# Time for a new SS: modern geometry questoons



## BrodieNorth (Jan 21, 2009)

Good day, all.

Thinking of replacing my current SS this spring - a Brodie Unibomber from the late 1990s / early 2000s and am hoping to get some feedback on how bikes with newer geometry will compare.









I'm a masher, not a spinner, local trails do go up. Not overly technical but there are roots and loose sections to get up, short sections of 25 or 30% but averaging maybe 9 or 10% over 3 or 4 kilometres (2 or 3 miles). My main concern is climbing out of the saddle - being able to get over the bars to get upper body into the equation.

Would like to get something in nice steel, so looking at a few options (none of which are less than a multi-hour flight away) and wondering how their geometry would affect the 'steep climb' part of the equation. I'm about 5'10", crotch-to-floor of 33.5".

A few examples:

Spot Rocker: on the border between medium and large - 420mm reach on the medium, 442mm on the large (but the large may be too large) and stack of 626mm medium, 635mm large.

Vassago Verhauen: probably medium with 451mm reach and 618mm stack

Chumba Sendero: probably medium with 437mm reach and 624mm stack

The Unibomber (using some rough measurements as I cannot find any published geometry for it) has a reach of about 406mm and stack of about 571mm - but it also has a 120mm old-school stem to stretch things out and bring the bars up a bit. BB-to-bars reach is about 490mm.

I recognize that there is more to it that reach and stack, but am wondering how those bikes would differ - e.g. would the Verhauen be too long to get into a strong climbing posture? The Rocker be be too short? The Sendero bars be too tall?

Thanks for any insights you can provide!


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

New Geo is pretty cool. Just go with a short stem. These days 80mm is long. Lots of bikes in 50-70mm range. I am on 5'7" and on Medium Vassago Optimus Ti and have no issues getting over the front end standing climbing.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Bikegeo.net plug the geo numbers in and it will show you how the bikes really compare.

IMO, the super long reach on bikes is getting ridiculous for my riding style. It seems like a pissing contest among manufacturers to see who can get a person to buy the most ridiculously long bike and convince them that the lack of control when your hands and feet are totally stretched apart makes a bike "stable" .

I prefer a nimble bike that I can control, which for me,eans a more compact fit. With the modern XXL reach numbers, that means I need to size down or run the stubbiest little stem in existence.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

If you want to compare the geometric fit of any two bikes, look at the reach and stack as the legs of a right triangle. A-squared plus B-squared equals C-squared, right? Compare the effective down tube of those frames - the hypotenuse of the reach and stack - for a more accurate comparison.

That tells you some about how those bikes will fit when you stand and mash. The other side is the seat tube angle and effective top tube to give you and idea of seated position.


----------



## BrodieNorth (Jan 21, 2009)

Thanks, Joe. Will definitely be on a shorter stem - just trying to get my head around how it all fits together


----------



## BrodieNorth (Jan 21, 2009)

Thanks, Mack Turtle. 

Agreed that the lengths of some bikes seems to be getting out of hand. Trying to figure some rough guidelines (which is going to ultimately depend on my riding style/fit/terrain/body dimensions/etc.) as to where that 'too long' is. 

The bikegeo.net is informative, and hadn't thought of the hypotenuse comparison. That makes some of this easier to visualize, and has pointed me at a bunch more resources to think about...


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Great question. I'm a big fan of modern geometry. I personally prefer short chainstays, a slightly steeper STA, and a long reach. Only thing I try to avoid is a BB that is too low. 

The Vassago VerHauen would be my top pick of the three on your list, no question. 

The Spot is too conservative in the Reach department. (In my size, XL)

The Sendero is more modern than their previous designs, which had extremely dated geo. Good to see they're getting with the times. This would be my second choice probably. 

Is the Niner SIR 9 on your list? Probably should be.


----------



## MaineLotus (Jun 27, 2016)

Ordered a new ti frame a few months ago and went with in between modern/traditional angles, but longer reach. 68.5 head angle, 72 seat and 17" reach, 25" TTL - large frame. Geo designed around a 120mm fork and 29x2.6 wheels and 70mm stem length with a flat bar. Ride mostly tight technical NE single track and like climbing over descending. Ultra slack angles suck on these trails, been there done that. Try to find what works for your riding style and trails.


----------



## Zerort (Jan 21, 2013)

Man, just pick any bike you want and run a Rohloff tensioner. Boom done.

All my full suspension bikes are SS and all put the power down when standing.


----------



## Eltbee (Jan 15, 2004)

This subject of out of the saddle climbing is one that is important for me as well. And I think it's something that gets missed because people who don't stand and mash conflate seated climbing capabilities with standing/out of the saddle climbing which for me, anyway, are two different things. What I want when I stand and climb either short technical stuff or longer duration stuff is to be able to involve as much of my upper body as I can. This is how I was raised as a single speeder - you almost always stand to climb anything of significance.

What I found by accident: I have a 2004 vintage Kona Unit. 26" old school geo. I also have a 2018 Kona Unit 27.5+ (more modern geo) which is my current, daily trail bike. The 27.5+ Unit is a pretty good bike, but when I got out of the saddle to climb, it always felt like the bike was in front of me. Like my CG was in space just in front of me. I couldn't quite get on top of this CG so that it's directly below me where I can pull directly up (like with seated rows), involving the deltoids of the back and triceps. It's like I can only use my shoulder muscles more like front shoulder flys with dumbells to create downward force and I can't pull very much. It was really odd. I tried wider bars (780mm) and that helped me get more leverage but the feeling remained.

Then, my wife needed a bike so I built my 26"/2004 Unit back up and took a spin on it. That feeling of the CG being below me was there again. I remember this older geo bike being a capable climber out of the saddle.

So what's going on? I put the bikes side by side and looked up the measurements for comparison. The geo is remarkably similar with one key difference. The 2018 Unit has a slacker HT angle and a longer wheelbase. The net result is that the position of the bars is much farther behind the front wheel horizontally on the 2018 new geo compared to the 2004 old geo. There are other differences at play too like 26" vs 27.5+ but I suspected that this extra horizontal distance away from the front wheel was the likely culprit in my out of the saddle climbing experience.

So then, I went counter to modern geo thinking and replaced the stock 60mm stem with a 90mm stem on the 2018 Unit. This restored a lot of the out of the saddle climbing "on top of the CG" feel that I was missing. It apparently moved me closer to the front wheel when out of the saddle. The downside is that I have to be a bit more careful descending and it has slightly less responsive steering. But it's a full rigid bike so these are not big concerns.

Currently, what I am trying to do is to confirm up this idea and find some other frame that maybe delivers this same experience with shorter chainstays. But I thought I would comment here and point out that shorter stems don't always give you the best climbing experience if you prefer to stand and mash and get the upper body involved. At least in my experience - sample size of 1.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Eltbee said:


> So what's going on? I put the bikes side by side and looked up the measurements for comparison. The geo is remarkably similar with one key difference. *The 2018 Unit has a slacker HT angle and a longer wheelbase. The net result is that the position of the bars is much farther behind the front wheel horizontally on the 2018 new geo compared to the 2004 old geo. I suspected that this extra horizontal distance away from the front wheel was the likely culprit in my out of the saddle climbing experience.*


*

Agreed, The Kona Unit had a couple bad years (2016-2019) geometry wise. It lost it's way for a while, they tried turning it into a bike packing bike. Long chainstays, boo.

The 2020 model is going the right direction again finally. (I owned a 2011 29er Unit, super fun bike)




Currently, what I am trying to do is to confirm up this idea and find some other frame that maybe delivers this same experience with shorter chainstays. But I thought I would comment here and point out that shorter stems don't always give you the best climbing experience if you prefer to stand and mash and get the upper body involved. At least in my experience - sample size of 1.

Click to expand...

In this case you're not wrong for standing climbing, but what's missing is a shorter rear end, steeper STA, and longer Reach, wider bars, etc. (the 2018 Unit I would NOT consider modern geo, compare it to the Honzo and you'll see what I'm saying)

Modern geo is a package deal, it all has to work together. When executed properly it's awesome. With a long Reach and a short stem, the ETT won't be too much different than an old school geo bike (OK, a little longer) but most people feel more centered with the longer wheelbase, more "in" the bike not on top of it.

Granted not everyone wants the same thing out of bike fit, so opinions vary.

TLDR: Short stems aren't detrimental to standing climbs on a well designed bike.*


----------



## BrodieNorth (Jan 21, 2009)

Thanks Onespeed and Eltbee - all good info to think about!


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

BrodieNorth said:


> Good day, all.
> 
> Thinking of replacing my current SS this spring - a Brodie Unibomber from the late 1990s / early 2000s and am hoping to get some feedback on how bikes with newer geometry will compare.
> 
> ...


It fits together like this...


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

I've read very good things about the Chumba. One reviewer liked it better than his personal bike, which was the Pivot LES. There's also a cult following with Vassago on this forum. I don't think you could go wrong with either bike.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Chumba is really solid stuff. As a local fanboy, I am saving my pennies for a Sendero some day. They hosted a great party at SSUSA this year.


----------



## CCSS (Apr 6, 2004)

Rod said:


> I've read very good things about the Chumba. One reviewer liked it better than his personal bike, which was the Pivot LES. There's also a cult following with Vassago on this forum. I don't think you could go wrong with either bike.


