# New VS Old Geometry



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

*Modern VS Old Geometry*

What is your take on the "new geometry" vs older designs? I'm referring to longer reach, shorter stems, lower bottom brackets, slacker head angles, and steeper seat tube angles.

I started mountain biking in 87 and rode pretty much what everyone else did back then. Steep, rigid front end, long stem, narrow bars. Over the years my bikes gradually changed with suspension forks, full suspension, longer travel, shorter stems, and wider bars. I have used stems from 135 to 35mm and bars from 510 to 780mm. I found steep climbing wasn't impacted by going to shorter stems. I discovered 20 years ago the by sliding my saddle forward steep climbs were easier. Finally my new bike has long reach, slack HTA, steep STA and is capable of just about anything while still being fun on XC type trails. If I lived somewhere flatter I may go with less travel but I would stick with the basic setup I have now. That's how I arrived at what I like. Not sure why there aren't more light, short travel bikes. I am interested in the new Canfield EPO, a light carbon 29 hardtail with long reach, slack HTA, steep STA, and a short stem. Light enough for even XC racing but still capable in the AM spectrum.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Are we talking 26ers, 650B or 29ers? For me the move in the 29er realm has been good, a definite improvement in providing bikes that the Avg Joe will enjoy riding. 29ers started with people trying to make them handle like 26ers and they went about it all wrong, except for GF, who went the right way of slacker HTAs and greater fork offset to counter. The whole shorter stem/wider bar and longer Reach geo is also a big improvement, to a point for me - say you used to ride a bike using a 120mm stem and 685mm bar and then went to a 70mm stem and 785mm bar, the improvement in being able to control your steering in the roughs, tech stuff is amazing. I used to ride exactly that setup and never associated it with why I had trouble holding lines riding tech, chunky stuff, but once I moved to a 785mm bar and shortened up my stem without doing anything else the change was unreal.

To me the new geo is a big plus, but some I think take it a bit far. As to the steep STA, not a fan, not in the least, as to me, my saddle needs to be "X" distance behind the BB for me to feel comfortable, I can always slide forward ontop the nose of the saddle when it gets really steep. With todays 74*> STA it's very tough for me to get my saddle far enough back, especially if looking to use a dropper post as there just aren't that many that have setback options. A STA between 72-73* would suit me a lot better and allow me to run a straight post, which would make dropper post selection so much easier.


----------



## Thor29 (May 12, 2005)

I got rid of my 25lb Niner SIR9 because I liked my 30lb Kona Honzo so much. (Both are/were single speeds). I am running 720mm wide handlebars (considered short by current standards but the Niner had a 580mm bar), a 50mm stem, Fox DOSS dropper post, and 140mm Reba fork. I really like the new school geometry although I am not a fan of low BBs when climbing rocky and rooty trails because of the constant pedal strikes - the longer than stock fork on the Honzo helps a little bit there.

What I can't understand is why so many of these supposed new school frames have top tubes that are as short or shorter than my old XC oriented SIR9. Seems like they would be way too cramped if you run a short stem. For example, a large Canfield Nimble 9 has an ETT of only 24 inches while my SIR9 was 24.5 and my Kona is 25 inches.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Travis Bickle said:


> What is your take on the "new geometry" vs older designs? I'm referring to longer reach, shorter stems, lower bottom brackets, slacker head angles, and steeper seat tube angles.
> 
> I started mountain biking in 87 and rode pretty much what everyone else did back then. Steep, rigid front end, long stem, narrow bars. Over the years my bikes gradually changed with suspension forks, full suspension, longer travel, shorter stems, and wider bars. I have used stems from 135 to 35mm and bars from 510 to 780mm. I found steep climbing wasn't impacted by going to shorter stems. I discovered 20 years ago the by sliding my saddle forward steep climbs were easier. Finally my new bike has long reach, slack HTA, steep STA and is capable of just about anything while still being fun on XC type trails. If I lived somewhere flatter I may go with less travel but I would stick with the basic setup I have now. That's how I arrived at what I like. Not sure why there aren't more light, short travel bikes. I am interested in the new Canfield EPO, a light carbon 29 hardtail with long reach, slack HTA, steep STA, and a short stem. Light enough for even XC racing but still capable in the AM spectrum.


I am not sure it could continue to get better. but old geometery still had roots in road biking where people thought you had to be streached out to be fast.

I think todays bike are faster overall especailly when set up the right way. Tons more fun to actually ride as well. I personally prefer a long enough TT that lets me run a 35mm stem and the seat all the ways forward. for me at 5'9 that number seems to be about 24 to 24.3 inches of ETT lenght.

As a Kona Honzo owner and fan boy, the EPO looks sick. I like everything about my Honzo Geo and its flat our rocks.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Old geo was great for climbing. I now value descending confidence, simply because the downs are funner. New geo all the way now....

Bars=730mm
Stem=70mm
ETT 23.5"


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

I ride a lot of tight, twisty, rocky, rooty, technical, slow trails in addition to the flow trails people like nowadays. A long, low, slack bike is not ideal for many of these trails. I do prefer the shorter stem and wider bars, but that isn't the best setup for some of the super tight trails with trees 2 feet apart. It's all about what and where you ride. I guess most people ride on fast, open trails with less than extra technical climbs, since that is the in thing right now. Different strokes. 

What I don't understand is why seattube angles are changing. You put the seat in the position that puts your knees over the pedal spindles for general riding. Unless you're climbing or descending more than riding flats, why change that? Anything different is harder on your knees and less efficient. What am I missing?


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

I think in more open but rough stuff the new Geo is or sure better. I also think that tree that infer with handlebar should be cut out.


----------



## telemike (Jun 20, 2011)

I'm far from knowledgeable about bike geometry but I do know that lowering the bottom bracket is a very bad idea. I practice full pedal discipline with all that stutter and half pedals but still get about one pedal strike a year. Often, it tosses me and I bleed a bit. Virtually every hard pedal strike bends the pedal axle slightly and the bearings go bad over the next few rides. A snapping or clicking is the symptom.

Bikes need MORE, not less clearance on the bottom bracket. Especially full suspension bikes where pedal clearance can go almost to zero when the shocks are compressed.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Seat tube angles are changing to put me and maybe some others in a better climbing position. I'm well forward of KOPS now and don't notice any difference on the flats, although it's mostly up or down here, not much flat. 

As for pedal strikes, I have my share but they don't break my pedals or cause crashes. I broke a few old CB spindles but that wasn't from strikes.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I'm also not sold that old NORBA geometry hardtails climbed better. I also think that wheel size is a separate issue and that both 650b and clown wheels can benifit. 29er doesn't need as slack a head angle because of the better roll over but otherwise I think the same rules apply.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

LyNx said:


> As to the steep STA, not a fan, not in the least, as to me, my saddle needs to be "X" distance behind the BB for me to feel comfortable, I can always slide forward ontop the nose of the saddle when it gets really steep. With todays 74*> STA it's very tough for me to get my saddle far enough back, especially if looking to use a dropper post as there just aren't that many that have setback options. A STA between 72-73* would suit me a lot better and allow me to run a straight post, which would make dropper post selection so much easier.


With you on the steep seat angle. Not a fan either. I'm all for the short chain stay, long top tube, low BB's, slackish HA, and short stem with wide bars, but like the SA to be around 72 or even lower. For me the steep SA puts my feet too far behind me and too much weight on the handle bars. I want my feet in front of me so I can keep my weight on the pedals and center of gravity low. Also, when out of the saddle I keep my arms in the same position regardless of the SA, so the steeper the SA, the further back my feet end up, putting more weight on the bars and less on the pedals especially when pointing the bike down, which is not what I want.
Luckily there are still a lot of new bikes out there without the steep SA's.


----------



## Ratt (Dec 22, 2003)

Its funny you bring this up right now. I had a '02 UST Crossmax rim crack 8 years ago and just ran across a replacement rim on ebay last month. I laced it up been riding the '02 hardtail for the last couple of weeks. Old Skool Geo SUCKS. Totally stretched out with no real control, nervous steering, and out of saddle sprints /climbing on the barends puts you so far in front of the front wheel you can get wobbly if you get too aggressive too fast. 

On a positive note V-brakes on a ceramic rim have a lot more power than I remembered.

As for pedal strikes, when I cracked my 7" travel AM bike I opted for the next frame size up for warranty. My pedal strikes on one trail went from once a ride to 5 times. BB height isn't the only factor. Along with increasing our top tube length we are increasing our wheelbase and I am sure pedals strikes with it.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> Not sure why there aren't more light, short travel bikes.


I think it's obvious. People buy with their egos and overestimate their riding ability. More travel looks badass and suggests you know what you're doing. I don't, so I bought 120mm which in more than enough for me.

I don't think it's as clear cut as 'newer geo is better'. You've got to remember that a heck of a lot of other things have changed as well so it's hard to make a clean comparison. Unless you want to bolt a Judy to your bike??

I think older, simpler bikes felt nimbler and lighter. Maybe less stable but fun.


----------



## lorsban (Sep 2, 2009)

My first bike, a 1987 Schwinn Impact, had a riser stem and tall riser bars, like some hybrids today. That was a very comfy bike. Like a giant bmx. 

The bike I replaced it with in 1997 had a 120mm stem, 560mm bars and a 1.5inch travel fork lol. Definitely a racy position. 

My bike today is kind of in between those two. I have a 23 inch top tube, 70mm stem, 710mm bars. What's nice is that I have far more steering control now and it's easy to change body position for descents, climbs, sprints. 

I recently tried a 600mm bar and man was that thing odd! Bike felt twitchy and I felt my shoulders straining. 

That said, I don't like the all-mountain thing either where bikes ride like choppers with those long tall forks. Must suck on climbs.


----------



## Skeeter97 (Feb 2, 2012)

Travis Bickle said:


> What is your take on the "new geometry" vs older designs? I'm referring to longer reach, shorter stems, lower bottom brackets, slacker head angles, and steeper seat tube angles.
> 
> I started mountain biking in 87 and rode pretty much what everyone else did back then. Steep, rigid front end, long stem, narrow bars. Over the years my bikes gradually changed with suspension forks, full suspension, longer travel, shorter stems, and wider bars. I have used stems from 135 to 35mm and bars from 510 to 780mm. I found steep climbing wasn't impacted by going to shorter stems. I discovered 20 years ago the by sliding my saddle forward steep climbs were easier. Finally my new bike has long reach, slack HTA, steep STA and is capable of just about anything while still being fun on XC type trails. If I lived somewhere flatter I may go with less travel but I would stick with the basic setup I have now. That's how I arrived at what I like. Not sure why there aren't more light, short travel bikes. I am interested in the new Canfield EPO, a light carbon 29 hardtail with long reach, slack HTA, steep STA, and a short stem. Light enough for even XC racing but still capable in the AM spectrum.


Can't go wrong with the EPO. Absolutely loving mine so far

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Well, if you don't have much flats and/or only pedal easy on them, then you won't notice that horrible position, steep STA are made for climbing/descending, not for rolling/flat.


Travis Bickle said:


> Seat tube angles are changing to put me and maybe some others in a better climbing position. I'm well forward of KOPS now and don't notice any difference on the flats, although it's mostly up or down here, not much flat..


This guy gets it and that's the reason along with the lower BBs I feel for more pedal strikes/pedal timing needed. I certainly noticed a big drop in that when I switched frames and dropped 2.5" in WB while retaining same BB height.


Ratt said:


> ......... My pedal strikes on one trail went from once a ride to 5 times. *BB height isn't the only factor. Along with increasing our top tube length we are increasing our wheelbase and I am sure pedals strikes with it*.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

lorsban said:


> That said, I don't like the all-mountain thing either where bikes ride like choppers with those long tall forks. Must suck on climbs.


Absolutely not. My Warden with 160mm fork climbs like a goat being chased by a cougar. You need to demo a few.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

What do you think the future holds for new bike geometry?

Do you think a super telescoping dropper post would open up super short seattubes and super compact suspension designs for FS frames?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Posts with 200mm of drop are out there.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

LyNx said:


> As to the steep STA, not a fan, not in the least, as to me, my saddle needs to be "X" distance behind the BB for me to feel comfortable, I can always slide forward ontop the nose of the saddle when it gets really steep. With todays 74*> STA it's very tough for me to get my saddle far enough back, especially if looking to use a dropper post as there just aren't that many that have setback options. A STA between 72-73* would suit me a lot better and allow me to run a straight post, which would make dropper post selection so much easier.


Same here, I like modern geometry and want bike companies to go even lower with BB heights, but a steep STA just don't get along with me. When the STA are at 74* or more it feels like I'm driving myself forward and up off the saddle every time I pedal harder than an easy spin. It's fine for XC where it encourages you to get out of the seat and hammer, but it sucks when I'm trying to stay seated & conserve energy on my long travel bike. My preferred riding position is at or slightly behind KOPS, that's where I'm most comfortable & balanced and waste the least amount of energy holding myself in place.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> Posts with 200mm of drop are out there.


But you still need a straight 200mm of seattube to put them in. Imagine the freedom gained in rider movement and bike design if the post telescoped: A rider could crouch trials low all over the bike, desingers would have more freedom to mangle the seattube for suspension design and tire clearance.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I am a fan of modern geo. The Salsa Bucksaw I built in November fits me better than any bike ever has.

I get a few more pedal strikes than I used to. I don't attribute it to a low BB, though. Wheelbase on this bike is much longer than bikes I've owned previously, so I don't doubt it's a factor. But this bike is also substantially wider, and most of my pedal strikes are due to this extra width at the BB/wider Q. Nothing has caused a crash. Just an occasional scrape of the pedals. Haven't even bent any pins.

Bike climbs really well, and I don't have to lean forward nearly so aggressively as I used to. I can sit up pretty straight to keep the rear wheel planted and still keep the front end from wandering. I think the really slack/long front end has a lot to do with that. It descends even better. I've bombed down some super chunky downhills since I've owned this bike. Stuff that on previous bikes I would have been super careful about. The geometry plays a big role with that, and I'm also using "just" 720mm bars. Not only is it the most comfortable bike I've owned, it's definitely the most fun.

And, the bike has only 100mm of suspension travel.


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

Mr Pig said:


> I think it's obvious. People buy with their egos and overestimate their riding ability. More travel looks badass and suggests you know what you're doing. I don't, so I bought 120mm which in more than enough for me.
> .


Weird Ive always felt the opposite. I thought more travel/slacker was safer at the cost of climbing efficiency so better for newbies

As Ive gotten better Ive gone to less travel as I dont need it. Im glad my first bike had 140 and a slack geo as it saved my bacon on tough technical downs many times.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

goodmojo said:


> Weird Ive always felt the opposite. I thought more travel/slacker was safer at the cost of climbing efficiency so better for newbies.


Yes, I see what you mean and I guess you're right, if you are doing fairly advanced riding. What i mean is that people buy bikes with big suspension when they ride canal paths and the sorts of trails you can do easily with no suspension at all. They just buy a big, butch looking bike because it looks the part but it's way more bike than they actually need.

I almost did it myself. I nearly bought a 160mm travel Kona before I came down to earth and realised that I will never do the kind of stuff that requires such a machine.


----------



## desertwheeler (Sep 1, 2009)

I'm not a huge fan of low BB's my id had a pretty high one and I liked it especially in the rocky tech trails. My epiphany is lower and I had to retrain myself in pedal timing etc. maybe it's just better geometry vs newer in my case but the rest of the feel of the bike is better. I also went to 780mm bars and a shorter stem that felt good too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

aerius said:


> Same here, I like modern geometry and want bike companies to go even lower with BB heights, but a steep STA just don't get along with me. When the STA are at 74* or more it feels like I'm driving myself forward and up off the saddle every time I pedal harder than an easy spin. It's fine for XC where it encourages you to get out of the seat and hammer, but it sucks when I'm trying to stay seated & conserve energy on my long travel bike. My preferred riding position is at or slightly behind KOPS, that's where I'm most comfortable & balanced and waste the least amount of energy holding myself in place.


see Ia m the opposite the farther forward I can get the less I am likely to stand up to pedal.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> I am not sure it could continue to get better. but old geometery still had roots in road biking where people thought you had to be streached out to be fast.
> 
> I think todays bike are faster overall especailly when set up the right way.


That's exactly it, we aren't riding road bikes... and I have a little suspicion that part of the reason road bike geo is what it is due to old material limitations which no longer apply. Road bikes travel 2-3 times faster than MTBs yet they need super steep HTAs? I expect that to be yet another MTB trend to slowly trickle over to road bikes.

Not only do new geo bikes need to be set up correctly, they need to be ridden correctly. When you do that there is absolutely no loss of maneuverability when compared to steeper bikes, what you do get one hell of a lot of confidence inspiring stability. Everything about new trail/all mountain/enduro geometry is about adding confidence by making the bike more stable.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Not only confidence but safety. I think that entry level bike especially need to be slacker up front with shorter stems. This would have saved me a lot of skin when I was starting out.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

I'm pretty happy about 'new' geometry trend, as someone who is much 'taller' from the waist up than the waist down, for most of my biking life, I've had to choose adequate standover, but a long stem and setback post, or a 'properly short' stem, and virtually zero standover.

Bikes getting longer via an increased front center/reach is all right by me. 

My bike is a size medium and I love the CS length, the BB height, the slack-ish HTA, and low standover, but the 23.3" ETT is too short for me to have anything less than an 80mm stem. 90 is actually better, but makes the chunky technical stuff scary. I really wish my bike had at least an inch more top tube. 1.5 would be better. 

To get an ETT in the vicinity of 25" like I want, I need a size XL frame in most brands, and an XL frame has a standover befitting someone who is 6" taller than I am. 
I ride with a guy who has an XL Trek Fuel EX9, and with his new 50mm stem, the bike fits me like a glove, but the 'low point' of the TT is like an inch in front of the saddle nose. When I straddle his bike, in the middle of the top tube, 'the boys' are literally resting on the frame. That can't happen.

Something like a 25" ETT, with a 27-28.5" standover (where the rider actually straddles), short-ish chainstays, a HTA around 67, and a BB about 13.75 would be amazing. 
This would definitely be divergent from the middle of the spectrum geo on most bikes, but I think it's getting closer. nothing like this existed 10 years ago.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

You're looking at the wrong number, you should be concentrating on REACH, not ETT - As an example I've 2 bikes with the same Reach, but ETT is almost an inch different because of the STA. Not sure what frames you've looked at, but my Banshee FS frames have some of the lowest standover I've come across, so much so that people who would ride a Medium (5'8"ish) have had no issues standing over my XL Prime. What frame are you currently on, and what's the Reach?



ARandomBiker said:


> I'm pretty happy about 'new' geometry trend, as someone who is much 'taller' from the waist up than the waist down, for most of my biking life, I've had to choose adequate standover, but a long stem and setback post, or a 'properly short' stem, and virtually zero standover.
> 
> Bikes getting longer via an increased front center/reach is all right by me.
> 
> ...


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> "... there is absolutely no loss of maneuverability when compared to steeper bikes...


Absolutely incorrect. You can adjust your riding style to longer, slacker geometry, but it will still be more difficult and slower in tight turns and steep climbs. Tight and twisty trails are a handful on longer, slacker bikes. Of course you can ride them on any trail, but it will be slower.


----------



## PerfectZero (Jul 22, 2010)

Once a year I take my '98 Cannondale Super V700 out for a spin in the bike park to remind myself how good I have it with modern geometry (and everything else).

Should be interesting to revisit this thread in 5 years.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Absolutely incorrect. You can adjust your riding style to longer, slacker geometry, but it will still be more difficult and slower in tight turns and steep climbs. Tight and twisty trails are a handful on longer, slacker bikes. Of course you can ride them on any trail, but it will be slower.


I do not think most trails even have couple turns where angle like that matter.

Case in point the tightest twistiest least flowly DH around here that take like 8:00 minutes to go down,I am about :45 to 1:00 min faster on my Slack hardtail then I am on much lighter steep hardtail.

Slack hardtail has

140mm fork, 16.3 chainstays, 66 degree headangle, and 24 inch TT with a 35mm stem. weighs 28.0 lb

Steep hardtail has

100mm fork, 16,9 chainstays, 71 degree head angle, 23.5 inch TT, with a 80mm stem. weighs 24.5.

I am also not any slower climbing on the slack hardtail, especially if the climbing is tech in nature.

Basically what I am saying is my steep hardtail does not inspire confidence so no matter how much theory there is on why it should be faster it all junk, unless I can actually go faster on it.


----------



## lorsban (Sep 2, 2009)

I've used a 40mm stem and that was awesome for downhill. But too cramped feeling and twitchy for everywhere else.

I normally use 60-70mm stems.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Absolutely incorrect. You can adjust your riding style to longer, slacker geometry, but it will still be more difficult and slower in tight turns and steep climbs. Tight and twisty trails are a handful on longer, slacker bikes. Of course you can ride them on any trail, but it will be slower.


That is the overactive imagination of someone who either hasn't ridden a new geo bike, or refuses to acknowledge that progress tends to make things better.

There will be a couple inches of difference in the absolute minimum turning radius, but that doesn't really apply to real life riding. You might as well be suggesting that fat tired CX bikes are more suited for mountain biking with their even shorter wheelbases and steeper angles.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

richde said:


> You might as well be suggesting that fat tired CX bikes are more suited for mountain biking with their even shorter wheelbases and steeper angles.


Uhm...they are. Well if you consider 32mm "fat". I'll ride my cyclocross bike on anything that I'd ride a mountain bike on.

Not a fan of slack angles or wide bars at all. Stem length I could take or leave as it's a fit thing but would not ride a short stem just because it's the in thing.

About the only bike I could buy off the rack and ride with minimal changes is a S-works Stumpjumper.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

shayne said:


> uhm...they are. Well if you consider 32mm "fat". I'll ride my cyclocross bike on anything that i'd ride a mountain bike on..


ooo-kkkkk.......


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I'm gonna leave the cross bike thing alone, but it did make me laugh as tried to imagine hitting our trails on mine. How about Porcupine Rim or Amasa Back? Maybe Danny Macaskill.

However stem length effects handling and ones ability to shift weight to where it's needed. If you have to go long just for fit then maybe the frame is too short.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Irony: One of the world's best cyclocross racers won the enduro race in Moab in May. On a stock, relatively standard geometry Trek Superfly 100, IIRC. With a 90mm stem and 700mm bars. 

Against a bunch of "pro" enduro "racers" on new geometry bikes.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> However stem length effects handling and ones ability to shift weight to where it's needed. If you have to go long just for fit then maybe the frame is too short.


Correct, and any bike I've ridden with a stem less than ~110mm steers like a wheelbarrow full of watermelons.

And conversly if one has to go with a short stem maybe the frame is too large.

Its all subjective. I was just pointing out that aside from custom there are very few bikes available now that I would even bother looking at. 
"New" just doesn't do it for me. It's not comfortable.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Irony: One of the world's best cyclocross racers won the enduro race in Moab in May. On a stock, relatively standard geometry Trek Superfly 100, IIRC. With a 90mm stem and 700mm bars.
> 
> Against a bunch of "pro" enduro "racers" on new geometry bikes.


Not really, it just shows the talent of that rider relative to the rest of the field. You're making a similar argument to the guys that claim that because some beast kicks ass with a SS, then SS bikes must be better or just as good as geared. It's a silly argument.

If you gave Barel or Lopes Tomac's bike from the early 90's they'd still kick a bit of ass. But that's simply the whole bike/rider thing coming into play. Let's just say that there's a reason they prefer new bikes to old, and it's the same reason for the rest of us, because the new geo adds confidence and confidence is key to riding well.

Can a pro kick my ass all day, every day on a super-d or enduro course with them on an xc bike and me on my 6" bike, sure. But then again, would they be faster on appropriate bike? Yes, they would.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Shayne said:


> Correct, and any bike I've ridden with a stem less than ~110mm steers like a wheelbarrow full of watermelons.
> 
> And conversly if one has to go with a short stem maybe the frame is too large.
> 
> ...


That's because there's a relationship between bar width and stem length. Narrow bars need long stems because the narrow bars are slower steering and the long stem is needed to quicken the steering.

Mix and match and it's not going to work. Seems obvious, or at least it should.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

I reckon it depends on how you ride. 

New geometry refers to a lot of things that used to be considered downhill oriented, like slack head angles, short stems and wider bars. In the past the assumption was that if you optimized downhill performance, you gave up uphill performance. 

It turns out that these tweeks often times improves downhill performance a lot, with only a little compromise in uphill or slow techy, performance. 

If someone says the new geometry is not that special or doesn't like it, it probably means they never really had a bias towards downhill bombing anyway, and therefore they feel just as, or more, comfortable on an older bike as they do on a new one. And that's ok.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

richde said:


> That's because there's a relationship between bar width and stem length. Narrow bars need long stems because the narrow bars are slower steering and the long stem is needed to quicken the steering.
> 
> Mix and match and it's not going to work. Seems obvious, or at least it should.


Narrow bars need longer stems because moving your hands inward moves your body back. 
And visa versa.

I don't think stem length does anything noticeable to steering quickness, except for it's effect on front wheel weighting. That's because long stems move the bar out, but don't change the distance of the hand to the headset much. For example, with an 800 mm bar, your hands are only 9 mm farther from the headset center with a 100 mm stem as with a 50 mm. (Its the hypotenuse). Thats only a 2% difference. Bar width changes matter way more than stem length as far as "quickness" goes.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Le Duke said:


> Irony: One of the world's best cyclocross racers won the enduro race in Moab in May. On a stock, relatively standard geometry Trek Superfly 100, IIRC. With a 90mm stem and 700mm bars.
> 
> Against a bunch of "pro" enduro "racers" on new geometry bikes.


Two thoughts:

A good rider is a good rider.

That "enduro" race was held at Klondike Bluffs.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

I learned a lot from a 3 day demo on a Nomad 3 this past weekend.
I am in between sizes on Santa Cruz bikes so I decided to try a large. I have demoed a medium previously.
I now have a pretty good idea what I want from my next bike geo wise.
BTW, neither medium or large N3 fit me well.
I am 5'8.5" with 31.5" inseam.


1. 800mm bars. Didn't feel wide at all. I run 750 on my current bikes and they feel a bit too narrow now.

2. Low BB. I am used to it. It requires more work with proper timing, but could be adjusted with a different length cranks. 
I like how nice the bike carves with the weight so low. Obviously, for someone riding ungroomed gnarly trails, this could be a problem.

3. Steep ST. I am a fan. Nomad has a 74.2 degree ST and I still had my seat all the way forward. Love it on climbs. On flats I didn't find it to be cumbersome.

4. Long reach. I would like to use a 35-50mm stem, so as long as the reach is around 425mm I am good.

5. ETT - well this is going to be effected by the STA. As long as the distance from the tip of my seat to the bars is within 1cm from my ideal dimension, I am good.

6. Slack HA. This depends. The smaller wheel diameter, the slecker it should be. My ideal for my trails and my style of riding is around 66 on a 27.5 bike and 67 on a 29".

What totally surprised me is how well a slack bike with a 65 degree HT can climb. The front was totally planted. But I believe this was a result of the whole geometry, included steep SA and long WB. The negative was the bikes unwillingness to bunny hop.
Again, if I was on a medium, this would be a less of an issue.

7. Wheel base. Now I know 120mm is a bit too much for me. If my all my trails were wide open, than maybe... 
The bike was still plenty agile and only a slightly slower to change direction but on ultra sharp and tight uphill switchbacks was a lot of work. This was emphasized by the slack HT angle as well.
I think a WB around 116cm would be perfect.

8. Chain stays. The shorter the better in my book.
It makes a bike much more agile and playful. 
It also allows for a longer front without making the WB too long.
17" is the maximum I would tolerate on any wheel size bike.

9. ST length. This is a major problem with many bikes today. For someone like me in between sizes it could make it difficult to size up if the ST is too long. I like 150mm droppers and bikes like Ibis HD3 in large would not allow me to use one...

I don't understand why the seat tube going from a medium to large frame has to increase more than 5cm, while the reach increase is less than 2cm?
It doesn't make sense...


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

How does a short stem combined with bars having a long back sweep not suffer from the tiller effect?

From Wikipedia:

Tiller effect is the expression used to describe how handlebars that extend far behind the steering axis (head tube) act like a tiller on a boat, in that one moves the bars to the right in order to turn the front wheel to the left, and vice versa. This situation is commonly found on cruiser bicycles, some recumbents, and some motorcycles.[63] It can be troublesome when it limits the ability to steer because of interference or the limits of arm reach.[64]


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

richde said:


> That's because there's a relationship between bar width and stem length. Narrow bars need long stems because the narrow bars are slower steering and the long stem is needed to quicken the steering.
> 
> Mix and match and it's not going to work. Seems obvious, or at least it should.


Don't you have it backwards??? A longer stem slows steering and shorter bars quicken it. Imagine how far you would have to turn a super looongg stem to make the bike turn. Same with long bars, they give more leverage because you move your hands more to make the same turn.

Imagine trying to turn 1000mm bars on a 1000mm stem vs 200mm bars on a 30mm stem. Hand movement would do very little on the former vs how much the smallest movement would effect the latter.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

MikeDee said:


> How does a short stem combined with bars having a long back sweep not suffer from the tiller effect?


google got nothing.

so I use a 30mm Stem, with really swept back bar, and 51mm off set fork on my 29er.










My hands are way behind the front axle. As far as I can tell there are no negatives to this set up assuming the TT lenght is long enough you still have enough room to move. To the guys saying 40mm stems are too short, you have to size up a frame to get make smaller stem work.

the bike climbs fast and descends faster. Its is by far the faster bike I have ever owned.

https://www.strava.com/activities/75021943/segments/1490375765

I am Josh M.

for more on the idea.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Shayne said:


> Correct, and any bike I've ridden with a stem less than ~110mm steers like a wheelbarrow full of watermelons.
> 
> And conversly if one has to go with a short stem maybe the frame is too large.
> 
> ...


If you are steering your turns you are going to be slow. There is your problem. The new geometery let you lean the bike over way better than the old stuff.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

knutso said:


> Don't you have it backwards??? A longer stem slows steering and shorter bars quicken it. Imagine how far you would have to turn a super looongg stem to make the bike turn. Same with long bars, they give more leverage because you move your hands more to make the same turn.
> 
> Imagine trying to turn 1000mm bars on a 1000mm stem vs 200mm bars on a 30mm stem. Hand movement would do very little on the former vs how much the smallest movement would effect the latter.


Right.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

knutso said:


> Don't you have it backwards??? A longer stem slows steering and shorter bars quicken it. Imagine how far you would have to turn a super looongg stem to make the bike turn. Same with long bars, they give more leverage because you move your hands more to make the same turn.
> 
> Imagine trying to turn 1000mm bars on a 1000mm stem vs 200mm bars on a 30mm stem. Hand movement would do very little on the former vs how much the smallest movement would effect the latter.


Yup, I was on my phone and must have gotten ahead of myself while tapping away.


----------



## Skeeter97 (Feb 2, 2012)

I'm just glad we have the options. The "new school" geo is working great for me. I'm riding a Canfield EPO (slack HTA, super short CS) and absolutely love it. 780mm bars on a 50mm stem and it's just beautiful, for me at least. What's funny is my bro in law hates it and prefers the steeper angle on his stumpy HT. To each their own which is why I'm glad we have so many options these days 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Skeeter97 said:


> I'm just glad we have the options. The "new school" geo is working great for me. I'm riding a Canfield EPO (slack HTA, super short CS) and absolutely love it. 780mm bars on a 50mm stem and it's just beautiful, for me at least. What's funny is my bro in law hates it and prefers the steeper angle on his stumpy HT. To each their own which is why I'm glad we have so many options these days
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


its called he is used to what he used to.

Just take him some where where there is a good chance of endoing and watch him suffer.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

Combining a slacker HTA with a slacker STA and a modest length TT gives you a bike that is both agile on the tight and twisties yet stable on the DH. Great compromise.

Long TTs with steep STAs make for a long wheelbase and make for nice bombing bikes but are not the most nimble on twisty, pedally single track.


Depends on your trails. 

Not a fan of the steeper STAs. Not good for pedally trails. Perch you up on the bike too much and put too much weight on my hands. If your trails point only up and down I suppose they'd be ok.

Wide bars, no question.

Short chain stays, no question.

Lower BBs are nice. I can time my pedal strokes. I live in the rocky, pedally NE, and run 180mm cranks.

Stems, shorter than traditional stems but if too short the front end gets twitchy on slow speed tech.


That's why I find my Pivot Mach 6 to work so well on all types of trails. It's geo is dialed.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Miker J said:


> Combining a slacker HTA with a slacker STA and a modest length TT gives you a bike that is both agile on the tight and twisties yet stable on the DH. Great compromise.
> 
> Long TTs with steep STAs make for a long wheelbase and make for nice bombing bikes but are not the most nimble on twisty, pedally single track.
> 
> ...


I demoed a M6 and liked many things about it but I could not get the saddle forward enough to get a good position . My warden has 23mm more wheelbase and 31mm more reach and yet still handles the tight sections as well. With the Warden I could get the fit I wanted, but the M6's STA just had me too far back.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

It took me years to figure out I liked the saddle all the way in the front. Ultra steep stuff is just much easier to do.
This just tells me not to stay in old ways and try new stuff. One never knows...
The same with the bars. Just a year ago a 750mm was my upper limit, 2 years ago it was 710mm. Now I find 780-800 to be even better, even though when I tried them about a year ago, they felt too big.

Riders also progress and most start riding steeper stuff faster. That also changes priorities in desired geometry.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

I think Evasive hit the nail on the head. After looking at vids of the area and the Official one on PB, an efficient short travel FS would be killer on that course, looks like there's loads of areas a lighter, more efficient bike would be useful, lots of places to pedal and we all know that GF bikes don't use the standard XC geo, their HTA are around 68-69*.



Le Duke said:


> Irony: One of the world's best cyclocross racers won the enduro race in Moab in May. On a stock, relatively standard geometry Trek Superfly 100, IIRC. With a 90mm stem and 700mm bars.
> 
> Against a bunch of "pro" enduro "racers" on new geometry bikes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Skeeter97 (Feb 2, 2012)

BushwackerinPA said:


> its called he is used to what he used to.
> 
> Just take him some where where there is a good chance of endoing and watch him suffer.


Ha funny you say that, we just rode some lift assisted "downhill" stuff in Big Bear and he definitely struggled with it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Skeeter97 said:


> Ha funny you say that, we just rode some lift assisted "downhill" stuff in Big Bear and he definitely struggled with it.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yup, he brought a can opener to a gun fight.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> That is the overactive imagination of someone who either hasn't ridden a new geo bike, or refuses to acknowledge that progress tends to make things better.
> 
> There will be a couple inches of difference in the absolute minimum turning radius, but that doesn't really apply to real life riding. You might as well be suggesting that fat tired CX bikes are more suited for mountain biking with their even shorter wheelbases and steeper angles.


Or it is the experience of a rider who's been mountain biking since 1991 and has owned dozens of bikes and ridden in various states since then. Progress is geared towards the current trails and riding done by the majority of riders. That doesn't mean slower or less precise handling works best for everybody. There are many trails that my XL trail bike struggles to make it through the twisty sections. The wheelbase is a critical dimension on these trails. Of course you give up some stability going fast over rough terrain.

Your response indicates you have limited bike handling skills and limit your riding to flow trails. Nothing wrong with that, but I bet there are a few cyclocross riders out there that could destroy you on many trails. And yes, I have read your profile. You really must be a lazy rider.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Or it is the experience of a rider who's been mountain biking since 1991 and has owned dozens of bikes and ridden in various states since then. Progress is geared towards the current trails and riding done by the majority of riders. That doesn't mean slower or less precise handling works best for everybody. There are many trails that my XL trail bike struggles to make it through the twisty sections. The wheelbase is a critical dimension on these trails. Of course you give up some stability going fast over rough terrain.
> 
> Your response indicates you have limited bike handling skills and limit your riding to flow trails. Nothing wrong with that, but I bet there are a few cyclocross riders out there that could destroy you on many trails. And yes, I have read your profile. You really must be a lazy rider.


His response suggests nothing of the kind, and he's absolutely right that the difference in absolute turning radius made by an inch or so of wheelbase is pretty small. The way a bike corners and tracks will be much more noticeable than the absolute turning radius. Owning two bikes with 3" difference in wheelbase in a town known for switchbacks drove that home. The tightest ones weren't any more challenging on the longer bike.

I think the rapid spread of this type of geometry is more driven by the rise of pro-level enduro racing, particularly the EWS, than by hordes of new riders on flow trails. A bike with a long front center relative to the wheelbase needs to be driven, and that's not the way a beginner rides.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

The "flow" trail has nothing to do with it. Slacker head angles have come from the DH side, wil XC race bikes are closer to road end of the spectrum. I find that me my Warden really shines when the going gets steep and chunky.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> The "flow" trail has nothing to do with it. Slacker head angles have come from the DH side, wil XC race bikes are closer to road end of the spectrum. I find that me my Warden really shines when the going gets steep and chunky.


Do you think I will be pushing it too much if I go with:

-1 degree works angleset
650b wheel
650b pike 130mm A/C 522mm (21mm more than original geo)

Bike: 26 blur TRc
HA 68 with 501mm A/C 130mm 26 fork

This particular setup is for a lift assisted riding...


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I think the HTA would be ok but the BB might be pretty high. Can the frame handle what you are going to put it through?


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> I think the HTA would be ok but the BB might be pretty high. Can the frame handle what you are going to put it through?


The BB is now at 13.4", so it should be fine.
I am not going to do anything extreme. All trails are groomed. Taking it to Snow Summit.
I will test it today on my home trails and see if the angleset stays.
It feels a bit choppy on flats.


----------



## EndUser (Jan 13, 2004)

Don’t laugh, but I tend to buy and ride my bikes for about a decade before I upgrade. My last bike was a Titus Motolite which has that classic old school geometry… high, short, and steep. Well, this was year 10 and I settled on the Ibis HD3. The differences in old school vs. new school geometry became immediately obvious to me and I will say without hesitation that “new school” is the WAY. As great as my Titus was in its day, the HD3 simply spirits me around the trails. The HD3 is better in every single way.

I’ve tried to rationalize why the Ibis handles so much better given its lower, longer, slacker nature. I’ve concluded that I was brainwashed into believing the opposite was true. 

Also, I think fork offset is not given enough credit for how these lower, longer, slacker bikes handle. As fork offset continues to get subtly longer, it reduces steering trail making these slacker bikes handle more deftly than the HTA would allow you to believe.

Regards,

EndUser


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

I've got a 2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro. It has G2 geometry. Is this new or old geometry? I've got an old Cannondale F900 hardtail. It is a lot more twitchy than the Trek is.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

MikeDee said:


> I've got a 2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro. It has G2 geometry. Is this new or old geometry? I've got an old Cannondale F900 hardtail. It is a lot more twitchy than the Trek is.


trek have a longer fork offset, and its better than most XC 29er but still compared to proper low and slack bike there is room for improvement.

Geometery is not black and white but shades of grey.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

evasive said:


> His response suggests nothing of the kind, and he's absolutely right that the difference in absolute turning radius made by an inch or so of wheelbase is pretty small. The way a bike corners and tracks will be much more noticeable than the absolute turning radius. Owning two bikes with 3" difference in wheelbase in a town known for switchbacks drove that home. The tightest ones weren't any more challenging on the longer bike.
> 
> I think the rapid spread of this type of geometry is more driven by the rise of pro-level enduro racing, particularly the EWS, than by hordes of new riders on flow trails. A bike with a long front center relative to the wheelbase needs to be driven, and that's not the way a beginner rides.


I disagree with just about everything you said, but I won't argue with your personal experience. I'll just say that my experience has been just about the opposite.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

You guys know you're just a bunch of equipment nerds, right?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

smilinsteve said:


> You guys know you're just a bunch of equipment nerds, right?


It's probably worse than that. If a research study was funded on the psychology of these the types you speak of, I imagine scientists would say it's a disorder and there are various degrees of severity, with buying fine equipment to please desire being one of the more advanced stages. Once the study is published, the Christians would twist the findings into their perspective, and proclaim things such as addictive pleasure being akin to sin and that the urge to buy gear is the curse, which eventually leads to damnation. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's murdered out ride!

JK JK :lol:


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> You guys know you're just a bunch of equipment nerds, right?


Guilty.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Absolutely. But when you can't test-ride every new bike that comes out having an understanding of bike fit, geometry, and how the changes in certain measurements affect handling is pretty useful. I bought my new bike (Knolly Warden) based on numbers and rider reviews, I'd never even seen one in the flesh. Hopefully in a couple of weeks the build being completeled should coincide with my wrist being good enough to ride again and I'll let you know how I think 2015 "new" geometry feels compared to 2010 "old" geometry (5spot)...


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it might incriminate myself 


smilinsteve said:


> You guys know you're just a bunch of equipment nerds, right?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

In my defense mtb is a pretty equipment centric lifestyle. If mountain biking is a big part of your life then it stands to reason that you would be interested in the tech aspects.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

These discussions always make me think of really old bikes.
Check out that slacked out front end for shredding the gnar...


----------



## NWS (Jun 30, 2010)

smilinsteve said:


> You guys know you're just a bunch of equipment nerds, right?


I'm confused.. You say that as if it were a bad thing?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

New school geo is actually old school, just made new again. For example, that Knolly is very similar to what Spec has been running for a while like on their SJ FSR Evo (26). And before the SJ FSR Evo, was the Pitch, which had geo akin to the latest version of Mondraker forward geo (slightly longer stem on the Pitch). I didn't look into other brands' old bikes, but I know that we've already been there and done that.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

If memory serves me right the first production mtb's (Stumper/Ritchey} had 67-68 HTA's, and even with all their flaws are still super fun rides IMO. Designs are constantly being refined and improved.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Refinement of designs and geo are for the most part just trends, marketing, and/or differentiation to me. I'm more impressed by improvement of tires, suspension, and to a smaller extent, bearings and other things done to eliminate drag, play, flex, etc. I particularly like how some of the big names are getting suspension custom tuned from the likes of Ohlins, Penske, and even Fox and RockShox, rather than picking between what's available.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

How I picture trendy new school designs - bold color like orange, tall extended front, low, short rear, sporty, but a bit backwards for those actually wanting to go the fastest as they can be, and be versatile and balanced enough to handle a variety of courses:










What the guys were on from the previous trend - murdered out enduro capable, do-all, mo-carbon mo-bettah, **** be heavy so don't need paint weighing it down too, black ano on the fork and shock stanchions too, short rear and long front is cool, and extra susp travel is cool too for extra comfiness:










And before that - raw metal, beauty in manufacturing, pro-US, carefully spec'd custom handbuilt wheels (and i9 wheels), accented by ano parts with gold bits being the most bling (zomg Kashima coat), stay away from carbon and stick with trusty metals:










Alternatively, at the same time, this trend was growing - cruising easy-mode along vast stretches of trail in the US (catching on in South Africa and to a small extent, in Australia), with wild designs that were all over, but that didn't matter because it was the wheel size that got all the attention and credit, and nice bright glossy paint (ex. Niner and Trek) was icing on the cake:


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Changes to geometry and where that puts the riders weight are more important than a custom tuned shock. My last bike had an RP23, and new one has an Inline. Much better, but I lose interest in it when going down steep chunk. I would rather have a modern geometry hardtail than a steep FS endo machine with a custom tuned shock.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

The issue lies more in personal preference, especially regarding what people have determined belonged to the "good" side of their good-bad scale, and what they determined to be on the "bad" side of the scale. They rely on familiarity to determine this and find extremely basic patterns to reason why it is good or bad, but when they actually own such a bike and find that 1000 miles later that the bike isn't everything they wanted it to be, they can't admit that their scale is F'd up and blame it on other stuff. Where exactly is weight being put that is bad on these bad designs? Not forward enough on the climbs? Not forward enough in the corners?

A killer shock tune that provides mega traction and glues itself the the ground, offering more control than you know what to do with, along with a balanced geo that isn't so short in wheelbase nor so bias towards the rear that doesn't buck on either end as much when plowing through the rough, is actually considered to be far on the bad side of the scale. Such high performance is too much performance for these people that are used to their old bikes happily bouncing around off of rocks, popping up with a twang to get minor air time with the slightest weight shift, and feeling the chaos through the feedback in their feet and hands to fuel the thrill they get from being on the edge of control. This kind of high performance often is what creates the feeling over "overkill" on trails below your skill level, at least when not going very fast, and kills the "fun" that these people feel on the stuff they are used to slowing down for. Going fast on the DH while also going as fast on the XC stuff is exactly what they're offering, yet it's considered bad mainly due to a perceived lack of fun factor (also perceived lack of cornering prowess esp in switchbacks, hard to wheelie/manual). A light bike going downhill as fast as more familiar heavier bikes, on top of being short travel... it seems like some don't want to believe it can be that capable, and want some beefier parts and more travel added on just in case.

How such types prefer virtually no compression damping with their springs, absolutely hate bouncing with their uneven pedaling strokes, want it to be as easy to corner as possible, and want comfort such as killing the feedback the uninteresting things like braking bumps, is a major part of the reason behind why designs are becoming backwards, as the industry tries to make money off of such demands. The kind of parts such people spec like Minion DHF tires, thick stanchion forks, wide rims, underinflated fat tires, thick saddles, extreme stem length change, super wide bars, emphasis on the low end of gearing with pie plate cassette cogs, etc. don't really help with promoting a riding style that works well with the higher performance bikes. They don't realize how crazy such a shock tune is, and the shock tuning experts themselves know that trying to achieve it isn't very wise, yet those with resources try to accept the challenge anyways, hence the birth of DRCV and Re:Aktiv... you get the sensitivity ("even under braking"), use full travel, mid-stroke support, good pedaling platform, and get still great traction, yet it's looked down upon apparently for being complicated or too one-off. Or you can just be like Yeti and custom tune a lowly Fox and use Trek-like geo (the geo before Trek went new school), along with a new carbon mfg partner, and rack up the awards.

The personal preference bias often gets set by what bikes people start off on. Starting off on a typical race-inspired XC bike tends to put people on modern race geo that gets so much more done on less, encouraging fitness and high milage exploration. Starting off on a huckable bike encourages a DH race bias, but without real DH tracks to do DH races on, freeride, slope, and enduro become what the riders go after, but those turn out to be tougher to go after, and the rider begins to look for a support group to motivate them to progress towards such goals. When these riders switch over to the other side, they feel how the bikes are great for doing certain things, but when they see that they can't enjoy what they were used to doing before on the new bikes they switched to, they feel a pull to go back to what they're used to.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

I agree with Varaxis. I think.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

WOW, really 


Varaxis said:


> The issue lies more in personal preference,.............endless dribble


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

My bad. I'm just zooming out to try and see the big picture, and preaching basically about how all this debating winds up being summed up as: it depends, mostly on personal preferences and circumstances. Others here have said what I said in 1-2 lines, about how people like what they're used to.

I just dislike how people are being influenced by others' opinions so easily, especially regarding what's considered good and what's bad. If the OP wants a good reason to go for the EPO, I'd say set a fresh series challenges that can really test the various limits of you and your bike beforehand. Then point out what you'd like improved, in order to accomplish those goals, and if that means improving your equipment, question Canfield themselves directly and see if they have the answer. If they're not confident in their bike delivering what you want, then don't buy it.

That and I'm also skeptical of the heavy rearward weight bias of the new school bikes. Sure it helps on steep DHs, but that's gotta compromise the rest of the ride. I'm more for the things you can't figure out from a spec sheet, like stiffness in the right places to provide the confidence for descending. I know it felt oddly refreshing to ride a bike with a front end so stout that it didn't bow noticeably from being on the front brakes, which increased my accuracy greatly on descents and for setting up on corners.

I'm on an E29 and ROS9, which I thought would be a great 2-bike quiver, but they aren't making me want to sell my other bikes. In fact, I want to try and sell these. Might just be me and how it is in the SW USA, despite being made by companies with roots in CA and CO. Personal preference... endless dribble...


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

^^Not your bad for thinking about it, but that's a lot of debate about how different designs and builds ride.

IIRC, the R in MTBR stands for rhetoric, not riding. 

Oh, wait, review. Sorry.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

This recent-most take on frame geometry has been a work in progress, though having a 10 year gap in execution. Was looking hard for a longer IH 6POINT when they hit the stores. 150mm rear axle, 83mm threaded BB, a proper DW*LINK.
The longer front-center places a rider in a much better relation to the BB when the bike as itself is in rotation there, less immediacy to the dropping sensation and then better tracking along straight ahead sections. 
Dunno about the masses here, but this seemingly small change in DownTube- and TopTube length has been anticipated for a long while.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Haint said:


> This recent-most take on frame geometry has been a work in progress, though having a 10 year gap in execution. Was looking hard for a longer IH 6POINT when they hit the stores. 150mm rear axle, 83mm threaded BB, a proper DW*LINK.
> The longer front-center places a rider in a much better relation to the BB when the bike as itself is in rotation there, less immediacy to the dropping sensation and then better tracking along straight ahead sections.
> Dunno about the masses here, but this seemingly small change in DownTube- and TopTube length has been anticipated for a long while.


exactly Long front centers are freaking awesome and with short rear ends end up being quicker around turns than XC bikes.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

BushwackerinPA said:


> exactly Long front centers are freaking awesome and with short rear ends end up being quicker around turns than XC bikes.


Geometry being what it is, everything's a compromise though. Yes, the short rear-center will bring the rear wheel forward quicker, at a loss of high speed stability to a degree. Really does depend upon how versatile the bicycle needs to be - no DJ Bike will be able to cope with a day of DH runs, and vice versa.

There's a small satellite-company who is re-issuing Iron Horse front-halves, mostly the Sunday. Should the lowly 6POINT have enough circulation to win Zelvy's approval, simply providing an inch and a half to the frame front center would create the ultimate all-day bike. 
Asking as to why I could not have one this long (in 2005) I was told to get a 21" frame. Impossible - am 6ft w/ a 31" inseam. My knees would be mincemeat.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

How much weight does new school geometry add to a bike? Any FS bike used for cross country riding that weighs more than 30 lbs is a pig (no offense, Mr. Pig). It seems like weight has gone by the wayside with heavier long travel suspension components, longer frames, wider tires and rims, dropper seatpost, and the like. Doesn't anyone climb hills anymore?


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

MikeDee said:


> How much weight does new school geometry add to a bike? Any FS bike used for cross country riding that weighs more than 30 lbs is a pig (no offense, Mr. Pig). It seems like weight has gone by the wayside with heavier long travel suspension components, longer frames, wider tires and rims, dropper seatpost, and the like. Doesn't anyone climb hills anymore?


You're imagining this. Firstly, XC bikes aren't seeing any longer travel. Second, I know plenty of modern AM bikes built below 30 lbs.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Varaxis said:


> My bad. I'm just zooming out to try and see the big picture, and preaching basically about how all this debating winds up being summed up as: it depends, mostly on personal preferences and circumstances. Others here have said what I said in 1-2 lines, about how people like what they're used to.
> 
> I just dislike how people are being influenced by others' opinions so easily, especially regarding what's considered good and what's bad. If the OP wants a good reason to go for the EPO, I'd say set a fresh series challenges that can really test the various limits of you and your bike beforehand. Then point out what you'd like improved, in order to accomplish those goals, and if that means improving your equipment, question Canfield themselves directly and see if they have the answer. If they're not confident in their bike delivering what you want, then don't buy it.
> 
> ...


You're making a massive assumption based on your lack of experience with newer, slacker, bikes.

The upsides of slacker geometry FAR outweigh any downside. A short rear end doesn't make a bike unstable, that's a function of HTA and wheelbase...and what's more stable? A slacker HTA, and when you ride it right, it turns just as well, probably better than a steeper bike.

The old theory that bikes have to be steep, twitchy and downright confidence sapping to be fast is wrong, and the trend of XC driving all MTB design is dead and buried.

If you're concerned about SW riding, take a look at Tempe-based Pivot, which makes bikes on the slacker side. I don't think Cocalis has ever been accused of building bad bikes.



MikeDee said:


> Doesn't anyone climb hills anymore?


I've climbed about 100,000ft so far this year on my almost 30lb 6" bike. HTFU.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

richde said:


> A short rear end doesn't make a bike unstable, that's a function of HTA and wheelbase...


Picture your bike as a see saw, with your center of gravity sitting on top of it. Your bike takes hits from below, from the front or rear tire contact patch. If your center of gravity is roughly in the center of the bike, the bike will rotate around your COG more, and lift you less. If your weight is directly over the rear axle, force from the ground is directly lifting you rather than rotating the bike around you.

That's why in theory, super short chainstays will make you feel the hits to the rear wheel more, will lift you more, and will therefore be less stable.

That's just theory of course. Lots of downhill bikes have short chainstays, but they normally aren't as short as they could be.



> and what's more stable? A slacker HTA, and when you ride it right, it turns just as well, probably better than a steeper bike.


From my experience, long slack bikes do NOT handle tight switchbacks as well as shorter, steeper geometry.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> In my defense mtb is a pretty equipment centric lifestyle. If mountain biking is a big part of your life then it stands to reason that you would be interested in the tech aspects.


Back to my comment about all you equipment nerds. I'm one too. 
I think new stuff is cool, but it's almost like its completely separate from riding. 
You don't have to care at all about equipment and still love to ride. We've all seen the guy who kicks ass on his rusty hard tail and Converse All Stars, right?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Almost anything I do on my new bike I could do on any of my previous bikes. Put dropper posts on 90's bikes and that would really close the gap!

If a bike is steeper and more endo prone, you ride steep rocky downhills differently. That doesn't make it bad. It could make it extra exciting, actually. If you race or care about going as fast as possible, this stuff matters more I guess. 

Riders get on the bike and figure out how to make it work. Equipment nerds get on the bike and ride down while thinking about the new parts or new bike they need so they can be more agro. 

It's not the bike that excels at downhills, inspires confidence or "allows you" to clean more gnar, its the rider that makes it happen. 

When I ride my older bikes I think of them as being different, not worse. It's a different kind of fun.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

smilinsteve said:


> It's not the bike that excels at downhills, inspires confidence or "allows you" to clean more gnar, its the rider that makes it happen.


going from a 100mm front and rear 73 degree head angle with 23.4 TT lenght and 18.2 stays to my current 140mm 66 degree head angle, 24.1 16.2 chainstays for let me do thing I could not do, and still could not do well on the XC bike. The new bike for sure allows me to get the front end up easier and makes it far easier to jump over stuff on trail, go off drop and take on gnarlier roll downs. Its really is not me it the bike and the strava time prove to me that the modern geo is actually faster being ridden back to back by me.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

BushwackerinPA said:


> going from a 100mm front and rear 73 degree head angle with 23.4 TT lenght and 18.2 stays


Sounds a lot like my 2008 Intense Spider 29er?



> to my current 140mm 66 degree head angle, 24.1 16.2 chainstays for let me do thing I could not do, and still could not do well on the XC bike. The new bike for sure allows me to get the front end up easier and makes it far easier to jump over stuff on trail, go off drop and take on gnarlier roll downs. Its really is not me it the bike and the strava time prove to me that the modern geo is actually faster being ridden back to back by me.


What I'm saying is that I could ride my same trails on any of my old bikes and have just as much fun on any of them. I'm not saying the rides would be the same or take the same time.


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

Travis Bickle said:


> In my defense mtb is a pretty equipment centric lifestyle. If mountain biking is a big part of your life then it stands to reason that you would be interested in the tech aspects.


Doesnt have to be. My friend rides about 5 days a week, maybe 80-100 miles/week mtb, won cat 2 last year. He does very little of his own maint, doesnt know anything about slack/steep, chainstays etc. He also only switches bikes every 5 years where most in his group switch every 2 years.

He knows that most of the gain is from riding. He doesnt really train, doesnt measure heart rates or anything like that.

He rides and wants to spend all his time riding, not reading forums, not debating tech etc.

I think it is a good way to be.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I have always done my own maintenance and always think it's a little weird when people take their bike to the shop for simple little things.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> Picture your bike as a see saw, with your center of gravity sitting on top of it. Your bike takes hits from below, from the front or rear tire contact patch. If your center of gravity is roughly in the center of the bike, the bike will rotate around your COG more, and lift you less. If your weight is directly over the rear axle, force from the ground is directly lifting you rather than rotating the bike around you.
> 
> That's why in theory, super short chainstays will make you feel the hits to the rear wheel more, will lift you more, and will therefore be less stable.


Any hit you take while seated that's enough to noticeably lift you up is a mistake, because you're seated when you should know you shouldn't be, and an inch difference over 40-something inches in wheelbase isn't going to move the pivot point drastically enough to make a huge difference. Besides, the slacker head angle makes any theoretical pitch forward far, far, less dramatic. Short chainstays make the bike more maneuverable, that's why they've gotten shorter.



smilinsteve said:


> That's just theory of course. Lots of downhill bikes have short chainstays, but they normally aren't as short as they could be.


Ultimately, chainstay length in FS bikes is limited by packaging limitations, as in having room for the wheel to go as the suspension moves. But in practice, chainstay lengths were too long, because like HTA, people thought you needed road bike -like measurements to go fast.



smilinsteve said:


> From my experience, long slack bikes do NOT handle tight switchbacks as well as shorter, steeper geometry.


Unless you're talking about DH bikes, that's just not true. Like I said, the difference between absolute minimum turn diameter would be a couple of inches, at best. Anything that requires such a tight turning radius (that isn't in a parking lot) would be a chancy proposition regardless of what bike you're on.

I haven't come up on anything on my 6" bike that I can't maneuver around, and you don't hear about anyone who has. Yes, theoretically, it's possible...but realistically, it doesn't happen. Even if it did, those situations are so rare that the advantages of slacker, longer, geometry far outweigh any possible negatives.

This isn't some great conspiracy, trends change because the old ones weren't working as well as they could have been.

Why are all old vs. new arguments the same? Nobody is saying you can't ride your old bike, and if new bikes didn't get better through the passage of time (like everything else) people would be pretty pissed off.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> Almost anything I do on my new bike I could do on any of my previous bikes. Put dropper posts on 90's bikes and that would really close the gap!
> 
> If a bike is steeper and more endo prone, you ride steep rocky downhills differently. That doesn't make it bad. It could make it extra exciting, actually. If you race or care about going as fast as possible, this stuff matters more I guess.
> 
> ...


Not true, at all. I got on a slightly newer, slightly more long and slack bike at Interbike, on my local trails, and immediately set PR's. The geometry inspires confidence, which allows you to ride better. Mountain bike technology is ALL about making it easier and instilling confidence. Suspension, disk brakes, geometry, wheels size, all of it.

If you just want to tip-toe around the trails and make it as difficult as possible, go grab a vintage Stumpy, throw some skinnier tires on it, and make it a single speed. Strangely enough, people don't want to do that.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

goodmojo said:


> Doesnt have to be. My friend rides about 5 days a week, maybe 80-100 miles/week mtb, won cat 2 last year. He does very little of his own maint, doesnt know anything about slack/steep, chainstays etc. He also only switches bikes every 5 years where most in his group switch every 2 years.
> 
> He knows that most of the gain is from riding. He doesnt really train, doesnt measure heart rates or anything like that.
> 
> ...


I think its a good way to be too.


----------



## bob_m (May 17, 2013)

richde said:


> Like I said, the difference between absolute minimum turn diameter would be a couple of inches, at best. Anything that requires such a tight turning radius (that isn't in a parking lot) would be a chancy proposition regardless of what bike you're on.


Curious, if you are climbing a trail with lots of chunk, would a steeper bike allow you to move slower and thus make it easier to maneuver around obstacles to find a good line? Do you have to maintain a bit more speed as the head angle slackens. Thanks


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> I have always done my own maintenance and always think it's a little weird when people take their bike to the shop for simple little things.


I think so too. You can't be a true equipment nerd if you don't also like to fiddle around with adjusting and rebuilding your stuff. 
My brother is the opposite of me. Every time I ride with him, I find his bike is shifting like crap, his rotors are rubbing, his fork is packing up, etc. Drives me nuts!


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

richde said:


> i've climbed about 100,000ft so far this year on my almost 30lb 6" bike. Htfu.


6"? Htfu


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

bob_m said:


> Curious, if you are climbing a trail with lots of chunk, would a steeper bike allow you to move slower and thus make it easier to maneuver around obstacles to find a good line? Do you have to maintain a bit more speed as the head angle slackens. Thanks


IME, no. One of my favourite bikes is my old 98 Explosif. That thing could climb and so can my Warden. The Warden is a better tech climber because of the suspension, but they are both maneuverable. Explosif is now my SS Townie bike.


----------



## Sgraffite (Oct 6, 2014)

Travis Bickle said:


> I have always done my own maintenance and always think it's a little weird when people take their bike to the shop for simple little things.


I'm guilty of this when I want to commute to work on my bike, but I don't have time to research how to do maintenance that I'm not familiar with. Then when I pick it up I'll ask questions as to how they did it.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

evasive said:


> You're imagining this. Firstly, XC bikes aren't seeing any longer travel. Second, I know plenty of modern AM bikes built below 30 lbs.


That's not what I'm saying. People are doing XC type riding on non XC bikes. XC bikes are not that common anymore. I don't even think Santa Cruz, for instance, makes an XC bike. An AM bike that weighs under 30 lbs probably has a carbon frame and costs $5000+


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

richde said:


> A short rear end doesn't make a bike unstable, that's a function of HTA and wheelbase


There's no way for this making sense - having less rear chainstay means less the ability to place weight before, past, and above the rear wheel. So, such the design can be found unstable. Not everyone rides seated.


richde said:


> ...and what's more stable?


Riding style will dictate how stability is maintained.


richde said:


> A slacker HTA, and when you ride it right, it turns just as well, probably better than a steeper bike.


Again, this makes no sense. Taken to the extremes of steering input and feedback, each has their own rewards.

Alot of designs from the past 5 years would be better having more Reach w/o the standover height increased. That's about it.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

smilinsteve said:


> Almost anything I do on my new bike I could do on any of my previous bikes. Put dropper posts on 90's bikes and that would really close the gap!
> 
> If a bike is steeper and more endo prone, you ride steep rocky downhills differently. That doesn't make it bad. It could make it extra exciting, actually. If you race or care about going as fast as possible, this stuff matters more I guess.
> 
> ...


Super true. You can't be thinking about equipment changes while on a ride. That part of your brain needs to be turned off, to fully hear the mind that likes to crush.

I have been messing with the cockpit height and length on my new gravel bike almost every couple rides. There is a form to be found in almost every position. Can't think about changes, gotta be on the bike your on.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

richde said:


> If you just want to tip-toe around the trails and make it as difficult as possible, go grab a vintage Stumpy, throw some skinnier tires on it, and make it a single speed.


Vintage stumpy's are awesome! 68 hta, fun in the sun. F the skinny tires and ss though, I'll take the original 15 speed friction shift and official Stumpjumper tires please.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

smilinsteve said:


> What I'm saying is that I could ride my same trails on any of my old bikes and have just as much fun on any of them. I'm not saying the rides would be the same or take the same time.


You are so full of it. We all know you crashed and nearly died that one time you tried to ride NORBA geo on a trail. How could you not? We've _all_ almost died because of those stupid steep HTA short top tube death machines, the dumber of us over and over again. And everyone knows, if they had shaved a half inch off those gargantuan chain stays, massive air and endless manuals would be effortless.

For shame. And I was starting to trust you.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> I haven't come up on anything on my 6" bike that I can't maneuver around, and you don't hear about anyone who has. Yes, theoretically, it's possible...but realistically, it doesn't happen. Even if it did, those situations are so rare that the advantages of slacker, longer, geometry far outweigh any possible negatives.


I've stated that on some of the trails I ride, slacker, longer bikes are much more difficult to ride than the older geometry. You can, but you have to slow down more to make the turns. One of us is lying...

Also, a skilled rider can ride "old" geometry on just about every trail just fine. They probably won't be setting any PR's or KOM's, but why would so ebody waste their time keeping track of that, anyway?


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

What exactly is new geometry? I get longer top tube, slacker head angle, maybe lower bottom bracket and steeper seat tube angle. What else?


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

MikeDee said:


> What exactly is new geometry? I get longer top tube, slacker head angle, maybe lower bottom bracket and steeper seat tube angle. What else?


Short CS. Short enough ST to run a 6" dropper. Longer reach. Lower stack.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Seems new school geo is about having the BB and grips further behind and as low as possible in relation to the front axle without making the wheelbase too long, and also more standover. It's touted as being more confidence inspiring and stable--I can't argue that less endo risk and more testicle clearance can lead to those feels. Less endo risk can mean more front brake usage and, when used to address the common mistake of entering corners with too much speed, can improve cornering ability greatly. With a rearward weight bias around 65:35 (rear:front weight distro) and a short stem, you can hang even more weight off the back before you hit the end of your rope.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Satire aside, if people were really interested in performance, they'd be considering how angular momentum plays in all these figures, and that requires looking at the mass attached to each axle, the distance from the axles to the different points where mass is centered (rider contact points like saddle, BB, grips, head tube). They'd also consider other factors like where the rubber hits the ground in relation to the steering axis (mechanical trail), and figures like the BB drop.

