HTA and a custom Seven Sola with an ENVE MTN fork that is 67HTA still pretty steep. The HTA gets a bit slacker when I run big 29x3” tires but still steep compared to the today’s 64 and 65HTA. 
The way I see it is your HTA with a rigid fork will not get steeper as it compresses with the terrain, it’s static. 
Pick a frame that is paired with the exact fork you want and is what you feel gives you the best Geo for the trails you ride the most.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

eri said:


> Just my opinion and experience here, im no world class downhiller.
> 
> Ive ridden a geared kona honzo with float 36 160 on a fairly technical fast descent,
> 
> ...


I think you are talking about riding a hardtail. Been there, done that.

I'm talking about riding a rigid bike. I had to change the way I ride when I went rigid. What is your feeling about angles on a rigid bike?


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

perttime said:


> I think you are talking about riding a hardtail. Been there, done that.
> 
> I'm talking about riding a rigid bike. I had to change the way I ride when I went rigid. What is your feeling about angles on a rigid bike?


Sorry. Trying to help. Maybe you can simulate rigid by demoing at a local store and locking out the fork? I think by going rigid you're knowledgably removing some sorts of trail from your 'fun to ride' list. I suspect those trails are the same ones that would really warrant a slack head angle. Big front tire makes up for a lot though...

With a rigid fork I dont have any fun at all on the trails I love. I've done it and no more for me, same as canti-brakes. Of course I never would have imagined 10 years ago that my primary ride in 2020 would be a ss.

Cheers, I'm looking forward to how this thread progresses.


----------



## AZJP (Apr 10, 2007)

I understand what the OP is asking and I don't think it has been answered yet. I also want to know. I'm still on a classic 71/73 short bike with a rigid fork (Bianchi PUSS). I've exclusively ridden this bike since 2009. How is a new geo rigid SS while climbing up a hill, which for me requires standing and mashing? I love the feel of my bike for my regular trails, but sometimes feel WAY under-biked when I'm on purpose built MTB trails in places like British Columbia.

I think the best would be to demo a hard tail and lock out the fork as stated above. I have to wait until next spring for that where I live.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Head tube angle is always the same on a rigid bike. On a hardtail it varies. The numbers are probably somewhere but I'm sure it must be several degrees. 5 degrees steeper when a 150mm fork is completely compressed???

I know that with about 68 degrees head angle, I have better stability on my rigid bike than I did on the hardtail that was probably a couple of degrees steeper. Short chain stays in both cases. Obviously I need to pay more attention to where I put my front tyre, on the rigid bike: otherwise it gets deflected to the side by irregular rocks and roots.

One bike company recently took a COVID angle to their rigid fork: put this on your bike and you don't need to travel to ride: your local trails will be interesting again


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

I had a Whisky fork on a Nimble 9 for a while. I wouldn't recommend it. The bottom bracket is insanely low and it rode pretty awkward. Not to mention most steel AM hard tail frames are built really beefy these days, so the ride is incredibly harsh.


----------



## Little_twin (Feb 23, 2016)

If you keep the axle to crown on the rigid fork similar to what it would be with a sagged suspension fork you won’t effect the geometry any more than riding with a properly set up suspension fork. 

An example, my current bike has a carver 490 a2c fork in it, I built the frame around that or a 100 mm suspension fork with roughly a 510 a2c. Sitting on its own its own weight that will drastically change the geometry but once I get on with my 18mm of sag it ends up right back where it sits with the 490 rigid fork and therefore the geometry has not changed drastically. You will run into problems when looking for a rigid fork that is suspension corrected for anything over about 100mm. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Check out the newly updated Kona Unit. It's a good balance of modern and old school in a couple ways. https://www.konaworld.com/unit.cfm

I still want one of these but I'm currently building a Honzo ST with a 140 fork and gears. I have too many steel hardtails.

On the Unit, it's 80mm suspension corrected so you could throw a slightly longer A-C carbon fork on there to raise the BB height a little.

Surly's aren't super progressive on the geometry, but they work well and are awesome for what they're intended to be, and a good value. I wish my Krampus had a longer Reach and slacker HTA, and shorter chainstays, but I digress.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

You should be able to find some newer XC hardtails with the angles you're looking for. I know my Giant XTC is 69 degrees and it doesn't have a super steep seat tube at 70 degrees. Get a newer rigid fork and you should be set. 

