# Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

If you google "mtb attack position" and look up the images, you'll see a variety of standing positions, some with leveled off backs, some with arms almost straight down, some looking like they're hovering over a public toilet...

If I were to choose one, I think this is the one I'd like:









Looks like a nice A-frame is made with the arms and torso, well centered, with a lot of weight supported by the pedals. Doesn't look like much movement is needed to transition to a more comfortable standing pedaling position, or to the seated position (if he had a dropper post to extend the seat).

I'd argue that the bars can be a bit higher and further out, else it might seem a bit cramped and the knee can bang into the controls. Would bring the rider's center of mass closer to being centered between the wheels too. Basically, apply the trend of forward geo.

Basically, I'm wondering if current bike geo forces us into uncomfortable attack/ready positions. I recall a bike, the Foes Mixer, claiming to feature a "constant attack position", and that idea sort of stuck. What if the ready position were made natural through thoughtful geo? Going to think up how to set up experiments to investigate further.

What do you all think?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Looks like he's on too small of a frame and he's too upright.


----------



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

I think the right attack position can vary moment by moment.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Le Duke said:


> Looks like he's on too small of a frame and he's too upright.


Agree.

This is basically what it looks like but every individual is different.









As long as you are standing and allowing the bike to flow beneath you. Everything else comes natural.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

The ready/attack position isn't suppose to be comfortable. It is a position that you should only spend a very small fraction of your ride in. If you watch a good rider descending the vast majority of the time they are in the neutral position, they only switch to the ready position when they need to, and they are out of it as soon and as quickly as possible.

The ready position isn't really a fixed position, it is more a continuum. The more stability you need the wider and lower you need to be.

One point to be aware of is to really focus on hinging at the hips. Too many rides get low by bending their legs instead of hinging at the hips. When your legs are bent you do not have a lot room to absorb bumps.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

LMN said:


> The ready/attack position isn't suppose to be comfortable. It is a position that you should only spend a very small fraction of your ride in. If you watch a good rider descending the vast majority of the time they are in the neutral position, they only switch to the ready position when they need to, and they are out of it as soon and as quickly as possible.
> 
> The ready position isn't really a fixed position, it is more a continuum. The more stability you need the wider and lower you need to be.
> 
> One point to be aware of is to really focus on hinging at the hips. Too many rides get low by bending their legs instead of hinging at the hips. When your legs are bent you do not have a lot room to absorb bumps.


Agreed. I've always held that a good descent should be as exhausting as a good climb.
=sParty


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

Useless thread.

There is no such "attack position" for standing still. tee hee

I figure rider body position should be based on what they are attacking.


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

I think riding in the ready/attack position should be very comfortable. I need to have coffee in 1 hand while holding the bar with the other. I don't want to spill my coffee while on the trail.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

The correct comfortable attack position is subjective.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

LMN said:


> The ready/attack position isn't suppose to be comfortable. It is a position that you should only spend a very small fraction of your ride in. If you watch a good rider descending the vast majority of the time they are in the neutral position, they only switch to the ready position when they need to, and they are out of it as soon and as quickly as possible.
> 
> The ready position isn't really a fixed position, it is more a continuum. The more stability you need the wider and lower you need to be.
> 
> One point to be aware of is to really focus on hinging at the hips. Too many rides get low by bending their legs instead of hinging at the hips. When your legs are bent you do not have a lot room to absorb bumps.


Depends on the sorts of rides you do, I guess. I frequently do rides where the downhill is several miles long, fast, and technical, and you've gotta hold a ready position for quite some time. "Comfortable" is relative, too. Holding the ready position takes a good bit of muscle engagement, especially in your core. The better you can engage your muscles for long stretches, the more "comfortable" it's going to be to hold a ready position on your bike. Those long, technical downhills are definitely exhausting. But I'd still say that a ready position on its own isn't inherently uncomfortable. Your bike should allow for it to be reasonably comfortable, and discomfort should come from the muscle engagement you're using to control the bike.

You still need to have a slight bend to the knees. Yes, you need to hinge at the hips, but your legs need to be able to absorb hits towards your body as well as extend away from it. Think of it like the preload or sag on your bike's suspension. Same principle. You don't want your legs completely extended or your muscles excessively tensed, or you'll get bucked off.

I do agree that body position is a continuum, and that the more stability you need, the lower and wider you need to be. No question there. Ninjichor is again demonstrating that he has a tendency to overthink and overcomplicate a subject. I also totally agree that the guy in his example pic is on a bike that's WAY too small (the potential for toe overlap is frightening), but he's also demonstrating a more neutral position that's more relaxed (less muscle engagement, so good to alternate with ready/attack to take a break when the trail allows for it) and gives you a better view down the trail.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

I had the opportunity to ride Ray's Indoor MTB Park 2wice in the last 4 days. If you keep moving, you are always in the attack position. Stuff comes at you constantly. While it is not uncomfortable (at all - at least on my completely dialed 29er), the muscle engagement (<--there's that term again) required to "attack", adjust, pump, drop, flow, corner, and pedal all leads to fatigue and a breakdown of the correct attack form. It's a great workout. There is no trail in the world that packs that much stuff in such a small space (afaik), so it's great for dialing in a bike for some hard trail riding, while also dialing in your attack position. I'll be the first to admit that if your position is bad, or you are whipped, you will probably hit the deck at least once. ...or the wall, and then the deck. 
BTW - I'm starting to think I need a dropper. (say it isn't so!! :eekster

-F


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

After examining multi-discipline top pros in action: Brandon Semenuk, Mitch Ropelato, Bernard Kerr, Brian Lopes, Chris Akrigg...

I don't see a frequent pattern of the flat back position, besides when riders are performing an aero tuck. Plenty of resources at VitalMTB, including Rapidfire videos. One resource that seems to support the upright position is the G-out project photo shoots (example).


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

While modern DH riders tend to ride in the flat back position, it's generally more upright than you see in instructional material. Years ago the bikes were too small to ride without hunching.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

ninjichor said:


> After examining multi-discipline top pros in action: Brandon Semenuk, Mitch Ropelato, Bernard Kerr, Brian Lopes, Chris Akrigg...
> 
> I don't see a frequent pattern of the flat back position, besides when riders are performing an aero tuck. Plenty of resources at VitalMTB, including Rapidfire videos. One resource that seems to support the upright position is the G-out project photo shoots (example).


just stop.

you're not going to find piles of photos with people doing textbook perfect ready positions. you'll find a few, from skills instructors. But then you're going to find a metric assload of pictures of people at random moments during a ride. Many of those moments are going to look incredibly awkward, because the picture was snapped in the middle of a movement. And that's the thing. you will NEVER hold a single static position for any appreciable amount of time when you're riding. if you're not dynamic, always adjusting to the terrain and the bike, then you're crashing.

Stop staring at google images and slideshows trying to learn about a single body position. Go ride.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Yeah, you can find pictures of riders in all sorts of different positions, it doesn't tell you anything.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> This is basically what it looks like but every individual is different.
> 
> View attachment 1232052


This guys shoulders are a bit too low. Watch some recent UCI DH or EWS footage. Most riders will generally have their elbows at a wider angle and not as much bend in their neck except for brief moments (even in rough terrain).


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

I don't like how that guy's shoulders are way forward of his CoG. When shoulders are that forward, weight is inevitably going to be shifted to the bars, which compromises front end handling. 

I'd recommend the guy to raise his bar height a few inches.

Heavy feet, light hands.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

If there is no obstacle or corner to work on then I try to "pump the terrain" or rest some body parts or just do something for fun, so time spent in ready position would be close to none.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Looks like he's about to attack a bunny-hop over a small log.


----------



## SteveF (Mar 5, 2004)

ninjichor said:


> I don't like how that guy's shoulders are way forward of his CoG. When shoulders are that forward, weight is inevitably going to be shifted to the bars, which compromises front end handling.
> 
> I'd recommend the guy to raise his bar height a few inches.
> 
> Heavy feet, light hands.


A "few inches?" Even an inch is a pretty huge change for any bike fit adjustment, imo. Assuming of course that the bike is properly sized and fitted reasonably well, which the one in the picture seems to be.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

Harold said:


> you will NEVER hold a single static position for any appreciable amount of time when you're riding. if you're not dynamic, always adjusting to the terrain and the bike, then you're crashing.


^This x 1000. The attack position should be comfortable, but you're not going to be stuck in a text book attack position like a statue. Now, if you can't get comfortably get into the attack position it could be a good indicator that you've got some other issue going on like lack of core strength, poor hamstring flexibility, or a bike that doesn't fit well.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

jeremy3220 said:


> This guys shoulders are a bit too low. Watch some recent UCI DH or EWS footage. Most riders will generally have their elbows at a wider angle and not as much bend in their neck except for brief moments (even in rough terrain).


Looks to me like that rider could use a bit more hinge at the hips and a flatter back. Hinging at the hips allows you to engage your core and flatten your back, which then allows you to bring your head up and look further down the trail without having to kink your neck so much because you're back is rounded and shoulders are dropped.

When I find myself riding like crap, it's often because I'm not hinging at the hips. That poor position looks like a German Shepherd with but dropped, and back rounded. Should look more like you're doing a squat.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

twd953 said:


> ^This x 1000. The attack position should be comfortable, but you're not going to be stuck in a text book attack position like a statue. Now, if you can't get comfortably get into the attack position it could be a good indicator that you've got some other issue going on like lack of core strength, poor hamstring flexibility, or a bike that doesn't fit well.


Yes, but if we look at it that way what would we argue about?


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

twd953 said:


> Looks to me like that rider could use a bit more hinge at the hips and a flatter back. Hinging at the hips allows you to engage your core and flatten your back, which then allows you to bring your head up and look further down the trail without having to kink your neck so much because you're back is rounded and shoulders are dropped.
> 
> When I find myself riding like crap, it's often because I'm not hinging at the hips. That poor position looks like a German Shepherd with but dropped, and back rounded. Should look more like you're doing a squat.


Curious if you mean flatter back or straighter back. Flatter means parallel to the horizon, straighter means, well, straighter.
=sParty


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

I think it was Ned Overend who broke it down to the ability to weight and unweight the bike as to best move down the trail. The "attack" position is just means being in the best posture to be able to do that. Yes, you should be comfortable. No, there isn't a particular look. If anything has changed in the last couple of years it would be the addition of dropper posts. Now your attack position can be very close to your seated pedaling position.


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

I think the critics of the OP's photo have forgotten what 26ers were like... of course the handlebars would be higher with a 29er with 6" of travel.

During "attack" is a great time not to be worrying about the fit of your bike and so if you "attack" things with yours it's good to give it that fit. Then find other hand positions or something to make it tolerable while pedaling. If you are normally grinding out miles then get that Jones bar.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

BMX riders are always in an attack position on a little bike.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

MOJO K said:


> BMX riders are always in an attack position on a little bike.


Attack position varies depending on what you're attacking.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

Sparticus said:


> Curious if you mean flatter back or straighter back. Flatter means parallel to the horizon, straighter means, well, straighter.
> =sParty


I definitely did not mean more parallel to the horizon. While I don't disagree with the term "straighter", whether it's discussions of riding position or weight lifting seems like I've always heard the term flatter (as opposed to curved) used but don't recall anyone using the term straighter.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Yes, but if we look at it that way what would we argue about?


Well, we haven't had a good dropper post thread in a while.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

slapheadmofo said:


> Attack position varies depending on what you're attacking.
> 
> View attachment 1232380


Already covered in post #9.



twd953 said:


> Well, we haven't had a good dropper post thread in a while.


I'm sure we won't be disappointed, give it a few days.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Darth Lefty said:


> I think the critics of the OP's photo have forgotten what 26ers were like... of course the handlebars would be higher with a 29er with 6" of travel.


Yep, posture will be affected by bike geometry. I also suspect that most professional riders weren't really taught to use attack position. Maybe someone mentioned it along the way but I doubt they spend much time thinking about their 'attack position' form. My background is freestyle bmx and when I started mtb I was using 'attack position' before I knew what attack position was.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

I am generally suggesting that the bar height be closer to the rider's center of mass, the hips, when they are at a relatively comfortable position. 

I am also generally suggesting that the bars be far enough forward to create an "A-frame" between the back, shoulder, and arms. I also prefer the shoulders being back enough to be in-line with their center of mass. It would be more comfortable to do so, if they were more upright.

It's like going from a horizontally stretched diamond, to a vertically stretched diamond shape, with the body position (hips, shoulder, hands, feet forming the 4 points).

It's basically me opening up to forward geo, with a twist. For example, on my last ride, I didn't find my flow until late into the ride. I would like if finding flow were more "natural", which I believe is basically finding your specific bike's fore-aft sweet spot balance. I didn't find the flow/dialed balance until late, because I was following other newbies and was affected by all their mistakes, as I was being guided through a new trail. It wasn't until I came upon really tight twisties, where I struggling to stay on the trail at the speed the trail was trying to give me due to being slightly downsloped (with others watching)... after that part, I pretty much nailed everything, as I was in front of the now-exhausted newbies. 

That balance point, for the particular bike I was on, was quite a bit behind the saddle. I was spreading my knees so the wide rear of the saddle wouldn't be contacting my legs and distracting me, even in its fully dropped state, but such a position worked for the rest of the descent. I was able to lean the bike freely, switching from left to right with minimal resistance or disruption of balance, pumping the contours of the ground more liberally.

I believe a longer front center would bring that fore-aft sweet spot forward, so I wouldn't need to be so far back. Don't want to lengthen the FC too much... just enough to make it "ready position" more natural. Perhaps so natural that the bike geometry sort of forces you into it. That's where saddle and bar position come into play...

Experimenting with geo, that takes rider center-of-mass into consideration, so that both the standing and sitting position can be tuned to make it so simple that you just have to think it to do it. Just stand, detach from the bike, and you're already in the sweet spot to pump and carve, letting the bike pitch up and down freely below you.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

jeremy3220 said:


> Yep, posture will be affected by bike geometry. I also suspect that most professional riders weren't really taught to use attack position. Maybe someone mentioned it along the way but I doubt they spend much time thinking about their 'attack position' form. My background is freestyle bmx and when I started mtb I was using 'attack position' before I knew what attack position was.


Yep, coming from a motocross background the attack position was like second nature to me. Stand up and let the bike flow beneath you on any descent. It's amazing what our second suspension [your legs] can absorb up.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

ninjichor said:


> I am generally suggesting...


Who are you to be making your silly suggestions? Are you a pro racer with a strong background at high level competition? Are you a trained instructor with years of experience coaching thousands of riders and observing riding techniques and helping people do better? Are you a biomechanics scientist specializing in bicycles, specifically mtb?

You aren't any of those things. You just think too much and yammer too much (which, I know, is rich coming from me...but seriously).


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

twd953 said:


> I definitely did not mean more parallel to the horizon. While I don't disagree with the term "straighter", whether it's discussions of riding position or weight lifting seems like I've always heard the term flatter (as opposed to curved) used but don't recall anyone using the term straighter.


Thanks. That's what I thought. Just enough room for confusion between the two words that I thought I'd ask.
=sParty


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Harold said:


> Who are you to be making your silly suggestions? Are you a pro racer with a strong background at high level competition? Are you a trained instructor with years of experience coaching thousands of riders and observing riding techniques and helping people do better? Are you a biomechanics scientist specializing in bicycles, specifically mtb?
> 
> You aren't any of those things. You just think too much and yammer too much (which, I know, is rich coming from me...but seriously).


Why am I making suggestions here? Because I don't claim such titles of expertise. I'm trying to bounce the ideas off of people who do have qualifications. Is there something wrong with those less experienced, coming to those with more experience for feedback?

Why are you using your qualifications to attack me, rather than the idea? That's the difference between being arrogant and being civil. If you are any of those, why not just discuss the idea?

Also, what's wrong with thinking too much? Are you implying that it's better if people thought less? I believe that think because I have a drive for progress. I'm opening myself up to being exposed to other perspectives. I didn't know MX had geo so figured out, and people bringing up how things changed from 26 to 29 in regards to bar height was interesting way to see things. MX handlebar heights are actually much higher than even I'm suggesting...

I'm thankful that everyone's been helpful, except for you. Do you have some sort of personal grudge? If so, you wanna work it out?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

ninjichor said:


> Why am I making suggestions here? Because I don't claim such titles. I'm trying to bounce the ideas off of people who do have qualifications. Is there something wrong with those less experienced, coming to those with more experience for feedback?
> 
> Why are you using your qualifications to attack me, rather than the idea? That's the difference between being arrogant and being civil. If you are any of those, why not just discuss the idea?
> 
> Also, what's wrong with thinking too much? Are you implying that it's better if people thought less? I believe that think because I have a drive for progress.


The problem is that you're getting mired in tiny details rather than the "big picture". I've been trying to get you to take a step back from that mire, not attacking you per se. I've just had to get a bit forceful about it to get your attention.

The ready position isn't going to look exactly the same for everybody, and you're trying to figure that out. It's just not going to happen. Everybody has slightly different body proportions. Everybody has different strength, fitness, stamina, and flexibility. Lots of people have different bikes with different geometries, and they ride different trails. So there are going to be infinite tiny variations in what that position looks like when you look at "textbook" demonstrations of the position or photographs from someone riding that show a single instant. There is no such thing as a "perfect" ready/attack position. What there is, is a ready position that works.

The ready position that works is dynamic and it sets you up for what comes next down the trail. By definition, it's a stable and centered position. But exactly what that looks like depends on what the trail is doing beneath you, and the geometry of the bike. It's not something you think your way through analytically, and that's where you're getting mired in detail. You have to FEEL that position. You have to be dynamic and loose on the bike AS YOU RIDE. When you practice, you want to make sure you feel what "wrong" is, and be able to return to what feels "right" and be able to find those limits. So that when you're on the trail riding at full speed, you can adapt to the changes in the trail without undue analytic thinking. Excessive analytic thinking on the trail is going to result in your reaction time being slowed too much. You need to work on REDUCING that by feeling what works and what doesn't in practice scenarios (aka sessioning stuff), developing muscle memory, and making quick adjustments on a more subconscious level.


----------



## baker (Jan 6, 2004)

This thread is bringing me the lulz

Some days, I do miss Karate Chicken

Plenty of examples for attack position here:


----------



## ALimon (Oct 12, 2017)

Wow! Talk about over analyzing. 

There is no such thing as one picture perfect attack position. Riders come in all different shapes and sizes, bikes as well. So many variables. Don’t worry about what you look like, worry more about getting your bike to fit your body properly. From there you can adjust the set up based on your style and preference. 

As an ex pro, one thing I can tell you is every rider has his own preference. I had teammates that were the same size as me, yet I found their set up almost impossible to ride. What works for one may not work for another... it’s all preference.


----------



## jim c (Dec 5, 2014)

ninjichor said:


> I am generally suggesting that the bar height be closer to the rider's center of mass, the hips, when they are at a relatively comfortable position.


I think you are right on point with everything you've put in this thread. Fleas post about Rays Indoor supports your statements. As several others have typed here, it is a continuum and most of us don't hold one position very long. Lately I've been trying to stand and stay off the saddle more (as added exercise to my rides) so am spending time in that attack/ready position. I do like my bars higher nowadays than I use to keep them, and that helps with being comfortable while standing.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

The thread's topic is about whether or not the ready position *should* be comfortable or not. The question, what the ready position should look like, was just to get visualization. The "textbook" photos from skills coaches were just used as a convenient way to visualize. Even the pic in the first post, came from a skill coaching site.

The big picture is being discussed: does current bike geo dictate such positions on the rider?

A helpful contributor shared a picture showing a young rider in a ready position to take on non-level terrain, which is a very welcome visualization.

I'm personally looking at the bike setup in the pictures, in relation to the position. The grip position in relation to the rider is another detail I'm paying close attention to. Someone mentioned that grip height should always be below the fully extended saddle height, but with seat angles changing, I'm thinking more in the lines of tuning things to the standing position.

I was watching best of followcamfriday recently, enjoying all the different perspectives and how riders tackle the varied terrain. Kind of imagined that I looked like the rider at 1:40 on my last ride:









I can't get my ass behind the saddle like that, without certain risks, with my knees bent that much, so I'm glad I have a dropper.

I'd like my ready position to be more comfortable. It takes more energy than I'd like to purposely get my weight back, and sort of hold it there. I mentioned "toilet bowl hover", and I actually would welcome that compared to my "hanging off the back" position, for my bike in particular. I'd like to save some of that energy, and I think the holy grail is what DJ mentioned with just being in the natural position by just standing up. I have the opportunity to experiment with this, since I'm in the geo finalization stage of creating a custom FS frame.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

ninjichor said:


> The thread's topic is about whether or not the ready position *should* be comfortable or not. The question, what the ready position should look like, was just to get visualization. The "textbook" photos from skills coaches were just used as a convenient way to visualize. Even the pic in the first post, came from a skill coaching site.
> 
> The big picture is being discussed: does current bike geo dictate such positions on the rider?
> 
> ...


As Harold said, you don't ride in attack position so your focus on it being comfortable is probably wasted energy. You should be constantly adjusting your position according to trail and it's features and get in attack position only for a fraction of time before actually "attacking" a feature/piece of trail.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> .. Stand up and let the bike flow beneath you on any descent. It's amazing what our second suspension [your legs] can absorb up.


Right on.

The proper attack position is one that allow the bike to move under you while you are still in complete control. You are not fighting the bike and the bike is not fighting you. Both are loose and fluid and NOT static. Let your arms move and legs move. Your core should be relatively stable to the ground, but this not something you "force", but is a result of letting the bike move, but maintaining control. When you are stiff and not fluid the bike moves and your try fight back and things go awry. When you are fluild you can let the bike move and also as needed weight the front rear or side to side in a natural way. You are not actually forcing the bike but guiding it. I don't do trials, but I strongly suspect the best of these guys don't "force" the bike either. They guild the bike as an extension of themselves while always being loose and relaxed enough let the bike move.

The idea of knees and elbow bent is really just to ensure you lets the bike move. Straight knees and elbows transmit all the movement of the bike to your core impacting your balance. Bent elbows and knees allow that movement to be absorbed. Dropper seat posts just allow greater range body position relative to the bike so you can let it move more under you. As for comfort it should never hurt, but does take energy as bent elbows and needs require muscle strength to hold your body in position. Think of push ups and where you elbows are and squats with your knees. In both cases straight elbow/knees take less effort than bent, but also you can't absorb anything with straight joints.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@nya If the "attack position" is a level back (nearly parallel to horizon) position for charging fast and hard, I wouldn't mind if I would never have to get in that position, except for racing.

If the ready position simply is one in which you can corner, jump, drop, manual, wheelie, nose-pivot, bunnyhop, and plow chunk from, then you're often in it. Switching back and forth to the ready position, from the seated or standing pedaling position or idle position, is energy expenditure that I'm figure can be minimized through geo.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that it's viable to design a bike in which the seated and standing pedaling and idle position are all one and the same as the ready position. What if it were a plain position, such as just sitting up or standing up? Can simply just detach from the bike once terrain comes. Sure would beat trying to shift weight back, from an already behind-the-saddle position on a descent. I had a crash since I couldn't shift back any more when I rolled up on a long boulder, and its backside was downsloped into a drop, instead of a roller, and the front wheel just immediately dived.

I'm getting the idea that one reason why I crouch into such a position when my bike is pitched forward downhill, is because my grips are too far and low, which limits how much vertical springing motion I have the freedom to use. Good fit should allow plenty of freedom of movement, right? If geo dictates this position, I'm up for tweaking geo to make it dictate a more comfortable one.


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

Question:
If the topic is meant to be "Is the READY position meant to be comfortable", then we have more questions.

Ready for what?
If I am going to hit a technical downhill and riding a flat area in case there is an unexpected hill, I think I'd be pretty uncomfortable.
If I am ready to a bunny hop but climbing a hill, that sounds pretty uncomfortable too.
I think you get the idea. It's just hard to understand the suggested body position when there is no 'one riding condition' that one's body position on any given bike is adequate for. My old 26" hard tail warrants a different body position than my 29'er full suspension than it does for my 27.5+ hard tail. While yes the basics are there, there is still no 'one position fits all".

I seem to do alright and I'm not in position for any one particular thing. I evaluate the trail condition a few feet ahead. I'm at the obstacle too soon to have become uncomfortable.



Next question:
Are you (OP) trying to learn techniques or is this meant as a discussion?
I'm not sure how seriously to be taking the thread.

In a nutshell to answer the original question -yes my attack position is comfortable for whatever I am preparing to attack. But to say I am riding around "ready", then I can't personally answer that.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

I would say if you are not riding over an obstacle/corner/etc (trail feature) you should be in more of a neutral position than attack that one should be comfortable. Attack position to me is a position from which I can do most of bike handling, but I will go into that position only for a fraction of a second just before doing some kind of maneuver and all in one fluid movement so as I said you don't necessarily ride in it, it is just a "meta position ".


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

ninjichor said:


> If the ready position simply is one in which you can corner, jump, drop, manual, wheelie, nose-pivot, bunnyhop, and plow chunk from, then you're often in it. Switching back and forth to the ready position, from the seated or standing pedaling position or idle position, is energy expenditure that I'm figure can be minimized through geo.
> 
> I'm not ruling out the possibility that it's possible to design a bike in which the seated and standing pedaling and idle position are all one and the same as the ready position. Can simply just detach from the bike once terrain comes. Sure would beat trying to shift weight back, from an already behind-the-saddle position on a descent.


It doesn't work this way.

Are you TRYING to reduce the range-of-motion available to a rider? That's counterproductive, as it limits the rider's ability to adjust to the terrain. Riding technical terrain and moving your body the way it needs to move is GOING to be exhausting. It just is. The way you minimize how much it affects you is not to limit the movement, but rather to TRAIN for the movement. Get stronger. Build fitness.

I think you need to work on your actual bike handling skills rather than trying to do whatever it is you're doing here. The crashes you describe most likely had very little to do with the bike and more to do with what you brought to the table.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@Harold You say get stronger and build fitness, but you have a finite amount of energy and time. You have to choose what to split your training focus to. Heck, training is so specific that the effort you spent training pedaling in the saddle on a 73d seat angle bike, doesn't transfer 100% completely over to a bike with a 76d seat angle and vice versa.

Rhetorical question: can you pedal comfortably while in your attack or ready position? The answer is expected to depend on how much effort and time you spend practicing/training this. You get more comfortable the better trained you are, yes, but why are bikes putting you into a position you are not trained to hold?

Can all the different positions become consolidated so the time you spend training is all from a central point: standing pedaling, seated pedaling, ready position, idle coasting, and whatever else? How about make slight motions so much more effective, so you need less movement overall to successfully negotiate the terrain.

I theorize that it can be done balancing the fore-aft balance of the bike, through adjusting the front center and rear center ratio, bringing the seated position forward to match the standing position, and locating the grips to a point that balances out where the hips are and puts the shoulders to a point over the forefoot. Take it further and also tune the bike's center of mass to better match the rider's, in terms of fore and aft location.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

ninjichor said:


> Can all the different positions become consolidated so the time you spend training is all from a central point: standing pedaling, seated pedaling, ready position, idle coasting, and whatever else? How about make slight motions so much more effective, so you need less movement overall to successfully negotiate the terrain.
> 
> I theorize that it can be done balancing the fore-aft balance of the bike, through adjusting the front center and rear center ratio, bringing the seated position forward to match the standing position, and locating the grips to a point that balances out where the hips are and puts the shoulders to a point over the forefoot. Take it further and also tune the bike's center of mass to better match the rider's, in terms of fore and aft location.


It cannot be done without sacrificing a lot of capability. Old geo was closer to this. But those bikes were endo prone and no margin for error before you would wreck. Watch old "downhill" vids sometime. Lots and lots of people barely hanging on for life and lots of them eating it. On what would nowadays be a relatively uninteresting gravel road or trail.

New geo requires more body movement for many things, but gives a much bigger margin of error. They are not as endo prone as old geo bikes. All because the rider is between the wheels rather than on top of them (especially the front wheel). They also enable the rider to do much more with the bike, if they just practice with it and learn the ins and outs of the bike and how it handles.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


----------



## baker (Jan 6, 2004)

This sounds like a thesis topic..."Maintaining optimum cycling efficiency by minimizing body position changes during the discipline of mountain biking" (while trying to have fun and not fall off of your bike due to said optimal positioning)


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Some how I managed to ride many different bikes over the course of better than five decades without knowing the front to rear "ratio" or being fixed into a rigid "attack" position. Riding a bike, especially in the dirt is a very fluid activity and body position by necessity is fluid as well. Stop over thinking all of the bullet points from the "experts" latest pod cast (whatever that is) and go ride your bike like you haven't a worry in the world.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

ninjichor said:


> Rhetorical question: can you pedal comfortably while in your attack or ready position?