Just to prime people up on how to see angular momentum, look at everyone's fav measurement, the chainstay length. The shorter it is, the less force it takes to rotate it. It's flickable in a lateral rotational axis, but it also moves easily in a vertical rotational axis, forcing you to pump the terrain, else take strong feedback, which typically is force going into your lower back, even if you have rear suspension. Putting a 1000+g Minion DHF or Trail King, 500+g larger diameter rim, CK or Onyx hub, thru-axle, big pie plate 10/11 spd cassette, heavy chain, and heavy brake on the rear wheel, results in a lot of inertia to get moving, so vertical forces move it up less when hitting obstacles, but it's also harder for you to whip it. This is why some DHers say bikes can be too light. Same goes with the front, the further away the front is from the rider, the more force it takes to deflect it at odd angles, and the less you would be compelled to pump it (less effective as well), though you would probably want to keep it in check in case it wants to float with less weight on it, as a tire in the air isn't giving you traction and control.

It's no wonder people seem to prefer a fatter heavier tire up front and a lighter one in the rear (though, a heavy one on the back for regularly plowing rough sections is acceptable) on these new school bikes, while people riding easy-riding bikes like the SB95, Sultan, the other 100-125mm 29er FS bikes with 445+mm CS are perfectly fine with similarly lightweight tires front and back. These easy-rider bikes don't really ride any worse on the DHs than the new school ones, more often being called bad because they make it too easy--too often I find myself hitting the brakes on my old 29er in order to not rear ending someone on a new school geo bike, and far out-lasting them as well.

I wonder how people saying they want new school geo, actually just want old school 26" ride handling feel with updated tech that isn't considered to be dying... those sub 24-lbs 26" 5-6" travel FS bikes were, and still are, crazy fun, esp with dialed susp and good tires. IMO, old school 26" + "old school" 29er quiver. 17.5" CS is not bad (see Ripley, SB6c, etc.). I think it's sad to see brands like Trek go short CS across the board. I wonder what their marathon and comfort seekers will go for. The old HTs and the Remedy 29 are the only MTBs left with CS longer than 17.3" for 2016, from what I can tell from a glance. 

I'm not anti-new school, I'm pro-choice and anti-misinformation. Find myself ranting more and more because I'm not happy with all the misinformation fueling this popularity contest. Please don't trade in your long CS bikes for this new trend if you like regularly doing 2.5+ hr exploration rides in comfort.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Varaxis said:


> Seems new school geo is about having the BB and grips further behind and as low as possible in relation to the front axle without making the wheelbase too long, and also more standover. It's touted as being more confidence inspiring and stable--I can't argue that less endo risk and more testicle clearance can lead to those feels. Less endo risk can mean more front brake usage and, when used to address the common mistake of entering corners with too much speed, can improve cornering ability greatly. With a rearward weight bias around 65:35 (rear:front weight distro) and a short stem, you can hang even more weight off the back before you hit the end of your rope.


Hanging off the back of this style of bike will put you on the ground, especially in corners. That takes too much weight off the front wheel, leading to washouts. My first experience with this kind of geometry was on a Yelli Screamy, which is kind of an extreme example, at least 4 years ago. It was obvious right from the start that I needed to change some of the ways I'd gotten used to riding a bike.

You're absolutely right about letting you safely use more front brake, and I think that's a good thing. But the front brake won't have a lot of effect until you start driving that front wheel. What this kind of frame does is let you really get forward and drive the front wheel without putting yourself in an endo-prone position. It has to be really steep for me to get too far behind the saddle anymore- a couple of the famous rollers at Bartlett's Wash, for example. Even on a 35-40% fall line we ride a lot, I'm not really that far back (on a Prime). Gotta keep that wheel biting.

I'm not generally a RC fan and I disagree with a lot of his positions, but a few years ago he wrote a discussion piece on PB in relation to WC DH, comparing the off the back style of Sam Hill to the more forward style of Aaron Gwin, and how each related to frame geometry and pedal types. At that point (pre-Specialized) it seemed like Hill was the past and Gwin was the future, but it was still an interesting read.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

While I'm all for balance in everything, and that quote was me being tongue-in-cheek, being behind the saddle to not go over the bars when braking was what I was getting at, as being in such a position when entering the turn leads to those washouts you speak of, but being rearward on a steep downslope actually gets you more centered. I remember writing about how long CS actually helps keep you better centered on steep climbs than short CS. I figure I can use the same pic to sort of show how the relationship between the axles and contact points works.









Put the steering on the other side, with the bars under where his ass currently is, then flip his ass to the other side of the green line (green line shows contact point of lower wheel, along same axis as gravity, to show the relation of rider CoG to it) and extend his arms, and you got an exaggeration of new school geo with long slack front and short rear. 

I will look for that RC article, as want to see what kind of controversy it stirs up. Edit: was this it? The End of Flat Pedals at World Cup Downhills? - Pinkbike

Found a pic to show how it's nice to have the lower wheel way out there on steeps, going the other way, and have your body's CoG somewhere between the axles, in relation to the pull gravity:


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

evasive said:


> Hanging off the back of this style of bike will put you on the ground, especially in corners. That takes too much weight off the front wheel, leading to washouts. My first experience with this kind of geometry was on a Yelli Screamy, which is kind of an extreme example, at least 4 years ago. It was obvious right from the start that I needed to change some of the ways I'd gotten used to riding a bike.
> 
> You're absolutely right about letting you safely use more front brake, and I think that's a good thing. But the front brake won't have a lot of effect until you start driving that front wheel. What this kind of frame does is let you really get forward and drive the front wheel without putting yourself in an endo-prone position. It has to be really steep for me to get too far behind the saddle anymore- a couple of the famous rollers at Bartlett's Wash, for example. Even on a 35-40% fall line we ride a lot, I'm not really that far back (on a Prime). Gotta keep that wheel biting.
> 
> I'm not generally a RC fan and I disagree with a lot of his positions, but a few years ago he wrote a discussion piece on PB in relation to WC DH, comparing the off the back style of Sam Hill to the more forward style of Aaron Gwin, and how each related to frame geometry and pedal types. At that point (pre-Specialized) it seemed like Hill was the past and Gwin was the future, but it was still an interesting read.


Regarding weighting the front wheel...

Steep STAs, long TTs, and slack HTAs- combined, they put the front wheel way out there.  Makes it hard to weight without a lot of body English. Still not ideal in the tight and twisties, IMO.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

I built a 2015 Norco Range Carbon 7.2. I'd say it is textbook new geo - 800 mm bar, 50 mm stem, slack 160 mm fork (66 degree HA I believe), super short chain stays, etc. 

It took me a while to finally get used to it and I have only recently concluded that it is the cause of my massively screwed up shoulder (MRI in a week). Climbing, it's great. Downs standing on the pedals, great. But flats where I pedal seated with my dropper fully extended, result in a HUGE amount of weight on my hands. I was out tonight and actually started wondering if maybe my core strength could be a little sketch (not holding my torso more upright with less weight on my hands). I am going to start blasting crunches and planks tomorrow, but really, I'm in great shape and I have never previously had this problem with a bike or otherwise. I am thinking it's a combo of the wiiiiiiiide bar, looooooong top tube and super low front end (even though it's a 160mm fork, it rides really low in the front).

Maybe I am wrong on all this, but I don't think so.


----------



## bob_m (May 17, 2013)

I am confused, does the new geo put the rider in a more stretch out or upright position on the bike? I am thinking TT gets longer, but stems get shorter? Thanks


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

bob_m said:


> I am confused, does the new geo put the rider in a more stretch out or upright position on the bike? I am thinking TT gets longer, but stems get shorter? Thanks


Depends a little bit, but generally more upright. Depending on the seat tube, the cockpit could be smaller, rather than longer. When I went from a WFO to a Prime, my ETT shortened by 12mm (~1/2") but the reach actually lengthened by 5mm. It's because of the steeper STA. If the bike has a slacker STA, then the ETT may very well be longer and have a more stretched out fit when in the saddle.

mtnbkrmike- I think you're right. I feel the same thing with my Prime, although not to the point of causing discomfort. I love the geometry for an AM bike. For a XC bike that I'd spend more time riding on rolling trails, I would want a more stretched out cockpit, and a slacker STA. So now I tend to ride with my saddle a little lower to alleviate that when I'm on the level. If you're watching the TdF, though, you'll notice that road saddles have come down a bit in the last few years, interestingly. A couple years ago I was talking to a mechanic in a booth at Outerbike and he mentioned pro road saddles has dropped an average of 2cm in the last few years. Sounded like a guesstimate, but that's what it looks like on the TV.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I've stated that on some of the trails I ride, slacker, longer bikes are much more difficult to ride than the older geometry. You can, but you have to slow down more to make the turns. One of us is lying...
> 
> Also, a skilled rider can ride "old" geometry on just about every trail just fine. They probably won't be setting any PR's or KOM's, but why would so ebody waste their time keeping track of that, anyway?


The majority of riding isn't super tight and twisty though, once you're actually rolling instead of doing parking lot tricks, that's where the new geo shines.

Your argument is similar to the idea that 29'ers are slower because of the increase in the mass of the wheels. They both may be true, in equally limited circumstances, but the advantages far outweigh the negatives.

Just fine doesn't mean just as well either, which is the point of this conversation.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mtnbkrmike said:


> I built a 2015 Norco Range Carbon 7.2. I'd say it is textbook new geo - 800 mm bar, 50 mm stem, slack 160 mm fork (66 degree HA I believe), super short chain stays, etc.
> 
> It took me a while to finally get used to it and I have only recently concluded that it is the cause of my massively screwed up shoulder (MRI in a week). Climbing, it's great. Downs standing on the pedals, great. But flats where I pedal seated with my dropper fully extended, result in a HUGE amount of weight on my hands. I was out tonight and actually started wondering if maybe my core strength could be a little sketch (not holding my torso more upright with less weight on my hands). I am going to start blasting crunches and planks tomorrow, but really, I'm in great shape and I have never previously had this problem with a bike or otherwise. I am thinking it's a combo of the wiiiiiiiide bar, looooooong top tube and super low front end (even though it's a 160mm fork, it rides really low in the front).
> 
> Maybe I am wrong on all this, but I don't think so.


Sounds like a bar/seat height relationship issue.

Short stems should be cancelled out by wider bars, leaving your upper body in pretty much the same position. Your hands are just further out instead of further forward. Wider bars do make leaning the bike to turn feel more natural though.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

richde said:


> Sounds like a bar/seat height relationship issue.


Which can be caused by the intersection of short stack / steep STA.


----------



## bob_m (May 17, 2013)

evasive said:


> When I went from a WFO to a Prime, my ETT shortened by 12mm (~1/2") but the reach actually lengthened by 5mm. It's because of the steeper STA.


I can see how the ETT (E in pic) would change as the angle of the seat tube changes but it seems reach (M in pic) would remain the same? Thanks


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

What does ETT matter if you can slide the seat where you need it for optimal power and chain stays remain the same?

My position has been pretty much KOP for 30 years independent of the bike. I pedal for power delivery for the majority of the time I pedal, not for special cases like climbing or descending, which we do a lot here on the left coast. Special case demands are much less statistically frequent. Why would one set up a bike for that?

My weight is distributed to hands, feet, butt. Yet the main balance and control is at the balls of my feet (the primary athletic demand for just about any sport but swimming) which reduces arm and butt fatigue. When I need to "handle" the machine for specific sorts of challenges I slide forward or back, use the inside of my thighs, get out of the saddle, get weight low and behind the bars, get weight off-center, lean forward; all for placing the center of gravity where needed.

I notice that so many riders simply plant their can on the saddle and it's job done. Their biggest fear is going OTB but the most frequent problem I see in riders is when they get out of the saddle for handling that situation they get above their saddle, not back; recipe for OTB. As such, modern bikes put hands higher and further back behind the front axle. Longer travel and short stems abound.

Old school set-ups, born of road, rigid, and HT, demanded very high levels of skill to command in challenging situations. Maybe modern geo has gone where it has to bring performance more within reach for a larger number of people. That, in turn, has brought riders out into more challenging types of terrain where failure is more costly for a larger number of riders and other trail users. 

That is not to say that the evolution of bikes has not made riding better. I love my carbon dually but its geometry is not the thing that makes it sing.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Old school set-ups, born of road, rigid, and HT, demanded very high levels of skill to command in challenging situations. Maybe modern geo has gone where it has to bring performance more within reach for a larger number of people. That, in turn, has brought riders out into more challenging types of terrain where failure is more costly for a larger number of riders and other trail users.


The idea that it only benefits beginners is where the conversation goes completely off the tracks.

More confidence helps every rider, whether it's due to tires, brakes, suspension, geometry or accessories like dropper posts. They all allow you to be more confident and push the limits of what you're capable of. Yes, you can do the same things with an old bike, but it's slower, harder and downright terrifying at times. That's why people at the top of the sport use all those things.

Oh look, another step towards slacker HTAs, longer reach and short chainstays: http://www.redbull.com/en/bike/stor...ale-f-si-carbon-race-bike?items=1331730540730

But what do those guys know.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

I've mentioned this in other threads, but there's a limit to how much you can adjust your saddle position. In my case, it's not very far. First of all, I have a dropper post. Offset isn't an option. Secondly, as a 200+ lb rider, my saddle is centered on the rails. Otherwise they bend.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

I honestly think alot of it comes down to what new frames are designed to do, vs what old school was.

Marketing a big bike shredding downhill is a lot easier and more profitable than promoting a rigid pushing on some dirt.

For me and a lot of people, a rigid is what makes sense for what is out the front door, and a rigid can be had and maintained on the cheap. Big bikes with big suspension push up the price tag, because the tech is more complex and proprietary, and because the cost of maintenance is higher. Every node of the mtb industry makes more off big bikes. The new geo is just the evolution of full suspension bike designs, which are young compared to modern bicycles in general.

I am not ashamed that I mash up fire roads, gravel, country roads and some non-gnar. I do it on 2 bikes with 71+ head angles. It is a different type of challenge to stand and mash on loose gravel and push it on the dirt road for a couple hours at sunset. That is what riding is in my area. I used to have a couple trail systems within 5 - 7 miles, but have moved, so my bikes and riding have changed, gone back in time if you will.

I feel like new mountain biking is getting closer to skiing, where you put your specialized gear in your car and drive somewhere to use it. Doesn't make alot of sense to me, when the option to ride something out the door is there for most folks.


----------



## bob_m (May 17, 2013)

Why is the reach measurement so important, you would think ETT would affect the sitting rider more? In other words, what can you learn from Reach that you can't learn from ETT? Thanks


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

bob_m said:


> Why is the reach measurement so important, you would think ETT would affect the sitting rider more? In other words, what can you learn from Reach that you can't learn from ETT? Thanks


Reach and stack will tell you how the bike fits while standing.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Berkeley Mike said:


> ...As such, modern bikes put hands higher and further back behind the front axle. Longer travel and short stems abound...


I need to solve the problem I have with way too much weight on my hands with my dropper fully extended. From the recent posts I have read (including yours), I assume this is not a product of the "new geo" design, but something peculiar with my bike. That said, I would have thought that my 2015 Norco Range was a textbook example of the new geo design, exhibiting every single aspect of the whole "modern geo" thing.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

richde said:


> The idea that it only benefits beginners is where the conversation goes completely off the tracks.
> 
> More confidence helps every rider, whether it's due to tires, brakes, suspension, geometry or accessories like dropper posts. They all allow you to be more confident and push the limits of what you're capable of. Yes, you can do the same things with an old bike, but it's slower, harder and downright terrifying at times. That's why people at the top of the sport use all those things.
> 
> ...


Those guys? As in Redbull? Next to nothing, apparently.

The article messed up a couple of major points. First, the HTA is not 67.5 degrees.

Second, the geometry of that bike is hardly unique amongst XC frames. Superfly, Scale, etc. share very similar ACTUAL (non-fabricated by Redbull) dimensions.

Last, the best bike handler in the (XC) world uses a non-stock, custom 71 degree HTA on his Scale and Spark 700 frames.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

richde said:


> The idea that it only benefits beginners is where the conversation goes completely off the tracks.
> 
> More confidence helps every rider, whether it's due to tires, brakes, suspension, geometry or accessories like dropper posts. They all allow you to be more confident and push the limits of what you're capable of. Yes, you can do the same things with an old bike, but it's slower, harder and downright terrifying at times. That's why people at the top of the sport use all those things.
> 
> ...


I wonder if that's the reason their results have slipped. Slacker HTA is ok in my book, esp if you can adjust the trail to tame the stronger wheel flop and auto-centering effects. I'm okay with a bit longer reach combined with short stem, but it seems to be getting too extreme for short folks, but welcomed by tall folks. Short CS is way overhyped, propped up on top of a mountain of misinformation.

The main reason I like slack HTA is how it lowers the front end and increases front center, without really affecting fit negatively. Extending a fork to get slacker HTA is something I wouldn't really do, since that affects the rest of the bike in not totally positive ways. It's something I'd consider to raise a low BB a bit though. There's some misinformation out there that makes people think slack HTA corner better when leaned, but that's a misconception. Anything that spins forward will turn towards the direction it's leaned (ex. spiral coin wishing well), but in the case of slackening out a HTA, I'd say it makes it harder to turn as the auto-centering effect of the wheel trailing behind the steering axis too much actually resists turning, wanting to straighten out. If fork manufacturers were more willing to adjust offset, we would see even slacker HTAs and lower stack heights for longer travel bikes for riding both up and down the mtn.

Short CS is actually anti-beginner, IMO. Longer is more forgiving, both up front and rear. The shorter it is, the more input the rider needs to give to keep things smooth and under control. They would need to implement more advanced skills that actively weight and unweight the rear to experience a smooth and controlled ride, while a rider on longer CS can focus on pedaling. Short CS is cool and all for advanced riders that actually don't want an easier ride, and want to pump everything. Sorry to those that read this and now can't unread it, but all that pumping works your "woman on top (of man) in bed" leg and hip muscles and skills really well.

Old Norba XC geo had short CS too. Their making things as light as possible was a big driving factor behind the designs, as shorter stays and a shorter top+downtube vs a long stem netting a lighter overall bike. The lightness of the bike, plus the super short wheelbase made them way more flickable than anything today. It also made them buck wildly in the bumps too. The rougher courses of today demand longer geo not only in front, but in the rear too. You really had to be a good rider back then to handle these bikes. The old pros say that the changes in bikes these days make things way too easy in comparison. "New school" geo back then was marketed as "Genesis" geo, which pushed the front center out more, which was a very welcome change, IMO.

New school now is just old **** all over again, with the attempts at modern geo becoming bad-mouthed being called old school geo for some reason... rather than new school, we need a whole new generation of geo, one that doesn't merely have one basic design for a middle rider size, that then spawns other sizes with minor changes between sizes to fit short and tall, based on ~1" more TT length and 1.5" - 2" more seat height, and 1/2" - 1" more head tube height. Need someone to unlock that fork offset figure, to really open up this path though. I wonder if some futuristic design will have the front lean independently of the bike, maybe needing 2 smaller wheels up front, but I digress...


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

I've asked about this all the time, but the fact is, to do that would require some serious capital to have all the varying length toptubes, chainstay and seatstays for the various heights.
It's why despite everyone loving on the super short CS lengths, I am quite happy with my 17.3" on my Phantom as I'm 6'2" and almost ontop of the rear axle already, can't imagine how it would be with a 16.5" stay length.

Only thing I would like to change on my current bike is to have the STA slacked out by 1.5-2 degrees so I can get the saddle where I want, relatve to the BB without having to resort to serious setback posts and sadddles back as far as they should go, would make running a dropper a lot easier.



Varaxis said:


> ......New school now is just old **** all over again, with the attempts at modern geo becoming bad-mouthed being called old school geo for some reason... rather than new school, we need a whole new generation of geo, one that doesn't merely have one basic design for a middle rider size, that then spawns other sizes with minor changes between sizes to fit short and tall, based on ~1" more TT length and 1.5" - 2" more seat height, and 1/2" - 1" more head tube height. Need some unlock that fork offset figure, to really open up this path though. I wonder if some futuristic design will have the front lean independently of the bike, maybe needing 2 smaller wheels up front, but I digress...


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

bob_m said:


> Why is the reach measurement so important, you would think ETT would affect the sitting rider more? In other words, what can you learn from Reach that you can't learn from ETT? Thanks


A lot of bikes have bent seat tubes and seat tubes that don't intersect the BB. To use technical terms this makes ETT measurements "whacked". The ETT is measured at a certain height and when buying another hardtail with a standard 73 degree STA where your saddle ends up is predictable. Once that seat tube is bent or doesn't intersect the BB that throws off the ST angle above and below the point the manufacturer picked. This makes your top tube measurement probably quite different than an old straight seat tube hardtail. You can get your saddle where you want it on a lot of frames, but not everyone on all frames. Reach and stack don't depend on some funky seat tube angle.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

knutso said:


> I honestly think alot of it comes down to what new frames are designed to do, vs what old school was.
> 
> Marketing a big bike shredding downhill is a lot easier and more profitable than promoting a rigid pushing on some dirt.
> 
> ...


I moved to a mtb Mecca when I retired and have a vast trail network right out my door. For me a Knolly Warden is my daily driver as it makes the most sense for the trails we have. That includes full on DH trails to a bit of milder XC. The riding is demanding and very rewarding. Previous places I've lived I resorted to a SS and even fixed MTB to make it interesting. There is more riding opportunities in more places than ever and it just keeps getting better. What has changed a lot is the proliferation of mtb specific trails as opposed to hiking trails. This has made riding more fun than ever. Also gravel grinding has become it's own niche now, so what you're doing is the latest fad.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Travis Bickle said:


> I moved to a mtb Mecca when I retired and have a vast trail network right out my door. For me a Knolly Warden is my daily driver as it makes the most sense for the trails we have. That includes full on DH trails to a bit of milder XC. The riding is demanding and very rewarding. Previous places I've lived I resorted to a SS and even fixed MTB to make it interesting. There is more riding opportunities in more places than ever and it just keeps getting better. What has changed a lot is the proliferation of mtb specific trails as opposed to hiking trails. This has made riding more fun than ever. Also gravel grinding has become it's own niche now, so what you're doing is the latest fad.












Got any pics/videos of your part of the Pac NW/BC, showing the purpose built mtb trails and all the things you can pump? I need some inspiration for the trails down here.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

knutso said:


> I honestly think alot of it comes down to what new frames are designed to do, vs what old school was.
> 
> Marketing a big bike shredding downhill is a lot easier and more profitable than promoting a rigid pushing on some dirt.
> 
> ...


Its come back around to what I've always thought...

It's all about the trail.

The trail dictates what is the "best" bike. Use the right tool for the job. I'm not buying that the "new geo" is better for all riding - but rather it is getting to the far end of the spectrum that favors fast, open, descent oriented trails - not slower, pedally tight, twisty, tech. But the new geo is a good thing because for too many years mountain bikes were subjected to road biking standards. We are now swinging the pendulum away from roadie standards/geo.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> I moved to a mtb Mecca when I retired and have a vast trail network right out my door. For me a Knolly Warden is my daily driver as it makes the most sense for the trails we have. That includes full on DH trails to a bit of milder XC. The riding is demanding and very rewarding. Previous places I've lived I resorted to a SS and even fixed MTB to make it interesting. There is more riding opportunities in more places than ever and it just keeps getting better. What has changed a lot is the proliferation of mtb specific trails as opposed to hiking trails. This has made riding more fun than ever. Also gravel grinding has become it's own niche now, so what you're doing is the latest fad.


Right on!! Nice move!!

Not sure they can call gravel roads a fad ! It's the definition of old school


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

richde said:


> The idea that it only benefits beginners is where the conversation goes completely off the tracks.


I see your point but I'm not talking about beginners. What highly skilled riders/racers do it another issue altogether. Putting those bikes on an average rider makes a whole 'nother set of thing possible.

The point was specificity. Slack head tube angles are for a specific kind of riding, not a panacea for every type of riding. Used by a a modest rider it is like riding a bumper car. Even my high zoot bike adds that quality to my own ride; giving me the ability to do things I might not do on my steel HT racer. I bought it for that reason. More travel (a screaming 100mm), more damping, more sophisticated suspension system, better brakes, lighter weight, less stress/fatigue, more fun.

But it is the same XC geometry I have been riding for years.

Funny, we've had this discussion many times with the shop guys that support our advocacy group. Everyone wants to be ready for Mammoth or Downieville or Whistler. Yet our surveys show that 85% of riding is done in local parks ridable on an HT or rigid. The other riding is easily duoable on your basic XC geo dually. So why buy a bike for 5 rides a year? What need the "new geo."

Yes buyers insist...


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

knutso said:


> Not sure they can call gravel roads a fad ! It's the definition of old school


They call the caveman diet a fad, despite it being as old as it gets. 

Only needs a bunch of people crazy about sharing their experience about it, and making a big deal about it as if it made a huge positive impact on their lives, to make into a fad. For example, "Short cs are the bomb! I was skeptical, but now that I've drank the Kool-Aid, I gotta say it's a game changer! Just look at how Aaron Gwin is dominating on them. Who wants a ground hugging limo that makes even the gnarliest rock gardens and brake scorching descents on my trails as boring as a trip on bike path at the park, which get stuck trying to get around switchbacks? Ever since I got my new Bagweale BaM-X 160 Duo-Link (patent pend.) bike, I'm cranking whips, drifting and roosting, floating over rock gardens, and manualing over nothing just to show off to others, since riding with wheels sliding or off the ground is rad, spelled with a F, U, and N. If 16.9" is this good, imagine 15" like on some of them DJ bikes! Check out my latest bike build pic and ride footage vid, yo~. P.S. that those rock gardens and descents are gnarlier and steeper in RL than they look in the vid."


----------



## Cody01 (Jul 23, 2014)

All I can say is I can ride one of my newer bikes almost all day and feel fine but if I spend 1 hour on my GT from the 90's it feels like cruel and unusual punishment and leaves me in pain for hours.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I hear you but what does that have to do with geometry?


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

F*ck marketing.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I just got a huge lump in my throat.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I see your point but I'm not talking about beginners. What highly skilled riders/racers do it another issue altogether. Putting those bikes on an average rider makes a whole 'nother set of thing possible.


Not true, someone with no preconceived notion of what is "right" or "wrong" will just ride it, and it will become part of the learning process. It's the people who are unable (slow learners) or unwilling (the way I do it is right, damn what everybody else says) to change that have problems.



Berkeley Mike said:


> The point was specificity. Slack head tube angles are for a specific kind of riding, not a panacea for every type of riding. Used by a a modest rider it is like riding a bumper car. Even my high zoot bike adds that quality to my own ride; giving me the ability to do things I might not do on my steel HT racer. I bought it for that reason. More travel (a screaming 100mm), more damping, more sophisticated suspension system, better brakes, lighter weight, less stress/fatigue, more fun.


Nope, bikes have gotten slacker, chainstays have gotten shorter because the people who actually design bikes have discovered that it simply works better. Maybe if you know better, you can make a killing in the bike business by making that people "actually" want. But, for the time being, I'll put my faith in people who do this sort of thing for a living.



Berkeley Mike said:


> But it is the same XC geometry I have been riding for years.
> 
> Funny, we've had this discussion many times with the shop guys that support our advocacy group. Everyone wants to be ready for Mammoth or Downieville or Whistler. Yet our surveys show that 85% of riding is done in local parks ridable on an HT or rigid. The other riding is easily duoable on your basic XC geo dually. So why buy a bike for 5 rides a year? What need the "new geo."
> 
> Yes buyers insist...


"Ridable" does not mean that you're using the right tool for the job. If a certain geo has no negative effects, not "ridable" in comparison, but no effects in one situation and is significantly better in others, the choice is pretty clear.

I have a friend that is big into off-road unicycling, but I'm never, ever, going to suggest that since something is "ridable" on a unicycle, that it's "good enough" or even a realistic suggestion. Lots of trails have been ridden for 20 years or more, but it doesn't mean that the original bikes that could be ridden on those trails is the better choice.

Also, nobody gives a damn about your "surveys." The people I know with slacker, longer travel bikes use them where it works, and if people can only afford one bike, they should always buy the bike that works in the situation where they want it to work the most. Just because you can't get to a more DH-orientated trail more than a few times a year, it doesn't mean that you should just buy an XC bike because that's what you're stuck riding the majority of the time.

Sounds like some of you people would be happy in the 26" forum with everybody else who knows better than the professionals (designers and racers).


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

richde said:


> Not true, someone with no preconceived notion of what is "right" or "wrong" will just ride it, and it will become part of the learning process. It's the people who are unable (slow learners) or unwilling (the way I do it is right, damn what everybody else says) to change that have problems.
> 
> Nope, bikes have gotten slacker, chainstays have gotten shorter because the people who actually design bikes have discovered that it simply works better. Maybe if you know better, you can make a killing in the bike business by making that people "actually" want. But, for the time being, I'll put my faith in people who do this sort of thing for a living.
> 
> ...


Great, thoughtful responses. We just come from a different place. I've been training riders and leading rides for a long time and this is how I see things. My surveys are purposed for use in advocacy for informing land managers about usage and how we support local riders most effectively. My resources in the industry have been really helpful, too. That is real-time experience I have learned to trust.

As far as what's ridable. I hold my own.

Ride well.


----------



## bob_m (May 17, 2013)

Travis Bickle said:


> However stem length effects handling and ones ability to shift weight to where it's needed. If you have to go long just for fit then maybe the frame is too short.


In general, does a longer stem slow steering, is that why you can use wider bars with a short stem and break even. If true, what is the real advantage of a short stem and wider bars over the former?

Very interesting thread, trying to absorb it all,

Thanks


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

bob_m said:


> In general, does a longer stem slow steering, is that why you can use wider bars with a short stem and break even. If true, what is the real advantage of a short stem and wider bars over the former?
> 
> Very interesting thread, trying to absorb it all,
> 
> Thanks


Wide bars give you more leverage, which equals more stability.


----------



## NWS (Jun 30, 2010)

Varaxis said:


> ...imagine 15" like on some of them DJ bikes!


15" is for beginners.

Real men ride 14.3.

Apparently tireless is the new tubeless. 

But getting back on topic, if only fractionally more serious, a 'new geo' bike arrived in my garage today. 443mm reach, 445 seat tube, 64.5 HTA, 438/422 chainstays (flip chip). Opinions arriving Sunday after I have a chance to ride it a while. Maybe even up some hills.

NS Bikes - Soda Evo Air - Freeride / Bike park / Mini DH


----------



## bob_m (May 17, 2013)

jazzanova said:


> Wide bars give you more leverage, which equals more stability.


But would it (shorter stem) also shift your weight a bit more to the center of the bike?


----------



## NWS (Jun 30, 2010)

bob_m said:


> But would it (shorter stem) also shift your weight a bit more to the center of the bike?


Depends whether you're talking about the customer or the designer...

If "shorter stem" means putting a shorter stem on the same frame, then yes.

If "shorter stem" means making a frame with a correspondingly longer reach, then no.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

bob_m said:


> But would it (shorter stem) also shift your weight a bit more to the center of the bike?


Wider bars will negate the effect. 
1cm difference in stem length = 2cm difference in bar
In other words, if you use 1cm shorter stem, you should use 2cm wider bars in order to maintain the same position over the front.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

bob_m said:


> But would it (shorter stem) also shift your weight a bit more to the center of the bike?


More to the back, esp if you're not tucked forward aggressively. Your weight is already rearward naturally on the bike, so to shift it more to the center, you would need to get more weight up front, which means lower and longer stem with bars that put grips further away from shoulder width length apart (either super narrow or super wide), and/or with less rise (or more drop) to pull you even more forward.


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

Whoah, this thread restores my faith in forums.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> Wider bars will negate the effect.
> 1cm difference in stem length = 2cm difference in bar
> In other words, if you use 1cm shorter stem, you should use 2cm wider bars in order to maintain the same position over the front.


Is that really true? My new wider bars have a 9 degree sweep vs. the older, shorter ones having 5 degree. Although my hands are farther apart, they are also further back.

Is there a calculator for this (similar to stem calculators)?


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

MikeDee said:


> Is that really true? My new wider bars have a 9 degree sweep vs. the older, shorter ones having 5 degree. Although my hands are farther apart, they are also further back.
> 
> Is there a calculator for this (similar to stem calculators)?


Handlebar sweep is not a tool for fitting a bike to size. It is best suited to enhancing the static state of the bike to the rider; more back sweep to promote quicker turn in, less to promote greater on-center maneuverability. Then - each can be summed by simply being comfortable, but they know. They know...


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

There is NO hard/fast rule about bar and stem dimensions. Via trial and error - go with what is most comfortable with you. I got lucky, with running a 730mm bar @5 deg sweep and 70mm, 7deg stem, the first time out. YMMV....


----------



## bob_m (May 17, 2013)

This seems to be on topic.

Jon from What Mountain Bike built a downhill-slack hardtail so long he could only reach the bars by bolting them right to the top of the steerer. It looks awesome, but how does it ride?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

You may have heard of Kirk Pacenti, the Godfather of the modern 650b mountain bike wheel. Here is his view on geometry and the thinking behind his PDent stem and bars.

PDent


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I'm glad that flat bars are offered in similar dimensions and similar ergonomics to some of the popular risers, as I don't need the bars any higher on bigger wheeled bikes. Glad to see stack heights dropping more and more, back down to 600mm and less for someone 5'7". I think that was another reason for not liking the ROS9 and E29, since their stack is around 635mm or so, preferring the fit of my Med SJ FSR Evo 26" more (592mm). Glad to see more and more going for integrated or ZS style headsets, getting the front end lower for smaller folk. I think it's the shorter folks getting screwed here, considering how someone over 6' can really like a Santa Cruz with stack that's 1" higher or less than what's on medium size and small size (see Nomad and V10).

Forks length and HA seems to be a big one in regards to stack height. With steep HA related to XC geo, the stack height gets out of control. I'd rather ride a shorter rigid fork, than a 100mm susp fork if it means I can get the bars lower. Or just space the suspension fork down to 80. But why give up suspension when you can slack out the head tube and give the fork more offset to keep the snappy steering, giving you suspension, a longer front center, and a front end which isn't too high. The only issue is the wheelbase increase, which has both ups and downs (only down that bothers me is widening a turning radius). With susp fork axle to crown lengths having some needless length trimmed for the same amount of travel, longer travel forks become more viable, and categories associated with shorter travel susp begin to adopt 10-20mm more travel.

Shorter stems, more fork geo options, sizing axioms being questioned, shortening crank lengths and lowering BBs, longer front center, reducing wheel dish (offset dropouts, assym spoke hole drilling, etc.), shorter seat tubes for lower slammed posts, low and centered mass... what else should be looked at for new geo? Even wider Q-factor options? Thinner pedal axles? Different way to attach pedals to the crankarm, such as bearings either side of the crank arm, instead of inside the pedal body? I know I'm about to stick on pedal extenders and BikeFit ITS wedges to address how my knee wobbles inward at the top of my pedal stroke, due to how narrow my feet are spaced by the pedals. I wouldn't be against 83mm 157mm, just sticking a 1x chainring on the outside of a triple, and gaining a wider foot stance that way. I'm running a 650b Pike on my 26" and only think of the extra offset as a bonus for how I ride the bike (more XC than DH).


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> You may have heard of Kirk Pacenti, the Godfather of the modern 650b mountain bike wheel. Here is his view on geometry and the thinking behind his PDent stem and bars.
> 
> PDent


In my opinion, this guys opinion on stem length effects is grossly exaggerated. Also, the 650B wheel size is a disappointment because it's only 1" in diameter greater than a 26" wheel; not 27.5" like it should be. I'm sticking to 29" wheels.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

MikeDee said:


> In my opinion, this guys opinion on stem length effects is grossly exaggerated. Also, the 650B wheel size is a disappointment because it's only 1" in diameter greater than a 26" wheel; not 27.5" like it should be. I'm sticking to 29" wheels.


Just FYI, 26" bikes with 2.25" tires are about 26.5" and +1" gets you 27.5". Also, some tires are undersized based on their claimed widths in inches. The ETRTO measurement (ex. 59-559) can sometimes show how big a tire really is. For example, a DHF 26x2.5 EXO isn't really that much bigger than a 26x2.3 TR DHF, according to the ETRTO measurements (55/59-559 vs 58-559. The NeoMoto and earlier 650b tires were undersized, since there were no true 650b frames/forks then and they had to fit in ones designed for 26", so they were a little under 27.5". Some 26" 2.4-2.7 tires actually measure a good amount over 27".

What arguments do you have against his statements about stem length specifically? I must have missed something when I read, since I didn't find it disagreeable, though I did find it funny that he talked about getting things lower, yet showed a picture of PDent riser bar. :lol:


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> In my opinion, this guys opinion on stem length effects is grossly exaggerated. Also, the 650B wheel size is a disappointment because it's only 1" in diameter greater than a 26" wheel; not 27.5" like it should be. I'm sticking to 29" wheels.


What setups have you tried?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I bought a medium Warden and one of the things I love it the low 587mm stack with a 160mm fork. Even the XL has 597mm, which may be too low for XL, but you can always get higher rise bars. You can only offset too much stack so much.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> I bought a medium Warden and one of the things I love it the low 587mm stack with a 160mm fork. Even the XL has 597mm, which may be too low for XL, but you can always get higher rise bars. You can only offset too much stack so much.


Word. I bought a medium SC TB LTC with the intention of riding it with a 140mm Pike.

After getting a rolling chassis together (frame, HS, fork, stem, bars, wheels, seat and post, cranks, pedals) I determined it was/is WAY, WAY too tall for me.

In comparison, I had the chance to demo a medium Yeti ASR-C with a 130mm Fox (yes, lower A-C), and it was significantly shorter on the front end. Most of which was made up entirely by the HT (tiny) and internal headset.

It may seem trivial, but that 46mm (8mm + 12mm stack vs. IS, 100mm vs. 90mm HTs, A-C difference (6mm?), 10mm travel difference) or so of total stack height makes a pretty profound difference. That was just sitting there.

The medium SC has a shorter TT, longer HT, and same HTA as my 100mm carbon hard tail race bike. The Yeti is a bit longer in the TT, but the bars are much closer to the position of the hardtail than they were to the SC, despite having a 30mm longer fork on it.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Stack is often overlooked but is a very important measurement when shopping for a bike, especially a long travel bike. Enduro 29er is supposed to be amazing but there is no way I could get those bars where I want them.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> What setups have you tried?


I've varied stem length a cm or two and couldn't tell the difference.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Today I swapped my 50mm for my 35 and there was a marked difference in steering quickness and descendability. Over the years I've had stems from 35mm to 135mm and bars from 560 to 780mm. Love short and wide.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Has anyone gone from 17.5" CS to <17" CS notice that they've gotten way more rear flats, rim strikes, and other rear wheel-related problems (inc. burps, tire malfunctions, spokes popping, tacoed rims, etc.)?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Anyone remember this? :lol:


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> Anyone remember this? :lol:


April Fools - 2013


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Haint said:


> April Fools - 2013


2015 - NS Bikes Introduces Radical New Geometry for Mountain Bikes by ns-bikes - Pinkbike

I like how they photoshopped the rear wheel being impossibly crammed in there for truly short CS. :lol:

16.9" isn't that short anyways, unless you're talking about a long 46+" wheelbase park/DH bike that is only made to be ridden for short ~5 minute runs with long rests in between. It's more like on the cusp of being long for a compact wheelbase bike like the 26" wheeled ASR5 or Blur TR, able to be ridden long distance, but more for those short shredding rides. The longer you make the stays, the more of an epic slayer it becomes, like the 17.9" CS Tallboy LT, or ultimate cushy cruiser like the 18.2" CS Turner Sultan. The sit and spin, mileage eaters types out there that don't mind actually having gears up front are probably getting confused by all the marketing showcasing these mini-DH-bikes with long fronts and short rears. Hopefully Yeti proves to some how CS length should be proportionate to find a balanced-feeling trail bike.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> 2015 - NS Bikes Introduces Radical New Geometry for Mountain Bikes by ns-bikes - Pinkbike
> 
> I like how they photoshopped the rear wheel being impossibly crammed in there for truly short CS. :lol:
> 
> 16.9" isn't that short anyways, unless you're talking about a long 46+" wheelbase park/DH bike that is only made to be ridden for short ~5 minute runs with long rests in between. It's more like on the cusp of being long for a compact wheelbase bike like the 26" wheeled ASR5 or Blur TR, able to be ridden long distance, but more for those short shredding rides. The longer you make the stays, the more of an epic slayer it becomes, like the 17.9" CS Tallboy LT, or ultimate cushy cruiser like the 18.2" CS Turner Sultan. The sit and spin, mileage eaters types out there that don't mind actually having gears up front are probably getting confused by all the marketing showcasing these mini-DH-bikes with long fronts and short rears. Hopefully Yeti proves to some how CS length should be proportionate to find a balanced-feeling trail bike.


I am not a fan of ultra-short rear stays. There's no true reward from riding a bike who's powder is kept wet, it loses appeal IMO. I think my bike has something like 17.1" stays, plenty short to loft the front end at speed, carves a stable line at speed at the same time. 
Front center though, could be longer... lol.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

The BB drop has more to do with how easy the front is to lift, than the CS. Too much BB drop makes it hard to lift. The short rear just forces you to get out of the saddle and pump the terrain with your hips/legs, else the bumps just pound your lower back and try to buck you. Short CS tends to work better with ultra active suspension (if your legs aren't active enough for a hardtail), like horst link with lower anti-squat and chain growth (ex. Knolly). If you're just going off of a drop, having room to throw your hips back is enough to keep the front up, but the further back your weight is from the front axle, the less weight is on it to be accelerated downwards, and the slower it rotates/falls downward. If you're intent at keeping the wheels on tracking on the ground for traction and control, more BB drop is actually desirable--it's a large part of what's behind that in the bike feel, that keeps you from feeling like you can be bucked off over the front or the back.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

It certainly allows more aggressive riding as more comfort/control.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

I have a question regarding this paragraph from single track:
"Mondraker has made a name for itself recently by pioneering the concept of Forward Geometry – the principal of keeping contact points on the bike the same, but shortening the stem and lengthening the top tube. The results, Mondraker maintains, are a more stable ride, better control on steep descents and a more ‘loaded’ front wheel that increases traction and grip in corners. You may by now have picked up a theme here: Mondraker is squarely in the business of downhill and enduro bikes. It is the latter that the new 2016 Dune model is aimed at."

They mention a "more loaded front and increased traction and grips in corners" as a result of the forward geometry.
But doesn't it need more power to keep the front down? With a slacker HA, ultra short stem and longer reach the wheel is way up there in the front and I would assume more prone to wash outs.
If one gets lazy or tired and doesn't weight the front enough...

So does the grip in this case come from the necessity to ride it from the front in order not to wash out or does the geo itself helps the grip?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I found that I have had to change my riding style to a more centered weight distribution. I lean down low over the stem and the bike just rips. The only time I get more rearward now is on a few ultra steep sections, or hard braking. Normal descending and especially cornering requires more weight on the front. I really want to pick up a Mondraker Vantage Frame as a 2nd bike to try the extreme reach end of the spectrum.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

jazzanova said:


> I have a question regarding this paragraph from single track:
> "Mondraker has made a name for itself recently by pioneering the concept of Forward Geometry - the principal of keeping contact points on the bike the same, but shortening the stem and lengthening the top tube. The results, Mondraker maintains, are a more stable ride, better control on steep descents and a more 'loaded' front wheel that increases traction and grip in corners. You may by now have picked up a theme here: Mondraker is squarely in the business of downhill and enduro bikes. It is the latter that the new 2016 Dune model is aimed at."
> 
> They mention a "more loaded front and increased traction and grips in corners" as a result of the forward geometry.
> ...


They are spewing the Mondraker marketing line. It is not exactly a scientific article. Your thinking is on the right track.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Late 80's I got something called all terrain bike, I liked how stable it was, I could twist my upper body and bike kept it's direction, it had 26" tires. 

2014 I got my current 26" Trek, I like it how I can look back and bike continues straight, but with this one I can take very tight soft sand corners at speeds my brain tells me being completely impossible and with all the upgrades to bike and geometry (stem) I have made, it is now even more so, but even less scary than before.

I think that it is now bit closer to this new geometry in a way, but there is not so huge difference to late 80's bike either in my opinion, braking is about the same, except in wet it is lot better, handling is quite close, except at slow speed where it is lot better. 

Surely higher level mtb might show more difference, but good is good. 

I do find need to go behind the saddle on some descents though, soft fine grain sand on rather steep descent and lot of 'rails' rocks etc. in the sand, I tend to go slow and to keep speed slow I need to brake a lot, then it is needed to go behind the saddle.
With more advanced bike and better rider such might be situation where they just pedal more speed, so again different equipment and way to ride changes experience. 

But I feel that differences might be rather subtle, it is not that huge change. 

Nothing compared to first ride with that all terrain bike, when I was used to riding Torpedo 3 speed traditional bicycle and all of sudden I could ride on soft sand and down the hill faster than ever while having solid control (which there never was with traditional bicycle), that was big difference.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I too wonder what they mean about more grip in corners. The longer front center keeps the wheel on the ground more, which obviously grants greater traction over wheels in the air. Is it because the suspension is made more sensitive and front wheel's air pressure can be lowered, with less weight on it? More likely it has more traction, than less, with all things considered.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Really there does not keep the indicators of each measurement on full-suspension frames with me, dunno if this is a good thing or overly simplistic. There are a few rigid numbers which will provide some insight into proportions and rider weight-distribution but once the suspension comes into it's work load, the bike is all over the map. The equivalent of not-too-distant automotive new car MPG estimates being stated at 55MPH, while the national speed limit was 65.

75 in Florida.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

Varaxis said:


> I too wonder what they mean about more grip in corners. The longer front center keeps the wheel on the ground more, which obviously grants greater traction over wheels in the air. Is it because the suspension is made more sensitive and front wheel's air pressure can be lowered, with less weight on it? More likely it has more traction, than less, with all things considered.


I'd say the main difference is in the forgiveness of the bike and how much it lets you get away with. I own a mid 90s hardtail with 20 year old geometry and have ridden its modern equivalent which is a fair bit longer & slacker. On a smooth sweeping turn they'll both get through at the same speed (within the margin of error of my bike computer) without sliding off the trail, but they do it very differently. The old bike has to be ridden with perfect weight balance or else the front end will either want to slide out or knife into the ground and high side the bike. And once either end starts sliding, you need to catch it fast or you're going down. With the new bike, it's a lot easier to get to the traction limit. The front wheel doesn't knife into the ground and high side the bike, and when the wheels do start sliding it's much easier to control the drift and ride it out.

On actual real world trails which have bumps, ruts, and all that other fun stuff, it means that I can ride much closer to the traction limits on the new bike than my old one. On the old bike, I have to leave a fair bit of margin when cornering in case I whack something I didn't see, hit a loose patch, etc. so that I can correct the line/balance and ride it out. Or sometimes the terrain is so bad that I can't get my weight set properly to carve a turn. With the new one I don't need as much margin since the bike wants to stay upright and isn't as affected by trail obstacles, a loose patch that washes out the old bike merely results in a fun drift on the new bike. And since it handles rough terrain better, it's easier to stay balanced, weight the bike properly, and drive it through the turns.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

grumpy old biker said:


> Late 80's I got something called all terrain bike, I liked how stable it was, I could twist my upper body and bike kept it's direction, it had 26" tires.
> 
> 2014 I got my current 26" Trek, I like it how I can look back and bike continues straight, but with this one I can take very tight soft sand corners at speeds my brain tells me being completely impossible and with all the upgrades to bike and geometry (stem) I have made, it is now even more so, but even less scary than before.
> 
> ...


Dude, 24 years of riding might have _something_ to do with this success.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

aerius said:


> I'd say the main difference is in the forgiveness of the bike and how much it lets you get away with. I own a mid 90s hardtail with 20 year old geometry and have ridden its modern equivalent which is a fair bit longer & slacker. On a smooth sweeping turn they'll both get through at the same speed (within the margin of error of my bike computer) without sliding off the trail, but they do it very differently. The old bike has to be ridden with perfect weight balance or else the front end will either want to slide out or knife into the ground and high side the bike. And once either end starts sliding, you need to catch it fast or you're going down. With the new bike, it's a lot easier to get to the traction limit. The front wheel doesn't knife into the ground and high side the bike, and when the wheels do start sliding it's much easier to control the drift and ride it out.
> 
> On actual real world trails which have bumps, ruts, and all that other fun stuff, it means that I can ride much closer to the traction limits on the new bike than my old one. On the old bike, I have to leave a fair bit of margin when cornering in case I whack something I didn't see, hit a loose patch, etc. so that I can correct the line/balance and ride it out. Or sometimes the terrain is so bad that I can't get my weight set properly to carve a turn. With the new one I don't need as much margin since the bike wants to stay upright and isn't as affected by trail obstacles, a loose patch that washes out the old bike merely results in a fun drift on the new bike. And since it handles rough terrain better, it's easier to stay balanced, weight the bike properly, and drive it through the turns.


Can you attribute the ease to a better front shock at a all? My '95 Judy and my current Fox are night and day. Same with V-brakes vs hydraulics. Wheel base is within 3/4 inch and angles within 1 degree. Stem is 20mm shorter but I am 63 not 43 anymore, too.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Can you attribute the ease to a better front shock at a all? My '95 Judy and my current Fox are night and day. Same with V-brakes vs hydraulics. Wheel base is within 3/4 inch and angles within 1 degree. Stem is 20mm shorter but I am 63 not 43 anymore, too.


Aerius explained it like I would've. That forgiveness is an attribute of the longer front center, wheelbase, rear center (RC/chainstay). Compact short wheelbase bikes aren't very forgiving, which is what the old Norba style XC bikes were back in the day. You had to be so skilled and experienced to handle them well. I did mention that big names from back then have mentioned that bikes these days dumb down the challenge a lot. Riding is boring without challenge, hence why some still prefer short and compact bikes, particular those with significant mtb riding experience, notably short travel bikes with short rear ends and smaller wheels. Might be faster and smoother with longer geo, but is it fun? This is why 29ers were slandered. Short CS bikes supposedly address that issue of 29ers being La-Z-boys for trails, but to me they don't make it any more challenging, it just transmits spikes of trail feedback continuously and forces me to get out of the saddle to absorb them with my legs, being less efficient and shortening my ride, making it feel more intense, but not really any faster. If I wanted my bike compact, I'd rather have it balanced, like the Ripley.

Speaking of compact vs long geo, wait for the Ripley LS reviews to come out to confirm all this. The LS will be more confidence inspiring, easier to ride at speed and through the rough that also does better than the original in the really steep downs (and ups), basically more like a mini DH bike, losing its quickness in tighter and slower trails, more contoured rolling terrain, and pumpy/flowy trails. While the LS might actually climb techy and loose stuff with less effort, it probably would pedal strike a lot more too, esp climbing up on ledges, even if its BB weren't lower (due to long front end)


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Can you attribute the ease to a better front shock at a all? My '95 Judy and my current Fox are night and day. Same with V-brakes vs hydraulics. Wheel base is within 3/4 inch and angles within 1 degree. Stem is 20mm shorter but I am 63 not 43 anymore, too.


Forks were fairly similar, Manitou Minute MRD on my RM Blizzard vs. a RS Revelation on a 2015 Kona Explosif, if anything the old bike has the advantage here. Wheels & tires were also close enough, Conti MKII on Blizzard vs. Maxxis Ardents on the Explosif, both on WTB rims. Other than the drivetrain & frame there's barely any difference between the bikes. I swapped parts around on my bikes to make it as even as possible.



Varaxis said:


> Speaking of compact vs long geo, wait for the Ripley LS reviews to come out to confirm all this. The LS will be more confidence inspiring, easier to ride at speed and through the rough that also does better than the original in the really steep downs (and ups), basically more like a mini DH bike, losing its quickness in tighter and slower trails, more contoured rolling terrain, and pumpy/flowy trails. While the LS might actually climb techy and loose stuff with less effort, it probably would pedal strike a lot more too, esp climbing up on ledges, even if its BB weren't lower (due to long front end)


This, I think is the closest we'll get to a perfect comparison. I did test ride the Ripley last year and thought it was a fairly XC-ish fit & handling, much more so than the Mojo HD I test rode on the same day. Since I'm now older and my reflexes are slower than they used to be, and I no longer have Jedi like balance & reactions, I now prefer a more forgiving bike so that I can continue to ride fast and have fun.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Dude, 24 years of riding might have _something_ to do with this success.


I don't know, I did ride that late 80's bike last time at 2005 (it was stolen then) and then didn't really ride much at all until 2013, during that time I had cheap supermarket bicycle that was not MTB and I did not like it at all, never managed to ride straight line with it and almost felt over if I took one arm off from the handle bar.

Since 2014 I have been riding Trek and first ride reminded me of that old bike.

Also what Aerius wrote seem to sound familiar, yes, front wheel does not escape so easily, it was not bad with late 80's bike either, but with Trek it is very rarely happening, I have been riding quite fast front wheel trying to slide from under me, but somehow it just stays upright, tens of feet slide and then regaining grip, on snow of course.

After moving my riding position more forward, lowering handle bar and shorter stem, I can now balance better weight to front and climbs as well as very tight corners at insane speeds seem easier.

Also it is easier to move weight around, that is perhaps what late 80's bike sucked a bit compared to my current setup in Trek, now I have possibility to move my body so much that there is really big change in weight percentage, I can put more weight to front or rear wheel, maybe one could say adjustability of weight balance is greater thus I'm getting more from my rides?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

For me it has always been about finding the heart of the bike; where my weight was best placed to deliver power, get grip where I needed it, and flick the bike around. From there I moved my weight around as needed.

New ways of conceptualizing geo through new language explains how things work for many. I am limited by an adherence to XC geometry and how it fulfills my needs. Anything more slack or longer is not useful for me. As such, technological improvements like shocks, frame material, brakes, carbon wheels, and the like get my attention.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

So the Scotts, GF Treks et al with the <69* HTA aren't XC then?



Berkeley Mike said:


> .......New ways of conceptualizing geo through new language explains how things work for many. I am limited by an adherence to XC geometry and how it fulfills my needs. Anything more slack or longer is not useful for me. As such, technological improvements like shocks, frame material, brakes, carbon wheels, and the like get my attention.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Do you guys, who are on these new geo long reach bikes with short (30mm and shorter) stems find it more difficult to weight the front?
I am talking slow speed descending and turning.
I would assume it should be easier with longer stems.
I am asking because I am fairly light at 140lbs / 5'8.5" and it might cause a difficultty and wash outs...

I am also wondering how this would be effected on, let's say 2 bikes with the exactly same geometry but the Reach/TT and HA would be different.
2 bikes with the same WB, one with 65degree HA and shorter reach, while the other ones HA around 67 degrees and longer reach.
I am curious, because most of the new long reach/WB bikes don't have the ultra slack 65 HA...


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

aerius said:


> I'd say the main difference is in the forgiveness of the bike and how much it lets you get away with. I own a mid 90s hardtail with 20 year old geometry and have ridden its modern equivalent which is a fair bit longer & slacker. On a smooth sweeping turn they'll both get through at the same speed (within the margin of error of my bike computer) without sliding off the trail, but they do it very differently. The old bike has to be ridden with perfect weight balance or else the front end will either want to slide out or knife into the ground and high side the bike. And once either end starts sliding, you need to catch it fast or you're going down. With the new bike, it's a lot easier to get to the traction limit. The front wheel doesn't knife into the ground and high side the bike, and when the wheels do start sliding it's much easier to control the drift and ride it out.
> 
> On actual real world trails which have bumps, ruts, and all that other fun stuff, it means that I can ride much closer to the traction limits on the new bike than my old one. On the old bike, I have to leave a fair bit of margin when cornering in case I whack something I didn't see, hit a loose patch, etc. so that I can correct the line/balance and ride it out. Or sometimes the terrain is so bad that I can't get my weight set properly to carve a turn. With the new one I don't need as much margin since the bike wants to stay upright and isn't as affected by trail obstacles, a loose patch that washes out the old bike merely results in a fun drift on the new bike. And since it handles rough terrain better, it's easier to stay balanced, weight the bike properly, and drive it through the turns.


Which means that with equal rider skill, the new bike will be faster...faster being an indication of better, and isn't that what this thread is all about?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Safer as well as faster. Amazing the mistakes my bike will eat up.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

jazzanova said:


> Do you guys, who are on these new geo long reach bikes with short (30mm and shorter) stems find it more difficult to weight the front?
> I am talking slow speed descending and turning.
> I would assume it should be easier with longer stems.
> I am asking because I am fairly light at 140lbs / 5'8.5" and it might cause a difficultty and wash outs...
> ...


On some of my bikes, it's as if the *range* of weight that the front likes for familiar turns at familiar speeds is narrower (less forgiving, requiring more focus and accuracy). It's on my slacker long travel bikes ('13 SJ FSR Evo), rather than my XC bikes (ex. '10 Superfly 100), that I feel the extra demand from. Pretty much forced to learn advanced cornering skills on the longer travel bike. Oddly enough, it became easier when I stuck a 650b Pike on it, replacing the old 26 fork (which I discovered in the 150-160 travel range, had less than normal offset at 37mm, vs 42 on the new fork), so offset/trail likely something to do with it. Probably why people say you have to lean on the slack bikes, when both works well on the XC style bike. I see Zokes have 44mm on their 26" forks--I've heard a lot of talk about how more accurately they steer compared to the competition.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

LyNx said:


> So the Scotts, GF Treks et al with the <69* HTA aren't XC then?


I consider 69º a fuzzy edge of XC. I recall riding the Santa Cruz 5010 at 68º and it felt outside the XC range I liked, as if I was constantly pushing a front wheel. With that the wheelbase got 1" longer. The Bronson, Yeti SB75, Spot One, we also in that class but 2-3 inches longer in wheelbase. The Flux and Liteville 301 were past that. When it cam time for tight corners i felt like I was driving the family station wagon.

Keep in mind that my '95 Bontrager Racelite, very light steel, had a headtube angle of 71º and a wheelbase of 1054, 4.5 inches shorter than the Bronson. Add to that some short chain stays. You want quick? Think mountain goat uphill, jack rabbit out of turns, and flickable.

I liked the Stumpy FSR Carbon (29), Tallboy (29) and the Anthem Advance (27.5) at 69, 70.2, and 69.5 respectively. I didn't like the floppiness of the 29er wheels.

So I went with the Anthem, a 2.5" increase in wheelbase, 1.5º more slack, and 90mm stem and flat swept bars. Some of the benefit was simply less weight due to Carbon frame. It took me about 2 weeks to find the heart of the bike. Adding carbon hoops and I had a quick, flickable machine.

My hands and feet are in the same place they have always been within a few mms. Wheelbase is bigger but most of that is in the wheel size, some in the slacker head.

Maybe that is the "new" geometry folks are talking about here. I would have no trouble with shorter top tube and a longer stem, though.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

I think what LyNx was getting at is that even Scott's XC race frames like the Scale and Spark (for example) have HTAs 69* and lower.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

evasive said:


> I think what LyNx was getting at is that even Scott's XC race frames like the Scale and Spark (for example) have HTAs 69* and lower.


And they are AMAZING bikes.

Never been on a bike(s) that pedaled so well yet still handled very well too. The Yeti ASRc is another bike (medium size) that really does both well.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Thanks Evasive, at least you got it 

I used to ride those 71* HTA "original" 29ers, thought they did alright, until I got my V1 Paradox and realised just how much I had been deluding myself, just how sketchy those old things had been and how much less fun and maneuverable compared to the Paradox. This was confirmed numerous times by people with that same old geo who threw a leg over my Paradox, they were amazed at how it felt, handled and the confidence it also inspired in the rough/tech and DHs, it literally changed quite a few riders ideas of what riding an MTB could mean and was the push they needed for a bike upgrade.
The right geo, with the proper offset fork=  


evasive said:


> I think what LyNx was getting at is that even Scott's XC race frames like the Scale and Spark (for example) have HTAs 69* and lower.
> 
> 
> Le Duke said:
> ...


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

I am not sure if this has been posted here before, but anyway, very interesting: 
http://www.mbr.co.uk/news/size-matters-why-were-all-riding-bikes-that-are-too-small-321374

Part 2:
http://www.mbr.co.uk/news/bike_news/size-matters-part-2-finding-limits-geometry-sizing-323289

Part 3: 
http://www.mbr.co.uk/news/bike_news/size-matters-part-3-bicycle-geometry-sucks-324160


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> Size matters: why we're all riding bikes that are too small - MBR


That article didn't really seem to say anything in my mind.

The title is "we're all riding bikes that are too small". He talks about how to fit 2 different sized riders on a 'medium' frame...ok...
And then says "why should we have to buy a garden gate to get a decent wheelbase"

If one is advocating bigger frames then one should embrace the garden gate.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

jazzanova said:


> I am not sire of this has been posted here before, but anyway, very interesting:
> Size matters: why we're all riding bikes that are too small - MBR


That is odd point of view writer has, I find seat tube being too short and top tube being too long at least in Trek, but maybe I have odd measurements, not sure how odd these are 32.6 inch inseam and bit over 6 feet tall?

But I think that seat tube length is to blame why 19.5" frame size does not fit quite perfect to me, seat post must be near the mark and I need really short stem to have decent reach. Still would like top tube to be tad shorter for little bit more nimbleness and to be able to move saddle bit more rearwards from front most position.

Not sure if 2014 model has new or old geometry though, straight from factory it is quite granny bike like.

One point of smaller bike is that you can move weight more, as you are tied to pedals, there is only that much reaching you can do and by reaching you shift weight, with smaller bike weight shifts more when moving your body as wheel contact patches are closer to point you are tied to.

When descending or climbing it might matter, but of course longer wheelbase helps if you don't shift your weight much. Going fast downhill longer wheelbase is needed as no one can keep up with terrain, shifting weight all the time.

I think there is different point of views, different uses and thus different needs.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> I am not sire of this has been posted here before, but anyway, very interesting:
> http://www.mbr.co.uk/news/size-matters-why-were-all-riding-bikes-that-are-too-small-321374


There's so many things wrong in this article... Road bikers don't stand on descents? I guess the author has never ridden down a bumpy road. Also the steering arc is the distance from the center of the steerer to the center of your palm. Stem length has a small effect on this distance as compared to bar length.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Shayne said:


> That article didn't really seem to say anything in my mind.
> 
> The title is "we're all riding bikes that are too small". He talks about how to fit 2 different sized riders on a 'medium' frame...ok...
> And then says "why should we have to buy a garden gate to get a decent wheelbase"
> ...


I think he means that most of the current frames come with a too long of a seat tube if one wants to upsize. I find this to be the case as well. I can't go with a large Ibis HD3, because I can't use a 150mm seatpost. The ST increases by more than 5cm, while reach by less than 2cm...


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> I think he means that most of the current frames come with a too long of a seat tube if one wants to upsize. I find this to be the case as well. I can't go with a large Ibis HD3, because I can't use a 150mm seatpost. The ST increases by more than 5cm, while reach by less than 2cm...


That's the problem with only offering four sizes. Each of those sizes is meant to fit people within a height range, and the seat tube has to be long enough, and strong enough, to support a seatpost at typical max extensions.

Guess what, maybe you can break down and use a 125mm dropper post instead. I'm sure the seat only being 5 inches, instead of 6, from normal height isn't a crippling disadvantage.

Pretty sure the 150mm posts are made for people who are big on XL frames, not for everyone, which is why it won't fit.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

So, are folks in this thread primarily saying this "New Geo" is better for all types of mtb riding?

Or, is the "New Geo" better for what seems to be the most commonly advertised type of riding these days, fast, open Enduro/DH-lite? 

Personally, I dig a somewhat slacker HTA, short stays, and low BBs. Don't care for the longer TTs. Step, slow speed tech climbing needs weight over the front wheel. Slower, tighter trails and short stems don't work well together. My riding is classic NE, tight, twistie, steep, and techie - not a ton of the open, super fast stuff. Pedalling through the rocky, twisties, while seated on bike with a steep STA has me perched up too high.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Try this:

New Geo is the buzzword just as Women's Specific was. It works for who it works for, just not for everyone or every kind of riding.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

jazzanova said:


> I am not sure if this has been posted here before, but anyway, very interesting:
> Size matters: why we?re all riding bikes that are too small - MBR
> 
> Part 2:
> ...


Those articles reinforce what we've gone through earlier with how some bikes can fit 5' 6" guys well, but not 6' 1"+ guys due to how certain dimension increase by odd proportions within the size range offered for a specific brand/model. I think it's vice versa for small folks on 29ers, where they actually probably should go smaller if between sizes (avoiding steep geo with a tall front end).


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Don't know if I believe in the whole "New Geo" thing with uber short stems and such, but I definitely believe in HTA slacker than 69*, chainstays not like a semi, sub 17.3" for a 29er, stems shorter than 80mm and bars wider than 711mm.



Miker J said:


> So, are folks in this thread primarily saying this "New Geo" is better for all types of mtb riding?
> 
> Or, is the "New Geo" better for what seems to be the most commonly advertised type of riding these days, fast, open Enduro/DH-lite?
> 
> Personally, I dig a somewhat slacker HTA, short stays, and low BBs. Don't care for the longer TTs. Step, slow speed tech climbing needs weight over the front wheel. Slower, tighter trails and short stems don't work well together. My riding is classic NE, tight, twistie, steep, and techie - not a ton of the open, super fast stuff. Pedalling through the rocky, twisties, while seated on bike with a steep STA has me perched up too high.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

LyNx said:


> Don't know if I believe in the whole "New Geo" thing with uber short stems and such, but I definitely believe in HTA slacker than 69*, chainstays not like a semi, sub 17.3" for a 29er, stems shorter than 80mm and bars wider than 711mm.


