# Scary Levo SL test ride. 71.5 head angle to 66 degree = Huge difference!



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

Today I rode a 2021 E Turbo Levo SL in a parking lot and the steering was so sluggish, I can't imagine riding it on trails. Its geometry is common so its not the bike, its me. I'm accustomed to riding my 2013 XC hardtail which is twitchy in comparison. The wheelbase of the Levo is 5" longer so that and the slack angle make it feel like a tandem to me. How do people maneuver bikes like that through trees and switchbacks? I was considering getting a new emtb but now I'm afraid learning to steer it could end in painful crashes.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)




----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

dugt said:


> Today I rode a 2021 E Turbo Levo SL in a parking lot and the steering was so sluggish, I can't imagine riding it on trails. Its geometry is common so its not the bike, its me. I'm accustomed to riding my 2013 XC hardtail which is twitchy in comparison. The wheelbase of the Levo is 5" longer so that and the slack angle make it feel like a tandem to me. How do people maneuver bikes like that through trees and switchbacks? I was considering getting a new emtb but now I'm afraid learning to steer it could end in painful crashes.


Like anything else that is new, it just takes a little time in the saddle


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

Yup, anymore, I would likely not ride a 71 degree HTA bike off road…talk about SCARY!



(insert sarcasm font)


----------



## TylerVernon (Nov 10, 2019)

My bikes have 65 hta and handle pretty quick.


----------



## looks easy from here (Apr 16, 2019)

Your problem was you were riding it slowly on a flat parking lot. Point it down and speed up and it will all make sense.


----------



## Clyde Ride (Jun 7, 2019)

dugt said:


> Today I rode a 2021 E Turbo Levo SL in a parking lot and the steering was so sluggish, I can't imagine riding it on trails. Its geometry is common so its not the bike, its me. I'm accustomed to riding my 2013 XC hardtail which is twitchy in comparison. The wheelbase of the Levo is 5" longer so that and the slack angle make it feel like a tandem to me. How do people maneuver bikes like that through trees and switchbacks? I was considering getting a new emtb but now I'm afraid learning to steer it could end in painful crashes.


My gravel bike has a 66.6 degree HTA. I wonder if it's possible you're missing something.


----------



## DtEW (Jun 14, 2004)

Well, I will give you credit for realizing that it's you and not the bike that's out-of-the-norm.

(In fact, the 2021 Levo SL might even be a little conservative by today's standards.)

But yeah, you will:

Adapt to it very quickly...
Learn to exploit its properties...
Understand why things evolved this way, and...
Wonder how you ever rode shorter & steeper bikes.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

looks easy from here said:


> Your problem was you were riding it slowly on a flat parking lot. Point it down and speed up and it will all make sense.


Before reading your post I was thinking maybe I was riding too fast in the parking lot, which isn't flat, by the way. In the lot I was riding much faster than I ride on turny single tracks. Maybe I was feeling its weight too. The Levo weighs about 42 lbs and my bike weighs about 28.


----------



## DtEW (Jun 14, 2004)

dugt said:


> Before reading your post I was thinking maybe I was riding too fast in the parking lot, which isn't flat, by the way. In the lot I was riding much faster than I ride on turny single tracks. Maybe I was feeling its weight too. The Levo weighs about 42 lbs and my bike weighs about 28.


It needs to be remembered that a Levo SL is actually _light_ for an eMTB. But yeah, you are experiencing a whole different world here. Your core will catch up.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

Clyde Ride said:


> My gravel bike has a 66.6 degree HTA. I wonder if it's possible you're missing something.


Missing what? Any examples? I hope I am missing something that would be easy to change.


----------



## looks easy from here (Apr 16, 2019)

dugt said:


> Before reading your post I was thinking maybe I was riding too fast in the parking lot, which isn't flat, by the way. In the lot I was riding much faster than I ride on turny single tracks. Maybe I was feeling its weight too. The Levo weighs about 42 lbs and my bike weighs about 28.


Where do you live that a parking lot is steeper than your trails?


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

If you're trying to ride steep technical terrain in your steep hta bike, you'll not have a good time.

At all.

It's amazing that you can't figure out what a slack bike will do for you.

Just think about the geometry and you will figure it out, maybe.

And btw, you're used to having your weight way back on your bike. On the levo you need to have weight on the front wheel, which will take getting used to, but once you do you will NEVER go back to your bike. 

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

looks easy from here said:


> Where do you live that a parking lot is steeper than your trails?


That's what i was thinking. It's not that the parking lot is steeper, it's that he rides really mellow trails. 

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

rod9301 said:


> That's what i was thinking. It's not that the parking lot is steeper, it's that he rides really mellow trails.
> 
> Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk


I live in a mountain town, Truckee, and ride typical forest trails. I think the difference is that I'm used to a bike with a steep angles, even by current XC bike standards, and the Levo is much more slack, but typical for todays trail bikes.


----------



## rtsideup (Mar 21, 2012)

Modern Geo; plow over things rather than steer to avoid them.
You'll get used to it. There are situations where my new school bike can't make the moves that the old one did but, overall, it's a major improvement.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

To those who said I would get used to it and like it, I say, Probably. When I got a dropper seat post, I wasn't real impressed but now I love it.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

rtsideup said:


> Modern Geo; plow over things rather than steer to avoid them.
> You'll get used to it. There are situations where my new school bike can't make the moves that the old one did but, overall, it's a major improvement.


With my current bike, it took me a long time to get myself to ride over things because it always seemed like I could go over the bars. Now I know the head angle is too steep for me but I have gotten better riding over things. The riding I see on videos looks death defying and they make it look so easy. On the other hand, a friend of mine is a nurse in our local mt hospital and he said mt bikers keep them real busy. Actually, I was in there with a broken hip three months ago. I think of myself as a cautious mt biker but apparently not always cautious enough.


----------



## Clyde Ride (Jun 7, 2019)

dugt said:


> Missing what? Any examples? I hope I am missing something that would be easy to change.


What you’re missing is that about a million people are riding this geometry and it works.


----------



## smoothmoose (Jun 8, 2008)

My Gravel bike is 71.5, my Trail bike 67, and Enduro bike 64 degrees respectively. I ride all of them off road and have taken all of them on some of the same trails. My Gravel bike is by far the sketchiest on steeper trails. But I ride all with a dropper post and in the "attack position" - look it up on YouTube. There is definitely a difference between their steering characteristics, but when you ride in the attack position the difference isn't so much as you think vs. riding behind and steering with your arms only.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

Clyde Ride said:


> What you’re missing is that about a million people are riding this geometry and it works.


Obviously you missed this in my OP. "Its geometry is common so its not the bike, it's me." Clearly I am not complaining about the bike. I'm looking for advice. I asked, "How do people maneuver bikes like that through trees and switchbacks?" Many have said you just get used to it which makes sense and is encouraging.


