# 71 degree head tube angle too steep for trail riding?



## MambaJack (Mar 16, 2016)

trying to get back into mountain biking and really like the idea of this bike.
Motobecane NEW Fantom 27.5 PLUS X9 LTD 

Haven't been able to find much about it on the internet, but in one spot i saw somebody knocking the 71 degree head tube angle. 

That's really the only thing holding me back at this point, and I am looking for some advise on how big of a deal that is. The current bike i ride i have had since 92, dang a lot of stuff has changed since then.

Thanks for any help.

dave


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

no there's nothing wrong with 71 degree HTA's. it's only one of many angles and dimensions that should be taken into consideration when analyzing geometry.


----------



## BikeBro (Nov 13, 2012)

Ride a slacker bike, I think you will find it to be much more comfortable at speed / on the steeps. 71* is very dated at this point ...


----------



## jmallory (Jul 29, 2008)

It really depends on the type of riding you will be doing and the terrain you frequent.


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

71*, on a hardtail, will actually be closer to 72-73* when riding (when the bike is sagged).

Yowza


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

Problem is can we count on 71 being unsagged. Even BD isn't that dumb to make a bike that steep. I would hope anyway.

That's one thing I hate is trying to sort out if HTA is sagged or not in manufacturer specs. Better these days but hard to say with some.

Btw for my trails, my fat bike is 71deg (rigid) and I love it. Needs the steering response with longer stays. Running more slack sucks at that wheel base.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

How steep are your trails? I think angle of trail grade should be strongly considered when determining how little HTA you want/need.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

*OneSpeed* said:


> no there's nothing wrong with 71 degree HTA's. it's only one of many angles and dimensions that should be taken into consideration when analyzing geometry.











Pick a dimension that isn't weird. I dare you.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

OK maybe that is, it has the same stays as my 2011 mukluk that fits 4.7" tires.....455mm..WTF???


I was almost like "hey another plus bike option ". Now it's "hey another Walmart plus bike"

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

71 degrees is fine for a gravel grinder. Old school for MTB. Suitable for rigid fat bikes. Not very impressive for going down steep hills. Allows easy front wheel lifting. Steers quick - in a MTB sort of way.

What do you want this bike do for you?

Eric


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

It's not a Plus bike. It's an existing fat bike frame with 27.5+ tires and skinny(relatively) I29 rims. 170x12 rear hub. Wide fat 100mm crankset. Fat bike geo. BD doesn't have any Boost 148 real Plus bike frames. They just cobbled this together. Imo, they do some lazy cheap stuff that just costs them in sales.
I'd avoid this and look at a 2017 Diamondback Mason or 2016 Mason Comp(excellent Fox 34 fork). 1095 and 1199 free ship no tax through the Corp Sponsorship Program. You get a lot for a few dollars more.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

scottzg said:


> View attachment 1114658
> 
> 
> Pick a dimension that isn't weird. I dare you.


I am not by any means defending BD bikes, including this one. I didn't comment on the specifics of this frame. i simply pointed out that a 71 degree HTA in and of its self is not a problem. lets not freak out and look for words that aren't there.

i agree the geo is old school at best. long rear end and a short front end. i wouldn't buy or recommend this thing for 100 reasons, but the HTA alone isn't one of them. as others have pointed out it's a cobbled together plus bike that all wrong from the word go.

OP, there's better stuff out there.


----------



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

Works for me.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

IMHO, 71* for a HTA on a HT is just too steep for me, unless of course it's rigid, then yeah, that's OK.

Also IMHO, despite the price looking like such a steal, as others have pointed out, the geo on that frame is so frikin whacked it isn't even funny, the stays are longer than my 1st 29er FS 9 years ago, not even remotely close to anything that would be nimble or fun on proper single track trails.

My current 130/150mm FS 29er has 17.3" stays and that's not considered "short" these days, my converted B+ has 17" stays and that's not a dedicated PLUS bike, dedicated PLUS bikes, designed properly these days have stay even shorter -_ I say this because I've ridden bikes with those long stays and what I own and the long stays like a bus, steer just like a bus, they suck._


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

The biggest problem with that bike is you'll end up getting what you pay for, one way or another. My current FS bike has a 71.5 degree HTA and I ride stuff on it that less experienced people shy away from on bikes with 67 degree HTA and much more suspension travel. How steep the HTA on a bike is doesn't make or break it for trail riding, but the overall geometry will. While that bike looks like a good deal for the money because maybe it has nicer components on it than some more expensive bikes by better known brands, I agree, that frame is pretty whack, and you can put great components on a whack frame and still end up with an absolute crap bike.


