# Help me understand geo changes in the last 5ish years?



## asilker (5 mo ago)

Hey folks if you look at my profile you'll see that I've been starting threads asking more about full suspension setups. I realize there is a lot of information available to me, and I'm trying to read it all but it's difficult to get it together in one place where I can understand it all.

Right now I'm on a Timberjack, which people casually refer to as having "modern" geometry - the rear triangle is short, bottom bracket is lower.

Cost is a consideration for me regarding a full sus frame, but even more than that it feels like it's a high dollar investment for a device which might have just awful design if things aren't completely dialed. People talk about improvements in antisquat and feel and everything else... I kinda just don't know where to go and what to look at. The Polygon Siskiu T8 and the Diamondback Release 2 are both on my radar, and both of these have reviews that say their geo is dialed, and other comments that say their geo is old and stale.

If possible I'd really prefer not to pay for a brand like Santa Cruz. Not trying to throw shade, I think the brand is cool and I know they have a reputation for being on the cutting edge of geo trends, but I have little kids and I just cannot afford it right now.

That's kind of a lot of info... but hoping to collect some opinions and/or guidance. Also don't mind being told I'm wrong or taking some more directive advice. Fire away.
_
Admin edit: Image added for newsletter








_


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

What are you riding, where are you riding, and how do you find your current hardtail?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Real marginal IME. Steepening the ST a few degrees and a few degrees slacker HTA has not affected my riding in any noticeable way. A bit lower BB is noticeable with more pedal strikes and requiring shorter cranks. Dropper posts, shorter stems and wide bars were well established 5 years ago and the main reasons why you can descend better/faster/safer/easier, etc. Some of the HTAs go too far IME and really offer no improvement, as the improvements come from other areas, they just serve more as a reason to try and get people to buy new bikes. Looking at my race times in various disciplines.


----------



## asilker (5 mo ago)

Timberjack
places like brown county IN and blue mound WI
I love my hardtail but I am starting to ride more technical rock garden stuff, it's causing me physical pain in my back and it's difficult to maintain grip with my rear wheel.


----------



## asilker (5 mo ago)

Jayem said:


> Real marginal IME. Steepening the ST a few degrees and a few degrees slacker HTA has not affected my riding in any noticeable way. A bit lower BB is noticeable with more pedal strikes and requiring shorter cranks. Dropper posts, shorter stems and wide bars were well established 5 years ago and the main reasons why you can descend better/faster/safer/easier, etc. Some of the HTAs go too far IME and really offer no improvement, as the improvements come from other areas, they just serve more as a reason to try and get people to buy new bikes. Looking at my race times in various disciplines.


Interesting.

I know a number of bikes ship with flip chips for BB height tweaks, isn't it also a possibility to adjust sag to try and get the geo just right too? obviously don't want to just bottom stuff out but lets say we have 140mm in the rear and a highish BB -- couldn't I just try a little more sag and see whats what?


----------



## ajen2410 (Feb 16, 2021)

Here's some information:








Bicycle Geometry Terms – 99 Spokes


Descriptions of bike geometry terms and measurements, visualized and explained.




99spokes.com












Understanding Bicycle Geometry – 99 Spokes







99spokes.com





The first one talks about the terms if you're unfamiliar with them, and the second talks about what they do and how they affect your riding.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

JM's right, this is all real minor differences in the end. The steeper ST is nice, for me, when climbing. But really only because I have ~ 38" saddle/pedal height. Previously, my ass would be hanging back over the hub and that just sucked. However, there are trade-offs and this isn't as comfortable on the flats. Then again, bikes for the tall are generally a series of screwed up compromises anyway. The BB drop helps with cornering, but I'm not sure how significant it is unless you're on high-speed flowy trails in the first place. Sag is more about spring rate than BB height, so I wouldn't really mess with that trying to affect geometry. For that part of the country, I think those 'dated' geo's would probably be more enjoyable than the 'cutting edge' geo's anyway. 

Now, kinematics (how the suspension acts).. that's a totally different discussion.


----------



## goldsbar (Dec 2, 2004)

asilker said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I know a number of bikes ship with flip chips for BB height tweaks, isn't it also a possibility to adjust sag to try and get the geo just right too? obviously don't want to just bottom stuff out but lets say we have 140mm in the rear and a highish BB -- couldn't I just try a little more sag and see whats what?