----------



## Clyde Ride (Jun 7, 2019)

dugt said:


> Obviously you missed this in my OP. "Its geometry is common so its not the bike, it's me." Clearly I am not complaining about the bike. I'm looking for advice. I asked, "How do people maneuver bikes like that through trees and switchbacks?" Many have said you just get used to it which makes sense and is encouraging.


It just happens. Adjustment time is probably about 2 rides.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

dugt said:


> Today I rode a 2021 E Turbo Levo SL in a parking lot and the steering was so sluggish, I can't imagine riding it on trails. Its geometry is common so its not the bike, its me. I'm accustomed to riding my 2013 XC hardtail which is twitchy in comparison. The wheelbase of the Levo is 5" longer so that and the slack angle make it feel like a tandem to me. How do people maneuver bikes like that through trees and switchbacks? I was considering getting a new emtb but now I'm afraid learning to steer it could end in painful crashes.


When it comes to trees, you just flick your handlebars through. Bars wider than the trees? No problem:






I will say this, HTA is blown way WAY out of proportion. With dropper posts, 29er wheels and wide bars, it's damn near impossible to endo rolling down stuff or for wheel catches to get you. The reason people endo usually is they let the terrain twist their front wheel, which wide bars help a LOT with, then the bike stops and ejects the rider. Also failing to get weight back, which is what the dropper post is for. Yes, slack HTA will calm the front at high speeds, but again, IME this is blown way way out of proportion. I'm not advocating 72° HTA, but everyone who thinks they need 64 are also not being realistic, in the big picture it's only part of the picture and by itself, a small part. This is a perfect storm for the industry though, they can convince the masses that this is the reason they suck and then sell everyone new bikes with super slack HTAs. Again, I'm not saying go back to 2005, but the last 5 years is getting a little ridiculous too...


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I think a dropper alone can prevent a lot of OTB situations.


----------



## n3sta (Jul 31, 2019)

I say try it on some singletrack and report back. I never trust a parking lot test, and I think you’ll enjoy it once you’ve put a couple miles in.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

n3sta said:


> I say try it on some singletrack and report back. I never trust a parking lot test, and I think you’ll enjoy it once you’ve put a couple miles in.


Do bike shops have demo bikes that they let people take to a trail to try out? I would live to try one before paying $N,000 for one. Some local shops rent mt bikes but I think they are about $150/day.


----------



## Monty219 (Oct 26, 2020)

dugt said:


> Today I rode a 2021 E Turbo Levo SL in a parking lot and the steering was so sluggish, I can't imagine riding it on trails. Its geometry is common so its not the bike, its me. I'm accustomed to riding my 2013 XC hardtail which is twitchy in comparison. The wheelbase of the Levo is 5" longer so that and the slack angle make it feel like a tandem to me. How do people maneuver bikes like that through trees and switchbacks? I was considering getting a new emtb but now I'm afraid learning to steer it could end in painful crashes.


Body position/ weight distribution changes with modern geo, you are more “in” the cockpit of a modern bike than behind it when on descents, especially steep ones. I find modern bikes take more “body english” (movement/ input) and the reward is way better bike capability; the trade off is a net gain.


----------



## Clyde Ride (Jun 7, 2019)

Monty219 said:


> Body position/ weight distribution changes with modern geo, you are more “in” the cockpit of a modern bike than behind it when on descents, especially steep ones. I find modern bikes take more “body english” (movement/ input) and the reward is way better bike capability; the trade off is a net gain.


Yep. More body, less “steering”.


----------



## n3sta (Jul 31, 2019)

dugt said:


> Do bike shops have demo bikes that they let people take to a trail to try out? I would live to try one before paying $N,000 for one. Some local shops rent mt bikes but I think they are about $150/day.


You do have to pay to demo, but a lot of shops put the cost of demos towards a new bike if you buy from them. Also, because bikes cost thousands of dollars, $100-150 isn’t that much to find out if it’s worth it, no?


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

dugt said:


> Today I rode a 2021 E Turbo Levo SL in a parking lot and the steering was so sluggish, I can't imagine riding it on trails. Its geometry is common so its not the bike, its me. I'm accustomed to riding my 2013 XC hardtail which is twitchy in comparison. The wheelbase of the Levo is 5" longer so that and the slack angle make it feel like a tandem to me. How do people maneuver bikes like that through trees and switchbacks? I was considering getting a new emtb but now I'm afraid learning to steer it could end in painful crashes.


It's a wildly different fish. In all honesty, the bike you have is way more dangerous to ride than a slack-planted e-bike.
The question is do you want to change? or do you like zipping through easy tracks to a steep head-angle bike?

You will need to re-calibrate yourself. Once you do the old bike will be dead to you. You will throw it against a tree in disgusted with its twitchy horribleness. 
What it will do is open up more technical trails for you to ride that you currently can't on the steep hta bike.

For me the slack bike movement has opened up some awesome trails that I didn't think possible 10 years ago. Now we ride them at night in the wet!

That said will a super slack bike stop you from crashing? No, you simply find a different limit to crash at


----------



## AKamp (Jan 26, 2004)

I may be the only one on the internet to say I feel you. I have a rigid hard tail I have ridden since 2011. Got a pivot 429 in 15 or so and got rid of it. Built basically the same rigid hard tail again in 16 but with couplers and 650 instead of 29”. Spent a solid year and a half during covid on a Sniper with a 66.5HTA and “THOUGHT” I really liked it while my son raced my original antiquated 71HTA rigid hard tail. After those 18 months where I thought “yeah this new geometry is great” I jumped back on my Potts and realized just how well that bike handled. That bike with its 71HTA is f’n telepathic. It carves sibgletrack sooooooo much better then my Sniper. Even after Dialing in the Sniper almost all of my fastest downhills were on a rigid hard tail with a 71HTA. I am now having my 3rd Hardtail built up and I was originally telling the builder that I wanted something a little more up to date geometry wise. After getting back on my Potts again for the last 6 months I told him to scrap that and just build me a good riding bike. My guess is it will have a 69 or 70deg HTA as this one will be built around 100mm front end. For some people I am sure that the 65HTA makes sense, but as my builder put it “I build bikes that ride great 95% of the time and don’t worry about that last 5%”. For me 95% covers all of the flat twisty turny, all of the climbing and the vast majority of downhlll. Sure, there are the rock rolls and drops that my Sniper does better but I am generally smiling more for that first 95%. The trails that my Sniper are quicker on or any other modern bike are quicker on simply aren’t trails that I spend most of my time on. Give me a super fast, twisty, turny, 3-4% downhill with trees, cactus and rock on either side and I am soooooo much faster on that old antiquated hardtail with the obsolete 71HTA. In Tucson there are exactly two features I ride more comfortable on my modern bike, one on Bug Springs right before the HooDoos and the waterfall on Milagrossa. The rest doesn’t slow me down at all. Really big rough chunky shitty stuff that needs 160mm doesnt could because it isn’t fun to ride even with 160mm anyways.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

I ride for fun and exercise and do not feel the need to impress anyone, including myself, with my biking or courage. (I Satisfied that need via windsurfing, kitesurfing and snow skiing when I was younger (Less than 60). I started mt biking when I was 60 and, at this point, I'm 71, I don't need or enjoy high risk via speed over rocks, or aspire to ride Enduro trails or even just get "Good" enough to ride enduro trails. I've learned the hard way that eventually things go wrong and bones break. Where I live, there are lots of good fun safe XC and Trail rides. 