----------



## TrailGoat (Sep 6, 2016)

I ride a 71 degree HTA on a full suspension bike. the only time I wish I had a slacker bike is on low speed drops or low speed downhills . other than that, its great. it depends on what you want to do


----------



## DualRollers (Apr 24, 2014)

Since when did steep head angles become "outdated"? Not everyone is trying to crush downhill lines at Whistler, or do endless downhill berm skids in the upper Northwest (ugh, I hate those videos). I think some people forget that there are other styles of riding out there, and just because something is popular at the moment that doesn't make everything else outdated.


Keep in mind that up until (this year I believe) one of the most popular 29er rigid bikes on the market, the Karate Monkey, was rockin' a really steep HTA. I have seen a lot of people do some pretty crazy riding on a Karate Monkey.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

*OneSpeed* said:


> no there's nothing wrong with 71 degree HTA's. it's only one of many angles and dimensions that should be taken into consideration when analyzing geometry.


There's nothing right about it either.



BikeBro said:


> Ride a slacker bike, I think you will find it to be much more comfortable at speed / on the steeps. 71* is very dated at this point ...


Yup.


jmallory said:


> It really depends on the type of riding you will be doing and the terrain you frequent.


No, it really doesn't. It's bad, that's why bikes like that aren't popular anymore. Designers learn and change designs. Just because some consumers stubbornly defend their purchases doesn't change the fact that bikes have improved dramatically since that sort of geometry was popular.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

DualRollers said:


> Keep in mind that up until (this year I believe) one of the most popular 29er rigid bikes on the market, the Karate Monkey, was rockin' a really steep HTA. I have seen a lot of people do some pretty crazy riding on a Karate Monkey.


I've seen people do crazy things in CX bikes, it still doesn't make them a good choice for mountain biking.


----------



## DualRollers (Apr 24, 2014)

richde said:


> I've seen people do crazy things in CX bikes, it still doesn't make them a good choice for mountain biking.


I am saying this as nicely as possible, but you seem extremely one dimensional and close minded with your responses... Again, there are a lot of different riding styles out there. Do you think it would make sense for people in say Florida, where the trails are super flat to ride a 66* HTA with 140mm of travel? That would be extremely inefficient.


----------



## MambaJack (Mar 16, 2016)

I really appreciate all the great feedback, and will be looking for a different bike. just really liked the components and the idea of getting into a 27+ at that price point like somebody mentioned.

Also the comments about this being just a fat bike with thin rims and not really a plus helped a lot.

I still ride my old mountain bike some, and i am sure the geo on it is crazy. its a 92' Trek 930 and I am definitely looking for something different.

Also I ride a KTM XCW some. checked the hta on it and it was 63.

Here are a couple places close to me that i have ridden

Two Rivers Bike Park





White River Trail




.

Thanks again!
would appreciate any suggestions on a 27+ ht bike thats a good value.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

DualRollers said:


> I am saying this as nicely as possible, but you seem extremely one dimensional and close minded with your responses... Again, there are a lot of different riding styles out there. Do you think it would make sense for people in say Florida, where the trails are super flat to ride a 66* HTA with 140mm of travel? That would be extremely inefficient.


I'm not the one contradicting actual designers and most of the riding public.

Times change, products improve, don't take it personally.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

71*, again, by itself, is not a big deal. People talk like no one ever rode a bike with a 71* HA down a steep hill.
That said, I bought my 11yo the Gravity Bullseye 27Plus and it has 71.5* HA. It has a disproportionately long rear end on it, and handles pretty slow. This is what we both wanted: it is very stable, and the steering doesn't get bounced/deflected very easily. It also has a big gear range and great traction. She will enjoy it for years because she does not aspire to anything more than easy trails and moderate conditions (it IS capable of more). I would not buy such a bike for myself, although my 29er still has 69-70* HA, but the frame is completely different and the weight bias is to the rear.

-F

edit: The Gravity Bullseye has a rigid fork --> 71.5*
I am betting the 71* on the other bike is UNsagged.


----------



## DualRollers (Apr 24, 2014)

richde said:


> I'm not the one contradicting actual designers and most of the riding public.
> 
> Times change, products improve, don't take it personally.


I am not taking anything personally, I just don't buy into the industry trends every time something new comes out. I have ridden a Specialized Enduro on flat single track with punchy climbs, and they are way less efficient than something with a steeper HTA and longer geo.

Put that same bike on a trail with a bunch of downhill chatter and it will likely destroy a steeper XC style bike.

My point is, you can't make a blanket statement that "slack bikes are improved and everything else is outdated". Slack and low might be perfect for YOUR trails, but that doesn't mean they are perfect for ALL trails.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

DualRollers said:


> I am not taking anything personally, I just don't buy into the industry trends every time something new comes out. I have ridden a Specialized Enduro on flat single track with punchy climbs, and they are way less efficient than something with a steeper HTA and longer geo.
> 
> Put that same bike on a trail with a bunch of downhill chatter and it will likely destroy a steeper XC style bike.
> 
> My point is, you can't make a blanket statement that "slack bikes are improved and everything else is outdated". Slack and low might be perfect for YOUR trails, but that doesn't mean they are perfect for ALL trails.


