# Chumba Sendero Not LLS enough?



## Sully151 (Dec 31, 2021)

I am on the hunt to replace my 2014 Trek Fuel EX 8 with a hardtail. I had the chance to demo a Moots Womble for a week and that bike was quite fun, but out of my price range, so I went on a hunt. I discovered the Chumba Sendero. It seems like a cool bike, steel, made in the states by a small builder. From what I have found, it has good reviews and they have been super cool to chat with via email.

My question is, with a 67.5 HTA, 73.8 STA, 456 reach, and 637 stack, am I looking at a bike that is outdated? or is it meant for a different type of riding than the more slack bikes with super steep seat tubes?

Watching Hard Tail Party videos, he seems to say anything greater than a 66 HTA isn't slack enough, but Chumba says their bike is kind of meant for an all day all mountain, good pedaling and climbing bike that can handle challenging trails. They are using the Down Country marketing verbiage.

Are the super slack bike meant more for super steep downhill and bike park type of riding?

A little background, I am in my late 40's, ex roady, who lives in SoCal. Most of my rides are long fire road climbs with flowy single track back down, the trails have lots of ruts, rocks and chunky stuff. There is also a lot of kind of flat single track and double track. I don't ride super crazy stuff. No big drops or jumps. Mostly blues and greens with the occasional Black Diamond.

Am I looking in the wrong direction?

I also looked at the Neuhaus Metal Works Solstice 29 and the Hummingbird (Which is similar to the Sendero).


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

The first thing you need to do is stop getting your geo info from Hardtail Party. His reviews are purely opinion and what he says about geo probably doesn't apply to you directly. His channel is fine for checking out bikes and builds, but tread with caution taking his word as gospel on geo. 

Second, you are correct that the Sendero is made for a different type of riding. It intentionally has a higher bottom bracket than most modern bikes and is built around the riding in Austin where Chumba is HQ'd. The riding out there is a lot of punchy climbing with rocky, chunky terrain. It's not meant to be a LLS bike, they even say that on their site I believe. If you're doing a lot of fire road climbs with long downhills, I don't know that the Sendero would be the perfect bike. I think it would do well, but you may be better served with something a little more planted. The Sendero is made for punchy climbing and slowly picking your way through rock gardens.


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

The Sendero is very close to what I call 'sweet spot' geo, the only real outlier being the high BB and potentially short chain stays (though you could just slide the dropouts back to 435-440mm). Bikes like this are just good all-arounders. The STA, reach, ETT, and HTA will keep it comfortable and manageable for long days out, will stay planted climbing assuming the dropouts are further back, and still have enough in reserve to keep things fun and predictable in chop and on the downs. I love bikes like this although I personally like a lower BB. The whole LLS thing can be a lot of fun but as with everything, there is no free lunch. Those steep STAs with long reaches and shorter ETTs put a lot of weight on your hands and wrists and require a different riding technique and cockpit tuning, and just don't work as well on long days out with mixed riding especially as you get older. 

As with everything, YMMV. Good luck.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

It depends on where and what you are riding. Personally for me, I'd prefer something more aggressive but your riding may not call for that.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I live a few miles from Chumba, so I can see why it's a terrific bike for the terrain where it was developed. There are no mountains in central Texas, but lots of punchy ups and down. Pace Bend, Reimer's Ranch, Barton Creek Greenbelt, Emma Long Park, etc. Everything is covered in rocks! A low BB and a super long wheelbase and front-center is not ideal for the tight, twisty, extended rock garden terrain here. If you want a downhill shred sled for mountains, look for a bike that was developed in a mountainous region.

also, people, HTP Steve included, really need to stop obsessing over HTA as something to be considered with dogmatic insistence and in isolation. it's one number among many that affect how a bike rides and handles.

I've owned about 10 different steel 29" hardtails (some rigid, mostly singlespeed), and based on what I've done, something like a Sendero would probably be perfect for me to ride around here. if I lived in a truly flat place with actual dirt (not endless rocks), I'd want something a little different. if I lived in mountains with extended downhills and fire road climbs, I'd probably also want something different. around here, you see a lot of XC/ trail hardtails in the vein of the Sendro (Vassago, Ventana, Surly, etc.), but most people who buy bikes with really low BBs and long, "steady" front-center measurements get sick of them rather quickly and sell them.