I can cut through the rhetoric with a simple observation. A seated position is very efficient because the bike holds your body weight. The attack position works because the bike is free to move around under the rider. Energy can be added by the rider manipulating how their weight is loading and unloading into the bike ( children understand this young when they learn how to "pump" a swing on the playground). Sure you can pedal while standing or give input to the bike from the saddle, but the overlap is pretty small.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@Harold I'm essentially predicting where I believe modern forward geo is going to settle, rather than suggesting reverting to old geo that sacrifices capability. I'm just adding grip location to the equation, and visualizing a rider's position.

Can have modern forward geo "perfecting" fit and handling, but there's still open variables: the wheelbase, travel, bb height, and mechanical trail (affected by fork offset and head angle), on top of the chassis stiffness, parts spec and weight.

How steep of a seat angle is too steep? How much reach is too much? How much stack is too tall? How slack of a head angle is too slack? What's the ideal chainstay length?

STA will go as far as putting the saddle right under your butt in your standing pedaling position.

Since the STA is steepened, the head tube needs to be pushed forward and raised/lengthened to maintain a comfortable distance from the new saddle position.

Reach is determined from the above, but don't be afraid that you can't get behind the saddle and have your butt buzzed by the rear tire, as the saddle is forward a proportional amount that the reach was brought forward (approx 12mm per degree steeper STA). The wheel buzz will be less likely, fortunately.

Stack will need to rise, to match a higher saddle height, due to the steepened STA. Don't be afraid of a 650mm+ stack.

Head angles will be more about bump response, considering steering response can be tuned with fork offset. 62d seems to be an angle that puts telescopic forks at a decent compromise to reduce amount of impact force being translated as harshness.

There's no single ideal chainstay length. It needs to be a length that balances out the front center, according to the rider's positioning. Shouldn't design around a certain chainstay length and build 3+ sizes around it, as all but 1 size will be compromised.

People will choose wheelbase, travel, bb height, and mech trail to match their trails and riding style. 1150mm or shorter for tight twisty wooded stuff, and general flat lander terrain. 1300mm for big mountain high speed riding, maybe Mont Saint Anne WC DH style. 1225mm for foothills, small mountains, moderate elevations, canyons, and rugged backcountry. Less travel for a lot of stop-and-go acceleration, long travel for high speed momentum preserving. High BB height for rock crawling neglected jeep trails, and low BB for groomed flowy trails. Short mech trail for direct sensitive steering and long mech trail for light touch, straight lining stability.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ninjichor said:


> @Harold I'm essentially predicting where I believe modern forward geo is going to settle, rather than suggesting reverting to old geo that sacrifices capability. I'm just adding grip location to the equation, and visualizing a rider's position.
> 
> Can have modern forward geo "perfecting" fit and handling, but the opens variables are the wheelbase, travel, bb height, and mechanical trail (affected by fork offset and head angle), on top of the chassis stiffness, parts spec and weight.
> 
> ...


It's little wonder that you struggle since you seem to spend so much precious time analyzing bikes instead of riding them. Just sayin.


----------



## baker (Jan 6, 2004)

life behind bars said:


> Some how I managed to ride many different bikes over the course of better than five decades without knowing the front to rear "ratio" or being fixed into a rigid "attack" position. Riding a bike, especially in the dirt is a very fluid activity and body position by necessity is fluid as well. Stop over thinking all of the bullet points from the "experts" latest pod cast (whatever that is) and go ride your bike like you haven't a worry in the world.


Listen bud, this isn't about experience, success, or having fun on your bike. This is serious internet analysis. We need STA's, wattage numbers, ratios, positional analysis and chainstay lengths. Here is a good place to start your research if you would like to participate effectively in this conversation

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5786204/

;-)


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

I am perplexed.

How is it that you can write such detailed bicycle geometry-specific information and not grasp that there is no one body position for all situations. You just said how one would need to make adjustments to one dimension if another dimension is altered. Isn't that enough to convince yourself that there is no one right answer?

I think the thread went off topic from the beginning because of poor word selection. This entire thread has been back and forth about body position for attack. Attack for every situation is different from another.

Regardless of geometry/design, a rider will not be able to ride as aggressively over a given challenge if body position is adjusted to another trail obstacle.

I totally understand that your desire is to design a bicycle that allows a comfortable standing position that is suitable for all trail scenarios.

I do not mean any disrespect -but from what I am READING I am led to believe you do not have a lot of trail experience and are disappointed in how active the rider position needs to be. With that said, it certainly sounds like you have a lot of bicycle knowledge indicating you have logged a lot of miles.

To sum it up, the thread conversation sounds like information that is spewed out from a college student that has all the problems solved after reading a book, but with no experience in practice.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

baker said:


> Listen bud, this isn't about experience, success, or having fun on your bike. This is serious internet analysis. We need STA's, wattage numbers, ratios, positional analysis and chainstay lengths. Here is a good place to start your research if you would like to participate effectively in this conversation
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5786204/
> 
> ;-)


Interesting. This study was basically trying to find the precise reason why steeper seat angles were more efficient, through examining the differences in muscle recruitment.

It mentions this study as if it were conclusive that the 80d STA was more efficient than 68 and 74: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9293416

It also mentioned a few other studies that that were inconclusive in finding out why steeper STA angles were more efficient, which could only suggest that the timing of muscle recruitment could be a factor, such as later activation of the knee extensors, further into the predominant power generating phase.

*shrug* if anyone still caught on this micro detail, here it is from the experts. How it fits into discovering bike geo that possibly allows for a comfortable ready position...


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

Duke Ellington was once asked about how you can tell if music is good or not.


"If it sounds good, it is good."


It might be a waste of a life to to try to quantify every detail of this life. I'm going to pour a glass of wine and go check out Mikesee's thread again. That guy is getting it right.


----------



## nauc (Sep 9, 2009)

if you want to know how to ride, study him...

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=danny+macaskill


----------



## baker (Jan 6, 2004)

That Danny guy seems to be cycling in a most inefficient manner. He should probably do some research before his next video clip.

Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk


----------



## ALimon (Oct 12, 2017)

@ninjichor. You’re exhausting. Lol. It’s a bike.... nothing more. 

Turn off the noise.


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

ninja - do yourself a favor and take a fundamentals course from an ICP certified instructor. They will show you positioning and explain them.

Ready position is just that; the position from which you are ready to tackle the terrain in front of you. There is an exaggerated ready position that is very low, used to get you used to bending your knees, getting your elbows out (rather than back) and finding your balance. But in reality, on the trail, you will be not quite so exaggerated and you will modify the positioning to suit the terrain and maneuver you're about to encounter. Remember, ready means READY to ride things. You may be in a tall ready position or a very low one. You may be forward or back. And you may be moving your bike from side to side. It all depends on what you are about to ride over.

No, there is no one position. No, there is no "just standing up off the seat"; you need to stand and find your balance and proper position for what's to come.

Ready position is as much a ready mental state as a body position, too.

Is it comfortable? Mostly. And the more you practice it, the better, more natural and more comfortable it will feel to you. But extended downhill or technical sections will be uncomfortable from fatigue, as has been mentioned.

And unless you are riding level, smooth paths, you'll be in the ready position far more than neutral - a more relaxed position. (Sorry LMN - the reason pro riders look like they're in a neutral position is practice, practice, practice! But they are in the ready position for far, far more time than a neutral position.)

Again, do yourself a favor, ninja. Find a fundamentals class and take it. And then move to intermediate skills, where you can put more of it to practice.

Check this link and find certified instructors near you and when their next course is: https://icp.bike/membership-account-2/directory/ Take one. You will not get better debating the minutiae of positioning here, where you have a pretty broad range of riders with knowledge that ranges from formal instruction to "well, that didn't kill me so it must be right". Take the course!


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

It just dawned on me that someone is now back under a different username and talking the same smack.


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> It just dawned on me that someone is now back under a different username and talking the same smack.


So what you're saying is that this thread is quickly going to be swirling down the toilet?


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

The wonder of engineering is that when it works, no one thinks about it, but when it doesn't work (as expected), there's an urge to come up with a solution, showing just how strong your engineering skills are. xD

With bikes constantly changing, I'm wondering if the exhaustion of change is just making people bitter.

I understand that humans can adapt, but in this case adapting the product to better fit humans is also an option. It's a super complicated option that requires great knowledge, but I want to create something that doesn't yet exist. A comfortable, naturally intuitive ready position is one feature... the promise is to feel the flow all the time, rather than mid-ride, after a "trigger" on the trail reminds you.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

ninjichor said:


> The wonder of engineering is that when it works, no one thinks about it, but when it doesn't work, there's an urge to come up with a solution, showing just how strong your engineering skills are. xD
> 
> With bikes constantly changing, I'm wondering if the exhaustion of change is just making people bitter.


No. It means engineers do not have the answer to everything. Engineers exhaust me more than anyone else, and I am more analytical than most as it is. Some things just cannot be engineered-away (at least in a general understanding sense).

Riding a bicycle is something that engineers STILL don't have complete grasp of from a mathematical standpoint. But yet, the human brain is able to intuit how to make it work in fairly short order. When it comes to riding skills, there are some generalities that apply, but the nitty gritty details are something that each rider has to intuit for themselves. It takes practice for that to happen (more for some than for others).

Just go outside with your bike and practice your intuition and try to put your analytical nature into a box for later.

And yes, consider taking a skills course. ICP isn't the only certification program, though. There are others (PMBIA is the other major one, but there are still other, smaller programs). Many instructors are even cross-certified. Sometimes with USA Cycling certification (which is more fitness-based than skills-based), too. ANY certified, experienced skills instructor will be able to put you on a better track to improve your skills and understand what you're doing. But you're still going to have to put your engineer analytical self on a shelf during the course, and truly listen to what they're trying to teach you.



ninjichor said:


> I understand that humans can adapt, but in this case adapting the product to better fit humans is also an option. It's a super complicated option that requires great knowledge, but I want to create something that doesn't yet exist.


MTBR isn't going to be the place for any of that discussion to happen. You're going to need to enlist the assistance of someone who is an expert in the biomechanics of riding mountain bikes, to start with. You're going to need to stop yapping, and start building some prototypes to see if your ideas are going to work at all. It's actually GOOD and USEFUL for the rider to move about above their bike. I cannot envision a scenario on a mountain bike where I would want to minimize the body movement required to negotiate technical terrain. The result I see of an attempt to do this would be a bike that is less capable than what's available now (especially if we admit that mtb's now are better and more capable than they have ever been).

Sure, there are all sorts of weird niche bikes that have come and gone on the market. Many of them have had some pretty bold claims. The early marketing for this thing was pretty hilarious, with bold claims it was just as capable as a "standard geometry" upright bike. You can probably find a few threads about it on mtbr if you dig enough. None of those ideas have really taken hold. Think about how truly long the bicycle has had the same basic form. It has kept that form because it works. All the changes we whine about on mtbr are really just minor details if you look at the big picture.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Forest Rider said:


> In a nutshell to answer the original question -yes my attack position is comfortable for whatever I am preparing to attack. But to say I am riding around "ready", then I can't personally answer that.


This.

Personally, I ride mainly in the "lazy" position. 
But overall, when you're faced with some technical challenges on trails, there is definitely a range of positions you want to work within on approach. It's more of an overall state than a defined set of parameters, but there's not THAT much variation for general trail riding between how you begin to address most techncial challenges. The same general concept works on all sorts of terrain.

A couple from the archives that I think demonstrate a solid 'attack position'.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

ninjichor said:


> The wonder of engineering is that when it works, no one thinks about it, but when it doesn't work (as expected), there's an urge to come up with a solution, showing just how strong your engineering skills are. xD
> 
> With bikes constantly changing, I'm wondering if the exhaustion of change is just making people bitter.
> 
> I understand that humans can adapt, but in this case adapting the product to better fit humans is also an option. It's a super complicated option that requires great knowledge, but I want to create something that doesn't yet exist. A comfortable, naturally intuitive ready position is one feature... the promise is to feel the flow all the time, rather than mid-ride, after a "trigger" on the trail reminds you.


All of you are really challenging my attention span...

Engineering is often just about managing your compromises. Sure, you collect data, and you do all the math, but for any engineer to say "I thought of everything" would be idiotic. The first time you "optimize" your design, someone will choose to use it for an unintended purpose. All that math goes out the window.

This is why bikes look like they do.
This is also why 99.99% of people have no desire to borrow _my_ bike.

If you want to experiment with a neutral (or whatever) attack position, start in zero gravity or under water, with no bicycle.

-F


----------



## LarryFahn (Jul 19, 2005)

ninjichor said:


> Why are you using your qualifications to attack me.


He's not attacking you.

He's in the "ready" position!


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)




----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@Harold Interesting "thing"... the BB is essentially centered between the wheels.

What you guys call "dynamic movement/position", I call "hunting for the balance sweet spot", or "compensating for the bike's weight bias".

Shorter folks who have much shorter limbs and torso have much more limited range of movement. I've identified the problem that short folk face as size 15-17" (sm-med) being compromised with super short front centers (FC), in relation to the chainstay length (RC/rear center). I've learned from owning various bikes--every time I've gone up to a longer travel bike, it's improved my riding, due to the FC getting longer through a slacker HA and longer fork. For example, I didn't have to make as large of an effort to negotiate drops. I could just sort of sit in the bike's sweet spot and *push the bike forward* off the drop--a great contrast to all the guys saying *pull back*, to avoid the front wheel from diving hard. My taller riding buddies brag that they do the same stuff on less travel, but I'd argue that their FC has a similar ratio to their RC as my bike, and I think that's what matters most when it comes to intuitively riding well.

If bike geo dictates where a rider should shift their center-of-mass to maintain good balance [and find flow], why not adjust the geo so the bike balances out and flows when the rider is merely standing up? That's as comfortable as a ready position as I can imagine. Rather than saying the rider's movement is being minimized, I'm saying that the riding would be simplified. Marketing will say capable, effortless, and/or confidence inspiring, but I hate the go-fast race-inspired marketing. I just want a bike that is safe and allows me to enjoy the camaraderie of riding together, without tragedy.

I tried finding my flow on the trails today and I only found it when I was going at a moderate speed (10-15 mph), on a very slight decline on a trail that encouraged pumping, that kept this up for about 2 minutes. On the other parts of the trail, I was often just "hunting" and finding ways to maintain balance through trial-and-error and intuition. I've probably put my foot down at least a dozen times from the errors and learning process... I was pushing away from by bars on uphill switchbacks, I was trying to find ways to save energy and ride more efficiently, but I never really felt settled and comfortable.

I'm putting my theories into a prototype, but have to rely on a custom frame builder who works with steel..I know my buddies would balk at anything that weighs as much as the bike I'm getting done, which probably would be 33+ lbs, and I'm not confident to rely on conjecture that it'll be stronger (4130 cro-mo 34.9mm 1.1x0.9x1.1 downtube, 31.6 top tube. 38.1mm tubing in 1.2mm straight gauge only), as I'm not a engineer with material science knowledge. I imagine mainstream buyers want something far lighter. The main thing I'm doing is modeling a rider on the bike as a system and making the bike ride well with rider's center of gravity (CG) in mind. The placement of the CG point seems to not have any industry standard. I've seen it placed over the BB in some cases, or slightly in front, but I'm placing it according to a standing rider (and moving the seat forward to have the seated CG match, in my case resulting in a 81d STA). On current slack SA bikes, I notice that I have to shift my hips back and hover my ass over where the saddle would be, to get decent traction on my rear wheel when climbing out of the saddle, for example--if I just got out of the saddle, leaned forward, and just hammered, I would expect to hear power being wasted into making the rear tire throw dirt. The geo is tuned for a CG that is too far back, IMO. I want the CG point at the center point between the wheels/axles, preferably making the center point line up with the rider's forefoot and shoulder.








- one of the earlier prototype drafts. Comfortable rider ready position will line up with the diamond (shoulders at the top point).

P.S. if you measure the SB150 (Med), Fezzari La Sal Peak (L), Ripmo (L), and other "top bikes" and you'll find they'll all have the center point between the wheels at the forefoot (measure pixels between the rear/front axle to pedal threads of forward-set crank, using a selection box in image program)


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

slapheadmofo said:


> View attachment 1232491


I don't like this picture...

..only as if that were me in it, that would be heading for a horrific faceplant of epic proportions


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

ninjichor said:


> @Harold Interesting "thing"... the BB is essentially centered between the wheels.
> 
> What you guys call "dynamic movement/position", I call "hunting for the balance sweet spot", or "compensating for the bike's weight bias".
> 
> ...........


You keep contradicting yourself dude.
Thanks for keeping us entertained though.
Can't wait to see what Wednesday brings us.

: popcorn:


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

ninjichor said:


> What you guys call "dynamic movement/position", I call "hunting for the balance sweet spot", or "compensating for the bike's weight bias".


It's this desire to keep the weight balanced in one place between the wheels that has me lost. Turn that long slack bike up a really steep punchy climb and what happens the the balance then?


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

Reminds of a trail ride where I caught up to a rider on a descent who was in the "MTB Action ready/attack position" standing on the pedals. I was basically sitting on my dropped saddle, unweighting it when needed. 

Jesus, he was slow.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

mlx john said:


> Reminds of a trail ride where I caught up to a rider on a descent who was in the "MTB Action ready/attack position" standing on the pedals. I was basically sitting on my dropped saddle, unweighting it when needed.
> 
> Jesus, he was slow.


Just because the other rider was working on that ideal position does not automatically make them fast. He was prob using his brakes and was a less confident rider. So what? Doesn't invalidate anything.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mik_git said:


> I don't like this picture...
> 
> ..only as if that were me in it, that would be heading for a horrific faceplant of epic proportions


The transition IS a bit abrupt.


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

My bad, I forgot that


baker said:


> this isn't about experience, success, or having fun on your bike. This is serious internet analysis. We need STA's, wattage numbers, ratios, positional analysis and chainstay lengths.
> 
> ;-)


It was anecdotal, not invalidation. My comments are usually meaningless and unimportant, much like this thread.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

MOJO K said:


> It's this desire to keep the weight balanced in one place between the wheels that has me lost. Turn that long slack bike up a really steep punchy climb and what happens the the balance then?


+1

The OP's comments on "_finding my flow on the trails today and I only found it when I was going at a moderate speed (10-15 mph), on a very slight decline on a trail that encouraged pumping, that kept this up for about 2 minutes._" Has me thinking that they have not been exposed to a lot of different terrain - making their view of the MTB world somewhat limited. ???

Riders find flow even in NE rockfests at 4 mph. It has more to do with conserving momentum by weighting/unweighting wheels, shifting weight fore/aft, sneaking in a pedal stroke between the derailleur-killer rocks, cornering with some kind of "correct" (I use this term very loosely) form... and a lot of that comes from simply "seeing" the trail the right way. While the bike can make a difference at a basic level, it's really not the bike.

When the obstacles are far apart, the attack position - the getting-ready-for-the-next-obstacle position - can last an eternity. When the obstacles are literally stacked on top of eachother, that continuum of adjustments to the terrain means that you are never "in" the attack position. The attack position might be a reference position where the rider is neither fore, aft, up, or down, but they pass through it 10X in a minute as the bike needs to be allowed to move around beneath the rider. And maybe that is what the OP is getting at - the fact that if you really have good bike-body separation, that maybe the body can be somewhat static while the bike does all its crazy-ness. I tend to disagree with that theory - even with long limbs, and even when I've ridden with 5" of travel.

-F


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

Fleas said:


> Riders find flow even in NE rockfests at 4 mph. It has more to do with conserving momentum by weighting/unweighting wheels, shifting weight fore/aft, sneaking in a pedal stroke...


I've always told people that there is no flow here in CT, but if it's done right, there is a rhythm.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

MOJO K said:


> I've always told people that there is no flow here in CT, but if it's done right, there is a rhythm.


I think that before "flow trails" those two words were synonymous. I still tend to consider them as synonymous, even though lots of new riders ONLY think of "flow trails" as having flow. Even the early IMBA trailbuilding literature (from 15+yrs ago or so) seemed to use them synonymously. One issue in particular that I recall brought up in the book was how to avoid ABRUPT changes in flow (or rhythm) and how to smooth transitions between a fast section and something that might be really slow and technical and twisty.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

MOJO K said:


> I've always told people that there is no flow here in CT, but if it's done right, there is a rhythm.


potato
tomato



-F


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Fleas said:


> And maybe that is what the OP is getting at - the fact that if you really have good bike-body separation, that maybe the body can be somewhat static while the bike does all its crazy-ness. I tend to disagree with that theory - even with long limbs, and even when I've ridden with 5" of travel.
> 
> -F


Maybe that's what OP wants, but I agree with you that it doesn't really work that way. It sounds much like how you'd ride a road bike - where the trail doesn't do much underneath you. Sure, you stand up on a road bike, but your body position doesn't vary nearly as much as on a mtb.

The more the trail varies, the more the mtb rider needs to move their body. Ride over a boulder field and you HAVE to use a lot of body english and use explosive movements to get the bike to roll over the stuff. Ride over smooth, level, straight pavement and you don't have to do much.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

Harold said:


> I think that before "flow trails" those two words were synonymous. I still tend to consider them as synonymous, even though lots of new riders ONLY think of "flow trails" as having flow. Even the early IMBA trailbuilding literature (from 15+yrs ago or so) seemed to use them synonymously. One issue in particular that I recall brought up in the book was how to avoid ABRUPT changes in flow (or rhythm) and how to smooth transitions between a fast section and something that might be really slow and technical and twisty.


I guess the difference here is that there are whole trail systems here are made up of nothing but ABRUPT changes. It's due to the fact that so many of them were designed as hiking trails navigating through a landscape of exposed ledge. There really is no flow. But, still, with enough skill and fitness you could ride hit after hit after hit and move through the woods. Locally they were called "X-Stuntry " trails


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

MOJO K said:


>


Just put Trumbull on next season's 'must ride' list.
Does that first trail have a name? I might be in love.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

slapheadmofo said:


> The transition IS a bit abrupt.


Was your username derived from that transition?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Was your username derived from that transition?


HAH! No, but it sure could've been! Well, that one and a thousand others, not to mention learning to ride during the 'huck to flat' ages.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

MOJO K said:


> I guess the difference here is that there are whole trail systems here are made up of nothing but ABRUPT changes. It's due to the fact that so many of them were designed as hiking trails navigating through a landscape of exposed ledge. There really is no flow. But, still, with enough skill and fitness you could ride hit after hit after hit and move through the woods. Locally they were called "X-Stuntry " trails


I think you missed my point. You're definitely using "flow" and "rhythm" in different ways. I'm saying that in the past, they seem to have been used interchangeably, and I still do. By "abrupt changes in flow" I'm talking about things like a super fast downhill that suddenly ends in an extremely sharp corner. If the landscape dictates a sharp corner, then you use trail design to slow riders down and prepare them for that sharp corner. Say, start with some gradual curves and maybe some uphill undulations before the sharp curve to get riders slowing down more gradually without needing to mash onto their brakes.

The sharp transitions from really fast to slow/tech are probably the worst, since they encourage hard mashing on the brakes, promote skidding, overshooting the corner, and crashing. Sharp transitions from slow to fast are less of an issue, because all you need to do is just pedal. But if the trail is bidirectional, the transitions should be smooth either direction.


----------



## jim c (Dec 5, 2014)

Fleas said:


> +1
> The attack position might be a reference position where the rider is neither fore, aft, up, or down, but they pass through it 10X in a minute as the bike needs to be allowed to move around beneath the rider.
> 
> -F


Again I agree with Fleas. On techy trail (where 4mph is making good time) I may be moving around the bike a lot compared to a flowy section when I'm more of a 'staying put' as the bike moves under me. When I ride the Flow trails in my area I get real attached to the feeling of piloting the bike as the trail comes at me. I drop smoothly into berms and feel like I'm lifted out of the corner. Then I start thinking about the joy of tight/twisty/roots/rocks and how I enjoy "making time" on them. That's when it is time for the Oleta River trails and a whole different kind of flow.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Some of you got it. When I find flow, I find my body's center-of-mass sort of assumes a position that's centered between the tire contact points with the ground, if you draw a perpendicular line down. I can just sort of let the bike pitch up and down underneath me, and I'm not fighting myself when I turn (e.g. tense arms), able to just point the bike where I want it to go.

When I'm "hunting", moving around to find a balance, it's often based on getting the weight bias just right. Need enough weight on the rear to avoid spinning out, when out of the saddle. I find that the bike's geo has plenty of weight on the front, so I rarely wash out on corners, unless I take a line through loose dirt or force traction to break with my brakes or a sudden weight shift.

My suggestions are a "what if". *What if people stressed over the rear center and front center ratio, to demand it from the bicycle makers*. If you make the FC too long, compared to the RC, the front would be squirrely. There were cases where this was mentioned by the media, which summed it up as "maybe the chainstays are too short". Too many bikes I've ridden have too short of a FC--fine if you want a cruiser where you can sit in a relaxed seated position and defensively react to technical stuff, getting weight super far back, rather than trying to link all the technical features of a trail together in a flamboyant and confident manner ("attack mode"?).

I'm going custom since there aren't any bikes that get it in size small and medium. Most bikes have it dialed in size large. Riders who typically get XL have to go short travel to find the "magic ratio". People between sizes often feel better on one bike over the other... sometimes its due to the ETT being just right and they feel comfy in the saddle, other times its due to them finding "balance" out of the saddle that makes the bike handle more intuitively.

I don't feel flow if I'm having to excessively use the brakes in sort of a stop-and-go style of riding. If I'm just modulating the brakes to maintain a natural feeling speed, or to give me just a slight bit more time to react to what's coming up, that's okay.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

There are two different generations of 'flow' it seems.

The new-school version is one where the trail hands it to you, all packaged up on a platter, and all you have to do is show up.

The old school version is one where the rider creates it through their own skills.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> There are two different generations of 'flow' it seems.
> 
> The new-school version is one where the trail hands it to you, all packaged up on a platter, and all you have to do is show up.
> 
> The old school version is one where the rider creates it through their own skills.


Yes. I want to introduce the Flow-finder XS, for us shorties. This wondrous invention will revolutionize MTB, making you able to ride like how you see your taller buddies ride, without resorting to a 30+ lb 6+" travel FS enduro rig.

All it will take is the industry, including us riders, figuring out that maybe demanding a 420mm reach and 68d head angle (or steeper) and adjusting the CS length to be as short as possible, with 29er wheels, is actually creating bikes that suck at finding flow. Just because it's slack for a XC bike, doesn't mean you should settle with a crappy compromise. "It's modern, and better than before". "XC bikes shouldn't be any slacker, else they'd be slow as trail bikes." F'ing stupid BS...


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

ninjichor said:


> Some of you got it. When I find flow, I find my body's center-of-mass sort of assumes a position that's centered between the tire contact points with the ground, if you draw a perpendicular line down. I can just sort of let the bike pitch up and down underneath me, and I'm not fighting myself when I turn (e.g. tense arms), able to just point the bike where I want it to go.
> 
> When I'm "hunting", moving around to find a balance, it's often based on getting the weight bias just right. Need enough weight on the rear to avoid spinning out, when out of the saddle. I find that the bike's geo has plenty of weight on the front, so I rarely wash out on corners, unless I take a line through loose dirt or force traction to break with my brakes or a sudden weight shift.
> 
> ...


I can't wait to see the videos of this. I figure they'll feature prominently on PB's Friday Fails.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

ninjichor said:


> Yes. I want to introduce the Flow-finder XS, for us shorties. This wondrous invention will revolutionize MTB, making you able to ride like how you see your taller buddies ride, without resorting to a 30+ lb 6+" travel FS enduro rig.


I know a lot of shorties and they have great flow on their current bikes, could it be you and not the bike?


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

nya said:


> I know a lot of shorties and they have great flow on their current bikes, could it be you and not the bike?


I bet they'd flow easier on a better designed bike. Why settle with a status quo?

Take the same frame engineering, and apply it to a bike that gets the proportions between the rear center and front center dialed in better...

My estimated sweet spot proportions*, that get the rider well centered without needing to hang far off the back or need to purposely weight the front:
415mm CS to 1130-1175 wheelbase (Canfield Riot/Toir S/M)
420 CS to 1150-1195 wheelbase (Honzo M, Jekyll 27.5 M, Spider 275c M)
425 CS to 1170-1220 wheelbase (Process 157 29 M/L, Esker Elkat M/L, 5010 L)
430 CS to 1190-1240 wheelbase (Offering M/L, Spartan 29 L, Tallboy/Blur XL, Bronson/Nomad L)
435 CS to 1210-1260 wheelbase (SB150 M, SB130 L, SB45c XL, Ripmo L, Instinct XL, Fezzari La Sal Peak L)
440 CS to 1230-1285 wheelbase (Ransom 900 L, Rip9 XL)
445 CS to 1250-1310 wheelbase (?? My proto?)
450 CS to 1270-1340 wheelbase (Nicolai G1 S/M)

*WB length varies due to suspension travel shortening the front and lengthening the rear, considering the HA and axle path. The longer the WB, the less precise the RC and FC ratio needs to be, since the sweet spot is wider. Conventional 100mm bike w/steep HA would work for the low end, and a 180mm bike with slack HA and relatively high rear pivot (rearward axle path) would work well with the high end.