I have decided to find out on my own 
I have just purchased a large SC Nomad 3 frame with 30% off, no tax. I am 5`8.5" and santa cruz recommends Large from 5`10".
I will go with a 30mm stem and 780mm bars. This bike is considered slack with 65degree HA and has almost 120mm wheelbase. It is still shorter than a medium Mondraker Dune though. 
I will attempt to learn to ride it and see how it works out for me. If it doesn't, no problem, I will just get rid of it and get something else.

Regarding the bars, I went from 680mm up to 750mm within the last 3 years and feel I would like going even wider now. It has always taken me about 5-10 rides to fully adjust. There are very few trees here in SoCal.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

LyNx said:


> Don't know if I believe in the whole "New Geo" thing with uber short stems and such, but I definitely believe in HTA slacker than 69*, chainstays not like a semi, sub 17.3" for a 29er, stems shorter than 80mm and bars wider than 711mm.


Have you tried long reach, short stem? It's a geometry not a belief.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

I believe it's for those who live for the downs, I don't, I love to climb and ride flats and rolling trails and yes I've tried my XL Prime with 472mm Reach 45mm stem and 786mm bar and had no issues with it, but did not do a whole lot of climbing on it, but then again don't have any issues with my 450mm Reach Large Phantom and 65mm stem/785mm bar :skep: Forgot to add, don't believe in the whole super steep STA, anything between 72-73 is just fine.



Travis Bickle said:


> Have you tried long reach, short stem? It's a geometry not a belief.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Steeper STA aid in climbing steep terrain.


----------



## Derek200 (Jun 16, 2015)

So - question for some of you guys who have this figured out. I am looking to buy a yelli screamy and currently have a ST HT. if I compare the larges of the two frames I am confused on if it will be right fit or not. 

I have maybe a 35 inch inseam (measured with a spring loaded crotch thingy). But I am 5'10.5". So the stumpy feels like I am stretched out when seated. 

The reach on yelli is 10% shorter. I think that is good in new geo thinking. But the ett is longer. And I'm worried I'll still be too stretched out when seated

Thoughts? Will shorter stem remedy that? I think stumpy came with 105mm stem...


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Derek200 said:


> So - question for some of you guys who have this figured out. I am looking to buy a yelli screamy and currently have a ST HT. if I compare the larges of the two frames I am confused on if it will be right fit or not.
> 
> I have maybe a 35 inch inseam (measured with a spring loaded crotch thingy). But I am 5'10.5". So the stumpy feels like I am stretched out when seated.
> 
> ...


if you still have a 100 mm stem on the stumpy then yes a shorter stem as short as 35mm or less will make a longer bike fit right.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

Travis Bickle said:


> Steeper STA aid in climbing steep terrain.


Absolutely, but for guys with long levers, it's not so hot on the techie, pedally, non-climbing stuff.

I think almost all geos have their pluses and minuses, and some of what is thought to be best right now is dictated by the "climb up only to bomb back down" mentality.

The sustained climb/sustained high speed descent trail design definitely favors this new geo.

This is not an argument, just thinking on why things are the way they are.

A lot of positive mtb change, again, is just shedding the old roadie roots from where our bikes first came. IMO narrow bars and steep HTAs have no place on any trail bike.

I think reach, stack, and stem length should vary based on the bike's intended purpose.


----------



## Derek200 (Jun 16, 2015)

BushwackerinPA said:


> if you still have a 100 mm stem on the stumpy then yes a shorter stem as short as 35mm or less will make a longer bike fit right.


I guess my real question is if a large yelli is the right size


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Not everyone only slugs out the climb to enjoy the descent and only have up or down, some enjoy riding rolling terrain and long flat pedally stuff and not so steep tech climbs and a steep STA is not good for that when you have a long inseam and need to get yourself back to put the power down.


Travis Bickle said:


> Steeper STA aid in climbing steep terrain.





Miker J said:


> *Absolutely, but for guys with long levers, it's not so hot on the techie, pedally, non-climbing stuff.*
> 
> I think almost all geos have their pluses and minuses, and some of what is thought to be best right now is dictated by the "climb up only to bomb back down" mentality.
> The sustained climb/sustained high speed descent trail design definitely favors this new geo.
> ...


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Nine pages. Ah bugger it, who cares...


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

The longer your inseam the further back your saddle is. Especially on modern bikes with bent ST's or ST's that don't intersect the BB. And while true it's awsome for up and down I don't feel handicapped on more rolling trails. I will lower my saddle 5-10mm for rolling, chunky tech and even tech climbing though. 

Mr Pig

You are still reading...


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> Mr Pig You are still reading...


Skimming to be honest. It got boring a while ago, kinda going round in circles.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Mr Pig said:


> Skimming to be honest. It got boring a while ago, kinda going round in circles.


Drop-down toolbar for the Forum went from Black to Red - is that retro new-school _old school_ or, old-school retro _new school_? 
Geometry.

Plussin'.

Anyone with specs on the 26" Wheel Tricycles from Interbike a couple years ago? If it's old school, I'm out.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

This one BTW.










Not the kind w/ wire baskets fore/aft. Dorky.


----------



## NWS (Jun 30, 2010)

NWS said:


> But getting back on topic, if only fractionally more serious, a 'new geo' bike arrived in my garage today. 443mm reach, 445 seat tube, 64.5 HTA, 438/422 chainstays (flip chip). Opinions arriving Sunday after I have a chance to ride it a while. Maybe even up some hills.
> 
> NS Bikes - Soda Evo Air - Freeride / Bike park / Mini DH


So far the biggest difference is that I have to change my body position a bit when I'm out of the saddle. My hands are a little further forward than I'm used to, so I have to move my body back to get my weight in the right place. Most noticeable when climbing.

Otherwise, well... It's a bike. It's a little different from my other bikes, but it fits just fine and it goes where I tell it to.

Not that I'm complaining. I wanted near-DH travel with nowhere-near DH weight, because no chairlifts, and I got that. The other changes (as compared to my 2009 140mm Marin Wolf Ridge AM bike) seem pretty subtle.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

You guys don't even know what old-school is! Last week I rode a bike in Amsterdam, geometry circa 1890, and it was comfy as heck! ;0)


----------



## NWS (Jun 30, 2010)

Mr Pig said:


> You guys don't even know what old-school is! Last week I rode a bike in Amsterdam, geometry circa 1890, and it was comfy as heck! ;0)


Nice! How did it handle in the rocks and roots?


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

NWS said:


> Nice! How did it handle in the rocks and roots?


Didn't see any but rolls over fallen junkies just fine :0)


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

On today's ride I was imagining what it would like to have longer bar, if it would have more sweep, I think my hands would be in more natural position with something like 780mm bar than with my current less than 700mm bar. 

With bar ends I feel that they could be about about palm width wider apart, to get easier breathing, so for me such would be worthy experiment to see what happens, at least what little I could imagine by placing other hand to imaginary bar position.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

You just have to look at mountain bike history to see how much bollocks this all is. Bars have been all shapes and sizes and I bet there was a bunch of guys in the eighties talking about how great the new straight, ruler-flat bars were. They were crap, but at the time I have little doubt that buyers were blinded by marketing gobbledyg00k, just like they are today.

Of course an Amsterdam-style bike would be no use off road but they do put things in perspective. The design of those bikes literally has not changed in a hundred years. Most of the bikes in use are very old, even the new ones are mostly the same design as the old ones. So why is no one in Amsterdam clamouring to buy the next best thing in city bikes? 

Their bikes work, they do the job and people consider that good enough. Despite being heavy and using antiquated technology the bikes are supremely comfortable and easy to ride. People are the same shape as they were a hundred years ago so if the bike fitted properly then, what's the problem? 

But in the fickle fashion parade that is mountain biking we need newer, better which by definition means different to what went before. So the changes never end, yawn....


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Dude, they're cruising around a town in normal clothes, wanting to get from point A to point B, in that scenario, nothing fancy is needed, simpler is best.



Mr Pig said:


> ...Their bikes work, they do the job and people consider that good enough. Despite being heavy and using antiquated technology the bikes are supremely comfortable and easy to ride. People are the same shape as they were a hundred years ago so if the bike fitted properly then, what's the problem?


As someone who's ridden stuff from back in the 90s up until my current Phantom, I can say without a doubt that on an MTB, having the right bike for the intended use makes a world of difference, heck just going from the older school early 29er geo with 71* HTA and 18" stays to just a 69* HTA, short stayed bike was an amazing, eye opening experience and not just for me, I have lent that bike to numerous friends who older bikes and they have had the same revelation. 
Why try to run an F1 when you're racing off road, or even why run a standard WRC rally car instead of a GRC car when you're competing in GRC ut: The right tool for the job makes things much more funner 


Mr.Pig said:


> But in the fickle fashion parade that is mountain biking we need newer, better which by definition means different to what went before. So the changes never end, yawn....


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

What is considered long reach for an XC bike?
I had never considered sizing by reach and am intrigued but looking at various geo charts (Trek, Spec, Scott, Cannondale) the reaches don't seem all that long.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

I love my Trek (Fisher) Superfly 100. Gary Fisher pioneered the long top tube, shorter stem, slacker head angle geometry, he called Genesis geometry, plus 29" wheels. What you guys are calling new isn't so new.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

From 2005:

Re: What exactly is "Genesis" Geometry?

Postby jajones » October 27th, 2005, 9:53 pm
Sony..

There is a good explanation of Genesis geometry at the Fisher site...

Trek Bicycle

Yes, GG is characterized by a longer top tube, shorter stem and shorter chainstays. A main theory espoused by Fisher is that it provides a better center of gravity.

My personal opinion is that GG is a good option for people with a certain physiology and bad for others.

Personally, it really works for me. I own Fishers and I actually have had some custom bikes made to mimick GG. But, I think it is highly personal. We could get into a whole discussion on long/short torso, long/short legs, chainstay length for climbing and descending and stem length for climbing/singletrack/descending, but I think the best solution is to hop on a Fisher with GG and then hop and ride a comparably sized bike (i.e. medium, 26er). If it is right for your body type, I believe you will notice pretty quickly. Ditto if it is not.

User avatar
jajones

Posts: 5040
Joined: June 20th, 2002, 9:39 am


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

LyNx said:


> Dude, they're cruising around a town in normal clothes, wanting to get from point A to point B, in that scenario, nothing fancy is needed, simpler is best.


Maybe sub "Gravel" for "around a town"? 
Oh wait, you weren't describing people here?


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Berkeley Mike said:


> From 2005:
> 
> Re: What exactly is "Genesis" Geometry?
> 
> ...


their stems were not actually short and neither were their chainstays.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Chainstays have been under 17" since the late 80s. "short chainstays" is nothing new. Go find an old MBA magazine when bikes were all rigid and all the bike reviewers had to talk about was chain stay length, weld quality, and cable routing lol. 

The challenge lately has been to have short chain stays with bigger wheels, but, again, they aren't any shorter they they have been for decades, on average.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> their stems were not actually short and neither were their chainstays.


A 135mm stem was not uncommon in those days. I started with a 125 on my '95 Bontrager Racelite but was down to 110 when I sold her in 1014. I still have them out in the shed.

The large sized Genesis frames used a 105, a small used a 75.

My Bontrager chain stays were considered short at 16.75 and she climbed like a goat.
A 2015 26er Hardrock has 16.75" chain stays.

The Genesis frames had 16.25" chainstays.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Berkeley Mike said:


> A 135mm stem was not uncommon in those days. I started with a 125 on my '95 Bontrager Racelite but was down to 110 when I sold her in 1014. I still have them out in the shed.
> 
> The large sized Genesis frames used a 105, a small used a 75.
> 
> ...


yeah lots of people are running 35mm stems now. 75 on small is not even close to 35 on all sizes. Also why does a larger size need a longer stem?


----------



## Derek200 (Jun 16, 2015)

The 2015 ST HT is specced with a 105mm stem


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> yeah lots of people are running 35mm stems now. 75 on small is not even close to 35 on all sizes. Also why does a larger size need a longer stem?


It may be a regional thing or a riding style thing.

Different stems may be simple function of proportion. What a 5' 2" rider needs and a 6' 2" rider needs may be quite different. Try this model for understanding:

each inch of height is about 1/2" in the upper body. The seat/bar part of the triangle needs 1/4" to equal out the comfortable riding position re the back angle.

1/4 x 12 (height difference) = 3 inches (about 80mm length)

I know it's not perfect. I mean I just roughed this in but it does demonstrate the need for a longer stem for bigger riders. Similar with bar width. Not everyone can use an 800mm bar.

Upper body strength probably figures into both of those, too.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Berkeley Mike said:


> It may be a regional thing or a riding style thing.
> 
> Different stems may be simple function of proportion. What a 5' 2" rider needs and a 6' 2" rider needs may be quite different. Try this model for understanding:
> 
> ...


I think everyone could use a 35mm(or less) stem if the TT was long enough.

you do not need weight on the front end to climb fast..... you really do not.


----------



## Reallytho (Jul 30, 2015)

Mr Pig said:


> You guys don't even know what old-school is! Last week I rode a bike in Amsterdam, geometry circa 1890, and it was comfy as heck! ;0)


Lol! That is hilarious. Seriously though, how to you even keep the balance on those things.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I hear you about climbing. I think the best model for climbing is the unicycle; feet, hips, and keep driving. 

As to length up top....

The difference between a Small and Large Stumpy Carbon Expert 29 is 77 mm made up from 30 mm stem and 47 in top tube. That is spread over a 58mm increase in wheelbase.

The difference between a Small and Large Enduro Carbon Expert 29 is 60mm made up from 15mm stem and 45mm top tube. That is spread over a 50mm increase in wheelbase.

So _someone_ is thinking that bigger riders, independent of bike purpose, need longer stems even with longer top tubes.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Reallytho said:


> Lol! That is hilarious. Seriously though, how to you even keep the balance on those things.


It's dead easy. Riding one of those bikes feels as natural as walking. They are really heavy but when riding it you don't even notice, it doesn't feel heavy at all. If you get off and try to lift the bike, to turn it around for instance, you realise it weighs a ton!

I'm going to post something about cycling in Amsterdam, it's a very interesting situation. It's hard to get your head around how many bikes are in the city, every year the council fish fifteen-thousand of the things out of the canals!


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I hear you about climbing. I think the best model for climbing is the unicycle; feet, hips, and keep driving.
> 
> As to length up top....
> 
> ...


just because someone thinks its does not make it right. Not saying I am right either just saying there is nothing that is quantifiable to why a larger frames needs a bigger stem. Kona seems to think all frames should use the same size stem.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> yeah lots of people are running 35mm stems now. 75 on small is not even close to 35 on all sizes. Also why does a larger size need a longer stem?


Point being that they were short for the time.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> It may be a regional thing or a riding style thing.
> 
> Different stems may be simple function of proportion. What a 5' 2" rider needs and a 6' 2" rider needs may be quite different. Try this model for understanding:
> 
> ...


Don't forget longer arm length on top of the longer torsos.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

1890 new school geo - super slack, super short stem (0mm!), rear wheel slammed to the BB with a curved seat tube, wide bars. :lol:


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> just because someone thinks its does not make it right. Not saying I am right either just saying there is nothing that is quantifiable to why a larger frames needs a bigger stem. Kona seems to think all frames should use the same size stem.


I'm not really sure on how bike companies size stems. My 54cm road bike came with a 90mm stem. I had to switch it out to a 110mm.

That's why I don't buy stock bikes. Bar, stem, and saddle would all go as soon as it got home.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Another thing that hasn't changed is the pride in the bike.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Varaxis said:


> 1890 new school geo - super slack, super short stem (0mm!), rear wheel slammed to the BB with a curved seat tube, wide bars. :lol:


No dropper, can't shred.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

was nt short back then....

2002 lots of guys on 50mm stems...


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Old roadie bikes were way slack


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

^^Thats pretty awesome!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> was nt short back then....
> 
> 2002 lots of guys on 50mm stems...


Good find!


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

There was an interesting article on MBR a while back that questioned why as sizes increase the reach and TT increase less than the seat tubes. But yes there is no good reason that taller people need longer stems and more weight in front of the head tube. Kona and Mondraker have figured this out.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Travis,

I'm not sure it is a matter of weight over/in front of the head tube. Remember that larger bodies, statistically, have longer legs. That puts the seat up higher and further back, even before fore/aft adjustment. 

So, at least to some degree, the disposition of stems may be a matter of balancing weight over some sort of bike center, notably the cranks. 

We have far more power thrust into the cranks and seat than anywhere else. I wonder if, in this discussion, we are so focused on the front of the bike that we forget that.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Travis,
> 
> I'm not sure it is a matter of weight over/in front of the head tube. Remember that larger bodies, statistically, have longer legs. That puts the seat up higher and further back, even before fore/aft adjustment.
> 
> ...


You are talking about seat, so you are talking about seated performance.
How about the most important fit aspect on a mountain bike? How the bikes feels when in standing attack position?
I don't think either there is a good reason why stems should be longer on bigger bikes.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

We are still talking about driving force into the wheels, sitting or standing. So we are talking about placing the center of gravity. The attack position is, statistically, not a high frequency usage. Further, the attack position is not always centered over the bike in line with the axles. The attack position on a flat is still centered over the cranks or very slightly forward so you are pushing backwards with bar leverage upon acceleration. You can't do that for long .

The attack position out of the saddle is still centered over the cranks on a climb though that is a very tricky technique and takes a lot of skill. Too far forward and you spin out.

I am out of the saddle more than most. (Far too many years on a hard tail.) That said, I don't think it too much of a stretch to suggest that most people spend far more time in the saddle than out of it. That is why bikes are fit when seated.

If one were to create a bike that was only used for going down a hill the fit position would be very different from a bike created only for climbing. Either one is extreme and impractical for general use.

So bikes are setup for the majority of use. That means a seated position that delivers power without damaging the knees (proper height) and allows you to use your weight to advantage (proper fore/aft.)

Funny thing is that you hands end up where they end up based upon how far you can comfortably lean forward and for how long. I used to train racers and what they could do in the first weeks was very different from what they could do after months of training.

So if the rider is set up to center the major force over the cranks in a given fit position some _body_ is going to be behind the cranks and some _body_ in front of the cranks. The keester is now hanging over the rear wheel more so the hands will move more forward over the front wheel. If the seat is further back then the bars will be a bit further forward. Hence, longer stem.

This picture says it best.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Varaxis said:


> 1890 new school geo - super slack, super short stem (0mm!), rear wheel slammed to the BB with a curved seat tube, wide bars. :lol:


Quite modern then eh?



RS VR6 said:


> ^^Thats pretty awesome!


It's also not a road...


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Berkeley Mike said:


> We are still talking about driving force into the wheels, sitting or standing. So we are talking about placing the center of gravity. The attack position is, statistically, not a high frequency usage. Further, the attack position is not always centered over the bike in line with the axles. The attack position on a flat is still centered over the cranks or very slightly forward so you are pushing backwards with bar leverage upon acceleration. You can't do that for long .
> 
> The attack position out of the saddle is still centered over the cranks on a climb though that is a very tricky technique and takes a lot of skill. Too far forward and you spin out.
> 
> ...


agakin why does the stem have to longer why can the TT be longer?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

jazzanova said:


> You are talking about seat, so you are talking about seated performance.
> How about the most important fit aspect on a mountain bike? How the bikes feels when in standing attack position?
> I don't think either there is a good reason why stems should be longer on bigger bikes.


Since when did that become most important?
I think Berkeley Mike makes a good point about taller riders having longer legs and therefore being farther back on the saddle. When they get off the saddle they are still farther back. They also are riding on longer wheelbases. Weight distribution differs between people of different sizes on bikes of different sizes. 
The point for me is that there is not only one precise position that is best, and not everyone can have the same exact position and weight distribution, even if that was the goal.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> How about the most important fit aspect on a mountain bike? How the bikes feels when in standing attack position?


That ranks 0 on my list of important fit questions.



jazzanova said:


> I don't think either there is a good reason why stems should be longer on bigger bikes.


As was hashed over earlier:
A) for fit. They come in different lengths for a reason. It's virtually the same as a seatpost in that resepct. If there were only 180mm long seatposts available and 4-5 frame sizes how many people do you thing would be compromising? Same with stems. Some people like a 35mm stem for the fit they like. Others like a 150mm stem for the fit they like.

B) it is somewhat correlated with bar length.

C) is there a good reason why some bikes are green


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

LyNx said:


> heck just going from the older school early 29er geo with 71* HTA and 18" stays to just a 69* HTA, short stayed bike was an amazing, eye opening experience and not just for me, I have lent that bike to numerous friends who older bikes and they have had the same revelation.
> Why try to run an F1 when you're racing off road, or even why run a standard WRC rally car instead of a GRC car when you're competing in GRC ut: The right tool for the job makes things much more funner


I'm sure I notice the same differences between my old 29er and my new 29er that you do.

But I still think my old 29er is a blast to ride. I don't think of it as being worse, just different. I definitely ride technical downhills differently with it. My weight has to be farther back, and I ride slower, with more maneuvering and lifting and less plowing through. That doesn't make it worse. I don't care how fast I get down the hill, I care about enjoying the experience of it.

I can ride anything I ride with my new bike with any of my old bikes also. Its a little bit different, and I emphasize "little bit". I scoff at these ideas that an inch of stem or half inch of chainstay is a life or death difference, and I think some people here (not you LyNx) need to remember that not everyone cares, or should care, about the same stuff they care about.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

smilinsteve said:


> Since when did that become most important?


I think it has something to do with jumping over shark tanks.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> agakin why does the stem have to longer why can the TT be longer?


You may find that answer when you answer the question of why you have to ride such a short stem.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Berkeley Mike said:


> You may find that answer when you answer the question of why you have to ride such a short stem.


I dont have to I choose to, there is a differenc. the reason why I run a 35mm stem are these.

Front wheel more out of front of me, basically eliminates any chance of endoing. I have never endod my Honzo nor have I ever endo my Trance SX.

Longer front center of the up sized frame let the bike remain more planted of rough stuff.

I can move rear ward on the bike easier, while still getting as much weight on the front tire as i would ever want or need.

Going though rough stuff the front wheel is tons easier to keep from jack knifing from side to side with the 35 stem.

Bike is more eager to be leaned over with a long TT and short stem vs a short TT and long Stem.

As far as I can tell as Cat 1 XC the bikes are no slower climbing than a short TT long TT setup beside the fact these bike are quite bit portly than my XC race bike, which I basically do not ride anymore because it just is not fun.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Stems have always been used for fit because that is what is done on road bikes. Mountain bikes are different, and now stems and bars have moved away from the roadie past and evolved into modern short&wide for handling. Sure some trails are not much more than dirt sidewalks wherein is not critical, but on a modern bike than can handle everything from mild single-track, steep climbs, and Whistler like DH a short stem is a critical part of the handling and safety. Why not have a light HT with modern geometry, dropper, Short&wide combo that can rip and descend almost anything. After years on too long stems I will never handicap myself again. Fit should be 95% done when picking a frame.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> Fit should be 95% done when picking a frame.


This is not possible when MTB manufacturers offer at most 5 frame sizes. It's not possible when road manufacturers offer 15 frame sizes.

Stem, seatpost, bars, crankarms are all used for fit and should continue to be.

Unrelated to this comment but I'm still curious as to what the consensus is on what a 'long reach" for an XC bike would be.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

So stems are adaptive devices.

Short stems, as I said at the beginning of this thread, deal with issues of OTB amongst other things.

Coming from old school HT, which has its roots in road geometries, you either learned how to get your weight back and down or you didn't. MTB has evolved into many disciplines since then as a function of design opportunities as technology evolves and markets support them.

Have you ever noticed how many truly old school bikes are used as commuters: Nishiki, Specialized from the late 80s? Just help out at a Bike To Work Day station and you will see them by the zillions.Road geometry, rigid forks, long stems, flat bars? Those bikes nearly died in garages because folks bought them to have fun and found out that they demanded a lot of skill and commitment to ride. Hence they sat in garages.

So MTB had huge dip in its growth in the mid 90s. Many older MTBR denizens will recall discussions about this in the MTBR Pre-big Bang period. What relaunched us was the adaptation of frames into something normal people could ride, the development of shock/forks, an increased use of aluminum (then to scandium after the defeat of the USSR), and then extruded shapes. 

Between that and the development of a second population of riders, that is mountain bikers with kids, our sport exploded. The two populations are quite different, much as those of us who learned to drive on a stick and those who learned on an automatic.

I can put my weight where I need it when I need it. I don't find the short stems a necessity for my riding. I don't site as far back or upright as many though as I have aged my cockpit is smaller; my hands are closer to my seat by about an inch over 15 years.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Shayne said:


> Unrelated to this comment but I'm still curious as to what the consensus is on what a 'long reach" for an XC bike would be.


The BMC's have fairly long reach numbers. A medium has a 426mm reach compared to a Scott Scale with 405mm and Trek Procaliber with 412mm.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Berkeley Mike said:


> So stems are adaptive devices.
> 
> Short stems, as I said at the beginning of this thread, deal with issues of OTB amongst other things.
> 
> ...


why would you want to make it harder especially harder in a not fun way....the old bikes sucked and were based of road riding which make ZERO sense.

I mean if you want it harder why not just ride a rigid fixie with a 150mm stem and 500mm bars....


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

RS VR6 said:


> The BMC's have fairly long reach numbers. A medium has a 426mm reach compared to a Scott Scale with 405mm and Trek Procaliber with 412mm.


See, now that's tiny to me, not long.
The reach on my 9yr old's 24" bike is ~400mm.

The bike closest at hand has a ~480mm reach and I run a 130mm stem on a ~L frame.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

BushwackerinPA said:


> why would you want to make it harder especially harder in a not fun way....the old bikes sucked and were based of road riding which make ZERO sense.
> 
> I mean if you want it harder why not just ride a rigid fixie with a 150mm stem and 500mm bars....


I don't think that's necessary.

Just the rigid part pisses off enough posers... and marketers.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> why would you want to make it harder especially harder in a not fun way....the old bikes sucked and were based of road riding which make ZERO sense.
> 
> I mean if you want it harder why not just ride a rigid fixie with a 150mm stem and 500mm bars....


My point is, harder for who? I'm not having any problems. I wasn't the one who told designers to make bike geometry different so I could ride better. My riding in the 80s was rigid and long-stemmed and I was just so glad to be out riding in dirt. Who knew I was "having fun wrong"?

That said, carbon has been great and between that and sophisticated suspension I don't feel so beat up after I ride. I didn't ask for that, either, but I'm not complaining.

Now saddles......


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Shayne said:


> See, now that's tiny to me, not long.
> The reach on my 9yr old's 24" bike is ~400mm.
> 
> The bike closest at hand has a ~480mm reach and I run a 130mm stem on a ~L frame.


For me the whole reach thing came about for me from road bikes. It was something I used when getting a new road bike.

BMC's come with pretty short stems when it comes to XC bikes.

For me on the my HT 29er...I look for reach around 415mm. I run a 66mm Flatforce. Whatever the reach is on the frame...my hands will always be in the same spot. It'll just be adjusted with the stem. Hope that made sense.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Shayne said:


> This is not possible when MTB manufacturers offer at most 5 frame sizes. It's not possible when road manufacturers offer 15 frame sizes.
> 
> Stem, seatpost, bars, crankarms are all used for fit and should continue to be.
> 
> Unrelated to this comment but I'm still curious as to what the consensus is on what a 'long reach" for an XC bike would be.


When I recently bought a bike I looked at all manufacturers not just 1 or 2. I compared all the bikes in the range I was looking for and eliminated many because I would not have room for a short enough stem or a decent length dropper. Lots of big name popular bikes were taken off the list due to this.

My medium Warden has 433mm of reach and I might want a bit more for a XC bike depending on the STA.


----------



## Reallytho (Jul 30, 2015)

Mr Pig said:


> It's dead easy. Riding one of those bikes feels as natural as walking. They are really heavy but when riding it you don't even notice, it doesn't feel heavy at all. If you get off and try to lift the bike, to turn it around for instance, you realise it weighs a ton!
> 
> I'm going to post something about cycling in Amsterdam, it's a very interesting situation. It's hard to get your head around how many bikes are in the city, every year the council fish fifteen-thousand of the things out of the canals!


Dang, would be a blast to try out those things one day.

15 000  that is insane. Wow. How does that even happen LoL!


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> My point is, harder for who? I'm not having any problems. I wasn't the one who told designers to make bike geometry different so I could ride better. My riding in the 80s was rigid and long-stemmed and I was just so glad to be out riding in dirt. Who knew I was "having fun wrong"?
> 
> That said, carbon has been great and between that and sophisticated suspension I don't feel so beat up after I ride. I didn't ask for that, either, but I'm not complaining.
> 
> Now saddles......


The new bike has a lot less rake/offset, slackening the head angle instead to get the wheel out there, and that susp fork pushes the front end up so much that they shrunk the head tube to compensate. :lol:

Here's a new one to think about: where do you like having your handlebars, in relation to your hips:



















Watching this vid got me to ponder it, and thought the lower they were, the more awkward the riders looked: Vital RAW - Mont Sainte Anne DH Rock Smashing - Mountain Biking Videos - Vital MTB
- Pretty distinctive contrast in relaxed positioning, seeing how comfy Ratboy is at 2:10 compared to the others.
- Bulldog at 2:45 looking comfy too. Cockpit setup looks proportionate to him and Ratboy.

Thinking that bar width should be proportional to hip width and hip movement, rather than shoulder width, after watching this vid. The narrower the bars, the more constricted the riders' hips looked, especially if they were standing taller.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Shayne said:


> See, now that's tiny to me, not long.
> The reach on my 9yr old's 24" bike is ~400mm.
> 
> The bike closest at hand has a ~480mm reach and I run a 130mm stem on a ~L frame.


Are you sure you are measuring reach correctly?


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> Are you sure you are measuring reach correctly?


Yes, plumb line through center of BB to center of head tube. ~19"
TT is 23.6"


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> Are you sure you are measuring reach correctly?


What large frame has a 480mm reach?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Like I said, a bike set-up for climbing will be very different than a bike set-up for going downhill. The images show that pretty clearly. 

And then, this shows a race course. I never ride like that.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Unless you only shuttle, ride the lift, or your trails only go up hill (I think this is quite rare). What is the point of having a bike that is only suited to go up or down. Unless your trails are flat dirt sidewalks a bike that climbs well and goes down hill well is great. Different areas have different degrees of steepness so bikes need varying degrees of capability. My ideal bike climbs like a goat and descends with confidence. Some trails have sections I can't walk down without holding on to trees, but I can ride down without difficulty. Steep techy climb, no problem a as long I'm combobulated. MTB is up and down whatever you have.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Travis Bickle said:


> Unless you only shuttle, ride the lift, or your trails only go up hill (I think this is quite rare). What is the point of having a bike that is only suited to go up or down. Unless your trails are flat dirt sidewalks a bike that climbs well and goes down hill well is great. Different areas have different degrees of steepness so bikes need varying degrees of capability. My ideal bike climbs like a goat and descends with confidence. Some trails have sections I can't walk down without holding on to trees, but I can ride down without difficulty. Steep techy climb, no problem a as long I'm combobulated. MTB is up and down whatever you have.


Having watched MTB progress to present day from BMX, kinda-sorta took up MTB wanting to be kept a rigid discipline from inception - hence the road specific componentry and user controls. And also the lack of immediate accessibility to freestyle BMX riders. BMX was almost put full stop from Freestyle riding. 
The same can be said for Modern Geometry and Modern bikes in general: If stem length and frame clearance were offered from the start, MTB would have lost it's direction, like BMX had suffered and done.
No hard factoid to gauge progression, almost regressive toward majority riding population, it is however something to consider.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Haint said:


> Having watched MTB progress to present day from BMX, kinda-sorta took up MTB wanting to be kept a rigid discipline from inception - hence the road specific componentry and user controls. And also the lack of immediate accessibility to freestyle BMX riders. BMX was almost put full stop from Freestyle riding.
> The same can be said for Modern Geometry and Modern bikes in general: If stem length and frame clearance were offered from the start, MTB would have lost it's direction, like BMX had suffered and done.
> No hard factoid to gauge progression, almost regressive toward majority riding population, it is however something to consider.


Huh?


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

evasive said:


> Huh?


It is what it is, when freestyle riding began taking riders from BMX Racing it made BMX seem too structured and expensive. Freestyle adopted a street image. Whether or not you could ride a bike was irrelevant so long as you had one. BMX proved the rider with the drop of the starting gate.
It's highly likely MTB did not immediately evolve to the current crop of frame design out of wanting to avoid a loss of core riders, like BMX. Freestyle BMX evolved from true BMX riding and never was considered much of anything until it was manufactured-entity.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> What large frame has a 480mm reach?


Old Stumpjumper.

After doing more measuring at home and checking out geometry charts it seems that the huge stack heights are more of an issue. Lots of frames would have more acceptable (to me) reaches if the head tube wasn't up in the clouds.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> What large frame has a 480mm reach?


Seems hard to believe considering an XXL Tallboy reach is only 458 mm. and that's a big frame.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Mondraker's large has a 490mm reach. But not sure how many other companies have that kind of reach. Or wheelbase at 1232mm. That is one stretched out bike.


----------



## jhazard (Aug 16, 2004)

Haint said:


> Having watched MTB progress to present day from BMX, kinda-sorta took up MTB wanting to be kept a rigid discipline from inception - hence the road specific componentry and user controls. And also the lack of immediate accessibility to freestyle BMX riders. BMX was almost put full stop from Freestyle riding.
> The same can be said for Modern Geometry and Modern bikes in general: If stem length and frame clearance were offered from the start, MTB would have lost it's direction, like BMX had suffered and done.
> No hard factoid to gauge progression, almost regressive toward majority riding population, it is however something to consider.


Okay, first off, mtb didn't really progress from BMX. It came from Road Riding. The road specific geo came from the influence of the bike builders at the time, who were former roadies.

And freestyle isn't what really put the screws to BMX either. While some of the biggest names in Freestyle came from roots of bmx, they weren't the top stars of the time. Huge rider salaries, huge prizes, (on both sides of bmx/freestyle) really helped to nearly kill both genres.

...AND the "street image" of freestyle didn't really come about until the industry started dying, and you saw a rise in rider-owned comanies.

Either way, none of that has much to with the evolution of mountain bike frame design. Though I would say the influx of some of the bmx riders in the 90's might have "helped" (riser bars and low seats?).


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

*edit* replied to the wrong thread.... :madman:


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Norco increases the chain stay length with frame size (on the Sight anyway). 

Just thought I'd throw that in.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

I've not read all of this but I'd have to say there must be some trade off between 'modern' geometries and 'old' ones. And what defines old? My bike from '94 had a longish stem but mainly because I was riding a small frame and needed it for fit. If I went to medium I needed a shorter stem to fit my body and not be bent over like a hunchback. I guess people were riding like that back then but I figured out pretty quick a small bike was easier to maneuver even with a long stem (shorter wheelbase). Compared to what it is now it was horribly slow going down and my ass was two feet back off the saddle for the slightest drop.

Anyway, I was thinking about skis and xc and dh and how they have changed in the past 20 years. Ever try to kick and glide with a shaped ski? Have fun! It's about as enjoyable as trying to turn a straight, narrow, double cambered ski down hills. Designers got smart and started integrating as much turning ability as was needed for the intended usage of the ski i.e. fatter, slow touring skis got shorter, curvier, and maybe even rockered. It's tolerable if all you are doing is climbing and descending. Have to cover any rolling terrain or 'flats' and you might as well put snowshoes on. So in that case you'd opt for a longer, straighter ski with more camber. It's going to test you on the down, but you can cover the miles and get some glide.

I'm not that knowledgeable on the biomechanics of a bike, but I'd assume there is a point of diminishing return where you're so optimized for downhill that xc becomes a chore. We all know it goes the other way if you take a really upright bike it's going to try to kill you down something steep and rough.

Anyway, it seems to me modern geo just trades off these things a bit more to give you either a bit more cornering stability amd ability to absorb forward obstruction or put you in an optimal position to crank on the seat and roll over things (usually while climbing) without pedal strikes.

A lot like skis, there is no magic - figure out what you are doing and pick the best tool for the job, or whatever one you prefer.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

jhazard said:


> Okay, first off, mtb didn't really progress from BMX. It came from Road Riding. The road specific geo came from the influence of the bike builders at the time, who were former roadies.


Road specific geo? Lots of the pioneers were also roadies but they were designing and building bikes specifically for off road use. The first mountain bikes had ~68 degree headtubes, long wheelbase, not even close to road bike geometry.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

They were far enough from road bikes that they were featured in various BMX mags:

Old Mountain Bikes: Full Bore Cruisers - January 1980

Old Mountain Bikes: Ritchey Mountain Bike Review - February 1980


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> They were far enough from road bikes that they were featured in various BMX mags:
> 
> Old Mountain Bikes: Full Bore Cruisers - January 1980
> 
> Old Mountain Bikes: Ritchey Mountain Bike Review - February 1980


^ Some [email protected] bikes that kickstarted this whole madness, not seeing a lot of "roadie roots" there.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

I love this line:

"If you enjoy getting away from it all, enjoy bicycle riding, and have a flair for style, you should definitely check into the MB."

So WTF happened?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> They were far enough from road bikes that they were featured in various BMX mags:
> 
> Old Mountain Bikes: Full Bore Cruisers - January 1980
> 
> Old Mountain Bikes: Ritchey Mountain Bike Review - February 1980


Really cool articles! 
- I'm surprised that as early as Jan 1980 there was a magazine about mountain bikes
- Why in the friggin hell is Mert Lawwill not mentioned more in the MTB history? At this point in time, when Ritchey and Breeze had only built about 10 frames each, Lawill had 75 "pro cruisers" under his belt and plans for the next 100! 
- Sounds like Lawill had the first production MTB, not Specialized who gets the credit for the 82 Stumpy.
- Bikes from 500 to 1200 bucks, the high end for a hand built frame from Breeze or Ritchey, called "ungodly expensive". :lol:


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

One other thought about the old days. The first MTBs might have been slack, but they were taken from existing cruiser frames. It wasn't long (sometime in the 80s), when mountain bikes had largely adopted the 71/73 angles as standard. That means that somewhere a long the line the general consensus became that the steeper angles were better than the old slack frames.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

smilinsteve said:


> One other thought about the old days. The first MTBs might have been slack, but they were taken from existing cruiser frames. It wasn't long (sometime in the 80s), when mountain bikes had largely adopted the 71/73 angles as standard. That means that somewhere a long the line the general consensus became that the steeper angles were better than the old slack frames.


Exactly ^

Those old bikes were awesome but they didn't have everything quite dialed yet (surprise!) and soon discovered that steeper angles worked better for what they had going at the time. Refinement continues on.

Funny that my new bike is 71/73, and it rocks!


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

jhazard said:


> Okay, first off, mtb didn't really progress from BMX. It came from Road Riding. The road specific geo came from the influence of the bike builders at the time, who were former roadies.
> 
> And freestyle isn't what really put the screws to BMX either. While some of the biggest names in Freestyle came from roots of bmx, they weren't the top stars of the time. Huge rider salaries, huge prizes, (on both sides of bmx/freestyle) really helped to nearly kill both genres.
> 
> ...


I'd been racing BMX when MTB began to emerge. How that was mis-read to draw lineage of Mountain Bike riding to BMX track riding... uhh, cough, thhppt

Freestyle BMX drove a wedge in BMX, and hence the huge loss in ridership. All the other consequences made into light are the effect of poor choices by Industry at the time, driven by profit. Frame Standers, Axle Pegs, Axle Pegs w/ Grip Tape. ...aluminum versions of each of those now, then make them hollow - it's was endless gadgetry on the back of BMX racing.

Soon the epitome of frame design will be found (obviously...) and the sport will reach it's own end of progress. Land Access battles, trail construction battles, the inevitable secular developments which will only allow specific bikes on their trails. All for the fun of riding, looking forward to it all - shopping for a Road Bike.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

smilinsteve said:


> One other thought about the old days. The first MTBs might have been slack, but they were taken from existing cruiser frames. It wasn't long (sometime in the 80s), when mountain bikes had largely adopted the 71/73 angles as standard. That means that somewhere a long the line the general consensus became that the steeper angles were better than the old slack frames.


I'd like to see the fork offsets and trail numbers included in that discussion of shifting head tube angles.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I read this on MBR this morning. Tester is 5'10" on a large Mondraker Foxy.

Singletrack Magazine | Long Termers: Richard's Mondraker Foxy Carbon XR Special Edition


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Interesting review. The tester did mention weighting the front wheel more, but even becoming second nature could be a waste of energy for races with a lot of climbing. The other thing I noticed was a distict lack of tight, twisty trails in the photos. I wonder how the tester would have felt about the bike in different situations like we have in places on the East Coast or Midwest..


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

The large foxy has 501mm of reach and 660mm theoretical top tube! Even with that 30mm stem I don't think I could ride a large and I'm 5'9.5". He is only half an inch taller than me. I think that reach and TT are too short on most bikes but I think he has pushed past my limit. I would love to demo some Mondrakers and find out though.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

l'oiseau said:


> I've not read all of this but I'd have to say there must be some trade off between 'modern' geometries and 'old' ones. And what defines old? My bike from '94 had a longish stem but mainly because I was riding a small frame and needed it for fit. If I went to medium I needed a shorter stem to fit my body and not be bent over like a hunchback. I guess people were riding like that back then but I figured out pretty quick a small bike was easier to maneuver even with a long stem (shorter wheelbase). Compared to what it is now it was horribly slow going down and my ass was two feet back off the saddle for the slightest drop.


Another thing to remember is that heavily sloped top tubes weren't common in those days, so lots of people sized down on their frames both for easier maneuverability and so so that they didn't crotch themselves on the top tube if they had to put a foot down in a tricky section. Most bikes in those days had level, or pretty close to level top tubes which was horrible for standover clearance.

As for new vs. old geometry, my 2003 RM Blizzard is pretty much the same as the early 90s version, the geometry was mostly unchanged throughout its production life. The only things it does better than my 2015 Norco Range is pumping through smoother dips & humps and doing trials type moves to pivot the bike or side-hop it up obstacles. The Range climbs better, descends better by a mile, and zips through twisty singletrack just as fast if not faster. I've yet to find a switchback where the Range hangs up and the Blizzard doesn't, if it's tight enough that the Range can't make it the Blizzard isn't getting through either.


----------



## BuickGN (Aug 25, 2008)

I only read to page 3 and the top of this page which I'm looking forward to going back and reading those articles. 

This thread is interesting and great timing for me. I just got done with "Just Outstanding" for anyone in SoCal. I brought the Epic, my Trance with 170mm front travel, 160-ish rear travel, and my friend brought his stock '15 Remedy 9 and his Haro 29" hardtail. We had 2 guys going with us that don't own mountain bikes which was the reason for bringing the extra bikes. I haven't ridden the Epic in a long time. The last time I posted about it on here I was never going to get rid of it because it was so much fun with such great handling. 

This trip provided 16 miles of downhill through lots of different terrain and a 3-5 mile uphill section. The thing I learned from all of this is the Trance with it's very different geometry literally does everything better than the Epic after switching back and forth a few times. In the beginning I thought the Trance did not handle tight switchbacks as well and was not as much fun. Now the Epic feels unstable and is not confidence inspiring at all. The Trance climbs as well or better too, go figure. This is especially evident on very steep, loose uphills where you're trying to keep the front end on the ground and not spin the rear too. I can't think of one reason to keep the Epic other than to have a nice bike for the fiancée to ride. I definitely like the new stuff better. The Epic isn't exactly old but it has more old school geometry.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

BuickGN said:


> I only read to page 3 and the top of this page which I'm looking forward to going back and reading those articles.
> 
> This thread is interesting and great timing for me. I just got done with "Just Outstanding" for anyone in SoCal. I brought the Epic, my Trance with 170mm front travel, 160-ish rear travel, and my friend brought his stock '15 Remedy 9 and his Haro 29" hardtail. We had 2 guys going with us that don't own mountain bikes which was the reason for bringing the extra bikes. I haven't ridden the Epic in a long time. The last time I posted about it on here I was never going to get rid of it because it was so much fun with such great handling.
> 
> This trip provided 16 miles of downhill through lots of different terrain and a 3-5 mile uphill section. The thing I learned from all of this is the Trance with it's very different geometry literally does everything better than the Epic after switching back and forth a few times. In the beginning I thought the Trance did not handle tight switchbacks as well and was not as much fun. Now the Epic feels unstable and is not confidence inspiring at all. The Trance climbs as well or better too, go figure. This is especially evident on very steep, loose uphills where you're trying to keep the front end on the ground and not spin the rear too. I can't think of one reason to keep the Epic other than to have a nice bike for the fiancée to ride. I definitely like the new stuff better. The Epic isn't exactly old but it has more old school geometry.


yeah a better comparo would a 09 stumpjumper but I still think the trance would win that as well.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

The new Troy has 440mm of reach for the medium size. This is quite long compared to a lot of bikes. HTA 67 degrees is not terribly slack so it is likely a good all rounder.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Travis Bickle said:


> The new Troy has 440mm of reach for the medium size. This is quite long compared to a lot of bikes. HTA 67 degrees is not terribly slack so it is likely a good all rounder.


From bike in signature.
550mm from bottom bracket to center of handlebar with 50mm stem (500mm reach I believe), 440mm from nose of the saddle, I feel like keeping saddle front most position. 
70.5 degrees. 
It has 580mm effective top tube by specs

Another bike.
Hybrid is something hopeless, 640mm measured from bb to handlebar, feels bit like pedal boat or recumbent, but that too has 'correct' frame size by my height.

Both are Large size bikes.

I would think that this Trek has quite bit longer reach than that 440mm of Troy, even if we take account different frame sizes.

If most bikes have shorter reach than Troy, then I find bit odd that my bike came with over 100mm stem.

I put today 35mm stem and 720mm bar, (had 50mm stem and 630mm bar installed) don't know if that makes geometry modern, but it is different, some way worse, some way better, need to ride more to know anything, lot less nimble came to mind.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

For your bike to gave a 580mm TT it would have to have a extremely steep STA to have that kind of reach. Reach = horizontal distance front centre of BB to centre of HT, just so we are talking about the same thing.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Travis Bickle said:


> The new Troy has 440mm of reach for the medium size. This is quite long compared to a lot of bikes. HTA 67 degrees is not terribly slack so it is likely a good all rounder.


Only looking at 2 figures? What about the wheelbase, mechanical trail, BB drop, RC/FC, and stack height, which are no less important? Every figure is worth considering.


(right click, open image in new tab/Chrome *or* view image/FF)


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> For your bike to gave a 580mm TT it would have to have a extremely steep STA to have that kind of reach. Reach = horizontal distance front centre of BB to centre of HT, just so we are talking about the same thing.


Stack height and angles play a huge part in this.
As mentioned a page or two ago my old Stumpjumper has a ~480mm reach with a 595mm tt and 490mm st.
It also has a stack height on the order of 4"+ less than most current bikes.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

It is long for a medium and I only wanted to illustrate that another manufacturer has stretched out the reach.


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

Travis Bickle said:


> It is long for a medium and I only wanted to illustrate that another manufacturer has stretched out the reach.


To put it in perspective it is nearly the same as last year's large with slightly shorter chainstays.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Or still shorter than bikes from 8 years ago.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Travis Bickle said:


> For your bike to gave a 580mm TT it would have to have a extremely steep STA to have that kind of reach. Reach = horizontal distance front centre of BB to centre of HT, just so we are talking about the same thing.


There is some data in nice table form, STA looks like to be 73 degrees:
Testing?Trek 3700 2013 Product Review | Rutland Cycling

I did measure again, I'm quite confident that I can't get any reliable measurement taken, got so many different measurements, no matter how precise I did try to be with plump line.

Might be 420mm, might be anything +/- 40mm from that, finding level ground alone proved to be a challenge.

According to this page around 460-470mm would be recommended top tube length for my (horribly inaccurate) measurements, but for me that sounds quite short (that would be over 100mm less than my current) and if trend is even to longer TT perhaps I have even more trouble ahead of me.
The Bike Fit Guide: Sierra Trading Post

6ft 1 inch tall, for me 580mm top tube seems to be too long, there was mentioning of 660mm TT length and under 6ft guy, I just wonder how one could ride so, wouldn't pedals be quite far forwards of good power position, wouldn't that get to knees quite horribly?

It really would be nice to find bottom of this, I might need custom frame if things really are like they appear, maybe I just take more measurements and be more confused


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

I think everyone should use some sort of a apples to apples comparison, since comparing an entry level bike that isn't expected to see hard use and a 140mm trail bike doesn't prove much of anything.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

IPunchCholla said:


> To put it in perspective it is nearly the same as last year's large with slightly shorter chainstays.


Maybe to keep up with the trend of people sizing up to get more reach. That's probably a negative trait that fashion is driving. Longer travel bikes should be shorter, since their increased travel increases the overall length of the bike on it's own, IMO. The slacker angles already put the front tire further forward anyways. There's a reason why XC bikes have longer reaches than all mountain/enduro/trail bikes.

I know one and heard of a lot of people who are the same average 5'10" height as me who have gone for large sized trail bikes. A friend of mine rides the same model as me, only in large, despite our identical height. I rode a large at interbike, and it was a great bike, but my medium handles even better. Far more maneuverable without being twitchy, the large was a touch too stable.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

richde said:


> Maybe to keep up with the trend of people sizing up to get more reach. That's probably a negative trait that fashion is driving. Longer travel bikes should be shorter, since their increased travel increases the overall length of the bike on it's own, IMO. The slacker angles already put the front tire further forward anyways. There's a reason why XC bikes have longer reaches than all mountain/enduro/trail bikes.
> 
> I know one and heard of a lot of people who are the same average 5'10" height as me who have gone for large sized trail bikes. A friend of mine rides the same model as me, only in large, despite our identical height. I rode a large at interbike, and it was a great bike, but my medium handles even better. Far more maneuverable without being twitchy, the large was a touch too stable.


Same here.
I am 5'8.5" and went with a L Nomad for the longer reach. The WB is almost 120cm...


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

richde said:


> I think everyone should use some sort of a apples to apples comparison, since comparing an entry level bike that isn't expected to see hard use and a 140mm trail bike doesn't prove much of anything.


Perhaps first it would be needed to find out what apple is, hype that looks like an apple is not an apple.

Anyway Modern Mountain Bike Geometry Defined - Transition Explains Effective Top Tube Versus Reach - Mountain Bikes Features - Vital MTB


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

That article states some things as if they were established fact, like short stems offering more stability, which is actually arguable. The shorter stem makes steering more twitchy, while a longer mechanical trail (from a slack HA) resists steering, which the short stem is supposed to address (better addressed with more fork offset, IMO). It also doesn't mention anything like longer reach compromising flickability.

See this thread here in the link below, that ventures what kind of geo figures determine flickability. Higher stack and longer reach seem to negate "short CS" and its effect on flickability. A "tetherball" analogy seems to have settled the thread.

http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/bike-geo-question-948293.html


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> That article states some things as if they were established fact, like short stems offering more stability, which is actually arguable.


I agree. Other arguable points they made:
- When you lengthen the front end you can shorten the chainstays to negate the effect on wheelbase. Not necessarily true, because chainstays are already short and in many cases can not be shortened enough to make up for the long front ends caused by long reach and slack HTA. The fact is, wheelbases are getting longer.

- When you keep the wheelbase the same, by having a long front and short rear, it keeps the stability of the bike the same. Not necessarily true. Weight distribution is different, and stability is different. I would make the argument that stability is better with more centered weight distribution.

I do think it is a good article though.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Probably implying only DH stability with the rearward weight distro, considering who they are. They probably aren't interested in our little challenges like technical rock and root crawling. Standing straighter on a descent is more natural than being behind the saddle, especially if your brake squat/anti-rise % is low and need to put more weight rearward to counter the forward weight shift when braking.

They could also be implying that the longer wheelbase due to a longer reach, combined with the short stem increases stability, but still misleading how they worded it as the shorter stem offering stability, when the better word choice is to say the longer front center offers DH stability.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Poster boy of the forward geometry was probably the Mondraker Foxy.
It won the best bike of 2014 in mbr.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

It's been going back and forth... 2015 is the SB5c's year.

WhatMTB/BikeRadar gave it to the Anthem X 29 in '13, I believe, for trail bikes under 2500 GBP. E29 was getting a lot of awards in 14. Tallboy LTc in '12? Bicycling and Outdoor mag seemed to like the SB95.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Varaxis said:


> That article states some things as if they were established fact, like short stems offering more stability, which is actually arguable. The shorter stem makes steering more twitchy, while a longer mechanical trail (from a slack HA) resists steering, which the short stem is supposed to address (better addressed with more fork offset, IMO). It also doesn't mention anything like longer reach compromising flickability.
> 
> See this thread here in the link below, that ventures what kind of geo figures determine flickability. Higher stack and longer reach seem to negate "short CS" and its effect on flickability. A "tetherball" analogy seems to have settled the thread.
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/bike-geo-question-948293.html


Shorter stems along with wider bars DO offer more stability. Don't separate the two. Nobody suggested using 600mm bars on a 50mm stem.

Long stems and narrow bars put the rider's hands (and CG) too far forward and makes it more difficult to properly position yourself on the bike for anything other than climbing.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Varaxis said:


> It's been going back and forth... 2015 is the SB5c's year.
> 
> WhatMTB/BikeRadar gave it to the Anthem X 29 in '13, I believe, for trail bikes under 2500 GBP. E29 was getting a lot of awards in 14. Tallboy LTc in '12? Bicycling and Outdoor mag seemed to like the SB95.


Here you go. From this year:
http://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gea...on/product/review-mondraker-foxy-xr-15-49399/


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

I've recently switched from 750mm bars and a 70mm stem to 800mm bars and a 50mm stem, and I can't help but feel like I'm gonna go otb because the bars aren't out in front of me enough. Is this just something I have to get used to or is the stem a little too short? Also, weighting the front for turns feels awkward now

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

8iking VIIking said:


> I've recently switched from 750mm bars and a 70mm stem to 800mm bars and a 50mm stem, and I can't help but feel like I'm gonna go otb because the bars aren't out in front of me enough. Is this just something I have to get used to or is the stem a little too short? Also, weighting the front for turns feels awkward now
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


Give it some time. It usually takes few weeks to adjust. Then if it still feels weird change it.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

8iking VIIking said:


> I've recently switched from 750mm bars and a 70mm stem to 800mm bars and a 50mm stem, and I can't help but feel like I'm gonna go otb because the bars aren't out in front of me enough. Is this just something I have to get used to or is the stem a little too short? Also, weighting the front for turns feels awkward now
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


What makes you feel like you're going to go OTB and what actually makes you go OTB are two different things.

When you run into something that makes you go OTB, it does it because your momentum pushes your CG out past the front contact patch. With the shorter stem and wider bars your hands are a little further back, so it will move your CG a little further back, so your momentum is a little less likely to push you forward enough for it to happen.

It also makes shifting your weight back easier and makes it feel more natural, since your hands are already a little further back.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

jazzanova said:


> Give it some time. It usually takes few weeks to adjust. Then if it still feels weird change it.


I've got a 60 in the parts bin...800/60 may be the sweet spot, but I'll give it a few more rides with the 50

I should mention that this is also my first "trail" bike, coming from a XC hardtail with 685 bars/90 stem. I think I'm just so used to the long and stretched fit

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Just saying, there are bikes with short fronts and longer rears racking up awards too. Trying to supply the other half of the story. Mentioning the E29 was sort of how I was supporting how things are going back and forth, since it's long in front and short out back, though not as long as the Mondraker. SB5c could be considered what's new, since it's normally been about getting the rear as short as possible, even compromising with seated fit, moving the seat tube out of the way of the wheel/seat stay bridge.

Being further behind the front axle should reduce the OTB feeling. Just getting lower, would help. Drop your elbows to about the same height as your grips and see how that changes things.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

smilinsteve said:


> I agree. Other arguable points they made:
> - When you lengthen the front end you can shorten the chainstays to negate the effect on wheelbase. Not necessarily true, because chainstays are already short and in many cases can not be shortened enough to make up for the long front ends caused by long reach and slack HTA. The fact is, wheelbases are getting longer.
> 
> - When you keep the wheelbase the same, by having a long front and short rear, it keeps the stability of the bike the same. Not necessarily true. Weight distribution is different, and stability is different. I would make the argument that stability is better with more centered weight distribution.
> ...


I got a flash when reading this, I'm sure not too far in the future, some company invents smaller rear wheel to be able to fine tune riding dynamics by shorter chain stays.

630mm bar with 50mm stem seemed to be more stable than 720mm bar with 35mm stem, up to point, when speed increased closer to 20mph wider bar was more stable, at very slow speed though, even small weight change at handle bar (look bike or side) made this twitchiness issue, bike steered immediately, where with shorter bar nothing happens.

Of course put those two bars and stems to some different bike and you might get different results, but until someone sends me proper trail bike frame with fork and shock, I'm limited to experiment with what I have, you just have to interpolate the result or experiment yourself.

Interesting bit is that it is more relaxed when I hold from bar ends. Of course more rides are needed to properly adjust to change, that was just 24 miles ride I made, speeds from 2mph to 40mph, uphill and downhill, but mostly on dual track and something close to fireroad.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

richde said:


> What makes you feel like you're going to go OTB and what actually makes you go OTB are two different things.


Yeah I get what you mean. In reality I know I'm less likely to go otb with my current setup, it just feels a little wonky. I feel like my bars are in my lap. Again, this is probably due to many miles on a long, stretched out xc bike.

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

richde said:


> What makes you feel like you're going to go OTB and what actually makes you go OTB are two different things.
> 
> When you run into something that makes you go OTB, it does it because your momentum pushes your CG out past the front contact patch. With the shorter stem and wider bars your hands are a little further back, so it will move your CG a little further back, so your momentum is a little less likely to push you forward enough for it to happen.
> 
> It also makes shifting your weight back easier and makes it feel more natural, since your hands are already a little further back.


From my short experiment I would agree with all those points, for me also breathing when climbing is better and as bar is wide, it is quite easy to lean very much forward to prevent front end getting too light when climbing.

When braking rear wheel does not come up quite as easily, with other geometric changes to frame that new geo has, it might be that pulling wheelie comes easier instead of OTB, but without testing hard to say, that is how it appears to me.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

8iking VIIking said:


> I've recently switched from 750mm bars and a 70mm stem to 800mm bars and a 50mm stem, and I can't help but feel like I'm gonna go otb because the bars aren't out in front of me enough. Is this just something I have to get used to or is the stem a little too short? Also, weighting the front for turns feels awkward now
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


Normally you feel less likely to go otb with a shorter stem, as mentioned above, but I could see if it was too short you could feel like your arms aren't out in front of you as much to resist a forward weight shift.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

smilinsteve said:


> Normally you feel less likely to go otb with a shorter stem, as mentioned above, but I could see if it was too short you could feel like your arms aren't out in front of you as much to resist a forward weight shift.


Wouldn't that feeling be enhanced by bit short top tube? If top tube would be longer and BB more rearwards, then shorter stem would not have that effect and cramped cockpit feeling, but with short TT handlebar certainly would feel to be on lap and rider might feel to go over the bar easier?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> It's been going back and forth... 2015 is the SB5c's year.
> 
> WhatMTB/BikeRadar gave it to the Anthem X 29 in '13, I believe, for trail bikes under 2500 GBP. E29 was getting a lot of awards in 14. Tallboy LTc in '12? Bicycling and Outdoor mag seemed to like the SB95.


The SB5 is kicking butt as far as reviews go. Everyone loves that bike it seems. 
Here's the specs on the medium frame. 
Chainstay - 17.4 (442)
TT - 23.7 (601)
HTA - 66.5 (with 150 fork)
STA - 72.3 (410)
reach - 16.14 (410)
BB - 13.5 (344)
Wheelbase - 45.6 (1159)
Stock stem - 70mm

Looks pretty modern to me, but some of you guys argue like there are all kinds of problems with that geometry. There is more than 1 way to build an awesome bike, and its hard to argue that Yeti didn't get it right with the SB5. Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

grumpy old biker said:


> Wouldn't that feeling be enhanced by bit short top tube? If top tube would be longer and BB more rearwards, then shorter stem would not have that effect and cramped cockpit feeling, but with short TT handlebar certainly would feel to be on lap and rider might feel to go over the bar easier?


Absolutely. We don't know his bike, we just know that he feels more likely to go otb with his new shorter stem. So its possible that it is too short. And you can't really call a top tube long or short unless you are referencing the riders body in comparison. His position, due to the combination of his frame with his stem, may put him too up right or cramped.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

smilinsteve said:


> Absolutely. We don't know his bike, we just know that he feels more likely to go otb with his new shorter stem. So its possible that it is too short. And you can't really call a top tube long or short unless you are referencing the riders body in comparison. His position, due to the combination of his frame with his stem, may put him too up right or cramped.


The bike is a large santa cruz Bantam, 610 TT, 419 reach. I'm 5'10" with a 33" inseam. At my height I'm exactly between SC's recommendation for M/L

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

smilinsteve said:


> The SB5 is kicking butt as far as reviews go. Everyone loves that bike it seems.
> Here's the specs on the medium frame.
> Chainstay - 17.4 (442)
> TT - 23.7 (601)
> ...


 I would argue that yeti couldnt make the rear shorter due to the suspension design and therefore made the front a bit shorter.

My lokal yeti dealer and a shop owner is 5'8" and rides a large. He also advises his customers to upsize on the 5c, not on the 6c though, which is a longer bike...
He also rides a large Ibis Ripley and L HD3.
Large Nomad 3 is about the size of a medium 6c.
I see most people between sizes going with a larger 5c frame.

The problem with some designs, HD3 for example is the long seat tube, which basically makes the upsizing more difficult. 
The ST lenght increases about 2.5x more than the reach... going from M to L...


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

smilinsteve said:


> but I could see if it was too short you could feel like your arms aren't out in front of you as much to resist a forward weight shift.


Yes! This is what I was trying to convey...

I think some of this is compounded by the stock 0 offset seatpost. When seated I feel too far forward. I need more setback with a 73 degree STA, so a dropper with some setback is next on my list

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

8iking VIIking said:


> The bike is a large santa cruz Bantam, 610 TT, 419 reach. I'm 5'10" with a 33" inseam. At my height I'm exactly between SC's recommendation for M/L
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


It seems like it should fit pretty well with the 50, especially since you went with 50mm wider bars. You probably just have to get used to it. It might be a visual thing. Seeing that short stem out front affecting you psychologically


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> I would argue that yeti couldnt make the rear shorter due to the suspension design and therefore made the front a bit shorter.
> 
> My lokal yeti dealer and a shop owner is 5'8" and rides a large. He also advises his customers to upsize on the 5c, not on the 6c though, which is a longer bike...
> He also rides a large Ibis Ripley and L HD3.
> ...


What up sizing seems to end up with is a long travel and slack XC bike, except the wheelbase is MUCH longer. That makes is less of an all mountain or trail bike and more of a dedicated enduro race bike that isn't as suitable for typical riding. It would be stable, no doubt about it, but too much so.

If you want a long and low Nomad, get a Nomad, not a Yeti.

Kinda curious if actual pro enduro racers up size. Somehow, I think they follow the manufacturer's recommendations.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

richde said:


> What up sizing seems to end up with is a long travel and slack XC bike, except the wheelbase is MUCH longer. That makes is less of an all mountain or trail bike and more of a dedicated enduro race bike that isn't as suitable for typical riding. It would be stable, no doubt about it, but too much so.
> 
> If you want a long and low Nomad, get a Nomad, not a Yeti.
> 
> Kinda curious if actual pro enduro racers up size. Somehow, I think they follow the manufacturer's recommendations.


Some usually use 2 sizes based on the application.
Ibis rider Jeff Kendall Weed rides medium and large HD3. He is around 5'8". All the videos and photos of him I have seen, he was on large with short stem.
Ibis recommends large from 5'9".
The same case with Lopes when he used to ride for them.

The thing is, one brand bike medium could easily be anothers large or XL in regards to TT/reach/WB...
So it seems there isnt really only one proper way, and one can go out of the recommended manufacturer size.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

jazzanova said:


> I would argue that yeti couldnt make the rear shorter due to the suspension design and therefore made the front a bit shorter.
> 
> My lokal yeti dealer and a shop owner is 5'8" and rides a large. He also advises his customers to upsize on the 5c, not on the 6c though, which is a longer bike...
> He also rides a large Ibis Ripley and L HD3.
> ...


Looks like there's well over 1/2" room in there. It's more likely that they didn't want to compromise seating position across a large range by offsetting the seat tube and bending it, due to tire contact with the seat tube at bottom out. They don't need that flap of carbon behind the SI rails. I think they just basically filled it to make use of every mm that had that could reach the level of rigidity they wanted, without much weight.

