# Who's got the long/low/slack rigid SS?



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

Just curious how many have tried out long/low/slack rigid SS. 

Not so interested in the low, as I'm pretty adamant about having a 12.25" high bottom bracket minimum for riding East Coast chunk.

Very interested in the long and slack. Slack being 65-68° head tube, 74-75° seat tube angle. Long as in, "Sheeeeeee-it, I need at least a 20mm shorter stem to get on this ride."

What are you riding? Where are you riding it? Are you giving up some tight and twisty handling in order to get some rally truck feelings coming down the mountain? Assuming you're not using a custom fork, whatcha running? Are you 100% converted or still holding on to an older bike for reasons other than nostalgia?

As much as I wanna try it, I've gotten a couple new bikes in the last eight or so months, so money, money, money. I mostly use my rigid bike for endurance racing (big one days and stage races), and I spend a large portion of my riding time squishing about... so this bike would see less use... unless it totally changes the game?

This is the bike that's making me rethink what I thought I knew about what I want in a single speed (different saddle and wheels now, but you get the drift):


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

Yeth, I've seen this thread...









Modern geometry vs. rigid singlespeed?


Does "Modern" geometry work if you build the bike as a rigid singlespeed? I'm in no immediate need of another bike or frame. But of course I occasionally look at current offerings. I'm quite happy with my rigid 26er ( :eekster: ) singlespeed with a head angle of 68 degrees or thereabouts: a...




www.mtbr.com





But it's almost two years old and I'm guessing more people have given this a whirl by now.


----------



## Bluebeat007 (Mar 17, 2004)

Andrew Major’s Waltworks is the longest and slackest rigid singlespeed I’ve seen to date.









https://meatengines.com/f/custom-bike-reconsiderations


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Recent: Longish, Tallish, Slackish & Tuckt-ish


----------



## VegasSingleSpeed (May 5, 2005)

teamdicky said:


> ...unless it totally changes the game?


** Scratching my head ** Dude, aren't we all _slower_ than you?


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

Bluebeat007 said:


> Andrew Major’s Waltworks is the longest and slackest rigid singlespeed I’ve seen to date.
> View attachment 1970663
> 
> 
> https://meatengines.com/f/custom-bike-reconsiderations


I’m all over it whenever it pops up on NSMB.com.


----------



## GoldenPromise (Dec 4, 2020)

I am assuming the bike pictured below is the Vassago Optimus Ti in a smaller size? I have a recent XL (which has a longish 44 mm head tube, not tapered and short like this one), but as I understand it, the Optimus Ti is not really super modern Hardtail Party approved in terms of geo and length. This looks like they are just running an overly long fork relative to what Tom suggests.

I don't think this is the Radimus, as you don't see the curved brace tube just in front to the Seatpost clamp that welds to the top back of the top tube. Could be the smaller sizes don't have that brace? This is clearly a small bike as evidenced by the volume in the front triangle/bottle closeness. An XL has a boatload for room for bottles, while this frame does not. There are days I wish I was a minlet, as the small bikes are more sexy to my eye. 

I really dig my Optimus, but I have mine built up with an ENVE MTN fork, so I'm not shooting for too modern/slack.

If you want something more along those lines, you could go custom, or maybe something like the Pipedream Moxie, which seems like that kind of frame to me.

View attachment 1970654


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

If I'm going for "modern" geo I'm going to want a fork and brakes and tires that perform on-par with the slack angles.

To me the biggest limitation of a rigid bike is the fork. So even if you had a bike with a 64 degree HTA and a rigid fork I don't think that's going to turn any rigid bike into an "amazing descender", it's just going to get around corners slower.

I'm sure there's a sweet spot geometry wise depending on where you live, but IMO my rigid SS is fun because it's snappy and efficient. It's quick and climbs like mad. This is what I consider old school XC geo. XL frame, 72 STA, 68 HTA, shorter Reach (too short), longer chainstays 440 ish (too long), higher BB (50mm drop), etc. It's an XC bike and it's great, but it's never going to descend like a modern bike with a suspension fork.

Anyway what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't make a ton of sense to me to want super progressive geo when you can't take advantage of it. I'd shoot for 67-68HTA, 74-75 STA, and a medium Reach number for whatever size you ride. I don't think pushing the limits of geo will pay dividends without a suspension fork.


----------



## Bluebeat007 (Mar 17, 2004)

You’ve seen my Kona Wozo with a -2 Angleset, 513 axle to crown Walt Fork, and 40mm stem. It’s steering is definitely quicker than the Radimus. I haven’t ridden it off Island so it hasn’t seen any real tech but I love this bike.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Recent: Longish, Tallish, Slackish & Tuckt-ish
> 
> View attachment 1970668


Huh. I member that post. 
Surprised by the STA as well. Steeper STA can allow for a longer front-center for more stability (for lack of a better term). 
I run the maximum dropper a frame will allow. I’m 5’6” and have a 185mm on my Vassago.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

GoldenPromise said:


> I am assuming the bike pictured below is the Vassago Optimus Ti in a smaller size? I have a recent XL (which has a longish 44 mm head tube, not tapered and short like this one), but as I understand it, the Optimus Ti is not really super modern Hardtail Party approved in terms of geo and length. This looks like they are just running an overly long fork relative to what Tom suggests.
> 
> I don't think this is the Radimus, as you don't see the curved brace tube just in front to the Seatpost clamp that welds to the back of the top tube.
> 
> ...


