# riding style- old vs new



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Old School Technique vs Modern Technique: How Technique Suits Different Geometry - Hardtail Party

this just scratches the surface of something I have been trying to understand for years and it's soooo much better than anything I've seen so far.

most of the stuff I have read about the evolution of bikes has sounded to me like "get a bike with the BB dragging an inch off the ground and the handlebar ten feet in front of you and your and shred the gnar, bro!" there's always the caveat of "you need to adjust how you handle the bike" but I've not read a satisfactory explanation of what that means. that just did not compute for someone like me, who learned how to wrangle a bike through 20 years of riding BMX. I've always ridden under-sized bikes and only very slowly went longer. I still don't trust the bike enough to ride the way he does in this video.

I am squarely in the "old" riding style category, which is why I prefer bikes with short reach and and short stem. I have a really hard time overcoming the deep-seated habits that are described here. I owned a low, long bike for over a year and had to sell it to get something taller and shorter because riding became terrifying to me as I failed to adapt. I just felt lost "in" the bike, like I was piloting a school bus that occasionally would go Maximum Overdrive on me. with a more compact bike, I feel confident and in control. it's mostly subjective.

Where do you fit in? are you still riding old style bikes? are you trying to apply these techniques to an old style bike? old techniques to a new bike? or have you been blessed with the priceless gift of just getting on any bike and making it work?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I find it strange that his example of "climbing" on a "modern" bike involves two or three pedal strokes.

I'm riding a "modern" XC bike. Here's a comparison of my new bike and my old bike. I'm 5'6" with long legs, for reference. 66mm stem and 740mm wide bar.

https://geometrygeeks.bike/compare/intense-sniper-2018-medium,yeti-asr-2017-md/

I've been using his "modern" cornering technique for a while, regardless of bike. But, what he fails to note is that it's really going to depend on multiple factors to work out. Not everyone is running a 2.8" DHF on their bikes, and as such, you can't half-ass it; sometimes you can't throw the bike into a corner when you know your low knob tire simply isn't going to produce traction there.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

I'm strongly in the new school category. I transitioned straight from motocross which for a very long time has been the new school style in mtb. My first mtb in 2012 was a HT with old school geometry and it wasn't working well with me. I still beat the crap out of that bike and had fun but at the same time I hated the ride. I figured it wasn't a dirt bike so I was just expecting to much. Over the past 7 years I had two other bikes but they weren't long, low and slack yet. I adapted to that geometry but still couldn't enjoy the ride that the bike was providing.

Over the winter I broke the frame on my previous bike and found a used 2016 Banshee Rune on Pinkbike. Finally got myself a new geo bike. The first ride was like coming home after years of being stranded on a deserted island! Anything downhill, rough and technical just felt "right" and I was enjoying the ride the bike gave me along with the riding itself. The bike no longer feels like it's pissed off that I'm riding it so hard forcing me to "man handle" it. Instead the bike is encouraging me to go faster and hit obstacles harder. I have confidence that I can trust my machine which I never had with a mtb until now. I do need to work on my cornering technique but I've always had a security issue cornering without a throttle. My current issues with cornering now feel strictly because of my technique and not because of an awkward feeling bike.

My issue now is with the way the mtb industry approaches suspension. Volume spacers and more air pressure is NOT the same as firmer damping! But that's a different subject.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

I have a "new" MTB riding style because I learned on BMX 20 years ago.

This discussion is only a thing for some who learned on old mountain bikes in my opinion. Even coming from BMX which obviously uses short reaches and steep head tubes, a modern MTB feels more intuitive to me. I knew when I got my first mtb that the 110mm stem was just wrong. I bought a shorter stem (80mm, then 60mm, then 50mm) and it felt better but it didn't take me long after to realize that the bike was too small. BMX and dirt bikes don't use long stems, race car drivers hold their hands at 9 and 3 o'clock... because having your hands nearly inline with the steering axis is naturally ideal for handling. However, we all know that new school geo is made possible by dropper posts and not having the saddle in your way.

If mountain bikes weren't historically limited by having to design around the saddle being at pedaling height then I don't think we'd be having this discussion right now.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Good video! He explains it really well.


I started riding in '96.

I felt there was something wrong with mtb geo right away, but wasn't a very capable rider until 2005 or so, so i thought it might just be me. I'd always buy the longest mtb i could find, but i didn't understand reach/head angle/front-center, so i bought some really goofy bikes and didn't understand how to match my experiences with my expectations. In 2009 i got super in to geo and built my first frame. It was essentially a poorly executed modern geo hardtail. What a difference.

I have some bad habits from those days, and they're responsible for my mistakes sometimes. IMO old geometry never made any sense. Modern is much more intuitive and natural to me. I totally understand how old habits die hard, but i never got along with those bikes.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

I think this less about new geo and more about the dropper post. In the days before droppers you could not get as low because the seat was in the way. You had to go back behind the seat and that defined your body position. That same situation also impacts how you can corner. Now being able to get the seat out of the way at will allows a different riding position. This I believe allows for bike geo changes.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

JoePAz said:


> I think this less about new geo and more about the dropper post. In the days before droppers you could not get as low because the seat was in the way. You had to go back behind the seat and that defined your body position. That same situation also impacts how you can corner. Now being able to get the seat out of the way at will allows a different riding position. This I believe allows for bike geo changes.


Totally agree. The video guy demonstrating "old school technique" on a modern bike is a bit silly.


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

Click bait video

Thats the thing these days


----------



## Redlands R&C (Dec 14, 2013)

EatsDirt said:


> Totally agree. The video guy demonstrating "old school technique" on a modern bike is a bit silly.


hardtailparty is pretty good, active on these boards as well.
I also would have liked to see him actually on an old school bike rather than demonstrating both techniques on the same bike - given that though, my wife is having a hard time adjusting to her "newer" bikes which are not even that modern, so I'm tempted to share the video with her.


----------



## sturge (Feb 22, 2009)

I don't know about 'old school vs modern' riders...I think every decent rider goes by FEEL of what the bike is doing and constantly makes adjustments versus using the exact same riding style all the time. I ride totally different on a dry day vs a wet or icy day. Same bike, same trails but big differences in how I ride to get best traction for climbing, corners, clearing obstacles, rocks, roots, etc. 

When I got current Kona Process it was drastically different from my Heckler. Took some getting used to but I figured it out after 6-8 rides. Loved the Heckler but the Kona is so much better in every way. I could not imagine just saying...I don't like it because I'm an 'old school' rider and my technique does not fit this bike.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

JoePAz said:


> I think this less about new geo and more about the dropper post. In the days before droppers you could not get as low because the seat was in the way. You had to go back behind the seat and that defined your body position. That same situation also impacts how you can corner. Now being able to get the seat out of the way at will allows a different riding position. This I believe allows for bike geo changes.


It's not unusual to see people riding like that with dropper posts.

Gotta keep your weight in the right place behind the front wheel. It's not about dropper posts. 
I was riding modern geo several years before you ever saw people using droppers.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

Click bait.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Damn, I have been on long/slack custom frames nearly 40 years. 
Wasn't all that long ago the hite rite springy was around and a long wait for the droppers to show up on the scene.

We all have our riding style and approach to rippin a trail be it with or without a vanity label.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

T


sturge said:


> I don't know about 'old school vs modern' riders...I think every decent rider goes by FEEL of what the bike is doing and constantly makes adjustments versus using the exact same riding style all the time.


Yep.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

A non-rearward riding position has existed for decades. It's not modern. It's more like XC/road-inspired short travel 29ers with stubby front ends _and_ stupidly long CS were _backwards_.

People naturally optimize their riding to be the one that naturally rides well with least effort. Assuming a rearward position on an old school short travel 29er can bring the most out of it with the least effort. Trying this on a DJ-style bike or bike park bike can lead to a sketchy ride where the front loses control if you tap the front brake on steep loose stuff or try to take a fast unbermed corner; they're easier to ride if you're more aggro.

What's modern is long travel FS bikes being more accepted as do-all bikes, since they can climb better, which I credit to steeper STA _and_ tuned weight distro balance. New school seems to move weight distro away from 50:50, to something more rearward, perhaps more than 60% weight on the rear. This weight shift through geo (longer front center, and/or shorter CS), means the rider doesn't need to shift weight back as much since that weight is already distributed to the rear, but take it too far and you have to shift weight more forward. Ideally, it should hit a sweet spot where you can feel balanced in your centered/neutral position, and that same position happens to be the same one that allows you to ride the bike to its limit with least effort to shift your body all over, being more free to prepare for bumps, steer, bunnyhop, etc.

What makes it modern is how little compromise there is, being overall a better all-rounder that one can settle with to ride on trails of all sorts. There are bikes that have long reach, slack HA, steep STA, but aren't as "modern" compared to what else is out there with shorter, steeper, and slacker, feeling that it can be made more up-to-date to compete with the top tier bikes that have continually unseated the prior best-of-the-best every year.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

BansheeRune said:


> Damn, I have been on long/slack custom frames nearly 40 years.


I think i'm getting teased? I deserve it.

This thread inspired me to go download my 2011 frame design off of bikeCAD. This was my 3rd frame as a horrible builder, and it defied all the conventions at the time. I OBSESSED over every detail, as i saw it. I was 6'3 then, same as now. Feel free to make fun of me. It's wild how dumb it looks to 2020 me. It was even uglier in person!









(it handled horribly with the chainstays set as tight as shown. I'd ride it with the QR hanging off the back of the dropouts. I'm showing the 60mm stem, with an 80mm stem is was fine with the dropouts slammed forward, but... 20/20 hindsight? We know why that sucked.)


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

One thing I cannot deal with is the feeling that my knees are hitting bars with every pedal stroke. I enjoy a 70° seat tube angle as opposed to the current trend since it works for the only one that signed the check for my bike, among other things. At this point, my MiddleChild does just fine and performs admirably, a requirement for a one speed automatic.

Causes for rejection tags are interrupted seat tubes that lead to tire interference when the seat is slammed...


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

JoePAz said:


> I think this less about new geo and more about the dropper post. In the days before droppers you could not get as low because the seat was in the way. You had to go back behind the seat and that defined your body position. That same situation also impacts how you can corner. Now being able to get the seat out of the way at will allows a different riding position. This I believe allows for bike geo changes.


I agree. "Butt back" was because the saddle was in the way. Some people still ride that way even with droppers maybe because they haven't changed their technique yet or maybe because getting forward seems scarier on steep terrain, as if they're getting way back off the saddle in order to get away from the terrain. Kinda like skiing "in the backseat" to get away from the steep stuff.

I also took interest in how he equated "super modern" with "super aggressive." I equate the term "aggressive" with steep head and seat angles rather than body position. Modern bikes are much more slack than older bikes so I wouldn't have called them aggressive. I suppose "aggressive" is subjective.

I did hop on my 2004 On-One 29er last week for a road ride and heading out my driveway I wondered how I ever rode that thing on single track. It seemed so twitchy in comparison to my current bike. I was able to adjust soon enough but still, it was a profound difference.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

sturge said:


> I don't know about 'old school vs modern' riders...I think every decent rider goes by FEEL of what the bike is doing and constantly makes adjustments versus using the exact same riding style all the time. I ride totally different on a dry day vs a wet or icy day. Same bike, same trails but big differences in how I ride to get best traction for climbing, corners, clearing obstacles, rocks, roots, etc.
> 
> When I got current Kona Process it was drastically different from my Heckler. Took some getting used to but I figured it out after 6-8 rides. Loved the Heckler but the Kona is so much better in every way. I could not imagine just saying...I don't like it because I'm an 'old school' rider and my technique does not fit this bike.


Even pros need coaching to refine their technique. Most riders will adapt pretty well but could do much better with some specific training on better technique to make the most of their equipment. Habits are hard to change and everyone has them.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Nat said:


> I agree. "Butt back" was because the saddle was in the way. Some people still ride that way even with droppers maybe because they haven't changed their technique yet or maybe because getting forward seems scarier on steep terrain, as if they're getting way back off the saddle in order to get away from the terrain. Kinda like skiing "in the backseat" to get away from the steep stuff.


It doesn't help that bracing with arms and getting back to keep your head away from danger is an instinct a lot of beginners have to overcome, the old school geo and high saddle just reinforces that technique.

There's other aspects besides the 'butt back' technique though. Bike-body separation is also a skill a lot of old school riders lack. I went to a skills clinic where a few experienced riders without droppers were doing cornering drills (looked similar to Steve's example). The instructor had them drop their saddle to get it out of the way but of course that riding style was ingrained. They were very stiff on the bike.

I think the real issue is that those 'old school' techniques are static positions for the most part. 'Butt back' means a lot of straight arms and bracing. That XC/high saddle straight outside leg cornering technique is also a locked position. BMX riders adapt to MTB so well not because they have nailed certain 'positions' on the bike but because they have great bike-body separation and ride dynamically. When I rode BMX I could manual on the pedals, rear pegs, front pegs; I could ride with the bars 180°, one foot on a front peg and the other on the front wheel; I learned to bunny hop and jump without the hindrance of a saddle in the way. Learning to move the bike around and move around on the bike is what many old school mountain bikers really missed out on IMO.


----------



## manpurse (Feb 6, 2011)

How is the video click bait? The title of the video is the same as the content in the video. I think the video explains it quite well. 

I think the bike industry in trending to a more and more "extreme" geometry millimeter by millimeter. More slack, longer, steeper, etc. Is it actually making bikes better or more for increased sales? I feel like we're now in the sweet spot of geometry but when someone is happy with their current bike then they don't go out and buy a new one.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

I'm not seeing it.

I think his representation of "old school" is just not very good technique. Also, the dropper plays a huge role in technique and body position. That alone, without the "modern geometry", has a much greater impact on riding technique.

His old school cornering is not "old school", it's just bad.

To the credit of the video, though, I can say from experience that having the front wheel farther out (to a point of diminishing returns) enhances my downhill technique at any speed and does allow me to be farther ahead of the rear axle (more "centered") without being too far to the front, with or without a dropper. Add the dropper, and I can get lower, and therefore, more forward without going OTB.

-F


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fleas said:


> I'm not seeing it.
> 
> I think his representation of "old school" is just not very good technique. Also, the dropper plays a huge role in technique and body position. That alone, without the "modern geometry", has a much greater impact on riding technique.
> 
> ...


He's exaggerating some of the positions a great deal but overall I think it is mostly accurate.





You can see here how stiff the riders are. The descending technique is butt back with a slight bend in the elbow. They're also super stiff in the corners with little leaning or changing body position. Full disclosure: I wouldn't do any better on those bikes.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

jeremy3220 said:


> It doesn't help that bracing with arms and getting back to keep your head away from danger is an instinct a lot of beginners have to overcome, the old school geo and high saddle just reinforces that technique.
> 
> There's other aspects besides the 'butt back' technique though. Bike-body separation is also a skill a lot of old school riders lack. I went to a skills clinic where a few experienced riders without droppers were doing cornering drills (looked similar to Steve's example). The instructor had them drop their saddle to get it out of the way but of course that riding style was ingrained. They were very stiff on the bike.
> 
> I think the real issue is that those 'old school' techniques are static positions for the most part. 'Butt back' means a lot of straight arms and bracing. That XC/high saddle straight outside leg cornering technique is also a locked position. BMX riders adapt to MTB so well not because they have nailed certain 'positions' on the bike but because they have great bike-body separation and ride dynamically. When I rode BMX I could manual on the pedals, rear pegs, front pegs; I could ride with the bars 180°, one foot on a front peg and the other on the front wheel; I learned to bunny hop and jump without the hindrance of a saddle in the way. Learning to move the bike around and move around on the bike is what many old school mountain bikers really missed out on IMO.


That high saddle, straight outside leg, leaned-over upper body cornering technique looks like what roadies do, so maybe it's a holdover from people coming to MTBs from road bikes?


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Nat said:


> That high saddle, straight outside leg, leaned-over upper body cornering technique looks like what roadies do, so maybe it's a holdover from people coming to MTBs from road bikes?
> 
> View attachment 1320965


Yeah maybe. It has it's place too I think. Not every corner requires dropping the saddle and it's a good way to conserve energy.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

jeremy3220 said:


> He's exaggerating some of the positions a great deal but overall I think it is mostly accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We are all looking at this as if there is only one factor at play here.

These guys are also all riding 26x1.8" tires, with tubes, at 40psi, and maybe riding rim brakes. On super shitty 48 or 60mm travel Rockshox SID Mag 21s, with oh-so-stiff 25.4mm stanchions.

Dropper or not, modern geometry or not, no one is going to be doing well throwing the bike into a corner with those constraints.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Much of the 'new' MTB geometry/style isn't all that new to those who have also ridden DH for a number of years. I had a 65 degree HT in 06, for instance.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> We are all looking at this as if there is only one factor at play here.
> 
> These guys are also all riding 26x1.8" tires, with tubes, at 40psi, and maybe riding rim brakes. On super shitty 48 or 60mm travel Rockshox SID Mag 21s, with oh-so-stiff 25.4mm stanchions.
> 
> Dropper or not, modern geometry or not, no one is going to be doing well throwing the bike into a corner with those constraints.


I've pointed out a few factors at play already but I don't think the specific cause is that important and that video obviously an extreme example. The issue some riders have who learned and developed their riding style on older mountain bikes is that they often struggle to adapt to modern bikes, or at least struggle to take advantage of them.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

This discussion is interesting. 

I started out on a long chainstay, parallel 70deg ht/st angle bike, then to the new race geometry Ritchey standard of long chainstays but with a steeper seat angle (between 73-74deg as I recall) and a long tiller of a stem. You descended exactly like the video showed. Butt way back and arms locked, and we had these things called hite-rites that let you lower your saddle for descending but still did the butt buzz.

Part of the issue was lack of front suspension, so any unseen gully, log, rock, etc would often either OTB or twist the bars in your hands for side ejection.

Then I moved the new short chainstay bikes, because all of a sudden climbing vertical faces became a bike criteria. These had the benefit of being amazing climbers, fast in the corners, and really racy. As long as you didn't have to descend anything seriously steep, then it was really butt back. I think I regularly would fall off the back of these bikes. 

Transitioning into full suspension with the same geometry of the older ritchey bikes meant you just had more opportunities to go OTB as the fork compressed into a dip and you were way behind the BB. 

Eventually I just gave up and went back to full rigid. It was something I understood and I kinda gave up on mountain bike progression. 

However there was an article in a magazine about a trainer that was training DH riders to ride with their faces forward, over their bars, elbows bent, and it was really improving their times and performance. I began using that technique and it vastly changed my cornering techniques and my descending techniques. On steep stair or drops it didn't help me because there was no fork to help me out, but on fast technical descents, rough sections, smooth to drop sections, and pretty much any type of turn it was so beneficial that I adopted it and since forgotten about it. 

See this video I realize that it might be beneficial for me to look at getting a full suspension or even just a front suspension bike and see if this translates. 

Thanks for the link and now I have something to think about besides not being able to get out on our trails.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

jeremy3220 said:


> He's exaggerating some of the positions a great deal but overall I think it is mostly accurate.
> 
> You can see here how stiff the riders are. The descending technique is butt back with a slight bend in the elbow. They're also super stiff in the corners with little leaning or changing body position. Full disclosure: I wouldn't do any better on those bikes.


Gonna state the obvious here... these bikes necessitated the technique you see. Take the guys from this era that had decent bike handling, put them on modern geo... and they'd no doubt adjust their technique. Comparatively, bikes today are so easy to ride it's ridiculous.

Video guy seems to be mistaking old school technique with poor technique.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

EatsDirt said:


> Gonna state the obvious here... these bikes necessitated the technique you see. Take the guys from this era that had decent bike handling, put them on modern geo... and they'd no doubt adjust their technique. Comparatively, bikes today are so easy to ride it's ridiculous.
> 
> Video guy seems to be mistaking old school technique with poor technique.


Totally agree that the bikes necessitated the technique. These were professional riders so I also agree they could have probably adjusted to current bikes if you gave them one at the time.

However, there's no question that learning a sport with certain equipment and techniques and using those techniques for years/decades is going to affect you. This occurs in nearly every sport. Even basketball with mostly the same equipment has evolved. The players literally move differently now than they did 40 years ago. Someone who has ridden in that 'butt back' style for 20+ years is going to struggle on a modern slack bike. I've personally ridden with experienced (long time riding not necessarily great) riders like that.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

jeremy3220 said:


> Totally agree that the bikes necessitated the technique. These were professional riders so I also agree they could have probably adjusted to current bikes if you gave them one at the time.
> 
> However, there's no question that learning a sport with certain equipment and techniques and using those techniques for years/decades is going to affect you. This occurs in nearly every sport. Even basketball with mostly the same equipment has evolved. The players literally move differently now than they did 40 years ago. Someone who has ridden in that 'butt back' style for 20+ years is going to struggle on a modern slack bike. I've personally ridden with experienced (long time riding not necessarily great) riders like that.


I agree.

I think a great historical parallel is when the 'safety bicycle' was introduced around the 1880s. It eventually became the double diamond bike that we know. Previously cyclists were perched up on pennyfarthings, and climbed up and swung a leg over from the back. For years it was impossible to straddle a safety bike because it didn't occur to cyclists or designers that it was valuable to do so- they had developed the instincts to never do it.

Modern geo is the same way- if you've trained yourself to keep your butt back at your peril... unlearning that is rough.


----------



## idividebyzero (Sep 25, 2014)

It took awhile for me to adjust my riding for a dropper and get out of the "butt high and back" style. I had to force myself to squat as low possible since I noticed my ass was straight up in the air and nowhere near the saddle even though in my head I thought I was as low as I could go, eventually I was able to get a feel for the true range of motion the bike had so I could ride like normal. The riding technique is totally different with a dropper and it bugs me when people tell beginners to learn on a bike without a dropper for "proper technique" like they do with flat pedals, its wrong, riding with a dropper and without a dropper are 2 different skillsets that are non-transferable

I picked up learning to ride a long bike a lot faster, the attack position feels more natural and just clicks once you do a descent properly. The biggest difference is learning to weight the front wheel in a turn, it takes some practice but its not a huge change like the dropper was.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

jeremy3220 said:


> Totally agree that the bikes necessitated the technique. These were professional riders so I also agree they could have probably adjusted to current bikes if you gave them one at the time.
> 
> However, there's no question that learning a sport with certain equipment and techniques and using those techniques for years/decades is going to affect you. This occurs in nearly every sport. Even basketball with mostly the same equipment has evolved. The players literally move differently now than they did 40 years ago. Someone who has ridden in that 'butt back' style for 20+ years is going to struggle on a modern slack bike. I've personally ridden with experienced (long time riding not necessarily great) riders like that.


Maybe it's just me along those riding/racing buddies I've kept in contact with, but none of us have had issues adapting to modern geo despite riding hard through the majority of the 90's and not riding much (or at all) through the 2000-2010 decade. A couple rides on modern to find the right weight bias, lean angles, and limits of traction and it's on. It's just flat out easier.

To the basketball analogy... it's like the hoop got twice as big. But if you suck at shooting the ball, maybe it doesn't help much.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I used the "butt back" even after getting my first dropper. I realized that if I did that on a longer/slacker bike...the bike would just feel like its riding away from me and almost impossible to control. It took me a while to finally figure that out. Riding with a fixed post for so long...it was a habit that took some time to break.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

idividebyzero said:


> riding with a dropper and without a dropper are 2 different skillsets that are non-transferable


Again, for people that rode a lot of DH, DJ, FR, or BMX in the past the only 'skillset' that is completely unique to a dropper is pushing the lever. Droppers are a definitely a convenience, but aside from strictly XC riders, many folks have had well developed 'low seat skills' for ages.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

slapheadmofo said:


> Much of the 'new' MTB geometry/style isn't all that new to those who have also ridden DH for a number of years. I had a 65 degree HT in 06, for instance.


Same. I was riding Santa Cruz Bullits as early as '02, with 180mm forks (first a Monster T, then I sensibly upgraded to a Marz. 66 RC2X in '06). That bike had a 66 degree HA, which wasn't far off today's standards.

Also, riding with your weight way back was a byproduct of not being willing to stop and lower the saddle. In XC racing, you really didn't have much of a choice, other than running your seat a little below optimal climbing height -- which nobody did.

I've been riding since the 80s, and have ALWAYS lowered the seat to descend anything significant. (Obviously in XC racing, you couldn't bother with that).

Not trying to start a war, but riding with your weight back behind the seat is poor form, not "old school form" -- but it was an adaptation out of necessity. Droppers just made it possible to always have correct form no matter what. I love droppers.

I somewhat agreed with the video, but in reality there isn't as exaggerated of a difference between old and new-school geometry. It's more of a continuum, and a talented rider can adapt pretty quickly and ride fast and in control regardless.

One trend that I think has merit is that the longer reach aspect of new bikes lends itself to staying low and fast over the ground, whereas shorter reach bikes can be "bouncier," more playful, and more nimble in terms of initiating hops, manuals, wheelies, and jumping over things.


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

sturge said:


> I don't know about 'old school vs modern' riders...I think every decent rider goes by FEEL of what the bike is doing and constantly makes adjustments versus using the exact same riding style all the time. I ride totally different on a dry day vs a wet or icy day. Same bike, same trails but big differences in how I ride to get best traction for climbing, corners, clearing obstacles, rocks, roots, etc.
> 
> When I got current Kona Process it was drastically different from my Heckler. Took some getting used to but I figured it out after 6-8 rides. Loved the Heckler but the Kona is so much better in every way. I could not imagine just saying...I don't like it because I'm an 'old school' rider and my technique does not fit this bike.


I think i mostly fit into the adjust and feel kind of technique...

but I am definitely 70's/80's BMX guy on a 2015 Surly Krampus...whatever technique that is


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Some pros have years of habits ingrained in them.

I believe Sam Hill tried a bike that favored forward-position geo for EWS recently, but the production bike that followed that proto went back to being a bike that favored rearward position. His dropped heels style leaves a rider hanging off the bars, with weight rearward, which synergizes with a bike with longer CS (or stubbier front end). A surprising number of big name DH pros have a more consistently rearward position, not hanging o the end of their rope, but have just enough slack in it.

It's hard to find pro DH racers with a forward position like this guy's. Loic Bruni is the first to come to my mind. Some younger guys are forward, like Thibaut Daprela, but they're all over the place though, not finding any consistent style like Loic has. Loic came to mind because I know the Demo has a short CS. The Commencal Supreme in 29 has a fairly long WB for how long its CS is, esp in XL.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

I was having long low and slack frames custom built in the mid 2000s. Now I can buy one off the rack although some of the head angles are too extreme. 

The last off the shelf frame I had was a Titus Quasi Moto. Loved it except for the short top tube and high BB. That's when I started designing frames for the riding I was doing which was racing the California State Super D Series. Kind of like enduro without the soft pedal sections.


----------



## RadBartTaylor (Dec 1, 2004)

Varaxis said:


> Some pros have years of habits ingrained in them.
> 
> I believe Sam Hill tried a bike that favored forward-position geo for EWS recently, but the production bike that followed that proto went back to being a bike that favored rearward position. His dropped heels style leaves a rider hanging off the bars, with weight rearward, which synergizes with a bike with longer CS (or stubbier front end). A surprising number of big name DH pros have a more consistently rearward position, not hanging o the end of their rope, but have just enough slack in it.
> 
> It's hard to find pro DH racers with a forward position like this guy's. Loic Bruni is the first to come to my mind. Some younger guys are forward, like Thibaut Daprela, but they're all over the place though, not finding any consistent style like Loic has. Loic came to mind because I know the Demo has a short CS. The Commencal Supreme in 29 has a fairly long WB for how long its CS is, esp in XL.


Sam just looks so natural on whatever bike he's riding, balanced in control. His bike a couple years back had like a 66 deg HTA which was steeper than most others and didn't seem to effect him in the slightest....


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Proto Mega 29 early '19








Finalized production Mega 29 Oct '19

Notice how far the rear wheel is from the chainring, and how many crank arm lengths are between the pedals and front wheel. STA got slacker too, giving him about 2" of extra seated room. Longer reach through longer top and downtube...

The designer, Ali Beckett, left and put his ideas into the Privateer 161, probably because his portfolio and ideas lose out to what Sam Hill wants. CRC doubled down with it, releasing rearward biased bikes like the Mythique. Fair move to move slow to attract mainstream dollars. Sam Hill sells them bikes and some media outlets already earned their checks by speaking positively about it. Marin, Whyte, Ibis, Santa Cruz, NS Bikes, Transition already bridging the gap between mainstream and forward. Small crowd that buys bikes because they're designed by an engineer they know the name of (Dave Weagle, Turner, and who else?).


----------



## HerrKaLeu (Aug 18, 2017)

Thanks for posting this video. I'm not a great rider and learned a bit from good, but old, MTB books from our library. Now I realize much of that is old technique for bikes with steep HA, rigid seatpost etc. 

So I basically ride downhill with my 170mm dropper low and have my butt all the way back above the rear wheel. and I have my arms almost horizontally and stretched out, like he showed int he video. At least I learned how to ride a bike I don't have... Lol

Now I need to find some sources specializing on newer bikes.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> We are all looking at this as if there is only one factor at play here.
> 
> These guys are also all riding 26x1.8" tires, with tubes, at 40psi, and maybe riding rim brakes. On super shitty 48 or 60mm travel Rockshox SID Mag 21s, with oh-so-stiff 25.4mm stanchions.
> 
> Dropper or not, modern geometry or not, no one is going to be doing well throwing the bike into a corner with those constraints.


You make a fair point, but for me an extra 4" of front-center would make a larger difference than a competent fork and capable tires. Those old bikes were so short it was 100% a handicap. imo. My roadie/gravel bike has a longer FC than my first XL mtb.



HerrKaLeun said:


> So I basically ride downhill with my 170mm dropper low and have my butt all the way back above the rear wheel. and I have my arms almost horizontally and stretched out, like he showed int he video. At least I learned how to ride a bike I don't have... Lol
> 
> Now I need to find some sources specializing on newer bikes.


Don't you find that the front end doesn't track?

For me, when i'm having an off day, or i'm just scared of the terrain i relapse to old bad habits. Then the bike doesn't go where i want it to, and that makes it hard to correct myself. With the long wheelbase it takes forever for the rear wheel to pass the obstacle and i can recover. Sucks!

My current main bike is bleeding-edge progressive, and if i don't get to warm up to it... i don't ride well. It's silly, cuz i know what to do, and it's pure awesome to ride the front once i commit to it.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I'm mostly an old schooler and my bikes are more old style. But, I often corner more new style, based on his demo; leaning forward and putting weight on the front to ensure my front tire maintains traction.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Just ride the bike that’s under you and try different techniques, you’ll get it. Every bike and every person is different. This over analyzing BS in this sport in the last several years is ridiculous.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

interesting: I find that my bike has a short front-center and short reach for it's size (medium Karate Monkey with a 50mm stem) and I have trouble on flat corners at speed. I am actively trying to stay off the brakes and let the tires dig in, but the front tire starts to break free and I have to modulate the brakes to stay upright. if the top layer of dirt is loose, that makes it predictably difficult, but I still never feel good if the dirt is firm or there's a small sculpted berm there. I can't seem to take the turn tight enough and overshoot the exit.