----------



## GoldenPromise (Dec 4, 2020)

Hardtail Party is over the top when it comes to geo. He claimed the Arc absolutely needed an angle set, when it is fine as is. Don't listen to him when it comes to this, as he clearly takes modern geo a bit too far, and like was said above, it is merely his opinion. The opinion of one man with a Youtube channel is not worth obsessing over. That said, I do enjoy his videos, but I would like to form my own opinions versus taking his word as gospel. 

The Sendero is a badass bike. I was considering one, but I didn't have the cash to plop down on a pre-build at the time I was looking. Ended up dealing with Nick at Neuhaus later on, and that process has been great. I doubt you'll go wrong with the Sendero.


----------



## gubbinalia (May 11, 2020)

Sully151 said:


> My question is, with a 67.5 HTA, 73.8 STA, 456 reach, and 637 stack, am I looking at a bike that is outdated? or is it meant for a different type of riding than the more slack bikes with super steep seat tubes?


Outdated is a loaded term in an industry that loves to chase the newest thing -- even if it means chasing its own tail on concepts that were popular decades ago (mullet wheel setups, high pivots, et al). To me, a hardtail that is "outdated" is, strictly speaking, one that isn't using current standards -- e.g. thru-axles, threaded headsets, 27.2 seatpost diameters, and so on. Geometry doesn't really become outdated in any meaningful sense on a hardtail because the platform can be easily rebuilt to suit different riding styles, terrains, riders' needs, etc. Witness the transformation of many folks' MTB frames from the '00s being turned into gravel bikes (flat bar or drop bar). Are such bikes "outdated" for trail riding because they have sub-400mm reaches, or are they well-suited for all-terrain exploring? You be the judge, but as I see it the bike can change just as easily as the use case does.

Speaking to the current crop of descending-oriented MUSA hardtails, the Sendero is not the lowest, longest, or slackest. That much is true. But looking at geometry as the only metric of "progression" is kind of shortsighted, right? Chumba is making a bike that's fairly terrain-specific (as @mack_turtle aptly explained above) and maybe not ideal for Southern California, and they're incorporating many elements of "progressive" modern bike design: radius seat tubes, Paragon dropouts, oval seatstays, room for 29x2.6" in the rear, internal dropper routing, relatively large-diameter (stiff) downtubes, and of course the much-discussed 3D printed yoke on the Sendero Ti. To me, progression is how you conceptualize and build the whole bike, not just what you choose as a head tube angle.





Sully151 said:


> Are the super slack bike meant more for super steep downhill and bike park type of riding?
> 
> A little background, I am in my late 40's, ex roady, who lives in SoCal. Most of my rides are long fire road climbs with flowy single track back down, the trails have lots of ruts, rocks and chunky stuff. There is also a lot of kind of flat single track and double track. I don't ride super crazy stuff. No big drops or jumps. Mostly blues and greens with the occasional Black Diamond.


I've never rode a bike in Southern California, so most of my knowledge of the area comes from the Path Podcast, which also introduced me to the idea of the "ride fantasy." My impression (from the podcast) is that SoCal has enough winch-and-plummet, pedal-and-plunge terrain that a long-travel enduro bike with an as-steep-as-possible STA and a downhill-bike-slack HTA is not out of place there. (One of the hosts is riding a Geometron G1; two others have mulleted Process Xs). So, if you are riding "those" trails, I wouldn't say that something like a Rootdown, Moxie, Honzo ESD, or Torrent would be particularly out-of-place, but the learning curve coming from a 2014 Fuel would be ... substantial. Unlike you'd jump on the bike and be immediately at home (for better or for worse).

