# Help me understand ‘modern’ hardtail geo



## Slounsberry (May 22, 2013)

So I’ve not really been paying too much attention to geometry charts for a few years now but sort of wanting a new hardtail and I was surprised so see how many bikes these days seem to have somewhere around a 66 degree head angle and 140mm or so of travel. Seems like 4 years ago or so number like this were on the extreme end of things. 

I guess what I’m wondering is are all these manufacturers trying to build hardtails that can handle rougher terrain with geo numbers like this, or is it more a case of other modern geometry changes (seat tube angle? Reach?) on modern bikes meaning that slack head tubes and longer travel hardtails are going to ride similar to the steeper/shorter travel bikes of a few years ago?

I’m fortunate enough to have a few bikes in my stable and for me my hardtail (usually setup SS) is the bike I use for tamer/flowier trails so now that I’m considering a new SS I’m a little unsure what to look for in a modern hardtail that I don’t expect to be the bike I choose for chunky trail days.


----------



## Timothy G. Parrish (Apr 13, 2014)

Slounsberry said:


> I guess what I’m wondering is are all these manufacturers trying to build hardtails that can handle rougher terrain with geo numbers like this, or is it more a case of other modern geometry changes (seat tube angle? Reach?) on modern bikes meaning that slack head tubes and longer travel hardtails are going to ride similar to the steeper/shorter travel bikes of a few years ago?


IMO, manufacturers are following a trend building HTs with slacker geometry to ride rougher terrain. This started around 2014 with FS bikes and took off like a rocket for FS bike geometry and design. Head tube angles went from 68 to 66, 65, 64 degrees. More people buy FS bikes than HTs, so HTs were left behind with outdated geometry relegated to entry level bikes. Then, riders started overforking HTs to get the slack geometry of FS bikes to ride rougher terrain. The industry took note and filled a market segment.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

The thing to keep in mind is that the head angle measurement of hardtails is a static measurement— meaning that once you’re on the bike and in the riding stance the HA steepens by 1.5-2 degrees, depending on how much sag you’re running.

My Honzo ESD is overforked a little with a 160mm fork, so its HA measures a seemingly extreme 62.5, but it really feels like a 64 degree HA when I ride it.

The modern geometry is loads of fun. There are no downsides, in my book. I am cleaning every extreme climb that I used to on stupid XC geometry, and the descents are heavenly.


----------



## Slounsberry (May 22, 2013)

Timothy G. Parrish said:


> IMO, manufacturers are following a trend building HTs with slacker geometry to ride rougher terrain. This started around 2014 with FS bikes and took off like a rocket for FS bike geometry and design. Head tube angles went from 68 to 66, 65, 64 degrees. More people buy FS bikes than HTs, so HTs were left behind with outdated geometry relegated to entry level bikes. Then, riders started overforking HTs to get the slack geometry of FS bikes to ride rougher terrain. The industry took note and filled a market segment.
> View attachment 1996739



Yeah that’s sort of what I’ve been wondering. Is this just companies doing the ‘long low and slack’ thing on hardtails where it might not make as much sense as it does in FS bikes?

I know you’re from my neck of the woods and for me my hardtail is my DuPont, Pleasant Ridge, Issaqueena (as I think is in your picture?), etc. bike. When I ride Pisgah or that kind of thing I’m probably always going to bring my bigger FS bike so I’m thinking I don’t really want my hardtail to be so long, low and slack since for me my hardtail isn’t for that type of riding.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Yea, it's not going to make a hardtail ride like an older full suspension bike. It's all about riding like a modern bike. They're still hardtails.

It totally makes as much sense, if you dig riding hardtails in those trails.


----------



## Slounsberry (May 22, 2013)

I suppose that’s a good point on the head angle. And yeah that’s kind of what I’d hope to get out of a more modern hardtail, still climbs like an older ‘xc’ bike but maybe a bit more fun on the downs. I just don’t need it to get into the territory of built for chunky downhills and therefore loses a bit if it’s climbing ability.


----------



## Timothy G. Parrish (Apr 13, 2014)

Yes, that's Issaqueena. Honestly, if you don't want a HT for that type of riding, then you'll just have to find a bike, or frame, with a steeper head tube angle. The bike I pictured is a 2016 Kona Explosif, designed for a 120 mm fork. I put a 140 on it and it mainly plays on flow and XC type stuff, like Issaqueena. Being a bit more slack, 65 degrees, IIRC, doesn't impede the riding in any way. I built another Explosif, threw a 160 DVO Diamond on it with the intention of reducing the travel to 130, but when I took it to Pisgah, it plowed down every trail with ease and was so much fun I left it that way. So, I can vouch for the slacker for steeper terrain value. I barely ride my FS any more. I save that for trails like Farlow or Pilot where the trail surface is more of an issue, where it beats you to death on a HT. To me, that's where the limitations of a HT are.


----------



## dave_rh (Jul 28, 2014)

Further to the responses above...
Modern hardtail geometry is a overdue response to the concept that people ride hardtails for reasons other than XC racing or learning to ride. This, quite honestly has come as a surprise to most big bike companies.

During the 2010's a lot of bike industry focus went to new ideas like 29 and 27.5, 1x drivetrain and LLS geometry for dual-suspension bikes but most mainstream bike companies completely forgot about hardtails being anything other than XC bikes.

Meanwhile, the demand was there, but it was mainly the smaller companies that innovated with geometry. Specialized kinda dipped their toe in the water with the diamond-stay fuse.

Trek and Giant realised about 10 years after everyone else that it is possible to ride "trail or Enduro" on a hardtail. Even then they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this realisation.

I personally swapped out my 2104 120mm trek Fuel Ex for a modern 130mm slack hardtail and absolutely love it. While its not as fast on tech descents, Its such a buzz and more fun overall.