I find that I can't get my handlebar LOW enough. right now I have it just high enough that the brake levers clear the TT if the bike gets tangled up, but I'd like them lower. am I subconsciously putting my bars lower and lower to make up for the bike's otherwise extreme rear-bias of a frame with a slack STA and short rear end?

Most of my trails are relatively flat but technical/rocky with some punchy ups and downs. There are also some densely-wooded, flat, twisty sections where I feel I could go faster, but I am often faster in these sections than others, perhaps due to my short wheelbase. I don't have problems climbing or descending that I am aware of.


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

The guy doing the video could have at least kept his seat up when try to demo old school technique, made it slightly more realistic.

"New school geo can climb well"....slams up a rock ledge...lol I guess thats climbing to new school riders anything more and they will just shuttle up


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Just ride the bike that's under you and try different techniques, you'll get it. Every bike and every person is different. This over analyzing BS in this sport in the last several years is ridiculous.


I have to agree with you to some extend. The amount of analyzing over things is pretty ridiculous, and mostly market driven as more and more "standards" and designs have shown up over the years and marketing had to create buzz regarding what was best. Once upon a time we selected bikes by what brands we liked and who offered a size that fit us. You might be a loyal Gary Fisher geometry person or you bought a different bike. Mostly it was a search for a good spec for the best price or a nice aesthetic you liked.

With the advent of suspension it was everyone against Specialized as folks tried to convince people that their suspension worked better than the horst design that specialized had licensed and sued other manuf. for infringing upon. It wasn't until Santa Cruz came up with their own licensed design that the Big S had a competitor for suspension design that drew away money.

Then we added wheel sizes, then 1X options, then more gears, then dropper posts, then tire widths, then we started really tinkering with geometry.

It totally makes sense that people have analysis paralysis. You want to get something that you will enjoy riding but the choices are so numerous, so overwhelming that you can't possibly just pop and buy something you know you will want. Many folks don't have decades of experience, years of riding different suspension designs, geometry fads, wheelsizes, etc and the media will gloss over whatever is the current flavor of the month. I recall the backlash against the B size tires when magazines and media had finally embraced the 29er. I remember then the acceptance of the B size over 26er, but the push back on 29er size for gravity sports, now look at gravity sports, 29er is where it is heading. All driven by media approval, companies with money pushing teams on bikes and such.

On enthusiast sites like this I feel you can cut through the media and team BS and really understand what there is to something. I have learned more about the linkage forks here than through any media source I have read or watched. I purchased my Jones based on what I read here not the few reviews I could find from magazines. This is real life experience here, that is why we love it. I appreciate seeing the video because I have ridden both ways and am on an in betweener bike right but am considering getting a progressive bike in the future to see what it is all about.

But it also makes me want to take out my mid-nineties Indy Fab bike and see what it is like on trails again. Analysis is good, over analysis is paralyzing.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

mack_turtle said:


> interesting: I find that my bike has a short front-center and short reach for it's size (medium Karate Monkey with a 50mm stem) and I have trouble on flat corners at speed. I am actively trying to stay off the brakes and let the tires dig in, but the front tire starts to break free and I have to modulate the brakes to stay upright. if the top layer of dirt is loose, that makes it predictably difficult, but I still never feel good if the dirt is firm or there's a small sculpted berm there. I can't seem to take the turn tight enough and overshoot the exit.
> 
> I find that I can't get my handlebar LOW enough. right now I have it just high enough that the brake levers clear the TT if the bike gets tangled up, but I'd like them lower. am I subconsciously putting my bars lower and lower to make up for the bike's otherwise extreme rear-bias of a frame with a slack STA and short rear end?
> 
> Most of my trails are relatively flat but technical/rocky with some punchy ups and downs. There are also some densely-wooded, flat, twisty sections where I feel I could go faster, but I am often faster in these sections than others, perhaps due to my short wheelbase. I don't have problems climbing or descending that I am aware of.


Have you tried to bias your weight over the front tire more when cornering? I recall in the early aughts riding blue groove in AZ that, especially when covered in kitty litter, leaning over your front tire set up a more oversteer condition, allowing a little more controlled drift through fast corners. I adopted that methodology and it still works to this day. It's a weird concept for sure, bending at the elbows and bringing your upper body over your stem but it really does translate to more aggressive and in control cornering. The bonus is as your arms are bent you can much more easily transition to an attack position for an unseen obstacle, than if you are more straight armed sitting with a back weighted position.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

rockcrusher said:


> Have you tried to bias your weight over the front tire more when cornering?


that's what I am trying to do. either it's very hard to break old habits, or the short reach + short stem on my bike make finding the point where I have weighted the front tire enough-but not too much-is a narrow window.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

cookieMonster said:


> Also, riding with your weight way back was a byproduct of not being willing to stop and lower the saddle. In XC racing, you really didn't have much of a choice, other than running your seat a little below optimal climbing height -- which nobody did.
> 
> I've been riding since the 80s, and have ALWAYS lowered the seat to descend anything significant. (Obviously in XC racing, you couldn't bother with that).
> 
> Not trying to start a war, but riding with your weight back behind the seat is poor form, not "old school form" -- but it was an adaptation out of necessity. Droppers just made it possible to always have correct form no matter what. I love droppers.


One thing a lot of people fail to mention, or maybe doesn't occur to them, is that it's not just xc racing where people didn't manually drop their saddles for descents. I grew up and learned to ride in the midwest. Whether you were xc racing or not, nobody manually dropped their saddles because the terrain made such a prospect a major pain in the ass. A ride might have 20 descents that covered a couple hundred feet of elevation at most. They might be just as steep as what you might see in bigger mountains, but so short it just wasn't worth stopping at the top to manually drop the saddle, and then stopping at the bottom to raise it back up for a section of trail that only took a few minutes to cover.

You're spot on with your final conclusion, though. The "weight back" poor form was done out of necessity because there wasn't a real practical way to do otherwise in those kinds of scenarios. And in that, it's exactly true that the remote-actuated dropper allows a rider to keep the correct form all the time. Even on rolling terrain with very short ups and downs. The remote-actuated dropper post is revolutionary for xc riding (racing or not) in that sense.



Bacon Fat said:


> The guy doing the video could have at least kept his seat up when try to demo old school technique, made it slightly more realistic.
> 
> "New school geo can climb well"....slams up a rock ledge...lol I guess thats climbing to new school riders anything more and they will just shuttle up


I agree that his examples aren't very good, but his point is spot on.


----------



## RadBartTaylor (Dec 1, 2004)

Every frame requires different body position to achieve the best performance out of a bike. Take any good rider and they are going to automatically adjust to a more rear or more front bias position based on what bike you are on, what the trail conditions are like and what situation you are in, maybe not instantly, but within a few runs.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Just ride the bike that's under you and try different techniques, you'll get it. Every bike and every person is different. This over analyzing BS in this sport in the last several years is ridiculous.





RadBartTaylor said:


> Every frame requires different body position to achieve the best performance out of a bike. Take any good rider and they are going to automatically adjust to a more rear or more front bias position based on what bike you are on, what the trail conditions are like and what situation you are in, maybe not instantly, but within a few runs.


Hand in hand.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Varaxis said:


> Some pros have years of habits ingrained in them.
> 
> I believe Sam Hill tried a bike that favored forward-position geo for EWS recently, but the production bike that followed that proto went back to being a bike that favored rearward position. His dropped heels style leaves a rider hanging off the bars, with weight rearward, which synergizes with a bike with longer CS (or stubbier front end). A surprising number of big name DH pros have a more consistently rearward position, not hanging o the end of their rope, but have just enough slack in it.
> 
> It's hard to find pro DH racers with a forward position like this guy's. Loic Bruni is the first to come to my mind. Some younger guys are forward, like Thibaut Daprela, but they're all over the place though, not finding any consistent style like Loic has. Loic came to mind because I know the Demo has a short CS. The Commencal Supreme in 29 has a fairly long WB for how long its CS is, esp in XL.


Short chainstays are typically not favored in gravity riding regardless. The Demo uses 450mm chainstays which are long for a trail bike. I don't really think of chainstay length having *that* much effect on riding style (obviously it affect weight distribution some). I think dropper, stem length, HTA, and reach are the main factors in needing to change style.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Just ride the bike that's under you and try different techniques, you'll get it. Every bike and every person is different. This over analyzing BS in this sport in the last several years is ridiculous.


Habits are easy to develop and hard to break. Unless you have a wide range of experience across a wide variety of bikes and riding types I think most people just get stuck in what they know.

I don't think just trying different techniques is good advice. That leaves far to many options for people who only know one style/technique. It's easier to pick one that's obviously wrong and fix that first before moving to the rest. Most people would improve far quicker by focusing on one specific aspect at a time. What someone needs to focus on is different for everyone.


----------



## eshew (Jan 30, 2004)

I've ridden a lot of bikes. From early 90's steel all the way to modern carbon 29rs. 5'10 31" inseam

Newer geometry clicked with me right away. 

My newest old bike was a Large 2012 Ibis Mojo HD. Great climber, but the short reach was a liability.

Went to a Medium 2015 Kona Process 153 & it felt great. A bit tight on the reach but miles better (+30mm ish) over the Ibis & it did everything better aside from sprinting and climbing which was an ok compromise.

Now on a Medium 19 Kona Process 153 CR 29. Feels about perfect. 

I still sometimes move ass back in corners & still sometimes set the rear wheel down first when I get nervous in the air (old Northshore wheely drop habit, was necessary back in the day)


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Just ride the bike that's under you and try different techniques, you'll get it. Every bike and every person is different. This over analyzing BS in this sport in the last several years is ridiculous.


some people possess a gift to adapt easily to new physical movements. for clumsy people like me, it takes YEARS of concerted effort to master a physical movement.

for example, I rode flatland BMX for about six years. I attempted to perform a trick called a "decade" for three of those years. never came close. I started to give up the whole thing when I watched a kids several years younger than me try a decade for the first time, then land it smooth after five attempts.


----------



## Wheelspeed (Jan 12, 2006)

I didn't have the patience to watch more than the first 20% of that... the whole concept that people need a video for that is stupid. Different bikes behave different ways and you just learn to adapt. For one thing, in 90's and 2000's, I would've just manualled down that first drop he was showing because, days before dropper posts, we had too much saddle in our buts to ride that stuff, so we just jumped off easy stuff like that. 

But yeah, how much suspension, brakes, and tire you have can determine how you should position yourself over tricky stuff. (Besides geometry or having a dropper post or not.)


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Wheelspeed said:


> I didn't have the patience to watch more than the first 20% of that... the whole concept that people need a video for that is stupid. Different bikes behave different ways and you just learn to adapt. For one thing, in 90's and 2000's, I would've just manualled down that first drop he was showing because, days before dropper posts, we had too much saddle in our buts to ride that stuff, so we just jumped off easy stuff like that.


some of us are not naturally gift super athletes who just hop on any old bike and huck over everything. the coaching from a well-made video is useful to us mortals.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

mack_turtle said:


> interesting: I find that my bike has a short front-center and short reach for it's size (medium Karate Monkey with a 50mm stem) and I have trouble on flat corners at speed. I am actively trying to stay off the brakes and let the tires dig in, but the front tire starts to break free and I have to modulate the brakes to stay upright. if the top layer of dirt is loose, that makes it predictably difficult, but I still never feel good if the dirt is firm or there's a small sculpted berm there. I can't seem to take the turn tight enough and overshoot the exit.


One of the main indicators too me that a bike is truly too small is that it's really hard to keep my weight (cg) in the right spot in corners. It will feel hard to stay centered on the bike.

It sounds like you're braking too late. Being afraid to let off the brakes and overshooting the turn is probably because you're coming in to the turn at a speed you're uncomfortable with then staying on the brakes which causes the bike to stand up (need to lean it over) and that causes you not get your turning done early enough in the corner. Before the end of an corner you should be straightening out the bars and maybe even turning a bit toward the outside of the trail to end the rotation (lateral acceleration). Your rear wheel follows what the front does, so toward the end of the corner you should have your front wheel pointed down the straight away (if that's what's next) and shifting weight onto the rear tire to keep it from over rotating.

So try to focus on getting your turning done earlier in the corner and when you're visualizing the corner think about setting yourself up for the exit. It's easy to hyper focus on the the entry (braking late as possible, where to put your feet, getting the bike to lean, etc) but what you really should be imagining is the shape of the exit and how that should feel. The easiest way to practice this is pick a good corner that's not on much of a decline and session it. Start slow enough that you can brake before the corner then just work on going faster each time. This makes more a of an impact than you might think if you haven't tried it.

My other tip is: it's easy to brake into the corner and feel like you've got a lot of weight on the bars and then when you let off the brakes your front wheel washes. This is because you're actually not in a forward riding position but actually shifting your weight back under braking. This is worse on bikes that are too short because you feel you have to shift your weight further back on the bike to stay behind the front wheel. Similarly, it's easy to confuse hunching down with weighting the front. I think his happens because riders know they need to weight the front but are scared to, braking late, or both. Make sure that you're not dropping your knees and hips down and back in corners. It's easy to sink your hips back, drop your outside heel and straighten the outside leg. You might be trying to hunch you chest to the bars but your lower body is reverting to that 'butt back' position. So having your chest down is good but you need to make sure your hips are forward and not collapsing (a bad berm habit) too. So to correct that, do that same drill I mentioned before think about pushing yourself forward with your hips and keeping your hips high and in a strong stance. You're not going want your hips high and forward in every turn ever (like when you're struggling for rear traction) but I think practicing it is necessary to find the proper body position.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> Habits are easy to develop and hard to break. Unless you have a wide range of experience across a wide variety of bikes and riding types I think most people just get stuck in what they know.


No question. I see this on the trail all the time and even experienced it myself. I know a guy who every single time he jumps he lifts his rear foot and pedal up, as in ratchets the crank up almost a quarter turn. He can't help it. I'm not sure if he's trying to keep the back of the bike up or what. Unsurprisingly, he's not a great jumper because he never learned the proper technique.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

While we're on cornering technique... I think this video does a great job of touching on some issues people run into by defaulting to the outside foot down technique.






Dropping that foot all the way down causes the bike to want to stand up, you then have to fight the bars with your arms which can cause you to ride stiff or press the inside grip down mid-corner (which can lead to wash outs). He also mentions how it makes it harder to balance front and rear. Dropping the outside pedal makes it easy to sink your hips back too. I think some people even learn the outside pedal down technique using that bad habit (hips sunk and leg straight). It has it's place but I strongly suggest people focus on hip, shoulder, arm position first.

[I'm stuck at home bored if it isn't obvious]


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

holy ****, I ALWAYS drop my outside foot in turns. I literally forced myself to consciously do that over the years because I thought that was proper technique. I think its a reaction to an irrational fear that my inside foot is going to snag on something unless it's at the highest possible position. I've been doing that for years, sub-consciously at this point, and no one ever told me otherwise, so I blamed the bike and my general lack of athletic ability all this time. the latter is probably still part of it, but that technique might be holding me back.

this is why people like me need very slow, literal videos to explain to us what comes naturally to others.

FWIW, I still can't hit a free-throw on a basketball court, nor can I wheelie for more than ten feet after two decades of riding BMX.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

mack_turtle said:


> holy ****, I ALWAYS drop my outside foot in turns. I literally forces myself to consciously do that because I thought that was proper technique. I think its a reaction to an irrational fear that my inside foot is going to snag on something unless it's at the highest possible position. I've been doing that for years, sub-consciously at this point, and no one ever told me otherwise, so I blamed the bike and my general lack of athletic ability all this time. the latter is probably still part of it, but that technique might be holding me back.


I think part of the issue is the technique is often taught as an initial step so riders (including me at one point) think it's a requirement for any flat turn. Some instructors start by teaching it first. I've seen an instructional video telling people to practice dropping their foot before the turn (I guess dropping a foot is something some people need to be taught how to do?).

What I really like about that video is the technique he suggests is 'balanced feet' not necessarily a level foot position. Dropping the outside foot a bit is pretty natural but defaulting to dropping the outside pedal to 6 o'clock and shifting your weight to that foot every turn is a bad habit.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

I'm not sure what to make of that vid, I'm no technique expert and tend to do things by feel but...

Seems to me that while you don't have as much fore/aft balance with a dropped outside foot, but you do have a lower CG and you can feel and modulate the side knob pressure better. Also dropped foot sets you up better for a panic back end out/foot out situation if you're riding the edge.

In an unsupported, low traction, off camber, or uncomfortable corner (often one to my weak turn side) I'll almost always drop an outside foot. If it a well supported or chicane style, clocking a more balanced stance seems to always work better.

Not a fan of absolutes on this technique thing.

EDIT:

__
http://instagr.am/p/B9i9GFkjVXf/


----------



## downcountry (Apr 27, 2019)

mack_turtle said:


> holy ****, I ALWAYS drop my outside foot in turns. I literally forced myself to consciously do that over the years because I thought that was proper technique. I think its a reaction to an irrational fear that my inside foot is going to snag on something unless it's at the highest possible position. I've been doing that for years, sub-consciously at this point, and no one ever told me otherwise, so I blamed the bike and my general lack of athletic ability all this time. the latter is probably still part of it, but that technique might be holding me back.
> 
> this is why people like me need very slow, literal videos to explain to us what comes naturally to others.
> 
> FWIW, I still can't hit a free-throw on a basketball court, nor can I wheelie for more than ten feet after two decades of riding BMX.


Your fear of snagging the inside pedal is 
not irrational at all. Look at some of his turns with pedals level or close to it. On pavement, or wide smooth trail,no problem. On a rough trail, that inside pedal only a couple inches off the ground
could easily snag something. I also think the
idea that outside pedal all the way down is so hard to control is bs. Simply another technique and tool to use. But I would agree that you shouldn't be using it all the time. I highly doubt that technique is really holding you back, unless you use it in really inappropriate situations,
like when you aren't leaned over that much and you are coasting thru turns when you could still be pedaling. 
The bottom line is, like mentioned above by some others, every bike is different, every rider is different, every trail is different. If improving your riding is the main goal, then you absolutely should try some different techniques. But doing so will most likely result in crashes if you are pushing yourself. 
Conversely, if absolutely avoiding crashes is the goal, then don't expect much improvement.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Did Bruni actually race that new 29er bike as stock? He raced mullet, which definitely was not a simple rear wheel swap as there's no big gap between chainring and tire to show the difference in wheel size. https://www.vitalmtb.com/photos/fea...ss-EX-471-Rims-with-CushCore,132024/sspomer,2

People repeated what instructors said in the past, claiming that bike-specific technique is a myth, and that they taught proper technique that works no matter what bike you're on. What they meant that they taught fundamentals that can be adapted.

I don't think we're overanalyzing. I think we're oversimplifying. Things are not figured out, judging by so many contradictory beliefs and people fail to explain.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

EatsDirt said:


> I'm not sure what to make of that vid, I'm no technique expert and tend to do things by feel but...
> 
> Seems to me that while you don't have as much fore/aft balance with a dropped outside foot, but you do have a lower CG and you can feel and modulate the side knob pressure better. Also dropped foot sets you up better for a panic back end out/foot out situation if you're riding the edge.
> 
> ...


Dropping your outside foot is fine when needed. Your footwork should be dynamic. If you're riding a loose off camber or a long sweeper then yeah it might make sense to drop that foot to 6 o'clock. The issue is using it as a default position where every turn you just drop all your weight onto one foot. Even if you watch Simon Lawton who has a ton of videos on dropping your foot, even he says it should be a dynamic movement and doesn't drop to 6 o'clock everytime. My main point was that defaulting to the dropped foot technique can lead to bad habits and poor body position, especially if you learned that dropping that foot is the first step. I'm only suggesting that someone having cornering issues should maybe consider cornering differently.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Surprised people didn't bringing up the "tight twisties" argument in this thread earlier.

Some people can't lean into turns due to the trail twisting to go around trees. In such a case, being able to control the bike through upright handlebar steering can be faster. What geo works well with this? Steep HA XC-style bikes, right? Heck, they can do it while the rider's sitting in the saddle on such bikes.

People are afraid of longer wheelbase and slacker HA making such tight twisties more difficult. People respond by asking about how much weight is on the front wheel, as if there wasn't enough. Can be effected by having too much weight on the front too. I find it easier to turn on XC bikes by having my own weight back and just trusting the bike will go where I point it.

I stick to my original argument, that this is a weight distro argument. Look at how motor vehicles deal with traction control, and deal with such issues. On a bike, the rider does all of these calculations and adjustments to fine tune traction with finesse. We use different words to describe lack of traction, like understeer (when the front wheels lack traction and continue going wide) being referred to wash out. People can sense washout the moment they turn and instinctively overcorrect it by pointing straight again, rolling off the trail. They then blame their own technique. They might recognize it being easier with a different bike setup, but want to spend effort in trying to "conquer" it on their current setup, and then maybe figure it out mentally in hindsight. It's weird...

I get a strong impression that a huge % of the activity on this forum is just the "blind men and the elephant" story. No one's close to putting it all together. Why don't we try harder to do so?


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

jeremy3220 said:


> Dropping your outside foot is fine when needed. Your footwork should be dynamic. If you're riding a loose off camber or a long sweeper then yeah it might make sense to drop that foot to 6 o'clock. The issue is using it as a default position where every turn you just drop all your weight onto one foot. Even if you watch Simon Lawton who has a ton of videos on dropping your foot, even he says it should be a dynamic movement and doesn't drop to 6 o'clock everytime. My main point was that defaulting to the dropped foot technique can lead to bad habits and poor body position, especially if you learned that dropping that foot is the first step. I'm only suggesting that someone having cornering issues should maybe consider cornering differently.


I don't take issue with what you are saying, but I do with Shaums insinuating dumping an outside foot is inferior without qualifying it.

Hell, if I lived in the land of gnome built Velcro trails (he's in Bham now right?) I'd be dropping an outside foot a lot less. Perhaps he's a little too detached from his early days of racing blown out crap trails.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

EatsDirt said:


> I don't take issue with what you are saying, but I do with Shaums insinuating dumping an outside foot is inferior without qualifying it.
> 
> Hell, if I lived in the land of gnome built Velcro trails (he's in Bham now right?) I'd be dropping an outside foot a lot less. Perhaps he's a little too detached from his early days of racing blown out crap trails.


I'm not really sure what you mean. DH racers tend to rarely drop the outside pedal to 6 o'clock and XC racers probably do the most. I consider it primarily a XC technique because it works best on flat tight turns (outside of drifting or taking the inside foot off of course).


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

I drop a foot when it's a smooth corner, or if i plan to slide in to a berm. Rougher terrain were it's not about managing a slide i keep even weighting.

Never really thought about it though.



Always drop a foot on road bike.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

jeremy3220 said:


> I'm not really sure what you mean. DH racers tend to rarely drop the outside pedal to 6 o'clock and XC racers probably do the most. I consider it primarily a XC technique because it works best on flat tight turns (outside of drifting or taking the inside foot off of course).


I'm not sure where the confusion is?

You happen to see the insta link of Graves doing drills dropping close to 6? Close enough yea? Guy is probably the king of multi discipline ripping. I know there are WC DH races where there were flat/offcamber/loose corners and the many guys dump their outside foot almost without fail. If you check the internets I'm sure they're littered with images supporting what I'm saying.

I'm no expert on technique and not quite sure how to articulate what I feel, but I can tell you that I know what works for me... and it's not like I'm slow, sketchy, and riding easy trails.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

scottzg said:


> I drop a foot when it's a smooth corner, or if i plan to slide in to a berm. Rougher terrain were it's not about managing a slide i keep even weighting.
> 
> Never really thought about it though.
> 
> Always drop a foot on road bike.


I didn't think about it either until an enduro hero wannabe told me his "coach" told him to always corner at 3/9. He sucked at cornering until he found a balance.

Agree on the chunky corner technique. Seems being dynamic on the bike is a priority over managing lean angle/traction.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> I get a strong impression that a huge % of the activity on this forum is just the "blind men and the elephant" story. No one's close to putting it all together. Why don't we try harder to do so?


Unfortunately there is no putting it all together. Off road riding is far to dynamic.

Technique can change drastically from one rock garden to the next. Is the rock garden steep but slow, steep/fast, flat/fast, flat/slow, how chunky is it, how long is it? If it's high speed you can just stay in attack position and soak it all up. If it's long and you lose speed you'll have to start unweighting the front to guide the front tire out of any holes.

Same goes for cornering, steep corner, off camber, flat, sandy soil, hard packed blue groove, rocky, rooted?

Weight = friction. So you want your weight where you want traction.... until you don't like when your front tire is about to roll along a length wise root where temporary unweighting is important.

Moving independently from the bike is very important for rough stuff but if you get to loose your bike can get pulled right out from under you while inertia keeps you heading straight.

Getting basics like body position are important mostly so you always have a direction to move in. If your arms are locked out, you'll get pulled over the bars if the front tire drops while the rear hangs on the ledge. Having this range of motion with proper body position is also what allows you to decouple from the bike. Weight distribution is how you control traction. Try to stay relaxed on the bars, the geometry of a bike will cause the front end to try and find grip on its own. If you get tense on the bars the bike won't recover without some dumb luck. The rest comes down to experience and being adaptive.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

I think that the frequency of these geometry discussions points toward "modern" bikes approaching the limit, maybe exceeding the point of practicality. 

I know for one, that my 2019 Honzo is at my limit, particularly regarding reach. Really, I think the "reach" parameter has gone past the point of practicality with some brands. It is a very hard bike to wheelie and manual -- because of the excessive reach (and on my other bike, I can consistently wheelie until the front wheel stops spinning). It has a 50mm stem, and I'm finding that it is too long. On the ground, it rails corners and feels very good. However, my style has always been to manual over things as well as hop and jump to clear obstacles. Regarding HA, I like it slack, but 65 degrees or less on a bike that I intend to climb is pushing it. I feel like you're really not giving up much at 66-68 degrees for all sorts of riding. I have no use for >69 degree head angles though, haha.

All of the new bikes I've ridden, that are extremely long, low, and slack, make that style (manualing, wheelie-ing, jumping over stuff) -- harder. It's neither good nor bad, it's just something to consider.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

EatsDirt said:


> I'm not sure where the confusion is?
> 
> You happen to see the insta link of Graves doing drills dropping close to 6? Close enough yea? Guy is probably the king of multi discipline ripping. I know there are WC DH races where there were flat/offcamber/loose corners and the many guys dump their outside foot almost without fail. If you check the internets I'm sure they're littered with images supporting what I'm saying.


As I've repeatedly stated...



> It has it's place but I strongly suggest people focus on hip, shoulder, arm position first.





> Dropping the outside foot a bit is pretty natural but defaulting to dropping the outside pedal to 6 o'clock and shifting your weight to that foot every turn is a bad habit.





> If you're riding a loose off camber or a long sweeper then yeah it might make sense to drop that foot to 6 o'clock. The issue is using it as a default position where every turn you just drop all your weight onto one foot.


Yes DH and enduro racers use it in certain situations. They however do not default to it and that is the habit I'm suggesting Mack Turtle try to break. If anything it's a waste of energy to drop you weight onto one leg every turn even though it's not necessary.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

something that I have been actively trying to do is switch up my feet. If you're conscious about it, most people find that they have a preferred stance. it's more obvious in skate/snow boarding because you have to stand sideways. in my brief foray into skateboarding, I always skated "goofy footed" which is what skaters call right-foot forward. I can ollie and manual a skateboard by kicking the tail down with my left foot, but if I switch my stance, it's beyond impossible without a ton of practice and un-learning.

if you analyze how you ride, you'll find that you're more comfortable riding certain situations with your feet in one stance or the other. for me, I also ride with my _right foot forward, which seems to make leaning into left turns easier_. If I try to carve a quarter pipe at a skatepark (not something I do often anymore), I can easily get a little air if I carve the ramp right-to-left-right foot forward and making a big left turn. if I try to carve the other way, it's really awkward! apply that to berms or, even worse, flat turns on the trails, and add in loose surfaces on the terrain, and things get dicey.

*I wonder if some of us need to consciously learn to switch our stance according to turn direction. does anyone have experience to back that up?*


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

cookieMonster said:


> All of the new bikes I've ridden, that are extremely long, low, and slack, make that style (manualing, wheelie-ing, jumping over stuff) -- harder. It's neither good nor bad, it's just something to consider.


I think we have agreed to agree on this before. I err on the short, compact side for bikes these days because it seems like bike manufacturers are in a pissing contest to see who can make bikes longer.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

mack_turtle said:


> something that I have been actively trying to do is switch up my feet. If you're conscious about it, most people find that they have a preferred stance. it's more obvious in skate/snow boarding because you have to stand sideways. in my brief foray into skateboarding, I always skated "goofy footed" which is what skaters call right-foot forward. I can ollie and manual a skateboard by kicking the tail down with my left foot, but if I switch my stance, it's beyond impossible without a ton of practice and un-learning.
> 
> if you analyze how you ride, you'll find that you're more comfortable riding certain situations with your feet in one stance or the other. for me, I also ride with my _right foot forward, which seems to make leaning into left turns easier_. If I try to carve a quarter pipe at a skatepark (not something I do often anymore), I can easily get a little air if I carve the ramp right-to-left-right foot forward and making a big left turn. if I try to carve the other way, it's really awkward! apply that to berms or, even worse, flat turns on the trails, and add in loose surfaces on the terrain, and things get dicey.
> 
> *I wonder if some of us need to consciously learn to switch our stance according to turn direction. does anyone have experience to back that up?*


I've tried switching up for years and I'm still not truly ambipedal. I'll switch up mostly to rest my legs if I've been doing a lot of descending but if ****'s going down then I'll always favor my best foot forward.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

mack_turtle said:


> something that I have been actively trying to do is switch up my feet. If you're conscious about it, most people find that they have a preferred stance. it's more obvious in skate/snow boarding because you have to stand sideways. in my brief foray into skateboarding, I always skated "goofy footed" which is what skaters call right-foot forward. I can ollie and manual a skateboard by kicking the tail down with my left foot, but if I switch my stance, it's beyond impossible without a ton of practice and un-learning.
> 
> if you analyze how you ride, you'll find that you're more comfortable riding certain situations with your feet in one stance or the other. for me, I also ride with my _right foot forward, which seems to make leaning into left turns easier_. If I try to carve a quarter pipe at a skatepark (not something I do often anymore), I can easily get a little air if I carve the ramp right-to-left-right foot forward and making a big left turn. if I try to carve the other way, it's really awkward! apply that to berms or, even worse, flat turns on the trails, and add in loose surfaces on the terrain, and things get dicey.
> 
> *I wonder if some of us need to consciously learn to switch our stance according to turn direction. does anyone have experience to back that up?*


I don't think so. Sure you might be more comfotable cornering one way or another but that doesn't mean learning to switch stance will help. Like I said before, body positioning and weight balance is much more important than footwork. This is also another reason not to default to the dropped foot method. If dropping your front foot to 6 o'clock is awkward and unnecessary then the easiest improvement would be to stop dropping your foot to 6 o'clock.