Some other bikes you may consider:
Surly Karate Monkey - 69 head tube / 73 seat tube - I really like this geometry for my local trails. 
Surly Krampus -68.4 head tube / 72.4 seat tube
Pivot Les - 69 head angle / 73 seat tube


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

eri said:


> ... I'm looking forward to how this thread progresses.


Looks like we got to people trying to sell me bikes.

What I actually wanted to find out is if "Modern" angles make any sense in a rigid singlespeed bike.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

perttime said:


> What I actually wanted to find out is if "Modern" angles make any sense in a rigid singlespeed bike.


You need to be more specific about "modern angles". How far do you want to go? Put a specific number on STA, chainstay length, HTA, BB drop, Reach, etc.

I know some guys riding a rigid Honzo that really dig it for example, but it's not super agro by modern standards.

Without being specific it's too vague to accurately answer.


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

*OneSpeed* said:


> You need to be more specific about "modern angles". How far do you want to go? Put a specific number on STA, chainstay length, HTA, BB drop, Reach, etc.
> 
> I know some guys riding a rigid Honzo that really dig it for example, but it's not super agro by modern standards.
> 
> Without being specific it's too vague to accurately answer.


This. Maybe I was confused with my last post, but with regards to hard trails and "modern" geometry I always think 130-150 fork. If you are buying a frame designed around that fork travel and want to put a rigid fork on it then I will stick with my previous comment. If by modern you mean not 71 degree HTA and long rear ends then that's a different conversation.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

For "Modern", let's say:
- 75 degrees seat tube, or steeper
- 65 degrees head tube, or slacker.

The current rigid 26er has, measured with phone app, with bike standing on level floor:
- 72.3 degrees seat tube angle
- 68.7 degrees head tube angle (head badge made measuring a little tricky)
- Chain stay is 419mm, or thereabouts
- Fork is 465mm A-C (compensated for 120mm suspension fork)
That is working great for me, on woodland trails that are twisty with roots and rocks and other bumps. Will also go straight, when need be. Can get the front end to go over stuff, instead of plowing into stuff.


----------



## paramount3 (Jul 13, 2014)

I don't see why deleting the formal suspension changes the equation; i.e. if you want to descend steep stuff, you want a slack head angle. You have to absorb the bumps somehow, presumably with your arms and legs, and maybe with fat tires. but does that change geometry any more than the compression of formal suspension elements? Probably not. If people are saying that "modern" geometry bikes require a more forward position, then why would that change when you delete the suspension elements? No matter what the geometry is, your arms have to be able to absorb the shock of hitting the bumps.


----------



## paramount3 (Jul 13, 2014)

But you are riding fully rigid SS for a reason, presumably. You care about pedaling, you are comfortable climbing out of the saddle--indeed, you must ride out of the saddle. My feeling is that the modern geo rigid SS is not going to be a rewarding bike to pedal. I might as well come out and say it: I think the trend is going towards bikes that descend well, are barely functional for pedaling, and it will be assumed that you get carried up the hill or have a battery and motor on your bike.


----------



## pebbles (Jan 13, 2009)

I have a 510 a2c rigid fork that I switch on my 120mm hardtail, depending on season. It gets hot and humid here, so I ride mostly bike path or double-track during the summer. My bike is a steel frame 29er with 67ht and 72st. Not sure how modern that is, but it's much more capable than my old El Mar! It rides very well rigid, but I'm faster on actual trails with the sus.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

paramount3 said:


> I don't see why deleting the formal suspension changes the equation... No matter what the geometry is, your arms have to be able to absorb the shock of hitting the bumps.


Thing is, riding rigid, you cannot absorb as much of the shock with your hands and arms, with no suspension fork to help. The strength just isn't there. You need even more weight on the legs, than riding a HT.

With the 60 to 65 degree head angles, you need weight on the front to be able to turn well.

I'm becoming convinced that about 68 degrees head angle is probably near the sweet spot for me on a rigid bike.

