# Tall Clydes, "Modern" Geo, and XC/Trail Riding?



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

For fun I have been looking at new bikes recently, and noticed a obvious trend towards steep seat post angles, and more reach. I don't mind the reach aspect (god forbit they add some stack), but this raises the question regarding how guys with long legs will fair with the obvious change in pedaling position.

I really like the thought of feeling more balanced going down with the longer reach, and understand that *techy *climbing should be more balanced as well with the steeper seat tube angle, but what about actually pedaling the bike on flat flowing single track, or if you ride too and from the trails, or just ride on the road a fair amount during spring because you don't have a road bike?

If you have longer legs and femurs, isn't moving the saddle that much further forward really going to mess up a fair amount of things for your pedal stroke? How could pedaling a 72* seat tube bike feel anywhere close to pedaling a 74*+ seat tube bike? It has to feel really weird, and I would imagine there will be knee, ankle, and hip related issues for some of us.

And if my thinking is correct, is the whole industry making new bikes that much WORSE for clydes then it already is?


----------



## NorCal_In_AZ (Sep 26, 2019)

The steep seat tube trend I see more on enduro bikes. Guys looking to buy enduro bikes aren't usually worried about how the bike rides on flat flowy trail and road.

That said, my only bike has a 75* SA and I have no problem riding roads, gravel, and flat XC. But I'm not super long legged either with a 30" inseam.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

NorCal_In_AZ said:


> That said, my only bike has a 75* SA and I have no problem riding roads, gravel, and flat XC. But I'm not super long legged either with a 30" inseam.


That is why the title says "tall" haha! My saddle to bb center height is 32.5", and I run 175mm cranks.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Then you need to define 'tall'... at 6'2" I guess I'm not


----------



## NorCal_In_AZ (Sep 26, 2019)

jonshonda said:


> That is why the title says "tall" haha! My saddle to bb center height is 32.5", and I run 175mm cranks.





dysfunction said:


> Then you need to define 'tall'... at 6'2" I guess I'm not


Yeah I'm 6' and by average, I'm tall. But I realize I'm not that tall either.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Same with the 6'7" guy that meets my 6'11" friend.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

I've been riding a GG Trail Pistol for a couple of years now, having snapped a Turner Sultan. At 6'7" I too was concerned about the more upright design relative to pedal position. It feels different, but it's completely fine and this bike is set up far more for pedaling than shredding the gnar.
Remember that KOPS is a disproved thing that is a reasonable starting point and not much more.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

dysfunction said:


> Then you need to define 'tall'... at 6'2" I guess I'm not


I'm 6'2" as well, so I would consider us tall. Those 6 footers though....get outta here with that! haha



TooTallUK said:


> I've been riding a GG Trail Pistol for a couple of years now, having snapped a Turner Sultan. At 6'7" I too was concerned about the more upright design relative to pedal position. It feels different, but it's completely fine and this bike is set up far more for pedaling than shredding the gnar.
> Remember that KOPS is a disproved thing that is a reasonable starting point and not much more.


Very interesting, thanks for sharing! You are right about the KOPS thing playing a part in my thinking about steep seat tubes. I know that I would like more tire out in from of me when going down or railing corners, and being that high in the air I feel like there isn't enough bike under me sometimes.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

I'm 6'5" and my FS bikes have about a 76° STA which feels pretty natural to me. My last hardtail had a 74.5° STA which felt too steep. Reach, bar height, travel amount, etc all effects how steep the STA actually feels.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

^You said your hardtail felt too steep, could you elaborate?


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

jonshonda said:


> ^You said your hardtail felt too steep, could you elaborate?


A full suspension gets slacker under sag and a hardtail steeper so that's part of it. The geo chart is the STA on flat ground unsagged. The sagged STA is quite different. The longer the rear travel the more slack the STA gets.

The other reason is the hardtail had a 15mm shorter reach so I felt a bit more on top of the bars.


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

At 6’2 with long limbs I consider myself in the small side of the Clyde spectrum. Plus I’m only 180.

That said, I prefer the newer geo bikes in nearly all riding conditions. That’s IF the stack height is proper, which helps keep the weight off your hands. So refreshing not to have your COG somewhere out over the rear hub.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Ahh then my Paradox v3 is a 76.25º STA, and it only felt weird for a few minutes. The whole bike feels a lot more.. balanced. That was more apparent than any change in pedaling was.


----------



## smartyiak (Apr 29, 2009)

I'm 6'4" with long limbs. I don't know what the "best" geo is, but I remember the first time I rode a Transition Smuggler. Most, if not all, of the bikes I'd ridden to that point were short travel XC bikes with ~485 reach, ~610 stack and a 74ish degree STA.

I swore I'd never even try a bike again with < 500 reach and > 62 stack. It's why I'm looking at the Spur instead of and Epic Evo, OizTr, or a BlurTr. I'm willing to give up some "raciness" for a better fit.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Yeah that stack is really what gets me. I am always envious of the sm-md-lg sizes shown with 1-2 stem spacers, minimal rise bars, straight stem, and a level saddle to bar height, sometimes the bars are even higher then the saddle. 

Where as XL or XXL sizes needs riser bars, tons of spacers, and even a riser stem might be needed JUST to get the bars level with the saddle. I only have my fat bike to test, but it is an older frame that is not suspension corrected w/ a 468 a/c fork. I added a Manitou Mastodon 120mm fork, and have found that out of the saddle climbing is so much more balanced and easy to control (aka lift the front tire over roots/rocks) with the increased stack height the longer fork provides. 

And I always had read how guys like to get out onto the nose of their saddle when climbing for better balance (which I find myself doing w/o thinking about it), but wonder if the steeper seat tube angle eliminates that need for everything but really steep stuff. I would also imagine for taller guys the added reach will also help with climbing, but wonder if lifting the front end would be more challenging due the longer front center. 