I would like a light E mt bike for longer rides and steeper hills. Is that too much to ask? Some have said here that learning the technique required of a slack bike happens fast and easy. I've tried leaning my XC bike over in turns and have not noticed it helping anything so maybe I'm doing it wrong or maybe my bike isn't good for that. Maybe I would be happier with a E XC bike, if there is such a thing. If I demoed a slack bike for several days I might not know if I would like owning one or not. At any rate, I think modern slack is overkill for my riding. Maybe I could learn to turn it correctly but I'm still not likely to ride trails that need that much slack. However, I wish my XC bike had more slack, like 69 degrees instead of 71.5. By the way, I have an ATV that amazing going up and down steep loose rocks but I think I am over that too.


----------



## sfride (12 mo ago)

Every time I jump on my 65* trail bike after spending several days on my 75* bmx bike it feels like a boat for about 5 minutes. And then you get used to it. The handling is plenty sharp and I can negotiate very tight spaces just fine, but as mentioned above, it is accomplished in a bit different fashion and with more body English (which I find very satisfying as you feel more “connected” to the bike).

There are exceptions to every rule, as AKamp shows above, but the vast majority of people prefer modern geometry once they give it a real try and my bets on you will too.


----------



## Ezra E (Jul 24, 2021)

I moved from a canyon lux with a 69.5 hta to a transition spur with a 66 hta. It took me six weeks to like and love the spur. I now prefer the spur for aggressive trail riding.

however, I bought a new cheep specialized rock hopper hard tail in June, it’s got a 68.5 degree hta and I prefer it for green and easy blue trails. To each their own I guess.
I am a relatively fit 47 year old dad.. I do feel you, it would take a few weeks to adjust properly.
Best
E


----------



## wayold (Nov 25, 2017)

Another old fart voting for steep(er) head angles here. I tried riding a 66 deg HTA bike with a 1250mm wheelbase for a good year. Yes, it was generally fun on the downs, but it was always a pain in the ass to maneuver through tight switchbacks. I never got used to that - certainly not in the couple of rides other posters have suggested. I eventually traded it for 68 deg HTA bike with an 1160 mm wheelbase and my tight maneuvering problems went away with only a little more jounce on the downs. I fully admit that it was my lack of skill and/or adaptability that caused me to not fall in love with the long low slack machine everyone said I should. But I know what works for me and that wasn't it.


----------



## IMeasure (Oct 5, 2020)

dugt said:


> Obviously you missed this in my OP. "Its geometry is common so its not the bike, it's me." Clearly I am not complaining about the bike. I'm looking for advice. I asked, "How do people maneuver bikes like that through trees and switchbacks?" Many have said you just get used to it which makes sense and is encouraging.


With modern geometry you are going to have to change your body position when the trail points down. As soon as you slam your dropper and get ready to attack a descent it's knees bent, elbows bent and chin over the stem (which is now only 45mm in front of the steerer instead of your 80mm stem). When it gets really steep you would have hung your ass back as far as practical to keep going OTB. Now you are pushing the front of the bike into the drop. It's a bunch of fun.

If you are looking for an all round video series that covers the foundational parts of riding a modern geo bike I would recommend Ben Cathro How to bike series. (you can skip the first vid) video 3 delves into proper riding position. 



https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhMaYMphRgBEycvfMrNHjKJ4_Isnd2NVH


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

It has a lot to do with trails, so yeah, it's relative. My 69º head tube Mukluk 29+ is fun as hell on gentle stuff that the 65.5º Banshee makes into background noise.

If you're riding the same old trails that you've spend decades refining your muscle memory to enjoy with a steep bike, then yeah, a new slack bike will be boring. There's no 'you' problem or 'the bike' problem, it's a mismatch of capability and challenge.

Have you sought out more rugged, fast trails with the new bike to see if it opens up new possibilities?


----------



## jabrabu (Aug 2, 2010)

The slacker geometry does take some getting used to, but when you adjust to it you really enjoy the extra stability you get.
I rode mtbs with 71-72 degree head angles for years (since the late 80's). My Tallboy1 and Niner SIR9 had head angles of 71, and I liked those bikes a lot. Then I got a Tallboy3, which had a head angle of 68. I didn't want a slacker head angle, but I did want the longer reach. At first it seemed a little slower steering and I ran the flip chip in the high setting to keep it feeling a little more responsive, but in the end I extended the fork travel and ran the flip chip in the low setting to make it even slacker. Now I have a Pivot Trail 429 with a head angle of 66.5, and that bike handles great. It is responsive and quick, and it climbs great, but also stable and confident at high speed.

The main disadvantage of a slack head angle is that you might get more front end wandering on steep climbs, but the steep seat tube angles on most new bikes helps mitigate most of that. Also, longer wheelbase bikes are just not as maneuverable in the really tight twisty stuff.

I still think that for an XC race bike something around 68 degrees is probably the sweet spot. For a modern trail bike I like around 65-66, and bit slacker for an enduro bike.


----------



## LewisQC (Jul 3, 2013)

You could potentially install an angleset in the « wrong » direction to make the handling more suit to what you’re used to… Personnally, I’ve installed a work -1.5 on my Ripmo V1 So it went from 66 to 64.5. I cannot see any draw back. I ride pretty steep/gnarly trail though… After riding my fatbike all winter (69.5 hta), it’s a strange feeling to hop on a Ripmo with the wheel so far forward and the strange steering sensation. 

With the kind of riding you want to do, I would also considere an e-gravel bike…


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

I have yet to ride a modern geo bike, and I really need to because I have been critical of how they would perform when not at 8-10/10ths on more typical midwest type trails that most would consider "XC". But what I think you will find is that a short wheel base, steeper hta bike will provide an enjoyable experience up to roughly 8/10ths on most trails, and up to 10/10ths if the trails aren't too sketchy. You don't have to be blasting the entire time to have fun. 

And from what I gather from users who have ridden modern LLS bikes on XC type trails, is they are a bit numb until the speed and tech picks up above 7/10ths or so, then they start to feel more alive. Again, the problem with asking a user base on vastly different trails is that no one rides the same trails, and only you can know what works for you.


----------



## NC_Foothills_Rider (11 mo ago)

I just made a similar transition this year from old 26 XC bikes (both f/s and HT) to a Santa Cruz Tallboy. I had been riding those type bikes since the 90s exclusively.