Take your snowboard example. Do snowboard racers switch stances for left and right hand turns because they find one easier than another? Of course not. That's the most complicated way of trying to address the issue. Trying to pedal forward or backward to set a certain foot forward while you're bombing down a DH or enduro trail is silly and that's why you won't see racers doing it 99.9 % of the time.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

IIRC, the level vs dropped corning debate had the internet coaches fighting for a bit a few years ago...maybe Shaums battling w/ Lee McCormack and a few others chiming. My take away was - despite each sort of orientating their explanation from a different point - they ended up saying the same thing: it's dynamic and you'll be metering your pressure and foot position accordingly.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Carl Mega said:


> they ended up saying the same thing: it's dynamic and you'll be metering your pressure and foot position accordingly.


Exactly it's not about level versus dropped. It's about how it's taught and implemented.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Perhaps you missed the point where I said I have no problem with what you're saying, but have a problem with the video is insinuating outside down is inferior.



jeremy3220 said:


> As I've repeatedly stated...
> 
> Yes DH and enduro racers use it in certain situations. They however do not default to it and that is the habit I'm suggesting Mack Turtle try to break. If anything it's a waste of energy to drop you weight onto one leg every turn even though it's not necessary.


No one should default to anything. We weren't debating breaking bad habits.

What I'm saying - and will continue to say - is that outside foot down is a valid technique used by used by many talented gravity riders and not inferior or superior to a more level stance. It's not an "XC technique" and used more often then you seem to believe. A quick search of cornering videos showed many images with outside foot down.

It should go without saying that both have their place as well as the many varying degrees of clocking feet in between. Hell, there's even a place for inside foot down in less then conventional situations.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> something that I have been actively trying to do is switch up my feet. If you're conscious about it, most people find that they have a preferred stance. it's more obvious in skate/snow boarding because you have to stand sideways. in my brief foray into skateboarding, I always skated "goofy footed" which is what skaters call right-foot forward. I can ollie and manual a skateboard by kicking the tail down with my left foot, but if I switch my stance, it's beyond impossible without a ton of practice and un-learning.
> 
> if you analyze how you ride, you'll find that you're more comfortable riding certain situations with your feet in one stance or the other. for me, I also ride with my _right foot forward, which seems to make leaning into left turns easier_. If I try to carve a quarter pipe at a skatepark (not something I do often anymore), I can easily get a little air if I carve the ramp right-to-left-right foot forward and making a big left turn. if I try to carve the other way, it's really awkward! apply that to berms or, even worse, flat turns on the trails, and add in loose surfaces on the terrain, and things get dicey.
> 
> *I wonder if some of us need to consciously learn to switch our stance according to turn direction. does anyone have experience to back that up?*


I've wondered about that for a while too. I pretty much always descend with my left foot back and right foot forward. My left leg is always the leg I plant firmly and kick a ball with my right. I think that's how the habit started. I'll switch it up to give that leg a break, but in rowdy conditions I'm always back to that stance. I can corner both directions equally, so ultimately I don't think it matters that much.

The weird thing is that I've tele-skied for about 25 years now, which is a very similar leg position, and I can turn both ways equally; switching forward/rearward leg with every turn. Same with snowboarding; I can go down the mountain equally regardless of which leg is forward. On a bike, nope -- feels weird to have my left leg forward.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

JoePAz said:


> I think this less about new geo and more about the dropper post. In the days before droppers you could not get as low because the seat was in the way. You had to go back behind the seat and that defined your body position. That same situation also impacts how you can corner. Now being able to get the seat out of the way at will allows a different riding position. This I believe allows for bike geo changes.


Yeah, being able to drop your seat is 99% of it. I would have really liked to seem him try the new school descending on an old school bike!


----------



## Chippertheripper (Sep 10, 2014)

At the risk of sounding more insensitive than I really am, because I fully acknowledge that everyone is different; I have a question.

At what point do we just go out and ride these things that are generally in the 20-40lb range, and not worry? My gut reaction to stuff like this is always, if you can't toss something that lightweight from side to side, or over something (however large or small) maybe riding a bike isn't for you. Whether its too long, or too tall in the head tube or too this or that or too whatever... go do it, or dont.
Right now, I'm not. It's been raining for 2 days and I'm climbing my (hopefully) covid free walls.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Chippertheripper said:


> At the risk of sounding more insensitive than I really am, because I fully acknowledge that everyone is different; I have a question.
> 
> At what point do we just go out and ride these things that are generally in the 20-40lb range, and not worry? My gut reaction to stuff like this is always, if you can't toss something that lightweight from side to side, or over something (however large or small) maybe riding a bike isn't for you. Whether its too long, or too tall in the head tube or too this or that or too whatever... go do it, or dont.
> Right now, I'm not. It's been raining for 2 days and I'm climbing my (hopefully) covid free walls.


Most people like to get better. Getting better usually requires some specific things to practice. You can enjoy riding and practice improving at the same time.


----------



## Chippertheripper (Sep 10, 2014)

Fair enough. 
I realize as hobbyists of varying degrees there’s lots of minutiae to discuss, especially when locked inside, but the end of the day, it’s just minor details. 
Go fast, pull up.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Fajita Dave said:


> Most people like to get better. Getting better usually requires some specific things to practice. You can enjoy riding and practice improving at the same time.


That's how I see it. Everyone should have a reasonable idea of what correct form/technique is - it improves and broadens the experience.

Some people don't like the comparison but this is something I like about skiing's culture: there's a pretty decent expectation of learning the basics and fundamentals of the sport - usually cemented in some form of instruction / clinics. That barely existed in mountain biking until fairly recently.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

cookieMonster said:


> All of the new bikes I've ridden, that are extremely long, low, and slack, make that style (manualing, wheelie-ing, jumping over stuff) -- harder. It's neither good nor bad, it's just something to consider.


How tall are you? My impression is that bikes might be getting too cumbersome for smaller riders and finally hitting that sweet spot for taller ones. I keep going longer and longer... every step feels unnecessary... but nope! just better.



mack_turtle said:


> *I wonder if some of us need to consciously learn to switch our stance according to turn direction. does anyone have experience to back that up?*


I ride left foot forward, and i'll take a half-pedal for left turns. Always. It's funny cuz i'm better at left turns.



Vespasianus said:


> Yeah, being able to drop your seat is 99% of it. I would have really liked to seem him try the new school descending on an old school bike!


One the other hand, new school geo works just dandy with a rigid post. Old bikes are just bad. Sorry mack. 


Chippertheripper said:


> At what point do we just go out and ride these things that are generally in the 20-40lb range, and not worry?


Can't ride when you're stuck working at the computer. Sure can waste time on forums though.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Dropping outside pedal to 6 o'clock is a position that makes you less dynamic to handle anything but the turn itself. The same concept was applied to being at the end-of-your-rope, to discourage its use. You're more dynamic when you're more neutral. Such a position is at the extreme and it takes time to recover from it to initiate another technique afterwards.

Pretty sure these threads won't go away anytime soon, so I rather just point out it's like comparing a Porsche 911 to Porsche Cayman, which is explained here: https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews...14-porsche-cayman-is-better-than-the-911.html

If you read the above edmunds article, you'd understand what I mean when I say that the bikes that call for a forward rider position are basically the 911 of the MTB world; there's more weight on the rear axle when the rider's in a neutral stance. If there's a case for a rider needing to be biased rearward or forward, it seems straightforward to presume that it's to adapt to a bike having too much or too little weight on any single axle and the rider is shifting weight to re-balance that weight distro. The Cayman are the underappreciated ones that get it extra dialed--you'd have to pick the right size in a certain model to get a Cayman's centered balance. The bikes that have riders hanging off the back are like the mainstream standard front-engined cars.

IMO, modern isn't LLS. It's simply low compromise, made with much more understanding. The rider often overlooks them because they're unfamiliar, and feel like overkill; there's less excitement from the ride due to less challenge, and buyers are treating the purchase as an emotional one, looking for some supermodel or soulmate. These gems have existed for decades. They just haven't become mainstream yet. They were ahead of their time and people were able to keep the bikes for years without feeling that new releases were truly worthy upgrades over them. The Honzo and Riot are examples of bikes that get the balance to be more centered/neutral without being long and hard and manual. The caveat is that the balance is size specific; a 5'10 person sizing up to XL will find there's more weight on the rear axle than the M.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

scottzg said:


> How tall are you? My impression is that bikes might be getting too cumbersome for smaller riders and finally hitting that sweet spot for taller ones. I keep going longer and longer... every step feels unnecessary... but nope! just better.
> 
> I ride left foot forward, and i'll take a half-pedal for left turns. Always. It's funny cuz i'm better at left turns.
> 
> ...


I'm 5'10." Riding a large Honzo, which was recommended by the shop owner, my friend- but I think I may have been happier on a medium. I can still get a 35mm stem which would shorten it 15mm. Might be perfect then. It's just a lot longer than my older enduro bike. That bike is much more lively despite being 7 pounds heavier.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

cookieMonster said:


> I'm 5'10." Riding a large Honzo, which was recommended by the shop owner, my friend- but I think I may have been happier on a medium. I can still get a 35mm stem which would shorten it 15mm. Might be perfect then. It's just a lot longer than my older enduro bike. That bike is much more lively despite being 7 pounds heavier.


lol scratch that theory! 5'10 is plenty tall for the geo to work. I looked at your profile; you started riding when i was 3.

It's interesting to see what folks like. Seems like there's no universal truth.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

There's so much proof that oversimplifying is unreliable. This is why we respect those that put out simple answers in the form of $$$$ bikes. It's a complex topic that deserves respect, seeing how there's been continuous improvement with more to anticipate.

One glaring issue is how people have their own definition for things. Like what exactly is liveliness? Springiness? Responsiveness? What do you change to get this feel? Tires that accelerate faster, getting weight low & centered (e.g. shorter wheelbase, lighter tires/wheels), Ti as a frame material, engineering details spec'd to be optimized vs a specific range of forces (e.g. stiffness that considers how hard one rides, and how heavy a rider is), adding support to spring's mid and end stroke, tuning damping to be lighter? Isn't there a sweet spot zone between too lively (twitchy, sketchy, loose, skippy, bucky) and not lively enough (dead, ground hugging), that's subject to personal preference?

Another issue is how changing one thing changes all sorts of others. Responsiveness, predictability, confidence, flickability, etc. This is why I refer to modern designs as not being tied to some trendy pattern like geo, but one that just has less compromise over a competing design. There's a ton of small details that make things more modern, such as extra features like SWAT, and cutting back on overbuilt parts that were over-spec'd for reliability, getting minor performance gains that add up and also make things look more lean & fit. It's easier to credit macro-gains over tons of micro-gains though. I used a couple bikes as an example because they were so ahead of their time that they're still solid choices today over cleaner looking options.

Just saying, how does one answer this from a bike creator's PoV? What do you focus your time and money on? Apparently, the answer is something that can be easily sold due to emotional desirability, where brand image & loyalty plays a big role.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Varaxis said:


> Dropping outside pedal to 6 o'clock is a position that makes you less dynamic to handle anything but the turn itself. The same concept was applied to being at the end-of-your-rope, to discourage its use. You're more dynamic when you're more neutral. Such a position is at the extreme and it takes time to recover from it to initiate another technique afterwards.


That's a good way to put it, especially for gravity type riding.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

jeremy3220 said:


> That's a good way to put it, especially for gravity type riding.


I'm have no interest in coaching sites but another quick google search netted the link below that might enlighten some of you to XC "end of rope" techniques. Or not.

https://betterride.net/blog/2014/mountain-bike-cornering-foot-position-part-2/


----------



## nauc (Sep 9, 2009)




----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

manpurse said:


> How is the video click bait? The title of the video is the same as the content in the video. I think the video explains it quite well.


Everything in the video was highly exaggerated so I couldn't take it seriously.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

nauc said:


>


I'm 6'5" so I'm glad bikes are bigger. There were a few issues with his reasoning I think. He tried to say that people find the cockpit cramped due to the slacker HTA and steeper STA and then decide they need to size up... but that seems like a dumb way to demo bikes. When I was figuring out sizing on my first full suspension bike (2018) I demoed bikes and figured out what reach and stack worked for me based on the fit while standing. Seated fit was a secondary concern and a lot of bikes at the time had sub 74° STA's so the seated position didn't usually feel that cramped even when the reach was a bit too short. Again, I'm 6'5" so my saddle ends up pretty far back. Sure some may end up using that rationale (the cockpit is cramped, better size up) but there's still plenty of bikes out there without steep seat tube angles but with long reaches and slack head tubes. So I don't know why that would be someone's methodology.

Also, pointing out a few pros that were between sizes and sized down doesn't mean much. I mean if the company says you fit on a medium or a large and you pick the medium then they weren't wrong. How about Aaron Gwin on an XL last year? Are bikes too small now?

Seriously though, yeah some probably size up for the confidence and make up for skill deficiencies. Does that mean bikes are too long? Nah. Some are, some aren't, some are still too short. There's a huge variety out there so no worries.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

jeremy3220 said:


> How about Aaron Gwin on an XL last year? Are bikes too small now?
> .


What would he ride if he was 6'5"


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fuse6F said:


> What would he ride if he was 6'5"


Santa Cruz XXL V10 29er maybe


----------



## edubfromktown (Sep 7, 2010)

Times change and so do geo's (along with some of the wiz bang gadgets). 

I just try to not make any assumptions and figure out the nuances of whatever I'm pedaling. I still laugh at people who are hung up on one (or a few pieces of the puzzle) like chain stay length, head angle, stem length... how a bike all works together and handles (with predictability!) is far more important to me. Cost is also a consideration... part of the reason I do not buy current model year new frames.

My newest MTB geo is probably 2017 vintage and it works fine, along with another rigid SS (that is 2014 vintage), a 2015 geo full suspension Scott Spark 930 plus a 2009 Fuji 29er. 

Each has plusses and minuses. I find riding all of them keeps me less stuck up / panties in a bunch about riding a rental MTB or a friend's backup steed when I travel.


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

cookieMonster said:


> Not trying to start a war, but riding with your weight back behind the seat is poor form, not "old school form" -- but it was an adaptation out of necessity. Droppers just made it possible to always have correct form no matter what. I love droppers.


Exactly.

Obviously on a modern geo bike you can ride more over the bars but hanging off the back of the bike in a skid is very poor form. Regardless of bike geo you need your weight to be in the proper place to have enough weight on the front tire to render the front brake completely useless.


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

edubfromktown said:


> Times change and so do geo's (along with some of the wiz bang gadgets).
> 
> I just try to not make any assumptions and figure out the nuances of whatever I'm pedaling. I still laugh at people who are hung up on one (or a few pieces of the puzzle) like chain stay length, head angle, stem length... how a bike all works together and handles (with predictability!) is far more important to me. Cost is also a consideration... part of the reason I do not buy current model year new frames.
> 
> ...


I am pretty much with you, but I think it is b/c i don't ride competitively...in any way. I don't need to be tuned in to all of those nuances for my kind of riding. I tend to be in the saddle for longer periods of time than I am "in the air" due to the bike packing thing. I remember when shopping for my bike I looked more peoples reviews of the sturdiness, and the adaptability to multiple riding situations than I did numbers.

I do pay attention to chain stay length a bit - probably a crossover from BMX - but I also just got used to adjusting to riding whatever I had growing up.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

edubfromktown said:


> I just try to not make any assumptions and figure out the nuances of whatever I'm pedaling. I still laugh at people who are hung up on one (or a few pieces of the puzzle) like chain stay length, head angle, stem length... how a bike all works together and handles (with predictability!) is far more important to me.


That sounds great and in an ideal world that's how everyone would choose what bike to buy.


----------



## edubfromktown (Sep 7, 2010)

jeremy3220 said:


> That sounds great and in an ideal world that's how everyone would choose what bike to buy.


I'd say it is just being more "realistic". So many throw even more money (beyond frame/geometry) seeking "perfection" which may incorporate bling, weight weenie-ness, insane brake stopping power, DI-2 or other technology upgrades.

I go for all around functionality so that my bikes are ridden more frequently. My four main ones get ridden on average once per week. Among them, the FS Scott 930 maybe a bit less often when I'm not hitting more technical trails or hammering on fast-pace urban assaults.

I never went gonzo over fat bikes- just not enough versatility for where I ride. One of my buddies has a very nice/expensive one that gets ridden ~2x per year and sits gathering dust otherwise. If I had a lot of space and disposable income I'd imagine there would be a bike for every day of the week and others for special occasions


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

It seems to me the guy in the video is conflating "old school" style with simply "bad riding habits". Perhaps the issue is that modern (as in post 2015) geo is less forgiving of bad riding habits?

I ride a 2012 5-spot with what is now considered "old school" frame reach and STA (~73.5 deg with the fork I have on there). But when he is demonstrating "old school" vs "modern", I ride the "modern" way. The "old school" techniques (as he shows them) were things that I un-learned ~15 years ago.

Droppers have been mentioned in this thread a few times. I think it is true that in many cases it is hard to ride "modern" style (he shows it) without a dropper. I've been riding with a dropper since 2005. So perhaps I've just had more time to take advantage of the fact that I can get low and forwards when I need to.

He keeps talking about the 90s vs modern, but what he is describing as "modern" is really just a few years old. There is a good 10-15 years when bikes were longer and slacker then the bikes of the 90s, but had not yet taken the step of steepening the STA to go even farther in frame reach.

Interesting video nonetheless.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

EatsDirt said:


> I'm have no interest in coaching sites but another quick google search netted the link below that might enlighten some of you to XC "end of rope" techniques. Or not.
> 
> https://betterride.net/blog/2014/mountain-bike-cornering-foot-position-part-2/


I mostly agree with what he said. The only issue I saw, which was my original point to begin with, is..."we teach most riders to focus on dropping your outside foot and most/all of the time you enter a corner. Where foot down is not required your subconscious "auto-pilot" simply doesn't drop your foot."

Exhibit A...



mack_turtle said:


> holy ****, I ALWAYS drop my outside foot in turns. I literally forced myself to consciously do that over the years because I thought that was proper technique.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

I've noticed newer riders haven't picked up simple basic skills that were required when bikes were full rigid. Like manualing for instance. People are even building contraptions to learn how to manual. Something I've never seen in 30+ years of riding. I can't ride a wheelie but manualing is a beginner skill.


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

Vader said:


> I've noticed newer riders haven't picked up simple basic skills that were required when bikes were full rigid. Like manualing for instance. People are even building contraptions to learn how to manual. Something I've never seen in 30+ years of riding. I can't ride a wheelie but manualing is a beginner skill.


Its about the tool these days, not the craftsman


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Train Wreck said:


> Its about the tool these days, not the craftsman


I never used a manual machine but it seems more like "work smarter, not harder." I imagine it would be a lot faster and easier to learn how to manual on one without the risk of breaking your tailbone.


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

Vader said:


> I've noticed newer riders haven't picked up simple basic skills that were required when bikes were full rigid. Like manualing for instance. People are even building contraptions to learn how to manual. Something I've never seen in 30+ years of riding. I can't ride a wheelie but manualing is a beginner skill.





Train Wreck said:


> Its about the tool these days, not the craftsman


I am going to put that on a bumper sticker



Fajita Dave said:


> I never used a manual machine but it seems more like "work smarter, not harder." I imagine it would be a lot faster and easier to learn how to manual on one without the risk of breaking your tailbone.


hear hear!! to all of this.

I will be called "Boomer" for this (even tho I am Gen x), but I do feel like there are some skills that just can't be learned on non rigid bikes, that are crucial to bike handling.

And learning on a manual machine is only going to give you one element of doing a manual...it negates the whole aspect of moving while doing it...

it would be like having somebody do your homework for yo....oh yeah


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Why do these threads turn into an ego stroke, where people attack strawmen to make it seem like there's so much more stupidity than actually exists?

Why do these threads support a *stop thinking* approach?

Should be encouraging people to further explain their perspective, so they're not so baseless. I guess people discourage this because if they are personally questioned the same way, they'd be judged as flawed. Is being judged is so scary? Do people need authority to do so?

I expect that rather than admit being guilty of such a charge, people get defensive and look for an "out", perhaps something to scapegoat.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

Vader said:


> I've noticed newer riders haven't picked up simple basic skills that were required when bikes were full rigid. Like manualing for instance. People are even building contraptions to learn how to manual. Something I've never seen in 30+ years of riding. I can't ride a wheelie but manualing is a beginner skill.


Hard disagree. Neither are 'beginner' skills. I never did learn to manual properly. I can do it for short distances and at speed to get the front wheel over obstacles, but never got the "pump" thing figured out like some of my friends who could manual forever.

I can ride a wheelie forever though.. Doesn't mean it's a beginner skill though.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

str8edgMTBMXer said:


> I will be called "Boomer" for this (even tho I am Gen x), but I do feel like there are some skills that just can't be learned on non rigid bikes, that are crucial to bike handling.


I want to agree with you. But I coach a a high school mountain bike team and the stuff those kids do on their bikes just blows my mind.

I remember doing a simple session on flat cornering. Set up the corner and watch the kids come into it, they were coming into it so fast that I started to reaching for my first aid kit. But no, every single one of them rips through the corner with absolutely perfect modern technique. Technique that took me 25 years to develop, they go and ride with a local pro copy what he does and nail it perfect everytime.

Put those same kids on crossbikes are they are doing stuff that only the best Pro's were doing 10 years ago.

This is a video they put together a couple of years ago, when they were in grade 9!!


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

cookieMonster said:


> Hard disagree. Neither are 'beginner' skills. I never did learn to manual properly. I can do it for short distances and at speed to get the front wheel over obstacles, but never got the "pump" thing figured out like some of my friends who could manual forever.
> 
> I can ride a wheelie forever though.. Doesn't mean it's a beginner skill though.


agree...wheelies, and long manuals are definitely not beginner! I hate it that I can't ride a wheelie any more...


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

cookieMonster said:


> Hard disagree. Neither are 'beginner' skills. I never did learn to manual properly. I can do it for short distances and at speed to get the front wheel over obstacles, but never got the "pump" thing figured out like some of my friends who could manual forever.
> 
> I can ride a wheelie forever though.. Doesn't mean it's a beginner skill though.


This one was a head-scratcher for me.

Turns out some people say a manual is just lifting the front wheel up for a bit. That's how gmbn shows it. I thought it was riding the rear wheel on the balance point.

I can wheelie, kinda. Fake manual, no problem. Real manual... hahaha. I blame riding clipless.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

To get over trail obstacles I can lift the front wheel for short distances to mini-manual but I still can’t forever-manual. That’s on my list of things to work on while we’re sequestered. 

I had a childhood friend who was totally unhealthy and out of shape but he could ride a wheelie and manual at will around the neighborhood all damned day. I’d always see him rolling down the street one-handed on one wheel while snacking on Ding-Dongs or something with the other hand. He was the most naturally athletic tub-o-lard I’d ever met. No fair.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

scottzg said:


> This one was a head-scratcher for me.
> 
> Turns out some people say a manual is just lifting the front wheel up for a bit. That's how gmbn shows it. I thought it was riding the rear wheel on the balance point.
> 
> I can wheelie, kinda. Fake manual, no problem. Real manual... hahaha. I blame riding clipless.


To me a manual needs to reach a balance point that can be maintained. Anything less would just be unweighting. Technique is similar but to unweight you can half-ass it that will never get the wheel high enough for a manual.

A manual machine let's you learn the balance point and how to control it along with the correct technique to get the front wheel high enough. That takes the most scary aspect of manualing out of the equation to be practice in a safe controlled way. After that you just need to apply it to actually rolling and learn left/right balance and use of rear brake which is far easier than trying to learn all four aspects at once.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

scottzg said:


> This one was a head-scratcher for me.
> 
> Turns out some people say a manual is just lifting the front wheel up for a bit. That's how gmbn shows it. I thought it was riding the rear wheel on the balance point.
> 
> I can wheelie, kinda. Fake manual, no problem. Real manual... hahaha. I blame riding clipless.


Yeah, by "real" manualing I meant a standing wheelie where you use hip placement forward or back to keep the front wheel in the air indefinitely. I do agree that lifting the front wheel momentarily, while sitting or standing, just to clear an obstacle with the front tire is a relatively easy skill. _Keeping_ that wheel in the air is another matter entirely.

For some reason, the standing manual always felt like I was too separated from the bike. And it only takes a half a dozen times or so going over backwards at 20mph to discourage one from continuing learning a skill.

Wheelies though, those always felt right to me. Set the seat at about medium height; use the rear brake to avoid looping out, and pedal to keep the wheel from dropping. Enjoy!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Fajita Dave said:


> To me a manual needs to reach a balance point that can be maintained. Anything less would just be unweighting. Technique is similar but to unweight you can half-ass it that will never get the wheel high enough for a manual.
> 
> A manual machine let's you learn the balance point and how to control it along with the correct technique to get the front wheel high enough.


Yeah, a front wheel lift is just the initiation of an actual manual. I can get my front wheel on anything up to almost handelbar height, but I can rarely manual more than a couple feet at a time.

Also, FWIW, if you can get your hips back far enough, your front wheel doesn't have to come up high at all to manual.

Good pointers here; (Skip to ~4:00)


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

Learning to manual without a rear brake is pretty hardcore


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

Train Wreck said:


> Learning to manual without a rear brake is pretty hardcore


Extremely hardcore. I getting it figured out after hours and hours of practice but I would have never gotten to where I am without my rear brake aka oh **** lever.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Train Wreck said:


> Learning to manual without a rear brake is pretty hardcore


A master at work. No brakes (and no f'ing dropper post ) required. 
Not all manuals, but the rest is worth a look too.


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

^So is that old school or new school?

I noticed the Foot jam, but dudes running some extra wide bars. 

I think we need to modify the term old/new school and just call it all millennial


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Since people ignored my questions, regarding why people are attacking strawmen and encouraging a no-thinking approach, I'll just share my thoughts.

I believe people are trying to imply that things are complex, but also organic in how they evolve, creating sort of a natural/organic progression. In other words, it's simple for the one living through the evolution to understand it with their lifetime of experience, but it's extremely hard for strangers to understand the complexity from an outside perspective if they haven't lived through it.

Many people will attempt to copy skilled riders, but there will be very mixed results for a number of reasons. Some will say that their bike is holding them back. Some will be able to afford the same bike, but say that not having the same body (e.g. height, muscle build) is holding them back. Some will have the same bike and same body, but find that 1000s of hours riding on a different bike in a different style (e.g. roadie) made for some hard to break habits that held them back...

There will be people who can do stuff like the skilled riders and never heard of any, having figured it out on their own. They might have just continued a habit of getting out to ride in the street and do stunts, breaking bikes and bones, trying to push their limits in an extreme way. With each broken bike, they thought about what their next bike should have to improve on the last to meet their progression demands, like shorter CS. Is it not natural to play with minor puzzle pieces like this? The only thing that may be holding them back is exhaustion and whatever checkboxes they kept permanently ticked, such as the amount they wished to spend or what specific bike architecture* they wanted to stick to. Architecture being DH-like (slopestyle) vs XC-like (short travel DJ), or BMX/cruiser hybrid (SE) vs BMX/trials hybrid (inspired), or in this thread's case, old school vs new.

Horses for courses? In another case, if the bike's not broken, they might feel like there's room to shed weight, and that includes making the frame more compact (including stubby front end) and less complex. They can ride such a stubby bike on the steepest descent that they dare ride, hanging off the back, and still feel like they have more room to improve elsewhere since such steeps are so rare. People made these decisions organically, in sort of a trial-and-error manner. The simple logic works out in their head, even if doesn't gain any consensus on these forums. They think they can keep up with others riding the latest and greatest if they just put their mind into progressing their own style at a rate that's comfortable for them, without risking their job/financial security through injury. Framing new school trends as the way to go might be disagreeable if they have a lot of progression that they don't want to lose a chunk of with a massive shift, or agreeable if they're open to the style and plan on adopting it once they get the equipment (not having much to lose, but seeing much more potential to gain).

It's amusing how the thread digresses into something like manuals. I consider it a fact that manuals and whatever can be easier on old vs new, but why is that? I think it mostly has to do with weight distribution, not in terms of weight on the axles, but in terms of the weight's location on the bike and leverage. A shorter CS makes it so the rider's weight is generally more over the back of the bike, rather than causing the front to fall back down and a shorter wheelbase makes the front of the bike feel less heavy, reducing the energy requirement to get it into the air. These have trade offs, with shorter WB and CS allowing bumps to more easily unstabilize the bike and making the bike sensitive to rider input, not being as forgiving to poor technique. There's no perfect geo, just geo that's optimized for one thing or another. I can understand the draw to familiarity to retain training time and doing things with baby steps for safe progression. New and modern should simply be seen as less compromise--nothing revolutionary here, just people getting attention redirected to where ever designers are revising thing for incremental improvement and people trying to drive trends to get more money going to where they personally want.

This all reminds me of all the complaints about robotic recommendations and meta critic stuff. If only people personally recognized the value of their own time and the value experts offer that can save you time and frustration with a more 1-to-1 approach where they know you well and know your trails and surrounding area well. Reminds me that I can think of many other things I can better be spend my time on than watching people be futile at asserting their opinions/beliefs onto others.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

cookieMonster said:


> The weird thing is that I've tele-skied for about 25 years now, which is a very similar leg position, and I can turn both ways equally; switching forward/rearward leg with every turn. Same with snowboarding; I can go down the mountain equally regardless of which leg is forward. On a bike, nope -- feels weird to have my left leg forward.


That's interesting. You'd think you'd be able to ride a bike with either foot forward since you can tele ski and snowboard switch.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

Varaxis said:


> Since people ignored my questions, regarding why people are attacking strawmen and encouraging a no-thinking approach, I'll just share my thoughts.
> 
> I believe people are trying to imply that things are complex, but also organic in how they evolve, creating sort of a natural/organic progression. In other words, it's simple for the one living through the evolution to understand it with their lifetime of experience, but it's extremely hard for strangers to understand the complexity from an outside perspective if they haven't lived through it.
> 
> ...


Who pissed on your Cheerios?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

cookieMonster said:


> Who pissed on your Cheerios?


You took the time to read through all of that? I skipped ahead.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Train Wreck said:


> ^So is that old school or new school?


Ditching school...


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Nat said:


> That's interesting. You'd think you'd be able to ride a bike with either foot forward since you can tele ski and snowboard switch.


I can snowboard switch but riding right foot forward has been tough to learn. The bike moves under you differently and my muscle memory is set with left foot forward. When I ride right foot forward my brain can't seem to deal with the input my legs are sending up haha!

I've been riding opposite foot forward on the easier descents and gradually doing it on harder descents. I'm getting much more comfortable with it and find some situations I prefer right foot forward now like left turns. It helps me open my hips to the inside of the corner.


----------



## TylerVernon (Nov 10, 2019)

EatsDirt said:


> Totally agree. The video guy demonstrating "old school technique" on a modern bike is a bit silly.


I see videos of crashes pretty often with people doing the old school descending style on a new school bike.

Good upper body strength gives a rider more flexibility on body position.


