# Experience with getting used to an 'over the handlebars' descending/cornering style?



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

I know at least some of you have been riding since the 80's/90's on the short, steep head angle bikes typical of that time. I'm interested in your experience with adjusting to newer bikes that are longer and slacker that require a more forward body position for descending and cornering?

For me, I had been trying out bikes starting about 10 years ago and found that the more forward position with wider handlebars felt really natural to me. I think the feeling that the front wheel was a quite a bit further forward and the likelihood of doing an endo was much less than on older bikes felt pretty obvious to me.

Thoughts on adjusting your riding style to newer bike geometry?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Not 50+, but here's my thoughts: I just avoid bikes that demand me to put weight on the front. 

I rather the bike be more natural to get along with, else I consider it a compromised design.

I imagine the OTB feeling would still be present if I got lazy and the rear bucked due to too much weight on it.

Bikes I've ridden typically demanded my weight to be shifted to the rear, except for long travel bikes with short CS, partly because I ride size small/med 16.5".

What's natural to me is more of a centered position, one which I can theoretically take my hands off the bar and not start falling back nor forward, balanced on my feet.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

You should try a Trust fork, that’ll get you riding forward in heart beat. 

But yeah, slack front ends and long travel, they really soak up the hits and reduce the risk of going OTB. Riding fast also helps 😊


----------



## sturge (Feb 22, 2009)

Long time 60 yo rider. Took me 10-12 rides to start getting comfortable in the newer geo of my 2018 Kona. I soon became much more confident and aggressive in technical terrain...especially downhill. No doubt, fewer endo's occur having front wheel way out front. 

The learning curve for me was at slower speeds on flat or uphill terrain with large features to get over (rock walls, logs, stream crossing, etc). Requires much more body English to get front wheel up and over. Being 6'4" gives me the advantage of using my long limbs to shift weight back and lighten front end.

I've put well over 3,000 singletrack miles on this bike and last week I had my first OTB endo at an icy, rocky stream crossing on a night ride (no injuries and I didn't get wet!). Previously, it was not super common...maybe 1 or 2 times a year at most.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

Had I ridden my hard nose - hard tail steel Fuji from 1989 up until 2019 and transitioned to modern geometry I'm sure it would have felt like a radical change. But, I embraced new designs as they came out, to the extent that I could, so it was much more of an evolutionary, Vs. revolutionary experience for me over the years. About the only thing I've noticed is bikes keep getting better at everything.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

MSU Alum said:


> Had I ridden my hard nose - hard tail steel Fuji from 1989 up until 2019 and transitioned to modern geometry I'm sure it would have felt like a radical change. But, I embraced new designs as they came out, to the extent that I could, so it was much more of an evolutionary, Vs. revolutionary experience for me over the years. About the only thing I've noticed is bikes keep getting better at everything.


This ^^^ summarizes my experience, too. I don't weight the front wheel, I just ride my bike. Or do I?
=sParty


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

On a bike with slack HA, long travel fork, short stem, short CS, when I tried to use my habitual rearward weight shift and heels down style for braking, on a fast DH corner, the bike wouldn't listen to me when I wanted to turn. It started to turn, but the front started to slip and I turned back forward to not totally wash out and just went off the trail into the bushes. That's what taught me to keep more weight on the front, in this case being more centered, but I also upgraded the front tire to something grippier (and slower). While that bike was fun and got airborne much easier, I ended up favoring a bike that was more optimized around faster tires.

I've since re-opened back up to that formula, thanks to getting used to it more. I don't actually weight the front with my upper body. I still mostly balance on my feet, but a big difference is that I stopped riding heels down and instead ride mid-foot over axle and knees forward of the axle. I also settled on my favorite tire being the DHR2, as I find it offers a great balance of speed, control, and reliability (with cushcore).


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

Sharper turns need more forward weight bias. If I'm doing tight downhill turns or switchbacks, there's a lot of weight on the front wheel. Learned this first in mx.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

MSU Alum said:


> much more of an evolutionary, Vs. revolutionary experience for me over the years. About the only thing I've noticed is bikes keep getting better at everything.


Yep.


----------



## Lopaka (Sep 7, 2006)

For me, OTB events are more about braking mistakes or line choice that jams the front wheel. Those kinds of mistakes result in an OTB regardless of bike travel, geometry, or body position.

More frequently, I will wash out the front wheel in a turn or will not be able to complete a turn because I am compensating my weight too far back. I make this mistake even in situations where an OTB is unlikely. 

Confidence in line choice, tire grip, and speed will bring your weight forward and allow you to keep the front tire weighted when you need to turn. Top DH riders demonstrate this skill. The only remaining ingredient is commitment and the willingness to suffer major injury when your line choice writes a check your skill set can't cash.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

I personally am really appreciating the ability to put my weight much further forward on current bikes. I think the only reason we rode so far back on bikes in the 80's/90's was the risk of going over the bars. On those older bikes, getting sufficient weight on the front tire so they would turn well would also make the back end noticeable light on steep descents. Newer bikes no longer feel like they want to nose wheelie when putting weight on the front tire.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Never really felt too much need to weight the front on bikes that favored rearward positioning, since there was already plenty on the front. Was able to steer from the back while on the brakes, doing all sorts of stuff typical of a frightened newbie. Felt safe on the brakes, and turns can be made while going slow. Felt safe running XC tires up front going fast, running the same tire in the back. I've high-sided on bikes multiple times, especially when sessioning/drilling on corners incrementally increasing speed, captured on video in two instances, which kind of made me not favor the forward weight thing too much.

I learned too late about weight balance and how it's related to front center and rear center (esp when standing), and how upsizing to get more front center can get more weight rearward, can make a bike feel more balanced to make me stay more centered and easier in general to ride fast. It's also a curse, since I'm so demanding now of good geo that I see my current bikes as having a lot of room for improvement. I feel like geo evolved to the point that I can feel more in tune with medium, when usually I felt better upsizing, due to front centers getting longer.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

Varaxis said:


> Never really felt too much need to weight the front on bikes that favored rearward positioning, since there was already plenty on the front.


Good points. With older bikes, I always felt that I tended to err on the side of having too much weight over the back. With newer bikes, it feels like the margin of error for where my weight can be centered is much greater. On older bikes it felt like there was a finer line between having weight centered versus having weight too far forward.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Some would say that steep HA, short reach, and long stems were things that made weight actually a bit excessive on the front. Solve with with slack HA and longer reach, short stems being a given since making it shorter felt better in their experience.

I would say that steep HA and short reach made front centers short, and long stems pulled the rider's position forward, which shifted weight forward. Can solve it by increasing front center, or shortening rear center, to improve the balance. Any combo of longer fork, slacker HA, longer reach, and even fork offset can boost the front center. 

In my experience, endo situations tended to be when the front planted itself suddenly, rather than continued rolling. It'd run into an obstacle that stalled it out; I've endo'd uphill because of this too. I blame excessive weight on front, since the bike would have to lift all the weight to climb/roll over the obstacle. 29ers became popular for increased rollability over 26. 26 was fine if it was slack and had long travel and short CS, and the suspension actually worked. Suspension quality was critical for 26, or active finesse in shifting weight around. New school geo short-mid travel 29ers kind of minimize the need for that, having longer wheelbase, quality susp, and a sweet spot weight balance that doesn't require much adapting (weight shifts) nor finesse for eeking out traction.