----------



## dave_rh (Jul 28, 2014)

Slounsberry said:


> So I’ve not really been paying too much attention to geometry charts for a few years now but sort of wanting a new hardtail and I was surprised so see how many bikes these days seem to have somewhere around a 66 degree head angle and 140mm or so of travel. Seems like 4 years ago or so number like this were on the extreme end of things.
> 
> I guess what I’m wondering is are all these manufacturers trying to build hardtails that can handle rougher terrain with geo numbers like this, or is it more a case of other modern geometry changes (seat tube angle? Reach?) on modern bikes meaning that slack head tubes and longer travel hardtails are going to ride similar to the steeper/shorter travel bikes of a few years ago?
> 
> I’m fortunate enough to have a few bikes in my stable and for me my hardtail (usually setup SS) is the bike I use for tamer/flowier trails so now that I’m considering a new SS I’m a little unsure what to look for in a modern hardtail that I don’t expect to be the bike I choose for chunky trail days.


I did a lot of thinking and research when replacing my dual-suspension. A combination of things led me to the hardtail
1) selling the dually at start of covid then being unable to obtain a replacement dually
2) being forced to ride my ancient overforked (80mm now 120mm) 26er hardtail from 2000 with my friends who still had duallys
3) I realised that I was actually a bigger buzz riding the 26er hardtail on the same trails I used to ride my dually on and clearing same/more stuff. largely due to its slack head angle as a result of the over-forking
4) Wanting a simpler lower maintenance solution

as someone said above, HT's get steeper with fork sag so a 65 degree HA 140mm fork will become a 66.5 - 67 degree fork with a rider on it. they still work great climbing and in twisting single track and can be fun on descents.

My suggestion for a modern "Trail" hardtail capable of blue trails with a occasional black is:

130 or 140mm short-offset fork
65'ish head angle
75'ish seat angle
Short seat tube - 420 to 440mm maximum for a size L
150mm+ dropper for size L
threaded bottom bracket
tall'ish head tube
29mm internal rims
Fits 2.4 tyres minimum.
Enduro HT's will have a slightly slacker HT, steeper ST


----------



## justwan naride (Oct 13, 2008)

Slack hardtails are not a new thing at all. If you have been following UK brands, quite a few of them have been offering "hardcore" ht's since at least 2010. Orange, Cotic, On-One, Ragley, Whyte, Pace are a few of the most common ones and there are many more currently like Pipedream, Sonder, Stif etc. From Andorra, Production Privee and Commencal have contributed with iconic models over the years as well. On the other side of the Atlantic Chromag is synonymous with the HCHT genre.

I've owned a 2016 Whyte 905 (130mm fork, 66.5 hta, 432mm reach 1138mm wb in size small) and compared to my previous ht (100mm fork, 70.5 hta, 400mm reach, 1050mm wb, also size small) it was easier, safer and faster to ride everywhere, including climbs. So don't focus on head tube angle and travel and assume that going slacker and longer hinder general XC practicality. Unless you go really extreme this kind of ht is a great allrounder. The bonus feature is that they are actually much safer for beginners as they have calmer handling and don't throw you OTB at every opportunity. I found mine was extremely versatile and did everything from 100km rides with huge elevation to local enduro races.

Mainstream brands took a (long) while to catch up and admittedly their first attempts were often half-arsed, but currently there is an abundance of capable frames with rigid rear ends.

I say do some research, choose your material and geo and go ahead. A slack singlespeed hardtail sounds like a lot of fun.


----------



## Balgaroth (Dec 14, 2021)

cookieMonster said:


> The thing to keep in mind is that the head angle measurement of hardtails is a static measurement— meaning that once you’re on the bike and in the riding stance the HA steepens by 1.5-2 degrees, depending on how much sag you’re running.
> 
> My Honzo ESD is overforked a little with a 160mm fork, so its HA measures a seemingly extreme 62.5, but it really feels like a 64 degree HA when I ride it.
> 
> The modern geometry is loads of fun. There are no downsides, in my book. I am cleaning every extreme climb that I used to on stupid XC geometry, and the descents are heavenly.


I would add to this that with a 150mm fork your bike will have +15mm reach at SAG, -15mm of stack and +1.5deg of seat angle. While 77deg of seat angle is relaxed on a FS by nowaday standard, it will feel very upstraight on a HT.
Because of of much geo changes on a HT as it goes through travel you should be aware of it when looking at your geo chart and also avoid longer travel than 150mm as even with 63HA to start with you end up with something like 70HA at bottom out, a massive reach and a super low stack all parameters only wishing to throw you over your bars.
Once you start considering all these parameter it only makes sense to slack these bikes quite a bit to make them a lot more capable. If combined with long enough seat stays and steep enough seat tube angle you will still have an excellent climber of a bike. Fun fact, my custom HT has 450mm CS and 77deg seat tube angle and on its first ride it allowed me to clear to climbs I struggle in with my Enduro bike, all while having zero rear travel and "small" 27.5 wheels.


----------



## dsciulli19 (Apr 14, 2014)

I don't have much to contribute to this other than to tell you to go get yourself a slack hardtail. They are an absolute blast out on the trail. I rarely reach for my (admittedly much older) FS bike these days because I'm always grinning ear-to-ear on the hardtail. There are definitely times I wish I was riding a full suspension but they are few and far between.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Slounsberry said:


> Yeah that’s sort of what I’ve been wondering. Is this just companies doing the ‘long low and slack’ thing on hardtails where it might not make as much sense as it does in FS bikes?
> 
> I know you’re from my neck of the woods and for me my hardtail is my DuPont, Pleasant Ridge, Issaqueena (as I think is in your picture?), etc. bike. When I ride Pisgah or that kind of thing I’m probably always going to bring my bigger FS bike so I’m thinking I don’t really want my hardtail to be so long, low and slack since for me my hardtail isn’t for that type of riding.


I have ridden my Ragley Big Wig (64deg hta with 140mm fork) at both DuPont and Pisgah. I was a little beat up by the bottom of Black Mountain but it handled it well and was fun and it was also a blast to ride in DuPont.