But, circling back to ride fantasy, if your fantasy is to ride a long, stable, moto-esque bike -- even if it means ponderous pacing on the low-angle trails -- you won't suffer unduly. Your enjoyment of absolutely throttling it into catch berms will outweigh the lack of snappiness. But that same paradigm can be flipped on its head; if the fantasy is to ride a light, nimble, agile bike that can also take on rowdy descents, there's no reason why you can't rally some chunk (at a marginally slower speed) on something like a Sendero or any other bike in the 67-68HTA range.

Part of what I love about hardtails is that they're simultaneously bounded at the upper end of their capabilities by the lack of rear suspension, yet they're kept from ever being total donkeys on low-angle, rolling terrain for the same reason. Even the longest, slackest, lowest, most over-tired, Cushcore'd, Zeb-forked hardtail (I rode an ESD for a weekend this fall that answered to this description) can still motor right along on a blue flow trail, just by pumping through the rear axle and running some higher tire pressures (and maybe not MaxxGrip tires). And even though my current, daily-driver hardtail -- which has a 67ish HTA and a 55mm BB drop on a 120mm Pike, so not exactly "aggressive" -- it still has tacky rubber, a great damper in the fork, and a long stroke dropper, just like my more descending-oriented bikes do. It goes downhill pretty dang well, and encourages me to ride more centered, smoother and less over-the-front.
In other words, the space between an XC-ish hardtail and an enduro-ish hardtail is a lot smaller than the space between equivalent full-suspension bikes... 



Sully151 said:


> I also looked at the Neuhaus Metal Works Solstice 29 and the Hummingbird (Which is similar to the Sendero).


The Hummingbird looks fantastic. I know @cassieno has been riding a proto quite a bit around NorCal this winter and I'm excited to hear his thoughts. He's owned/rode a beautiful array of Neuhaus frames. I came SO close to emailing Nick to preorder a Solstice for this summer but I think I am going to hold off 2-3yrs. for a Neuhaus; at the rate that Nick and his assistant are pushing their designs forward, I'm confident the bikes will be even more appealing a little while from now. I would hate to sell a custom frame just to get an updated version, so I'm holding out a bit for now.


----------



## jct (Mar 26, 2004)

i have a sendero and have it built up SS, 120mm fork and a dropper. the frame really rides incredibly well. they have their tubing spec down to deliver a responsive, lively and also stiff when needed feeling. i have bikes made of 853, columbus and dedaccai tubing...Chumba uses a mix including some vari-wall for their sendero.

the bike shines on SS friendly terrain...short punchy climbs and descents. that said...don't sell it short. it can handle big, tech descents too. if you're familiar at all with the trail riding in Santa Cruz i ride it most everywhere. the short BB drop is noticeable and IMO and brings out the playful vibe of the bike. when i stand up and power down, manual, huck a ledge or drop or dive into some swoopy single...oh lala i'm getting a chubb now.

other HTs i've had recently or still have: SC highball, 2 x Vassago Jabberwocky


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Sully151 said:


> My question is, with a 67.5 HTA, 73.8 STA, 456 reach, and 637 stack, am I looking at a bike that is outdated? or is it meant for a different type of riding than the more slack bikes with super steep seat tubes?
> 
> I also looked at the Neuhaus Metal Works Solstice 29 and the Hummingbird (Which is similar to the Sendero).


I fall into the camp of slacker than that is better for trail riding and I prefer a steeper seattube for my every day riding. I think personally 67.5 is too steep for me to be my everything hardtail. But, I have a 67 degree HA -110mm, a 65 degree-130mm, and a 63.5 HA -50mm HT. I agree in theory, with the limited by the back argument, but in practice I can get away with a ton on my 63.5 150mm HT that I could never do with my 67 / 110 HT. This is a combination of a ton of factors including reach, HA, fork, tires, and brakes.

@gubbinalia comment about ride fantasy I think is perfect.
For me personally that's multiple bikes. But if I could only have one I would choose something like (I would actually choose exactly it) The NMW Solstice 29. Because it matches more what I want to do on my average every day rides. But, for XC racing it would be the Hummingbird (which is what I use my prototype HB for). The HB geo is being finalized and my understanding is they will be production ready shortly. This will be an amazing all day bike.

sidenote - every buzzword that the steel hardtail industry uses actually applies to NMW frames. They really are incredible.