Your suspension should be setup to give you the best suspension performance for your ride, not to solve geometry issues. Otherwise, you're getting submaximal performance from suspension parts that make up a large cost of the bike.


----------



## asilker (5 mo ago)

goldsbar said:


> Your suspension should be setup to give you the best suspension performance for your ride, not to solve geometry issues. Otherwise, you're getting submaximal performance from suspension parts that make up a large cost of the bike.


got it. makes sense.

I'm reading all the replies, please keep them coming


----------



## asilker (5 mo ago)

dysfunction said:


> JM's right, this is all real minor differences in the end. The steeper ST is nice, for me, when climbing. But really only because I have ~ 38" saddle/pedal height. Previously, my ass would be hanging back over the hub and that just sucked. However, there are trade-offs and this isn't as comfortable on the flats. Then again, bikes for the tall are generally a series of screwed up compromises anyway. The BB drop helps with cornering, but I'm not sure how significant it is unless you're on high-speed flowy trails in the first place. Sag is more about spring rate than BB height, so I wouldn't really mess with that trying to affect geometry. For that part of the country, I think those 'dated' geo's would probably be more enjoyable than the 'cutting edge' geo's anyway.
> 
> Now, kinematics (how the suspension acts).. that's a totally different discussion.


So I'm understanding this to mean that the biggest changes have been seat tube angle + head tube angle + BB drop

yes?


----------



## North woods gal (Apr 26, 2021)

I switched over to modern geometry 75/76 STA and 66 HTA give or take a degree on my FS 29ers this season and have to say I won't be going back to the old geometry again. Sold off my vintage FS 29ers because I wasn't using them, so hoping maybe someone else will get some use out of them. Oh, not that I couldn't ride my older vintage FS 29ers, but I just like the new stuff more.

I definitely prefer FS for all my trail riding these days and consider changing to FS from hardtail the most important change to my riding. Definite benefits in keeping the rear wheel on the ground in the rough stuff and reducing fishtailing in the soft stuff via FS. More forgiving when I don't get my line just right. Likely saved me from some spills. Yeah, the comfort is nice, too.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

asilker said:


> So I'm understanding this to mean that the biggest changes have been seat tube angle + head tube angle + BB drop
> 
> yes?


In the last 5ish years, I'd say that's pretty much it. Certainly these would be the differences between stuff that's available new now. When was the last time you were riding? If it's been a decade or more, well then, there's a lot more to discuss.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

asilker said:


> Timberjack
> places like brown county IN and blue mound WI
> I love my hardtail but I am starting to ride more technical rock garden stuff, it's causing me physical pain in my back and it's difficult to maintain grip with my rear wheel.


Your bike shouldn't be causing you pain. Do you have an old injury or medical problem that the bike is exacerbating?

I ride a hardtail exclusively in Pisgah, which is far rougher than anything in that part of the midwest (I have helped build some of the stuff in Brown County, IN, and am heading there this weekend to ride), and don't have back pain of any kind. 



dysfunction said:


> For that part of the country, I think those 'dated' geo's would probably be more enjoyable than the 'cutting edge' geo's anyway.


At least in Brown County, the trails are all new enough that more modern geometries work very well. I used to live in IN and wouldn't say that I found my old bikes more enjoyable than old geo bikes. There was a period of time where there were very, very few legal trails in the state. Probably more than 90% of what's legal to ride across the state now was purpose built for mountain bikes by mountain bikers. The few trails that were legal to ride BITD and remain open now are not shining examples of trails where 90's geo bikes excelled, either.

Dunno about trails in WI.


----------



## DaddyFatStax (Dec 10, 2018)

Everyone harps on seat angle, and maybe it is all its cracked up to be, but I have a ridiculous 38" inseam and the "slack" 74 degree angle on my 2019 stumpjumper feels fine on any climb that doesnt make me stand up anyway. Granted I'm on the punchy east coast, not climbing a fire road for extended periods, i have lots of ups and downs.

74 degrees used to be considered steep, not so much any more. Then again all the brands measure it differently I think. When I stand back and look the saddle doesnt appear to be all that far behind the bb even with my super long seat post.

the 66.5 degree head angle works really well for my area and style as well, though that may be considered steep to the Pinkbike crowd. It all depends what you want and what kind of riding you do. As others have said, the last 5 years have been more minor changes that aren't critical imo. Any older than that and you really are making big compromises.