Honestly I see very little benefit to not going with a long low and slack hardtail unless it is a dirt jumper or you are racing XC. The only disadvantages I have found is that the front can wonder a little on climbs (doesn't bother me too much) and on extremely tight switch backs (but how often do you run into those)

There are some kind of middle ground bikes like the Honzo (not ESD), Stanton Sherpa, Pipedream Sirius.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

Here’s what modern hardtails are for.😉

And to add on to what I said earlier— you’ve got to consider the other changes to the geo other than just head angle. To get away with much slacker angles, designers had to add length (reach), but also drastically steepened the seat tube angles. The latter is what makes them climb so well. Again, I’m not exaggerating when I say my ESD climbs very, very well — even with a 160mm fork.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Timothy G. Parrish said:


> Yes, that's Issaqueena. Honestly, if you don't want a HT for that type of riding, then you'll just have to find a bike, or frame, with a steeper head tube angle. The bike I pictured is a 2016 Kona Explosif, designed for a 120 mm fork. I put a 140 on it and it mainly plays on flow and XC type stuff, like Issaqueena. Being a bit more slack, 65 degrees, IIRC, doesn't impede the riding in any way. I built another Explosif, threw a 160 DVO Diamond on it with the intention of reducing the travel to 130, but when I took it to Pisgah, it plowed down every trail with ease and was so much fun I left it that way. So, I can vouch for the slacker for steeper terrain value. I barely ride my FS any more. I save that for trails like Farlow or Pilot where the trail surface is more of an issue, where it beats you to death on a HT. To me, that's where the limitations of a HT are.


I was switching up bikes pre-pandemic and ended up buying a rowdy hardtail first. The goal was for it to be my Dupont/Bent Creek bike and later on to get a rowdier FS for the rougher stuff. Well, the pandemic supply issues happened and that has slowed down any bike purchasing in my household so I'm still riding that same hardtail as my only bike.

I've ridden it on Pilot and Farlow and Black and Bennett as well as lots at Dupont and Bent Creek and elsewhere. It does remarkably well on the nastier stuff. The _only_ thing about it is that it's exhausting on high speed repeated hits because I'm using my body much more to absorb them. It's a workout for sure. That has changed my thought process on a next FS bike. I don't think I'll be looking for one quite as burly as I originally thought. Rather, just a mid-travel all-around sort of bike that's less tiring to ride in rough stuff to enable longer rides.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

I'm not a modern geo hater, but offer a different perspective due to the trails I ride. I will be honest and admit this is arm chair quarterbacking based on a few custom builders opinions and others reviews of various modern bikes, as I have yet to ride a modern geo bike. 

But if you have to pedal your bike to maintain speed and excitement (ie on our monday group rides we push 12mph on the frisky nights, and the majority of that is accomplished by pedaling), you will likely not like a few things about modern geo. Seated pedaling on flat ground should feel very different, and may cause you problems. Wheelbases are getting pretty long, and might make some trail features not so much fun. Single speed guys have been complaining about the saddle being in the way when climbing. I am concerned also about how much weight I will have on the front tire, what that will do to brake dive and lifting the front end as I often do to clear obstacles. Although I think the short rear helps with that. 

One bike that used to be very popular amongst the local XC crowd was the SC Tallboy, as it was a very capable bike that pedaled very well. Guess what you don't see around any more after the drastic change in geo? Why, because if you aren't at 8-9-10/10ths, its reported to be a lackluster experience.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

jonshonda said:


> But if you have to pedal your bike to maintain speed and excitement (ie on our monday group rides we push 12mph on the frisky nights, and the majority of that is accomplished by pedaling), you will likely not like a few things about modern geo. Seated pedaling on flat ground should feel very different, and may cause you problems.


What kinds of problems? Sure, bikes with different geo feel different to ride. That difference might work for some, and not for others. This is not exclusive to modern HT geometries.



jonshonda said:


> Wheelbases are getting pretty long, and might make some trail features not so much fun.


What features? The only thing I find as a negative for longish wheelbases is that the bike takes up more space for storage and transport.



jonshonda said:


> Single speed guys have been complaining about the saddle being in the way when climbing.


At the extreme end, I can see the "standing while pedaling and rocking the bike side to side" technique at a low cadence being impacted here. I can pedal this way just fine on flat trail or on mellower climbs and the seat is not in my way on my particular bike. But mine is far from the extreme end of the spectrum.

On my bike, I find that if I'm going to "stand" and power up a short, steep grade, I can't use that position on more modern bikes and that instead I have to hover over the nose of the saddle. This has nothing to do with the saddle being in the way, though. It has to do with ensuring that my center of mass is positioned correctly to maintain traction on the rear tire. If I stand up fully to pedal and lay down some watts, my weight ends up too far forward and the rear tire breaks loose. What causes this appears to be a fairly complex combo mix of changes to the geometry. My current bike with a steeper STA and slacker HA is not as bad about it as my last bike that actually had a slacker STA and a steeper HA.

This may be more wheelbase-related, but it's something that wasn't very difficult to adapt to. Might be problematic for singlespeeders on steeps, since the position is still essentially seated and works better in a lower gear than it does powering a big one.



jonshonda said:


> I am concerned also about how much weight I will have on the front tire, what that will do to brake dive and lifting the front end as I often do to clear obstacles. Although I think the short rear helps with that.


I find this to be pretty inconsequential. If anything, I find that I need to remind myself to be intentional about putting weight on the front of the bike to maintain control up front. When I get tired and things get hairy, I fall into old patterns of letting my weight shift too far back. On my bike, at least (a Guerrilla Gravity Pedalhead with 140mm fork), I don't really have trouble getting the front wheel up when I want it.


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

From only four years ago, some bikes are moving away from the "29er or 27.5 plus" arrangement or and instead dedicated to 29x2.6 or so. Frame reach has gotten an inch longer. The seat post got straighter (and droppers have zero offset) to keep the seat to bars the same length. Seat tubes have gotten shorter and sometimes straightened out to accommodate longer droppers.

