# The teeny tiny head tube trend



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Posting this in the "Clydesdales/Tall Riders" forum because my rant is about size XL frames. For perspective, I'm 6'2.5" tall with a +3" ape index -- perhaps slightly taller than average but not tall enough to frequent this forum much.

Anyway there seems to be a current trend in mountain bike frame design that I don't understand and this is the dramatic shortening of head tube lengths. I understand that as A-to-C fork dimensions get longer (and indeed long travel forks are a thing), head tubes (and steerer tubes) must get shorter by equal measure in order to allow the handlebar to remain at equivalent height. But the new Canfield Lithium frame I recently pre-ordered (in size XL) only has a 5" head tube. Same for the size XL Trek Rail I took possession of last week (stoked!) -- a 5" head tube. Slightly less than 5" actually, combined with a zero stack lower cup which only exacerbates the issue.

For comparison I measured the head tube length on my '18 aluminum size XL Guerrilla Gravity Smash frame -- the head tube length on this frame is 6.75" (and I wish even this was longer by up to an inch!) On the Smash frame I'm running an uncut steerer with 1.75" of stem spacers (under a 35mm rise bar). Bottom line after doing the math: if I'm running a frame with a mere 5" length head tube, I'll need 3.5 - 4" of stem spacers if paired with a typical low rise handlebar.

Do you know how gawdawful a 4" stack of stem spacers looks?

I do.

I'm not some sort of Goliath and I don't run my bars exceptionally high -- they're just about level with my seat if not perhaps a half inch lower than the seat. I ride all mountain, not XC (where bars are generally run a bit lower) but the frames I'm talking about here are designed for AM, not XC. I just don't get frame designers' reasoning for minuscule head tubes on XL frames these days.

I initially set my new Trek Rail up as described (uncut steerer, low rise handlebar with about 3.5"+ of stem spacers under the stem) and it looked utterly ridiculous. Such a stack of stem spacers looks nearly as long as the teeny weenie head tube -- a hideous sight. Fortunately I had an old 60mm rise Spank Spike handlebar in my parts bin which I put on the Rail and this places my handlebar at the proper height but even so still requires 20mm+ of stem spacers between upper cup and stem.

It's tolerable. I'm not a slave to fashion but I do have my limits. A proper length head tube would dispense with both the high-rise bars &/or inappropriate stem spacer stack nonsense.

So... why? Why the teensy weensy head tube lengths of late? Thanks for any insights.
=sParty


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

I gave a response to a question recently about geometry that places too much weight on handlebars. The reason behind greater weight on handlebars is based on stack height, which is lowered by shortening head tubes. Here is the response I gave:

“Many bikes today are designed to give the experience you describe, by reducing stack height. Lower stack heights place a rider in a more “aggressive” downhill position with the handlebars being more weighted. The increased weight on the front plants the front tire for better turning.

With that said, I can’t stand low stack heights. A low stack, to me, is only optimal when aggressively riding downhill or climbing steeper grades. The design is not best for long, beater rides with a lot of rolling and/or rocky terrain. This is especially true on long rides when backpacks are generally heavier.

i opt for a bar height that’s even or slightly higher than my seat. For me, it’s more comfortable over the long haul (literally).”


----------



## Crockpot2001 (Nov 2, 2004)

You are not alone. This is exactly why I got a Hightower XXL. MASSIVE stack and HT length. The moment I got on it I knew I had spent too many years in a gawdaweful time trial position. I'm 6'5" and too damned old for that crap anymore. Thanks Santa Cruz!


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Yes, XXL Santa Cruz is a God send. My Megatower has a 666mm stack. I run a 20mm rise bar with 25mm of spacers under the stem.


----------



## Crockpot2001 (Nov 2, 2004)

"Golly, nobody will buy our righteously stacked XXL bikes"....said no designer or sales executive at Santa Cruz.


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

Totally concur. My last dalliance with a short head tube was a Knolly Fugitive. Never again. Literally. Never again.

I am not a true Clyde (6’2, +2 ape), but I’ll generally take ALL the stack height and head tube I can get.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Steeper HTA would give higher stack height. Plus it'll put more weight on the front tire.

Pairing the steep HTA with a short offset fork would give similar steering stability to slacker HTA, and also rein back WB.

The angle at which bumps are absorbed is a bit different, but that's just a problem inherent to telescopic forks. Trade-off between vertical compliance and hang-up from plowing.


----------



## hoolie (Sep 17, 2010)

Ahhh, the old first world problems. Tall handsome guys complaining about stuff, while us hobbits try to “get by”, and everything “average” has been SOLD OUT for a year. J/k, always good / fun topics from S’party.


----------



## Arm&Hammer (Dec 19, 2020)

Same here, I am only 6’1” and used to buy large frames, but now most large only have a 100mm or 105mm head tube. Just bought a XL bike with 120mm head tube and have 50mm of spacers and a 25mm riser bar AND just ordered a fork with a 20mm A/C increase to get my bars slightly above the saddle to a proper position. Freaking ridiculous.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

hoolie said:


> Ahhh, the old first world problems. Tall handsome guys complaining about stuff, while us hobbits try to "get by", and everything "average" has been SOLD OUT for a year. J/k, always good / fun topics from S'party.


Pretty sure every XXL Santa Cruz frame is sold out too.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

9point8 | Dropper Seatposts, Clamps, Remotes, and More Bike Components


9point8 provides world-class dropper seatposts, built for users searching for performance and reliability in their bike components.




www.9point8.ca





Increasing stack by steepening HA with this angleset (in reverse) will come with the bonus of allowing your fork to clear your downtube on a Trek Rail. Not wise to rely on the knockblock.

















^ busted knockblock chip


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

hoolie said:


> Ahhh, the old first world problems. Tall handsome guys complaining about stuff, while us hobbits try to "get by", and everything "average" has been SOLD OUT for a year. J/k, always good / fun topics from S'party.


Thanks for throwing in the handsome part, hoolie. 
=sParty


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

I'm not even tall (5'9") and I'm frustrated with 100mm headtubes and lack of stack height.
One of my riding buddies is like 6'3", on an XL Hightower, overforked to 170mm, with probably 40mm of spacers, a riser stem and 40mm riser bars. Poor dude has lost so much reach he's basically on a Large at this point.

I feel for you guys.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Impetus said:


> I'm not even tall (5'9") and I'm frustrated with 100mm headtubes and lack of stack height.
> One of my riding buddies is like 6'3", on an XL Hightower, overforked to 170mm, with probably 40mm of spacers, a riser stem and 40mm riser bars. Poor dude has lost so much reach he's basically on a Large at this point.
> 
> I feel for you guys.


Steeper HA helps with that problem of losing reach too.

XC race side of things probably fueled this issue. Lots of problems fitting shorter riders on 29ers, esp on bikes with 60mm BB drop or more.

Steep STA exacerbates the seat to grip height difference too. Can make the bars feel higher with longer cranks, thinner pedals, and thinner sole shoes.

Size-specific HA would fix things. Slack HA for short riders, paired with long fork offsets to keep steering sharp. Combine with size-specific CS length.


----------



## gdb85 (Mar 4, 2017)

After reading a couple post here about the amount of spacers some of you run, it brings me to mind that I read somewhere that fork Mfr's only recommend 35-40mm of spacers under the bar for safety/liability issues. Please correct me if I misunderstood something.


----------



## alexdi (Jun 25, 2016)

gdb85 said:


> After reading a couple post here about the amount of spacers some of you run, it brings me to mind that I read somewhere that fork Mfr's only recommend 35-40mm of spacers under the bar for safety/liability issues. Please correct me if I misunderstood something.


Zinn has an excellent response to this here:









Technical FAQ: Headset spacer stack height


Lennard Zinn has a lengthy answer for what is far from a simple question regarding stack height.




www.velonews.com





The caveat is that it's not just about the steerer's integrity. The upper headset bearing is a fulcrum to all that force, and it's entirely possible to overload and crack the head tube if the steerer is too long.

The solve for this is a high-rise bar. Deity has one at 80mm. They've been aesthetically acceptable for years (unlike the poor long-legged folks on road bikes with equally squat head tubes, forced to go max-Fred with a high-rise stem).


----------



## tdc_worm (Dec 10, 2008)

two reasons a frame manufacturer would elect to use a shorter head tube, which I am actually in favor of:

1) it keeps wheel base within reason and front center within reason. As you increase the HT length and try to keep the ETT target the same (which is still how frames are sized regardless of reach numbers), the bottom of the head tube is forced forward. to get a monster stack by increasing the HT length, the wheelbase gets unmanageably long quick, and you lose the ability to weight the front tire as much because that wheel base gain is in front of the bars. 