----------



## asilker (5 mo ago)

Harold said:


> Your bike shouldn't be causing you pain. Do you have an old injury or medical problem that the bike is exacerbating?
> 
> I ride a hardtail exclusively in Pisgah, which is far rougher than anything in that part of the midwest (I have helped build some of the stuff in Brown County, IN, and am heading there this weekend to ride), and don't have back pain of any kind.
> 
> ...


We are aggressively remodeling a house, I have little kids, and we tent camp so MTB aside my back gets plenty of "gentle use". the rocks at blue mound last week just beat me up good.

And hey thanks for investing so much time an energy in Brown County. It's a lovely trail system


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

asilker said:


> We are aggressively remodeling a house, I have little kids, and we tent camp so MTB aside my back gets plenty of "gentle use". the rocks at blue mound last week just beat me up good.
> 
> And hey thanks for investing so much time an energy in Brown County. It's a lovely trail system


Let me restate. Your bike should not be causing you back pain. If it does, then there's something else going on that you probably ought to fix. Switching to a FS bike might reduce the pain, but it's not solving the cause of it.

As for my assistance at Brown County, thanks. I was only a small piece in the system there. Many other people put a lot more hours into that trail system than me. I only mentioned my involvement to provide a sense of my familiarity with the terrain.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I kind of get wanting a full suspension for lower back pain. I screwed my back up last year, and ended up getting a shorter travel FS bike to ride on the daily (because the hardtail just was NOT comfortable to ride). It was either that, stop riding, or ride a long travel bike on everything... kinda dull on a morning cross country ride


----------



## bingemtbr (Apr 1, 2004)

Test ride as many different bikes as possible. Often what appears in print makes so much sense--and then you test ride the bike, and its hot garbage. Bikes from different manufacturers with identical geometry will often ride differently. 

Regarding BC, the one trail that _could benefit_ from specific geometry is Hobbs Hollow. I've ridden all of BC on a 2003 SS, 2005 DH bike, 2014 26" dualie, a 2008 HT, 2021 gravel bike, and next week I'll be riding BC with my SC Tallboy. 

I've ridden Blue Mound, Levis Mound, and Kettle throughout the last couple decades. Pretty much any bike is suitable for those trails. I wouldn't consider riding a 40+ lb DH bike there but I've seen it done.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

dysfunction said:


> I kind of get wanting a full suspension for lower back pain. I screwed my back up last year, and ended up getting a shorter travel FS bike to ride on the daily (because the hardtail just was NOT comfortable to ride). It was either that, stop riding, or ride a long travel bike on everything... kinda dull on a morning cross country ride


you can at least pin it to an injury. injuries need time to heal. if OP doesn't know why his back hurts, it would be very beneficial to figure out why. is it a fit issue? is it a core strength issue? is it a technique issue? is there a health problem that can be addressed? 



bingemtbr said:


> Regarding BC, the one trail that _could benefit_ from specific geometry is Hobbs Hollow. I've ridden all of BC on a 2003 SS, 2005 DH bike, 2014 26" dualie, a 2008 HT, 2021 gravel bike, and next week I'll be riding BC with my SC Tallboy.


will you be attending the Epic? I'm headed down for that and will be sticking around for a few days after.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

People call anything modern these days, perhaps comparing it to very old school bikes that were awful. 

Your image shows the visual difference between old school and modern quite well. The steeper STA and accompanying increase in reach, to keep the ETT the same, is basically the minimum trait of what modern geo is considered to be. Others might include a longer WB as part of what makes a bike modern.

The Timberjack is a short wheelbase bike, that I'd say is good at making short and easy trails more interesting. It's not defensive nor aggro, in regards to your position when riding it. An aggro bike encourages you to change your habits of getting weight rearward.

The Siskiu T8 is quite up-to-date in terms of modern geo. I'd describe the Release 5C (27.5) like I described the Timberjack. Just lacks the steep STA, but it doesn't really need it being such a short travel bike. Everything else in the DB catalog is made for more defensive riding styles, except for the Mission. The Mission really needs the steeper STA, IMO. That bike was pretty good in 2018, compared to stuff like the Cannondale Jekyll 2 27.5, but long travel bikes just suffer at climbing without the steep STA.