This is a Radimus, size small. No extra bit at the seat/top tube. I had just moved up from an Optimus. 
The Optimus geometry has been updated as well:


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

*OneSpeed* said:


> If I'm going for "modern" geo I'm going to want a fork and brakes and tires that perform on-par with the slack angles.
> 
> To me the biggest limitation of a rigid bike is the fork. So even if you had a bike with a 64 degree HTA and a rigid fork I don't think that's going to turn any rigid bike into an "amazing descender", it's just going to get around corners slower.
> 
> ...


The thing I’m learning from my two “modern” bikes is better weight distribution/body position and a longer overall wheel base just plain hauls ass down the mountain. 
Keeping me awake at night is wondering if those gains would entirely diminish the quickness I currently enjoy. My Vassago Radimus doesn’t really suffer from any downsides on our local twisties. 
Kinda wish the Radimus had a Fit 4 damper so I could lock it out and give it a whirl. I bought the Grip 2 option because this bike was meant for Pisgah. 
Here is the geometry on my current rigid SS.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

VegasSingleSpeed said:


> ** Scratching my head ** Dude, aren't we all _slower_ than you?


I must be faster than I think… or slower than you think.


----------



## VegasSingleSpeed (May 5, 2005)

If you're slower than I think, I must be slower than I am.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

VegasSingleSpeed said:


> If you're slower than I think, I must be slower than I am.


Mebbe I just think slow?


----------



## VegasSingleSpeed (May 5, 2005)

I thinks not.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

I'm also 5'6" on a Radimus. For awhile I sort of stressed over the numbers thinking more like a medium but so far it's the best fitting/performing bike I've owned (64 so there's been a few) running a 150mm. Very fun and comfortable ride. Ride mainly SoCal, occasional Southern Utah, Sedona.


----------



## CCSS (Apr 6, 2004)

teamdicky said:


> Huh. I member that post.
> Surprised by the STA as well. Steeper STA can allow for a longer front-center for more stability (for lack of a better term).
> I run the maximum dropper a frame will allow. I’m 5’6” and have a 185mm on my Vassago.


It’s my bike, and my second rigid Waltworks SS. I tried an Esker Japhy a year ago and didn’t like several things about it as a rigid SS. At ~64.75 degrees unsagged, running a Tandell 495 A:C fork, the HTA was too slack (for me). The benefit of fearlessly stepping down steep ledges and bombing other downhills was outweighed by the choppery floppery slow speed handling. I also disliked the steep STA. I ran a rigid, setback Eriksen post on that and I still felt cramped. And as a SS, it’s not like I was ever sitting and spinning up any appreciable climbs. I guess I don’t understand why a dedicated SS would need a steep STA. Also wanted a shorter rear end.

Anyway, I’m loving this new bike. It’s 2.25” longer than my other Waltworks. 2.5 degrees steeper, and also taller than most of the off the rack frames. I hate pedal strikes.

It’s also my first bike with a dropper. Last weekend I landed on the top 10 of a popular long, chunky downhill that I’ve ridden a ton of times in the past. Geo and dropper for the win I guess.

I won’t get rid of the previous Waltworks because I also love the point and shoot flickability on some trails. And it wears 27.5x3.8 shoes, which is a blast in its own right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

A lengthy, slack, pithy steel one speed automatic///


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Medium frame Pipedream Sirius:

HTA = ~62.5deg
WB = ~1230mm
BBH = ~330mm
So long for that frame size and slack, but not really low. Rides great. Very fun up and down Coastal BC tech. 🤘


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

*OneSpeed* said:


> I'm sure there's a sweet spot geometry wise depending on where you live,


this is my main concern when discussing anything related to mountain biking equipment. I take everything with a grain of salt when I consider the local terrain of the rider who claims that they like this or that feature on a bicycle. then I start asking around for local opinions. I have a feeling that if I bought something really low and long, I'd have the same reaction as CCSS, because we ride the same trails.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> this is my main concern when discussing anything related to mountain biking equipment. I take everything with a grain of salt when I consider the local terrain of the rider who claims that they like this or that feature on a bicycle. then I start asking around for local opinions


That's kinda why I asked "where" if you ride a long/low/slack, where are you riding it. Although I might ride my bike locally in Charlotte, NC, I race this my rigid SS in Pisgah, central PA, Breck Epic, and this year Moab. I can deal with some ho-hum handling locally if it descends well without impacting its climbing capabilities.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

mack_turtle said:


> I have a feeling that if I bought something really low and long, I'd have the same reaction as CCSS, because we ride the same trails.