2) it allows riders to size up or down based off of their body dimensions and preferences. it creates more fexibility in the lineup where a rider can add spacers and choose a 45mm rise bar if needed. you can always add to the stack height, but you cannot take away from it.

If you have a 125mm head tube and ad 100mm of spacers with a 20mm rise bar, you have 245mm effective stack height. if you have 170mm of stack height, you need 55mm of spacers to get the same effective stack height. Both of those are incredibly tall. How close to level is the relationship between your bars and your saddle?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Back in the day, like back in the 90s and early 2000s, they went overboard the other way, with crazy long headtubes for the larger sizes that resulted in crazy high TT, among other things. 

I find that the lower HTs are great for aggressive riding, going uphill and downhill (with dropper posts). Still got to space them up a bit, but it's nice to have the option IMO.

What they absolutely suck for IME is long flat rides. It's hard to notice the above effect if all you do is tech stuff, getting up and down out of the saddle all the time, climbing and descending, but when you start mixing it up with touring and other flat extended stuff, holy crap that low front end can be pretty terrible.


----------



## seat_boy (May 16, 2006)

A couple of issues here:

- Zinn was talking about carbon steerer tubes. Does anyone suggest a max spacer limit for aluminum steerer tubes? Certainly not for steel.

- Making up for fewer spacers by putting a riser stem and/or a riser bar on your bike doesn't change the loading at the head tube. To reduce this, you need to reduce the moment length between your hands and the head tube. Which is where tall head tubes are nice, aside from any aesthetic consideration.



alexdi said:


> Zinn has an excellent response to this here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## noosa2 (May 20, 2004)

Hey Sparty, I’m 6’ and the tiny headtubes and low stack height are not for me. My current bike has a 105mm head tube and low stack height. To get my bars almost level with my seat I need an inch of spaces and a 75mm rise bars. I’m amazed how many conversations the bars start on the trail. The conversations go one of 2 ways. 1. “You know only newbs or grouchy old guys on hybrid bikes run bars like that?” or 2. “I am so sick of these low stack heights how do you like those bars?”


----------



## eshew (Jan 30, 2004)

If you were living 3.5 decades ago this is the bike you'd be riding. I'm guessing the thinking behind short top tubes is to maintain the same height as a 27.5" Or maybe they just think shorter head tubes dont look as dorky as this (Although this is a SWEET! vintage ride <not mine>
).


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

Yep, short HTs drive me crazy. It's made worse by all these trends: slacker HTA, wider bar, shorter stem, fewer riser stems for 31.8 stems and none for 35mm s tems, carbon steerer tubes, disappearing headset cups, shorter cranks, and few 180mm crank arm options. OK, I'm done.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> Steeper HTA would give higher stack height. Plus it'll put more weight on the front tire.
> 
> Pairing the steep HTA with a short offset fork would give similar steering stability to slacker HTA, and also rein back WB.
> 
> The angle at which bumps are absorbed is a bit different, but that's just a problem inherent to telescopic forks. Trade-off between vertical compliance and hang-up from plowing.


IDK, for me at 6'4" +220lbs (which is not really that big) the last thing I want is a steeper hta. Not a good combo with a much higher center of gravity than shorter riders. If anything, HTAs need to be slacker for bigger rider because of this. And wheel base is not an issue. I am 12" taller than someone who is 5'4" riding a small, yet my XXL is only 3" to maybe 4" longer. No issues manhandling the longer bike, because they are not really that much longer and because clydes have huge wingspans along with long legs which means not only a lot more leverage, but a much larger range of motion to shift a hell of a lot more weight around a bike that weighs about the same. For me, weighting the front tire has never been an issue because of this, but going over the bars because of a high center if gravity, low stack and steep sta has been.

I think around a 6" head tube for XL bikes seems to be a pretty good sweet spot. That with a 120mm fork gives about a 650 stack. Add an extra 10-20mm fork travel and now 660-670 stack for a longer wheel base to get the bike more proportional.

My XXL I have on order has a 650mm stack with a 120mm fork. I plan to up the travel to 140 so I can get the bikes little taller as well as more proportional for my size by adding an angle adjust headset to get a slacker and longer (1260-1270) wheelbase. I am guessing the bike will still be a little small, however.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Might as well throw in the rider size-specific wheel size suggestions, and complaints about the inability to reuse currently owned forks with cut steerers...

It's like some exercise to balance out the geekiness of running lots of spacers, riser stem, riser bar, head tube length, and unfashionable head angle, seat angle, & crank length, etc.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Ryder1 said:


> Yep, short HTs drive me crazy. It's made worse by all these trends: slacker HTA, wider bar, shorter stem, fewer riser stems for 31.8 stems and none for 35mm s tems, carbon steerer tubes, disappearing headset cups, shorter cranks, and few 180mm crank arm options. OK, I'm done.


Exacty. All that **** needs to be reigned in for real world riding, and I don't mean flow trails for the kids.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

What's "real world riding" ?

I rather suspect most folks are just over-biked.


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

Ahhh this is such a great discussion and I could rave on forever. At 6'5" I'm not particularly tall, but I rock a +4" ape index. I bought my Pole Taival because it was pretty much the biggest thing I could find at the time. Nice 675mm-ish stack with my 150mm fork, but my long legs get me at 895mm BB to saddle with 175mm cranks. 

I've ridden road and track for about 13 years and MTB for maybe 6. I was bumbling along for a lot of years on bikes that were too small for me. I'd look at the "normal" people and how they would fit on their bikes and cry just a little inside. Almost all properly big road bikes came with short head tubes, compounded by the fact that most forks only came with 300mm steerer tubes. I saved for many years and made the leap to a Canyon 3XL and a custom track bike. I was fitted to both for a spirited position and it was a total revelation to feel like a rider should on a bike. After that I sought about ditching my MTB for something far closer to what I needed. Since getting the Taival, I've been able to properly assess it's shortcomings and I have a good direction for the next rig, although not the $$ as yet.

My reading between the lines on short head tubes. They're made for the smaller riders. I see lots of recommendations across the web for riders to ride bikes larger than normal, like 1-2 sizes up. This gets them down into the bike rather than on top of it. Great for descending, bike parks, etc. Crap for tall people that actually need a decent stack so that they ride in some sort of normal~ish position. 

Talls also get a rough deal if they're looking for something XC related. I ride mostly XC because that's just the majority of trails where I live and there's very little on the market that would suit. Most proper big bikes come attached to long travel suspension and hefty weights. My Taival has about 675 stack before I crush the forks, but with my long legs, that's still low. I have 40mm of spacers to a 35° stem and a 50mm riser bar to put me in the region of 150mm~6" more stack just to get level with the saddle. Once I'm on the bike, I'm still down, but it's just so much better to ride and control. If I was off to a bike park or rode more downs I'd be happy lowering the front a bit, but for my XC duties it rides really well.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

895mm BB to saddle with 175mm cranks at 6' 5"? I'm at 710mm BB to saddle with 152mm cranks.

In another thread, a 6' 4" rider measured their hip to shoulder length at roughly 600mm, while I measure at 410mm.

Close to 200mm on both #s. I'm 5' 7" (170.5cm)

People already know frame sizing runs are **** for people who aren't of average proportions, but people choose from what's conveniently available. You guys who know better should consider doing BikeCAD to figure out what you want. Maybe have Marino Bikes in Peru make a proto.


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

I don’t begrudge bike companies for not catering to tall people. My height and higher is <1% of the population in even taller average height countries, let alone worldwide. Then I would throw it down that we’re an even smaller percentage of the cycling population. That’s not economically viable for most big companies. But it does leave a door open for some boutique manufacturers and it is a good time to be one with the internet making it possible to touch base with and purchase from all over the world.

However in my cycling journey I have found that there are companies that can make big bikes, and then there are those companies that know HOW to make big bikes. My Canyon road bike is a pure delight to ride. My Duratec track bike rides like it’s on rails on a velodrome. It’s the biggest non tandem frame they had made and it’s solid as all hell without being a tank.

I’m at the point where I’d probably move on from my Taival and get a more XC rig and a DS later on. Duratec has some nice geo on their site for big guys, but I’d like to do some customising. I have my eye on Nicolai for a DS and their Saturn in particular. They aren’t cheap but all reports say they build a great bike and for a bit extra they can work with you to change things up a bit from standard. I touched base with Dirty Sixer recently to check on future plans out of curiosity, but the one MTB model they have left is too small and no plans as yet to do another.