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

asilker said:


> So I'm understanding this to mean that the biggest changes have been seat tube angle + head tube angle + BB drop
> 
> yes?


Yes, but also suspensions have gotten much better.

They used to have to deal with dual chainrings, so now that everything is 1x, they can optimize for that, and everything is much more dialed in.

My 2016 bike was extremely fun on the downhills, and felt optimized for that, but I gave up a lot elsewhere. When I climbed, the rear end wallowed and sucked energy, and when I stood up and sprinted the bike bounced under me like I was running on a mattress.

My 2021 bike truly feels like the promise of 'what you need when you need it', finally, at a reasonable price point. It's to the point that I don't notice it doing it's stuff explicitly, the bike just feels very hard-tail like when I'm stomping on the pedals on the straights, sticks to the terrain pretty well when I'm grinding up something technical, and has a progressive, 'bottomless' feel when I land hard.


----------



## justwan naride (Oct 13, 2008)

Bikes have gotten longer in wheelbase and the rider position more centralized between the wheels overall. More than one ways to end up with this result, but for many brands it means a slacker head tube angle, long reach, steep seat tube angle, moderate to long rear center. That's all in comparison to earlier bikes (2016-18) that were already getting slack at the front but didn't focus on rider position as much.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Steepening the seat tube angle has a bonus effect, where there's less of a difference between the seated and standing position. This also means that there's less difference between suspension sag between the two positions. You could run more than 15% sag on the fork and suffer from less dive, and less than 30-35% sag in the rear and suffer from less bob.

How tall are you? Some bikes are good in size L, but not so great in size S and M. Some bikes are good in size S and M, but will have tall people complaining about how it's awful for them.


----------



## asilker (5 mo ago)

Varaxis said:


> Steepening the seat tube angle has a bonus effect, where there's less of a difference between the seated and standing position. This also means that there's less difference between suspension sag between the two positions. You could run more than 15% sag on the fork and suffer from less dive, and less than 30-35% sag in the rear and suffer from less bob.
> 
> How tall are you? Some bikes are good in size L, but not so great in size S and M. Some bikes are good in size S and M, but will have tall people complaining about how it's awful for them.


I'm 5'6" so consistently right on the border between S and M. Not a big feller.


----------



## thomcom (Nov 9, 2015)

I'm a recent convert from "who cares about geometry" to the long-and-slack crowd. I ride a super-slack HTA, super-steep STA Marin Alpine Trail Carbon and absolutely love it. It is unbelievably stable and grounded and feels like a missile. I've got lots of experience on road bikes and XC-style fat bikes, and spent about a year on a "less modern" geometry full suspension bike before getting obsessed with longerer and slackerer.

Serious riders compare and contrast a zillion tiny details about what makes a bike better in this situation or that. They're concerned about which geometry will let them keep their speed through rock gardens, berms, and tight switchbacks, while also climbing fast and so on and so forth. Less experienced riders are mostly interested in two things: have fun, don't crash.

A fundamental detail of the new geometry is IMHO usually overlooked in the "what geometry should I buy?" conversation: safety. I've built four long, slack, hardcore hardtails for newbie MTBers in the last couple of years because I believe that they are much harder to crash than bikes with steeper headtubes and shorter wheelbases.

I see the long/low/slack geometry taking the MTB market by storm, which it seems to be doing, because they make me faster in dangerous environments and they make slower riders safer in unexpected terrain. I mostly see just two classes of MTB now: XC racing bikes with narrow tires and aggressive rider position for laying on the gas efficiently for long time periods, and Aggressive (long/low/slack) MTBs for everyone else. On an XC bike you are in an aggressive position, on an aggressive MTB it is the bike that is in the aggressive position. The new geometries really are better: faster on the downhill and a lot safer when suddenly loam turns to babyheads. Unless you are _planning_ on riding 20, 30, 40 miles on your MTB in a single session, you don't need speed and efficiency, you just need safety and fun.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

I'm in Northwestern Wisconsin, and almost everyone is still on traditional XC geo bikes. Not sure if it's cuz we are all poor, or that these bikes just work for our terrain.


----------



## GhostX (Jan 16, 2012)

Modern geo has me riding higher in my full sus sag...










...because, lighter wallet.