To add to the confusion on any given local ride I can come across whole groups of guys on Enduro bikes where I much prefer a hardtail. Not tooting my own horn, just pointing out that "sweet spot" can vary Wildly from one rider to the next.

Or to say it another way, at least to some degree, personal preference is not necessarily dictated by local trails. Do you want to work the bike or let the bike do the work for you? 

There's so many ways to look at it. It's not that I'm right or they're wrong, we're both having fun. Stick to reviews that seem to match your priorities is all. 

Easy right? 

Ever read a review of a hardtail on PB? "They're all the same". Verbatim from the podcast. Makes my blood boil. 

They don't have a single writer on staff that has any passion for hardtails. I'd love to join them for a round table some time. Ugh. 

Sorry, I'm way off topic.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Well modern hardtails are enduro bikes in the geometry sense so it's not surprising they get ridden on the same/similar terrain fine. Especially when you add the fact a lot/most people are overbiked. I did not expect to enjoy riding these hardtails as much as I do, but when I gave it a shot there was very little terrain where they were not a great choice. 

While I could ride a modern hardtail in a place like Moab with a ton of square edged rocks that's a place where I would just bring my FS bike and have more fun smashing into stuff. Locally we have a lot of roots/rocks, but they are more rounded than Moab and our forest trails are not as fast as wide open desert trails. That makes getting smashy on a hardtail more fun and less of a downside vs. riding a FS bike here.

HTs require a more active riding style and more care with line choice. For some people that's a feature and for others that's a horrible failure.


----------



## redwarrior (Apr 12, 2007)

*OneSpeed* said:


> To add to the confusion on any given local ride I can come across whole groups of guys on Enduro bikes where I much prefer a hardtail. Not tooting my own horn, just pointing out that "sweet spot" can vary Wildly from one rider to the next.
> 
> Or to say it another way, at least to some degree, personal preference is not necessarily dictated by local trails. Do you want to work the bike or let the bike do the work for you?
> 
> ...


Lol. Yeah, PB is likely the primary driver behind a few of the riders lugging Pivot Firebirds on trails I ride my gravel bike on. Maybe they're at the bikepark frequently but I can't help but think they'd be much better served on some hardtail varient.

I'd like to give a slack mdern geo rigid SS a test ride, though. I dig rigid bikes or rather I dig the thought of them. My aging body, not so much. I'm building up a Vassago Mooseknuckle up now & at a 67.5 degree head angle 74.2 seat tube angle, it's the most modern geo bike I'll have ridden. Somebody mentioned not wanting too steep of a seat tube angle, especially on SS. I'd think out of the saddle climbing would literally be a pain in the ass with a much steeper seat tube. Or does a much longer front center help prevent it? Definitely'd want try try before I buy though & I don't see a lot of "modern geo" hardtail demos going on up here in New England.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

redwarrior said:


> I'd think out of the saddle climbing would literally be a pain in the ass with a much steeper seat tube. Or does a much longer front center help prevent it?.


My Radimus has a 74.5° STA, and I don't notice it at all during out of the saddle climbing.


----------



## gubbinalia (May 11, 2020)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Ever read a review of a hardtail on PB? "They're all the same". Verbatim from the podcast. Makes my blood boil.


With respect, because I too find PB's analysis frustrating, I would say that's not really PB's fault. They're just a product of industry bias toward suspension patents and rear-suspension tuning, and away from the dozens of other things that make bikes and bike setup different.

So much of the industry has put its marketing and engineering eggs in one basket -- creating (and then promoting) unique and supposedly "innovative" suspension platforms. Rear suspension is how full-suspension bikes are promoted and differentiated; why else would so many brands be searching for name-brand linkage designs or patenting slight variations on the already-existing ones? (There was a great article on NSMB about this a few weeks ago that, IIRC, used the wonderful phrase "Horstlinkian explosion" to describe the advent of the archetypal modern full-squish bike design).

We can have a separate conversation about what Steve @ Hardtail Party is accomplishing more broadly, but I appreciate that he's injecting some nuance back into the mainstream conversation about bike design by recognizing that there's so much more to a bike than its suspension, or lack thereof. I'm not sure if he's always the best at articulating the differences in frame and material feel between the bikes that he rides, but at least he's making it part of the conversation -- along with all the other variables that people tend to overlook. 

(Sidebar -- I find it funny how on the most popular MTBR threads, which center on the hot/new carbon FS bikes from the big players, there is constant discussion of which shocks, forks, wheels, tires, etc. work best, and very little discussion of basic tuning parameters, e.g. tire pressures, air/coil spring rates, damper settings, etc. The conversation about what to buy is outsized.)

The industry, and by extension the PB reviewers, focus so rigidly on distinguishing trail/all-mountain/enduro FS bikes from one another from a what-to-buy perspective, and spend so much time convincing customers to upgrade from one carbon frame to another every year; no wonder the reviewers don't have much of interest to say about building and tuning hardtail frames. It's too nuanced a subject and not well-supported by the marketing dollars of a Trek or Specialized. The narrative of "hardtails are budget bikes" works well enough for those marketing depts.



vikb said:


> HTs *require* a more active riding style and more care with line choice. For some people that's a feature and for others that's a horrible failure.