Note: this is all from the perspective of someone who lives and rides around Marin. I haven't ridden a ton in SoCal, but for what you described I would choose the Solstice 29er (or similar).


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Sully151 said:


> is it meant for a different type of riding than the more slack bikes with super steep seat tubes?


this, and it's OK. It's not for you, then.


----------



## gubbinalia (May 11, 2020)

jct said:


> they have their tubing spec down to deliver a responsive, lively and also stiff when needed feeling. i have bikes made of 853, columbus and dedaccai tubing...Chumba uses a mix including some vari-wall for their sendero.


I'm definitely not at the level of sensitivity where I can notice "just" a difference in tubing. But talking to Vince at Chumba about how they select tubesets and tubing suppliers, I was blown away by how much research they had put into it. I have no idea how common that level of attention to detail is within the custom framebuilding world -- maybe it's unusual? -- but it's a great argument for spending the money for a made-in-the-US bike rather than one welded overseas.


----------



## gubbinalia (May 11, 2020)

cassieno said:


> I fall into the camp of slacker than that is better for trail riding and I prefer a steeper seattube for my every day riding. I think personally 67.5 is too steep for me to be my everything hardtail. But, I have a 67 degree HA -110mm, a 65 degree-130mm, and a 63.5 HA -50mm HT. I agree in theory, with the limited by the back argument, but in practice I can get away with a ton on my 63.5 150mm HT that I could never do with my 67 / 110 HT. This is a combination of a ton of factors including reach, HA, fork, tires, and brakes.


Dang, such a fun trio of bikes, and well spaced between them as well! Not too much overlap between the three.

Other than just the weight and rolling efficiency, what are the advantages you're finding with the Hummingbird over the Solstice? Are there particular rides where the Hummingbird shines? Just looking at the pictures side by side I was curious if the Hummingbird was designed to be a lot more compliant. Those seatstays are HELLA thin.

My sense is that I'd be happiest on a bike that's somewhere between the two models, but hard to say without having swung a leg over either.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Mine were each designed with such different intents that they are not directly comparable.

My porotype HB was designed for all-day riding. so, compliance, comfort, and efficiency was the intent behind my bike. I use it as a flat bar gravel through XC race bike. I raced it last week at Low Gap (if you are familiar with Grasshopper adventure series), which is 20 miles of pavement and 20 miles of dirt. It was the perfect bike for me for that course. I didn't lose any time because of the MTB and I gained a ton on the descents (because mtb). I have a couple proper MTB races later this year that it will also be excellent for.

When the trail gets to chunky - i.e. rocky. That's where I feel it lacking. But my riding style is best described as vaguely pick a line (usually the wrong one) and smash. It's geometry and my component selection don't meet that intent.

I don't have a modern Solstice (my bikes geo matches, but not the rest of the design, like the 3D printed parts, tubing profile etc). Mine was built as a singlespeed with a nod towards getting power directly too the ground as efficiently as possible. But, this bike is pretty great everywhere. It's an efficient and comfortable (position) all day cruiser, not quite as compliant, but very very capable.

I really think the Solstice is is the "trail" bike. If your trails are blues / blacks and you enjoy pushing speed. The HB excels on gravel roads through blues, but doesn't really want to charge down blacks in the same disregard for the consequences way. Some of this is due to component spec (stepcast 34 @110mm versus 34 @130mm, tires, 4 piston brakes, narrower handlebars, etc), but there is a decent difference from geometry alone. I think XC versus Trail really describes their character well. It's just up to you to decide what better suits your riding style / terrain etc.

The nice thing for me about hardtails is you buy them for the trails you ride, not the trails you wish you rode. 

I think you will be really happy with the production Hummingbird when it's released. It seems like the bike you are describing.


----------



## Sully151 (Dec 31, 2021)

Wow! There is a ton of info to digest. I will read through all of it and try to respond with my thoughts and more questions for sure. Too bad I have a crazy rehearsal schedule this week.