Yep - it was reviewed in detail by Dirt Rag (before DR folded).

I concur with Mack Turtle's comment below. I also live in ATX and know the Chumba guys well. They are meticulous with their build process and their customer service. And I know LOTS of people who've sold Vassagos to buy Chumbas. Never the other way around.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

CCSS said:


> Yep - it was reviewed in detail by Dirt Rag (before DR folded).
> 
> I concur with Mack Turtle's comment below. I also live in ATX and know the Chumba guys well. They are meticulous with their build process and their customer service. And I know LOTS of people who've sold Vassagos to buy Chumbas. Never the other way around.


If i was buying tomorrow i would be looking at this bike. It would be at the top of my list.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

CCSS said:


> And I know LOTS of people who've sold Vassagos to buy Chumbas. Never the other way around.


probably the same people of whom I am thinking. I sold my Vassago for a Surly because the Jabberwocky/ Karate Monkey level is more my price range. but a Sendero will come along with any future windfall I receive.


----------



## BrodieNorth (Jan 21, 2009)

Thanks all - lots to think about!


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

Sendero looks fun. The "new geometry" stupid steep seat angle may not be so fun if you like to mash. If you are out of the saddle climbing, there is zero benefit from it.


----------



## Shinkers (Feb 5, 2014)

Everybody climbs differently. I for one lover the stretched out feeling of the modern bikes. When it comes to standing and climbing, I haven't ridden a bike that was too long yet. I'm 5' 11" and have seriously considered XL frames to get more reach, but usually that will limit your dropper choice pretty severely. 

I'll get blasted for liking to ride big frames, but like I said, everybody climbs differently. I'd also add that IMO for SS riding, seat tube angle is basically irrelevant and with the longer front centers that newer geo bikes have, longer chainstays will help keep more weight on the front of the bike so you can actually ride the bike the way that it's meant to be ridden.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

sapva said:


> Sendero looks fun. The "new geometry" stupid steep seat angle may not be so fun if you like to mash. If you are out of the saddle climbing, there is zero benefit from it.


Likewise no drawbacks either.

Really though you need a steeper STA on modern geo to keep the ETT in check so it's not too stretched out while seated.


----------



## BrodieNorth (Jan 21, 2009)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Likewise no drawbacks either.


Is there a point where the steep seat tube angle puts the seat far enough forward that it gets in the way when standing, perhaps when descending in rough stuff? Seems like a steep STA would make it easier to get behind the seat in steeps, but at some point standing would be just a vertical shift off of the seat, not an 'up and forward' shift, and the vertical-only shift isn't all that large. Perhaps that's where a dropper would make a big difference?


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

BrodieNorth said:


> Perhaps that's where a dropper would make a big difference?


Yes. dropper posts are now part of the package on a modern bike. Putting a rigid post on a bike with a low BB and steep STA is like putting a rigid fork on a FS bike. It can be done, but you're missing part of the equation if you do.



Richard Cunningham said:


> Turns out that you can't have a steep seat tube angle without a proper dropper seatpost. First, steep seat tube angles position the saddle much taller over the bike - awkward! Further hindering the rider is the fact that the difference between your seated and standing position over the saddle narrows dramatically as the angle arcs upward as it nears vertical. If you haven't put two and two together, it was the widespread acceptance of the dropper seatpost that made steep seat tube angles possible.


https://www.pinkbike.com/news/not-so-fast-how-dropper-posts-created-steep-seat-tube-angles.html


----------



## SSsteel4life (Jul 1, 2016)

BrodieNorth said:


> Is there a point where the steep seat tube angle puts the seat far enough forward that it gets in the way when standing, perhaps when descending in rough stuff? Seems like a steep STA would make it easier to get behind the seat in steeps, but at some point standing would be just a vertical shift off of the seat, not an 'up and forward' shift, and the vertical-only shift isn't all that large. Perhaps that's where a dropper would make a big difference?


This is how I feel, I don't feel as comfortable standing climbing on my steeper seat angle bikes. I've been crunching number for a new build, I keep coming back to the Salsa Timberjack geo numbers as a good middle ground. 67.5 HA, 73 SA, 425 medium reach(reach could be a tad longer, 435 would be perfect) For us average dimension body people anyways.

Wish I could find a steel frame with similar number, really do not want an aluminum frame.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

SSsteel4life said:


> Wish I could find a steel frame with similar number, really do not want an aluminum frame.


Yes, tried an aluminum hard tail once and will never make that mistake again. It might be OK for a trials or DJ bike where the saddle is just for resting. Too bad there aren't more steel options.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

mack_turtle said:


> Yes. dropper posts are now part of the package on a modern bike. Putting a rigid post on a bike with a low BB and steep STA is like putting a rigid fork on a FS bike. It can be done, but you're missing part of the equation if you do.
> 
> https://www.pinkbike.com/news/not-so-fast-how-dropper-posts-created-steep-seat-tube-angles.html


I was all ready to type "You must spread some reputation around before you give it to Mack_turtle again" but it actually let me rep you. Finally I've spread enough reputation, apparently, until next time.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

SSsteel4life said:


> I've been crunching number for a new build, I keep coming back to the Salsa Timberjack geo numbers as a good middle ground. 67.5 HA, 73 SA, 425 medium reach(reach could be a tad longer, 435 would be perfect) For us average dimension body people anyways.
> 
> Wish I could find a steel frame with similar number, really do not want an aluminum frame.


What's the budget? Looking for a frame or complete?


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

SSsteel4life said:


> 67.5 HA, 73 SA, 425 medium reach(reach could be a tad longer, 435 would be perfect) For us average dimension body people anyways.
> 
> Wish I could find a steel frame with similar number, really do not want an aluminum frame.


I am pretty sure you just described a Sendero with a 130mm fork.


----------



## SSsteel4life (Jul 1, 2016)

mack_turtle said:


> I am pretty sure you just described a Sendero with a 130mm fork.


It is one of my front runners, thou want to run rigid. Was thinking of doing the new ODIS 495 AC fork with it to keep SA from not getting to step. Just trying to find a more economically option.


----------



## SSsteel4life (Jul 1, 2016)

*OneSpeed* said:


> What's the budget? Looking for a frame or complete?


Ideally frame, was hoping to stay under $1000. Thou open to a complete build, if part specs are most of what I like.

One other option besides the Sendero I noted to Mack, I have thought about the new Kona Unit SS. I have never been a weight weenie with any of my bikes, thou for this one wanted to try a lighter build for a change. Thou I will probably make bigger strides going light on my wheel set up. My thinking with Unit, put a longer rigid fork to bring in the reach numbers enough for my liking, and slacken the SA.

I know you have followed the new Unit, how would you think that frame would ride? More on the stiff side or more on the compliant side?

Thanks in advance for any input.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

SSsteel4life said:


> Ideally frame, was hoping to stay under $1000. Thou open to a complete build, if part specs are most of what I like.
> 
> One other option besides the Sendero I noted to Mack, I have thought about the new Kona Unit SS. I have never been a weight weenie with any of my bikes, thou for this one wanted to try a lighter build for a change. Thou I will probably make bigger strides going light on my wheel set up. My thinking with Unit, put a longer rigid fork to bring in the reach numbers enough for my liking, and slacken the SA.
> 
> ...


Im pretty sure mack has the new unit. Too bad we can't tag him. 90s tech on this forum.

Free bump to the top so he sees it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

SSsteel4life said:


> It is one of my front runners, thou want to run rigid. Was thinking of doing the new ODIS 495 AC fork with it to keep SA from not getting to step. Just trying to find a more economically option.


That seems like a lot of cash for a rigid fork. Could find a decent 32mm fork for that, and just run higher pressure or even lock it out.


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

sapva said:


> That seems like a lot of cash for a rigid fork. Could find a decent 32mm fork for that, and just run higher pressure or even lock it out.


$230 is not too bad for a production steel thru-axle fork. What decent 32mm fork could you get, that would be better, for that amount?


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

A decent USED suspension fork could cost a lot less than that. I'll sell my old Odis fork (15x100 thru, tapered, 480mm a-c, 6.75" steerer tube) for $75.

Most of the regular steel producers sell steel rigid Taiwan-made forks for under $150- Soma, Surly, Salsa.

[Edit: nope, those forks are a little more expensive than I expected!]


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> A decent USED suspension fork could cost a lot less than that. I'll sell my old Odis fork (15x100 thru, tapered, 480mm a-c, 6.75" steerer tube) for $75.
> 
> Most of the regular steel producers sell steel rigid Taiwan-made forks for under $150- Soma, Surly, Salsa.


Nearly all steel forks under $150 are QRs.

I guess it comes down to what I would consider decent and would be an improvement over the rigid fork/tire combination I currently run. I don't know if that would be anything 32mm.

I do know that there are trails where speed and rigid just do not work very well. If I was limited to only one bike, I would consider a squishy fork.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

The Salsa Chromoto Grande thru axles fork is over $200 online (don't be mislead like I was by the adds that show a photo of it for ($130). Surly and Soma only cot a little more than that, but I assumed they would be cheaper. When I bought my KM, I immediately sold the new fork for $100.


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> The Salsa Chromoto Grande thru axles fork is $130 online. Surly and Soma only cot a little more than that, but I assumed they would be cheaper. When I bought my KM, I immediately sold the new fork for $100.