Downsize from the sizes suggested for these example models, and you'll likely need to hang your butt off the back to feel balanced and flow. Upsize, and you'll likely need to purposely weight the front, else it'd feel squirrelly.

Demand proportions, rather than shop geo figures like a checklist. All the super short CS bikes I've had, had a common symptom of the rear wheels and tires getting punished extremely hard. You can dictate seated fit with ETT and ensuring your BB-to-saddle length works with the bike, but the builder can fit that in and design the bike for ride handling by varying the other #s. 490mm reach and 650mm stack shouldn't scare someone used to a 590mm ETT, as such numbers make sense with a 81d SA (which also shouldn't be scary), when all the numbers are combined.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

ninjichor said:


> I bet they'd flow easier on a better designed bike. Why settle with a status quo?


And I bet they wouldn't or if there would be a difference, it would be so minuscule that it is not worth the troubles.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

ninjichor said:


> Yes. I want to introduce the Flow-finder XS, for us shorties. This wondrous invention will revolutionize MTB, making you able to ride like how you see your taller buddies ride, without resorting to a 30+ lb 6+" travel FS enduro rig.
> 
> All it will take is the industry, including us riders, figuring out that maybe demanding a 420mm reach and 68d head angle (or steeper) and adjusting the CS length to be as short as possible, with 29er wheels, is actually creating bikes that suck at finding flow. Just because it's slack for a XC bike, doesn't mean you should settle with a crappy compromise. "It's modern, and better than before". "XC bikes shouldn't be any slacker, else they'd be slow as trail bikes." F'ing stupid BS...


Meh...I don't really find the bike specifics to be all that critical. Once you're adjusted to whatever you happen to be riding, the rest just happens.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

Harold said:


> You're definitely using "flow" and "rhythm" in different ways. I'm saying that in the past, they seem to have been used interchangeably, and I still do.


I understand the words are sometimes used synonymously and I had thought it was an assumption made about my comments. I only wanted to explain that the can describe contrasting riding experiences that are very different, but equally favorable. FWIW, X-stuntry riding is all about moving around on the bike and manipulating the balance front to back.

I think I still have the IMBA texts on the end of my bench somewhere.

All good.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> Meh...I don't really find the bike specifics to be all that critical. Once you're adjusted to whatever you happen to be riding, the rest just happens.


Yup, the sweet spot is feet on the pedals, hands on the bars, rubber side down, and working your ass off while having a blast.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

ninjichor said:


> Take the same frame engineering, and apply it to a bike that gets the proportions between the rear center and front center dialed in better...
> 
> My estimated sweet spot proportions*, that get the rider well centered without needing to hang far off the back or need to purposely weight the front:


None of my short (or tall or any other size) friends need to hang far off the back or the opposite, they ride balanced 
- and move accordingly to stay balanced - with great flow while being comfortable on the bike with no troubles you keep describing.

Again, it is your skills, not your bike. Learn the basics and you will realize that. Kind of like you would want to design a rifle that always hits the target without you having to aim or learn the skills to hit the target.


----------



## JackWare (Aug 8, 2016)

Ninji, are you trying to win a bet with the most words posted in the shortest time in one thread?


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Attack position for e-bikers...


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

Crankout said:


> Attack position for e-bikers...
> 
> View attachment 1232856


That right there shows when E-bikes are wonderful.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

MOJO K said:


> That right there shows when E-bikes are wonderful.


Absolutely. She's getting in her KOM's.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I rode this trail last Sunday and landed a jump pretty smooth. I went and hit it again and I didn't land as smoothly as the first time.

Then I went home and drank beer.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

The upright position is important, because at a certain angle, your head and upper body weight must be supported by your hands and back. That leads to fatigue and leads to you fighting yourself when you want to put pressure on the bars specifically to control the bike.

That's the main reason I suggested raising the grip height, in order to tilt the upper body back so the upper body weight is more supported by the legs/feet. I tried to imply that through the saying, "light hands, heavy feet," but people like their aero positioning.

I'd like for friends to be able to ride 6+ hours, to enjoy camaraderie, on truly epic trails, more naturally/intuitively. Had one friend fall off the side of a hillside because they were exhausted, close to the end. He works as a doctor and doesn't have time to spend countless hours adapting to one position, and narrowing down options of future bikes allow them to use such ingrained adaptation...








- find the rider... this could happen when your back and upper body is exhausted


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

ninjichor said:


> I'd like for friends to be able to ride 6+ hours, to enjoy camaraderie, on truly epic trails, more naturally/intuitively. Had one friend fall off the side of a hillside because they were exhausted, close to the end. He works as a doctor and doesn't have time to spend countless hours adapting to one position, and narrowing down options of future bikes allow them to use such ingrained adaptation...


Your bs ideas aren't going to fix this. If you want to do huge rides, you have to put the work in to be able to do huge rides. Conversely, if you're planning a big trip with people who aren't up to big miles, big elevation, or big tech, then you have to plan around the slowest, least fit, least skilled rider to ensure that they're safe and that they have fun.

Why not just get him an emtb? That's where this is going, really.

Why not just get him one of those exo-suits that DARPA has been testing so that he can do ultra distance running without training while you're at it.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

You know what? I’m beginning to turn around on this. I want Ninjichor to build his magical bicycle and prove once and for all that all of us, and the entirety of the industry’s research and engineering have missed the obvious..


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

ninjichor said:


> I'd like for friends to be able to ride 6+ hours, to enjoy camaraderie, on truly epic trails, more naturally/intuitively. Had one friend fall off the side of a hillside because they were exhausted, close to the end.


Dude, pull your head out of your ass. You're not going to build a better mousetrap that will magically remove the fatigue factor from a 6+ hour out in the sun and wind, pedaling a bicycle. It's about fitness.

An eMTB would help, but the battery will likely die before the day is done, so pushing the extra weight around would still cause that fatigue, so that's not the answer.

Maybe you should work on the magic fitness pill; you'll get the same results as your magic geometry and, since we'll all buy both the pill and the bike, you'll get filthy rich!


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

He has the legs. He's all for climbs, mileage, and elevation. We did Noble Canyon together before which was about 5 hours, though he lagged on the descents. He didn't have the upper body muscular endurance to handle this much rough terrain. Watching him, he's often super defensive, trying not to go over-the-bars. We even took a shorter way out of this particular trail, Palm Canyon Epic (Art's Johnson?), since we had some newcomers.

I already have a proto under production and becoming more and more confident in my ideas. I might go as far as saying stem length will return as a tuning element, in which shorter is not always better, instead just being a way to get the grips in an ideal spot. I plan on taking a lot of 3rd person side-perspective slow-mo videos of myself riding, to check my fore-aft positioning, and the angle of my back & arms, on various features with the proto. Not sure what # I am in the queue, but maybe up to 6 weeks.

Regarding magic fitness pill, I do have my own energy drink mix, though I don't make it commercially. Got all the needed ingredients in my cupboard: maltodextrin, sucrose, sodium citrate, potassium chloride, citric acid, etc. Got a dozen containers pre-mixed ready to refill a gallon shake bottle, so I don't go on any ride without it.

This isn't a racers' bike. It's 3.9 kg frame only. That'll put it over 8 lbs with shock. I don't know why people judge things in accordance with the racing-centric side of the industry--just jonesing to ride trails, sharing the experience with friends. We don't care about ranking, or ego-centric stuff. Newbie, expert, whatever label people call us, we just celebrate finishing safely and practice being grateful to the predecessors that provided all this for us. We salute them by enjoying the view from atop their shoulders.

Just looking for constructive feedback. Can only tolerate so many negative nancy/debbie downer responses and insults. I like the "lazy position" idea.


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

Well, it sounds like I don't have to do months of training for my enduro races. I will just raise the grip height on my bike and I should podium finish easily.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

ninjichor said:


> ...
> I plan on taking a lot of 3rd person side-perspective slow-mo videos of myself riding, to check my fore-aft positioning, and the angle of my back & arms, on various features with the proto. ...


Please do this right now on your current bike, as well as with other riders on their bikes. Then repeat with same riders, same trail features, on the new bike. I really think it will shed a lot of light on this project.

Re: fatigue - I have ridden with very fit people who are _not_ very good bike handlers, and less fit people who _are_ very good bike handlers. This was more common in the early days of MTBing when many XC riders were former roadies, but many other MTBers were former BMXers - these days there seems to be more technically capable XC riders out there. In terrain where pedaling is the focus, the less fit riders suffer. But in terrain where bike handling is the focus, the very fit people are often completely gassed early on due to their inefficiency in negotiating the terrain.

-F


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Battery said:


> Well, it sounds like I don't have to do months of training for my enduro races. I will just raise the grip height on my bike and I should podium finish easily.


Ninji is a man with a very specific plan.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Battery said:


> Well, it sounds like I don't have to do months of training for my enduro races. I will just raise the grip height on my bike and I should podium finish easily.


Then try this!









...or this!







(it has a dropper, so it's legit)

-F


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

ninjichor said:


> ...
> I'd like for friends to be able to ride 6+ hours, to enjoy camaraderie, on truly epic trails, more naturally/intuitively. Had one friend fall off the side of a hillside because they were exhausted, close to the end. He works as a doctor and doesn't have time to spend countless hours adapting to one position, and narrowing down options of future bikes allow them to use such ingrained adaptation...


ok this comment is just silly. You are taking an untrained rider out for a 6+ hr ride and wondering why they are fatigued? Dude are you serious? They are fatigued since they are not fit. Riding 6hrs is not easy. It is hard and takes training. No level of " bike fit" is going to make that easy. Heck sit in an airplane seat for 6 hrs and you will be fatigued. Even your "easy" chair at home.

Really it sucks the rider had an issue, but blaming the bike for that is just silly.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

ninjichor said:


> He has the legs. He's all for climbs, mileage, and elevation. We did Noble Canyon together before which was about 5 hours, though he lagged on the descents. He didn't have the upper body muscular endurance to handle this much rough terrain. Watching him, he's often super defensive, trying not to go over-the-bars. We even took a shorter way out of this particular trail, Palm Canyon Epic (Art's Johnson?), since we had some newcomers.


doesn't matter if it's upper body fitness or lower body fitness. you need to build it up before doing huge rides. changing the bike geometry isn't going to change that.

if we're talking static position seated riding, giving people a comfortable handlebar height can make improvements in fatigue. But that's what professional bike fitting is for. Don't need to design a whole new frame to accomplish that. But you have to keep in mind that screwing around with that on a mountain bike is going to strongly alter the handling of the bike. A dynamic upper body is KEY to mountain biking on technical terrain. Take away the dynamic upper body and the bike is going to ride like **** on technical trails.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

How about this: ask a question regarding what you don't understand, rather than assume. Your assumptions are just plain off.

I'm suggesting tweaking geo to make it so the optimal position to handle the bike is comfortable. I want the upper body to be minimally engaged, no death gripping, less hunched over, and not holding onto the bars to keep from falling off the back. Just a light grip, in a _centralized_ position that gets the bike to have well distributed traction on both wheels, both sitting and just standing up. Can just maintain a position relative to the horizon/gravity, that puts your CoM right over the center point between the wheels. Good proof-of-concept would be if I can do a no-hander off a tall curb, _both sitting and standing_--if too much weight is on the front, the front wheel will dive, and if too little, the front would risk bouncing/losing control, while I imagine just-right would land without bouncing or drama. Not sure if people have the impression that is almost impossible, especially for a first attempt, but I recognize that small possibility and will aim for it.

I did say something along the lines of taking away the need to assume uncomfortable positions where you can find balance and traction. That doesn't mean I'm taking away "dynamic upper body". There's a difference between holding an uncomfortable position and executing a momentary technique that involves shifting your body from a more comfortable position.

I know it's hard to imagine if you haven't experienced it. If you tried to get into the position that I'm suggestion on your current bike, I wouldn't doubt that it'd ride like ****, at least if you're on a 29er with long CS and steep HA. There are bikes that do allow for the position I'm suggesting, but they tend to be size L 27.5 bikes, and people have their grips set really low and not far enough, seemingly out of principle. It's like grip height must be below saddle height, and stems should be as short as possible... anyone got a rational reason for this, for all around handling and comfort? These L 27.5 bikes that get the standing position good, if a bit cramped, have the seated position a bit too far back, IMO.

Brands are going longer reach and steeper STA, but they haven't got all the proportions dialed in, in the bigger picture. They're all starting with target features, like I want 435mm chainstays and 77d STA; 500mm reach is way too long, so we'll increase them by 20-40mm as it's still better and it balances out the modest STA increase. Buyers are attracted to what has previously worked, afraid of going too different due to trade-offs they're unwilling to accept for whatever gain they might have--this is basic cognitive bias for familiarity. I'm skipping this, like some might have wanted to skip Boost, since it didn't seem to be that big of a improvement, and finding end-game geo. Brands don't make money off of pioneering by itself, they make it off of capitalizing on it when the market is accepting of it.

I can redesign my proto with shorter wheelbase and shorter travel once I prove the concept. I don't have money for 10k carbon molds, nor the patience to find a partner to do small batches of it at an appealing price, nor have the knowledge to do on my own (1-off hand-laid wet carbon like Zerode). I doubt I'm up for the challenge of making a full size range though, maybe just 2 sizes/versions to account for different body shapes/sizes.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

ninjichor said:


> I like the "lazy position" idea.


Lemme know if you need any testers!


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> Lemme know if you need any testers!


Taking it to 'Nam? 6+ hours there and you'll know if Ninji is onto something or if you need X-rays, right?


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

ninjichor said:


> How about this: ask a question regarding what you don't understand, rather than assume. Your assumptions are just plain off.
> 
> I'm suggesting tweaking geo to make it so the optimal position to handle the bike is comfortable. I want the upper body to be minimally engaged, no death gripping, less hunched over, and not holding onto the bars to keep from falling off the back. Just a light grip, in a _centralization_ position that gets the bike to have well distributed traction on both wheels, both sitting and just standing up. Can just maintain a position relative to the horizon/gravity, that puts your CoM right over the center point between the wheels. Good proof-of-concept would be if I can do a no-hander off a tall curb, both sitting and standing--if too much weight is on the front, it'd dive, and if too little, the front would risk losing control.
> 
> ...


The upper body MUST be engaged. It provides stability and balance. And as the terrain changes, the balance point will change, too. You can certainly make a bike that has a balanced position whether seated or standing (assuming you stand perfectly straight, over the saddle, in the exact position you design for, of course), but not one that is balanced with a rider in all terrain conditions. Come to think of it, they already have bikes that are balanced for flat terrain - townies and beach cruisers. When tilted up, the balance point is different than when tilted down. Unless you're making a "transformer", riders will have to provide that balance adjustment with body movement.

Again, you and your friends need to *get some coaching* so you can learn proper riding technique and positioning. So you can learn how not to need your death grip on the handlebars when riding in varying terrain. Yes, it is possible. And when you learn how to do it, more efficient and more fun. Being less hunched over will be counter productive in rough terrain because it makes your moment arm much longer and therefore overall less stable. Getting low - or hunched over - reduces that moment arm by lowering the CoM, increasing stability.

Do you want to make a pair of skis that handle all the terrain changes, too, so all you have to do is stand there and not engage your legs?

Or design a rowing shell where you don't have to grip the oar(s) and "hunch" your back and bend your legs as you go through your motions?

Dynamic activities require dynamic positioning. Learn how to do it right before you try and improve on bike geometry. Otherwise, your product is going to be good for riding in exactly one, and only one, condition.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

ninjichor said:


> ... Just a light grip, in a _centralized_ position that gets the bike to have well distributed traction on both wheels, both sitting and just standing up. ...
> 
> If you tried to get into the position that I'm suggestion on your current bike, I wouldn't doubt that it'd ride like ****, at least if you're on a 29er with long CS and steep HA...


Hmm I get in that position all the time. On my 29er a 2018 Epic and it handles really well. Same for my 29er SS HT and my 27.5 5" bike. The 27.5 bike handles the worst of all of them though. All my seats heights are above my bars. If you as for a rational reason for this it is simple. Seat height is dictated by needs for leg extension to get maximum power with some compensation for room to move on fixed seat post bikes (2 of my 3). Bar height is set by needing to be low enough to get good front bite when cornering and climbing steeps. On my Singlespeed bar height is also influenced by need to get max power when standing. Too high/low will impact how I can transfer power in high torque situations. Bar height and seat height are pretty easy to deal with on most bikes when you pick the appropriate frame size.

I still don't know what you are tying to do other than you need a good bike fit.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

I relate the grip height and distance to the hips, rather than the saddle, since I try account for both standing and sitting weight distro. I suspect that people spend 80-95% of their time sitting in the saddle because they dial in the bike for that position, compromising on standing.

The more you angle your torso forward, the more weight you are putting onto the front. A stretched position like this when seated, offsets a slack STA (73), which generally has your CoM closer to over the BB. Old 29ers were balanced according to this seated position, from my experience. I don't know the '18 Epic (HT or FS?), but '18 sounds like there's a chance that it got shorter CS due to boost and slacker HA and reach, and maybe steeper STA due to trends.

On these 73d STA bike, switching to a standing pedaling position moves your CoM way forward, which makes the bike now have noticeably front-heavy weight bias. You can compensate by tilting your legs back away from your standing pedaling position in sections in which a front-heavy weight bias is detrimental. From this tilted-back position, you can further shift weight back to unweight the front over obstacles, but you'd likely have to shift forward to unweight the rear too, esp if you run low pressures and don't want to damage a tire/rim. Doing this might not possible if consecutive bumps are coming fast. 

If you find the right amount of tilt, you can just plow from a fairly static balanced position. This spot takes practice to find repeatedly, and if you switch between bikes you're often left hunting for it. It changes as the bike pitches up and down, especially if you use a different position to brace for heavy braking. If you are a little too far back, the front wheel can easily be deflected, perhaps prompting an overcompensating panic move to get back forward; a little too far forward and the front can hang-up on obstacles and make your body "lurch" forward, further worsening the problem. The "dynamic" movement is chaotic, IMO.

What if that "right amount of tilt" is just plainly standing straight up, or in a squat/dead-lift position, with your CoM aligned with gravity to be centered between the tire contact patches? This is an infinitesimally small spot, hence why none have proven to consistently find it--they find it by coincidence and trial-and-error (in specific sizes), made even harder as you also have to account for differing body size proportions. Grip position is a big variable that they expect the rider to tune, but I doubt a majority do this. I highly doubt the fitting industry has it figured out. I'm prepared to do science to find it. It might sound outrageous, but changing stem, bar, and spacer height, even 5mm, has a noticeable effect on fit and comfort. Finding the optimal compromise... I hope to better define such position/fit dialing guidelines, and simplify it as much as possible.

The upper body doesn't need to be engaged all the time. It should be prepared to anticipate the trail, to lean the bike and steer, to loft the bike over taller obstacles, to clear a gap, etc. Allow the bike to pitch by itself while you angle your torso to weight each wheel as much as it needs to be. I have geo thought-out in advance, expecting the rider's torso to be pretty much level with the horizon when they are descending, to put enough weight on the front wheel to have control. By carefully adjusting the FC to RC proportions, I can make the rider naturally put more or less weight on the front wheel with what I consider a natural/comfortable position.

The industry is taking baby steps in this direction. I'm basically predicting where it'll end up at. How about a bike that doesn't need instructions, nor "coaching"? Shouldn't the coaching be to make your time spent be more efficient, to progress faster and safer, not to merely learn the most basic of basics? I hear coaches saying you have to unlearn a ton of stuff because of bad habits developed on poorly designed bikes, like entry level 29er hardtails like the Diamondback Hook. I'd be more inclined to recommend a bike with more modern geo to newbies, able to give more precise rational reasons other than vaguely saying it's "better", "less outdated in comparison", "has more features" (in the long checklist of features you desire), or whatever.

My friend would be insulted if I suggested him to get coaching. This thread's not about us, it's about whether people think the ready position should be comfortable or not. Some think you need to work hard just to maintain a position that allows them to plow, corner, jump, drop, etc.. I was hoping more have experienced and are spoiled by bikes that make it more effortless to hold such a position. There's examples of this in other threads, particularly ones discussing the newest enduro bikes. Not sure why people are so Debbie Downer in this thread. Ego, comparing yourself to some guy, who posts walls-of-text, without formal expertise, is trying to challenge the status quo, and doubt that can happen, since you find it yourself to be an unimaginable tough challenge? Can't go far, if he's "complaining" about basic "dynamic movement", needing to get over that hump first? I don't discount that you guys are able to finding good positioning easily. I've just taken this a bit far, attempting to answer the question, "if you can only have one mtb for the next 10 years, what would it be?"


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)




----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

You can't eliminate the learning/fitness curve. You just can't do it. Every rider needs to find the right balance and comfort point on the bike and it is driven by a number of factors including flexibility and fitness. The less flexibility and less fitness the more effort it will take to get a good balance. Also the less confident you are in your skills the more effort it takes to ride. There is no single attack/ready position. If you think there is just one you will really struggle. 

The thing to remember is most of the body weight needs to be on the pedals. When descending you want this and when climbing. Even if you are sitting you will find that at high seated power your putting most of your weight through the pedals and not as much on your seat. Most new riders tend to use the seat too much to carry weight and when they stand they putt to much weight on the bars. Then the further compound this by trying to maintain a fixed relationship between them and the bike. This in fact takes more effort than "heavy feet and light hands" and letting the bike move under you. 90% of this is learning the skill and not as much related to bike fit. Of course if the bike fit is jacked up you will have issues, but most of that is adjustable. As for not needing to learn.... you would be amazed at what people don't know and often their ego lets them down. 

I used be high performance driving instructor and it was amazing how some people thought they were skilled and just were not. There is so much to learn about driving a car fast and safely on race track that it takes years. What an experienced driver can do with 75% effort is shocking to most new drivers. I remember taking a student on a drive and calmly telling him he needed to counter steer because we were about spin. He had no idea what to so a gentle tug on the wheel from the passengers seat and all was corrected and the car barely moved. I knew this because I could feel what was happening long before he could. My senses were tuned and his were dull. This is a learned skill. Bike riding is similar in that so much is feeling and there is a lot related to skill. Personally I would love to have skills coach look at my riding and tell me what I am doing wrong. I am sure there are number of things I can improve. That said I am faster and more skilled than most. I suspect improvements would be very limited related to bike fit and a lot more on technique.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

MOJO K said:


> View attachment 1233020


This!

Have fun guys!


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

I just have to wonder why we keep getting sucked into this thread. ninja is obviously smarter and he and his friends are much better riders than the rest of us (they'd get offended if coaching were suggested, after all), so the rest of us have no idea what we're taking about. And meanwhile, he's already devised a magic potion to prevent fatigue and has designed the magic bike that will cure all the ills of mountain biking. Something teams of engineers focused on bikes all the time, with the resources of large bike companies at their disposal apparently haven't been able to do right, so far.

You sound like Mad Mike, the flat earther building his own rocket to prove the earth is flat.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

seems like a good thread for some "trust me, I'm an engineer" memes.


----------



## 786737 (Mar 13, 2015)

You could build a wall out of some of these ****ing posts.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

I decided to raise my grip height for this upcoming race season. We shall see how this works...


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Crankout said:


> I decided to raise my grip height for this upcoming race season. We shall see how this works...
> 
> View attachment 1233458


those tires look light


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

ninjichor said:


> I want the upper body to be *efficiently* engaged, no death gripping, less hunched over, and not holding onto the bars to keep from falling off the back. Just a light grip, in a _centralized_ position that gets the bike to have well distributed traction on both wheels, both sitting and just standing up. Can just maintain a position relative to the horizon/gravity, that puts your CoM right over the center point between the wheels.


Crazily, I've been able to achieve this on just about every bike I've ever owned-road, MTB, 26" 27.5" and 29ers.


----------



## JackWare (Aug 8, 2016)

I was thinking that the first sentence is my plan when out drinking.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

JackWare said:


> I was thinking that the first sentence is my plan when out drinking.


I know it's early, but I'm locking this in for the "Post of the Year"!


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

the one ring said:


> You could build a wall out of some of these ****ing posts.


Yeah, who reads that ****? This site should have a 2 paragraph max cut off. Unless it's me posting of course.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

The thread is dying and it was entertaining to a point, so lets keep giong.



ninjichor said:


> I suspect that people spend 80-95% of their time sitting in the saddle because they dial in the bike for that position, compromising on standing.
> 
> On these 73d STA bike, switching to a standing pedaling position moves your CoM way forward, which makes the bike now have noticeably front-heavy weight bias. You can compensate by tilting your legs back away from your standing pedaling position in sections in which a front-heavy weight bias is detrimental. From this tilted-back position, you can further shift weight back to unweight the front over obstacles, but you'd likely have to shift forward to unweight the rear too, esp if you run low pressures and don't want to damage a tire/rim. Doing this might not possible if consecutive bumps are coming fast.
> 
> My friend would be insulted if I suggested him to get coaching.


People spend 80% of their time sitting, because they spend 80% of their time just pedaling to get somewhere.

You don't tilt your legs, you drop your heels.

If anyone is insulted by suggesting he needs coaching, then he definitely needs coaching.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

nya said:


> If anyone is insulted by suggesting he needs coaching, then he definitely needs coaching.


Great point. Probably also needs a piece of humble pie, too.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Harold said:


> Great point. Probably also needs a piece of humble pie, too.


And a warm cup of shut the **** up to go with it.


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)




----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Harold said:


> those tires look light


I would like to add that whitewall tires improve efficiency.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Just because it’s been two days since anyone posted in here, that’s why.


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Just because it's been two days since anyone posted in here, that's why.


Not cool dude, not cool.

What, you're feeling too unbalanced in your day that you felt it necessary to post?
Belt too tight making you too uncomfortable?

Deep breath and you'll find a comfortable balance to the rest of your day.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Forest Rider said:


> Not cool dude, not cool.
> 
> What, you're feeling too unbalanced in your day that you felt it necessary to post?
> Belt too tight making you too uncomfortable?
> ...


Don't you have a forest to go rake?


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Don't you have a forest to go rake?


Sorry. That was meant to be a sarcastic joke since this thread was meant to be about comfort and finding a perfectly balanced bike.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Forest Rider said:


> Sorry. That was meant to be a sarcastic joke since this thread was meant to be about comfort and finding a perfectly balanced bike.


I took it that way and so was my comment. We both needed to use a little winky dude in there, like this > .


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> I took it that way and so was my comment. We both needed to use a little winky dude in there, like this > .


haha okay. I thought so but had just enough of uncertainty.


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Don't you have a forest to go rake?


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

Like.
haha


----------



## RadBartTaylor (Dec 1, 2004)

I don't have much to ad besides the fact I was going to post a photo of Sam Hill as a perfect ideological position to be on a bike and came across this:

https://www.leelikesbikes.com/team-crc-mavics-riding-positions.html

To my 'untrained' eye, but having ridden with and see several top level pro's ride in person, Sam seems to have a good blend of power, balance and effortless riding style that is fairly unique.


----------



## PJJ205 (Aug 9, 2018)

*Comment edited/deleted*


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Here's a 65 year old rider, who's ridden tons of bikes in the past 30+ years, who you probably know, Richard Cunningham:






He shows a riding position I see in others, especially those in the less than average height range. Seems exaggerated on mellower stuff, but looks as expected when he's on the Whyte at 6:38. Contrast to 9:55 on the Norco...

With all these bikes' geo compared in size M, the Whyte's geo hits my estimated sweet spot CS to wheelbase proportions* (430mm CS, 1215mm WB). Edit: The Transition also hits my sweet spot, considering the new updated geo, with 425mm CS and 1189mm wheelbase. The two are basically compared to each other by part spec, travel and wheelbase length most friendly/compatible with specific trails and riding style. The tester called the Norco essentially a cruiser, which is how I see these long CS and short/steep front end 29ers. Its geo is not off my estimated sweet spot by much, needing just 30mm more front center/wheelbase in size M, but that amount seems enough to make the bike feel off. These cruisers just don't have the well-rounded capability of the bikes with better geo, seemingly trading this off to be a bit more safe for newbies who like to defensively get behind the saddle. Seeing this happen all over again with emtbs...

Even a 5' 7" pro is being seen here just "cruising" with her butt hanging behind the saddle for most the vid: 



 (she apparently has adapted well, even taking some pedal strokes from the rearward position).

