# Earlier examples of modern mtb geometry: Which bikes?



## dddd (Jun 7, 2016)

I've begun to wonder, with a somewhat limited number of possibilities as to toptube length, seattube angle and headtube angle (with stem length appropriate handling-wise to the combination), which brands/models may have had it right all along, or at least were ahead of the trend of the last several years?

It is obvious to me that the combination of a steeper seattube angle with short chainstays, combined with a slacker headtube angle, shorter stem and longer toptube, is what riders including myself seem to prefer, and I'm wanting to know which of the older bikes have this sort of geometry going on.

I'm aware of the naming of "Genesis Geometry", but not sure what it evolved from at the time, and it seems that slacker headtube angles came into the picture after that time, completing the picture that I have of "modern" geometry.


----------



## mainlyfats (Oct 1, 2005)

dddd said:


> which brands/models may have had it right all along


Once upon a time there were just Mountain Bikes and they were (mostly) better for riding offroad than road bikes. The earliest ones had slack angles with long stays and were based around cruisers. Marin folks started - essentially - building touring bikes with clearance for big tires and triple chainrings. Boutique builders then started using road bike-like angles and near-minimum clearances and that kind of geometry stuck around the mainstream until the Fisher Genesis geometry made top tubes longer and stems shorter.

Suspension specific geometry was when real diversity in geometry occurred in my opinion. Early long travel and double/triple clamp forks just didn't work without tweaks. Then we got XC, Downhill, Dual Slalom, All mountain, Park... Then we got wheel sizes that had to tweak geometries to accommodate the increased size. Then the fattening of tire sizes began and angles and spacings changed again.

Aesthetically, I think it's hard to beat that first boutique phase with near-crit bike angles, minimal clearances, long stems and lots of seatpost. I don't think there's any question that modern bikes - especially when matched to the "off road discipline" they were designed for, ride much better.

So "right" is a matter of taste IMO. If I had to forsake all others for one era, it would be late 80's-early 90's pre (or dawn of) suspension. I'm content with limitations imposed by the geometry and like the way they look best.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

It is said that the first "modern" mtb w/ crisp handling and tight angles were the early Salsas. It had 17in chainstays and 71/73 angles. Those numbers were then used in the next 10+ years in XC which was then trail riding, racing and even DH (John Tomac's downhill bike was the same one he race XC w/). 
I don't know why someone decided it was a good idea to divide mtn biking in disciplines: XC, enduro, DH, trail etc.. when we just ride the TRAILS we have around us. If the trails are tight, steep, rocky.. we will ride it no matter what discipline and it's uniform you decide to identify with(you can't ride enduro w/ bibs right?). 
The irony is how the mtb world now looks like the car industry which sells sports cars, SUV, mini SUV etc.. when cycling should be the exact opposite of the car industry. 
NO wonder some smart riders decided to sc%^w all this and adopt the all road bicycle. A biccycle to take you places no matter how raw are the roads to get there. What a concept! 
IMO... the mtb scene is dead and does not know it yet. I remember reading from Ross Schaeffer, the guy behind Salsa's progressive geometry, that susp forks had nothing to do on cycling trails. It seems he knew what was coming.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Myself and others were having bikes with "modern" geometry built for Super D and Downiville type courses over ten years ago. Long top tubes, slack head angles, steep seat angles and low bottom brackets, almost always with a Ventana rear end. I ordered this in 05 for the 06 season and the geo matches current six inch bike offerings to a tee.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Three years later in '09.

18" frame
24" TT
66* HA
74* SA
13" BB

What's old is new.


----------



## Mudguard (Apr 14, 2009)

There has to be a nod to the Enduro
2006 Enduro SX
Medium
22.8" TT
66.5* HA
70* SA
14" BB
2006-specialized-enduro-sx-trail-ii by Chazz Michael Michaels

But they were heavy, and the seat angle was a bit slack. But bikes were still being overbuilt then. You could probably shed a lot of weight with a modern build. And boy were they fast when you pointed them down.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

For "modern" mtb geo, at least some Manitous got it in the 1980s. Short stays, long top tubes, and slack HTA were present on at least some bikes. It's the closest I've seen to current trail geometry.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

This is purely seat of the pants, but any time I get on my '89 Fat, it just feels *new*. Like I'm sitting on a bike built last year.

Admittedly, it's rigid, but fit, handling, everything just falls into place like a current crop bike would. 

All my others, feel, well, VRCish.....

High BB's are modern, but the Cannondale Beast of the East had one WAY back when too.


----------



## scant (Jan 5, 2004)

dddd said:


> I've begun to wonder, with a somewhat limited number of possibilities as to toptube length, seattube angle and headtube angle (with stem length appropriate handling-wise to the combination), which brands/models may have had it right all along, or at least were ahead of the trend of the last several years?
> 
> It is obvious to me that the combination of a steeper seattube angle with short chainstays, combined with a slacker headtube angle, shorter stem and longer toptube, is what riders including myself seem to prefer, and I'm wanting to know which of the older bikes have this sort of geometry going on.
> .