The idea of a hardtail built to the same level as an all-mountain bike has been around, they are not always just the budget option or the bikepacking rig. Consider Trek Slash or Salsa El Mariachi or the Canfields.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

back to my old question: buying a "modern" hardtail is a leap of faith. it might work for you, or you might hate it and get stuck with it for a while as your budget recovers. no one demos hardtails, unless you have time and money to travel to obscure bike festivals. until I have that opportunity, I'll keep riding my "old" bike.


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

mack_turtle said:


> back to my old question: buying a "modern" hardtail is a leap of faith. it might work for you, or you might hate it and get stuck with it for a while as your budget recovers. no one demos hardtails, unless you have time and money to travel to obscure bike festivals. until I have that opportunity, I'll keep riding my "old" bike.


Unless you feel like you need to go down the Hardtail Party rabbit hole and find something extreme or really premium, I don't think so. You are not going to take a big risk buying something like a Roscoe or Fuse.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

mack_turtle said:


> back to my old question: buying a "modern" hardtail is a leap of faith. it might work for you, or you might hate it and get stuck with it for a while as your budget recovers. no one demos hardtails, unless you have time and money to travel to obscure bike festivals. until I have that opportunity, I'll keep riding my "old" bike.


Kona usually has Honzos at demos. I was at a Norco one that had a couple Torrents.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Kona tour is quite limited. maybe they'll do more of this next year

bikes:
Process 153 DL 29 (M-XL)
Process 134 CR 29 (S-XL)
Process 134 AL/DL 27.5 (S)
Process 134 27.5 (XS)
Hei Hei CR (S-XL)
Remote 160 (S-XL) - the only hardtail, and it's an e-bike.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Harold said:


> What kinds of problems? Sure, bikes with different geo feel different to ride. That difference might work for some, and not for others. This is not exclusive to modern HT geometries.


Pedaling position is very different, in the order of multiple inches if you have a long inseam. There are a lot of reports of hip, knee, and back pain from the change in pedaling position. 





Harold said:


> What features? The only thing I find as a negative for longish wheelbases is that the bike takes up more space for storage and transport.


 Tight switchbacks, slow seated climbs, I see plenty of chopper flop on reviews from the slack fork. The way a slack bike needs to be leaned over in a corner to access the cornering knobs is different as well from what I understand. And with a hardtail knowing where your rear wheel is tracking is important as well, which can become difficult when the wheelbase grows. 





Harold said:


> At the extreme end, I can see the "standing while pedaling and rocking the bike side to side" technique at a low cadence being impacted here. I can pedal this way just fine on flat trail or on mellower climbs and the seat is not in my way on my particular bike. But mine is far from the extreme end of the spectrum.


 Indeed



Harold said:


> On my bike, I find that if I'm going to "stand" and power up a short, steep grade, I can't use that position on more modern bikes and that instead I have to hover over the nose of the saddle. This has nothing to do with the saddle being in the way, though. It has to do with ensuring that my center of mass is positioned correctly to maintain traction on the rear tire. If I stand up fully to pedal and lay down some watts, my weight ends up too far forward and the rear tire breaks loose. What causes this appears to be a fairly complex combo mix of changes to the geometry. My current bike with a steeper STA and slacker HA is not as bad about it as my last bike that actually had a slacker STA and a steeper HA.
> 
> This may be more wheelbase-related, but it's something that wasn't very difficult to adapt to. Might be problematic for singlespeeders on steeps, since the position is still essentially seated and works better in a lower gear than it does powering a big one.


Standing and climbing can be difficult regardless, and what helps me is being fairly far back on the bike allows the front to be light and lifting fairly easy. But I don't have experience, just relaying reviews from the SS fellas on MTBR. 





Harold said:


> I find this to be pretty inconsequential. If anything, I find that I need to remind myself to be intentional about putting weight on the front of the bike to maintain control up front. When I get tired and things get hairy, I fall into old patterns of letting my weight shift too far back. On my bike, at least (a Guerrilla Gravity Pedalhead with 140mm fork), I don't really have trouble getting the front wheel up when I want it.


At 6'2" 250lbs I have to always remember to unweight the front on climbs or steep descents, as suspension forks don't deal with my weight well. If I have too much weight on the bars going down the fork will be riding very low in it's travel and pack up if I don't help it over obstacles. The same applies doing up, and what I have found works for me is a nice neutral riding position. Constantly lifting front, rear, front rear etc to clear obstacles while maintaining speed.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Also, if you've ridden any modern geo bike.. much of it transfers over. I don't have an issue with standing and cranking and hitting the seat, but I use the dropper more than I use a shifter by far. Making me a bad person for that feedback.

I'm about 6'2" and have a 952mm saddle to pedal spacing.. I haven't noticed a huge difference in pedal ergonomics. It took me a bit to get used to being centered on the bike, instead of being way off the back like the geo from the past forced me to be.


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

mack_turtle said:


> back to my old question: buying a "modern" hardtail is a leap of faith. it might work for you, or you might hate it and get stuck with it for a while as your budget recovers. no one demos hardtails, unless you have time and money to travel to obscure bike festivals. until I have that opportunity, I'll keep riding my "old" bike.


Truth. I tried a Canfield Nimble 9 - admittedly a great bike - but it just didn't work for me. 77 degree static STA with a sagged 150mm fork was miserable. Must have been 80-ish degrees. The modified weight transfer from that angle was hell on my wrists and hands, and for longer pedaling days it just didn't work well. Super short stays also kept things challenging on very steep and techy climbs. For the 20% of the time I was caning it, it was a brilliant bike. But I like something a little more balanced. 66/67 HA, 74/75 STA, 430-440 stays, 120-130mm fork, moderate reach. It works well everywhere and doesn't make you hate it when your balls aren't on fire or when you're in for a long day in the saddle. I agree that too much is made about reach and HA in relation to climbing. You just have to use different body english. CS length seems to have a much bigger effect on climbing behavior.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

jonshonda said:


> Pedaling position is very different, in the order of multiple inches if you have a long inseam. There are a lot of reports of hip, knee, and back pain from the change in pedaling position.