Tired of seeing so many bikes with classic/cruiser geometry. Amusing that so many people make fun of extreme examples of them here, when my premise is to point out that this geo sucks (along with the whole slammed stem trend). Would be happy to see more brands pay more attention to the rear center and front center proportions, to fine tune how centered a rider is between the wheels. Norco was brave to change cs length with size, but I'm not sure if they're making cruisers to target the mainstream or if it was luck through trial-and-error with how they hit the sweet spot before with some models, like their Range and smaller wheeled Sight.

I'd rather not have to adapt to this defensive position, due to the bike's geo...

* estimated sweet spot CS to wheelbase proportions listed in post #96


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

ninjichor said:


> Here's a 65 year old rider, who's ridden tons of bikes in the past 30+ years, who you probably know, Richard Cunningham:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good form I'll give him that. New geometry on a 29" wheel full squish bike, not that difficult with "some" skill. Hint: the large wheels on a slack new geometry with full swish. There's a bit of body english, a "bit", not much necessary. The bike pretty much does the work with your weight back on the steeps.

Next


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

When I was a kid, no one told us how to stand or sit on our bikes. We just rode around on them, a lot. We figured out what felt good and what worked and it would've been different for each of us. There was no 'internet' telling us what we should aspire to be. 

I think it can help, all this expert advice floating in from the other side of the planet, but most of all I think it's best to just ride your bike. Find what feels good to you. What works for you. Why does riding a bicycle have to be so complicated?


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

While watching the supercross race last night with all the guys moving around all over the bike for varied conditions I was thinking.....crap, we need a new motorcycle design that allows the rider to have one body position all over the track. Something these guys had to get so far back, almost on the rear fender, just to keep the bike from dropping into the whoops. Then their confused brain had to figure out how to weight the front end after the jumps. 
They guys would actually be fast if they didn't have to think about their movements all the time.

Sorry, couldn't resist.....


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Forest Rider said:


> While watching the supercross race last night with all the guys moving around all over the bike for varied conditions I was thinking.....crap, we need a new motorcycle design that allows the rider to have one body position all over the track. Something these guys had to get so far back, almost on the rear fender, just to keep the bike from dropping into the whoops. Then their confused brain had to figure out how to weight the front end after the jumps.
> They guys would actually be fast if they didn't have to think about their movements all the time.
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist.....


Impossible, only one position? Only way that could be done us in a straight line on a smooth surface. Using your body positions, throttle, brake control, strength and stamina is what separates out the skill levels and determines the winner.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Glad you brought this up, Forest Rider. The bikes in that Supercross have their own problems of fit. What's the ideal height range that can fit on a stock 450? What do riders at the extreme ends of the range give up, range of moment? Ricky Carmichael is 5' 6". Were the 250s he raced cut-down like his 450 bikes? Ashley Fiolek, 5' 2", had a cutdown CFR250R. Both had relatively lowered rear ends. Ricky had one of the most unique setups, with bars setup relatively high and levers not angled very downward.

It took time for the moto industry to mature as well, with steady improvements up until the '08 recession. The mtb industry had GT fueling all sorts of weird innovations in the early 2000s, deviating pretty hard away from the roadie inspired stuff, but it seems that roadie influence still lingers. I wouldn't mind if MTB followed more in suit with MX. It's a shame that people can't get over the connection to motors, believing they can't pedal-power anything moto-like, and/or believing that MX-inspired stuff is no good for sharing trails.

If anyone actually reads my posts, they'd find I'm merely saying that I like progressive geometry, but am pointing out that riders of non-average height aren't getting the full benefit. This is mainly because of how mainstream brands extrapolate their other sizes, adding/subtracting an inch here and there from their prototype sizing (usually L), making things perhaps a bit too raked out for very tall riders and too cruiser-like for short riders. I've put down a deposit on custom, trying to predict where geo will ultimately end up. I'm in line to get production updates next week.

I'm not arguing that riders shouldn't move. I'm arguing that the ready position can be more centralized, rather than rearward (dirty toilet bowl hover/squat) or hunched forward (back angled forward). More forward for shorter riders, and not so forward for tall riders. I expect more range of movement. You can plow from a central position, but you can do so much more from it, than from a defensive behind-the-saddle position. Reduce one burden, and open up opportunity to focus your efforts into something else--it doesn't get easier, you just get radder/faster.

I've pointed out that the most praise-worthy AM/trail bikes are usually ones that hit this sweet spot, in the sweet spot size (size L typically). I am arguing that these bikes have received different opinions by riders who chose them in different sizes, at least if they were spoiled by better (sweet spot) geo. Bikes ride differently in different sizes, for more reasons than just different ETT/reach and seat tube--people are not paying attention to the ratio between the front center and rear center, and how that can be the difference between natural/intuitive handling, and handling that demands the rider to adapt even more to get wheels properly weighted for control. Doesn't have to be that way, if brands balanced the CS length, like what YT is doing now.


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Impossible, only one position? Only way that could be done us in a straight line on a smooth surface. Using your body positions, throttle, brake control, strength and stamina is what separates out the skill levels and determines the winner.


Yeah, but I couldn't resist stirring the pot.

I also wondered why the motorcycle industry hasn't adapted to some sort of locked on foot design. There were one or 2 crashes where the dude was ejected cause his foot came off.
Never catch a toe in a deep rut again if your foot is locked on the peg in the one and only preferred position. As for leg out to weight the front -meh. They are professionals. They can figure out how to ride it with the unnecessary front wheel weight situation.

Okay -I'll quit now. Resume normal activity. I'm gonna grab a rake.....


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> Glad you brought this up, Forest Rider. The bikes in that Supercross have their own problems of fit. What's the ideal height range that can fit on a stock 450? What do riders at the extreme ends of the range give up, range of moment? Ricky Carmichael is 5' 6". Were the 250s he raced cut-down like his 450 bikes? Ashley Fiolek, 5' 2", had a cutdown CFR250R. Both had relatively lowered rear ends. Ricky had one of the most unique setups, with bars setup relatively high and levers not angled very downward.
> 
> It took time for the moto industry to mature as well,


Hmm. I'm not sure I understand. How do Ricky's and Ashley's unique setups indicate that that the moto industry has matured? Ricky's setup has also been criticized by Roger DeCoster so opinions vary widely on good bike setup. Marvin Musquin prefers setups that facilitate cornering but he is compromised in the whoops. Ken Roczen likes soft and fast rebounds in the rear which is the exact opposite of what Tomac runs.

If the moto industry is "mature" then what it's teaching us is that there is no one size fits all even for riders that supposedly are the ideal heights for the bikes. Riders spend months sometimes a year to get a bike dialed in and then they re-dial it when they switch from Supercross to outdoors.

There is no magical one size fits all. Or even one size fits you for all situations. That is true of MX and MTB. If you want to optimize for one situation, you will be compromising for other situations. If you try to get a "jack-of-all-trades" setup, then you get an all around decent setup but a setup that is not going to be optimized for any one situation. It's all about tradeoffs and what you are willing to tradeoff in one area for gains in another is subjective.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

ArizRider said:


> I don't have much to ad besides the fact I was going to post a photo of Sam Hill as a perfect ideological position to be on a bike and came across this:
> 
> https://www.leelikesbikes.com/team-crc-mavics-riding-positions.html
> 
> To my 'untrained' eye, but having ridden with and see several top level pro's ride in person, Sam seems to have a good blend of power, balance and effortless riding style that is fairly unique.


Like I said in a previous post, I think most, if not all, the DH and EWS pro riders tend to ride more upright than what mtb coaches teach. Think about it like setting sag (your arms and legs are suspension), why would you set your sag to 50%+?

Maybe since the coaches have to teach to the general public that changes what they teach. That's the impression I got when I went to a skills clinic. Most riders in the "intermediate/advanced" class didn't have basic cornering skills and poor bike-body separation.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@hesitationpoint The implication is that Ricky's and Ashley's bikes were shortened vertically to fit a shorter rider better. Is the front wheel brought in closer, like it is in mtb sizing, to fit shorter riders? I don't know, but have my doubts about it. It also opens the question, why do they have such high grip placement compared to cycling; it seems to be around hip level, while cyclists have it below the crotch.

You can argue that DeCoster convinced Ricky to change a little, but I am seeing things in the big picture, finding concepts that can apply to mtb. I see it as a shorter rider adapting the bike to create a good balance between man, machine, and terrain, where the demands on the rider are made so he can be more efficient than his peers.

I mention '08, in terms of the moto industry maturing, because I'm not sure the recession is to blame for the slow down in advancement. It was to imply that mtb still has room to mature, considering how it compares in R&D investment and how mtb is slowly moving in its direction. Some here think that if there were room to improve mtb geometry, it'd be done already, having faith in the industry experts.

I'm suggesting the same thing regarding sizing, except that I'm not a fan of how mtb sizing is handled. I asked for sliding drop-outs for my custom FS. Hopefully I can demonstrate how important RC:FC ratio (or CS to WB length proportions) matters, so people can perhaps have better knowledge to help choose from the bikes on the market. I essentially narrowed down my personal list of bike candidates down to zero, from bikes that had sweet spot balance, to the travel and wheelbase I wanted, to other things like seat tube length. I could've compromised on things like seat tube length, but I decided that I had much more to gain through custom, like a bike that possibly held up better to hucks on a regular basis (this kind of riding style).

@jeremy3220 I like that sag in the arms/legs perspective. I to, am critical of how some coaches teach things, which in hindsight, makes this thread sort of a loaded question. I don't even try to argue publicly about coaching anymore, since it becomes a farce (appeal to authority). I don't want to prove that I am a better than a coach, I just want to justify the path I'm taking to solve a problem I have identified. I'll be borrowing your perspective. 

Ever hear the stories about the beginners who avoid using the front brake entirely? xD


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

jeremy3220 said:


> Like I said in a previous post, I think most, if not all, the DH and EWS pro riders tend to ride more upright than what mtb coaches teach. Think about it like setting sag (your arms and legs are suspension), why would you set your sag to 50%+?
> 
> Maybe since the coaches have to teach to the general public that changes what they teach. That's the impression I got when I went to a skills clinic. Most riders in the "intermediate/advanced" class didn't have basic cornering skills and poor bike-body separation.


The general tendency is to coach an exaggerated position so the student becomes comfortable using a position near the extreme of what's possible. Doesn't mean that a rider should camp out in that position for an entire ride, but they should be comfortable getting to the position and using the position when they need it.

The reason is never presented that this is the position the rider is always supposed to use. Rather, the point is that sometimes you'll need this, so get used to it now in exaggerated, low consequence situations.

Talking about the skills of other riders talking clinics is a whole other ballgame. Just suffice to say that almost everybody has deficiencies in their skills. They oftentimes come from the trails they ride, and the sorts of things those trails push a rider to learn.

And sometimes the deficiencies come from the riders themselves. Almost all of us had to figure stuff out for ourselves, and we don't always come upon the best ways to do certain things all by ourselves. Some things we learn a less effective method to start with, that might work for lower level riding, but is something that you can't build on for more advanced work, so you have to go back and re-learn some things before you can move forward.

Also, since most skills clinic sorting that I'm aware of is done with a survey of some kind, people who tend towards overconfidence are going to overrate their skills, whereas people who tend towards modesty are probably going to underrate their skills.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> It also opens the question, why do they have such high grip placement compared to cycling; it seems to be around hip level, while cyclists have it below the crotch.
> 
> You can argue that DeCoster convinced Ricky to change a little, but I am seeing things in the big picture, finding concepts that can apply to mtb. I see it as a shorter rider adapting the bike to create a good balance between man, machine, and terrain, where the demands on the rider are made so he can be more efficient than his peers.


I'm not sure that moto geometry translates well to cycling for the following reason:

*The motor is different - a 450cc (and even a 250) engine produces more than enough torque and power that the efficiency gains that cyclists worry about are a non-issue. For example, moto suspension doesn't have to be designed around pedaling efficiency. Seats can be set low at about dropper post height because pedaling efficiency is a non-issue. Also, a slammed stem makes no sense in moto since it compromises high speed stability over gnarly jumps and whoops with no corresponding gain elsewhere, but in mountain biking, particularly XC, it makes perfect sense. Rolling efficiency is king. A slammed stem allows one to run semi-slicks even off road and still maintain front wheel bite. Once you set it up, like a moto bike, then good luck running Race Kings in the front. You gain comfort and bike handling but will lose a few minutes off your time in a 1.5 - 2.0 hour XC race.

Edit: meant to say will be slower by a few minutes in a 1.5-2.0 hour XC race.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Harold said:


> The general tendency is to coach an exaggerated position so the student becomes comfortable using a position near the extreme of what's possible.


That's what I assumed. They're teaching riders who are probably really stiff and some who may not even be able to ride out of the saddle. It makes sense to have them practice that position and even run through a few drills.



> The reason is never presented that this is the position the rider is always supposed to use. Rather, the point is that sometimes you'll need this, so get used to it now in exaggerated, low consequence situations.


My issue is that this exaggerated attack position is presented as a frame of reference, a go-to position when things get gnarly.

From Lee's book "you should have a neutral base position - a position you can start at and return to. We call it the attack position" He goes on to talk about having a level torso and says "The closer your shoulders are to your handlebars, the more control you have over your bike."

The 'attack position' is presented as the base position you assume when things get gnarly... not simply a point you'll pass through sometimes but the starting point. However, DH racers don't use this, even in giant rock gardens. Sometimes they end up really low over the bars to absorb a hit but it's not their base position. They're more upright. They also rarely have their hips hinged that far back except coming off a drop or something. However, I think part of it comes down to bike geometry/fit as to why you'll see DH riders with hips relatively lower.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

jeremy3220 said:


> That's what I assumed. They're teaching riders who are probably really stiff and some who may not even be able to ride out of the saddle. It makes sense to have them practice that position and even run through a few drills.
> 
> My issue is that this exaggerated attack position is presented as a frame of reference, a go-to position when things get gnarly.
> 
> ...


There are all sorts of variations depending on the bike and the rider. I am not going to take something a downhill rider does in a wprld cup race and apply it to my riding, because I am doing something different. Same with the ews riders. I'm not riding their bikes, and though I may occasionally ride the trails they do, I'm not doing it the same way.

I also don't take lee as gospel. He is experienced and has some useful perspectives, but is also somewhat opinionated, and isn't always right. MTB skills instruction isn't a static thing, either, and the cert programs require coaches to recertify to keep up-to-date on language and changing methods, and to keep their skills sharp.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@hesitationpoint Increased weight = increased traction is a popular belief, that's proven for general friction in physics, but the reality is that increased weight only increases traction of pneumatic tires enough to _almost_ meet the increased traction demands of the higher weight (see tire load sensitivity). The extra weight doesn't generate surplus traction to allow you downgrade the tires. If this were true, wouldn't people be recommending tire types based on rider weight, grippier tires to light riders and less grippy to heavier riders? Semi-slicks are a conscious trade-off. In the case of propulsive torque, you only need enough traction to meet that requirement, with any more being excess. You also have to consider the surface tension of the terrain, as too much load will cause the ground to break away. Then you have to consider the suspension, and the load it is configured to support (too stiff and traction suffers). More factors, like the soil compaction rate (cone index) play a role in the big picture, as you will be technically rolling uphill if the soil is being compacted, hence why spreading the load out, to reduce weight any one point, with wide/fat tires improves traction and handling.

You might get the idea that it doesn't hurt to get the rear traction to be the minimum needed to not spin out from propulsive torque, and the rest can go to the front for improved control, as it seems to be safer and intuitive. Weight distro is a controversial topic. 50/50 is theorized, but in practice, 60% rearward/40% forward tends to be more favored. Bicycles can get away with fudging this distro, since the rider can shift their weight back and forth. My core argument focuses on getting the weight distro optimal, with the goal of easing things for the rider, not having to get into an uncomfortable position to feel balanced, nor hunt for this position (which changes according to the pitch of the trail).

Anyways, here's a clip off front-wheel-heavy geo in automotive terms: 




The difference of trying to make a better machine: 




Listen to the words he's using, saying things like pulling more Gs in corners. Gs describes the rate of acceleration (physics definition, which includes deceleration and changing direction). To decelerate a 3000 lb car at a rate of 1 G, takes more traction than decelerating a 1500 lb car decelerating at the same rate. In reality, the 3000 lb can come *very close* to decelerating as soon as the 1500 lb car, since that weight does increase traction. Just not enough traction to match or beat the lighter car. On softer terrain, you have to consider the ground breaking away and causing you to lose traction, so we have to be delicate with it, hence we run wider tires and modulate our brakes and inputs, and rely on suspension.

Adding weight to vehicles works as it improves the sprung to unsprung mass ratio, rebalances the weight distro, and loads the suspension to what it's intended for. This applies to bikes as well, but there's the soft surface to factor in, and also the fatigue levels of the rider.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Forest Rider said:


> Yeah, but I couldn't resist stirring the pot.
> 
> I also wondered why the motorcycle industry hasn't adapted to some sort of locked on foot design. There were one or 2 crashes where the dude was ejected cause his foot came off.
> Never catch a toe in a deep rut again if your foot is locked on the peg in the one and only preferred position. As for leg out to weight the front -meh. They are professionals. They can figure out how to ride it with the unnecessary front wheel weight situation.
> ...


A seasoned MX rider here. This invention of a toe clip on the peg would never work. The leg is often purposely taken off the peg and used in railing around berms. Throwing your foot in front or close to the front wheel while the bike is leaned over in a berm creates the perfect balance with power out back. Which is not needed on a human powered bicycle. Although some with platform pedals purposely take their feet off the pedals for reasons of their own.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> but the reality is that increased weight only increases traction of pneumatic tires enough to _almost_ meet the increased traction demands of the higher weight (see tire load sensitivity).


Not true. Increased weight on tires doesn't not increase traction demands, mass does. F=mv[SUP]2[/SUP] /R


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

ninji, this is not a one-to-one problem. This is a benefit cost problem. Shifting the weight forward is not designed to perfectly offset the reduced traction from a fast rolling tire. It's to reduce the cost of going to to a fast rolling but less grippy tire. Nobody is saying it will eliminate the cost. And btw, while light riders do run the same tires, the recommendation tire pressure vary quite a bit by weight - just another effort to reduce costs.

Subject to reasonable bike handling skills (basically anything above cat 2 local races), watts count more in XC racing than bombing corners. That's why Sam Gaze runs Renegades rather than Butchers like Bruni does. Different goals. However, you do need enough traction not to crash randomly even when you aren't taking huge risks. And the other benefit of a forward position is better climbing as someone else has already pointed out. Of course you are right that a forward position generates more fatigue and possibly back pain which is another cost. But in a typical XC length race, the fatigue build up from this will not be enough of an impediment to offset the benefits from the position in a decently trained athlete. Even in lower levels like Cat 2, I doubt it's an issue because the races are shorter and Cat 2 guys actually train. The only place where I can imagine where this could be a real impediment is in the intro classes where people basically show up for one race without much training.

I find it interesting that you are able to point out numerous variables that other people aren't seeing when you are analyzing their argument but can't see all the variables you are missing when making your own argument (e.g. air pressure, different riding goals, different disciplines, different conditions, downhiller vs XC, etc etc). There is no one way or the highway. If you just need validation for your ideas, that is fine, just say it. But be honest about it. I have no problems with people with big ideas who are willing to put it to the test. I actually applaud it and hope it works for you.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

I can't believe I'm back here, but the discussion is bordering on.... words that I won't type.

DJ, Forest Rider is messing with you.

Motorcycle does not equal MTB in most areas including, but not limited to power, traction, weight, center of gravity, suspension travel... plus, rider weight as a portion of the bike+rider is much less. Therefore, weight shifts have less impact, esp. when power is applied.

Traction, in the world of MTB (not tarmac motorsports) is completely dependent on how much force the dirt can hold before it rips apart (concrete doesn't rip apart if you brake hard). You can do whatever you want with weight, weight distribution, or tire treads, but if the dirt can't hold you on your line, you're going off.

Let's get back on track and not compare apples to motorcycles.

-F


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Fleas said:


> DJ, Forest Rider is messing with you.


Thanks for the subtle *hint*  but I knew that. I messed with him first so it's par for the course. I still couldn't help responding to that though.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@hesitationpoint If I go on with all the variables and possibilities, my posts would be too long to even start reading. Making an effort to keep posts less dense, and more digestable, seeing if I can make it so just reading the first line of each paragraph is enough to get an idea. Also, I'm not sure if cognitive bias can be eliminated, despite how objective I try to be.

Got people arguing semantics, some disagreeing with the framing but agreeing with the science... *shrug* Not important to spend time on.

I'm trying to dispel misinformation with science, rather than "argue". No winners/loser, just knowledge being shared or updated as accuracy and understanding increases. For example, if someone gets confused by a classical friction formula popping up (jeremy's post), thinking it applies accurately to pneumatic tires, and someone else doesn't cover it, I might.

I opened the question of why MX handlebar heights are roughly hip height, rather than below-crotch, to see others' perspectives. You brought up more weight on the front. That's better than just denying that MX physics are totally unrelated, so I opted to reply to you instead of the non-contributors. I thought it got a bit unrealistic, so I might have overdone the scientific rebuttal. I'll admit to a personal bias that I dislike the whole trend of people discovering changing X to be more like Y, so keep pushing it in that direction incrementally until it goes far past what's optimal for your individual needs. I want to believe there's a sweet spot (based on certain needs), and that it can be calculated, saving time and resources. What have I said that's disagreeable? Does this not apply to the amount of viable front wheel weight distro bias?

Maybe others might share perspectives on weight bias or weight distro on bikes. Maybe some who are more XC-race informed, might relate how Cannondale switched to a shorter CS and longer/slacker front (weight distro shifted rearward) and started falling back in WC standing, and theorize that was a drawback to the geo in order to get rad "XXC" (X for extreme?) riding videos. I'd be looking at the courses they're trying to race on, and where the time is gained and lost, to see if there's more to add to the picture (an academic collaboration), rather being all negative nancy saying that their analysis is invalid or that they can't possibly analyze better than those with more qualifications.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> I'm trying to dispel misinformation with science, rather than "argue". No winners/loser, just knowledge being shared or updated as accuracy and understanding increases. For example, if someone gets confused by a classical friction formula popping up (jeremy's post), thinking it applies accurately to pneumatic tires, and someone else doesn't cover it, I might.


That's not the friction formula. You keep referencing tire load sensitivity but you don't understand it. It means the friction coefficient decreases as normal force increases but it doesn't mean that frictional force decreases. Without an increases in mass supported by the axle surpassing that of an increase in normal force (due to anything) friction will increase. This is how trail braking works. This is why you need to weight the front of the bike going into turns. This is why if you ride in a gravel lot or maybe even grass and hang of the back of the bike you can turn the bars and keep going straight. If you don't understand the science, you go outside on your bike and see it for yourself. Like I said, I'm a tire engineer so if there's anything you don't understand just ask me instead of trying to discredit me because you're frustrated.


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> A seasoned MX rider here. This invention of a toe clip on the peg would never work. The leg is often purposely taken off the peg and used in railing around berms. Throwing your foot in front or close to the front wheel while the bike is leaned over in a berm creates the perfect balance with power out back. Which is not needed on a human powered bicycle. Although some with platform pedals purposely take their feet off the pedals for reasons of their own.





Fleas said:


> I can't believe I'm back here, but the discussion is bordering on.... words that I won't type.
> 
> DJ, Forest Rider is messing with you...





DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Thanks for the subtle *hint*  but I knew that. I messed with him first so it's par for the course. I still couldn't help responding to that though.


Yeah, DJ and I are touble makers and take this thread off topic. Wait. there is a topic on this thread?

I've been riding dirt bike (recreationally) for about 30 years. I can hold my own but I'm not the fastest of my friends, except on those rare days when it just clicks. Anymore, it rarely clicks as I ride mountain bike 3 or 4 days a week (in summer months) and once or twice a week through the winter. And I ride the dirt bike a dozen times a year.

I love that both MTB's have a different body position than each other and the dirt bike, while similar, is different again. I like that I get to use my brain and figure out how to balance a bike depending on the condition I'm riding on.

I think I would feel bored if I just sat on either of the 2-wheelers and didn't have to figure anything out.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@jeremy3220 Since you claimed expertise as a tire engineer, is it not fair to seek verification through seeking an explanation? Arrogant use of status/title alone doesn't do much, but get more people's attention.

On getting you to explain tire load sensitivity, I was expecting something along the lines of explaining that tire load sensitivity specifically states that pneumatic tires don't follow the same laws of friction, suggesting a major difference: there's significant diminishing returns in the "increased weight (mass or normal force) = increased grip/traction" belief.

I'm not sure how common sense "diminishing returns" is, but I doubt it's enough to accurately explain the reality of mtb tires. I've deemed that discussing "increasing traction" was a poor topic anyways, and instead tried to bring attention to traction loss, and how to minimize it. I'd rather have relatively low, but reliable grip, than confidently high levels of grips in a majority of situations, but scary low grip in specific scenarios that are hard to anticipate, or adapt to, when out of my equipment's element (e.g. doesn't clear the coating of sticky greasy mud on the tire, and starts slipping on angled rocks).

I presented a bunch of other factors: soft surfaces (loose dirt) breaking away under load & getting compacted under load, and that suspension absorbs weight shifts. I implied that the industry has been moving towards being more delicate, considering the selection of upsized tires. In another thread, when I explained it, I said that heavy loading during a corner resulted in a cutty or a washout, but you responded with fallacy (appeal to authority, linking to some very dated skills coaching). I've learned to only purposely load a corner if there were lateral support, such as a bank/berm, the side of a rut, or a tall enough rock or root; I'm not going to rely on "F=mv[sup]2[/sup] /R", or the belief that I'd get more traction if I put out more force to generate friction, in a flat or off-camber turn, as I've had painful lessons that told me reality was different.

Rather not waste time with semantics, nor get wordy in order to comply with your specific preferred terms. I'd just like to promote better understanding and accuracy, and am trying to find things people can relate to in order to pitch concepts that they can catch.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> I'm not going to rely on "F=mv[sup]2[/sup] /R"


What do you think that formula is saying?



> On getting you to explain tire load sensitivity, I was expecting something along the lines of explaining that tire load sensitivity specifically states that pneumatic tires don't follow the same laws of friction


That's totally correct, you're just not applying it in the right way. Increased weight (vertical load for the sake of simplicity) increases friction with diminishing returns as you said. However, if the lateral load does not increase or increases relatively less than the vertical load (and subtracting for the diminishing returns) then the tire will be able to corner faster. The lateral load is given by the above formula (it's a function of mass). This is how downforce works. The air creates a downward force (normal force aka vertical load) which increases the total vertical load on the tires (more friction) but does not increase lateral loads (vehicle mass) thus allowing the car to corner faster.

On a bike you can easily manipulate this vertical load on the tires without increasing lateral loads. You can even momentarily shift your mass over an axle while totally removing the normal force on the tire and vice versa. You can completely remove the weight( vertical load) on both tires (bunny hop or jump) or increase the weight over the static position (landing/pumping). This is also why on climbs you can be too far forward and have rear traction issues. You move your weight back (like sitting on the saddle) to maintain traction.


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> I want to believe there's a sweet spot (based on certain needs), and that it can be calculated, saving time and resources. What have I said that's disagreeable? Does this not apply to the amount of viable front wheel weight distro bias?


I guess I don't understand what you mean by *a* sweet spot. There will always be constraints in the optimization problem. If you ignore those constraints, you will get some ideal answer that has no bearing on reality.

In any case, we can theorize all we want but you have to ultimately do the testing and under the right conditions. Theory and empirics form a feedback loop. Eli Tomac is currently testing a new bike and he even suggested it was pointless to test in non-race conditions because you aren't pushing the bike hard enough. So if you want answers, find the conditions under which you want your design to excel and test under those conditions while shocking a variety of variables. Then update your theory and retest. You might even have to find riders with different abilities and capabilities.

And ultimately, even if you get all the theory right, it can come down to something as simple as "feel" or confidence for the rider. Despite all the knowledge Decoster has amassed over the years, Carmichael had a great reply which is "if the saddle hits me in the rear, the throttle goes off." He went with a theoretical suboptimal setup because it gave him the confidence to push the limit.


----------



## jim c (Dec 5, 2014)

hesitationpoint;13958222 Despite all the knowledge Decoster has amassed over the years said:


> Ha Ha, there is one smart fella


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@jeremy3220 I already recognized that you are suggesting that a lateral load on a tire can be countered with a vertical load. Why aren't you offering rebuttal for my counterpoints?

I provided two scenarios in my last post:
- a corner with lateral support: bank, berm, a rut, rock, or root, that's tall enough put a lateral load into.
- a corner with no lateral support: flat or off-camber.