I like the way you phrased that Vic. I would also say they ~permit~ a more active riding style. On every FS bike I've owned with more than 100mm of travel I'm always seeking out that responsive, lively hardtail feel with custom shock tunes, different damper settings, and air spring tuning, but it's just not the same, nor is it meant to be... which is why I find myself riding a hardtail most days of the week.



redwarrior said:


> I'd like to give a slack mdern geo rigid SS a test ride, though. I dig rigid bikes or rather I dig the thought of them. My aging body, not so much. I'm building up a Vassago Mooseknuckle up now & at a 67.5 degree head angle 74.2 seat tube angle, it's the most modern geo bike I'll have ridden. Somebody mentioned not wanting too steep of a seat tube angle, especially on SS. I'd think out of the saddle climbing would literally be a pain in the ass with a much steeper seat tube. Or does a much longer front center help prevent it? Definitely'd want try try before I buy though & I don't see a lot of "modern geo" hardtail demos going on up here in New England.


Seat angle is so funky on modern hardtails for a bunch of reasons. As an XL/XXL rider I generally want a much steeper STA than a smaller, low/mid-5-foot person, but very few mass-produced hardtails take this into account. Frames with straight seat tubes originating from the BB, with no kinks (think Cotic Solaris, etc) tend to be in the range that I like but seemingly too steep for shorter folks, while radius-bent STs that are offset from the BB end up too slack (for) for a saddle height in the 820-830 range. The quoted numbers on geo charts are also dubious because it's often hard to know if it's quoted at sag or static, and of course when you're hammering with the fork unlocked the front end will dive more, steepening the STA further. But I'm one of those nerds who still runs a remote lockout on my SS (at least if I'm planning to race it), so that has the effect of slackening the STA for the duration of the climb. Too many variables, in other words...

My current SS hardtail, built for more climbing and a little less XC-ish purposes, has an actual STA in the mid-76deg range, which works really well for me as long as I'm willing to pedal standing on flats and gradual downhills (which would not the greatest choice for a long race with lots of gravel roads). With this bike it's not just that the long front center helps me get forward of the seat when I get out of the saddle to pedal, like you identified; I actively HAVE to be way forward in the cockpit to keep weight on the front wheel, especially with short-ish chainstays. It's a different weight distribution than on an older bike with classic XC geo, but I find it's a good body position for producing power. Kind of obvious to say, but as the wheelbase gets longer, your body position has to change, and you have to get further forward to distribute your weight equally between the axles. 

Not sure what part of NE you are in, but Bike Express up here in VT (Waterbury) typically has a Kona demo at least once a season, and they often have demo Honzos (not sure about ESDs, but certainly Honzo STs) to send out. There's also a pretty big Chromag culture around the Stowe/Morrisville area that dates back many years to the days when Hardy Avery ran a shop and sold Chromag frames by the dozen. Hitchhiker Bike Shop is the new dealer in the area but I doubt they have demos for '22 with the current supply situation being what it is.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Let's try to stay on topic. That was my fault. 

TeamDicky, The other thing we're not specifically focusing on is that you are asking many of these questions specifically in reference to racing, which changes things for me. 

Compromises CAN be made for a race bike if that is your primary focus. I feel like many of the comments here are only focusing on general trail riding, not racing. 

I'm sorry did someone just reference Hardtail Party when discussing geometry and racing? Um, no. 

So @teamdicky , are we targeting a fun bike that's 'race worthy' or are we building a more dedicated machine? 

^ sometimes the answer to that question can change depending on what other bikes you have in your stable. I happen to have a few hardtails including a Honzo with a 140mm fork that's set up pretty rowdy, wanted this bike for a long time! 

Because I have a rowdy hardtail, a quick/light hardtail, and a rigid 29+, I don't need to make the same compromises as someone with one bike. 

At some point for certain people it makes sense to just have a fun bike and a dedicated race bike. But obviously not for everyone.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Let's try to stay on topic. That was my fault.
> 
> TeamDicky, The other thing we're not specifically focusing on is that you are asking many of these questions specifically in reference to racing, which changes things for me.
> 
> So @teamdicky , are we targeting a fun bike that's 'race worthy' or are we building a more dedicated machine?



I mention racing, but I guess that's not_ really _what I'm getting at necessarily. I like racing on a rigid bike for who the hell knows why reasons. It's just what I do. I used to be more in the run for podiums. Much less of that now.

I'm aware that I'd be able to put down more power if I ran a longer stem (according to proper bike fit), but all my bikes get a teamdicky wheelie test. If I have trouble getting the front end off the ground, I run a shorter stem. My Radimus started with a 50mm, but it's down to a 35mm and in my happy place. My Epic EVO came stock with a 60mm, I swapped to a 50mm, and ended up with a 35mm.

Soooooooo...