Can you give me a location on that Cromoto Grande thru-axle for $130. Ran the thru-axle straight steerer 468mm version on my older Jabberwocky for years and loved it. I am always looking for a deal on the thru-axle tapered 483mm version and the new ones I find are $209. Most people want more than I want to pay for used. I do not like the looks of the Soma and KM forks with all the bits for attaching things. Looks cluttered.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Egg on my face, when I looked up that fork, a bunch of misleading ads clearly show the thru-axle version for $130. When you go to the link, it shows that the thru axle version is over $200.

I don't know how or why these forks got so expensive. I definitely didn't pay more than $150 for my Odis for or the Chromoto I had before that, both with tapered steerers and thru axles, 2-3 years ago. Chinese steel tarriffs? Does that question make this too political?

I posted details about my Odis fork in the SS Swap thread.


----------



## umarth (Dec 5, 2007)

Vassago has their Black Label ODIS on sale right now: Black Label ODIS Fork


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> Egg on my face, when I looked up that fork, a bunch of misleading ads clearly show the thru-axle version for $130. When you go to the link, it shows that the thru axle version is over $200.
> 
> I don't know how or why these forks got so expensive. I definitely didn't pay more than $150 for my Odis for or the Chromoto I had before that, both with tapered steerers and thru axles, 2-3 years ago. Chinese steel tarriffs? Does that question make this too political?
> 
> I posted details about my Odis fork in the SS Swap thread.


That has been my experience with the Salsa CroMoto thru-axle version. Along with the QR version, at one time, they made two versions of the thru-axle, a straight steerer 468mm and the tapered steerer 483mm. They now only make the QR 468mm and tapered thru-axle 483mm, and for some reason the numbers get mixed up, not only by mail order sites, but people selling on eBay and Pinkbike. Salsa even has wrong information on their website, showing the A-C 483mm as 80mm suspension corrected.


----------



## CCSS (Apr 6, 2004)

If I was looking for a rigid, boost, 495 A:C fork, I'd jump on this one: http://www.tandellbikes.com/29er-plus-carbon-rigid-forks_p0934.html

Check the thread here on MTBR where people go through the obligatory "oh my, I'd never trust my face/head/life to cheap Chinese carbon" etc., etc. But the consensus, after lots of ride time is that it's rock solid. And it's $169!

A buddy got one for his Sendero, and it was on sale for 150!

I rode the crap out of a relatively cheap Carver all carbon fork on my Krampus, and it, too, was solid.

Ymmv.


----------



## Verskis (Dec 4, 2007)

SSsteel4life said:


> Ideally frame, was hoping to stay under $1000. Thou open to a complete build, if part specs are most of what I like.
> 
> One other option besides the Sendero I noted to Mack, I have thought about the new Kona Unit SS. I have never been a weight weenie with any of my bikes, thou for this one wanted to try a lighter build for a change. Thou I will probably make bigger strides going light on my wheel set up. My thinking with Unit, put a longer rigid fork to bring in the reach numbers enough for my liking, and slacken the SA.
> 
> ...


I'm not Mack, but I also have the 2020 Kona Unit SS, so I thought I would give you some comments on that.
This is my first fully rigid mountain bike in 20 years (although I had a hardtail with a suspension forks seven years ago, and I am currently using a fully rigid e-bike for commuting), so I don't have a very good reference point. Nevertheless, I think the ride is pretty compliant, but that has probably more to do with the big tires than the frame and fork. I have put a smaller studded winter tire on the back of the bike, and the ride definitely was a bit harsher, but that is as expected.
When standing and stomping on the pedals, there is not too much lateral flexing. If the tire pressure is too low, the pedaling gets a little bouncy, but this is again caused by the tires, not the frame.
I would even like to say that the big tires mask the small differences in the frame stiffness of different frames so much that I could not feel a difference, but since I don't have that many recent experiences with rigid bikes, I will not say that officially 

The stock wheels may not be featherweight, but the bike still feels very responsive to pedal inputs. This might again be influenced by my lack of recent experience with rigid bikes, but it feels so nice when I give a short burst of pedaling and the bike launches forward in a way that cannot be matched by any full suspension bike!

Other noteworthy things are the geometry and the gearing. The geometry feels very nice, at 181cm the size large is spot on for me with a short stem (I changed the stock 60mm stem to 45mm). The bike feels nimble enough, even though it is quite big in reach and wheelbase.
The stock gearing was much too tall for me, I had to get 2 teeth larger cog to make it easy enough. This minimized the tire clearance ( I had only 1mm between the tire and the seat tube) so I had to add a half-link to get the wheel rearwards in the dropouts, which meant that I could not use the stock narrow-wide chainring any more.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

SSsteel4life said:


> Ideally frame, was hoping to stay under $1000. Thou open to a complete build, if part specs are most of what I like.
> 
> I know you have followed the new Unit, how would you think that frame would ride? More on the stiff side or more on the compliant side?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any input.


There should be a few good options in that price range.

As far as ride compliance I would say the Unit is probably middle of the road. It's got decent tubing but Kona is generally known for making durable products so it's not going to be overly flexy.


----------



## SSsteel4life (Jul 1, 2016)

*OneSpeed* said:


> There should be a few good options in that price range.
> 
> As far as ride compliance I would say the Unit is probably middle of the road. It's got decent tubing but Kona is generally known for making durable products so it's not going to be overly flexy.


Thanks. Compared to my Gen 2 MDS krampus how do you think the Unit would compare. More or less stiff, More or less in frame weight?


----------



## racefit (Aug 26, 2010)

CCSS said:


> But the consensus, after lots of ride time is that it's rock solid.


Define lots.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CCSS (Apr 6, 2004)

racefit said:


> Define lots.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Statistically invalid source of info: https://forums.mtbr.com/26-27-5-29-plus-bikes/tandell-rigid-fork-1074310.html

Qualitative feedback/insight is solid.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

SSsteel4life said:


> Thanks. Compared to my Gen 2 MDS krampus how do you think the Unit would compare. More or less stiff, More or less in frame weight?


Gen 2 had strait double butted tubing and not the current flared triple butted tubing? Generally the OG Krampus rode really well (compliance). The current version is often reported to be stiffer by a good bit. I've owned both but they were/are set up very differently. My OG Moonlit Swamp Krampus was rigid the entire time I owned it, my current Krampus has a 120 fork and a 160 dropper. I've noticed no harshness in the current Krampus the way it's setup.

The Kona Unit will probably ride very well. I've not spent any time on one so I can't give my opinion on precisely how it will feel?

Weight? They're both budget/mid level frames, don't weigh it unless you want to be disappointed. If I had to guess the Kona would be a couple ounces lighter but not much?

You're over thinking the "wrong" parameters IMO. Focus on what you want to use the bike for, bike fit, how it will be set up, where and how you ride, etc. Asking about the weight of these type of bikes is a F$#@%ing useless waste of time. Fun factor outweighs grams on a scale by a long margin.


----------



## SSsteel4life (Jul 1, 2016)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Gen 2 had strait double butted tubing and not the current flared triple butted tubing? Generally the OG Krampus rode really well (compliance). The current version is often reported to be stiffer by a good bit. I've owned both but they were/are set up very differently. My OG Moonlit Swamp Krampus was rigid the entire time I owned it, my current Krampus has a 120 fork and a 160 dropper. I've noticed no harshness in the current Krampus the way it's setup.
> 
> The Kona Unit will probably ride very well. I've not spent any time on one so I can't give my opinion on precisely how it will feel?
> 
> ...


Thanks for your input! I have never chased weight. But for this build, because what I want it to be, is why I would like a frame lighter. I want this bike to be my long distance 3+ hour SS endurance rig. Not to huck/jump things with this bike. My Krampus and Nimble 9 are reserved for that  Since being only between 150-160 lbs riding weight, my GEN 2 Krampus and especially the over built tank Gen 2 Nimble 9 frame have always felt very stiff to me. But those have a purpose and I am fine with them being that way. In all honesty the more sublime ride is more important then the weight. Just be nice to drop some weight as well.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

SSsteel4life said:


> Thanks for your input! I have never chased weight. But for this build, because what I want it to be, is why I would like a frame lighter. I want this bike to be my long distance 3+ hour SS endurance rig. Not to huck/jump things with this bike. My Krampus and Nimble 9 are reserved for that  Since being only between 150-160 lbs riding weight, my GEN 2 Krampus and especially the over built tank Gen 2 Nimble 9 frame have always felt very stiff to me. But those have a purpose and I am fine with them being that way. In all honesty the more sublime ride is more important then the weight. Just be nice to drop some weight as well.


These will be 6 or 7 pound frames. If the additional feame weight is a deal breaker you could up the budget for a very nice steel or ti bike. Carbon is the other option.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I bought a Karate Monkey precisely because it is not slack, long, or low. The BB is high, which keeps the pedals away from rocks. The high BB also keeps the stack low, and I ride it with a low handlebar and the stem slammed on the headset. the chainstays are short (although I wish they were just a hair shorter to fit my preferred gear ratio), making it easy to wheelie up ledges. the reach is short, making it easy to throw the bike around. the headtube is slack enough that it puts the wheel out in front of me enough that I can descend with confidence. the seat tube is slack enough that it does not make the seated pedaling position feel cramped. basically, it handles like a BMX bike for most things, but you can still sit and pedal it for days.