I thought the small SB6c felt more natural under me at 5' 7". It was landing stuff really calmly, like a gymnast, kicking out long leaping strides downhill like a gazelle; its suspension was phenomenal. The 5c felt like it was a hurdler, sticking out its leg in front in case it didn't cleanly clear a hurdle, leaving the rear/trailing leg to take some heavy impacts. I really liked the 6c, but it was too heavily built and made my XC trails feel waaaaay too easy, making me look for lines that actually could challenge it. Actually, that overkill feel is how every excellent suspension tune made my XC trails feel, even if it had 5" of travel.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

So viewing these threads ("New vs. Old", "Why the damn long stems", etc) I'm noticing somewhat of a trend and am wondering if I'm reading it right or if I'm whacked. The way I see it these designs are somewhat biased towards the enduro crowd, in other words riders who do the climbs begrudgingly in order to get to the "fun part". Not necessarily hating or dreading climbing but more of an attitude along the lines of just getting them over with.

My favorite kind of trail is sort of like a roller coaster ride, which I used to think of it as flow until that term got bastardized, long climbs followed by equally long descents just don't do it for me. As much as I enjoy downhills, and as masochistic as it might seem I enjoy the climbs & tech a just as much, and therefore equally value a bikes performance in both regards. Maybe the "new geo" is every bit as good on the ups too, I'm not flush enough to find out just yet, but the "old school" xc geo I have now is nothing but fun for me and the type of riding I like.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'm noticing somewhat of a trend and am wondering if I'm reading it right or if I'm whacked. The way I see it these designs are somewhat biased towards the enduro crowd, in other words riders who do the climbs begrudgingly in order to get to the "fun part".


Yes and no, IMO. Bikes like the SB5 or Transition Scout obviously have geometry that is designed to rip on the downhills, but in reality how much do they really give up in the climbing over a similar bike of a few years ago with "oldschool XC" geometry?
That kind of bike is the obvious choice for the "enduro crowd", but the average guy who doesn't attack the downhills like Jared Graves is still going to benefit greatly from the additional confidence (and margin for error) of the DH-oriented geometry. And if they the bike builders can give that without greatly sacrificing the climbing ability of the bike then why not?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

David R said:


> Yes and no, IMO. Bikes like the SB5 or Transition Scout obviously have geometry that is designed to rip on the downhills, but in reality how much do they really give up in the climbing over a similar bike of a few years ago with "oldschool XC" geometry?


They give up quite a bit on some climbs, actually. You need to run a platform shock more often, because your weight is biased towards the back, and tight climbs are more difficult, as well. Again, it's still a compromise.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> So viewing these threads ("New vs. Old", "Why the damn long stems", etc) I'm noticing somewhat of a trend and am wondering if I'm reading it right or if I'm whacked. The way I see it these designs are somewhat biased towards the enduro crowd, in other words riders who do the climbs begrudgingly in order to get to the "fun part". Not necessarily hating or dreading climbing but more of an attitude along the lines of just getting them over with.
> 
> My favorite kind of trail is sort of like a roller coaster ride, which I used to think of it as flow until that term got bastardized, long climbs followed by equally long descents just don't do it for me. As much as I enjoy downhills, and as masochistic as it might seem I enjoy the climbs & tech a just as much, and therefore equally value a bikes performance in both regards. Maybe the "new geo" is every bit as good on the ups too, I'm not flush enough to find out just yet, but the "old school" xc geo I have now is nothing but fun for me and the type of riding I like.


Which is why the discussion should be focused on XC bikes, since they're a constant.

Even doing that, there's no denying that XC has dropped old ideas and used the lessons learned in gravity disciplines. They didn't do it to hurt climbing ability, they did it to expand the capabilities of the bike.

Know what bike has something close to the NORBA standard 71/73 angles? A Trek Domane...an endurance road bike.

Trying to keep it as apples to apples as much as possible, a Cannondale 29'er HTs have gotten .5deg slacker, chainstays have shortened, front center has increased, BB height is unchanged, and wheelbase has increased by .6" between 2008 and today.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Enduro is the same as what mountain biking is to many people, just turned into a race. That's just the reality of it, just like the ironic reality that the bike that is most likely to be a quiver-killer for someone is merely any decent all-rounder bike that costs so much that they can't afford to own another bike.

I prefer to descend something more challenging than what I climbed up, sampling a few different parts of the area, to keep the experience rather fresh. Enduro does the same, but times the DH parts, adds up all the times, and compares the results to other riders. The Enduro-specific bikes are optimized for such. There was actually an Enduro held in my area, on the same trails I ride. I went from being in the 80th percentile, to the 66th percentile on the segments for it, but I'm not bent on trying to improve that. If it goes up, then I consider that merely progress, though it is interesting to seeing how locals actually stack up well vs the pros. If it improves due to a new bike purchase, that just diminishes any regrets I had about the purchase, more than it justifies it or act as reason to buy new stuff in the first place.

Enduro racing does what racing does for other disciplines, which tests the limits of the competitors, their gear, and their preparation. I'm not interested in the same bike they're riding, as they're more likely tuned for getting business done than for pleasure, but I am interested in what's proven to work well for them, to see if I can maybe use it to improve my own setup. If Enduro racing happens to push the innovation of the bikes I like to ride, that's cool with me. Heck, if e-bikes had racing, maybe they will have their innovation mature to a point that maybe they might change some peoples' minds about them.

I really hope there's something better than the long front and short rear trend, since my biggest peeve with it is how the rear wheel is much more prone to taking a terrible beating (and flatting, even with tubeless) with the rearward weight balance being like that. Maybe I'm just spoiled by having been on a balanced bike with excellent suspension, which actually made the trails boring since it made things so easy... the Yeti SB5c was a decent in-between compromise, if I downsized to get the front shorter. Don't need to be long to have a Greg Minnaar style, nor be short to have an Aussie/NZ style (Blenki, Atkinson, Hill, etc.)... maybe something in between for a Loic Bruni style.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> They give up quite a bit on some climbs, actually. You need to run a platform shock more often, because your weight is biased towards the back, and tight climbs are more difficult, as well. Again, it's still a compromise.


I don't think that this is true. The steeper STA keeps your weight centred when seated and whether or not the platform is needed is more dependent on the suspension design. On my Warden the climb switch is only used on roads and my old 5 Spot with 160mm fork and slacker STA never needed it. My weight was more rearward on the Spot, but it's very efficient DW suspension never bobbed. As for climbing, the Warden does very well on tight switchback climbs I think because of the steep STA and the amazing traction it has. My brief spin on a SB5 demonstrated very good efficiency and it is what I would class as a do everything mountain bike. Bikes in that class, that can climb and descend extremely well capture the essence of mountain biking.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Varaxis said:


> If Enduro racing happens to push the innovation of the bikes I like to ride, that's cool with me.


Exactly this. The enduro format runs the gear many of us have through the crucible of world-class racing and development in a format that corresponds to the way many people ride. No waiting for trickle-down from DH or XC innovations. We're seeing the results already: geometry evolving in a certain way, and market growth in high-performance mid-travel suspension, and grippy but fast and lighter (than DH) tires.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> I don't think that this is true. The steeper STA keeps your weight centred when seated and whether or not the platform is needed is more dependent on the suspension design. On my Warden the climb switch is only used on roads and my old 5 Spot with 160mm fork and slacker STA never needed it. My weight was more rearward on the Spot, but it's very efficient DW suspension never bobbed. As for climbing, the Warden does very well on tight switchback climbs I think because of the steep STA and the amazing traction it has. My brief spin on a SB5 demonstrated very good efficiency and it is what I would class as a do everything mountain bike. Bikes in that class, that can climb and descend extremely well capture the essence of mountain biking.


Seat tube angle is practically irrelevant, assuming your seat is properly set up with your knee above the pedal spindle.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> I don't think that this is true. The steeper STA keeps your weight centred when seated and whether or not the platform is needed is more dependent on the suspension design. On my Warden the climb switch is only used on roads and my old 5 Spot with 160mm fork and slacker STA never needed it. My weight was more rearward on the Spot, but it's very efficient DW suspension never bobbed. As for climbing, the Warden does very well on tight switchback climbs I think because of the steep STA and the amazing traction it has. My brief spin on a SB5 demonstrated very good efficiency and it is what I would class as a do everything mountain bike. Bikes in that class, that can climb and descend extremely well capture the essence of mountain biking.


Perhaps you and I have different definitions of what climbing "well" means; I've yet to ride a bike with more than 130mm that didn't bob unless the shock was aired up so high that it wasn't getting full travel, ever.

Most "enduro" bikes climb like pigs. But, they aren't designed for fast climbing. They are designed to get you there at a steady pace while you talk to your buddies. Fire road climbs, slowly. Nothing wrong with that, but if you stand up and give it some gas, there will be some serious bobbing. Not efficient.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Le Duke said:


> Perhaps you and I have different definitions of what climbing "well" means; I've yet to ride a bike with more than 130mm that didn't bob unless the shock was aired up so high that it wasn't getting full travel, ever.
> 
> Most "enduro" bikes climb like pigs. But, they aren't designed for fast climbing. They are designed to get you there at a steady pace while you talk to your buddies. Fire road climbs, slowly. Nothing wrong with that, but if you stand up and give it some gas, there will be some serious bobbing. Not efficient.


I dont agree with the broad statement that enduro bikes are good only on fire roads and cant be fast on technical stuff.

I like some movement on technical climbes and prefer active FS over HT.
I found HT to loose traction, jump of the rocks and make the climing not very efficient. On smooth stuff a HT will always win. On technical climbs on the other side, not really.
Of course they are limits but there are suspension systems well know for their traction capabilities. Evil's DELTA, Knolly's 4bar...

But I agree, if an enduro bike is setup to be plush and ones you get over 6" of rear travel it will start slowing climbing. Enduro bikes are also going to be about 3lbs heavier than a 4-5" trail bike.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Le Duke said:


> Perhaps you and I have different definitions of what climbing "well" means; I've yet to ride a bike with more than 130mm that didn't bob unless the shock was aired up so high that it wasn't getting full travel, ever.


I guess that's what I'm wondering, is there anyone riding these enduro style rigs who see a climb coming up and say to themselves _"alright, I'm going to hit this $hiz!"_ I realize I'm in the minority but I do that fairly regularly and I just can't imagine a slack angle, long travel bike inspiring those same thoughts like my peppy little 100mm hardtail does.

No disrespect to enduro fans, I do appreciate the technological advances that riding style inspires.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

100 or 140mm travel, crazy bob or no bob, if you have suspension, it's going to be less efficient if you don't adjust your technique. 

Just because one design bobs less despite your sloppy technique, doesn't mean more of your power is turning the wheel. Masking the "feedback", suspension bob in this case, that would normally tell you how much power is going into the suspension is akin to you punching a punching bag extremely hard, versus you punching a wall extremely hard. If you're using the pain in your fist as a sign of how hard you punched, are you going to think you didn't punch the punching bag very hard, since it wasn't as painful?

Don't forget that there's even different feedback feels from a variety of hardtails that people use to explain how much faster and "efficient" one feels over another.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> I guess that's what I'm wondering, is there anyone riding these enduro style rigs who see a climb coming up and say to themselves _"alright, I'm going to hit this $hiz!"_ I realize I'm in the minority but I do that fairly regularly and I just can't imagine a slack angle, long travel bike inspiring those same thoughts like my peppy little 100mm hardtail does.


I do that a lot actually, if I have enough gas in the tank I'll gun it into every technical climb. With suspension to take care of traction, I can and do attack them harder and faster than I do on my hardtail. But only if it's technical, if it's some boring gravel or doubletrack dirt climb I'll just save my energy and spin it out while on a hardtail I'll occasionally attack the smooth climbs to get the boring crap over with as fast as I can. Assuming I have enough gas in the tank.

I've ridden hardtails until this year, and if my back holds up I'll be riding them for the rest of my life. There's no doubt that my 24.5 lbs hardtail is faster and more snappy on smooth boring climbs or smooth boring flat stuff. But on everything else, my enduro bike, which is about 6 lbs heavier is significantly faster, smoother, and more fun. Even on the tighter twisty trails where I expected my hardtail to have a sizable advantage, the enduro bike was faster since it could carry more speed through every corner. Timed video runs showed that the only place where the hardtail was making time were the narrow tree gaps where I had to slow down on the enduro bike to tilt the bars through.

With that said, there's no doubt that my hardtail is faster on a typical XC race course, I have the timed runs to prove it. However, those race courses are IMO, smooth boring crap that I don't enjoy riding, so I couldn't care less which bike is better there.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Perhaps you and I have different definitions of what climbing "well" means; I've yet to ride a bike with more than 130mm that didn't bob unless the shock was aired up so high that it wasn't getting full travel, ever.
> 
> Most "enduro" bikes climb like pigs. But, they aren't designed for fast climbing. They are designed to get you there at a steady pace while you talk to your buddies. Fire road climbs, slowly. Nothing wrong with that, but if you stand up and give it some gas, there will be some serious bobbing. Not efficient.


Lockouts on the fork and shock?


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

Varaxis said:


> 100 or 140mm travel, crazy bob or no bob, if you have suspension, it's going to be less efficient if you don't adjust your technique.
> 
> Just because one design bobs less despite your sloppy technique, doesn't mean more of your power is turning the wheel. Masking the "feedback", suspension bob in this case, that would normally tell you how much power is going into the suspension is akin to you punching a punching bag extremely hard, versus you punching a wall extremely hard. If you're using the pain in your fist as a sign of how hard you punched, are you going to think you didn't punch the punching bag very hard, since it wasn't as painful?


If it has no bob, doesn't that mean the rear triangle is not changing relative to the front? Isn't it equivalent to a hard tail?

Also, if the efficiency loss from the rear tire losing traction through reduced contact with the ground because a hard tail has no suspension is greater than the loss of efficiency in a suspension system that would keep a rear tire in good contact with the ground,a hard tail will be more inefficient.

I not sure what suspension has to do with punching things.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

IPunchCholla said:


> If it has no bob, doesn't that mean the rear triangle is not changing relative to the front? Isn't it equivalent to a hard tail?
> 
> Also, if the efficiency loss from the rear tire losing traction through reduced contact with the ground because a hard tail has no suspension is greater than the loss of efficiency in a suspension system that would keep a rear tire in good contact with the ground,a hard tail will be more inefficient.
> 
> I not sure what suspension has to do with punching things.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

IPunchCholla - good points
Varaxis -?


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

Varaxis said:


>


Just stupid.

Edit: because when I first read your post I thought you were saying regardless of travel or bob they are less efficient than hardtails. Which I would dispute. But now rereading it, I realized that was an assumption on my part. I have no idea what they are less efficient than. It could be they are less efficient when ridden with the wrong technique, which I wouldn't dispute at all, since it would seem to follow, by definition. But now on my fourth read I think your point may be that some suspension designs feel more efficient than they really are, which is probably true, but sorta pointless since we are unlikely to be able to establish actual efficiency of a design much less how efficient it feels and then compare the two. But I'm probably wrong about that. I do know that punching a wall will hurt more than punching a punching bag, United I use flawless technique on the wall and really poor technique on the bag, in which case punching the wall might not hurt at all and I might break my hand on the bag.

All I know for sure is that I didn't understand your post (or I did but did a terrible job debating it) so yeah. Stupid. Of course, now I'm trolling, I think.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

smilinsteve said:


> IPunchCholla - good points
> Varaxis -?


Which points are good?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

For me climbiness is the bikes ability to climb steep slopes. The steeper it can handle, the better climber it is. I rate pedaling efficiency separately.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

aerius said:


> With that said, there's no doubt that my hardtail is faster on a typical XC race course, I have the timed runs to prove it. However, those race courses are IMO, smooth boring crap that I don't enjoy riding, so I couldn't care less which bike is better there.


I find smooth boring crap can actually be kind of fun if you hit it with a good dose of speed. Chunky tech is awesome too. Whatever's in the way.

I haven't video timed my runs yet but I'm pretty sure they rock.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Travis Bickle said:


> For me climbiness is the bikes ability to climb steep slopes. The steeper it can handle, the better climber it is. I rate pedaling efficiency separately.


Are you saying bikes that are the best at handling ultra-steep climbs are also best suited for steep downhills? Or are they two separate entities?


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

Since I got my Remedy, I have learned that pedaling efficiency and suspension bob don't mean squat when you're pedaling through chunk and gravel up an 8% grade. I'm saving so much energy not bouncing off of every rock and having to hover over the seat for miles on end. 

It's all just horses for courses anyway.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> I find smooth boring crap can actually be kind of fun if you hit it with a good dose of speed.


Yeah. With a motorcycle. 



J.B. Weld said:


> Are you saying bikes that are the best at handling ultra-steep climbs are also best suited for steep downhills? Or are they two separate entities?


I'd say that certain characteristics of bikes that are great at downhills also make them great for super steep climbs, provided that you can put the power down. Having a good amount of high quality suspension travel along with a longer wheelbase is great for steep climbs, especially if they're rough.

The suspension setups on most shorter travel bikes are tuned more for efficiency than optimum bump absorption, plus there's less travel so the suspension is firmer. The shorter wheelbase also makes it harder to find the balance point between keeping traction at the rear wheel and looping out the front. As a result, it doesn't hold traction as well on steep rough uphills as an enduro bike, that is, assuming you can keep the cranks turning.

Going back to my personal bikes, there's nothing I can climb on my hardtail that I can't climb on my enduro bike. However, there's steep gnarly climbs that I can make consistently on my enduro bike which I can clear only 1 out of 5 tries or so on my hardtail.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> Which points are good?


If you think there is the same energy loss from a bike that is bobbing and a bike that is not, then where is the energy going?

In the punching bag analogy, the bag or the wall is the pedal. You apply the same force to both but with the bag the force is dissipated as energy lost by squishing the guts of the bag. Would you rather have punching bags or walls for your pedals?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

You seem to understand damping, yet haven't put it together yet with suspension.

There's also the anti-squat effect. If you're wheeling a hand truck forward with a kid bouncing up and down on it, and you are keeping it from bobbing to and fro, do you not count the energy you are using to hold it level as expended energy?

What if a carbon crank flexes, and absorbs the energy? Is that better than an alloy crank that flexes the same amount but springs the energy back at the bottom of the stroke?

If in a drag race, a car sprinted off the line and got 0-60 in 4 seconds and crossed the line for a 1/4 mile in 14.500 seconds, and another car did 0-60 in 4.4 seconds and crossed the line in 14.500 seconds, is the first car faster? Are they the same speed? 

Point is, you're using the wrong indicators to determine efficiency and ignoring a lot of other factors. A bike is more efficient if you get a faster result for the same energy expenditure or effort output. If you narrow that down to pedaling efficiency, you now have a bunch of different definitions to consider. Do you mean pedaling with a lower rate of bob, or more pedaling force going into turning the wheel, or something else entirely?

How many inefficiencies can you spot on your bike? Bearings, tires, and things that see significant force like your crank, are obvious. Suspension too, if it has it. How about the geometry? If it's forcing you to move around a lot more to handle the terrain, is that less efficient geo? You can go in depth big time, with type of grease used, how much the bearings slip instead of spin, the level of contact the seals make, the non-radial loads that the bearings take, the o-rings/seals inside the suspension and their stiction. Same with the geo... if you're riding a super short rear end FS bike with a long front, and need to get out of the saddle for bumps, else get bucked and/or risk rim strike, is that more efficient than a FS bike that doesn't buck you as much when the rear wheel goes over the bump, having just dropped the elbows and let the front come up to compensate for the front popping up more due to a shorter front? How many inefficiencies can you spot in your technique? If your body is bobbing up and down when pedaling out of the saddle, is that less efficient than if you pedaled with your body maintaining a more level "altitude"? What if you were leaned forward more, would that make it easier to spin faster out of the saddle with less bobbing?


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Varaxis said:


> What if a carbon crank flexes, and absorbs the energy? Is that better than an alloy crank that flexes the same amount but springs the energy back at the bottom of the stroke?


Depends from how much heat is released in either case.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

smilinsteve said:


> If you think there is the same energy loss from a bike that is bobbing and a bike that is not, then where is the energy going?


Hyperbole?

edit: Sorry, got it now. Pages and pages of hyperbole.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> Perhaps you and I have different definitions of what climbing "well" means; I've yet to ride a bike with more than 130mm that didn't bob unless the shock was aired up so high that it wasn't getting full travel, ever.
> 
> Most "enduro" bikes climb like pigs. But, they aren't designed for fast climbing. They are designed to get you there at a steady pace while you talk to your buddies. Fire road climbs, slowly. Nothing wrong with that, but if you stand up and give it some gas, there will be some serious bobbing. Not efficient.


Its all relative, the bike you think climbs well, I would probably feel like it handles poorly on the descents. There is always going to be a trade off, when people talk about the latest crop of enduro bikes "climbing well" they don't mean compared to a light weight dedicated XC bike..


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

David R said:


> Its all relative, the bike you think climbs well, I would probably feel like it handles poorly on the descents. There is always going to be a trade off, when people talk about the latest crop of enduro bikes "climbing well" they don't mean compared to a light weight dedicated XC bike..


in all honestly in technical climbs I would rather have 6 inch slack bike that is long.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Me too...


----------



## Mudguard (Apr 14, 2009)

I recall when I got my Big Hit (around 2004) going on a XC type ride with a real mix of riders, from rigid bikes, first timers, XC and DH riders. 
I was the only one that was able to clear a very loose, very steep slope. A combination of tremendous grip (2.5 tires), a lot of travel, granny ring and determination.

Would I ride something like that (40lbs!) all the time? No way. But there was no way to spin out on that sucker. 
I think the debate in geometry is interesting, it doesn't feel like there has been that much of an evolution for me (Enduro SX from 2005) to my current Enduro. The biggest difference for me is that the bike I have now is as capable of any descending as my older bikes, but is 3kg lighter. 
Who doesn't enjoy a lighter bike? Easier ups, and just as capable going down.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

aerius said:


> I'd say that certain characteristics of bikes that are great at downhills also make them great for super steep climbs, provided that you can put the power down. Having a good amount of high quality suspension travel along with a longer wheelbase is great for steep climbs, especially if they're rough.
> 
> The suspension setups on most shorter travel bikes are tuned more for efficiency than optimum bump absorption, plus there's less travel so the suspension is firmer. The shorter wheelbase also makes it harder to find the balance point between keeping traction at the rear wheel and looping out the front. As a result, it doesn't hold traction as well on steep rough uphills as an enduro bike, that is, assuming you can keep the cranks turning.
> 
> Going back to my personal bikes, there's nothing I can climb on my hardtail that I can't climb on my enduro bike. However, there's steep gnarly climbs that I can make consistently on my enduro bike which I can clear only 1 out of 5 tries or so on my hardtail.


I think you're missing the point. A bike that is designed for more efficiency going downhill will not be more efficient on a climb than a bike designed for climbing. Maybe on a super loose, bumpy climb where getting weight over the back wheel helps traction and the suspension absorbs the bumps, but in general, climbing and descending present very different design challenges. Yes, you can ride a slack, low, rear wheel weighted enduro bike up about any climb you have the power and skills for, but it won't be as fast or efficient on most climbs as a steep, front wheel weighted cross-country bike. Just common sense, really. If you have trouble clearing a climb on your hardtail, it probably has more to do with your tires or talent.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I've yet to see a 22lb 6" bike. Let alone one with suspension kinematics that would rival an XC bike. I've ridden all over the country, and I've yet to find a place where XC tires and bike wouldn't be the fastest setup, up any hill. 

Never seen an uphill KOM on a 6" bike, either. But, I suppose there is some confounding of that particular data.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> I've yet to see a 22lb 6" bike. Let alone one with suspension kinematics that would rival an XC bike. I've ridden all over the country, and I've yet to find a place where XC tires and bike wouldn't be the fastest setup, up any hill.
> 
> Never seen an uphill KOM on a 6" bike, either. But, I suppose there is some confounding of that particular data.


The climbs you've seen probably don't look like this.





The person that holds every KOM in that trail system rides a 6" travel bike.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

aerius said:


> The climbs you've seen probably don't look like this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let's be honest. The type of bike that a person rides there has nothing to do with whether or not they will clean those rocks. That's bike handling/trials ability. The rider shown was using half of his travel, if that.

He's also on the brakes as much he's on the pedals. "Climbing", indeed.


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

Le Duke said:


> Let's be honest. The type of bike that a person rides there has nothing to do with whether or not they will clean those rocks. That's bike handling/trials ability. The rider shown was using half of his travel, if that.
> 
> He's also on the brakes as much he's on the pedals. "Climbing", indeed.


No true Scotsman, eh?


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

A question regarding trail/offset.

Giant Reign uses 46mm offset pike instead of the regular 42mm.
It is supposedly 29 lovers combined with 27.5 crown.
Giant claims it has improved handling, especially in turns, it is less floppy on uphill switchbacks and better on DH turns as well.
Is this shorter trail fork really that much better on bikes like the Reign (long and slack...)?
4mm difference...


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

jazzanova said:


> A question regarding trail/offset.
> 
> Giant Reign uses 46mm offset pike instead of the regular 42mm.
> It is supposedly 650b lovers combined with 29" crown.
> ...


Too bad they spec'd that bike with the DPA version, instead of Solo Air... Mech trail is actually one of the most important handling figures a bike designer can tune.

On a floppy bike with more mech trail, the slower you go, the more you notice how floppy it is. For instance, if you catch up to someone who's taking it easy on a steep singletrack climb and don't want to rub their rear tire, yet don't want to stall, you might just flop side to side overcorrecting the flop and getting rather out of control. The faster you go, the stronger its auto-center effect gets, and the straighter it goes. The flop is still there if you want to steer, but that will likely just cause you to high side (which I demonstrate at 6:04 in this vid), so keeping the steering slight and leaning the bike is the preferred way to turn at high speeds on such a bike.

On a bike with more offset, mech trail is reduced, and that reduces auto-centering and wheel flop. With that auto-center effect lessened, as well as the wheel flop lessened, you get better control over steering at both low speeds and high speeds. Some auto-centering is desirable, but wheel flop isn't. You can see Jerome Clementz using quite a bit of steering in some of his action videos, like this one.

Making it easier to go straight at speed, gives the impression of stability, but if you have too much auto-centering, you might be compelled to slow down more than you have to, to steer the bike. As I said before, the faster you go, the straighter it wants to go, and will fight your steering inputs, which a short stem helps to combat (wide bar adds leverage, and stability as well).

The reason it's floppy is because when you turn the wheel, the front end gets lower, and it wants to continue to drop to its lowest point. Hopefully this diagram helps to illustrate:









- on the examples on the left, see the where the steering axis line (follows the head tube) hits the tire, and how that point is off the ground? The higher it is off the ground, the floppier it is. Every mm counts... the reason it's called trail, is because the point that actually touches the ground, trails the steering axis.

I think the bottom right is most ideal, but susp fork makers need to unlock the offset, else bike designers will just continue to design around what they offer, or not bothering to design since they might be too proud to put out something that feels too compromised. With more offset, you can afford to slack out the front even more.









- With less trail, there's less risk when turning your front wheel at speed without pretty much guaranteed crashing (more turning range before the wheel flop point). Jerome Clementz probably has his wheel turned about 25 degrees from center in this one, which is something I can do on my XC bike, but not on my bigger bike.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> I've yet to see a 22lb 6" bike. Let alone one with suspension kinematics that would rival an XC bike. I've ridden all over the country, and I've yet to find a place where XC tires and bike wouldn't be the fastest setup, up any hill.
> 
> Never seen an uphill KOM on a 6" bike, either. But, I suppose there is some confounding of that particular data.


I have some KOM climbs on a 6 inch travel hardtail .......but yeah although my 6x6 trail bike can be easier up some climbs, my 4x4 XC bike is still the right weapon for climbing. Easier is not really faster in this case.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Varaxis said:


> Too bad they spec'd that bike with the DPA version, instead of Solo Air... Mech trail is actually one of the most important handling figures a bike designer can tune.
> 
> On a floppy bike with more mech trail, the slower you go, the more you notice how floppy it is. For instance, if you catch up to someone who's taking it easy on a steep singletrack climb and don't want to rub their rear tire, yet don't want to stall, you might just flop side to side overcorrecting the flop and getting rather out of control. The faster you go, the stronger its auto-center effect gets, and the straighter it goes. The flop is still there if you want to steer, but that will likely just cause you to high side (which I demonstrate at 6:04 in this vid), so keeping the steering slight and leaning the bike is the preferred way to turn at high speeds on such a bike.
> 
> ...


Thanks. Well explained.
It looks like different offset forks should be used on different bikes. The slacker the bike is and the more travel it has, the more offset should the fork have.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> You seem to understand damping, yet haven't put it together yet with suspension.
> 
> There's also the anti-squat effect. If you're wheeling a hand truck forward with a kid bouncing up and down on it, and you are keeping it from bobbing to and fro, do you not count the energy you are using to hold it level as expended energy?


I think that keeping the hand truck from bobbing costs energy and agree that anti squat costs energy, but less energy than than if the hand truck was moving downward with each jump and had to be lifted back to its initial position.

Trying to quantify the difference in these energy costs has opened a can of worms:

http://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspension/physics-energy-cost-anti-squat-985558.html#post12142315


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

While it's a curious subject, to try and quantify that, it would be just like how Giant quantified 650b vs 26 and 29. People still choose 26 and 29, and people likely will still choose to go HT over FS even if you could convince them that it costs a mere 2W of power on paper. Or even choose a popular big name's FS bike like the Epic or Top Fuel, rather than one the higher anti-squat bikes.

There may not be much going into anti-squat, due to leverage multiplying forces. If you're holding the hand truck at the top, and the kid's bouncing while holding onto in the middle and standing above its axles, you have more leverage over him and using less energy to counter his. In the end, it's just one isolated factor that's considered an inefficiency, among a long list of inefficiencies. Talking about anti-squat and how much of it you need, could very well be like saying you can save 35g in your hubs, saying it matters a lot since it's rotating weight, and go in-depth to justify shaving weight there, when there's other things to consider, such as trying to shave weight off your body, your shoes, your helmet, your pack, etc., which serve a similar desirable benefit.

Don't lose sight of the big picture. Another subject is on upsizing and downsizing, and how one might feel unexpected a lot better than the other. There's someone named Dude! on this forum that claims that by downsizing a 29er, after owning the same frame 1 size up, that his impression of it went from hate to love. Is that explainable in any way?


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Varaxis said:


> There may not be much going into anti-squat, due to leverage multiplying forces.


There is no free lunch because of 'leverage multiplying'.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Good tool: http://bikegeo.muha.cc/


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Did you notice that the manufacturers of the forward geometry bikes dont go with the ultra slack angles? 
At first I thought the main reason was to keep the WB in check, due to the long TT/reach.
Now I think another and maybe the most important reason is to avoid the floppy front with the steeper HA and since the TT and reach are so long they can still maintain the confidence on steep DH.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

G2 geo helped 29ers big time. I think Cannondale is trying to take it further, but no one is taking them really that seriously, probably since they don't do DH racing and the Lefty isn't really getting proven in EWS. They got Boobar from RockShox to work their suspension, so it may be a matter of time.


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

Varaxis said:


> G2 geo helped 29ers big time.


This. My Remedy 29 doesn't feel like a classic geo 29er at all. I think it feels more nimble than my Trance 27.5, with the added benefit of less rolling resistance.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Well, your Remedy likely benefits from a stiffer fork, better tires, and stiffer wheels, all of which made 29ers viable enough to be desireable for anything more than XC/trail. And tech to lighten things up, yet remain adequately strong, notable with carbon,... all that has drove up prices though. Not to mention your bike has exclusive rear shock tech that makes it stand out from the competition.

Gotta give credit where it's due, but G2, just like Genesis geo, is the true "new school" in my eyes, despite it being old. I know I personally don't want to get any fork with low offset anymore.

Mtn bikers are notoriously slow to pick up on change (can be said to be resistant to change), so the bike companies have resorted to introducing the extreme, then dialing it back and work back up to it, it seems. Rather than jump to 60mm offset (Lefty Supermax), maybe 56mm would be good bridge between the two. Rather than jump to 17.5" CS, maybe 17.2"... with 40mm rims introduced, a bet a bunch of people are going to wait to bite on the tweener width rims (~32mm).


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Check out the new Nikolai.
Forward geometry plus. 
77 or 77.7 degree ST
Looong reach 485mm for the smallest size. This is size XL with many other brands using the conventional geometry.

Over 126mm WB for medium, which they call long. Large is called longer and xl the longest...
http://shop.nicolai.net/index.php/ion-gpi.html

Some riding impressions here:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=986181
Nicolai GPI/Geometron Ride/Info/Pics


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Another new bike with the long reach geometry:
Lapierre Spicy 2016
First Look: Lapierre Spicy 2016 - Pinkbike


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Thats some reach. I'd have to size down to a small.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

The new 27.5 Evil Insurgent goes new geo as well. The reach is nicely long  The ST is a bit too slack though.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Knolly Warden Carbon

Reach: 
Medium: 43.7cm
Large: 46.5cm


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Thats Evil looks pretty awesome!


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

RS VR6 said:


> Thats Evil looks pretty awesome!
> 
> View attachment 1011144


Of course it does. Evil is always black.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Looks like the reach on this year's medium is in the 420-440mm range. Sounds good.


----------



## Ecurb_ATX840 (Feb 27, 2014)

Up until this year I was riding an 18 year old Giant, now I have a 6 year old specialized hard tail. Of course the new bike is better, but at the end of the day I'm not sure if I'm really any faster. And actually I don't feel really like I'm in better control or anything, I feel like I just sort of adapt to whatever I'm riding.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> Looks like the reach on this year's medium is in the 420-440mm range. Sounds good.


The reach on a medium Specialized Demo is 420mm.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

You guys know that "effective" seat tube angle is a bunch of crap, right?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

In other words, it's not as steep as you'd like to believe, due to most people having their seatpost much higher than level with the top of the head tube.

How about some exposure to some out of the box geo, in case some have never seen it:









- Artistic Cycling bikes









- Cycle ball bikes

These sports have been around for way longer than mtb.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> The reach is nicely long





jazzanova said:


> Knolly Warden Carbon
> 
> Reach:
> Medium: 43.7cm
> Large: 46.5cm


See, now those reaches are short (even in XL sizes) compared to anything I ride regularly. To me it looks as if all the extra toptube length is going behind the BB, not actually lengthening the front at all.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> You guys know that "effective" seat tube angle is a bunch of crap, right?


True, but I don't believe there is a standard way to measure it. I measured my Warden's using a straight edge from the centre of the BB to the top centre of the seat post head at my riding height and got 75 degrees. Move the saddle up or down and the angle changes. I have always likes steeper than 73 and am quite happy with it.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

*Mondraker Foxy Carbon*

PRODUCT REVIEW: MONDRAKER FOXY CARBON:

http://www.bikezilla.com.sg/posts/PRODUCT-REVIEW-MONDRAKER-FOXY-CARBON.

HOW IT PERFORMS

Do all these innovative concepts add up to a good ride? We tested this bike at a few local trails - from technical ones to flowy ones, and rode it with various riding styles - efficient pedaling for long rides as well as fast aggressive explosive bursts for those Strava lap records.

On our first ride, we had to admit we needed some time to get used to the bike. It is definitely unlike the usual bikes we ride. In fact, Mondraker assures that "after a short adaptation", the rider would feel that overall control in riding will improve more than expected. And that was exactly what happened.

In our first few minutes of riding, the bike felt hard to control. Rock garden upslopes which we used to clear easily became harder to climb, requiring a lot more effort, and the weight shifting from our usual body English just didn't seem to work as well. We sort of suspected the bike fitting was bad for us. But then it became easier as we rode, as our body got used to the bike. For an average height rider on a medium Foxy Carbon, we simply needed to slide forward and pedal as usual when climbing. The bike performed its duty effectively. We advise using a slightly lighter gear for that first ride to get used to this "new school" geometry before going back to your usual gear ratios for climbing. A few more days into the testing of the bike, we got so used to it that there was no conscious effort needed for climbs. It climbed just as well as what we would expect of a good trail bike.

On fast flowy sections, the Foxy Carbon held its speed very well. The long wheel base gave the bike its added stability. At speed bumps, we simply adopt a neutral position and pump the bike through for a long rolling high speed momentum cruise.

During cornering of berms, we noticed that shifting the body slightly forward could help maintain the speed throughout. We tried it with our normal riding position and there was no perceivable loss of traction. As such, we believe different riders may be able to find their sweet spot posture easily when cornering and carving through berms.

At tight switchbacks, the best way to maneuver through the tight bends is to ride the Foxy Carbon - a 27.5 inch bike - like you would a 29er. It rides easier with a flowy bigger turning arc. That's logical of course, considering its long wheel base. It is also at tight turns and switchbacks that the short stem's responsive steering became evident - sometimes a little too responsive. As we rode the bike more, we became very addicted to its sure-footed and responsive steering.

On the descent, this trail bike amazed us. One of the testers, who just rode a downhill bike down a slope section tried the same section with the Foxy Carbon and came back smiling saying he was convinced that the long wheelbase and Forward Geometry did indeed work to give him that stable downhill bike feel. As for other downslope sections, there were times we forgot that it was only a 140 mm bike.

At one section, the bike's front wheel went fully into a hole which was previously housing a small rock while the tester was bombing through at a relatively good speed. Given other bikes of 140 mm, he may not be too sure he could recover from the sudden dip. As claimed by Mondraker, it is "almost impossible" to go over the bar due to the Forward Geometry. We cannot be sure if it was our tester's good riding experience or the virtue of the Forward Geometry, we will let the readers decide for themselves. (Ed: No bike was hurt in the process)

Throughout the ride, the Foxy Carbon felt stiff and predictable. The head tube and the split top tube seems to work well, although we thought the split top tube was only an aesthetic feature initially.

The Zero Suspension, like all other variations of floating pivot systems, has their little shortcomings. Some of us do not like the rear shocks' "locking up" when going over bumps. The best way when going over a series of bumps for the Foxy Carbon is to flow through and fight as little as possible with the obstacles at mid point.

Another issue to note about riding a bike with Forward Geometry is that; after riding the Foxy Carbon for a few days, the other bikes we own suddenly felt a little tight. More adaptation needed again?

WHO SHOULD RIDE IT

This bike is for those who wants a fast trail bike with that extra confidence to bomb down steep slopes or carve berms faster. It is also for those who are ready to embrace a possible future of "new school" bike designs. With its sleek lines, Stealth Technology and Zero Geometry, this bike has very little flaws. More like, it just needed time for the rider to adapt to it. And once rider and bike got well acquainted, the experience would be all good.

Currently, Mondraker bikes are still rare to find at the trails. As such, it would be a perfect choice for those who wants a special keeper.

Due to the special geometry, the Onoff Stoic 30mm stem and 760mm handlebar are essential parts of the whole "new school" Forward Geometry system. As such, we strongly advise buying the complete bike as opposed to just the frame set only.

Welcome to the new world!


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I am fascinated by the new 27.5+ Vantage. I note that the S Mondraker is longer than my M Knolly.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

If a stupidly long wheelbase is good for "carving berms," why are DS bikes so short?


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

richde said:


> If a stupidly long wheelbase is good for "carving berms," why are DS bikes so short?


Don't resist the change. Welcome to the future.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Where no one tries to go uphill fast. Ever.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> Where no one tries to go uphill fast. Ever.


waaaaaaa.

Unless you're a dedicated uphill specialist/XC racer, this modern geometry "fad" is going to be a good thing for the average trail rider, by increasing confidence on the steep stuff, improving stability at speed, and making it harder for endo-inducing objects to induce endos. How many crashes happen while climbing compared to descending fast or steep sections? If you want to go faster up hills then buy a road bike and start smashing out some serious training rides. The geometry of your bike has very little to do with how quick you are up a hill (within reason, of course, before anyone gets all stupid on me and starts pointing out extreme examples) compared to the power of your legs and lungs.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

David R said:


> waaaaaaa.
> 
> Unless you're a dedicated uphill specialist/XC racer, this modern geometry "fad" is going to be a good thing for the average trail rider, by increasing confidence on the steep stuff, improving stability at speed, and making it harder for endo-inducing objects to induce endos. How many crashes happen while climbing compared to descending fast or steep sections? If you want to go faster up hills then buy a road bike and start smashing out some serious training rides. The geometry of your bike has very little to do with how quick you are up a hill (within reason, of course, before anyone gets all stupid on me and starts pointing out extreme examples) compared to the power of your legs and lungs.


I think there is this inane fear of going over the bars that is driving things to ridiculous extremes.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

This thread only really made me wonder why they aren't going for dishless wheels, perhaps using offset dropouts, and even wider spaced hubs than Boost, and also wonder why fork offset is still too conservative for slacker long travel bikes. 

Mfgs can alter a lot of parts to fine tune the feel of a complete bike as a system, yet leave out certain components like the fork and wheels. I'm hoping they take the idea of a complete bike as a system even further, similar to how wheel makers are thinking of their wheels as a system to make them better, rather than treating the bike like a parts hanger and hoping it all turns out alright when it comes time to riding protos and trying a bunch of things out. The big brands are getting there, but aren't committing really.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Varaxis said:


> This thread only really made me wonder why they aren't going for dishless wheels, perhaps using offset dropouts, and even wider spaced hubs than Boost, and also wonder why fork offset is still too conservative for slacker long travel bikes.


Because people have to pedal without hitting their heels on the chainstays. Proprietary parts are used by companies like Cannondale and Specialized, and it can be quite difficult to source those specific parts or upgrade after a couple of years.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

MikeDee said:


> I think there is this inane fear of going over the bars that is driving things to ridiculous extremes.


Yes there is. Going over the bars sucks, but I don't think this extreme new geometry would have saved most of my endos..


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

David R said:


> waaaaaaa.
> 
> Unless you're a dedicated uphill specialist/XC racer, this modern geometry "fad" is going to be a good thing for the average trail rider, by increasing confidence on the steep stuff, improving stability at speed, and making it harder for endo-inducing objects to induce endos. How many crashes happen while climbing compared to descending fast or steep sections? If you want to go faster up hills then buy a road bike and start smashing out some serious training rides. The geometry of your bike has very little to do with how quick you are up a hill (within reason, of course, before anyone gets all stupid on me and starts pointing out extreme examples) compared to the power of your legs and lungs.


Just like this new geometry is going to make up for a lack of descending skills.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Just like this new geometry is going to make up for a lack of descending skills.


IMO a well set up bike with good forward geometry will make far more difference to a new/unconfident riders descending than a XC bike will to a fat bastard [like me] going up.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Just like this new geometry is going to make up for a lack of descending skills.


The same can and has been said of every advancement in mountain biking since it's inception. XC racing is a minuscule part of mountain biking so why has it had such a large influence on bike design in the past? Bike design is moving past the NORBA standard and developing into better all round geometry. How is a short bike with a steep head angle going to help me climb? I've had bikes like that in the past and it doesn't help. In non tech, it's all power to weight, and in tech it's the ability to put power to the trail and keep it there while getting over obstacles.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> I think there is this inane fear of going over the bars that is driving things to ridiculous extremes.


Yes.

Just because something is a good thing doesn't mean that there isn't a point where it becomes bad again.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> The same can and has been said of every advancement in mountain biking since it's inception. XC racing is a minuscule part of mountain biking so why has it had such a large influence on bike design in the past? Bike design is moving past the NORBA standard and developing into better all round geometry. How is a short bike with a steep head angle going to help me climb? I've had bikes like that in the past and it doesn't help. In non tech, it's all power to weight, and in tech it's the ability to put power to the trail and keep it there while getting over obstacles.


The difference is that the new geometry isn't universally better. It is better in the majority of applications, but not all. That's all I've been trying to say in this thread. Unlike disc brakes or lighter bikes, some, albeit a minority, of riders are better served by older geometry.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

David R said:


> IMO a well set up bike with good forward geometry will make far more difference to a new/unconfident riders descending than a XC bike will to a fat bastard [like me] going up.


You might be right, but a skilled cross-country rider might be faster on classic geometry.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> You might be right, but a skilled cross-country rider might be faster on classic geometry.


Nope. That's why riders that are objectively more skilled don't use "classic geometry."

Maybe there's no mass produced old style bikes for the same reason you can't find **** flavored licorice.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> The difference is that the new geometry isn't universally better. It is better in the majority of applications, but not all. That's all I've been trying to say in this thread. Unlike disc brakes or lighter bikes, some, albeit a minority, of riders are better served by older geometry.


How exactly are you served by steep angles, long chainstays and short reaches?

Just because some bikes take new geometry to an extreme, it doesn't mean that it's a bad idea in general.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

richde said:


> Nope. That's why riders that are objectively more skilled don't use "classic geometry."
> 
> Maybe there's no mass produced old style bikes for the same reason you can't find **** flavored licorice.


Are they?

Can anyone honestly tell me that Jared Graves would beat Nino Schurter down a descent after climbing at Mach Chicken, on the same bike (Spark 700)?

I don't think Jared would make that claim.

It's all fine and dandy if you trundle to the top of a climb, drop your seat and "rip" down an XC trail on DH tires on a 140mm "trail" bike.

If you fall into the increasingly passive, wide bodied section of Americans (or other nationalities, too, I'm sure.) that doesn't want to push yourself, go get yourself a Nicolai Geometron or similar. It's a license to not give a **** about anything other than DH, while not actually riding DH terrain.

I don't necessarily *disagree* with you; my new XC race bike will have a 68.5 degree HTA and a 120mm fork (Yeti ASRc, size medium. I'm 5'6"). My current HT has a 69 degree HTA with a 95mm fork. Both have 740mm bars and short stems (55mm and 66mm, respectively). But, as you said in a previous post, it seems to me that some bike manufacturers are taking things so far the other way as to make the bikes useless for anything other than going down the mountain.


----------



## Manning (Apr 11, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> ........
> It's all fine and dandy if you trundle to the top of a climb, drop your seat and "rip" down an XC trail on DH tires on a 140mm "trail" bike.
> 
> If you fall into the increasingly passive, wide bodied section of Americans (or other nationalities, too, I'm sure.) that doesn't want to push yourself, go get yourself a Nicolai Geometron or similar. It's a license to not give a **** about anything other than DH, while not actually riding DH terrain.
> ...


Ha, my thoughts exactly. Let's make the wheelbase so long you can't turn it around in a field. And rake out the fork so far the Harley guys are jelous. But boy howdy, its awesome for a total of 15 minutes of "downhill" of a 2 hour ride.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Le Duke said:


> Are they?
> 
> Can anyone honestly tell me that Jared Graves would beat Nino Schurter down a descent after climbing at Mach Chicken, on the same bike (Spark 700)?
> 
> ...


LOL that's funny. So Nikolai bikes are for someone who doesn't want to push himself? That's a new one... 
The ironic thing is that you mention Nikolai and US in one sentence, while in reality there is very few Americans actually riding a Nikolai or those who have seen one.

Let's be happy for the companies like Nikolai and Mondraker pushing the envelope. They aren't afraid to try new things and see how far (long, low and slack) we can go.

I honestly doubt you have ever tried a bike with forward geometry, but you are quick to claim they are only good for DH. 
These new bikes come with a steep ST, which helps climbing more than a long stem on a short reach bike would. 
I have found a long reach/TT + short stem + steep ST climbs much better than any of my bikes of past with short reach and long >60mm stem.

You should at least try it...


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> How exactly are you served by steep angles, long chainstays and short reaches?
> 
> Just because some bikes take new geometry to an extreme, it doesn't mean that it's a bad idea in general.


Read the earlier posts. If you don't get it, then just pretend there are other people in the world with different experiences than your own.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

jazzanova said:


> LOL that's funny. So Nikolai bikes are for someone who doesn't want to push himself? That's a new one...
> The ironic thing is that you mention Nikolai and US in one sentence, while in reality there is very few Americans actually riding a Nikolai or those who have seen one.
> 
> Let's be happy for the companies like Nikolai and Mondraker pushing the envelope. They aren't afraid to try new things and see how far (long, low and slack) we can go.
> ...


Because this person doesn't necessarily agree with your limited experience means he has never tried the new geometry and is wrong? Arrogance doesn't make you right. I honestly wonder how many people that are all for the new geometry being better at everything have been around long enough to know what the old geometry and old-school mountain biking actually was. The bikes weren't perfect, but the geometry worked well for the trails back in the day. Not every trail is 3 feet wide and machine cut.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Are they?
> 
> Can anyone honestly tell me that Jared Graves would beat Nino Schurter down a descent after climbing at Mach Chicken, on the same bike (Spark 700)?
> 
> ...


Pretty sure Jared did crush Nino when he tried EWS. Thanks for playing. Not that the particular bike has anything to do with it in either EWS or XCO, other than it being the right tool for the job and not a complete shitbox.

He's not riding an old school geo bike anyways.

One person with ****ed up bike setup doesn't prove anything other than the fact that he wants to be down in that position so badly that he'll even forego using 29" wheels.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Read the earlier posts. If you don't get it, then just pretend there are other people in the world with different experiences than your own.


The person not getting it appears to be you. Steep angles, long chainstays and short reaches don't help climbing and hurt descending and cornering.

Tell us why nobody sells old style bikes in any mentionable quantity, or why there isn't **** flavored licorice while you're at it. The answer is the same.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

I have two mountain bikes that I ride fairly regularly. One is a a "new-school bike" 67 degree head angle, dropper post, short stem, 130mm of travel front and rear; the other is a full-blown modern XC race-wip, 70 degree head, 90mm stem, no dropper, and 100mm of travel front and rear. 

On the majority of trails found here in BC I am just as quick or quicker on the XC bike. Slack-angles and short stems are inferior on easy to moderate trails, which is the majority of trails. Even more difficult trails usually only contain a couple of sections where "modern geometry" really shines. 

With a modern-geometry bike I really struggle for front end grip on moderate grades. To get same cornering grip as my XC bike I have to put grippy but painfully slow tire like Minon on the front. That slows the bike down everywhere.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Hint: those are both new school bikes.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

richde said:


> Jared did crush Nino when he tried EWS. Thanks for playing.
> 
> He's not riding an old school geo bike anyways.


Really that is your response? Of course Jared crushed Nino, he is an best Enduro racer in the world. It would be certain embarrassing if Nino picked up a long travel bike and was even close to competitive to a guy who has raced and trained specifically for Enduro. The fact that XC guys are placing in the top 30 at EWS is embarrassing enough.

I don't think there is a single person who would even suggest that "old school geometry" is the was to go for Enduro. "New school geometry" is entirely designed around needs of high level Enduro racing. High level Enduro racing is a long ways away from trails that most people ride ever day.

And steep angles, long chainstays and short reaches absolutely help climbing.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

richde said:


> Hint: those are both new school bikes.


Really? 70 to 70.5 degree head-angle is what I have had on near every XC bike since 1995. Stem(s) have shortened as my bar have gotten wider but top-tube is the exact same length.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> If you fall into the increasingly passive, wide bodied section of Americans (or other nationalities, too, I'm sure.) that doesn't want to push yourself, go get yourself a Nicolai Geometron or similar. It's a license to not give a **** about anything other than DH, while not actually riding DH terrain.


So not everyone is a strava-douche who wants to torture themselves every time they get on the bike. Wow, who would of though people actually like mountain biking BECAUSE IT IS FUN. 
Sheesh, sorry for not being a sadomasochist.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

LMN said:


> Really? 70 to 70.5 degree head-angle is what I have had on near every XC bike since 1995. Stem(s) have shortened as my bar have gotten wider but top-tube is the exact same length.


Yes, really. We've already gone over how even when it comes to XC bikes, reach has increased slightly, chainstays have shrank since the early 90's (despite bigger wheels) and shorter stems/longer bars are how the "new" is different from the "old." Shorter stems and wider bars are NOT a zero sum game placing you in the same position, either. For that to be the case there would have to be a 3:1 ratio in change in bar width to stem length.

"Classic XC" geo had 72 degree head angles, short reach and long stems, which is what we're arguing is dumb. Are you referring to mid-90's Gary Fishers?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

LMN said:


> Really that is your response? Of course Jared crushed Nino, he is an best Enduro racer in the world. It would be certain embarrassing if Nino picked up a long travel bike and was even close to competitive to a guy who has raced and trained specifically for Enduro. The fact that XC guys are placing in the top 30 at EWS is embarrassing enough.
> 
> I don't think there is a single person who would even suggest that "old school geometry" is the was to go for Enduro. "New school geometry" is entirely designed around needs of high level Enduro racing. High level Enduro racing is a long ways away from trails that most people ride ever day.
> 
> And steep angles, long chainstays and short reaches absolutely help climbing.


If they help, why have designers and racers gone away from them? New school geometry applies to all bikes, just that the difference grows as the bike becomes more and more gravity orientated. If you can't see how XC bikes have changed over the last 20 years, and are trying to argue that they haven't, you have got some serious research to do before attempting to make an argument.

What XC guy place in the top 30? He finished 179th at Finale Ligure in 2013, 40th without penalties...10% slower than Clementz and well behind a relative old fogies like Steve Peat and the not quite as old Cedric Gracia, along with a host of other non-world class athletes.

You people need to stop worshiping at the foot of Nino like he's the greatest thing since disk brakes. Or, if you really feel the need to use him as an example, set up your bike like his and tell us all how awesome it is.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> The person not getting it appears to be you. Steep angles, long chainstays and short reaches don't help climbing and hurt descending and cornering.
> 
> Tell us why nobody sells old style bikes in any mentionable quantity, or why there isn't **** flavored licorice while you're at it. The answer is the same.


Really? Longer chainstays don't help with weight distribution while climbing? Steep angles don't help climbing? I bet you don't think slacker angles don't help descending, then. Who said anything about a short reach? Shorter toptube, maybe, but not a shorter reach. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Companies sell what people want to buy, and most people prefer the newer geometry. That's never been in question, here.



richde said:


> Hint: those are both new school bikes.


Hint: No, they are not. Cross-country bikes are more of a middle ground between new and classic. Steep angles, longer stem, narrower bars, and longer chainstays than the new trend. Still a nod to climbing, but courses these days are focusing as much on descents as climbs with much more technical terrain than back in the day. New trails benefit from different geometry.



richde said:


> Yes, really. We've already gone over how even when it comes to XC bikes, reach has increased slightly, chainstays have shrank since the early 90's (despite bigger wheels) and shorter stems/longer bars are how the "new" is different from the "old."
> 
> "Classic XC" geo had 72 degree head angles, short reach and long stems, which is what we're arguing is dumb. Are you referring to mid-90's Gary Fishers?


Again, reach hasn't changed! What has changed is a reflection of a different type of trail and riding style. Yes, the new geometry is better suited for wide, machine built trails and bombing downhills. Not everybody rides the new style of trail with the intention of focusing on the downhills. The new geometry does not excel on every trail in every situation. This isn't difficult for the average person to understand.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

richde said:


> Yes, really. We've already gone over how even when it comes to XC bikes, reach has increased slightly, chainstays have shrank since the early 90's (despite bigger wheels) and shorter stems/longer bars are how the "new" is different from the "old."
> 
> "Classic XC" geo had 72 degree head angles, short reach and long stems, which is what we're arguing is dumb. Are you referring to mid-90's Gary Fishers?


I ride a small bike, there has not been a lot of changes in the geometry of small bikes. My old 92 Rocky Mountain hammer had a 70 degree headangle when I put a suspension fork on it.

The changes to "Classic XC" geo are pretty small. 72 to 70.5 (which is the current standard for XC bikes) is actually a very small change. Probably switching from a 600mm bar to a 660mm bar is much more significant.

No doubt that "new XC" geo is different then classic, but they are pretty darn close. Occasionally I will ride a vintage XC bike, the terrible brakes, barely functioning suspension, and rubber pucks for tires terrify me much more than the dated geometry.

BTW: I did have a mid-90s Gary Fisher (you know your bikes). It was a Joshua, the non-functioning rear suspension and frame life span of 4 weeks, prevented me from really getting a feel for the Genisis Geometry.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Nevermind. This is just getting stupid, now.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

richde said:


> What XC guy place in the top 30? He finished 179th at Finale Ligure in 2013, 40th without penalties...10% slower than Clementz and well behind a relative old fogies like Steve Peat and the not quite as old Cedric Gracia, along with a host of other non-world class athletes.


From: 
ENDURO WORLD SERIES EWS - FINALE LIGURE 2014
23rd: LINDGREN Emil
29th: GUTHRIE Evan
32nd: COOPER Anton

The other two XC guys were just outside the top 40. Lindgren was in front of old foggy Greg Minnaar. The other old foggy Nicolas Vouilloz got him by a couple of seconds though.

I actually coach Evan Guthrie. Ride and train with him all the time. It is a lot of fun watch him smash good riders on 6 inch trail bikes with "modern geometry" on his 29er hardtail with a 120mm stem and no dropper.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

richde said:


> Pretty sure Jared did crush Nino when he tried EWS. Thanks for playing. Not that the particular bike has anything to do with it in either EWS or XCO, other than it being the right tool for the job and not a complete shitbox.
> 
> He's not riding an old school geo bike anyways.
> 
> One person with ****ed up bike setup doesn't prove anything other than the fact that he wants to be down in that position so badly that he'll even forego using 29" wheels.


Did you even read what I wrote?

Let me help you out:



Le Duke said:


> Can anyone honestly tell me that Jared Graves would beat Nino Schurter down a descent after climbing at Mach Chicken, on the same bike (Spark 700)?


That means Jared Graves, on a Scott Spark 700, and Nino Schurter, on a Scott Spark 700, with low profile tires.

After hitting a 1min XCO climb at near max HR.

Jared is a great athlete, but I have to imagine that starting out at near-blackout intensity isn't really something he practices. Just like Nino doesn't train to trundle to the top of climbs, ******** with 30 people in line and switch from one helmet to another while making sure that his Camelbak straw is safely tucked away.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

I always sucked at geometry. My bike is fun, I like riding it.


----------



## ashwinearl (Jan 2, 2004)

mtnbkrmike said:


> I built a 2015 Norco Range Carbon 7.2. I'd say it is textbook new geo - 800 mm bar, 50 mm stem, slack 160 mm fork (66 degree HA I believe), super short chain stays, etc.
> 
> It took me a while to finally get used to it and I have only recently concluded that it is the cause of my massively screwed up shoulder (MRI in a week). Climbing, it's great. Downs standing on the pedals, great. But flats where I pedal seated with my dropper fully extended, result in a HUGE amount of weight on my hands. I was out tonight and actually started wondering if maybe my core strength could be a little sketch (not holding my torso more upright with less weight on my hands). I am going to start blasting crunches and planks tomorrow, but really, I'm in great shape and I have never previously had this problem with a bike or otherwise. I am thinking it's a combo of the wiiiiiiiide bar, looooooong top tube and super low front end (even though it's a 160mm fork, it rides really low in the front).
> 
> Maybe I am wrong on all this, but I don't think so.


I've been running into this issue with my new hardtail as well. Try some different saddle tilts and fore/aft saddle positions. I found that to be key to helping with relieving some of the hand pressure during seated pedaling.

What sag are you running? A softer sag optimized for downhilling will also place your front end lower under seated pedaling. I think this issue magnified with longer travel forks. Some platform on the fork might help keep it higher in the travel for seated pedaling.

I continue to try different stem lengths/rise positions. Interestingly I found the lower bar position to be better for me. Core strength and flexibility to be able to tilt at the hips helps too.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Did you even read what I wrote?
> 
> Let me help you out:
> 
> ...


Here's the thing, they're training for two different things...but at the same thing, where bike handling matters more than raw fitness, on basically equal bikes, Graves and the rest of the EWS heavy hitters blew him away. When the total time is ~25 minutes, a minute or two is a HUGE margin.

I'm not even sure what you people are trying to argue here, since the Scott bikes certainly aren't using old school geometry.

Like has been said before, nobody is claiming an enduro bike is going to climb like an XC bike, because that not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is the march away from the silly old school long chainstay, short reach, stupidly long stem fad. That this is happening is an undeniable fact. The Scott bikes are LONG, the stems are shorter, yet you use Schurter as evidence that the old school design that he isn't even using (!) is somehow superior.

I'm still waiting for someone to switch their stem out for a negative rise with some flat bars in order to get the handlebar drop measurement like Schurter's and report back on how awesome it is. Know why? Because it would suck, you know it, I know it, everybody knows it...so stop using his setup as the be-all-end-all. Those guys are so stretched out that while it is awesome for producing power, it makes them have to tiptoe down anything reasonably technical because their seat is up their ass and their nose is over the front axle. Just because a few people do some tiny little tail whips while making some tiny little jumps doesn't change that...people do that on CX bikes, ffs, but nobody suggests that they're good for all around mountain biking.

Unless you are going for the absolute best in power production, people would be better served by riding more relaxed geometry. Especially considering the usual chorus of "well, I'm not going for maximum speed." How about comfort and confidence? Not going to get that with a steep XC setup.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

richde said:


> Here's the thing, they're training for two different things...but at the same thing, where bike handling matters more than raw fitness, on basically equal bikes, Graves and the rest of the EWS heavy hitters blew him away. When the total time is ~25 minutes, a minute or two is a HUGE margin.


So you are using a race where Nino lost huge time due to Mechanical to make your point? Wow, just wow. Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

what are we calling old geometry?
my 1989 Diamondback Apex had a 70 degree head angle (with a 80mm high rise stem), my 96 Xizang has a 71, so too my 2008 Zaskar. To me the first is really old school geometry, the later two, are mroe norba geometry.

My Scott Spark has ~68 something degree. Thing is it came with a 700mm bar and 80mm stem, not as wide or as short as what a lot of people are running, but in the slow and tight stuff which I ride a lot of (slow becasue 'm super slow), but not particularly steep, I found it to steer like a pig. I stuck it out for a while, as figured I shoudl try it and it I might get used to it, but eventually putting on a 100mm stem made it much better - for me.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> Like has been said before, nobody is claiming an enduro bike is going to climb like an XC bike, because that not what we're talking about.
> 
> this is exactly what some people are saying.
> 
> ...


But some people want maximum power ouput! Hence the reason for different geometries!


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

A wide bar and shorter stem definitely helps on old school geometry bikes. I just went from 560mm/140 (bar/stem) to 650/110. It made a definite positive difference. I think I may try a 700mm bar like I have on my other bike, and go to a 100mm stem. Longer than 700 and I feel like I'm driving a London bus.


----------



## BuickGN (Aug 25, 2008)

I have nothing to add other than I got passed by a BMX bike on near slicks the other day. That hurt. I doubt he had optimal geometry lol. I'm definitely going to be spending more time riding and less time worrying about geometry or the next upgrade to the bike.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

richde said:


> ...Maybe there's no mass produced old style bikes for the same reason you can't find **** flavored licorice.





richde said:


> ...Tell us why nobody sells old style bikes in any mentionable quantity, or why there isn't **** flavored licorice while you're at it. The answer is the same.





LMN said:


> Really? 70 to 70.5 degree head-angle is what I have had on near every XC bike since 1995. Stem(s) have shortened as my bar have gotten wider but top-tube is the exact same length.





richde said:


> ..."Classic XC" geo had 72 degree head angles, short reach and long stems, which is what we're arguing is dumb. Are you referring to mid-90's Gary Fishers?





LMN said:


> The changes to "Classic XC" geo are pretty small. 72 to 70.5 (which is the current standard for XC bikes) is actually a very small change. Probably switching from a 600mm bar to a 660mm bar is much more significant.
> 
> No doubt that "new XC" geo is different then classic, but they are pretty darn close.





mik_git said:


> ...what are we calling old geometry?
> my 1989 Diamondback Apex had a 70 degree head angle (with a 80mm high rise stem), my 96 Xizang has a 71, so too my 2008 Zaskar. To me the first is really old school geometry, the later two, are mroe norba geometry.


I don't think there has been much change in XC geo over the years, at least not in the last 15 years. XC geo has pretty much stayed the same and I would assume there is a very good reason for that. So I wouldn't say XC bikes have modern or new geo. XC bikes today for the most part seem to have the same standard XC geo as they did many years ago. Sure there are some tweaks to HT angle, and top tube, but these are very minor when compared to the changes in geo on modern AM/trail and DH bikes compared to 15 years ago.

For a good example of the minor changes in XC geo from a mass produced XC bike from 15 years ago here is the geo chart for a bike I used to own (trek 8000) and a geo chart for a mass produced 2015 XC bike (spec stumpy) The differences are very small especially given that older has 26" wheels and the 2015 has 29" wheels.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

BuickGN said:


> I have nothing to add other than I got passed by a BMX bike on near slicks the other day. That hurt. I doubt he had optimal geometry lol. I'm definitely going to be spending more time riding and less time worrying about geometry or the next upgrade to the bike.


Those bmx boys be laughing at all of us, they roll with 75 degree HA's and no helmets.



singletrackmack said:


> View attachment 1014157


Funny^ that's nearly identical to my 2015 xc hardtail, htf do I even stay on that thing?


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

BuickGN said:


> I have nothing to add other than I got passed by a BMX bike on near slicks the other day.


Ah, but was he happy?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

I don't think I'd buy a bike with 35mm stem, even if it felt perfect. 
If you want to try a little less reach? No options. 

I keep bikes a long time and I try different bar, stem, seatpost combos to experiment, and just change things occasionally. 

Just knowing I couldn't try 1/2" shorter cockpit after riding a bike for a while would bug me, even if I was ok with the current set up. 

And I have fiddled with bikes long enough to know that there isn't just one position that works.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> I always sucked at geometry. My bike is fun, I like riding it.


:lol:


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

PDent

You can go much shorter than 35mm.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Travis Bickle said:


> PDent
> 
> You can go much shorter than 35mm.


PDent is not even close to short enough. If you want real modern geo try the new patent pending "Drastically Opposed Negative Geometry" from NS bikes.