I did hear back from Nick at Neuhaus about putting a 130 fork on the HB. He said it would work.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

Sully151 said:


> I am on the hunt to replace my 2014 Trek Fuel EX 8 with a hardtail. I had the chance to demo a Moots Womble for a week and that bike was quite fun, but out of my price range, so I went on a hunt. I discovered the Chumba Sendero. It seems like a cool bike, steel, made in the states by a small builder. From what I have found, it has good reviews and they have been super cool to chat with via email.
> 
> My question is, with a 67.5 HTA, 73.8 STA, 456 reach, and 637 stack, am I looking at a bike that is outdated? or is it meant for a different type of riding than the more slack bikes with super steep seat tubes?
> 
> ...


I don’t think 456mm reach is too short unless you’re over 5’10”. If you are, yeah, it is on the shorter side of modern.

Head angle is a very personal thing. The bike you’re looking at could very well be a blast to ride in most situations. 67.5 isn’t terrible, and there are probably angleset options; I haven’t looked at the head tube specs but I assume you could. At any rate, you could still ride practically anything with that geo.

My first “modern” hardtail was a Kona Honzo — size large. IIRC, it had a 475mm reach and a 68 degree head angle. 120mm fork. I did intend for it to be my XC/long trail day bike, but was initially amazed at how hard I could rally it.

Then, the entry-level Rock Shox Recon finally annoyed me enough to upgrade it to a 140mm Marz Z2, which slackened it out to about 67 degrees. I immediately liked it even more, not only because of the much better suspension, but that -1 HA change was noticeable in a good way. It in no way, shape, or form performed worse on climbs or XC terrain.

So then I got to thinking, what if I slacked it out even more?😉. I ordered a -2 Works Components angled headset, installed it, and hoped for the best. The whole time, I was worried I might be spoiling the bike’s ability to climb and/or deal with mild terrain.

As it turns out, at 65 degrees, the head angle still didn’t impede climbing or XC-ability. And yes, I enjoyed the descents even more than ever. After 5 rides with that setup though, I noticed a crack where the seatstay joined the seat tube. Warranty time.

I was able to pick up an ESD as a replacement, since that’s all the shop had in stock. So I swapped all my parts over and the rest is history.

The new rig has a 62.5 degree HA and still handles climbing and milder terrain just fine. And on the steep and rowdy stuff…it excels there as well. Personally I don’t see any advantages to having a head angle over 65 degrees. The modern steep seat angles ensure that your front end stays down on steep climbs, and the turning is incredible when pointed down.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

A few years ago, someone I know was working as a bike tech in an Austin REI store. REI is known for their very generous return policy. One day, a bike rolls into the shop after being returned by a customer. the tag on the bike said "Reason for return: _does not have the slack angle_." someone bought a decent entry-level XC hardtail around 2016 and soon returned it because he said it — direct quote from the cashier, who is not familiar with bike geometry "he said it didn't have the 'slack angle'."

there was nothing wrong with that bike. chances are, that rider would have been just fine with that bike and actually had no idea what headtube angle means, nor what it meant in the context of the rest of the bike. my theory, which is likely but could be wrong, is that he read something on the internet or some bro at the trailhead, and learned that his bike needs a "slack angle" and this bike doesn't have it. this is the danger of taking individual geometry specifics in isolation without context.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

93EXCivic said:


> It depends on where and what you are riding. Personally for me, I'd prefer something more aggressive but your riding may not call for that.


Yup. I looked at that Chumba when I was bike shopping, but it's an XC bike in today's geo terms. The two hardtails I bought have ~63 deg and ~64 deg HTA with 140mm forks and that feels pretty well suited to my riding [Coastal BC tech trail up to black diamond]. I also ride Greens/Blues and ride pavement to the trails on these bikes and they ride well in less demanding situations.

Keeping in mind once sagged my hardtails have HTAs around ~64.5 - 65.5 degs which is pretty close to my FS bike at ~64.5 deg sagged. That Cumba with a 67.5 deg unsagged HTA will be pretty steep once you sit on it and the fork compresses. It could be fine for some folks' riding needs if they'd want to ride a FS bike with a 68-69 deg HTA, but to me it wouldn't float my boat.


----------