-------
What I ride isn't mountain country: we have lots of short ups and downs. Some of it can be steep. Generally, trails are twisty "natural" trails: on average, speeds are not particularly high even going down hill.

.... I thought that my 3 kg (6.6 pound) medium steel frame was heavy. Apparently, some current AM HT frames are more than that. Perhaps some are returning to the monster hardtails of 15 years ago?


----------



## PVP-SS (Jan 28, 2019)

I'm going to look at this a little differently. Referring to the existing single speed builds offered by manufacturers, I'm going to say no to modern geo in a SS. Here's some specs from 3. Head angle/Seat angle/Chainstay length.

Redline Monocog 68/74/450
Gunnar Ruffian 71.5/73/450
Spot Rocker 67.7/73.7/427-462 (Paragon sliders)

I'm gonna trust the factory Engineers and Test Riders on this one, since these frames are SS specific (or least I'm assuming) with no geared equivalent.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

I think a lot of it comes down to the terrain you ride, on whether it makes sense for rigid or not. I've spent a good bit of time on 68, 69, and 70 HTA on rigid SS bikes. In some trail systems (tight, twisty but not overly technical) the 70 wins hands. In other areas the 68 gets the nod without a second thought.

I'm debating a custom rigid SS frame soon myself with a around a 66.5-67 HTA.

If you haven't seen this article, you definitely should give it a read - https://nsmb.com/articles/personal-rides-andrews-custom-waltworks-v2/

Edit- as stated above the new Kona Unit redesign is very interesting too!


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

nitrousjunky said:


> I think a lot of it comes down to the terrain you ride, on whether it makes sense for rigid or not. I've spent a good bit of time on 68, 69, and 70 HTA on rigid SS bikes. In some trail systems (tight, twisty but not overly technical) the 70 wins hands. In other areas the 68 gets the nod without a second thought.
> 
> I'm debating a custom rigid SS frame soon myself with a around a 66.5-67 HTA.
> 
> ...


Makes sense. I have twisty but there's also bumps.

I hadn't seen the article before. Cool bike. And I thought the part about people thinking it is a Chromag was funny - especially as my current bike is a Chromag Stylus.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

what is the advantage to a slack HTA for descending?

is it the longer front-center that it yields, putting the rider further behind the front wheel and less likely to OTB? if that is the case, you should be looking at a bike with a longer front-center, which might not necessarily have a "slack" head tube angle. a long reach with a short stem and handlebar with a lot of setback dimension would provide the fit you want but still put the front wheel healthily in front of you.

or does the angle itself somehow perform differently? if so, does that translate in any way on a rigid fork?

the point has been made already, but keep in mind that a bike with a 140mm suspension fork has the HTA measured in a static state. the HTA alternates and only gets steeper from there.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

mack_turtle said:


> what is the advantage to a slack HTA for descending?
> 
> is it the longer front-center that it yields, putting the rider further behind the front wheel and less likely to OTB? if that is the case, you should be looking at a bike with a longer front-center, which might not necessarily have a "slack" head tube angle. a long reach with a short stem and handlebar with a lot of setback dimension would provide the fit you want but still put the front wheel healthily in front of you.
> 
> ...


In theory the slacker the head angle, the the less likely the front wheel is to get hung up on a root/rock. From my testing, I think it would be equally as noticeable... if not more so on a rigid fork.

I had a Kona WoZo as a SS for a bit with a 120mm fork. That bike has a long reach (475mm for LG) and I ran it with a 35mm stem. The head angle should have been around 69.3 at 20% sag on my 120mm fork. The longer reach/front center definitely helped in steep/techy descents but it really came to life with a -1.5 CC Angleset.


----------



## LonelyDwarfProd. (Jul 22, 2015)

mack_turtle said:


> what is the advantage to a slack HTA for descending?
> 
> is it the longer front-center that it yields, putting the rider further behind the front wheel and less likely to OTB? if that is the case, you should be looking at a bike with a longer front-center, which might not necessarily have a "slack" head tube angle. a long reach with a short stem and handlebar with a lot of setback dimension would provide the fit you want but still put the front wheel healthily in front of you.
> 
> ...