IMO, slack HA designs are okay if you're wanting a high speed long wheelbase bike, but if you want to keep wheelbase in check to make it so the bike better responds to rider input, should consider steeper HA. It's simple logic to reason that slack worked on 26, and fixes the excessive weight on front experienced on XC race bikes, that it'd be plain better. Simple logic is simple-minded; this thinking loses sight of the bigger picture regarding how to balance way more variables and how they relate. Shorter FC should be balanced by a shorter RC (horizontal CS length)--shorter RC is credited for snappy handling, but snappy handling is more accurately reflected by the short WB, which XC hardtails have. Putting shorter CS on a bike with stretched out front end from slack HA and long fork might have been thought to make it more snappy, but instead it leads to not enough weight on the front, prompting the rider to weight the front (get over-the-bars?) else suffer consequences. Sounds like a weird bias syndrome to want to defend such a design; I recall someone defending the Doctahawk, saying you want to ride the fork/front wheel anyways. The easy answer would just be to offer adjustable CS length.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I go over the bars a few times every year, most of the time it’s because I ran into something that wouldn’t move. A couple weeks ago it was a pinion root ball that some horses had kicked onto the trail, I came around a corner and it was bikes vs root ball; landed on my arse and bruised my tail bone.

Often my OTB’s come from steep rock rolls where my front end gets hung up and I just rotate over the top. Back in East Tennessee, it was root bundles that would send my flying.

I suppose new geo has helped reduce OTB, but in a way it’s increased my crashes by allowing me to ride faster and go bigger than the older bikes safely allowed.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Spectre brings up a good point, regarding how large the sweet spot is, which I credit to wheelbase length.

Short WB bikes are more prone to crashing, but that's why they're fun/thrilling/challenging. They reach their limits at lower speeds, which makes it appealing to those who don't have great fitness, earning more smiles per mile. Takes a skilled rider to work well, and can liven up tame trails.

Long WB bikes makes riding rough miles easier. With a good balance, the sweet spot can be huge. Can deprioritize a lot of the minor finesse work, and just focus on absorbing impacts, power moves, and hitting your lines at mind-numbing speeds.

A short WB and long WB duo is another way of planning out a good quiver for those who have such trail variety. If you got a HT that mimicked a FS, you might wonder why a HT is even necessary. If you got a short travel bike and long travel bike with similar geo, you might wonder why you have both depending on trails. But if you got proper spread between WB, you'd more likely pick based on trail tameness or the pace you'd like to ride at, esp if the pace is dictated by ride buddies. Both could be shred machines suited for an experienced rider, both could be FS, both could be the same wheelsize, both could be the same weight, both could have similar travel, yet be very different. Maybe a quiver like a Canfield Riot with a Ripmo. Just saying, WB is a bigger deal than any of these typical things ppl judge by. I'd hype up how susp kinematics and frame/chassis feel affects confidence and personality, but hard to predict this on paper. Heck, tire choice and tire/susp pressure make a bigger deal to ride quality than anything people judge by. I can ride most anything that mimics my current tire combo, and it'd feel like I'm nitpicking if I'm trying to tell the diff between faux bar and Horst link, struggling to find anything to judge by besides Strava and subjective style/mood fit.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

Nurse Ben said:


> I go over the bars a few times every year, most of the time it's because I ran into something that wouldn't move. A couple weeks ago it was a pinion root ball that some horses had kicked onto the trail, I came around a corner and it was bikes vs root ball; landed on my arse and bruised my tail bone.
> 
> Often my OTB's come from steep rock rolls where my front end gets hung up and I just rotate over the top. Back in East Tennessee, it was root bundles that would send my flying.
> 
> I suppose new geo has helped reduce OTB, but in a way it's increased my crashes by allowing me to ride faster and go bigger than the older bikes safely allowed.


Totally. It doesn't take much going over a steep dropoff to catch the front wheel just enough to put me OTB. And the better the equipment, the faster I'm going when I crash.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Nurse Ben said:


> I go over the bars a few times every.





Lone Rager said:


> Totally. It doesn't take much going over a steep dropoff to catch the front wheel just enough to put me OTB. And the better the equipment, the faster I'm going when I crash.


You guys' droppers aren't long enough.  Unsolicited suggestion: 185mm minimum drop.
=sParty


----------



## sturge (Feb 22, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> Short WB bikes are more prone to crashing, but that's why they're fun/thrilling/challenging. They reach their limits at lower speeds, which makes it appealing to those who don't have great fitness, earning more smiles per mile. Takes a skilled rider to work well, and can liven up tame trails.


Very true...
This is exactly what I tell my son who rides a 2012 Yamaha R6 sport bike compared to me on my 2002 Harley. When we get into the twisty's I'm working much harder and on the hairy edge while he is nowhere near what his bike is capable of. I get way more thrills without having to exceed speed limits by 50mph. So despite his bike having way more performance capabilities, he is missing out. Of course...for his next bike he wants something with MORE performance!


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

Varaxis said:


> Short WB bikes are more prone to crashing, but that's why they're fun/thrilling/challenging. They reach their limits at lower speeds, which makes it appealing to those who don't have great fitness, earning more smiles per mile. Takes a skilled rider to work well, and can liven up tame trails.


Great insight! Your comment just made a connection for me as to why I like the newer geometry but applied more conservatively (meaning moderate chainstay lengths and moderately long front centers). I realized 20 years ago when I was buying my first full-suspension bike that what I really liked about mountain biking was just getting out on the trails with friends. I had done some racing on the road and decided that spending hours chasing breakaways up the road wasn't my thing after a long week of work. The two bikes that I considered most seriously back then were the Titus Switchblade and the Titus Racer-X. I settled on the Switchblade figuring that the bike I would enjoy most would be the one that allowed me to focus less on bike handling. For me, a more capable bike also made long mountain bike rides more like long road bike rides on which I could get lost in being outdoors on the trails instead of pushing the limits like I would be in a crit ('criterium') race that required constant mental focus.








Nowadays though, some bikes have gotten so capable that they can be boring to ride on everyday trail rides. So my sweet spot seems to be bikes that still provide enough of a nimble handling feel. Bikes that fit this for me can be either longer-travel 27.5 bikes (Ibis HD4, Turner RFX, Revel Rail, Santa Cruz Bronson) that aren't too slack or medium travel 29ers (Pivot Trail 429, Yeti SB130). My current Ibis HD4 is so much easier to ride fast than my old Titus Switchblade.

*Titus Switchblade:*








*Titus Racer-X:*


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

sturge said:


> Of course...for his next bike he wants something with MORE performance!


So true for cars and motorcycles. Once you get a car or motorcycle that is too capable, the only place you can have any fun with it is on the track. I've personally found that I like lower powered cars (something like a VW GTI, Honda S2000 or a Porsche Cayman) much more for street driving, because I can enjoy running through several gears without breaking the speed limit by too much.