----------



## Jono_SK (Feb 11, 2019)

How do you find the Process climbs? With the steep STA, but the short chainstays - do you have trouble with the front wheel lifting on steep pitches? Or are you able to stay seated and spin pretty easily? How much body language do you need to use to keep that front wheel planted?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Fajita Dave said:


> I can snowboard switch but riding right foot forward has been tough to learn. The bike moves under you differently and my muscle memory is set with left foot forward. When I ride right foot forward my brain can't seem to deal with the input my legs are sending up haha!
> 
> I've been riding opposite foot forward on the easier descents and gradually doing it on harder descents. I'm getting much more comfortable with it and find some situations I prefer right foot forward now like left turns. It helps me open my hips to the inside of the corner.


I can snowboard switch but just barely. I'm like a total beginner again switch. I've been riding my bike with my "bad foot" forward to train myself and to rest my legs on prolonged descents but if things are getting rowdy then there's no way I'd want to do that.


----------



## mrallen (Oct 11, 2017)

mack_turtle said:


> interesting: I find that my bike has a short front-center and short reach for it's size (medium Karate Monkey with a 50mm stem) and I have trouble on flat corners at speed. I am actively trying to stay off the brakes and let the tires dig in, but the front tire starts to break free and I have to modulate the brakes to stay upright. if the top layer of dirt is loose, that makes it predictably difficult, but I still never feel good if the dirt is firm or there's a small sculpted berm there. I can't seem to take the turn tight enough and overshoot the exit.
> 
> I find that I can't get my handlebar LOW enough. right now I have it just high enough that the brake levers clear the TT if the bike gets tangled up, but I'd like them lower. am I subconsciously putting my bars lower and lower to make up for the bike's otherwise extreme rear-bias of a frame with a slack STA and short rear end?
> 
> Most of my trails are relatively flat but technical/rocky with some punchy ups and downs. There are also some densely-wooded, flat, twisty sections where I feel I could go faster, but I am often faster in these sections than others, perhaps due to my short wheelbase. I don't have problems climbing or descending that I am aware of.


Pretty sure we are in the same area, so I understand your trails. With all the unpredictable turns that have a mix of loose rocks and actual grip, I think body position mistakes are highlighted more here. Had a buddy that rode here for a couple of years and then moved to CO. He struggled when he came back to ride a couple of years later and I believe it was all down to the terrain punishing less than optimal position versus somewhere with good, consistent grip. So, I think we have to focus on it more here than some other places.

Since I have a bike problem, I've gone through a lot of them over the last several years and I definitely find a significant difference with long reach bikes versus shorter reach bikes. Maybe long front center is a better measure actually. I have found that I have to consciously force more weight onto the front wheel of my 64 degree, 475 reach bike than I do with my short travel 67.3 440 reach one. By more weight, I mean that I am pushing much harder into the front than I was initially comfortable with and it's still something I have to focus on at turns.

The other thing I've noticed helps is really weighting the bike overall when initiating flat turns with a bias to the front wheel. Basically becoming light and then heavy all at once. Once the front wheel is leaned over and tracking, the turn happens a lot more smoothly and faster.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

mrallen said:


> The other thing I've noticed helps is really weighting the bike overall when initiating flat turns with a bias to the front wheel. Basically becoming light and then heavy all at once. Once the front wheel is leaned over and tracking, the turn happens a lot more smoothly and faster.


Steve talked about this concept of dynamically weighting the bike in the last Vorsprung Tuesday Tune video.





This is generally the same concept as getting your braking timed properly, using dynamic foot movements and pumping corners. I've found that often running wide in a turn and feeling locked in a static position through the turn go hand in hand.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Post #1's video wording on cornering needs to be re-written.

He tries to say old school vs new school, when it looks more like lazy casual vs skilled to me. Lazy casual technique fails whenever traction loss is possible. Skilled is simply about getting your shoulders/elbows dropped and using the _extension at your elbows to point the wheel where you want to go_. Don't try to imagine that you need to lean, rather than bar turn, and don't be trying to imagine that bar dragging is the pinnacle of skill. Just keep it simple and point the wheel where you want to go; it's the same push/pump technique to roll a drop-off, and can feel like you're just pushing the bike towards the exit of the turn instead. The only decision you should need to make is how low you drop your shoulders before corner entry, as that takes energy/effort and could be wasted for easy turns as an exaggeration of technique.

Lowering the bars could be counter productive. Think of the wasted energy used to hold a body position that's dictated by excessively low bars. I suppose it's okay for when you ride at the fastest pace that your traction allows for the entire ride, and have your the downstroke of the legs helping to hold your upper body weight up. Without the legs helping to hold your upper body up, at a less strenuous pace, it's going to be fatiguing to your lower back and arms to split the duty of holding up the upper body. You end up assuming the lazy casual position and have your crotch and/or wrist take excessive pressure until you can't continue on any longer. If the grips are high enough, you can maybe angle your brake levers to be more level too, adopting an elbows-behind-grips position which goes well with spurts of race-pace leg power output, while still retaining bent elbows ("new school position"). Generally, you want your upper body stable, not in an angle that wants to fall lower nor an upright one that has most its weight going into crotch pressure (and more liable to be bucked off). You want your back angle to be settled in either a plank/push-up position or a slightly forward position that you are not trying to keep propped up or pulled back upright. Think of the range of angles that causes your upper body's weight to fall forward to be no-man's-land in bike setup, and also the angles that have it all resting on the saddle. You want an easy to hold position that can be sustained for long rides with least effort, that allows your arms to be free to control the bike without the upper body moving along with the arms.

TL;DR: that straight-armed position is not entirely a bad nor old school position. It's just the position that takes the least amount of energy to hold, having the weight of the upper body split between arms, legs, and back. The angle of the back is the key, having two sweet spots: the aggro plank position and the semi-upright. Any back angles that are between these sweet spots, or further upright, is a needless drain on your energy. The problem with straight-arming is that the elbows aren't bent to allow for pumping--it's like running 0% sag in your suspension. I argue that it's more important to tune for back angle and sag in your arms, such as by raising the position of the grips to be level with saddle, than fuss over all this other stuff. Design/adapt the bike for such an ergonomic position, one where the body is well suspended (stable), so the body doesn't have to adapt to the bike (and also so ppl don't have to adapt the trails to fit them and their bike).


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

Old or new, who cares just ride, just ride. Collect your checks from the government and ride your bicycles.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Fajita Dave said:


> I can snowboard switch but riding right foot forward has been tough to learn. The bike moves under you differently and my muscle memory is set with left foot forward. When I ride right foot forward my brain can't seem to deal with the input my legs are sending up haha!
> 
> I've been riding opposite foot forward on the easier descents and gradually doing it on harder descents. I'm getting much more comfortable with it and find some situations I prefer right foot forward now like left turns. It helps me open my hips to the inside of the corner.


Most people, by default have the "chocolate foot". This can be changed with loads of practice. I omitted the chocolate foot during my observed trials era since it was a necessity more in the discipline than any other IME. Get out there, have a freakin good time with a bike!



matt4x4 said:


> Old or new, who cares just ride, just ride. Collect your checks from the government and ride your bicycles.


Many of us ride and don't label it so it sounds "impressive" or "authoritarian" and do what works. There really is more "timeless" methods than old or new, regardless of anything else.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

We wouldn't be in this thread if we didn't care. We're just trying to find better words to describe the same idea of "optimized technique", and how it all changes with different bikes. Old vs New, modern, etc. are not very accurate.

P.S. matt4x4 the neg rep I just gave you is not really solely directed at your last post, but for you promoting anti-social attitude/behavior over a long period. I just ran out of patience...


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

BansheeRune said:


> Most people, by default have the "chocolate foot".


Chocolate foot! I've never heard that term before.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Varaxis said:


> We wouldn't be in this thread if we didn't care. We're just trying to find better words to describe the same idea of "optimized technique", and how it all changes with different bikes. Old vs New, modern, etc. are not very accurate.


I am amused by the fact that most moves are nothing remotely new. People use what works for them, which may or may not work for the next rider.

Carry on!



Nat said:


> Chocolate foot! I've never heard that term before.


A common reference in flatland and trials that refers to the favored foot forward.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Fajita Dave said:


> I can snowboard switch but riding right foot forward has been tough to learn. The bike moves under you differently and my muscle memory is set with left foot forward. When I ride right foot forward my brain can't seem to deal with the input my legs are sending up haha!
> 
> I've been riding opposite foot forward on the easier descents and gradually doing it on harder descents. I'm getting much more comfortable with it and find some situations I prefer right foot forward now like left turns. It helps me open my hips to the inside of the corner.


Oooh, you've hit on 2 things i find super interesting- side-dominance and snowboarding. I'm moderately left dominant- i'm left handed, skate/snowboard goofy, but when i'm exposed to a totally new skill it's random what i'll choose to do. I do some activities right handed, cuz the new skill felt weird both ways. I can ride snowboards non-goofy and look good if i do it 3 consecutive runs. I can play golf/pool right handed and do well if i practice a couple rounds. But i'll revert to left handed eventually.

I've never been an amazing mtb'er, but at my best i was a 'edge of the bell curve' snowboarder. No problems with flips, 360s, pro-lines, cliff drops, etc. (i have a bad knee and can't snowboard much now)

I can snowboard switch reasonably well, despite never practicing it. Similarly, i have a strong preference for left foot forward on the bike, but i switch when it's a right turn.
_____________________________________________________

So i'm left-dominant, but not strictly left. I mentioned earlier in this thread that i'll spin the cranks to have a favorable foot forward when it feels right for the turn. I love the idea that ambivalent dominance interacts with best practices with bike handling.

As i understand it, 12% of the population is left dominant, but another 12% is right dominant but ambivalent. Or at least it's complicated for a minority of righties. It's interesting.

Sorry for the word spaghetti.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Anyone push "Mongo" style on a skateboard? I skate and snowboard left foot forward as well with the bike...but when I started skating...I pushed with my left foot. I eventually learned to push with my right foot though.


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

scottzg;14666959
Sorry for the word spaghetti.[/QUOTE said:


> As long as you got grated parmesan cheese with that spaghetti then its a-ok!
> Dont forget a lil bit o pepper too.
> 
> Kansas is rioting, setting afire, lets pop some popcorn.
> ...


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

Varaxis said:


> We wouldn't be in this thread if we didn't care. We're just trying to find better words to describe the same idea of "optimized technique", and how it all changes with different bikes. Old vs New, modern, etc. are not very accurate.
> 
> P.S. matt4x4 the neg rep I just gave you is not really solely directed at your last post, but for you promoting anti-social attitude/behavior over a long period. I just ran out of patience...


Just ride, it doesnt matter which way you ride so long as you ride.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

So what do people think about what these guys measured here:






All of these bikes are supposed to have seat tube angles of ~76 degrees. For taller people, for the five bikes tested, the numbers are really between 68.5-73.5. In such a case, can people with longer legs go to a size up but still have a manageable top tube length?


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

cookieMonster said:


> Who pissed on your Cheerios?


Who cares!


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

cookieMonster said:


> Who pissed on your Cheerios?


I did cause I hate shitty-o's!



Fajita Dave said:


> I can make the best fajitas in the US of A!


When ya gonna share some of dem fajitas?? They put Cherrios to shame!


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

BansheeRune said:


> I did cause I hate shitty-o's!
> 
> When ya gonna share some of dem fajitas?? They put Cherrios to shame!


I got the nickname because I completely screwed up making fajitas ?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

haha...

Dave's not here,man!

No ****, he absconded with the fajitas!!


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Vespasianus said:


> So what do people think about what these guys measured here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They raised and lowered the seat on a medium. We don't know if manufacturers are adjusting the actual seat angle to keep the effective angle consistent across sizes. We know banshee doesn't, but they publish that, so it's hard to fault them. I thought that portion of the video was bad science.

As far as leggy cyclists- i worked as a fitter once upon a time. The big takeaway for me was that people aren't as unique as they think. 'Long legs' is almost always <1" longer than you'd expect at a given height, assuming they didn't have something going on with their back/neck, too. Typically leggy riders also had long arms too, and were perfectly comfortable on the larger bike. It was extremely rare to have a healthy rider who warranted an oddball fit. Very common for them to want it, though.

Short legs/arms could be a challenge to fit, though. And short people on 700c road bikes... hahaha poor souls.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

What was bad about that science? They gave more measurements, which is useful for anyone who values making informed decisions, over faithful or emotional ones.

If you're an XL frame rider, the "grain of salt" you use to glean useful info from a bike test done on medium sized frames has to be pretty amazing. Not only does it have to account for personal preference/taste, but also account for someone being a totally different human being with their own biases. Do you calibrate this "grain of salt" by trying to repeat the test yourself? Does that calibration work when things become more complicated and virtual/effective #s are all you have to work with? I'm not arrogant enough to claim I know how someone feels and can relate to them.

If I were to try and guess what the "bad science" is, I'd be pointing at the meta-analysis of the original tests and all the extrapolating or reading between the lines.

That video helped put context to the words and feelings people have when they try to explain their experience on bikes here. Someone who says a Ripley is too steep in STA, bothered by too much pressure on their wrists, when this video measures it slacker than claimed...


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Varaxis said:


> What was bad about that science? They gave more measurements, which is useful for anyone who values making informed decisions, over faithful or emotional ones.
> 
> If you're an XL frame rider, the "grain of salt" you use to glean useful info from a bike test done on medium sized frames has to be pretty amazing. Not only does it have to account for personal preference/taste, but also account for someone being a totally different human being with their own biases. Do you calibrate this "grain of salt" by trying to repeat the test yourself? Does that calibration work when things become more complicated and virtual/effective #s are all you have to work with? I'm not arrogant enough to claim I know how someone feels and can relate to them.
> 
> ...


I was pretty clear.

-The person with an 800mm inseam that should be riding a medium doesn't exist. Their measured seat angles were accurate for the intended user.
-They can't make assumptions about how X brand's large fits based off measuring the medium.

This is misleading. They should have stopped after the bit with the pringles cans.

The core concept- offset seat tubes mean effective seat angle might not be as advertised... true. IMO end user doesn't need to know the number. Seat angle interacts with other geo so XX* seat angle means nothing. IMO if you want to worry about numbers you should be measuring/modeling your frames. More customers measuring frames will put a lot of pressure on manufacturers to stop building shitty small and XL frames. (also we should look at cockpit length and front-center, rather than the current popular measures)


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

scottzg said:


> They raised and lowered the seat on a medium. We don't know if manufacturers are adjusting the actual seat angle to keep the effective angle consistent across sizes. We know banshee doesn't, but they publish that, so it's hard to fault them. I thought that portion of the video was bad science.
> 
> As far as leggy cyclists- i worked as a fitter once upon a time. The big takeaway for me was that people aren't as unique as they think. 'Long legs' is almost always <1" longer than you'd expect at a given height, assuming they didn't have something going on with their back/neck, too. Typically leggy riders also had long arms too, and were perfectly comfortable on the larger bike. It was extremely rare to have a healthy rider who warranted an oddball fit. Very common for them to want it, though.
> 
> Short legs/arms could be a challenge to fit, though. And short people on 700c road bikes... hahaha poor souls.


Well, the Ripley was a large but I think it is important for people to remember that bike fit still means a lot and to get the most out of the bike, get one that fits properly.

One thing I did not like is that they did not provide the seat angle at the ride height their people we're using. I wonder if that measurement varied dramatically from what was stated. I think we can all get worked up about numbers that in reality, may not exist.

Banshee publishes their seat angle at different seat angles but they were nothing like what was actually measured. Now, it is possible this guy screwed up.

Personally, I just ride my darn bike and try to have fun.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

scottzg said:


> IMO if you want to worry about numbers you should be measuring/modeling your frames. More customers measuring frames will put a lot of pressure on manufacturers to stop building shitty small and XL frames. (also we should look at cockpit length and front-center, rather than the current popular measures)


If more peeps were doing their homework, they might be contacting a frame builder to build to suit something we do not all a crash test dummy...


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

This is turning into another topic about the incomplete scaling/proportionality between different frame sizes to fit a wide range of people. When it's only seat tube length, reach, and head tube length that changes...

Spec bought Retul (fitting system), using the data to make the decision to nix their women-specific frame line-up, and nix traditional sizing to give people a choice between 2-3 sizes based on preference (e.g. S3, S4, S5 sizing on new Enduro). Downsize to get something that wants more rearward positioning, upsize for something that wants more forward position. Or opt for a more XCish model (shorter front center) to get even more rearward position?

Still, they gotta play according to the economy and deliver what paying customers demand in order to collect their checks. Perfection is not really their goal, at least not in the _be-all and end-all _sense of the word.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

BansheeRune said:


> If more peeps were doing their homework, they might be contacting a frame builder to build to suit something we do not all a crash test dummy...


Back in 2007-2011, I often checked the angle of the bikes on the shop floor. They tended to vary and few were as advertised. Mountainbikers for the most part are sheep so if we are told a bike has a 76 degree seat angle and that it will climb like a goat, we will believe it unconditionally. And we will swear that we can feel a half a degree head angle change and the difference between a bike with a bb of 13.2" and 13.15". And to take it back to the OP, from an old bike ridding style to a new bike riding style.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Varaxis said:


> This is turning into another topic about the incomplete scaling/proportionality between different frame sizes to fit a wide range of people.


True, but frame geo and riding style interact. Wasn't that the point of the video?



Vespasianus said:


> Back in 2007-2011, I often checked the angle of the bikes on the shop floor. They tended to vary and few were as advertised. Mountainbikers for the most part are sheep so if we are told a bike has a 76 degree seat angle and that it will climb like a goat, we will believe it unconditionally. And we will swear that we can feel a half a degree head angle change and the difference between a bike with a bb of 13.2" and 13.15". And to take it back to the OP, from an old bike ridding style to a new bike riding style.


If you're changing 1 variable on a frame you're intimately familiar with you can ABSOLUTELY feel .5* of head angle, or 5mm of chainstay, or whatever. All of a sudden your instincts are wrong. That's how 650b took over- 8mm more rim radius, but clearly perceptible to people putting them on their 26'ers. Also koolaid.

...but as you say. Can't trust the manufacturers.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

BansheeRune said:


> If more peeps were doing their homework, they might be contacting a frame builder to build to suit something we do not all a crash test dummy...


It's absolutely amazing to me how common XTR/XX1 is compared to custom frames. Custom frames are CHEAP compared to all the gimmickry at the high end. It's a weird manifestation of how advertising and mass production feed each other.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

scottzg said:


> It's absolutely amazing to me how common XTR/XX1 is compared to custom frames. Custom frames are CHEAP compared to all the gimmickry at the high end. It's a weird manifestation of how advertising and mass production feed each other.


Personally I LOVE XTR. Don't own any myself, but when it (d)evolves into XT at a third of the price, that stuff is epic!


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

scottzg said:


> It's absolutely amazing to me how common XTR/XX1 is compared to custom frames. Custom frames are CHEAP compared to all the gimmickry at the high end. It's a weird manifestation of how advertising and mass production feed each other.


Are there many manufacturers making custom full-suspension frames these days or are most of the custom builders sticking to hardtail/rigid designs?


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Nat said:


> Are there many manufacturers making custom full-suspension frames these days or are most of the custom builders sticking to hardtail/rigid designs?


There's a bunch of individual builders doing custom FS. Larger shops that are price competitive are getting less common, but there's enough. Ventana is still around, for example. Marino is weirdly cheap. Waltworks has been in the biz forever, and he's the authority on the thing he does. There's a bunch price-competitive '2 dudes in a shed' builders in the UK, if you trust that model. There's infinite choices if you're dropping >3k... ie what a mass market carbon frame costs.

The problem is folks with a 5k budget don't even explore those options. 'what does pinkbike recommend? ok what's where i'll spend 20% of my discretionary income this year!' No!! At least explore the custom alternatives.

...And IMO a well executed hardtail is superior to most FS alternatives once you're buying good kit, if you're open to the concept.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

scottzg said:


> There's a bunch of individual builders doing custom FS. Larger shops that are price competitive are getting less common, but there's enough. Ventana is still around, for example. Marino is weirdly cheap. Waltworks has been in the biz forever, and he's the authority on the thing he does. There's a bunch price-competitive '2 dudes in a shed' builders in the UK, if you trust that model. There's infinite choices if you're dropping >3k... ie what a mass market carbon frame costs.
> 
> The problem is folks with a 5k budget don't even explore those options. 'what does pinkbike recommend? ok what's where i'll spend 20% of my discretionary income this year!' No!! At least explore the custom alternatives.
> 
> ...And IMO a well executed hardtail is superior to most FS alternatives once you're buying good kit, if you're open to the concept.


Having been part of the hand crafted custom sports equipment biz, I have a couple of thoughts.

Test riding the exact bike you will ultimately buy is a comforting thing and reduces any potential problems with variables in manufacturing etc. Going custom can come with unwelcome surprises.

Typically larger companies are better with warranty turn-around, if that is a concern. It is for me.

If you are of average ability/size/proportions etc, chances are off the rack bikes will work great for you. (goes back to fit comments)

It's understandable how some people might have needs or preferences outside of the readily available bikes on the market, but for most going custom doesn't make much sense IMO.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

EatsDirt said:


> Having been part of the hand crafted custom sports equipment biz, I have a couple of thoughts.
> 
> Test riding the exact bike you will ultimately buy is a comforting thing and reduces any potential problems with variables in manufacturing etc. Going custom can come with unwelcome surprises.
> 
> ...


Agreed on all points, to varying degree. The only thing i feel strongly about is that 90% of high end consumers don't even consider the custom market, while it might be an excellent alternative for 40% of them. That's a lot of missed opportunity on both sides. ...And man let me tell you about how distressing it is being that minority and breaking a frame every year or so....

Any time an enthusiast rider spends exploring what custom design can offer is time well spent. For themselves and for the sport as a whole.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

There's just a huge difference between well executed bikes and a majority of others. There's some well executed FS in the $2500 USD range that beat virtually all HT options. You're just showing HT bias now. You gotta be riding trails that only have a low frequency of high energy impacts to even compare to FS, else you'll be hitting brakes to give time for the body to recover between impacts.

With a knowledge of modeling out bikes, what do you think are the measurements that people are neglecting? What can the industry do to standardize measurements? Measurements like the horizontal distance between BB and saddle clamp at standardized seat heights (650 to 800mm, in 25mm increments), or distance between saddle clamp and grips, to improve on how questionable ETT and STA are for determining seated fit?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Vespasianus said:


> Back in 2007-2011, I often checked the angle of the bikes on the shop floor. They tended to vary and few were as advertised. Mountainbikers for the most part are sheep so if we are told a bike has a 76 degree seat angle and that it will climb like a goat, we will believe it unconditionally. And we will swear that we can feel a half a degree head angle change and the difference between a bike with a bb of 13.2" and 13.15". And to take it back to the OP, from an old bike ridding style to a new bike riding style.


Pfft! There is an issue due to paper. A fork with A/C xxxmm is specced and according to AutoCAD, it allows for angles to be chosen for the frame. In reality, said fork is supplied by XYZ Suspension with an A/C of yyymm, will the real world measurements concur with paper... It all gets lost in translation between design and OEM supplied components which changes the whole mess...



scottzg said:


> Any time an enthusiast rider spends exploring what custom design can offer is time well spent. For themselves and for the sport as a whole.


I've done my share of frame design in both Solid Works and AutoCAD as well as fabrication. It would be interesting to see what imagination of more folks would bring to be for us to see and experience. There is only one thing holding us back, called imagination and the willingness to experiment.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

This the best video I have seen that illustrates new versus old riding style. One rider who was absolutely amazing in his day and is son who his amazing now


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I don't really see new vs old in that video. I just see "attacking" and being "energy conserving". The amount each rider is using their arm and leg travel is quite different--one often is propping their arms and legs straight, while the other has their arms and legs "sagged". Holding a body in a certain position takes effort (like isometric exercise), probably not much less than being loose and free.

When I see old vs new, in terms of having body weight shifted over the rear vs being over the front, I might get clued in by the pictures of how the riders are positioned on the bike in situations when they are at the limit of traction:









High percentage of pictures with arms in superman position:
- https://enduro-mtb.com/en/deviate-highlander-2020-review/

Heck, can even just do a google image search see if it's a trend with a certain model of bike like this one:
- https://www.google.com/search?q=Giant+Reign+E&tbm=isch


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Varaxis said:


> There's just a huge difference between well executed bikes and a majority of others. There's some well executed FS in the $2500 USD range that beat virtually all HT options. You're just showing HT bias now. You gotta be riding trails that only have a low frequency of high energy impacts to even compare to FS, else you'll be hitting brakes to give time for the body to recover between impacts.
> 
> With a knowledge of modeling out bikes, what do you think are the measurements that people are neglecting? What can the industry do to standardize measurements? Measurements like the horizontal distance between BB and saddle clamp at standardized seat heights (650 to 800mm, in 25mm increments), or distance between saddle clamp and grips, to improve on how questionable ETT and STA are for determining seated fit?


Yeah, i think hardtails are an excellent alternative for all but the choppiest trails systems at a moderate price point. I also think hardtails are really fun, and they avoid a lot of durability/expense pitfalls. I'm pro-hardtail. Biased cuz experience. I bought my first FS frame the same year i built my first hardtail, over 10 years ago. I like FS too, in theory. I've had >5 fs bikes, and multiple custom tuned shocks.

I'm pretty sure i addressed measurements already in this thread. Look at saddle clamp to stem clamp, and front-center. Then look at all the other numbers to see how the bike will handle. Clamp-clamp is fit, front-center is stability. The rest describes rider position, steering geo, weight distro, etc. It's so much easier to figure out for yourself once you're looking at the right numbers. I don't know what is optimal for you; i'm still learning too.


BansheeRune said:


> It would be interesting to see what imagination of more folks would bring to be for us to see and experience. There is only one thing holding us back, called imagination and the willingness to experiment.


YES!

The more people who know what's important and can meaningfully participate in the discussion, the better. It's why i'm babbling about cockpit length and front-center. How does the bike fit? How stable is it? From there we can explore potential optimizations together. Reach and stack were an improvement, but they're outdated now in 2018.

I don't know what the future holds, but i know this is the language we'll use to describe it.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Varaxis said:


> High percentage of pictures with arms in superman position:
> - https://enduro-mtb.com/en/deviate-highlander-2020-review/


You'll see a bunch of pics of riders with their arms straight and their front wheel off the ground because they're probably pushing the front down. You can find pics of whatever riding position you want online. Good riders use dynamic body positioning so you'll see pics online of riders with their arms straight, arms bent, bars in their lap, foot clocked at every position, etc. A single snapshot doesn't tell you much about riding technique.

It wouldn't make sense to take one frame of someone jumping and say "see, this should be your body position while jumping".









It's very true you're not going to see DH racers spending a lot of time super far forward with their nips rubbing the bars like in Steve's video. When you look at just DH racing over the past 10 years there is a bit of a difference in general/neutral body position due to the bikes getting longer but it's not the difference shown in the original post. Overall, this is a very simple issue...if you need more front tire traction shift your weight forward, if you need more rear tire traction shift your weight back.

In the first 5 seconds of this video you can see Bruni's body position is all over the place.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Lets just agree that trying to oversimplify things makes people seem stupid. You look stupid to me. I look stupid to you. These are simple impressions that likely are from one point of analysis that was cherry picked. You don't know the unknown factors I didn't mention to combine with the hints that the pics give me that lead to my impression. You seem to dumb yourself down to respond to that. On that note, it's curious to understand peoples' reaction to what they feel.

Take a XC bike with geo that is comparable to an aggro trail bike in most ways except its HA is steeper (but same reach), leading to a shorter front center. The front wheel is closer to the rider, more weight is naturally on the front, less on the rear. People tend to call it more nimble feeling. Try to explain why that is. Shorter wheelbase is a factor, but wouldn't the weight balance be one too? The body is more suited to lift the front rather than the rear, and the rear being able to be lifted easier might feel skippy/playful to an unskilled rider than a bike with an easier to loft front and more planted rear (#lovebackwheel). Twitchier and more responsive steering too?

Less % of weight over the rear might suggest it has less traction at the rear for climbing and putting down power. What do you expect a rider does in response? Would you expect a rider to say it climbs better due to this? I'd expect the rider to be more likely to attack climbs, keeping momentum up and sticking to harder gears, because if they didn't, they'd risk spinning out. Since they're often attacking climbs, they might get the impression that the bike's born to climb. Whereas a bike with more weight on the rear can be comfortably spun up in an easy gear, taking advantage of the lack of traction and balance issues. It can climb well if you put out power, but a rider might prefer the more efficient method, and the bike might be judged merely an okay climber, despite its flexibility/compatibility. Peeling out when accelerating might feel racier too, flattering the rider's ego, just like how feeling like you're riding at your limit makes you feel racier, even though you're going slower than those on bigger bikes. People may simply reason it's more fun to hit limits earlier, to justify that ego pleasing feel, if their actual speed is found to be noncompetitive.

I said earlier that Loic is one of the first to come to mind regarding riding over the front. He's pictured on the old demo in that video. He never raced the full on 29er demo, instead racing on a non-stock mullet version of it with shorter CS and smaller rear wheel. Weren't you the one who tried to say his bike had long CS, just looking at the 2020 Demo 29 stock geo? Can see how much more rearward someone like Rachel Atherton (on Trek) positions herself compared to Loic?

A lot of things are counter-intuitive to simple principles. I'm sure some learned that riding faster makes mtb easier, or maybe that laying off the brakes can give you more control. I used words like hint. I'm far more calculating than that. I'm not one to claim a rearward position is worse or slower. I merely say it's an adaptation to the bike's weight distro just like how you implied, that if a bike needs more weight up front, the rider will shift weight to the front, and vice versa if there's already plenty on the front. Moving the wheels rearward in relation to the rider, such as with longer CS or shorter FC, shifts more weight naturally over the front wheel--that smaller size that Rachel rides on has FC that's ~25mm shorter than the next larger size.

Rant: the way people judge is quite suspect. It's hard to participate with people who think things are simple and preach to others that they should think a certain way as it's the most popular/accepted. Wish more were actually were more calculating and understanding of the big picture. Reminds me of my gaming days when stuck with random teammates who yelled at ppl to focus on this or that, like enemy healers, and were toxic-as-F yapping after dying (after going alone), while the rest of team picked off opportunities, baiting enemy rambo-types doing the same. Can only repeat this pattern so many times before it gets old and tiring, running out of patience with player stupidity more than being frustrated with the game itself.

Answer this: what if aggro bikes were deemed aggro because they handled poorly while cruising in the saddle and while hanging off the back, that you were compelled to get forward? It was more compatible with folks who were more motivated and often rode out-of-the-saddle to attack terrain features. What if they weren't really any faster on average? This is part of the reason why people aren't sold on what's being interpreted as modern by influencers. They got their pros and cons. What's modern is what built upon what worked in the past, finding improvement without much compromise. What people call modern is subjective--Le Duke thinks his Intense Sniper is modern. There's modernized bikes that handle well in the saddle and while hanging off the back that would not reward a forward out-of-the-saddle riding style. The industry has left it to the rider to figure what kind of rider they are and do their own research to find which bike would be most compatible.


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

The OP's YouTube influencer is full of crap, and just being lazy by relying on old false stereotypes.