They claim that "After various lab and field tests, we found that adding even more length to the front triangle, and at the same time using a special stem with negative reach, riders will improve climbing efficiency (by 14.31%) and descending speeds (by up to 18.85%). This groundbreaking technology will be introduced in all 2016 bikes."

Seriously, why get a PDent when you can get a D.O.N.G. 

















NS Bikes Introduces Radical New Geometry for Mountain Bikes - Pinkbike


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I'm sure there are are guys who will prefer dong over pdent, and that's okay.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

singletrackmack said:


> PDent is not even close to short enough. If you want real modern geo try the new patent pending "Drastically Opposed Negative Geometry" from NS bikes.
> 
> They claim that "After various lab and field tests, we found that adding even more length to the front triangle, and at the same time using a special stem with negative reach, riders will improve climbing efficiency (by 14.31%) and descending speeds (by up to 18.85%). This groundbreaking technology will be introduced in all 2016 bikes."
> 
> ...


why wouldnt it work?

I know is a joke but seriously why wouldnt it work. If someone wants to send me a XL Trance Frame I gladly guinea pig the idea.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

BushwackerinPA said:


> why wouldnt it work?
> 
> I know is a joke but seriously why wouldnt it work. If someone wants to send me a XL Trance Frame I gladly guinea pig the idea.


It works (turning the stem around, though not combined with a longer front). Actually works well, but only if you really like/want your weight rearward, and want to extend just how far rearward you can get. 

Can try it on your own bike. It doesn't feel unrideable at all. I didn't try it on a technical DH... only on a basic XC loop with rough/neglected singletrack. I thought it was amusing, since I was expecting far worse. I'm not a rearward biased rider, so I obviously changed it back right away.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

singletrackmack said:


> For a good example of the minor changes in XC geo from a mass produced XC bike from 15 years ago here is the geo chart for a bike I used to own (trek 8000) and a geo chart for a mass produced 2015 XC bike (spec stumpy) The differences are very small especially given that older has 26" wheels and the 2015 has 29" wheels.
> 
> View attachment 1014157
> 
> ...


Now look at current Trek HT geometry.

HT angle: 69.5
Chainstays are 17.13" (limited by packaging, since the 27.5 15.5 model is shorter.)
Wheelbase is almost 2" longer, due to the .2" longer chainstay, slacker HT angle and LONGER REACH, which is evident from the longer effective top tube length. The Scott Scale wonderbike is also longer and slacker.

These XC bikes that you're claiming don't have this "new school geo" actually do. It's not as drastic as the difference between an old XC bike and a longer travel trail or enduro bike, but they still have it. Comparing old XC bikes and new, more gravity orientated bikes is a false comparison anyways, of course they're different, that kind of bike barely existed back then.

Sheesh....


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

chainstays can be silly shot on a 29er......

The new Stache is 16.3 and a 29x3.0 tire.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> chainstays can be silly shot on a 29er......
> 
> The new Stache is 16.3 and a 29x3.0 tire.


The part I didn't type was packaging _a front derailleur_...boost might end up shortening chainstays, but that's in the (near) future if ever. But I think designers have decided that chainstays should be in the neighborhood of 17" for XC bikes anyways.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> Now look at current Trek HT geometry.
> 
> HT angle: 69.5
> Chainstays are 17.13" (limited by packaging, since the 27.5 15.5 model is shorter.)
> Wheelbase is almost 2" longer, due to the .2" longer chainstay, slacker HT angle and LONGER REACH, which is evident from the longer effective top tube length.


So when you keep saying the reach is longer, are you strictly referring to the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to center of headtube, or the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to the center of the handlebar?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> PDent
> 
> You can go much shorter than 35mm.


From that website:
"Reducing a stem from 30 to 25 mm is a net 17 percent change. That's HUGE."

Lol. Pacenti is full of sh1t.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> So when you keep saying the reach is longer, are you strictly referring to the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to center of headtube, or the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to the center of the handlebar?


Reach is from the BB to the head tube, it can't change...that's why it's listed in geometry charts and why the illustration always shows it going through the head tube..

I'm not "saying" they're longer, I'm showing that they're longer.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

There are different ways to measure reach. When talking bike fit, reach often meant from bottom bracket to handlebar. Just clarifying.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> There are different ways to measure reach. When talking bike fit, reach often meant from bottom bracket to handlebar. Just clarifying.


There is only one way how to measure reach. BB to HT. 
What you are talking about is reach + stem.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

richde said:


> Now look at current Trek HT geometry.
> 
> HT angle: 69.5
> Chainstays are 17.13" (limited by packaging, since the 27.5 15.5 model is shorter.)r
> ...





richde said:


> I'm not "saying" they're longer, I'm showing that they're longer.


The geo from that old trek ht frame vs a new trek ht frame is a lot closer than you think.

First off the reach on the older trek is LONGER than on a new trek ht. The older trek would have a reach of about 460mm for the 19.5" vs a reach of 444 on a 19.5 x-caliber.

Reach is not just about top tube length. That is part of the calculation, but seat angle and BB drop also need to be accounted for. The older trek has a steeper seat angle and less BB drop. That along with a TT that is only 14mm shorter than the new trek would make the reach longer on the old trek.

For the ht angle, throw the same travel fork on the old trek as the x-caliber (80mm to 100mm) and that would bring the HTA down to 70 and the SA down to match the x-caliber at 72. This would also decrease the reach to about 447 and raise the BB up to about 315 which is just about the same as the 2015 x-caliber 19.5" frame.

Wheel base will be the only thing that is really different between them due to the shorter chain stay and fork offset on the older trek, but even then it would be about 1.5". Which on an XC bike I believe the shorter wheel base would be preferable.

2015 X-cal geo:








Looking at a giant XC bike and it doesn't look like their geo is that different from the old trek either. Pretty much only diff is the HTA. Throw that 100mm fork on the old trek and you would end up with a longer TT, reach and about the same HTA with the same SA of the trek x-cal.









As far as the title of this thread "old geo vs new geo" there is not much difference between old XC geo and new XC geo for obviously a good reason. For XC riding that 15 year old geo works just as good today as it did back then. Now old Am/trail and DH geo vs new am/trail and DH geo, that is an actual difference.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

jazzanova said:


> There is only one way how to measure reach. BB to HT.
> What you are talking about is reach + stem.


There is frame reach and bar reach. I was just clarifying which was being referenced.

Technical FAQ: Setting your bikes up identically - VeloNews.com


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> From that website:
> "Reducing a stem from 30 to 25 mm is a net 17 percent change. That's HUGE."
> 
> Lol. Pacenti is full of sh1t.


Have you tried 30 & 25mm stems?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

I've tried stems 5 mm apart, and the difference is not HUGE. It's a ridiculous assertion.
I'm sure you can recognize a sales pitch when you see one, right?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> I've tried stems 5 mm apart, and the difference is not HUGE. It's a ridiculous assertion.
> I'm sure you can recognize a sales pitch when you see one, right?


About the same level of validity as claiming that going from a 30lb bike to a 25lb bike would make a rider 17% faster uphill (all other things being equal). In other words, not to be taken seriously.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

singletrackmack said:


> The geo from that old trek ht frame vs a new trek ht frame is a lot closer than you think.
> 
> First off the reach on the older trek is LONGER than on a new trek ht. The older trek would have a reach of about 460mm for the 19.5" vs a reach of 444 on a 19.5 x-caliber.


Comparing medium to medium...

No, the reach would be slightly shorter, add to that the longer stem that's on the older bike and you have quite a bit of difference. That's also assuming that they have the same length head tube, which I highly doubt.

Using the same fork makes the difference even greater, which goes to show how the geometry has changed.

Geometry calc:
geometryCalc



singletrackmack said:


> For XC riding that 15 year old geo works just as good today as it did back then.


Which is to say not as well as modern geometry...that's why it's been changing.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Circlip said:


> About the same level of validity as claiming that going from a 30lb bike to a 25lb bike would make a rider 17% faster uphill (all other things being equal). In other words, not to be taken seriously.


Hey, people come onto these forums all the time saying that going from 440mm chainstays to 435mm, or 335mm BB to 330mm, or 5mm added/removed from their cranks, or pedal thickness from 17.5mm to 12, 5mm in their tire (0.2") and rim width, etc. made a _*HUGE*_ difference in their riding. Pacenti sees the potential to make money off those those types that value little differences, also considering how Giant's % based marketing sold people on 650b.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Varaxis said:


> Hey, people come onto these forums all the time saying that going from 440mm chainstays to 435mm, or 335mm BB to 330mm, or 5mm added/removed from their cranks, or pedal thickness from 17.5mm to 12, 5mm in their tire (0.2") and rim width, etc. made a _*HUGE*_ difference in their riding. Pacenti sees the potential to make money off those those types that value little differences, also considering how Giant's % based marketing sold people on 650b.


Speak for yourself. When I went to chainstays that were 5mm shorter, it instantly made me 5mm faster. Whoever says you can't buy speed is wrong. I'm going to buy another 5mm of speed next week and dust my riding crew.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

richde said:


> Comparing medium to medium...
> 
> No, the reach would be slightly shorter, add to that the longer stem that's on the older bike and you have quite a bit of difference. That's also assuming that they have the same length head tube, which I highly doubt.
> 
> ...


Actually, the medium 17.5" HT trek from 2000 has a longer reach than the 2105 17.5" x-caliber. Weird how a bike from 15 years ago has a longer reach than the same brand XC bike of today. Man that XC geo from 2000 was so old school huh?

If you add 20mm to the fork travel the 2000 17.5" trek would have 5mm less reach than the 2015 x-caliber, but still a longer reach than other mordern XC bikes.









So, like I said earlier, there is virtually no change in the XC geo of today and that ht trek from 2000. XC bikes of today have HTA's of between 69 and 71, which the old trek has, they have TT's slightly shorter or longer than the old trek, they have SA's equal to or a degree slacker or steeper than the old trek and they have a reach that is probably shorter in most cases or a little longer than the old trek.

The geo chart for the old trek looks perfectly in place with XC geo charts of modern bikes. Could you honestly say that someone would look twice at the below geo chart thinking it was out of place in 2015? Which by the way it is the geo chart for the 2015 Ellsworth XC ht and virtually identical to the '00 trek ht for the medium size (which appearently is the size you like to look at) with the main exception of the medium trek having a LONGER reach on a 1/2" smaller frame.









Since for whatever reason you just can't admit that mordern XC geo has not changed from xc bike's geo from 15 years ago, how about you point out which metric or metrics on the geo chart below for the '00 trek HT would look out of place on a 2015 XC bikes geo chart.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Apparently my go to mountain bike company, Santa Cruz, is switching to the new geometry. Like I've said earlier, I actually prefer the short stem/wide bar geometry, but these extremes just don't fit my body well. I have a relatively short torso and long legs, so these super short seat-tubes will be a deal-breaker for me, since I don't want the super long wheelbase that comes with a 25mm stem. It looks like I won't be buying a Santa Cruz again.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Circlip said:


> Speak for yourself. When I went to chainstays that were 5mm shorter, it instantly made me 5mm faster. Whoever says you can't buy speed is wrong. I'm going to buy another 5mm of speed next week and dust my riding crew.


I understand, ever since I got a new slacked out frame I've been two minutes faster, every ride. Can't argue with the facts.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Apparently my go to mountain bike company, Santa Cruz, is switching to the new geometry. Like I've said earlier, I actually prefer the short stem/wide bar geometry, but these extremes just don't fit my body well. I have a relatively short torso and long legs, so these super short seat-tubes will be a deal-breaker for me, since I don't want the super long wheelbase that comes with a 25mm stem. It looks like I won't be buying a Santa Cruz again.


Funny how different riders and their preferences are. 
I hoped for even longer front end on V2 Bronson and 5010 and a touch shorter CS on the Bronson.

There are still many other high end companies sticking with the short geometry. Ibis, Turner, Pivot, YT...


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I looked at the new Santa Cruz's and for the first time ever would consider getting one.


----------



## FlaMtnBkr (Apr 23, 2008)

Obviously a lot of people think this newer geometry is better for a lot of things, but do most think it is more important than the suspension design? 

Also, everyone is saying it is good for descending and technical climbing. Would these typically longer travel trail bikes be over kill for more flat terrain with smaller rocks and roots and the occasional rolling hill?


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

FlaMtnBkr said:


> Obviously a lot of people think this newer geometry is better for a lot of things, but do most think it is more important than the suspension design?
> 
> Also, everyone is saying it is good for descending and technical climbing. Would these typically longer travel trail bikes be over kill for more flat terrain with smaller rocks and roots and the occasional rolling hill?


yes they are overkill....

the biggest reason is on flatter terrain the STA feel very uncomfortable on even the slightest of DH and the slack HTA is better for really leaned over cornering.

You basically need a dropper post to ride on modern bike. I would go so far to say that I have never met a person who likes a modern bike but does not run a dropper post. On the flats you end up using a dropper a ton, because simply put the bike will not turn unless you can get your hips low to the ground.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

^^^ these are just some of the reasons XC bikes have not adopted any sort of new school geometry and have kept their geo the same for a decade and a half. New vs old geometry does not apply to XC bikes since it hasn't changed.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

singletrackmack said:


> Actually, the medium 17.5" HT trek from 2000 has a longer reach than the 2105 17.5" x-caliber. Weird how a bike from 15 years ago has a longer reach than the same brand XC bike of today. Man that XC geo from 2000 was so old school huh?
> 
> If you add 20mm to the fork travel the 2000 17.5" trek would have 5mm less reach than the 2015 x-caliber, but still a longer reach than other mordern XC bikes.
> 
> ...


You're comparing a 17.5 and a 16.5. One of the annoying things that Trek does these days is to add an inch to the seat tube length for frame size.

There's a 20mm difference when you use the same frame measurement for sizing...then add in the stem difference, and the theory that it hasn't changed sounds rather silly.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> yes they are overkill....
> 
> the biggest reason is on flatter terrain the STA feel very uncomfortable on even the slightest of DH and the slack HTA is better for really leaned over cornering.
> 
> You basically need a dropper post to ride on modern bike. I would go so far to say that I have never met a person who likes a modern bike but does not run a dropper post. On the flats you end up using a dropper a ton, because simply put the bike will not turn unless you can get your hips low to the ground.


When taken to extreme, and then upsized, very much so.

But then again, I think that AM/enduro bikes should be shorter than XC bikes....using the logic that XC bikes should be setup for max power production with handling taking a back seat. AM/enduro is the opposite. A dropper post should be something that merely aids your ability to move around on the bike, not a necessity.

I'm 5'10", with a similarly average 32.5" inseam. I rode a medium Pivot M5.7, Pivot has and still does make longer travel bikes with shorter reaches, which I found very easy to manipulate even before I got a dropper post. The post made it feel like it disappeared beneath me. I test rode a M6 at interbike last year and got stuck behind the seat while fooling around on the pump track. Turns out that while I asked for a medium, they gave me a large, which was too long for more technical riding. I bought a medium and it works out great for any kind of riding where a 6" travel bike would be expected to work well. Won the local super-d race series in Cat 2...it's a fast and capable bike. How I position myself on the bike relative to the front axle is still limited by the length of my arms, just like it would be on a larger bike, so I don't see how a longer reach provides more of anything on descents.

Had the same experience with a Trek Stache, which is a pretty long bike. My shop has a few available for rental, and the large is fun until you start to ride aggressively. Then it becomes apparent that it's too big for someone my size to really move around on. The small is actually more similar to my Pivot as far as reach goes, and it's very fun to ride aggressively. There's no medium available, for whatever reason, but the temptation (and recommendation) is still there for someone my size to ride a large, which is unsuitable if handling is a priority.

Why the longer reach trend is getting out of control is a good question. While it is true that the use of a dropper post makes it a non issue while descending, it does hurt handling when it comes to cornering by making it harder to steer and properly position your weight at the same time. Is it a case of if a little is good, even more is better? The ability to look at your bike and see how long and low it is? Being able to say you ride a big boy's bike?

As far as the changing taste in trails go, I'd put most of the blame on the elevation of Whistler, with its straight and wide "flow trails," as the new MTB mecca over more natural (and challenging) places like Moab.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

richde said:


> You're comparing a 17.5 and a 16.5. One of the annoying things that Trek does these days is to add an inch to the seat tube length for frame size.


I don't know Richde, it sure looks like what he is showing is spot on. And what do you mean trek adds an inch to the seat tube length? That doesn't make any sense. The older trek only had 4 sizes and the new one has 6. Trek just added more sizing range, not an extra inch to their seat tube length. But as far as the comparison goes, mack is just comparing the same size frames to each other by using the seat tube length to match up the frames to since there are more frame sizes available with the newer trek models. This makes complete sense since seat tube length is how the industry determines sizing of bike frames. Trek now added a 13.5" and a 18.5" to their line up. Comparing the old 17.5" to the new 18.5" wouldn't be an accurate comparison since trek still has 17.5". If trek had a 18.5" back in 2000, it's geo would be in between the 17.5" and 19.5" just like the new models.

Regardless, that geo chart for the 2015 Ellsworth XC bike pretty much proves his argument that xc geo has not changed no matter how much you don't like it. Not sure why you can't admit he's right, but have fun looking for more BS reasons to prove your point.

Also, i would love to see how you answer the below question mack posted earlier, because I can't see anything in that geo chart that would look out of place on a modern XC bike. It has been a hella of a lot of fun to see how you rationalize things so you think your never wrong. Pure entertainment.



singletrackmack said:


> Since for whatever reason you just can't admit that mordern XC geo has not changed from xc bike's geo from 15 years ago, how about you point out which metric or metrics on the geo chart below for the '00 trek HT would look out of place on a 2015 XC bikes geo chart.
> 
> View attachment 1014647


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> I don't know Richde, it sure looks like what he is showing is spot on. And what do you mean trek adds an inch to the seat tube length? That doesn't make any sense. The older trek only had 4 sizes and the new one has 6. Trek just added more sizing range, not an extra inch to their seat tube length. But as far as the comparison goes, mack is just comparing the same size frames to each other by using the seat tube length to match up the frames to since there are more frame sizes available with the newer trek models. This makes complete sense since seat tube length is how the industry determines sizing of bike frames. Trek now added a 13.5" and a 18.5" to their line up. Comparing the old 17.5" to the new 18.5" wouldn't be an accurate comparison since trek still has 17.5". If trek had a 18.5" back in 2000, it's geo would be in between the 17.5" and 19.5" just like the new models.
> 
> Regardless, that geo chart for the 2015 Ellsworth XC bike pretty much proves his argument that xc geo has not changed no matter how much you don't like it. Not sure why you can't admit he's right, but have fun looking for more BS reasons to prove your point.
> 
> Also, i would love to see how you answer the below question mack posted earlier, because I can't see anything in that geo chart that would look out of place on a modern XC bike. It has been a hella of a lot of fun to see how you rationalize things so you think your never wrong. Pure entertainment.


It's simple, look at the actual seat tube length on the geo chart. The 18.5 has the same 17.5 seat tube length as the old medium. Then throw in the fact that people frequently upsize bikes, i.e. medium sized people are riding larges now.

The size number that Trek uses is arbitrary and confusing.

Everything he's referring to is based on ignoring those things.

If nothing else, stem length has changed, which means that something HAS changed in matter how you want to cherrypick frames to compare. Bar width doesn't totally compensate for stem length either.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

richde said:


> It's simple, look at the actual seat tube length on the geo chart. The 18.5 has the same 17.5 seat tube length as the old medium. Then throw in the fact that people frequently upsize bikes, i.e. medium sized people are riding larges now.
> 
> The size number that Trek uses is arbitrary and confusing.
> 
> ...


Didn't catch that in the geo charts, however trek wouldn't do this arbitrarily. They do this in order to lower the standover, but still have people get the right size bike. For example if they are comfortable on an old 17.5", then they would want to get a new trek in the what they are referring to as a 17.5" otherwise the bike would be too big if they simply went with the 18.5" because it has a seat tube of 17.5". Really, an inch differences in seat tube length doesn't effect the bikes handling geometry. If someone used to ride an older trek with a 17.5" frame, then they would want to get a new trek in what they call a 17.5" since as it has been pointed out on this thread, they would have similar TT and reach.

Regardless, I would still like to hear you explain how Ellsworth is using just about the identical geo on their 2015 XC HT as the trek from 2000 if xc geo is now more modern than 15 years ago, and most importantly answer the below question from mack, because that geo from 15 years ago is the same geo that is being used on XC bikes today.



singletrackmack said:


> Since for whatever reason you just can't admit that mordern XC geo has not changed from xc bike's geo from 15 years ago, how about you point out which metric or metrics on the geo chart below for the '00 trek HT would look out of place on a 2015 XC bikes geo chart.
> 
> View attachment 1014647


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

tahoebeau said:


> Regardless, I would still like to hear you explain how Ellsworth is using just about the identical geo on their 2015 XC HT as the trek from 2000 if xc geo is now more modern than 15 years ago, and most importantly answer the below question from mack, because that geo from 15 years ago is the same geo that is being used on XC bikes today.


What is really odd to me that this is being framed as a dichotomy.
It's either this or that, new or old.

You have a number of tubes that can be put together in a dizzying array of lengths and angles to make a decent riding bike, and here's twenty pages, coming across as if the only question in modern frame design is 'Chocolate or vanilla--which one do you like'? :bluefrown:


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

FlaMtnBkr said:


> Obviously a lot of people think this newer geometry is better for a lot of things, but do most think it is more important than the suspension design?
> 
> Also, everyone is saying it is good for descending and technical climbing. Would these typically longer travel trail bikes be over kill for more flat terrain with smaller rocks and roots and the occasional rolling hill?


Yes, too much travel will definitely be overkill. Suspension design differences won't be noticed by most riders, especially most posters in this thread. Geometry and tires are the most important things on a mountain bike. It all depends on what you are looking to get from mountain biking. Despite what a few people are saying, there is no single best setup for everybody. Many people would be happy on a rigid singlespeed on any trail, while some people want as much suspension and gears as possible for the possibility of going to Moab once a year. If you have a bad back, you might want some suspension. It all depends on you.


----------



## FlaMtnBkr (Apr 23, 2008)

FlaMtnBkr said:


> Obviously a lot of people think this newer geometry is better for a lot of things, but do most think it is more important than the suspension design?


Any thoughts on this?

Would you guys take a single pivot or faux bar with new geometry over something like a Turner with DW link and older geometry? Really just curious which people think plays a bigger role on a 140-160mm trail bike.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

FlaMtnBkr said:


> Any thoughts on this?
> 
> Would you guys take a single pivot or faux bar with new geometry over something like a Turner with DW link and older geometry? Really just curious which people think plays a bigger role on a 140-160mm trail bike.


I'd prefer a true single-pivot with old geometry. It is more playful and more fun to ride, in my opinion. The more sophisticated designs are marginally more efficient, but who cares if you aren't a serious racer? The new geo is not for everybody, but it can make the majority of trails easier to ride for a lot of people. The geometry makes a much bigger difference, so make sure you get that right. You can easily adopt and adjust to just about anything, however.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> Didn't catch that in the geo charts, however trek wouldn't do this arbitrarily. They do this in order to lower the standover, but still have people get the right size bike. For example if they are comfortable on an old 17.5", then they would want to get a new trek in the what they are referring to as a 17.5" otherwise the bike would be too big if they simply went with the 18.5" because it has a seat tube of 17.5". Really, an inch differences in seat tube length doesn't effect the bikes handling geometry. If someone used to ride an older trek with a 17.5" frame, then they would want to get a new trek in what they call a 17.5" since as it has been pointed out on this thread, they would have similar TT and reach.
> 
> Regardless, I would still like to hear you explain how Ellsworth is using just about the identical geo on their 2015 XC HT as the trek from 2000 if xc geo is now more modern than 15 years ago, and most importantly answer the below question from mack, because that geo from 15 years ago is the same geo that is being used on XC bikes today.


Depends on how you think people are going to shop for new bikes.

I doubt people are going to come in and say they want a 17.5 just because they have a 10-year old 17.5 and if the salespeople are going to suggest the same thing.

Chances are that they're going to shop according to "top tube length," which in practice is seat to bar distance, NOT reach. Nobody sits on a bike and pulls out a ruler to measure where the head tube is in relation to the BB, what they so is sit on it and see how it feels with their hands on the bar. In which case they're going to get the larger size (which has a shorter stem than the old bike) only to find that while the seat to bar relationship is similar, where the front wheel is when compared to their old bike has changed, moving the CG towards the back because the front wheel moved away from the CG. It's going to be further forward relative to where their hands are and therefore further forward relative to their head, which is the center of their sense of balance.

Not only does it feel more stable, it IS more stable, plus it's better for cornering. The reason for that being that the short steep designs of the dark ages wasn't the great idea everyone thought it was at the time.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I'd prefer a true single-pivot with old geometry. It is more playful and more fun to ride, in my opinion. The more sophisticated designs are marginally more efficient, but who cares if you aren't a serious racer? The new geo is not for everybody, but it can make the majority of trails easier to ride for a lot of people. The geometry makes a much bigger difference, so make sure you get that right. You can easily adopt and adjust to just about anything, however.


I agree, comfort and confidence is the key to riding well.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> Depends on how you think people are going to shop for new bikes.
> 
> I doubt people are going to come in and say they want a 17.5 just because they have a 10-year old 17.5 and if the salespeople are going to suggest the same thing.
> 
> ...


If the customer does their research and the shop knows anything about bike fit, they will absolutely NOT recommend a bike based on top-tube length. They will make a recommendation based on reach. They will also base any recommendation on the local trails and riding preferences of the customer, which may or may not mesh with the new geometry.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> If the customer does their research and the shop knows anything about bike fit, they will absolutely NOT recommend a bike based on top-tube length. They will make a recommendation based on reach. They will also base any recommendation on the local trails and riding preferences of the customer, which may or may not mesh with the new geometry.


How can people do that if reach wasn't even IN old geo charts? Did you forget that we had to use a geo calculator to even find old reach measurements?

They're going to sit on the bike and see how the bar to seat distance feels. Meanwhile, the position of the front wheel has changed. Nobody is going to demand that they get a bike with an inch shorter seat to bar measurement because they consulted a geo calculator and demand that they ride the same size as before.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

FlaMtnBkr said:


> Any thoughts on this?
> 
> Would you guys take a single pivot or faux bar with new geometry over something like a Turner with DW link and older geometry? Really just curious which people think plays a bigger role on a 140-160mm trail bike.


You are starting a whole new debate.
People's opinions on suspension are all over the board, but there are still lots of awesome single pivot bikes being produced to this day. Transition, Kona, Trek, Santa Cruz, Jamis, Orange, etc. 
I've owned a few different designs. When I was shopping for my latest bike, I wasn't focused on a particular suspension design. I think they can all ride really well. I test rode bikes and found what felt good. (Didn't spend much time studying geo charts either  )


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> How can people do that if reach wasn't even IN old geo charts?


You measure it?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> You measure it?


With a plumb bob, a level, and a straightedge? Are you kidding me? They're going to look at seat to bar.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> You are starting a whole new debate.
> People's opinions on suspension are all over the board, but there are still lots of awesome single pivot bikes being produced to this day. Transition, Kona, Trek, Santa Cruz, Jamis, Orange, etc.
> I've owned a few different designs. When I was shopping for my latest bike, I wasn't focused on a particular suspension design. I think they can all ride really well. I test rode bikes and found what felt good. (Didn't spend much time studying geo charts either  )


One thing I found to be lacking was shorter travel trail bikes with similar geo to 6" bikes. Sure, my longer travel bike soaks up bumps slightly better than a shorter travel bike, but the main difference and advantage, is the geometry.

The Habit is a step in the right direction, but it should be a 9er IMO. If you can fit bigger wheels, use them. That's why the longer travel bikes are all 27.5, ffs.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richde said:


> With a plumb bob, a level, and a straightedge? Are you kidding me? They're going to look at seat to bar.


That also works, if the seat is in the proper position. Just looking at the numbers in a catalog can be problematic. After reading all of these new geometry threads and the incorrect generalizations people are making, I would strongly recommend a professional fitting more most serious cyclists. I don't believe that the average cyclist knows how to fit him- or herself properly.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

richde said:


> One thing I found to be lacking was shorter travel trail bikes with similar geo to 6" bikes. Sure, my longer travel bike soaks up bumps slightly better than a shorter travel bike, but the main difference and advantage, is the geometry.
> 
> The Habit is a step in the right direction, but it should be a 9er IMO. If you can fit bigger wheels, use them. That's why the longer travel bikes are all 27.5, ffs.


If the Bad Habit was made in carbon, it would be a pretty nasty bike. Just swap out the wheels to go from B+ to 29".


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

richde said:


> You're comparing a 17.5 and a 16.5. One of the annoying things that Trek does these days is to add an inch to the seat tube length for frame size.
> 
> There's a 20mm difference when you use the same frame measurement for sizing...then add in the stem difference, and the theory that it hasn't changed sounds rather silly.


Stopped by a trek dealer last week to get some tire levers and asked them about their sizing and why their seat tube length is 1 inch shorter than their frame size indicates. They said their size does not refer to seat tube length because seat tube length doesn't really effect fit when you are riding. Their sizing refers to things like reach and TT since these are what effect fit when riding. So if the bike says 17.5" then it would have a fit similar to other bikes with a 17.5" size. And if you typically ride a 17.5" frame or around there then that is the frame size you fit on a trek since it would have a similar TT and reach as other 17.5" frames. Standover is also something that needs to be considered and with using shorter seat tubes this makes it not an issue when trying to fit a bike.

Given this the comparing the older trek 17.5" to the new 17.5" is the correct comparison since trek has now taken the seat tube measurement out of the equation since it is irrelevant to bike fit. And again this shows that XC frame geo has not changed in over 15 years.

Regardless of this, if you still believe xc frame geo has actually had a measurable change in the last 15 years *then I ask you the same question I have already asked you 2 times which you have not been able to answer*:

"Please explain how Ellsworth is using just about the identical geo on their 2015 XC HT as the trek from 2000 if xc geo is now more modern than 15 years ago, and most importantly answer the below question from mack, because that geo from 15 years ago is the same geo that is being used on XC bikes today."



singletrackmack said:


> Since for whatever reason you just can't admit that mordern XC geo has not changed from xc bike's geo from 15 years ago, how about you point out which metric or metrics on the geo chart below for the '00 trek HT would look out of place on a 2015 XC bikes geo chart.
> 
> View attachment 1014647


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

^^^I was also curious as to why trek's frames have a 1" shorter seat tube than what they are calling the frame size so asked in the trek forum why they do this and i pretty much got the same answer which makes a lot of sense:

"Bicycle frame sizes are a lot like women's dress sizes. There's a correlation between the nominal size and a certain person size and shape. For a frame size, that includes reach and stack, which have nothing to do with the seat tube. The different companies more-or-less agree on what the reach and stack on a 17.5"/medium bike should be. If Trek wants to give people a little more standover clearance or stroke for a dropper post or stiffer frame, but they keep the same reach and stack, calling the bike by the nominal size instead of the measurement of the seat tube doesn't make any less sense than using seat tube measurements did in the first place."


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Seat tube length makes a big difference if you have really short or really long legs for your height. If you can't fit a proper seatpost to get proper leg extension, reach doesn't matter.


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

tahoebeau said:


> "Please explain how Ellsworth is using just about the identical geo on their 2015 XC HT as the trek from 2000 if xc geo is now more modern than 15 years ago, and most importantly answer the below question from mack, because that geo from 15 years ago is the same geo that is being used on XC bikes today."


Cause Ellsworth is about 15 years behind on bike design, lol.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

My wife came back from Vegas with this for me. Gives me a chance to really test out this modern geometry.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Nice wife!


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

smilinsteve said:


> Nice wife!


I think she was tired of me steeling hers. Now we have matching bikes.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

MOJO Nikolai Geometron 
http://m.pinkbike.com/news/nicolai-mojo-geometron-first-ride-2015.html

• 77° seat angle
• 62-63.5° head angle, dependent upon shock and fork length.
• Sizing: Long, Longer, or Longest

"The geometry certainly is extreme but as current trends continue to get lower, longer and slacker Chris says "Why not keep going!" The head angle sits between 62° and 63.5° with rear-wheel travel between 145mm and 155mm. The seat angle is around 77° and the bottom bracket height drops around 17mm below the axles. On my 'Longest' test bike, the wheelbase was 1320mm. Why such vague values? Your GeoMetron will be built with different fork travel, fork offset and shock length, dependent upon your riding style and favorite terrains."
Riding the Geometron

"Climbing: I often find that being a tall rider on L or XL frame sizes with modern, short chainstays that my mass is too far over the rear axle when climbing. This can lead to an overly saggy rear and a wandering front end. The GeoMetron solves this 'lanky riders' issue with the super steep 77° seat angle, combined with the long-ish 445mm chainstay and the elongated front triangle that moves your mass into a more central position between the wheels and reduces the wheelie effect. This was taken even closer to the extreme by the saddle being slammed as far forward as possible on the rails, even the seat clamp had seen and angle grinder at some point to gain couple of extra millimeters forwards. As for the strange looking seat angle - this bike is designed for going up and then down, on steep climbs it's more comfortable than it looks."

"Descending: When turning back down the hill a change of riding style is required. If you're used to hanging off the back off your bike like Fairclough, or getting your weight back for the steep stuff, a massive, high speed accident is more than likely. A more central riding position is required, and when conquered magic things can happen. You can charge down steeps in a neutral riding position with plenty of front end grip and braking traction, without the fear of going out the front door. The massive wheel base makes front to rear weight distribution a cinch on flat corners and long camber - subtle fore to aft movements can gain grip at one end or the other. A short travel downhill machine, and possibly a bike that would out-descend many true downhill bikes."

Pinkbike's Take:
"I remember saying to a friend in 2007, "why doesn't somebody just make a six-inch travel trail bike with downhill geometry, that you could pedal up the hill?" Eight years later and this is what we have! The GeoMetron is the ideal machine for people who want to get to the top in their own time, then challenge the downhillers' on the way back down. The customized suspension is sublime, with initial breakaway unnoticeable. Progression is unreal from the air units, not even bottoming out when overshooting a huge jump, even though I was sitting well in to the travel with 30-percent sag. The cockpit isn't as enormous as it looks, with the longest size having the exact same bottom bracket to handlebar measurement as my XL Specialized Enduro, bearing in mind different stem lengths and stack heights. The support offered by the fork and the super slack head angle means I could load, and charge at the front end whatever situation I was in and keep it under control. The GeoMetron is a bit futuristic, but take the time to get used to the geometry and you'll be having a blast." - Paul Aston


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

Good discussion. I read the first 100 posts or more. I haven't ridden any of this new school geo since I only own XC bikes. I'm interested in the nimble 9 though, but I also ride the technical old school hiking trails. Not sure how well it would do in that type of environment.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

New evil.
The stem looks a bit too long. The reach looks perfect 

http://m.pinkbike.com/news/ridiculous-bikes-roost-carbon-2015.html


----------



## j0hn (May 27, 2011)

I just came over here to post the link to the Ridiculous Roost Carbon, but jazzanova beat me to it. I think I have found my next bike.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

BushwackerinPA said:


> yes they are overkill....
> 
> the biggest reason is on flatter terrain the STA feel very uncomfortable on even the slightest of DH and the slack HTA is better for really leaned over cornering.
> 
> You basically need a dropper post to ride on modern bike. I would go so far to say that I have never met a person who likes a modern bike but does not run a dropper post. On the flats you end up using a dropper a ton, because simply put the bike will not turn unless you can get your hips low to the ground.


He speaks truth.

This "new geo" can be only taken so far before you make a trail bike into something you only pedal to the top so you plow back down - I call them pinkbikes.

There are drawbacks to HTAs and STAs that are too steep. Believe it or not, you can't get something for nothing.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> "Please explain how Ellsworth is using just about the identical geo on their 2015 XC HT as the trek from 2000 if xc geo is now more modern than 15 years ago, and most importantly answer the below question from mack, because that geo from 15 years ago is the same geo that is being used on XC bikes today."


Because they've stopped innovating? When was the last time that Ellsworth XC bikes were highly respected?

Comparing Trek to Trek:
If you can't see that there's an extra inch+ between the BB and the front contact patch (some of which is due to the HT angle, some is due to an increase in reach), slacker HT, and the shorter stems, I don't know what to tell you.

The same holds true with a Specialized XC HT. Longer reach, shorter stem. See a trend here?

I could probably go on and on, but you'll always have someone who makes obsolete designs to fall back on as if the actions of a minority disprove what the majority is actually doing.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

richde said:


> When was the last time that Ellsworth bikes were highly respected?


FTFY.

I remember riding behind my LBS' owner on his Moment or Truth, watching the rear end flex. Not like German bicycle magazine, 3mm vs. 2.7mm flex with 50km on the BB. An order of magnitude higher than that. I would have thought his frame bearings were gone if I didn't know whose bike it was.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Video: Is This The Future? - Pinkbike


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

http://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gea...uct/review-mondraker-dune-carbon-xr-16-49763/


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

http://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/new...houses-extreme-geometry-hardtail-video-44372/

5'8" rider on this custom HT

"Jon combined all the current trends of geometry to produce a bike with a 63.5-degree head angle and a 656mm top tube length - that's the size of a large forward geometry Mondraker frame. To counter those radical dimensions, the BTR's seat tube angle is set at an equally extreme 75.5 degrees. The chainstays of the frame are long enough to squeeze in the 650b rear wheels with enough clearance for mud but that's it, in fact the back end was set as short as it's practical to do so. Similarly, the bottom bracket of the frame is slammed way below the axles.The BTR was then fitted with Mondraker own brand On-Off's 10mm stem, allowing for steering geometry that can't be achieved with conventional parts. The wheelbase is, well... just look at it!"


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

*Nukeproof Mega 275 and 290*

Reviving this thread yet again.

Nukeproof Mega 275 and 290

275 Details:
• 27.5" wheels
• 4 spec options or frameset
• 160mm travel
• 65° head angle with a 160mm fork
• 435mm chainstay length








290 Details:
• 29" wheels
• 3 spec options or frameset
• 150mm travel
• 66° head angle with a 150mm fork
• 450mm chainstay length








Nukeproof Mega 275 and 290 - First Ride - Pinkbike


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Good to see it come out in both wheel sizes. The STA in the diagram is actual and 75.5 degrees. Very forward, maybe too much even for me. Nukeproof has gone over to the Horst Link as well which is common nowadays. The reviewer seemed particularly smitten with the 290 both up and down.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

I too wonder if 75.5 STA is too steep for all-round mountain biking. I only did one ride on my Warden in the steep setting (75 STA) and it did feel a bit strange/less comfortable. Not sure if I would have got used to it over time, but I switched to the slack setting (74 STA) and found it to be more comfortable. I've found the 65.5 HTA in slack mode has been good for almost everything, the only place I feel it has handicapped me is on uphill switchbacks, which now require a bit moreeffort and a slightly wider line to get around. It was great on the shuttle runs I did last weekend, but I don't think I'd go any slacker for my every day bike. At the same time I wouldn't want to go too much steeper either, maybe 66* HTA is my sweet spot...


----------



## Ernest72 (Oct 19, 2015)

I have found in general, old geo good for uphill, not as confident for gnarly DH. New geo good for downhill, good enough for uphill. The average rider just riding for fun will prefer the new geo. An xc racer may or may not. However the ability to lock the front fork in a compressed position lowering the head tube creating a stiffer head tube angle does help on long climbs and steeper climbs, just don't forget to unlock for the DH.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Mojo/Nicolai's GeoMetron plots a future for mountain bike design - BikeRadar

Another review of the Geometron, and this time a 29er on as well. A steep terrain specialist, no surprise.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Great article about trail/offset/wheel size and geometry.

http://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gear/article/pushing-the-limits-of-fork-offset-an-experiment-45343/


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Geometron, shemetron. Cycle Force at Home Depot leads the way.

Cycle Force 18 in. Cro-mo MTB 29 Frame-CF-930016018 - The Home Depot

The deets are vague, but 73 STA, and 60.6 HTA reek enduro. Not sure if the TT is actual or horizontal. Bombs away!


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> Geometron, shemetron. Cycle Force at Home Depot leads the way.
> 
> Cycle Force 18 in. Cro-mo MTB 29 Frame-CF-930016018 - The Home Depot
> 
> The deets are vague, but 73 STA, and 60.6 HTA reek enduro. Not sure if the TT is actual or horizontal. Bombs away!


Amazon has some reviews on it

http://www.amazon.com/CFG-Cycle-Force-Cro-mo-Frame/dp/B00HPKWDRG


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Funny since the HT is visually steeper than the ST in that pic. Not sure how they can pull off that lie. Love the review that mentions, "modification to the rear axle entry to allow the axle to slide up into locking position." Long CS is the future of smooth and fast.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

www.mbr.co.uk/videos/bikes-and-equi...n-bike-ever-created-video#aJFWIyYEUmIEga4z.99

Is the Nicolai Ion GPI the most radical enduro bike ever created? (VIDEO) - MBR[/url]


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

The better question is: Who the hell cares?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Le Duke said:


> The better question is: Who the hell cares?
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Maybe a new bike technology curious enthusiast?


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> The better question is: Who the hell cares?


Obviously not you, which makes me wonder why you keep clicking on this thread....

I thought it was interesting, though more for the gearbox review than the geometry itself.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I ordered a Mondraker Vantage frame as a backup bike. The reasons I picked it are that my Warden parts and wheels are interchangeable and I'm intrigued by the geometry. Cheapish venture into forward geometry as I have all the parts except brakes and a rear derailleur. The frame comes with a seat collar, headset, and 30mm stem. I have a bar but may need a different rise as my Pike's steerer is already cut. I'll post a review in a month or so. Here is the geometry.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> I ordered a Mondraker Vantage frame as a backup bike. The reasons I picked it are that my Warden parts and wheels are interchangeable and I'm intrigued by the geometry. Cheapish venture into forward geometry as I have all the parts except brakes and a rear derailleur. The frame comes with a seat collar, headset, and 30mm stem. I have a bar but may need a different rise as my Pike's steerer is already cut. I'll post a review in a month or so. Here is the geometry.


Very nice frame.
I am curious to hear what you think about the geo ones you get to know the bike. Let us know.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I'm curious too😉


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

My old favourite frame, a 98 Kona Expolsif has a 585mm TT and fits great with stems 70-90mm, so I figured the Mondraker's 635mm should fit with the 30mm.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Sounds good, keep us updated. I'm also curious...


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Pinkbike asks a few in the industry how far.

1 Question - How Long, Low And Slack Can We Go? - Pinkbike


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

I've ridden and owned lots of bikes and currently have both GPI and Geometron, I have had the Geometron for about 6 months now and put alot of miles on it in terrain from my local flat forest singletrack loop to big days out in the Alps and Pyrenees with 2000m descents after pedalling up, and I have providing demo the bikes to demo with potential customers in the UK in conjunction with Chris at Mojo, Its not my regular job, I'm just passionate about bikes and getting people on bikes they love. I have provided feedback into Nicolai designs and had a number of pushing the envelope custom bikes over the last few years made by Nicolai, mainly because I couldn't buy what I wanted to try, a coupe have made production.

Enough of the background

I can confidently say the Geometron/GPI is not a steep terrain only specialist, its most definitely an all round package, that was the whole point of the design. It climbs and pedals very well, it descends and corners, flat, steep, bermed whatever you like, very very well.

Its heavier than a similarly specced carbon framed (and a lot shorter in most cases) bike by about 1.2kg or just over 2 lbs, but its very strong and it feels light to ride in part I think due to the centralised weight distribution.

The HA is 62 deg on most of the versions sold here with a custom offset 180mm length but 165mm travel fork, that SA of almost 78deg means it really doesn't wander uphill, the chainstays are unfashionably long and the antisquat characteristics keep pedalling firm.

It's easy to say but the numbers on the geo charts don't tell the story of how the bike feels to ride. Its a genuine all rounder.

If you ever get the chance give it a go, I'm pretty sure you'll be surprised. it's not for everyone, but it has taken an unjustified keyboard warrier hammering from people that haven't ridden it except in their head based on a few headline numbers that have jumped off the page.

So for the guys on this thread with an open mind discussing these kind of bikes, cheers for being open minded! I hope to see other manufacturers tryig this stuff out and more riders trying the bikes rather than dismissing them before ever having ridden them in the real world.

For the record this one is NOT lower. There were some lower versions in the proto's and it did begin to have adverse effects, not just on pedalling and pedal strikes. BB drop is -15mm in lowest setting, meaning height is around 340-350mm static, depending on tyres with 155mm rear travel, pretty standard these days I'd say. Its fine with 165 or 170mm cranks.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Thanks for the write up. Can you maneuver the Geometron around tight switch backs? Nothing quite like here in NA.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Travis. I don't class myself as a great rider but I was just fine in super tight alpine switch backs last year, this track has over 1000 corners in its 3000ft plus of descent









It's a slightly different technique to what most people use on tight switchbacks as is riding the bike, not only is it a very front weighted riding style but due to the geo you lean the bike more than a more conventional geo for the same corners, leading to the carve feeling.

If it's crazy tight and you aren't a good euro-hopper (I'm not) then occasionally (and it is rare) you do need a 'truck-driver' technique, but this is fine as there is no interference between bar/leg due to TT length. 
On corners that tight the Nomads and Bronsons of this world on our trip (of which they were in the majority) were having to adopt the same technique, so it wasn't a bike issue.

We rode a couple of tracks last year (Basque Back Country Pyrenees trip, BasqueMTB, shameless plug, it's a stunning weeks riding) were super tight technical; my guide was on a 15 Nomad Carbon, after one notable track in a place called Nocito, famed for its tight technical difficulty, after a fantastic and fast descent he joked that we probably just broke the internet

So that's a long winded it's fine!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

That is beautiful!


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

Travis

Have read up on any geo topic material found in the frame builders forum?

Eric


----------



## shwinn8 (Feb 25, 2006)

My 2001 Schwinn Straight 8 has nearly identical Specs as my 2011 Canfield Jedi.. Both are made from 7005 Series Aluminum


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

I have read all of this post and as a person who frame-builds and evaluates bikes, I am enlightened by this discussion. Never fully understood how riders and lay-persons perceived the bikes they ride. I usually translate a brief into how I can deliver as much as possible into a successful ride. I keep away from 'this is longer but want a shorter' type of design in preference to 'balance'. If I can get the rider correctly balanced on a bike then I can perform all sorts satisfying ride details.

There are all sorts of geometry and combinations out there. Always has been. The MTB emerged from a period of bike building that was very limited in the sense that bikes were road orientated late 1970's. When you frame-built, Tube manufacturer's supplied frame-sets, not frames only (at least from where I could get Reynolds from), so we built frames with variations of fork off-set as frame angles via lugs generally could only give a degree or 2 of adjustment. So, we learned a lot about off-set and trail. Stability versus agility. You may not realize that tubes were pre-cut and available at a maximum length of under 580mm for TT. So to make a modern shape frame as used today was impossible to achieve as thinking of using plain 4130 did not enter our thinking. Because we made our own forks we could offer subtle differences in geo/steering performance.

Something that has not been questioned here is the use of the fork. I don't mean suspension travel, but off-set. Here, 26" = 45mm, 29" = 51mm. You are fixed into a single set of figures for steering. So if I design 3 bikes with 3 differing wheel sizes with a 45mm off-set, using a 51mm wide tire for all of these diameters using a common 71.5 degree Head angle: 26" = 64mm, 27.5" = 69mm and 29" = 75mm of trail. Thats a big change. The higher the figure gets, the less 'steery' a bike becomes, but more stable, and therefore how secure it feels. The trend is towards slacker head angles and because 26" is now out, we will focus on the 29'er. Forks at 46mm off-set give with a 69 degree HT 91mm of trail. 51mm of-set yields 86mm of trail. If you were to build at 62 degrees HT angle you will be in motorcycle MX territory where they have 115mm plus trail. They also have a motor to propel them at much higher speeds than we can manage to pedal to. DH bikes are featuring these specs now so the inherent stability that gravity requires is a desirable trait. The lack of available off-sets in the fork market is restrictive tocreating suitable geo combinations. A 115mm trail is very slow to react at a cyclists speed on level ground and requires wide bars to off-set the steering load. Whether this is a good thing I guess will create more debate. I would like to expose this principle of handling to you so you become more aware of this dynamic. 

To give you an example of what I am getting at, I built a bike for a small person which is used on social trails rather than pure single track. I used 700c x 35 tires, a 71 degree head angle, 51mm off-set for 67mm of trail. I used a narrow 560mm width H/bar. This bike handles gravel very well and is well balanced with a nice light steering feel with good stability. You could use narrower bars on MTB bikes if they continue with longer front centers but with more fork off-set to lighten up the steering.


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

I have read all of this post and as a person who frame-builds and evaluates bikes, I am enlightened by this discussion. Never fully understood how riders and lay-persons perceived the bikes they ride. I usually translate a brief into how I can deliver as much as possible into a successful ride. I keep away from 'this is longer but want a shorter' type of design in preference to 'balance'. If I can get the rider correctly balanced on a bike then I can perform all sorts satisfying ride details.

There are all sorts of geometry and combinations out there. Always has been. The MTB emerged from a period of bike building that was very limited in the sense that bikes were road orientated late 1970's. When you frame-built, Tube manufacturer's supplied frame-sets, not frames only (at least from where I could get Reynolds from), so we built frames with variations of fork off-set as frame angles via lugs generally could only give a degree or 2 of adjustment. So, we learned a lot about off-set and trail. Stability versus agility. You may not realize that tubes were pre-cut and available at a maximum length of under 580mm for TT. So to make a modern shape frame as used today was impossible to achieve as thinking of using plain 4130 did not enter our thinking. Because we made our own forks we could offer subtle differences in geo/steering performance.

Something that has not been questioned here is the use of the fork. I don't mean suspension travel, but off-set. Here, 26" = 45mm, 29" = 51mm. You are fixed into a single set of figures for steering. So if I design 3 bikes with 3 differing wheel sizes with a 45mm off-set, using a 51mm wide tire for all of these diameters using a common 71.5 degree Head angle: 26" = 64mm, 27.5" = 69mm and 29" = 75mm of trail. Thats a big change. The higher the figure gets, the less 'steery' a bike becomes, but more stable, and therefore how secure it feels. The trend is towards slacker head angles and because 26" is now out, we will focus on the 29'er. Forks at 46mm off-set give with a 69 degree HT 91mm of trail. 51mm off-set yields 86mm of trail. If you were to build at 62 degrees HT angle you will be in motorcycle MX territory where they have 115mm plus trail. They also have a motor to propel them at much higher speeds than we can manage to pedal too. DH bikes are featuring these specs now so the inherent stability that gravity requires is a desirable trait. The lack of available off-sets in the fork market is restrictive to creating suitable geo combinations. A 115mm trail is very slow to react at a cyclists speed on level ground and requires wide bars to off-set the steering load. Whether this is a good thing I guess will create more debate. I would like to expose this principle of handling to you so you become more aware of this dynamic. 

To give you an example of what I am getting at, I built a bike for a small person which is used on social trails rather than pure single track. I used 700c x 35 tires, a 71 degree head angle, 51mm off-set for 67mm of trail. I used a narrow 560mm width H/bar. This bike handles gravel very well and is well balanced with a nice light steering feel with good stability. You could use narrower bars on MTB bikes if they continue with longer front centers but with more fork off-set to lighten up the steering.

The main ingredients to geometry are: head tube angle, fork off-set and trail, along with front center (BB to front axle). This is what designers use. 

I have explained only a portion of a frames design. The long TT/ short stem you seem to have a good understanding of so will leave off that topic.

I will note from personal experience the 'short chain-stay' argument. I ride mostly in the gravel grinder category and have experimented with 405mm and 385mm lengths. My observation in real ride conditions on pea gravel over a hard base is that the shorter you go, the quicker the tail lets go in a corner. 425mm is common and no longer considered 'short'. It is a normal length these days. My experimenting will go back to 435-445mm as in my ride conditions it will slow down the loss of grip at high speeds.

Eric


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Hi Eric, I enjoyed reading that.

We have been experimenting and offering different offset with custom forks on the Geometron using different crowns and adjustable crowns (triple clamp) to deliver different trail.
The offset figures you quote are a little high for many forks aren't they, except the 29er category at 46mm or 51mm.

I use a 42mm offset fork with a 30mm stem and 800mm bar, which I much prefer. I don't like the bike too responsive to steering input as it is a dynamic environment and often rough so very subtle movements I find are exaggerated. In fact movements generally are exaggerated.
I prefer that it requires more input from me. We are all different however.
My bike is very much in off-road MX category with 62HA and 42mm offset at 143mm I get it to, 127mm mechanical trail. (Approx 718mm tyre diameter) 
We have found most riders are faster with lower offsets despite feeling slower.
There are riders of 5'6" riding the S Geometron with slightly shorter ETT of 620mm and proving very effective and comfortable on the bike. 
Some riders prefer the longer std offset of 27.5 forks at 44mm but usually with a slightly longer stem, 35mm and 780-800mm bars.
To be clear these are effectively custom forks with crowns/uppers from different wheel size specific forks to achieve this. 
The a Fox 40s sometimes used by riders can now have adjustable offset down to zero.
When a rider tests the Geometron they have the opportunity to try these various combinations and offsets as part of the whole bike set up, suspension etc to determine what works best for them.

Whilst stability is often talked about and on flatter ground these bikes require more physical input with counter steering like a motorbike more in evidence and they corner in a different way to traditional geometry trail mountain bikes , with the longer chainstays they are very forgiving, a fact you allude to, you can safely slide the front and rear wheels without fear of fast breakaway, a function of where the rider is, Critically they don't shrug off speed in corners and have no tendancy to 'tuck', cornering is achieved with more lean angle and less 'steering'. I'd liken it to carving a turn on a snowboard or ski's on a Geomteron Vs sliding/skidding a turn on a board or Ski's. You can feel the acceleration and momentum maintained in the carve.
It's a quite different sensation to ride fast. 

Finally I'd like to say that, certainly the Geometron, it is a package, not one angle or figure as is so often pulled out on paper, the suspension plays a huge part in its handling but all of the angles and lengths in isolation sound a bit crazy, but together they work so well.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Eric Malcolm said:


> The MTB emerged from a period of bike building that was very limited in the sense that bikes were road orientated late 1970's.


Early mountain bikes were much slacker and longer than road bikes. The geometry did shift more towards road bikes by the 1990s, but I believe that had less to do with road influence than it did riders looking for a more lively bike.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

The CAP (Constant Attack Position) design of the Foes Mixer is interesting. Read about it, and how it inspires confidence, here: Final Review: The Foes Mixer Enduro | Singletracks Mountain Bike News


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

The Foes Mixer has been done for the last couple of years by liteville and other European bikes using this technique, I tried this with some custom designs but wasn't keen on the characteristics. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

The Foes website does not give much geometry info.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> The CAP (Constant Attack Position) design of the Foes Mixer is interesting. Read about it, and how it inspires confidence, here: Final Review: The Foes Mixer Enduro | Singletracks Mountain Bike News


It doesn't seem to have the geometry we are talking about here, but the reviewer seems to love it.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

The only self hucking bike I know of.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Coincidentally, pinkbike just published their review on the trail version of the Mixer with similar impressions: Foes Mixer Trail - Review - Pinkbike


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I ride a Warden and it has a good bit of reach for it's size but I have been interested in trying a really long front end after reading a few interesting geometry articles. I ordered a 2016 Mondraker Vantage frame that incorporates their forward geometry to try it out without remortgaging my house. I live in BC so it took a while to get the frame frame Europe, but it came by post and shipping and taxes was under $80CDN which surprised me. The frame looks good, decently finished, beefy without being really heavy, and comes with a headset and 30mm stem. It is meant to have a 140mm fork but I tried my 160mm Pike to see what it was like before I lower it. I haven't weighed it but it's lighter than my 29lb Warden. when I built it I slammed the stem with a flat bar because the front end looked high, but it's tool low and I'll raise it today. Other than that it fit well. I hit the trail with my crew yesterday and my first thought was that in spite of the long top tube and short stem, it felt normal. A few minutes on a flat gravel road and I really only noticed the immediate power response of being on a hardtail. Then we hit the climbs which went fine. It tracked well and the front end stuck to the ground. The only hiccups were from the lack of 150mm of rear suspension and my not being on a hardtail for quite a few years. Once that was down we hit some easy fast descent followed by a twisty, soft, and rooty section. On the first part I stayed with the faster guys carving corners and was impressed with the handling. Nothing quirky, just stable while nimble when it came time to turn. Once in the tighter section I found myself getting hung up on the larger roots but the tight corners were not an issue. I'll try some tighter sections today to get a better impression. On the section with chunky rocks I missed the Warden, but still kept up. On the final fast, curvy descent I leaned low over the stem and tried to stay off the brakes. Stability and cornering prowess were my impressions of that section. Overall I was impressed, by the geometry, handling, and being able to keep up on a hardtail.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Aren't your trails covered with snow this time of year?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> Aren't your trails covered with snow this time of year?


Only if you go high enough😀


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> Only if you go high enough


What about mud? We can't ride around here because of the muddy clay soil.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

If muddy clay soil stopped me riding I'd be out for at least half the year!!


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> Only if you go high enough😀


That's pretty lucky. In Colorado, you can't get low enough, although lots of people ride their fat bikes or ride frozen trails. there are opportunities if you are dedicated enough, but I usually find I'm not having a whole lot of fun when I try to ride in winter.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

David R said:


> If muddy clay soil stopped me riding I'd be out for at least half the year!!


I don't think you have clay like this. Heavy and sticky. Builds up on the tires locking up the wheels. I could go elsewhere and ride where the soil conditions are better though. I just ride my road bike instead.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Here are my initial impressions of the Mondraker Vantage


I recently built up a Mondraker Vantage all mountain hardtail as a 2nd bike and I've been riding it for about a week. I'm 5'9.5" and chose the medium with a 635mm top tube, 461mm reach, 1170mm wheelbase and 606mm of stack with a 140mm fork. If you know anything at all about bike fit this will sound extremely long to you. This is Mondrakers forward geometry and the frame came with their house brand 30mm stem. The long top tube combined with the 30mm stem puts me in a normal riding position. 

My spec is:

Frame. Medium Mondraker Vantage
Fork. Rockshox Pike RCT3 140mm
Headset. FSA no 57 (included with frame)
Stem. Onoff Stoic FG 30mm
Bar. Raceface SIXC 31.8, 20mm rise, 760mm width
Grips. ESI Chunky
Seatpost. KS LEV 150mm drop with Southpaw lever
Saddle. ANVL Forge cromoly
Hubs. Hope Pro 2
Spokes. Sapim Race
Rims. Flow EX 650b
Tires. On-One Chunky Monkey 650b
Brakes. Shimano SLX 203 front, 180 rear
Shifter. XT 10 speed
Derailleur XT 10 speed with Oneup RADR cage
Cassettte. XT 10 speed with Wolftooth 42t cog
Chain. KMC X93 10 speed
Crankset Raceface Deus 175 3X
Chainring. Raceface 30t NW
Pedals. Raceface Atlas Flat, also have XT trail for summer
Mudguards Mudhugger front and rear. Marshguard only in summer

Initially I had the fork set at 160mm because it came off my Warden. At 160mm the bike was slacked out to 66 degrees and the bike descended with stability and carved corners with confidence. I had intended that this would be my go to bike for slop and tight twisty trails. Yesterday I changed the Pike to 140mm and replaced a flat bar with the 20mm ride SIXC. A dramatic change. The handling became much more flickable, making tight corners and changing lines very easy. The cornering was still good, but not quite as stable. It seems like a good compromise between quick steering and stability. Climbing, even steep pitches is very good and the front end doesn't wander any more than any other bike I've been on. The feeling that the 30mm stem gives when going over an obstacle is very confidence inspiring. Going over the bars is going to take some effort on this bike All in all a great all mountain HT that is versatile with a change in fork travel. I'm impressed by the feeling a 30mm stem gives me and will be looking for longer top tubes and reach in the future.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Hey Travis you need a GeoMetron!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

We went for a great ride today and the Vantage continues to impres with is normal handling and descending prowess. Great in the tight corners today.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I've been riding the Vantage with the 635mm top tube and 30mm stem with my 5'9.5" old man body and really feel that I've been sold a load of crap regarding bike fit the last 29 years of mtbing. There has been no downside climbing or cornering, only more DHability and confidence.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

:thumbsup:

My "long" Warden feels like how a normal bike should feel. I couldn't imagine going back to anything shorter, and would be very interested to try something longer.


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

Travis Bickle said:


> I've been riding the Vantage with the 635mm top tube and 30mm stem with my 5'9.5" old man body and really feel that I've been sold a load of crap regarding bike fit the last 29 years of mtbing. There has been no downside climbing or cornering, only more DHability and confidence.


Travis, remember that bike fit is located in 3 positions. In terms of saddle positioning to the H/bar, this is always a personal fixed length (as are all the others). How the bike fits between that is not so clear. But the result that you have now experienced is predictable in that the front center (BB to front axle) plays a greater role than you may have realized. The results of the change that you have now will result in greater stability with little loss of steering control, but it is likely to be a little more difficult to lift the front wheel, depending on where you are placed for balance (your CoG) within the frame.

Personally, I like the long TT designs, they seem to be better suited to the MTB usage.

Continue to explore the new perimeters of this varied topic. Old ideas do die hard in the cycle industry.

Eric


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

The reach on a new school bike like the Whyte T-130 Carbon is 449mm on a medium (had to double check this, but it's accurate according to Whyte) with a 611mm ETT. Mondraker's is even longer. The steeper seat angle keeps the ETT from appearing too stretched. Plenty of options in between if people don't want to make the jump to something very unfamiliar to them.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Travis, I'm 5'10", my Geometron is a M, 640mm ETT, 35mm stem. 505mm reach, I cant imagine anything shorter. In fact I'm about to start testing with the 660mm L (520mm reach) with a shortened ST to the same as the M. I have the option of both a 30mm stem, a Pacenti 25mm or indeed using a -5mm headset in conjunction with the saddle position.

My last bike had a 662mm ETT and was just fine in general, a little long occasionally for flat trail use, but that was remedied with a a slightly higher rise bar.

The GeoMetron I am using is running a 61HA with 78deg SA at the moment (I am riding the GPI gearbox/beltdrive) my std GeoMetron is running 62deg. 

The limit I have found with the HA is how aggressive you are as a rider, it provides many many benefits generally if the bike is designed as a whole like the GeoMetron but if you do not weight the front properly it will wash out, if you do it provides traction, confidence and forgiveness like you've never before (for me anyway). 

As such I need to find the length, in terms of reach, not so much ETT that delivers the out of saddle riding position where I naturally weight the front but still have plenty of room.

i think I am there with the current incarnation but I keep testing the limits...


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Yup, you need to find how much is too much before you can know what is the correct amount. This goes for most, if not all measurements. If you have only ever been on bikes with short reach, steep angles, and longer stems, you will think it's great because you don't know if "modern" is better.


----------



## tatankainlondon (Apr 4, 2004)

the_pilot said:


> Travis, I'm 5'10", my Geometron is a M, 640mm ETT, 35mm stem. 505mm reach, I cant imagine anything shorter. In fact I'm about to start testing with the 660mm L (520mm reach) with a shortened ST to the same as the M. I have the option of both a 30mm stem, a Pacenti 25mm or indeed using a -5mm headset in conjunction with the saddle position.


So what would the advantage of the L frame over the M frame?


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Tatankainlondon possibly no advantage, in fact possibly the opposite. But unless you try these things, you never know. I suspect it will be too long for me, but there are things I can do to adjust that, key is if I am aggressive enough to make use of it, that I don't know.
If it's too long then I'll crash a lot!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Beating the dead horse some more. Mike Levy's interview with Scott Nicol of Ibis.

Levy: The Mojo 3 is roomier than past models, but Ibis hasn't embraced the super-long geo as fully as some other brands have. Why is that?

Nicol: We're constantly making our bikes longer up front and shorter in the rear (thank you, Boost), but we're not compelled to push the outer limits of reach. A super long reach is an advantage on the super steeps, but a disadvantage nearly everywhere else.

It's hard to get enough weight on the front wheel. Not everybody wants to ride that aggressively all the time, so we try to strike a balance.

Ibis Mojo 3 - Review - Pinkbike


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Yup, I found that interesting. I almost bought a HD3 last year and because we have no local dealer I called Ibis and asked about sizing. I was told that at 5"9.5" to get a large to get the proper reach and TT even though the large has what is probably too much seat tube for me. I was told it would work but would be tight. Kind of goes against what SN says. Weighting the front end is only an issue initially, until you get used to it, and I think most people are adaptable enough. It could be an issue if you have multiple bikes, but riders have been doing this for a long time with DH and other bikes.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I think he's talking about not pushing the limits of HA, not actual reach, based on the context. A longer downtube creates a longer lever which helps make up for the rearward shift of weight balance. A slackened head angle does not; slack HA puts a higher % of what force is going into the front, into the bending fork's legs (inducing bushing bind in susp forks), leaving even less to go into the wheel. The force from your bodyweight (BB, saddle, and handlebar) and inputs that goes towards the front wheel converges at the headtube, then from there pushes down on the fork, and then finally to the wheel. The extra force going into the rear wheel, from the extra rearward weight bias, increases the risk of flats, damage to tire, rim, wheel and rear triangle, and places more demand on the rear suspension.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Gotta disagree totally with last post. Loving this GeoMetron Evo version so much grip and amazing turn in., if you just make it slacker, yes, you have to think about the whole bikes geo and weight distribution, don't knock it till you've tried it....