I have a theory that these aspects of modern bikes are great for bikes with squishy suspension, dropper posts, and a huge range of gears. those aspects of how the bike fits and handles can be a liability on a singlespeed for the way I ride. I am sure most people can adapt and their riding terrain and style might be more conducive to the LLS design, but I think it makes standing and wrangling the bike like riding a SS requires can be made more difficult with those features. If I loved simplicity so much that I wanted to use a rigid fork again, it would be even worse.

a long reach requires a steep seat tube so that you're not too stretched out on the bike when sitting. when I stand and mash up terrain, unlike my geared buddies who sit and spin the cranks, that saddle position is in my way, and there's no time to use a dropper at those moments. it also just makes the bike feel too big and hard to manual and wheelie stuff.

the steep seat tube sets the center of mass really high, which basically makes a dropper seatpost mandatory. for the kind of luddites who chose have only one gear option on their bike, this is a non-starter as well.


----------



## MaineLotus (Jun 27, 2016)

A lot of the change in modern geometry is a change in riding preferences. The current preference is downhill and groomed, machine made single track. At least that's what we're seeing around where I ride. Personally, I like tight, technical single track and would rather go up than down hill.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

MaineLotus said:


> A lot of the change in modern geometry is a
> change in riding preferences.


Crazy talk! Be care where you say dangerous stuff like this. You'll be shouted down by mobs of angry riders who have bought into the notion that "real mountain biking" is going down a hill, and having a bike that's so long that it handles twisty trails with all the grace of an ocean liner is "playful."


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> I bought a Karate Monkey precisely because it is not slack, long, or low. The BB is high, which keeps the pedals away from rocks. The high BB also keeps the stack low, and I ride it with a low handlebar and the stem slammed on the headset. the chainstays are short (although I wish they were just a hair shorter to fit my preferred gear ratio), making it easy to wheelie up ledges. the reach is short, making it easy to throw the bike around. the headtube is slack enough that it puts the wheel out in front of me enough that I can descend with confidence. the seat tube is slack enough that it does not make the seated pedaling position feel cramped. basically, it handles like a BMX bike for most things, but you can still sit and pedal it for days.


Damn it Mack! Your description got me curious and just for grins, I compared the numbers between the current KM and my 2016 Unit. The medium frames with rigid fork are surprisingly similar in many ways, but the KM has a couple key aspects that are things I wish I could change on the Unit and are an improvement. Probably the only thing I have never really cared for on the KM is the dropouts. Before the Unit, my two previous single speeds had track ends. I am a big fan of sliding dropouts.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

MaineLotus said:


> A lot of the change in modern geometry is a change in riding preferences. The current preference is downhill and groomed, machine made single track. At least that's what we're seeing around where I ride. Personally, I like tight, technical single track and would rather go up than down hill.


Say it louder for the people who cant hear in the back of the room! Preach

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## MaineLotus (Jun 27, 2016)

Yep, sad but true. But, I kinda like the current trend as the trails I like to ride aren't crowded. And it's fun to bring the "flow" boys out to ride some real single track, for various reasons. Here's some of our trails - and these pictures aren't of the tight and twisty sections. (yeah, I'm on a non-SS fat bike in one pic, a spring riding picture and there was still heavy frost in spots requiring a FB).


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

BrianU said:


> Damn it Mack! Your description got me curious and just for grins, I compared the numbers between the current KM and my 2016 Unit. The medium frames with rigid fork are surprisingly similar in many ways, but the KM has a couple key aspects that are things I wish I could change on the Unit and are an improvement. Probably the only thing I have never really cared for on the KM is the dropouts. Before the Unit, my two previous single speeds had track ends. I am a big fan of sliding dropouts.


I am using a Hadley hub with a 142x12 axle in the Gnot Boost track ends. Zero problems at all. I have a Surly tensioner on it but I probably don't need it. It provides peace of mind and makes setup slightly easier, but probably does little to hold the axle straight. The axle, thru-bolt, and dropouts are beefy!


----------



## Shinkers (Feb 5, 2014)

Delete.


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

Throwing my love for the Karate Monkey out there too. I've been on a newer Gnot Boost frame for a season and a half now, and I absolutely love it. The versatility is ridiculous and its one of the closest things you're going to get to old school geometry these days. It's like Surly took an older rigid geometry bike, and updated it just enough to make it a lot more fun. 

The Kona Unit is ok, but it just seems to lack quite a few things the Karate Monkey can deliver on (like versatility).


----------



## shaynec (Jul 22, 2016)

Surly's monkey nuts addressed the issue that I had with the sliding dropouts, now I have nothing to complain about...boring. Not perfect for SS though.


----------



## Bluebeat007 (Mar 17, 2004)

I ride and race on a Vassago Radimus Ti with a 140mm fork and 40mm stem. I love it.


----------



## yzedf (Apr 22, 2014)

mack_turtle said:


> Bikegeo.net plug the geo numbers in and it will show you how the bikes really compare.
> 
> IMO, the super long reach on bikes is getting ridiculous for my riding style. It seems like a pissing contest among manufacturers to see who can get a person to buy the most ridiculously long bike and convince them that the lack of control when your hands and feet are totally stretched apart makes a bike "stable" .
> 
> I prefer a nimble bike that I can control, which for me,eans a more compact fit. With the modern XXL reach numbers, that means I need to size down or run the stubbiest little stem in existence.


Hand and foot are in similar place. If the 110 stem is now a 45 the reach needs to compensate.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I ran the math on a few modern frames. To avoid the disappearing into a ginormous bike, some frames would require a <45mm stem on a medium frame. I am 5'9". I am currently on a medium KM with a 50mm stem, which is quite " compact" by today's standards. It works on ledgy climbs and twisty stuff, but I have no reservations about descending either. The slack seat tube angle makes the seated pedaling position just fine for my liking, but I don't sit down much when handling is crucial.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Being a lanky, bean pole of a rider, I need a front end that doesn't require a bazooka for a stem. 
The option of a purely custom frame based on my CAD drawing would be a choice down the line. If more peeps had the numbers sorted in their fitment needs and preferences, they could simply provide the information to a frame builder and receive their actual "dream bike" however, one would have to be spot on with their information.

At the moment, my RSD MiddleChild is doing me right in so many ways. Unique in the current state of the onion. Sliding dropouts and through asshole, um, axle that is done right makes a SS build absolutely fantastic and requires no tug nuts or snail cams to wreak havok on a ride. 
Very pleased to be singlespeeding again after a long hiatus!


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Long reply sorry. Not singling you out, apparently just really felt like typing? I know Mack has done lots of number crunching and owned/ridden a variety of bikes in the last few years. I respect his opinion bit differ in my preference.



mack_turtle said:


> I ran the math on a few modern frames. To avoid the disappearing into a ginormous bike, some frames would require a <45mm stem on a small frame. *I am 5'9". I am currently on a medium KM with a 50mm stem, which is quite " compact" by today's standards. It works on ledgy climbs and twisty stuff, but I have no reservations about descending either. The slack seat tube angle makes the seated pedaling position just fine for my liking, but I don't sit down much when handling is crucial.*


It's hard to explain modern geometry sometimes, but a medium is still a medium.

(this is not a knock against the KM!)

I currently own and ride two Surly bikes, a Wednesday and a Krampus. I own these two sweet bikes because there's nothing better on the market for the money. If I swap frames it usually means a dramatic transformation, which is super expensive when you're as picky as I am.

But, both of my Surly's are significantly shorter than my other bikes, specifically in the Reach department which results in a long ass stem. I don't have a major gripe with the STA though it's notably slacker than my other bikes with short chainstays and requires much more effort to keep the front wheel planted on steep climbs, or keep enough weight on the rear wheel to not break traction when I can't scooch any farther forward on the saddle. It's a minor inconvenience in certain circumstances but fine for me as I tend to stand in most situations, neither of these are my primary bikes, and I'm generally in decent shape and it doesn't effect me physically but I'm more likely to break traction with the rear wheel and not make the climb because I can't shift my weight forward like I want to if I'm trying to stay seated on a geared setup like the Wednesday.

On the other side of this coin I have multiple bikes with modern geo, longer reach, steeper STA, short chainstays, shorter stem, etc. The big difference is that I don't have to work extra hard to keep the front end down on a climb, I'm more in control and confident while descending, and super tight switchbacks are more of a chore due to the longer wheelbase. (Part of that is the fact that I ride XL frames)

Long story short: More conservative geo still works, but for me personally it has more drawbacks than positives. I've spent the majority of my cycling history on those type of bikes but have started to shift my preference to more modern designs. I am fortunate to be exposed to a variety of progressive brands and get to own and/or test ride bikes frequently. Super fun!

Honestly the long travel dropper post has done more for my skills progression, confidence, and speed than any other single factor or component. Being able to lower my COG allows me to properly lean the bike in turns and I can now keep up with my 140lb friends in the turns for the first time. (granted I need more aggressive tires but that's to be expected)

I'm working on a new bike now, actually two. We'll see how it goes but I'm very much enjoying more progressive geo and I plan to continue to take it farther to the extremes as thus far I haven't found the point of diminishing returns. The farther I go the better it gets. The next one will be a bit more of a leap towards the pointy end of what should be awesome.

Too much Reach? Haven't found that yet. Shortest stem I own is 60mm, and that's my longest bike. All other stems are even longer. I'm ready to get properly short, if I get what I want the next bike will be designed around a 35mm stem. Can't wait.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Good times, OneSpeed! Double your builds, double your fun, just don't look at account balances for a while...
Looking forward to hearing the results.