----------



## killerisation1 (Feb 4, 2013)

SC is absolutely not the cutting edge of geo trends. My 2017 DB Release was basically the same as a Bronson of the same age plus a couple lbs.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Wasn't that DB pretty progressive for the time? They haven't changed at all, that I recall, since.


----------



## jbculligan (Mar 25, 2006)

a few random thoughts:

1. Stay away from extremes -- brands/models that push the edge of geo, that's where you'll run into weird stuff; works for a small percentage of riders; but stay within normal industry geos.
2. Buy what works best for your riding/area? Do you love climbing/XC style; or more of a lift operated park rider? are you hucking off massive drops a la RedBull; or more like bunny hopping small logs? Fit the bike/geo to your riding
3. Buy Used -- unless you are competing at a high level; and/or getting paid to ride bikes; any decent brand/bike/geo from last 7 years will treat you right. (great riders adjust to the bike between their legs; not so great riders need the bike to do it for them). Been riding for 20+ years; and the smiles, stoke, and craziness on the trails were not smaller back then than they are today. Give me any MTB and i'll find a way to have fun on the trails.
4. Consider that 80%+ of most MTB's i see are over biked for their riding skills/level/routines...

A good middle of the road Trail MTB from last few years would probably work well for you for another decade or more. (don't overthink or overread on the internet - get a solid middle of the road ride, and start riding it, learn the bike, and don't think about another one for 5 or more years)


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

asilker said:


> I'm 5'6" so consistently right on the border between S and M. Not a big feller.


These are the recommendations I got for ya

Polygon Siskiu T7 or T8 in med, 29 or 27.5 either works
Marin Rift Zone 29, Alpine Trail in med
Specialized Status 160 in S3

Canfield (any)
Commencal Meta AM 29 - Sm

Perhaps check out Arc8 if you want something in carbon and lightweight in small
For med carbon, check out S3 size Specialized SJ Evo or Enduro

The best size med pick in my book is the Yeti SB150, followed by the Pivot Firebird 29.

The other models from these brands are not as recommended in size sm/med. I'm 5'7" and I'm personally even open to size Lg. I'd totally consider an Ibis Ripmo in size L, considering the short seat tube and ability to run a short stem and bar with more backsweep and push the saddle forward.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

asilker said:


> got it. makes sense.
> 
> I'm reading all the replies, please keep them coming



Mullets (29 up front 27.5 rear) are getting to be more popular, as are e-mtbs. Everyone thinks you need to be on a 29er (you don’t). 27.5 is still an option, but more limited. Mullets are great downhill, not sure how well they pedal if the bike is designed as a mullet, but retrofitted, it slackens out the seat angle too much. 

The other thing to consider is stack height, basically how high the head tube is. In my old age, I’m pretty preferring a higher stack height. Some bikes have a lower one, making the reach feel longer. 

Given you’re in the “flat lands”, and probably not doing a lot of park riding, I wouldn’t look for the steepest seat angle either. That can be really frustrating to pedal in the flats. 

Head angle to me is a personal preference. Im so used to riding slack that steep feels twitchy to me. 









Mountain bike geometry explained - MBR


From top tube length to bottom bracket height, mountain bike geometry can reveal plenty about how a bike will ride and whether or not it will fit you.




www.mbr.co.uk


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

Varaxis said:


> These are the recommendations I got for ya
> 
> Polygon Siskiu T7 or T8 in med, 29 or 27.5 either works
> Marin Rift Zone 29, Alpine Trail in med
> ...


I’d say a medium Tilt. I rode one at 5’5”, and the small i test rode made me feel like a circus bear.

Look and see what your fellow riders are riding. Ask to throw a leg over. See if that helps. I also agree on used. I picked up a medium Ibis mojo 3, threw an angleset in it for a 65 degree head angle (and shortens the reach to help my back), and I couldn’t be happer for a short travel bike.


----------



## NeedleBanger (8 mo ago)

Less swoopy, more rigid styling that's for sure.


----------



## asilker (5 mo ago)

This is turning into a recommendation thread, and I love it. Thanks for all the comments


----------



## asilker (5 mo ago)

stripes said:


> Mullets (29 up front 27.5 rear) are getting to be more popular, as are e-mtbs. Everyone thinks you need to be on a 29er (you don’t). 27.5 is still an option, but more limited. Mullets are great downhill, not sure how well they pedal if the bike is designed as a mullet, but retrofitted, it slackens out the seat angle too much.
> 
> The other thing to consider is stack height, basically how high the head tube is. In my old age, I’m pretty preferring a higher stack height. Some bikes have a lower one, making the reach feel longer.
> 
> ...