The wisdom that comes with experience...haha.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

Too much thinking and not enough riding. 
Just ride. Your body will recalibrate after a session or 2.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I'm running a 210mm dropper on both bikes... and I use it all ?

All of my crashes are well deserved, can't blame the bike.



Sparticus said:


> You guys' droppers aren't long enough.  Unsolicited suggestion: 185mm minimum drop.
> =sParty


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Nurse Ben said:


> I'm running a 210mm dropper on both bikes... and I use it all 


Yeah, I think I knew that.  Just running my mouth again. :nono:
=sParty


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Spectre said:


> Nowadays though, some bikes have gotten so capable that they can be boring to ride on everyday trail rides.


It doesn't get easier, you just go faster.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

sturge said:


> Of course...for his next bike he wants something with MORE performance!


I think he needs more trackdays.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Media types use the phrase, "livens up at higher speed" to describe those longer WB higher performance bikes. That is, unless the bike has some quirk like too fast rebound, that makes the bike not so planted and a bit less capable (AKA more poppy)... 

I tried to skip to super long WB, 1275+mm, when my longest bike before that was 1190 or so. It was quite a shocker that took me weeks to even get used to. I struggled to do simple low speed moves like keep the wheels level when riding off of curbs (e.g. pushing the bike forward, as opposed to shifting weight back in a manual). Passed it off to a buddy who thought it was odd, and he couldn't do it either. What I discovered was that all the bike needed was a bit more speed, and didn't need any input from me besides that. Needless to say, I haven't had the motivation to make it running again, after I stole the wheels off of it to fix up another bike, one that's better suited to my riding habits.

I think 1210mm to 1230mm should've been a step I needed to take first. Beyond that, lies the Spec Enduro, which I think is 1250mm in my size. I think the industry's going incremental for a reason. Extremely advanced designs that are of sound science tend to be well ahead of their time, in terms of mainstream acceptance.

WB's important but susp tune is too. I remember putting a CCDB inline on a linear bike (Spec Enduro 29 v1), and it was so stable and planted that it handled with no fault and got me to push myself, but at the same time felt dead when I was riding with others. I kind of missed its quirks. Gave me the impression that "perfection" is kind of boring too. The suspension did what suspension was designed to do, but for some irrational reason, I wanted the suspension to be more familiar, since I had become accustomed to that. I didn't want to look smooth and calm; I wanted to play on the edge of control. With the CCDB, it was more about fine tuning my knowledge of the trails and the best lines, improving my fitness, being race-focused rather than just going out to play. Buddies noticed, and one sponsored me to race, which I entered blind to the trails, and decided there and then, F this, this requires too much time commitment.

Then there's chassis stiffness, which is a big reason for confidence. Tubing that flexes easily doesn't really exude confidence, but it's fun riding it in its sweet spot. It's lively feeling, and it's a good feeling to keep it in that zone. If it flexes just right under pedaling, it can mask the resistance of pedaling up a beast, giving the feeling that you're riding a much lighter bike through factors like knee pressure. A big beefy downtube and head tube makes the bike more predictable when plowing into stuff--if it feels vague/unpredictable, you start subconsciously backing off, due to fear of the unknown, needing to build up confidence mentally to overcome that fear. Steel's small diameter tubing allows for so much sway at the BB, that I could stack extra weight and rolling resistance on a bike, and even shrink its gearing range, yet not feel like it was busting my knees grinding it up hills. Buddies were constantly impressed, that I could do this or that on a singlespeed or my experimental bike. All extra resistance went into flexing the winding up frame at the BB, which returned the energy to the drivetrain smoothly. People often say stiffer is faster/racier, but I rather have this forgiveness and am willing to make trade-offs.

I guess I digressed... was about to go into minor traits, that I still judge more important than modern geo that relates to a forward position, like how quiet a bike is. I'll just say the crop of 435mm CS and 1230mm WB bike releases have hit a good sweet spot, and I'm happy to see steeper STA for many reasons.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

Completely agree with all of your thoughts on WB, suspension and chassis stiffness. I've found that a medium with about a 1200 mm WB is about right for me. Also, I'm currently running a Fox x2 which does wonders for providing a quiet ride. The key factor for me is maintaining the fun-to-ride feel is 27.5" wheels versus 29ers. The ability of 29er wheels to roll over anything and being slightly slower to steer makes 27.5" wheels more fun to ride for me.


----------



## Attacking Mid (Dec 10, 2004)

Deleted.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

Attacking Mid said:


> Having been a fairly fast dirt bike racer most of my life, I really struggled transitioning to mtb's in my 50's. I started out riding an ancient Gary Fisher 26" HT that must have had about a 90*° head angle (only slight exaggeration) that combined with my dirtbike technique of riding forward on the bike resulted in OTB's on the slightest obstacle encounters.
> 
> I'm now on a more modern FS bike and I'm slowly getting better, but it's incredibly frustrating to be hesitant to ride something on my mtb that I would probably clear in the air on a dirtbike.
> 
> ...


Get yourself into a 64/5° HTA bike asap. Half my crew are moto dudes in their 40's and 50's. They are going a really well on the new geo.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

No, don't shop/judge by head angle. That's a simpleton's method. 

All Remedy 29s are totally old school. The only ones that probably get along well with them are those who are slow defensive riders (naturally get along with the rearward position) whose demands are low (munching miles and elevation, wanting extra travel for comfort & security), and those who fit the largest size, since that gives them good enough front end length to promote a centered position*. 

* To those used to rearward positioning, a centered one seems forward.

Some tall people are actually fighting back against modern geo, since some designs aren't very balanced. They might actually like the extra long front ends, and instead point out how the chainstays not long enough to give weight on the front wheel. That or they size down, and then complain about the cramped cockpit and steep STA.

IMO, follow a bike tester who matches your body size/type and style, and get their recommendation. Age and height are just some of many variables you can consider; the more variables you consider, and the better you understand them (from experience, such as trial and error from buying prior bikes), the more accurate your predictions are. I started out following riders near me, getting hooked with people I met at bike shops and at the trails, thinking they knew the terrain best, but normal people are bigots compared to types that get out and experiment, explore things out of their comfort zone, and are more open minded.

If you've been following this thread, you'd probably got the idea that there's tons more to consider than geo that are important, if you read through my posts. Treat the bike soul searching as its own adventure, rather than rushing things.


----------



## Attacking Mid (Dec 10, 2004)

Deleted.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Insert the quote about wise men learning from others mistakes, and fools needing to make them themselves to potentially learn.

There's a mtbr member named Blatant who I believe may share some things in common with you, who seems to go through a lot of diff bikes. He's into the Banshee Titan. Perhaps you're familiar with Dirt Merchant bike shop in Boulder, CO? They, and the Banshee creator, builttoride, post here on this forum. Hard to find that kind of open connection to public in the business world.


----------



## Attacking Mid (Dec 10, 2004)

Deleted.