I think this is the right question. HTA on its own doesn't determine how a bike rides/descends. Wheel size goes hand in hand with this in my experience. All other things being equal, a slacker HTA would push the front wheel out further in front of the rider, but as you point out, slack head angles go hand in hand with longer reach numbers on "modern" bikes, so it's hard to say whether the added stability is down solely to the slacker HTA or that in combination with other geometry changes.

To get to the original question asked by the OP, yes, I think "modern" geometry can work well on a rigid single speed, provided that's how the bike was designed to be set up. In addition to the new Unit as mentioned by others, the RSD Sergeant comes to mind. They sell an "Adventure" build with a rigid fork on a frame with a 66.5-degree HTA and a fairly long 456mm reach on a medium.


----------



## Bluebeat007 (Mar 17, 2004)

Yes! I had Walt from Waltworks build me a 120mm suspension corrected fork for my Wozo. I'm running an angleset and a 40mm stem. I recently had 29er wheels built to run 2.6 tires and I couldn't be happier with the results.


----------



## Bluebeat007 (Mar 17, 2004)

Andrew Major's custom 64 degree HA Waltworks. Sick!


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Bluebeat007 said:


> Yes! I had Walt from Waltworks build me a 120mm suspension corrected fork for my Wozo. I'm running an angleset and a 40mm stem. I recently had 29er wheels built to run 2.6 tires and I couldn't be happier with the results.
> 
> View attachment 1337883


^ That Wozo is excellent! Very cool.


----------



## Bluebeat007 (Mar 17, 2004)

Thanks! It’s Nitrousjunky’s old frame.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Bluebeat007 said:


> Thanks! It's Nitrousjunky's old frame.


I approve of this setup!!! 

Glad to see it's getting good use too.


----------



## attaboy (Apr 4, 2008)

mack_turtle said:


> what is the advantage to a slack HTA for descending?
> 
> is it the longer front-center that it yields, putting the rider further behind the front wheel and less likely to OTB? if that is the case, you should be looking at a bike with a longer front-center, which might not necessarily have a "slack" head tube angle. a long reach with a short stem and handlebar with a lot of setback dimension would provide the fit you want but still put the front wheel healthily in front of you.
> 
> ...


I think HA on its own helps descending beyond just longer front. Consider the angle of your fork while descending, relative to what would be level ground. The steeper the HA, the further toward parallel with level ground the fork becomes on any given downward slope angle. That puts force toward going OTB. Imagine an extreme to visualize it-if 45 degree HA you could be on a much steeper descent angle before fork would approach its tipping point.


----------



## Bluebeat007 (Mar 17, 2004)

Yeah, it's been great. It saw a lot of miles in fat mode over the winter. The beach is 5 minutes away.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

long front-center versus slack HTA. I am not saying either is the right approach. I just want to make sure we're asking the right question and not following a red herring. everyone is OBSESSED with slack HTAs right now and I don't think all the attention given to that one dimension in isolation is warranted.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

mack_turtle said:


> long front-center versus slack HTA. I am not saying either is the right approach. I just want to make sure we're asking the right question and not following a red herring. everyone is OBSESSED with slack HTAs right now and I don't think all the attention given to that one dimension in isolation is warranted.


I was trying to say above, that I think you need the combination of both with longer front center possibly be the more important of the two.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

attaboy said:


> I think HA on its own helps descending beyond just longer front. Consider the angle of your fork while descending, relative to what would be level ground. The steeper the HA, the further toward perpendicular with level ground the fork becomes on any given downward slope angle. That puts force toward going OTB. Imagine an extreme to visualize it-if 45 degree HA you could be on a much steeper descent angle before fork would approach its tipping point.


How does a fork have a tipping point?
The fork is attached to wheel and frame. The rider is to some degree attached to that package. The whole bike and rider combination certainly has a tipping point.

Head Angle must certainly affect the steering response, together with what sort of offset the fork has:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_geometry#Trail


----------



## attaboy (Apr 4, 2008)

perttime said:


> How does a fork have a tipping point?
> The fork is attached to wheel and frame. The rider is to some degree attached to that package. The whole bike and rider combination certainly has a tipping point.
> 
> Head Angle must certainly affect the steering response, together with what sort of offset the fork has:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_geometry#Trail


Right, rider and whole package. (BTW, meant parallel with ground ^) So, as fork becomes closer to parallel with level ground, the whole package moves toward OTB, versus when fork is angled further from parallel when it serves to keep rider and whole package on both wheels.