Of course there are straight out full custom makers out there there that can make almost anything you want like Marino mentioned above but not many want to head on that path


----------



## Radical_53 (Nov 22, 2006)

I think we’re at a point where it would make sense to have more things gain or lose size with rider height.
As you said, it’s „funny“ to see smaller guys upsize their bikes, which then leaves taller people without options even to get a „regular“ fit.
I’m not that tall at 6‘4“, but even for me it’s a hassle to find something that fits. 



Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

Just a note that Banshee bikes fit taller folks. Not crazy tall as there are no XXL, but if you’re under about 6’4 or so, you should get a nice fit.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

brawlo said:


> My reading between the lines on short head tubes. They're made for the smaller riders.


Perhaps you've come closest to doing what I asked in my original post. Which is to answer the question -- why? Of course I'd made my own speculation before asking the question and your answer pretty much confirms it. Make a bike that fits the widest range of rider heights so that it might appeal to the greatest number of riders and therefore sell better.

After all, as you pointed out, only 1% of the population is 6'4" or taller (according to this statistical website). _"What if we could sell our size XL frames to, say, riders who're only 5'8", too?"_

But this seems to be wrong thinking on behalf of bike frame designers. Sure, as a tall person I can run my 80-100mm stack of stem spacers (or a 35mm stack plus 60mm rise handlebar) but offering the tall rider this option sidesteps a fundamental question: What short rider is going to choose a size XL (or 2X, 3X, etc.) frame? Any rider short enough to want a 125mm head tube will be way too short for the reach of these otherwise gargantuan frames.

To me, putting a teeny tiny head tube on a size XL(+) frame is synonymous with putting 140mm cranks on such a frame. Sure, someone could do it, but doing so would simply be way out of step with every other dimensional decision appropriate for that size bike. So I'm still left wondering... why? Do the bike companies really think they'll sell more size XL frames? Or is it something else? Is it possible there's actually a good reason for it?

If so, I wish I could be certain what that reason is. Might make it easier for me to accept what I currently consider a design flaw of my new frame.
=sParty


----------



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

I'm not super tall, used to be 6'3" a few years back but age has shrunk me about a half inch or so, but I have no troubles finding a bike that's big enough. Or one that has a big enough head tube. Usually there are bigger sizes available than the one I ride, maybe I'm just oddly proportioned?


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> People already know frame sizing runs are **** for people who aren't of average proportions,


It's not just frame sizing. Airlines are a particular hell, and as others have stated.. I'm not particularly tall. Just tall enough that finding pants is a pain, same with shirt sleeves etc. The world, in general, is just not meant for people in anything over about the 70th percentile (which is about 5'8"). We just cost too much to cater to such a small market place.

FWIW head tube length on my banshee is ~130mm an XL would have been about 140.. stacks in the ~670mm range. Since the head tube's obviously formed, having 1cm of difference is likely just a cut. Much more than that and they'd have to retool. So it's likely cost, like always.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I thought 5' 8" was kind of on the short side, so I cherry-picked this graph to support that. 

I find that size L bikes often are the best-tuned. When the Yeti demo truck rolls by, and I test the same model in S, M, and L, I often find one just feels more natural. It does a lot more work, requiring less effort from me, which allows me to focus much further up the trail and confidently feel free to pop off bumps playfully. SB150 was one of the rare exceptions, with size M feeling best-tuned instead of L.

I presume the reason for this is because they use world-class athletes for feedback, and tune things to help their factory athletes win events. Examples: Trek with Travis Brown, who seems taller and skinnier than average. Canyon with Fabien Barel (5' 11") who likes their bikes on the long side. They size their proto frame for their tester and extrapolate the other sizes from it.

Interesting to watch a video where Jack Moir (6' 4") is contemplating between size L and XL during the offseason, leaning on the more dialed handling and balance of the L (more weight on the front for cornering) over the XL's comfort.















I've been exploring this hip-to-shoulder measurement. This measures 410mm for me at 5' 7", while it measured 185mm longer for someone 6' 3". Jeff from Worldwide Cyclery is about the same size as me, and he's infamous for getting an XL SB45 for "reach".

I'm exploring with a shorter reach for my next bike. I'm on a large since I wanted better weight bias (60:40 rear:front weight distro because of longer front-center). The smaller sizes were too front-heavy for my liking. I would've been better off with an -2° Works Angleset on a smaller size (adds about 22mm to front-center, equiv to 1 size up). On an L I feel too stretched and the saddle gets in the way on a large when riding terrain that is this steep:










Pictured below is me on a size small, I think (maybe a med). Gives an idea of how a shorter torso, arm length, and leg length has less capacity to move fore-to-aft. I envy how tall guys can get pretty much over the rear axle.










Taller headtube would reduce the stretched position, to make these steeper sections feel less extreme.

Gotta get away from the idea that we need a certain reach, ETT, or stack to fit properly though... same goes with HA, SA, CS, and whatever. Gotta juggle it all, hence why I suggest people try out bikecad.

Doesn't help that XC racing has this trend going on (with everyone copying it 'cuz N1NO):










They're seemingly married to their steep HAs. The stem and stack would be lower if the HA were slacker. I seriously think size-specific HA (and fork offset to go with it) should be a thing.

When I see the media criticize bikes like the Commencal Meta AM 29 or Spec Status, saying that they're not the best for racing (in size L+), and are more for fun... that gets me excited, since it's so rare. When I see mega long CS, like on the Banshee Titan LT, I just see that as being something for the tall guys. Sad to see naive people of average proportion boldly proclaiming that you can't buy a bad bike these days. Also sad to see tall people trying to teach riding techniques to shorter riders, unable to see the difficulties they face. I assume tall riders have their own troubles adapting technique...


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

XC racing has some very valid reasons for having low bars. Which is why I asked what 'normal riding' is earlier.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

dysfunction said:


> XC racing has some very valid reasons for having low bars. Which is why I asked what 'normal riding' is earlier.


What reasons? I presume it's mostly to transfer over the fitness/efficiency from road training, trying to mimic a similar position.

You gonna list aero or whatever?

I understand the drop stem for short riders. Their grips are about level with their saddle when using those drop stems. It's cause HTs have a BB drop of 60+mm. The bar height would be the same distance off the ground based on the HA, fork length, wheel size, and headtube length, but dropping the BB increases the stack height and lowers the saddle.

Slack HA would be a more elegant fix for the shorter rider. What's the downside? Wouldn't mind seeing longer fork offset to enable slacker HA, without compromising on steering feel. Steep STA would raise the saddle, but that would reduce the % of fitness/efficiency that carries over from road training.

Things got a bit more "sane" looking with FS being more normal. I see the situation as still being in a grey zone, as some will find that road training doesn't carry over as much, and the gains from FS will be small or break-even compared to an HT that takes more advantage of their offseason training. Those that trained on the FS in the offseason...

Could explain why people who are 100% MTB are better at adapting to steep STA, mid-foot pedaling, etc.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> What reasons? I presume it's mostly to transfer over fitness from road riding, trying to mimic a similar position.
> 
> You gonna list aero or whatever?
> 
> I understand for short riders. Their grips are about level with their saddle when using those drop stems. It's cause HTs have BB drop of 60+mm. The stack is pretty high, combined with the steep HA and fork length. Slack HA would be a more elegant fix for the shorter rider. What's the downside? Wouldn't mind seeing longer fork offset to enable slacker HA.


Power production.

Handling.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

dysfunction said:


> XC racing has some very valid reasons for having low bars. Which is why I asked what 'normal riding' is earlier.


Yes it would be weird to setup an XC bike with the bars level or above the saddle. I selected my enduro and trail bike to have a sufficiently high stack for my height, to put my 6'5" self in a normal riding position not because I like super high bars. I still have a like 1-2" bar drop from my saddle. I do think running your bars above your saddle (at full extension) is getting a bit too high for regular trail/enduro riding (unless maybe you have odd proportions). That includes big jumps and drops, I'm not an XC guy at all. I just run my bars high enough to keep a neutral weight balance. I basically just raise them until my weight is no longer on my hands while in the "attack position". When I go to the bike park I might raise them 5-10mm.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

For clarification, the frame that motivated my question is a Canfield Lithium. I currently have one on pre-order.
Frame travel: 163mm
Fork travel: 180mm (Mezzer)

Previously mentioned: this discussion isn't about head tube length on XC bikes.
=sParty


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> Power production.
> 
> Handling.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Don't need low bars for that. I can engage my glutes by letting my elbows drop. What role does hand height play? Does it matter if the forearms are angled up or down? My upper body weight is transferred through the glutes to the legs, so it doesn't need to be supported by the hands. Hands are just for controlling the bike, shifting, etc.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Sparticus said:


> For clarification, the frame that motivated my question is a Canfield Lithium. I currently have one on pre-order.
> Frame travel: 163mm
> Fork travel: 180mm (Mezzer)
> 
> ...


yea, but you know how it goes, thread-drift. I'd like to see longer head tubes on slacker bikes too.. I mean, I have a 50mm stem and a 35mm riser bar on the paradox I reference earlier (also a new enough build that I still remember all this junk), and there's 25mm or so of spacers under the stem too. Which places the grips maybe just above the saddle, but it works for where I live and what I ride.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Yikes, someone tall is getting a Canfield? Hope you have a seriously aggro position, or favor riding "for fun" and can sacrifice traction on the front. I expected that it would be wiser to get a Banshee Titan LT, like others have said (Blatant).