----------



## mtnking (Feb 10, 2012)

You've "hit the nail on the head" with this. I used to do a lot of steep climbs so I moved my seat as far forward as I could. This worked great for traction, and keeping the front wheel from sliding out cornering. Unfortunately, it also resulted in several totally unexpected "over-the-bars" incidents. One broke my neck. Moving the seat back does now result in less front wheel traction ... particularly in loose dirt or sand. But, I've learned two things to compensate for this.
First, when cornering lean into the corner. This keeps the bike more upright. If the wheel slides out, you can quickly recover by shifting your weight to the outside of the corner and regain traction.'
Second, when I'm cornering I shift my body forward to weight the front wheel. 
Since moving my seat back to the middle of the rail, I haven't gone over the bars since. A big improvement.


----------



## bikemoto885 (Jul 11, 2016)

Spectre said:


> Thoughts on adjusting your riding style to newer bike geometry?


It's difficult! I got some professional coaching just recently and they said the number one thing for people who've been riding a long time - their single biggest hurdle to improving - is getting their body position forward and keeping it there. And on the trail it's compounded by the instinct to get away (up and back) from hazards.

Have to say, I agree. Knowing and doing are two different things, but practice is what bridges that gap. I'm also going to build a manual machine to practice my riding position more often.


----------



## IPA Rider (Aug 24, 2008)

Using a dropper got me forward on the downs...just to have my weight balanced


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

It used to puzzle me why I felt safer on dropbars when descending.

Eventually I realised that it made it easier to get lower. Although your head is over the front, you can get your CoG lower and further back, and that's why it works. Dropper posts allows the same CoG altering effect.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

One of the things I tried was running the same exact tires front and rear and trying to do 2 wheeled drifts on flat corners (both feet still on bike and successfully riding out without bobbling) to learn the bike's balance. I do this on demos. I really like the ones that make this easy, riding Karver (Chris Kovarik) style.

The Intense Recluse and Spider 27.5, I think in 2014, were the ones who opened my eyes to a more forward/centered position. I did 2 wheeled drifts accidentally on one, just trying to push it to its limits, and that set me off on this quest. The newer Intense 29ers weren't like this, such as the Primer. When I heard people disparaging the Recluse for it's wild handling (e.g. BikeRadar review by Guy Kesteven, a tall brit), but liking the Spider, I began to investigate (rather than get all defensive and yell at critics who had different opinions). I thought it was just a Spider with more travel. It wasn't so simple...

I came upon the theory that just that little bit of extra front center in larger sizes made the bike too light on the front tire; it had upsides, like its combination with short wheelbase that made it rad for getting the front wheel up in the air when pedaling out of corners, popping up off of bumps for airtime, with good safety factor (front naturally staying level in the air) that I'd feel compelled to throw tricks. It just didn't like high speed handling too much, requiring a lot of care to corner at high speed (it took extra focus to carry speed through, but most times I just braked more). The pattern of some people preferring the SB130 over the SB150 puzzled me too. I loved the SB150 in medium, one of the first 29ers to get the balance really good in my entire lifetime of riding bikes in a size that better fit me, where the SB150 in large would require a slightly more forward position that made it just slightly harder to ride. The theory and pattern lined up, and taught me the importance of this fore-aft balance on the bike.

Eager to validate my theory, I looked at Bike of the Year candidates and weight distro was just one of the features the bikes got right (in the tester's sizes, like large for Mike on Pinkbike or medium for Richard Cunningham). The bikes RC liked enough to say were best of a bunch were: Whyte G170, Marin Alpine Trail, Jekyll 27.5, Ripmo AF... did my own measurements with weight scales on a variety of my bikes, and bikes that my XL sized riding buddy rode with us on top. Discovered why he preferred his old school bikes more than new school ones and it reminded me of this video:





 (Porsche 911 weight bias pros and cons)

Oversteer (rear traction loss, causing the rear to slide outwards in corners possibly over-rotating), understeer (front traction loss, causing the vehicle to go wide) applied to bikes. We call understeer front wheel washout, at least when it's not caused by brakes. We don't notice it much, since we have the ability to shift rider weight to compensate for it. We sometimes underestimate the effort it takes to do this, since it can become subconscious, but it still takes energy and makes it take a little longer to change position to do other techniques or to pedal more efficiently.

When I started noticing how far I get away from my pedaling position to take corners at high speed, I wondered if I could design a bike that could minimize that. A bike that had a pedaling position that was centered. It was a lot of calculating work with scales, balancing on my bike, and studying dynamic weight shifts and static ones. People thought I was crazy, and that bikes *needed* people to move around, and it would be a boring bike if they didn't. Well, they were right about the boring part, but that was a coincidence, more due to the bike's long wheelbase.

One of the quirks of old school bikes is that they put a ton of weight on the front when out-of-the-saddle, but a ton of weight on the rear when seated. It makes sense, give the bike more weight on the rear for drive traction, and more on the front for cornering and descending steeps safely. I questioned it. It made climbing out of the saddle lack rear traction, and it made suspension tuning a mess, where long travel bikes didn't feel good. The bike could sag the rear excessively on climbs, and if you wanted a lot of sag on front (more than the recommended 12-15%) while seated, it feel too wallowy when hammering out of the saddle. I had to choose: A) soft for DH traction and put up with bad climbing, or B) firm that compromises DH but improves climbing experience. On the scales, sitting down I had 70+% weight on the rear and 30% front, while standing I had 55% rear and 45% front. No wonder it's an age old question regarding setting sag while seated or standing. I wanted to minimize the difference between seated and standing. Steep STA was the most logical answer.

How steep can I go and how do I compensate for such a steep STA with other parts of the geo to not give up my seated position's comfort? That was the question in my prototype development. I started by getting a baseline, what's my strongest/ideal standing position? I started with the universal athletic position, a squatting position with shoulders over the feet. I tried to modify it for a staggered stance (cranks level), and figured shoulders would be over the front foot was a strong stable position. Holding this position on the bike, I wanted to know where the saddle could be placed, if I could place it anywhere. I looked at positions were I would stand tall and stand low. I set the different floating points, by distance behind the BB and distance from the BB on and transferred it to BikeCAD. Making the seated position the same as standing gave me an alarming 83d STA. It was like 12mm of fore/aft saddle position change per degree of STA.

An 83 degree STA is extreme. People make fun of such an absurd idea. I asked myself, is this worth it? I recalled my past cycling history. I recall seeing pro DH athletes in the gym doing box jumps, squats, and weighted lunges. I wondered how this strength would translate to biking, especially when it's mostly pedaling. Surely that would help my case... I then recalled that I used to be a runner and also commute on a singlespeed for years, and rode hard out of the saddle. I recalled being able to jump stuff parkour style without much effort. My running helped my cycling and I believe my out-of-the-saddle style helped my running. I quit running to bike full time and wondered why my running suffered so much. I used to run 6 min miles with minimal training around my workplace on break without getting uncomfortably sweaty. It was the realization that seated pedaling recruited different muscles. Champion-tier road riders that practiced out-of-the-saddle as if they were their style, were efficient at it. It was a duh moment... I tired quickly riding out-of-the-saddle because I wasn't practicing that, and seated pedaling didn't help it, it's no wonder it didn't help running, and running helped cycling. The running helped the out-of-the-saddle fitness. I found out that it was worth going forward with 83 deg STA.