We were already coaching in BC in the mid 1990s what he considers "modern".
We were already teaching balanced over the pedals down drops, level cranks for tight quick turns with traction (but still leg out flat track moto style for high speed drifting sweepers on marbley gravel), being over the front of the bike as you start a drop so you can stab if needed, lateral separation between bike and body for turning (bike leaned into the turn more than the body with chest pointed to the finish of the turn before the main triangle of the bike etc...

Beginners rode the way the OP suggests in the 1990s, but many beginners still do at present. Elite racers used modern-ish style (for example Andrew Shandro) in the 1990s.
1990s Elite racers also overcame old style short and steep geometries by anticipating the terrain by being over the front of the bars and lifting and thrusting to overcome obstacles, rather than sitting back with stiff arms. (It was a common observation that the racers in the lead of the race, and the first down the technical sections, were more forward and lower over the bars with a direct correlation to how fast someone was downhill, and the slower the racer the more they sat back with stiff arms waiting for the bike to do all the work)


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

^^^True story. However, having watched quite a few of Hardtail Party's videos, this is the only one that I've found to be a stretch/off the mark a bit. Most of his videos are pretty informative, entertaining, and provide a cool perspective on riding that I happen to agree with most of the time.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Good video on body positioning, energy management, and dynamic positioning.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

ccm said:


> The OP's YouTube influencer is full of crap, and just being lazy by relying on old false stereotypes.
> 
> We were already coaching in BC in the mid 1990s what he considers "modern".
> We were already teaching balanced over the pedals down drops, level cranks for tight quick turns with traction (but still leg out flat track moto style for high speed drifting sweepers on marbley gravel), being over the front of the bike as you start a drop so you can stab if needed, lateral separation between bike and body for turning (bike leaned into the turn more than the body with chest pointed to the finish of the turn before the main triangle of the bike etc...
> ...


That's all true, but with those 90s bikes the point where you had to abandon good technique just to get your weight behind the front wheel happened pretty quick. I don't think it was until like 2010 when i could buy a bike where if i threw my weight back and grabbed an armload of front brake the front wheel would wash.

Go watch old 90s mtb footage. They're all stinkbuggin' to varying degree.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Holy crap, that's a brilliant video. If people took the words in this video seriously, and absorbed the insight, so much noise would be reduced on so many topics that pop up on this forum.

The reduction of needless fatigue. Brilliant point. Some people are resistant to this, arguing bikes shouldn't do everything nor make things super easy for the rider, as it'd be boring. I don't know what they're imagining is "needless fatigue", but I bet it's stupid and they make no effort in trying to learn what smart ppl mean by "needless fatigue".

It's a system: the rider and bike and track. It's very complex. Brilliant point. People drawing attention to oversimplified pinpoint issues, and dramatizing them, is a poor use of time. Judge how important that oversimplified point is in the big picture, and then return back to reality to find something that has more substantial value/impact (closer to game-changing).

It's been a pattern of a rider adapting to a bike and track and then asking for tweaks. Brilliant point. It's probably why we are here, trying to fast-forward through this process by bouncing ideas around. If people had a better understanding of what creates confidence, repeatable classic-quality enjoyment, or whatever, the ideas being bounced around would be better.

Posture is a brilliant point to bring up. In animation, posturing is what visually depicts power to a viewer. The guy in the video basically takes "attack position" further, adding details to model what he calls prime posture. There's a ton of room for discussion here, but I bet it goes over a lot of peoples' head. Is there is a common goal here? To find a position you can settle in that's relaxed and stable? How about a central position allowing the rider to quickly/easily jump to other techniques as needed? Perhaps it's one that benefits more directly from classic weight training moves, like squats. I've considered the detail of the precise angle of the back and why one angle isn't as good as another--the angle caused by a semi-stretched position can be more fatiguing, since the weight of the upper body is falling, but it's upright enough for the rider to not let it fall into an low-forward position, and instead is propped up with straight-arms. I was attempting to solve the mystery of fatigued wrists, but ended up with a similar answer as the "prime posture", thinking bikes need to be more ergonomically minded to put the rider into a universal athletic position.

Smart people can see natural/intuitive instincts as problematic, implementing better solutions. They notice instincts like the fear response in wanting to drag brakes, or push-away from the bars, and reprogram in replacement actions, such as keeping elbows bent and letting off the brakes to better understand the nuances of traction and control. It can get to the point that one can notice how one tire brakes worse than another, due to tread pattern and/or lack of weight on the tire.

I like how they bring up the issue of ingrained habits, and how difficult it is to replace habits with better ones. I do wonder why that "rest position" can't be the same as the neutral position. That super low over the front position doesn't seem like an ideal neutral position to reset back to. An semi-upright position doesn't look as rad I guess. I notice a habit from dropper post users, leaving their dropper more than partially dropped while pedaling. I ask them why they don't raise it to a more efficient position for putting out power, and they usually respond by saying that they are resting in a more comfortable position. I'm guessing that they just wanted their back angle to be slightly more upright. Would love to try and tackle this working as a bike designer, working on ergonomics and the improving whole sizing fiasco.

The least I can expect from this video is just ppl opening up more to experimenting, rather than poo-pooing on any suggestion of change, wanting to complacently stick to what seemingly works for so many, leaving things in the hands of for-profit establishments, and trusting the ones that have a large following of sycophants. Maybe I don't even expect that much. The freshness of stuff coming out is oddly seen as super modernized to some, yet not modernized enough to others, and we're here contributing hundreds of posts on the same rebooted threads to do nothing but give an impression that this industry doesn't have anything truly figured out, despite the latest stuff being arguably better than ever. I'm motivated to figure this out.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

scottzg said:


> That's all true, but with those 90s bikes the point where you had to abandon good technique just to get your weight behind the front wheel happened pretty quick. I don't think it was until like 2010 when i could buy a bike where if i threw my weight back and grabbed an armload of front brake the front wheel would wash.
> 
> Go watch old 90s mtb footage. They're all stinkbuggin' to varying degree.


Yeah, not sure why people feel the need to deny that this is a thing. I've seen it first hand. A good rider can adapt to modern geo but it still takes some time. There's people on MTBR complaining all the time about their struggle to adapt to modern geo (front wheel washouts, seat tube angles, etc).



Varaxis said:


> The reduction of needless fatigue. Brilliant point. Some people are resistant to this, arguing bikes shouldn't do everything nor make things super easy for the rider, as it'd be boring. I don't know what they're imagining is "needless fatigue"


The most common issue is probably people riding with their hips too low for too long. They try to drop their hips to get loose and end up fatiguing their quads before they get to the bottom of the mountain. Earlier I mentioned shifting all of your body weight to the outside foot in corners. You'll also burn up your legs faster by shifting your weight back and forth onto one leg then having to return to pedals level each time. This is even worse for riders who really sink low every turn then have to stand out of it. Collasping/squatting in berms is basically the same thing. On big high speed bike park berms the g forces can kill your quads pretty quick. Some new riders will even end up collapsing onto their seat sometimes.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

jeremy3220 said:


> Earlier I mentioned shifting all of your body weight to the outside foot in corners. You'll also burn up your legs faster by shifting your weight back and forth onto one leg then having to return to pedals level each time..


So you don't think there is any recovery for the non weight bearing leg, as well as efficiency in the weight bearing leg being at extension?

If it was as you described an "XC technique", wouldn't that mean it's as efficient as possible?

Have you ever raced XC?


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

jeremy3220 said:


> They try to drop their hips to get loose and end up fatiguing their quads before they get to the bottom of the mountain. Earlier I mentioned shifting all of your body weight to the outside foot in corners. You'll also burn up your legs faster by shifting your weight back and forth onto one leg then having to return to pedals level each time. This is even worse for riders who really sink low every turn then have to stand out of it. Collapsing/squatting in berms is basically the same thing. On big high speed bike park berms the g forces can kill your quads pretty quick. Some new riders will even end up collapsing onto their seat sometimes.


I think this is an individual thing. I CANNOT wear out my legs descending. 15k in the bike park, let's do it again tomorrow. Arms- absolutely can fatigue muscles. And i have a nerve problem in one arm where i'm always riding slightly protectively to keep it from being bothered.

I know people who wear out legs first.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

EatsDirt said:


> So you don't think there is any recovery for the non weight bearing leg, as well as efficiency in the weight bearing leg being at extension?
> 
> If it was as you described an "XC technique", wouldn't that mean it's as efficient as possible?
> 
> Have you ever raced XC?


One thing that I don't understand about modern bikes, or modern riders, is the need/desire to have the a) longest possible dropper b) always have the saddle dropped as far as possible when going down even a moderate grade and c) have the hips as low as physiologically possible.

A couple days ago I was catching this guy going down a local trail and he was so low the saddle had to be slamming him in the nuts at some points. Of course, he was also so low that his legs were toast halfway down, and he couldn't pedal on the mellow sections.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

scottzg said:


> I think this is an individual thing. I CANNOT wear out my legs descending. 15k in the bike park, let's do it again tomorrow. Arms- absolutely can fatigue muscles. And i have a nerve problem in one arm where i'm always riding slightly protectively to keep it from being bothered.
> 
> I know people who wear out arms first.


Oh man, my hands go well before anything if we're talking strictly descending.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> One thing that I don't understand about modern bikes, or modern riders, is the need/desire to have the a) longest possible dropper b) always have the saddle dropped as far as possible when going down even a moderate grade and c) have the hips as low as physiologically possible.
> 
> A couple days ago I was catching this guy going down a local trail and he was so low the saddle had to be slamming him in the nuts at some points. Of course, he was also so low that his legs were toast halfway down, and he couldn't pedal on the mellow sections.


A) More room for extreme body English... steep shoots into tight turns/catch berms, lower butt/COG in steeps while still being in an attack position (not butt back). Styling out airs perhaps. Your inner thigh doesn't stop on seat as much.

No idea about B & C. Sounds like someone who's a bit clueless.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

EatsDirt said:


> So you don't think there is any recovery for the non weight bearing leg, as well as efficiency in the weight bearing leg being at extension?
> 
> If it was as you described an "XC technique", wouldn't that mean it's as efficient as possible?
> 
> Have you ever raced XC?


No, increasing intensity is definitely not going to aid in recovery. Dropping a foot on flat terrain is not the same as in a steep supported corner. XC racers will often drop their foot with the saddle up, their leg pretty straight and not leaning the bike hard. That's a lot different than dropping your weight onto one foot in a high g corner. My comment was about the technique being more applicable to XC terrain, more so than XC racing specifically. I don't really care about XC racing. Watch any of the top DH racers, they drop their weight on to the outside foot when they have to, otherwise they don't.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

jeremy3220 said:


> No, increasing intensity is definitely not going to aid in recovery. Dropping a foot on flat terrain is not the same as in a steep supported corner. XC racers will often drop their foot with the saddle up, their leg pretty straight and not leaning the bike hard. That's a lot different than dropping your weight onto one foot in a high g corner. My comment was about the technique being more applicable to XC terrain, more so than XC racing specifically. I don't really care about XC racing. Watch any of the top DH racers, they drop their weight on to the outside foot when they have to, otherwise they don't.


In this thread you've taken an absolutist stance, when really it's nuanced. There are occasions/disciplines where dropping a foot is useful.

I think it would be more productive to say 'your default cornering technique should not have a pedal almost unweighted.' It's enough just to be aware that dropping a foot for every corner is just something to get beginners started. (it also played nice with 90s bikes, where you did everything you could to get your CG away from the front tire's contact patch)


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

scottzg said:


> There are occasions/disciplines where dropping a foot is useful.





> I think it would be more productive to say 'your default cornering technique should not have a pedal almost unweighted.'


Not sure if you're joking or not but I've said that repeatedly starting with post where I brought up foot position and even already brought up that I stated it from that first post.



jeremy3220 said:


> While we're on cornering technique... I think this video does a great job of touching on some issues people run into by defaulting to the outside foot down technique...
> 
> ...It has it's place but I strongly suggest people focus on hip, shoulder, arm position first.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> One thing that I don't understand about modern bikes, or modern riders, is the need/desire to have the a) longest possible dropper b) always have the saddle dropped as far as possible when going down even a moderate grade and c) have the hips as low as physiologically possible.


Probably the biggest flaw in a "modern" riders technique is the tendency to squat. There are a lot of riders who go down every descent in the same position that they use on the toilet. It is a super easy trap to fall into. And our bikes allows to do it, slack angles, big travel, big wheels create a bike that is really stable. If you get low enough the bike is going to do its thing and you can hang on and even ride at a reasonable speed.

If you watch world class mountain bikers in any discipline descend all of them hinge at hips. What I use as a test is can you still descend at reasonable speed with your seat up, then you are hinging at hips. If you can't descend with your seat up, you are squatting.

In this video you can see that Mike Levy is guilty of squatting


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

jeremy3220 said:


> Not sure if you're joking or not but I've said that repeatedly starting with post where I brought up foot position and even already brought up that I stated it from that first post.


Apparently I'm not the only one getting the impression you are speaking in absolutes. If that is wrong, you have insinuated to it being an inferior technique often enough.

Regardless, you did mention inefficiency.

If you had raced XC, you'd likely have a good handle on what is efficient in real world scenarios. I'll spare you the reasons why and just say you might have it wrong.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Gee is using squat muscles too. I'd say the difference there in is strength. Gee is able to handle more impact. Mike's unable to modulate his leg strength and is holding them stiff, and is bouncing as a result. 

Gee is basically holding his core stable using his legs and arms as suspension. Gee's bike is pitching up and down below him quite freely, while Mike seems to be pitching with the bike since he's so stiff.

People hit the brakes to give their bodies time to recover from soaking up bumps. Mike is bouncing all over since he forced himself to go fast, while at the same time stiffening up, as that's preferable over collapsing.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

jeremy3220 said:


> Not sure if you're joking or not but I've said that repeatedly starting with post where I brought up foot position and even already brought up that I stated it from that first post.


I followed you just fine. You took an extreme tack and posted a silly video to ensure your point was heard, and then dialed it back from there. If you'd been nuanced from the beginning most everyone still participating in this thread woulda been like 'yuuup that's how it is.' Whatever.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

EatsDirt said:


> Oh man, my hands go well before anything if we're talking strictly descending.


Off topic but are you using lock on grips?

I found for me they were pretty much the sole reason why my hands would hurt on long descents and was even causing arm pump. I switched to a Spank Virbocore bar which helped quite a bit but installing some Ritchey foam grips has made descending absolute bliss now. Absolutely no hand pain or arm pump on long descents.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

scottzg said:


> I followed you just fine. You took an extreme tack and posted a silly video to ensure your point was heard, and then dialed it back from there. If you'd been nuanced from the beginning most everyone still participating in this thread woulda been like 'yuuup that's how it is.' Whatever.


I haven't dialed anything back, my initial position that outside foot down has its place but defaulting to it can cause some issues still stands. I also still think I think the video does a great job of listing some issues people run into by defaulting to the outside foot down technique. Maybe the video didn't fully explain the rationale or you guys didn't like something he said but my position has been consistent from that first post where I brought it up.



jeremy3220 said:


> While we're on cornering technique... I think this video does a great job of touching on some issues people run into by defaulting to the outside foot down technique.
> 
> Dropping that foot all the way down causes the bike to want to stand up, you then have to fight the bars with your arms which can cause you to ride stiff or press the inside grip down mid-corner (which can lead to wash outs). He also mentions how it makes it harder to balance front and rear. Dropping the outside pedal makes it easy to sink your hips back too. I think some people even learn the outside pedal down technique using that bad habit (hips sunk and leg straight). It has it's place but I strongly suggest people focus on hip, shoulder, arm position first.


Also, if you look at the context of that post it comes in response to mack_turtle talking about his front wheel washing and overshooting the corner. My post attempted to explain the possible relationship between foot position and washouts, weight balance, hip position, etc. As it turns out mack_turtle was defaulting to dropping his foot in every turn. So maybe at least he tries some different techniques and finds what works for him.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

EatsDirt said:


> Apparently I'm not the only one getting the impression you are speaking in absolutes. If that is wrong, you have insinuated to it being an inferior technique often enough.


Maybe I should have said something like...



jeremy3220 said:


> It [dropping outside foot] has it's place but I strongly suggest people focus on hip, shoulder, arm position first.





jeremy3220 said:


> Dropping your outside foot is fine when needed. Your footwork should be dynamic. If you're riding a loose off camber or a long sweeper then yeah it might make sense to drop that foot to 6 o'clock. The issue is using it as a default position where every turn you just drop all your weight onto one foot.





jeremy3220 said:


> Exactly it's not about level versus dropped. It's about how it's taught and implemented.





jeremy3220 said:


> I mostly agree with what he said. The only issue I saw, which was my original point to begin with, is..."we teach most riders to focus on dropping your outside foot and most/all of the time you enter a corner. Where foot down is not required your subconscious "auto-pilot" simply doesn't drop your foot."


Maybe if I had said something like that it would been more obvious that I think dropping a foot is fine sometimes but that I think people shouldn't default to it. But since we're pretending I didn't say all of that, I can see how you'd think I was speaking in absolutes about which technique should be used.

Btw Obi-wan, I'm done repeating myself.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

jeremy3220 said:


> Maybe I should have said something like...


If you believed what you quoted, maybe you wouldn't constantly give reasons why you think it's an outdated, inferior, or XC technique.

Just sayin.

... and FFS, that background landing image on the "Dialed" posture episode link.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Fajita Dave said:


> Off topic but are you using lock on grips?
> 
> I found for me they were pretty much the sole reason why my hands would hurt on long descents and was even causing arm pump. I switched to a Spank Virbocore bar which helped quite a bit but installing some Ritchey foam grips has made descending absolute bliss now. Absolutely no hand pain or arm pump on long descents.


I've definitely considered going back to push ons but not sure how to avoid the grip throttle thing, Not a fan of wire, and not sure what various glues would do to the epoxy/clearcoats... but might have to do some research.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

EatsDirt said:


> I've definitely considered going back to push ons but not sure how to avoid the grip throttle thing, Not a fan of wire, and not sure what various glues would do to the epoxy/clearcoats... but might have to do some research.


The last time I had push-ons they didn't have adhesive already inside the grip for installation. So I used grip glue but that stuff was a little messy. These grips had an adhesive coating on the inside so just needed to soak it in alcohol to slip the grips on and activate the adhesive. No idea how it will hold long term but reviews were good.

If these new grips don't hold I'll probably skip the grip glue and use what golf clubs do to hold the grips on. Apply a two sides tape to the shaft (handlebar for us). The tape is activated with a solvent and you slide the grip on. I always used denatured alcohol as the solvent for regripping golf clubs. I never had one come loose and it's not hard to clean up when replacing.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

EatsDirt said:


> I've definitely considered going back to push ons but not sure how to avoid the grip throttle thing, Not a fan of wire, and not sure what various glues would do to the epoxy/clearcoats... but might have to do some research.


Hair spray has been used for decades and removal requires a razor blade.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Back to the topic at hand...

This video applies to the conversation about proper body position and the many nuances involved. (not so much old vs new).

Start at the 6:45 mark.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

jeremy, the knees also have to lean with with the frame if you don't want the frame to stand up with outside foot down, if doing it on a non-bermed corner.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Le Duke said:


> One thing that I don't understand about modern bikes, or modern riders, is the need/desire to have the a) longest possible dropper b) always have the saddle dropped as far as possible when going down even a moderate grade and c) have the hips as low as physiologically possible.


You can not only lump me into the A and B camp...but I'm virtually opposite minded. I don't understand why people intentionally handicap themselves with short dropper posts. You are carrying the weight of the post, why not get a full drop and get the damn seat completely out of your way? I don't think I can run a longer post on my E29, I think I have the longest that will fit the frame (150 I think). If I could get another 25mm, I would.

In addition, when I am teaching less skilled riders how to use their posts, I teach them that the natural position for the seat is DOWN. Only raise the seat when it is necessary, not the other way around. I can't tell you the frustrations I have had when I get stuck behind someone in a moderate tech or downhill section with their seat up, slowing me down. For some reason they don't want to drop the post because "it isn't a hard section". Drop the post!

Granted, I tend to ride a bit more aggressive than most. Also, I don't run a dropper in XC as my descending skills outweigh my ability to carry the extra weight, so I don't carry the weight.

I've also heard the argument that "it is one more thing to think about". If that is your issue, you just need to practice more. Or remove your suspension lock and/or your derailleur if a dropper is too complicated.

As for C: that is just bad riding form and has nothing to do with the dropper post and more to do with every video I have seen (albeit, I haven't watched any in a while) preaching about the "attack position" and not really explaining that the "attack position" is virtually worthless. You need adapt to the trail constantly, and teaching that one position is ideal makes people feel trapped in that position. Now they aren't shifting ANY body weight.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Sidewalk said:


> You can not only lump me into the A and B camp...but I'm virtually opposite minded. I don't understand why people intentionally handicap themselves with short dropper posts. You are carrying the weight of the post, why not get a full drop and get the damn seat completely out of your way? I don't think I can run a longer post on my E29, I think I have the longest that will fit the frame (150 I think). If I could get another 25mm, I would.
> 
> In addition, when I am teaching less skilled riders how to use their posts, I teach them that the natural position for the seat is DOWN. Only raise the seat when it is necessary, not the other way around. I can't tell you the frustrations I have had when I get stuck behind someone in a moderate tech or downhill section with their seat up, slowing me down. For some reason they don't want to drop the post because "it isn't a hard section". Drop the post!
> 
> ...


Well, A and B were directly related to C, in my post. I regularly see people with 200mm droppers, dropping them for every single corner or tiny trail feature, and assuming a deep squat for minutes on end. And, I'm not talking about going down WC DH level tracks here. I'm talking about an 8% grade with a good amount of pedaling opportunities, rocks to be navigated, etc. The problem with A and B, is that people feel compelled to do C because of them, when they might be better off with a bit less dropper, in terms of creating a more dynamic riding experience.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Sidewalk said:


> I don't understand why people intentionally handicap themselves with short dropper posts. You are carrying the weight of the post, why not get a full drop and get the damn seat completely out of your way? I don't think I can run a longer post on my E29, I think I have the longest that will fit the frame (150 I think). If I could get another 25mm, I would.


I have a 170 post and a bunch of 125s. I don't like the 170 post as much as the 125s.

With 125 i'll drop the post 20mm for bike park days, jump lines, double-black descents. Takes 3 seconds at the top of a run with a qr clamp. (i can do it while riding) For typical trail riding i never find the saddle in my way. I like that i can just slam the saddle down and still have a decent seated pedaling position.

The 170 suuuuuucks to pedal slammed. I can hunt for an intermediate setting, but that's an added distraction. It feels dumb to sit down on smooth fast descents or over rolling terrain because it's so low my legs can't support me right. It's more drop than i need, so it's a handicap.

To each their own.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

I'm 6'3" and love long droppers. Longer the better. I have posts ranging from 150-210. 

I find a longer dropper is useful for cornering as much as descending. I can get my weight lower and properly lean the bike to get the side knobs to dig in, which I was never able to do before. My cornering technique and ability to attack turns has been a game changer. 

Do I need 210mm to do a strait line descent? No. I find it's more useful in other ways. Jumping, cornering, and manualing. 

Having a high center of gravity (until long droppers came along) was always a bummer. Now I'm able to ride more aggressively, more confidently, more faster , and I'm having more fun.

my $.02


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Those riders wouldn't be better off with a shorter dropper. My first MTB had a dropper, never owned one without, and leave my 210mm dropper up fairly often on descents when I feel it's more efficient. High posting mellow descents is pretty low on the difficulty totem pole as far as bike handling skills go. Dropping your hips all the time is a bad habit but so is riding behind your seat and the solution isn't running a shorter dropper.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> Gee is using squat muscles too. I'd say the difference there in is strength. Gee is able to handle more impact. Mike's unable to modulate his leg strength and is holding them stiff, and is bouncing as a result.
> 
> Gee is basically holding his core stable using his legs and arms as suspension. Gee's bike is pitching up and down below him quite freely, while Mike seems to be pitching with the bike since he's so stiff.
> 
> People hit the brakes to give their bodies time to recover from soaking up bumps. Mike is bouncing all over since he forced himself to go fast, while at the same time stiffening up, as that's preferable over collapsing.


The difference is comfort. Gee is comfortable and is relaxed. Thus he is moving his body as needed for each trail feature moving deeper in his squat when he needs to and standing straighter when he can. Mike is scared and in panic mode trying to keep the bike under him. Thus he is in super squat mode all the time. I have done the same as Mike many times and I bet most of you have done that on places that scare the crap out of you.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Le Duke said:


> Well, A and B were directly related to C, in my post. I regularly see people with 200mm droppers, dropping them for every single corner or tiny trail feature, and assuming a deep squat for minutes on end. And, I'm not talking about going down WC DH level tracks here. I'm talking about an 8% grade with a good amount of pedaling opportunities, rocks to be navigated, etc. The problem with A and B, is that people feel compelled to do C because of them, when they might be better off with a bit less dropper, in terms of creating a more dynamic riding experience.


Of my 3 bikes I have 65mm drop, 80mm drop and 185drop. The two short drop posts are on my XC FS and XC SS. So light weight is important. I drop the post when ever I can even if it not needed. The drop mostly allows more room for faster cornering or for those techy bits or short drops. But I like not going too far down because I may need to pedal with post own. Of the two I think the 80mm is "just" right and 65mm is a wee bit short. However the 185 I have my trail/enduro bike nice for that bike. Most of the time I don't drop it all the way. Just 80-125 mm I bet. However when the terrain gets really tough I will go all the way down to prevent any seat from impacting my riding. But I can't pedal worth crap the seat all the way down.

Of an interesting note I like the seat dropped on my SS. Some techy climbs are easier seat down since I am standing anyway and have more room to maneuver the bike under me.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

@JoePAz It's more like the bike is coming up closer to the the body and he allowed it to happen. His body is suspended, like floating along the average gradient of the ground. Pay attention to where his back and hips are, in relation to the ground surface. They don't shift much at all. It's all happening at the limbs, with the bike being rowed back over bumps and rowed forward on backsides.

Excessive body movement doesn't look smooth. Little body movement looks smooth, calm, and composed. Loic Bruni demonstrates this. People say his bike is doing a lot of work, because he makes it do the work. It's even clearer in showing how the rear wheel is coming super close to buzzing his butt very frequently. He's not shifting his weight to meet the tire. The tire is coming close to meeting his butt, because he is choosing to cruise by holding his butt along an average grade of whatever slope he's riding.






Do you really think his limb movements, like his arms at the very beginning, are from conscious weight shifts? It's him letting them go relatively loose to let the bike follow the ground, but at the same time he's holding his core body position. Rider actions are more in response to change in slope and direction, with large actions being more to execute techniques like pumping and bunnyhops. It's like watching the difference between amateurs and experts riding a bull or horse.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

JoePAz said:


> Of an interesting note I like the seat dropped on my SS. Some techy climbs are easier seat down since I am standing anyway and have more room to maneuver the bike under me.


Yes, this too. Getting up over logs or stepping up a ledge.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> Well, A and B were directly related to C, in my post. I regularly see people with 200mm droppers, dropping them for every single corner or tiny trail feature, and assuming a deep squat for minutes on end. And, I'm not talking about going down WC DH level tracks here. I'm talking about an 8% grade with a good amount of pedaling opportunities, rocks to be navigated, etc. The problem with A and B, is that people feel compelled to do C because of them, when they might be better off with a bit less dropper, in terms of creating a more dynamic riding experience.


I can't speak for whomever you are talking about, but will say that with most posts being infinite adjust, it's pretty easy to ride at whatever height is optimal.

Sounds like this goes back to poor technique.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

scottzg said:


> The 170 suuuuuucks to pedal slammed. I can hunt for an intermediate setting, but that's an added distraction. It feels dumb to sit down on smooth fast descents or over rolling terrain because it's so low my legs can't support me right. It's more drop than i need, so it's a handicap.
> 
> To each their own.


I don't understand why you would "hunt" for an intermediate position? I either have mine in an optimal pedaling position, or it is out of the way. There is virtually never an "inbetween". If I am sitting, I am pedaling, and I want to be gentle on my knees and powerful (I do a lot of very large days). If I am descending, I am not sitting and pedaling. I might be standing and pedaling, but not sitting. If I am cornering, the seat is down. The only time my post is not fully down is when I am caught off guard by an obstacle and don't have time to get the seat fully down before I have to stand and pedal, so I just leave me seat in that position temporarily, as far down as I was able to get it, and then fully drop it after I get passed that obstacle.

I guess you can do what works for you. But as a lot of the things I like to ride already have lots of double black and above features, it seems silly to have a dropper and a QR.



Varaxis said:


> @JoePAz It's more like the bike is coming up closer to the the body and he allowed it to happen. His body is suspended, like floating along the average gradient of the ground.


I've had people comment on me "man handling" my E29. Saying things like "I don't know how you do that as small as you are." But maybe it is from my motorcycle background, but I don't. I just let the bike do what it wants and gently hint at where I want it to go. It's already hard enough to "man handle" a light, 150 pound, GP chassis motorcycle, let alone a big bike. I just carry over that philosophy.

DH guys spend a lot of time on dirt bikes too. I'm sure there is a massive training effect.



Varaxis said:


> It's like watching the difference between amateurs and experts riding a bull or horse.


I also ride a horse :idea::lol:


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Sidewalk said:


> I don't understand why you would "hunt" for an intermediate position? I either have mine in an optimal pedaling position, or it is out of the way. There is virtually never an "inbetween". If I am sitting, I am pedaling, and I want to be gentle on my knees and powerful (I do a lot of very large days). If I am descending, I am not sitting and pedaling. I might be standing and pedaling, but not sitting. If I am cornering, the seat is down. The only time my post is not fully down is when I am caught off guard by an obstacle and don't have time to get the seat fully down before I have to stand and pedal, so I just leave me seat in that position temporarily, as far down as I was able to get it, and then fully drop it after I get passed that obstacle.
> 
> I guess you can do what works for you. But as a lot of the things I like to ride already have lots of double black and above features, it seems silly to have a dropper and a QR.


On shallow gradient descents you still need to pedal. With a 5" drop you can transition from seated -> standing pretty easily and pedal effectively with the post dropped. And it's nice being able to sit down on a 45 minute descent. It's really rare for me to benefit from more drop, so 5" is preferable.

On days where there is no climbing... probably no shallow descents either. 3 seconds to drop the saddle for the day with a QR and i have the saddle totally out of the way.

I don't like intermediate saddle positions either. I never use them with the 125 posts, but occasionally do with the 170.

I lived in redlands for a year, i can't think of a whole lot of trails in the area where i'd do a lot of seated pedaling downhill.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I run an optimum seat post height, but when I'm in constant turns and still need to pedal hard it's really effective to just drop the seat post about an inch.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Coming back to the cornering re: 6 o'clock vs. level. Did you guys check out Evo/Fluidride's tutorial? https://www.evo.com/academy/bike/how-to-improve-your-cornering

I've liked Simon's teaching - so this reminds me to pop the old' Flow-Tonic in the DVD player and revisit some of this stuff.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Am I the only one who drops my saddle slightly for climbing seated chunky rock gardens?