Did I not demonstrate my reluctance to find agreement, with how I perceived this concept in connection to reality? To spell it out, I don't understand how perpendicular vectors can act on each other. It's either countered by lateral support, or I need to not exceed the connection between my tires and ground (to the knob tearing and ground scratching limits before sliding). My intuition sees this connection as being finite, so my response is to *not* overload it, retaining a stance that is ready for the next corner/obstacle. Your suggestion seems counter-intuitive, and makes me wonder if you practice what you preach. Gives me an excuse to re-post this image:









I've already agreed with the other concepts regarding weight shifts, except that I've been suggesting that if the weight distro is calculated properly and designed into to geometry, the demand to do weight shifts would be reduced. The sweet spot is a small moving target, and is specific to body proportions, but I have given my estimates on it before. What's there that isn't understood about this concept? Stand up, and you got enough weight on the rear to put out a good amount of torque, without needing to get weight back to prevent tire spin. Stand up, and you got enough weight on the front to corner with enough weight on the front to prevent washout. Just weight on the pedals, balanced out well enough that you shouldn't have to make conscious action to adapt, allowing you to refocus your effort on getting rad.

Some claim that they already experience this on their current bike. I only recently realized this in my own experience, after upsizing on a few bikes, and feel like I understand enough about why people claimed bikes handled like **** (e.g. steered like a bus), and why there's non-stop debate around CS length, HA, reach, etc. I felt like it was enough to suggest my own design, taking it a bit further by designing it to put the sweet spot in a position the rider can find naturally, and hold comfortably. I did say before, that I'm practically predicting how far and where modern forward geometry will end up, after milking the market with incremental improvements.

@hesitationpoint Still waiting on updates on my proto.

The man behind Mondraker's Forward Geometry said the same, when it came to racing, that a getting the rider comfortable on the bike, feeling like one, gets better results than all this theory into optimizing the machine, and getting a rider to adapt to it. He has pretty much cut the difference between the forward geo and current geo, a tiny bit on the front-heavy side compared to my estimates (440 CS, 1245 WB w/slack 200mm of travel for the Unno Ever). In comparison, Amaury Pierron's standout year was on a vs 439 CS 1283 WB Commencal 29 200mm high pivot (~10mm longer horizontal CS, when compressed, than the Unno). I think they're this way, since riders are in the habit of riding off the back slightly.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

hesitationpoint said:


> ninji, this is not a one-to-one problem. This is a benefit cost problem. Shifting the weight forward is not designed to perfectly offset the reduced traction from a fast rolling tire. It's to reduce the cost of going to to a fast rolling but less grippy tire. Nobody is saying it will eliminate the cost.


It doesn't offset anything. If that were the case, if they were able to "offset" a loss in grip, then a fast enduro setup would be to run faster rolling tires and "weight the front" (as they say) more.

But nobody does that because that's not how it works. There is a way to get max traction, there is also a max level of traction that a specific tire will allow for every specific situation. All else being equal, people running tires that will give less grip aren't getting the same amount of traction as people running more grippy tires when it comes time to change direction. If those direction changes don't actually require lots of grip, or if you can afford to give up speed there because you can be faster overall with less grip and rolling resistance, then you don't need lots of grip available.

Different riders can obviously get different levels of the grip available, but there's no magical way to make an Aspen grip like a Minion.


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

richde said:


> Different riders can obviously get different levels of the grip available, but there's no magical way to make an Aspen grip like a Minion.


@richde - I think we agree more than disagree. I'll take responsibility for not expressing myself clearly.

@ninji - interesting anecdotes Mondraker and Pierron. Keep us updated on how your testing goes after you get your proto.


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

It seems as though y'all are overthinking how to ride a bicycle. Unless...is this an e-bike we're talking about? In that case, chin on the stem, balls on the toptube, legs stretched out in superman position.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

langster831 said:


> It seems as though y'all are overthinking how to ride a bicycle. Unless...is this an e-bike we're talking about? In that case, chin on the stem, balls on the toptube, legs stretched out in superman position.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> Why aren't you offering rebuttal for my counterpoints?


I'm not sure what they are.



> you are suggesting that a lateral load on a tire can be countered with a vertical load...To spell it out, I don't understand how perpendicular vectors can act on each other.


That's what friction is. That's why when you pull your brake lever harder the wheel slows down faster. The pads exert a normal force (perpendicular) to the surface of the rotor causing it to slow down in a direction perpendicular to the pad force. Increase the normal force and the rotors stop faster.

Now if you want to know how friction works that's very complex, especially with rubber since there are different contributors (hysteretic, adhesion,etc). On a macroscopic level we think about friction as a perpendicular force countering another. On a microscopic level you're right, the forces are actually acting in line with each other.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

All of this is predicated on the idea that making a bicycle easier to ride will make it more fun to ride. I don't buy it. I didn't start mountain biking because it's easy or safe. I fell in love with mountain biking because the outcome on any ride is not guaranteed.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

hesitationpoint said:


> @richde - I think we agree more than disagree. I'll take responsibility for not expressing myself clearly. .


Probably so, but it is something that is commonly said here.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

MOJO K said:


> All of this is predicated on the idea that making a bicycle easier to ride will make it more fun to ride. I don't buy it. I didn't start mountain biking because it's easy or safe. I fell in love with mountain biking because the outcome on any ride is not guaranteed.


Sure, I can't deny that perspective. I literally buy it, by spending money to improve and freshen my experience. I'd try other hobbies, but I'd like to think I'm following the wisdom, "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."

My purpose behind mountain biking is to practice my freedom, be occasional transportation, initiate social bonding, and to be an alternative to escapism (more connected to reality than typical pleasure/self-indulgence through entertainment and other comforts).

I feel my argument is more predicated on the dislike of history repeating itself, when we can instead learn from it. Why waste money supporting the production of bikes with poorly compromised geo?

Also predicated on the dislike of using "just work harder" as the solution, when it's known to work "fine", ignoring the consequences of exhaustion and unique demands of individual lifestyles.

It's just exploring what makes a bike better than another, a bit more in depth than what people are used to. I'd like to expect people to see the main take-away to be opening up to the importance of judging CS length relative to WB length, rather than being all negative nancy, perceiving the OP to be soft, and a target to put down in order to please our own ego.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Now this looks like a proper slope, and speed, for this position.









Source


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> SI'd like to expect people to see the main take-away to be opening up to the importance of judging CS length relative to WB length, rather than being all negative nancy, perceiving the OP to be soft, and a target to put down in order to please our own ego.


I don't think you can put this all on other people. Think about it. You have admitted to being less experienced. You claim to be scientific (implying other people aren't). You claim to have found the keys to "the sweet spot" in bike geometry. All those things do not add up. Even in basic calculus, one knows that an optimization problem subject to constraints is extremely sensitive to the specification of those constraints. Change one variable, and the optimal solution changes.

You don't have elite level riding skill (by your own admission) to understand those constraints nor do you work with elite riders to gather data to understand those constraints. Trying to find a sweet spot under these circumstances is not science but hoping that you found a genie in a bottle. And even if you find a sweet spot, that will likely change as your skills improve so even your data will be confounded by bike geometry improvement vs skill improvement.

The question isn't why people are being so negative but why they *shouldn't* be given what they know in this thread. If they push back it might not be the presence of ego but rather the absence of naivety. It might also be that they perceive that you have a high level of hubris and they are pushing back. The burden of proof here is on you. If you would listen rather than dismiss, you might recognize that they are giving you important feedback even if indirectly and not easy to hear.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

hesitationpoint said:


> I don't think you can put this all on other people. Think about it. You have admitted to being less experienced. You claim to be scientific (implying other people aren't). You claim to have found the keys to "the sweet spot" in bike geometry. All those things do not add up. Even in basic calculus, one knows that an optimization problem subject to constraints is extremely sensitive to the specification of those constraints. Change one variable, and the optimal solution changes.
> 
> You don't have elite level riding skill (by your own admission) to understand those constraints nor do you work with elite riders to gather data to understand those constraints. Trying to find a sweet spot under these circumstances is not science but hoping that you found a genie in a bottle. And even if you find a sweet spot, that will likely change as your skills improve so even your data will be confounded by bike geometry improvement vs skill improvement.
> 
> The question isn't why people are being so negative but why they *shouldn't* be given what they know in this thread. If they push back it might not be the presence of ego but rather the absence of naivety. It might also be that they perceive that you have a high level of hubris and they are pushing back. The burden of proof here is on you. If you would listen rather than dismiss, you might recognize that they are giving you important feedback even if indirectly and not easy to hear.


- Arrogance vs humbleness. We stand on the shoulders of giants. The more you learn about how much you don't know, perhaps by appreciating the great efforts made by others before us that progressed us to this point, the more humbled you are. An idea should be judged by its merit, not by the speaker. Elite level riding skill is 0.0001%; it's not surprising to not be on that level. I think it's more like I don't feel any anxiety being on a level playing field with elites, than feeling hubris--heck, I ride alongside world cup winners and world champs on chance occasion during casual outings, due to my location, which can explain why I've been humbled big time. Being with some great person I admire? Rather than trying to step up to their level, at what they're an expert at, I'm sure I can find something we can engage with, or talk about, that progresses both our knowledge. Yes, I've shown a World DH champ something in person that they didn't know, that they appreciated and likely have a memory of. We all got stuff to learn from each other.

- I estimated the sweet spot, from my perspective. I can't speak for others who are different shapes and sizes. I claim that it can be calculated. If I can do it, confident enough in my findings to put money down on a custom design to put the theory to test, I had hoped to inspire others to at least try to find ways to test it themselves. I describe my perceived sweet spot as having mass well centralized between the wheels, with neutral, intuitive, and comfortable position and balance. Maybe some prefer rearward bias, some prefer forward bias. No disagreement other than semantics with the word "sweet spot", redefining what theirs would be, based on their needs.

- The thread has derailed because people seemingly think that I don't qualify to even suggest speaking about the topic. I'm trying to get past that, to get more contribution to the topic, rather than scrutinizing my character. I don't believe in thread ownership or OP rights; I see threads as being just sources of info, based on the purely on the topic, with consideration of the context within. This is not a "help me" thread. It's academic. It could've been a poll, but those are lame because things are not so easily categorized and the answer, "it depends," comes up often. What does it depend on...

How about contributing with some anecdote? Maybe someone 6'4" chose a XL Honzo and can confirm if such a short CS bike (415mm) with long wheelbase (1182, 1206, or 1212, depending on CR, ST, or alloy) forced them to compensate heavily for rearward bias. I'd imagine the rear wheel is at high risk of damage, and would be unsuitable for high speed areas like SoCal, but perhaps nice for east coast US riding, allowing for a riding style mimicking 50:01, riding on the back wheel.

P.S. to throw out a bone to the gossipers wanting to know who I am, I'll just admit to being Asian. Now you can go fill your minds with imagination about what that means, and gaining satisfaction through confirmation bias about your prior fantasies. Ignore this pointless fact, as it shouldn't matter, if you're one who prefers to discuss mostly ideas.


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

@ninji - Ok just stop. You are nobody's victim. People cant acknowledge what they don't know and you left information out. Also, you complain about character assassination but have no problems assassinating other people's characters and questioning their motives. You also speak in a derogatory way about the competency of bike companies. 

Occam's razor. Maybe those bike companies aren't run by idiots - they just face different constraints from you - you know like having to sell bikes to lots of people rather than custom fit for you.

Basically, your whole vibe comes off as "I'm the smartest guy in the room."and I'm here to correct the failings of the bike industry. And it sucks that I am dealing with a bunch of plebs. You don't expect pushback, really? 

Imagine this. Some guy shows up on a forum and seems to have studied all the intricacies of shooting a basketball - the perfect form and all. And then claims that all the NBA coaches and trainers have it wrong and he has found a way to create more LeBron Jamess. What would you think? 

I know my reaction would be one of skepticism. Not because I want to offend or attack that person personally but because based on odds and probabilities, there are a lot more hucksters in the world than Einstein's. In spite of all that I'm a sucker for feel good stories about people beating the odds and becoming successful after taking big risks so I'm actually cheering for you. I'm just confused why you are approaching this the way you are and surprised by the reaction.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

Anecdote...I can tell you that the major criticism of 29ers in their development was the chain stays being too long. Everybody loved the roll-over, but bikes weren't playful. The Honzo , the Nimble 9, and others who found ways to shorten the rear end, were an improvement in the eyes of many consumers.


I appreciate you moving off of the idea that there is an equation that can objectively calculate the geometric "sweet spot" for every rider. Now that you know that, almost unanimously, your ideas have fallen on the ears of unbelievers, maybe it's time to agree to disagree and move on. This long exercise only proves that it's a good thing that we all get to choose our own way.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@jeremy3220 Ok, so I was thinking about how my inertia going around a corner, needing to change direction, won't change unless my velocity changes, and how friction can oppose that force. My understanding clicked once I was able to connect how downforce is used in F1, for tracks like Monaco. Vertical load can affect that friction, so I was trying various ways to manipulate that. I think I'm simply going too slow around the corner to even notice any effect. Gonna have to build up some balls to let it rip, with some gravity assistance, but I can't think of any safe turns that will allow me to go wide or fall safely. Will explore your point further in future tests. Appreciate your tolerance/patience for my lack of understanding, and your time to reword the explanation.

@hesitationpoint thanks for getting me to calm down, step back, and realize that I shouldn't be like what I'm criticizing others of.

@Mojo K Yes, that criticism is what I'm referring to, regarding 29er chainstays too long. I had 444mm CS with a 71 HA on my first XC 29er, and I just didn't know what I was missing back then, until I tried a few more bikes. It was like an ah ha moment, realizing I've been wasting so much money getting new bikes to try and feel that dialed out-of-the-saddle balance, when it's not really CS alone, but its relation to the WB. My early 29ers felt fine in the saddle, but encouraged a rearward position out-of-the-saddle whenever I needed to consider traction and control. I did do the short CS HT 29er thing, but I really wanted FS again. I went the 27.5 long travel route to confirm the CS-WB relationship, accounting for front and rear suspension compression affecting geometry, and noting what improvement could be made to the bike's geo. Trends are all pointing towards my idea working out; just need to confirm the seated and standing position comfort thing. Coincidence that Steve from Vorsprung released a Tuesday tune talking about FC/RC ratio being important around the same time.

When I was doing wild things testing jeremy's suggestion, I found that when I was really trying to put a lot of weight on the front, my body weight seemingly lost connection with the bike, and became like a dead weight being swung around. When I returned to the rearward position, with much of my weight through the pedal, I could load the bike and feel like there was plenty of weight on both the front and rear without needing to exaggerate any weight shift. If I pumped the ground, it was kind of fun and added thrill, but couldn't objectively say that it was doing anything for my cornering potential on flat ground. I instead recalled a Fabien Barel video, where he was saying lean the bike, not your body, and was demonstrating the opposite, getting his bike to slide. I feel that's the way to go, but will pump when there's lateral support.

Anyways, looking forward to testing on my proto, since it has sliding dropouts. Can play with that to see if shortening the CS to be more rearward biased feels more natural overall. One more trend for confirmation bias: I looked at Gwin's XL Intense DH bike and it's similarly slightly forward-biased (456 cs 1298 wb). I would've paired 456 cs with a 1335 wb to get closer to neutral balance--not saying that's good, just saying that it'll be worth testing on my proto to see if I prefer lengthening my CS to get a similar forward-bias, or seeing if my estimates are off and Gwin's geo is actually neutral or rearward-biased.


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> @hesitationpoint thanks for getting me to calm down, step back, and realize that I shouldn't be like what I'm criticizing others of.
> .


It's all good man 👍. Sorry if I was too hard on you.

As for your flat ground cornering experiment, have you tried finding a dirt lot and setting up a cone? Maybe start with flat pedals so you can dab quickly and wear knee pads. My experience is you won't notice a difference until you can cause the front wheel to break lose without loading the front. That means sufficient speed and lean. Than load the front and I bet it won't unless you push faster. Alternatively, try a slammed stem with more front weight bias vs more of a short stem with more rise. I'd be surprised if you didn't notice a difference.


----------



## oldsklrdr (May 15, 2012)

https://www.nature.com/news/the-bicycle-problem-that-nearly-broke-mathematics-1.20281

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

hesitationpoint said:


> It's all good man . Sorry if I was too hard on you.
> 
> As for your flat ground cornering experiment, have you tried finding a dirt lot and setting up a cone? Maybe start with flat pedals so you can dab quickly and wear knee pads. My experience is you won't notice a difference until you can cause the front wheel to break lose without loading the front. That means sufficient speed and lean. Than load the front and I bet it won't unless you push faster. Alternatively, try a slammed stem with more front weight bias vs more of a short stem with more rise. I'd be surprised if you didn't notice a difference.


The opposite happens. Get to where the front slides, then move back slightly and it won't. I have to make this adjustment every time I ride my bike with a shorter reach. I go into a familiar corner at the normal speed and the front tire washes out, and it takes me a minute or two to readjust.

Your weight should be on your feet, the vast majority of it, because nobody is riding around supporting even a third of their weight with their hands. Probably around 10-15% when you're in the (whatever you want to call it) position.

Lie down, pick up 20% of your body weight and hold it above your chest, see how it feels.


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

richde said:


> The opposite happens. Get to where the front slides, then move back slightly and it won't. I have to make this adjustment every time I ride my bike with a shorter reach. I go into a familiar corner at the normal speed and the front tire washes out, and it takes me a minute or two to readjust.
> 
> Your weight should be on your feet, the vast majority of it, because nobody is riding around supporting even a third of their weight with their hands. Probably around 10-15% when you're in the (whatever you want to call it) position.
> 
> Lie down, pick up 20% of your body weight and hold it above your chest, see how it feels.


You are right. I do have a lot of weight on the outside pedal and most of my body weight is not on the bars. It's more weight shift timing than anything else especially at the moment when the tire is biting into the apex. But I also ride an XC bike with a relatively longer stem and use either Fast Traks or Aspens and fairly stiff fork setup that doesn't dive a lot. So maybe my technique doesn't translate well but it works for me. But this is one of those things that's easy enough for people to test on their own without dropping a ton of resources


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> When I was doing wild things testing jeremy's suggestion, I found that when I was really trying to put a lot of weight on the front, my body weight seemingly lost connection with the bike, and became like a dead weight being swung around. When I returned to the rearward position, with much of my weight through the pedal, I could load the bike and feel like there was plenty of weight on both the front and rear without needing to exaggerate any weight shift. If I pumped the ground, it was kind of fun and added thrill, but couldn't objectively say that it was doing anything for my cornering potential on flat ground. I instead recalled a Fabien Barel video, where he was saying lean the bike, not your body, and was demonstrating the opposite, getting his bike to slide. I feel that's the way to go, but will pump when there's lateral support.


This might be the hardest part of cornering, to attempt to balance front and rear weight while maintaining form. It's really hard when you transition from braking to trying to load the front if your braking technique isn't solid. You have to get the bike-not-body lean thing down first. Then you refine it by learning to use your hips and knees to load the front. The tendency in my experience is to break form when trying this at first. You'll feel stiff, struggle to lean the bike instead of yourself, feel like you're a dead weight on top of your bars. The key is setting up properly before the turn and leading movements with your hips. Watch the Simon Lawton video and Skills with Phil video on flat cornering. Notice how their knees and hips are leading.

Also, normally bikes have a rear weight bias to begin with so weighting the front is needed just to get a 50/50 weight distribution.


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

@jeremy yeah good point about the braking transition. I learned to ride off road in MX before I got into mtb and it was always easy to load the front because hard braking does some of it and then you plop your body down as far up front as possible on the seat almost on top of the gas tank with your leg out. Transitioning to mtb was a ***** at first because dabbing is inefficient due to the need to pedal and there was no seat to put your weight on near the front. For me, the break through came when I started visualizing the feeling of hitting corners MX style except with my feet on the pedals but the same hard lean, outside pedal loading and braking until the last moment. Getting the timing down to load the front right at the apex did it for me. But I still find long sweeping corners with no obvious apex scary lol.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

jeremy3220 said:


> This might be the hardest part of cornering, to attempt to balance front and rear weight while maintaining form. It's really hard when you transition from braking to trying to load the front if your braking technique isn't solid. You have to get the bike-not-body lean thing...


And so many variables involved. Bike geometry, seat height, dirt consistency, brake modulation, weight distribution . . etc.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Amaury Pierron attacking...


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

The cornering tangent is just sort of a way to prove how tweaking the geo to promote a certain out-of-the-saddle riding position, can be beneficial to learn about.

I learned that it's quite hard to find flow on a trail, if I weren't well balanced on the bike. I'd be slowing the bike down, since I'd be thrown off-balance and needed time to recover, since I couldn't find that sweet spot that let me trust that I could ride the bike like I imagined. There are times I do find that spot and, for the lack of a better term, flowed without touching the brakes, except to tame my speed going into corners.

I find that the best analogy I can come up with is that the CS to WB proportions are like an aircraft's pitch trim controls. You tweak these controls to make the aircraft fly at a level altitude when cruising. It's not autopilot. Without these trim controls, the pilot can still hold it level, and make it to the destination successfully, but I consider it a burden that the pilot has to spend effort to compensate for. For a fighter jet, that has the tendency to nose down, the pilot would need to hold the control stick back a certain amount--would this situation be ideal for more demanding flight maneuvers, such as dogfighting? What if pilots from this fighter squadron don't have assigned jets, and switch among them, and the jets have different nuances to them and you don't know which you'll be in when you scramble to sortie. It'd take time to adjust to, less so if you have experience, but what about the pilots that transfer in who don't have such knowledge?

----

Lets take a look at 3 bikes:

Bike A) 435mm CS and 1150mm WB. The wheelbase is short due to short reach and steep HA.
Bike B) 435mm CS and 1235mm WB. The wheelbase is long due to longer reach and slack HA.
Bike C) 420mm CS and 1220mm WB. Shorter chainstays by 15mm, but same "front center" as bike B (can have different reach and HA)

There are bikes with this geo. A large Specialized Epic (FSR). A large Fezzari La Sal Peak. A large Cannondale Jekyll 27.5. Someone should be able to fit on all of these bikes to feel what I'm talking about.

According to my hypothesis, I predict that Bike A is nose-heavy, Bike B is close to neutral, and Bike C is rear-heavy. If you were to look up images of people riding these bikes, you may find patterns, such as riders positioning themselves perhaps a bit more rearward on Bike A, than Bike B and C. Those riding bike B and C back-to-back, may notice all sorts of differences, and have differences in opinion from others doing the same test, like bike B feels like it rivals modern enduro bikes like the SB150, while bike C feels squirrely or less stable and capable as an Enduro bike, than Bike B. Can just search for video reviews on these bikes, making note of the size tested, like the Bike Bible of Bikes test.

What I'm seeing is the marketing trying to fill people's minds with reasons why someone should buy these bikes. Bike C seems ideal for someone who wants to play on the trail, perhaps okay to race on, since Jerome Clementz validated it on the EWS it (on a smaller size)! Bike B is a potent enduro racer! It shows promise, so we'll be watching (in case Fezzari wants to get it more "validation" with a race team). Bike A cannot be compared to B and C, as it's in its own special league, where people purposely give up DH capability in order to showcase their ability on bikes with suspension that is designed not to move. It's race proven, so it deserves its spot in existence!

I have said before, that I'm not sure why people put so much personal stake into the racing culture, when they don't do the racing themselves. Do they aspire to someday race? A handful of riders I ride with do race, but the only ones riding their race bikes on group rides are the Enduro racers. I do like this trend, as it's R&D money going towards the development of bikes that work for the riding I do, but the prices...

So I ask, is "good" geo something that should cost a lot? Or is that just making that geo permanent into a carbon mold that results in that cost? I'm no Einstein, and not pioneering anything new. I'm merely trying to bring awareness to something that could possibly applied to any bike. These bike companies post geo charts of their products, but how much do we know about this geo chart as a whole, to be able to predict how the bikes will ride? Do we just cherry pick certain figures and compare to bikes that are getting praise? *shrug* people have problems understanding how longer reach is balanced with a steeper SA, to not stretch the rider out more, but instead give them room out-of-the-saddle so they can still have their head behind the bars when they get aggressive. 

CS length to WB length proportions. Is there something to be learned here or not? I think it's pretty huge, and I pretty much crossed a ton of bikes off my list of bikes I lust after, based off what I feel I understand from this one factor *alone*. I'll admit that I raised my standards quite a bit though. Plenty of bikes do have proportions that I'm looking for, but not in my size, or not in my price range. A Yeti SB150 in M suits me. I'd have to upsize to Yeti SB130 in L, or a Ripmo in L to get proportions I'm looking for. See a comparison between a rider trying a SB150 and SB130, both in L, and I would totally understand that they may prefer one or the other, based on their personal needs. Maybe the SB130 feels faster, but the SB150 feels like it loves back wheel more, and that's their style (maybe coming up with a few more reasons to support their preference, like the ability to go big). Not sure why such thinking is blasphemous from non-fanboys...


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

@ninji, I won't be able to address all your points but here are some of my random thoughts:

*I actually like to ride one bike for all my riding. But it's a personal taste. I ride my XC bike on XC trails, black diamond trails, etc. The only time I don't is on huge jump lines because I don't want to break the frame when it's not designed for that. For me, my bikes predictability is the single most important factor for me. And if I am constantly switching bikes, I have to readjust and I don't get to know my bike as well. So when I race, I have less confidence when I need to push it to try to catch someone near the end of a race. But this is a personal thing and you will get many difference responses on this.

*I doubt I know enough about mtb geometry to give you an intelligent response but I have noticed that XC bikes from the major brands that having racing teams are pretty close to each other. For example, compare the geometries of XC bikes from Trek, Specialized, Canyon... Will the minor variations matter? Perhaps. But I would have to do some pretty extensive testing to detect it and I don't have enough resources to do that. For a guy like me, close is close enough. Then I will make adjustments on stem length rise, handlebar width etc to feel comfortable for me. I've done many demo days and realized that I just like XC bikes for their quick handling and get up and go. It's like driving a sports car whereas I find slack bikes sluggish. But again, this is a highly personal preference and probably a bit against the trend. 
You might find this article from Enduro magazine testing enduro bikes with very different geos interesting: https://enduro-mtb.com/en/10-fastest-enduro-bikes-in-test/

*I think people focus on race culture because it's fun. It's a hobby. And it's good to know that the manufacturer spends so many money on R&D. It may not be relevant directly (e.g. nobody can ride Nino Schurter's bike with a negative 25 degree slammed stem except Nino), but it might be relevant in the future via trickle down of technology.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

hesitationpoint said:


> @jeremy yeah good point about the braking transition. I learned to ride off road in MX before I got into mtb and it was always easy to load the front because hard braking does some of it and then you plop your body down as far up front as possible on the seat almost on top of the gas tank with your leg out. Transitioning to mtb was a ***** at first because dabbing is inefficient due to the need to pedal and there was no seat to put your weight on near the front. For me, the break through came when I started visualizing the feeling of hitting corners MX style except with my feet on the pedals but the same hard lean, outside pedal loading and braking until the last moment. Getting the timing down to load the front right at the apex did it for me. But I still find long sweeping corners with no obvious apex scary lol.


I think people tend to be too on/off the brakes rather than getting a nice smooth transition. I think ideally, braking would transition smoothly from braking to pumping out of the turn. For long sweeping corners, it can be helpful to break them down into smaller sections and pumping those smaller sections instead of trying to do it all in one motion (light > heavy > light > heavy > light vs. light > heaaaaaavy-ish > light).

Of course, a the heart of this is a good attack position, driving weight into the ground with the hips instead of the hands, and having hips with enough mobility to get the right lean.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

ninjichor said:


> CS length to WB length proportions. Is there something to be learned here or not? I think it's pretty huge, and I pretty much crossed a ton of bikes off my list of bikes I lust after, based off what I feel I understand from this one factor *alone*


I think there is something to that, since it determines where the rider's weight is within the wheelbase.

Not to be a fanboy about my bike, but going from a 2014 Pivot Mach 6 to first a Stache 9(AL) then to a Stache 9.8(carbon with revised geometry), I was shocked by how easy it is to ride and especially corner quickly. My 19.5" 9.8 has a 450ish reach and the stays are 420mm stock and I have them adjusted down to 412-413, halfway through their 15mm of adjustment range.

Because of where the BB is within the wheelbase, getting the best weight distribution is easier and less fatiguing. That's because I'm able to keep my hips closer to directly over the bb than with other bikes, which is a more natural position. Going from 420 to 7-8mm shorter did make it a little more squirrelly, and it will slip temporarily inadvertently, it's also easy to use that tendency to induce a small slide (NOT a brake induced skid) to square off a corner slightly with a quick pump through the outside pedal. The tires, which provide good grip and a very forgiving transition from grip to slip, allow this normally bad tendency to be used and abused.

It also has a 72mm BB drop, which is more like a road bike than a MTB. That is only possible with it's monster wheels, I'm not sure what that does, but it does something.