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Holy ****, that thing makes my Warden look like an XC bike!! 

Would love to have a hoon one one some time, it's probably a bit long to be an every-day bike for me here, but as you say; don't knock it til you've tried it...


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

It is an everyday trail bike a lot of short, tight, steep techy trails in the UK but also a lot of pretty flat woodsy Singletrack for most of us. It needs to work on all that stuff.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## boomslang64 (Feb 18, 2015)

the_pilot said:


> Gotta disagree totally with last post. Loving this GeoMetron Evo version so much grip and amazing turn in., if you just make it slacker, yes, you have to think about the whole bikes geo and weight distribution, don't knock it till you've tried it....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That thing is incredible.

I have a Warden now, not exactly a short reach bike. I want to go even longer for my next frame.


----------



## dfellb (Apr 29, 2016)

Long and low is the way to go


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Geometron

http://radventure.cc/mojo-nicolai-geometron/


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/c.../product/review-mojo-nicolai-geometron-50373/

REVIEW
By Seb Stott
May 15, 2016 7:00am
Mojo/Nicolai GeoMetron review£5,450.00
Welsh-German collaboration drops the mic on the subject of long, low and slack
BikeRadar score
4.5/5
Radical mountain bike geometry is becoming more mainstream but Mojo Nicolai s GeoMetron is pushing the envelope

"Takes practice, but the high-speed potential is outrageous. The demo fee could be your wisest investment"
Highs: Insane descending ability matched with surprising climbing prowess, almost peerless suspension setup, huge menu of rider-specific tweaks available
Lows: Super slack front end means it can be a handful on tight switchbacks; you'll need to consciously adjust your technique to get the most from it

Buy if: You want a blisteringly fast, lovingly fettled ride that's pushing the margins of modern mountain bike design Mojo boss Chris Porter has stretched geometry and suspension tech way beyond conventional limits, hoping to create the fastest descending bike that still climbs well.

Available in three sizes - long, longer and longest - it extrapolates current geometry trends years into the future.

Mojo/Nicolai's GeoMetron plots a future for mountain bike design
But has he created a masterpiece or a monster? We've been riding the aptly named GeoMetron on a huge range of familiar trails to find out. It's been an eye-opening experience.

Function over form

Despite its outrageous 520mm reach, the industrial-looking alloy frame feels exceptionally stiff under power and when wrenching on the bars. The Horst-Link rear suspension is tweaked to boost initial sensitivity and midstroke support, thereby complementing air shocks.

Once you go slack, you never go back

If you get on board the GeoMetron thinking such a long and slack bike won't climb well, you'll be in for a shock. While the 62.8-degree (with 180mm fork) front end was slightly slow to respond in tight trail centre switchbacks, the head angle has surprisingly little bearing on how a bike climbs.

Nicolai Ion GPI - the gearbox MTB of the future?
Instead it's the radically steep 77-degree seat angle that defines the way up. Combined with a long-ish chainstay length (445mm), this makes it dead easy to stop the front wheel lifting on steep efforts. There's also less strain on the back of your thighs, there's no need to perch on the nose off the saddle, and we never wanted for a lockout.

Shimano XTR gives a 40t crawler gear for getting up brutal climbs

Meanwhile, the active suspension works busily underneath you, softening terrain as you attack technical pitches with dignified ease. I was often surprised at the slippery sections I managed to get up, and how easy the 32-40t lowest gear felt on otherwise brutal climbs. The suspension doesn't respond well to out-of-the-saddle sprints, but it's otherwise an effortless climber. At 14.6kg (32.2lb) in the 'Longest' size, it's not as heavy as you might think either.

While climbing was a breeze from the get-go, descending - perhaps surprisingly - took some getting used to. At first, I found myself too rearward on steep descents, especially when riding sections blind or nervously, causing the front end to lose traction. It takes a conscious effort to weight the front wheel and attack the trail, and this took practice.

Similarly, I found myself running wide in tight bends until I got used to the lazy steering. Both issues diminished the more I rode it, but it'll never be the best choice for super-tight alpine switchbacks.

It's necessary to consciously weight the bike's front end on descents in order to maximise traction: 
It's necessary to consciously weight the bike's front end on descents in order to maximise traction

On certain familiar stretches though, the bike simply shone. The steep and rocky 'Jawbone' trail at Innerleithen, Scotland is one my favourites - I've ridden it literally dozens of times aboard a range of different bikes. Only the GeoMetron managed its slippery, rocky corners in a manner that felt totally calm and in control, not to mention effortlessly fast.

The slack head angle, long stays and overall wheelbase (1310mm) make slipping through random rocks, roots and ruts incredibly manageable, while the supple suspension retains composure and generates traction like nothing I've ridden before.

Confidence booster

Set up with input from Mojo, the fork was ridiculously supportive in the midstroke, allowing me to push hard through the bars to weight the front wheel with authority as my confidence grew. The GeoMetron carved through hardpack berms at Cwmcarn, in Wales, with an exit speed that often surprised me.

Before long, I needed higher pressures in the front tyre than I'd normally get away with, suggesting I was weighting the front harder than normal once I learned to trust the geometry. For this reason, it could be worth considering a wider-rimmed wheelset than the 23mm Mavic Crossmax Xl stocked to support the tyres better during hard cornering.

The rear suspension was very active over small-medium hits, yet with six volume spacers fitted, extremely progressive towards the end of its travel. I added four clicks of low-speed compression to sacrifice some of this suppleness for responsiveness when pedalling or pumping through the lumpy, bumpy trails of the Tweed Valley.

Completing the impressive specification is Hope's new forged crankset

As mentioned above, the GeoMetron does feel lazy when stamping on the pedals or negotiating super-tight switchbacks, but it's otherwise ruthlessly quick, confident and stable. It goads you to let the brakes go and attack the trail like never before.

It was able to plough through technical rock sections at speed without fuss, but if you look at the geometry, that's not surprising.

Once you've acclimatised to the geometron, most other bikes start to feel slow: 
Once you've acclimatised to the GeoMetron, most other bikes start to feel slow

What surprised me most was how it calmly carried speed through even pretty tight corners, the low BB allowing fairly rapid changes of direction, and the long, slack geometry making it easy to correct things if it all went wrong. The longer wheelbase had me looking for new lines to widen out corners, but that's all part of the fun.

The more I rode the GeoMetron, the more I liked it. Now, most other bikes (with the exception of Pole's Evolink 140 and Mondraker's Crafty) feel cramped, nervous and slow.

It won't suit everyone, but Mojo offers a demo service for £200, so you can see if it's to your liking, and it's refundable if you decide to purchase. We reckon most who taste it will get their downpayment back.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

^ And keeping the controversy alive and well, I'll take jazzanova for $200 Alex.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I'd like to see someone ride that bike around a tight, steep uphill switchback.

While I sit there eating popcorn.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Been there done it loads Le Duke only on an even longer version. Check or the switchback pictures I posted earlier in the thread. I added this on FB to what Seb said. 
Good review from Seb of the GeoMetron. Pretty much sums up what longer term riders feel.
I'd add that steep and tight switchbacks, alpine or otherwise can be dispatched with confidence due to that grip on the front, the technique is learned quickly. Crazy tight U turns are always going to be a little harder, but if those corners are the highlight of your day this probably isn't the right bike.
It is easy as Seb says, to set the rear to favour more aggressive pedalling styles, sacrificing a little suppleness, but after the sacrifice it's still damn supple, I don't affect it so much at 70kg. And have never felt the need for a platform even with compression fully backed off.
You can build it lighter if you want with some carefully chosen components, but realistically you'll push this bike hard so to keep reliability less weight won't be cheap, as the phrase goes, but dropping the weight by 1.5lbs is not too difficult.

There is now an XL size too for those of an even taller persuasion.

Now you can order or test the bike with a 5mm longer rear swingarm, longer stroke shock to give more travel, and grip, but Mojo can set it up to retain the same feel and pedalling as the shorter travel bike so becomes even more versatile...
I run mine with this setup and a bit slacker still, a hair under 60.8 deg and a steeper seat angle, this has just evolved as I have become more and more comfortable with the riding style over the last year or so, I enjoy riding it more and more.
This crazy slack, long travel bike has become my everything bike for MTB. I ride the local flattish, pedally woodland Singletrack, Steep and tight UK stuff like Hebden, UK trail centres and Alps/Pyrenees/Finale tracks with basically some tyre changes and it's fantastic fun on all of them. 

Riding it is key, ignore the numbers and what the Internet says it should be like. 

I hope other manufacturers push themselves in this way, thinking of the bike as a whole, not just a bit longer at the front or a bit slacker, a bike, especially a suspension bike, is the sum of its parts.
If we want to make real progress it needs to be more of this, not a different tyre size or front axle diameter..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

These are in the Pyrenees from last year.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Sorry, but those, particularly the last picture, are hardly "tight" and there are no trees on the inside or outside of the corner.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Sorry top two are the same. Phone fail! You should be able to zoom in.
Basque MTB Back Country Pyrenees tour of you're interested. Outstanding riding. Incredibly varied, mostly uplifted. Barely used trails mostly old trade and walking trails but also some newer trails in Zona Zero, Ainsa where a round of the the Enduro World Series was held last year. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Wow, an opinion from someone who has actually ridden one.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

You should be able to see the rest of the trail, it is tight further down and becomes forested. you're right at that point no trees on inside and outside but there are high banks and rocks, inside and outside to constrain your turn. We didn't take pictures of the forested stuff, kinda hard. If you haven't tried one, don't knock it. Does it require a different technique, yes. Can it be done, yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Looking up from the stn you can see where it starts to become forested on the left.

Then looking down from just below the first section, the descent is into that valley where the abandoned station is in the top pic.

It was actually rock steps, around right switchbacks with trees both sides at times, definitely challenging and 6000ft of decent in the one hit, 100s of switchbacks on it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

How can such a slack HA be both conifidence inspiring and require so much adjustment to avoid that insecure feeling of the front wheel washing out? Forgive me if I am skeptical. I have a "slacker" bike that I ride most of the time and it is jaw dropping steep 67 HA. yet it required a lot of adjustment from me before it felt normal. it is the first "slack" biuke I have ridden. What I found is that the slacker bikes need to be ridden with the "centered" position of the rider more forward. that's not for everybody, at least when we are talking about us mere mortal rider.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

cjsb said:


> How can such a slack HA be both conifidence inspiring and require so much adjustment to avoid that insecure feeling of the front wheel washing out? Forgive me if I am skeptical. I have a "slacker" bike that I ride most of the time and it is jaw dropping steep 67 HA. yet it required a lot of adjustment from me before it felt normal. it is the first "slack" biuke I have ridden. What I found is that the slacker bikes need to be ridden with the "centered" position of the rider more forward. that's not for everybody, at least when we are talking about us mere mortal rider.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


This is from the review.

"While climbing was a breeze from the get-go, descending - perhaps surprisingly - took some getting used to. At first, I found myself too rearward on steep descents, especially when riding sections blind or nervously, causing the front end to lose traction. It takes a conscious effort to weight the front wheel and attack the trail, and this took practice."

Anyone can learn to ride more centred, it just takes practice. People are used to what they have, but that doesn't mean they can't adapt.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> Sorry, but those, particularly the last picture, are hardly "tight" and there are no trees on the inside or outside of the corner.


No wonder all the switch backs in my area are widened. Look at that last picture how the guy is a couple feet off of the trail. No real singletrack around here, stays singletrack for long, where there are turns involved.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> No wonder all the switch backs in my area are widened. Look at that last picture how the guy is a couple feet off of the trail. No real singletrack around here, stays singletrack for long, where there are turns involved.


One good thing about living in an extremely rocky area is that going off the relatively narrow band of semi-dirt has quick and dire consequences.

People can't ride like this without high-siding. Also, notice how wide that fire road...err..."trail" is.


__
http://instagr.am/p/BFVACrGTL-H/

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Le Duke, well that is a pretty damn wide trail.

I'd take a high line into a switchback that might not be 'the 12in of singletrack' to get a good, smooth and quick line out even if that line in was rougher or rocky. Cutting a corner, thats a different matter and a no no in my book. Running wide in that pic is because of what was on the inside of that corner, it's a bit of a 'channel' in and gets tight around the BB with some rocks on the outside, forcing you only on the singletrack unless you've adopted the right line in and been brave, if you go in wrong you come out wrong!

The GeoMetron does effectively centre you as Travis mentions, longer rear centre and longer front centre. You could argue that you just don't have to move your weight back, the reach naturally puts you in a front weighted position on this bike, the ST is steep so when you get out of the saddle the pedal/bar position doesnt change as much as on a normal bike with say a 74 or 75deg SA.
On many bikes you can't weight the front for traction too much when it's steep and or tight, particularly into corners under braking or over steps/drop downs unless you are highly skilled, hence why many 'sit back'. It's not wrong per se, just a natural adaption (well it kinda is, getting lower and staying centred to maintain weight distribution is ideal) to the geometry of the bike the rider is on. On a GeoMetron the front wheel is a long way in front of the rider due to that HA and you would haveto work really hard to go over, added to that the fork is modified from the standard 36 to provide much more mid stroke support as Seb says, this means it sits up much more under braking forces, again allowing you to keep the front weighted for traction and control.
What is clear from all the testing/development with the GeoMetron, and I have done loads of demo's with people now, is that riders adapt to the bike quite naturally.

When trying to set up a bike for a rider that is more inclined to sit up and/or back in cornering or descending (natural given most are coming off shorter overall, steeper and shorter front centre bikes but many riders adapt immediately and naturally) it can help to set the rear firm and front end softer for a few runs, but without communicating that overtly, the rider gets used to the feeling/position on the bike and gradually, as he/she gains confidence that that position isn't going to cause him to tuck the front braking into a steep corner or go over the bars on steep stuff the suspension can be dialled back to a more balanced set up, but the rider 'memory' is there then and the confidence in it being ok to be more centred increases.

Its been a very interesting journey and its not over yet. We are still developing , learning, experimenting..
Its not nirvana for everyone of course, thats understood.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Yep, not nirvana for everyone; there's a sweet spot for each person and trail. To me it kind of slots in as one step below DH bike, with a proper seating position and a bit of optimizing/compromising done to allow for pedaling uphill. People used to call them freeride bikes, but they aren't only for that and people greatly underestimate their pedaling performance. I used to have a Yeti ASR7 that was a 7" bike that was meant for big mountain riding, in more of an AM/Enduro style. Odd how bikes are going back into that direction and people are rediscovering it, now they're more refined. I know my Yeti's slack SA became noticable on real steeps (trying to ride back up what I just rode down). Problem with the bikes is that they were so capable, that you couldn't help but put beefier parts on it to take advantage of it, and then end up with a heavyweight.

The same media source people keep linking to also gave 5 stars to a Whyte 130. The UK bias is strong in them. Also, since they include pricing/value in their star ratings, and imports from the US like from Yeti, cost about the same to them in GBP as it does to Americans in USD (even though a GBP is over 50% more valuable, so it's like paying over 50% more), you need to take that into consideration. The YT Capra also got a 5 star from them too, and those 5 stars are rare. More to the geo, but still interesting to hear all responses to the exaggerated fears that people have regarding such long geo (tied to wider turning radiuses), and front to rear weight balancing issues. Reminds me of the flak that 29ers with wider than normal wheelbases got too, yet 29er riders said the same, that they did switchbacks just fine and were faster. 

Sad that most of the talk is about HA and wheelbase. What about the other parts of the geo: 77d SA, 445mm chainstay, and what else that's not normal?


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

It's the sum of its parts Varaxis. The suspension, the fact the rear curve was designed around the shock, the reach/central position arising from thT SA and how that works with the HA. The impact the HA has on steering feel is key, NOT stability, it has almost nothing to do with stability on this bike, but about making it corner in a certain way, the position changes how the bike works at the limit of traction, you can lose traction at the front but it's controllable, same if you lose it at both ends. It's interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> This is from the review.
> 
> "While climbing was a breeze from the get-go, descending - perhaps surprisingly - took some getting used to. At first, I found myself too rearward on steep descents, especially when riding sections blind or nervously, causing the front end to lose traction. It takes a conscious effort to weight the front wheel and attack the trail, and this took practice."
> 
> Anyone can learn to ride more centred, it just takes practice. People are used to what they have, but that doesn't mean they can't adapt.


I am not arguing with you on the point that you make that riders can adapt to different things. In general that is true. It would probably be better if you hadn't ridden 70 HA bikes for years to adapt.

But I think, and this is just my opinion, riding on the front of the bike also feels different and for those with less of a moto background, the knee-jerk reaction may be to push the weight of yourself back.

Maybe what I am saying is tat it takes more skill and confidence to ride up front and event to the point where you can get a slack bike to drift with confidence. yes, riders can adapt and the more they ride trails where the main thing is downhill and flow and high speed then the more likely they will adapt. Most riders, in general, porobably are not comfortable with riding this way and it takes more change than the reviewers let on, but I agree it can be done. And there may be a ton of riders out there who want to do this kind of riding enough to where it is a trend to even slacker bikes.

For me, am enjoying my slack but now out dated 67HA bike. My next bike however, is much more likely to be a bike that is more nimble, might be the same HA or a 68, shorter travel, shorter stays, e.g., a full suspension short travel version of my Yelli.

Overall, I think the article is not as realistic on the transition for riders.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I don't think anyone can adapt to a 77 degree STA. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Le Duke said:


> I don't think anyone can adapt to a 77 degree STA.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Its always refreshing when ones opinion is based on real experience as opposed to just some internet speculation...


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

jazzanova said:


> Its always refreshing when ones opinion is based on real experience as opposed to just an internet speculation...


Ok. How about this:

Bikes designed for actual pedaling place the saddle an appropriate distance behind the BB. Not nose-over-BB.

I can re-post the saddle setbacks of people who get paid to ride bikes really fast if you wish to contest this. There's a reason most bikes don't have STAs like that: they are designed with some allowance for pedaling efficiency.

Unless you're a small person or have 8" femurs, bikes set up like that are a serious compromise for only one dimension of riding.

If you don't mind trundling, that's cool, but some of us still like to go fast both up and down.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Yes, having learned on old school 26 XC bikes does not make weighting the front end of a modern trail/AM bike instinctive.


----------



## banditpowdercoat (Aug 13, 2015)

Makes sense when I demod a new stumpy right after riding my 07 stumpy. Yup climbing was superb. Dh straight was nice but corners, especially a corner at the bottom of a little dh section I was washing out the front. Rather scary a time or two too. I guess used to being able to be back farther on my 07. Felt unnatural to get over bars to much on the down. I know I would get used to it and opened my eyes for when I rent a bike for lift assist days on what my stance should change 


Sent from my iPhone while my Heli plays with the gophers


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> Ok. How about this:
> 
> Bikes designed for actual pedaling place the saddle an appropriate distance behind the BB. Not nose-over-BB.
> 
> ...


I'd be more open to hearing what they say. Geo is a big juggling act to find the balance in it all. With such a long center, it would make weight more rearward if you kept the rear short and seat angle normal. Making it steeper and CS longer seems to make sense. DHers that like rocky east coast stuff like Neko Mulally seem to be more comfortable in the longer CS setting of their adjustable dropouts. The longer it is, the less the rear of the bike angles/pitches up as you roll over obstacles (same with the front center, with the longer it is, the less the front pitches up/down from bumps and dips).

Though it might possibly recruit different muscles to pedal, ones that you probably don't train on other bikes like on a road bike, if you work at it knowing that you won't be able to pedal the thing as fast as you did your previous bike, I can see the body adapting fine and getting back up to speed within maybe 200 miles. That likely means that switching back to a "normal" bike would be met with similar adapting issues though.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> I'd be more open to hearing what they say. Geo is a big juggling act to find the balance in it all. With such a long center, it would make weight more rearward if you kept the rear short and seat angle normal. Making it steeper and CS longer seems to make sense. DHers that like rocky east coast stuff like Neko Mulally seem to be more comfortable in the longer CS setting of their adjustable dropouts. The longer it is, the less the rear of the bike angles/pitches up as you roll over obstacles (same with the front center, with the longer it is, the less the front pitches up/down from bumps and dips).
> 
> Though it might possibly recruit different muscles to pedal, ones that you probably don't train on other bikes like on a road bike, if you work at it knowing that you won't be able to pedal the thing as fast as you did your previous bike, I can see the body adapting fine and getting back up to speed within maybe 200 miles. That likely means that switching back to a "normal" bike would be met with similar adapting issues though.


While you can adapt to a different position, that doesn't mean that it is as efficient or as powerful as the previous position.

There are world class road cyclists that ride their TT bikes a couple of days a week that still experience significant (10% or more) power drop offs because of the compromised riding positions they put themselves in for the sake of aerodynamics.

Are they faster in that compromised position? In a typical time trial, where aerodynamics plays a significant role? Yes.

But if the time trial involves a significant amount of climbing, many guys still switch bikes during the event itself, sacrificing valuable time, in order to optimize their position to produce the most power. That's pretty telling.

Now, someone is going to bring up, "Road riding isn't MTB", and I'm going to point to the fact that we're talking about many individuals, riding in two positions, that have shown a significant drop off in power despite a long term adaptation to both.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I'm more of a believer that you produce optimal power in precisely whatever you trained up, and precisely how you trained it up. In short, you become more efficient at what you repeat.

They can't expect to translate all their time training on a road bike, directly over to a TT bike, because its geo is different and uses different muscles. Basically making the same point, just using it to support a different idea. If they spent 4 days of the week training on the TT bike, their power will likely drop off on their road bike, even if they spend a couple days of the week on it.

Here's a metaphor to elaborate: if you optimized yourself to bench press 2x your weight, you shouldn't expect to be able to do 100+ nonstop push-ups in under 2 minutes, because you trained bench presses for months, without doing a single push-up. Even though it uses similar muscles, the smaller support muscles that are required in the push-up movement will fatigue sooner, making it seem like you don't have power to do that many. Can't just think that maybe doing 25 push-ups here and there, and relying on bench presses to increase strength will allow you to reach 100+ push-ups, thinking that the 25 here and there can make your body adapt to use the power gained from bench presses. It might allow them to do more explosive push-ups, pushing off and clapping their hands twice in the air, but fatigue will set in quickly after doing a few of those too.

Maybe some mtbs have 71/73 geo precisely because it allows those that have trained up their muscles on the road bike to more seamlessly make use of those muscles on the mtb.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

The "problem" is that that's been debunked, in a way.

There was a long running thread on Slowtwitch a couple of years ago in which triathletes discussed switching back and forth between the Olympic and IM distances. Guys would spend years on one, then switch. They discussed their power training results ad nauseam.

In most cases, most people had a significant loss in power in a TT position.

Even (Sir) Bradley Wiggins, who spent months and months trying to put in a "perfect ride" on the track, suffered significant power losses while riding the track, despite being one of the best trained and most highly monitored/coached athletes in the world. He publicly stated that his power would be lower than it would be on a road bike despite gaining weight specifically for this attempt.

About the bench press thing:

I'm sure there is established, optimal form for the bench press. Hands a certain width apart, etc. I'll have a 1RM of 250lbs. No matter what I do, no matter how I train, physiology is going to dictate that using a sub-optimal method is going to result in a sub-maximal 1RM. No matter how long and hard I train, in that sub-optimal too wide or too narrow position, I'm never going to be able to match the optimal position.


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

So there are two very different trains of thought going on here: 1) the most optimal /efficient /power position, and 2) the best riding position for actually riding on trails. For the first one, obviously, the terrain for the most part is static - mostly flat with no variance except a slight grade up or down. With nothing in the terrain changing, the only other thing to do are micro adjustments within the boundaries/confines of the bike itself in order to be the most optimal/efficient/powerful position that you can be. 

On the flip side, mountain biking is where the bike itself is the only real constant, whereas the trail is constantly evolving. Up/down/side to side - the terrain is a very organic, multi-faceted, and dynamic. You don't just sit and spin - you are constantly moving, pedaling, coasting, braking, out of the saddle, in the air, etc. in order to meet the demands of the trail. 

Moving to a longer and lower geometry is more stable in those ever-changing conditions. As the speed increases, a bike that has a longer wheelbase will feel more planted than a bike that has a shorter wheelbase. This is usually accomplished by either stretching the chainstay or by slackening out the fork. Ideally, you would want a bike that has a good compromise of both. This will naturally lower the center of gravity (and lower the BB) to continue to make you even more planted and stable at speed. 

So as you come into a typical rock garden at speed, a short wheelbase bike with a high center of gravity (high bottom bracket) is dictated by line choice, lower entry speed, and trying to work around the bike in order to clean the obstacle. The optimal power position will not help you in clearing it. If you come into that same rock garden with a longer bike with a lower center of gravity, not only can you carry more speed, you tend to be able to ignore line choice and look farther ahead to setup for the next obstacle - which in turn makes you faster. And faster. And faster.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

My point was that, unless you shuttle or take lifts exclusively, the vast majority of your time is spent seated, applying pressure to the pedals. To some people, getting up fast still matters.

These bikes HAVE to have a steep seat tube in order to enable the rider to reach the bars. Those four degrees of STA move the rider forward a couple of inches. Even with the shortest stem possible, something has to give. 

In this case, it was pedaling efficiency and power production for downhill prowess.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I've spent some time on a Cervelo P3 TT bike (I have an S2). Trying to climb in such a forward position is awkward. I kept trying to slide back on the saddle. I was tiring out faster than normal, to the point where I turned around on one of my normal climbs.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

The pedalling position places more emphasis on different muscles yes. I experience much less tight hamstrings with this setup, yes there is less glute/hamstring interference, less lower back stress on big climbs.

So Le Duke the actual SA, the dynamic SA is 74-75deg. This was a deliberate design decision. 

Guess what, the 74-75deg of your 'efficient road bikes' is without Suspension or sag or dynamic changes. 
The rear suspension and curve is designed so support at the point in the travel that both delivers good anti squat and natural air chamber support such that the rider is pedalling with a SA very similar to the max efficiency you quote from the road discipline.
Thus 'normal' MTB dynamic SA with sag (on a bike with a static unloaded SA of 74-75) is nearer 72-73deg, so is a lot slacker and I believe less efficient placing too much emphasis on the glute/hamstring and lower back but also linked to the HA of bikes...
Your hypothesising, I am writing from having ridden both/many TT bikes and road bikes.
I too worried about this aspect 4 years ago when starting down this road so to speak. What I learned was that I was wrong to worry...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> If you don't mind trundling, that's cool, but some of us still like to go fast both up and down.


And some of us are quite content with "trundling" up to go faster on the downs, so how about you stop applying your own XC standards and preferences to a bike that was never meant for you or your style of riding.



Varaxis said:


> Yep, not nirvana for everyone; there's a sweet spot for each person and trail.


:thumbsup:

And on that note, lets have a look at Le Duke's bike;









It's a nice set up if the aim of your game is setting a fast time around an XC race course, or fast-paced trail rides. (And a nice photo too.)

Compared to the_pilot's bike;









Not hard to see they're two very different bikes, for two equally different riders with different definitions of what makes mountain biking fun. Both bikes have compromises in different areas; no doubt Le Dukes ASR would set the fastest time around a circuit, but if fun and top speed on the downs is the reason you ride then the GeoMetron would be the better choice. Yes the steep STA may be a compromise in power output for the climbing, but I'm guessing the_pilot cares about that as much as Le Duke cares about his steep HTA or low handlebars compromising his his stability on high speed descents.

Horses for courses, each to their own, etc etc, shut up and ride your bike.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I find it interesting that people think low bars = unstable, yet spend hundreds of dollars on a dropper seatpost to...wait for it...lower their center of gravity. 

Now, I'm not an expert, but higher bars would, at the very least, move your hands and a small bit of weight upwards. Perhaps even pull your upper body slightly upwards, compared to a lower position.

Additionally, it would seem that higher bars would equate to a longer lever to push against in an over-the-bars scenario. That doesn't seem helpful to me.

So, how could your center of gravity being higher possibly be more stable than it being lower?

Now, if it's more comfortable, what you're used to, or "looks cool/moto", well, those are acceptable answers. Telling me higher bars are more stable? That's a hard pill to swallow.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

What's odd is that in a lot of pics, pros are on the front of their saddle on the TT bikes, including Bradley Wiggins. A quote from one of them says it has to do with opening up their hip angle. Going by the context, it seems that they're trying to be less jack knifed.

Doing the calculation on how much you move forward based on 4 degrees of seat angle and estimation based on stack height (where SA is measured): 182.7mm behind BB with a 73d SA. 140.6mm with a 77d SA. 42.1mm (1.66") of forward saddle movement. Pretty sure with setback/offset and saddle rail adjustment, you can tweak that. Of course that changes depending on how much more sag you run in the rear compared to what you run up front, or if you run the saddle even higher (both making the SA slacker). Instead of basing it off of the stack height, and instead off of an actual BB-saddle measurement, keeping seat angle the same at that height for simplicity, 700mm BB to saddle height: 204.7 vs 157.5 = saddle moves forward 47.2mm.

Hmm, femurs make up almost 1/2 of your inseam length, and it's kind of odd that someone tall would find such a steep SA comfortable if you go off of some outdated system like KOPS for bike fitting. Would seem they would struggle to get their knees back more to comply with the bike fitting guidelines. If the femur really did make up as much as 1/2 your inseam, you should have a 67.5 SA. To make a 77d SA comply with KOPS, the femur would have to make up approximately 42.5% of the length of your inseam. Have to consider crank length too. Not advocating KOPS, just using it since there no other real standard otherwise. Makes me think to Knolly's design, where their seat angle is like 68d, and it's offset forward by approx 100mm...


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

Le Duke said:


> I find it interesting that people think low bars = unstable, yet spend hundreds of dollars on a dropper seatpost to...wait for it...lower their center of gravity.
> 
> Now, I'm not an expert, but higher bars would, at the very least, move your hands and a small bit of weight upwards. Perhaps even pull your upper body slightly upwards, compared to a lower position.
> 
> ...


Serious answer: In my mind the main goal of a dropper seatpost isn't to allow you to lower your center of gravity. The more direct benefit is that it allows you to rotate back to maintain weight distribution between front and rear wheels when descending something steep without the saddle getting in the way. Being able to lower your center of gravity is directly related, but a bonus.

As you move back and lower you are extending your arms. The lower your bar the further your arms will be extended, and the ability of the bike to move under you will be compromised. Having your arms midway between extended and contracted will allow the most movement and the greatest ability to absorb trail features. On a bike that is biased towards descending this will require higher bars. Pretty much every WC DH bike is set up with some amount of rise on top of their already pretty considerable stack.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

In many of the reviews I've seen, the bike isn't set up with a "neutral" saddle position, relative to the seatpost. They are all slammed forward on an already steep STA.

PinkBike








BikeRadar








DirtMountainBike.com








From the EnduroMTB article:

"It was a strange experience which needed a change of riding technique, instead of trying to keep up speed and push hard on the pedals you needed to slow down and keep your legs turning slowly and smoothly just like a tractor."



cerebroside said:


> Serious answer: In my mind the main goal of a dropper seatpost isn't to allow you to lower your center of gravity. The more direct benefit is that it allows you to rotate back to maintain weight distribution between front and rear wheels when descending something steep without the saddle getting in the way. Being able to lower your center of gravity is directly related, but a bonus.
> 
> As you move back and lower you are extending your arms. The lower your bar the further your arms will be extended, and the ability of the bike to move under you will be compromised. Having your arms midway between extended and contracted will allow the most movement and the greatest ability to absorb trail features. On a bike that is biased towards descending this will require higher bars. Pretty much every WC DH bike is set up with some amount of rise on top of their already pretty considerable stack.


So, a long ass reach = good, but lower bars that accomplish the same thing (further extension of the arms) while lowering the center of gravity = bad?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Just eyeballin LeDuke's bike in the photo his saddle to bar height look pretty close to my bikes. His saddle is further back in the rails but he's shorter so it makes sense. On my Warden the stem is slammed with a 10mm rise bar. Higher sucks for climbing and lower is better for weighting the front. I am forward of KOPS and I don't pedal the flats often, mostly up and the down here. The Geometron would suit our nearby trail system that starts with an hour climbing the logging road followed by DH that many others shuttle.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

Le Duke said:


> So, a long ass reach = good, but lower bars that accomplish the same thing (further extension of the arms) while lowering the center of gravity = bad?


That isn't the same thing, because longer reach at the same head angle puts the front wheel further forward, meaning the rider doesn't have to be as far back to balance weight between front and rear wheels.


----------



## HPIguy (Sep 16, 2014)

All other things being equal, dropping your bars a full inch equates to only a 7mm difference in reach. I doubt most riders could detect a 7mm difference in reach if all other things (bar height, etc) were left alone and you simply added that to the frame measurement itself. BUT, dropping the bars that far definitely has a noticeable effect on handling due to how and where the riders weight will be distributed. I've actually been playing around with this very thing myself, slowly locking in my setup on a bike I bought towards the end of last year.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

I have been running quite a while 720mm bar with 35mm stem in my Trek 3700, it is perhaps bit more nervous on straight smooth road, but very agile/nimble on slower rougher stuff, also at descents it is really great, slow technical ones I can move weight more around, at faster descents I can easily adjust weight back/forward.

Climbing out of saddle is much more comfortable as I don't need to be over the handle bar and can have bit more traction. 

During winter when there were narrow frozen tire track and soft snow at sides, I got lot easier front tire swipe outs as front tire turned faster than I could counteract, these were less than walking speed events.

Pulling a wheelie or hopping with a bike seems to be much easier and more balanced.

I compare setup to 630mm bar with 60mm stem and 120mm stem.

Surely with other alterations to geometry it would be again different. 

I have saddle put as front as it goes and nose of saddle tilted bit upwards as it reduces pressure from my hands and makes less pins and needles in palms, also I feel BB is too far forward unless I set seat to as much forward as possible, despite frame being right size for my height, my legs and upper body seem not to follow standards too well.

Looks like that those new geometry bikes have BB better positioned for my liking, just not sure how those will track stand and go less than walking speed as those has certainly not been design goals, but at my conditions those are more important features than being able to ride big drops.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Travis Bickle said:


> Yes, having learned on old school 26 XC bikes does not make weighting the front end of a modern trail/AM bike instinctive.


I'd say even a relatively modern XC 29er puts you a lot more centered than you need to be on the old 26ers - I'm thinking like 20 years ago.

Compared to modern trail/AM, my bike is not slack at all, and I have a long stem. STA is relatively slack too. 71.5 HTA, 90mm stem and 73 STA.

I don't have the numbers for my old bikes, but I know when I looked I was quite surprised at how steep the HTA angle was, and I know the stem was at least 120mm. My 29er seemed kind of in between the old school XC bikes and the modern AM bikes. It's a good compromise for a lot of people.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Grumpy old biker GeoMetron is much easier to ride very slowly, due to wheelbase and central position. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

the_pilot said:


> Grumpy old biker GeoMetron is much easier to ride very slowly, due to wheelbase and central position.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That sounds really great, as at some point I need to get more advanced bike and especially at winter and spring my riding can be long times around 2mph, while heart rate is near the maximum, great workout.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

I don't think this is a fair test because the Klein looks beat up.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

And of course there is 'modern conventional/incremental' then there is modern 'out there'. Which are different again..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

That Klein is a sweet bike. I'd ride it still.

90% of riders aren't worried about time. 90% of riders will want to ride what is easier to ride, or what is more fun.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

*Pole Evolink 140*









Reach on a small is 450mm, 480m on a medium, 510mm on a large
STA is 75.5
HA is 64.5 degrees! On a 29er! 
WB is 1254 on small, 1284 on a medium and 1314mm on a large... 
This is longer than Geometron. *actually it isn't, I was corrected below*
The bike looks like a longer 26er, it must be huge in person when you realize it is a 29er...
https://www.polebicycles.com

bikeradar review:





The reviewer claims it's one of the best technical climbers he has ever ridden


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

The GeoMetron has longer reach Jazzanova but shorter TT due to ST angle.
Reaches are 485mm S, 505mm M and 520mm L.
Also the GeoMetron 29er has a 63.5 HA. 
If you check the timeline for Pole you will see a single huge change last year in geometry. This was after a conversation and a series of emails with Chris Porter. Their designer was convinced by the reasoning and decided to apply the principles as close as he could to their design.

I'm still involved in the design and ongoing development of GeoMetron, there is more to come. Working on a shorter travel 29er than the current one. 
There is also an XL now with 530mm reach and 670mm TT.
Seb of Bikeradar is a 28er fan, I'm open minded having designed the first Nicolai Ion15 but currently I prefer the 27.5 version of the GeoMetron, however like most things they have advantages and disadvantages for each rider and indeed each track/trail.
The evolution continues though. 

One thing will say, not enough attention is paid to dynamic geometry. The GeoMetron has also been designed around the suspension and its tuning, where support starts, how the front and rear balance. You can change the handling completely by altering how you achieve the travel and it has a big effect on the dynamic ride height and weight transfer..



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Damn!! Don't knock it until you've tried it, I guess. I did a slow, pedally, twisty, rooty singltrack on my Warden [in slack mode] last night and it was great, I imagine once you get used to manoeuvring something like this it would just mow through stuff like that.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

The Warden is pretty short in comparison. My medium Mondraker Vantage was about as stretched out as I want to get. BTW the Vantage frame is for sale.

Mondraker Vantage R Medium - Buy and Sell Mountain Bikes and Accessories


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Don't forget Travis, stretched out pedalling and room to move standing are different. The Mondraker has extended the front more than it has extended the reach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Kona, one of the companies which started the trend of the longer, slacker, lower geometry goes again longer and slacker with the new models.
WB on the Large Process 134 is now almost 120cm. Up from 117.
Almost all models gained about 15mm in reach and about 1" in WB.

Kona Launches New 2017 Models - Pinkbike


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

jazzanova said:


> Kona, one of the companies which *started the trend of the longer, slacker, lower geometry* goes again longer and slacker with the new models.
> WB on the Large Process 134 is now almost 120cm. Up from 117.
> Almost all models gained about 15mm in reach and about 1" in WB.
> 
> Kona Launches New 2017 Models - Pinkbike


I'm holding onto my wallet in wait for the next big trend.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> I'm holding onto my wallet in wait for the next big trend.


Smart boy.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I think there are sizing the Medium for me this time around. Not in the market for a bike this year but there are some very cool 29rs around that I may have to demo. Might have to get a job.



Kona's Schmitt had this to say about the new Process. 

"We had noticed that a lot of our customers were purchasing large bikes instead of mediums, even though they were closer to a medium frame fit. We built some prototype frames that had longer reach and slacker head angles to make sure that the new longer reach wouldn’t be an issue. All of our test riders found that the longer reach and slightly slacker head angles gave the bike a roomier feel but did not make the bike feel cumbersome in tight sections. This shift is the natural progression of our bike geometry. It is also interesting to note that the current Hei Hei models have a geometry that is very close to the original Process geometry. This new geometry shift for Process helps us further define the Hei Hei as our XC Trail range and the Process as our aggressive all mountain/enduro machines."


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I'd have to size down on the new mega reach bikes. With a 450mm reach on a medium Honzo...I'd have to run a 35mm stem...and even with a 35mm stem...it would be a stretch for me.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

My Mondraker experience taught me to embrace a longer reach/30mm stem. A medium Honzo or 111 would fit my 5'9 1/2' well. There are still short & steep bikes out there so there is something for everyone.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Bike companies wouldn't be doing this if they thought people didn't want it. They dumped the 26" Process 167 and changed the Operator to 27.5. Looks like the 26 for life folks don't vote with their wallets.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

*Guerrilla Gravity Trail Pistol*

27.5+ or 29" Wheels
Rear wheel travel: 120mm

Reach: *439mm; 465mm, 490mm* (S; M; L)
WB: *1173mm; 1207mm; 1240mm* (S; M; L)
SA Actual: 73.5
SA Effective: *75.8*
CS: 429mm

Guerrilla Gravity Trail Pistol - First Look - Pinkbike


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

My new trail bike
Tips the scales at 32lbs. Will likely come down another half pound with new wheels at some point but I like these XLs as all rounders on this kind of bike which favours more lean angle than normal so a round profile on the tyre works well.

1353mm WB
60.8 HA
77 deg SA
523mm reach
662mm ETT
450mm CS
138mm trail 
58mm flop factor 
52mm offset
340mm BB height
175mm rear/180mm front

I have variable offset clamps and shock bushes to do some testing on this one.
Current set up is a nice balance for all round riding.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Pilot, how tall are you?


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Travis I am 5'10.5" or 178cm. I'm Mr UK average of the 80's. 31.5" inside leg, med/slim build at 71kg so no huge arms or legs or anything really different.
This bike feels spot on. 
Bars are in a neutral position (not rolled forwards or back) saddle central, 800mm bar, 30mm stem. (Can be reduced to 20mm but I've used 30 on previous version too) 
Comfortable pedalling position, plenty of room to move between the frame when standing and drive the front wheel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Bro .... where's the motor??




32lbs with those forks is impressive! I guess the really slack HTA puts more stress on them and makes the triple clamp more necessary to keep things rigid. Obviously it's not a set up for everyone, but I'd really like to have a ride on one some day.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

David R the 36 works really well on it especially with the Mojo mods to give more support and less stiction too. 
I can lose another 400g/1lb if I really wanted, 1/2lb easily but its fine as is.
Lighter wheels by 200g is pretty straight forward. Lighter pedals and bar too but 31-32lbs is fine for me.

I just had the opportunity to try the 40's and they offer many opportunities to experiment with height/travel/offset and a different front wheel. 
These clamps will give me +/- 9mm and 5mm offset change and the 29 front wheel can be accommodated too, with geometry compensated for pretty easily by using a dropped top crown/shock offsets to put the BB back etc.

The big thing for me is it pedals really well, climbs brilliantly corners and carves on flat/moderate gradients and is basically a DH bike in descending. Very few differences to the One Vision team Nicolai DH bikes on the WC Circuit.

Those DH bikes will be a production model this year. This one is a production model now

Exciting times










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

We have some trails that I would love to try that on.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Travis Bickle said:


> We have some trails that I would love to try that on.


Wouldn't it be easier just to ride a lounge chair down the mountain? Where's the challenge if the bike does all the work. Sit back and basically hold on is all that's necessary.


----------



## LittleBitey (Nov 10, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Wouldn't it be easier just to ride a lounge chair down the mountain? Where's the challenge if the bike does all the work. Sit back and basically hold on is all that's necessary.


Popping popcorn as we speak


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Where's the challenge if the bike does all the work.


Sounds like someone needs a unicycle.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Just used the ignore list for the first time:thumbsup:


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

haha. I get asked all the time and told it's too much bike, but what does that really mean? too much fun? If the suspension is set up right it can be very active alternatively you can set it up to ride like a DH bike with a soft intial stroke, less early support for ultimate traction. Thats not how this is set up. It's set up to be pretty firm, the linkage is designed to give good support at sag and enough antisquat to make it pedal very well, similarly the fork isn't a sofa, but it could be..

I have a rigid Ti Jones Spaceframe, which itself has interesting geo for a 29er of its era. I raced Trans Provence on it in 2010 with a fat front wheel...I finished, but I wouldn't do it again! Whatever floats your boat really. This floats mine..


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Here's the newest addition to my garage! I was worried that I was wasting my time, since the geometry and 3x8 drivetrain are so outdated I thought maybe the bike stopped working back in 2003 . Rebuilt the fork, put on a shorter stem and wider bar, and adjusted the bar ends. I forgot just how well the old Marzocchi Bombers worked! The stem is now 120mm and the bar is 600mm minus the bar ends. I must say this thing flies up climbs and eats up the flats! I will also say that it is skittish on the downhills and not particularily confident inspiring in technical situations. Thanks to all of that weight over the front wheel, it floats through tight switchbacks and twisty sections of trail without any weight shifts or conscious finagling. The front tire feels absolutely glued to the ground even with it's roadie 1.95 tires. This would not be my everyday bike, but it still excels in certain situations and puts a smile on my face!


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> The stem is now 120mm


That's it shorter?!


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Mr Pig said:


> That's it shorter?!


Yep! Original stem was 135mm. A little too old school even for me!


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Cool story bro...


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

David R said:


> Cool story bro...


I'm sorry.. Was this thread not a discussion about new vs old geometry? Or is my opinion and experience not the same as yours?

P.s. I'm not your "bro".


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Here's the newest addition to my garage...


It's interesting how the focus of bike design has changed over the years (climbing to descending). I wonder if that is just a matter of MTB taking time to differentiate itself from road riding, or a change in rider priorities.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

IMO, the #enduro scene is what really what pushed mtb'ing into the whole descending focused realm. I read an article that the best selling segment of mountain bikes is the 650b 140 to 160mm full suspension bikes. Straight XC bikes have become somewhat of a niche now. Back in the day...that was pretty much the mainstream. Going by some of the questions being asked on MTBR...you would think an XC bike is unrideable in anything but only the smoothest of dirt. On the flipside...fat bike inventory is up 107% compared to last year.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Some XC race bikes are getting a bit slacker up front and make for better all rounders than they did a few years back. The new Kona Hei Hei is available with either a 100mm fork, 69° HA or a 120mm, 68° HA. Either way better going down than the old 71° standard that 26ers used to have. My riding focus hasn't really changed over the last 29 years but the trails I ride have. Long descents have always been my favourite type of riding and after retiring to BC they are the norm, not just vacation time.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

With XC bikes, it's more or less just the rest of the industry finally catching up to stuff that debuted over 5 years ago. They're just riding the marketing efforts of the more progressive company, waiting for the market to be ripe, having finally bit the marketing and are willing to crack open the wallet to own something that's slightly more attractive in terms of affordability, brand rep, and/or whatever else each consumer values/prefers. Could be as simple as the consumer fearing/skeptical of the unknown, waiting for it to catch on with others who are reputable, and buying a version released by their favored/trusted brand...


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Travis Bickle said:


> Some XC race bikes are getting a bit slacker up front and make for better all rounders than they did a few years back. The new Kona Hei Hei is available with either a 100mm fork, 69° HA or a 120mm, 68° HA. Either way better going down than the old 71° standard that 26ers used to have. My riding focus hasn't really changed over the last 29 years but the trails I ride have. Long descents have always been my favourite type of riding and after retiring to BC they are the norm, not just vacation time.


So does that mean you're shuttling rather than climbing to get the sweet downhill reward?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

cerebroside said:


> It's interesting how the focus of bike design has changed over the years (climbing to descending). I wonder if that is just a matter of MTB taking time to differentiate itself from road riding, or a change in rider priorities.


I've thought about that, too. I know in my personal evolution, I started out happy exploring hiking trails and backroads, but I began pushing my limits and the bike's limits as I gained experience. I'm not sure if that was because of my age at the time or if it is just human nature to push the limits. I also think that as bikes have become more capable (disc brakes, suspension, wider bars, etc), riders have needed to ride more challenging terrain to get the same thrills and experience. The trails I love to ride on my Klein and rigid bike are boring on my Santa Cruz Bantam, and the trails I love to ride on my Bantam are scary on the Klein and rigid bike. I really enjoy jumps, drops, and technical diwnhills, so I really do appreciate the newer geometries and advancements, but I can get similar thrills on a wider variety of trails on my "less capable" bikes.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

I gotta say that Klein is a sweet bike (minus the bar ends and grip shifts?)...

71/73 HT/ST geo is fun on the right terrain. Beyond a limit though, 68/74 feels much better.

15 years ago I rode with guys that could crush corners on descents with that geo - never felt all that stable to me.

I wouldn't say I'm crushing them with the slacker stuff, but man I feel a lot more stable throughout the whole corner.

Also for some reason I felt a lot better on those ultra steep, short wheelbase bikes of the 90s with narrow bars. I recall the first wide bar bike (>600mm) I rode I felt like I could never get the steering input right. Still, depending on the trail/day I'm not all that confident with a 700mm bar and that kind of front end. It feels much better on a slacker bike IMO.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

l'oiseau said:


> ...71/73 HT/ST geo is fun on the right terrain...


Getting downlifts?


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

cerebroside said:


> Getting downlifts?


Yeah or paved bike paths...

No really. I still enjoy riding a bike like that when I'm somewhere other than a bike park with intermediate to expert terrain... and even that is OK too if I'm not trying to push myself.

Question I've been asking myself recently is: Could I ride fire roads and flat twisties just as well and as comfortably on a 68/74 bike? With the right gearing and handlebars, I think I could...

I don't see a lot of tradeoffs, truth be told...


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I'm sorry.. Was this thread not a discussion about new vs old geometry? Or is my opinion and experience not the same as yours? .


I guess I missed the part where you made any sort of relevant comparison to new geometry bikes. I think in the million or so discussions we've had on this subject it had been established that you can have fun riding any bike on dirt, so forgive my lack of excitement at yet another slightly sarcastic "my bike isn't built like a chopper but I still like riding it" type post.

PS. I'm glad you're not my bro, I'd hate to ride with people who don't enjoy themselves unless their bike is scaring then half to death. I can't say I've ever finished a ride and thought "gee that was fun, but I wish my bike was a bit more **** so I could struggle some more", I love riding my Warden regardless of whether it's on gnarly downhills or gentle xc single-track.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

LittleBitey said:


> Popping popcorn as we speak


I enjoy a good roast.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

David R said:


> I guess I missed the part where you made any sort of relevant comparison to new geometry bikes. I think in the million or so discussions we've had on this subject it had been established that you can have fun riding any bike on dirt, so forgive my lack of excitement at yet another slightly sarcastic "my bike isn't built like a chopper but I still like riding it" type post.
> 
> PS. I'm glad you're not my bro, I'd hate to ride with people who don't enjoy themselves unless their bike is scaring then half to death. I can't say I've ever finished a ride and thought "gee that was fun, but I wish my bike was a bit more **** so I could struggle some more", I love riding my Warden regardless of whether it's on gnarly downhills or gentle xc single-track.


Yeah, you didn't even read my "cool story".

I figured I'd add something different than the "my bike is so awesome because it makes me look like a better rider than I really am" type post. The new geo bikes with too much travel for most trails make many trails less exciting. I can't recall ever saying "I wish my bike made that easier for me."


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I can't recall ever saying "I wish my bike made that easier for me."


So why do you run suspension forks, knobbly tyres, gears, brakes etc? That Klein is a pretty hi-tech machine really, it's making those trails a lot easier than they could be...


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

David R said:


> So why do you run suspension forks, knobbly tyres, gears, brakes etc? That Klein is a pretty hi-tech machine really, it's making those trails a lot easier than they could be...


My rigid bike with mechanical brakes would be the obvious response. For the variety of trails I ride, it's nice to have different options for different rides. Would you ride a Warden on a 50 mile road ride? Are there only 2 types of trails in the world?


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Of course not, I wouldn't even ride a road bike on a 50 mile road ride! 

I get the whole "horses for courses" thing, it makes a lot of sense to have a bike that suits the kind of riding you want to do, I'm certainly not saying everyone should ride a Geometron (or a Warden). I get why people enjoy the challenge [and nostalgia] of riding retro bikes, I've done it myself on occasion. I get that some people place more emphasis on climbing prowess and prefer lighter and better pedalling bikes for that. What I'm struggling with is the idea that an inch too much suspension or a degree or two slacker HA somehow suddenly makes anything less than chunky super-gnar boring. From the very invention of the wheel, bikes have been all about making things easier for us, it's not a bad thing. Riding my Warden down a grade two trail doesn't equate to auto-pilot, you still have to steer, brake and pedal. Like purple ano in the 90's and lycra in the 00's, being "overbiked" seems to have become the cardinal sin of mountain biking, and quite frankly I think it's bullsh!t. Ride what you like as long as you're having fun, just don't try tell me I'm cheating, or it's boring, or I'm lacking skill because I haven't stopped at the second-to-top rung on the ladder of technology.

Unlike you, I'm a "one bike to rule them all" sorta guy. My Warden does everything from shuttle days to all day epics to gravel forestry road rides with wifey, and I always enjoy riding it even if it's not the ideal tool for the job at hand.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Here's a teaser from a 130mm trail 29er that I'm following.

65.5d HA (64.5d optional setting), 430mm CS, 455mm reach (wonder if that's Large or possibly a Med). All the new standards, boost, metric, etc. Performance > water bottle mount apparently. They have a 100mm 29er with 66.5 HA also planned; a 27.5 160 Enduro bike, DH, and HT planned as well.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Now that looks like my kind of 29er!


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

Everyone talks about slacker, modern geometry and more and better suspension taking the edge off of riding chunk. "It masks missing skill"

Does anyone complain that newer, lighter and better pedaling efficiency takes the edge off of climbing? 

A climbing "crutch"?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

net wurker said:


> Everyone talks about slacker, modern geometry and more and better suspension taking the edge off of riding chunk. "It masks missing skill"
> 
> Does anyone complain that newer, lighter and better pedaling efficiency takes the edge off of climbing?
> 
> A climbing "crutch"?


People do say stuff like massive traction for climbing chunk. Pretty much one of the biggest advantages that the plus bike riders are raving about.


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm a fan of traction, although I'm still riding "skinny" 2.5 26ers for now.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

You're right. It's about choosing the right bike for the right trail. It's not about making things more difficult or easier. It's about choosing the bike that makes you want to ride. Super slack and long travel isn't always the best or most fun bike. I don't like one bike for everything, because it makes some trails boring. Even my Santa Cruz Bantam makes a lot of trails boring. My rigid singlespeed and Klein bikes have made boring trails much more enjoyable. The fact that most of you wouldn't ever touch a road bike says a lot about the new geometry and the new rider.


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

Well, if I was into XC, I would want a modern XC bike over a vintage XC bike.

But that's just me.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Wouldn't it be easier just to ride a lounge chair down the mountain? Where's the challenge if the bike does all the work. Sit back and basically hold on is all that's necessary.


I thought you stopped with this nonsense? What about all the talks we've had, it's like you were never even listening.

A lounge chair would need wheels, 27.5+ would probably be a good size, depending on how big the lounge chair was of course. I think I would actually prefer a recliner, reclining the seat back would be like a dropper post allowing you to move your weight to the back of the chair for steep descents. Braking and suspension systems would be similar to mtb, or maybe more like a orv with four wheel independent suspension.

You would need to do quite a bit of work to get a chair to do a downhill run, as you would with a bike. Where you decide to draw the line on how much technology is used is completely up to you.

One persons challenge is another persons pita.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

net wurker said:


> Well, if I was into XC, I would want a modern XC bike over a vintage XC bike.
> 
> But that's just me.


Sure. For modern cross-country trails and courses, I would too. What's your point?

All I was trying to say is that on certain trails different geometries are more enjoyable. My Klein is perfect for some of the Midwest trails I've ridden over the years, where the trees are super close together and the trails are smooth, tight, and twisty. My rigid singlespeed 29er is awesome on gravel, fireroads, and buff singletrack. My Bantam is great on many other trails, and I wouldn't mind a slacked out mini downhill bike for certain trails, either. I thought my recent experience with old, steep geometry was interesting and relevant to this thread. I certainly didn't intend to interupt your circle jerk.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

mountainbiker24 said:


> You guys just don't get it. It's about choosing the right bike for the right trail. It's not about making things more difficult or easier. It's about choosing the bike that makes you want to ride. Super slack and long travel isn't always the best or most fun bike. The fact that most of you wouldn't ever touch a road bike says a lot about the new geometry and the new rider.


Fun is subjective.

Not everyone has the luxury of choosing the right bike for the right trail, when there are such a wide range trails available to us in our home networks and on vacation. I could always justify another bike to fit a narrow niche, but I can't always find the money or space for it. I spread my stable across a gravel bike, a DJ bike, and an AM mountain bike. I'd love to add a XC bike and a DH bike, but that's not in the cards yet. So I try to spread the capability of that AM bike as far as I can, and the new bikes are doing that amazingly well.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

evasive said:


> Fun is subjective.
> 
> Not everyone has the luxury of choosing the right bike for the right trail, when there are such a wide range trails available to us in our home networks and on vacation. I could always justify another bike to fit a narrow niche, but I can't always find the money or space for it. I spread my stable across a gravel bike, a DJ bike, and an AM mountain bike. I'd love to add a XC bike and a DH bike, but that's not in the cards yet. So I try to spread the capability of that AM bike as far as I can, and the new bikes are doing that amazingly well.


That's great. I am fortunate for the bikes I have. My rigid 29er cost $400. I built up a wheelset, replaced the fork with a used steel model, and put on some singlespeed components. My road bike was $325 used, built up a wheelset and slowly upgraded some parts over time. My Bantam was on sale for $2800. My Brother-in-Law gave me the Klein, and I found the fork for $100. I spent about $5000 total on all four bikes, which is not far off from many of these new geometry, carbon wonderbikes. I'm not off the back of too many group rides, either.

I apologize for trying to provide a different perspective. Perhaps the op can change the title of this thread. Perhaps something like "Your opinions as to why new geometry should be the only geometry, presented as fact without any real discourse or rationalization." That would appear more accurate. The current title is misleading.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> The fact that most of you wouldn't ever touch a road bike says a lot about the new geometry and the new rider.


So it's time for the bike-equivalent of "you kids get off my lawn"...
:thumbsup:

I don't ride on the road because I value my life. End of story. I'll happily grind away the miles on a gravel road in a closed forest, but I'm not risking my neck with the average idiot in a motor vehicle on our narrow and winding roads. I've never heard of a mountain biker being killed while riding [locally], but several of roadies have been.

And if you think riding easy trails on your Bantam is boring, WTF are you suggesting we should be riding road bikes for? Have you felt how EASY they make things with those skinny tyres and light frames?! 


I pity you, either for your attention span or lousy trails, I simply can't imagine going out on a mountain bike and finding it boring, least of all because I was "over-biked".


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

David R said:


> So it's time for the bike-equivalent of "you kids get off my lawn"...
> :thumbsup:
> 
> I don't ride on the road because I value my life. End of story. I'll happily grind away the miles on a gravel road in a closed forest, but I'm not risking my neck with the average idiot in a motor vehicle on our narrow and winding roads. I've never heard of a mountain biker being killed while riding [locally], but several of roadies have been.
> ...


Come on. I wasn't insinuating that you not riding a road bike was a bad thing. It just says that many people most interested in the new geometry don't have much experience or desire to ride a wide variety of trails. Many cross-country riders are also road riders, so they may have different preferences than all-mountain "bros".

You really don't find it more boring than necessary grinding a gravel road on a slack, long-travel bike? Yes, my Bantam makes certain trails boring, and those trails are much more enjoyable on less capable bikes. Road biking (as an example - don't take this as an insult) is challenging because of the constant pedaling, fatigue, and limited traction. It's more enjoyable if you aren't dying up every climb and have too much drag to enjoy the downhill. It's fun, because you can explore a bunch of miles and go pretty fast. Most people would rather go fast than slow. Cross-country is similar. Why drag around an extra 5 pounds with relatively slow steering, unused suspension, and a long wheelbase if there are better options out there? It's not that the trails I ride are boring. It's that sometimes the trails are too wet to ride, so I ride the gravel or doubletrack forest roads. Other times I'm visiting family, and the trails by them are different than the trails I normally ride. I don't understand what you're fighting against. It seems like common sense...


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> It just says that many people most interested in the new geometry don't have much experience or desire to ride a wide variety of trails.


Still sounds like "you kids get off my lawn" to me...

I've been riding 20+ years and do everything from shuttles to back-country XC, guess that makes me an oddball for being interested in this new "trend"?


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Cornfield said:


> I thought you stopped with this nonsense? What about all the talks we've had, it's like you were never even listening.


I'm surprised you sound surprised here.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> I'm surprised you sound surprised here.


Talk about "Get off my lawn!" :lol:


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Cornfield said:


> Talk about "Get off my lawn!" :lol:


Exactly!

Ride your bike no matter what geometry wheel size frame material or wheel width. These discussions and disagreements go on and on and on in here. Just when you think it's over another thread starts or an old beat a dead horse thread gets bumped.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Actually, road bike geo is/was a random mess of old and new geo too. Recently, Trek started offering 3 different styles of geo: H1, H2, H3. Doing this essentially addressed the main issues that caused riders to go to custom builders, and it was ironically one of the custom builder's creations that lead the evolution of road bikes down this path, with their custom fitting tools. This adds the problem of adding *too many options to choose from*, which required a system to decide which is best among them. What system does mtb have? Basically, people only have advice/opinions from others and their own *intuition* to work off of to make any decision. And let me say, I have reasonably great doubt that even experienced people have very sharp intuition in this matter, not to mention numerous people often think too highly of their opinion and overwhelm open-minded people, forcefully stuffing those opinions into their open mind.

A data-driven approach to stack and reach has also taken the road bike side by storm. Progressive geo from brands that originated from MTB is introducing the value of increased capability with a HA slacker than 73d, and is opening people's minds, at least in the CX world. Getting rid of toe overlap on CX bikes was one issue addressed, that carried over from classic road bike design. This is kind of like what the Geometron and Forward Geometry are doing for MTB.

What's good for a racer isn't always what's good for an enthusiast. Long chainstays actually perform better when it comes to plowing through the rough and providing ground-hugging traction. Chainstay length is also called "rear center" (RC). Doing the same for the front center, with a slacker HA and longer reach does something similar for plowing bumps and ground hugging. This can create a valid problem that was jokingly inserted, regarding making the trail so easy that you might as well be riding a lounge chair. Enter the mullet bike, business up front but a party out back--sketchy out back with a short CS, possibly with shorter travel and narrow low profile tires (maybe even smaller wheel size), but long up front with some beefy parts where control matters. This has become the more accepted sweet spot for those that aren't trying to be like Ritchie Rude or Greg Minnaar.

There's always some fight for balance going on between DH bike and XC bike, or Enduro and trail bike, or HT and FS, singlespeed and geared... can't have both in one, but can have one that is a compromise between both. People are always looking to get the best of both worlds, with their own idea of what kind of compromises are best, so we end up creating some franken-solution and refining it, with businesses tuning it towards what they think would be most popular and therefore best-selling. Seems like the normal course of action in hindsight, but all's not smooth sailing towards progress for all. lt pays off to study and learn from history in order to not be doomed to repeat it. I know the last time I went with a somewhat long CS, I got kind of jaded riding it after 1-2 years, since it indeed made trails too easy and the thrill of riding it super fast with ease kind of died out. I went HT for a while to regain the challenge, and now I'm back with a modern mullet bike, even looking to try out a 27.5, despite believing 29er has the most performance benefit for me and my area, since it can feel overkill, especially if I'm not running it stiff.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Exactly!
> 
> Ride your bike no matter what geometry wheel size frame material or wheel width. These discussions and disagreements go on and on and on in here. Just when you think it's over another thread starts or an old beat a dead horse thread gets bumped.


I think this happens with most "vs" threads, they degenerate to a point where people start taking things the wrong way and a train wreck is Imminent. Then the memes come and everyone gets a laugh or two! 

I'm waiting to see a 4-wheeled DH La-Z-Boy recliner!


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Cornfield said:


> I'm waiting to see a 4-wheeled DH La-Z-Boy recliner!


There's a 2 wheeled one in post #652.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> There's a 2 wheeled one in post #652.


Have you ever heard of the term "dirt couch"?


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Varaxis said:


> Enter the mullet bike, sketchy out back with a short CS, possibly with shorter travel and narrow low profile tires (maybe even smaller wheel size), but long up front with some beefy parts where control matters. This has become the more accepted sweet spot for those that aren't trying to be like Ritchie Rude or Greg Minnaar.


Great post, although seems how you mentioned him I'll add that Ritchie seems to like the "mullet bike" for certain courses; 127mm rear-travel SB5 with a 160mm Fox 36 up front.

This thread had kinda morphed into the "radical geo bikes discussion" thread, with the_pilots posting and others sharing some of the new super-long/slack designs (and the not so extreme mainstream examples, like Konas 2017 range). Maybe it needs a new title, or a new thread could be started because DJ is dead right about the dead horse thing if we keep going with the "this vs that" notion.

Trying to take things full circle, the Unno bike someone posted before is pretty damn interesting. Mountainbiker24 is right that guys like me are lugging around 5lbs and 30mm more suspension than necessary a lot of the time, but those things aren't related to geometry. So here we've got a 130mm 29er with slacker angles than my Warden, it seems like many people [and I'm one of them] think geometry like this has applications far beyond the enduro shredders. What if I could keep the geo of my Warden and lose that 5lb and 30mm travel? Would a 65* HA 120mm xc/trail bike really be such a radical thing? I wouldn't mind betting we'll be seeing them in the not too distant future.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Cornfield said:


> Have you ever heard of the term "dirt couch"?


Yes


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Yes


I want one.

All my geometries coexist.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Varaxis said:


> Here's a teaser from a 130mm trail 29er that I'm following.
> 
> 65.5d HA (64.5d optional setting), 430mm CS, 455mm reach (wonder if that's Large or possibly a Med). All the new standards, boost, metric, etc. Performance > water bottle mount apparently. They have a 100mm 29er with 66.5 HA also planned; a 27.5 160 Enduro bike, DH, and HT planned as well.


This is interesting. Very progressive. 
Their xc bike is also out of ordinary. 
From their website:

67º HEAD ANGLE!