Essentially, I want a fun bike I can race..."fun" being rigid tho... which isn't very "fun" or "racy" in most people's opinions. Mostly I'm going to stage races so I can do stupid long climbs and bomb ****-grinning descents... but rigid... because... burrito?

To that point, I wonder if I'd be grinning more on a modern geo rigid SS or not...enough so to justify the cost. Mebbe I'm getting too old to tinker with what works, but I'm not ded yet, so why not?


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

^ Good info. So the hard part is, while I'm endlessly curious about bike geometry, I've never ridden the exact combo you're asking about (probably like most here) so there's a bit of guesswork.

Would I want to try it? Hell yeah why not, but I have other curiosities I need to explore first.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Would I want to try it? Hell yeah why not, but I have other curiosities I need to explore first.


That's my issue. No cheap way to try it out... like back when Zion was the gateway drug to get on a 29er. I'd at least be out for a frame (mebbe $1,200-1,800) and a Whisky fork (the only one that makes sense to me for this project) AND that fork is 51mm offset, which goes against just about every downcountry bike (most/all have a 44mm offset).

I'd also be decommissioning my Vertigo when I steal 80% of the parts and borrow Boost wheels from another bike as well.

And then if I was all "meh" afterwards? Dammit.


----------



## rusty904 (Apr 25, 2008)

I’m running a Meriwether frame. Went with 66 on the HTA (~65.5 with the 130mm fork. Chainstays are usually between 415 and 420 depending on gearing. I'm 5'11" and went with 475mm reach and a 75.5 degree STA. Compared to my previous hardtail, I went 1.5 degrees slacker on the HTA, 25mm longer reach, and 1.5 steeper on STA. Went from a 50 to a 40mm stem as well.

I'm in CLT like you but have done long rides on the bike on some of the slightly tamer WNC stuff (Spencer/Fletcher/Trace, all of Dupont). I really felt the benefits of the new geo out there with higher speed and steep terrain. On the steep techy stuff I feel way more centered on the bike and don't feel the need to hang way off the back. Handling is more stable and predictable on the high speed flowy stuff. In the local stuff, there was a slight awkwardness to the handling that disappeared about 2-3 miles in. The only time I still notice the length of the bike is really tight and steep uphill switchbacks and other very low speed, very tight corners. Other than that it was getting used to the feeling of having my weight a little more forward to keep traction on the front tire and a little more aggression throwing the bike into corners. Feels totally natural now with near zero drawbacks. I'm still a proponent of short CS on hardtails as I like the feeling of steering the back wheel of the bike with my hips. I also like being able to manual more easily which means I can bunnyhop more easily. With the limitation of no rear suspension, I can't hit chunk at mach chicken anyway, so who needs the stability of a long rear? I don't go over 130mm (usually 120mm) on suspension travel for the same reason. I don't want the front of the bike to write checks the rear of the bike can't cash.

On the occasion I feel like punishing myself and riding rigid, I have an RSD fork (I think it's essentially a rebranded MRP rock solid). It has a 490mm A2C so it's relatively close to my Pike/Sid with 25% sag. Obviously, riding style changes in rigid but overall body positioning and handling feel the same.

I may experiment with an angleset so see how slack I can go before I feel a real detriment to handling but I don't have a ton of motivation to go beyond 66/65/.5. I generally use the full squish for anywhere a super slack HTA would help.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I've run into the same challenge with wanting to try new things. companies don't demo bikes like this, except perhaps if you have the good fortune of attending one of those big outdoor bike festivals. the next best thing is to get to know the riders in your community and borrow bike from someone who has similar dimensions to you, but has some sort of very different bike. otherwise, the fear of blowing money on something that does not work for you is a legitimate concern.



vikb said:


> HTs require a more active riding style and more care with line choice. For some people that's a feature and for others that's a horrible failure.


maybe off topic, but I had this conversation with someone the other day. he was asking about a certain trail at a state park and everyone told him, "it's very rocky and technical. you can't ride fast in a straight line down a hill at any point." my first thought was "that's what I love about that particular trail!" and his response was "yeah, I'll avoid that trail, then. I just want to point the bike down a hill and do nothing to go fast." fun is subjective. most people who at least dabble in bikes with less gears and suspension and terrain and riding styles that are the most dynamic and engaging get it. I don't want to fall asleep on the trail because it's too smooth and the bike is too capable. If I want to go fast without having to use 100% focus and constant body english to stay upright, that's what roads are for!

relevant: I read this comment on Singletracks a few years ago and it stuck with me as a reminder of how subjective riding bikes for "fun" is.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

teamdicky said:


> And then if I was all "meh" afterwards? Dammit.


Been there, done that.

I'm in this sport for the long haul. Sometimes that's part of the process. Like you, I try to just make the best decision based on the information that's currently available.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

mack_turtle said:


> maybe off topic, but I had this conversation with someone the other day. he was asking about a certain trail at a state park and everyone told him, "it's very rocky and technical. you can't ride fast in a straight line down a hill at any point." my first thought was "that's what I love about that particular trail!" and his response was "yeah, I'll avoid that trail, then. I just want to point the bike down a hill and do nothing to go fast." fun is subjective. most people who at least dabble in bikes with less gears and suspension and terrain and riding styles that are the most dynamic and engaging get it. I don't want to fall asleep on the trail because it's too smooth and the bike is too capable. If I want to go fast without having to use 100% focus and constant body english to stay upright, that's what roads are for!