Long story short, if you are a bike designer the XL-XXL frame should come with at minimum a 20mm longer fork, just to get the stack height up a bit. And why wouldn't they call out the suspension corrected angles and dimensions of the bike?


----------



## BmoreKen (Sep 27, 2004)

It seems the trend towards steeper STA and longer reach, along with lower BB height, is driven by trail experiences that feature 30+ minute climbs followed by long descents in wide open flow trails. There is a large segment of the country where this does not reflect their local terrain, especially for the more XC-oriented or "pedal up to ride down" riders" vs. those who are more focused on the descents.

I agree that the longer reach is a good thing. But I'm really torn on how I feel about the steep STAs. Seems like it could open up issues: knee pain, saddle sores, etc.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Blatant said:


> At 6'2 with long limbs I consider myself in the small side of the Clyde spectrum. Plus I'm only 180.
> 
> That said, I prefer the newer geo bikes in nearly all riding conditions. That's IF the stack height is proper, which helps keep the weight off your hands. So refreshing not to have your COG somewhere out over the rear hub.


So well said, Blatant.

I love steep STAs - my custom 1994 Co-Motion mountain bike features a 76° STA. That frame was built 27 years ago; in that moment I became an immediate proponent of steep STAs. And remain so.
=sParty


----------



## smartyiak (Apr 29, 2009)

Sparticus said:


> So well said, Blatant.
> 
> I love steep STAs - my custom 1994 Co-Motion mountain bike features a 76° STA. That frame was built 27 years ago; in that moment I became an immediate proponent of steep STAs. And remain so.
> =sParty


Too bad it took about 22 years for everyone else to figure it out.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

smartyiak said:


> Too bad it took about 22 years for everyone else to figure it out.


The dropper post really paved that road.
=sParty


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

smartyiak said:


> Too bad it took about 22 years for everyone else to figure it out.


You are excluding a lot of bikes manufacturers in the "everyone" statement. Plenty of bikes still have 72-75 degree ST angles. *BmoreKen* is onto something I think with the type of bike being much more specific then ever before to the types of trails you are riding. I keep thinking about how the tallboy used to be a really great bike for riding around me, but the new geo really isn't going to be well suited to the trails we ride. It has taken such a sharp turn towards the progressive, I see a lot of past tallboy owners looking for a different bike when they want to upgrade.


----------



## smartyiak (Apr 29, 2009)

Ummmm...yeah...I didn’t LITERALLY mean: every single person in the entire galaxy.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

smartyiak said:


> Ummmm...yeah...I didn't LITERALLY mean: every single person in the entire galaxy.


 No....I think you did!


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

I think tall riders get screwed on the XC side more than anywhere else. If you go to trail and enduro, then you can manufacture yourself more stack with longer travel forks and get away with it. I've been riding my Pole Taival with 150mm forks for a few years now doing almost exclusively XC riding and while it fits well, it definitely has shortcomings in that style, possibly the biggest problem coming from the wheelbase. I've said it before elsewhere, and the whole covid bike industry crapshoot has stuffed my plans, but I want to go to a more dedicated XC bike and perhaps later look at a trail FS rig.

Now, I've already got a custom track bike built by Duratec and from that experience I think that they really understand how to build a big bike, and they also have the ability to change things (tube thickness and hydroforming) to suit a bigger rider. Just look below at their standard geo chart for their 29er XC offering. All those figures are based on a 100mm travel fork. I'd be looking at a 120mm fork with 34mm stanchions for what I like which will net me even a little more stack. I will be talking to them in the near future if I can source the extra parts that I want.










The seat tube angle is another interesting topic to me with my long legs, not so much based on the published figures, but because once you step into the FS trail and enduro market, the ACTUAL STA no longer appears to be published, and is visually quite obviously a whole lot different to the effective figures that are published. Once I swing a leg over a bike like that, I'm about 200mm above the point where effective STA is quoted and then I am a whole lot further back by the time an actual 65-68° is extended to what I need.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

^Those Duratec figures look interesting, and the HTA really screams more hardcore XC (as it should I guess...right?) Otherwise those numbers look good, and the 455mm CS would have people in a frenzy. 

Your comment about FS bikes has me interested in just how far back behind the bb I could get w/ my saddle 32.5" above the bb.


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

jonshonda said:


> Your comment about FS bikes has me interested in just how far back behind the bb I could get w/ my saddle 32.5" above the bb.


It's a guesstimate these days as I'll be damned if I can find any big bike brand publishing ACTUAL STA on the FS geo charts, but when they did, they were in the 65-68° region. Comparing that to my current ride at 75.5° actual, a FS bike with 76° eff but 66° actual would have me ~4cm further back for seated pedaling which kills all of that beautiful longer chainstay benefit. That would be a 🙅‍♂️ for me when it came to seated climbing.

I'll be having a chat to an Oz rep for Duratec (the guy who measured me for my track frame) to see what I can put together for a custom. I'd like a little less head angle at maybe ~69° and slightly steeper seat at 74-75°, plus some of the frame specs I want aren't on one particular model of theirs, but across 3 different ones


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

The problem with just reading a bike off the STA is that they are getting so funky with actual bb placement, and some bike the ST starts right on top of the bb, others it starts nowhere near the bb. But a sagged ST measurement sure would make sense. From what I understand a fair amount of people agree that a good balanced bike has a seat tube angle of 74*.


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

I guess another problem to throw out there in relation to these slacked out actual STAs is for riders that might have shorter legs and having the saddle below stack. That's going to result in some seriously steep effective STAs. Not as big of a problem as tall riders, but it's still there if you're looking for something with more reach


----------



## trialsrookie (Nov 8, 2005)

Sorry for two slightly OT, but related questions:



TooTallUK said:


> Remember that KOPS is a disproved thing that is a reasonable starting point and not much more.


Are there any other/newer/"better" methods out there? If so, can you point me in the right direction? Or do you mean: start with KOPS and then adjust by feel?



Blatant said:


> That said, I prefer the newer geo bikes in nearly all riding conditions. That's IF the stack height is proper, which helps keep the weight off your hands. So refreshing not to have your COG somewhere out over the rear hub.