The Tallboy felt wierd and long at first, but also super stable. After about 15 minutes on the trail I pretty much adapted and started learning how to exploit the new geometry. A fair number of PRs on segments I've ridden many times ensued. In fact I'm faster on the new bike in all but a few segments at all the different trails I ride, compared to the old bikes.

When I get back on my old 26er (still ride it occasionally), I'm still quick but now the bike feels odd, like I'm riding a kid's bike almost. It's like 8 lbs lighter, 6 inches shorter in the wheelbase and has a 70 HTA. It's very nimble in the tight woods but once the trail opens up the new bike works better. Once you get used to it, you can get through the twisties fast, it just requires slightly different body position - IE more weight over the front wheel compared to old XC geometry.

Some people say the new bikes require more upper body strength and I agree with that. My triceps and shoulders were sore after my first few rides on the Tallboy, and I'm not out of shape. Just using different muscles I think.

Start slow and you may learn to appreciate the newest evolution of mountain bikes.

I sure do.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

Thanks for all of the replies. This has been very educational for me.

I need to select from several good options. Demo a modern geo bike on trails instead of a parking lot. If I like it, full speed ahead and buy one. If I don't, consider taking lessons and/or consider an electric XC bike like this.










It's head angle is 67.5 and seems ideal in almost every way except the wheelbase, 120cm, which isn't much shorter than a trail bike, 124cm, with a much better shock. On the other hand, the 60mm shock on this would be a lot more pleasant than the hardtail that I have been riding for nine years. An XC bike would be better for me than a gravel bike.

I had my heart set on a Trek Fuel EXe because of the quiet motor but this XC bike has a Fazua which would be ok. I'm not saying this is the bike for me but something like this might be better for me than slacker bike. 

Here is a link to the XC bike: Trek E-Caliber It weighs only 37 lbs which is only 9 lbs more than my hardtail analog XC bike.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

dugt said:


> Thanks for all of the replies. This has been very educational for me.
> 
> I need to select from several good options. Demo a modern geo bike on trails instead of a parking lot. If I like it, full speed ahead and buy one. If I don't, consider taking lessons and/or consider an electric XC bike like this.
> 
> ...


A friend of mine has one and likes it, but does say due to the added weight it is more cumbersome to ride on tighter trails. But if you want an ebike, I doubt you will find one that feels faster then that one!


----------



## Tickle (Dec 11, 2013)

Looks like a good choice to me, I wouldn't worry about the XC designation like you say coming from a hardtail the travel will feel fine. I agree with your concern about wheelbase to me that's one of the biggest drawbacks to the new school geometry, would be nice to see mfg's take steps with other aspects of geometry to keep it in check but seems like the slacker the HA and steeper the seat tube the better-wheelbase be damned. Maybe I should consider a MX/mullet setup next, but a more reasonable HA combined with shorter reach/longer stem would result in quicker handling and still be plenty stable for trail riding IMO


----------



## CheapSkate (Jun 23, 2020)

I'm dragging a friend into mountain biking and he has a 1998 Gary Fisher Marlin - perhaps an extreme example of what we're talking about and more like a modern gravel bike. When we switched bikes, the friend had a hard time adjusting to my 2020 Motobecane 29er. My bike felt to him like a tank and a penny farthing had an illicit child. Meanwhile I found that I was having a really good time on his antique bike (that was low-end in its day) with a 63mm fork and steep HTA. Instead of suffering through, I was engaged with the trail in a way I hadn't before.

*Modern bike benefits:*
Faster over technical terrain, massive jumps, rocks, logs, etc.
Lower risk of crashing OTB on descents, though in all fairness this is offset by higher risk of crashing due to higher speeds
29" wheels don't stall out on logs, gullies, and rocks as easily as 26er skateboard wheels
More adrenaline from riding trails faster

*Old school benefits:*
Never get bored, even on plain gravel roads and easy, flat XC trails
Usually a lighter and faster accelerating bike, especially uphill
Picking one's path through rock gardens rather than just blasting over them and being done is a different type of sport
Easier to wheelie, bunny hop, squeeze between trees, stunt, and transport.

So basically there is some waste involved when a recreational rider living in a flat area buys a bike designed for racing down the sides of the Rocky Mountains as fast as possible and going back up on a ski lift. A bike like that is going to make a flowing singletrack in Oklahoma or Wisconsin seem extremely boring. When I see people in Florida selling their barely-used full suspension modern trail bikes I know this is what happened. They might have gotten more joy out of riding "obsolete" bikes and focusing on their athleticism and skill rather than pretending they are doing 20' drops at Moab like on YouTube. Similarly, when you live in a place where you have to climb singletrack for every hill you descend, and most of your ride is therefore climbing, then today's slack and long downhill-oriented rigs might be the wrong tool for the job.

This is all the more reason to either have a stable of bikes to choose from depending on the trail being ridden, or to pick a bike that matches your local trails rather than owning the sort of bike that won the last race at Whistler but is overkill at the park where you do your riding. 

If you only want to go as fast as possible on 2 wheels off road, almost nothing beats a Honda CR250 dirtbike. But is that really the point of mountain biking?

I like my modern geometry, big wheels, 5" travel, and wide bars. All these things cover my weak skills and get me through rough patches! But I'm also aware of how I'm ignoring trails I would have ridden 20 years ago because they aren't technical enough to keep me entertained. I wonder if I'm playing the game on "easy" and should pick up an unloved "obsolete" hardtail from 2010 or so.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

jonshonda said:


> A friend of mine has one and likes it, but does say due to the added weight it is more cumbersome to ride on tighter trails. But if you want an ebike, I doubt you will find one that feels faster then that one!


Which bike does your friend have? By "added weight" do mean the extra weight because it is an E bike?


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

dugt said:


> Which bike does your friend have? By "added weight" do mean the extra weight because it is an E bike?


The one you have pictured in your post. An E-caliper. And yes, the added weight of his ebike compared to his other lighter FS bikes.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

CheapSkate said:


> *Old school benefits:*
> Never get bored, even on plain gravel roads and easy, flat XC trails
> Usually a lighter and faster accelerating bike, especially uphill
> Picking one's path through rock gardens rather than just blasting over them and being done is a different type of sport


That is what I liked a lot about riding my bike rigid. After you've ridden the same trails 100's of times things get pretty stale. Switching over to rigid is a whole different ball of wax. Sure, you can sit the whole time and let your body take the abuse, but if you want to be fast you need to be smooth. And it take a LOT of work to be smooth on a rigid bike. Now if you really want to get crazy, a rigid single speed will teach you so much about conservation of energy that you look at trails in a completely different way. It is so much more engaging, lift, up down, up down.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

jonshonda said:


> The one you have pictured in your post. An E-caliper. And yes, the added weight of his ebike compared to his other lighter FS bikes.