I find sometimes the rocks don't match a pedal stroke well and can overextend whichever leg is on the way down. This is in rock gardens that you can't stop pedaling in or you stop instantly. Dropping the saddle an inch is high enough to still pedal strong but gives me the room to deal with the chunk.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Carl Mega said:


> Coming back to the cornering re: 6 o'clock vs. level. Did you guys check out Evo/Fluidride's tutorial? https://www.evo.com/academy/bike/how-to-improve-your-cornering
> 
> I've liked Simon's teaching - so this reminds me to pop the old' Flow-Tonic in the DVD player and revisit some of this stuff.


Lawton has some of the best videos on cornering. One of the few people I've seen actually explain the dynamic component of footwork. There's not one cornering form/position, just like there's not one position for pumping.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Fajita Dave said:


> Am I the only one who drops my saddle slightly for climbing seated chunky rock gardens?
> 
> I find sometimes the rocks don't match a pedal stroke well and can overextend whichever leg is on the way down. This is in rock gardens that you can't stop pedaling in or you stop instantly. Dropping the saddle an inch is high enough to still pedal strong but gives me the room to deal with the chunk.


I do too. Sometimes dropping it only a small amount, like a cm. or two is enough for me.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Fajita Dave said:


> Am I the only one who drops my saddle slightly for climbing seated chunky rock gardens?


Definitely. Especially rolling mesa type terrain.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Glad I'm not the only one. It's the 2nd best use for a dropper right after fully dropped for descents and corners. It's made climbing rough sections of trail drastically easier than a solid post at my ideal pedaling height.

I think making full use of your dropper is an important skill to learn with modern riding. It took some practice but just press the button, drop your bum to where you need it and let the button go. If you don't have the time then drop it further and hit the button when you get a chance for the saddle to meet you where you want it. I don't need more than a 150mm drop, 125 is even good but I don't see the point in limiting it just because "you don't need it."

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
View attachment 1326735


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

Fajita Dave said:


> Am I the only one who drops my saddle slightly for climbing seated chunky rock gardens?
> 
> I find sometimes the rocks don't match a pedal stroke well and can overextend whichever leg is on the way down. This is in rock gardens that you can't stop pedaling in or you stop instantly. Dropping the saddle an inch is high enough to still pedal strong but gives me the room to deal with the chunk.


I do this as well. Absolutely. Technical climbing calls for body dynamics not attainable with the saddle at "proper" climbing height. If you were to watch me climb a really technical, punchy section, you'd see me hovering over the seat, and sometimes even standing as well as sitting; to allow the bike to conform to the terrain and maintain traction and cadence.

I use all positions of my dropper post on most rides, and the more "XC" the ride, the more I use it. And actually, I don't run it fully slammed unless it's a long, steep descent. If anything, the one aspect of "modern" bikes that I think has been revolutionary isn't the geometry, but the capabilities that a dropper allows.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

He's doing it wrong. Rabble, rabble.

https://reviews.mtbr.com/how-to-corner-on-a-mountain-bike


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Jeff Lenosky talks about old vs new riding position in his latest video. His explanation is more accurate in how the difference is a small shift in body position (not drag your ass on the rear tire vs rub your nips on the bars).





at ~7:19


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Le Duke said:


> He's doing it wrong. Rabble, rabble.
> 
> https://reviews.mtbr.com/how-to-corner-on-a-mountain-bike


I'll have to pay more attention to that next time I ride and see what I'm doing. Which is by no means right because my cornering could use some work . I know I drop the outside foot often but it's more of an effect of the cornering forces and keeping my balance on the bike. If I deliberately drop my outside foot I feel stuck in that position and get ridged on the bike which is a bad spot to be in with very little control.

One problem I have with this is it will have absolutely zero effect on traction. Many people seem to think it does. Traction is all about how you load the tires. More load = more traction but of course there's a point where the tire can no longer hold it. It doesn't matter where your feet are as long as you're getting the tires loaded correctly which is more or less 50/50. Outside foot down isn't going to do anything besides drop the COG a bit compared to level pedals. With that being said it's really hard to keep level pedals when railing a corner because of the cornering forces going through your feet. One's going to drop a bit but it's more of an effect of the cornering and not deliberately "dropping the outside foot."

It's extremely rare to see most World Cup DH pros drop their outside foot to 6 o'clock in a corner like most recreational riders do.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Fajita Dave said:


> Traction is all about how you load the tires. More load = more traction but of course there's a point where the tire can no longer hold it. It doesn't matter where your feet are as long as you're getting the tires loaded correctly which is more or less 50/50. Outside foot down isn't going to do anything besides drop the COG a bit compared to level pedals.


That seems to make sense but sometimes when I'm hitting a corner really hard I'll hang my inside foot (off the pedal), which makes my outside pedal drop down to the 6 o'clock position. I feel like I can set the edge of the tires harder, closer to their limit, if I'm not afraid of washing out and landing hard on my side. Hanging that foot out gives me a sense of security because I can stab it at the ground if I wash out. I'm not sitting down on the saddle while I'm doing this, by the way. My contact points are my hands and outside foot. My knee might press against the top tube a bit.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Nat said:


> That seems to make sense but sometimes when I'm hitting a corner really hard I'll hang my inside foot (off the pedal), which makes my outside pedal drop down to the 6 o'clock position. I feel like I can set the edge of the tires harder, closer to their limit, if I'm not afraid of washing out and landing hard on my side. Hanging that foot out gives me a sense of security because I can stab it at the ground if I wash out. I'm not sitting down on the saddle while I'm doing this, by the way. My contact points are my hands and outside foot. My knee might press against the top tube a bit.


That does lower your center of gravity along a few other things that are a bit beyond my understanding. Like changing the moment of inertia. Bikes don't lean into a corner as much as they pivot. When you lean left, the tires go out to the right. There's a central point along the length of the bike that it pivots around. When you drop the outside pedal you also change that pivot point. This makes the bike behave a bit differently which you clearly can feel. That feeling probably feels more secure to you along with being locked into the bike with the inside foot out. For all I know maybe it will also make the bike behave in a more forgiving way but I really have no idea on that. I did really like that locked in feel sitting up on the fuel tank riding motocross but I never could apply it to the mtb without a fuel tank to latch onto with my thigh.

In the end grip is determined by how hard your pressing the tire into the dirt and letting it dig in but you need to balance out that grip between the two tires. Of course you can also push it to hard too.

But this is getting into a very deep rabbit hole.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> I'll have to pay more attention to that next time I ride and see what I'm doing. Which is by no means right because my cornering could use some work . I know I drop the outside foot often but it's more of an effect of the cornering forces and keeping my balance on the bike.


The best way to overcome this is to focus on what your hips are doing. I find that sometimes it's hard to self analyze if I'm hanging back or dropping my hips a bit too much because it's a subtle difference. The difference between getting it right and wrong is maybe a couple inches of hip movement so it's easier to focus on what it feels like. I find asking myself if I'm 'tucking my tail' or 'sticking my tail feathers out' can help highlight the difference. It sounds silly but if you've ever coached someone on proper deadlifting form, it's surprising how many people think they're lower back is straight when it's actually quite rounded. Generally you want a straight back and to push your hips forward a bit through your feet (not enough to feel a lot of weight on the bars though). It feels a bit like sticking your tail feathers out (don't over exaggerate). Pushing your hips forward will probably even feel a bit sketchy at fist for some riders if they've been dropping their hips all along. This position helps you stand strong and not feet like the cornering forces are driving your hips down.



Fajita Dave said:


> One problem I have with this is it will have absolutely zero effect on traction. Many people seem to think it does. Traction is all about how you load the tires. More load = more traction but of course there's a point where the tire can no longer hold it. It doesn't matter where your feet are as long as you're getting the tires loaded correctly which is more or less 50/50.


yeah, the main purpose should be to dynamically weight (pump) the bike. Your foot is basically coming down like a pendulum to push the bike (mainly the rear tire) into the ground at the apex. How far down just depends on the scenario.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> The best way to overcome this is to focus on what your hips are doing. I find that sometimes it's hard to self analyze if I'm hanging back or dropping my hips a bit too much because it's a subtle difference. The difference between getting it right and wrong is maybe a couple inches of hip movement so it's easier to focus on what it feels like. I find asking myself if I'm 'tucking my tail' or 'sticking my tail feathers out' can help highlight the difference. It sounds silly but if you've ever coached someone on proper deadlifting form, it's surprising how many people think they're lower back is straight when it's actually quite rounded. Generally you want a straight back and to push your hips forward a bit through your feet (not enough to feel a lot of weight on the bars though). It feels a bit like sticking your tail feathers out (don't over exaggerate). Pushing your hips forward will probably even feel a bit sketchy at fist for some riders if they've been dropping their hips all along. This position helps you stand strong and not feet like the cornering forces are driving your hips down.
> 
> Having your weight toward the outside of the turn (aka "lean the bike not the body") will improve traction because the angle of the force relative to the ground does matter. You basically want to increase the normal force of the tires contacting the ground so that's the basic idea of shifting some of your weight to the outside pedal. But yeah, the main purpose should be to dynamically weight (pump) the bike. Your foot is basically coming down like a pendulum to push the bike (mainly the rear tire) into the ground at the apex. How far down just depends on the scenario.


I do have a hard time keeping my hips up. Like I said in the last post from motocross you really need to sit up on the tank which is more like having your hips tucked. Those habits die hard but I've been working on it.

I do disagree with having your weight outside driving the tires into the ground. Cornering itself is just offsetting weight away from being directly over the tires. If your weight is directly over the tires you'll just go straight. Your lean angle is decided by being in perfect equalibriem with gravity pulling you and the bike down and the cornering Gs trying to push you back up. Those cornering Gs are what's pushing the tires into the dirt along with the 1g of gravity. It doesn't matter if your leaned inside or outside of the bike. The bike will be lower or higher but the effective lean angle and force on the tires could be the same based on how far you've moved weight away from the centerline of the tires. What staying over the bike does do is gives you the range of motion to move independently from the bike to adjust to traction and terrain. If your leaned off the inside you can't make those adjustments especially when the tires slide out from under you.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> I do disagree with having your weight outside driving the tires into the ground. Cornering itself is just offsetting weight away from being directly over the tires. If your weight is directly over the tires you'll just go straight. Your lean angle is decided by being in perfect equalibriem with gravity pulling you and the bike down and the cornering Gs trying to push you back up. Those cornering Gs are what's pushing the tires into the dirt along with the 1g of gravity. It doesn't matter if your leaned inside or outside of the bike. The bike will be lower or higher but the effective lean angle and force on the tires could be the same based on how far you've moved weight away from the centerline of the tires. What staying over the bike does do is gives you the range of motion to move independently from the bike to adjust to traction and terrain. If your leaned off the inside you can't make those adjustments especially when the tires slide out from under you.


You're right, now that I think about it, the lean angle isn't going to change the normal force and increase traction. The normal force wil lbe the same regardless. I think that's just one of those things I've read too many times without stopping to think about it.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

If people are spending a lot of time pedaling with the seat partially dropped, I get the impression that they might just find that seated position to be better, which is more upright than if the seat were higher. Their seated position likely hasn't been optimized well by them to get the grips and seat in the more comfortable location and they may just be living with it due to the dropper's convenience.

I wonder how crank lengths play a role in this discussion. I've done 7.5k miles on 152 and 165mm length cranks over the past couple years, and I don't see any benefit going back to longer. People don't seem to claim anything other than it being a lever, which should make it easier to pedal, which I see as no benefit as gears are essentially levers too. Can it be seen as a detriment for the feet to be spaced further apart? Is the knee coming up higher on a pedal stroke possibly a detriment? What about the pedal/crank strikes and the BB height and the suspension tuning to account for ride height? Surely people can imagine how this stuff makes a difference on cornering. 152mm felt foreign to me at first, but I stuck to it and it's become my preference over 175mm. Makes me wonder about the difference between pegs and pedals too, to wonder if there's anything to convince me to open up to experimenting with even shorter cranks.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> He's doing it wrong. Rabble, rabble.
> 
> https://reviews.mtbr.com/how-to-corner-on-a-mountain-bike


That is a good little video. First time I have heard the terms "front foot" and "back foot" in regards to cornering. Makes a lot of sense.

In my own riding I definitely use different techniques for each direction. My "back foot" turns I use a lot angulation of the bike, where as on my "front foot" turns I have a lot more rotation. Probably years of dancing around a high post has embedded those techniques.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> If people are spending a lot of time pedaling with the seat partially dropped, I get the impression that they might just find that seated position to be better, which is more upright than if the seat were higher. Their seated position hasn't been optimized well to get the grips and seat in the more comfortable location and they may just be living with it due to the dropper's convenience.
> 
> I wonder how crank lengths play a role in this discussion. I've done 7.5k miles on 152 and 165mm length cranks over the past couple years, and I don't see any benefit going back to longer. People don't seem to claim anything other than it being a lever, which should make it easier to pedal, which I see as no benefit as gears are essentially levers too. Can having the legs spread further and the knees come higher in a pedal stroke be seen as a detriment? What about the pedal/crank strikes and the BB height and the suspension tuning to account for ride height? Surely people can imagine how this stuff makes a difference on cornering. 152mm felt foreign to me at first, but I stuck to it and it's become my preference over 175mm. Makes me wonder about the difference between pegs and pedals too, to wonder if there's anything to convince me to open up to experimenting with even shorter cranks.


I keep my saddle at my optimum pedaling height. Which is to high for seated pedaling through rock gardens. When your rear tire rolls up on a rock pushing you upward and then rolls into a hole it will hyperextend your leg. Dropping the saddle a little still gives you a good seated pedaling platform but enough room to deal with the undulation.

I run 170mm cranks after I started having some knee issues. The knee problem was over exertion but also the tighter bend in my knee at the top of a pedal stroke didn't help. The shorter cranks opened that up and I've been wanting to try 165 for a little while now. I don't see any downsides as long as you can make up for the shorter cranks with the right gearing.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Varaxis said:


> If people are spending a lot of time pedaling with the seat partially dropped, I get the impression that they might just find that seated position to be better, which is more upright than if the seat were higher.


My saddle position is set up for fairly steep climbs at maximum efficiency, not really for ledgy tech climbs and rolling terrain. Dropping the saddle slightly allows for more dynamic positions climbing, especially out of the saddle.

Edit: yea echoing what FD said about drop


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> You're right, now that I think about it, the lean angle isn't going to change the normal force and increase traction. The normal force wil lbe the same regardless. I think that's just one of those things I've read too many times without stopping to think about it.


I thought the same thing for a long time. It wasn't until a friend of mine who was big into sportbike track days really got me thinking more about how motorcycles actually handled. A lot of off-road stuff seems like a lot of black magic to find grip. When you ride a sportbike around a road course the physics involved and how a bike really handles starts to show it's true self!

You can push down into the bike and maybe find some more grip until Newton's third law kicks in. So timing is important.


----------



## PNW MTB (Apr 17, 2020)

This has been an interesting read so far. I've just started riding again after a 25 year hiatus. The ONLY mountain bike I have owned/ridden extensively is shown below.







Back in the late '80's this was considered one of the more, "hardcore" designs. 26" front wheel, 24" rear wheel, high bottom bracket, sloping top tube. You can kind of see that it is a "hybrid" between BMX and road bike. Remember, the first mountain bikes were just road bikes with fat tires and evolved into "cruiser" style frames with fat tires, and from there, the evolution of the MTB really began. Most of these "evolutions" were completely trial and error, done by cobbling whatever was at hand in an individuals shop to suit the particular types of trails/riding that particular individual or groups of individuals wanted to pursue. This was truly the wild, wild west of MTB. As we all know, the advent of mountain biking as we know it today largely emerged in the hills and mountains of northern California by a few of the forefathers of our sport, who eventually marketed their advances as "mountain bikes".

During my recently renewed interest in the sport, I have found myself a little confused by all the "new" terminology, as well as the wide variety of "mountain bikes" (i.e Enduro, XC, DH, trail, all-mountain) and all the talk of "new" geometry and "new" vs. "old" riding style. After countless hours of perusing forums, watching videos, reading reviews, etc., I am starting to be able to read between the lines a bit as I gain an understanding of "modern" mountain biking. As there is a wide variety of "mountain bikes", there is also a wide range of what folks consider "mountain biking", not to mention the wide variety of terrain that all of the members here must ride, considering we are from all over the world!

Back in the day, (late '80's) mountain biking to me was grinding up the local logging roads and either bombing down established hiking single-tracks, or simply pointing the front wheel downhill and finding a line that would allow you to get to the bottom without breaking your neck. There was no greater thrill than being able to bomb down the local steep, soft, loamy hiking trails of Chuckanut Mtn! Of course, it wasn't long before MTB'ers were frowned upon by the hikers and were treated like criminals, much like the skateboard culture of the '70's and early '80's! But I digress.....

Without writing a book and going into too much detail, here are some observations I have made about old vs new riding styles.

- as you go through the progression of types of MTB and riding disciplines, you will see where both old and new riding styles have relevance and actually have some overlap. For instance, the guy who predominately shuttles his squishy bike to the top of a black diamond trail will likely have no need for a seat-dropper, he will simply have his seat lowered all the time and find it silly that others find a need to have their seat adjusted higher than their handlebars at times (maybe even the majority of the time!).

- Back in the day, our riding position (largely based on "old" geometry) put us "on" the bike, so that when we entered technical terrain, we were a little unstable. In order to gain stability, it was necessary to shift our weight over a wide range fore and aft, depending on angles of ascent or descent, as well as how large any obstacles might be that we encountered (drops, fallen trees, rock gardens, slabs, etc). It was very much necessary to have your ass hanging over the back wheel at times! (did you know we had dropper posts in 1988? It was called Hite Rite and was a spring that attached to the seat clamp and had a clamp that wrapped around the seatpost. When you wanted to lower your seat, you loosened the QR seat clamp and sat on the seat and locked the QR. To raise it, simply loesen the QR and it sprang up to riding position! THEY were fairly effective, lasted FOREVER and did not cost fricken $800.00!!)

- Today, "modern" geometry puts us "in" the bike, or "in" the cockpit and centers our weight over the BB better. We still have to shift our weight depending on trail conditions, but it is not as extreme, and can mostly be accomplished by sliding from the front of the seat to the rear of the seat, and keeping our CG low (ala dropper seatposts!)

- Modern suspensions also play a major role in new vs. old riding styles. Back in the day, we largely used our knees, elbows and hips as our "suspension", letting the bike follow the terrain and trying to keep our bodies from moving as little as possible. Again. in order for a MTB frame to move up and down with the terrain as much as possible, the riders CG must be MUCH higher to allow for that travel. With todays' amazing suspensions, the rider is allowed to stay lower and "in the cockpit". This dictates a much different riding style, much more akin to riding a motorcycle, than a traditional bicycle.

-In short, it seems to me that if FS, 29" DH bikes are on the far left and completely rigid 26" old-skool bikes (like my Red-Shred) are on the far right, with XC, Enduro, trail, all-mountain, 27.5", and hard-tails in-between, that the more left-leaning your bike or riding style is, the more that "new" riding style will apply, and the farther right your bike and riding style is, the more "old" riding style will apply, with varying degrees of both old and new being used in-between.

- My final observation is that I am getting OLD!!! LOL I realized that many posting here are so young that they have no idea of the evolution of MTB and that the first MTB they knew was one of the modern-day, FS marvels with disc brakes (that actually stop you!) that we are all fortunate to be able to enjoy today!

Hope some of what I said will help resonate with those that just want to keep saying that one style or the other is right or wrong! I simply do not believe it is as simple as that!


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Red Shred!!! That was my first mountain bike!


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Fajita Dave said:


> One problem I have with this is it will have absolutely zero effect on traction. Many people seem to think it does. Traction is all about how you load the tires. More load = more traction but of course there's a point where the tire can no longer hold it.


I don't know or care about the physics behind outside foot down, but when it's a technique used by many, especially on flat and loose corners where traction is critical... it's clearly doing something of benefit.

Just saw an Instagram post from Brayden Binghurst. The guy can fkn ride a bike. Looks like he's about to put out a vid that focuses on cornering. At a glance it sure looks like he's sold on its benefits.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

EatsDirt said:


> I don't know or care about the physics behind outside foot down, but when it's a technique used by many, especially on flat and loose corners where traction is critical... it's clearly doing something of benefit.
> 
> Just saw saw an Instagram post from Brayden Binghurst. The guy can fkn ride a bike. Looks like he's about to put out a vid that focuses on cornering. At a glance it sure looks like he's sold on its benefits.


 Someone who is corners really hard and taking a lot of risks will just about always have that outside foot down because they are likely pulling that inside foot off the pedal. That doesn't mean this is the fastest way go around a turn. Generally, dabbing that foot means that you have dumped a lot speed in a turn. Although it might be the funnest way to around a turn though.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

LMN said:


> Someone who is corners really hard and taking a lot of risks will just about always have that outside foot down because they are likely pulling that inside foot off the pedal. That doesn't mean this is the fastest way go around a turn. Generally, dabbing that foot means that you have dumped a lot speed in a turn. Although it might be the funnest way to around a turn though.


There are a couple things I'd disagree with there.

First off, if someone is going all out in a short well supported corner, you're not likely to see an outside foot down. I know I wouldn't.

Also, having an outside foot down does not automatically mean dropping an inside foot or dabbing.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

EatsDirt said:


> There are a couple things I'd disagree with there.
> 
> First off, if someone is going all out in a short well supported corner, you're not likely to see an outside foot down. I know I wouldn't.
> 
> Also, having an outside foot down does not automatically mean dropping an inside foot or dabbing.


I thought you were talking about "flat and loose corners where traction is critical"? Those are far from well supported corners.

And yeah, having that outside foot down doesn't mean that you are dabbing that inside foot. But you certainly are ready if you need to.

Personally, I can think of two case where dropping that outside foot is useful.
1. Low grip surface where you are dabbing with that inside foot save a crash. (I do it all the time on my fat bike). 
2. When you are riding a bike with a high post are trying to get your COG lower and trying to create some room to lean the bike.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

LMN said:


> I thought you were talking about "flat and loose corners where traction is critical"? Those are far from well supported corners.
> 
> And yeah, having that outside foot down doesn't mean that you are dabbing that inside foot. But you certainly are ready if you need to.
> 
> ...


Guess I should have assumed you were keeping the same train of thought.

It's not only about the dab/outrigger or high post. Look at bikerbrayd Instagram.


----------



## Gene Hamilton (Oct 8, 2013)

Here is an article written by Gene Hamilton of BetterRide skills coaching about cornering techniques which you may find helpful.
https://betterride.net/blog/2015/mtb-cornering-braking-setting-corner/


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

Fajita Dave said:


> Am I the only one who drops my saddle slightly for climbing seated chunky rock gardens?
> 
> I find sometimes the rocks don't match a pedal stroke well and can overextend whichever leg is on the way down. This is in rock gardens that you can't stop pedaling in or you stop instantly. Dropping the saddle an inch is high enough to still pedal strong but gives me the room to deal with the chunk.


Yeah, i do the same, but mostly because i feel my balance is better with a slightly lower seat.

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

TeamBR said:


> Here is an article written by Gene Hamilton of BetterRide skills coaching about cornering techniques which you may find helpful.
> https://betterride.net/blog/2015/mtb-cornering-braking-setting-corner/





> My main focus at the last two races has been to stay centered as I brake, use A LOT of front brake and then let off and attack the corner. Believe me, the entrances to these corners are really rough and brake bumped, but you can still stay centered. When working with Greg Minnaar he really stresses this has it is the only way to stay in control as you brake. It sounds scary but once you do it you realize two things: 1. you can brake in a much shorter distance with more control (more weight on the front wheel means no front wheel slide which means you can brake harder if needed) 2. you are in a much better position to corner when you let off the brakes.


I talked about this a bit earlier, about how you brake into the corner can affect your body positioning in the corner. Besides trying to stay centered on the bike and not getting your weight back more than necessary, there's a timing component too. You want to avoid unweighting the front when you need grip there the most. So leaning back and braking too late into the turn then all of a sudden lifting off the brakes right before the apex is probably the worst case. Ideally you'd stay centered and brake before the corner leaving enough space between the braking zone and apex to pump the apex. This requires unweighting the bike a bit after the braking zone so you can then weight the bike at the apex. This works well on simple corners and flatter grades, as you deviate from that it gets much harder to let off the brakes before the corner. In steeper loose corners letting off the brakes isn't always possible. In that situation it can make sense to use the brakes to maintain speed (not accelerate) but you still have to focus on avoiding unwanted weight shifts by letting off the brakes at the wrong time. So his point #2 maybe better stated as you are in a much better position to corner when you *can* let off the brakes. This is another one of those coaching 'rules' that shouldn't be taken as dogma. You can look for ways to minimize your braking in corners but you shouldn't be under the impression you can't touch your brakes in a corner. The pros (and everyone else that rides DH and enduro) drags their brakes (especially rear) a lot because it's unavoidable sometimes. Using your front brake more and getting your braking done before the corners are goals not rules.

You can hear the riders' rear tires starting to skid some as they brake late up to the apex.


----------



## PNW MTB (Apr 17, 2020)

Here's an article and video that shows pro riders dropping their outside foot around corners. It just goes to show that it isn't always black and white, right or wrong.

https://betterride.net/blog/2020/4-pro-mtb-tips-for-riding-mud-wet-roots-off-camber/


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

I still feel like dropping the outside foot isn't a technique, it's just a by product. Level pedals is just 50/50 weight distribution. If you put any more weight on the outside pedal at all than it will drop. So if you drop the bike under you for control like proper flat corner technique than the outside pedal will drop but probably not to 6 o'clock. If you stay centered over the bike like railing a berm pedals will stay level as you load the bike straight into the berm.

If you deliberately drop outside foot to 6 o'clock for every turn you'll be taking the vast majority of corners in most locations with poor technique and body position.

Loose or off camber corners where you need to stay over top of the bike for maximum control than your outside pedal will naturally be dropped.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

There is no one cornering technique that fits all situations. Around here there are a lot of off camber turns, benched trails, loose over hard, etc. that all require your outside foot to be down. 

I also don't believe that having your outside foot down is the best technique for all situations. Berms and such you're definitely better off keeping the pedals level/mostly level. 

I also like modern geometry and weighting the front wheel to get grip. Staying centered on the bike instead of hanging off the back is such a better way to ride.


----------



## PNW MTB (Apr 17, 2020)

So you are saying that dropping the outside foot is simply the by-product of leaning the bike under you while cornering in order to keep the weight low and centered over the BB?

kind of cart before the horse thing?


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

^ I don't know what you're getting at there? Yes, staying centered is good. Not necessarily centering your weight while cornering, I was referring to steep descents. 

While cornering or really in any situation I weight the tires fore/aft as necessary depending on where I need grip.

Another scenario I forgot to mention is being able to lean the bike over enough to allow the side knobs to dig in. You can't lean the bike that far with your pedals level unless it's a banked turn.


----------



## PNW MTB (Apr 17, 2020)

I was replying to Fajita Dave's comments, didn't mean to confuse..


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

*OneSpeed* said:


> ^
> Another scenario I forgot to mention is being able to lean the bike over enough to allow the side knobs to dig in. You can't lean the bike that far with your pedals level unless it's a banked turn.


I find that it is different for each direction I turn.

I ride left foot forward. This means that when I lean the bike right, the seat hits my right leg when I lean the bike. To give myself a bigger range to lean the bike I tend to drop that left foot significantly in right turns. Where as on left hand turns I have lots of room to to lean that bike without dropping that outside pedal and my feet tend to be a bit more level.

I definitely am better at left turns.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

I recall from back in the day a discussion on cornering technique differences between John Tomac and Shaun Palmer. Both were at the top of the heap at the time, and both did things way differently. Tomac's technique was more like a road racer and Palmer was more like a motocrosser.

Tomac








Palmer








I do all sorts of things when I corner, and usually I'm not thinking through it. If I find myself actively thinking through what I'm "supposed" to be doing then my turn is not smooth. If I just do whatever comes naturally I flow through the trail much more smoothly. You want to get to the point that your body just does whatever is appropriate at the moment.

Here are a couple of awesome cornering shots. Not trying to make any specific point with these other than they're cool photos.

Giove








Gwin








"Don't think. Feeeew." - Bruce Lee


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

PNW MTB said:


> So you are saying that dropping the outside foot is simply the by-product of leaning the bike under you while cornering in order to keep the weight low and centered over the BB?
> 
> kind of cart before the horse thing?


To me yes it is. Your pedals are pivoting around the BB. If you put more weight through one foot then that side drops. If you lean the bike under you there will definitely be more weight on the outside foot.

You can even see it in the Vallnord WC practice video a few posts up. At 2:11 there's a section with three bermed corners. Most riders are centered over the bike for the berms and pedals are level for the most part. The riders who lean the bike under them have outside pedal dropped. Some riders are centered over the bike but outside pedal is still dropped which just indicates they have more weight on the outside foot.

In any of those cases the G loading through the tires will be the same. As long as you have the right weight bias neither front or rear should just wash out from under you.

In a flat turn the bike is leaned more underneath you which puts you in a position to catch a slide or deal with the flat or even off camber terrain under your tires. Since you drop the bike under you it's impossible to avoid putting more weight on the outside foot.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Fajita Dave said:


> If you deliberately drop outside foot to 6 o'clock for every turn you'll be taking the vast majority of corners in most locations with poor technique and body position.


I think we all agree on that.



Fajita Dave said:


> Loose or off camber corners where you need to stay over top of the bike for maximum control than your outside pedal will naturally be dropped.


It's been mentioned previously that outside foot down has less control, inability to be dynamic, fighting lean angle etc. You're saying it's adding control if I get this right.

Perhaps someone can explain in laymans terms what exactly it is doing of benefit. Is it strictly a COG thing? Is it leverage from the outside foot driving side knobs into the ground? Added steering inputs from the opposing lean angle forces? Better ability to modulate weight bias and prevent understeer? Increased feedback/feel of tires/ground from one leg load support?

It'd be great if people saved the "old school" or "poor technique" thing. Just because WC DH guys don't do it often on purpose built tracks with lines burned in doesn't mean it's not useful.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

The main benefit of cornering with outside foot at 6 o'clock, is to gain foot/pedal ground clearance. Not too likely to pedal/foot strike the actual ground on a MTB, compared to a roadie, due to BB height, but the ground is not always level and free of obstacles either.

Yes, it stands the bike up from a lean. That's not a good or bad thing. You gotta modulate the pressure on that outside pedal, to balance out how much weight you got on the inside of the corner. If your inside foot is off the pedal, it's a balancing game between it and the outside pedal.

Yes, it makes you less prepared for obstacles and unexpected slips. If you slip and dab/stomp/tripod with your inside foot on the ground to stop the fall and lift the bike enough to have vertical pressure on the ground again, you can switch back pressure to the outside foot to stand the bike up to ride away.

Yes, it makes you understeer. It causes most riders with poor technique to panic brake, rather than trust their tires, since they merely sense they are going wide. It's especially sad to see it happen to them on berms, with a feeling that they're riding up and potentially off the top of the berm to the outside midway or towards the end of the corner. In contrast, a skilled rider often is only on the upper part in the beginning of the berm and is cutting to the lower inside part for the mid and end.