How do I even fit myself on a bike with 83d STA without cramping the seated position? Well, I'm used to 420mm reach, but have ridden 440mm reach bikes in med. I measured the saddle to grip distance and transferred it to bikecad and found myself looking at a reach of over 500. I toned that down to 490, but it was futile to get it to have numbers I was familiar with. Surely this will stretch me out while riding. I switched from a 35mm stem to 90mm stem on one of my older bikes and thought it wasn't bad. The steering was acceptable, and there was more weight on the front and my hands since my upper body was bent over more, with my hands sharing the duty to keep it propped up since it was a bad angle for my lower back. I figured this would synergize with reducing weight on the front when out-of-the-saddle.

The front center grew a great amount, to over 800mm. I wanted to tame it with a steeper HA (than what's trendy) and shorter offset (to give it a slacker feel), but was curious about bikes like the Geometron G1, and my builder's FS design looked like a Starling Murmur 29. I recall a pinkbike review by Paul Aston, saying it was the top 3 bike he's ever ridden. I don't take such words lightly, knowing how many great bikes they ride and how rarely they say that. Conveniently, the drawing he posted had tubing diameters on it and Marino could use it, with a few tweaks on bikeCAD to make it mine. I'd be hitting a similar front center, but I opted for sliding dropouts since I wasn't confident how much would be needed to get the proper weight distro to balance out this specific front center length. I opted to make it the sliding range to be 5mm over my estimate and the rest of the range shorter. I eventually learned that my estimation turned out to be spot on, not liking it shorter (not enough weight on front to subconsciously carry speed through corners, not being nimble enough to be worth the trade off). Being longer was okay, but my gut said it wasn't ideal for everyday riding (maybe if I were racing). So 445mm CS for 1275mm WB was a good spot for this long travel 29er, and the weight distro matched some of the other bikes in my ownership experience that I liked (60:40) with each wheel on scales.

Long story short, the experiment was a success and you get what you pay for... Marino's alignment and tolerances were awful. The main pivot eats bearings. The rear wheel was cocked with sliders set evenly. DS crank hit the chainstay under heavy torque. A 32t chainring couldn't clear the CS. I learned a ton, more than I expected. Now I'm spoiled and waiting for the bike industry to get there on their own, and I expect the biggest plus would be suspension tuning being less compromised for long travel, removing the stigma that long travel bikes suck at climbing. Same sag sitting or standing. No compromising on front susp when sitting--it's far more plusher seated yet not wallowy standing. No getting bucked off the seat if lazily pedaling over a bump/hole, feeling it as much as if you were out-of-the-saddle. Effort so low for handling that it's subconscious/2nd-nature and always close to the ready position, minimizing time it takes to shift rider weight around. No weight shifts. The biggest downside is the long WB making the bike not responsive to rider input. Can solve that with steeper HA to shorten FC (and slightly shorten CS to retain balance). I can redesign it for 435mm CS and 1230mm WB, but it would have an un-trendy HA to get the seated position to have enough room for that seat angle, and no guarantees that I have all variables covered to not end up compromising the performance. On the bright side, having a steeper HA makes the steep seat not look as awkward.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

Spectre said:


> So true for cars and motorcycles. Once you get a car or motorcycle that is too capable, the only place you can have any fun with it is on the track. I've personally found that I like lower powered cars (something like a VW GTI, Honda S2000 or a Porsche Cayman) much more for street driving, because I can enjoy running through several gears without breaking the speed limit by too much.
> 
> The wisdom that comes with experience...haha.


I used to have A Buell motorcycle and Fiat x19. I currently ride a Canfield Riot and about to get a Toyota MR2 spyder.


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

Great write up, thanks. Sounds like a successful experiment. I think modern geometry is the biggest advance in bike design in the last 10 years (yes, even more significant than the dropper post). My medium travel 29er (knolly fugitive) feels very balanced, and allows you to ride off the front without feeling like you are going over the bars. There is a very large zone where you feel centered on the bike too.


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

Velobike said:


> It used to puzzle me why I felt safer on dropbars when descending.
> 
> Eventually I realised that it made it easier to get lower. Although your head is over the front, you can get your CoG lower and further back, and that's why it works. Dropper posts allows the same CoG altering effect.


Nice shot. What are the geometry numbers on that bike? It actually looks like you aren't that low over the front in the picture, but it seems to work for you. I think I would die if I tried to ride that bike on my local trails.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

bikemoto885 said:


> It's difficult! I got some professional coaching just recently and they said the number one thing for people who've been riding a long time - their single biggest hurdle to improving - is getting their body position forward and keeping it there. And on the trail it's compounded by the instinct to get away (up and back) from hazards.
> 
> Have to say, I agree. Knowing and doing are two different things, but practice is what bridges that gap. I'm also going to build a manual machine to practice my riding position more often.


Get a Trust fork, that'll get you forward, seriously, it's the only way they work.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Skooks said:


> Nice shot. What are the geometry numbers on that bike? It actually looks like you aren't that low over the front in the picture, but it seems to work for you. I think I would die if I tried to ride that bike on my local trails.


I'm not sure that's the kind of riding where you need to be worried about OTBs, no obstacles, smooth track, not that steep.

I think of OTB situations as technical riding with obstacles that'll stop you if you don't maintain momentum.

Slacked out bikes tend to push over junk better, droppers allow you to get lower and further back while maintaining control.

Don't forget the importance of bar height, I run mine at or about maximum seat height, which seems to help with control and helps me stay on the right side of the bars


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Spectre said:


> I know at least some of you have been riding since the 80's/90's on the short, steep head angle bikes typical of that time. I'm interested in your experience with adjusting to newer bikes that are longer and slacker that require a more forward body position for descending and cornering?
> 
> For me, I had been trying out bikes starting about 10 years ago and found that the more forward position with wider handlebars felt really natural to me. I think the feeling that the front wheel was a quite a bit further forward and the likelihood of doing an endo was much less than on older bikes felt pretty obvious to me.
> 
> Thoughts on adjusting your riding style to newer bike geometry?


There was no adjustment. Just a few moments of realizing how stupid the designs were all the way back to my original StumpJumper.

The first stage was my Transition Covert 26r trusting them to have shorter stem and wider bars but it was also a more slack bike. Then I got on a Honzo and bought it instantly.

Maybe it's being a skier and knowing how to carve. New bikes are like that. There was nothing natural about my old bikes. They were a stupid now but what we had in the day solution.

All I can think of that would make the craptacular old geometry make sense is if you don't know how to pump, rail or jump.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

For me, it's not so much an adjustment in technique. There's a little bit there. Because new geo puts you more centered, which works better most of the time, it also means that for the times that you DO need more weight up front, you have to think more consciously about it and apply it more deliberately. Whereas with old geo bikes, the default was more front-heavy and you had to UNweight the front more deliberately to avoid those OTB incidents (which seemed to happen at least once per ride for me back then).