Thanks for clarifying that. In the same post I mentioned that I originally wanted a Trek Fuel EXe which is heavier than the E-Caliper so I thought maybe you were referring to the Fuel. So even the 37 lb E-Caliper feels heavy in tighter single track! There are some narrow single tracks were I ride and they are a bit of a nuisance on my 28 lb bike. They are pleasant, scenic and shady but I prefer wider faster trails. While considering what bike to get, I should consider my trail options. There are wider trails around here but I would have to drive to get to them. 1st world problem.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

jonshonda said:


> That is what I liked a lot about riding my bike rigid. After you've ridden the same trails 100's of times things get pretty stale. Switching over to rigid is a whole different ball of wax. Sure, you can sit the whole time and let your body take the abuse, but if you want to be fast you need to be smooth. And it take a LOT of work to be smooth on a rigid bike. Now if you really want to get crazy, a rigid single speed will teach you so much about conservation of energy that you look at trails in a completely different way. It is so much more engaging, lift, up down, up down.


I do that accidentally without realizing it on my hardtail. Often I lock the fork on a climb and then accidentally forget about it. My 2.4" 29er tires with 16 psi soften the ride enough that I don't notice if the shock is working or not.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

dugt said:


> Thanks for all of the replies. This has been very educational for me.
> 
> I need to select from several good options. Demo a modern geo bike on trails instead of a parking lot. If I like it, full speed ahead and buy one. If I don't, consider taking lessons and/or consider an electric XC bike like this.
> 
> ...


Realize if you buy that, you are buying a proprietary suspension design with a shock that likely won't be supported in a few years, also not easily serviced by shops and likely has to be sent back to the manufacturer. I wouldn't recommend it.


----------



## AKamp (Jan 26, 2004)

I think with a lot of modern geo bikes you really need to be riding at 9/10ths for the handling to come alive. The reality is very few people ride at 9/10ths or are positively pushing as hard as they can. One of the last posters said “you slam that dropper, and attack the descent” or something along those lines. That is when new school bikes shine. But, and this is a big but, most people either aren’t capable or don’t have the desire to “attack” every downhill. On a nice cross country ride do you need to attack every downhill that has a 6% descent? When you live in Kansas do you have any 6% descents? If 65% head angles were actually faster on the other 95% of rides the pros would be racing them. But they aren’t, they are racing bikes with 68HAs. The Other thing people here are neglecting is one of the big reasons so many bikes are getting slacker and slacker is the geometry changes as the bike plows through 160mm of travel. I don’t have exact numbers on this but I am sure someone does. If you do a big rock roll and blow through 6 inches of travel your head tube is effectively getting significantly steeper, probably to the tune of 6 degrees. 65 + 6 = 71deg, the same as my rigid hardtail. XC race bikes now have 68ish HA and blow through their 3 or 4 inches and all of a sudden they are at 71deg. If you are riding a 71 degree head angled bike with a 160 up front and riding down anything steeper than a 12 degree slope you are effectively at or over 90deg. That definitely leads to a significant increase in OTB. But ride that bike again with a rigid fork and the same roll is only effectively 83deg, a significant margin of error.


----------



## DtEW (Jun 14, 2004)

AKamp said:


> The Other thing people here are neglecting is one of the big reasons so many bikes are getting slacker and slacker is the geometry changes as the bike plows through 160mm of travel. I don’t have exact numbers on this but I am sure someone does. If you do a big rock roll and blow through 6 inches of travel your head tube is effectively getting significantly steeper, probably to the tune of 6 degrees. 65 + 6 = 71deg, the same as my rigid hardtail. XC race bikes now have 68ish HA and blow through their 3 or 4 inches and all of a sudden they are at 71deg. If you are riding a 71 degree head angled bike with a 160 up front and riding down anything steeper than a 12 degree slope you are effectively at or over 90deg. That definitely leads to a significant increase in OTB. But ride that bike again with a rigid fork and the same roll is only effectively 83deg, a significant margin of error.


I'm pretty sure one of the biggest improvements in suspension over the last decade is mid-stroke support, which is to say that people no longer blow through their travel in the course of a rock roll as they did in the Aughts when longer travel was going mainstream with the popularization of All-Mountain and Freeride styles of riding.

I'm sure today's long-wheelbase geometry would have indeed helped mitigate the rocking-horse nature of a lot of long-travel bikes of that past era... but I think that you're confusing correlation with causation.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

Jayem said:


> Realize if you buy that, you are buying a proprietary suspension design with a shock that likely won't be supported in a few years, also not easily serviced by shops and likely has to be sent back to the manufacturer. I wouldn't recommend it.


Another problem with that E-Caliber XC bike is it would have low resale value because of its tiny customer base. Unfortunately, there might not be any other production ebikes like it.


----------



## AKamp (Jan 26, 2004)

DtEW said:


> I'm pretty sure one of the biggest improvements in suspension over the last decade is mid-stroke support, which is to say that people no longer blow through their travel in the course of a rock roll as they did in the Aughts when longer travel was going mainstream with the popularization of All-Mountain and Freeride styles of riding.
> 
> I'm sure today's long-wheelbase geometry would have indeed helped mitigate the rocking-horse nature of a lot of long-travel bikes of that past era... but I think that you're confusing correlation with causation.


How much travel are you getting on the transition to flat going down a 40deg slope and anything faster than a crawl? You hit that transition, all you weight shoots forward, your rear end unweights and any sag you had on the rear end you lose. Lets say that you use 2/3rds of your travel on the front (110mm or so, pretty much mid stroke) and you lose 40mm on the rear. Pretty good rule of thumb is that for every 20mm you lose it equates to one deg. Between the front of the bike and rear of the bike you are effectively rotating the bike forward 150mm or 7 1/2 deg. Of course there are some other variables like wheelbase, rear travel vs ht, how fast you are hitting and what the transition actually looks like. No one Endos on the slope (not many at least), they Endo on the transition due to the forward movement of mass. Slack HA's help with that because it keeps the front end out in front you and your center of mass behind the fulcrum (front tire patch). Maybe I am wrong but unless the suspension is set up extremely stiff for the rest of the ride there wouldn't be enough mid-stroke support to eliminate that brake dive, even just mid-stroke. This is direct causation.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

dugt said:


> Another problem with that E-Caliber XC bike is it would have low resale value because of its tiny customer base. Unfortunately, there might not be any other production ebikes like it.


Never look at a bike as a monetary investment. As long as you use it, its the best investment you will likely ever make, just not in the sense that it returns dividends in the form of cash.


----------



## Jack7782 (Jan 1, 2009)

jonshonda said:


> Never look at a bike as a monetary investment. As long as you use it, its the best investment you will likely ever make, just not in the sense that it returns dividends in the form of cash.


Yes, except if you don't like it for whatever reason, you will end up with another 'garage queen' to deal with - and if you decide to dump it, your rationale for wasting 'the monetary investment' will be "to raise money' for your next XXX bike lol. In other words, if you have doubts, think re-sale more than features/specs etc.