How do you determine proper stack height? I am transitioning from two old geo 26" bikes (2005, 2011) to a modern geo 29er HT. From my old bikes I was just used to have the saddle higher than the bar. Would you say "level" is a good starting point?


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

trialsrookie said:


> Sorry for two slightly OT, but related questions:
> 
> Are there any other/newer/"better" methods out there? If so, can you point me in the right direction? Or do you mean: start with KOPS and then adjust by feel?
> 
> How do you determine proper stack height? I am transitioning from two old geo 26" bikes (2005, 2011) to a modern geo 29er HT. From my old bikes I was just used to have the saddle higher than the bar. Would you say "level" is a good starting point?


I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I can offer my experience. KOPS is as good as any method at determining a good "starting point" for saddle position. Do you have to stick to KOPS regardless of what your body is telling you...no!! But there is no reason it should be ignored.

Stack height is fairly easy. Take a measurement from the center of your bb to the top of your saddle. Record it. Then take a look at the stack height of your desired bike. Lets just say that your saddle height is 800mm, and stack is 700mm. If you are wanting to get your bars level with your saddle (which is preferred by some, but not by all) you need to be able to raise your bars up 100mm. You can do that with stem spacers, a riser stem, and riser bars. Or if you know that you prefer to have your bars lower then your saddle, do the same calculations to ensure the stack height isn't too tall, which I think almost NEVER happens!!


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

I know very few tall guys whose saddle is even with their bars. I’m only 6’2 and my saddle is nearly 2 inches higher than my bars. And that’s on an XL Banshee with a tall stack.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Yeah, I'm 6'5" and my saddle is 1.5" above the bars. My bars are setup for neutral weight while standing btw.


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

trialsrookie said:


> Are there any other/newer/"better" methods out there? If so, can you point me in the right direction? Or do you mean: start with KOPS and then adjust by feel?


KOPS kind of originates from the road world and their seat tube angles. What I have seen as more of a constant is that with a flat foot and the pedal down and in line with the seat post (or effective seat post), your leg should have about a 30° angle at the knee. The knee angle is common to a lot of fit methodologies. Now from there, there's heaps of tweaking variations due to all sorts of factors. So take that as a start point and run from there to adjust for comfort. I recall reading of apps that can do all that for you from side position shots.

For the current trend of steeper STAs, they're generally on the trail/enduro bikes that are made more for up/down rather than up/down/traversing typical of XC. So what they work on is you still being in that more "natural" riding position when the bike points up. So on a steeper STA bike, if you lifted the front wheel so the bike was pointed like on a 10% slope, your position would likely be close to the traditional KOPS position


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Blatant said:


> I know very few tall guys whose saddle is even with their bars. I'm only 6'2 and my saddle is nearly 2 inches higher than my bars. And that's on an XL Banshee with a tall stack.


That is where I was on my fat bike, until I added a 120mm suspension fork (frame was designed around a 483mm AC fork) which I raised the front by a fair amount. Now I think I am right around 1/2" bar drop. And this has made out of the saddle climbing so much more comfortable and capable, as I don't have nearly the amount of required weight on the front end, so it can be lifted and actually floats a lot better up technical climbs.



jeremy3220 said:


> Yeah, I'm 6'5" and my saddle is 1.5" above the bars. My bars are setup for neutral weight while standing btw.


Nice! Before I did the mod mentioned above, my bars were 1.5" below my saddle. Raising the bars has really helped with a more balanced feel for me. But I also do need to work on core strengthening, which will help even more. 
I am riding a frame that is too small for me (which is going to change soon thanks to a growler american stout with a 663mm stack) and really feel like with my bars that low, I am not in a balanced position when riding. But hoping a proper fitting bike will change that (go figure)


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

brawlo said:


> For the current trend of steeper STAs, they're generally on the trail/enduro bikes that are made more for up/down rather than up/down/traversing typical of XC. So what they work on is you still being in that more "natural" riding position when the bike points up. So on a steeper STA bike, if you lifted the front wheel so the bike was pointed like on a 10% slope, your position would likely be close to the traditional KOPS position


See what really confused me is the Santa Cruz Tallboy V4 (I had and loved a V3), as that bike has forever been a great trail bike that can hang with the XC boys. When I recently became more interested in riding again, and in a full suspension, I naturally looked at another Tallboy. Well to my surprise that bike is not XC by any means (along with a few others like the 429), and I would suggest much more enduro, then trail.

Hence the reason I created this thread, as I am still confused by the STA as people are indicating that the numbers might not tell the whole story. But after doing enough research and talking with riders who do enjoy 66* hta and steeper STA, I have determined that there are a small minority of my local trails that would actually benefit from this style of geo.


----------



## BmoreKen (Sep 27, 2004)

There is a push towards more travel and progressive geometry, just the same as you see in the car/truck world. If you look at the past versions of the Trek Fuel EX or Stumpjumper, you see that "evolution". Driven by marketing - they want the reviewers to say "the new XX now has more travel" or "updated with shorter chainstays" or "progressive geometry". 2021 Trek Fuel EX has 130/140 w/ a Fox 36 (!), while back in 2016 Trek touted it was the ultimate trail bike with 120/120 and Fox 34 and (now considered) conservative geometry.

Frames that are more conservative tend to get knocked in the review bullet points, e.g., "seattube could be steeper" or "headtube could be slacker", so when you're comparing three bikes, you might so "oh, I don't know about the Pivot, the STA isn't really steep enough". At what point are the reviewers satisfied that the STA is steep enough and the HTA is slack enough and the TT is long enough? It's really silly, when you think about it.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

jonshonda said:


> See what really confused me is the Santa Cruz Tallboy V4 (I had and loved a V3), as that bike has forever been a great trail bike that can hang with the XC boys. When I recently became more interested in riding again, and in a full suspension, I naturally looked at another Tallboy. Well to my surprise that bike is not XC by any means (along with a few others like the 429), and I would suggest much more enduro, then trail.
> 
> Hence the reason I created this thread, as I am still confused by the STA as people are indicating that the numbers might not tell the whole story. But after doing enough research and talking with riders who do enjoy 66* hta and steeper STA, I have determined that there are a small minority of my local trails that would actually benefit from this style of geo.