No, for me, it's more about trusting the traction of my front tire, and particularly about choosing a front tire that provides very strong cornering traction. Lots of hard front end washouts on my old geo bikes BITD makes me a little shy about it. I'm doing better these days, and trusting my tires more. Loose-over-hard still sketches me the hell out, but I don't think much of anything is going to make a major difference with hard, flat corners in those conditions.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Velobike said:


> It used to puzzle me why I felt safer on dropbars when descending.
> 
> Eventually I realised that it made it easier to get lower. Although your head is over the front, you can get your CoG lower and further back, and that's why it works. Dropper posts allows the same CoG altering effect.


Our Fargo has drop bars but it's same or more confident feeling that old MTBs. I realize that's mostly about wheels but 29rs were stupid handling for the first part of their life.

All drop bars really do for me is give different hand positions and drop the body for cutting wind. I ride that bike (Fargo) and the Sutra Ltd on single track. They work for a long adventure or a slow trail ride. They're stupid bad for fun trail riding or fast trail riding and control compared to the Honzo if you want to make it a hard tail comparison.

The Fargo and Honzo have similar tires for an even better comparison. With similar traction tires the low, slack, short stem, 760 bar Honzo is a way better trail bike. The drop bars suck for braking and fun. Wide flat bars, short stems, short rear, slack bikes are rule for trail, fun and flow riding.

The past few weeks have been transition from snow. Hitting same slippery trail with moto and drop bars was another reminder of the control you lose with drops. I love my drop bar bikes but they're just not fun machines compared to trail bikes. The drop bars force slow trail riding or less fun trail riding.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

@bitflogger The point that I realized how I should be utilizing more of my body below the hips to influence my level of control on the bike, was the moment that I grew up as a rider to a higher skill level. Trying to call it pumping, or whatever, is kind of oversimplifying or understating how much it can transform a newbie into an expert.

I see old bikes as "cruisers", if they promote seated pedaling all the time, and especially if the foot comes dangerously close to the front wheel (toe overlap). It's so hard to get out of that seated position, since you sort of fall into it due to how low and how far back it is. I think it's that way for some dumb reason, like easing the ability to mount/dismount, or to not have a saddle poking you in the spine when dismounted.

The ones I like are more optimized for out of the saddle riding. I feel like I'm so held back when I'm not on one, but realize some people ride with mileage and elevation goals. I hear Europeans call it "driving" rather than riding, emphasizing a person being in charge of the bike, rather than propelling a bike and going along for the ride trying to survive.

I notice that I even do a little squat, dropping my hips, when I corner on pavement, purely out of habit. I also notice that I've been aiming my brake levers more level on all my bikes, as opposed to 45 degrees downward; this gets me in naturally in a position where my elbows are behind the grips, rather than above. My upper body is more of an A-frame this way, having a lower OTB risk than having my arms coming straight down to the grips. I rather drop my hips with a squat motion, letting the bike rock back and forth more freely underneath me; i consider it a noob move to mostly control the tilt of my legs, from feet to hips, using the lean of my upper body and my arms, to let my hips shift rearward, or shift forwards so my chin was over stem for some "aggro" position. Hard to imagine when I'd consider this technique, besides for a manual or stoppie.

Like I said before, I can weight the front with my legs, by shifting my knees forward of the pedal axle. I can weight the back by dropping my heels. I can also adjust where I stand too, mid-foot over the axle, if the bike's naturally more centered, or heels dropped if it demands the rider to be more rearward.

P.S. I designed a bike in BikeCAD just for shits and giggles yesterday. Figured it would help illustrate what a hardtail would look like with what I learned. Bar height is at max saddle height, which is something I like too, considering my elbow-behind-grip preference (higher stack height to facilitate that without stiffness losses from headset spacers). Not putting anything into production since I'm sold on ebikes and FS. I don't trust Marino's craftsmanship on FS, but his experience on making HTs should prove to be better. https://www.bikecad.ca/1584351776873


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Varaxis said:


> @bitflogger The point that I realized how I should be utilizing more of my body below the hips to influence my level of control on the bike, was the moment that I grew up as a rider to a higher skill level. Trying to call it pumping, or whatever, is kind of oversimplifying or understating how much it can transform a newbie into an expert.
> 
> I see old bikes as "cruisers", if they promote seated pedaling all the time, and especially if the foot comes dangerously close to the front wheel (toe overlap). It's so hard to get out of that seated position, since you sort of fall into it due to how low and how far back it is. I think it's that way for some dumb reason, like easing the ability to mount/dismount, or to not have a saddle poking you in the spine when dismounted.
> 
> ...


This is pumping. It's long been a thing and a vital skill. It's a fun, speed and low level flight thing. It this context it's DJ bikes but a best racer will pump when they can. A vital rider skill pump to get the most out of the trail features. Notice the no pedaling for speed. That's pumping.


----------



## panchosdad (Sep 21, 2008)

Varaxis said:


> One of the things I tried was running the same exact tires front and rear and trying to do 2 wheeled drifts on flat corners (both feet still on bike and successfully riding out without bobbling) to learn the bike's balance. I do this on demos. I really like the ones that make this easy, riding Karver (Chris Kovarik) style.
> 
> The Intense Recluse and Spider 27.5, I think in 2014, were the ones who opened my eyes to a more forward/centered position. I did 2 wheeled drifts accidentally on one, just trying to push it to its limits, and that set me off on this quest. The newer Intense 29ers weren't like this, such as the Primer. When I heard people disparaging the Recluse for it's wild handling (e.g. BikeRadar review by Guy Kesteven, a tall brit), but liking the Spider, I began to investigate (rather than get all defensive and yell at critics who had different opinions). I thought it was just a Spider with more travel. It wasn't so simple...


Nice to see the Spider get some love. I've got a 2016 27.5c and just love that bike, but I couldn't tell you what it is about it that makes it so great. Care to elaborate at all about what you think makes it work?


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Attacking Mid said:


> While I enjoy listening to other's opinions about bikes/geo/etc., I'm ultimately of my own mind when it comes to what I like. I may end up wrong, but I suspect I'll like something like a GG Smash much more than my Remedy (it wasn't old school 4 years ago!) The things that appeal to me are the steeper HTA and steeper STA (along with the necessary longer reach) all of which position you more forward on the bike while seated/climbing, but offer greater stability while standing and descending chunky terrain.
> 
> Where I ride along the FR of CO, most of the time I'm doing one or the other. Relatively little time spent on flowy trail. I'm also looking at the Sentinel, which is a similar bike with kinematics in the rear suspension somewhat opposite the Smash. Being a big guy (6,2", about 205 lbs. when in better shape than now!), I'd lean more toward the progressive rear of the Smash. However, given the reality of my current skill level, I may get along fine with the linear rear of the Sentinel since I'm not exactly hucking big air (yet! ;-))
> 
> ...


I think of some old bikes but also how for your 1985 date, my physical capabilities were much different then - better, young. Now my riding skills are much better. As a rider and digger since the beginning the trails are a different league now.