I bet CEOs are reluctant to be the first to lengthen head tubes, cause of the confusion and need to re-educate consumers on why their reach, ETT, etc. are shorter. Might even have RAD and RAAD believers causing a commotion.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I can drop my elbows on my trail bike too, but it's not comfortable doing that for hours  my body is too bunched up, there's not enough reach that way.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

That's what training is for. You'll get super fit and efficient core muscles. Helps with so much in life. These muscle groups are what's helping with power production. When MTBing, you don't use 'em all the time for pedaling, switching off to use them for handling, unless you're racing some really tame XC stuff.

What else do you need extra reach for, besides to lock-out your arms on, and rest your weight on when tired? Sounds like the purpose of drop bars kind of. If your arms are locked and pushing against the bars, you're just putting pressure on your arms and wearing those out instead of getting more power into the pedals.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Ok, so why are you hanging out with people twice your size? 

Also, you brought up XC racing.. then whine about actual answers? Sheesh.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I was lightly blaming the XC scene for keeping head tubes short. The people making those bikes are likely the same people making your gravity mtb. Perhaps you misread?

Why am I hanging out here?

Cause I'm short and want slack HA, while I see steep HA as the solution to your problems. I won't touch another XC bike because of it. Tall people hold short-travel bikes dear, since they handle so well in bigger sizes. It's modern long-travel bikes that you tall guys are having trouble getting along with.

Would be useful to me to break the idea that slack HTA go with gravity-oriented bikes, and steep HTA go along with short travel bikes. Call out a random number between 63 to 68, call it a mtb head tube angle, and people have certain beliefs about it (trail bike, AM, enduro, etc). Need to ditch this... (this is part of the meaning behind my sig's wisdom)

If you're concerned about steering stability, the number you should be looking at is mechanical trail. Perhaps you want it to be 120-130mm for an enduro bike. A bike setup with 65 deg HA and a 38mm fork offset is equivalent to a 63 deg HA and 51mm offset setup in terms of steering stability feel.

If you're concerned about traction on the front wheel, the numbers you should be looking at are WB and CS length (or FC and RC). A bike with 430mm CS and 1275mm WB is gonna have far far less weight on the front than a bike with 430mm CS and 1200mm WB. The weight distro/bias will be like 67:33 vs 59:41 respectively. 67:33 might be desirable if you're Ratboy or Killian Bron holding a manual like a boss, but to someone who wants the front wheel on the ground gripping corners with speed without sliding out, something with more than 33% of your weight on the front would help. If that 1275mm WB was paired with a 450mm CS, it'd be more like 59:41. A steeper HA would get more weight on the front too, a large part due to the decrease in FC; +2 degrees to steepen the HA plus 13mm less fork offset would shave off 35mm off the FC (assuming 570mm A2C fork). It'd rein back the 1275mm WB to 1240, which seems more normal, though it'd still be about 63.5:36.5 with 430mm CS.

In short, I doubt bike industry CEOs will increase head tube lengths by inches (25.4mm per inch). I think it's better in the long term to do size-specific HTA and offset. It solves the stack issue, this issue with lack of traction up front on XL enduro bikes, and the crappy handling/capability of XC bikes in smaller sizes. Can tweak the BB to be a little more forward on those front triangles to increase CS for larger sizes too.

P.S. Just wanted to link this to how naive it is to criticize people about being overbiked. I'd like a small bike if it weren't for the short FC (and tall ST and TT) in small sizes. Among the bikes I can pick from, long-travel bikes just handle better. There are nicely slacked-out HTs, but I like FS. I try to help people learn to pick bikes better, but some choose to ignore...


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

dysfunction said:


> Ok, so why are you hanging out with people twice your size?
> 
> Also, you brought up XC racing.. then whine about actual answers? Sheesh.


dysfunction, I don't see any replies separating your previous three responses from my own reply before them so I assume you're talking to someone other than me. Someone I don't see.

Ah, the ignore feature. Happily now I don't see everything. As for "ignore," I wonder if you'll soon find yourself motivated to employ this excellent feature as well.
=sParty


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> That's what training is for. You'll get super fit and efficient core muscles. Helps with so much in life. These muscle groups are what's helping with power production. When MTBing, you don't use 'em all the time for pedaling, switching off to use them for handling, unless you're racing some really tame XC stuff.
> 
> What else do you need extra reach for, besides to lock-out your arms on, and rest your weight on when tired? Sounds like the purpose of drop bars kind of.


Pardon me for stating the obvious:

Continually engaging core muscles, if not required, requires you to rob Peter to pay Paul. No matter how strong they get, they still require fuel.

I have a finite amount of oxygen that my body can process in a given amount of time. Putting myself in a position that reduces the amount of work my legs can do makes no sense. Why would I do that?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> Continually engaging core muscles, if not required, requires you to rob Peter to pay Paul. No matter how strong they get, they still require fuel.
> 
> I have a finite amount of oxygen that my body can process in a given amount of time. Putting myself in a position that reduces the amount of work my legs can do makes no sense. Why would I do that?


That's why short cranks and steep STA are becoming a thing in MTB. Use the bigger leg muscles like the quads instead of the core muscles. Use more of the hamstring to lift the legs on the "upstroke" (short cranks have more of a piston-like stroke). Midfoot pedaling disengages the calves.

It's roadie training that utilizes the core, glutes, calves, etc.

The generalization is that the big muscles are more efficient. The problem is that the training doesn't carry over to road and XC bikes. The question is if running, jumping, stair-climbing, and other things like out-of-the-saddle pedaling fitness carry over at a high %. Training specificity...


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> That's why short cranks and steep STA are becoming a thing in MTB. Use the bigger leg muscles like the quads instead of the core muscles. Use more of the hamstring to lift the legs on the "upstroke". Midfoot pedaling disengages the calves.
> 
> It's roadie training that utilizes the core, glutes, calves, etc.
> 
> The generalization is that the big muscles are more efficient.


The glutes are the largest, most powerful muscle in the body. By a good stretch.

Thanks for making my point for me and sinking your own.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

It's a matter of % of usage. I get the impression that glutes get closest to max usage when launching/accelerating, with stretched strides, like track sprinters coming out of their block.

In normal pedaling, it was assumed that glutes aren't really used, but it's shown to be active at the start of the downstroke at 12 o'clock, before the quads are at their most efficient to extend the leg through the downstroke. Makes sense since the upper leg has an inflection point to swing the other way at the top of the stroke.










What I meant by roadies using glutes, is how they link their upper body through tension through the glutes, when you are hinged forward, to make the legs carry the weight of the upper body and recruit it to pedal. Otherwise, the weight of the upper body would just end up as increased pressure at the seat and grips, hence why people not used to steep STA sometimes end up complaining about their hand comfort, looking to raise their bars.

You'd recruit more glutes, at cost of quads, if you pedal with your saddle low. Your vastus lateralis/medialis would likely get exhausted quickly though (those muscles just above the knee). Easier to just do "cheat squats", utilizing the quads to extend at close to full extension.


----------



## Blathma (May 13, 2020)

Varaxis said:


> It's a matter of % of usage. I get the impression that glutes get closest to max usage when launching/accelerating, with stretched strides, like track sprinters coming out of their block.
> 
> In normal pedaling, it was assumed that glutes aren't really used, but it's shown to be active at the start of the downstroke at 12 o'clock, before the quads are at their most efficient to extend the leg through the downstroke. Makes sense since the upper leg has an inflection point to swing the other way at the top of the stroke.
> 
> ...


This is fascinating and interesting. As a power lifter I'd be very interested in the correct setup to utilize glutes and quads, favoring glutes. Huge muscle with lots of power. Quads for duration, glutes for power.

I do recall one ride where I had the seat wrong and my vastus medialis were burning in short order... Seat change...ahhhhhh strain gone.