The Tallboy isn't really appropriate for serious enduro racing. It's a short travel trail bike. If you want an XC bike there are plenty of more tradit XC geo bikes out there. The Tallboy does really well on XC terrain though. It's more about your riding style and goals.

The numbers kinda do tell the whole story...a single number does not.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

jeremy3220 said:


> The Tallboy isn't really appropriate for serious enduro racing. It's a short travel trail bike. If you want an XC bike there are plenty of more tradit XC geo bikes out there. The Tallboy does really well on XC terrain though. It's more about your riding style and goals.
> 
> The numbers kinda do tell the whole story...a single number does not.


Looking at other enduro bikes, the geo kinda suggests it's a short travel enduro bike. Lots of other trail/XC bikes are still in the 67-68* hta range, and 74-75* STA. But, ignorance is bliss right, and I just need to find a way to throw a leg over an XXL tallboy!


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

jonshonda said:


> Looking at other enduro bikes, the geo kinda suggests it's a short travel enduro bike. Lots of other trail/XC bikes are still in the 67-68* hta range, and 74-75* STA. But, ignorance is bliss right, and I just need to find a way to throw a leg over an XXL tallboy!


It's not quite there 65.7° is a bit steep for an enduro. Most new trail bikes are coming out at 65-66.5°.


----------



## Dawgprimo (Mar 7, 2004)

I have read with interest but the thing I found is that tall riders get kind of screwed when you start looking at the numbers. We don't fit the average mold.
Because we are at the upper ranges and trying to fit on to either a XL or XXL, I find the numbers gets screwed a bit.
There is the issue that some XL are just a L and the XXL is really a XL but that is a whole other discussion.......
A steep HA is great for going down but if you use a uncut steer tube to lift the bars up it starts to bring to shrink the Reach depending on the STA.......?
The STA can be a bit deceiving also, depending off as Brawlo pointed out if you have long legs or not? As someone else pointed once you lift up the seat you start to push the weight further back making it harder to climb......

I am 6' 7" with a 36 inch in seam, long arms (7 foot wing span).
1 1/2 ago I was looking to build up a new bike........looked at the number and got more confused by the day. If you look at STA to HA to reach to Stack and then BB height and then there is a short Chain Stay to a longer Chain Stay.....? Then I get concerned I don't want to be riding the Queen Mary down the trails but at the same time neither do I want to feel like I am on a X country bike. (I like relaxed geometry.....nothing against x country geometry)
I built a bike up that I thought might work but the jury was out till I rode it for the first time.
I called it a unorthodox build as did not really fit any mold. I have ridden a few bikes so I know what I like but you never know till you build it up how it will be.
So far I am loving the ride and it works for me.
I do find this discussion interesting however!
Good luck!


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

I just ordered an Growler American Stout fat bike from these guys, but their 29er/27.5+ numbers look really good to me! Clicky clicky


----------



## socalrider77 (Sep 1, 2012)

Dawgprimo said:


> I have read with interest but the thing I found is that tall riders get kind of screwed when you start looking at the numbers. We don't fit the average mold.
> Because we are at the upper ranges and trying to fit on to either a XL or XXL, I find the numbers gets screwed a bit.
> There is the issue that some XL are just a L and the XXL is really a XL but that is a whole other discussion.......
> A steep HA is great for going down but if you use a uncut steer tube to lift the bars up it starts to bring to shrink the Reach depending on the STA.......?
> ...


What bike did you build?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dawgprimo (Mar 7, 2004)

socalrider77 said:


> What bike did you build?
> 
> 2020 Knolly Warden
> The thing is Knolly has a tendency to be small in Head tube and therefore effecting Stack height.....I think?
> But I used a fork with uncut Steer tube to help me fit better which some will find might not work for them but I got to work with what I got...I am use to it ....Also the Reach number was lower then Santa Cruz which had me wondering if I had done the right thing. I did go with a longer travel fork give me a bit more height and I find it climbs very well for me. I don't find the BB to be to high with the longer travel fork either and would not want it to be any lower either. I climb way better with this bike then my last one.


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

jonshonda said:


> See what really confused me is the Santa Cruz Tallboy V4 (I had and loved a V3), as that bike has forever been a great trail bike that can hang with the XC boys. When I recently became more interested in riding again, and in a full suspension, I naturally looked at another Tallboy. Well to my surprise that bike is not XC by any means (along with a few others like the 429), and I would suggest much more enduro, then trail.
> 
> Hence the reason I created this thread, as I am still confused by the STA as people are indicating that the numbers might not tell the whole story. But after doing enough research and talking with riders who do enjoy 66* hta and steeper STA, I have determined that there are a small minority of my local trails that would actually benefit from this style of geo.


I think it's not so much about the bikes changing, but the goalposts are definitely changing. Way back when I first came back to MTB, the XC was the do it all bike. Nowadays with bike parks that have shuttle runs and chair lifts and even local runs having a shuttle service, it's not really about riding XC anymore, but far more about the ups and downs. It's more fun and trails are being built more and more to accommodate that style. The punters (and the big market share) are putting their money into do it all bikes that I would go out on a limb and say are well and truly into the trail/enduro category. I think @BmoreKen touches on it here



BmoreKen said:


> 2021 Trek Fuel EX has 130/140 w/ a Fox 36 (!), while back in 2016 Trek touted it was the ultimate trail bike with 120/120 and Fox 34 and (now considered) conservative geometry.