Something about the sum of the parts, the CS length, the CS/WB ratio, the BB drop, and the tires make that bike not only easy, but fun (because it provides lots of feedback, yet is very forgiving) to ride very fast within the limitations of it being a hard tail with a little extra cush from the tires.

Here's something, mountain bikes have only semi recently started to be designed specifically for mountain biking in varied conditions. In the dawn of MTB, they were beefed up cruisers with gears, which was actually a good guess. In the 90s, the popularity of XC racing, and the limitations of mass start events drove bikes towards road bike design. In a mass start event, you have to be narrower, and due to the amount of traffic on a race course, more time is gained through a focus on climbing (where it's easier to pass) than a focus on how fast you can descend or corner (where it's hard to pass), so that's what the bikes were good at. This is still true to a lesser degree today.

Other segments of the MTB market have dropped those assumptions and gone for easy to ride, and now to easy to ride with respectable climbing ability within the limitations of having extra weight, more suspension travel and tires with more rolling resistance. Dropper posts helped this by making the STA irrelevant when the saddle is lowered.

In the last couple years, XC bikes have gone in that same direction, towards the middle. Longer reaches and shorter stems to reposition the wheels under the rider, yet maintaining a good position for climbing and power production in general, becoming lighter weight, short travel trail bikes. Add a dropper post and grippy tires and you have potent enduro weapon for milder terrain. Which is the way it should be, if you can maximize one aspect without hurting another (moving the front wheel forward with reach and stem length, and changing the CS/WB ratio) why wouldn't you?


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Too much pondering and not enough practicing.

ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder


ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder


ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder

ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder


ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder

ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Too much pondering and not enough practicing.


It's the bike's fault...


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

richde said:


> If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything.


Did you see the word anything in any of what I said? I didn't say anything.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

richde said:


> If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything.


If he did that his post count would only be in the hundreds. :lol:


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Hmm, I'll try smoother braking to see if trail braking affects weight on the front enough for me to notice the effects it has on cornering. I may have been subconsciously doing this already, but haven't really been thinking about cause-and-effect from the different techniques I try out unless I specifically tried, instead just cruising and keeping pace with others.

I tried testing flat cornering on a dirt lot around dried up puddles, but the soil is way dustier, and the testing isn't consistent enough for my liking. I found I liked singletrack better for testing.

I found 1 nice sweeping off-camber downsloping to upsloping U turn to see there difference in speed carried through, using different bikes and techniques. I think it might be about half the radius of a running track's curve.

I found 1 high speed singletrack flat corner that has braking bumps leading into it, and a moderate penalty for failure (1' tall rocks on the outside of turn), that I might use to as a final test if I become confident in a certain combination of bike, positioning, and technique.

Proto started production. Not sure how long heat treating, powdercoat, finishing, and shipping (from out of country) will take.


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

Ok after watching Jeremy's video and thinking about it more, I'm going to revise my suggestion about cornering. After thinking about my corner technique more, I'm realizing that I'm pretty much doing what Phil does - load outside pedal, load outside grip, lean forward. But thinking back, it took a while to feel comfortable in this position. It wasn't so much experimenting as much as spending a lot of my early season committing that position to muscle memory so that it became second nature. I think it's really hard to find flow and ride with your mind engaged where you are analyzing everything. I think just ride casually for a while developing muscle memory in that position and when it becomes second nature, you won't think about it and the flow will be there. You will be slow at first but the payoff will come....


----------



## cunningstunts (Sep 1, 2011)

i've learned something very insightful from this thread. there are some people who have incredible discretionary time to spend typing on forums, and remarkable capacity for long form typing. mind blown.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

cunningstunts said:


> i've learned something very insightful from this thread. there are some people who have incredible discretionary time to spend typing on forums, and remarkable capacity for long form typing. mind blown.


Hence my pondering post above.


----------



## JackWare (Aug 8, 2016)

Maybe this is what the attack/ready position looks like?


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

blind leading the blind in this post but don't worry even most mountain bike coaches don't know what theyre doing or teaching either lol


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

cunningstunts said:


> i've learned something very insightful from this thread. there are some people who have incredible discretionary time to spend typing on forums, and remarkable capacity for long form typing. mind blown.


Some of us also ride our bikes alot.

Do you?


----------



## tealy (Mar 7, 2013)

okay


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@tealy You should confirm your assumption, before overthinking beyond it. Your entire post is based on an incorrect assumption.

Post 1 should've given you a hint, with the picture. Post 4's picture exemplifies what people think the ready position looks like.

I do ride out-of-the-saddle like shown in post 4, getting behind the BB, hovering my hips over where the saddle would've been on level ground. It's not a personal complaint, it's a want to drive innovation to make MTBing simpler. I accepted the fact that my riding is heavily dictated by the bike. There are **** bikes out there that just don't ride well. I've owned many, only realizing how shitty they were after experiencing better, since I didn't know better. I had other macro gains to focus on, like fitness and skill building, so getting a nice bike wasn't a priority. People haven't accurately figured out why their bikes suck. They compare to bikes they liked, and speculated it might be due to short chainstays or steep HA, or whatever. I've tried to find out myself, taking a different approach than just speculating.

Pumping the terrain is more effective with one bike, more than the other, right? You can reason that you're no where close to riding the bike's limits, as a pro can make an even worse bike work better than you on yours. You can reason that bikes are compromised, to be optimized at one thing more than another, and you can't get it all. You seem to be discounting that people are opening up to new geo, discovering that the trade-offs associated with them are overblown and that you'd be giving up a lot more going back to old geo. I researched the heck out of bike geometry to understand, inspired by new geo, and ended up going custom--it may be no coincidence that the frame is almost a clone of a Starling Murmur, which was said to be easily top 2 favorite trail bikes ever for the pinkbike reviewer.

Post #72, among many others, might explain why your assumption is off. It's not about putting the CoG between the wheels, it's about making a more upright position, like a boxer's stance, as far as the hip and leg alignment goes, into the ready position, rather than a "toilet bowl squat" position. I've had to juggle all the dimensions on the frame, including the tubing diameter, to make so there's minimal compromises. The seated position being hardly any different than the standing position is one of the design features (steepening the STA to place the seat under the rider's comfortable standing position).

Can build skill on any bike, but one that makes it simpler would be better, would it not?


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

tealy said:


> If you want to climb, you got to get your COG back.


You mean forward, not back, right...

Uphill is leaning or standing forward, downhill more than 10% decline is crouching back or even butt behind saddle. If we can't agree on this the rest is gibberish.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> @tealy You should confirm your assumption, before overthinking beyond it.
> 
> I do ride out-of-the-saddle like shown in post 4, getting behind the BB, hovering my hips over where the saddle would've been on level ground. It's not a personal complaint, it's a want to drive innovation to make MTBing simpler. I accepted the fact that my riding is heavily dictated by the bike. There are **** bikes out there that just don't ride well. I've owned many, only realizing how shitty they were after experiencing better, since I didn't know better. I had other macro gains to focus on, like fitness and skill building, so getting a nice bike wasn't a priority. People haven't accurately figured out why their bikes suck. They compare to bikes they liked, and speculated it might be due to short chainstays or steep HA, or whatever. I've tried to find out myself, taking a different approach than just speculating.
> 
> ...


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

richj8990 said:


> You mean forward, not back, right...
> 
> Uphill is leaning or standing forward, downhill more than 10% decline is crouching back or even butt behind saddle. If we can't agree on this the rest is gibberish.


You're both right, depending on your bike's design.

If the bike's rearward biased, as it often is for size XL bikes or bikes with super short CS, long top tube, & slack HA, you compensate by getting your weight forward.

If the bike's weight bias is front heavy, through geo (long CS, steep HA, short reach), not heavy forks and front wheel, you compensate by getting your weight rearward, else you risk spinning the rear tire out when out-of-the-saddle. Luckily, you can just sit relaxed in the saddle when things get steep.

I call the latter cruiser bikes. XC bikes are oftentimes like this, especially size S and M short travel 29ers. The former tend to come with the disclaimer that it needs a very advanced skill-level aggressive rider.

See post #96, on my estimates on the sweet spot between these. This is one reason why I find skill coaching to be questionable, since they don't consider these differences in the bike. Newer long travel 29ers are getting longer front ends, so they are less cruiser like and closer to the sweet spot. What size hits the sweet spot, refer to post #96. Considering that STAs aren't as steep as they can be, prob safer to be slightly nose heavy, esp if you're used to hanging off the back a little: see Jeffsy 29 and how it has diff CS lengths for diff sizes.



richj8990 said:


> There is a huge difference between old and new geometry. My 27.5 only has a 70 degree headtube and I still feel a big difference. It is better both uphill and downhill. It is better in every possible way.
> 
> If you are espousing to build skill on a simpler bike then you would recommend hardtails to every beginner, correct?


Simpler MTBing is akin to a car that you just get in and go. It's engineered to make it so you don't have to adapt to it. It instead puts you in the ideal position to operate it, and asks little of you, in order to do the task you bought it for. All at a level that's comparable to veteran car drivers out there.

These hardtails would have to be extremely advanced, but to keep costs down, the advancement would probably be all in the geo. Does it drive up the costs extra to cut the tubes differently and re-adjust the jigs? What if MTB were a family and friend sport with the advent of universally better bike geo at no extra cost?

I can modernize a HT with a 70 HA, if for some reason you had to have 70 HA. What's your desired ETT and what's your BB to saddle height distance? I can plot it out in bikecad to show what I consider modernized. What region do you ride in? I'll lengthen the wheelbase if you ride in open desert, as opposed to tight wooded areas. Can then compare to what you are currently on for funsies.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

ninjichor said:


> You're both right, depending on your bike's design.
> 
> If the bike's rearward biased, as it often is for size XL bikes or bikes with super short CS, long top tube, & slack HA, you compensate by getting your weight forward.
> 
> If the bike's weight bias is front heavy, through geo (long CS, steep HA, short reach), not heavy forks and front wheel, you compensate by getting your weight rearward, else you risk spinning the rear tire out when out-of-the-saddle. Luckily, you can just sit relaxed in the saddle when things get steep.


Strange, I used to ride short reach, 72 HA, fairly long CS...I used to ride short CS, long TT, slack HA...I ride CX bike (short CS, steep HA)...and XC (short CS, slack HA) and EN (longish CS, very slack HA) etc....and on all of them, the climbing position is more or less the same for steep stuff, am I doing it all wrong, I never have to get my weight rearward somehow, and I can find the "sweetspot" on all of them with same ease as well...hmm...


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

So you didn't have a single bike with forward bias? Any size S/M short travel 29ers? I ask specifically, because "short" and "long" is subjective/relative, and I doubt the standard you judge by is universal here.

Have you yet found out that you have the same cognitive bias as everyone else who uses anecdote, in which you selectively pick out memories that support your beliefs? The existence of a disagreement doesn't get snuffed out by creating a majority agreement on one side. I recognize both cases as true, and have no reason to believe yours isn't. What's keeping you from doing the same?

@richj8990 size "large" modernized 120mm HT with 27.5 wheels and 70d HA









Differences from outdated geo:
- proportional cs to wb length (425 to 1175, sagged)
- steep STA (78), longer reach (491)
- shorter seat tube (400, modeled with 175 dropper)

Maintains familiar ETT, familiar head angle/steering response.

To size this down for a shorter rider, one method I'd consider is to rejig the front triangle for a slacker HA (from 70 to 66), with the wheelbase kept constant (sagged):








- Reach shortened from 491 to 451, seat tube from 400 to 360, ETT from 624 to 580, and stack height lowered to keep grips close to saddle level (saddle height lowered from 720 to 680, for someone with inseam less than 30").

This is practically stating that the CS to WB proportions are far more important than HA. I'd like to hear the arguments about why this method comes with all sorts of drawbacks, compared to keeping the HA and shortening the front center. Remember that fork offset is now an option.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

ninjichor said:


> So you didn't have a single bike with forward bias? Any size S/M short travel 29ers? I ask specifically, because "short" and "long" is subjective/relative, and I doubt the standard you judge by is universal here.
> 
> Have you yet found out that you have the same cognitive bias as everyone else who uses anecdote, in which you selectively pick out memories that support your beliefs? The existence of a disagreement doesn't get snuffed out by creating a majority agreement on one side. I recognize both cases as true, and have no reason to believe yours isn't. What's keeping you from doing the same?


You will pull out some logical fallacy with my argument anytime I will post something. It is like if you think that anyone who disagrees with you on any point must be inherently wrong. It is not just me and my personal anecdoes. I do very often a coaching rides for women, most of them on small bikes very few on medium. Quite often they are on a short travel 29ers, some of them on trail bikes some of them on enduro bikes. When we practice climbing steep or technical (loose etc) climbs, the biggest difference to their success is generally getting their weight forward, I do agree that if someone is really short and sitting more - what I would describe - between wheels, gets away with worse climbing technique more often. 
I do not know that much about geometry to try to argue with you about precise effects of this and that, but it does seem like you do luck some fundamental skills that would probably change your view on what is good and what is bad.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

nya said:


> You will pull out some logical fallacy with my argument anytime I will post something. It is like if you think that anyone who disagrees with you on any point must be inherently wrong. It is not just me and my personal anecdoes. I do very often a coaching rides for women, most of them on small bikes very few on medium. Quite often they are on a short travel 29ers, some of them on trail bikes some of them on enduro bikes. When we practice climbing steep or technical (loose etc) climbs, the biggest difference to their success is generally getting their weight forward, I do agree that if someone is really short and sitting more - what I would describe - between wheels, gets away with worse climbing technique more often.
> I do not know that much about geometry to try to argue with you about precise effects of this and that, but it does seem like you do luck some fundamental skills that would probably change your view on what is good and what is bad.


Feel free to call me out on logical fallacy. I do recognize it as wrong, and will put aside my pride to stand corrected. Don't sugarcoat it.

That's an interesting scenario regarding women on S/M short travel 29ers. What gear are they in, and how slow they are going, compared to the others who really need the forward positioning? I ask because I'm curious about the torque and acceleration rate, as that affects how easy the front is to lift. Someone [email protected] in 32x36 at 6 mph vs someone [email protected] in 32x46 at 3-4 mph... would need to tuck forward to counter the torque and acceleration lifting the front.

I still stand by the belief that standing in an upright pedaling position, on a size small short travel 29er, risks spinning the rear tire, because not enough weight is on the back. Leaning forward is not what you want to do then. I'll add that I find it's more comfortable pushing away from my bars, on easy winding uphills, and seemingly no less effective at climbing fast and efficiently.

Not sure why people keep assuming my skill level. What's it even based on? Just FYI, I have 30k+ miles on MTB and this thread isn't about me, it's about improving bikes. I've repeated that I want to share the mtb experience with others, safely, lowering the skill and fitness demands, which act as a barrier to the sport. Coaching is one way, improving bikes is another. Can combine it, not just do 1 or the other. I'm betting people, esp those who don't even read instruction manuals, would appreciate the ability to just dive into riding without step-by-step guidance, maybe just a supervisor that does nothing but watch and be there for worst case scenarios. I'd rather tell 'em that they're advancing impressively, rather than saying back in our days, we trained to change out tubes, tune derailleurs, and lower seatposts quickly, and considered it an accomplishment to huck 2.5', or simply survive a downhill without crashing! With people's attn span becoming worse, where they seemingly act illiterate when faced with a wordy explanation, simplifying is a virtue.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

ninjichor said:


> Feel free to call me out on logical fallacy. I do recognize it as wrong, and will put aside my pride to stand corrected. Don't sugarcoat it.
> 
> That's an interesting scenario regarding women on S/M short travel 29ers. What gear are they in, and how slow they are going, compared to the others who really need the forward positioning? I ask because I'm curious about the torque and acceleration rate, as that affects how easy the front is to lift. Someone spinning in 32x36 at 6 mph and 75 rpm is putting out far less torque than someone mashing 32x46 at 55 rpm at 3-4 mph. Would need to tuck forward to counter the torque effect. I still stand by the belief that standing in an upright pedaling position, on a size small short travel 29er, risks spinning the rear tire, because not enough weight is on the back.
> 
> Not sure why people keep assuming my skill level. What's it even based on? Just FYI, I have 30k+ miles on MTB and this thread isn't about me, it's about improving bikes. I've repeated that I want to share the mtb experience with others, safely, lowering the skill and fitness demands, which act as a barrier to the sport. Coaching is one way, improving bikes is another. Can combine it, can do 1 or the other. I'm betting people, esp those who don't even read instruction manuals, would appreciate the ability to just dive into riding without babysitting. I'd rather tell 'em that they're advancing impressively, rather than saying back in our days, we trained to change out tubes, tune derailleurs, and lower seatposts quickly, and considered it an accomplishment to huck 2.5', or simply survive a downhill without crashing! With ppls attn span becoming worse, where they seemingly act illiterate when faced with a wordy explanations, simplifying is a virtue.


We are talking either steep or technical climbing, so generally lowest/2nd to lowest gear and fairly slow, those would be the scenarios where technique matters. At faster speeds, less hard climbs you can be very slack with your position/technique.

https://image.redbull.com/rbcom/052...rs-womens-xcc-vallnord-xco-world-cup-2018.jpg

I guess what makes people judge your skills is the way you describe some of the situations, where my experiences and experiences of most people I know go against it, thus judging your skills.

Perhaps you can make a bike that will be awesome for beginners because it will hide the need for skills in most beginner scenarios. But as others mentioned once you move into more advanced riding, there is just too much happening and too many effects to make the "I can just stand here and it will ride it all well" bike.


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

The "advice" that keeps coming out in this thread is just eye watering.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@nya 




My perspective when watching this video is: "Kate Courtney looks like she's much more comfortable than the rider behind her, Emily Batty."

It's not a perspective in judging which position is more effective, optimal, faster, etc. If anything, I'd like to see this side perspective for riders and bikes of different shapes and sizes and scenarios, to get a better idea of the big picture regarding comfortable positioning and what specific compromises are associated with it.









I figure a longer wheelbase is more forgiving in terms of being too far forward and losing rear wheel traction, and being too far back and losing front wheel traction/control. Making it so both the seated and standing position fall in the balanced position, naturally, would further reduce the chance of doing it wrong. That's why I am preparing to test with a 81d STA on my proto. I measured how far forward I am out-of-the-saddle compared to my seated position, and steepened the seat angle to minimize the difference between seated and standing CoG. About 1d of STA change was equivalent to 12mm of saddle horizontal movement (3-4" total, offset with other geo changes such as longer reach and recentering the fore-aft balance through CS to WB proportions).














- would this not be easier with better geo? Reduce the strain/demand to hunt with your body's CoG to hover in that balanced spot when traction and control is at their limit, so you can spend your effort on putting down power and negotiating obstacles? Does it not suck to be at your limit and get tripped up by just a tiny bump, and forced to dismount; is it pride that makes you think it's cheating to get around this with a better bike, spreading BS to possibly influence people to just harden up and make a **** bike work instead? Speaking of BS, I can use it too: when pros don't ride a **** bike by choice, despite knowing they can ride it better than most people can ride the nicer bikes, something tells me that a better design has indisputable merit. Such BS is just too easy to argue, that it's pointless, and only shows how snobby the arguers are.


----------



## LargeMan (May 20, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> @nya
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Second pic looks good, IMO not too far forward.

Cornering, outside pedal pressure down, bar inside grip pushed down.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> So you didn't have a single bike with forward bias? Any size S/M short travel 29ers? I ask specifically, because "short" and "long" is subjective/relative, and I doubt the standard you judge by is universal here.
> 
> Have you yet found out that you have the same cognitive bias as everyone else who uses anecdote, in which you selectively pick out memories that support your beliefs? The existence of a disagreement doesn't get snuffed out by creating a majority agreement on one side. I recognize both cases as true, and have no reason to believe yours isn't. What's keeping you from doing the same?
> 
> ...


Personally, a 78° STA is too steep for the terrain a 70° HTA is suited for. On flat ground you'll have a lot of pressure on your hands or have a bar that's too high. On steep terrain a slacker HTA is exponentially better.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

jeremy3220 said:


> Personally, a 78° STA is too steep for the terrain a 70° HTA is suited for. On flat ground you'll have a lot of pressure on your hands or have a bar that's too high. On steep terrain a slacker HTA is exponentially better.


How about putting reason to your concerns about hand pressure, perhaps by considering the numbers? You say your opinion is personal, but I just see that as a challenge to convince you, by filling in with evidence that you lack.

The ETT and stack height determine how your hips and hands are situated while seated. 624mm ETT and 626mm stack are typical for size large. 580 ETT and 607 stack are typical for size small. What's changed? The hip was brought forward by 60mm, relative to the BB, compared to a 73d STA bike. The bars are further away in the standing position by 60mm, if running the same stem length as a short reach bike.

What creates this hand pressure? It's all from the upper body, right? What is supporting the weight of your head, your torso, and your arms (and backpack)? It's being transferred to your contact points, the grips, the saddle, and pedals, right? What makes it so you support more of your weight with your grips, than your saddle and pedals? You tell me your concerns here.

What changes when you raise bar height? You can give me a subjective answer. My expectations are that the rider's position becomes more upright, namely the angle of their back, and this shifts the burden of the upper body weight support from the grips to the saddle.

My subjective belief on what makes this work is the weight transfer to the pedals in a more vertical vector, having the saddle there to allow you to rest between pedal strokes so your hips don't bob up and down, resulting in more of a rocking motion. Having all this weight here also pleases the weight bias I created through the CS to WB proportions, with the concept of heavy feet, light hands. It's not 50/50 between the wheels, but more like 60/40 in favor of the rear, allowing you to go 50/50 if you lean forward. If you look, the front pedal is approximately centered between the two wheels. Bringing the hips forward reduces the change of CoG between the seated and standing position, making it easier to optimize handling for both, for less compromise.

70 HTA was merely used as an example to show that you can modernize an entry level HT with a 70 HTA. I bet the modernized geo will be preferable to a large number of size L slack HTA HT you can think of, despite having a 70 HTA, due to how well rounded it became.

P.S. A 80d seat tube angle is scientifically proven to be more efficient than 74d or slacker. I used 78 here, because HTs get steeper as the fork compresses. I used 81d on my proto, because the rear sags more on climbs. Reducing the CoG change, and the resulting handling change, from sitting to standing position was also a good reason to use these seat angles. Comfort was a top priority. Hence why I took this concern seriously, even if it were imagined.









@LargeMan The rider seems well-centered in that pic, but in that scenario the rear tire could've used more traction to allow for more power transfer. Shifting bodyweight rearward would've provided that traction. I don't consider such a position to be comfortable to pedal from, hence why I welcome how modern geo pushes the bars forward (reach) & steepens the STA. I insistently believe they can go further--rather than rolling out 20mm at at time, I suggested up to 60mm. xD


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ninjichor said:


> P.S. A 80d seat tube angle is scientifically proven to be more efficient than 74d or slacker. I used 78 here, because HTs get steeper as the fork compresses. I used 81d on my proto, because the rear sags more on climbs. Reducing the CoG change, and the resulting handling change, from sitting to standing position was also a good reason to use these seat angles. Comfort was a top priority. Hence why I took this concern seriously, even if it were imagined.
> 
> View attachment 1236679
> 
> ...


You cite a study that uses road bikes as the test sample.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> You cite a study that uses road bikes as the test sample.


Please elaborate on your concerns. Does the hip to BB position change not apply to pedaling MTBs? Pole vaguely suggests that it works for their latest bike, but doesn't go into specifics.

https://polebicycles.com/pole-stamina-prototype-is-rolling-in/

"Seat tube angle is 80º (effective 81º). It's hilarious that in 2014 we started to play with 76.5º and every time we went steeper angle the bike worked better."

I liked the part about their design further enabling all-day riding, but was hoping to offset the local trails into highways feel, by making the bike more compact in various ways (shorter wb, shorter travel, shorter ST, shorter standover*, smaller rear wheel).

* does this even make sense? Lower standover? More standover clearance? Lowered top tube?

P.S. Your "avatar" pic is blurry. I half read it as, ebikes save/have no soul. I guess the message is the same. xD


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

My Sentinel has a 76.8-degree seat tube angle and 64-degree head tube angle. It works perfectly for me. I don't need to get scientific over it because it just works. It will get me up the mountain so I can race right back down it. My physical fitness program helps with the climb and everything else. 

I prefer to just ride my bikes, increase my skill, and build endurance rather than brood over the math behind it. In fact, I did just that all weekend! I managed to lose 2 pounds in body weight by climbing over 3,500ft and riding 40+ miles all last week! I'm glad I didn't spend my weekend pondering the math behind how my bike and technique works.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

ninjichor said:


> @nya
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can see in the video that both of the riders change their positions constantly and at several points Emily is in your "more comfortable" position and Kate in the close to the handlebars one. That is kind of whole point of technical or steep / loose climbing and riding a mountainbike in general. When you will make a bike that climbs those climbs without the need to shift your body, wouldn't that bike be really hard to wheelie/manual, corner sharp uphill switchback (and downhill i guess as well) etc.

Btw from your geometry pictures it looks like you are trying to put the rider between the wheels, but that is what short people on 29 already look like, they are in general very stable because they have big wheel infront and behind them. While tall people are more on top of them so they will have to use more effort to keep grip/balance on steep stuff generally.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@nya Do you have the names mixed up? Why are you attributing Emily's position to be my ideal of a more comfortable position, when I said Kate (rider in front) looks more comfortable? I'm trying to promote comfort, not the strain of holding an unnatural position.

What's the misunderstanding here? Did you not read any what I said, instead maybe going off of others' misinterpretations, such as Harold's misunderstanding, in which he thinks I want the rider to stay static and unchanging? That assumption is akin to picturing that I'm a noob who doesn't know how to ride, complaining about normal demands while riding.

You seem to be declaring what's right and normal, as if you hold authority, and that alone should be convincing. The point of mountain biking is not the same for everyone. Having a bike that is sensitive to weight shifts is a double-edged sword. It's something I've learned through experience. 

I'm not here suggesting bikes to not be sensitive, I'm suggesting that bikes can be made so you can comfortably ridden so you can do less wrong intuitively. They can be as sensitive or insensitive as you want, by scaling up/down the wheelbase. The important part is the CS to WB proportions held between sizes, and minimizing the difference ebetween sitting and standing CoG through even further than modern geo trends. Pushing engineered comfort through bike geo alone, by factoring in what kind of position you want the rider to be in to get optimal handling, rather than the other way around having riders adapt to the bike.

When you say short riders on 29ers, you again are using subjective terms. You could mean children who are a bit small to even fit on the bike, rather than riders who fit on size S and M. That's the only way I can interpret your observation.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

ninjichor said:


> @nya Do you have the names mixed up? Why are you attributing Emily's position to be my ideal of a more comfortable position, when I said Kate (rider in front) looks more comfortable? I'm trying to promote comfort, not the strain of holding an unnatural position.
> 
> What's the misunderstanding here? Did you not read any what I said, instead maybe going off of others' misinterpretations, such as Harold's misunderstanding, in which he thinks I want the rider to stay static and unchanging? That assumption is akin to picturing that I'm a noob who doesn't know how to ride, complaining about normal demands while riding.
> 
> ...


Why the massive attack? Don't be so defensive if you want a debate.

First (might be that english isn't my native language), what I meant with the first paragraph is that you said Kate's looks comfortable but Emily is in Kate's position a lot as well and Kate is in Emily's position a lot as well, because in certain parts of the climb / effort the comfort*effort needs different positions.

I don't do anything with kids, so not sure why you mention them, I told you I work a lot with women riders and yes they are generally pretty short and quite often (unless they have long legs) they sit (or even stand) in between the bike's wheels pretty much (exaggeration obviously, but the point stands) while taller people sit more on top of the bike, thus harder to stay balanced and harder to maintain proper front/rear pressure control (terrain pressure not tire pressure  ). But the taller people might have it easier to throw bike in a wheelie/manual or do other maneuvers because of that. You (as far as I understand) are trying to put the shorter people even more between the wheels. I do agree that WB to CS should be proportional, but with a lot of bike geometries having short CS I would say it affects more tall people than short, which is opposite to what you are after.

And sitting and standing positions are very different in what they are for and what muscles you will use, so trying to match them will again (and I said it before and agreed) work for more of a beginner rider, once they progress the difference between those 2 will be more apparent.

And I will say it again, I understand what you are trying to achieve, but what I am trying to say is that (yes from my experiences, I don't have extensive science behind me) it will suit a beginner rider but could hinder more advanced rider.

And I am not declaring anything, I am discussing. Aren't you declaring the whole time the same way as well, saying you know better than us?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

nya said:


> Why the massive attack? Don't be so defensive if you want a debate.


I don't think he really wants to talk candidly, owing to the verbal diarrhea that took WAY too long to figure out wtf he actually wanted. Any misunderstanding I or anyone else had was because ninji is unable to succinctly get to the f*cking point.