Yes, there are better general techniques to practice for cornering. Habits from road cycling stick though. Suggest a better one and convince others to practice it, rather than simply pointing out that their technique is bad and expecting them to use their head. You're getting judged either way; gaining notoriety for bruising peoples egos for questioning their norms is nothing to be ashamed of when you're right. Their egos have them calling you an asshole because they don't want to be miserable assholes alone. People have had their head turned off, as the default state, since they finished school, not turning it back on unless they're getting paid, want to defend their ego, and/or whatever they choose to get geek out on.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Varaxis said:


> The main benefit of cornering with outside foot at 6 o'clock, is to gain foot/pedal ground clearance.


Sorry man. Fail. The lean angle where you'd drag a foot/pedal with level feet on a flat corner is way past the point of having traction.

Maybe you can tell me what this roadie is doing?


__
http://instagr.am/p/B_XtGZ8Hq11/


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

EatsDirt said:


> It's been mentioned previously that outside foot down has less control, inability to be dynamic, fighting lean angle etc. You're saying it's adding control if I get this right.
> 
> Perhaps someone can explain in laymans terms what exactly it is doing of benefit. Is it strictly a COG thing? Is it leverage from the outside foot driving side knobs into the ground? Added steering inputs from the opposing lean angle forces? Better ability to modulate weight bias and prevent understeer? Increased feedback/feel of tires/ground from one leg load support?
> 
> It'd be great if people saved the "old school" or "poor technique" thing. Just because WC DH guys don't do it often on purpose built tracks with lines burned in doesn't mean it's not useful.


In order to stay over the bike the more you lean it the more you have to shift your weight to the outside. An extreme example of this is riding on one side of the pegs on a bmx bike. You can just about ride the bike with the bars/other pedal scrapping the ground (if you don't have pegs on the other side).









Yes, the weight on the outside of the pedal causes the bike to want to stand up which is a positive or negative depending on the situation. It prevents you from low siding if the rear starts to slide. It's harder to dynamically control the bike though. If you've ever ridden on the pegs like above you know it's a balancing act (it's a fine balance point and it would be easy for a bump or something to upset it). So the primary use it when you need the max lean angle or to catch/prevent the rear tire from sliding (and low siding); often these are the same scenario. Watch the first clip from the Vital video I posted where Finn Isles catches that big slide. He has his inside foot off anticipating the slide, leans over the front of the bike to prevent the front from sliding and the rear starts to swing around he dabs and then pushes his weight onto his outside foot to catch the rear as it slides into the berm (almost like foot planting into the berm).

Less extreme situations would be snapping a turn (dynamic weighting) and intentionally inducing a small slide to get the back of the bike around a tight corner. This is usually a momentary drop of the outside foot (not necessarily to 6 o'clock) specifically to weight the rear tire. You first pump the front in and out the apex like you would a roller then as the rear enters the apex your foot swings down to weight the rear. Off-camber is another possible reason to drop your foot to 6 o'clock. In an off-camber turn the bike has to lean more (relative to gravity) to maintain the same lean angle with the trail as it would on flat ground. So to obtain that lean angle AND keep your weight over the bike you have to shift your weight further to the outside of the bike (also prevents low siding).


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

With enough traffic, the tread of the trail gets cupped. The inside foot can touch the inside lip of it. Turns often go around obstacles, like big boulders or tree stumps with some thick roots spreading from it. Trails also run along slopes, where the inside of the bench cut has remnants of trees or whatever. Cases where you need foot clearance aren't super rare. Yes, you can go wider for more clearance, but there's trade-offs with all your choices.

That "roadie" has his core balanced enough that he doesn't need hits arms to hold it from falling back (an old-school position), nor to hold his core up as it leans forward, leaving arms free to actually point the front wheel where he wants to go. He's pumping, steering, leaning, and using many parts of his body including legs. He's not too focused on doing any of these alone.

For the turns where he's guiding the bike between cones, his core is following a relatively straight direction over the cones, not really going left to right of them, while he's simply guiding his bike to weave around the cones/obstacles. His legs are sort of in a wide knee position that's flexible like a tennis player ready to dart side to side.

For the turns where he has to change the direction of his body too, he's effectively making the corner shorter by having his body on the inside while stretching his bike out to the outside to make it around the cone. It doesn't need to be at 6 o'clock, but if he's leaned enough it might need to do so for clearance. No real benefit for it to be at 6 on that terrain. His outside knee is leaned inward to reduce pressure on the outside pedal to keep it from standing up. When his rear tires slides, he froze up and was in a poor position to react.

I'd suggest something like a Blenki video more for inspiration than to learn technique from. Technique is a case-by-case thing that you experiment with yourself.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

I have a hard time equating flatland to cornering where gravity forces seem a bit different but I think I get the jist of what you're saying. 

So do you feel that weighting the outside foot is primarily just a weight bias shift rearward regardless of snapping through a corner? Do you feel there is anything to "setting an edge"in longer corners like Minaar was quoted as saying?


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Varaxis said:


> With enough traffic, the tread of the trail gets cupped. The inside foot can touch the inside lip of it. Turns often go around obstacles, like big boulders or tree stumps with some thick roots spreading from it. Trails also run along slopes, where the inside of the bench cut has remnants of trees or whatever. Cases where you need foot clearance aren't super rare. Yes, you can go wider for more clearance, but there's trade-offs with all your choices.


I think you should reply to the techniques used in that link.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

jeremy3220 said:


> I find that sometimes it's hard to self analyze if I'm hanging back or dropping my hips a bit too much because it's a subtle difference. The difference between getting it right and wrong is maybe a couple inches of hip movement so it's easier to focus on what it feels like. I find asking myself if I'm 'tucking my tail' or 'sticking my tail feathers out' can help highlight the difference. It sounds silly but if you've ever coached someone on proper deadlifting form, it's surprising how many people think they're lower back is straight when it's actually quite rounded. Generally you want a straight back and to push your hips forward a bit through your feet (not enough to feel a lot of weight on the bars though).


Paul the Punter just released a great video with Miranda Miller and Remi Gauvin that talks about the same concept of using the deadlifting form to prevent back rounding and pushing through your feet.






If you're not familiar with proper deadlift form it's very similar to what should form the base of your riding posture. Notice the hip hinge and how he activates his muscles before actually moving the bar.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

EatsDirt said:


> I have a hard time equating flatland to cornering where gravity forces seem a bit different but I think I get the jist of what you're saying.


Basically, you have to balance out the bike leaning in by leaning out and at a certain point you'll have to be really heavy on the outside pedal, grip, pegs, etc.



> So do you feel that weighting the outside foot is primarily just a weight bias shift rearward regardless of snapping through a corner?


Well, like Fajita Dave mentioned pretty much anytime you lean the bike your shifting your weight to the outside pedal and it's dropping to some degree (ever so slightly or all the way to 6 o'clock). So I think it's mostly a secondary function of leaning the bike. If you watch the Simon Lawton video where he's snapping turns you'll notice that as he snaps the rear into the turn not only does he weight the rear tire but that's also the point where he leans the bike the most. So for pump/snapping turns it serves two purposes.



> Do you feel there is anything to "setting an edge"in longer corners like Minaar was quoted as saying?


I didn't see Minnaar's actual quote but if you're referring to this:


> Short recap, I (and Greg Minnaar) believe that when your goal is to set an edge like a ski racer and corner a full 90% or more at the highest possible speed in a smooth corner you want to drop the outside foot and put 100% of your weight on that foot.


I actually don't know that much about skiing and I'm sure exactly what setting an edge would mean outside of riding on the cornering knobs... but from watching skiing slalom and downhill footage it looks like they do not put 100% of their weight on the outside ski (you'll see snowing kicking up from the inside ski) and they also tend to lead with their inside ski (not parallel like pedals at 12 and 6 o'clock). So I really don't understand the reference.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

It is subjective as hell, this idea of old-new. Everyone has their methods that work for em just fine. Everything is situational, regardless.
It's really not too far off of the best saddle, right tire, right tire pressure, tube-no tube, geometry, the list keeps going for another threadlength!

Fight on... Um, carry on!


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

EatsDirt said:


> I think we all agree on that.
> 
> It's been mentioned previously that outside foot down has less control, inability to be dynamic, fighting lean angle etc. You're saying it's adding control if I get this right.
> 
> ...


I don't feel like I can move with the trail if I have my outside pedal fully down so I feel stuck. Maybe it's only because I'm deliberately trying to corner with my outside foot down. Since that's also what I've been told by so many people when I first got into mtb but I abandoned that mind set a long time ago. There are times where I've dabbed to catch a slide and I don't remember the outside pedal dropping. So clearly I wasn't level pedals but probably very close to outside pedal down.

Something else I just noticed from the BMX pics that Jeremy posted is the pedals of that bike are pretty much level with the horizon. Clearly outside pedal is down relative to the bike but relative to how the rider would be standing on them they would be level with the ground. So one pedal could be down but pedals are more evenly weighted than they appear. But that's getting way to dynamic for me to think about since you have one axis the cranks pivot on, another axis the bike pivots around, gravity pulling down and cornering Gs pushing to the side. All of these loads need to find a point which is balanced, if you try to resist things balancing out you will create instability. Which is why I feel like pedal position is just a by product of cornering and the terrain and not a set technique.

As Nat said if you need to think about it things get a little weird. When you think your way through it you no longer responding to the trail by feel but trying to be in a set technique. Which is shown in Paul the Punters video. He stuck to a strict position rather than being dynamic and moving with the trail by feel.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> Paul the Punter just released a great video with Miranda Miller and Remi Gauvin that talks about the same concept of using the deadlifting form to prevent back rounding and pushing through your feet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's funny hearing them talk about pushing the bike into the trail rather than soaking it up. I've always done this because you had to in motocross or you'd just collapse. I always figured I just rode "heavy" in the mtb world compared to those who rode light.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Not about riding heavy or light. It's about finding the limits of the traction.

If you are carrying a ton of inertia/speed into corner, you will be heavier. If you brake heavily and let off before you corner, and shift your weight from front wheel to rear to manage the load spikes they might have, you will be lighter. Your foot orientation doesn't change this significantly enough.

The corner itself will determine how heavy you can ride it. It takes a trained eye to properly judge it. You brought up Newton's 3rd law, and that's a good way of looking at it. The corner needs to offer lateral support in order for you to ride heavy into it. If there's a singular spot, like someone's wheel rut, or a root, or rock, you can use technique to take advantage of it to pull off your turn without exceeding your limits.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> It's funny hearing them talk about pushing the bike into the trail rather than soaking it up. I've always done this because you had to in motocross or you'd just collapse. I always figured I just rode "heavy" in the mtb world compared to those who rode light.


Yeah, you have to push into the trail a bit to maintain decent posture. It's sorta like your body's spring rate...too soft and you're unstable. It's obviously a pretty complex skill though because Paul couldn't quite grasp it and he seems to be quite a bit better than the average Joe.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> Something else I just noticed from the BMX pics that Jeremy posted is the pedals of that bike are pretty much level with the horizon. Clearly outside pedal is down relative to the bike but relative to how the rider would be standing on them they would be level with the ground. So one pedal could be down but pedals are more evenly weighted than they appear.


I feel like that's pretty much what happens by keeping the pedals naturally balanced. They end up pretty level with the trail whether it's flat, bermed, or off-camber. *Edit: by level with the trail I mean equal distance from the trail not 'level pedals' as in 9 and 3 o'clock.*

However, I haven't studied that nor would I say it's something people should necessarily try and achieve.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Fajita Dave said:


> As Nat said if you need to think about it things get a little weird. When you think your way through it you no longer responding to the trail by feel but trying to be in a set technique.


The funny thing is I don't think about technique at all when I ride, but I have enough awareness of body position to consider theories presented here. Outside of occasionally bouncing ideas off fellow riders/racers, the thought of coaching or the interest in a deeper understanding wasn't even considered until recently. Some here might mistake that for a lack of skill.

Not sure how the value of a technique (or foot position if you will) is diminished or not considered best practice when it's no secret that great riders use it conditionally.

I'm done trying to understand why people here don't find (much? any?) value in it, and the physics behind why I do...


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Varaxis said:


> With enough traffic, the tread of the trail gets cupped. The inside foot can touch the inside lip of it. Turns often go around obstacles, like big boulders or tree stumps with some thick roots spreading from it. Trails also run along slopes, where the inside of the bench cut has remnants of trees or whatever. Cases where you need foot clearance aren't super rare. Yes, you can go wider for more clearance, but there's trade-offs with all your choices.
> 
> That "roadie" has his core balanced enough that he doesn't need hits arms to hold it from falling back (an old-school position), nor to hold his core up as it leans forward, leaving arms free to actually point the front wheel where he wants to go. He's pumping, steering, leaning, and using many parts of his body including legs. He's not too focused on doing any of these alone.
> 
> ...


It's laughable that you can critique his cornering technique. Just sayin.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

EatsDirt said:


> It's laughable that you can critique his cornering technique. Just sayin.


I watched the video. Good rider, really good rider.

He moves his feet as all good riders do to make room lean the bike. But his feet are mainly level, the only time those feet go toward that 6 position is when he is doing long turns on a pavement. And when he is making those long turns on the pavement he is actually cornering like a road rider, outside foot dropped, body leaned in line with the bike.

I think there is far too much attention focused on foot work. Over the years I have worked with some very good racers in all disciplines (DH, XC, Enduro, CX, ect) and the ones who can really go around corners got their hips turned in the direction they want to go. My brother in-law was Canadian National DH coach for five years, he always said it doesn't matter what your feet are doing as long as your belly button is pointed in the direction you want to turn.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Yea, too much attention on foot orientation. It's easier to view it as a problem with a weight distribution-focused solution.

If you wanna take a corner hot with a lot of inertia, you need lateral support. Without a berm or any other physical edge to push back against your inertia, you should think about managing the amount of "downforce" on the tires to make the knobs' edges provide such support.

Lateral support is the key, but the goal shouldn't be to maximize it or hold it, it's to make it reliably useful. In other words, you want to be able to trust it. If it's amazing most times, but sketchy on few occasion, someone playing it safe may only push it with the sketchy occasions in mind, due to lack of trust. It's a similar case with tire selection, with how an extra wide tire might feel great for certain things but if it squirms or is sketchy in certain scenarios (e.g. hydroplaning over slop), you might go back to a more trustworthy one that isn't as nice feeling in general, but doesn't have flaws contrasting its greatness.

Can get downward pressure in all sorts of creative ways. Pumping can provide a spike of downforce which you can use to time a quick technique to take advantage of. I've been trying to emphasize that outside pedal at 6 isn't really necessary to get this pressure, and others have been implying that it makes using both legs to pump with difficult.

What cornering scenario are you trying to imagine? A singular corner? I'm thinking of a scenario where one is daring to ride a curvy section without brakes, trying to intuitively clear it all at the fastest pace possible, yet smoothly and effortlessly with minimal energy expenditure.

Practice sessions on the same stretch of trail makes repeating that same section at the same pace more efficient; the technique doesn't really carry much over to other sections, nor does it carry over to doing the same section ridden in the middle of a slower group's pace, hence why I say technique is a case-by-case thing. Not expecting to see multiple pros using the same technique unless someone absolutely schools them enough to make them want to copy their technique.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

I know I've beat this into the ground at this point but focusing on hip, shoulder, arm posture instead of footwork so much was the reason I brought up footwork. I suspect that if riders were never taught anything about pedal clocking they would be fine for the most part. I came from bmx to mountain biking and then learned about the outside foot down (6 o'clock) technique. I feel like I had unlearn my natural footwork to use the dropped pedal technique and then eventually found myself mostly back to where I started. I really think that your outside pedal moves down naturally as a counter balance to leaning the bike and that by defaulting to 6 o'clock you're over correcting in most situations and applying too much weight to the outside (hence the bike wanting to stand up). I think the real reason riders struggle to learn the outside pedal down technique to begin with is because it forces them to focus on and do something unnatural.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

I have followed some best riders in the world down some descents and I am always cornering way harder than them. Why, because they choose way better lines, and are so much better at nailing that entrance speed into the turn. I on the other hand am guilty of braking too late and hitting that apex too early, meaning I have to stuff the bike hard and dump speed. 

Good line choice and mediocre technique is going crush poor line choice and awesome technique.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I didn't read everything, just scanned. Didn't watch any of the videos either. So...

When I think of people "dropping their foot", it isn't an absolute. I am thinking of leveling your pedals with the center of gravity, balancing out your center. Same idea as leaning back on a DH, or leaning forward on a climb. You are centering your weight between the wheels and ground. Shifting your weight where you need traction but mostly centering the weight 50/50 on the wheels. You don't need to drop your outside foot when you are on a big wood berm at a bike park, the berm is creating an artificial level ground and your whole body position is likely pretty centered. On a flat turn, probably have your outside foot all the way down as you push your bike down into the lean (there is counter steering in there).

Though, from what I have witnessed, people think they are leaning a bike WAY more than they actually are. It feels like the bike is way leaned over, when it isn't. I haven't actually experienced this on the MTB because I learned this on the motorcycle, seeing a picture of yourself when you think you are all leaned over, when you aren't. I am a bit more cognizant that I am leaning the bike meh amount, not all the way over like it feels.

Also, like a motorcycle, you lose your suspension when you are leaned over. So the trails is going to feel way rougher and your body is going to have to absorb it the farther over you lean the bike.

I agree on LMN with the rotating of the torso though.

A lot of this is stuff I just drill when I am goofing around. THinking about dropping, leaning the bike, moving the body around, and over exaggerating all the movements. Usually when going down a trail I would normally bomb (and know very well), but I am just cruising so I have more mental capacity to goof off. Practice all the movements then, so you get it in muscle memory for when you are going crazy. I used to practice a whole bunch of this stuff back in my motorcycle racing days (a surprising amount carries over). We would follow each other around and critique each other and go do it again. A lot of people that race go to track schools and get professional coaching, then share what they learned with friends and it trickles down. After a few years of practice, you get pretty damn good at it (having friends who are pros helps too). All the little things add up though. You probably can't go fast if you have the entire body position nailed, but don't keep your head up in the turn. Rotating your body is great, but you aren't going too fast with the bike upright.



EatsDirt said:


> It's laughable that you can critique his cornering technique. Just sayin.


I repeat this partially in jest, part in truth.

"Those who can't do, teach."

There are a lot of people who are REALLY damn good at stuff, but can't teach for a damn, and vice versa. Being good doesn't mean you can explain it. I watched part of a video a couple months ago with a pro MTB racer trying to explain cornering technique, and I cringed until I closed the window. He is fast, but he couldn't explain what the hell he was doing.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Sidewalk said:


> There are a lot of people who are REALLY damn good at stuff, but can't teach for a damn, and vice versa. Being good doesn't mean you can explain it. I watched part of a video a couple months ago with a pro MTB racer trying to explain cornering technique, and I cringed until I closed the window. He is fast, but he couldn't explain what the hell he was doing.


That jibes with what I learned in school. Most elite athletes (not just biking) do things on autopilot. They've learned the movements so they just do what's right without having to involve cognition. If you ask them to break down the components of the movement then it can be vague. To get to that point they use coaches and spend lots of time practicing. I'm definitely not including myself in this category.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

What carries over from motorcycle racing is more of the physics, similar to how skiing can cross over to biking, managing such energy/inertia in your body and interacting with the terrain to redirect it. Something that may seem remotely similar, like piloting an aircraft, can maybe even help, if you break things down to physics, especially between person and environment, taking the equipment difference out of the equation.

How do you teach someone such physics if they haven't been taught? What about catering to other peoples' preferred style of learning? Sometimes you gotta break down formulas/simplifications to basic manual measurements. If that's not enough, perhaps you gotta go slow mo and zoom in to the atomic level of measurements, like seeing what each tire knob is doing and how various levels of knob penetration works to give you more edge surface area to transfer load to the ground, spread out over a wide enough area to not break the actual ground or flex the knobs to a poor angle.

It's good to use an example such as orienting the body to resist the force of gravity, such as keeping the body upright against gravity making it appear to be behind the saddle and pushing away from the bars when rolling downhill, and describing it as the bike pitching forward to follow the slope, rather than the body moving rearward. if someone understands that, maybe they will adopt that technique of letting the bike do the work under you. The guys telling people to get back into that position are like trying to program a robot, and are the result of others looking to have exaggerated stiff position holds. A clear difference in teaching method...

How it ties to what position you need for new geo and what's needed for old is what we kind of got away from, having to go back to the source of the methods we used to learn from. I stick to it just being a matter of weight distro differences. I can go much further in depth, like how the tire contact patch changes location when you are on a slope and how the body's position changes in relation to it. Contact patch also changes for an instant when the tire rolls into an obstacle.

Line choice for cornering is a good topic too. What's your advice for a good line? If it's smooth, I'd argue that you shouldn't start from the extreme outside, to try to make the widest and gentlest arcing turn possible. I'd argue that it's better start on the outside, but closer to the center to give room to countersteer. The body doesn't need to take the exact same path as the bike. You can steer the bike away from you and then steer it back to catch your body. With the body closer to the inside and the bike following that wide and gentle arc, it can be like a case of your body falling to the inside and your bike turning to the inside to catch it for the entire turn. Works on smooth grippy asphalt, but off-road you gotta account for bumps and have your limbs do suspension work.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

LMN said:


> I have followed some best riders in the world down some descents and I am always cornering way harder than them. Why, because they choose way better lines, and are so much better at nailing that entrance speed into the turn. I on the other hand am guilty of braking too late and hitting that apex too early, meaning I have to stuff the bike hard and dump speed.
> 
> Good line choice and mediocre technique is going crush poor line choice and awesome technique.


Great post! I've noticed this as well.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

LMN said:


> I have followed some best riders in the world down some descents and I am always cornering way harder than them. Why, because they choose way better lines, and are so much better at nailing that entrance speed into the turn. I on the other hand am guilty of braking too late and hitting that apex too early, meaning I have to stuff the bike hard and dump speed.
> 
> Good line choice and mediocre technique is going crush poor line choice and awesome technique.


You have a good point. While the racing line might be the fastest it's not always the most fun though. Sometimes a weird line and aggro turn feel really cool even if you end up losing time. It depends if you're racing or joy riding.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

LMN said:


> I have followed some best riders in the world down some descents and I am always cornering way harder than them. Why, because they choose way better lines, and are so much better at nailing that entrance speed into the turn. I on the other hand am guilty of braking too late and hitting that apex too early, meaning I have to stuff the bike hard and dump speed.
> 
> Good line choice and mediocre technique is going crush poor line choice and awesome technique.


Maybe I'm just not envisioning what you mean, but doesn't good technique allow for better line choice and vice versa?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

EatsDirt said:


> Maybe I'm just not envisioning what you mean, but doesn't good technique allow for better line choice and vice versa?


Line choice is about reading a trail at speed. Knowing where to brake, where to turn in, what gaps to hit, what you can do and what you can't do. Technique combined with power gives you the ability to make that line choice work.

Think about it as instructor versus racer. The instructor is picture perfect in technique but has no where near the pace of a racer.

As I said I have followed some very good descenders and they make line choices on their first run I never thought of. Their ability to open corners and find berms where there are one is one of those things that makes them so fast.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

LMN said:


> Line choice is about reading a trail at speed. Knowing where to brake, where to turn in, what gaps to hit, what you can do and what you can't do. Technique combined with power gives you the ability to make that line choice work.
> 
> Think about it as instructor versus racer. The instructor is picture perfect in technique but has no where near the pace of a racer.
> 
> As I said I have followed some very good descenders and they make line choices on their first run I never thought of. Their ability to open corners and find berms where there are one is one of those things that makes them so fast.


It seems odd to me to have someone with great line choice but not have the technique to back it up. I'm trying to picture a guy who might be great at blind racing but yet sucks at an unlimited practice DH course. Is that not a relatable scenario?

I guess I don't see that much of a separation between the two, and that's probably why I'll never be an instructor.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

I need a glass of scotch...


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

EatsDirt said:


> It seems odd to me to have someone with great line choice but not have the technique to back it up. I'm trying to picture a guy who might be great at blind racing but yet sucks at an unlimited practice DH course. Is that not a relatable scenario?
> 
> I guess I don't see that much of a separation between the two, and that's probably why I'll never be an instructor.


Most people get pretty fixated on where their going and don't have the presence of mind to widen their view to other line choices. Sometimes the faster line is one that you need to take slower but has a net gain further down the trail. Other times it's as simple as looking for the smoothest route through a rock garden. Sometimes it's looking at the toughest part of a rock garden but seeing a way to gap over it. When you're trying to shave a few tenths of a second off of a 3 to 5min run extremely small adjustments in line choices can add up to significant amounts of time lost or gained. You could have perfect riding technique but not have the eye or awareness for picking out lines that will get you to the bottom quickest.

Something like Enduro is more of a mixture of make it work with very limited views of the course and pacing yourself over the course of the entire race. Rather than being all in on a single calculated, well practiced all out run.

Then there's always the issue of commiting to letting go of the brakes and trying to push right up to the edge of what's possible for the line you chose.


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

EatsDirt said:


> It seems odd to me to have someone with great line choice but not have the technique to back it up. I'm trying to picture a guy who might be great at blind racing but yet sucks at an unlimited practice DH course. Is that not a relatable scenario?
> 
> I guess I don't see that much of a separation between the two, and that's probably why I'll never be an instructor.


You easily see the difference between those with perfect technique but average line choice vs average technique but superior/more aggressive line choice, when ski instructors race.
My experience is that the one with better/more aggressive line choices is fastest, but perhaps sloppier.


----------



## RadBartTaylor (Dec 1, 2004)

PNW MTB said:


> This has been an interesting read so far. I've just started riding again after a 25 year hiatus. The ONLY mountain bike I have owned/ridden extensively is shown below.
> View attachment 1327549
> 
> Back in the late '80's this was considered one of the more, "hardcore" designs. 26" front wheel, 24" rear wheel, high bottom bracket, sloping top tube. You can kind of see that it is a "hybrid" between BMX and road bike. Remember, the first mountain bikes were just road bikes with fat tires and evolved into "cruiser" style frames with fat tires, and from there, the evolution of the MTB really began. Most of these "evolutions" were completely trial and error, done by cobbling whatever was at hand in an individuals shop to suit the particular types of trails/riding that particular individual or groups of individuals wanted to pursue. This was truly the wild, wild west of MTB. As we all know, the advent of mountain biking as we know it today largely emerged in the hills and mountains of northern California by a few of the forefathers of our sport, who eventually marketed their advances as "mountain bikes".
> ...


Nice bike, I just restored the one I rode growing up. I had the cheaper model, my Dad had the Red Shred....but after a few years I grew into it so adopted it. I don't think the Red Shreds ever had the 24" rear wheels, from memory, CDale phased that out in 86/87 on most of the bikes?


----------



## RadBartTaylor (Dec 1, 2004)

LMN said:


> Line choice is about reading a trail at speed. Knowing where to brake, where to turn in, what gaps to hit, what you can do and what you can't do. Technique combined with power gives you the ability to make that line choice work.
> 
> Think about it as instructor versus racer. The instructor is picture perfect in technique but has no where near the pace of a racer.
> 
> As I said I have followed some very good descenders and they make line choices on their first run I never thought of. Their ability to open corners and find berms where there are one is one of those things that makes them so fast.


Absolutely. Good skill on a bike opens up line choice without question.

I had a chance to race with several elite racers (2) years ago in the Trans Cascadia...Steve Peat, Luca shaw, Loris Vergier, Greg Minnar, Rat Boy, Geoff Kabush....to name just a few. I am also buddies with another guy that raced who is an ex world class Elite XC guy who a) is familiar with the trails we were racing and b) is an elite level descender relative to 99% of the MTB population. I asked him what he thought of the top guys and where they made up time on him (I was racing Amateur)....he said line choice. He got to follow a few of them down, so did I, but he was able to hang longer and actually see what they were doing.....off brakes, able to process and make smart line choices. This was a full blind race, Loris won, who doesn't race enduro and has never ridden or even seen the types of trails we were on. Around the campfire most of the pros said they were riding 70-80% max....


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

*How to ride "modern" bikes: Old school technique vs modern technique*

I put this video together to showcase how important it is to adjust your technique when you ride a more modern bike. They ride completely differently, and they need a modern (or correct) technique.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

A few points of clarification:

"Modern" technique could also be called "proper" riding technique, regardless of your bike's geo.

I recommend a "modern" technique on all bikes, not just "modern" bikes.

"Modern" technique is REQUIRED to ride modern bikes in control. You can't ride a modern bike well with old-school technique.

"Old school" technique is possible on old school geo, but modern technique on an old-school geo is even better.

Not all "new" bikes are "modern"

"Modern" bikes aren't best for everyone or every trail (but modern technique is).

What's a "modern" bike by my definition? I'm classifying "modern" hardtails as bikes with a 65* hta or slacker, and reaches longer than 440mm for a size med, or 470 for a size large.

Geometry charts only tell part of the story. I've found a few bikes that look perfect on paper, but they don't ride right at all. Nothing beats a test-ride.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

I'm not trying to "call anyone out," I'm trying to help those that are struggling to love riding their modern bikes. We've got a lot of really experienced, old-school riders here and I really respect them. I started riding in '94 and it took me forever to learn correct technique (I'm still learning, in fact). So if you still ride "old school", don't feel attacked, just see this as another way to approach modern bikes. Give it a try and see how it feels. You may be surprised.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Sorry Steve, I already posted this video a while ago and the thread got a ton of replies!
https://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/riding-style-old-vs-new-1132189.html

it was interesting for a while and then some people got butthurt over the comments. it got out of hand and I stopped reading.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

Ah, I wished I'd seen that so I could have chimed in. A few people get triggered by this video. Thanks for the link. Looks the the topic has drifted to a different conversation now


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

mack_turtle said:


> Sorry Steve, I already posted this video a while ago and the thread got a ton of replies!
> https://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/riding-style-old-vs-new-1132189.html
> 
> it was interesting for a while and then some people got butthurt over the comments. it got out of hand and I stopped reading.


Beat me to it...

https://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/riding-style-old-vs-new-1132189.html#post14643505

-F


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

hardtail party said:


> A few people get triggered by this video.


quite a few people get triggered by the concept that the way they've been riding for decades can be improved.

I'm a certified mtb skills instructor, and used to volunteer to coach a local NICA team. I'm no longer with that team because the guy who ran it felt threatened by me and pushed me out. Total old school rider whose standard refrain was "get back! get back!" anytime anything got a little bit technical.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Harold said:


> quite a few people get triggered by the concept that the way they've been riding for decades can be improved.
> 
> I'm a certified mtb skills instructor, and used to volunteer to coach a local NICA team. I'm no longer with that team because the guy who ran it felt threatened by me and pushed me out. Total old school rider whose standard refrain was "get back! get back!" anytime anything got a little bit technical.


that is because you learn something once and you are done. Why would you need to learn more? That is what spell check and calculators are for.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Getting back is the wise thing to do on XC bikes to get weight distro balanced well enough between the two wheels. Old school XC bikes are very front heavy, compared to modern bikes that have a slack HA and longer reach to kick the front wheel out further. Diff technique (fore-aft position) to adapt to each bike.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

Harold said:


> quite a few people get triggered by the concept that the way they've been riding for decades can be improved.
> 
> I'm a certified mtb skills instructor, and used to volunteer to coach a local NICA team. I'm no longer with that team because the guy who ran it felt threatened by me and pushed me out. Total old school rider whose standard refrain was "get back! get back!" anytime anything got a little bit technical.