PS: Sorry for the Dad-like advice guys


----------



## AKamp (Jan 26, 2004)

My wife wants a EBike. I am thinking something along these lines would be perfect, most likely needing to be built up with XTR in a Size Medium. You know, so she can grow into it😀


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

I am overly money oriented and consider resale value and opportunity cost in anything I buy that costs more than a few hundred bucks. It has served me well but I don't need to be shrewd anymore. I'd be willing to make an exception in this case but not yet. Here are some considerations:

My LBS said the E-Caliber 9.8 XT will not be available until April, 2023 but there could be one in stock somewhere in the USA.
According to Trek, the rear shock is designed for traction and speed more than comfort. With an E bike, speed is built in so I think the priority should be comfort first. Wouldn't less air in the shock improve comfort?
The E-Caliber shock could be discontinued but it is the same shock they use in the analog Caliber so it might have legs.
I like that the iso-shock design is very rigid laterally but the wimpy way I turn, I wouldn't notice.
It has the Fasua motor which is fine but I covet the new quiet TQ motor in the Fuel EXe.
The Fuel EXe has much better shocks, great components costs a little less, and will probably have great resale value unless the new TQ motor is a disaster. 
The e-Caliber is lighter, steeper and shorter than the Fuel EXe but it is still a lot heavier, slacker and longer than my hardtail so it would still be an adjustment. If I can adjust to the E-Caliber, maybe I can adjust to a Fuel EXe.

In a day or two I'm going to demo a modern geo trail bike. I can demo an analog Trek Fuel EX to hopefully get an idea if I can get the geometry to work where I usually ride. I'm going to look at emtb demo options too. It would probably be full fat but if I like it, I will buy a Fuel EXe because I will like it even more.


----------



## RustyIron (Apr 14, 2008)

dugt said:


> I would like a light E mt bike for longer rides and steeper hills. Is that too much to ask?


Well... yeah. It's unreasonable to expect a bike company to manufacture something using ten year old geometry that no one wants to ride. 

It seems like you've decided that your old bike is the only one suitable for you. Why not buy one of those Chinese do-it-yourself add-on motor kits for your bike? That way you get the geometry you love, the benefits that a motor provides, and you'll save a ton of money over buying a new modern bike.

But if you're asking my true opinion, it would be to get a modern bike and learn to ride it properly.


----------



## AKamp (Jan 26, 2004)

RustyIron said:


> Well... yeah. It's unreasonable to expect a bike company to manufacture something using ten year old geometry that no one wants to ride.
> 
> It seems like you've decided that your old bike is the only one suitable for you. Why not buy one of those Chinese do-it-yourself add-on motor kits for your bike? That way you get the geometry you love, the benefits that a motor provides, and you'll save a ton of money over buying a new modern bike.
> 
> But if you're asking my true opinion, it would be to get a modern bike and learn to ride it properly.


 While I agree it is too much to ask for a bike that won’t sell to the masses the last statement pretty much sums up the elitism on this board. I showed up to a group ride a few years ago on a rigid hardtail single speed. The ride leader literally told me “you may find some easier trails over there”. Everyone was wearing full face, 150 bikes, schralping all the way down the trail. It was F’n ridiculous. After about 5 minutes I didn’t wait at the next trail junction. They probably spent 5x the energy pumping and schralping and jerkin each other off. But I guess they were riding their modern bikes properly. If you are riding bike parks, actual enduro courses, BC stuff then there are definitely better bikes, if you are riding 95% of the trails in the United States just get a good riding, balanced bike that you like. If you can find something you like. Telling someone they need to ride a modern bike properly changes whenever the industry dictates what an”modern” bike is. Some things will most likely stay, droppers come to mind. Geometry will last until the magazines say “the steeper head angle really livened the bike up”. In the late 80s it was all about 15 1/2 inch chain stays, but then it was too short, then it was about steeper HTA but then it was too steep, then it was pressfit Bb but now it is threaded once again. Just fads


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

I rented a Trek Fuel EX which is the analog version of the Fuel EXe that I covet. The Turbo Levo SL that I mentioned in the OP was a Large but the Trek I rented is a medium. I'm a tweener at 5'10 and the Medium was a good choice. I need maneuverability more than stability.
*The Large in the parking lot was too big and my parking lot test was irrelevant.
*The Medium Trek has similar modern geometry like the Turbo Levo SL. The steering felt foreign to me but it was OK and got me through all but one tight turn. Like everyone says, it rides over objects easily. I can imagine it would be easy to fly over gnarly chunk with it but there just isn't much of that where I ride.
*Having a rear shock was smooth and comfortable. I locked the shocks on a couple of steeper ascents but they weren't real steep so I probably could have left them open.
*The Fuel feels like a chunk buster and my 71.5 degree head angle XC bike feels more like a spunky race tool. On my flowy trails, a race tool is fun but more rake would be safer at times.
*I would have liked the Trek more if it was fitted to me better. The bars were too wide and low and the lowest gear wasn't low enough. I didn't love it.
*It was interesting that more rake has a bit of power steering. I'm sure I could get used to it.
*I stood on the pedals more than usual in a good centered position, to follow some advice in this thread, but that is rarely necessary where I ride. The trails here are mostly flowy and easy enough that I can sit through almost everything except some steepish descents.
*In general, all the talk here of technique for modern geometry is probably lost on me. I am too old to bomb down anything and the mellow trails here don't require it. I used up my desire for risk doing water sports. Going fast over rocks seems like a big mistake for my old bones.
*Still, I think I would like an emtb. Maybe an ideal one for me would be a Trek Fuel EXe with a 2 degree head angle adjuster to make it steeper, 65.5 to 67.5 (the same as the E-Caliber). I think that is a better solution than the e-Caliber. Since I learned to survive with my 71.5 degree bike, I think 67.5 would be good.


----------



## Ezra E (Jul 24, 2021)

If you have decided on the trek exe , which looks like an attractive choice.
I’d personally just buy it and ride it for six weeks. 
See how you like it; and you can adjust it as time goes on. I completely agree that you don’t need to be jumping your bike or running double black diamond trails at age 71.

but to each their own


----------



## sfride (12 mo ago)

dugt said:


> I rented a Trek Fuel EX which is the analog version of the Fuel EXe that I covet. The Turbo Levo SL that I mentioned in the OP was a Large but the Trek I rented is a medium. I'm a tweener at 5'10 and the Medium was a good choice. I need maneuverability more than stability.
> *The Large in the parking lot was too big and my parking lot test was irrelevant.
> *The Medium Trek has similar modern geometry like the Turbo Levo SL. The steering felt foreign to me but it was OK and got me through all but one tight turn. Like everyone says, it rides over objects easily. I can imagine it would be easy to fly over gnarly chunk with it but there just isn't much of that where I ride.
> *Having a rear shock was smooth and comfortable. I locked the shocks on a couple of steeper ascents but they weren't real steep so I probably could have left them open.
> ...