And that is why I backed out of this discussion a long time ago. He's still not making a whole lot of sense.

Frankly, I feel like ninji just wants to talk AT people in this thread.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

Harold said:


> I don't think he really wants to talk candidly, owing to the verbal diarrhea that took WAY too long to figure out wtf he actually wanted. Any misunderstanding I or anyone else had was because ninji is unable to succinctly get to the f*cking point.
> 
> And that is why I backed out of this discussion a long time ago. He's still not making a whole lot of sense.
> 
> Frankly, I feel like ninji just wants to talk AT people in this thread.


I'm comfortable in my attack position. Harold, how are you feeling about your attack position these days?

Maybe instead of a long and fruitless dialog, this thread needs to be reduced to a poll question. Yes or no, are you comfortable in your attack position?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Is this leading to an entirely new category, "attack position" bike? Good for posing in the attack position and not much else?


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

MOJO K said:


> I'm comfortable in my attack position. Harold, how are you feeling about your attack position these days?
> 
> Maybe instead of a long and fruitless dialog, this thread needs to be reduced to a poll question. Yes or no, are you comfortable in your attack position?


My attack position has been hanging a little to the left these days. I should probably get it checked out. Harold, when is your next available appointment?


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

Battery said:


> My attack position has been hanging a little to the left these days. I should probably get it checked out. Harold, when is your next available appointment?


Try sleeping on your right side.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@nya I'm asking for you to provide more clarity to your perspective, so I can understand the differences in perspective and clear up any misunderstandings. More clarity, less assumptions.

Was there not a misunderstanding of my intentions in that perspective of Katie and Emily? I said I wasn't trying to judge them specifically, but to get more data. I implied my intention of comparing relative comfort in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and scenarios. It was merely a comment on that 1 freeze frame, as that's something I can compare side-by-side. Just like comparing the pic in post #4 to post #1, or the pictures on the bottom of that post, showing weight too far back, vs too far forward. Wasn't sure why you went on to argue that it's normal to change in and out of comfortable positions, based on this topic...

I'm not trying to put shorter people on big wheeled bikes. They're already on big wheeled bikes. This is yet another misunderstanding. You notice a contradiction in your understanding, yet it's as if you believe I'm the one responsible for it. I'm trying to make it so the bikes handle well in all sizes, rather than the 1 size that happens to get the numbers right. I'm saying it's wrong to lengthen the front, but ignore the CS length.

Is it desirable to have different muscle groups used for seated and standing pedaling? I know that's how it is, and I'd even say that the muscles are different enough for seated pedaling on a 73d STA bike vs a 76d STA bike to need re-training. Is the standing pedaling position not similar for all bikes, and not also similar to daily life use? Ever have a gung-ho fit freak runner, firefighter, crossfitter, etc. accompany a ride and find they have no pedaling stamina? Why is this? Why not work the muscle group that is most versatile in daily life? Are you worried that it gets worn out? Do you think you can get one set of muscles a rest for better endurance, switching between them? I am betting that the body simply gets more efficient at what it repeats, and that training one muscle group will reduce the fitness demand/barrier of MTB.

Without evidence, your statements appear to be declarations. For example: "it will suit a beginner rider but could hinder more advanced rider." How is this like my suggestions? Are you trying to shift the burden of proof for *your view* to me? Do I not have the right to ask you why you think this, or do you consider my act of questioning to be defensive or an attack?

There's a common stance in which a person claims to be open to a differing view, but in reality they're not. I see it as them telling the differing side that the door to their mind should be unlockable. They specify how the keyhole is shaped for a key which others should have. The challenge is to pick the lock by inserting the key evidence, which in turn opens their mind. In this case, I have to insert key evidence in the form of convincing that the idea doesn't hinder an advanced rider. In my experience, this exercise is futile, due to excessive pride refusing any answer.

I accept that I have the burden of proof for my own views, but I'd like to keep things less personal and more academic. This isn't about me, or you. I'd answer the concern in case it's a common one, but I'm not going to try and personally convince you, or anyone else that tries to take a similar "I'll open my mind if (insert requirement to be convinced here)" stance.

The topic is about what a comfortable attack/ready position looks like. Half the thread's been about skill coaching, trying to say it's the rider not the bike, when I've been pointing out how the bike could be improved for much more than a comfortable position. Still waiting for refutes backed by evidence, on why these bike improvements aren't good. Why overlook improvement here? Good bike geo principles should be applicable to everything from high end mtb, to children's bikes. It's not like bike skill needs are being ignored with the want for a comfortable position, like bike skill advocates have ignored bike improvements. RipRow motions should actually be enhanced on a better bike.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

ninjichor said:


> @nya I'm asking for you to provide more clarity to your perspective, so I can understand the differences in perspective and clear up any misunderstandings. More clarity, less assumptions.
> 
> Was there not a misunderstanding of my intentions in that perspective of Katie and Emily? I said I wasn't trying to judge them specifically, but to get more data. I implied my intention of comparing relative comfort in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and scenarios. It was merely a comment on that 1 freeze frame, as that's something I can compare side-by-side. Just like comparing the pic in post #4 to post #1, or the pictures on the bottom of that post, showing weight too far back, vs too far forward. Wasn't sure why you went on to argue that it's normal to change in and out of comfortable positions, based on this topic...
> 
> ...


How is Emily's or Kate's position too far back or too far forward, is it your "opinion" could you provide facts instead?

Have you asked them if they find any of those position not comfortable or is it just your assumption?

I am not saying anything about big wheeled bikes, I am talking about geometry (which is partially forced by big wheels). Where is the contradiction?

Any source for need for muscle retraining when changing STA from 73 to 76d?
Ever have a runner who doesn't ride a bike start biking and become a extraordinaire biker faster than anyone who bikes for yonks? (I do, I don't know anyone from your example though).
Why is that?
Why not work on multiple muscle groups to be versatile?
I am not worried about anything, assumptions much?
I do think you can rest muscles by switching them, others do think so as well.
Body definitely gets better at what it repeats, training one muscle group will reduce your versatility, MTB is very versatile.

Without evidence, your statements appear to be declarations. For example: "..." nvm I would have to list all your posts. 
I am not trying to shift anything, I am telling you my (and my cycling friends) experiences. Are experiences not valid in a discussion anymore, thought that is how it started, your and your experiences didn't seem to be good you you are making something better.

You do have the right to ask, feel free to do so.

There's a common stance in which a person claims to be open to a differing view, but in reality they're not. I see it as them telling the differing side that the door to their mind should be unlockable. They specify how the keyhole is shaped for a key which others should have. The challenge is to pick the lock by inserting the key evidence, which in turn opens their mind. In this case, I have to insert key evidence in the form of convincing that the idea doesn't hinder an advanced rider. In my experience, this exercise is futile, due to excessive pride refusing any answer.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> What changes when you raise bar height?


The front wheel becomes less weighted. I've done this before (raise bars to alleviate hand pressure) but lowered them back because the front felt too light. Everything is a compromise. I'm in the similar situation with my current hardtail... I have the seat slid back on the rails because the 75 deg STA is personally a bit too much on a hardtail for rolling terrain.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@nya

1) I'm not judging by too far or too far back. I'm judging position by relative strain, and any compromise on effectiveness.

2) I stated my comparative observation, "looks more comfortable than ___". I didn't declare fact.

3) The contradiction was here: "I do agree that WB to CS should be proportional, but with a lot of bike geometries having short CS I would say it affects more tall people than short, which is opposite to what you are after." CS to WB proportions, if you understood correctly, dictates how far forward/back you have to be to make the bike feel balanced. Rider height shouldn't matter, if they are in an upright position.

4a) One of many empirical accounts of how there's an adjustment period for steep STA bikes: https://forums.mtbr.com/guerrilla-g...azy-steep-steep-seat-tube-angles-1068322.html
4b) That's not the question, but would not deny that. I mean first bike ride, implying that their prior fitness did not transfer over. Their training habits and understanding of sports science and from experience with the environmental physics helps with progression speed.
4c) I answered why above, but you didn't answer properly, let alone give a reason why.
4d) To save time, not training muscles not frequently used. If I do seated pedaling with a 81d STA, and it works the same muscles as standing, stair climbing, and hiking, etc., the training time used is more effective in making me versatile.
4e) Is this shared belief proven anywhere? Do you rest your seated pedaling muscles by using standing pedaling muscles? I can understand resting standing muscles, if they were not well trained for endurance. Numerous Olympic track racers sprint in the saddle, since that's how they trained.
4f) Spending time training one group that is anticipated to get much more use is more effective than training muscles for rare use, in anticipation of the unknown. "MTB is versatile" sounds like fear-based reasoning, looking for a security-based answer, presuming you mean MTB has diverse challenges. It's like training by riding on skinny street curbs in order to ride Portal or GMG in BC. I'd argue that you can experience these by just seeing them in person and watching others, having the fitness and skill just to reach and plan for these locations is enough. Don't need to be so gung-ho about getting skill to brave such risks. How about a more family-friendly image, rather than an extreme one that appeals to jocks?

5) If you say such modern bike geo hinders advanced riders is based on your experience, then state your experience more specifically. What example of modern geo? What was your experience? That would be called empirical evidence.

Your English is fine. Your debating skills need more work, as I get the impression that you use status/title (e.g. coach) to pressure others in arguments, based on how you leave much to assumption, leaving nothing but your authority to reinforce your declarations. Replace this with evidence, examples, and/or explanations, and you're fine. It's about as questionable as someone saying, "trust me, I'm a doctor/engineer/lawyer."

@jeremy3220 It's true that higher bars reduces weight on the front end. You must be thinking that you must compensate for this, therefore purposely apply pressure that was lost. You were applying pressure before, but since you were more on top of the bars, shoulders more forward, it was less demanding.

In the modern design I made, the weight bias was handled by the CS to WB proportions, done so the bike is well balanced with only weight on the pedals and light touch on the bars. Since the seated position's CoG is in the same location as standing, it should make sense that this light touch on the bars remains consistent in both positions. Actually want the upper body weight supported through the pedals for aiding in pedal stroke, and hoping it's more intuitive to put pressure on the pedals to get out of the saddle when obstacles come. Should just go with it, and push away from the bars.

In this following video, Lee McCormack describes a high hinge, low hinge, and bad squat. I want to make it so the bad squat is not a bad move, and make it so the high hinge is an actual move, rather than a position you hold. Maybe move like a boxing/fighting stance, optionally getting into a "flying stance" in which the bars are like the wings on an aircraft and you're behind it doing rolls and pulling Gs.






Making more room in front, and making it so you can load the front foot without it being a bad thing, because it happens. Just have to shift everything CoG-wise forward 2-3" of where many bike mfgs imagine the rider CoG is. The center point between the axles roughly 175mm forward of the BB.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

ninjichor said:


> @nya
> 
> 1) I'm not judging by too far or too far back. I'm judging position by relative strain, and any compromise on effectiveness.
> 
> ...


1) Any source on how their position compromises effectiveness and causes strain?

2) So pretty much irrelevant to the discussion, as you dismissed all my observations/experiences

3) I was saying that larger bikes need longer CS

4a) What about all those that never experienced this need and thus never shared that, are they accounted for in your statistics?

4d) Do you have any physio or some research who could confirm your hypothesis, I do have only one physio's opinion and that one disagrees

4e) Haven't really tried to find a research paper that would cover it, I am just sharing this shared experience in case you would like to account for it in your research

4f) See 4d, any logical explanation why most of the XC pros train pretty much any and all muscle groups instead of just going for the seated peddling one?

5) I haven't said that modern geo hinders advanced riders, I said your geometry that tries to match sitting and standing position, but I give you that it is my opinion and my experience with coaching, not a fact (as almost everything in this thread)

P.S. if you value your debating skills so much, avoid changing your posts after you post them (excluding typos etc) since I noticed they change and people not gonna read your post again and again in case you change them


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

1) The video is the source. Strain is observable through muscle tension. Effectiveness judged by the result from the task they wanted to complete: climbing the hill fast. Less strain, and similar result = "looks more comfortable", with the question if there was any compromise.

2) You declared it's normal to switch from comfortable to non-comfortable, saying Emily and Katie did so. I questioned why. Do you not understand that I cannot read your mind? Okay, you observed that, but what's your experience have to do with this? The answer I expect is one explaining the need to switch to a non-comfortable position. Is it because that's how bikes are? If so, that's my point--I suggested changes to bikes, so you don't have to switch to an uncomfortable position as often.

3) Post #223 has an example of two bikes I designed with the same CS and WB, but for different size riders. "Larger bike needs longer CS" is an oversimplification, because it has such exceptions (unless you don't consider the two bikes to being any bigger/smaller than each other). Tuning the CS length to the WB length is something that can be calculated. I haven't been able to simplify it into a formula or magic ratio. It about tuning for weight distro, with the rider considered. I considered it more important than the steering and bump absorption factors of the HA.

4a) It's not statistics. It's not about consensus. It's not a popularity contest or poll. It's information from people who are describing first hand experience with steep STA. If you read through, some actually try to move their saddle back, since they were not happy with the results using the steep STA, but were encouraged to "acclimate" by others.

4d) Logical fallacy: appeal to authority. Who disagrees doesn't matter. It's the reason why they disagree that matters. Give the reason why they disagree. If they are experts, they merely have more attention than those who are not.

4e) How do you propose I research this? Should I look to swimming, to see if any use a different style if they're tired and want to swim a longer distance than they ever have before? The burden of proof is on you. It's a logical fallacy to shift this burden to those you want to convince, especially when they are the ones with question. It's like me saying I think you're a jock, and telling you to figure it out yourself if you question it. No way to debate.

4f) I cannot answer the question since I do not have sufficient information. I don't even know where to start with any speculation. Couldn't they train on the actual race courses themselves, or replicas of sections they find challenging?

5) Okay, so it's the matching of the seated position to the standing position that you have a concern with, hindering advanced riders. And your experience is of that of a coach, and not of someone who ridden a bike that had such matching position. Okay, so what's your reason behind your prediction? Saying you're a coach is appeal to authority again. Am I to speculate that you know something about this? You merely have my attention. I'm still waiting for a reason. I don't accept, "trust me, I'm a coach," as a reason to be convinced that this design hinders advanced riders.

Why should I not edit my posts? Revisions are meant to refine the quality of the post. I edited the end of the post, to clarify why your debating skills are not fine, as I doubt you can't read my mind. Also edited to answer jeremy3220's post, rather than add a consecutive reply.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

Enjoy creating your bike mate, hope you will let us know of your progress. And if you succeed I will be happy to suggest your bike to my friends. Cheers


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

It's not about my bike or my endeavor. Saying so is like viewing this discussion as my own personal one. It's not. It only appears like I know the most, since I'm the one sharing a bulk of the knowledge on the topic. I suppose since I'm creating something that doesn't exist yet, people can only speculate, but the topic's still simply about the theory of a mtb design with comfortable ready position.

Someone said 80d STA only applies to road bikes. I argue that I'd consider aerodynamic losses on a road bike, considering seat angle and the resulting position that can be comfortable held. I believe it's safe to move away from that on mtb, and considering that we roll over bumps constantly, it would be better to design for that instead, considering it's a pain in the ass to changing position out of the saddle and back in repeatedly, with people preferring to just stay plopped in it, and get infrequent practice out-of-the-saddle.

Here's the cliff notes:

- design a bike around a certain rider position: tall/upright standing with hips only ~110mm behind BB, with front knee & shoulders over the front pedal.

- calculate the weight bias balance of this position, so the CoG of the rider should be between the front pedal and BB on level ground. Done through RC to FC tuning.

- realize that this would only benefit the standing position, question if there's any downside to steep STA, decide to experiment with the seated position CoG matching the standing CoG

- consider that bb drop is key to cornering performance, but questioning if the rear really needs it, considering my bike's weight bias and how the rear wheel follows a different line (cuts inside, compared to the front wheel's line), so I downsized the rear wheel to 27.5 to encourage a little drift

- calculate how low I can slam the seat without contacting the rear wheel while bottomed. Realize this is an extra bonus for having a steep STA. Plan ahead to take advantage of 200mm dropper posts on market.

- estimate handlebar height to make it so I can apply the "heavy feet, light hands" concept to both the seated and standing position, making it so it's only high enough, but not too high, without needing to resort to headset spacers (affects cockpit stiffness), riser bars (risks rotating in stem), nor stem rise (affects length choice, unless I find a On.off stoic stem, or use a DM stem with dual crown fork).

- implement HA initially for bump absorption merits, and not due how I felt they rode on prior bikes, or classifying a certain range to a certain riding discipline. Happy that it affects the stack height and reach of the bike favorably, allowing a longer fork and longer wheelbase.

- adjust CS according to the front center, but decide to add sliding dropouts to allow for more experimentation on how this affects the ride handling and further validate parts of my knowledge with better first hand experience.

Based on all that I've learned here, I've questioned if current bike mfgs even are doing things smartly, if they're not taking any of this into account. I then figure that they aren't pushed to, since buyers aren't demanding it. Hence why I share info, saying things like:

- the balance of bikes is seemingly skewed to optimize for the seated position, making the handling from the standing position feel inconsistent between various bikes, which affects the quality of flow one feels when riding "gravity-assisted" trails. I highly believe geo is part of the reason, along with chassis stiffness, suspension design, and spec. One easy way to recognize this is to ride 2-3 different sizes of the same bike model back-to-back, with the same spec, noticing changes in the front center/reach affecting the handling.

- we're forced into unnatural riding positions, to compensate/adapt for the bike's design. Yes, I realize this is a skill. Yes, I do it on my current bikes. I'm tired of people suggesting skill coaching, unless skill coaches realize this. If they don't, then I'm a step ahead of them in this case, and their info probably should be updated.

- opening up to the pioneers in geo (Pole, Geometron, Starling), could be worth your time. I found reasons for all their changes, plus more, in my research, enough to implement them into a custom design, with eagerness to test it out.

- what are the trade-offs for optimizing design for good bike handling out of the saddle? I hopefully expect people might imagine DH, bike park, or freeride bikes, and consider the changes needed to make them pedal in the saddle close to trail bike standards, and imagine what it would it look like. An enduro bike? I picture the Pole Stamina, but since I don't have money for one, I got a steel one that's made a bit more compact. I imagine that a bike with the Tantrum MissingLink would be interesting to design geo for.

- do buyers really not know any better and just have blind faith in the mfgers as being the indisputable experts? Looking at factory tours, it seems like taboo for employees to be seen on anything but their own stuff. I seemingly have doubts that they know what else is out there to test ride like some people do, probably being relatively closed off to unfamiliar suggestions, trying to conserve a brand image instead.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

J/W how do geometries of Intense Carbine and Intense Sniper fit in your theories? (both L in my case)


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> In the modern design I made, the weight bias was handled by the CS to WB proportions, done so the bike is well balanced with only weight on the pedals and light touch on the bars.


The issue I see is that the dimensions you listed are nothing out of the ordinary expect for pairing the steep HTA with an otherwise progressive design. Once you change it to a HTA people want the front center gets longer then the chainstays have to be lengthened to maintain that ratio. If you change the HTA to 65° the chainstays will have to be around 465mm (if my quick math is right). Even if that's the perfect weight bias, it's not necessarily going to corner better. That will be a very long bike (~1287mm WB) for someone the height that bike would fit (5'9"-6'0"?). That will probably feel pretty cumbersome on most trails given the long wheelbase and stays. The perfect rider position won't matter if you can't get the bike around the corner.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

nya said:


> J/W how do geometries of Intense Carbine and Intense Sniper fit in your theories? (both L in my case)


Here's my process of doing a quick analysis on them.

I find a side-pic and deduce its size, by comparing the top of the rear wheel to the top of the seat tube. Generally with a 340BB and 74d STA, a 440 ST is even with a 29er wheel. I confirm that I found pics of size L frames.

I load the pic into a simple image editor, and I find out how many pixels wide the wheelbase is, then find the center point between the axles through simple division. The software tells me where my cursor is, and/or how large the selection box is.

















I make my predictions off of this center line, picturing how a rider would balance themselves accordingly.

I'd predict that the Sniper has a dialed seated position. Knowing the STA is 74, I expect the standing position to be moderately strained, with the typical toilet seat hover position, when the situation calls for traction and control (e.g. plowing and cornering). Some might call this a defensive position, one that has your hips rearward.

I predict the Carbine's seated position would feel a bit too relaxed, especially on climbs, wishing the seat weren't so far back. The standing position would be slightly more strained than the Sniper, considering the center line is even closer to the BB, meaning the rider needs to shift their position even that much further back.

Generally, it's a pain in the ass to keep a majority of my body mass behind or centered between the tire contact patches when out of the saddle in demanding situations, when it appears as a line that's forcing me even more rearward. To contrast with other bikes:

























All of these seated positions are relatively dialed (I'd go steeper STA on the blue bike, Starling Murmur). What I want to illustrate is how the line's distance from the BB varies, meaning that they all ride differently out-of-the-saddle. The Ripley is very much a "riding off-the-back" bike, while the Starling Murmur has your hips more forward when out-of-the-saddle, in comparison.

I'm looking for a more upright/comfortable ready position, one that's properly balanced, but has no compromise elsewhere. If I tried this upright position on the other bikes, I'd be punished by risking an OTB due to too much weight up front. Having the right proportions, regarding the distance of the wheels from the BB, is just the first step. From these examples, I'd be open to the Fezzari if size L actually fit me. The Starling Murmur looks like it could be downsized and still qualify. Don't want to push that line so forward that I need to actively weight the front--just want to experiment with a bike that allows for a fighter's/boxer's stance (without the hands/grips slightly below hips, not guarding), with weight heavily supported by the legs/feet and virtually none at the grips.



jeremy3220 said:


> The issue I see is that the dimensions you listed are nothing out of the ordinary expect for pairing the steep HTA with an otherwise progressive design. Once you change it to a HTA people want the front center gets longer then the chainstays have to be lengthened to maintain that ratio. If you change the HTA to 65° the chainstays will have to be around 465mm (if my quick math is right). Even if that's the perfect weight bias, it's not necessarily going to corner better. That will be a very long bike (~1287mm WB) for someone the height that bike would fit (5'9"-6'0"?). That will probably feel pretty cumbersome on most trails given the long wheelbase and stays. The perfect rider position won't matter if you can't get the bike around the corner.


The 70d HTA bike was just an example to show that a bike could be modern, despite having a steep HA. I was making a wager that having the CS-WB proportions was more important than HA. What do you give up with HA, a bit of noise, harshness, and vibration from impact forces that are perpendicular to the fork and a bit of "auto-center" from the caster effect? If you saw an entry level bike with that geo at the bike shop, how interested would you be in trying it? See above for the difference between steep HA (Ripley) and fashionably "slack/modern" HA. Doesn't look like much, does it?

See above to see how I'm calculating the CS to FC. I want the centerline to be slightly in front of the forefoot. That way you can actually put half your weight through your forefoot and not have excessive weight on the front. There's no way the CS is changing that much. Generally, it's about 4-5mm of CS for 25mm of WB to maintain the balance.

The fear of long bikes being cumbersome and not being able to get around a corner is a prejudiced myth. Not saying this position is perfect. Just saying it's possible if brands calculate it. I've already given a rough method to find out. If they copy, then that's fine for me, as the general quality of bikes becomes more to my liking. *shrug* Everyone copied DW-Link's anti-squat strategy for suspension tuning. Geo shouldn't be any diff. Can take my table of CS to WB lengths and go shorter than 415 cs and longer than 450 cs through simple extrapolation, if it proves to be what people demand. Giddy-Up 2.0 is just a step in this direction, not unlike how Boost was a small step. Might take 5+ years for the trends to spread.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> The 70d HTA bike was just an example to show that a bike could be modern, despite having a steep HA. I was making a wager that having the CS-WB proportions was more important than HA. What do you give up with HA, a bit of noise, harshness, and vibration from impact forces that are perpendicular to the fork and a bit of "auto-center" from the caster effect?


Massive changes in steering characteristics and endo angle. The irony is it will also throw off weight balances since riders will have to get back further on descents because there will be much more weight on the hands. Your bike is basically an XL Nomad with a steep HTA.



> See above to see how I'm calculating the CS to FC. I want the centerline to be slightly in front of the forefoot. That way you can actually put half your weight through your forefoot and not have excessive weight on the front. There's no way the CS is changing that much. Generally, it's about 4-5mm of CS for 25mm of WB to maintain the balance.


It's a ratio (425/750) if you want to maintain the same front to rear balance. I just calculated the distance between the BB and top of the HT to find the other constant dimension then calculated front center distance with a 65° HTA. I may have missed some small geo caveat but it's definitely in the ballpark given other bikes with similar HTA, reach and stack.



> The fear of long bikes being cumbersome and not being able to get around a corner is a prejudiced myth.


No. I ride XXL and XL bikes so it's knowledge from extensive experience. My Hightower LT wheelbase is 1261mm and while it's not terrible on normal trails it's definitely not as nimble in the tight stuff as my old bike with 1174mm WB. Someone half a foot shorter on a 1280mm WB is going to have a hell of a time turning it.


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> Here's my process of doing a quick analysis on them.
> 
> I find a side-pic and deduce its size, by comparing the top of the rear wheel to the top of the seat tube. Generally with a 340BB and 74d STA, a 440 ST is even with a 29er wheel. I confirm that I found pics of size L frames.
> 
> ...


Interesting analysis. Just curious, what is your assessment of a pure XC bike, like say, the S-Works Epic Hardtail (Men's)?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Wait. Did the OP design a HT bike with the same STA as a 160mm FS, which typically runs 30%+ sag, and expect it to put him in the same seated position as that 160mm FS?

That's a bold move, Cotton.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

hesitationpoint said:


> Interesting analysis. Just curious, what is your assessment of a pure XC bike, like say, the S-Works Epic Hardtail (Men's)?


What size? Provide a pic if you want more. These are all the same old-school designs to me, and uninteresting.









Same story as the Ripley. Looks like the mfgs at least ride their bikes to ensure it's dialed when sitting down. Standing up, same story: hips hovering over where the saddle would be, for plowing/cornering on level ground, and a similar distance behind the BB on descent, when the bike's pitched forward. Not surprising that people claim to stay seated 90+% of the time, perhaps only getting out when things get steep and/or bumps are bucking them out of the saddle, since it's not too comfortable to pedal from such a standing position.



Le Duke said:


> Wait. Did the OP design a HT bike with the same STA as a 160mm FS, which typically runs 30%+ sag, and expect it to put him in the same seated position as that 160mm FS?
> 
> That's a bold move, Cotton.


I designed a bike with 81d STA even before that, which is in custom one-off production. I designed that HT as an example to show what I see is modernized, which is steeper than what's currently out. I brought the balance point forward, so the out-of-the-saddle for plowing/cornering is more comfortable to pedal in. When I found research that 80d STA was more efficient, and found trading the aero position for a ready-for-bumps position was a good trade-off, nothing to keep me from spec'ing a seat angle steeper than what's being marketed now. Just stopping at the point in which the seated position should match a comfy standing position, in terms of hip location.

I determined what the STA should be based on placing the saddle a specific horizontal distance behind the BB (~112mm, vs ~160mm or more from others). The STA is what it is, for me, based on a rider's BB to saddle height (690mm for my 30"/76cm inseam). If I find the sweet spot angle, and offset, for a seat tube to fit multiple riders on one bike design (FS or HT), correlating to rider femur lengths, that'd be a standout discovery.

Hip distance behind the BB could be the dimension that really sum this all up. I'd like to shorten that distance to allow for the position in post #1, yet retain a balanced handling bike. Problem is that CS can only get so short, so the front wheel needs to get further from the BB. At the same time, the bars and seat should move forward... starting to sound like forward geo, right?

----

I'd like to find an example of an XL bike, with super long front end and super short rear end. The first thing to came to my mind was the Moxie Pipedream, but I keep finding ones with the sliding dropouts fully rearward and seat tube lower than the rear tire. I'd like to see where these "aggro-position" bikes have the center point in comparison.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

If I don't feel like I am too far back when I am in the "balanced" position, is it that my position is wrong? Since both of my bikes especially the carbine which I ride a lot is supposed to put me too far back when standing.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

nya said:


> If I don't feel like I am too far back when I am in the "balanced" position, is it that my position is wrong? Since both of my bikes especially the carbine which I ride a lot is supposed to put me too far back when standing.


I haven't judged wrong or right. My observation of the standing position being strained, and riders spending 90+% of their time in the saddle, on old school bikes is just an observation, or in this case a mere prediction. I use observation as part of the process of introducing deliberate change (not for all, but for myself), being a base to compare to, in order to come up with solid reasons for the change.

If anyone wants a simplified formula to analyze bikes with math, use this:

wheelbase/2 - horizontal CS length

This tells you how far the center point is in front of the BB. You should determine the "ideal/sweet spot" # yourself, test riding various bikes and calculating what feels better for out-of-the-saddle positioning.