The Remedy bike has also changed a lot. It's been 26r, 29r and B wheels. He's had very different geometry. Our Remedy 29 is still a very fine bike. Not as fun at pop and pump as a newer Fuel EX to compare same brands but that little bit longer rear makes it a great climber.

With 4 same height riders and a fleet of bikes in the family I find I adjust but one thing is for sure. Short stem, more slack, short back makes a bike that carves yet gets you through tight stuff in the woods. Our best built trail sections vs just cross country riding also highlight the importance of modern geometry.

You seem to bring up suspension types. I feel I adapt fine there. I get used to a Horst, VPP DW, simple single pivot or Trek (brake pivot, their own shock valving). That said, I'm a fan of the Trek "Reaktiv" because it has characteristics I think are otherwise exclusive to one type of suspension. Also cost. MTBs are consumables. I'm over spending big on a dream bike that's worn out or obsolete in a few years.


----------



## RazorbackMTB (Aug 21, 2015)

Nurse Ben said:


> Get a Trust fork, that'll get you forward, seriously, it's the only way they work.


That's twice in this same thread that you've suggested this.

Purchasing a $2000 unproven, fragile, high-maintenance, bleeding edge technology fork, for the OP's application, might be the silliest suggestion ever.

And you did it twice, in the same thread. Do you get a kickback from them or something? Or do you just want an opportunity to let everyone know that you have one?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

@panchosdad Implied in that long write-up, that it had an out-of-saddle weight balance that allowed the wheels to do a 2-wheeled drift, naturally. I couldn't do that on other bikes without adjusting my own position to give more weight to a tire that was slipping earlier. On bikes that felt like I should shift weight forward, I felt compelled to run a grippier tire up front. Being able to run the same tire front and rear, gave the bike a certain intuitive feel. The Spider has this balance in size L. The Recluse has this balance in size M. It, along with the Rocky Mtn Thunderbolt (2017? size L), was what gave me the first taste of downcountry bikes; I was riding them as hard as I rode long travel bikes, since the geo was so on-point, ditching the XC parts for 35mm stanchion fork and DHR2 for tires. I just wish their seat tubes were shorter, so I could slam the saddle to utilize more of my leg's travel, but wouldn't trade the balance I'd get from the front center being just-right (not too long, not too short, for that chainstay length) just for shorter seat tube in a smaller size frame.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Umm, no, and no.

But it does reward riding forward.

They are also available used for quite a lot less that 2k if you do a search on Pinkbike.

Thanks for playing 😊



RazorbackMTB said:


> That's twice in this same thread that you've suggested this.
> 
> Purchasing a $2000 unproven, fragile, high-maintenance, bleeding edge technology fork, for the OP's application, might be the silliest suggestion ever.
> 
> And you did it twice, in the same thread. Do you get a kickback from them or something? Or do you just want an opportunity to let everyone know that you have one?


----------



## jrm (Jan 12, 2004)

For me the biggest hurdle was trusting/getting used to that 65 degree HA after years and years of riding geo with HAs that ran around 70. The more i get the suspension balanced, and tire psis were i want um the better the bikes handling gets. Never felt any kind of OTB feeling at all. Dropper post down, centered but maybe a bit forward to weigh the front end the bikes just carves.

My $ 0.02 recommendation is try demoing some of the newer stuff to get a feel for it? And make sure that you spend some time adjusting the suspension and your position before you ride. A bad demo ride defeats the purpose of demoing abike..


----------



## Radium (Jan 11, 2019)

RazorbackMTB said:


> That's twice in this same thread that you've suggested this.
> 
> Purchasing a $2000 unproven, fragile, high-maintenance, bleeding edge technology fork, for the OP's application, might be the silliest suggestion ever.
> 
> And you did it twice, in the same thread. Do you get a kickback from them or something? Or do you just want an opportunity to let everyone know that you have one?


It's called "potlatching" by many NA tribes, Ben. You don't really indulge in it to the extent that it needs to be called out. Maybe here, .........but not so much, really. You are a valuable asset to EB as you actually know some stuff.

But why, you ask, am I not out pedaling on what's gonna be a hot Sunday, instead of goofing around on the forum?


----------



## Radium (Jan 11, 2019)

The one single thing that helped me with otb's throughout my mtb "career" was my falling and tumbling skills I gained from my preadolescent and early teenage Judo training. Tuck 'n roll and pop up on my feet worked great until somehow, trails became covered in rocks, and sharp ones, at that. That's honestly a major reason I started wearing a Blackburn Mississippi. It's surface area and H20 capacity really take the oomph out of a spinal/back impact.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

Getting disentangled from the bike is a big factor. I saw a vid somewhere of practicing various means of doing that, from going off the back, jumping off the side, to jumping over bars in OTB scenarios.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

Radium said:


> The one single thing that helped me with otb's throughout my mtb "career" was my falling and tumbling skills I gained from my preadolescent and early teenage Judo training. Tuck 'n roll and pop up on my feet worked great until somehow, trails became covered in rocks, and sharp ones, at that. That's honestly a major reason I started wearing a Blackburn Mississippi. It's surface area and H20 capacity really take the oomph out of a spinal/back impact.


Yep backpacks have saved me from a few potentially bad OTB landings

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## telemike (Jun 20, 2011)

I have three mountain bikes from three eras of geometry and I've been riding all three some in the last months. The oldest is a Mountain Trek 830 from the early 1990's with a short wheelbase and a steep head tube angle. The middle is a 2010 FSR XC with an intermediate geometry. My go to now is a long slack Fezzari Cascade Peak.

While waiting for hip replacement, I've been riding all three around the ranch allowing direct comparison. The Fezzari is my go to and I prefer the geometry especially for real mtb rides. I've put flat pedals on the old trek for ranch transportation since walking gets quickly painful. The trek shines in the eucalyptus grove where trees and rows are close. I like to weave around the trees and the short wheelbase eases sharp turns. This is consistent with my switchback experience. The older FSR XC was better for most tight switchbacks that the cascade peak, especially really tight ones like some of the ones at China Camp. 

However, the rugged downhill switchbacks at Rockville Hills, while tight, give a feeling of impending OTB, not ease of turning and long and slack feels better. Climbing technical stuff, likewise, the feeling of impending OTB overwhelms the nimbleness of the shorter bikes.

All in all, I much prefer the newer long wheelbase and slacker geometry for the confidence it gives me when riding fast and downhill. Even the rock gardens where the nimbleness of the short wheelbase should win out ride better without the increased risk of OTB.


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Jan 30, 2004)

Varaxis said:


> I don't actually weight the front with my upper body. I still mostly balance on my feet, but a big difference is that I stopped riding heels down and instead ride mid-foot over axle and knees forward of the axle.


This is something I'm working on. I'd only ever heard it in an instructional video maybe once. I think this is truly going to make me a better rider. Just need to practice more. And my short reach HT makes this technique more scary than it would on a modern geo bike. So I'm looking...