Much approval.


----------



## CCSS (Apr 6, 2004)

teamdicky said:


> That's my issue. No cheap way to try it out... like back when Zion was the gateway drug to get on a 29er. I'd at least be out for a frame (mebbe $1,200-1,800) and a Whisky fork (the only one that makes sense to me for this project) AND that fork is 51mm offset, which goes against just about every downcountry bike (most/all have a 44mm offset).
> .


I’d suggest the Tandell boost carbon fork for less than 200 bucks shipped. It’s 49mm offset and 495 AC. The whisky is more than 2x the price and has those (imo) ugly mounting points on the legs. It also has a weight limit, which even tho you probably won’t hit, doesn’t instill confidence. The Tandell has been a beast for me and several other ATX SS riders.

For the kind of riding you’re talking about I think you’ll dig a longer, slacker-within-reason, rigid SS. 

As for your wheelie test, I’m with you 100%. But if you run a steep STA and a short stem the seated riding position sux (imo). Which is why, for a dedicated SS, I opted for a slacker STA. Super comfortable cockpit for seated pedaling.

I’d also suggest a chat with Walt Wehner. He’s been here, seen that, and he’s relatively affordable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Dammit, CCSS, you are *NOT* sposta be freeriding those plastic forx... Just sayin'!!


----------



## CCSS (Apr 6, 2004)

BansheeRune said:


> Dammit, CCSS, you are *NOT* sposta be freeriding those plastic forx... Just sayin'!!


Ha! Interestingly, I’ve catastrophically killed a high end steel MTB fork (snapped the steer tube from the crown stepping down a steep ledge), but never a carbon fork.

That said I’m running tapered steer Waltworks forks on both bikes now 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

CCSS said:


> Ha! Interestingly, I’ve catastrophically killed a high end steel MTB fork (snapped the steer tube from the crown stepping down a steep ledge), but never a carbon fork.
> 
> That said I’m running tapered steer Waltworks forks on both bikes now
> 
> ...



I knew it... Destructive lil bastage!


----------



## Ducman (Feb 29, 2004)

The Spot Rocker might be a bike for you to look at. Not Low at 12.6 BB drop, but 67 HA, 75.5 SA and long wheelbase at 1213 for a large. I was concerned about the longer WB compared to my much shorter other rigid SS, but I have found the bike to be much more stable and less likely to get deflected off my line while cornering. It is easier to be faster on it.


----------



## gsteitz (Sep 9, 2011)

I'm definitely in the camp of less offset for these slacker 29er angels these days. I know some mention not being able to tell the difference between 44mm and 51mm, but I sure as heck can. On my 67.5 HTA bike the 51mm has more oversteer than I like, and I can even tell the difference between the 49mm and 44mm forks I'm running on identical geo frames. The lower offset likes to rail and lean more, which I like.

If it were me I'd consider the Enve at 44mm and run a Wolftooth 10mm lower headset spacer to get to 500mm AC.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

gsteitz said:


> I'm definitely in the camp of less offset for these slacker 29er angels these days. I know some mention not being able to tell the difference between 44mm and 51mm, but I sure as heck can. On my 67.5 HTA bike the 51mm has more oversteer than I like, and even the 49mm fork I'm running seems like too much.
> 
> If it were me I'd consider the Enve at 44mm and run a Wolftooth 10mm lower headset spacer to get to 500mm AC.


Any time you make change in rake, you have changed caster. Stands to reason that you feel that change in handling.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

A relatively cheap experiment would be to slap a Works Components -2 angleset into the Optimus frame with an ENVE rigid fork and see what you think.
My Optimus has one, and is also overforked to 140, which according to geo charts would be an unsagged 64.5 hta. (Stock 67.5, -2 headset, -1 overforked) maybe even an extra 1/4 degree because the angleset is like a 14mm lower cup, compared to a traditional 10mm lower cup.
So, 25-30% sagged HTA is something close to 65. 
It’s not rigid, but I can 100% say I’m never going back to a steeper bike. I love everything about it. 
the stack gets pretty tall, but I like tall stack on an SS, and a low stem, something like a FUNN equalizer with a -10mm rise and some flat-ish bars can mitigate that.


----------



## 2:01 (May 10, 2010)

I think you will like riding/racing rigid on modern geo much more than your current bike.
My old 2nd gen SIR9/ONE9 had similar geo (both set up SS rigid). Fun on pure XC trails but not so much when things got steep and rough.
My current set up is an Optimus Ti (latest geo), 490mm ENVE fork (44mm offset). I am still as fast on XC trails on the uphills (according to Strava and butt dyno anyway). 
I’ve had this bike down some chunky technical trails (all around Moab, including Whole Ench). Compared to other rigids (Jones, Krampug), it’s been my favorite (and fastest) on any technical/rough trails. So much more confidence when you see pointy slick rock coming towards you at 30mph. Jones was close, but the Vassago is so much faster everywhere else.