To your point about geography in WI / IL / IN:

yes it's definitely not Sedona, and we lean heavily toward flow. I typically seek out the most technical and rocky trails in our area, but that means my focus for a bike is something that's maneuverable while going up, efficient, and something that pedals we'll. As in typing that in realizing that maybe hardtail is a good fit for me after all

And I'm not opposed to 27.5, but I did buy a 29er wheelset this year that I'm really happy with


----------



## GhostX (Jan 16, 2012)

asilker said:


> This is turning into a recommendation thread, and I love it. Thanks for all the comments



I recommend renting/demo'ing a few bikes before you buy. All the opinions/reco's/"guidance" in this thread doesn't mean anything to you...especially given that most "test ride" a bike in the parking lot, seatpost adjust for knee bend, maybe a lever/dropper/shifter adjust for hand ergo, and you just spent $$$ hoping it will work out.

Ever had the small pink spoon at Baskin Robbins? I like ice cream, but don't necessarily want to commit to that quart just yet...maybe I have a nut allergy?

Renting/demo'ing bikes is one way to put a** in saddle, hands on grips, feet on pedals to really test ride an mtb in real trail situations...rather than hopping a curb, cycling suspension compression and calling it "good."

Your asking the right questions...hopefully a few of the right answers bubble up here.


----------



## Neuner (Feb 14, 2005)

asilker said:


> I love my hardtail but I am starting to ride more technical rock garden stuff, it's causing me physical pain in my back and it's difficult to maintain grip with my rear wheel.


My wife and I had similar issues with pains in our back, lower back. My best guess is that you're too far forward especially since you note rear tire grip. 

I ride a lot of technical, hops, drops + rocks.

I got stems + handle bars with the highest rise (about 2.5") and width (780) I could find. The new, very short stem gave it about another 1" rise. I dropped my seat max height just a little and I was riding more upright, more slack. Pain went away, got grip and all has been good.


----------



## polarflux (Jul 21, 2007)

I’ve not seen any mention of longer reach in the thread, which may be the single biggest innovation followed by STA and HTA. Longer reach has the effect of allowing you to be in your bike between the wheels instead of over the bike. Long reach numbers is also what allows/requires the use of short stems (50mm or less). For you at 5’6” a bike with something in the neighborhood of 450mm reach would serve you well as a starting point and for what you ride 66 hta and 76-77 STA would be perfect. I’d suggest a Ibis Ripley AF or Canfield Tilt. Both Aluminum, durable, available, reasonable with exceptional kinematics (DW link or Canfield Balance Platform) and modern but restrained. I have a Canfield lithium that I moved to from a Guérilla Gravity Smash (aluminum) for reference. The Canfield pedals very very well. I have had DW link bikes in the past in the form of Turners.


----------



## bingemtbr (Apr 1, 2004)

Harold said:


> will you be attending the Epic? I'm headed down for that and will be sticking around for a few days after.


We're visiting BC the weekend after the epic. While I do enjoy the mtb crowds and atmosphere, I kinda like doing my own thing too. Also, GnawBone (new trail) will be fully bedded-in by the time we're there (10/13-10/16).


----------



## polarflux (Jul 21, 2007)

I rode BC last year when I was in Indy visiting family. Went to IU years ago and poked around lots of the HNF trails during that time. The newish BC trails are a great addition.


----------



## trmn8er (Jun 9, 2011)

I think the geo changes for the most part have been good, but it's touted like snake oil. it seems to be it can be too much of a good thing. For example, for an XC race bike, I really don't want a slack HTA. I find 68-69 is plenty slack for me, especially compared to older geo like 71. I want it to turn in quick, and a snappy feel. Steep STA is good. To a point. but it seems some models may have gone too far with slacker and slacker HTA, and the like. For my trail bike, 66 to 67 is fine. But one degree here and there is not something I'd obsess over like the industry would love you to buy into, literally. I'm not going to chase this trend and buy a new bike every other year because some reviews says it's amazing.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

stripes said:


> I’d say a medium Tilt. I rode one at 5’5”, and the small i test rode made me feel like a circus bear.
> 
> Look and see what your fellow riders are riding. Ask to throw a leg over. See if that helps. I also agree on used. I picked up a medium Ibis mojo 3, threw an angleset in it for a 65 degree head angle (and shortens the reach to help my back), and I couldn’t be happer for a short travel bike.