Have you ever wondered why XC bikes still have the same geometries they used to have in the 80s (yes, we have checked a few 80s frames)? We wondered that too, so that is why we decided to make a geometry from scratch, without looking what others were doing, this will change the XC geos, forever.

Our UNNO hardtail features a much longer front center to fit a 50mm stem stock and has the same total reach (frame reach + stem reach), that it will with a 90/100mm stem. With the lowest stack of any existing XC frame makes for the best comfortable climber XC frame out there.

You miss the 26" XC frames super short chain stays for maximum traction climbing? Miss no more, our 29" frame, features a REAL (measure yours) 420mm chain stays. Short chain-stays put more of your weight on the back wheel, so more weight equals more traction, that simple.

That's not the best yet, the best feature is the head angle. We checked 23 XC frames on the market and the average HA is 70.3º, ranging from 69.5º from the "most radical", to some crazy 73º, we have no idea what is it for&#8230; So after testing different geometries in our mules we decided to go with 67º with a 100mm fork. It could sound crazy, but it is not, in fact it makes total sense, we tell you why.

Does your XC climb better on technical trails than your trail bike, if it wasn't for the lower handlebar and lighter weight? Slacker head angle makes the bike more stable, so on those slow 4 to 6km/h climbs you won't be going left to right, trying to maintain the line. The slacker head angle, increments the trail, it gives the bike more self-centering capabilities, making it so much easy to go in a straight line and go over obstacles, like rocks, roots&#8230; This leads to a more efficient climbing due to you focusing only on pedaling.

Going down? All advantages! Have you ever seen a person smile at the end of a nice trail on a XC frame, no, we haven't too, this one guarantees you a big one!

All this resumes in one word, a FUN XC frame, we've done over 1.500kms on our pre-production XC frame and we can't get enough riding. This is a bike you're going to love going up and down, then match it with a dropper and you might find yourself passing some enduro guys going down!

#rideunno


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

David R said:


> Great post


I agree!



David R said:


> So here we've got a 130mm 29er with slacker angles than my Warden, it seems like many people [and I'm one of them] think geometry like this has applications far beyond the enduro shredders. What if I could keep the geo of my Warden and lose that 5lb and 30mm travel? Would a 65* HA 120mm xc/trail bike really be such a radical thing? I wouldn't mind betting we'll be seeing them in the not too distant future.


I ride my Yelli on a lot of road and gravel, I refer to it as my xc/roadie. It's "all mountain geometry" works just as well where there are no mountains.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Since this thread is firing up again, it's worth mentioning something that is frequently overlooked: discussion of head tube angle needs to be leavened with an understanding of fork offset. That's commonly overlooked. As HTAs have gotten slacker in the last decade, it's as fork offsets have increased. 

Plenty of pre-suspension MTBs in the mid-late 80s had slack HTAs. They also had a fair amount of offset. How much is hard to quantify. It wasn't a metric that anyone reported. I keep a spreadsheet of the measurements of any bike I've owned or seriously considered since 1987, and the blank cells are an interesting insight into what people cared about (or knew to care about) at the time.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Actually, the most popular forks half a decade ago had less offset than the norm, such as the Lyrik and the 36 Float.

Here's a compilation of fork offsets: Suspension Fork Geometry Info - Pvdwiki


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

David R said:


> So here we've got a 130mm 29er with slacker angles than my Warden, it seems like many people [and I'm one of them] think geometry like this has applications far beyond the enduro shredders. What if I could keep the geo of my Warden and lose that 5lb and 30mm travel? Would a 65* HA 120mm xc/trail bike really be such a radical thing? I wouldn't mind betting we'll be seeing them in the not too distant future.


Great question, and I'd absolutely love to give that bike a try! All of my experience on slack, low bikes has been on downhill-oriented bikes and a few cross-country bikes with way too little air in the shock. I have issues with super low bottom brackets, because a lot of my trails are super rooty and rocky. I can minimize pedal strikes, but there are times where I need to get a pedal stroke in but can't because of pedals that are too low. The front wheel would either feel super stable and actually difficult to turn on flats and climbs or it would flop around and feel anything but stable. How much of that was because of unbalance suspension, super heavy components, and improper weight distribution is worth discussing.

I will say this. There are more pros than cons to slacker geometry, and the cons that exist are less likely to concern people that focus more on downhills than climbs and flats. The cons of old geometry are more apparent on newer style trails and to the enduro mindset. In my experience, there are many trails that benefit from a shorter wheelbase and quick handling. These trails aren't on everybody's radar, but they do exist. If it was possible to maintain a relatively short wheelbase while maintaining proper pedaling position and weight bias with a slack headtube angle, I'd love to try it.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

What is 'too much travel' anyway. I don't buy that. It's about how it's set up and what you get from it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Wouldn't it be easier just to ride a lounge chair down the mountain? Where's the challenge if the bike does all the work. Sit back and basically hold on is all that's necessary.


----------



## dbhammercycle (Nov 15, 2011)

Does that recliner come with the pot under the seat and fridge on the side?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

the_pilot said:


> What is 'too much travel' anyway. I don't buy that. It's about how it's set up and what you get from it.


More travel requires more material to keep things stiff and funtioning properly. Proper setup usually involves a specific sag, so you can't just add air to firm up the suspension. Too much compression takes away the benefit of suspension. It also raises the bottom bracket and lengthens the wheelbase. If you have the suspension set up the way you want ti and you never use full travel, you're at least carrying extra weight. It's also good for suspension forks to botom out once in a while to keep the lubrication oil circulating. At least for some designs. Everything is a compromise.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> More travel requires more material to keep things stiff and funtioning properly. Proper setup usually involves a specific sag, so you can't just add air to firm up the suspension. Too much compression takes away the benefit of suspension. It also raises the bottom bracket and lengthens the wheelbase. If you have the suspension set up the way you want ti and you never use full travel, you're at least carrying extra weight. It's also good for suspension forks to botom out once in a while to keep the lubrication oil circulating. At least for some designs. Everything is a compromise.


There isn't one and only "proper setup" for all situations. 
That's why many shocks settings can be change with a flip of a lever. Some even have 2 different circuits, like the Push coil. 
Shocks and forks should be set up for the terrain. 
Of course there are limits and compromises, but again there isn't "one fits all terrains" setting.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

net wurker said:


>







Surprisingly nobody was seriously injured (spectator got a broken arm).


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> More travel requires more material to keep things stiff and funtioning properly. Proper setup usually involves a specific sag, so you can't just add air to firm up the suspension. Too much compression takes away the benefit of suspension. It also raises the bottom bracket and lengthens the wheelbase. If you have the suspension set up the way you want ti and you never use full travel, you're at least carrying extra weight. It's also good for suspension forks to botom out once in a while to keep the lubrication oil circulating. At least for some designs. Everything is a compromise.


I couldn't disagree more, there are many ways to make it work well, but key is getting the linkage right first, not the shock, it needs to work with the shock to give support where desired to match the intended fork setup and response to match the intended dynamic of the bike, of course that's more difficult if you are a mainstream manufacturer designing for a user to run any shock they want. I haven't gone down

Trotting out the usual heavy sofa rhetoric is just a bit too easy and stereotypical. In fact referring to the added weight too is to miss the point. (The difference between the 150mm and 175mm version of my bike is less than 50g) Too much obsession these days with absolute weights where the difference is small compared to the overall package.

Having said all that each to his own.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

cerebroside said:


> Surprisingly nobody was seriously injured (spectator got a broken arm).


Wow, I'd call that a catastrophic failure. lol at the guy's shoe flying off.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Hmmm... I wonder why all these bicycle companies have recommended sag values... I wonder how those linkages are designed and where they decide to place those pivots... Many bikes are designed to be most efficient at a certain sag, and things oike bottom bracket height are directly related to sag. I'm not going to try and convince you guys how to set up your bikes properly or which bike is right for you. Do what you want and realize that you're compromising on many things. Disagree with me or not, it doesn't change reality. Have fun!


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

cerebroside said:


> Surprisingly nobody was seriously injured (spectator got a broken arm).


I wonder if this conversation took place in the emergency room...

Doctor: "Nurse, I noticed you recommended a psych eval on the broken arm patient in three...why?"

Nurse: "Because of the way he said it happened. He said he was on the side of a mountain when three guys on a couch ran into him"


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

cerebroside said:


> Surprisingly nobody was seriously injured (spectator got a broken arm).


Looks like a Kamikaze suicide run. No steering or brakes, sit back and enjoy the modern geometry folks.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

it is pretty cool too see just how quickly bikes are changing, even in the XC scene. 

My wife just got her Olympic frame, it follows all the trends of modern geometry (longer, lower, slacker) except in XC race trim. Her initial impressions on the bike were disadvantages none, advantages many. When I look at the bike I can't help but think that the next generation will be also be longer, lower, slacker.

I think that 5 years from now your typical World cup XC race bike is going to be a 120mm travel bike with a 67 degree head angle and a 74-75 degree seat angle. (Dropper post allow those nice steep seat angles) 

And in a way we will have come full circle. The XC bike will be back as the bike of choice for your average rider.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

LMN said:


> it is pretty cool too see just how quickly bikes are changing, even in the XC scene.
> 
> My wife just got her Olympic frame, it follows all the trends of modern geometry (longer, lower, slacker) except in XC race trim. Her initial impressions on the bike were disadvantages none, advantages many. When I look at the bike I can't help but think that the next generation will be also be longer, lower, slacker.
> 
> ...


XC is the new All Mountain? Awesome. I always was an XC guy at heart.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Looks like a Kamikaze suicide run. No steering or brakes, sit back and enjoy the modern geometry folks.


Heat advisory today, I got bored...


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

David R said:


> Would a 65* HA 120mm xc/trail bike really be such a radical thing? I wouldn't mind betting we'll be seeing them in the not too distant future.


I don't know if the an angle that slack is necessarily the way to go. On my Enduro rig I run a 65.5 degree head angle. I find on flattish descent the slack angle makes the fork harsh. I have travelled a lot and in most places most of the descents are flattish.

I have tried to tune the fork to work better on the flat terrain but I have not been able to do it without compromising its performance on steeper trails.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Cornfield said:


> Heat advisory today, I got bored...


We need to lock you inside more often.  :thumbsup:


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

I think you will see a short(ish) travel XC/Trail bike this year below that HA DavidR and with a nice steep SA
We have had no problems setting forks not to feel harsh with slack angles. But I am fortunate enough to work with a tuner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Sounds interesting!



LMN said:


> I don't know if the an angle that slack is necessarily the way to go. On my Enduro rig I run a 65.5 degree head angle. I find on flattish descent the slack angle makes the fork harsh. I have travelled a lot and in most places most of the descents are flattish.
> 
> I have tried to tune the fork to work better on the flat terrain but I have not been able to do it without compromising its performance on steeper trails.


Interesting observation, I guess I should switch my bike back to the steeper 66.5 setting to see if I can notice any difference. I only did one ride with it like that before switching it to slack mode and have never bothered to change it back.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

The harshness is probably from binding, due to chassis flex and misalignment. When you make a cartridge and its piston bow shaped, it's not gonna work very smoothly, since there's a lower sealhead and also the piston inside, trying to slide straight when the cartridge isn't aligned with it. The slacker the HA, the more the lowers want to bend upwards. Not sure how you tune that out, besides to design a way to compensate for the misalignment or just some really good lubrication.


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> We need to lock you inside more often.  :thumbsup:


I just noticed the oversized ODI grip on the recliner handle.

Nice touch.


----------



## justwan naride (Oct 13, 2008)

I recently upgraded from a 2007 classic XC ht to a 2016 "trail hardtail" with very long reach, 66.5 HA, 130mm fork and 650Β wheels. The difference in wheelbase is just short of 10cm while CS length is the same. So the extra length is in the front center.

The difference is massive. I'm so much more confident going down rough trails or doing drops... but I expected that. I was even prepared to sacrifice some climbing ability to enjoy the downs. Much to my surprise the longer, slacker bike is also a better climber. Especially on techy stuff. 

Tight switchbacks are one of my weak points, but I can't say I'm better off with one bike or the other. 

So, I get better control/speed pointing downhill, better XC performance and loose nothing. I'm all for the new geometry!


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

justwan naride said:


> I recently upgraded from a 2007 classic XC ht to a 2016 "trail hardtail" with very long reach, 66.5 HA, 130mm fork and 650Β wheels. The difference in wheelbase is just short of 10cm while CS length is the same. So the extra length is in the front center.
> 
> The difference is massive. I'm so much more confident going down rough trails or doing drops... but I expected that. I was even prepared to sacrifice some climbing ability to enjoy the downs. Much to my surprise the longer, slacker bike is also a better climber. Especially on techy stuff.
> 
> ...


This one? Geometry - 905 RS All Models - Whyte Bikes U.S.A.


----------



## justwan naride (Oct 13, 2008)

Yes! It rocks!

I was afraid it would be too long, but it actually feels very natural. It's a great do-it-all ht.

Edit: Actually the geometry table on your link is different than the one on the EU website http://www.whyte.bike/#!905rs/n2o64

I believe the specs you linked belong to the G-160, probably a mistake on whyte's account.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

net wurker said:


> I just noticed the oversized ODI grip on the recliner handle.
> 
> Nice touch.


It's got it all.

Kenda tires that can wash out at any moment..
SRAM shifters and brakes.
ODI Lock Ons.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Varaxis said:


> The harshness is probably from binding, due to chassis flex and misalignment. When you make a cartridge and its piston bow shaped, it's not gonna work very smoothly, since there's a lower sealhead and also the piston inside, trying to slide straight when the cartridge isn't aligned with it. The slacker the HA, the more the lowers want to bend upwards. Not sure how you tune that out, besides to design a way to compensate for the misalignment or just some really good lubrication.


I think that part of it. I think it is also do to weight distribution. The slack angle, combined with a short stem take enough weight off the front end to make a difference.

On my XC bike the difference the front fork sag from the seated pedaling position to the attack position is minimal, on my Enduro bike it is huge. I actually went and measured:
XC bike seated: 10% and 15% attack.
Enduro bike: 5% seated, 18% attack.

I could be wrong in that head angle is the factor though. It could very much be the short stem and longer top tube. Or it could even be the fork. The 32s versus 36s come with a different tune for different riding.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

IMO, it's better to have a longer front center through reach, than a slacker HA. The longer downtube creates more leverage for the front. The distance from the steerer to the grips also factors into leverage and weight. And the height of the saddle compared to the bars (the higher the seat compared to the bars, the more weight on the front).

That HT's the only one I know that fit your description. Been watching them. The Spider 275c is pretty close to their T130. I tried to suggest to Justin, their USA distro product rep, to check out the Foes Mixer and consider an offset dropout like the EVO6/Cannondale Ai-Si (to gain strength, and possibly use it to trim overall weight). Was thinking about running the Spider 27c in the 115 travel mode with 29er 100-110mm front.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

Varaxis said:


> IMO, it's better to have a longer front center through reach, than a slacker HA. The longer downtube creates more leverage for the front. The distance from the steerer to the grips also factors into leverage and weight. And the height of the saddle compared to the bars (the higher the seat compared to the bars, the more weight on the front).


I think the reach can only be lengthened to a certain point without compromising the seated pedaling position, and where that point is will depend on the person. Modern bikes often have much steeper seat tube angles to keep the handlebar to saddle length reasonable with the greatly increased reach, and there are riders including myself who have a very hard time dealing with the more forward saddle position with respect to the BB. One of my acquaintances joked that it felt like riding a tri-bike. Since I get along best with a 73° seat tube angle on bikes that need to be pedaled, that limits the reach to about 445-450mm if I use a 35mm length stem, and further lengthening of the front center will have to be done through slacker head tube angles.

Sidenote - I have the same seat on 3 of my bikes, all of which have different seat tube angles. One has a straight seatpost, the other 2 are layback posts. Out of curiosity from a discussion in the XC forum, I dropped a plumb line from the nose of the saddle on each bike to the chainstay, then measured the distance to the middle of the BB. All 3 bikes were within 3-4mm, I was pretty surprised at how close they were since they were all done by trial & error without any measuring.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Varaxis said:


> The harshness is probably from binding, due to chassis flex and misalignment. When you make a cartridge and its piston bow shaped, it's not gonna work very smoothly, since there's a lower sealhead and also the piston inside, trying to slide straight when the cartridge isn't aligned with it. The slacker the HA, the more the lowers want to bend upwards. Not sure how you tune that out, besides to design a way to compensate for the misalignment or just some really good lubrication.


I'm not sure I agree, though for the record I'll state clearly that I'm just a dumb train driver and not a physicist or suspension expert!
Obviously, while static and not moving a slacker HTA is going to put more of that upward bendy force on the fork, but when moving on uneven ground with both the front and rear suspension compressing and changing the effective HTA I think it won't have the same effect. In fact the slacker HTA might even improve it if you think of the angle at which it is approaching a bump while moving. Imagine a bike with a 45* HTA and another with a 90* vertical HTA, you ride into a small curb at 15kmh, the bike with the steeper HTA is going to have a much higher force trying to bend the fork backwards rather than compressing it.

That aside, would a modern long-travel all-mountain fork like a Pike really have enough flex to noticeably impact the performance? If it's going to bend that much because of a slightly slacker HTA I imagine it would feel like a wet noodle while flying over the rough stuff.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

David R said:


> Obviously, while static and not moving a slacker HTA is going to put more of that upward bendy force on the fork, but when moving on uneven ground with both the front and rear suspension compressing and changing the effective HTA I think it won't have the same effect.


I think it does. If you pull apart a worn fork the wear on the stanchions suggests that, despite the dynamic loads you're talking about, the dominant force acting on it is still gravity.

Met a guy with a Lefty on the top of Ben A-an today. He said the difference in flex between the Lefty and conventional forks was significant and noticeable. I would assume the longer the fork, the more the flex. All else being kinda equal.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Back in ought 8 I was in Whistler and saw some DH rental bikes for sale. The fork stanchions were worn flat on the back, all of em.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> Back in ought 8 I was in Whistler and saw some DH rental bikes for sale. The fork stanchions were worn flat on the back, all of em.


That's pretty interesting. I'm sure those bikes got a good hammering on a daily basis.

I wonder how much maintenance the rental bikes get. I was at Mammoth at the end of the season a couple years ago, and they were selling off their entire rental fleet. A fleet of possible clapped out bikes.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Mr Pig said:


> I think it does. If you pull apart a worn fork the wear on the stanchions suggests that, despite the dynamic loads you're talking about, the dominant force acting on it is still gravity.


Good point.

Of course a longer fork is going to be more flexy if it's mde the same as a shorter one, which they usually aren't. There was certainly a huge difference between my old 150mm Fox 32s and my current 160mm Pikes, even with a 3* slacker HTA on the new bike.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

RS VR6 said:


> ...I wonder how much maintenance the rental bikes get...


My guess is 'a lot'. Cheaper than replacing a whole fleets worth of forks if they were to wear out faster than expected one year.


----------



## theMISSIONARY (Apr 13, 2008)

David R said:


> Good point.
> 
> Of course a longer fork is going to be more flexy if it's mde the same as a shorter one, which they usually aren't. There was certainly a huge difference between my old 150mm Fox 32s and my current 160mm Pikes, even with a 3* slacker HTA on the new bike.


those Fox 32s where flexi buggers in the 150mm  the Pike is miles ahead...even the Fox 34's are a big improvement.

RE:head angle vs fork wear to be honest i dont think its that big and issue to counter the positives of the handling differences.

i noted the "new" 2017 Anthem i 1.5 degree slacker.....i am very tempted now as its the same angle as my Old Am bike(2010 Meta 55)


----------



## Mudguard (Apr 14, 2009)

Mr Pig said:


> Met a guy with a Lefty on the top of Ben A-an today. He said the difference in flex between the Lefty and conventional forks was significant and noticeable. I would assume the longer the fork, the more the flex. All else being kinda equal.


Was he suggesting the Lefty was more or less than conventional forks?

I was under the impression they were considerably stiffer given they are square inside. I've always wanted to ride one to see what they were like, rolling on needle bearings too.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

RS VR6 said:


> I wonder how much maintenance the rental bikes get.


Minimal. They know these bikes are going to get hammered and only last a season or two. The average rider might use his bike once or twice a week, rental bikes go out most days so you're looking at around three-times the usual wear plus the abuse factor. From what I've seen they get basic repairs to keep them going then fed to the gullible when they're not worth the cost of fixing them properly. And the ones I've seen for sale were expensive for the condition they were in.



Mudguard said:


> I was under the impression they (the Lefty) were considerably stiffer given they are square inside.


That's exactly what he said. Quite short travel though, only about 100mm I think he said.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Singletrack Magazine | Last Bikes Hit The FASTFORWARD Button With The V2

Last Bikes - V2 FASTFORWARD
64° HTA
450mm reach (L)
1220-1230mm WB (depends on CS) on a large


----------



## j0hn (May 27, 2011)

I would love to swing a leg over one of those. Too bad they don't offer it in 26". That's right, I said it.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

j0hn said:


> I would love to swing a leg over one of those. Too bad they don't offer it in 26". That's right, I said it.


I might be looking for a 26" HT soon as well. I will need a frame to put all my parts from my cracked SC TRc.


----------



## j0hn (May 27, 2011)

The only modern (long, low, slack) 26" HT I know of is the Cotic BFe 26. And I have not seen one in person. Anyone know of other options, I'd love to hear them.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

j0hn said:


> The only modern (long, low, slack) 26" HT I know of is the Cotic BFe 26. And I have not seen one in person. Anyone know of other options, I'd love to hear them.


BTR Ranger


----------



## j0hn (May 27, 2011)

That was fast, thanks! Not cheap, but it ticks all my boxes. Looks like they're built to order and semi-customizable. I may have to give this some thought.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

j0hn said:


> That was fast, thanks! Not cheap, but it ticks all my boxes. Looks like they're built to order and semi-customizable. I may have to give this some thought.


If you're buying a hardtail and are OK with paying slightly more there are a ton of builders who will do basically whatever you want. BTR are not the cheapest, but I haven't really looked into it in detail.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

New Pivot Firebird
Pivot Firebird - Crankworx Whistler 2016 - Pinkbike









65-degree head angle
74-degree seat angle
*reach 445mm (M) & 465mm (L)*)
*wheel base 120.44mm (M) & 122.9mm (L)*
CS 430mm/16.9"

The reach on the small Firebird is now longer than the reach on the large Mach 6...

Firebird Gets the Longer/Lower Treatment
"The old Firebird kind of embodied the short and tall geometry thing," quips Cocalis. While that might be overstating things a hair, there's no denying that the new Firebird benefits from a geometry makeover. The reach on a size Large frame has grown 65 millimeters (2.5 inches) to 465 millimeters (18.31 inches). While they were at it, Pivot trimmed the chainstays, lowered the bottom bracket lowered, relaxed the head tube and steepened the seat tube. The Firebird isn't Mondraker-long--for comparison's sake, a size Large Mondraker Dune has a reach of 493 millimeters (19.4 inches)--but the new Firebird is certainly a different, more modern beast than its predecessor.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Nice! If the M6 got a similar make-over it would be right up my alley.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

The way Pivot is going it looks like the M6 will get a makeover. I also like the graphics, much more tasteful than a few years back.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

And the small GeoMetron has a reach of 485mm...the XL 535mm
New Nicolai range comes out at Eurobike. Search #geolution on Instagram for some pics. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

the_pilot said:


> And the small GeoMetron has a reach of 485mm...the XL 535mm
> New Nicolai range comes out at Eurobike. Search #geolution on Instagram for some pics.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I wonder if/when most of the US companies, like Pivot, SC, Ibis will go even longer in the future. 
Is this just a careful (or business calculated) approach to slowly increase the reach numbers over the years or are the trails in US that much different and we are getting close to the upper limits? 
Since I haven't ridden anything nowhere close to Geometron, I cannot really say...


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

I think not everyone (the public pr manufacturers) is willing to make the leap, it's so different that creates caution and questions, it's natural. it doesn't suit all riders (it's a natural transition if it's the first bike you ride, that's rare currently but each generation is riding a longer and/or slacker bike)
It wasn't a criticism just an observation of how big a difference it is.
Small companies with small production can respond quickly to customer feedback and demand. Nicolai are very small production and produce frames to order so swings in demand for models are hugely noticeable. With the #Geolution or GeoMetron geometry concept customers have clearly indicated their preferences and this has been backed up by the staff's experiences. 
I'm looking forward to the new range at Eurobike. In one way it's brave in another perfectly logical.
There is no right or wrong though. 
I really don't like b+ bikes or fatbikes as a trail bike, I quite like 29+ but they suit some people perfectly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Yep, definitely a case of different strokes for different folks. I don't find my Warden too long or slack for tail riding, even on the right slow stuff. In fact, I wouldn't want to go back to anything shorter, buy by the same token I suspect the Geometron might be a bit too far in the other direction for my one and only bike.

I've never really been a fan of Intense bikes, but the numbers on the new Recluse look pretty good too. Shame about the colours...


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Have you guys seen the reach on pvd's custom HTs? He made a 29er frame for a 5' 6" girl with 499mm reach (518mm effective, with stem included)...










Source: Pink Five! | Peter Verdone Designs

Seems he went from saying making a custom bike was pointless when you could get a bike for no more money that was far better, to making custom bikes that no one else was making, saying that he got caught up on what's been going on in the industry and apparently had some ideas... he's making another for himself with slacker HA and longer fork. He even measured the mech. trail, but not sure how that compared to the trail that the mfgs go by. 87 is probably ~94 based on the trail mfgs use. His longer travel version has 105 mech trail (~115mm trail), which is like DH bike levels (ex. Spec Demo 118). Bet he's wishing for forks with more offset (60+mm maybe). :lol:

For reference, a 27.5 Mondraker Vantage Small has 441 reach, med 461. And FS 27.5 (Factor) Small has 465 reach, med 482.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Interesting. The ST is so short that reach is almost the ETT by most bikes measure. 
From previous custom bikes I found that a really long front centre without a proportionate chainstay creates a less forgiving bike at the limit. 
I wonder if she had body proportions that suited it (long torso/arms) or if she wanted that setup for dynamic reasons. 
The small(long) GeoMetron at 485mm reach is for riders upwards of 5'5".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Here is the new Nicolai range. 13 and 16 not exactly what I wanted in terms of HA but but pretty damn close and the most progressive geo out there for a manufacturer I think. 
https://issuu.com/why_gbr/docs/nicolai-mini-katalog-2017-final_x1

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

the_pilot said:


> here is the new nicolai range. 13 and 16 not exactly what i wanted in terms of ha but but pretty damn close and the most progressive geo out there for a manufacturer i think.
> https://issuu.com/why_gbr/docs/nicolai-mini-katalog-2017-final_x1
> 
> sent from my iphone using tapatalk


Slackest HA I've seen. :eekster: 61.5 275 DH, 63.5 275 Enduro FS, 64.5 29er Trail/AM FS, and 63 275 AM HT

Update on Unno... their frame prices are expected to be in the ~5000 EU range. :crazy:


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Yes! but some of us were pushing for 62.5 for the 275 G16 and 63.5 for the 29 G13
That is with the 170mm fork for the 275. Everyone runs the 180mm as that's what it was designed for really but 170mm can be used. Why tho if no weight penalty!
Many customers of current GeoMetron's are running -1 angleset and the 180mm fork. So 62Deg HA. It just works so well.
Fun this stuff. It's been a learning curve that's for sure.
The -1deg headset has no material impact overall on BB or SA so it's a simple addition. Lose about 3mm reach but compensated easily with bar roll if the 3mm makes a difference to the rider.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

David R said:


> Nice! If the M6 got a similar make-over it would be right up my alley.


Something to think about.

My large M6 that I run with a 60mm stem feels spot on for me for everything from trail, to AM, to park riding. I'm 5'11".

The bike feels amazing and rails turns. But, all this talk about how the new super long bikes are so much better and faster had me feeling like the black sheep.

Take a look...

Richie Rude's Yeti SB6 Bike Check - EWS Round 5, Aspen-Snowmass - Pinkbike

Richie's size medium (very close to a large M6) sb66, for his 5'11" frame, run with a 60mm stem didn't seem to hold him back.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

It doesn't, but Ritchie could ride a shopping trolley fast! 
The flip side is Greg Minaar has gone longer.
The SB66 original was always a pretty long bike too.
It's hard to size up in reach, to a material level, on most bikes as the ST gets too tall and prevents use of a decent dropper, can raise dynamic CofG and feel tall. Depends on the persons proportions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Miker, I'm 183cm on a L Warden with 50m stem, feels spot on as an all-rounder for me in slack mode. I wouldn't be comfortable on a L M6, haven't even looked at the XL numbers but I wouldn't want a longer seat tube. Each to their own though, but after making the jump from a fairly conventional 2010 Turner to the Warden I'd love to have a ride on something at the extreme end of the spectrum like the Nicolai or Geometron.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/c...ialFlow&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social

From the article:
The new extra-long estate Geometron comes in at a whopping 1,343mm, with a reach figure of 535mm.

Extra-Longest Geometron: early verdict

"At 6'3" (191cm), I have never experienced being in-between sizes. After riding the extra-longest Geometron I realise that I still haven't. While I didn't get much time on the new bike, I'm pretty sure the Extra Longest is actually a better fit for me than the Longest. For riders even taller than me, this could be one of the few bikes that'll actually fit you properly"


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I read that. At 5'9.5" I don't have that issue, but it's good to see options for very tall riders.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

I'm on Longest Travis at 5'10" tho. I didn't think i would be originally but have often found myself wanting Large but not having the legs for the seat tube.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I believe I was scoffed at in several threads when I said I would like to see a light XC bike with more modern geometry.

From the MTBR article. When did XC racing get so gnarly? - Mtbr.com

"This year, a flood of new cross-country bikes have hit the market. As you'd expect, the marketing materials have been dripping with superlatives regarding weight, stiffness, and pedaling efficiency.

But there's another trend. In between the glamorous photographs of Lycra clad warriors, manufacturers have also been hyping the trail capabilities of their new bikes. A trail capable XC race bike? That doesn't seem to jive with the idea many of us have of XC, but it's true. These short travel thoroughbreds are getting longer, slacker, and dare we say more fun."

It seems that mountain bikes are becoming more mountainy.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

I've been watching the UCI WC this year. It's a thing. A lot of those courses have some tough section. FS is becoming a regular thing. A few droppers. I suspect due to fatigue that FS will trump droppers, but still later in the race or in difficult conditions you still see people going down in the tech sections. That seems to cost a lot more in terms of finishing than does a pound of weight.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Nothing slows you down like crashing.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

How slack is the slackest "XC" bike? 69 degrees? XC courses may have some low speed sections that'll require some responsiveness out of your steering. Having 66 and 70 HTA bikes...the 66 HTA does slow down the steering quite a bit...especially in sections where you have to slow down a lot to get around stuff. Also on seated climbs...the floppy front from the slack HTA don't help either. You can steepen the STA...but the slack front is still floppy. At times I'm still fighting the front end going up steeper stuff. More so when I'm tired. The 70 HTA...I'm not fighting the front as much. XC races are typically won on the climbs...and IMO...they are usually going to be optimised for that.

I don't really see straight XC bikes going much longer or slacker...but I can see the travel eventually going from 100 to 120.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Just my prospective guess but I bet it will settle out around the 68/74 HTA/STA with slightly longer reaches than current.

I bet a lot of companies will milk this for a while although some have already embraced. I'm thinking in terms of race bikes though.

Really, I don't notice enough detriment with those numbers to write home about. Climbing performance is every bit as good. A lot of the longer WC climbs I have seen aren't all that technical. A good majority of them are up double track.

A good portion of their courses aren't really tight twisty where you need a super short wheelbase. Actually a lot of their tight turns are on descents and this is where they really struggle.

I'm just talking about this past years UCI courses. XC is all over. There's stuff where they race on in my home area where I have a tough time getting through smoothly on a 71/73 bike. I can get through on my slacker bike but it's hard. And the longer wheelbase coupled with wide bars makes it really difficult. That's like 5% of what I ride though. It's not the norm. I've never seen anything as tight as I'm talking about on current WC courses.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

RS VR6 said:


> How slack is the slackest "XC" bike? 69 degrees? XC courses may have some low speed sections that'll require some responsiveness out of your steering. Having 66 and 70 HTA bikes...the 66 HTA does slow down the steering quite a bit...especially in sections where you have to slow down a lot to get around stuff. Also on seated climbs...the floppy front from the slack HTA don't help either. You can steepen the STA...but the slack front is still floppy. At times I'm still fighting the front end going up steeper stuff. More so when I'm tired. The 70 HTA...I'm not fighting the front as much. XC races are typically won on the climbs...and IMO...they are usually going to be optimised for that.
> 
> I don't really see straight XC bikes going much longer or slacker...but I can see the travel eventually going from 100 to 120.


I've got a scott spark 710 (2015) and it's 68.3/8 (depending on setting). Don't know if its the same geo as the world cup bikes, but it's easliy the most popular bike around these parts (well a 7xx anyway).
I find it's quite nice on the fast flowy stuff, but the tight twisty slow stuff, it's pretty average.

Been watching the WC streaming since freecaster around 09 and then since they switched to redbull tv, I wouldn't say the course have changed much in the last 5 years, a few tweaks here and there. but the bikes have and the speed they ride them.

It was really interesting to watch the shurter/absalom battles, absalom was faster up the climbs (depending on the course and the day, but usually) but shurter would pull away on the decents, to the point where he would win due to the decents, so absalom first went 29er, then FS, then dropper (plus a heap of DH training with his brother). Shurter obviously also worked on his climbing.


----------



## theMISSIONARY (Apr 13, 2008)

the 2017 Anthem 68HA  its more of a "trail" bike now with 120mm suspension as well


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Some guy is doing a long term test super modern geometry. Should be interesting.

#TheGeometryAffair: Does supersized geometry work for an average guy? | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

How to ride a Pole.

https://www.polebicycles.com/how-to-ride-long-mountain-bikes/


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

Has PVD been mentioned in this thread yet?

Peter Verdone Designs


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

They enjoy doing U-turns this lot...they are presently loving this geometry in later articles. The Pole Evolink 140 isn't as extreme as they come and the proof is that lots and lots of people are riding them and getting on great without much media, just word of mouth and actual riding experiences. The biggest problem Mojo have had is getting enough frames. Also there are as many if not more 'average' sized riders finding the benefits. Some have gone back.

Thats not new, all bikes are not for all people, some get different things out of their riding..

I have designed a kids/short persons version that will be available later this year for riders between 4'8" and 5'5". The tester is my very average (riding and height) 5'1" 13yr old daughter. She doesn't have massive experience, she is beginner/intermediate, crucially she doesn't come from a base of what is right or wrong. That means the 600mm effective top tube, 465mm reach, 63deg HA with 160mm forks with a 35mm stem feels right (660mm standover, 350mm ST)
It all comes down to what is fun for you on a bike. Of course, that doesn't sell mags or e-articles...


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

It's good that Pole are also along this track...more will follow, keep an eye on the media....


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Cornfield said:


> Has PVD been mentioned in this thread yet?


Sounds like an infectious disease.


----------



## zooey (Oct 31, 2016)

I asked around to see why more bike brands aren't aiming for 50/50 weight distro on the wheels. Initial answers basically said that heavy weight bias on the rear is what sells (short chainstays, front wheel moved further away from the rider, anti-endo and wheelie/manual geo). Still waiting to hear back from some others.

The Intense Primer is the first bike I've ridden that introduced me to what I consider this 50/50 weight distro on the wheels. Seems Pole targeted this sort of balance too. They also seemed to have realized that longer wheelbase just makes everything easier, and that the trade off of a wider turning radius isn't as significant as people made it seem. Kind of reminds me of the Carbine 29's ride.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

zooey said:


> Seems Pole targeted this sort of balance too. They also seemed to have realized that longer wheelbase just makes everything easier, and that the trade off of a wider turning radius isn't as significant as people made it seem. Kind of reminds me of the Carbine 29's ride.


I read somewhere that the reason (at least one of them) why Pole went with long chainstays is that the longer CS is more stable at speed.


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

Cornfield said:


> Has PVD been mentioned in this thread yet?
> 
> Peter Verdone Designs


Lota good stuff there.


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Sounds like an infectious disease.


Ouch, but yes, you're on the money....

Eric


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/pole-evolink-140-review.html

Pinkbike's Pole review.

Bikeradar

Pole Evolink 140 review - BikeRadar


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Travis Bickle said:


> https://www.pinkbike.com/news/pole-evolink-140-review.html
> 
> Pinkbike's Pole review.
> 
> ...


Nice looking ride. That shock through frame design is reminiscent of a Foes Fly.


----------



## zooey (Oct 31, 2016)

My take-away from reading about the Pole Evolink:

- Long lengths = long levers that multiply your weight, for more total overall traction
- Even weight balance = prevents issues like wandering front end on climbs, despite slack HA
- Anti-squat = is a compromise and its negative effects can outweigh the stability of the bike under pedaling torque
- Fore-aft weight shift sensitivity = having less sensitivity, due to long wheelbase, allows and encourages far more aggressive riding
- Stability = there is the possibility that bikes can ride too stable, with them wanting to do its own thing

My opinion is that I fear it would make at least half my trails too easy, and therefore boring. Tame trails would require more speed to be a challenge, and the challenge of going faster requires more fitness (or a motor, as gaining fitness is an extremely slow process that takes months/years). I believe the thrills will only last until progress on a trail has mostly plateau'd, such as matching PRs on a consistent basis. I don't believe an everyday bike should do too much of the work, nor do I believe that I should be doing much of the work--for each individual, there should be a sweet spot of balance in between, where the bike's doing just enough, to make it feel like it's an equal partner. I've felt this partnership in the SB5c v1, which I feel is more ideal to live with for longer terms. If I happened to get an Evolink, I feel like I'd likely sell it if I didn't get to challenge it on a regular basis, which going by my current riding pattern, would be less than a year. Would be like those other bikes with strong personality, that requires the rider to adapt to it, and can only really ride trails one way to feel in "the zone", which may mean it won't like casually riding with other riders who are on old school bikes. Seems like one for the quiver, for those that demand some variety/spice in their lives.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/the-interview-chris-porter-2017.html

Chris Porter interview. The vast majority of modern geometry criticism comes from people who have never tried it.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> https://www.pinkbike.com/news/the-interview-chris-porter-2017.html
> 
> Chris Porter interview. The vast majority of modern geometry criticism comes from people who have never tried it.


Still not buying the long chainstay idea. That may work great for a DH, or even a dedicated enduro bike, but I can't see it being a benefit outside of relatively open, truly high speed, trails.

That may be due to his MX background, where sliding the rear wheel helps the bike rotate around a corner and then you have 40hp to power you out after dumping all your speed.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## zooey (Oct 31, 2016)

What about the Intense Tracer, which was co-designed with Cesar Rojo (man behind Forward Geo)?


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Richde one of the key aspects of the chainstays is to deliver you faster, with more control and less scrubbing round corners the opposite of what you describe there. Lots of chainstay sizes were tried in testing. The current Mojo version has adjustable chainstay length...
Below is one of my versions with 27.5/29 wheel setup and 40's and 29 wheels and modified ebike 36's (for stiffness) and a closeup of the +/-5mm chainstay adjustment.

We have found the hybrid to be very good due to improved rear suspension performance over the 29 wheel (reduced unsprung weight) and to have less/no perceptible impact on rolling versus using a 29 rear but the cornering feel and initiation is quite different as you'd expect.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Besides adding to overall wheelbase, which means the rear wheel takes a path even further inside of the front wheel in a corner, the rider's CG is farther forward of the contact patch.

My point is this:
I have a '14 bike, which in the modern terms has a short reach but typical chainstay length, and a '17 with a 458mm reach and short 412mm stays. I can make the old bike work fine, but the new bike is better balanced for cornering because of the rearward weight bias. My CG is simply closer to the rear wheel than the front on the new bike. If you just made the older bike longer, in both reach and chainstay length, it would still lack the balance of the new bike. 

The new bike, if you can visualize this, moved the rider's CG backwards within the wheelbase which gives an almost perfect weight balance for cornering on level ground by simply lowering the saddle and dropping my heel, and requires less drastic weight shifts for maximum grip and confidence while descending. If the old bike was longer on both sides of the BB, it would still lack the cornering balance, although it would feel very confidence inspiring, it also may be giving up some rear braking effectiveness. 

I totally get long reaches, but it seems like longer isn't better for the entire bike, and shorter stays help counteract the added stability of a longer reach (because, in practice, that affects wheelbase more than the chainstays do). It also makes the front end easier to lift.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

I'm not going to get into a long argument because everyone is entitled to their own preferences regarding handling characteristics etc but Having your weight over the rear wheel more on a single track vehicle during cornering is not conducive to either grip or control and certainly not speed. front end grip is critical to such a vehicle and requires weighting. A balanced weight distribution with room to shift that weight to manage grip and a low overall centre of gravity is key to speed. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Having switched from the Warden to Endorphin (similar geo but slightly steeper HTA and less travel) I'm really enjoying the more playful nature of the bike. I have no doubts that something like the Pole would be faster and more stable, but what I'd be concerned about losing is some of the poppy nimble feeling I have with the Endo. 

I'm intrigued by the idea and I'd certainly love to ride one, but not sure I could commit to buying one without testing it first.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

the_pilot said:


> I'm not going to get into a long argument because everyone is entitled to their own preferences regarding handling characteristics etc but Having your weight over the rear wheel more on a single track vehicle during cornering is not conducive to either grip or control and certainly not speed. front end grip is critical to such a vehicle and requires weighting. A balanced weight distribution with room to shift that weight to manage grip and a low overall centre of gravity is key to speed.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's not necessarily true, as motorcycles have a heavy rearward bias when you take acceleration into consideration. The front tire also almost automatically has less grip because it's slightly turned, and let's face it, if one tire is going to slide, you want it to be the rear, so you'd want that tire to reach it's limit first.

Course, my experiences are that of an average sized man, it's very possible that lengthening both sides of the bike would work for taller people. I wouldn't know, I'm not tall.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

zooey said:


> I asked around to see why more bike brands aren't aiming for 50/50 weight distro on the wheels. Initial answers basically said that heavy weight bias on the rear is what sells (short chainstays, front wheel moved further away from the rider, anti-endo and wheelie/manual geo). Still waiting to hear back from some others.
> 
> The Intense Primer is the first bike I've ridden that introduced me to what I consider this 50/50 weight distro on the wheels. Seems Pole targeted this sort of balance too. They also seemed to have realized that longer wheelbase just makes everything easier, and that the trade off of a wider turning radius isn't as significant as people made it seem. Kind of reminds me of the Carbine 29's ride.


Easier isn't always better. Or more fun.


----------



## zooey (Oct 31, 2016)

richde said:


> That's not necessarily true, as motorcycles have a heavy rearward bias when you take acceleration into consideration. The front tire also almost automatically has less grip because it's slightly turned, and let's face it, if one tire is going to slide, you want it to be the rear, so you'd want that tire to reach it's limit first.
> 
> Course, my experiences are that of an average sized man, it's very possible that lengthening both sides of the bike would work for taller people. I wouldn't know, I'm not tall.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


When it comes to motor vehicles, they have to worry much more about dynamics under acceleration/braking. I was told that's why Porsche is more heavily rearward biased, but you can take that with a grain of salt, as it came from a car enthusiast that plays a lot of street car racing sims. Something along the same lines as what you're saying, that oversteer is preferable to understeer. I personally prefer the 2-wheel drift.



mountainbiker24 said:


> Easier isn't always better. Or more fun.


Yep! I already learned that. In fact, I mentioned that in a recent post on this thread. I prefer a challenge that is just right! Too easy is boring. There's a sweet spot for everything, and it's all dependent on personal circumstances like rider ability and terrain.

I've also re-learned how much of a YUGE difference tires make to a ride, after trying something other than my favored Maxxis treads, and how a demo bike that happened to come with my favored Maxxis treads felt so at home for me. I've been tempted to say that tires make the bike, but not that convinced yet. Still think geo and suspension are part of the top 3 with tires, but just not sure how to rank them in order of significance. I think tires might very well be #1, after thinking about it.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

I think you have to ride one. one of the first things I found is that it's ok for either wheel to slide with a very slack front and a very balanced weight distribution, without it being a disaster, the space allows you to drive the front and generate grip if desired or to balance that between the wheels. You don't have that space on a short bike and the tolerance for error becomes much smaller. 
I am 178cm, very average size. My bike has a 660mm ETT and a 520mm 'reach' although centre saddle to centre bar (within stem) is 680mm with 30mm stem. HA is 60.5deg, SA 76.5deg. Bar end to centre of BB is 915mm.

Lots of assumptions are made by people about how it rides, corners etc because (as an American journalist who has never ridden one famously said) it's 'deviant' geometry . I let lots of people ride it when I'm out riding, most are surprised, many have gone on to buy one. 

However, for most. it is definitely something to ride first. 

It corners differently, there is more lean due to the head angle and length, less turning of the front wheel, and less scrubbing of the front generating more grip with no real tendency to 'tuck'. You will get a controlled slide from the front but it's unlikely to just lose traction suddenly unless unweighted.

As I've said many times it's a package, we can't talk about front triangle length or chainstay length, head angle, seat angle, bb height etc. As individual elements. there are too many interactions especially when you add the effect of a human that moves around and is 6 times the mass of the vehicle (typically) often more.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

And yes the fun thing, it depends on what fun means to you. fun for me is cornering at speed, that's why I love motorbikes. What I gain most from the GeoMetron is forgiveness, I am an average rider, no more, but even on fairly flat terrain where I have to generate speed from pedalling I regularly hit the limits of grip, drifting the bike, I love it, great fun, with this type of geo I know that like a great tire, it's not going to just break away but give me warning. I ride with guys that manual it with ease at any speed, I'm rubbish at that, but I was only ever ok at manuals on a 'normal' bike. I can jump it and use the terrain to lift the front no sweat. 
Again you have to ride it. I hear mention of 'poppy' a lot too, that's just a suspension set up thing, a choice not a bike characteristic derived from geo. Just depends what you like as most of these things. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

What made you decide to switch to the Endo? Do you ever miss your Warden on steep downhill trails? I have tried the Endo and also found it very playful and fun, but I think the Warden is a better tool for the steep and gnarly.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Current rig. This is a Longest at 660mm ETT. I'm 5'10".

Running it 29/27.5 at the moment which is really nice. Angles come up at 61.5 HA/76.8 SA, 520mm reach. 335mm bb 160mm ebike 36 front/170mm rear.

Last week I was running it 29 which came up 60.5 HA and 76.5 SA, 510mm reach, 340mm bb, same fork but a 216 Sh ok and 155m rear. I can run it 170mm rear it the bb is higher than I'd like at 345mm in that guise.

The adjustable chainstay set to 445mm at the moment.

I need to back to back it with the 27.5 next.
The 29 is nice but The hybrid is ace, no need to have to steer the rear at all much like the 27.5 version.

The front steers nicely at either head angle but we have noticed that sub 60.5 is about the limit before you need to service the fork lowers more often to keep them running nice. 
Feels very much like the 27.5 at this HA, calm but responsive using a 44mm offset. The 51mm is a little too fast on 29 and 27.5 for most people.
gives amazing grip when loaded and huge confidence into anything steep but carves sooooo nice on flat singletrack corners too. 2 wheel drifts feel very safe so finding the limits of grip is S pleasant rather than scary experience.


























If you look closely you'll see Chris Porters XXL in there with judiciously placed lead weights testing the effect on handling and speed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Skooks said:


> What made you decide to switch to the Endo? Do you ever miss your Warden on steep downhill trails? I have tried the Endo and also found it very playful and fun, but I think the Warden is a better tool for the steep and gnarly.


I bought a used Endo frame and took the parts off of a Mondraker Vantage that I had built up. I loved the Mondraker geometry, but in the the end the HT ride was beating the crap out of my legs on quite a few of the trails here. I still have the Warden for the big boy trails.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/transitions-new-speed-balanced-geometry-2017.html

Transition is going longer with less fork offset.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

The new geometry is a load of crap. Short, steep, and high is where it's at.

A steep head angle and long stem are a perfect setup to really build your descending skills to a very high degree. Be sure to not use a dropper for maximum skill-building. Skinny tires and little or no suspension are also helpful in the skill-building.

The old geometry is also a boon to the bottom line of the healthcare providers (not applicable in Canada) for the rash of OTB injuries.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Dec 25, 2003)

So how do I know what i currently have? It's a '15 Jet 9 RDO with 70.5 HA (with 120mm fork) and a 455 (17.9") CS length and I can't imagine a better bike besides the few pedal strikes I get when I thought I would've cleared it.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

upstateSC-rider said:


> So how do I know what i currently have? It's a '15 Jet 9 RDO with 70.5 HA (with 120mm fork) and a 455 (17.9") CS length and I can't imagine a better bike besides the few pedal strikes I get when I thought I would've cleared it.


You have a Jet 9 RD0, and yes it old fashioned😉

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Curveball said:


> The new geometry is a load of crap. Short, steep, and high is where it's at.
> 
> A steep head angle and long stem are a perfect setup to really build your descending skills to a very high degree. Be sure to not use a dropper for maximum skill-building. Skinny tires and little or no suspension are also helpful in the skill-building.
> 
> The old geometry is also a boon to the bottom line of the healthcare providers (not applicable in Canada) for the rash of OTB injuries.


Bahahaha!

Why "not applicable in Canada"?


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

mtnbkrmike said:


> Bahahaha!
> 
> Why "not applicable in Canada"?


Single-payer health care system means that the health care providers don't make money off your crashes like they do in the US.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Question for bike geometry obsessed geeks.
I see more manufacturers are now including Effective STA and Actual STA in their charts.
What makes me scratch my head is that these numbers are always same for different bike sizes.
Shouldn't they be different considering they are measured at different stack #, which increases with each size...
You might need to look at some geometry graphs to see what I mean.
Mondraker for example.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

They are the same as the ASA and ESA doesn't change. 
What changes is the ETT as it's a function of the horizontal measurement to the HT and of course the ATT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

the_pilot said:


> They are the same as the ASA and ESA doesn't change.
> What changes is the ETT as it's a function of the horizontal measurement to the HT and of course the ATT.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hmmm I'll have the FBI look into this and get back with you.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

the_pilot said:


> They are the same as the ASA and ESA doesn't change.
> What changes is the ETT as it's a function of the horizontal measurement to the HT and of course the ATT.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hmm,
The horizontal line (where the ESA is measured) rises as a result of higher stack. That also means the point of intersection (with ST) moves back, since the ST is angled.
And this was my original question, Effective STA is measured from BB to this point of intersection. If this point moves back, it should effect the Effective STA. It should make the ESA slacker with rising stack height...
Thats why I dont understand why are ESA and ASA # the same across all frame sizes?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

The angle never changes though. The point of intersection yes but that's. It what you asked.
As stack rises, normally so does ATT and thus ETT.
Higher stack doesn't change either the effective or actual seat angle.
A higher stack for a fixed reach would change the ETT. But that's an unrealistic comparison as no one would do that. Stack rises either with frame size or fork length typically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

the_pilot said:


> The angle never changes though. The point of intersection yes but that's. It what you asked.
> As stack rises, normally so does ATT and thus ETT.
> Higher stack doesn't change either the effective or actual seat angle.
> A higher stack for a fixed reach would change the ETT. But that's an unrealistic comparison as no one would do that. Stack rises either with frame size or fork length typically.
> ...


Well,
I will have to diseagree.
If the stack rises, it moves the point of intersection back and if the ASA is unchanged across the different sizes, the ESA has to change. The more the stack rises the slacker the ESA will be.

I know about changes in ETT and reach, byt I am not talking about those here...

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> Hmm,
> The horizontal line (where the ESA is measured) rises as a result of higher stack. That also means the point of intersection (with ST) moves back, since the ST is angled.
> And this was my original question, Effective STA is measured from BB to this point of intersection. If this point moves back, it should effect the Effective STA. It should make the ESA slacker with rising stack height...
> Thats why I dont understand why are ESA and ASA # the same across all frame sizes?
> ...


You are correct. The ESA is a BS number anyway. No one has their saddle the same height as the head tube, and all manufactures have different ASAs, so it is extremely difficult to project the real seat tube angle an individual will end up with. My actual is not even close to the geometry chart.


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

jazzanova said:


> I see more manufacturers are now including Effective STA and Actual STA in their charts. What makes me scratch my head is that these numbers are always same for different bike sizes.


I haven't seen that many companies providing both. Like you say, Mondraker does. The first Mondraker bike geo I looked at actually didn't have the same angles across sizes (but the next one did). I'm not yet convinced they're "always" the same (or that these bike companies report correct ST #s).

I started to think Stack and ST (vertically measured) heights negated one another, but that's probably not the case. But it does diminish the variances we would expect to see across sizes, right?



the_pilot said:


> The angle never changes though. The point of intersection yes but that's. It what you asked.
> As stack rises, normally so does ATT and thus ETT.
> Higher stack doesn't change either the effective or actual seat angle.


I can't agree with most of this.



Travis Bickle said:


> The ESA is a BS number anyway. No one has their saddle the same height as the head tube, and all manufactures have different ASAs, so it is extremely difficult to project the real seat tube angle an individual will end up with. My actual is not even close to the geometry chart.


I think eSTA can be helpful. And when coupled with the aSTA, it's not hard to determine the eSTA at a given saddle height. Another 90* triangle is created north of the HT, so plug two numbers (one being eSTA - aSTA) into an online calculator, and you'll get the rear offset created by the aSTA vs. eSTA, which you can use to determine your personal eSTA (I think..., no engineer here). I did something similar here when questioning Pivot's published eSTA numbers for the 429T.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

EST angle as quoted by any mfr is the angle of a straight line drawn through the centre of the BB and the centre of the top of the ST.
The ETT is measured from where that line when extended from intersects with a horizontal line drawn from the top of the centre of the HT and measure between the two.

I read the question as being that that angle changes depending on extension. That isn't true.

It also does not change between sizes except in certain circumstances where mfs can't package elements on the very small bikes, sometimes you will see slightly different angles quoted on XS bikes.

If you change the effective seat angle between sizes you change the bike. it will pedal very differently for a given height saddle.

Which I think some are alluding to here in that, yes as the extension increases the weight of the rider is more rearward and that has the impact of making the ETT for that rider longer and climbing performance worse depending on the length of chainstay and head angle etc etc. Also affected by stem length....





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Hmmm I'll have the FBI look into this and get back with you.


If this had anything to do with the Fabricated Bottom bracket Intersection,
you would have been subpoenaed.

I wish I had *my* old geometry back. I used to be skinny.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

the_pilot said:


> EST angle as quoted by any mfr is the angle of a straight line drawn through the centre of the BB and the centre of the top of the ST.
> The ETT is measured from where that line when extended from intersects with a horizontal line drawn from the top of the centre of the HT and measure between the two.
> 
> I read the question as being that that angle changes depending on extension. That isn't true.
> ...


I dont think you are right about the EST angle way of measurement. 
It is measured at stack height, not at the top of the ST....








Here you can clearly see that if the stack height increases, it moves the point of intersection back and therefore slackening the EST angle, while the AST angle stays unchanged. 
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

I didn't say measured at the top, I said through the top to the horizontal intersection.
The angle never changes along that line no matter where you measure it! 

All that changes is the point of intersection with the horizontal which is the ETT.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

the_pilot said:


> I didn't say measured at the top, I said through the top to the horizontal intersection.
> The angle never changes along that line no matter where you measure it!
> 
> All that changes is the point of intersection with the horizontal which is the ETT.
> ...


Your exact words where "the center of the top of the seat tube."

Anyway. Look at the geometry drawing again.
If the stack increases, the point of intersection moves up and back. It does not change the AST angle but it certainly changes EST angle, since it is measured from the BB....
With higher stack it gets slacker.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

the_pilot said:


> EST angle as quoted by any mfr is the angle of a straight line drawn through the centre of the BB and the centre of the top of the ST.


I've seen Niner measure it this way but no one else. I remember because it made me think, "WTF is Niner doing now?" Hey, don't they have a model named...



jazzanova said:


> these numbers are always same for different bike sizes.
> Shouldn't they be different considering they are measured at different stack #, which increases with each size...


Jazzanova, I see what you're saying. All else held constant, increased Stack should slacken eSTA. But all else is not held constant. eSTA is a function of, among other things, the point in space that is the center/top of the ST (where post begins to extend). This is a unique point for each frame size. Move this point forward and you steepen the eSTA, right? Vertical height of the top of ST is another variable. So, for a given size, a designer, working with given Stack and aSTA #s, could offset and/or bend the seat tube so the top of it arrives at such a point as to produce the desired eSTA. In this way, a designer could "zero out" any eSTA variances among Stack heights (if they wish) by manipulating this unique point. Mondraker appears to have very purposely offset the ST from the BB - I'd guess this is why. Alternatively, a designer could manipulate aSTA to get their eSTAs to match up (or combine the various methods).


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Ryder1 said:


> I've seen Niner measure it this way but no one else. I remember because it made me think, "WTF is Niner doing now?" Hey, don't they have a model named...
> 
> Jazzanova, I see what you're saying. All else held constant, increased Stack should slacken eSTA. But all else is not held constant. eSTA is a function of, among other things, the point in space that is the center/top of the ST (where post begins to extend). This is a unique point for each frame size. Move this point forward and you steepen the eSTA, right? Vertical height of the top of ST is another variable. So, for a given size, a designer, working with given Stack and aSTA #s, could offset and/or bend the seat tube so the top of it arrives at such a point as to produce the desired eSTA. In this way, a designer could "zero out" any eSTA variances among Stack heights (if they wish) by manipulating this unique point. Mondraker appears to have very purposely offset the ST from the BB - I'd guess this is why. Alternatively, a designer could manipulate aSTA to get their eSTAs to match up (or combine the various methods).


Yup, it is possible.
Few things though. 
If they bent the ST to maintain the same eSTA across the sizes, that would also change the aSTA.
They could of course just move the ST forward to maintain both angles the same, but it is very unlikely. It would also mean changes in the way the rear triangle is mounted to the front or even changes to the rear triangle itself, again very unlikely...

Some designs might allow for maintaining both effective and actual STA constant, but most will not.

I believe most manufacturers just pick numbers somewhere in the middle of the road and use them on geo charts across all sizes.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

jazzanova said:


> If they bent the ST to maintain the same eSTA across the sizes, that would also change the aSTA.


I was talking about bending the bottom half of the ST forward (like my 429T) which facilitates offsetting the ST forward of the BB (no matter; I think we agree that the ST can be offset forward while maintaining the same aSTA, regardless of how it's described).



jazzanova said:


> They could of course just move the ST forward to maintain both angles the same, but it is very unlikely. It would also mean changes in the way the rear triangle is mounted to the front or even changes to the rear triangle itself, again very unlikely...
> Some designs might allow for maintaining both effective and actual STA constant, but most will not.


Very unlikely? Perhaps. Suspension design confuses me. But can't designers just design the necessary post-mount thingees (and/or bend tubes) so that linkages are mounted where they need to be? Similarly, they can design huge ugly (and stiff) ST/BB areas to facilitate mounting linkages where they want them? All while designing whatever geo they want (within reason).


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I am very much wanting to demo a Pole, but I'm in Canada so that is unlikely.

#thegeometryaffair - Part 2, The Threesome | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> I am very much wanting to demo a Pole, but I'm in Canada so that is unlikely.
> 
> #thegeometryaffair - Part 2, The Threesome | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine


I hope more manufacturers will implement the steep STA. Keep the TT in check for proper seated distance to bars, give it a steep ST and option to adjust the HA & CS. Forget about the WB, the least important #, unless its too short. 
And give us the option of different offsets! 
Its amazing it is taking this long. Even this thread is now over 2years old..

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

After reading some of this I thought of something. It seems much advice for sizing a bike is given for reach and stack. People say size a bike off reach/TT most importantly. Now, since some bikes have steeper STA's, doesn't that change what people are looking at?

So, take a bike with a seemingly huge reach like 450 for a medium frame. If it has a super steep STA, then the actual rider reach would be equivalent to say a bike with reach of 430, BUT with a slacker STA right? So shouldn't STA be an important number to reach?


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

ejewels said:


> After reading some of this I thought of something. It seems much advice for sizing a bike is given for reach and stack. People say size a bike off reach/TT most importantly. Now, since some bikes have steeper STA's, doesn't that change what people are looking at?
> 
> So, take a bike with a seemingly huge reach like 450 for a medium frame. If it has a super steep STA, then the actual rider reach would be equivalent to say a bike with reach of 430, BUT with a slacker STA right? So shouldn't STA be an important number to reach?


They are all important #s and we should look at the geometry as a whole. 
Reach & Stack are the most important # in regards how a bike fits when standing. Add CS, HA, offset and WB and it will define how a bike will feel when descending/standing pedaling. 
Add TT & STA and it defines how the bike will feel while sitting. 
ST length is another important #, but it seems this one most manufacturers get correct these days and the era of long seat tubes is behind us. 
My biggest problem is with slack seat tubes. Ones they get steeper, reach gets properly adjusted. If only reach gets longer without making the ST steeper, the TT stays uncomfortably long for seated position.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Travis Bickle said:


> I am very much wanting to demo a Pole, but I'm in Canada so that is unlikely.
> 
> #thegeometryaffair - Part 2, The Threesome | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine


Same here, I'm very curious but would really want to try it, preferably on my home trails, before laying down the cash.

I'm also really interested to see how the new SBG Transitions ride once they're released, and the chances of getting a demo on one are much higher for me.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Steep STA and long reach make it more difficult to get your weight over the back wheel. Count me out if that becomes the norm.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

A fad that I will be happy to see gone.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Steep STA and long reach make it more difficult to get your weight over the back wheel. Count me out if that becomes the norm.


When exactly are you trying to get your weight over the back wheel? Not something I've ever found myself struggling with, can you give me an example?


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Steep STA and long reach make it more difficult to get your weight over the back wheel. Count me out if that becomes the norm.


Which longer reach, steep ST bikes have you tried?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## theMISSIONARY (Apr 13, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> I am very much wanting to demo a Pole, but I'm in Canada so that is unlikely.
> 
> #thegeometryaffair - Part 2, The Threesome | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine


i would love one....But at over $7000 aud its never going to happen


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

David R said:


> When exactly are you trying to get your weight over the back wheel? Not something I've ever found myself struggling with, can you give me an example?


Manualling, dropping, adjusting body position while jumping, going down super steep sections... It's more difficult with longer wheelbases.



jazzanova said:


> Which longer reach, steep ST bikes have you tried?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


Does it matter? Physics is physics. It is more difficult to get your weight over the back wheel when your hands are farther from the rear axle. I realize that a longer wheelbase centers the rider's mass more on the bike, it makes it more difficult to weight either wheel. You can still do it, but the rider needs to exagerate their movements much more.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Manualling, dropping, adjusting body position while jumping, going down super steep sections... It's more difficult with longer wheelbases.
> 
> Does it matter? Physics is physics. It is more difficult to get your weight over the back wheel when your hands are farther from the rear axle. I realize that a longer wheelbase centers the rider's mass more on the bike, it makes it more difficult to weight either wheel. You can still do it, but the rider needs to exagerate their movements much more.


Of course it matters. 
The bottom line is, you have never ridden it and your experience with this kind of geometry is exactly 0%, none.
You can say what you want, until you try it, it is just an opinion not based in real life testing.

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Yup, lot's of opinions based on biases, not experience. Thank God that not all designers think like that, or we would all be on 1985 Stumpjumpers. I try to keep an open mind when new things come along. Designers don't come up with stuff like the Pole on a whim, they experiment, and find what they like. Those who don't experiment with new things never know.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

I don't need to try the extreme geometry to understand math. I've ridden a bunch of bikes that had all kinds of geometry, and when the front end gets longer, it is more difficult to get over the back axle.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

I don't need to try the extreme geometry to understand math. I've ridden a bunch of bikes that had all kinds of geometry, and when the seattube angle gets steeper and reach gets shifted forward, it is more difficult to get over the back axle. The only way to fix it is to incorporate super short chainstays, which is not always practical or beneficial, either. I'd draw you a picture comparing body positions, but you should be able to figure it out.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I don't need to try the extreme geometry to understand math. I've ridden a bunch of bikes that had all kinds of geometry, and when the seattube angle gets steeper and reach gets shifted forward, it is more difficult to get over the back axle. The only way to fix it is to incorporate super short chainstays, which is not always practical or beneficial, either. I'd draw you a picture comparing body positions, but you should be able to figure it out.


How does the steep ST have any effect whatsoever on weight distribution? We are talking descending, right?

Regarding the longer front center and short CS. The opposite is desired. The longer you make the front the longer you want the CS to be. Fortunately, the obsession with short CS is slowly becoming the thing of the past.

Another good article on the topic is here:
http://www.starlingcycles.com/news/...metry-part-1-getting-it-wrong-to-get-it-right

And again, these are written by people doing some real life testing. 
Fortunately their word means tons more than some armchair engineer claiming he knows it all without even trying it.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> Yup, lot's of opinions based on biases, not experience. Thank God that not all designers think like that, or we would all be on 1985 Stumpjumpers. I try to keep an open mind when new things come along. Designers don't come up with stuff like the Pole on a whim, they experiment, and find what they like. Those who don't experiment with new things never know.


Stop it! 
We all know suspension is a gimmick, hydraulic brakes arent needed and carbon frames will crack within a week of riding! 
We don't need to try it to understand how the physics work. 