It's the more seasoned riders that tend to have a quiver of MTBs in the shed. Knowing that to enjoy things even more, it's a better idea to have a bike for each occasion rather than for all occasions. With the huge uptake of ebikes, the goal posts will no doubt be shifting again and far less effort put into the development of human powered bikes. In 10 years, the purists will be the ones turning their legs over up a climb while the masses will just braaaap silently by and the bike parks will become some sort of hybrid motocross park place perhaps


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

BmoreKen said:


> It seems the trend towards steeper STA and longer reach, along with lower BB height, is driven by trail experiences that feature 30+ minute climbs followed by long descents in wide open flow trails. There is a large segment of the country where this does not reflect their local terrain, especially for the more XC-oriented or "pedal up to ride down" riders" vs. those who are more focused on the descents.


You are absolutely correct in that. Steep seat position is great for steep climbs, mixed effects for flatter pedaling.



BmoreKen said:


> But I'm really torn on how I feel about the steep STAs. Seems like it could open up issues: knee pain, saddle sores, etc.


Actually for us here (Tall riders), steep seat tube angles is the most beneficial, much more so than for average Riders, and short riders might indeed have problems.

The reason is, that almost every full suspension mtb has a very slack actual seat tube angle. The numbers they claim for effective seat tube angle, are for medium height people. As you raise the saddle higher up, it becomes much more set back.

So although your statements can hold true in some cases for short riders, for tall riders, it is more the case that we are finally able to get our saddles in a proper fore-aft position.

To help with this, finally, some of the latest bike models have steeper seat tube angles in larger sizes, but this was unheard of untill a year or so ago.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

brawlo said:


> If you go to trail and enduro, then you can manufacture yourself more stack with longer travel forks and get away with it.


Actually, adding a taller fork does NOT help tall riders.
Yes, it raises the stack, but it shortens the reach. In other words, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Think of it this way: 
A spin bike or fitting bike, does not have a front wheel. Yet, you adjust the bike <> rider fit between hands and feet (and seat for seated pedaling). 
Or, the way I do bike fits, is with the bike in the trainer. If I put another block under the front wheel After I dial in the fit, nothing changes, except that it feels as you are riding up hill. But the distance between feet and hands remains the same.
Or, think of it in that when you hinge forward with your torso, you go down and forward, or up and back.
So installing a taller fork, means your reach gets shorter, which means you sit more upright with your torso, which means the bars will still feel too low, even though the stack is higher.

Check out Leelikesbikes.com for a good explanation of this, he calls it RAD and RAAD (pedal<>grips distance and angle)


----------



## abeckstead (Feb 29, 2012)

Hey guys I'm looking to purchase a new short travel 29'er to use for XC racing. I'm 6'4", 190ish, but with a 38" inseam... so freakish long legs and avg torso I guess. True XC bike numbers look scary. I always have problems fitting bikes with low stack heights and my effective seat tube angle gets ridiculous see pic lol. My current bike has a stack of 627mm and I run a disgusting amount of spacers and 50mm riser bars, which made my bike tolerable. Current bike specs here
Any suggestions?


----------



## socalrider77 (Sep 1, 2012)

abeckstead said:


> Hey guys I'm looking to purchase a new short travel 29'er to use for XC racing. I'm 6'4", 190ish, but with a 38" inseam... so freakish long legs and avg torso I guess. True XC bike numbers look scary. I always have problems fitting bikes with low stack heights and my effective seat tube angle gets ridiculous see pic lol. My current bike has a stack of 627mm and I run a disgusting amount of spacers and 50mm riser bars, which made my bike tolerable. Current bike specs here
> Any suggestions?
> 
> View attachment 1938789


Wow you do have freakishly long legs. I'd say you need at least 650mm of stack, in addition to 30mm of spacers and riser bars

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JonJones (Feb 12, 2012)

abeckstead said:


> Hey guys I'm looking to purchase a new short travel 29'er to use for XC racing. I'm 6'4", 190ish, but with a 38" inseam... so freakish long legs and avg torso I guess. True XC bike numbers look scary. I always have problems fitting bikes with low stack heights and my effective seat tube angle gets ridiculous see pic lol. My current bike has a stack of 627mm and I run a disgusting amount of spacers and 50mm riser bars, which made my bike tolerable. Current bike specs here
> Any suggestions?
> 
> View attachment 1938789


Have you looked at geometry geeks? For a small fee you can see the geo on all sorts of bikes. It can sort them by any geometry spec you need.

I'm like you and struggle with sizing. Your legs are longer than mine (36" inseam) and I always get too much exposed seat post, low stack and short chainstays. Norco seem to do a decent size range with consideration for larger sizes.


----------



## abeckstead (Feb 29, 2012)

JonJones said:


> Have you looked at geometry geeks? For a small fee you can see the geo on all sorts of bikes. It can sort them by any geometry spec you need.
> 
> I'm like you and struggle with sizing. Your legs are longer than mine (36" inseam) and I always get too much exposed seat post, low stack and short chainstays. Norco seem to do a decent size range with consideration for larger sizes.


Wasn't aware of geometry geeks, I'll have to check that out. Since posting the only true XC bike I've been able find with better stack/reach is a XXL Rocky Mountain Element. There's a couple trail bikes in XXL that would fit me better too. Really though, I'm in search of a weapon for racing so I can place better.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JonJones (Feb 12, 2012)

Santa Cruz Blur? 
Mondraker? 
Specialized Epic?
Scott Spark?
I really feel you may have to go custom or compromise on something.


----------



## abeckstead (Feb 29, 2012)

JonJones said:


> Santa Cruz Blur?
> Mondraker?
> Specialized Epic?
> Scott Spark?
> I really feel you may have to go custom or compromise on something.


I haven't looked at Mondraker, I'll check them out.
My son has an XL Epic, however he's 3" shorter than I am. That bike would require massive stem spacers and riser bars like my current bike.
I really like the new Spark and Blur, they are the same or less stack height than I currently have.
Trek has XXL supercaliber but a very low stack height considering it's a XXL.