----------



## saywhat54 (Jan 28, 2020)

2019 Kona Unit SS with a Carver carbon fork. Carbon wheel set, bars and seat post. Love it to death. ridden it 3 on plus hr rides and it's smooth as can be. Highly recommend the Kona Unit frame.


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

What's critical to me out of the saddle is that I'm able to leverage my pull at the bars against my pedaling force, while driving my weight into the rear wheel. That's where the magic happens. For me (all legs, no torso), that only happens with a shorter cockpit/wheelbase. On these bikes your fore/aft movements have dramatic impact on which wheel gets weighted, making for a very lively ride. I don't like slack HTAs, am more of the Mack school. Like the immediacy of smaller bikes. Am looking at a KM.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

take this with a grain of salt, but I really like this guy's youtube channel- 



I've watched enough of his videos to see that he thinks 65 or slack-er is magical. He almost exclusively rides in Sedona on very technical trails, so part of it his experience is local.

I think he exaggerates the benefits of long, slack bikes to a degree, but it might be necessary to make the point. He's getting at the difference between riding techniques that work and techniques that work much better. It might be fair to say that modern bikes ... allow and encourage those techniques? I think the dropper post is key here for a lot of it. it's possible but difficult to get your CoG where it needs to be to maintain control over the bike with the saddle "in the way." anyone can learn to work around that, but body dimensions, physical flexibility and strength, and mind-body awareness of technique make it difficult.

for now, a "steep" bike with a short wheelbase is not holding me back. fear, a lack trust in the bike, coordination, and practice of better technique are probably holding me back. I was on a Jabberwocky for about a year, which is certainly longer and lower than a KM, and it always felt foreign to me. It did not have all the elements of a "modern" bike though, and I only started riding a dropper at the end.

I'd like to give a modern type bike another go at some point, but there's really no way to do that without fully committing to the purchase because no one brings hardtails to demos, unless you have a lot of time and money to travel just to test ride bikes. even then, it sounds like it would take someone like me a long time to adjust my riding style. maybe the price of purchase should come with a morning of coaching. ha!


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

mack_turtle said:


> take this with a grain of salt, but I really like this guy's youtube channel-
> 
> 
> 
> I've watched enough of his videos to see that he thinks 65 or slack-er is magical. He almost exclusively rides in Sedona on very technical trails, so part of it his experience is local.


"Hardtail Party"- love it. Seems like he's got some good videos for folks, I like product review type of media. It allows us to get a better feel for the details and differences of bikes. He does a pretty good job of explaining some of the differences with modern geo.

One note about the video in the link, he mentions a few bikes that have a "short Reach", one of which was the Kona Honzo. He's dead wrong on that one, the Honzo has a longer Reach in Medium (7mm), Large (1mm), and XL (13mm) then that Banshee he's riding. Oops.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I think he was referring to the HTA on the Honzo. 68 degrees is not "slack" at all by current standards.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

65 degree head angle would not be ideal where i ride. 

My bike is not long or slack, but the bb is just a little too low. I het more rock strikes on my newest bike than all the others combined. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## CCSS (Apr 6, 2004)

I’m perplexed about Hardtail Party’s decision to espouse the merits of “modern” vs “old school” riding styles while riding on a long travel squishy bike. False advertising!

I’d also like to see him demonstrate his wisdom riding a rigid singlespeed without a dropper


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

HTP happens to see a personal benefit in long/slack that works for him. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as one bike that is perfect for everyone. So, if it helps peeps either find what they want or find that a bike wouldn't work for them, all the better as it would be a benefit either way.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

A few notes about my video. I was going to call the video "proper riding technique vs old-school technique" but I realized it would single people out and make them feel attacked. The truth is, modern bikes need to be ridden differently than we rode bikes in the earlier days, or they'll push that front wheel. I see so many people at demos riding modern bikes way off the back, and they're not even coming close to seeing what the bike is about. Ironically, these "modern" techniques also work well on old-school geo bikes, though there are exceptions for those who ride with a high-post or who have a super short top tube. Even so, most of these techniques will improve most people's riding.

If you ride differently, that's fine. No need to feel threatened. I've been mountain biking for 26 years. I've been to many clinics. I've had to un-learn bad technique from my old days. I wish I'd had modern geo and today's clinics back in the day. Hopefully some of my videos can help people learn proper technique so they dont' have to un-learn improper technique like I did.






There are a handful of different riding philosophies, and one size does not fit all. These are the techniques I recommend based on handfuls of clinics and 25 years of riding.

A few points of clarification:
1) "Modern" technique could also be called "proper" riding technique, regardless of your bike's geo. Some things like rigid posts, or extreme geo will limit ones ability to implement "proper" technique to the fullest.
2) I recommend a "modern" technique on all bikes, not just "modern" bikes.
3) "Modern" technique is REQUIRED to ride modern bikes in control. You can't ride a modern bike well with old-school technique.
4) "Old school" technique is possible on old school geo, but modern technique on an old-school geo is even better.
5) Not all "new" bikes are "modern"
6) "Modern" bikes aren't best for everyone or every trail (but modern technique is).
7)  What's a "modern" bike by my definition? I'm classifying "modern" hardtails as bikes with a 65* hta or slacker, and reaches longer than 440mm for a size med, or 470 for a size large. 
8) Geometry charts only tell part of the story. I've found a few bikes that look perfect on paper, but they don't ride right at all. Nothing beats a test-ride.

Here are how I'd classify a few of the bikes I've demoed recently:

Old-School
- Trek Stache
- Esker Elcat
- kona honzo
- original specialized fuse
- most surleys and salsas

Mid-School (in-between the two)
- ionic Johnny Rotten
- Ibis DV9
- salsa timberjack
- santa cruz chameleon
- why s7

Modern
- banshee paradox v3
- rsd middle child
- almost every chromag (especially those that have a ha slacker than 65.5*)


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

A bit more on geo, since that's the topic of the thread.

The tricky thing about hardtail geo is the way the head angle changes throughout fork travel. That feels odd, and changes your steering geo over every bump or corner. I actually love riding rigid forks when appropriate, because the steering geo never changes, and it remains consistent through a turn.

Since the head angle of a hardtail gets steeper as the suspension compresses, I prefer a slack head angle to start with. Let's compare two bikes, assuming all is equal except their head angle. For the sake of this demo, we'll say it has a 150mm fork.

All calculations are based off the fact that reducing atc by 20mm = -1* hta...

*
Bike A*
Static: 65* hta
15% sag: ~ 66* hta
30% travel: ~67* hta
50% travel: ~69* hta
80% travel: 71* hta
bottom-out: 72.5* hta

*
Bike B*
Static: 68* hta
15% sag: ~ 69* hta
30% travel: ~70* hta
50% travel: ~72* hta
80% travel: 74* hta
bottom-out: 75.5* hta

Now, hopefully most bikes with a 68* hta don't run a 150mm fork, but the comparison still stands. When I ride aggressively, I'm usually at 40-60% of my travel. On bike A that'd be a 69* effective ha, and on bike B that'd be a 72*. Neither of those are ideal for me, but I'd much rather ride a 69* ha in a corner than a 72*.

With a full suspension, as you compress the suspension, you typically compress front and rear equally, which means the hta stays the same. On my hardtails I like bikes slacker than 65*. On my full suspension, anything from 64-67* feels great to me, provided I like the rest of the geo.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

CCSS said:


> I'm perplexed about Hardtail Party's decision to espouse the merits of "modern" vs "old school" riding styles while riding on a long travel squishy bike. False advertising!
> 
> I'd also like to see him demonstrate his wisdom riding a rigid singlespeed without a dropper


I'm not sure which video you saw with a long travel squishy bike, but the technique applies to all bikes, hardtails or squishy bikes.

I'd be happy to demonstrate this technique riding a singlespeed, even without a dropper. But if I don't have a dropper, I'm still going to lower my seat in the seat tube, just like I did in the 90s. Riding with a fully extended seatpost is great for seated climbs, and awful for everything else. Can Nino still shred with a high post? Sure. Is it ideal? No. However, proper technique is so much more than just lowering the saddle.

If someone wants to avoid droppers, that's fine, but there's no argument that a high-post provides a better riding technique for corners, punchy climbs, or descents.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

@op, great question. I'm 5'6" with a long torso and short legs. Between the spot rocker sizes, I'd lean towards a large if I were you. I've ridden a medium, and I've ridden Paul from SPOT's large bike (Paul seems about your size, maybe a tad smaller). I preferred the reach of the large, but the seat tube was too tall for me. But i don't consider the rocker a "modern" hardtail these days. It's a very cool bike, and I love the belt drive, but its geo is kind of in-between modern and old-school.

Personally, I like a 430-440mm reach if I'm going to be in the saddle all day spinning away. It means I don't learn forward too much, and I can comfortably sit up and spin. My bikepacking bikes have shorter reach than my enduro hardtails.

For aggressive trails, I like a 445-450 reach. I'm usually in attack position more, and on steep drops and chutes, the longer front end really helps prevent OTB moments and helps me really weight the front wheel when things get nasty.