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Steep STA and long reach make it more difficult to get your weight over the back wheel. Count me out if that becomes the norm.





mountainbiker24 said:


> Manualling, dropping, adjusting body position while jumping, going down super steep sections... It's more difficult with longer wheelbases.
> 
> Does it matter? Physics is physics. It is more difficult to get your weight over the back wheel when your hands are farther from the rear axle. I realize that a longer wheelbase centers the rider's mass more on the bike, it makes it more difficult to weight either wheel. You can still do it, but the rider needs to exagerate their movements much more.





mountainbiker24 said:


> I don't need to try the extreme geometry to understand math. I've ridden a bunch of bikes that had all kinds of geometry, and when the seattube angle gets steeper and reach gets shifted forward, it is more difficult to get over the back axle. The only way to fix it is to incorporate super short chainstays, which is not always practical or beneficial, either. I'd draw you a picture comparing body positions, but you should be able to figure it out.











May I ask for your attention, looking at the rear center and front center on this illustration and thinking about all of this in terms of body weight balancing.

When you extend a wheelbase, yet keep the RC (chainstay length) the same, the front center gets longer. The BB effectively becomes farther away from the front axle, and a higher % of your weight resting on the BB becomes supported by the rear axle; the geo change effectively makes the bike more rearward biased. This is similar to keeping the front the same length, but shortening the RC. 
- A steep STA balances out this rearward weight shift, putting your seated pedaling position back into a more balanced position that riders are more familiar with. 
- A long reach balances out the steeper STA, to retain a familiar distance between the seat and bars. It's unwise to have much of the FC gain come from longer and more slacked out telescopic forks, due to how the geometry changes as it goes through its travel.

While seated, your weight would be balanced similarly to conventional bikes, with the changes balanced out like this. It's a different story when you're standing. If the longer reach was balanced by a shorter stem, then the bike will be even more rearward biased than conventional bikes while standing. On the Pole Evolink, the reach is increased to around 500mm. There'd be excessive rear weight bias, if it were not balanced out by extending the rear center.

A longer wheelbase actually makes holding a manual in its balance point a lot easier. Drops, jumps, and steeps actually can be tackled with more stability (less nervousness). They all would feel more calmer and relaxed on a longer wheelbase bike. A heavier rearward bias helps. The longer wheelbase bike doesn't better center the rider... a rider naturally finds a "balance point" on any bike, but the sweet spot for it is broader on a long wheelbase bike. This effectively gives you "more room to move", since you don't feel like you're throwing yourself off balance by moving around on the bike.

Exaggerating movements is not exactly a bad thing. I'd say becoming more active on the bike is a good thing. It's better than to be "frozen stiff" in a precise position that is maintaining your balance, to avoid being thrown off your intended course. Think of how rockets correct their course--they over-correct with a heavy movement then counter the previous movement with another strong movement once back on course. It's more beginner friendly to require broader, less precise movement. It takes a lot of repetition to develop conditioned muscles or muscle memory to pull off movements that require a high degree of sensitivity, like riding a BMX bike trials-style on a tight rope. Think about it in this sense, if you normally held your handlebars with a narrow grip by the stem clamp and used micro movements, you might think that using a wide grip on wider bar exaggerates your movements. Or maybe think about it as using a computer mouse with sensitivity turned up, so a small flick can send the cursor from one edge of your screen to the other, vs using a sensitivity setting that requires more movement to do the same--then think about how this affects various common and uncommon tasks and how one would choose based on personal needs. A dancer jumping and landing on one foot is trained to control their inertia by spreading their weight out widely.

I believe the main reason why these bikes can turn better than expected is because that the longer downtube acts as a longer lever, so the % of weight from the BB that goes to the front wheel is multiplied before it reaches the lower headset cup and puts weight through the fork to the wheel. Having weight on the front prevents the understeer that is the main weakness of extremely rearward biased vehicles. On conventional geo mtbs, this weakness tends to be compensated for by running super grippy front tires. The longer front center also makes rolling over uneven ground not upset the bike's pitch as much.

TL;DR: think of it as the ratio of weight on the rear wheel, vs the front, rather how having the bars farther forward affects your ability to get your ass hanging over/behind the rear axle.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Varaxis again."


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Varaxis said:


> When you extend a wheelbase, yet keep the RC (chainstay length) the same, the front center gets longer. The BB effectively becomes farther away from the front axle, and a higher % of your weight resting on the BB becomes supported by the rear axle; the geo change effectively makes the bike more rearward biased.


I agree with much of what you are saying, but some of it doesn't make any sense. Take the above for example, if the rear of the bike stays the same and front gets longer then more weight is on the rear axle. Not really.

If you were to sit in the same place then the weight on the rear axle would remain exactly the same but in practice that's not the case. Stretching the front end will make the rider lean forward more and put _less_ weight on the rear end. The opposite of what you are saying.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Mr Pig said:


> I agree with much of what you are saying, but some of it doesn't make any sense. Take the above for example, if the rear of the bike stays the same and front gets longer then more weight is on the rear axle. Not really.
> 
> If you were to sit in the same place then the weight on the rear axle would remain exactly the same but in practice that's not the case. Stretching the front end will make the rider lean forward more and put _less_ weight on the rear end. The opposite of what you are saying.


Yep. Lots of contradictions in his jabbering. Some is correct, like a wider range of balance and easier centering, but that doesn't make riding more fun or switchbacks and tight turns easier.

Personally, I think people that are full in on this new geometry fall into at least one of these five categories:

1). No real experience riding old geometry.
2). No real experience riding tight, twisty, technical trails.
3). No real ability to ride a bike without a geometric crutch.
4). Race and need every competitive advantage they can find.
5). Have talked themselves into the illusion that one geometry is better at everything without compromise.


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

Yeah really makes me wonder if the long WB long bike guys mostly just ride bomber DH type tracks. I upsized to a 5010 large and regretted it in twisties and switchbacks.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> ...5). Have talked themselves into the illusion that one geometry is better at everything without compromise.


I certainly think it's true that longer bikes are no free lunch. Most changes in bike dynamics are compromises, it's hard to get around that, and the idea that a longer wheelbase vehicle can be easier to get round a tight bend? Na, not having it.

I've watched guys on big 29er bikes on tight switchbacks. They are not having an easier time of it. The idea that it easier to move around on a bigger bike is also not true, BMX bikes are small for a reason.

I'm not saying longer bikes are rubbish, far from it, but they're not a golden bullet either. They'll be better over some kinds of terrain, worse on others.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> I agree with much of what you are saying, but some of it doesn't make any sense. Take the above for example, if the rear of the bike stays the same and front gets longer then more weight is on the rear axle. Not really.
> 
> If you were to sit in the same place then the weight on the rear axle would remain exactly the same but in practice that's not the case. Stretching the front end will make the rider lean forward more and put _less_ weight on the rear end. The opposite of what you are saying.


Nope. 
The distance from the saddle to bars stays the same. 
What changes is the STA, reach, HTA, front centre... 
The rider doesn't have to lean forward more.

The slack ST is the problem on most current bikes. 
5'8.5", 31" inseam.
I wanted to go with a L SC Hightower frame. Standing it felt fine, the 450mm reach was OK. While seated it was still fine, but only with a 35mm stem and saddle all the way forward. 
If the ST was properly steep, the bike would have been perfect.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

jazzanova said:


> The distance from the saddle to bars stays the same. What changes is the STA, reach, HTA, front centre... The rider doesn't have to lean forward more.


You need to read what he said more carefully.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> You need to read what he said more carefully.


I reacted to your claim:
"Stretching the front end will make the rider lean forward more and put _less_ weight on the rear end. The opposite of what you are saying"
Which isn't the case...

Not sure what are you hitting at in Varaxis statement. Can you point out exactly to it?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

jazzanova said:


> Not sure what are you hitting at. Can you point out exactly to his statement?


Sure.

In his first main paragraph he said that extra weight on the rear axle would result from extending the front of the bike, with no other changes. He doesn't introduce a change in STA until the next paragraph where he says; "A steep STA balances out this rearward weight shift".

So he's saying that your weight shifts backwards solely due to an extension of the front.

Making the STA steeper will indeed move your weight forward, no argument there.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> Sure.
> 
> In his first main paragraph he said that extra weight on the rear axle would result from extending the front of the bike, with no other changes. He doesn't introduce a change in STA until the next paragraph where he says; "A steep STA balances out this rearward weight shift".
> 
> ...


And yet he wasn't incorrect. You are trying to devide his statement into 2 separate paragraphs, while it is obvious that he meant it as a whole...

You automatically assumed that the extension of the front center could be done solely by increasing the reach. Change in the front center can be done in numerous ways, and some will indeed shift the weight without changing how stretched out the rider would be. 
- slacker HA
- increased offset
- steeper ST
- fork change
- tire size

The weight change rear vs front center is a tricky subject. 
The extended front center also means more mass (talking frame) in the front and at the same time more rear weight bias of a rider, due to the unchanged rear center.

I found out I can climb strep stuff better on my AM bike with relatively steep ST and longer front center and 40mm stem than I ever could on my XC bike with old school geometry - slack ST, short WB, steep HT and 90mm stem....

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

jazzanova said:


> Nope.
> The distance from the saddle to bars stays the same.
> What changes is the STA, reach, HTA, front centre...
> The rider doesn't have to lean forward more.
> ...


jazz, didn't you say you'd choose a 5010 in large though? I figured accounting for the slightly slacker STA and the slightly shorter reach compared to the Hightower they'd practically ride the same no?


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

jazzanova said:


> And yet he wasn't incorrect. You are trying to decide his statement into 2 separate paragraphs, while it is obvious that he meant it as a whole...
> 
> You automatically assumed that the extension of the front centre could be done solely by increasing the reach. Change in the front centre can be done in numerous ways.


I'm sorry but I think it's you who are misinterpreting what he said. He said that when you "extend a wheelbase, yet keep the RC (chainstay length) the same, the front centre gets longer". No mention of the STA, in fact changing the STA does not make the wheelbase longer. He refers to this 'change', singular, at the end of the paragraph so it's pretty clear he meant that extending the front of the bike puts more weight on the rear axle. Which is what I said I didn't agree with.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

ejewels said:


> jazz, didn't you say you'd choose a 5010 in large though? I figured accounting for the slightly slacker STA and the slightly shorter reach compared to the Hightower they'd practically ride the same no?


In the case of 5010 I definitely would. 
That bike felt shorter and also seated fit better. 
Its misleading to look at the STA without sitting on the bike. While the effective ST on 5010 is slacker on the paper, the actual might as well be steeper. I like my seat higher + shorter cranks and taller clipleas shoes. All this will move the seat higher and with the slacker actual ST moves me back even more. I believe that was the case on the Hightower. 
It still felt OK though. 
However, the fact I had to move the saddle all the way forward (not solely because the need to get closer to bars, bit also to get nice steep ST for good pedaling position) isn't the best. When the saddle is so far of the center it can be harder to push down the dropper...

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Mr Pig said:


> I agree with much of what you are saying, but some of it doesn't make any sense. Take the above for example, if the rear of the bike stays the same and front gets longer then more weight is on the rear axle. Not really.
> 
> If you were to sit in the same place then the weight on the rear axle would remain exactly the same but in practice that's not the case. Stretching the front end will make the rider lean forward more and put _less_ weight on the rear end. The opposite of what you are saying.


I stated what the difference in weight bias is between the two different geometry bikes when the weight at the BB is near identical, with a standing rider placing 90% weight on the BB, with a very light amount being supported at the bars.

This is a basic experiment that helps explain how moving the front away from the rear, where the weight load stays the same distance away from the rear, clearly results in significantly more rearward weight bias. The leverage effect doesn't show in this experiment as much, since the levers are so short. It's a 500g weight and leverage only increases it to 502.19g with the slightly wider "wheelbase", and 501.6g with the prior shorter "wheelbase", which is within the margin of error.

Riders on such new geo may likely find themselves moving forward to offset this increased rearward weight bias, and in the end can wind up in the balance they're familiar with on classic bikes, rather than too forward as some of you feared. If anything, it's more rearward than I thought, except with lessened downsides that typically come with such rearward bias, at cost of needing to be more deliberate with movements to manipulate the pitch of the bike.








- scales tared before placing the 500g weight








- 356.90g (left/rear) + 144.7g (right/front) = 501.6g total








- 377.89g (left/rear) + 124.3g (right/front) = 502.19g total (additional total weight due to effect of increased leverage)

* nothing about the experiment is exactly precise, nor needs precision. The scale on the right is slightly shorter, but by less than half a cm. The camera was hand held, so the angle isn't perfect between the 3 shots, but I assure only the front support was slid away between the measurement shots.

** this makes me question the leverage effect. I need to get two identical scales for an on-the-bike test. Might very well be that increased control comes solely from the front not pitching up nor bouncing as much, due to the increased length.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

I have ride a XXL tallboy with a 505mm reach. It has the same rear as the 400mm small.

Extending the front without changing the back puts more weight on the rear wheel. That's physics and easy to demonstrate.

I have the same reach from my old XL bike to my XXL but the XXL has 40mm more frame and 40mm less stem. The total wheel contact point with greater fork offset and rake is around 100mm. Thats a huge change!

I'm having problems with front weight balance while descending. I simply can't get enough weight on the front wheel. I've slammed and lengthen my stem to help remedy this and it's going in the right direction.

My next step is to swap out the 51mm offset to a 44mm offset uppers. This is the future of long reach bikes. Since I can't stretch my rear I need to reduce the front or lower my bars even more. I'm running a 85mm drop from saddle to bars and can't go lower without getting new bars. I have 800mm SixC 20mm rise 35 bars if anyone wants to trade for some 10mm rise ones.

I'm never going back to a short reach bike, but getting the balance right is important and rear chainstays need to grow too.

The speed difference in steering that everyone fears from long reach bikes is easy to adapt to and you get the benefit being able to move around in the center of the bike without upsetting it. It's kind of like short stems and long bars. If you jump on them from a long stem short bar bike the feel and timing is all off. Once you get your timing synced to the bike they are money.

Anyway

Long front = longer rear for balance
slack HTA = less offset to keep the front under you. Trail is your friend too.
Stem = fork offset +- 10mm. When your bars mirror your front axle, good things happen.
Steep STA = good climbing


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

jazzanova said:


> In the case of 5010 I definitely would.
> That bike felt shorter and also seated fit better.
> Its misleading to look at the STA without sitting on the bike. While the effective ST on 5010 is slacker on the paper, the actual might as well be steeper. I like my seat higher + shorter cranks and taller clipleas shoes. All this will move the seat higher and with the slacker actual ST moves me back even more. I believe that was the case on the Hightower.
> It still felt OK though.
> ...


but wouldn't the seat height be the same on the 5010 this a tad slacker still?


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

ejewels said:


> but wouldn't the seat height be the same on the 5010 this a tad slacker still?


No it wouldn't. 
If the actual ST is slacker, it moves me back more and therefore the seat won't be as high in order to maintain the same seat to BB/pedals distance. 
The steeper the ST, the higher the saddle needs to be.

You have to be careful when comparing STA of 2 bikes. The effective STA can be exactly the same, but if one has much slacker actual ST, it could move your saddle further back. The difference could easily be couple of cm or more.

Another thing which effects this is stack height, since the STA is measured at this point. So unless these bikes have the same stack its a bit harder to compare them in this regard.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

jazzanova said:


> No it wouldn't.
> If the actual ST is slacker, it moves me back more and therefore the seat won't be as high in order to maintain the same seat to BB/pedals distance.
> The steeper the ST, the higher the saddle needs to be.
> 
> ...


ah I get it. The HT has higher stack and steeper STA so makes sense why the 5010 fit better. I'm missing that large, I admit it!


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I rode a riding buddy's '17 Enduro 29 comp (entry level model) the other day, and his bike rides a lot like a SUV with its upright position, over my more rearward and seemingly lower SB5c. And damn, his rear wheel was an anchor on the climbs; it was so heavy! 

The '17 E29's riding position showed no obvious weakness, nor misbehaved in any manner, but found that the ride experience was affected more by the heavy rear wheel than anything else, such as the geo. This coming from someone that owns and raced a '14 E29, already familiar with its general qualities. I thought the 1st gen's pedaling position was well dialed in stock form, but could've used a geo tweak, which could be attained by swapping out the rear wheel for a 27.5 (lower BB, slacker HA, swap in zero setback post). If anything, riding these bikes made me wonder if high stack height is really that big of an issue for a short rider (I'm 5' 7").


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Varaxis said:


> This is a basic experiment that helps explain how moving the front away from the rear, where the weight load stays the same distance away from the rear, clearly results in significantly more rearward weight bias...


Thanks for going to the trouble of doing that. It's very interesting and demonstrates that what I thought about weight shift, or lack of it, was wrong.

If the rider had to lean forward due to the extra length of the front that would still counter this though, but if the extra length was due to an increase in rake only that wouldn't apply.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Curveball said:


> The new geometry is a load of crap. Short, steep, and high is where it's at.
> 
> A steep head angle and long stem are a perfect setup to really build your descending skills to a very high degree. Be sure to not use a dropper for maximum skill-building. Skinny tires and little or no suspension are also helpful in the skill-building.
> 
> The old geometry is also a boon to the bottom line of the healthcare providers (not applicable in Canada) for the rash of OTB injuries.


Thank you for the reminder. It's been a while since my seat scratched my stomach and tires itched my balls.

The new stuff makes you change your scenery watching. We're at the cabin this weekend and you'd think 29 years more of age would slow you down but late model bikes get the same old school trail loops done 15 - 30 minutes faster.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Personally, I think people that are full in on this new geometry fall into at least one of these five categories:
> 
> 1). No real experience riding old geometry.
> 2). No real experience riding tight, twisty, technical trails.
> ...


What a completely arrogant and ridiculous thing to say. I've been riding since 1993 so 1 and 3 are out, I haven't raced since highschool so not 4 either, definitely not 2 as we have plenty of tight twisty tech here, so I must be number 5?

Did you even read the 'geometry affair' article above? The writer found tight turns were actually BETTER on the longer wheelbase and it wasn't until they got so tight (like a complete 180* hiking-trail type switchback) that the length of the wheelbase became a hindrance. My Knolly isn't exactly Pole-length but certainly longer than the average bike of old, there is literally only a handful of corners on the trails I ride where the length becomes an issue, it wouldn't even be 0.5% of the time spent riding, and even then with a little practice and skill I seem to be able to get it around those switchbacks and tight corners.

Maybe you're the one who needs the "geometric crutch" if you need to ride a short bike to get it around tight corners?
:winker:


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

David R said:


> What a completely arrogant and ridiculous thing to say. I've been riding since 1993 so 1 and 3 are out, I haven't raced since highschool so not 4 either, definitely not 2 as we have plenty of tight twisty tech here, so I must be number 5?
> 
> Did you even read the 'geometry affair' article above? The writer found tight turns were actually BETTER on the longer wheelbase and it wasn't until they got so tight (like a complete 180* hiking-trail type switchback) that the length of the wheelbase became a hindrance. My Knolly isn't exactly Pole-length but certainly longer than the average bike of old, there is literally only a handful of corners on the trails I ride where the length becomes an issue, it wouldn't even be 0.5% of the time spent riding, and even then with a little practice and skill I seem to be able to get it around those switchbacks and tight corners.
> 
> ...


You are definitely number 5. What's arrogant is telling people that one type of geometry is automatically better, and anybody that disagrees is wrong. I'll trust my experiences over some random internet poster. Anyways, to me it's not about speed, comfort, or stability. Short wheelbases are just more fun for me to ride.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> You are definitely number 5. What's arrogant is telling people that one type of geometry is automatically better, and anybody that disagrees is wrong. I'll trust my experiences over some random internet poster. Anyways, to me it's not about speed, comfort, or stability. Short wheelbases are just more fun for me to ride.


If you find the handling of short wheelbase bikes "fun" that's fine, that's your preference and you're just as entitled to that as anyone else.

I've readily admitted that there is a compromise with my bike, and that is on ultra-tight switchbacks/corners that are getting so tight they're bordering on requiring a trials move to get around them. That's it, and that type of corner makes up a tiny fraction of my riding, I'd be a fool to even really consider it when looking at what sort of bike to ride. For everything else, even slow flat pedally twisty tech, I prefer my Endo (which, granted, isn't really all that extreme by modern standards, but is a good mix between capability on the rowdy stuff and agility/playfulness on the less gnarly trails). This is probably the first time in 24 years of riding I feel completely at home and comfortable on a bike; it fits me perfectly, and feels really capable every time I push it without feeling like a burden the rest of the time. It is the very essence of what I feel an all-round mountain bike should be.

I'm not brainwashed, I haven't had to "convince" myself of anything, I've ridden plenty of different bikes over plenty of different trails and based on my experiences I feel like what I'm riding now is better than anything else I've ever ridden.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

I have a 1997 Cannondale super v, a 2008 Santa Cruz blur XC and a 2017 Tallboy in my garage as I type this. I just got back from winning the CCCX XC championship too. Been riding mountain bikes for 30 years.
New school gets a big thumbs up from me. :thumbsup: Although I did ride the old Blur converted to 27.5 in the XC races. 

FYI the super V has a 170mm stem. :eekster:


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

All I've been saying this whole time is that different trails and different people will benefit from different geometries, even the old geometry. 

A long, low, slack bike takes a lot of the fun out of most trails, in my opinion. I enjoy choosing a good line or the challenge of a bad line. I don't want my bike erasing technical features and straight-shooting down the trail. If I want to throw the bike around a turn or get a little sideways in the air, I don't want to fight my bike. Dodging trees and pedaling through rock gardens are common on many of the trails I ride. Lengthening the wheelbase, slacking out the headtube, and dropping the pedals to root level does not do it for me. 

I just wanted one person to admit that this new geometry is not better in every circumstance.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

mountainbiker24 said:


> All I've been saying this whole time is that different trails and different people will benefit from different geometries, even the old geometry.
> 
> A long, low, slack bike takes a lot of the fun out of most trails, in my opinion. I enjoy choosing a good line or the challenge of a bad line. I don't want my bike erasing technical features and straight-shooting down the trail. If I want to throw the bike around a turn or get a little sideways in the air, I don't want to fight my bike. Dodging trees and pedaling through rock gardens are common on many of the trails I ride. Lengthening the wheelbase, slacking out the headtube, and dropping the pedals to root level does not do it for me.
> 
> I just wanted one person to admit that this new geometry is not better in every circumstance.


Dude. I can directly compare generations of the same bike, in this case a tallboy 1 vs 2 vs 3. Each generation gained about .5lb. The 3 is better everywhere except weight. It's stiffer, the suspension is more refined and the cable routing is perfect. If you build it with the same parts it is better everywhere.

Anyway enduro bikes are not your thing and that's cool. I don't want to ride one as my main bike either. Overall they are better than the old enduro bikes though.

Apples to apples, I'll take new geometry every time.

New bikes don't make trials less fun, you just go faster.

http://forums.mtbr.com/california-n...t-point-does-one-out-weigh-other-1051636.html


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

alexbn921 said:


> Dude. I can directly compare generations of the same bike, in this case a tallboy 1 vs 2 vs 3. Each generation gained about .5lb. The 3 is better everywhere except weight. It's stiffer, the suspension is more refined and the cable routing is perfect. If you build it with the same parts it is better everywhere.
> 
> Anyway enduro bikes are not your thing and that's cool. I don't want to ride one as my main bike either. Overall they are better than the old enduro bikes though.
> 
> ...


Why go faster to get the same excitement? What's the point?


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Lengthening the wheelbase, slacking out the headtube, and dropping the pedals to root level does not do it for me.
> 
> I just wanted one person to admit that this new geometry is not better in every circumstance.


So are we debating what is better, or what you personally prefer?

I've never found the feeling of gravity trying to take me over the bars on a steep drop fun, nor struggling to keep the front end down on steep climbs. Each to their own, I guess.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Why go faster to get the same excitement? What's the point?


Are you still riding a clunker? why have gears or suspension at all. It's personal preference. I also tend to wear out my bikes to the point that I don't trust them. You can only push the limits of a bike that you know isn't going to break in half. I broke my blur classic and upgraded to a better in every way blur XC carbon. I rode the wheels off that bike for 5K+ miles and just last year thought I broke it on a drop. That was the signal for a new bike. The cost is nothing compared to breaking your neck or your hip like I did on my original blur.
Ride whatever you want, but the new bikes are better and the choices for your personal slice of bike heaven is out there.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

It's shocking to me that this issue can possibly be subject to a meaningful debate. It's like the guy in the downhill forum who smashed his head so hard that he has seen stars for a week, or something like that, and then asks if this is something he should consider seeing a doctor about. 

How anyone can reasonably advocate old school geo over new school geo, in any circumstances, apart from perhaps a museum owner, is beyond me. I'm seriously lucky I did not kill or seriously injure myself on some of the old death traps I used to ride (e.g., Spesh SJ FSR). But whatever. Live and let live.

Edit: granted, I did not wade my way through the entire thread. Maybe there is something I am missing here...


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

alexbn921 said:


> Are you still riding a clunker? why have gears or suspension at all. It's personal preference. I also tend to wear out my bikes to the point that I don't trust them. You can only push the limits of a bike that you know isn't going to break in half. I broke my blur classic and upgraded to a better in every way blur XC carbon. I rode the wheels off that bike for 5K+ miles and just last year thought I broke it on a drop. That was the signal for a new bike. The cost is nothing compared to breaking your neck or your hip like I did on my original blur.
> Ride whatever you want, but the new bikes are better and the choices for your personal slice of bike heaven is out there.


Actually, I often ride a rigid 26er singlespeed. My point is it is just as fun, and sometimes more fun, than any other bike I have ever ridden. Isn't that the point? On some trails, it is more fun (ie better) to have a quick handling, no nonsense bike. It is faster for me on tight twisty trails and smooth singletrack, as well. Why is it so difficult for you guys to just admit that this new school geometry has compromises?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

mtnbkrmike said:


> It's shocking to me that this issue can possibly be subject to a meaningful debate. It's like the guy in the downhill forum who smashed his head so hard that he has seen stars for a week, or something like that, and then asks if this is something he should consider seeing a doctor about.
> 
> How anyone can reasonably advocate old school geo over new school geo, in any circumstances, apart from perhaps a museum owner, is beyond me. I'm seriously lucky I did not kill or seriously injure myself on some of the old death traps I used to ride (e.g., Spesh SJ FSR). But whatever. Live and let live.
> 
> Edit: granted, I did not wade my way through the entire thread. Maybe there is something I am missing here...


Because different trails and riding styles.....


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Actually, I often ride a rigid 26er singlespeed. My point is it is just as fun, and sometimes more fun, than any other bike I have ever ridden. Isn't that the point? On some trails, it is more fun (ie better) to have a quick handling, no nonsense bike. It is faster for me on tight twisty trails and smooth singletrack, as well. Why is it so difficult for you guys to just admit that this new school geometry has compromises?


This is similar to car technology. People freaked out when manufactures went to EFI form carburetors. I can with a say with out a doubt that EFI is better in every way.

Even your ridge single speeds have gotten better and there are plenty to pick from that will match your style. Have you tried belt drive? No mess/maintenance. The new carbon layups are crazy light and comfortable at the same time too.

You seem to be focusing on aggressive enduro bikes that have no place on your smooth flat trails. Riding a DH bike would suck there too. Doesn't matter if it's new or old.

Every segment of the bike market has evolved and improved over the years. You are just look at bike you don't want to ride and saying they suck.

Now get off my lawn. :nono:

Edit
I challenge you to tell me one thing my 1997 super V does better than my 2017 Tallboy. Just 1.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Actually, I often ride a rigid 26er singlespeed. My point is it is just as fun, and sometimes more fun, than any other bike I have ever ridden. Isn't that the point? On some trails, it is more fun (ie better) to have a quick handling, no nonsense bike. It is faster for me on tight twisty trails and smooth singletrack, as well. Why is it so difficult for you guys to just admit that this new school geometry has compromises?


Because we honestly don't see them as compromises. There is give-and-take with every aspect of bike geometry and with experience you learn to choose the right fit for your application, but none of that leads me feeling like I've sacrificed something coming from my old bikes. I've done my time on NORBA somersault geometry and my modern bike is improved in every way. In the real world, a few inches of wheelbase makes very little difference in cleaning a switchback. I've had wheelbases ranging from 43" to 48" and the tight switchbacks are still tight but I ride them just the same.

Riding your rigid 26" SS is analogous to fishing with a Tenkara rod. Doing less with more can be a fun challenge. It's completely understandable that an individual may find it more fun and more rewarding, but that doesn't require everyone else to admit their equipment is compromised.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

It is a compromise.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

alexbn921 said:


> I challenge you to tell me one thing my 1997 super V does better than my 2017 Tallboy. Just 1.


Butt pucker factor. Thrills. Spills. Icebreaking ability whenever someone sees your bike while you're stopped. Hold my beer moments, followed by laughter from friends, AKA ability to impress your friends, trying to ride any where near the same level you do on your Tallboy, if it's at a level comparable to your friends. Level of frustration looking for tires, rims, and suspension components. Potency for increasing your skill in most things, especially braking modulation and general balance.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

That, and tight 180-degree switchbacks...


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Because different trails and riding styles.....


Okay. Fair enough.

That said, I just checked with my LBS. According to them, nobody of late has been beating down their doors for a Trek Y Frame. May just be my neck of the woods though...

Kidding aside, I would have thought that it was beyond debate that today's offerings were generally superior, geo-wise, to the old school offerings. Pick the trail and riding style. Pick the perfect bike for that combo today. Pick the perfect bike for that combo 10 years ago. Can there be any doubt that today's bike would be a better ride overall?

EDIT: **** - maybe I missed the issue. If the issue is whether today's long, slack, long travel enduro machines rule all things dirt, regardless of the nature of the terrain, then yeah, I missed the point. Apologies if that is the case.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

David R said:


> That, and tight 180-degree switchbacks...


I honestly am not trying to stir things up, but nobody is suggesting that a modern day (or old school for that matter) DH or enduro style bike is the right bike for tight 180-degree switchbacks.

Comparing apples to apples, are you of the view that a 10 year old geo on a suitable XC or trail bike is superior to the geo of comparable offerings on the sales floors right now?

Generally speaking, I am ecstatic to see how far the industry has come. Then again, I started out on a rigid with cantilever brakes and a top tube about a half inch below my nutsack, and a 71 degree HTA, or something equally ridiculous. I would have thought that most people would have been happy with the progress we have seen (although maybe not the accompanying pricing).

EDIT: maybe I misunderstood the issue in this thread. Please see my post above. Apologies if I flat out missed it.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

mtnbkrmike said:


> EDIT: maybe I misunderstood the issue in this thread. Please see my post above. Apologies if I flat out missed it.




I'm saying super-tight switchbacks are about the only think I can think of that any of my "old geometry" bikes might do better than my current Knolly.

I appreciate that some may enjoy the challenge of riding rigid or single speed or older bikes, but that doesn't make them better. If you're having fun on your bike then you're doing it right, but if you want to talk about overall performance then hands down the geometry of a nosey modern trail bike is better in almost every situation a modern mountain biker will encounter.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

David R said:


> That, and tight 180-degree switchbacks...


LOL. have you ever tried to turn 180 on a bike with a 170mm stem? It's a tiller.
It is a conversation starter and makes a great around town bike. Scarry is the only way to describe it on steep stuff.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

alexbn921 said:


> LOL. have you ever tried to turn 180 on a bike with a 170mm stem? It's a tiller.
> It is a conversation starter and makes a great around town bike. Scarry is the only way to describe it on steep stuff.


I neglected to include above that my 2015, 66 degree HTA, 50mm stem, 160mm enduro is my go to bike and weapon of choice regardless of terrain, including tight, 180 degree switchback infested trails, and I currently have 8 bikes in my garage, of varying vintage, including this beauty:









I thought that might be too over the top a comment, regardless of its truth...


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

alexbn921 said:


> LOL. have you ever tried to turn 180 on a bike with a 170mm stem? It's a tiller.
> It is a conversation starter and makes a great around town bike. Scarry is the only way to describe it on steep stuff.


150mm was the longest I ever ran IIRC, on my 1998 SC Heckler, certainly not ideal that's for sure! Went back to a hardtail after that and ran a bmx stem with Answer Alumilite bars (the ones with the removable shims) which was much better in some places, but a bit cramped on long rides and a bit twitchy at speed. TBH the super-tight switchbacks aren't even really a problem on the Knolly, though I guess something shorter would probably be easier, even my old Warden in slack mode could be manhandled around them easily enough.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

You guys keep talking about switchbacks, but switchbacks aren't high on my list of reasons I usually prefer a shorter bike. If you honestly don't see why Indy cars are compact and bmx bikes don't have 27" toptubes, then I really am wasting my time.


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

The longer the wheel base the more you have to lean the bike to achieve the same turn radius. So every time you turn, not just switchbacks, you have to lean the bike over more. How much more? Is it noticeable? I have no idea. 

I do know I can tell that my 27.5 trail bike is harder to lean over than my 26 dh rig. The have the same wheel base, but obviously the 27.5 had larger wheels. I can tell after a weekend at the park. Usually for the first half or so of a ride. Then it goes away. 

I switched stems from 60mm to 40mm and back. I think maybe I could tell a difference. Maybe. Same for when I put my seat forward 20mm. 

What gets me about 90 percent of the stuff in mountain biking and the conversations around it is that the differences should be mathematically defineable. The lateral and vertical stiffness of rims, effect of trail, effect of steel length, wheel base, bb height, should be each able to be measured. Yes, taken together the effects become very complicated, but broken down at least we would have a starting point to have a meaningful discussion. 

It's like the rim material debate. How much stiffer are carbon rims? For how much weight savings? At what cost? Without knowing at least that, the debate is pretty meaningless. 

I find I can tell a 5 to 10 percent difference fairly reliably in things I'm expert in. Anything less is pretty much invisible to me. To make something worthwhile to drop significant chunk of change on the difference needs to be about 50 to 100 percent before I notice it all the time. Anything less I just adapt to and the difference disappears. The experience is the same. And since I'm not racing times that are imperceptible to me don't matter (have you ever played the game PR or not? On certain trail segments I'll try and guess if u got a PR before I check Strava. I'm wrong more than I'm right.).

That being said, I'm a fan of the new geometry and I would love to try out some of the bikes that are pushing the boundaries. 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

https://ibb.co/cDczP5

Transition Sentinel & Patrol
I love the STA!


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Those numbers for the new Trannys look great! I'm really hoping they do some demo days down here as the Large frames look like a small jump from what I'm riding now but I could theoretically fit onto an XL too which would be a massive leap (~40mm increase reach) and about as close as I'm going to get to trying out something "extreme" like a Pole or Nicolai. Also I could see myself having a hard time choosing between Smuggler, Scout or Sentinel, I'm even more 29er-curious now that they're starting to make them with "proper" geometry.



mountainbiker24 said:


> You guys keep talking about switchbacks, but switchbacks aren't high on my list of reasons I usually prefer a shorter bike. If you honestly don't see why Indy cars are compact and bmx bikes don't have 27" toptubes, then I really am wasting my time.


I fail to see the similarities between Indy car geometry and MTB geometry, but whatever. The only reason I keep mentioning switchbacks is because you asked me to admit there is a compromise with modern longer geometry, and that's the only one I can think of from my perspective of how I ride and what I ride.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Whyte's new S150, and more on fork offset.

Whyte S-150 Works Review: Setting a new standard | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

https://nsmb.com/articles/transition-sbg-source/

Interview with Transition's Sam Burkhardt.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Update... I have put my $ into a forward geometry bike because it makes sense in my mind, and I have been hankering after a hardtail for some time. Enter the Pipedream Moxie, http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/pipedream-moxie-1068714.html

I finally feel that at 5'9" I have found the bike that I don't want to make longer. 470mm reach feels spot on. With my current 29er setup I have 1215mm of wheelbase. It certainly sounds extreme, but feels perfectly normal most of the time. That is until you hit the corners. This is going to sound like BS, but it's the best cornering bike I have ever been on period. It is a 6lb frame, but compliant and a great all rounder. It seems a lot of makers are slowly headed this way and I like it. I don't see all companies going full on forward geometry because tastes, vary and choice is always good.


----------



## Sid Duffman (Oct 5, 2015)

Travis Bickle said:


> Update... I have put my $ into a forward geometry bike because it makes sense in my mind, and I have been hankering after a hardtail for some time. Enter the Pipedream Moxie, http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/pipedream-moxie-1068714.html
> 
> I finally feel that at 5'9" I have found the bike that I don't want to make longer. 470mm reach feels spot on. With my current 29er setup I have 1215mm of wheelbase. It certainly sounds extreme, but feels perfectly normal most of the time. That is until you hit the corners. This is going to sound like BS, but it's the best cornering bike I have ever been on period. It is a 6lb frame, but compliant and a great all rounder. It seems a lot of makers are slowly headed this way and I like it. I don't see all companies going full on forward geometry because tastes, vary and choice is always good.


That Pipedream Moxie looks pretty sweet! Pics?

What fork are you running? Have you played around with adjusting the chainstay length?


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Travis Bickle said:


> Update... I have put my $ into a forward geometry bike because it makes sense in my mind, and I have been hankering after a hardtail for some time. Enter the Pipedream Moxie, http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/pipedream-moxie-1068714.html
> 
> I finally feel that at 5'9" I have found the bike that I don't want to make longer. 470mm reach feels spot on. With my current 29er setup I have 1215mm of wheelbase. It certainly sounds extreme, but feels perfectly normal most of the time. That is until you hit the corners. This is going to sound like BS, but it's the best cornering bike I have ever been on period. It is a 6lb frame, but compliant and a great all rounder. It seems a lot of makers are slowly headed this way and I like it. I don't see all companies going full on forward geometry because tastes, vary and choice is always good.


Major stretched out. Looks like a chopper.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Sid Duffman said:


> That Pipedream Moxie looks pretty sweet! Pics?
> 
> What fork are you running? Have you played around with adjusting the chainstay length?


The fork is 150mm which is 10mm more than the geometry chart uses. I found the shortest chain stay length spun on wet root climbs and have been liking 425-431mm more so far. It does look really long like a chopper, but doesn't feel like it???


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

How many hairpin corners have you got stuck on so far??


Will the Moxie look "normal" in five years time?


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

David R said:


> How many hairpin corners have you got stuck on so far??
> 
> 
> Will the Moxie look "normal" in five years time?


A switchback nightmare I would assume. Just don't ever ride San Juan Trail in SoCal. with that geometry. It has 32 switchbacks in a 12 mile climb up. Coming down the switchbacks are a bit easier, I laugh. On that geometry I suspect not possible both ways by even the best of the best of riders.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

David R said:


> How many hairpin corners have you got stuck on so far??
> 
> 
> Will the Moxie look "normal" in five years time?


Surprisingly none, and I purposely went to specific trails to try.


----------



## ladljon (Nov 30, 2011)

I ride old school geometry, however I have ridden new school, and do believe that the new geometry does make trail riding easier, takes a lot less skill. One thing I don't like, is the wider bars....make my wrist hurt.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Pfft, only 32 DJ? Last year in I rode the Wakamarina track (in Nelson NZ) which has over 75 in ~3.3km on the last big descent. 
https://www.strava.com/segments/3947198

(to be fair they're not all super-tight 180* bends, but there are plenty of tight turns still)

My moderately-long Endorphin ate it up and I would love to try it on something even longer. I'm not surprised TB has had little trouble negotiating tight turns on the Moxie, yeah it might not be quite as easy as on a shorter bike but IMO unless you ride trails that look like a bowl of spaghetti the advantages elsewhere are most likely going to out-weigh the downsides on those really tight slow turns. Only when the wheelbase exceeds the physical limits of the switchback do you start running into trouble, and obviously a longer bike will experience that sooner than a shorter one. I'm not sure how much of a difference an extra 50-100mm of wheelbase makes in terms of radius though, certainly not a deal-breaker for me anyway.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Travis Bickle said:


> Surprisingly none, and I purposely went to specific trails to try.


What trails and how tight were the switchbacks?


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

David R said:


> Pfft, only 32 DJ? Last year in I rode the Wakamarina track (in Nelson NZ) which has over 75 in ~3.3km on the last big descent.
> https://www.strava.com/segments/3947198


How come I don't see your name on the leaderboard? You gotta be faster than #12 Oliver Klozoff. :lol:

I'm cannibalizing my other bike and making this one my main bike because it fits so good. I couldn't imagine having a longer front, that's one of the reasons why I'm switching, I'm too stretched out on the other bike. Is this considered new or old geometry?


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Cornfield said:


> How come I don't see your name on the leaderboard? You gotta be faster than #12 Oliver Klozoff. :lol:


HA! That's the only time I've ever had to stop for a breather half way DOWN a hill!! So much arm pump and cramp in my hands from squeezing the brakes. To get to that point there's a good climb, a good descent, and a ~50 minute hike-a-bike. And it was near the end of a week-long riding vacation too (excuses, excuses I know! :lol.

RE the stretched out thing, are you talking about seated or standing? If the former, then the STA is the issue.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Major stretched out. Looks like a chopper.
> 
> View attachment 1183498







I question the wisdom of a long travel hardtail.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Looks like new geo from here...


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

"Long and slack" starting to sneak its way into XC.

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/first-ride-intense-sniper-elite-xc-2018.html


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

Funny - the original Spider 29er had a 73* HTA and, IIRC, Jeff Steber personally preferred the prototype with 74.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

An interesting development. I still see a very long seat tube on the large which would prevent me from fitting on the Sniper. Nothing a hacksaw wouldn't fix though


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

Zowie said:


> Looks like new geo from here...
> 
> View attachment 1183690


With Biopace wheels!


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

The industry is moving toward steeper seat tube angles AND shorter seat tubes and while I know not everyone gels with this, but I am pretty stoked. I have been riding my Pipedream Moxie it's 76° seat tube angle and have noticed that I'm in a slightly bigger gear than before on the same climbs. I put this down to HT efficiency, but the steep STA isn't robbing my power. I don't have a power meter, and am not going to get one, but it doesn't feel harder. The head angle is 65° with a 30mm stem and within it's hardtail restraints the Moxie is the best climbing bike I've ever been on. The front end has come up once on a very steep climb when I was exhausted and sitting too upright. I don't have to sit on the nose of the saddle with this bike. It does look too long, but fits normally and handles amazingly. Next up I'm interested in trying a shorter offset fork.


----------



## ejewels (Jul 16, 2009)

KOPS suffers, but F KOPS with mountain biking lol. I like the new geo.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> The industry is moving toward steeper seat tube angles AND shorter seat tubes and while I know not everyone gels with this, but I am pretty stoked. I have been riding my Pipedream Moxie it's 76° seat tube angle and have noticed that I'm in a slightly bigger gear than before on the same climbs. I put this down to HT efficiency, but the steep STA isn't robbing my power. I don't have a power meter, and am not going to get one, but it doesn't feel harder. The head angle is 65° with a 30mm stem and within it's hardtail restraints the Moxie is the best climbing bike I've ever been on. The front end has come up once on a very steep climb when I was exhausted and sitting too upright. I don't have to sit on the nose of the saddle with this bike. It does look too long, but fits normally and handles amazingly. Next up I'm interested in trying a shorter offset fork.


How do you keep the front wheel from flopping all over the place?


----------



## jim c (Dec 5, 2014)

You'll get used to controlling that. 1st it's like I'm leaning forward way over the bars, then we adapt to it. After a while I don't feel like I have to get forward (crouched or seated) much at all.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

MikeDee said:


> How do you keep the front wheel from flopping all over the place?


I don't notice flopping, but I've been riding slackish bikes for quite a while.

Sent from my SM-G935S using Tapatalk


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Travis Bickle said:


> I don't notice flopping, but I've been riding slackish bikes for quite a while.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935S using Tapatalk


People make way too big a deal out of that.

It's something you feel initially, then you just ride the bike. (Based on a short low speed ride on a 65° HTA Pivot Firebird)

The new Trek Full Stache has a 494mm reach for the 19.5 frame size. Big manufacturers are jumping on the new school bus!


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

MikeDee said:


> How do you keep the front wheel from flopping all over the place?


Hold the handlebars and keep pedalling.


Travis have you spent much time aboard the Endo since buying the Moxie? How does it feel going back to a shorter bike?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Just had the bearings replaced and have not had it out since. I'll take it out for a spin but my feeling is it's too short.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Funny how quickly perspective change, "long and slack" very quickly becomes "normal" or even "short". My Warden felt like a limo compared to my old Turner, and never once have I wished it [or the Endo] was shorter. If we had a bigger used frame market, or if international shipping wasn't such a killer I'd try pick up a cheap XL Endo.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I can probably pick one up locally here in Knolly country


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Going by what I see in the Pinkbike classifieds they are certainly more plentiful in your part of the world! Realistically, I'm probably better to put my cash towards something that will satisfy my curiosity of big wheels as well as longer geo. I'd be all over an XL carbon Smuggler if it weren't for the abysmal rear tyre clearance.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

2 1/2 years since my original post and many brands have gone longer and slacker since then. They are not copying Geometron, but with more reach and less seat tube I can find the fit I like on more bikes than ever. Seems to me it's easier to size up or down than ever before, partly thanks to the availability of droppers from 100 to 200mm.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Knolly, Ibis, Yeti, and now Evil have all gone longer now. XC race bikes are slowly creeping "forward" as well

I really wanted to post this from Handbuilt Bicycle News. Sam Whittingham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Whittingham is a frame builder not far from where I live and I recently read his thoughts on frame design.

Naked's framebuilder notes on a prototype

"Naked's framebuilder notes on a prototype
This is a candid, insider view to the development of a new frame design. Sam Whittingham, designer and builder at Naked, wanted to experiment with what's extreme for a well-rounded trail bike. This is his first prototype in that line.

Photos courtesy Naked Bicycles and Design

Sam Whittingham: "When we started building hardtails again 12 years ago, designing specifically for technical west coast BC riding, we were really progressive. Already we were doing super-long top tubes, long fronts, short stays. As trends have gone longer, lower, slacker we've kept on our path because we felt ahead of the curve. But in recent years it's accelerated to oblivion. We felt a need to do more r&d, so this one takes everything we think is good and then takes it a step further. Most of the numbers are more than I think would be a good idea, but I'll know more after riding it more. Funnily enough a lot of companies in the area, like ChroMag, said it looks normal. It's definitely progressive compared to traditional geometry. Maybe not as progressive as Peter Verdone or Pole Bikes, or Mondraker have done, but it's pushing the limits for us and what we think. I wanted to see what's extreme for a well-rounded trail bike, not a downhill bike.

Below are Sam's written notes about the bike BEFORE riding it. His notes AFTER riding it are lower down in the page.

Purpose and inspiration
This one is all about pushing the limits. I have been racing and riding all types of Mountain Bikes since the mid eighties and watched geometry evolve from cruiser klunkers, to steep glorified road bikes, to massive huck-to-fail tanks, to the pick-a-wheel-size-and-be-a-dick-about-it battle raging over the last 10 years, to the current march towards "longer, lower, slacker". Over the last few years we have been evolving our classic naked hardtail as well. Every bike we build gets little closer to the forward geometry preached by such advocates as Pole, Mondraker, and Peter Verdone. We have always embraced big wheels, big tires, short stays and long front centre, but we have been conservative in pushing the boundaries. This Mountain bike is built for testing some of those limits, to answer the question: Have we gone too far?
At the time of writing Sam hadn't ridden the bike, but it looks like it should work

Favorite features
There are a few feature we have refined in our hardtails over the years. The swooped curve TT that flows into the seat-stays not only gives a classic look, but also allows strong bracing of the rear triangle and and natural internal tunnel for brake and shifter lines. In order to run Chainstays as short as 415mm with these massive wheels we choose to use what we affectionately refer to as "Roost" spacing. No, this isn't yet another choice (please don't call it a standard!), the component parts are already there. We use a 177x12mm fatbike rear end with an 83mm DH BB (downhill bottom bracket) width with the single ring flipped to the outside. This gives a perfect chainline, the strongest possible rear wheel bracing, wide bb bearing spacing and shortest possible stays. This isn't for everybody of course. Some riders might place more priority or need on narrower q-factor, more heel clearance or simply not want or need stays that short or tires that big. Cuz custom.
There's really a lot going on here. You just have to read the paragraph above...

Material and component choices
That was easy on this bike. Steel for the frame as it allows for a quick build and if we hate this monster, the investment wasn't huge. Parts are all our proven favourites from Shimano, Industry Nine, 9point8, RaceFace, Maxxis Chris King and Fox.
Naked has some regular go-to companies for components

Design challenges or features
The extremes are the real feature on this one. Biggest rolling diameter possible. shortest rear stays possible. Longest front-centre that still fits. Longest dropper post available. Shortest normal stem available. Lowest BB height we dare. All of these things individually or as a whole might be a step too far, but we are excited to find out.
Some riders might choose a smaller tyre for muddy days

Other notes
I have always been obsessed with what makes a bike joyful to ride. It doesn't matter how nice a bike looks, if it doesn't fit or isn't fun, it won't be ridden. We are excited to start tinkering with the limits of our cross and road bikes as well.

AFTER

"It has definitely been a good learning experience and it forced me to confront some old assumptions. The question we were attempting to answer with this bike was "how far is too far?". After riding this beast, all I can think is: I haven't found the end yet. What follows are some initial thoughts on where we are currently in our thinking about modern mountain bike geometry designed for technical all-mountain/trail/enduro/aggressive XC style riding. We built a bike to test that pushed at the boundaries of what we thought was a good idea. We pushed a couple of things too far, but barely, and to be honest I had a feeling that would be the case.

Bottom Bracket Height
310mm unsagged or 295 sagged is too low for technical XC/Trail riding. It would be fine for descending only. At least now I have more data on the right range for the amount fork travel, ride terrain, crank length and pedal type.

Rear-Centre
410mm is about as short as you would ever want to go and only for shorter riders. The shorter the better for technical riding but you lose some suspension ability. I don't mean frame flex here, I mean the amount and speed of movement you have to absorb with your legs as the rear wheel strikes an obstacle. I think the traditional range of 410-440 is about right depending on rider height.

Head Angle
This is basically unimportant. This obsession with this number has got to stop. It is all about where this lets you get the front wheel placed. This number changes drastically depending on how your fork is set up. On this bike, the head angle varies from about 64.8 to 71 depending on how much travel is used. One thing that can be said is that a hardtail should have a MUCH slacker starting head angle than an equivalent duty full-squish. On a hardtail the head angle is always steepening under compression, where as a full suspension can either steepen or slacken. In most cases a fully tends towards more rear compression and so tends to slacken more during use. I can see pushing head angle out to 61 degrees (unsagged) if needed on a hardtail, but no more than 65 degrees on a fully. After that, you are starting to get too much fork binding on all but the steepest descents.

Front-Centre is KING!
This is the big revelation (along with steering axis below). I have always moved front-centre around as a resultant of bike fit, as I put most of my faith in handling characteristics of head angle and trail. No more! We have all been riding mountain bikes that are way to short in the front. I had always assumed that the slack head angles required to move the front wheel out would result in a chopper feel and too much wheel flop. I realize now that as long as the stem length is kept to a minimum, the whel flop virtually disappears. What is left is a very stable feeling bike that demands to pushed harder. A normal front-centre for us was in the 70cm range. Even a few years ago, it was not uncommon to be as low as 65cm. Now, I'm thinking 77-830 is the sweet spot, even in our tight twisty west coast trails. I think the biggest advantage is that you are now balanced on a much longer see-saw, so every bump is felt less and keeps you away from both tipping points a little longer (think: less likely to go over the bars). I thought tight climbs would suck, but this was also easier. The long resulting longer wheelbase obviously is far more stable through chunder. Cornering feels awkward at first. This is because positioning is identical to the bikes I have had for the last 10 years but the front wheel is 10cm further out in front so I have to get used to initiating a turn 10cm sooner. When done properly, you can really load the front wheel and carve hard without the feeling of jack-knife. This is also about steering axis.

Steering Axis
Needs to be as direct as possible. For most mountain bikes this means super short stems. It is not so much the short stem that is important but the resulting hand placement relative to the steering axis. A stem with a 32mm reach on a 780mm bar with normal sweep gets you pretty close to being in line with the steering axis of the front fork. being in front of the steering axis in the old days especially with shorter bars and long stems is what gave us the feeling of wheel flop and the horrible jack-knife scenarios.

Wide bars
I think we have already pushed this one too far. I just don't see the mechanical advantage of going past 800 for most people or even 780. I go a bit less than this, but only because my local trails are a bit too tight for super wide.

Steep seat angles
We haven't really pushed this yet. I can see the advantage on a forward geo bike though to get your body weight more centred between the wheels especially when climbing. I can see effective seat angles of 74-77 becoming a useful range.

Lower bars
The long front-centre gives you so much more stability and less chance of pitching over the bars, you no longer need to have a high hand position. I can see a real return to wide flat bars, with "riser" bar looking dated real fast. Slacker head angles helps lower the bars. It will be interesting to see what people do to keep bars low enough as the forks get longer and longer.
Frame design and straight down tubes. I'm so excited from a structural point of view to be returning to straight downtubes. With a long front-centre and slacker head angle, I no longer need to use kinked downtubes for fork crown clearance. This is so much stronger.

30.5" wheels
I don't want to get into a wheel-size debate, but after years of trying everything I am hooked on getting the biggest rolling diameter that still fits into desired geometry parameters. For me this is 29x3" wheels and tires. For most this is actually the biggest thing they would notice riding this bike. For me it is the most normal part as I have been riding 29+ for 6 years now. It feels normal. I actually think a 3-3.1" rear tire and 2.6-2.8 front would be optimum volume on a hardtail. For a full suspension trail machine, 2.6-2.8" front and back would be ideal. Fatter tires don't carve as well in hard cornering and feel a bit more vague, especially if rims are not wide enough. They make up for this in chunder sections and general traction. I don't see any disadvantage to having the biggest rolling diamter you can get away with. This has a similar effect to longer wheelbase when you encounter a bump. It is less abrupt, leading to more conservation of forward momentum. larger wheels don't "turn slower", this is a myth. The turn just needs to be started sooner. Once this becomes second nature, the feeling is the same and you can actually corner harder. Again, this is about diameter, not width.

ROOST spacing
We use a 170/177 wide rear hub spacing and an 83mm front BB standard for our 29+ bikes including this one. this allows for rear-centres as short as 405mm and perfect chainline with a DH crank and flipped ring. The 170/177 rear hub allows for a near zero dish wheel which is as strong as you can get. The wider hub spacing does mean heel clearance issues for some riders. Also, the q-factor is a bit wider than a standard mtb but nothing close to a fat bike. I ride everything from very narrow q-factor track bikes to extreme wide fat bikes and find that from an efficiency point of view there is no measurable difference. I prefer the wider stance on a mountain bike especially while standing climbing and all descending. The old mtb standard needs to be killed with fire along with "boost" which was a half-ass attempt to solve strength and clearance issues. I like the current trend of "super boost" which simply uses the 150/157 DH rear spacing along with a traditional 73mm bb and flipped ring or unflipped on 83mm bb. This makes sense for 27+ and standard 29ers. For 29+, though, you need ROOST.

Dropper post
Yup, they all fail. They are all expensive. And I won't be without one ever again. From my cold dead hands. The more drop the better. In order to get a drop in the range of 175-200mm it means having more straight seat-tube. I acquired some seat tubes from Peter Verdone which solve this little dilemma quite nicely for shorter riders by putting the bend to the BB shell at the last possible moment, giving lots of post depth to work with.

Ok, that ended up being way more than I thought I'd write."


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> Head Angle
> This is basically unimportant. This obsession with this number has got to stop. It is all about where this lets you get the front wheel placed. This number changes drastically depending on how your fork is set up. On this bike, the head angle varies from about 64.8 to 71 depending on how much travel is used. One thing that can be said is that a hardtail should have a MUCH slacker starting head angle than an equivalent duty full-squish. On a hardtail the head angle is always steepening under compression, where as a full suspension can either steepen or slacken.


I like where he's going with this. however, for the purposes of a few of us who are still fiddling around with rigid forks, I want to recognize that HTA is sometimes basically static. In a way, this is great because it also means that front-center is static. if you can build a bike that handles great in a rigid format, you can add suspension and tweak a few angles to make up for the extra movement have have a superb-handling bike, right? perhaps that is how Vassago is able to make a "stable" bike with a 70-degree HTA with a short travel/rigid fork- the reach/ top tube is long, which puts the front wheel far out in front, which maintaining precise steering with a "steep" HTA.

It might be instructive to consider how the angles and measurements of a bike change as they shift under load by planning around the full range, rather than just one point in the bike's travel - or lack thereof. just like using reach and stack instead of ETT, it would create a common denominator.

I wonder if we could optimize a frame's fit by reach and stack measurements first, then dial in the saddle position mostly by means of STA with some wiggle room provided by seatpost and cockpit choice.

how the bike handles would than depend on front-center and rear-center design choices. this might be behind the "magic" of Jones frames that I have yet to experience. I have not seen Jones' geometry numbers, and maybe it's because too many people will misread them.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> It might be instructive to consider how the angles and measurements of a bike change as they shift under load by planning around the full range, rather than just one point in the bike's travel - or lack thereof. just like using reach and stack instead of ETT, it would create a common denominator.


This is why my HT has a 65.5° HTA with a 140mm fork. When it bottoms out it's 72.5°, which is steep by anyone's definition. I have bottomed it out once or twice when I have made a mistake, but usually have 10-20mm to spare at the end of a ride.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

"Steering Axis
Needs to be as direct as possible. For most mountain bikes this means super short stems. It is not so much the short stem that is important but the resulting hand placement relative to the steering axis. A stem with a 32mm reach on a 780mm bar with normal sweep gets you pretty close to being in line with the steering axis of the front fork. being in front of the steering axis in the old days especially with shorter bars and long stems is what gave us the feeling of wheel flop and the horrible jack-knife scenarios."

This is kind of where I have arrived with 30-35mm stems on my bikes. I get enough reach in the frame and then put a short stem on to give me a normal seated position. I had not heard of steering axis before. What I do know is that I like the feel and handling. I reckon that with alt bars and a longer stem hand placement could be the same. Anyone have thoughts on steering axis and hand placement?


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I set my bike up with a SQ Labs 12 degree backsweep bar and a 50mm stem. the frame has a long reach and a "steep" HTA, but the front-center is pretty long considering. the bar is cut to about 740mm and my hands are definitely in line with the steering axis because the backswept bar has a strong backward affect.

incidentally, I set my bike up this way based on Lee McCormack's fit recommendations. the point is to optimize the BB-to-hands distance. He recommends a short 35-60mm stem on most bikes and wide-ish bars based loosely on rider height. he also promotes the SQ Labs bars or something like them. he doesn't say that the short stem and wide, swept bars are to get your hands lined up with the steering axis, so that might be unintentional. so I used a 50mm stem and set it up low to get that distance dialed in.

most people would have set my bike up with a longer, higher stem to make the seated pedaling position comfortable. I have had two bike fitters do that to me- watch me pedal a trainer and try to put a 80-100 mm stem on my bike. that sounds boring.


----------



## BlueCheesehead (Jul 17, 2010)

Travis Bickle said:


> "Steering Axis
> Needs to be as direct as possible. For most mountain bikes this means super short stems. It is not so much the short stem that is important but the resulting hand placement relative to the steering axis. A stem with a 32mm reach on a 780mm bar with normal sweep gets you pretty close to being in line with the steering axis of the front fork. being in front of the steering axis in the old days especially with shorter bars and long stems is what gave us the feeling of wheel flop and the horrible jack-knife scenarios."
> 
> This is kind of where I have arrived with 30-35mm stems on my bikes. I get enough reach in the frame and then put a short stem on to give me a normal seated position. I had not heard of steering axis before. What I do know is that I like the feel and handling. I reckon that with alt bars and a longer stem hand placement could be the same. Anyone have thoughts on steering axis and hand placement?


I think most bars correct for hand placement without needing a longer stem. I like some sweep in my bars. I have run Soma Clarence bars and currently Answer 20/20. Both bars curve forward before sweeping back similar to the Jones H bar.

The short stem does make steering input quicker by reducing the distance from the hand position to the steer, in effect reducing the length of the bar. Secondly, it keeps one more centered over the bike. A long stem tends to move some weight to the side in which you are turning. Is that good, bad or just personal preference? Not sure.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

indeed, most "alt bars" are designed so they change your wrist angle but don't mess with hand placement relative to the steering axis. so something like an Answer 20/20 bar should fit the same way as a normal bar with the same stem.

I bought the SQLabs 12 degree bar (they have a 16 degree one too) specifically because I wanted to shorten the reach on my bike even more without getting a crazy-short stem. this works because that handlebar is just swept back and doesn't have a forward-wiggle.


----------



## inonjoey (Jul 19, 2011)

Thanks for posting and linking to that, Travis - really interesting read. 

For me, the 470mm+ reach with a 35mm stem and 780mm/9deg bars has been a revelation. It’s the first of the more progressive geometry bikes I’ve been on where I didn’t feel cramped while seated and still got that feeling of direct but not twitchy steering. I’m also amazed at how much I can push into the front while steering and have the bike carve without feeling like I’m about to high side. 

I’m hoping to get a hardtail in the next 6 months or so, will be interesting to see how that compares; the drastic change in head angle with a longer travel fork on a hardtail is gonna be interesting. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

There is a bike fest coming up in my area. It will be the best chance for me to demo a bunch of bikes over a couple days. I'm going to try out the long reach, steep STA bikes. If they are some kind of revelation...then I'll have a new bike soon...if not...then I'll hang onto mine a bit longer.

The long reach number can be a bit deceiving with a steep STA. The body position with a 480 reach and a 76 deg STA can feel similar as a bike with 430 reach and a 74 deg STA.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

RS VR6 said:


> The long reach number can be a bit deceiving with a steep STA. The body position with a 480 reach and a 76 deg STA can feel similar as a bike with 430 reach and a 74 deg STA.


When you're sitting down, yes. It is a totally different story when you stand up, which, I think, is the point.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

mack_turtle said:


> When you're sitting down, yes. It is a totally different story when you stand up, which should be a lot of the time.


Most of my time will be spent pedaling and climbing. If they do make me go "damn!" then I'll be getting one.

I'm going to bring my bike and am going to ride it last after demo'ing all the other bikes.


----------



## inonjoey (Jul 19, 2011)

RS VR6 said:


> The long reach number can be a bit deceiving with a steep STA. The body position with a 480 reach and a 76 deg STA can feel similar as a bike with 430 reach and a 74 deg STA.


This is why I wasn't enamored with the 2017 Transition Scout I rode for a few days - I felt cramped and overly upright climbing and pedaling seated. The bike was more than fine descending or pumping and popping, but I was uncomfortable anytime I was seated. I don't have this problem at all with the Fugitive.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

I'm a huge fan of the new longer bikes, but even the XXL bike are too small. Can't wait until 520-540 reach is a thing.
Sucks being tall sometimes.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

RS VR6 said:


> Most of my time will be spent pedaling and climbing. If they do make me go "damn!" then I'll be getting one.


yeah, if just planting your butt and pedaling is your thing, you're going to be let down.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I'm sure I spend the large majority of my ride time with seated pedaling. However that is just a means to an end, the fun part. The fun is always standing.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I am sure that most of us spend more time sitting and pedaling, so a bike has to be set up for that. since we are presumably riding mountain bike trails and not paved bridle paths, the bike needs to be capable of wrangling over technical features, so basing how you like a bike based 100% on how it feels to plop your butt down and bimble around is not advisable.

I have had three professional fitters analyze my fit (paid for one of these fittings) and all of them based my mtb fit 100% on a static, seated pedaling position. this is only partially helpful for riding trails.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Mountain bike fitting comes from road fitting. They set you up to pedal on level ground. This does not help keep the front wheel down on 20% climbs or correctly distribute your weight on a decent.
Riding an XL and having to use a setback post limited my climbing while running a 90mm+ stem fubared descending.
The best way to figure out your personal best setup is to start with a comfortable seated position and start changing 1 variable at a time. test it and see if it's better or worse for you. Sometimes lowering your bars helps descending by loading the front wheel. Other people the opposite is true.
I can tell you exactly how far back my seat can slide before I loop out on steep climbs, because that is where I set it. I can also tell you how long of a stem makes me endo on the decent. My XC bike wants to kill be every time I ride it.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

I have a question about geometry: instead of looking at the dozen or so different numbers and angles, and doing all this math in your head to see if you like the geometry, can't you just do a quick and dirty test by looking at how much the seat stays line up with the top tube?


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

richj8990 said:


> I have a question about geometry: instead of looking at the dozen or so different numbers and angles, and doing all this math in your head to see if you like the geometry, can't you just do a quick and dirty test by looking at how much the seat stays line up with the top tube?


I don't see how looking at the seat stays would give you any information about the bike. There are way too many designs that that can change the look without effecting the geometry.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Moving the saddle forward literally makes the hills feel less steep. I have my saddle slammed forward on my bike. Before I did that on certain climbs I'd have to do the whole scoot forward, lower the chest, drop the elbows thing while struggling up the hill. After slamming the seat forward, I could casually pedal up those same climbs. Climbing with a more open hip angle is so much more pleasant. Of course there's always steeper hills but the forward saddle position makes a big difference.


----------