Sadly, I've run into a handful of people who had a similar experience. I'm an educator as well and I'm always learning. Bikes, geo, and technique will change over time and I look forward to the new skills I'll learn in the future.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Can I merge the threads? Might benefit from being bumped and participation from the creator of the video.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

Sure. Fine by me.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Varaxis said:


> Getting back is the wise thing to do on XC bikes to get weight distro balanced well enough between the two wheels. Old school XC bikes are very front heavy, compared to modern bikes that have a slack HA and longer reach to kick the front wheel out further. Diff technique (fore-aft position) to adapt to each bike.


This is why I primarily encourage a change in the language used to describe what you're doing. What we're doing regardless of the bike's geometry is getting low (as low as possible, given our equipment) and staying centered. When the bike has a forward-bias geometry, we have to shift our weight rearwards more often. But when the bike's geometry changes to put the COG more rearward, then we have to be more conscious about keeping some weight on the front for control, but we're staying centered regardless. It doesn't have to be "different" technique if we describe it well to begin with.



hardtail party said:


> Sadly, I've run into a handful of people who had a similar experience. I'm an educator as well and I'm always learning. Bikes, geo, and technique will change over time and I look forward to the new skills I'll learn in the future.


Yeah, I've never pretended that my learning has stopped in any aspect of my life, so I'm totally with you on that. I was definitely stagnant in my progression for awhile, and riding got boring. When I started to prioritize learning again, things got fun and interesting again. I'm going to prod people to continue learning and adapting every chance I get.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Varaxis said:


> Getting back is the wise thing to do on XC bikes to get weight distro balanced well enough between the two wheels. Old school XC bikes are very front heavy, compared to modern bikes that have a slack HA and longer reach to kick the front wheel out further. Diff technique (fore-aft position) to adapt to each bike.


I disagree (respectively). Getting back is the way a lot of people ride XC bikes, but if you watch a really good rider on an XC bike they are centred on their bike like every other good rider on any other type of bike.

Yesterday I was out on my XC bike and hit a couple of very steep trails. On the first one, I fell into the trap of getting back and struggled. On the second one, I centred myself on the bike and rode it quickly and smoothly.

"Getting back" is not way to ride a bike, no matter what the geometry is on a bike.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

Even bikes from 2017 to today have changed a lot (depending on which model you get). A lot of people forget to change their riding to match the new bikes. Even if a new rider picks up a "modern" bike, they're going to instinctively lean away from scary terrain (i.e. dropping down a 12" step). Hopefully this discussion can help some of those riders see what they're doing and experiment with leaning into the terrain instead of away from it.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

hardtail party said:


> Even bikes from 2017 to today have changed a lot (depending on which model you get). A lot of people forget to change their riding to match the new bikes. Even if a new rider picks up a "modern" bike, they're going to instinctively lean away from scary terrain (i.e. dropping down a 12" step). Hopefully this discussion can help some of those riders see what they're doing and experiment with leaning into the terrain instead of away from it.


All of us have to fight the urge to ride defensively when we hit something that intimidates us. If you DH ski you have had the same experience, the second it gets steep and scary you want to get low and get back, which just makes things worse.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

LMN said:


> I disagree (respectively). Getting back is the way a lot of people ride XC bikes, but if you watch a really good rider on an XC bike they are centred on their bike like every other good rider on any other type of bike.


Right but on old school XC bikes (what's being discussed) you had to get behind the seat.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

jeremy3220 said:


> Right but on old school XC bikes (what's being discussed) you had to get behind the seat.


People did ride that way. But it wasn't necessary and the really good riders kept their weight centered between the wheels. Just like good rides do now. I actually I would say that on old school bikes (steep angles, low stems) riding with proper technique is much more critical than on a "modern bike"

"Modern bikes" allow you to ride pretty quickly with poor technique. Big wheels, slack-angles, and lots of suspension allows a rider to get back, get low, and just let the bike roll. On an old school geometry bike the same strategy has you going over the bars when the front wheel hits a hole.

I swap quite frequently between an XC hardtail and a 160mm travel Enduro bike. On the XC hardtail proper body position is absolutely critical to be able tackle technical terrain. If my technique is off by the smallest bit the bike punishes me. On the Enduro bike I can be pretty sloppy with my riding and still move at a reasonable pace.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

jeremy3220 said:


> Right but on old school XC bikes (what's being discussed) you had to get behind the seat.


I actually think that might be a fallacy based on the actual old school XC bike being the cause. I think more likely in the older days we got behind the saddle because our trails were often repurposed hiking or MX trails, game trails, or just worn in pathways. They weren't actually built so they had some serious steeps.

Then I think Mountain Bike Fiction, er Action, propagated the idea that to ride the steeps you needed to be way back but that was because they needed to shoot dramatic cover shots to sell their mag.

Finally I think that we did this to avoid going over the bars because we had no suspension and poorly performing brakes which were either on or non-existent.

I do think I rode my best from the center of the bike and as my bike got better I learned to ride more over the front because I could trust my brakes and the trails got better, though I would still ride off the back on super steep drop ins and they never felt good. I ride a rigid bike even now but have learned to stay up front on steep roll ins and drops and the landing feels so much more in control and I have not gone over the bars but again I mostly attribute this to trails actually being built to be ridden vs. riding wild terrain and finding lines.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

rockcrusher said:


> I actually think that might be a fallacy


I'm not sure it's such a fallacy. If you consider where handlebars are positioned relative to the front hub, there's a notable difference now compared to 1997 or whatever. Even on XC bikes. It was even more pronounced when you were unable to drop your saddle. Even though people were dropping their saddle for the downs pretty early so they COULD achieve a better riding position, that wasn't happening everywhere.

I cut my teeth learning to ride mtb in Indiana and Ohio during high school and college. Descents weren't big enough to warrant dropping your saddle via the QR, or with a Hite-Rite. You'd descend for no more than a few minutes before you needed to raise it again. Doing this job manually just didn't happen. Nobody did it. In some cases, there were some very short, serious steeps, but I don't think that was a primary factor. Simply nobody dropped their saddle. That old school XC geometry with the saddle way above your bars seriously limited your mobility over the bike. When your 120mm stem put you pretty far forward to begin with, the only way to "center" your body when descending was to hang your ass off the back of the saddle. Much more aggressively than needs to be done nowadays.

I lost count of the number of times I endo'd on the first bike I bought in 1997. Part of that was me being a noob and not knowing how to ride, but that wasn't all of it. I haven't gone OTB in years.

The people I hear who still use the old advice of "get back" are primarily people who learned to ride decades ago in places where you never dropped your saddle. They might have dropper posts and modern geo bikes now, but their brains are still focused on the things they learned in 1994, or maybe even earlier. Other commonalities I note: many of them are still 100% clipless pedal users and absolutely refuse to even make an attempt to learn how to use platforms and a fair number of them have never bothered with learning more advanced skills that aren't traditionally thought of as part of the "xc rider's toolbox" so to speak. Jumping, manuals, wheelies, bunny hops, etc. Sure, lots of them are fast as hell, but at some point they stopped learning new things on the bike, much as I stagnated for a number of years.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

rockcrusher said:


> I actually think that might be a fallacy based on the actual old school XC bike being the cause.


No way! We've moved the front wheel forward ~6" since the bad old days. If i need to have my center of mass 18" behind the front wheel, that 6" came from extending my arms and poking my glorious butt out.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

Harold said:


> If you consider where handlebars are positioned relative to the front hub, there's a notable difference now compared to 1997 or whatever. Even on XC bikes. It was even more pronounced when you were unable to drop your saddle. E


After learning to ride off-road clipped in with a road-height-seat and a 110mm stem in 1992-1993, I got so sick of going over the bars on downhills that by 1997 I had enough.

I built up an 13" hardtail frame with the tallest fork I could find (a first gen Z1), the shortest stem I could find, platforms, and an undersized rear wheel. The seat of course was slammed. I spent an entire summer just riding down steep things because... well, I could.

Eventually I snapped the headtube off that tiny frame, and bought into the big-travel FR bikes of the '00s... and all the questionable decision-making that entailed.

I'd like to say these varying approaches in the past improved my present-day riding, but I think anything gained has long since been lost.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Going over the bar is one of the most unpleasant experiences in mountain biking. Something that has driven bike evolution for the last 20 years.

But it isn't geometry, wheel size, or suspension that makes us go over bars. We go over the bars because we put our front wheel in a hole. If you don't want to go over the bars then don't put your front wheel the hole.

Keeping that front wheel out of that hole is primarily about technique. Modern geometry allows sloppier technique but you still have to keep that front wheel out of the hole.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

LMN said:


> Going over the bar is one of the most unpleasant experiences in mountain biking. Something that has driven bike evolution for the last 20 years.
> 
> But it isn't geometry, wheel size, or suspension that makes us go over bars. We go over the bars because we put our front wheel in a hole. If you don't want to go over the bars then don't put your front wheel the hole.
> 
> Keeping that front wheel out of that hole is primarily about technique. Modern geometry allows sloppier technique but you still have to keep that front wheel out of the hole.


I'm guessing someone is going to chime in with math and show how the endo angle is most definitely related to going over the bars.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

rockcrusher said:


> I actually think that might be a fallacy based on the actual old school XC bike being the cause. .


I already posted a video of UCI Elites riding like that back in the day. Honestly, at this point in the discussion I don't think I care what people attribute it to but there's no denying that people rode butt back with their arms nearly straight at a very high level of competition once upon a time.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

jeremy3220 said:


> I already posted a video of UCI Elites riding like that back in the day. Honestly, at this point in the discussion I don't think I care what people attribute it to but there's no denying that people rode butt back with their arms nearly straight at a very high level of competition once upon a time.


Absolutely, no doubt. But remember "back in the day" everybody was trying to figure out how to mountain bike. And experienced professional mountain biker had been riding for like 5 years at that point.

As the sport has matured "we" have learned the techniques that work and the techniques that don't. The techniques that we used back in the day were just bad.

But still the best riders were centred on their bikes.

It is DH footage, but DH bikes in those days were slightly beefed up XC bikes.


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

Y'all are still just being lazy by relying on old false stereotypes.
So I'll just rely on a previous post too.

Elite racers and experienced coaches in BC in the mid 1990s were already using and teaching balanced over the pedals, being over the front of the bike as you start a drop so you can stab if needed, lateral separation between bike and body for turning (bike leaned into the turn more than the body) etc...

Beginners rode the way the OP suggests in the 1990s, but many beginners still do at present. 

1990s Elite racers (such as Andrew Shandro) and good coaches overcame old style short and steep geometries by anticipating the terrain by being balanced over both pedals, resulting in being more over the front of the bars (relative to your stereotype) and being in a position to lift and thrust to overcome obstacles. Using the proper technique in ANTICIPATION of the obstacle, rather than waiting for the bike to do all the work, is the way it was done then and still now.

ps: back in 1987 and 88 at the CanAm Championship at Blackcomb, there was a dual slalom that was set down open ski runs the same as a Ski Giant Slalom would have been set. It was critical to be balanced over the centre of the bike and maintain pressure on the front side tire lugs, and the fastest guys did not unclip for corners (fully committed with toe straps back then too) Four BC riders who were racing one step below Pro category qualified in the top 5 overall for the dual slalom and got bumped up to Pro for the finals (these four and the fastest US riders had ski racing backgrounds, and were already transferring skills and teaching techniques from skis to wheels, instead of using what was published in Mtn Bike Action and Bicycling). But for the Worlds at Mammoth, the slalom course was set to be a downhill BMX with bermed corners and was much slower, and from that point skiers lost their advantage over BMX'ers)


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

You had to do work because of the bikes then were poorly optimized and depended more on a rider to adapt with skill. Bikes now require far less work to ride. It's more that it's not as F'd up, than it doing more work. I recall Shaun Palmer saying something along the lines of there being much less difference between the times of top skilled and less skilled riders because bikes have improved so much.

ccm, what you're describing is instantaneous weight shifting, as an alternative to steady-state weight shifting.

How much weight is on each wheel is something that has been tuned by geo changes. Pushing the front wheel out 6" has made it so all the weight supported by the pedals is more on the rear than the front, so you don't have to resort to such big rearward weight shifts to unweight the front. Questions arise regarding what is lost by not having as much weight on the front. These changes taken too far will have riders are doing the opposite, feeling like they have to weight the front and have a grippier front tire. There's a sweet spot, and it can vary by preference.

XC riders feel like their XC tires have good grip up front probably because of their less rearward-biased weight balance.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Varaxis said:


> XC riders feel like their XC tires have good grip up front probably because of their less rearward-biased weight balance.


That has definately been my experience as the our centre of gravity has moved backwards. I feel need to push harder on that front end to get it to bite, or I need more tire.


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

^ Yeah. I agree with Varaxis and Palmer. It sucks now :-( 
that I can't anymore make up 30 seconds on short sections of downhill to make up for what I lose on the ups. Because of better bikes and more engineered trails, everyone goes now goes fast on the downhill, and the really fast only gain seconds.

Also agree with you about xc racers being able to get grip with xc tires, plus xc'ers try to carve more and schralp and cuttie less (since those equal scrubbing off speed)​
Hey LMN. You snooked in ahead of me again while I was writing


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

LMN said:


> As the sport has matured "we" have learned the techniques that work and the techniques that don't. The techniques that we used back in the day were just bad.
> 
> But still the best riders were centred on their bikes.


Seems to me that when the majority of good and even great riders developed techniques (without coaching) that you are saying are bad, chances are the bike designs of the era were the common thread... and whatever technique there was developed out of necessity.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

EatsDirt said:


> Seems to me that when the majority of good and even great riders developed techniques (without coaching) that you are saying are bad, chances are the bike designs of the era were the common thread... and whatever technique there was developed out of necessity.


I grew up swimming competitively. Water hasn't changed, swim suits have changed a bit but the way we swim has changed dramatically. Technique changes as we learn more and more about the sports. It is called progression.

I ride my gravel bike (which is pretty darn close to an early 90s MTB) on single track all the time. Guess what, I am not hanging off the back of the bike. Hanging off the back of bike is terrifying and once you learn not to do it you don't.

Did you ride and race in the 90s yourself?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

What exactly are you picturing when you say get back?









When I picture it, it's like this. Short riders have a shorter rope and are more likely to be found hanging at the end of it.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

LMN said:


> But still the best riders were centred on their bikes.
> 
> It is DH footage, but DH bikes in those days were slightly beefed up XC bikes.


Thanks for posting these. They were fun to watch.

I'd love to see a trend line for average height of DH'ers at national/international level. I bet it steadily creeps upward. In the bad old days designers tried to cram everyone on to the same size frame. My first mtb came with a 150mm stem. 6" of stem!


----------



## PNW MTB (Apr 17, 2020)

RadBartTaylor said:


> Nice bike, I just restored the one I rode growing up. I had the cheaper model, my Dad had the Red Shred....but after a few years I grew into it so adopted it. I don't think the Red Shreds ever had the 24" rear wheels, from memory, CDale phased that out in 86/87 on most of the bikes?
> 
> View attachment 1328797


I stand corrected, I guess I should get the old girl out of the closet more than once every 25 years or so! LOL


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

RadBartTaylor said:


> Nice bike, I just restored the one I rode growing up. I had the cheaper model, my Dad had the Red Shred....but after a few years I grew into it so adopted it. I don't think the Red Shreds ever had the 24" rear wheels, from memory, CDale phased that out in 86/87 on most of the bikes?
> 
> View attachment 1328797


That steer tube length was absurd on those! I remember them sportin that new bike smell back in the day. At the time, I had a Breezer and a CBR.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

LMN said:


> Absolutely, no doubt. But remember "back in the day" everybody was trying to figure out how to mountain bike. And experienced professional mountain biker had been riding for like 5 years at that point.
> 
> As the sport has matured "we" have learned the techniques that work and the techniques that don't. The techniques that we used back in the day were just bad.


Right, it's to be expected that sports evolve over time. Current freestyle BMX riders look like ninja-acrobats compared to the riders from back when I rode. So regardless of the reason and with being judgmental, some of those early bad techniques have carried over among amateur riders to this day. Those riders don't need to be ridiculed for being old school and if they want to improve they'll take a class and learn the proper technique.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

LMN said:


> I grew up swimming competitively. Water hasn't changed, swim suits have changed a bit but the way we swim has changed dramatically. Technique changes as we learn more and more about the sports. It is called progression.I ride my gravel bike (which is pretty darn close to an early 90s MTB) on single track all the time. Guess what, I am not hanging off the back of the bike. Hanging off the back of bike is terrifying and once you learn not to do it you don't.Did you ride and race in the 90s yourself?


I definitely raced through most of the 90s and although I wasnt paid to ride a bike, occasionally I would hold the wheel of those who did. Apparently I did this with bad technique?

Also, despite taking over 10 years off, I had zero problems getting up to a competitive speed on a modern bike.

My point is this... You seem to emphasize what is taught and progression and yet it appears you are dismissive of the technique change that comes naturally (to me) for the different bikes. The understeer alone on steep HT bikes requires a far different approach from my experience, let alone the forward weight bias.

I'm guessing that you're not going as fast or braking as hard on that gravel bike as you would on an old rig...

Anecdotal, but I just watched a Remy Metallier (sp?) video where he say says flat brake levers better align him for when he is butt back or something to that extent. I know there are trails I've ridden recently where you creep in as slow as possible, basically sitting on the back tire before committing to full passenger type steep shoots. Pretty sure I'm not doing it wrong. Perhaps riding centered a conditional thing and not a hard technique rule as you seem to propose.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

EatsDirt said:


> I'm guessing that you're not going as fast or braking as hard on that gravel bike as you would on an old rig...


Depends on far we go back. Disk brakes and tubeless tires does a lot for a bike. I bet my gravel bike is a superior bike to the drop bar bike that Tomac raced.

I too was riding and racing in the 90s and was from sounds of it was a similar level to you. And yes, I did do this with bad technique. I have no problems saying that what I thought was correct, was super confident was correct, was in fact wrong.

In my quiver I have a huge range of bikes. Quite often I will ride an XC hardtail one day and the next day be out on a 160mm Enduro bike with a super slack head angle. The bikes are different to ride, but the technique is fundamentally the same.

If you watch Remy you will see that he doesn't actually move back on the bike. The angle of the bike might change under him, but he doesn't move back.

Descending steep terrain is and has always been about getting that front wheel to grip. You don't get front wheel grip by moving back.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

EatsDirt said:


> I definitely raced through most of the 90s and although I wasnt paid to ride a bike, occasionally I would hold the wheel of those who did. Apparently I did this with bad technique?
> 
> Also, despite taking over 10 years off, I had zero problems getting up to a competitive speed on a modern bike.
> 
> ...


It might be "wrong" according to another but it isn't wrong if ya did the ride without a crash or a dab. Subjective is all it is so what works for me may or may not work for another. There are infinite methods to anything.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

BansheeRune said:


> It might be "wrong" according to another but it isn't wrong if ya did the ride without a crash or a dab. Subjective is all it is so what works for me may or may not work for another. There are infinite methods to anything.


I agree with you for the most part. Perhaps at the upper end of speed/skills things become less "wrong" and more preference/style/approach but wtf do I know...


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

EatsDirt said:


> I agree with you for the most part. Perhaps at the upper end of speed/skills things become less "wrong" and more preference/style/approach but wtf do I know...


What the hell, I know less and less every day! :cornut:

I ride observed trials as well as doing the Rocky Mountain high, if you will. There is little level ground here in the Rockies and they are appropriately called the Rockies. What that translates to is many natural features are a God made bike park feature just for us to ride bikes on.

Since there is no code book that dictates how it's done, nor is there an inspector to red tag our ride, it gets down to the eye of the beholder. Subjective as saddles and tire pressure.

Either way, it is, indeed all about the enjoyment of the bicycle and ride!


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

I have a feeling a lot of this old vs new riding style has more to do with dropper posts than geometry.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Train Wreck said:


> I have a feeling a lot of this old vs new riding style has more to do with dropper posts than geometry.


This^^^^


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

EatsDirt said:


> I agree with you for the most part. Perhaps at the upper end of speed/skills things become less "wrong" and more preference/style/approach but wtf do I know...


Being a great rider and having great technique do not necessarily go hand in hand. All sports are full of champions who make really marginal technique work.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

I hear a lot of people say it's more about droppers but I don't see it. Even in the 90s we dropped our saddles for descents. Our bikes had qr posts that dropped. I still see tons of riders on recent bikes riding "old school" style, despite having droppers.

Now, it you high post everywhere, then this modern technique isn't even possible. I feel like it's more about reach and long front centers than seat height.


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

That's funny because you can see old footage of John Tomac doing downhill races with a high post in the 90's. But "we dropped our saddles for descents" back then? Someone should have tipped off John T.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

Plenty of us did drop our saddles back then. You can find one-off examples of people doing differently, but this technique is more than just a low seat.

The whole reason quick release seat post collars exist is because we were often adjusting our seats for long downs.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Train Wreck said:


> I have a feeling a lot of this old vs new riding style has more to do with dropper posts than geometry.


Pfft! That lends to ride whatcha brung.



hardtail party said:


> I hear a lot of people say it's more about droppers but I don't see it. Even in the 90s we dropped our saddles for descents. Our bikes had qr posts that dropped. I still see tons of riders on recent bikes riding "old school" style, despite having droppers.
> 
> Now, it you high post everywhere, then this modern technique isn't even possible. I feel like it's more about reach and long front centers than seat height.


Remember the Hite Rite spring? They worked at any temperature and didn't allow for the seat rattle that many droppers offer.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Wish I could find the videos I've seen of some of the old MTBers running HiteRites and reaching down to operate their seatpost QRs on the fly, at speed. So badass.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

The long front ends give you more confidence to put more weight on the front wheel. The older bikes had sketchy front ends and by instinct made me ride off the back of the bike to not feel like I'm about to go over the bars. When you shift all that weight to the back regardless of what geo you ride...you'll lose traction on the front wheel. When that happens...the bike rides you. With the new long/slack bikes...you can't ride off the back even if you want to. With the front wheel so far in front of you...and you sit back...you have no control over the bike. You have to weight the front wheel to be able to steer it...or else the bike will just want to go straight.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

Exactly


----------



## beastmaster (Sep 19, 2012)

The idea of "old vs new" styles seems patently ridiculous to me. Here is why. Equipment-involved sports shape how the equipment is used. Look at how tennis is played now compared to 25 or 30 years ago. Look how much skiing was changed as a result of shaped skis. In every equipment-based sport the equipment is evolved to make the "game" easier and therefore more progressive--meaning it advances the athlete and therefore the sport. Do large head tennis rackets make hitting the ball easier? Yes, but it also makes the ball leave the racket at higher speeds more accurately. Do shaped skis make turning easier? Yes, but it also allows the skier to place their body over the ski more effectively with greater control which in turn (no pun intended) means greater speed and precision and that makes skiing more challenging.

While some sports are purely athlete oriented (running), anytime there is a device involved and that device changes, the athlete adapts to use it. There are lots of reasons devices evolve but mostly its because product engineers see a way to advance something. Bikes are no different.

I ride completely differently than I did on a 26" wheeled bike back in the day. Now I ride completely differently than I did just 6 or 7 years ago. Part of that is just me and my learning arch towards greater proficiency, but part of that is the bike and how best to use it. I have a new 2020 short travel 29er (120/130) and I am riding this bike even better (meaning faster with more control) than the 2016 "endurance xc" 29er (120/120) I had with that generations "new" geo. Good athletes adapt.

Personally, I love how excellent product engineers are advancing bikes. Just look at what we can do on bikes now? It's amazing.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

beastmaster said:


> While some sports are purely athlete oriented (running), anytime there is a device involved and that device changes, the athlete adapts to use it.


I agree with your points. Believe it or not, even running is affected. About a decade ago running shoes went through an evolution to lower heel heights, which led to runners changing their technique. Suddenly running with a heel strike was taboo and a lot of people changed their gait to either a midfoot strike or forefoot strike. I can't say it led to advancement of the sport as a whole though, but it's an example of how the participant changes their technique to match a change in equipment.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

slapheadmofo said:


> Wish I could find the videos I've seen of some of the old MTBers running HiteRites and reaching down to operate their seatpost QRs on the fly, at speed. So badass.


Speaking of HiteRite, Gary Fisher admitted that there were pneudraulic droppers back when HiteRite around, that were better hands down. It's just that he was buddies with HiteRite makers and couldn't support competitors to the HiteRite.

------

Kind of amusing that this thread got people to admit that coaches, like in NICA, are teaching outdated info that doesn't account for differences in bikes, as if bikes didn't matter. The same people changed their tune from a year ago, defending such coaches.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

beastmaster said:


> The idea of "old vs new" styles seems patently ridiculous to me. Here is why. Equipment-involved sports shape how the equipment is used. Look at how tennis is played now compared to 25 or 30 years ago. Look how much skiing was changed as a result of shaped skis. In every equipment-based sport the equipment is evolved to make the "game" easier and therefore more progressive--meaning it advances the athlete and therefore the sport. Do large head tennis rackets make hitting the ball easier? Yes, but it also makes the ball leave the racket at higher speeds more accurately. Do shaped skis make turning easier? Yes, but it also allows the skier to place their body over the ski more effectively with greater control which in turn (no pun intended) means greater speed and precision and that makes skiing more challenging.
> 
> While some sports are purely athlete oriented (running), anytime there is a device involved and that device changes, the athlete adapts to use it. There are lots of reasons devices evolve but mostly its because product engineers see a way to advance something. Bikes are no different.
> 
> ...


This is an outstanding post.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

beastmaster said:


> The idea of "old vs new" styles seems patently ridiculous to me. Here is why. Equipment-involved sports shape how the equipment is used. Look at how tennis is played now compared to 25 or 30 years ago. Look how much skiing was changed as a result of shaped skis. In every equipment-based sport the equipment is evolved to make the "game" easier and therefore more progressive--meaning it advances the athlete and therefore the sport. Do large head tennis rackets make hitting the ball easier? Yes, but it also makes the ball leave the racket at higher speeds more accurately. Do shaped skis make turning easier? Yes, but it also allows the skier to place their body over the ski more effectively with greater control which in turn (no pun intended) means greater speed and precision and that makes skiing more challenging.
> 
> While some sports are purely athlete oriented (running), anytime there is a device involved and that device changes, the athlete adapts to use it. There are lots of reasons devices evolve but mostly its because product engineers see a way to advance something. Bikes are no different.
> 
> ...





scottzg said:


> This is an outstanding post.


This is a fantastic post. Tire width, tire compounds, tubeless, suspension advancement, hydraulic disc brakes, geometry, droppers, 1x, etc. all make a profound difference, but not a good video title.


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> Wish I could find the videos I've seen of some of the old MTBers running HiteRites and reaching down to operate their seatpost QRs on the fly, at speed. So badass.


That would be sooooooo badass!


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

LMN said:


> ...
> 
> Descending steep terrain is and has always been about getting that front wheel to grip. You don't get front wheel grip by moving back.


 Getting back is due to fear. If you are neutral and then front end catches something and slows down the momentum of your body keeps going. This throws you forward and unless you are prepared it can put your CG too far forward and cause an OTB. However if you get back and then get stalled a little you can move forward and still not get to the tip point. If you take a smooth steep is really amazing how "forward" you can be and roll down it easy. One think I really learned on my 2003 vintage 26" HT was to "let the front wheel roll". If I was on a steep and rocky DH it was best to let the front wheel roll. Don't slam on the brakes or overslow. This will make it more likely to get the front tire stuck and bang OTB. Heck I have been climbing and even a 2" rock ledge can cause an OTB if I let my body move forward as the front tire gets stalled out. Modern geo bikes give you more margin to not get back as the front wheel is already farther in front. And you are right. Too much weight back and the front tire has no grip.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

hardtail party said:


> Plenty of us did drop our saddles back then. You can find one-off examples of people doing differently, but this technique is more than just a low seat.
> 
> The whole reason quick release seat post collars exist is because we were often adjusting our seats for long downs.


I did a ride on a 26" Freeride bike. 2006 Rocky Mtn Switch. Small frame size, but 170mm of travel. That bike could not pedal well up hill at all (and was 46lbs), but I took it down a super gnarly trail and lowered the seat manually. Man I could ride that bike through serious "tire catcher" rock gardens if I kept my speed up and got low (not back) on the bike. Reach was crazy short, but with no seat in the way I could easily move around. Of coures if I had to pedal seat down forget it. Standing pealing sucked too since the rear moved so much. On my XC HT with the seat up I had to get in a odd position because I had to get out of the way of the seat. If not as the bike moved under me it would just hit me. If I wanted to be low I had to be back. If I wanted to be centered I had to be high. There was no in between. If I lowered the seat manually I could not pedal. For an XC bike you keep the seat at about 95 to 100% optimal pedaling and just made do on the downs and in the corners. On a more "trail" bike you had the seat 80-90% of where you wanted for pedaling and just "dealt with it" on the climbs. Or you constantly moved it which really sucks if you are on terrain with both ups and downs.

As I think about it droppers have allowed for longer reach. In the old days if the seat is up in order to lower your CG you had to go back. This if the reach was too long you took too much weight off the front tire. Now with dropper you can lower your CG while stating forward (or center neutral) this keeping weight on the front tire. You can be low and centered where as with fixed seat post you can't unless you compromise pedaling performance.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

JoePAz said:


> Getting back is due to fear.


That... or an overly front heavy weight bias.

Take a 72* HA, throw on a 130mm stem, add high BB, and you have a stoppie/nose pivot machine on regular old flat ground... also good for a carcass toss endo in steeps.

Ok, maybe it was fear.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I remember there being some English vs American hop thing going on years ago. I wonder this trend had anything to do with it. With the front wheel so close to the cranks, you'd have to pick up a large % of your bodyweight being supported by the pedals too, making manuals more difficult, and therefore "J-hops" difficult. Picking up both wheels at the same time wasn't as hard though.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> Wish I could find the videos I've seen of some of the old MTBers running HiteRites and reaching down to operate their seatpost QRs on the fly, at speed. So badass.


I did this for years, but didn't have a hite-rite. It's just a learned skill- you position your thighs right, and flip the cam open and shut. I can't do it with any clamp other than a salsa (or clone), but it's easy to learn. In ~2006 i wondered if someone would come out with an oval seat tube so the move would be easy for the plebs. Lol.

I'm not bragging- it was just something everyone learned how to do. Or they learned to highpost, or to stand for solid efforts, or whatever. I got good at it cuz i was a shitty athlete at the time. It compensated for my poor strength and ability to pick lines.

________________________________________
It's a dead skill. I still use it with my gravity dropper posts. They have 125mm drop, and i need 140mm for some trails, or in the bike park. I drop the posts with a QR for the rare descent where it's useful. Losing 10-15mm on small climbs is no big deal.


----------