----------



## willawry'd (Oct 3, 2005)

mack_turtle said:


> long front-center versus slack HTA. I am not saying either is the right approach. I just want to make sure we're asking the right question and not following a red herring. everyone is OBSESSED with slack HTAs right now and I don't think all the attention given to that one dimension in isolation is warranted.


Great point. Two bikes with exact chainstay and wheelbase lengths but vary in HTA...is one more OTB prone?

I also wonder how the "modern geometry" will feel while standing and mashing. Will the steeper STA cause the saddle to get in the way? Will the bars being further forward reduce power potential?


----------



## paramount3 (Jul 13, 2014)

A long FC goes with a short stem. This combination keeps the center of gravity back and helps present OTB. Don't neglect the contribution of the shorter stem. I have an old Raleigh hardtail 71/73 HA/SA (not rigid, not singlespeed) that came with about a 100mm stem. I put on a 40 mm stem, slid the saddle as far back as I can, and with a 100 mm dropper post it actually descends steep stuff pretty reasonably.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

willawry'd said:


> Great point. Two bikes with exact chainstay and wheelbase lengths but vary in HTA...is one more OTB prone?
> 
> ...


I think not.
OTB propensity is a function of Center of Gravity location in relation with front tyre contact patch location.

I suppose getting the kind of Front-Center numbers that people get with long and slack bikes would be very difficult without the "slack" part. (having the stem pointing back might not be good)


----------



## sotak (May 20, 2009)

Doesn't a slack HTA also dampen steering to a degree? Roots, rocks, etc aren't going to mess with the direction the bike is going as much as they would with a steeper HTA. In other words, the bike is less "twitchy". This is in addition to getting the front wheel out further, making it easier to have a balanced fore-aft position on descents.

All else being equal, with a longer front-center and a slack HTA you end up with a bike that's easier to control at high speeds in rough terrain.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

As "modern" as it gets.

https://www.peterverdone.com/the-devil-went-down-to-georgia/










or...

https://www.peterverdone.com/pvd-sopwith-camel/










or...

https://www.peterverdone.com/airspeeder/


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

teamdicky said:


> As "modern" as it gets.
> 
> https://www.peterverdone.com/the-devil-went-down-to-georgia/
> 
> ...


Or even out of the box. 
A 29er built with such a low front end could tempt me to try wagon wheels.
According to the geometry images, seat tube angle ends up at about 74 degrees, at his ride height. Short chain stays too.

edit:
He has some discussions on the evolution of his geometry, too.

""""
_I went from (Sopwith Camel) 50mm offset and 64 degree head angle to (Spitfire) 42mm offset and 65 degree head angle. Trail is 1.7% longer but wheel flop is reduced 2.1%. It doesn't seem like much but the front end feel is dramatically improved, like, amazing now. I'm really stoked on it now. It was an interesting gamble but it really paid off in sorting out this gremlin.._
""""
https://www.peterverdone.com/flop/

or:

""""
Frame reach isn't a driving dimension
""""
https://www.peterverdone.com/frame-reach-isnt-a-driving-dimension/


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

perttime said:


> Or even out of the box.
> A 29er built with such a low front end could tempt me to try wagon wheels.
> According to the geometry images, seat tube angle ends up at about 74 degrees, at his ride height. Short chain stays too.


Peter's designs are the only things that make me rethink my own choices. I've always stuck with way more traditional geo, but this intrigues me...

Only downside being that he only builds for himself and his SO.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

what's the Jones approach to sizing, fit, and geo? he also specializes in rigid mountain bikes and they don't seem to follow the LLS design.


----------



## planetx88 (Mar 24, 2012)

Not clear to me if the OP is considering "rigid" as including a fixed seatpost.

With a rigid post on a more forward, modern geo bike the post would be right in the way while climbing, or trying to get behind the saddle while descending. If you want to stay traditional and full rigid, with rigid post, I wouldn't push much past a 72-73 sta. 