I don't what is called in biking terms, but stance, i.e. how far apart the feet are, I find that they are to close. Really want to find a longer BB, if that's the correct part, anything to pull the pedals farther apart from each other. Like squatting and deadlifts, foot placement based on hip angle is critical in power development and avoiding injury.


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

This thread has it all, from tiny head tubes to big ass muscles.


----------



## masonmoa (Jul 11, 2011)

Ya man, this is maybe one of the longest clyde discussions I've ever seen, with maybe the discussion on leverage ratios, and it includes some major bike nerding out on numbers, on par with any other thread on this website. (No offense meant as I'm a huge bike nerd who owns 6 bikes right now. It's just that all the numbers tend to get lost for me.)

As a 6'5" tall rider, with long torso and short legs (32" inseam pants) I totally get the frustration felt in this thread. I've owned too many bikes that were far from ideal, like two Knollys, and why I bought a second, I have no idea. But the reality is that we are a small minority of people on bikes and bike companies have to make financial decisions which inevitably include compromises. And I highly doubt there's more than a handful of engineers designing frames who are over 6'4 in height. I can't remember the numbers, but the cost of building the molds for carbon frames are incredibly expensive, and no company is going to build more than they absolutely have to. It doesn't make sense and would severely hurt their bottom line. 

For me, I've had cervical spine surgery and can't keep my neck up in the position needed for road or XC riding, so I ride trail, AM or Enduro bikes and always set them up with 35mm of stem spacers (which I definitely read somewhere, I think on Rockshox website, is the max amount of spacers recommended on aluminum steerer) and 50mm riser bars. With the new geo out now, I am running 50mm stems on my Ibis HD5 and Revel Rascal, and a 60mm stem on my Ibis Ripmo, and I fit great. Handling is good, I'm comfortable on them and it's all good. I couldn't say that about any frames from 2016 or later I owned before these new bikes.


----------



## Blathma (May 13, 2020)

I'm sure the leverages aren't the best, here's 75mm of spacer on a 120mm headtube. At the moment I've got the bike setup for urban trails and running around the beach. For hitting the hills and bike trails I'll probably adjust it down a bit, and of course slap on the dirt wizards... Running the speedster 29x2.8, smooooooooooth as silk on the road..


----------



## TwoThirtySeven (Aug 29, 2020)

Only problem with a long head tube is the second hand market for forks goes out the window. Every time I've come across a good deal, the steerer is always cut too short.


----------



## masonmoa (Jul 11, 2011)

Blathma said:


> I'm sure the leverages aren't the best, here's 75mm of spacer on a 120mm headtube.


----------



## masonmoa (Jul 11, 2011)

Well, I feel like leverage ratios are important to a degree, particularly when ones weight vs psi is way above the suggested setup numbers listed on the company's website. I've owned bikes with "good" leverage ratios, like a Niner WFO or Banshee Prime, and I now own bikes that some would say have "bad" ratios for my weight. For all of them, no matter the leverage ratio, I've had to run close to max psi, but as long as I'm running them under the max, so within the standard operating range, I don't see a problem and I've never had a problem with any of my shocks. In fact, I've owned the shock on my HD for years and run it on multiple bikes. It's also why I only run shocks that are extremely tunable. 

I guess I look at bikes the way I look at shoes or clothes. I wear a size 15 wide shoe, and prefer XXL Tall shirts, and some companies can afford to offer those sizes, others do not. Sometimes a regular width 15 fits, as does a standard XXL shirt. It's basically the same with bikes. And at the end of the day, it really comes down to what fits and what doesn't. Like I was worried about fitting on my Rascal as the listed reach is 11mm shorter than the Ripmo, but guess what? I'm running a 10mm shorter stem on the Rascal. Makes absolutely no sense based on the numbers. 

And I also have close to that many spacers on my XXL Surly Ogre, but not quite. But man, when I think of Surly, I think strong, but also small, cramped bikes, even in XXL.


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

TwoThirtySeven said:


> Every time I've come across a good deal, the steerer is always cut too short.


The new bike market isn't much better. I bought my son a specialized Fuse, and the steerer is cut ridiculously short. It basically has no room for adjustment. It was upsetting, but at least I got the bike.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Often, complete bikes comes with the max number (or less) of stem spacers the fork mfg allows. So don't expect a complete with a Pike to have more than 30mm of spacers for example.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

What material is that Krampus fork steerer? Cro-moly? If so, that's a lot stiffer and stronger than alu in the same tube diameter.


----------



## Crockpot2001 (Nov 2, 2004)

Varaxis - Wouldn't that depend on the tubing wall thickness?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Crockpot2001 said:


> Varaxis - Wouldn't that depend on the tubing wall thickness?


They have almost the same stiffness to weight. 4130 weighs 2.6x more and is 2.7x stiffer than 7075-T6. The alu steerer would need to be thick enough to be the same weight to match stiffness. Better to just thicken the stressed areas selectively for best use of mass.

Alu gets an advantage cause you can get more stiffness from oversized tubing diameter with thinner wall thickness. A 1mm gouge in an aluminum tube is a scratch, but it's a hole in some 4130 tubes. 4130 is generally 2x stronger though.

We've had this problem ever since bicycle materials swapped without dimensions changing. Similar issues with wheel size increasing without hub width increasing, and tires widening without rims widening. People worried about the lack of off-the-shelf parts working on designs that would be proportioned properly, and overly demanding of low weight... resists new "standards" like Giant's OverDrive2 steerer and the 1.8 steerer from being adopted.


----------



## Blathma (May 13, 2020)

Yup, 4130.. 
Not concerned about the steer tube, axial forces on the bearings, impact forces on aggressive trails... That kinda thing.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

I have found that most bikes I am interested in are designed around a 120mm fork, which is the limiting factor on stack due to the steerer tube length and AC measurement. When in reality, if you want a decent stack height w/o the need for a super long HT, the bigger bikes should be designed around a 140-150mm fork. Leave the rest of the bike the same, just raise the HT up to accommodate for the longer AC. Plus big dudes typically could benefit from 35-36mm stanchions as well, which is readily available for 140mm forks. 

I took the measurements off my current fat bike setup, and found that I need a 531mm AC (sagged is 508mm) fork to get the stack height where I need it, based on an 825mm saddle to BB center measurement). That is assuming I use an uncut steerer tube and a 1/2" riser bar to get the bars LEVEL with my saddle. 

Rigid forks are even worse, as they are all the same length regardless of the size of the bike, and the steerer tube length is spec'd to fit best on med-large, their bread and butter sizes.


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

Going back to the original question, just take a look at the stack heights of big bikes and there's your biggest clue. 99% of bikes I see on a shop floor come with short 30-40mm stems and <25mm rise (mostly flat) bars. For XC you generally want bars at or just below saddle and more aggressive trail/enduro at or just above. Now you can space your bars up and go for say a 10° 60mm stem and 50mm bars. That will get you about 3 inches of extra rise. Plus some spacers under the stem will get you say another 1 1/2 inches. Look at Sumpjumper S6 at 650mm stack. You might get yourself up to a stack of ~750. Doing some maffs, that caters for someone with a BB to saddle of about 31 inches. After that the bike is just too small. Me personally, my BB to saddle is another 5 inches on top of that at "only" 6'5". These bikes are made more for people up to low 6foot or for smaller riders to size up, or if you're lucky, someone taller but with shorter legs - and then reach becomes a problem!


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

I'm 6'2" and my saddle height is 32.5" from top of saddle to bb center, and I'm far from "all legs" on my proportions.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

jonshonda said:


> I'm 6'2" and my saddle height is 32.5" from top of saddle to bb center, and I'm far from "all legs" on my proportions.


Well you must be pretty leggy because I'm about your height and the same dimension on my bike measures just 32".

My inseam is 36" which is longer than average for 6'2".

Perhaps you simply prefer your saddle higher than most.
=sParty


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Sparticus said:


> Perhaps you simply prefer your saddle higher than most.


My proportions are def in odd categories when it comes to biking. The new frame I have coming has a 663 stack, 470 reach, and 675 ett. I already know I will be using my 120mm Manitou Mastodon which has a 508mm sagged AC, and not cutting the steerer tube w/ 1/2" riser bars just to get *level* with my saddle.

The only possible way for a rider like myself to get bars slightly above is going with taller stem/bars, or for the bike designers to start spec'ing longer forks on bigger bikes. I would prefer that if the rest of the sizes were designed around 120mm forks, XL and XXL sizes got 140 or 150mm forks.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

jonshonda said:


> My proportions are def in odd categories when it comes to biking. The new frame I have coming has a 663 stack, 470 reach, and 675 ett. I already know I will be using my 120mm Manitou Mastodon which has a 508mm sagged AC, and not cutting the steerer tube w/ 1/2" riser bars just to get *level* with my saddle.
> 
> The only possible way for a rider like myself to get bars slightly above is going with taller stem/bars, or for the bike designers to start spec'ing longer forks on bigger bikes. I would prefer that if the rest of the sizes were designed around 120mm forks, XL and XXL sizes got 140 or 150mm forks.