I hope to get a SS rig in the next few months. I've been holding out for a special one. I don't think I'm going to want it to be as aggressive as most of my trail bikes, but I don't want it to be too sketchy either. I think my ideal geo for a SS build would be a 440mm reach, a 65* hta (I don't mind a slack HA, it doesn't negatively affect me), a 415-435mm cs, and a 130mm fork (pike or fox 34).

I've got a buddy who absolutely shreds on a mooseknuckle, and it has old-school geo.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

hardtail party said:


> A few notes about my video. I was going to call the video "proper riding technique vs old-school technique" but I realized it would single people out and make them feel attacked. The truth is, modern bikes need to be ridden differently than we rode bikes in the earlier days, or they'll push that front wheel. I see so many people at demos riding modern bikes way off the back, and they're not even coming close to seeing what the bike is about. Ironically, these "modern" techniques also work well on old-school geo bikes, though there are exceptions for those who ride with a high-post or who have a super short top tube. Even so, most of these techniques will improve most people's riding.


Honestly don't buy into any of this. And no I'm not singling you out or picking on you. Just think that there is no such thing as new school or old school techniques, only good technique. Regardless of the bike you want your weight perpendicular to the bb going down hill. And cornering has always required distributing the weight evenly between front and back tires for the maximum hold. These things have never changed. The bikes are just better today, not because of steep seat posts, but just exponentially better all around (bigger tires, longer wheel base, better brakes, stronger wheels, etc.). That allows you to get away with sloppy bike handling (like weight forward when descending) in a way that you never could have before.


----------



## BrodieNorth (Jan 21, 2009)

Thanks to all for suggestions and things to consider. Decided on a Verhauen - now just need the world to cooperate and provide some dry, accessible trails!


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

BrodieNorth said:


> Thanks to all for suggestions and things to consider. Decided on a Verhauen - now just need the world to cooperate and provide some dry, accessible trails!


Awesome! Post some pics soon

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## thepedalingfool (Feb 15, 2016)

Eltbee said:


> This subject of out of the saddle climbing is one that is important for me as well. And I think it's something that gets missed because people who don't stand and mash conflate seated climbing capabilities with standing/out of the saddle climbing which for me, anyway, are two different things. What I want when I stand and climb either short technical stuff or longer duration stuff is to be able to involve as much of my upper body as I can. This is how I was raised as a single speeder - you almost always stand to climb anything of significance.
> 
> What I found by accident: I have a 2004 vintage Kona Unit. 26" old school geo. I also have a 2018 Kona Unit 27.5+ (more modern geo) which is my current, daily trail bike. The 27.5+ Unit is a pretty good bike, but when I got out of the saddle to climb, it always felt like the bike was in front of me. Like my CG was in space just in front of me. I couldn't quite get on top of this CG so that it's directly below me where I can pull directly up (like with seated rows), involving the deltoids of the back and triceps. It's like I can only use my shoulder muscles more like front shoulder flys with dumbells to create downward force and I can't pull very much. It was really odd. I tried wider bars (780mm) and that helped me get more leverage but the feeling remained.
> 
> ...


This is a really good point re seated vs standing climbing on a SS. I agree this concept is not considered as fully as it probably should. Just my two cent.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

BrodieNorth said:


> Thanks to all for suggestions and things to consider. Decided on a Verhauen - now just need the world to cooperate and provide some dry, accessible trails!


Congratz! Looking forward to the verdict...



thepedalingfool said:


> This is a really good point re seated vs standing climbing on a SS. I agree this concept is not considered as fully as it probably should. Just my two cent.


If omitted, it would be a loss. One thing that I do is spin, so seated ascents are common as are standing. Some ascents are a hybrid of seat and stand. Part of SS experience!


----------



## CCSS (Apr 6, 2004)

hardtail party said:


> I'm not sure which video you saw with a long travel squishy bike, but the technique applies to all bikes, hardtails or squishy bikes.
> 
> I'd be happy to demonstrate this technique riding a singlespeed, even without a dropper. But if I don't have a dropper, I'm still going to lower my seat in the seat tube, just like I did in the 90s. Riding with a fully extended seatpost is great for seated climbs, and awful for everything else. Can Nino still shred with a high post? Sure. Is it ideal? No. However, proper technique is so much more than just lowering the saddle.
> 
> If someone wants to avoid droppers, that's fine, but there's no argument that a high-post provides a better riding technique for corners, punchy climbs, or descents.


I guess my point pertained more to the fact that both of my MTBs are rigid, and neither have droppers (just nice compliant titanium posts) 

Riding down the chunk at the beginning of the your video at that speed, with your weight so far forward on a rigid bike without a dropper isn't going to play out as smoothly as it did on the dropper equipped, dual squish you were riding.

Technique is technique, and good technique is good technique, regardless of the era of bike. Some folks aren't riding dual squish and/or droppers. And some of them still shred. Uphill on tight switchies on singlespeeds, downhill on rigid bikes, quickly through twisties on less than "modern" geo bikes.

All that said, I've also been riding a long time. Got my first MTB in college in '88. I've had a lot of time to learn. Your video will definitely help jumpstart things for a newer rider.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

I wasn't riding a dual squish in the video, I was on a hardtail. Regardless, this technique applies whether I'm riding my fully rigid bike, my hardtail with front suspension (shown here), or my full squish (not shown here). All of my bikes have droppers, and I recommend droppers for terrain like this. 

No doubt there are people who shred with droppers (or rigid seatposts) up, but that's hardly idea for this terrain. Having your COG higher is never optimal. If someone chooses to ride without a dropper, more power to them, but my video is about how to ride this terrain safely, in control, with proper technique, on modern bikes with droppers.


----------



## CCSS (Apr 6, 2004)

hardtail party said:


> I wasn't riding a dual squish in the video, I was on a hardtail. Regardless, this technique applies whether I'm riding my fully rigid bike, my hardtail with front suspension (shown here), or my full squish (not shown here). All of my bikes have droppers, and I recommend droppers for terrain like this.
> 
> No doubt there are people who shred with droppers (or rigid seatposts) up, but that's hardly idea for this terrain. Having your COG higher is never optimal. If someone chooses to ride without a dropper, more power to them, but my video is about how to ride this terrain safely, in control, with proper technique, on modern bikes with droppers.


Ah, my bad. Thought you were on a dual squish. Sorry, Man! You are Hardtail Party, so I guess I should pay better attention. 

Thanks for helping folks ride better faster.


----------



## hardmtnbiker (Feb 22, 2005)

All calculations are based off the fact that reducing atc by 20mm = -1* hta...

*
Bike A*
Static: 65* hta
15% sag: ~ 66* hta
30% travel: ~67* hta
50% travel: ~69* hta
80% travel: 71* hta
bottom-out: 72.5* hta

*
Bike B*
Static: 68* hta
15% sag: ~ 69* hta
30% travel: ~70* hta
50% travel: ~72* hta
80% travel: 74* hta
bottom-out: 75.5* hta

Now, hopefully most bikes with a 68* hta don't run a 150mm fork, but the comparison still stands. When I ride aggressively, I'm usually at 40-60% of my travel. On bike A that'd be a 69* effective ha, and on bike B that'd be a 72*. Neither of those are ideal for me, but I'd much rather ride a 69* ha in a corner than a 72*.

My HT with a 34Fox Float 130 is a Esker Hayduke so it fall's about in the middle with a 66.4HTA as it sits with fat 29x2.6" tires. I definitely see your point and one of the reasons I love riding technical switch backs with my fully rigid bikes is the in relation to your analysis. Thanks for posting! 
I'm also considering an "Angle Set" Head Set. I just put some 27.5x2.8" wheels and tires on and it sets a bit steeper since the rear is higher than it was with a 29x2.4" tire I replaced.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

hardmtnbiker said:


> I'm also considering an "Angle Set" Head Set. *I just put some 27.5x2.8" wheels and tires on and it sets a bit steeper since the rear is higher than it was with a 29x2.4" tire I replaced*.


You sure about that? I'd almost bet money a 29x2.4 is taller than a 27.5x2.8, especially when you're sitting on it.


----------



## garcia (Apr 10, 2008)

saywhat54 said:


> 2019 Kona Unit SS with a Carver carbon fork. Carbon wheel set, bars and seat post. Love it to death. ridden it 3 on plus hr rides and it's smooth as can be. Highly recommend the Kona Unit frame.


Which carver fork? I have the same bike.


----------



## racefit (Aug 26, 2010)

*OneSpeed* said:


> You sure about that? I'd almost bet money a 29x2.4 is taller than a 27.5x2.8, especially when you're sitting on it.


It is

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hardmtnbiker (Feb 22, 2005)

*OneSpeed* said:


> You sure about that? I'd almost bet money a 29x2.4 is taller than a 27.5x2.8, especially when you're sitting on it.


Your correct. Its taller with the 29x2.4 not by much. 
I've also thought about trying the mixed wheel size. Just curious


----------



## gonzo (Feb 18, 2004)

97% rider
03% equipment

If your an olympian 3% matters and I agree with all the modern geo spin


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

I wonder how the new specialized fuse would do as a singlespeed. Im getting one next week for a review. I'll post up about it after some time on the trail.


----------



## IPA Rider (Aug 24, 2008)

hardtail party said:


> I wonder how the new specialized fuse would do as a singlespeed. Im getting one next week for a review. I'll post up about it after some time on the trail.