Maybe you should start by not comparing apples to oranges. If you want to compare a steep hardtail to a slightly slacker hardtail, go ahead...But don't act as if riding a 6" travel enduro bike is indicative of how anything without 90's NORBA geometry rides.

I've ridden steep bikes, almost all of us have, so you can stop acting as if we haven't whenever you want.

There is literally no advantage of road bike like head angles, especially when paired with long chainstays. The rider's weight is placed far further forward within the wheelbase than any reasonable requirement could justify.

Maybe you should get out and try some different bikes with a more open minded perspective instead of projecting your flaws onto others.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

MambaJack said:


> Thanks again!
> would appreciate any suggestions on a 27+ ht bike thats a good value.


someone already gave you one good option.



eb1888 said:


> I'd avoid this and look at a 2017 Diamondback Mason or 2016 Mason Comp(excellent Fox 34 fork). 1095 and 1199 free ship no tax through the Corp Sponsorship Program. You get a lot for a few dollars more.


there are a lot of bikes in this category, i'm not even going to try and name them all. you can start here 26+/27.5+/29+ Plus Bikes - Mtbr.com


----------



## idividebyzero (Sep 25, 2014)

No its not too steep to ride trails obviously but its too steep for a bike made in 2017. Its a waste of money getting a bike that steep when there are so many options around 67 which is a great all-around angle that will give you a ton more confidence. 

It makes no sense to get 10 year old geometry on a NEW bike, if it was used and cheap then thats something else entirely, but its unacceptable for new.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

*OneSpeed* said:


> I am not by any means defending BD bikes, including this one. I didn't comment on the specifics of this frame. i simply pointed out that a 71 degree HTA in and of its self is not a problem. lets not freak out and look for words that aren't there.


Totally, but he wasn't really asking if the head angle was ok but rather 'is this bike fkn goofy?' You were simultaneously right and hilariously wrong. :thumbsup:


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

idividebyzero said:


> No its not too steep to ride trails obviously but its too steep for a bike made in 2017. Its a waste of money getting a bike that steep when there are so many options around 67 which is a great all-around angle that will give you a ton more confidence.
> 
> It makes no sense to get 10 year old geometry on a NEW bike, if it was used and cheap then thats something else entirely, but its unacceptable for new.


Exactly.

I wouldn't go as far as 67 for typical XC/Trail use, but somewhere around 69 with a longer reach than classic geo (to position the rider better within the wheelbase) and appropriately shorter stem (to maintain a normal seat/BB-to-bars distance).

What you end up with is the same fit, better positioning for getting the most out of what the bike is capable of and a lot more confidence because it's not trying to toss you over the bars at every opportunity.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

HA is just one factor. 

I have two HT bikes. 
One is 71 deg head angle and runs a 100mm fork and 80mm stem
The other uses a 69 deg angle with 120 mm fork and 90mm stem. 

Both feel very similar. What is the difference? ETT. The 71 deg bike is 0.6" longer than the 69 deg bike. The longer TT with shorter stem keeps the reach similar, but also moves he front wheel forward. 

My FS bike has a 68 deg head angle with 130mm fork and even longer TT. This bike descends really well, but when climbing steep stuff I really need to get my butt forward on the seat to keep the front end from wandering. 

Head angle is just one factor


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

It is only one factor, because you can't ride a bare frame.

But generally, as a package, there are no drawbacks to a slightly slacker bike with a slightly longer reach and an appropriately shorter stem. Reach is what matters when it comes to handling, not ETT length. ETT length is a byproduct of reach, seat and top tube angles. Reach, HA, and your choice of stem and bars is what effects handling when it really matters. A slacker HA adds to the stability of a longer front center and slightly improves the direction of force when the front wheel hits obstacles (slightly more towards the rider than straight up, which improves suspension efficiency, rollover and overall confidence)

Well, if you want to continue riding a mountain bike like a road bike, there is a drawback...and I'm not referring to the terrain your riding, I'm talking about the way you manipulate the bike to make it do what you want.


----------



## canker (Jul 26, 2007)

Nashbar has a mongoose 27.5+ that runs $800ish during their 25% of sales that show up at least every other week. It has a 69 degree head angle which is still a hair steep but better than 71. I'd look around at all the common sites nashbar, jenson, performance bike,,,,,,, for 2016 left overs.


----------



## Troutinco (Jan 29, 2012)

My Niner Air9 has a 71* HA. While it can be a bit scary at times and I don't go as fast, I can ride the same trails I ride with my Yeti. 
Saying that: I am upgrading the Yeti for more years of riding and want to get a more rowdy HT. Steel. Slack. Mmmm....