Then you'll just end up with an even slacker STA.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

jeremy3220 said:


> Then you'll just end up with an even slacker STA.


Sorry, I meant the bike would be designed for the fork, meaning they would keep everything else the same, but move the ht up to allow the use of a taller fork.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Why couldn't they just make the head tube longer? Seems like adding height through the head tube would be an improvement in stiffness over a longer A-C.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

jeremy3220 said:


> Why couldn't they just make the head tube longer? Seems like adding height through the head tube would be an improvement in stiffness over a longer A-C.


Because the fork manufacturers only put certain length steerer tubes on forks, which is likely due to a few things. One being the "average" length required by most riders/bikes, and weight. As a longer steerer tube might require more material in the crown to beef it up. If the market doesn't demand it, no one will make it.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

jonshonda said:


> If the market doesn't demand it, no one will make it.


Previous comments within this thread indicate demand is there.



jonshonda said:


> Because the fork manufacturers only put certain length steerer tubes on forks, which is likely due to a few things. One being the "average" length required by most riders/bikes, and weight.


Please list the remaining "few things." Of the two you mentioned, "average length required" is an absurd reason. That's like saying we should all wear average sized shoes. Weight? Really? See next paragraph.



jonshonda said:


> As a longer steerer tube might require more material in the crown to beef it up.


Without intending to be disagreeable, I disagree with this. As the modern mountain bike has come into its own during the past ~10 years or so, the trend has been stronger (and heavier) everything. 35mm bar clamps, thru-axles, much(!) stronger frames, wider (stronger) rims, larger diameter fork stanchions, etc, etc. While I don't disagree that more material in the crown is required to beef it up, I do disagree that any fork manufacturer worth staying in business wouldn't cheerfully pay this price in favor of having a bulletproof fork.

I just went to my garage to measure the uncut steerer on a 170mm Lyrik in my parts bin -- it's 10 3/8" (261mm) long. The head tube on my new Trek Rail is 4.72" (120mm) long. When the long Lyrik was mounted in my hardtail, I ran the steerer uncut, with my stem at the top (which put my bars level with my saddle). To do likewise with my new Trek frame (including 35mm rise handlebar), I'd have to employ over 4" of stem spacers.

Do bike frame manufacturers really expect me to lower my handlebar height just because they begin putting shorter head tubes on their frames? Do fork manufacturers really expect rider to go to the same length because they start shortening their steerer tubes?

I don't think so.

Steer tubes need to be as long as they are (10"+). Head tubes on size XL frames need to be appropriate length for such steerer tubes.
=sParty


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

Sparticus said:


> Previous comments within this thread indicate demand is there.


Definitely! But I think it will be up to the smaller boutique bike manufacturers to come up with a solution. It's not a payday investment for a bigger bike brand that needs to pump out hundreds or thousands of frames to make $$



Sparticus said:


> Without intending to be disagreeable, I disagree with this. As the modern mountain bike has come into its own during the past ~10 years or so, the trend has been stronger (and heavier) everything. 35mm bar clamps, thru-axles, much(!) stronger frames, wider (stronger) rims, larger diameter fork stanchions, etc, etc. While I don't disagree that more material in the crown is required to beef it up, I do disagree that any fork manufacturer worth staying in business wouldn't cheerfully pay this price in favor of having a bulletproof fork.


Anecdotal evidence... my custom Duratec track frame. Now I'm 6'5" and was kicking in at ~265lb when I had it made. I wanted it to be STIFF as sprinting is my track jam. So talking with them it was discussed to up the tube thickness from 1.6 to 2mm.... but it would come at a weight penalty. How much? 40g for a whole frame. 40 🤬ing grams!! So how much weight do you think would be in a beefed up and/or slightly longer steerer tube?

I recently touched base with Dirty Sixer about their bikes. I really think one of their bikes are in my future due to tall rider stackgate. But they're dropping the MTB for now but long term plans are for a FS which will be interesting. My FS plans have gone on hold for now as I have been looking around and it's all too hard ATM to put the parts together to build a new bike. But I have been looking at Nicolai and customising a frame of theirs. One of their models has a 170mm head tube, so I know they have the tubing in house. Ultimate aim is to ditch my Taival and run both a FS and a more XC geo bike and Duratec will likely get the nod from me there. My experience with my track bike was stellar and they also do frames with head tubes up to 195mm long, which I'll need to run the intended 120-130mm fork. That would also need to be a bit of a frankenbike as the qualities I want/need are on no single model. But at least I can build that with most of the bits I have on my Taival


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

brawlo said:


> Definitely! But I think it will be up to the smaller boutique bike manufacturers to come up with a solution. It's not a payday investment for a bigger bike brand that needs to pump out hundreds or thousands of frames to make $$
> 
> Anecdotal evidence... my custom Duratec track frame. Now I'm 6'5" and was kicking in at ~265lb when I had it made. I wanted it to be STIFF as sprinting is my track jam. So talking with them it was discussed to up the tube thickness from 1.6 to 2mm.... but it would come at a weight penalty. How much? 40g for a whole frame. 40 ?ing grams!! So how much weight do you think would be in a beefed up and/or slightly longer steerer tube?
> 
> I recently touched base with Dirty Sixer about their bikes. I really think one of their bikes are in my future due to tall rider stackgate. But they're dropping the MTB for now but long term plans are for a FS which will be interesting. My FS plans have gone on hold for now as I have been looking around and it's all too hard ATM to put the parts together to build a new bike. But I have been looking at Nicolai and customising a frame of theirs. One of their models has a 170mm head tube, so I know they have the tubing in house. Ultimate aim is to ditch my Taival and run both a FS and a more XC geo bike and Duratec will likely get the nod from me there. My experience with my track bike was stellar and they also do frames with head tubes up to 195mm long, which I'll need to run the intended 120-130mm fork. That would also need to be a bit of a frankenbike as the qualities I want/need are on no single model. But at least I can build that with most of the bits I have on my Taival


Nicolai frames have intrigued me ever since I saw my first one years ago. They're an enigmatic brand to most, including me, but I'm fascinated by the corner of the envelope they're pushing.

Here's a photo of my custom 29+ hardtail with 185mm head tube.








Can you imagine how ridiculous this bicycle would look with a 120mm head tube? That would be 2.5" shorter -- absolutely absurd. Besides looking dumb, the frame would be weaker.
=sParty

P.S. That's the Lyrik with the uncut steerer and those are 35mm rise handlebars.


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

Nicolai grabbed me because they already make big bikes. Sure, they're $$ but their reputation is worth it IMO. That mindset comes from my custom track bike. That thing is huge against anything else, but it's stiff as all hell and it rides a velodrome like it's on rails. They know how to build bikes, especially big ones! Lots of builders CAN build a big bike, but do they know how to deal with complexities that arise from long tubes? From looking around a LOT in the past I've seen enough comments to know not all makers can build the kind of bike I want. Back to Nicolai, they're actually not much more expensive than some other custom MTB makers out there, but they have a reputation that is enigmatic!


----------



## Arm&Hammer (Dec 19, 2020)

Sparticus said:


> Nicolai frames have intrigued me ever since I saw my first one years ago. They're an enigmatic brand to most, including me, but I'm fascinated by the corner of the envelope they're pushing.
> 
> Here's a photo of my custom 29+ hardtail with 185mm head tube.
> View attachment 1918079
> ...


That bike is bad ass!


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Thank you. Frame, crank & rear wheel are for sale if anyone's interested. Steel, sliding dropouts, singlespeedable. Paragon fittings & thru-axle. 210mm dropper with room to spare.
170mm RF Atlas crank (included) is 83mm spindle and included rear wheel is 157mm spacing (DT350 hub w/steel Hyperglide freehub body & RF i40 offset rims, built by MTBR's own mikesee at lacemine29).
As mentioned, crank and rear wheel (just the wheel, no rotor, cassette or tire) are included. $1500 net firm, buyer pays shipping (cont U.S. only).
Sorry for the sales pitch but anyway PM me if interested. Drawing of geo & dimensions available.
I don't plan to advertise this until spring hits and demand bumps. Meanwhile, maybe someone here wants it sooner.
=sParty


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Sparticus, as per your reply to my comments, you do know clydesdales make up an extremely small portion of the mountain biking market, don't you? So why would you expect any manufacturer to produce products that are serving less then 1% of market share? Trust me, as someone who has designed products for mass production, if you are designing for the 1%, you won't last long. You reference one of your forks that would likely be used on a bike the would typically be ridden in a fairly upright position, hence the longer steerer tube. 