Try it yourself. Don't rely too heavily on other people's reviews. My impression here is that if the change in position has "caused problems" for people, it's most likely that those problems were already there and were simply exposed. It's also quite likely that they haven't made adequate adjustments to account for the differences. I was somewhat surprised by what additional changes to my setup that I needed to make to get comfortable with a steeper STA. It's just different and required me to adjust. Once I figured it out, it works just fine and I'm plenty comfortable with it.



jonshonda said:


> Tight switchbacks, slow seated climbs, I see plenty of chopper flop on reviews from the slack fork. The way a slack bike needs to be leaned over in a corner to access the cornering knobs is different as well from what I understand. And with a hardtail knowing where your rear wheel is tracking is important as well, which can become difficult when the wheelbase grows.


Yes, the change in bike geo requires you to lean it more in corners. It's different. But once you figure it out, it's actually better, as it enables you to carry more speed through those tight corners. Wheeeee! Learning where your wheel tracks is not difficult. Yes, it's a different aspect that you need to adapt to, but it's not a big deal. Just take a little time messing around with tracking drills and you'll get it. IME, chopper flop comes from people who aren't putting enough weight on the front of the bike to control the front end. Yes, I've had it and I know what it is. Adapting to the bike addresses it.



jonshonda said:


> Standing and climbing can be difficult regardless, and what helps me is being fairly far back on the bike allows the front to be light and lifting fairly easy. But I don't have experience, just relaying reviews from the SS fellas on MTBR.


Again, don't rely too much on what other people say about it without trying it yourself. 



jonshonda said:


> At 6'2" 250lbs I have to always remember to unweight the front on climbs or steep descents, as suspension forks don't deal with my weight well. If I have too much weight on the bars going down the fork will be riding very low in it's travel and pack up if I don't help it over obstacles. The same applies doing up, and what I have found works for me is a nice neutral riding position. Constantly lifting front, rear, front rear etc to clear obstacles while maintaining speed.


If you're in a neutral position, it's not hard to make the subtle shifts in your COM to get the bike to do what you need. If anything, I find that modern bikes make it easier to get into a neutral position. A neutral position has a little bit wider "band" so it's not hair-trigger small like older bikes were. So it's a bit more forgiving of being a little sloppy (and honestly, which of us average riders isn't a little sloppy?). Yes, this does mean that you might need to tape into a bit more range of motion to do certain things. But really, if you choose the right frame and size, you should be okay. Thing is, though, you can't be too rigid about frame size to get the handling you're after. Maybe you'll find that the right size for you is the same frame size you've always ridden. But maybe not. Especially if your body proportions are at the ends of the bell curve.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

BadgerOne said:


> Truth. I tried a Canfield Nimble 9 - admittedly a great bike - but it just didn't work for me. 77 degree static STA with a sagged 150mm fork was miserable. Must have been 80-ish degrees. The modified weight transfer from that angle was hell on my wrists and hands, and for longer pedaling days it just didn't work well. Super short stays also kept things challenging on very steep and techy climbs. For the 20% of the time I was caning it, it was a brilliant bike. But I like something a little more balanced. 66/67 HA, 74/75 STA, 430-440 stays, 120-130mm fork, moderate reach. It works well everywhere and doesn't make you hate it when your balls aren't on fire or when you're in for a long day in the saddle. I agree that too much is made about reach and HA in relation to climbing. You just have to use different body english. CS length seems to have a much bigger effect on climbing behavior.


I'd really like to try a nimble 9 and see how it compares to my banshee... since the banshee has more stack height. I suspect that'd help with the STA. Right now I have my fork at 140mm, although I've contemplated putting a 130 air spring in it.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

@Harold I might dabble at some point, but around here 67-68 hta and 72-74sta does just fine for 98% of the trails. Again bikes that pedal well dominate the region. Out of all the fast guys around here, I don't know that I can count one on a LLS type bike. Anything over a 120-130mm bike is too much, and makes what most would consider unremarkable trails...yawnfests.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

dysfunction said:


> I'd really like to try a nimble 9 and see how it compares to my banshee... since the banshee has more stack height. I suspect that'd help with the STA. Right now I have my fork at 140mm, although I've contemplated putting a 130 air spring in it.


Could you shove your saddle forward to mimic the STA? Handlebar height would likely remain the same between both bikes unless you cut the steerer tube shorter for some reason.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

jonshonda said:


> Could you shove your saddle forward to mimic the STA? Handlebar height would likely remain the same between both bikes unless you cut the steerer tube shorter for some reason.


I already have a 76.5º STA with ~ 65º HTA. Sliding my saddle forward would just **** up my reach 

I've heard a lot of people complain about Canfield hardtail STAs... Since I ride a Paradox as a hardtail, and a Canfield for a full suspension bike, I suspect it's the difference in stack height that helps. I'd actually like more stack on my Canfield, but hey... I'm tall.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

dysfunction said:


> I already have a 76.5º STA with ~ 65º HTA. Sliding my saddle forward would just **** up my reach
> 
> I've heard a lot of people complain about Canfield hardtail STAs... Since I ride a Paradox as a hardtail, and a Canfield for a full suspension bike, I suspect it's the difference in stack height that helps. I'd actually like more stack on my Canfield, but hey... I'm tall.


Ahh! You don't have the same saddle to bar relationship between your bikes?


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

jonshonda said:


> Ahh! You don't have the same saddle to bar relationship between your bikes?


What happens when you sit on a hardtail that does NOT happen on a full suspension bike?


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

dysfunction said:


> What happens when you sit on a hardtail that does NOT happen on a full suspension bike?