I'm basically running well over 700+mm of stack on my bike to kind of be comfortable. I've been doing some big rides, 30-40mi and my back is fukt after them. Also of note, I had to buy a new fork with uncut steer tube, so I could run a ridiculous amount of spacers. Any new XL XC bike I could buy, would force me to do the same.

I don't even know who or where to turn to for custom. I guess one compromise could be a more trail oriented bike like a XXL Tallboy which has a big stack of 656mm and build it light as possible. The other major problem of the times right now... I can't test ride anything and everything will be a blind purchase


----------



## brawlo (Mar 13, 2012)

How much do you want to spend? Nicolai is worth a look but $$. They have their standard XC weapon, but it's also customisable for a small added fee. I assume you're looking at FS. If you weren't set on FS and interested in a HT then I've got a custom XC frame in the works coming from Duratec in CZ - 693mm stack on a 120mm fork


----------



## abeckstead (Feb 29, 2012)

brawlo said:


> How much do you want to spend? Nicolai is worth a look but $$. They have their standard XC weapon, but it's also customisable for a small added fee. I assume you're looking at FS. If you weren't set on FS and interested in a HT then I've got a custom XC frame in the works coming from Duratec in CZ - 693mm stack on a 120mm fork


I'm looking for carbon FS with at least GX/XT type build, should have stated that. Which is usually at least a $5k bike. I'll checkout Nicolai, thanks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## abeckstead (Feb 29, 2012)

Decided to just buy something that should fit me well based on numbers, and order a XXL Tallboy. It's not exactly what I want... but 'tall people problems'. 😅


----------



## geofharries (Jun 2, 2006)

I have similar fit problems. I'm 6'3" with a 37" inseam. My XC bike is a new old stock 2013 Kona King Kahuna in 22" with a 676 stack height. I love the thing. Shorter reach too, which is also nice.










As for suggestions, it's not a XC bike but what about a Trek Fuel EX in XXL? Stack height of 641.

Rocky Element still comes in XXL too. Stack height of 653 and seat tube of 546. I feel the seat tube length is equally important, after having snapped a few frames in that area years ago.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Man, that is an aggressive racer position for you. There's a lot of drop from the saddle to the bars. I would want a lot more stack than that. 
Try looking at https://geometrygeeks.bike/ and 99spokes for bike geometry numbers. I got a month subscription to geometrygeeks to enable me to search by stack and reach and that helped me. 99spokes is another great tool that helps compare bikes.


----------



## Dan Zulu (Jul 5, 2008)

How much seatpost remains inside that frame?


----------



## plv (Aug 6, 2016)

abeckstead said:


> Decided to just buy something that should fit me well based on numbers, and order a XXL Tallboy. It's not exactly what I want... but 'tall people problems'. 😅


Did you get the Tallboy? If yes, how big of an improvement was it?


----------



## abeckstead (Feb 29, 2012)

plv said:


> Did you get the Tallboy? If yes, how big of an improvement was it?


I'm still waiting for it. Think I've done 3 more XC races since I _bought it_ lol. Doing two more in the next couple weeks. Wish I had it... fukkin rip


----------



## plv (Aug 6, 2016)

I've found a very interesting bike with 670mm stack from a manufacturer in Europe:








RIOT Trail Essential


The RIOT Trail Essential is an allround mtb which offers neither too much nor too little suspension travel. Perfect for your trail adventures and after-work rides.



www.ghost-bikes.com




I wish they imported it in the US.


----------



## smartyiak (Apr 29, 2009)

plv said:


> I've found a very interesting bike with 670mm stack from a manufacturer in Europe:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Funny...I was just posting: I'd really like to get my hands on a Ghost Lector FS for XC racing. Ridiculous numbers...unless you're 6'4"








LECTOR FS Advanced


World Cup proven, efficient and controlled. The LECTOR FS Advanced is a milestone among full suspension mountain bikes.



www.ghost-bikes.com


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

plv said:


> I've found a very interesting bike with 670mm stack from a manufacturer in Europe:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


REI sold them for a few years but they aren't doing them any more. That's annoying.


----------



## socalrider77 (Sep 1, 2012)

smartyiak said:


> Funny...I was just posting: I'd really like to get my hands on a Ghost Lector FS for XC racing. Ridiculous numbers...unless you're 6'4"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This looks like a great bike for tall peeps. Haven’t seen anything this big in the trail category besides the tallboy 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## abeckstead (Feb 29, 2012)

I like that Ghost Lector!

The new Rocky Mountain Element looks sasquatch friendly too.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

abeckstead said:


> The new Rocky Mountain Element looks sasquatch friendly too.


That element looks nice, other then the "cross country" bike has a 66deg hta. Makes for a pretty long bike. But that seems to be the trend, so maybe their is something to it?


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

It's a cross country bike for people who normally wear knee and elbow pads.


----------



## abeckstead (Feb 29, 2012)

schnee said:


> It's a cross country bike for people who normally wear knee and elbow pads.


I feel attacked 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

abeckstead said:


> I feel attacked


 Why? It means you're a downhill maniac, something I've never been brave enough to do.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

schnee said:


> It's a cross country bike for people who normally wear knee and elbow pads.


I think that it might kinda suck for anything but fast decent and climbing, and it might not even be that great of a climber with a hta that slack.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

jonshonda said:


> I think that it might kinda suck for anything but fast decent and climbing, and it might not even be that great of a climber with a hta that slack.


doesnt a slack hta put the front tire further out. making it act more like a counter weight improving climbing angle?

when a fork extends on a steep climb due to weight transfer, a slacker hta produce less increase in bar height as the sag is extended. this results in less bike angle change and results in a better overall climbing bike.


a 66 hta 130mm forked bike climbs better than a 70 degree hta 130mm forked bike... at the limit... wouldnt you say.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fuse6F said:


> doesnt a slack hta put the front tire further out. making it act more like a counter weight improving climbing angle?