:thumbsup:


----------



## hardmtnbiker (Feb 22, 2005)

hardtail party said:


> I wonder how the new specialized fuse would do as a singlespeed. Im getting one next week for a review. I'll post up about it after some time on the trail.


I can't wait to see your review!


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

gonzo said:


> 97% rider
> 03% equipment
> 
> If your an olympian 3% matters and I agree with all the modern geo spin


Truth. Put someone who can ride very well on any bike from the last 10 years and they will still do very well. Most of us are not hoping to podium in national or regional races.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## IPA Rider (Aug 24, 2008)

gonzo said:


> 97% rider
> 03% equipment


but if it is just one rider (you), those percentages change a lot...I can train to improve the rider component, but I'm still limited to who I am...not so with my equipment.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

IPA Rider said:


> but if it is just one rider (you), those percentages change a lot...I can train to improve the rider component, but I'm still limited to who I am...not so with my equipment.


I think the point is that if you put a slow rider on a $10k bike he's still going to be slow. Likewise if you put a fast rider on a $1k bike he's still going to be fast.

I think his ratio is maybe a little aggressive but the point he's making is accurate.


----------



## IPA Rider (Aug 24, 2008)

*OneSpeed* said:


> I think the point is that if you put a slow rider on a $10k bike he's still going to be slow. Likewise if you put a fast rider on a $1k bike he's still going to be fast.
> 
> I think his ratio is maybe a little aggressive but the point he's making is accurate.


Sure...and the point gets made often, and often to dismiss someone's interest in minor details (since it won't make you fast, which is so often true)...but then why are we here?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

All that matters is that peeps are riding bikes that they and they alone chose, paid for and have a grin on their faces! Damn people thinking that everyone that goes for the high end only races and never has a pedal for the simple pleasure of doing something like riding a freakin bicycle...

The majority have no interest in a podium but have great interest in their hobby.


----------



## planetx88 (Mar 24, 2012)

gonzo said:


> 97% rider
> 03% equipment
> 
> If your an olympian 3% matters and I agree with all the modern geo spin


This is a befuddling statement to me. It seems you are equating modern geo with being faster? I agree that our bikes and gear alone dont make us fast or slow. I take modern geo to be steep SA, slack HA, pushing a reasonable-but-longish tt length forward, to create a long reach, maybe throw in a low bb. Find me an olympian that races on a bike like that. As someone who rides a very long, slack singlespeed, with a 160mm fork and a 180mm dropper, I am not going anywhere faster than a lot of other riders, certainly other singlespeeders. I am, however, having a goddamned blast, wherever I am going. But my blast isnt better than anyone else's blast, some people like road bikes and fat biking on warm summer days...as long as they are having a blast...

It sounds like the OP ended up with a great choice.


----------



## planetx88 (Mar 24, 2012)

BansheeRune said:


> All that matters is that peeps are riding bikes that they and they alone chose, paid for and have a grin on their faces! Damn people thinking that everyone that goes for the high end only races and never has a pedal for the simple pleasure of doing something like riding a freakin bicycle...
> 
> The majority have no interest in a podium but have great interest in their hobby.


This just reminded me of an Enzo Ferrari quote, not totally relevant, but sort of. Something to the effect of- "I build cars for young men to drive, that only old men can afford." Aside from the fact that he likely never imagined a woman driving his cars, his point is well taken. How many Ferraris ever see a track? Said old guy will probably drive his F-40 around about as fast as a Honda Fit, and high center on a sidewalk ramp pulling into a gas station, but he's totally pumped anyways.

High end bikes are maybe fast, and definitely aspirational, and for a lot of people that's worth a serious chunk of change.


----------



## racefit (Aug 26, 2010)

Ferrari originally sold cars to support their racing habit. Some say they still do. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

gonzo said:


> 97% rider
> 03% equipment


Off topic troll nonsense.


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

My last 5 rides were on my FS trail bike (18.5" reach, 67.4* HTA, 16.9" stays, 47.1" WB) with twin lockout while maintaining 30-18 gearing most of the time, so simulating a rigid SS experience (with occasional suspension blow off).

Findings: I didn't want the 47" wheelbase to be any longer or shorter, but did find myself wanting a slightly longer reach and slightly steeper HTA. And wanted the stays a bit shorter. Based on this analysis, I'm going to buy a XL Salsa Timberjack ("TJ") with 495 a-to-c rigid fork, 29x2.6, yielding >19" reach, ~68.2* HTA (49mm offset), 73.8 STA (will need to slam saddle forward), stays about 16.8", and 47" WB. The TJ will replace an old Kona Unit with 44" WB that feels super small since I went to flat pedals.

I like steel so I've planned the TJ to be a "place holder" for a future custom steel frame based on geo lessons I learn riding the TJ. But I suspect with aluminum rims, the TJ won't be so harsh, I'll dig the more responsive acceleration, so will keep it. We'll see.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

The tj is a comfortable frame, a lot more comfortable than most steel bikes I've ridden lately. I know steel frames have more "street cred" but that tj frame rides really nice.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

hardtail party said:


> The tj is a comfortable frame, a lot more comfortable than most steel bikes I've ridden lately. I know steel frames have more "street cred" but that tj frame rides really nice.


From what little I know about the bikes you ride I get the feeling you favor rowdy Trail and "all mountain" hardtails? Those are stout frames and I wouldn't expect them to ride like XC 853 frames of 7 years ago.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

I've had a lot of hardtails through the years, starting in 1996, including a handful of 853 frames. 853 frames can be compliant, but there's so much more that goes into it than the tubing brand/metal chemistry.

I mainly ride rowdy bikes, but I test all sorts of bikes except for race xc bikes. I'm not the right person to test those, as I don't racez and I don't have any of those type of trails near me.

The timberjack is a nice frame that doesn't bear me up and it reminds me of a lot of great steel fames from the past.


----------



## j102 (Jan 14, 2018)

hardtail party said:


> I wonder how the new specialized fuse would do as a singlespeed. Im getting one next week for a review. I'll post up about it after some time on the trail.


Looking forward to your review of the new SS Fuse.


----------



## garcia (Apr 10, 2008)

hardtail party said:


> The tj is a comfortable frame, a lot more comfortable than most steel bikes I've ridden lately. I know steel frames have more "street cred" but that tj frame rides really nice.


Ok, I have been thinking about a new SS, and the timberjack was nowhere on my radar. I have been a die hard steel/ti fan for years, but have heard about newer aluminum being a great ride. How easy would the TJ be to set up SS? I have never used those style of dropouts, so I don't know how finicky they would be.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Aluminum doesn't ride like steel. Sorry.


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

garcia said:


> Ok, I have been thinking about a new SS, and the timberjack was nowhere on my radar. I have been a die hard steel/ti fan for years, but have heard about newer aluminum being a great ride. How easy would the TJ be to set up SS? I have never used those style of dropouts, so I don't know how finicky they would be.


Dropouts are easy. Frame is only $450. Can take angleset. Longish head tubes in case that matters (I love it). 29x2.4 fits slammed forward. I've read contradicting statements whether 29x2.6 fits slammed forward, probably depends on the tire. Some have fit 3.0. Based on forum posts, it's a pound lighter than the Chameleon. I can't recall anybody in the Salsa/TJ thread mentioning breaking one. Here's the geo with 483 rigid fork which can be hard to find:


----------



## JMac47 (Apr 23, 2004)

hardtail party said:


> I've had a lot of hardtails through the years, starting in 1996, including a handful of 853 frames. 853 frames can be compliant, but there's so much more that goes into it than the tubing brand/metal chemistry.
> 
> I mainly ride rowdy bikes, but I test all sorts of bikes except for race xc bikes. I'm not the right person to test those, as I don't racez and I don't have any of those type of trails near me.
> 
> The timberjack is a nice frame that doesn't bear me up and it reminds me of a lot of great steel fames from the past.


Been surfin all over your and Mz Dusty's YouTubes lately with this distancing of late. Just picked up a TJ frame to build up. Hoping to get it out East(?) on a road trip to your Southwest areas of Sedona/Phoenix/Gooseberry/Moab and such later this Spring, Seavid permitting! :0


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

It's the plus tires, put 2.3" width tires and on it and see how plush it rides, just saying.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

Gotta love blanket statements about frame material. No, aluminum doesn't ride like steel, but steel doesn't ride like steel either. What I mean by that is 6 steel frames side by side, even if they're all 853, will ride completely differently. Frame material is part of the equation, but it's not the whole equation. 

I've ridden aluminum frames that were more compliant than a lot of steel frames.. Believe what you want though. I wish it were as easy as just picking a frame material or tubeset to know exactly how a bike rides, but it doesn't just nearly boil down to that one variable.

Those that are criticizing the timberjack, have you ridden one on a trail? If not, it's all assumption. I've actually ridden these bikes back to back.

Most aluminum frames ice ridden are extremely harsh (no surprise there). However, there are three exceptions: the timberjack, chameleon, and banshee paradox v3 ride softer than most (but not all) steel frames. I'm not anti steel, I love the material (I have two chrimo hardtails in the stable, and two ti hardtails) but I don't love steel enough for it to cloud my judgment to think that it's always better than everything else.


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

What size tires were on the TJ that you rode?