If you are willing to consider a dropper, honestly, go nuts. I think the OP is right to look at 68 or so for a HTA, I might find a way to play with fork rake, just for fun. A rigid ss with a proper 150-170 dropper sounds like a blast really. That's a full on mtbmx bike. That dropper will have a big role on rider position, reach and front center, HTA, and your riding style generally. It would be really uncomfortable and scary to descend on a tech trail with a rigid post at a 76 degree angle. Yikes.

Tires also seem, as always, to be hugely important for this application, especially if you do go with that "modern" geo. If I were "dream building" a frame like that, I'd be doing a 2.5" trail tire, with propers lugs front and rear. I would also deff drop some dough on a Ti fork and bars. I think this is a super cool idea, I hope you tend towards dropper on a more aggressive bike, bit jealous, sounds challenging and fun.


----------



## conrad (Jan 27, 2004)

Modern is 64-5 HT and 74-5 ST. My Ritchey Timberwolf is a great ride with a 150mm fork, climbs well and descends with a straight line stability my traditional 71/73 bikes can't match.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

reviving an old thread because this never stops being interesting.

Seat tube angle: modern bikes are getting more and more steep. this makes sense for a few reasons, which might not be relevant to hardtails, to singlespeeds, and even less for rigid bikes. it makes a lot of sense on newer bikes that also have longer front-centers, longer reaches, lower bottom brackets, and need extra room for a short rear end, especially with suspension.

one of the reasons people on gearie bikes like to push the saddle forward is that they can shift down in to their dinner plate-sized cassette cog remain in the saddle to grind up a steep hill without falling over backwards. we one-speeders don't have that luxury crutch to rely on, so we stand up most of the time when things get steep. I wish I had the resources to perform such an experiment, but I'd bet that if you put a pressure sensor on the saddle of a bunch of riders on the same route, the singles-peeders would spend less time in the saddle by a large margin. my understanding is that, the less time you spend in the saddle, the less efficient your effort is. standing all the time is exhausting, which is why you have a saddle in the first place.

that makes me wonder: would a forward saddle position benefit me on uphill, technical terrain? If so, would it hamper other aspects of riding? one of the complaints I hear from people on "modern geo" frames is that they rip downhill when you drop the saddle, and they grind uphill when you shift down and plant your butt, but they're kind of a chore to traverse any sort of distance on flatter terrain. something about increased pressure on the hands.

I was inspired by the @Hardtailparty experiment with a Japhy where he installed an offset post "backwards" to push the saddle into a more forward position, which seemed to make his bike climb with more confidence due to the support when he centers his body in the wheels on an upward pitch. I could not do this in isolation, because the rest of my bike would handle poorly as a result, nullifying the results of such an experiment. this might not matter on shorter rides, but on longer ones, if pushing the saddle forward means I spend more time with my butt on the saddle, it might be more efficient overall.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

mack_turtle said:


> reviving an old thread because this never stops being interesting.
> 
> Seat tube angle: modern bikes are getting more and more steep. this makes sense for a few reasons, which might not be relevant to hardtails, to singlespeeds, and even less for rigid bikes. it makes a lot of sense on newer bikes that also have longer front-centers, longer reaches, lower bottom brackets, and need extra room for a short rear end, especially with suspension.
> 
> ...


The one thing hammered into my thick skull from this forum is that ss means different things to different people. For example even if I had a seat there's no way I'd use it climbing steeps on my ss. On the steeps I'm pressing and pulling the pedals at the same time, lunging to get speed so I can bunny hop the next root steps. Absolutely not enough seated power to sit and rest- I'd stop and fall over. On long logging roads at 250ft/mile i can sit fine without a thought of tipping back. And the few roads I know that climb at 500ft/mile I'm out of saddle gagging on my tongue, sitting wouldn't help it is my big gut that holds me back.

My ss cs are at ~420mm and that is limited by tire.