Just an FYI that I believe the Trek Fuel EXe has an integrated headset (as most bikes do now), so I don't think you could use an angled headset to change HTA. I could be wrong, however.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

sfride said:


> Just an FYI that I believe the Trek Fuel EXe has an integrated headset (as most bikes do now), so I don't think you could use an angled headset to change HTA. I could be wrong, however.


The Trek Fuel EXe does have an integrated headset but, lucky me, one company makes angle kits for them now. 9point8 The max angle they have is 1.7 degrees. Thanks for mentioning this! I hadn't heard of "Integrated Headsets".
.


----------



## Jack7782 (Jan 1, 2009)

Ezra E said:


> If you have decided on the trek exe , which looks like an attractive choice.
> I’d personally just buy it and ride it for six weeks.
> See how you like it; and you can adjust it as time goes on. I completely agree that you don’t need to be jumping your bike or running double black diamond trails at age 71.
> 
> but to each their own


Great way is to buy an an ‘industry standard’ Bosch/Shimano/Brose EMTB (any brand will do) and put in your own miles to figure it out. These days you can easily get your money back at 500 miles. The ‘industry’ really is not a bad place to start your quest.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

Jack7782 said:


> Great way is to buy an an ‘industry standard’ Bosch/Shimano/Brose EMTB (any brand will do) and put in your own miles to figure it out. These days you can easily get your money back at 500 miles. The ‘industry’ really is not a bad place to start your quest.


Can one really return a bike after 500 or less miles just because they don't like it? That would be wonderful if it is true but I'm a little skeptical. How do they know if it was ridden 500 miles or less? I would think they would set a time period like a week or a month. I should ask my the LBS. 

I really doubt if I would use that option because I usually do a lot of homework before I buy something that costs more than $1000. In this case, I doubt that I would dislike the bike enough to return it unless something like the motor failed.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Some head angles really jump the shark but 66 wouldn't bother me. Long wheel bases and 29 wheels do make for a sluggish bike in tight twisties. I've backed this up with back to back runs on course with a nimble 26 with the same geo and travel. Part of me thinks marketing/bike designers are just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

I wonder if narrower lighter tires would solve the sluggish in tight turns problem with modern geo and make a bike quicker.

This is off topic but just after I bought my 29er, 27.5 bikes became very popular. What happened? Did 29er start winning more races? When tires got fatter, I though 27.5's with fat tires would really take over.


----------



## DtEW (Jun 14, 2004)

dugt said:


> Can one really return a bike after 500 or less miles just because they don't like it? That would be wonderful if it is true but I'm a little skeptical. How do they know if it was ridden 500 miles or less? I would think they would set a time period like a week or a month. I should ask my the LBS.


You can't. He probably means you can resell it for not much loss. "Not much," is obviously relative and dependent on market and luck, and what time-and-effort means for you.

Consider that 500 miles is more than one chain for the average eMTB, and if you actually take it that far on one chain... more than half the life of the cassette. And probably one fork servicing.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

milehi said:


> Some head angles really jump the shark but 66 wouldn't bother me. Long wheel bases and 29 wheels do make for a sluggish bike in tight twisties. I've backed this up with back to back runs on course with a nimble 26 with the same geo and travel. Part of me thinks marketing/bike designers are just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.


I think the E-Caliber might be an example testing the market for a new product. I think most marketing decisions are based on what is selling and what is not. A huge part of marketing keeping track of competitors products, sales volumes and prices. If lower HTA's are selling better, a manufactures may try to get ahead by being a little more progressive than the competition. They also listen to "Influencer" like people that right reviews and vocal successful competitors.


DtEW said:


> You can't. He probably means you can resell it for not much loss. "Not much," is obviously relative and dependent on market and luck.
> 
> Consider that 500 miles is more than one chain for the average eMTB, and if you actually take it that far on one chain... more than half the life of the cassette. And probably one fork servicing.



That was probably the case in the middle of the covid bike scarcity but I doubt if resale is high enough now. It looks like my local bike shops have way too many bikes for this late in the season. I'm surprised they aren't having big sales already. I suspect bike shops ordered too many bikes because they were counting on the bike boom continuing and they didn't want to run out of bikes again. In my ski town, bike shops turn into ski shops in Sept and Oct.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Not cracking an age joke, but at your age get the bike you like that works for you and your trails. The e-caliper looks like the perfect bike. 67.5* hta, likely the best pedaling efficiency of any full suspension bike on the market. You can remove the battery and motor and drop 6lbs when feeling frisky. It looks like they all have lockouts for the front and rear suspension, which means when you don't need suspension it will be a real rocket.

Ohh and notice the seat tube angle? On a bike that is made to be an efficient pedaler, I am curious why they chose to stick with a proven 73* angle? Ohh, that's because they know what works for bikes that are meant to be pedaled the majority of the time. Same goes for the HTA. 

You have put in your time, so treat yourself! Try electronic shifting if you haven't already.


----------



## Jack7782 (Jan 1, 2009)

dugt said:


> Can one really return a bike after 500 or less miles just because they don't like it? That would be wonderful if it is true but I'm a little skeptical. How do they know if it was ridden 500 miles or less? I would think they would set a time period like a week or a month. I should ask my the LBS.
> 
> I really doubt if I would use that option because I usually do a lot of homework before I buy something that costs more than $1000. In this case, I doubt that I would dislike the bike enough to return it unless something like the motor failed.


No I meant sell it on Pinkbike or Pros Closet etc


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

jonshonda said:


> Not cracking an age joke, but at your age get the bike you like that works for you and your trails. The e-caliper looks like the perfect bike. 67.5* hta, likely the best pedaling efficiency of any full suspension bike on the market. You can remove the battery and motor and drop 6lbs when feeling frisky. It looks like they all have lockouts for the front and rear suspension, which means when you don't need suspension it will be a real rocket.
> 
> Ohh and notice the seat tube angle? On a bike that is made to be an efficient pedaler, I am curious why they chose to stick with a proven 73* angle? Ohh, that's because they know what works for bikes that are meant to be pedaled the majority of the time. Same goes for the HTA.
> 
> You have put in your time, so treat yourself! Try electronic shifting if you haven't already.


Thanks for the input!
I'm sure I would like an E-Caliber but I think a Fuel EXe is a better choice for me:
With a 1.7* head tube angle adjuster, the HTD of a Fuel would be 67.2* vs 67.5* for the E-Caliber. That is very similar.
The E-Caliber's better pedalling efficiency because of its 72* STA wouldn't make much difference to me on an electric bike. I won't be racing anyone.
I will probably keep my XC bike so I would use it rather than remove the battery and motor from the E-C.
The shocks on both bikes can be locked out but that is less important to me on an ebike.
The Fuel has much better shocks and I might take advantage of them eventually occasionally.
The Fuel has the new quiet TG 50Nm motor Vs the 55Nm Fazua motor.
The Fuel has a 360w battery vs 250w in the E-C. 360W might be overkill for now but after a couple of years of aging / degrading, the Fuel battery will still be powerful enough. 
The Fuel weighs 40lbs and the E-C weighs 37lbs. The Fuel pays dues for the better shocks, bigger battery, and more aggressive (better for me) tires. 
The wheelbase of the Fuel is 121.5 vs 116.5 for the E-C. That might be the biggest advantage of the E-C.
I can get a Fuel this month whereas the E-C won't be available until February.
The Fuel is $300 cheaper and has much better resale value. 