No, it shifts the weight balance toward the rear wheel. It would only act as a counterweight if the rider was somehow a contact point with the ground (ie you're carrying the bike). On the bike though the weight distribution is balanced between only points and moving one of those points further away from the center of mass reduces the weight on it. Which makes the bike more easy to loop out at the opposite end.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

jeremy3220 said:


> No, it shifts the weight balance toward the rear wheel. It would only act as a counterweight if the rider was somehow a contact point with the ground (ie you're carrying the bike). On the bike though the weight distribution is balanced between only points and moving one of those points further away from the center of mass reduces the weight on it. Which makes the bike more easy to loop out at the opposite end.


in order to loop out doesnt the front tire have to come up off the ground? since that tire is further out in front of you. wouldnt it take more effort to lift up?


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fuse6F said:


> in order to loop out doesnt the front tire have to come up off the ground? since that tire is further out in front of you. wouldnt it take more effort to lift up?


Gravity is doing the work. On an incline moving the front wheel forward means it's higher.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Interesting thoughts on slack hta, but from what I have found is a slacker hta could possibly lead to the tire flopping side to side and being difficult to control, twitchy on slower climbs. As the wheelbase grows, lots of things change. 

They keep describing these more modern bikes as downhillers xc bikes, which really makes no sense to someone who just wants a little bit more capable XC bike (aka a robust rear end, capable of running a beefy fork) etc.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

jeremy3220 said:


> Gravity is doing the work. On an incline moving the front wheel forward means it's higher.


next time i want to lift a 16' 2x4 off the ground. Ill try your way. pick it up by the end and when i get that end waist high i should try to lift the opposite end up off the ground. It will be lighter cause its slack and has less weight on it. Or should i stand it up vertical and lift it that way.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

jonshonda said:


> Interesting thoughts on slack hta, but from what I have found is a slacker hta could possibly lead to the tire flopping side to side and being difficult to control, twitchy on slower climbs. As the wheelbase grows, lots of things change.
> 
> They keep describing these more modern bikes as downhillers xc bikes, which really makes no sense to someone who just wants a little bit more capable XC bike (aka a robust rear end, capable of running a beefy fork) etc.


i have found that excessive rear sag can alter a bikes hta quite a bit. so i know that floppy feeling. i just dont know what hta that feeling arrives at.

but the flop doesnt push you back off the mountain. fork extension does.

would be interesting to have a person with a stumpjumper evo (who can alter hta) run the same impossible climb back to back. tell us which setting gets them higher!


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fuse6F said:


> you are saying that - on level ground, a long reach slack bike is easier to front wheel lift than a short reach steep hta bike. since there is less weight on the front tire of the longer bike


No. I'm saying it's harder to bring it down past the balance point. Why do you think hill climb dirt bikes have really long rear ends and not really long front centers?


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

jeremy3220 said:


> No. I'm saying it's harder to bring it down past the balance point. Why do you think hill climb dirt bikes have really long rear ends and not really long front centers?


Your changing the point of discussion. We arent talking about rear center. Only hta.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fuse6F said:


> Your changing the point of discussion. We arent talking about rear center. Only hta.


Which increases the FC to RC ratio making it harder to keep the front down on steep climbs. Which could mean looping out or simply maintaining steering traction. Typically you're not going to see a large difference in tipping angle with just increasing front center. The more obvious issue will be traction (understeer).


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

jeremy3220 said:


> Which increases the FC to RC ratio making it harder to keep the front down on steep climbs. Which could mean looping out or simply maintaining steering traction. Typically you're not going to see a large difference in tipping angle with just increasing front center. The more obvious issue will be traction (understeer).


1). slacker hta pushes you back off the mountain less than a steeper hta as the fork unweights
2). longer fc provides a bit more counter weight than a short fc

if looking for an improvement in climbing on a 68hta bike, i will choose going to 66 over 70

prove im wrong!


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Fuse6F said:


> if looking for an improvement in climbing on a 68hta bike, i will choose going to 66 over 70
> 
> prove im wrong!


An improvement with regards to what aspect of climbing? What type of trail are you referring to?


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fuse6F said:


> 1). slacker hta pushes you back off the mountain less than a steeper hta as the fork unweights
> 2). longer fc provides a bit more counter weight than a short fc
> 
> if looking for an improvement in climbing on a 68hta bike, i will choose going to 66 over 70
> ...


Prove you're right.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

jonshonda said:


> An improvement with regards to what aspect of climbing? What type of trail are you referring to?


if you want to go up a climb, at some point you will loop out. at that absolute limit of looping out,

1). if you could somehow not extend the fork (sag remains constant even though weight comes off) - then you would have a mechanical advantage to a fork that does extend by just marginally reducing the effective angle of the climb. aka

RockShox Pike RCT3 Dual Position Air 29-inch - Cap's South Shore Cycle - Bike Shop - Delta, British Columbia

this doesnt work because you have more weight on the front, it works because it reduces the angle your climbing, which helps to keep all of your weight ahead of the point where loop out occurs.

further, even on dp air, a slacker hta reduces the amount your pushed off the hill (slightly) as compared to a steeper hta. for the same reason.


2). basically, any weight further away from your loop out point (up the hill in front of you) the better. just acts like a counterweight.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

jeremy3220 said:


> Prove you're right.


we could do this all day.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

So I have been spending a fair amount of time lately looking for a fs bike 120-140mm with stack over 640mm, 66-67hta, 74-76 sta, and a fairly short wheelbase. And I am having very little luck. The two bikes that interested me the most are the Salsa Horsethief and Spearfish, but I really have always been a fan of over forking a bike, which typically means at least 140mm front travel. 

I really wish I could just ride something like the IBIS ripley or Pivot 429 to see how they feel on the trails. To see how the front end tracks on typical seated climbing, and how they perform around tight switchbacks. Also how easy it is to lift the front end while cruising a speed to get over roots/rocks/etc.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

jonshonda said:


> So I have been spending a fair amount of time lately looking for a fs bike 120-140mm with stack over 640mm, 66-67hta, 74-76 sta, and a fairly short wheelbase. And I am having very little luck. .