----------



## MambaJack (Mar 16, 2016)

eb1888 said:


> I'd avoid this and look at a 2017 Diamondback Mason or 2016 Mason Comp(excellent Fox 34 fork). 1095 and 1199 free ship no tax through the Corp Sponsorship Program. You get a lot for a few dollars more.


I have not heard of this, what is the Corp Sponsorship Program?


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

All you people who are saying that a 71* HTA is OK and saying that because you ride an FS with it, don't forget, the front and back are sagging/compressing, on a HT only the front does, so that 71* steepens up really quickly AND if you're saying that and haven't ridden a bike with slacker HTA and more "trail" oriented geo, then you're talking out your arse. FYI I own and ride an original Monkey, I also own and ride more modern geo bikes, no comparison when the trail points down.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

I'd hate that geometry but maybe the OP is an exception.


----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

I rode and raced 71 degree HA bikes for many years. I also used to run a 130mm stem with a 585mm wide handlebar and rode much crazier steeps and drops than I do these days. Even so, I like my newer bikes with "modern" geometry much better. It would have been fun to have my current bikes back in the 80s and 90s when I was stupid enough to push their limits.


----------



## MambaJack (Mar 16, 2016)

Again, thanks so much for the help.

If nothing else, the feedback has made me decide i want to try a bike with more slack. 
This is definitely a step up from what i was looking at (ds). but does anybody have experience with the DiamondBack Catch 1? Diamondback Bicycles - Diamondback Bikes, 2016 Catch 1


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

71 HTA is "XC". Put a longer travel fork on it to relax the angle.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

I have no experience, never even heard of that bike until now, but I'll give my thoughts on FS PLUS : to me it has to be done right to have an FS PLUS bike feel "right" - _On my Rigid & HT, absolute love PLUS, on my short travel 29er which can easily run B+ I tried and hated the setup, on my longer travel, bash through anything FS 29er which easily runs B+, I just tried it over the weekend and it just made it more monster truck, loved it._

The reason people were steering you to PLUS was because you were looking at a HT which is where it makes a whole load of sense since there's no rear suspension, on an FS it then can start to get complicated. If you want something nimble, in FS, then I'd tend to say stick to "normal" size tyres, whether it be 650B or 29". Don't get me wrong, looks like a nice bike to be fair, but, at that price point, it is not going to be a light bike, I'd guess somewhere in the 35lb range if you're lucky.



MambaJack said:


> Again, thanks so much for the help.
> 
> If nothing else, the feedback has made me decide i want to try a bike with more slack.
> This is definitely a step up from what i was looking at (ds). but does anybody have experience with the DiamondBack Catch 1? Diamondback Bicycles - Diamondback Bikes, 2016 Catch 1


So how would that help those horribly long, 2000 era length, bus like chainstays? All BD does is buy frames designed years back for pittance and then throw some fairly decent parts on them without needing anyone between them and the factory and claim supreme deal.


Hawg said:


> 71 HTA is "XC". Put a longer travel fork on it to relax the angle.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

MambaJack said:


> Again, thanks so much for the help.
> 
> If nothing else, the feedback has made me decide i want to try a bike with more slack.
> This is definitely a step up from what i was looking at (ds). but does anybody have experience with the DiamondBack Catch 1? Diamondback Bicycles - Diamondback Bikes, 2016 Catch 1


I haven't ridden it, but that looks like a very good deal. Getting a FS bike with a Fox 34 at that price would be hard to pass up.


----------



## MambaJack (Mar 16, 2016)

Thanks again for the help. I ordered the DB Catch 1. Got a good deal thru the corp program. Supposed to be here Friday.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

MambaJack said:


> Thanks again for the help. I ordered the DB Catch 1. Got a good deal thru the corp program. Supposed to be here Friday.


Congratulations!

I'm sure that you'll love it. Be sure to post pictures when your new baby arrives.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Yeah man, think you'll be stoked, especially with as said an nF34 for that price. Ride the crap out of when you get it and then maybe throw it on a scale in a month or so to see what it weighs if you're so inclined - if you are so inclined, please report back.


MambaJack said:


> Thanks again for the help. I ordered the DB Catch 1. Got a good deal thru the corp program. Supposed to be here Friday.


----------



## MambaJack (Mar 16, 2016)

LyNx said:


> Yeah man, think you'll be stoked, especially with as said an nF34 for that price. Ride the crap out of when you get it and then maybe throw it on a scale in a month or so to see what it weighs if you're so inclined - if you are so inclined, please report back.


Had a chance to ride the bike around a little today. Am glad i posted as the geometry seems to make it so much more comfortable. The rear suspension will take some getting used to. It weighed in at 34.5 lbs


----------