I would like to try electronic shifting but I don't think I'd pay the $1000 premium. The XT 12x shifter works great on my current bike. I like that it can downshift several gears at a time.


----------



## nilswalk (Nov 26, 2014)

Get the Fuel, especially since it's available. That is a terrific trail bike for Tahoe (hello from King's Beach by the way!)

Also, I wouldn't be so hung up on angles - it's a package, the design of the whole bike matters with respect to every part. If you slapped a 66* head tube on your current bike with no other changes, of course it would ride terribly. But the rest of the geometry of the EXe, the offset of the fork, size of the wheels, chainstay length, center of gravity etc, are all designed as a package to work well together. I'd even venture to say that throwing an angle adjusting headset on it to make it 1.7* steeper would make it handle poorly.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

nilswalk said:


> Get the Fuel, especially since it's available. That is a terrific trail bike for Tahoe (hello from King's Beach by the way!)
> 
> Also, I wouldn't be so hung up on angles - it's a package, the design of the whole bike matters with respect to every part. If you slapped a 66* head tube on your current bike with no other changes, of course it would ride terribly. But the rest of the geometry of the EXe, the offset of the fork, size of the wheels, chainstay length, center of gravity etc, are all designed as a package to work well together. I'd even venture to say that throwing an angle adjusting headset on it to make it 1.7* steeper would make it handle poorly.


People change all sorts of things on their bikes like fork length, wheel size, mullat, HTA, bars, shocks, dropper, 12x.... Many love the changes, some don't. I think it is possible that I wouldn't even notice a difference of a 1.7* HTA increase. However, I think I'd like my XC more if it had a more slack HTA. Maybe it wouldn't be as good of a XC race bike but I don't race and it would definitely ride over stuff better.

To me, all modern bikes steer poorly compared to my 71.5* HTA XC bike but modern bikes are much better in chunk. So, I will give the Fuel a try. If, after a fair test, I would still prefer tighter steering, I will see if a $100 head tube angle adjuster improves it for me, or not. It wouldn't be as good in chunk but steering is more important to me than riding faster over chunk. I don't think that is being "hung up on angles", It is more being open minded enough to make a small cheap change that might make a good trail bike better for how I ride.


----------



## natrat (Mar 20, 2008)

dugt said:


> It wouldn't as good in chunk but steering is more important to me than being able to go faster over chunk.


 i have been riding a 2022 rail 9.8 and it steers plenty quick, feels like the cog is really low so going around even tight corners is super ez and not that speed seems to be that important to you but it is very relaxed and stable, way more so than my pivot 429 x country bike. You might like the whole modern geo thing


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

natrat said:


> i have been riding a 2022 rail 9.8 and it steers plenty quick, feels like the cog is really low so going around even tight corners is super ez and not that speed seems to be that important to you but it is very relaxed and stable, way more so than my pivot 429 x country bike. You might like the whole modern geo thing


I'll definitely like having an E-MTB and I might like modern geometry too. Even if modern geometry turns out to not be my preference, I will still really enjoy my Fuel EXe. I should get it in about two weeks.


----------



## Ezra E (Jul 24, 2021)

Dugt 
Have you gotten your new trek yet?
How do you like it??


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

Ezra E said:


> Dugt
> Have you gotten your new trek yet?
> How do you like it??


No Trek yet. My LBS says there is no way to tell where it is or when I will get it. They said they can't get that info from Trek and won't know anything about it until Trek emails an update to them. That sounds a little lame to me but I can't do anything about it. Originally the bike was scheduled to arrive in a USA Trek warehouse on Sept 19.


----------



## Jack7782 (Jan 1, 2009)

dugt said:


> No Trek yet. My LBS says there is no way to tell where it is or when I will get it. They said they can't get that info from Trek and won't know anything about it until Trek emails an update to them. That sounds a little lame to me but I can't do anything about it. Originally the bike was scheduled to arrive in a USA Trek warehouse on Sept 19.


Which is a reminder to us consumers that the best feature of an Ebike is availability. I hope you get yours soon.


----------



## Ezra E (Jul 24, 2021)

Frustrating for sure,
Hopefully your bike will be here soon.
The whole supply chain seems broken, although recovering slowly.
Give us an update when it arrives!


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

Ezra E said:


> Frustrating for sure,
> Hopefully your bike will be here soon.
> The whole supply chain seems broken, although recovering slowly.
> Give us an update when it arrives!


It arrived this afternoon so apparently the "Email update" didn't happen. Anyway, they said it should be ready on Sunday. Yeah!

I'm curious what the Mulsanne blue looks like but they said I can't see it until they are done building it. I guess they don't want to be inconvenienced by a customer getting a preview glimpse of his $8700 bike.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Funny! I find the Levo SL to be a pretty nimble quick-turning bike. Levo- not so much.


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

I just had my first ride on my new Trek Fuel EXe 9.8 XT. This was actually my first ride on trails with an e bike so I have no comparison info other than to my 2016 Giant 29er SC bike. The XC is a good bike with a carbon frame, carbon wheels and Shimano XT 12x. In short, I really like this new bike. I didn't notice any motor sound but I didn't take it up anything very steep. The ECO power mode was enough 95% of the time. Actually it was enough all of the time but it was fun to kick it up a notch on a couple of steeper segments. The assist was very easy to manage and not conspicuous.

The full suspension was comfy compared to my XC bike. The more slack geometry felt awkward but it wasn't a problem. I was worried about a couple of tight switchback turns on my usual ride but with this ebike I could go slower than usual and still power out of the turn in time to stay upright and make it up the hill. The bars on the Fuel are 84mm wide. On my XC bike they are 65mm wide. That is a huge difference and I definitely prefer the narrow bars. I will cut down the new ones to 72mm and see how I like them. The bars on the Fuel are 84mm wide. On my XC bike they are 65mm wide. That is a huge difference and I definitely prefer the narrow bars. I will cut down the new ones to 72mm and see how I like them. That should make it a lot easier to adjust to the slack geometry. If anyone has any questions about any of this, please contact my publicist.


----------



## Ezra E (Jul 24, 2021)

Looks like a beautiful bike Doug, 
I hope to buy my first eBike when I’m your age 😜

I suggest cutting your bars to 760mm , that seems like a good length to me , regarding a balance between increased control and nimbleness; you can always cut again later.

I hope you have many great adventures On your new beautiful bike 👍👍


----------



## Jack7782 (Jan 1, 2009)

I would race it at your local XC race series before they figure out it has a motor- to disguise it even more, put on a full size TREK logo lol


----------