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

hardtail party said:


> Gotta love blanket statements about frame material. No, aluminum doesn't ride like steel, but steel doesn't ride like steel either. What I mean by that is 6 steel frames side by side, even if they're all 853, will ride completely differently. Frame material is part of the equation, but it's not the whole equation.
> 
> I've ridden aluminum frames that were more compliant than a lot of steel frames.. Believe what you want though. I wish it were as easy as just picking a frame material or tubeset to know exactly how a bike rides, but it doesn't just nearly boil down to that one variable.
> 
> ...


Wow, you read a LOT into a very simple statement, and apparently responded to a lot text that wasn't there.

All I said was that aluminum doesn't ride like steel. Not better, worse, more or less compliant, nothing.

I could quantify my statement and detail my experience and knowledge of steel frames, but I won't do it here. If you care that much you can PM me.

Lets just get back to the topic at hand, modern SS geometry.


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

Ryder1 said:


> My last 5 rides were on my FS trail bike (18.5" reach, 67.4* HTA, 16.9" stays, 47.1" WB) with twin lockout while maintaining 30-18 gearing most of the time, so simulating a rigid SS experience (with occasional suspension blow off).
> 
> Findings: I didn't want the 47" wheelbase to be any longer or shorter, but did find myself wanting a slightly longer reach and slightly steeper HTA.


For comparison, I only had the rear locked out tonight. Fork was open but with extra air and compression, only used 90 of 130mm. Result: [1] fun and fast; [2] definitely handled and tracked better than rigid; [3] still climbed OK standing, very well sitting; [4] reach and front-center both felt short; [5] HTA felt good, could maybe be a hair slacker, or not; and [6] saddle position was good, could be a hair steeper. In short, wanted at least another inch of front-center coming mostly from further reach, with an extra 0.5* steeper STA to help facilitate.

Based on this, it seems I'd like a suspended SS to have more progressive geo than a rigid SS.

Side note: I'm now done with full suspension. It doesn't serve me.


----------



## BrodieNorth (Jan 21, 2009)

OP back again... 400 km on the steel Verhauen. Took some time to adjust my climbing, but all seems to be working out just fine - and definitely much more fun on the downs vs the old AL Brodie Unibomber. Still working on the on-the-fly estimates of handlebar width vs the gap between trees 

All good, all fun!


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

^ sweet, looks good!


----------



## Eltbee (Jan 15, 2004)

Very nice! How’s that fork? Which version did you get? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

BrodieNorth said:


> OP back again... 400 km on the steel Verhauen. Took some time to adjust my climbing, but all seems to be working out just fine - and definitely much more fun on the downs vs the old AL Brodie Unibomber. Still working on the on-the-fly estimates of handlebar width vs the gap between trees
> 
> All good, all fun!
> 
> View attachment 1331417


Nice. Love the verhauen


----------



## gonzo (Feb 18, 2004)

Upgrade to a 29er with 2.3 tires. Since the single speed craze is over, there a alot of people who put together high end bikes and have been hanging in their garage for years. - find one on craigslist or ebay.

Get in shape and sharpen your skills - - - - - this above anything else, you will want to do before getting all those EXPENSIVE gimmics 

I am assuming your not an olympic candidate or professional athlete. 
modern geo will not increase your strength or skillset, but you can brag to all your friends about it, while they roast you on the trails....



drinking clox is a bad idea, read the instructions before use.


----------



## CCSS (Apr 6, 2004)

gonzo said:


> Since the single speed craze is ove.


Huh, when was the single speed craze? And when was it over?


----------



## Doctorsti (May 25, 2008)

I'm comparing my old 2007 1FG to my upcoming Pivot Les and looking at reach on the large Pivot it's like 423 and the 1FG measures right at 420. The stack is where it gets crazy different. I think stack on the Large Pivot was like 630 and my Medium 1FG from 2007 is like 570. Obviously that's all the wheel diameters involved. Why do I "fit" a Large Pivot but only a Medium 1FG. for reference I have a 120 stem on the medium Cannondale and will likely be on a 50 - 70 stem on the Pivot.

Can anyone tell me more about the stack and reach of the new geo and why I fit larger frames.


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

Doctorsti said:


> I'm comparing my old 2007 1FG to my upcoming Pivot Les and looking at reach on the large Pivot it's like 423 and the 1FG measures right at 420. The stack is where it gets crazy different. I think stack on the Large Pivot was like 630 and my Medium 1FG from 2007 is like 570. Obviously that's all the wheel diameters involved. Why do I "fit" a Large Pivot but only a Medium 1FG. for reference I have a 120 stem on the medium Cannondale and will likely be on a 50 - 70 stem on the Pivot.
> 
> Can anyone tell me more about the stack and reach of the new geo and why I fit larger frames.


"medium" and "large" are just words, there's no standardization between brands, at all. If you'd bought a Highball, you'd probably fit a medium.

Reach is in part a function of Stack (imagine Reach shrinking as the head tube lengthens and encroaches upon the rider). These bikes have major Stack differences so you can't compare Reach directly. Imagine if the 1FG's head tube was 70mm longer (~60mm taller), it's Reach figure would be significantly less than 420mm while having about the same stack as the Pivot. I like to control for stack differences, then compare reach. Also got to make sure they're both being measured either sagged or unsagged, preferably sagged.

If you ran the same saddle-to-bar drop on both bikes, the Pivot would feel as if the Reach was more than 3mm longer than that of the 1FG (keeping stem length constant).


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Doctorsti said:


> I'm comparing my old 2007 1FG to my upcoming Pivot Les and looking at reach on the large Pivot it's like 423 and the 1FG measures right at 420. The stack is where it gets crazy different. I think stack on the Large Pivot was like 630 and my Medium 1FG from 2007 is like 570. Obviously that's all the wheel diameters involved. Why do I "fit" a Large Pivot but only a Medium 1FG. for reference I have a 120 stem on the medium Cannondale and will likely be on a 50 - 70 stem on the Pivot.
> 
> Can anyone tell me more about the stack and reach of the new geo and why I fit larger frames.


How tall are you?

Modern geometry occasionally throws people for a loop the first time they look at it on an online geometry chart. Test riding/demoing a bike is always the best way to know for sure.

Rest assured if you're 5'7" you need a Medium, if you're 6'0" you need a Large.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

gonzo said:


> Upgrade to a 29er with 2.3 tires. Since the single speed craze is over, there a alot of people who put together high end bikes and have been hanging in their garage for years. - find one on craigslist or ebay.
> 
> Get in shape and sharpen your skills - - - - - this above anything else, you will want to do before getting all those EXPENSIVE gimmics
> 
> ...


Pfft! I've been riding my MiddleChild more than the other 17 bikes in my collection and enjoying every millimeter of the 75 on each end of the bike and you wanna go 2.FTS??

I have no idea what clox is, but the bars are all under house arrest until Der Furor let's em make a living again, if ever.
Since I don't drink, no worries! The singlespeed "craze" is going strong in some areas of this planet. I will be attending my usual Singlespeed only party at Hump's castle this summer as well as the plusser only party.


----------



## Doctorsti (May 25, 2008)

I'm 5'10.5" 175, average proportions if not a slightly long torso. I have always been an "in between" size person. I can ride a 54cm or 56cm road frame or a medium or large in most brands I've ridden 17-19" frames. 

I rode a Large Cannondale F29 Single speed for awhile with a 100mm stem but I believe those older frames had slacker seat tubes and steeper headtubes making the saddle to bar measurement greater then the saddle to bar on a steeper seat tube and slacker headtube with a more contemporary 60-70 stem. Chainstays are shorter now too making then whole rear end more compact. 

Can't find stack and reach numbers for a lot of those frames now because that wasn't a metric used "back in the day"

The Large Cannondale F29 felt a little too big for me even though I was able to manage it. I just felt with the big change wheel diameter up to 29 from my 26 and top tube increase It was akin to getting used to a 650cc sport bike and moving to a stretched out Harley. 

My Intense Spider 275c is a Large frame with a 50cm stem and I don't feel stretched on it at all.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

If you want an idea of what the reach and stack on bike is and you at have most of the other dimensions, you can plug those in on this calculator and get a pretty good idea: bikegeo.net


----------



## planetx88 (Mar 24, 2012)

Doctorsti said:


> I'm comparing my old 2007 1FG to my upcoming Pivot Les and looking at reach on the large Pivot it's like 423 and the 1FG measures right at 420. The stack is where it gets crazy different. I think stack on the Large Pivot was like 630 and my Medium 1FG from 2007 is like 570. Obviously that's all the wheel diameters involved. Why do I "fit" a Large Pivot but only a Medium 1FG. for reference I have a 120 stem on the medium Cannondale and will likely be on a 50 - 70 stem on the Pivot.
> 
> Can anyone tell me more about the stack and reach of the new geo and why I fit larger frames.


I'd be interested to compare top tubes on these bikes, but it sounds like a lot of the difference was made up by a pretty large difference in stem. A "medium" top tube with a steeper seat tube, and a "large" top tube with a slacker seat tube could potentially show a similar reach. Reach depends on too many other things IMO to be a dependable measurement if taken out of context.

Sizes are totally arbitrary. Ive had both an evil wreckoning and evil calling in the past. Large wreckoning only had something like a 4mm longer reach that a medium calling (which fit much better). Since then, ive regularly upsized bikes if I'm on the m/l line, easier to get them to fit if youre right on the line than smaller.


----------



## BrodieNorth (Jan 21, 2009)

Etlbee, that fork is the 29er Marzocchi Z2 @ 120mm.


----------