Really, ss forces you to get strong enough that sitting is just about as comfortable as standing.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

_cue Kickstarter campaign for harebrained contraption that moves your saddle fore-aft position by 15mm with a wireless electric actuator on the handlebar_

I found this comment on Singletracks to be illuminating how just how true it is that mountain biking means different things to each rider:









indeed, mountain biking in general means different things to each rider, and the local terrain has a lot to do with that. no one on a SS bike expects to sit and spin the cranks up longer, steeper, looser terrain, but there's no point in handicapping oneself with a saddle position that is useless on any sort of ascent. riding SS certainly requires a different style of riding that involves less seated pedaling, but the truth is that the less you sit, the less efficient you are. even if you're not racing (I'm certainly not), putting down long miles on difficult terrain can be taxing on the body. getting stronger is certainly the best option, but optimizing your equipment goes a long way to making the experience somewhat comfortable while still challenging. if challenge was the primary factor, we'd all be riding bikes that don't have a place to sit down _at all_. imagine removing your saddle and putting down 20 miles of singletrack. those moments of rest are needed for morals to enjoy the ride.

my saddle is pretty far back and optimized (I think) for traversing. I just wonder if putting my weight a little closer to above the BB would give me a little bit of an edge for putting down watts when they are needed without standing at the first hint of an incline. in other words, I'm thinking about optimizing my COG on the bike so I can stay seated longer, with the expectation that I'll need to stand and mash anyways. I can't do that on my current frame due to the short reach. it would get cramped really fast. I'm thinking ahead to whatever I ride next.


----------



## AKamp (Jan 26, 2004)

I don’t know how these ride, maybe they are the best thing since disk brakes but god are they ugly.


teamdicky said:


> As "modern" as it gets.
> 
> The devil went down to Georgia | Peter Verdone Designs
> 
> ...


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

AKamp said:


> I don’t know how these ride, maybe they are the best thing since disk brakes but god are they ugly.


Peter Verdone has some interesting ideas on bike frame design and if you look further into his blog, you will find that his ideas are continuously evolving. On that note, with the exception of his wife, everything he designs and builds is strictly for his own use. He does not build anything to sell and has mentioned this several times, as I am sure there have been more than a few riders that have asked. While his designs are relatively radical by even today's modern standards, I love his attention to detail, explanations on what and why, and consider his bikes functional works of art. I wish I could try some of these on my local trails.


----------



## AKamp (Jan 26, 2004)

I have looked through his blog and I agree that his attention to detail and skills are something to be admired. I also wouldn’t mind trying one out but I really wouldn’t think that his designs would fit my style of riding, maybe but I doubt it. I will say that unfortunately he comes off as very condescending if people challenge his designs with any criticism or question. He definitely knows more about bike design and build than most on this forum, definitely me included however we do have some very talented people that I have seen him dismiss very rudely vs open discussion. I’m my experience that is usually done by people who arent quite as knowledgeable as they like to portray.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

BrianU said:


> ... On that note, with the exception of his wife, everything ... is strictly for his own use. ...


This struck me funny.
=sParty


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

AKamp said:


> I have looked through his blog and I agree that his attention to detail and skills are something to be admired. I also wouldn’t mind trying one out but I really wouldn’t think that his designs would fit my style of riding, maybe but I doubt it. I will say that unfortunately he comes off as very condescending if people challenge his designs with any criticism or question. He definitely knows more about bike design and build than most on this forum, definitely me included however we do have some very talented people that I have seen him dismiss very rudely vs open discussion. I’m my experience that is usually done by people who arent quite as knowledgeable as they like to portray.


im glad hes in the world, he makes it a richer more interesting place. Honestly the technical stuff isnt as interesting to me as his bluster. I love hes on his own path and his writing reminds me to try and show respect to all. I wish him happiness.


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

eri said:


> his writing reminds me to try and show respect to all.


While I do enjoy his blog and appreciate his knowledge and skill, I have often wondered how many times his very harsh criticism and outspoken opinions, vice just disagreeing with, of certain parts of the bicycle industry have bitten him in the ass. Maybe without him even realizing it. It is a small world and every time I seem to forget that, something comes along to remind me. The bicycle industry is considerably smaller.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

When I had my custom SS frame built 11 years ago, I went with 70*/73* and a second hand rigid WW fork(later a Zoke coil then a Coconino rigid with the correct A2C). Riding full rigid, I knew there'd be a lot of body English involved in the roots and rocks. I like fast handling over driving a long wheelbase truck I'd do it exactly the same now.

At the same time I had another custom frame on order. I'd been experimenting wit LLS and that frame was 66*/74*


----------