----------



## sharp21 (Jul 25, 2014)

Late to the party but interested in a similar build. 

I race Cat3 XC and want a SS for off-season training and maybe some racing.

I’ve been considering the Specialized Fuse Comp (has horizontal rear dropouts) or a Marin San Quentin with a tensioner. The Marin geometry is super aggressive and it looks like a great jumper.

Any thoughts on either of those? The Marins come up here often so can be found easily.


----------



## CCSS (Apr 6, 2004)

Too slack sucks with rigid (IMHO). Both my MTBs are rigid SS. I tried an Esker Japhy (under 65 degree HTA unsagged) and it was floppy AF with a 495 A:C rigid fork. Put a works components 2 degree headset on backwards to steepen the HTA and it was ok. YMMV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

I going to be experimenting with a build that kinda fits in this category. Rigid specific Stooge Cycles MK4 frameset. 
It's extreme in some areas and not in others. Has 1209mm wheelbase, 445mm CS length (+/- 7mm), 60mm BB drop (+/- 7mm), only 448mm reach, but 66 HTA combined with 80mm offset, 455mm length fork (nets same effectively as a 63 HTA with normal offset fork). Frameset was designed to be ran 29x2.6 rear and 29x3.0-3.25 front. 
Going to be interesting to try out!


----------



## Bluebeat007 (Mar 17, 2004)

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the Stooge. Awesome!


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

My frame is a 65HTA but I'm currently overforked from the designed 140mm fork length with a 160mm fork. I use a slacker seat tube at 74 degrees as my uphill pedaling is standing and seated is usually on flat or downhill grades. I don't have a low BB though I prefer a higher BB. Wheelbase is around 1190mm. I love slow steep technical downhills and crawling rock gardens. It's been a great do everything bike for me. Long XC days in the saddle and a park day on some of the steepest and roughest terrain around.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

nitrousjunky said:


> I going to be experimenting with a build that kinda fits in this category. Rigid specific Stooge Cycles MK4 frameset.
> It's extreme in some areas and not in others. Has 1209mm wheelbase, 445mm CS length (+/- 7mm), 60mm BB drop (+/- 7mm), only 448mm reach, but 66 HTA combined with 80mm offset, 455mm length fork (nets same effectively as a 63 HTA with normal offset fork). Frameset was designed to be ran 29x2.6 rear and 29x3.0-3.25 front.
> Going to be interesting to try out!
> View attachment 1989225
> ...


I'm also curious to hear feedback about your impression of this bike. Certain parts of the geometry make me curious about how it would compare to other rigid bikes I ride.


----------



## Bluebeat007 (Mar 17, 2004)

6 weeks and no update, Nitrous?!?!?


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Bluebeat007 said:


> 6 weeks and no update, Nitrous?!?!?


It is completed, but I haven't had a chance to ride it. Got sick right after finishing it, tested negative but it's been a weird/rough couple weeks. Also got slammed with 3-5 inches of rain this past weekend.

Hoping to get it out for the shakedown this coming weekend. If we jive well, I'll be having i9 relace these wheels to wider rims.... but wanted to ride it for a bit before having that done.


----------



## Bluebeat007 (Mar 17, 2004)

Sorry to hear, brother. The bike looks sick. Please check in with initial thoughts. I had my eye on the Speedball after reading Matt Latkin’s Pinkbike bike check but it sold out. I know a new version is coming in the fall.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Bluebeat007 said:


> Sorry to hear, brother. The bike looks sick. Please check in with initial thoughts. I had my eye on the Speedball after reading Matt Latkin’s Pinkbike bike check but it sold out. I know a new version is coming in the fall.


Will do!! I can't wait to ride this thing! Yeah that's another thing I'm pondering, whether I want the additional rear tire clearance of the upcoming Speedbomb ( that will be coming mid next year). It will be boost spacing and have clearance for full 29x3 rear (also will be debuting a new fork design).


----------



## Bluebeat007 (Mar 17, 2004)

It’s an exciting time to be alive.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Here I am pondering a RetroTec and nitrous just hasta put second thoughts in my melon...

Oh hell, the CAD will continue at this point.

Needless to say, nitrous, the Stooge is looking mahvelous, brother! Feel better and enjoy the shakedown when you're running on all 8 cylinders.


----------



## Shinkers (Feb 5, 2014)

Nothing on this planet looks as good as twin top tubes. 

Very jealous.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

BansheeRune said:


> Here I am pondering a RetroTec and nitrous just hasta put second thoughts in my melon...
> 
> Oh hell, the CAD will continue at this point.
> 
> Needless to say, nitrous, the Stooge is looking mahvelous, brother! Feel better and enjoy the shakedown when you're running on all 8 cylinders.


Oh a RetroTec would be killer and would look great in your quiver!