So shipping at fox 34 with a 10" steerer tube adds material costs, shipping material cost, and shipping cost, and 99/100 bike shops are cutting the excess off and tossing it in the garbage. And when the sales rep comes by, the shop likely comments that they feel the steerer tube is comically long, and they just cut it off and throw it away, so why do it? Or, if it is a factory assembled bike, and someone sees them cutting the steerer tube and throwing it away at the factory, it really raises suspicion. What they are designing is a fork that works best with sizes S-L, and XL will get whatever is left over, as I would guess that med-large bikes outsell XL 100/1. That's it, plain and simple, bikes are designed for the masses, the people under the bell curve. Us big guys fall outside the bell curve, so we have to look elsewhere. 

Again, I am not saying it that I am not in favor of things that work for taller riders, but having played around enough with autocad and frames, the only way we are ever going to get frames that fit us is either a fork with a longer AC, or a fork with a longer steerer tube. For now it is just much easier to find a 140+mm fork and design a bike around that. And the off the shelf headtubes are more then long enough at 190mm, but again I would be interested to know how many headtubes Paragon sells that are over 130mm. 

My last point is that bike designers just don't seem to understand tall riders, or that all their tall test riders are super flexible and don't mind a 2" handlebar drop. I was just browsing another thread here, and saw a bike lots where ranting and raving over, and when I looked at the geo I honestly lol'd. From a small to an XL, the stack only went up 10mm, 10!!! The person that designed that should be taken out back and shot.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

jonshonda said:


> Sparticus, as per your reply to my comments, you do know clydesdales make up an extremely small portion of the mountain biking market, don't you? So why would you expect any manufacturer to produce products that are serving less then 1% of market share? Trust me, as someone who has designed products for mass production, if you are designing for the 1%, you won't last long. You reference one of your forks that would likely be used on a bike the would typically be ridden in a fairly upright position, hence the longer steerer tube.
> 
> So shipping at fox 34 with a 10" steerer tube adds material costs, shipping material cost, and shipping cost, and 99/100 bike shops are cutting the excess off and tossing it in the garbage. And when the sales rep comes by, the shop likely comments that they feel the steerer tube is comically long, and they just cut it off and throw it away, so why do it? Or, if it is a factory assembled bike, and someone sees them cutting the steerer tube and throwing it away at the factory, it really raises suspicion. What they are designing is a fork that works best with sizes S-L, and XL will get whatever is left over, as I would guess that med-large bikes outsell XL 100/1. That's it, plain and simple, bikes are designed for the masses, the people under the bell curve. Us big guys fall outside the bell curve, so we have to look elsewhere.
> 
> ...


You may be right. I asked the initial question in my OP because I don't have the answer so obviously I can't say who's right and who's not.

If you don't mind, I'd like to dig a bit deeper -- using questions -- so that I might end up as convinced as you that the cost of catering to the 1% is the reason for short head tubes on size XL frames. Indeed I'd like to be convinced that we've truly found THE reason for short head tubes on big frames.

You mentioned 10"+ steerer tubes as being excessive for the 99%. Actually I don't have a problem with fork steerer tube lengths. At 10"+, fork steerers are long enough for me. It's uber short frame head tubes (on frames that are otherwise built properly for the 1%) that confuse me.

So let's take a harder look at this specific aspect. That is, building a frame specifically for the 1%. A bike company -- let's use Trek as an example since my new size XL Trek Rail came with a 120mm head tube -- goes to the expense and effort of designing a size XL frame that is in every aspect properly sized for someone 6'1.2" - 6'5.2" (this is according to Trek's website). This frame will accommodate -- is actually specifically built for -- the 1%. Let's keep in mind that all other dimensions of Trek's size XL frame targets people of such height (it does). Consider that the head tube length on Trek's size XL Rail frame is not the same as any of its other Rail frame sizes. Every frame size has its own unique length head tube. So in this case Trek is not using the same head tube from one frame size to the next -- they're not saving any money by doing this because they're not doing it. They've created an entirely different length head tube just for their size XL frames.

If they've designed and produced a unique length head tube just for their size XL frames, then why make it 120mm? Is the cost difference between a 120mm head tube and, say, a 150mm head tube (about an inch longer) really substantial enough to justify putting a ridiculously short head tube on a frame that, in every other regard, is properly sized for the 1%?

That's the leap I can't quite make yet. Fork steerer tubes are long enough. No argument there. And fork steerer tubes are in no way limiting Trek's choices in head tube length. So why incorporate a size S head tube on a size XL frame? If it truly is cost, please convince me that saving 1 or 2" of aluminum is actually significant. Do this and I'll shut up, I promise. 

As well as thank you for taking the time.
=sParty


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

The problem is you referenced *one* forks' steerer tube length, and you really need data on all the other mainstream forks to accurately state that "all forks have enough steerer tube length". 170mm Lyric forks are going only on a select few bikes, and is not a fork I would consider being spec'd on main stream bikes.

So then we also need to look at riders who *do* prefer a couple of inches of bar drop. I have no idea what that number is, but there are lot's of riders who do from pics I see. What are they going to do if the head tube is now so long they cannot get the drop they want? So Trek says that 120mm is a compromise. I allows a few inches of rise, and and few inches of drop.

Those really are the only things I can think of as to why stack is so low. Honestly, even the little companies are doing it, and the only bikes I see that are getting decent stack numbers are the new progressive geo bikes, which are also much longer in the reach. So does that mean they are ALL getting it wrong, or they just expect big guys to use 3" risers?


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

jonshonda said:


> The problem is you referenced *one* forks' steerer tube length, and you really need data on all the other mainstream forks to accurately state that "all forks have enough steerer tube length". 170mm Lyric forks are going only on a select few bikes, and is not a fork I would consider being spec'd on main stream bikes.
> 
> So then we also need to look at riders who *do* prefer a couple of inches of bar drop. I have no idea what that number is, but there are lot's of riders who do from pics I see. What are they going to do if the head tube is now so long they cannot get the drop they want? So Trek says that 120mm is a compromise. I allows a few inches of rise, and and few inches of drop.
> 
> Those really are the only things I can think of as to why stack is so low. Honestly, even the little companies are doing it, and the only bikes I see that are getting decent stack numbers are the new progressive geo bikes, which are also much longer in the reach. So does that mean they are ALL getting it wrong, or they just expect big guys to use 3" risers?


Well, someone shorter than me won't fit on this size frame - I'm at the low end of Trek's size scale. To employ a standard rise bar (20-30mm), I'll have 4" of stem spacers under it.

FOUR inches worth of stem spacers.

It's a 160/150mm travel bike, not an XC bike (where lower bars are common).

I've bought lots of forks during the past 5 years (2 Pikes, Manitou Mezzer, Fox 36, the Lyrik) - the steerer tubes on all of these have been of adequate length.

But the new Trek comes with a 120mm head tube and the new size XL Canfield Lithium I have on order will come with a 125mm head tube.

I'm sorry I remain unconvinced but I sincerely believe that no one shorter than me would fit on either of these frames; further, that no rider seeking the performance attributes of these particular frames will be running their handlebar 4" lower than I do. Not even half that much. But I do admit that two inches would be reasonable. Which would make a 160mm-ish head tube appropriate.

But not 120mm or 125mm. Never.

Unless the cost savings for the frame manufacturer is substantial enough to justify the silly short head tube. You mentioned cost savings previously but didn't revisit this aspect in your most recent reply. Is it no longer at issue?

Thanks again for indulging me.
=sParty


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

Varaxis touched on it, but shorter chainstays and headtube go hand in hand. As the chainstays get shorter, your weight needs to get further forward on the bike to keep traction on the front. Combine the longer top tubes, slacker angles, and short chainstays, and the only way to keep weight on the front is to shift the bars down and in turn move the rider weight forward. I am not that tall (just under 6'), but find almost all new bikes have way to short head tubes, which leads to arm numbness on my right arm. This is one reason I bought a Banshee Prime, longer chainstays and a taller headtube than most other bikes so I am not so far forward and low on the bike.


----------



## masonmoa (Jul 11, 2011)

Sparticus said:


> But the new Trek comes with a 120mm head tube and the new size XL Canfield Lithium I have on order will come with a 125mm head tube.