Ahh, you sag both bikes to their riding positions and then set everything up? What do I win, because that is what everyone should be doing.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

jonshonda said:


> Ahh, you sag both bikes to their riding positions and then set everything up? What do I win, because that is what everyone should be doing.


and why I'm wondering what the difference between the two hardtails is


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

dysfunction said:


> and why I'm wondering what the difference between the two hardtails is


Yeah they look very similar on paper at least. But if people are carrying over the preferences from other builds (ie bar height relative to saddle height) then stack shouldn't be the issue. Same goes for saddle to bar distance.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

An XL N9 
Unsagged
STA 77
HTA 66
Reach 500

Sagged 20% of 150mm
STA 81
HTA 70
Reach 548


----------



## Roll_Model (6 mo ago)

I have always been a HT rider and after being off my Klein attitude for many, many years I picked up a BMC carbon Two Stroke 01 Five with new modern geo for 2299.00 and free shipping. I wanted to ride but did not want to break the bank. It does feel a lot different than my Klein but I am adapting. After several rides I am starting to like it. The positioning on the bike suits me now that I am older and I feel as though I am not as stretched out.


----------



## AgentX (Jul 11, 2005)

On my first modern-geo 29" hardtail now (Pipedream Sirius S5) and find lofting the front end is really laborious. It loves to smash, but just isn't real poppy. Not sure I'm loving that. Might be faster, but seems less fun on my locals.

Is this maybe a fit issue? Bike's long but don't think I could go shorter frame size and still be comfortable climbing. Bars are as high as I'd want them, stem is as short as it can be.

Or is it technique-related and I'll just get used to it?

(I also think I'd like the headtube just a tad steeper, and I think that's the first time I've ever felt that way about any bike...)


----------



## FatboyFarleyFuse1977 (Jan 29, 2020)

dave_rh said:


> Meanwhile, the demand was there, but it was mainly the smaller companies that innovated with geometry. Specialized kinda dipped their toe in the water with the diamond-stay fuse.


Haha, I hate my 2020 Fuse Expert, the weirdest feeling bike I have ever owned...😄


----------



## AgentX (Jul 11, 2005)

dysfunction said:


> What happens when you sit on a hardtail that does NOT happen on a full suspension bike?


On a hardtail, sag steepens the bike...pivot point is rear axle.

On a full squish, both ends sag. Depending on the setup and rider, this could have varying effects, but the effect of the lowering and slackening of the bike as the rear end sags may be more pronounced than the sag at the fork end which lowers and steepens it.


----------



## Timothy G. Parrish (Apr 13, 2014)

Harold said:


> That has changed my thought process on a next FS bike. I don't think I'll be looking for one quite as burly as I originally thought. Rather, just a mid-travel all-around sort of bike that's less tiring to ride in rough stuff to enable longer rides.


I too, had given thought to a mid-travel FS bike, but I need something in my stable that I can just bulldoze over everything in my path on those days I feel like it. 

Remember when they were cool early to mid 2000? Kona Process 111? I'm waiting for that trend to come full circle again...



jonshonda said:


> I'm not a modern geo hater, but offer a different perspective due to the trails I ride. I will be honest and admit this is arm chair quarterbacking based on a few custom builders opinions and others reviews of various modern bikes, as I have yet to ride a modern geo bike.
> 
> But if you have to pedal your bike to maintain speed and excitement (ie on our monday group rides we push 12mph on the frisky nights, and the majority of that is accomplished by pedaling), you will likely not like a few things about modern geo. Seated pedaling on flat ground should feel very different, and may cause you problems. Wheelbases are getting pretty long, and might make some trail features not so much fun. Single speed guys have been complaining about the saddle being in the way when climbing. I am concerned also about how much weight I will have on the front tire, what that will do to brake dive and lifting the front end as I often do to clear obstacles. Although I think the short rear helps with that.


Of all my bicycles, I routinely have some of my fastest 'pedaling' times on trails on that Kona Explosif.



jonshonda said:


> Pedaling position is very different, in the order of multiple inches if you have a long inseam. There are a lot of reports of hip, knee, and back pain from the change in pedaling position.
> 
> Tight switchbacks, slow seated climbs, I see plenty of chopper flop on reviews from the slack fork. The way a slack bike needs to be leaned over in a corner to access the cornering knobs is different as well from what I understand. And with a hardtail knowing where your rear wheel is tracking is important as well, which can become difficult when the wheelbase grows.
> 
> ...


I own 3 slack HTs and none of this is an issue. As others noted, you can simply setup you cockpit identical on each bicycle. When I pop the front wheel over stuff, the front end does feel a bit lighter on the one with the 160 DVO, but that's about it.


----------



## Balgaroth (Dec 14, 2021)

Harold said:


> I find this to be pretty inconsequential. If anything, I find that I need to remind myself to be intentional about putting weight on the front of the bike to maintain control up front. When I get tired and things get hairy, I fall into old patterns of letting my weight shift too far back. On my bike, at least (a Guerrilla Gravity Pedalhead with 140mm fork), I don't really have trouble getting the front wheel up when I want it.


I agree with most of what you said and would comment on this. What you describe here is a bike with a terrible front to rear center balance. Not sure what you ride but this sound like a bike with a longish front end and short CS. If you can lengthen you CS try it and it will solve you problem. If the bike is a bit too nose heavy add one spacer under the stem but with most adjustable CS the difference won't enough to cause the problem I'd say.

Also if you really want to find one situation where a long wheelbase can cause some problem it is switchback, like the proper ones super tight we have in Europe. But most people don't ride these too much and the problem can easily be solved with either a nose turn or rear end drift.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Balgaroth said:


> Also if you really want to find one situation where a long wheelbase can cause some problem it is switchback, like the proper ones super tight we have in Europe. But most people don't ride these too much and the problem can easily be solved with either a nose turn or rear end drift.


This is a solid issue, and one of the reasons I'm getting a shorter full suspension frame. We have similar switchbacks locally on old hiking trails.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Timothy G. Parrish said:


> I too, had given thought to a mid-travel FS bike, but I need something in my stable that I can just bulldoze over everything in my path on those days I feel like it.