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

nitrousjunky said:


> Oh a RetroTec would be killer and would look great in your quiver!


I think it would pay homage to the first year Cook Brothers, honestly. The elegance and style of frame is over the top.

That Stooge carries that vibe very nicely too. So classic, so butchen and I think you'll bond in short order. Dem bars... Now for some singletrack and a few hours to pedal that bike, heavenly!


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

I really want that stooge bar but 40 euros to ship to the US kills it for me.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

DeoreDX said:


> I really want that stooge bar but 40 euros to ship to the US kills it for me.


There are some quality similar options available in the US as well. If you aren't already familiar with these, look up the Hunter Smooth Move low & high rise and Crust Mushman riser bars.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Well the Stooge MK4 was an absolute riot. It's changed my opinion on bike geometry moving forward. Unfortunately, my body just can't handle rigid at the speed it demands to be ridden at....so it's being passed on to a new owner. Bike had amazing handling. I knew it would be super planted and capable on steep descents, but what floored me was how much better it was at climbing through chunky tech. I've ridden a couple of my buddies Chromag Rootdowns and I knew the long front center/slack HTA/steep STA worked brilliantly for seated, geared climbing......but I didn't expect it to translate quite so well to SS standing climbing. At speed I did get a little spring bounce out of the curved fork in a couple sections, but I'm also 205 lbs before gear.....so a lighter rider might not ever experience that. Fork had zero brake shutter though. 

I had soooo much fun riding it, I've now ordered a Pipedream Sirius frame to possibly replace my Krampus as my primary SS bike.


----------



## LithiumMetalman (May 12, 2016)

Love my rigid slack SS.
Found dialing in the position for longer rides was tricky due to the steep seat tube angle. The steep seattube angle really benefits winch and plummet terrain but not so much for more mixed terrain imho.

Cotic Solaris Max with rigid fork at 490mm (44mm rake), 35mm stem, 66 degree head angle, 75 degree seat tube angle with setback seatpost (effectively 73.5 degrees), this made a huge difference in my ability and position to corner / carve harder with my hips and feet.

In conjunction, the shorter stem (35mm) combined with 725mm wide bars made a huge difference in the steering for me, the lower front end made the front end grip fantastic, I was worried coming from an older conservative geo with longer stems that I would be giving up front end grip, not the case here as the longer 444mm chainstays with the long front center balances out nicely in helping with keeping the front end planted.

My observation for rigid hardcore Singlespeeds is that the more mixed the terrain, the more important that the rear center balances with front center of the bike to create a more balanced feel in standing, sitting and cornering while being able to stay in a more neutral / (comfortable-aggressive? position) on the bike.

So far, this is my favorite bike for all-around usage in lighter terrain and incredibly stable in straight lines and corners, anything heavier duty and I prefer front squish and dropper on the other SS.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

24TT, 74 ST but only 68 HT since I ride singletrack and not flow.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

hey milehi, can you and your Coco come out an' play?


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

LithiumMetalman said:


> Cotic Solaris Max with rigid fork


That is a good-looking bike! How is the chain held in place? Magic gear?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

mack_turtle said:


> That is a good-looking bike! How is the chain held in place? Magic gear?


Had to do a doubletake on that. The cog is like a mirror and deceiving in the image.


----------



## bolo (Sep 30, 2009)

Singular gryphon









Sent from my moto g(8) power lite using Tapatalk


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

bolo said:


> Singular gryphon
> 
> 
> 
> ...


seems like a cool bike, but that does not really fit the theme of this particular discussion.


----------



## LithiumMetalman (May 12, 2016)

mack_turtle said:


> That is a good-looking bike! How is the chain held in place? Magic gear?


Magic Gear!!! turns out 32:16 & 32:20 fit perfectly even after chain stretch. Absolutely stoked!


----------



## SSsteel4life (Jul 1, 2016)

LithiumMetalman said:


> Love my rigid slack SS.
> Found dialing in the position for longer rides was tricky due to the steep seat tube angle. The steep seattube angle really benefits winch and plummet terrain but not so much for more mixed terrain imho.
> 
> Cotic Solaris Max with rigid fork at 490mm (44mm rake), 35mm stem, 66 degree head angle, 75 degree seat tube angle with setback seatpost (effectively 73.5 degrees), this made a huge difference in my ability and position to corner / carve harder with my hips and feet.
> ...


Very nice, like the blue color. Interesting to hear your take on the longer chainstay and overall balance. I have been on the short chainstay ban wagon for over 8 years now. But am starting to rethink it as well lately. In these pictures I assume this is with your 32x20 gearing?


----------



## LithiumMetalman (May 12, 2016)

SSsteel4life said:


> Very nice, like the blue color. Interesting to hear your take on the longer chainstay and overall balance. I have been on the short chainstay ban wagon for over 8 years now. But am starting to rethink it as well lately. In these pictures I assume this is with your 32x20 gearing?


Thanks! The gearing in the pic is 32:16, but do run 32:20 quite a bit too.


----------