I was just looking at Canfield's website, and I gotta say it is a trip that they only increase the head tube length by 5mm between sizes. That just doesn't make any sense. The frames I currently have built up increase between sizes by 10mm, 11mm and 16mm between sizes, and the last one I mention has a 157mm head tube, which rocks. I mean, I loved my Riot and still have the frame sitting in my garage, but maybe Canfield isn't the best fit for your needs.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

My XXL Tallboy has a 160mm head tube at 656mm stack with a 130mm Pike. The steerer tube is long enough for 30mm of spacers under the stem. I don't think steerer tube length is the problem for most riders.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Cary said:


> Varaxis touched on it, but shorter chainstays and headtube go hand in hand. As the chainstays get shorter, your weight needs to get further forward on the bike to keep traction on the front. Combine the longer top tubes, slacker angles, and short chainstays, and the only way to keep weight on the front is to shift the bars down and in turn move the rider weight forward.


Actually they are steepening the seat tube angles, as well and making the front longer to get riders weight better balanced. Look at one of the pioneers of short chain stay hardtails, the Canfield N9. It has really short stays, steep seat tube angle, long front center, and a pretty tall stack of 656mm in XL. I did own a 2015 N9 which had a much slacker seat tube angle, and it was a real chore when climbing in the saddle. Lifting the front end and flopping back and forth. Slow technical seated climbing was not it's forte.



jeremy3220 said:


> My XXL Tallboy has a 160mm head tube at 656mm stack with a 130mm Pike. The steerer tube is long enough for 30mm of spacers under the stem. I don't think steerer tube length is the problem for most riders.


I assume you have the V4 Tallboy? The new geo and much beefier looking rear swingarm looks really attractive to me, but I wished they hadn't gone so steep on the seat tube angle. I just don't think my knees will like it. The stack on the V4 is one of the few bikes that is just about right for an XXL!


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

jonshonda said:


> I assume you have the V4 Tallboy? The new geo and much beefier looking rear swingarm looks really attractive to me, but I wished they hadn't gone so steep on the seat tube angle. I just don't think my knees will like it. The stack on the V4 is one of the few bikes that is just about right for an XXL!


Yes, the V4. I think the STA fits well with the rest of the geo. Santa Cruz's do have a somewhat slack actual STA so once you as a tall rider raise the saddle up it doesn't feel especially steep at all. My old hardtail with an actual STA of 74.5° felt much steeper. I can ride the Tallboy on flat ground with no hand pressure issues.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

^Interesting to hear about the seat tube angle. My biggest concern is that my knees won't like the steep angle, as we do a lot of seated pedaling locally. I am also concerned about the front end wondering with such a slack ht. But having never ridden a bike with newer geo, these are all just speculations. haha


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

jonshonda said:


> Actually they are steepening the seat tube angles, as well and making the front longer to get riders weight better balanced. Look at one of the pioneers of short chain stay hardtails, the Canfield N9. It has really short stays, steep seat tube angle, long front center, and a pretty tall stack of 656mm in XL.


Seat angle does nothing to balance out the bike when not seated and riding aggressively which is when you need the bike to be balanced. Also, that canfield N9s 77* sta is problematic with only a 500mm reach on their largest size. This causes a super short ETT and for a taller rider like me I would need an additional 30mm or so to get the fit right for seated pedaling. This means you need to slam the seat all the way back on the rails effectively slackening out the sta by 2-3 degrees. Probably need to add some length to the stem as well. So, no, that Canfield is no more balanced than a bike with a slacker sta wit the same cs and front center.

Looking at the stack makes me question their geometry even more as I now see they don't measure their hardtails at sag, but static. That is a big red flag for me when looking at bike companies. The stack on N9 is much shorter than stated, as is the hta much steeper as well as the sta. If you don't plan to ride the bike, their geo chart works great, but if you plan to use the bike, then the stack is more like 618mm, the hta 68 degrees and the sta 79 degrees. Just looking at the true geo numbers at ride height hurts my back, wrist and hands. No thanks.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Here's an XXL frame with a teensy weensie 125mm head tube and the rider employs zero stem spacers: BREWser.
190mm fork, tho. It's difficult to tell by the photos, but it appears his handlebar may be an inch or so lower than his saddle.
=sParty


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

The real-world seat angle of the V4 Tallboy is not particularly steep for taller riders. I’m on an XL and wouldn’t mind another degree or two steeper. At ride height, the new Stumpy Evo has a steeper STA than the Tallboy.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Singletrackmack you've got some funky math going on (hta doesn't change, and the stack is 626mm on a sagged 150mm fork. And balance isn't only required for out of saddle climbing, and I would argue that seated climbing is where the short stays have always been a thorn, so shifting weight forward is a plus. 500mm is a pretty generous reach, longer then some, shorter then others.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Blatant said:


> The real-world seat angle of the V4 Tallboy is not particularly steep for taller riders. I'm on an XL and wouldn't mind another degree or two steeper. At ride height, the new Stumpy Evo has a steeper STA than the Tallboy.


So for the seat tube angel to change, the rear would have to sag more then the front, correct? So when sagged, the main triangle is actually rotated a bit counterclockwise, meaning more sag in the rear then the front? I would think when sagged, the bike would drop straight down, but possibly not.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

jonshonda said:


> So for the seat tube angel to change, the rear would have to sag more then the front, correct? So when sagged, the main triangle is actually rotated a bit counterclockwise, meaning more sag in the rear then the front? I would think when sagged, the bike would drop straight down, but possibly not.


It's normal to run more sag in the rear than the front. Something like 20% front and 30% rear is pretty typical.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

jeremy3220 said:


> It's normal to run more sag in the rear than the front. Something like 20% front and 30% rear is pretty typical.


Yeah I suppose!


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

jonshonda said:


> ...the stack is 626mm on a sagged 150mm fork
> Singletrackmack you've got some funky math going on...


by "funky" are you referring to me rounding down to 618? 
Sag of 25%x150 travel =37.5
stack of 656-37.5= *618.5*



jonshonda said:


> (hta doesn't change...


That is false.
For every 20mm of axle to crown change, the hta and sta change by about 1 degree. So, if the axle to crown lowers by about 38mm at 25% sag, that then steepens the hta and sta by about 2 degrees. So, as I correctly stated, at sag the Canfield N9's hta is more like 68 degrees with a sta of more like 79 degrees, and a stack of more like 618mm.

Also, so you are aware, a whole bunch of other measurements change as well when at sag vs static for hardtails. Here is a geo chart from nukeproof for their hardtail scout to make it easy to understand. They show both the static and sagged geometry (measurements are at 25% sag as shown in the bottom left corner).












jonshonda said:


> And balance isn't only required for out of saddle climbing,


I never I said it was.



jonshonda said:


> and I would argue that seated climbing is where the short stays have always been a thorn, so shifting weight forward is a plus.


I agree, except shifting weight forward is not a "plus" but instead a necessity to prevent the loops.



jonshonda said:


> 500mm is a pretty generous reach...


It is pretty generous, too bad so stingy in the back.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

time to jump in...

6'6" rider. my bike is 686 stack and i still run uncut riser tube and 35mm riser bars.

modern frames are still way way off in sizes for any xxl riders.

i would like to see a purpose built xxxl 29er with burly 40mm id wheels, 2.8" tires, 700mm stack, 700mm top tube, 525 reach, 470cs 

in fact, while we are dreaming, lets get some 32" wheels in there and then that fork design would afford the higher stacks by default.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

^now you are just getting carried away.....errr I mean being realistic!


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

Fuse6F said:


> in fact, while we are dreaming, lets get some 32" wheels in there and then that fork design would afford the higher stacks by default.


32 and 36 inch wheels are where it's at for the extra large rider in order to make a bike look and feel normal-ish. However the BIG problem is options in those sizes. There's very few tyre and wheel options and so they will possibly never be an option for the more serious mountain biker. Unfortunately, the 29er is where it's at for the foreseeable future


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Fuse6F said:


> time to jump in...
> 
> i would like to see a purpose built xxxl 29er with burly 40mm id wheels, 2.8" tires, 700mm stack, 700mm top tube, 525 reach, 470cs
> 
> in fact, while we are dreaming, lets get some 32" wheels in there and then that fork design would afford the higher stacks by default.


Wyatt Maverick with some 27.5x4.5 and a mastodon ext with140mm travel would be pretty close. Some 27.5x4.5" cake eaters (31" in diameter), 690ish stack, 525 reach and 465 cs.









Maverick | American-made Fat Bike | Wyatt Bicycles


Maverick is an American-made fat bike with modern trail geometry designed for having fun whenever and wherever you ride. Handcrafted in the in the heart of the Midwest!




wyattbikes.com


----------