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Wish I Were Riding said:


> This is something I'm working on. I'd only ever heard it in an instructional video maybe once. I think this is truly going to make me a better rider. Just need to practice more. And my short reach HT makes this technique more scary than it would on a modern geo bike. So I'm looking...


Yea, it's definitely intended for a bike that is far more stable and confidence inspiring than some XC/trail HT.

An XC bike puts the burden of capability on the rider. If you're not fit, you're pretty much required to go slow, to give your body time to react to bumps. Since you're braking so much, you'll find yourself getting your weight behind the pedals and bars often.

A modern high performance bike needs to be going at a certain speed to even make the suspension work properly. Everything will feel surprisingly and unintuitively easier with more momentum, and you'll find yourself in that more centered and balanced on the feet position. I still use the heels down position if I'm trying to brake hard; it's just that I'd be holding the bike back if I am in that position unnecessarily.


----------



## rob214 (Apr 18, 2019)

I don't have a clue what you guys are talking about, I just kind of ride my my bike around


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

Spectre said:


> I know at least some of you have been riding since the 80's/90's on the short, steep head angle bikes typical of that time. I'm interested in your experience with adjusting to newer bikes that are longer and slacker that require a more forward body position for descending and cornering?
> 
> For me, I had been trying out bikes starting about 10 years ago and found that the more forward position with wider handlebars felt really natural to me. I think the feeling that the front wheel was a quite a bit further forward and the likelihood of doing an endo was much less than on older bikes felt pretty obvious to me.
> 
> Thoughts on adjusting your riding style to newer bike geometry?


In my opinion there are at least 12 answers. At 62 YO i lost an inch so my long legs when i was 18 YO are now crazy long compared to my torso. My legs fit a Large frame and my torso loves a Small. So it all depends about ours bones, a great bike for me might be terrible for a rider with short legs. I just tried and found a real short handlebar helps me be in a position i can ride 4 hrs everyday and the short stem and riser bar are all helping to keep my head and shoulders in a high position that i enjoy. I just put more weight in the front when the trail requires it. You can play with seatposts, whatever works for you. I do not care about what is written about low BB, i like being high because i ride where many humans are not on 2 wheels. Just buy a used bike if the new ones are not attracting you. You can try to fine tune your saddle a bit forward, a bit more to the back or just use an old saddle, sometimes a small change helps.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I'm not entirely sure what you're going on about, but you shouldn't be dropping your heels when braking, it puts you back on the bike and reduces your ability to compensate.

Stay on your toes, keep your head up, and drop your butt.

XC bikes don't do anything different than any other bike, the design is different from an enduro bike, but then so is the intended use.



Varaxis said:


> Yea, it's definitely intended for a bike that is far more stable and confidence inspiring than some XC/trail HT.
> 
> An XC bike puts the burden of capability on the rider. If you're not fit, you're pretty much required to go slow, to give your body time to react to bumps. Since you're braking so much, you'll find yourself getting your weight behind the pedals and bars often.
> 
> A modern high performance bike needs to be going at a certain speed to even make the suspension work properly. Everything will feel surprisingly and unintuitively easier with more momentum, and you'll find yourself in that more centered and balanced on the feet position. I still use the heels down position if I'm trying to brake hard; it's just that I'd be holding the bike back if I am in that position unnecessarily.


----------



## Salespunk (Sep 15, 2005)

If you really want to figure out how to corner on the new geometry bikes find a descending DG path that you can ride several times. While riding it down at a moderate place move your body weight forwards and backwards in subsequent corners. You will feel the difference in front end bite, turn in and traction. If you don't have DG paths in your area a baseball diamond will also work. 

Riding the rear wheel will just result in the front end pushing and in a lot of cases being on the ground.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

I'm finding that riding old geometry bikes now is much tougher than my move to slacker, new geometry bikes. I've got a 1995 Kona Explosif that I ride on some easier trails close to me. I rolled over a small 2 foot drop over a small boulder and was surprised at how over the front I felt & how easily a 1998 Marzocchi Z2 Atom Bomb bottoms out. Mountain biking used to require more skill to do well!


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Jan 30, 2004)

Salespunk said:


> If you really want to figure out how to corner on the new geometry bikes find a descending DG path that you can ride several times. While riding it down at a moderate place move your body weight forwards and backwards in subsequent corners. You will feel the difference in front end bite, turn in and traction. If you don't have DG paths in your area a baseball diamond will also work.


What is a DG path?


Salespunk said:


> Riding the rear wheel will just result in the front end pushing and in a lot of cases being on the ground.


Jeff Kendal Weed put up a youtube video recently, and I was very surprised by his cornering advice... However, it CLEARLY works for him because he rips.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Spectre said:


> I'm finding that riding old geometry bikes now is much tougher than my move to slacker, new geometry bikes. I've got a 1995 Kona Explosif that I ride on some easier trails close to me. I rolled over a small 2 foot drop over a small boulder and was surprised at how over the front I felt & how easily a 1998 Marzocchi Z2 Atom Bomb bottoms out. Mountain biking used to require more skill to do well!


eh just less compensating for poorly thought out equipment.

not 50+ but have been riding since 1994 and if I want to make it harder I just take my SS hardtail(with modern geo off course) or I just take harder line. The last thing I want is for illy design equipment to force me in to bad habits on modern bikes.


----------



## brownplus (Mar 31, 2005)

*grandpa bought a rubber*



BushwackerinPA said:


> eh just less compensating for poorly thought out equipment.
> 
> not 50+ but have been riding since 1994 and if I want to make it harder I just take my SS hardtail(with modern geo off course) or I just take harder line. The last thing I want is for illy design equipment to force me in to bad habits on modern bikes.


YUP
Been riding over 92 different bikes (most mtb) since '82. My last orig. geo bike was a soma bside and was still oth in some steep vert in pisgah.
Now my SS rig is a banshee paradox (but in steel...shhsssh) and geared bike is an alu rsd middlechild.
DAMN I can bomb down anything with NO fear of going over the bars unless I choose a very unwise line. The new LLS geo is for real and I do mostly XC at 56yo. One of the early posters said not to get sucked in to the new geo for comfort but if you have monkey arms and was always needing more stretch out of typical frames...at least try a nice new geo...the kona isnt enough!....think rsd/stanton/hello dave/chromag/ragley....remember that sagged and fork numbers up the headtube angle.


----------



## mtnbkrdr98 (May 27, 2004)

That's a great question. I am over 50, now and started riding in 1998 on those bikes. It feels so funny to say I'm that "over 50" but I have kept in pretty good shape on the bike, and with weights, yoga, walking, etc. and a lot of luck too - knock on wood!
I didn't own a bike that you would call fully "new school" geometry until about 2017 when I got a Transition Scout 27.5. Long, low, slack, low bottom bracket, short stem. It definitely took a while to adjust and trust the bike, and that almost new way of riding. Then the thing began to amaze me! Since then I'm doing pretty good, and only need to get really far back on the super steep rock rolls and such, like the "old days." Funny, I'm looking for an additional bike now, and want a retro bike - 1998-2000 just for the fun of it, something simple to take out for climbing and just cruising on singletracks on a bike that reminds me of when I started!


----------