I've come to a point in my personal risk assessments that I find I don't want to carry the speed through nasty stuff to be able to bulldoze through it (and deal with the eventual consequences of stuffing it up). I'd rather slow down and finesse through it more. And if it's too big for that, walk it. So something to take the sting off is more along the lines of what I'm after.



Balgaroth said:


> I agree with most of what you said and would comment on this. What you describe here is a bike with a terrible front to rear center balance. Not sure what you ride but this sound like a bike with a longish front end and short CS. If you can lengthen you CS try it and it will solve you problem. If the bike is a bit too nose heavy add one spacer under the stem but with most adjustable CS the difference won't enough to cause the problem I'd say.


I said what I ride in the text you quoted. Chainstay length is not adjustable in any way. It is what it is. I don't think it _does_ have terrible front to rear center balance. Your account is new here, so I dunno how long you've been riding. But this tendency is common from people who rode mtbs from the 1990's and earlier. THOSE bikes had terrible front to rear balance. They biased your cog so far forward that you'd have to hang your ass off the back literally anytime the trail god dicey or you were going OTB. When I first started riding, I was going OTB on mellow terrain at least once per ride. That habit is now so heavily embedded that it starts creeping out when I'm tired. I'm sure a whole lot of old riders will agree that they have a similar tendency or at least had to fight hard to beat it out of themselves.



Balgaroth said:


> Also if you really want to find one situation where a long wheelbase can cause some problem it is switchback, like the proper ones super tight we have in Europe. But most people don't ride these too much and the problem can easily be solved with either a nose turn or rear end drift.


One of the trails I described in one of my earlier posts has plenty of tight old-school switchbacks. These get designed out of a great deal of modern trails because (hikers, especially) shortcut them and cause problems. They persist on this particular trail because it's so rocky. Because they're getting less common on mtb trails (and when they are done on modern trails, they're built with a much bigger radius), and because adding skills to your toolbox will let you deal with them just fine, I'd put this as pretty minor overall.


----------



## goldsbar (Dec 2, 2004)

Harold said:


> But this tendency is common from people who rode mtbs from the 1990's and earlier. THOSE bikes had terrible front to rear balance. They biased your cog so far forward that you'd have to hang your ass off the back literally anytime the trail god dicey or you were going OTB. When I first started riding, I was going OTB on mellow terrain at least once per ride. That habit is now so heavily embedded that it starts creeping out when I'm tired. I'm sure a whole lot of old riders will agree that they have a similar tendency or at least had to fight hard to beat it out of themselves.


Many, many years after having such bikes, I still mentally point out to myself all of those little rocks/edges that barely deserve attention on a modern bike that would have sent me flying OTB on an old school 1990s 26er.


----------



## JackOfDiamonds (Apr 17, 2020)

So, watching this from the sidelines, here's my questions: how slack is too slack? At what point will we find out there's too much of a good thing? 62 degrees? 59? What's the slackest bike available basically now, and do people think it's too slack?


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Head tube angle and front-center measurement! The angle and the front-rear balance are not so simple.

Like most discussions here, not everyone lives on the same part of the planet and not everyone rides the same trails the same way.


----------



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

Ibis DV9 and be done with it!


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> So, watching this from the sidelines, here's my questions: how slack is too slack? At what point will we find out there's too much of a good thing? 62 degrees? 59? What's the slackest bike available basically now, and do people think it's too slack?


You're asking this question in a hardtail thread?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> So, watching this from the sidelines, here's my questions: how slack is too slack? At what point will we find out there's too much of a good thing? 62 degrees? 59? What's the slackest bike available basically now, and do people think it's too slack?


I can't answer your question. I've not ridden a bike of any kind that I would call too slack. that's more an indictment of what bikes I've ridden, as I've not ridden anything that would be among the slackest of its kind.

I have no doubt that such a thing exists, but I haven't found it (for myself and the trails I ride).


----------



## dave_rh (Jul 28, 2014)

Harold said:


> I've come to a point in my personal risk assessments that I find I don't want to carry the speed through nasty stuff to be able to bulldoze through it (and deal with the eventual consequences of stuffing it up). I'd rather slow down and finesse through it more. And if it's too big for that, walk it. So something to take the sting off is more along the lines of what I'm after.


This to me, is the true joy of under-biking

To get a buzz, you don't need to bulldoze and smash through chunky stuff at warp speed and clear 10 meter gaps.
Simple trails and smaller obstacles become a fun challenge again
Your metric for success becomes technique, line choice and smoothness rather than outright speed or danger
More fun for less risk.


----------



## dave_rh (Jul 28, 2014)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> So, watching this from the sidelines, here's my questions: how slack is too slack? At what point will we find out there's too much of a good thing? 62 degrees? 59? What's the slackest bike available basically now, and do people think it's too slack?


Not an easy question as everyone's terrain, skill level and riding goals are different.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> So, watching this from the sidelines, here's my questions: how slack is too slack? At what point will we find out there's too much of a good thing? 62 degrees? 59? What's the slackest bike available basically now, and do people think it's too slack?


I think we’re at the limit right now. Maybe we could go a hair further with hardtails, but not full suspension bikes.

I have a Transition Patrol that is adjustable between 63 and 63.5. I prefer 63.5 for even the rowdiest downhills. 63 is fun, but almost requires too much focus on weighting the front tire (which I already do naturally). I have to be very careful about my pedals and bottom bracket in the chunky sections too — where at 63.5 it’s more natural for me and I can relax about pedal strikes a bit more.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

dave_rh said:


> This to me, is the true joy of under-biking
> 
> To get a buzz, you don't need to bulldoze and smash through chunky stuff at warp speed and clear 10 meter gaps.
> Simple trails and smaller obstacles become a fun challenge again
> ...



This is what I had alluded to earlier about big bikes not being popular around here as an every day machine. Yes there are places where they can be utilized, but 95% of local trails a 150mm bike will lead to boredom.