Tallboy is the closest thing I can think of.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

jeremy3220 said:


> Tallboy is the closest thing I can think of.


Yeah I agree. I didn't like how the V2 performed on rooty/rocky climbs, even with a tuned shock. But I am not sure how the latest version with the new shock location will perform.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

jonshonda said:


> Yeah I agree. I didn't like how the V2 performed on rooty/rocky climbs, even with a tuned shock. But I am not sure how the latest version with the new shock location will perform.


The newer lower link VPP is definitely more active with lots of traction. The old VPP was definitely subject to being overly firm under pedal power.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

jeremy3220 said:


> The newer lower link VPP is definitely more active with lots of traction. The old VPP was definitely subject to being overly firm under pedal power.


Well that's not good to hear!


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

jonshonda said:


> Well that's not good to hear!


I haven't ridden a V2 Tallboy (only V3 and V4) so I'm not sure what you mean because the VPP from the V3 era was super firm while pedaling.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

jeremy3220 said:


> I haven't ridden a V2 Tallboy (only V3 and V4) so I'm not sure what you mean because the VPP from the V3 era was super firm while pedaling.


I need a firm pedaling bike, hearing that the new one isn't as firm isn't good news for me!


----------



## abeckstead (Feb 29, 2012)

plv said:


> Did you get the Tallboy? If yes, how big of an improvement was it?


I finally got my Tallboy and it fits me great! My 38” inseam and being 6’4” makes fitting bikes problematic. Got my first break-in ride yesterday and the only adjustment I need to do right now is fork sag (was too stiff). I felt so comfortable on this bike from the start which isn’t the norm when I get a new bike. I’m posting a pic of it next to my XL Evil and the seat/bar relationship is pretty noticeable between the two. I’ll be doing some upgrades to the Tallboy to make it more of an XC weapon before next race season. Evil will get switched back to enduro setup so I can do those too.


















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tall BMX'r (Jan 11, 2021)

I'm 6'7 with a 36" inseam, but my arms aren't really long. Nothing really fits me either, but I've found a geo balance that works on my Hightower. 160mm forks, slightly longer stem, and riser bars. I've got it setup for more enduro riding. Put a longer stem on your TB, scoot your saddle a little forward and it will be race and climb ready. Nice looking bike!


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

The new Ibis Exie features steeper seat tube angles on the larger sizes, to put tall people's butts where they belong in the fore-aft balance. 

Let's hope that starts to catch on.

They've also adopted size-specific chainstays as well, something I hope continues to catch on. (Who did it first, Norco?)


----------



## abeckstead (Feb 29, 2012)

Tall BMX'r said:


> I'm 6'7 with a 36" inseam, but my arms aren't really long. Nothing really fits me either, but I've found a geo balance that works on my Hightower. 160mm forks, slightly longer stem, and riser bars. I've got it setup for more enduro riding. Put a longer stem on your TB, scoot your saddle a little forward and it will be race and climb ready. Nice looking bike!


I remember your thread, glad you found what works for you. The 18 Hightower (not sure which one you have) has less stack and reach than the newest Tallboy. My bike is good just the way it is... and fits the way I wanted it to. I'm not interested in over-forking this bike or trying to make it more burly. I want to keep it short travel and make it lighter (within reason) to do XC races with it. I already have the Evil that can be ran 140-170mm up front and 131-144 in rear as my aggressive trail bike.


----------



## Tall BMX'r (Jan 11, 2021)

abeckstead said:


> I remember your thread, glad you found what works for you. The 18 Hightower (not sure which one you have) has less stack and reach than the newest Tallboy. My bike is good just the way it is... and fits the way I wanted it to. I'm not interested in over-forking this bike or trying to make it more burly. I want to keep it short travel and make it lighter (within reason) to do XC races with it. I already have the Evil that can be ran 140-170mm up front and 131-144 in rear as my aggressive trail bike.
> View attachment 1955087


Going from the 140mm to 160mm put me at 66 deg HTA. There's a company (Slack-R) that makes an ajustable headset for Santa Cruz integrated bearing headset. I could get a degree and a half (64.5 deg) further slack if I wanted. Haven't felt the need, but I might try it anyway?


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

I ended up with a 2022 HT as well, put a cascade link in it and 160 up front for a do it all bike that pedals well. Hopefully it’s ready tomorrow lol!!! I plan on riding xc/trail in OK and NW Arkansas with the occasional trip to Angel Fire/Winter Park for some lift riding or greens and blues.


----------



## Tall BMX'r (Jan 11, 2021)

Awesome! You're going to have a blast on that bike. It will take a while to get the suspension dialed it, but you will eventually find your sweet spot. You'll probably start with the stock recommended sag / weight setup, but you'll end up with something different. With the 160mm, I lowered the fork pressure at least 5 psi below where the sag setting put me, and I still only go through 70% of it. I think I'll lower it even more. The shock I'm running 265 psi which seems right (I'm 230 lbs). I use 90% of the travel on an average ride with some jumps and drops. Haven't bottomed out yet.


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

I put a new float x factory on it as I’m 6’/285 😁. It’s supposed to be great for big fellas.


----------



## Tall BMX'r (Jan 11, 2021)

Nice. That will be one of my next upgrades.


----------



## BigJZ74 (Jul 18, 2010)

abeckstead said:


> I finally got my Tallboy and it fits me great! My 38” inseam and being 6’4” makes fitting bikes problematic. Got my first break-in ride yesterday and the only adjustment I need to do right now is fork sag (was too stiff). I felt so comfortable on this bike from the start which isn’t the norm when I get a new bike. I’m posting a pic of it next to my XL Evil and the seat/bar relationship is pretty noticeable between the two. I’ll be doing some upgrades to the Tallboy to make it more of an XC weapon before next race season. Evil will get switched back to enduro setup so I can do those too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your Tallboy looks sick! I just picked up a Transition Spur.


----------