I come across numerous posts of tall people downsizing, which gives me an impression that the circus bear thing is a normal/desirable feeling. Some even say that they like when they can throw the bike around like a toy.

I upsize for better handling, since I prefer a more centered position (considered forward/aggro by some).

I believe that the longer front center helps out short travel bikes (moreso from slack HA than reach), but not necessarily the steep STA, which gives them gravity-related handling without much compromise. I believe that the steeper STA helps out longer travel bikes to pedal up climbs easier without compromise to the gravity-related handling, but extending the front-center to be even longer is hurting some of them.


----------



## Al Fong (Oct 20, 2021)

thomcom said:


> I'm a recent convert from "who cares about geometry" to the long-and-slack crowd. I ride a super-slack HTA, super-steep STA Marin Alpine Trail Carbon and absolutely love it. It is unbelievably stable and grounded and feels like a missile. I've got lots of experience on road bikes and XC-style fat bikes, and spent about a year on a "less modern" geometry full suspension bike before getting obsessed with longerer and slackerer.
> 
> Serious riders compare and contrast a zillion tiny details about what makes a bike better in this situation or that. They're concerned about which geometry will let them keep their speed through rock gardens, berms, and tight switchbacks, while also climbing fast and so on and so forth. Less experienced riders are mostly interested in two things: have fun, don't crash.
> 
> ...


Wow, what a great explanation. Thanks for that, really. I'm 69 and been riding an ebike for only 1 year. Spent the first 6 months crashing and covering myself with body armor, lol. Even tho I wasn't riding fast, I found that I had to ride slower than what was comfortable in order to improve my skills and balance. After 2 months of riding slow, I found that I was better able handle terrain that I fell on before. My slow comfort speed also increased automatically as I felt I gained some skill to angle the bike and let it move under me, and even keep my balance when loose terrain and obstacles caused my tires to move unexpectedly. After 1 year, I'm finally having more fun than fear and not crashing nearly as often. I even try to slide the rear tire on purpose occasionally. Had the ride of my life recently as my skill came together and I was able ride my local tralis with smoothness, agility and ease, like I was running. What at satisfying thrill! At my age, it would be easy for me to break something so I need to have fun but stay under control. But even with that approach, the trail can still take me down now and then. When I watch all the crashing on youtube, I usually see riders riding too fast and on terrain too hard for their skills. They ride at the limit of their control, so they crash when the trail throws them an unexpected obstacle or lose of traction, or they try to jump or do a drop, obviously without the knowledge or skill of how to take off and land safely. They don't seem to realize what can happen when their bodies go flying into who knows what, and that what is always something hard and damaging, always. I encourage you to advise your newbie friends to take this approach to improvement and ride slower than their safe feeling speed. They will then be loose enough to learn to handle the bike better rather than tight and just hanging on when the terrain gets rough. Riders need to slow down so they can speed up safely. You are obviously a thinking man. I appreciate how you took the time and effort to compose and present your thoughts and observations. Good riding to you!


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

trmn8er said:


> I think the geo changes for the most part have been good, but it's touted like snake oil. it seems to be it can be too much of a good thing. For example, for an XC race bike, I really don't want a slack HTA. I find 68-69 is plenty slack for me, especially compared to older geo like 71. I want it to turn in quick, and a snappy feel. Steep STA is good. To a point. but it seems some models may have gone too far with slacker and slacker HTA, and the like. For my trail bike, 66 to 67 is fine. But one degree here and there is not something I'd obsess over like the industry would love you to buy into, literally. I'm not going to chase this trend and buy a new bike every other year because some reviews says it's amazing.


So what you're saying is, your judgements are inconsistent. Steep STA is good, but sometimes not. Slack is good, but sometimes not. You're not able to predict what's good among the new breed of options, but you know what's good from prior experience. You don't wanna spend money on new bikes finding out, as if that's the only way you'd trust to learn, as if you need to spend a long time customizing/adapting to it (something you can't do on a 1-day demo).