I am riding rigid 29+ mostly for the reasons above, and a Hardtail Party review of the Spot Rocker kinda makes light of the way a bike that pedals really well can provide a different experience on the trails. He directly compared it to the Kona Honzo ESD and how much more responsive and faster it was in a lot of situations. I guess it's proof that someone can enjoy a 67hta 445mmCS bike just as much, if not more then a LLS bike on the same trails.


----------



## Tinstigator (Jun 28, 2016)

Norco Torrent being prime example.

Horrid for any riding due to being long, low and slack.

Never again!
Back to my 68 degree short reach and high stack frame.

Feels lively and comfy and handles a dream.


----------



## goldsbar (Dec 2, 2004)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> So, watching this from the sidelines, here's my questions: how slack is too slack? At what point will we find out there's too much of a good thing? 62 degrees? 59? What's the slackest bike available basically now, and do people think it's too slack?


There was a very popular Pink Bike article a year or two ago where they custom built a super long/low/slack F/S bike and the guy beat his PR on a well known enduro trail with it. I don't recall all of the angles. He did comment that it probably wasn't very useful for a general trail bike.

I agree with the commentary that unless you're riding for money, much comes down to the preferred feel of the bike.


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> So, watching this from the sidelines, here's my questions: how slack is too slack? At what point will we find out there's too much of a good thing? 62 degrees? 59? What's the slackest bike available basically now, and do people think it's too slack?


Much further and there are some real problems. The frame reach gets any longer and the handlebar has to come through or behind the steerer. Bikes for pedaling all day can't do the steep seat angle as much. The steering starts to get "chopper flop" even if they fix the trail with the steerer offset


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

I settled on my HT when I summed up all the numbers. That is, head angle (at a particular fork length) was one aspect, but ground clearance (BB height) and chainstay length were also significant to me. There were only a few frames at the time that had the numbers I wanted. I'd say there are a few more today.

-F

PS - I will also echo that a dropper is probably a necessity on a modern geo HT. It seems like the saddle is always "right there". It's not unridable without a dropper, but my riding has improved quite a bit with one.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

goldsbar said:


> There was a very popular Pink Bike article a year or two ago where they custom built a super long/low/slack F/S bike and the guy beat his PR on a well known enduro trail with it. I don't recall all of the angles. He did comment that it probably wasn't very useful for a general trail bike.
> 
> I agree with the commentary that unless you're riding for money, much comes down to the preferred feel of the bike.


Mike Levy‘s Grim Donut project. He came up with an average change in geometry metrics over the last decade and projected that forward, and found a place to build a one-off. Then he got Yohan Barelli to do some back-to-back laps. Yohan said on the right track, like EWS Chile, it wins by a minute. But is basically unrideable on anything else.


----------



## SCTerp (Aug 9, 2017)

FatboyFarleyFuse1977 said:


> Haha, I hate my 2020 Fuse Expert, the weirdest feeling bike I have ever owned...😄


Just curious what you don't like about the Fuse and specifically the comment about feel. The current Fuse geo numbers are at the conservative side of things these days thus my curiosity. Thanks.



Tinstigator said:


> Norco Torrent being prime example.
> 
> Horrid for any riding due to being long, low and slack.
> 
> ...


I had the same experience with a Cotic SolarisMAX. What frame are you riding now?


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Darth Lefty said:


> Much further and there are some real problems. The frame reach gets any longer and the handlebar has to come through or behind the steerer. Bikes for pedaling all day can't do the steep seat angle as much. The steering starts to get "chopper flop" even if they fix the trail with the steerer offset


Also at some point the telescopic forks aren't going to work as well due to the angle of the force being subjected to them.

Personally I think we are at the limit for a lot of stuff. I think personally for me the reach is getting a bit too long. I was trying out Konas and found I preferred L over XL as the XL's reach was just too long for me at 6'2".


----------



## Tinstigator (Jun 28, 2016)

SCTerp said:


> I had the same experience with a Cotic SolarisMAX. What frame are you riding now?


An older Banshee 29er, oh and I'm 6ft regular 32" length leg and maybe longer than regular arm span.

Riding a Medium Paradox which is the smallest size they did.

Super short chain stays, super short reach and iirc 22" or thereabouts c-c top tube length.

Running 120mm forks so optimum travel for that frame so guessing 68 degree head angle.

With a 48mm stem and a 15mm rise x 780mm bars.

I sure know from experience that a lot comfier to be on a smaller framed bike than too large.

Plus I like my bikes to handle and chuck around easier (my core is weak mind plus I smoke) than to struggle to chuck around a long low slack steel hardtail with 150mm forks.

Sooooo feckin over rated it's unreal!


----------



## Tinstigator (Jun 28, 2016)

Though if in a race environment with a strong rider on board then lls steely hts would make sense to be pushed more so.

:/ Though MTBing has always been a try and test hobby. We the end users are treated as guineapigs or lab rats imo.

Lol


----------



## FatboyFarleyFuse1977 (Jan 29, 2020)

SCTerp said:


> Just curious what you don't like about the Fuse and specifically the comment about feel. The current Fuse geo numbers are at the conservative side of things these days thus my curiosity.


I feel like the center of the BB is behind my H point and the pedals are too far back on the upstroke. It is absolutely horrible street riding. Also, the H point is further forward from the rear axle center, making other stuff feel weird, like wheelies.


----------



## yzedf (Apr 22, 2014)

Bikes are fun! I’ve used this bike on everything from rail trails to double black tech and even a day at the bike park. I’ve cleaned a couple local climbs that I couldn’t before on a 21lb xc race hardtail and I’m doing all the same features I do on my full squish bike.


----------



## reginald (Apr 26, 2012)

Ragley BigAl owner here. With a 140 dvo diamond It’s a rad low budget bike. My buddies seem confused when I show up with it instead of my ripmo on some rides. I won’t take it on the blacks , I’m not that skilled, but other trails I bet I get more smiles per mile on it. I can’t see any reason for more old school geo. I added 40mm riser bars to my bikes to help with sore hands. But that’s because I’m tall and XL bikes need more stack!


----------