I totally agree that longer toptubes, shorter stems that have rapidly become the accepted norm in the modern world are otherwordly better for overall bike handling. Take a look at the lawwill pro cruiser, the toptube length & wheelbase on those is comparable with modern longer toptube bikes, which is amusing given the near 30year age gap.. although the steep head angle & slack seattube, is the opposite of modern bikes.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

scant said:


> I totally agree that longer toptubes, shorter stems that have rapidly become the accepted norm in the modern world are otherwordly better for overall bike handling. Take a look at the lawwill pro cruiser, the toptube length & wheelbase on those is comparable with modern longer toptube bikes, which is amusing given the near 30year age gap.. although the steep head angle & slack seattube, is the opposite of modern bikes.


A slack head angle and a long top tube will make for a very long front center which is not the best for climbing. A 4in susp forks completes the set up which works for bombing down the trails. 
What i see now is short saddle to hbars which are very wide. Coupled w/a steep seat angle also makes for an upright position which is not the best for me when climbing.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

If your looking at modern XC bike geometry and your a big guy like me, Bontrager's stretch geo with an 80mm fork is right on target with mordern xc geometry. Of course you'll need to switch out the 150mm stem and narrow handlebars for a shorter stem and wider bars to get the same feel as a modern xc bike.

Bontrager's Race Light & Race 21" stretch geometry with 80mm fork:
HA - 69.5*
SA - 72.5*
TT - 25.2"
CS - 16.74"

2016 Santa Cruz highball 21":
HA - 69*
SA - 73*
TT - 25.6"
CS - 16.73"

2016 Giant XTC advanced 22"
HA - 70*
SA - 72*
TT - 25.4"
CS - 16.7"

Bontrager 21" stretch geometry calculation from 2" travel fork to 80mm:


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

When getting fitted for a custom frame, one of the questions was how wide would the bars be. If you wanted narrower bars (you can keep your 800mm bars...you can keep your 675 ones goo), the builder would use a longer stem and vice-versa.


----------



## dddd (Jun 7, 2016)

Thanks for all the replies! I didn't know much about this and now wonder when that Bontrager Stretch geometry was first used(?).

I remember now how my '99 Heckler was the first bike I'd had, after racing XC for years, that didn't throw me over the bars. And it certainly had a more relaxed headtube angle. Mine was a larger size, with a 4" travel Z-1 fork, and the top tube was plenty long (with a shorter stem than I had ever used), so it seems like by 1999 they knew what an "all mountain" trail bike's geometry should be. I was lucky to get that bike at the time, on a consignment sale, and that gave me the confidence to learn how to ride technical descents.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Gary Fisher and his Genesis geometry used longer toptubes, shorter stems, and different fork offset/rake than other bikes at the time. It was slow to catch on, because it "required" special forks, but it was way ahead of it's time.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

dddd said:


> Thanks for all the replies! I didn't know much about this and now wonder when that Bontrager Stretch geometry was first used(?).
> 
> I remember now how my '89 Heckler was the first bike I'd had, after racing XC for years, that didn't throw me over the bars. And it certainly had a more relaxed headtube angle. Mine was a larger size, with a 4" travel Z-1 fork, and the top tube was plenty long (with a shorter stem than I had ever used), so it seems like in 1989 they knew what an "all mountain" trail bike's geometry should be. I was lucky to get that bike at the time, on a consignment sale, and that gave me the confidence to learn how to ride technical descents.


I don't think your Heckler was from 1989. Maybe 1998?


----------



## dddd (Jun 7, 2016)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I don't think your Heckler was from 1989. Maybe 1998?


You're right, I typo'd, it was a '99!

I will edit my previous post, thanks!


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

dddd said:


> You're right, I typo'd, it was a '99!
> 
> I will edit my previous post, thanks!


Gotta love Hecklers! I miss my '06...


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Not much else modern about them but the first Stumpys in the early 80's were pretty slack, 67 or 68 degrees if I remember right. Fun rides.


----------



## dddd (Jun 7, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> Not much else modern about them but the first Stumpys in the early 80's were pretty slack, 67 or 68 degrees if I remember right. Fun rides.


Exactly right, I still have the frameset here from the 95th one produced (back in late 1981), and the head tube is relaxed but so is the seat tube, so It's like an old cruiser ("klunker"). Also the chainstays are very long, which is why I stopped riding it when I first moved back to SoCal and tried to keep up on the local shop rides up into the hills.

It sure didn't stop a lot of other companies from copying it, and it was actually quite good at cruising on most dirt roads, just not for climbing or for technical descending.
The original 2.125" tires and rims were pretty wide, which helped a lot.


----------