You're just loading yourself with prejudice, based on some conservative beliefs and existing comfort zone. This is quite common, similar to people saying stuff like wanting to limit their budget for a bike. A person can come up with plenty of good reasons why raising a budget is good, but it's just not in their comfort zone, and they'll even refuse a test ride on a nice bike, out of fear that there's truth behind what wiser people suggest.


----------



## polarflux (Jul 21, 2007)

Varaxis said:


> I believe that the longer front center helps out short travel bikes (moreso from slack HA than reach), but not necessarily the steep STA, which gives them gravity-related handling without much compromise. I believe that the steeper STA helps out longer travel bikes to pedal up climbs easier without compromise to the gravity-related handling, but extending the front-center to be even longer is hurting some of them.


Steep STA serves technical and punchy climbs really well regardless of travel, so not just for long grinds. I would also add that since becoming adapted to a steep STA I find that I am able to apply more power. Also, there is less of a difference between seated and stand position when using a dropper post which is really nice.


----------



## asilker (5 mo ago)

Hey folks, still reading everything that comes in. Appreciate all the attention.

When I'm riding in the last few week's I've been trying to pin down what I like about my ride and what I'd like to see improved. I'm riding a 2019 timberjack, and the seat tube angle is way slacker than the super modern stuff this year. It's not really a XC head tube angle, but not outrageously slack either.

I think what I'm hoping for in a bike is something that does slow-tech and technical chunky stuff better, and I would like something that climbs competently. There really aren't any descents in my region that have me clenching my butt or going OTB. I think I'd like to do the mountain goat thing and I get a kick out of riding over techy stuff that my friends can't.

So to be honest I'm considering trying a different geometry but maybe going with a steel hardtail or compliant AL hardtail instead of full sus. I'm not in a rush to make a decision and threads like this kind of make my head spin, but maybe it's a wiser decision to just keep on doing the hardtail hero thing here in the midwest and work on my skill set. I dunno.


----------



## Mtbmandan (5 mo ago)

I'm surprised it hasn't been said yet (unless I missed it), but full suspension will absolutely increase rear wheel traction and comfort and it will be significant. Bike fit, technique, and strength matter a ton, but I would not discount rear suspension.
I'm no expert on geo, but as an "in between sizes" person riding bikes from xc hard tail to downhill, I find bike size much more impactful than geo, so make sure you get the right size and ideally ride before you buy. 
Fwiw, I also find long travel bikes much easier on tech climbs.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

bingemtbr said:


> We're visiting BC the weekend after the epic. While I do enjoy the mtb crowds and atmosphere, I kinda like doing my own thing too. Also, GnawBone (new trail) will be fully bedded-in by the time we're there (10/13-10/16).


My understanding from discussions during the event was that Gnawbone (RIP, man) has more equipment work that needs done on it. It's roughed in and rideable, but is not really near completion. I did not ride that one while there. I was riding with my dog the whole time and being that it was either crowded or park rules prohibit him from being off leash, he was either riding in a backpack or running alongside on a tether. Neither solution is particularly good for the kinds of features I heard are already on that trail.

I honestly didn't find the place all _that_ crowded. I stopped hitting the trails for the "big ride" at the grand depart years ago, because THAT is when the crowds are. But there's now enough trail out there that disperses people really well. I got a later start on Saturday and it wasn't that bad at all. And riding pretty much any other day outside of that was a really chill atmosphere. I left yesterday morning. Watch out for falling acorns. I damn near got a concussion from those things in the campground.



asilker said:


> Hey folks, still reading everything that comes in. Appreciate all the attention.
> 
> When I'm riding in the last few week's I've been trying to pin down what I like about my ride and what I'd like to see improved. I'm riding a 2019 timberjack, and the seat tube angle is way slacker than the super modern stuff this year. It's not really a XC head tube angle, but not outrageously slack either.
> 
> ...


As said already, rear suspension does help keep the rear wheel planted and maintain traction. 

That said, I absolutely loved my Guerrilla Gravity Pedalhead out there for the past several days. Geo on that bike is more progressive than the Timberjack, but it's not on the bleeding edge anymore. Did really well out there. I could still rail some of the tight switchbacks with some speed. It's not too long or too slack for that. I put 29x2.6" tires on it and those help a good bit on the traction side of things. It's not quite as planted as a full suspension would be, but it's nice.


----------