I find that I've been happier increasing this # up to 175mm, but it feels like I'm getting close to the peak, and any more could push me over to the other side (being more aggro and needing to weight the front). I should note that this # doesn't account for suspension compression affecting CS and WB, so longer travel bikes should have a higher #, and shorter ones have a lower #.

Coincidentally, most cranks tend to be 175mm and side-perspective shots have the cranks level and forward. Easy to do the quick analysis yourself, if you have a decently featured image program (I use irfanview for simple jobs and ImageJ for measurements).


----------



## Len Baird (Aug 1, 2017)

You shouldn't be thinking about comfort when you are in your attack position. So I guess if something is wonky enough to distract you into thinking about it, something is wrong with it.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

Well, your predictions regarding those 2 Intense bikes seem to be wrong.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Len Baird said:


> You shouldn't be thinking about comfort when you are in your attack position. So I guess if something is wonky enough to distract you into thinking about it, something is wrong with it.


One can perceive this as saying the "attack" position is what it is, you must get into such a position when you want to tackle the trails in a certain way.

Another can perceive this as, if the "attack" position is so uncomfortable that you are distracted, then something must be wrong with your positioning. This judgement is based from personal experience; I don't get distracted about it being uncomfortable, no matter what bike I've been on, so this must be something wrong with you personally.

The way I'm perceiving it: the attack/ready position could be more comfortable (less straining). Can it be done so without compromise? Why not make it that way through better design? Since no one else is seeing it this way, I'll figure it out myself.

----

@nya I'd like to learn why my predictions are wrong. Any evidence to support your claim? Are you saying that the entire prediction is wrong? Perhaps show pictures of your positioning on the bike, pedaling out of the saddle vs plowing/cornering out-of-the-saddle? Burden of proof is on you. I'm not a mind reader and such a judgement is meaningless without any proper justification. I'll wait for clarification from you. If none comes, I'd simply disregard your judgement, rather than overthink the possibilities why.

Your subjective belief that you don't feel too far back is relative to your personal tolerance level. It's normal to you. I wouldn't be surprised to hear this because that's how a great number of bikes are. I would value such a belief more if it were instead compared to an experience on extreme new geo, or at least modern enduro geo (e.g. Fezzari La Sal Peak).


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

ninjichor said:


> @nya I'd like to learn why my predictions are wrong. Any evidence to support your claim? Are you saying that the entire prediction is wrong? Perhaps show pictures of your positioning on the bike, pedaling out of the saddle vs plowing/cornering out-of-the-saddle? Burden of proof is on you. I'm not a mind reader and such a judgement is meaningless without any proper justification. I'll wait for clarification from you. If none comes, I'd simply disregard your judgement, rather than overthink the possibilities why.
> .


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Thanks. So pics 1, 2, 4 are plowing/cornering out-of-the-saddle. Pics 3 and 5 are pedaling out-of-the-saddle.

Pic 4 is a good angle, since it I can sort of gauge how far the hip is behind the BB, and length of femur. Generally it does have you hovering over where the saddle would be if extended.

Seems similar to how I see others on the trails here:

















Their standing positions do mimic their seated position, with their hips hovering over where the saddle would be.

The thing is that I don't see this in *everyone*.









Some are rearward, some are forward, some mimic their seated position.

Seemingly two beliefs here:

A) it's a skill/technique that can be taught.

B) it's a natural adaptation to the bike.

Tend to hear all sorts of ride reports when people try out new bikes. Some like 'em and say they can't go back to what they now call junk. Some are not so impressed, and wait for something to increase the "wow factor" even more, to be worth their money.

What are the reports for skills coaching? Mostly positive, some mixed, a few not impressed? I'm not so optimistic. I immediately get the urge to ask someone if they took a skills class recently if it looks like they're exaggerating their position and movements. Last time I brought this up, some high school coach classified these instructors as hack youtubers.


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> What size? Provide a pic if you want more. These are all the same old-school designs to me, and uninteresting.
> 
> View attachment 1237181
> 
> ...


Thanks. Being primarily a hardtail rider, I tend to be out of the saddle at least 50% of the time. Is it uncomfortable? Yeah, initially because the handlebars felt too high but things are much better after I flipped the stem and removed the spacers. Ironically, I am trying to sit more because it is more efficient when climbing (less suspension bob) and trying to train myself to have more power in a seated position.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

Most of the examples posted are too upright. When you think attack position, think hip hinge. A good attack position will have the rider's weight centered over the BB, torso will be relatively low (think 0 to like 30 degrees), and the arms will be neutral.

If you're going to practice your attack position on or off the bike (off the bike is ideal), you might as well practice it at the limits of your range of motion (what you might call "exaggerated"). You should ideally be able to stand in bike stance with your hips square, knees even, and your core locked and back completely flat. I'm willing to bet most people can't do this. If you can, you'll have a huge range of motion. This in turn makes riding just about everything easier.

The purpose of the attack position is to set you up to adapt to changing conditions. If you're too upright (like the original photo in this thread and many of the subsequent photos), you greatly limit your ability to adjust without constantly moving your torso.

Just for fun, here's a pic of me rolling a drop. It's not perfect by any means (my hips need to be a bit lower), but I could have never pulled this off if I didn't have the ability to get low with my back flat on the approach.









And here are a few pics of Aaron Gwin, who has a fantastic attack position.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

You can find static pictures of riders to support any position you want. I could pull photos of riders doing 360's mid rotation to show you should always jump backwards.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

jeremy3220 said:


> You can find static pictures of riders to support any position you want. I could pull photos of riders doing 360's mid rotation to show you should always jump backwards.


Everything's fluid, but it's not like it's impossible to glean things from pictures just because it's only one moment in time. Hopefully no one is going to base their whole riding technique off of one photo. If you're going to post a photo, it's always better to post a photo of someone obviously doing things right.

Whatever the case, trying to gauge another person's femur length and analyzing how their butt hovers over the saddle is not the right approach to dialing in attack position. The saddle really shouldn't have anything to do with attack position. It has everything to do with the feet on the pedals while executing a hip hinge.


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

The attack position is a good general guideline. But I wouldn't over think it either. I've seen advanced riders ride a variety of variations of that basic pose and some of them are not textbook examples, but it works for them because it gives them confidence for their style/conditions. 

Bike setup will affect it too. I tend to like front weight bias. It isn't going to be textbook. But I like running minimalist tires to address my weakness (my motor isn't as biggest as some of my competitors') and having more pressure on the front end gives me more confidence in the corners with these tires. I am also confident on long descends so fear of endoing with a frontward bias isn't a concern. But you take a different guy and he may have a whole different set of priorities about where he wants the bias.


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

Skills with Phil is selling his bike. You can buy it up or critique his "attack position" and tell him he needs a ninjichor frame for his next bike. He has plenty of 3rd person angles of his rides over the past year or so.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> I can modernize a HT with a 70 HA, if for some reason you had to have 70 HA. What's your desired ETT and what's your BB to saddle height distance? I can plot it out in bikecad to show what I consider modernized. What region do you ride in? I'll lengthen the wheelbase if you ride in open desert, as opposed to tight wooded areas. Can then compare to what you are currently on for funsies.


I was thinking of the Suntour Axon 120mm, alternate would be Manitou Mattoc 130mm. For drivetain, 1st choice is Eagle NX 12-speed, 2nd choice is Shimano 1x11 with Sunrace 11-50t cassette. I don't really care about bb height, pedal strikes are just part of the ride for me lol. This would be mainly for climbing and some moderate downhill stuff in Southern California.


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

Ninji, would be interested to see your analysis of Nino Schurter's new race bike:


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

hesitationpoint said:


> Ninji, would be interested to see your analysis of Nino Schurter's new race bike:


Schurter is probably one of those backwards thinking old school guys that think technique should be practiced and trained. His mind will be blown when he finds out the bike can do it all and he can finally be comfortable.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

MOJO K said:


> Schurter is probably one of those backwards thinking old school guys that think technique should be practiced and trained. His mind will be blown when he finds out the bike can do it all and he can finally be comfortable.


I'm not agitated by your post. Your post just challenges me to find the proof for my hypothesis. I need my proto though, to prove my own case. I suspect people would want me to get Nino himself to ride it and say it's more natural feeling and needs less adapting to, but for that, I'd need to design around what Nino finds natural/comfortable.

Had me looking up what Nino looks like when riding his bike. I see a video on him on a Genius (teal colored sleeve): 




His positioning looks fine on the Genius. That's what I'm after on my proto, the ability to get CoG lower with a less flat back. I'm thinking more of a stance for ski moguls, rather than an aero one.

Things I'm looking for:
- how much the rider's CoG moves forward between the sitting position CoG and standing position. 
- how strained their body appears to be, to hold their various positions. 
- taking note of the angle of their back
- taking note of the distance their weight is behind the BB shell

I aim to minimize the CoG movement and strain through design. The notes are just part of data collecting to understand more about individual rider fit.

Looks like his race bike could use a dose of forward-geo trends: slacker HA, longer reach, steeper STA. 
- slacker HA would reduce the stack height.
- moving the front wheel further out, from both the slack HA and longer reach, also makes the aggro forward leaning position more natural
- since the balance point of the bike is moving forward with this change to the front wheel, the seated position needs to be moved forward too

Doing the quick analysis, the centerline of the bike is a bit behind the front pedal, so would not be surprised if all the changes mentioned above to the race bike were welcome, and the next iteration of the bike incorporates these changes.

I'd go beyond this simple analysis and would check out the courses he races on, to see just how fast and how overwhelmed he is, in terms of reaction speed and maintaining control. If he's getting overwhelmed, I'd add to the wheelbase length proportionally to how much more bike he feels he needs. If his reaction speed and control is being overwhelmed, but the bike makes it through if he trusts it and just holds on, without doing "safety braking" or "curling up into a defensive tuck", then it might actually not need to be made bigger.

There's multitudes of optimizations to be made in every case. What works well for Nino, won't suit just anyone else. I question what the cost of tweaking geo is, or what the cost of learning geo and yourself well enough is, to be able to pick a better bike that suits yourself more naturally, rather than just picking what's seemingly popular, and adapting to it, trying to copy the lead of others. Looks like Nino's comfort zone is quite expansive--can't assume that's copy-able by just anyone, and I sure don't believe getting the same bike model as him will make it easier. It just makes it so you know that it's not the bike, but the rider, since the bike is no longer a variable. I believe I can make a bike that brings the most out of you, being well suited to your area, so if Nino comes to your neighborhood, you can show off how comfortable you are riding your trails to what you imagine is the limit of what's possible by mere mortals (minus variables like having world cup legs).

Did more research: looks like the XC race position is quite similar to the roadie position: 




Again, you get more efficient at what you practice... if you trained on the road, in such a position, then it makes sense that the mtb should put you in a similar position for you to tap into that training. I'd prefer just 1 bike, personally, hence I'm willing to move away from the positioning found on other bikes, for just one that suits me and my trails (open SoCal), skipping the whole incremental improvement process.








- new rear triangle tacked together with sliding dropout. About to learn, first hand, why FS bikes don't have sliding dropouts. I know that it affects the suspension kinematics.

The angle of the seat tube vs the angle of the HT (62.5 HA)... wow. The seat tube is even slacker than it should be, due to the offset (81d effective STA). xD

I heard stories about these kind of dropouts breaking, if put too rearward:









At least the bolt spacing on my proto is wider.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Battery said:


> Skills with Phil is selling his bike. You can buy it up or critique his "attack position" and tell him he needs a ninjichor frame for his next bike. He has plenty of 3rd person angles of his rides over the past year or so.


Phil looks to ride a smaller frame for his height...but I can see him going with a smaller frame with the way he likes to ride his bike.


----------



## broncbuster (Jun 11, 2006)




----------



## JackWare (Aug 8, 2016)

I'm guessing the bars are that high to be perfect for his attack position..


----------



## broncbuster (Jun 11, 2006)

JackWare said:


> I'm guessing the bars are that high to be perfect for his attack position..


Yep classic attack position..


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

broncbuster said:


> View attachment 1237779


No,no, no....the rider's mass needs to be centered between the wheels, like this.









( the bike was created for a "muscle bike build-off" on ratrodbikes.com)


----------



## broncbuster (Jun 11, 2006)

MOJO K said:


> No,no, no....the rider's mass needs to be centered between the wheels, like this.
> 
> View attachment 1237805
> 
> ...


Nah... my boy's got it set up for downhill


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

MOJO K said:


> No,no, no....the rider's mass needs to be centered between the wheels, like this.
> 
> View attachment 1237805
> 
> ...


Looks flexy.


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> I'm not agitated by your post. Your post just challenges me to find the proof for my hypothesis. I need my proto though, to prove my own case. I suspect people would want me to get Nino himself to ride it and say it's more natural feeling and needs less adapting to, but for that, I'd need to design around what Nino finds natural/comfortable.
> 
> Had me looking up what Nino looks like when riding his bike. I see a video on him on a Genius (teal colored sleeve):
> 
> ...


Thanks for taking time to do that analysis on Nino's bike. Interesting observations.

I'm going to withhold judgment on your theories until you report some test results. Just out of curiosity, what metrics are you using? What data will you record? Laptimes? Time to fatigue? Subjective feel? It's probably good to be clear about those upfront.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Tests will be video taped back to back comparisons to observe:
- position differences
- amount of visually observable strain to hold such a position
- ability to pedal in between corners
- differences in timing (strava)
- the "dual scale test" to measure the rear:front weight bias in a seated and comfortable standing position
- other subjective comparative observations to describe personal feeling (confidence, stability, etc.), which likely are a combination of all the factors that can't be isolated out of the test, but worth a mention

Been looking at other sports too. Checked out mogul skiing position, inspired by how quick they can react to consecutive obstacles:






Witnessed some cases of racers actually falling back on their ass. Reminded me of the rearward position I wanted to get away from.

I do wonder if road can change, as that seems to be holding XC racing back from adopting gravity-based changes. Will a steeper STA have too much of a draw back, such as with aero? I know some gravity racers train on the road too, such as Sam Hill, Athertons, Gwin. Even seen Eddie or Wyn masters on a CX bike, so not surprised by how they adopt a flat backed position on the mtb.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

It's all about technique:


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

ninjichor said:


> Tests will be video taped back to back comparisons to observe:
> - position differences
> - amount of visually observable strain to hold such a position
> - ability to pedal in between corners
> ...


The problem is that some of the changes you suggest are not going to make someone faster around an XC loop. Science nor "appeal(s) to authority" (examples of pro bike setups) support the super steep STA theory.

Serious question: have you ever ridden a modern XC bike at race pace? A Spark RC or similar? They really are a superior tool for the job, even compared to a "trail" bike, on a "black diamond" trail. They really are a good bit faster than anything else going up, and give up very little going down.

Here's a post from another thread from the husband of a woman who has been the fastest woman in the world twice, and has an Olympic bronze medal from Rio:



LMN said:


> In mountain biking everything is a compromise.
> 
> "Modern geometry" in my opinion is attempting to optimize bikes for steep grades (both up and down). It is the stuff in between that perhaps it does not do as well. For most of us this is not a big deal, after all not a lot of people are looking for marginal gains on green and blue trails.
> 
> XC racers on the other hand are trying looking for a bike that allows them to carry the highest average speed, performance on greens and blues matters. This is probably why XC bikes are a bit more conservative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

@LeDuke Yes, I have ridden a modern XC bike at race pace. I did a lap of Bonelli plus extra credit on a Yeti ASR. I liked it better than the other Yeti bikes for that kind of trail system, and for riding solo. It egged me on to always go race pace. Usually I'd be happy with ~7-8 mph on the climbs, but this rocketed up to 10-12 mph, and once at that speed, I was compelled to hold it. I basically disappeared on a solo ride deep into the hills on that thing, and came back at sunset wanting to buy one. Only real issue I had was lack of braking traction from the Ikons, especially on fireroad descents before corners. The position was kind of scary for steep descents, but once I tested to see if it could roll down short chutes, I just let it go on all them after that.

For local trails, I prefer a different position for all the "stunting" (e.g. hucks, rock rolls, drops, little kickers) I try to do. I used to have the roadie position too, and was reluctant to open up to things like heavier tires, wider rims, big brakes, modern geo, but I've learned so much that I ended up abandoning my old conservative ways.


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> Tests will be video taped back to back comparisons to observe:
> - position differences
> - amount of visually observable strain to hold such a position
> - ability to pedal in between corners
> ...


My biggest reservation at the moment is that you are a bit unclear about the objectives. You have a lot of metrics and I can't seem to pin you down on something precise.

For example, for XC racing, all that matters is the clock over a 2 hour or so period of time on singletrack loops. The other stuff doesn't matter. Even comfort can be sacrificed if it makes you faster over that period of time. A roadie position can be beneficial because it does cut down on wind friction.

So I don't really know what you mean by "....if road can change, as that seems to be holding XC racing back from adopting gravity-based changes." Or "I used to have the roadie position too, and was reluctant to open up to things like heavier tires, wider rims, big brakes, modern geo, but I've learned so much that I ended up abandoning my old conservative ways."

What do you mean? You changed your ways and abandoned the XC positions because you discovered that people can be faster? Or are you referring to something else.

To be clear, I am not saying going fast on a singletrack loop should be one's only objective for general mountain biking. But you did critique an XC race bike so I am trying to get you to be more precise.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Problem(s): an uncomfortable position on a bicycle that is exhausting to maintain for plowing and cornering. In the case I'm looking at, it's a flat backed and rearward position, with the hips well behind the BB. Evidence of it playing a role on rider exhaustion, leading to a crash, on what was supposed to be an epic fun flowy trail for someone known to be able to handle 3+ hour climbs to the summit of local mountains. He had energy, but not the muscle endurance for plowing and cornering for hours on what is essentially a series of descents of varied roughness stretched out over a huge distance due to the shallow downslope, with elevation charged up from short punchy climbs (Palm Canyon Epic).

Origin of the problem(s): 1) road racing, and their desire for light compact bikes and an aerodynamic position. 2) a defensive stance to avoid going over the bars when braking and/or rolling over obstacles on a mountain bike. 3) bike design that optimizes for a rider CoG point above the BB, in the seated position. 4) riders not knowing better, when choosing and setting up their bikes, doing what they feel is right, through a combination of intuition and what they see others are doing (set it up similar to the road bike they train on)

Challenge(s): research the possible solutions that prove to have ample opportunity to be implemented, from skills/technique coaching on an individual basis, bike fitting, marketing to ensure riders are properly matched up to the bike that best suits their individual needs

Proposed solution(s): redesign bike geo to be optimized around the rider's CoG, when they're in a specific position which that call comfortable/neutral. In my case, a standing pedaling position was selected to be the definition of the neutral position, and the CoG was calculated from my own body's measurements, such as distance of my hips behind the BB.

Desired outcome: confirm that a bike will feel balanced in an upright position in all sorts of demanding situations, particularly the situations that call for technique that intentionally puts you in an uncomfortable position. If it looks like the rider is lazily riding all sorts of things usually deemed challenging, such as tall drops, fast corners, chunky rock gardens, steep downhill chutes, etc. without any variables taking the credit besides optimized geo, the solution is deemed successful. If there are no significant trade-offs, such as reduce pace, it may be prove to be commercialized.

Analysis: experiment/test procedures listed above, with several specific test locations selected.

Current state: awaiting analysis. Prototype frame with geo is still in production. Shipping will take up to a month. Production was estimated to take up to 3 weeks, but has been delayed.

Improving XC race times is not one of the goals specified in the scope of this project.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

ninjichor said:


> Problem(s): an uncomfortable position on a bicycle that is exhausting to maintain for plowing and cornering. In the case I'm looking at, it's a flat backed and rearward position, with the hips well behind the BB. Evidence of it playing a role on rider exhaustion, leading to a crash, on what was supposed to be an epic fun flowy trail for someone known to be able to handle 3+ hour climbs to the summit of local mountains. He had energy, but not the muscle endurance for plowing and cornering for hours on what is essentially a series of descents of varied roughness stretched out over a huge distance due to the shallow downslope, with elevation charged up from short punchy climbs (Palm Canyon Epic).


There's nothing wrong with hips being behind the BB. The lower a person gets in their attack position, the farther back their hips are going to be in relation to the BB. It's impossible to balance over the BB with your butt forward and your torso leaning over. Try it on a trainer without touching the handlebars.

Climbing fitness and descending fitness are largely two separate things. The person in the scenario you described probably doesn't need a new bike or new geometry but rather a different focus in training. Riding a pump track regularly would help (or a RipRow). Lifting weights would help, especially hip hinging exercises like deadlifts or kettlebell swings. Pump everything. Pump rollers, pump roots, pump flat ground, pump corners, etc. Pedaling is only one facet of mountain biking.

Also, what is a "comfortable" attack position? That's going to vary from person to person. Your average rider is probably going to have tight hamstrings and mobility issues. They might not even be able to pull off a good hip hinge. Other people, will be fairly comfortable in a wide range of positions, including having their backs near-parallel to the ground.

Post up a pic of the perfect "comfortable" attack position you're referencing.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

ninjichor said:


> Thanks. So pics 1, 2, 4 are plowing/cornering out-of-the-saddle. Pics 3 and 5 are pedaling out-of-the-saddle.
> 
> Pic 4 is a good angle, since it I can sort of gauge how far the hip is behind the BB, and length of femur. Generally it does have you hovering over where the saddle would be if extended.
> 
> ...


There is a lot of coaches who do not have the eye / skill to do more than just repeat the advice they got taught. But there is a lot of coaches who are good, who can see and help to fix the mistakes people do, and sessions with them will give people way more than 10mm longer chainstay (or any other geometry adjustment). 
Modern bikes definitely help people with less skills to ride what years ago you could do only with decent skills. But it doesn't encourage them to work on those skills. I see it all the time, people can ride decent advanced tracks, but their skills are just meh. 
To me balance and that means good position comes from skills not from good geometry. Good bike allows you to ride "hard" but good skills allow you to ride any bike "hard". 
Good start is drop your heels and relax them, while hardly holding the handlebars will usually put them in good position, but for example dropping heels takes them time to learn and use while riding tracks.


----------



## andrewbn42 (Sep 20, 2017)

It’s good that you are trying to put your design into practice, but I don’t think we’ll learn much from it, because in this discussion it appears that you are too invested in believing that you are right to be an unbiased tester.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

andrewbn42 said:


> It's good that you are trying to put your design into practice, but I don't think we'll learn much from it, because in this discussion it appears that you are too invested in believing that you are right to be an unbiased tester.


Your thought/belief is called skepticism, but by voicing a judgement, it turns into prejudice.

I find credibility not in character, but in results gained from test methods that can be verified through peer review. If someone tests something unscientifically, using their own body and locale as measuring equipment, I can see why people need to judge the credibility by their character. I cannot verify personal experience, without getting in their body and in their test location--this data has no defined value, unless you have some extra context of your own to fill in and offer relative value.

Don't worry about that. I will create evidence to be shared that can be analyzed and interpreted, so you can draw your own impressions. I am merely the technician, like the astronaut on the ISS, running the process, and transferring the data back to home where the true experts can analyze it.

The perspectives given here in this thread are just our interpretation of reality. It should be considered an illusion, unless it's found to be universally agreeable. When dealing with something complex, there's likely to be disagreement among different perspectives. We have to question why if we are able to better understand reality.

This thread is not to promote a mere opinion as prevailing knowledge. It's to explore an idea. If you are interested in a comfortable ready position, what's holding you back from testing yourself? How about suggesting some test methods that you can use yourself to test among different bikes that you own?

Perhaps we need to define the ready/attack position? It's the position a rider puts themselves into before entering a technical section that challenges the rider's ability to stay in control. Plowing a rock garden, cornering, approaching a jump or drop, landing from a jump/drop, maintaining traction in a low traction situation...

This topic assumes that there's no fixed ready/attack position, and asks if it should be comfortable, and asks what it should look like.

Does anyone take videos/pics of themselves, or of others? Does anyone try to give others pointers on how to position themselves? Is there some image that pops into mind that looks "right" to you? It's an opinion piece, not a piece about me making a long personal journey to figure it out myself. I would've titled this thread differently if that were the case.

The basic theory I suggested, was having a certain CS length for a certain WB, to dictate what kind of ready/attack position the rider should have:
- For a "defensive rearward leaning/hanging" position, lengthen the CS for that WB range. A 1150-1195mm wheelbase should have 425-450mm to give you this positioning if you find it your preference. A 1210-1260mm wheelbase should have 445-470mm CS.
- For an "aggro forward leaning, fork-riding" position, the CS should be short for a certain WB range. A 1235mm wheelbase could have a 415-425mm chainstay.
- For a "neutral standing" position, a bike with 420mm chainstays should have a 1150-1195mm wheelbase. If it has 435mm CS, the wheelbase should be 1210-1260...

I presume that a natural, instinctive/intuitive, position is comfortable. For some, it's more natural to have the defensive position. For others, it's more natural to have the forward position, such as hardcore HT riders who are excited by the Chromagg Doctahawk. For me, I got comfortable with and used to the defensive position, but it's more natural (less straining) for me to have a neutral standing position.

Is there any disagreement here? If so, how do you want to test "who's right", or more specifically what's true in reality, in a credible way? I can't argue personal opinion, but I can argue that a long CS, short WB bike will have a rider hanging back off the bike when they need to maintain control, and that a bike with similar geo but shorter CS, or longer WB will allow the rider to be more upright under the same conditions.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

ninjichor said:


> I presume that a natural, instinctive/intuitive, position is comfortable. For some, it's more natural to have the defensive position. For others, it's more natural to have the forward position, such as hardcore HT riders who are excited by the Chromagg Doctahawk. For me, I got comfortable with and used to the defensive position, but it's more natural (less straining) for me to have a neutral standing position.


I don't think a rider should shoot for what feels "natural." Plain and simple. Many riders do that and end up having an attack position that's kind of lazy and not very effective. This isn't to say that the attack position is unnatural--because it should tap into natural human patterns--but that it's not natural for most of us lazy Westerners. For a long time, I didn't have the mobility or core strength to pull off a solid attack position for an extended period of time. My best attack position was basically a bunch of compromises I had to make for my physical limitations.

I also don't think an attack position should be hanging or leaning. An attack position should both give your body a wide range of motion to maneuver the bike and put you in a strong position to apply pushing or pulling power to the bars. Leaning and hanging are static and weak.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

*Subject:*


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

s0ckeyeus said:


> I don't think a rider should shoot for what feels "natural." Plain and simple. Many riders do that and end up having an attack position that's kind of lazy and not very effective. This isn't to say that the attack position is unnatural--because it should tap into natural human patterns--but that it's not natural for most of us lazy Westerners. For a long time, I didn't have the mobility or core strength to pull off a solid attack position for an extended period of time. My best attack position was basically a bunch of compromises I had to make for my physical limitations.
> 
> I also don't think an attack position should be hanging or leaning. An attack position should both give your body a wide range of motion to maneuver the bike and put you in a strong position to apply pushing or pulling power to the bars. Leaning and hanging are static and weak.


That's exactly what I'm trying to challenge: I believe a bike can be optimized to make such a natural, kind-of-lazy position no less effective. Possibly more effective, if making it so the rider stays in a position that is easier to pedal from, and/or reducing the amount of movement needed to switch between two positions. It doesn't need to be that exhausting to be enjoyable.

I've been suggesting that it's the other way around, that bike geo forces you into unnatural positions. That "attack position" could just be you compensating for bad bike geo, putting your body weight forward or back more so the bike doesn't misbehave (front end not having enough weight, or rear spinning out). I said this in post #1, losing count of the times I've said this. It's like those I'm replying to fail to read, and just voice how closed their perception is, maybe hoping to be convinced to open up.

Look at the contrast between Blenki and Minnaar or Loic Bruni. One looks super active, non-lazy, while the other is more casual and relaxed but no less effective.





 (contrast between wild and smooth runs all making it onto a WC DH podium, also showing how tight times are that a minor mistake loses the race)

I've been looking at motos to see how they do it differently. Some look very beginner friendly, like the KTM Freerider 250 R (video link showing casual/relaxed riding position being effective), good at low speed techie stuff, but not so much for racing-style riding. Did similar analyzing, with the halfway point between the wheels, compared to the bike's CoG, and the rider's.









Looks kind of similar, with the center point bisecting the seated position, and the pegs (equivalent to BB) being a certain distance behind the center point. Eyeing the distance, it looks to be more like an "aggro" mtb's position, but since there's 200 lbs of bike weight to account for, the rider doesn't need to lean forward as much.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

ninjichor said:


> That's exactly what I'm trying to challenge: I believe a bike can be optimized to make such a natural, kind-of-lazy position no less effective. Possibly more effective, if making it so the rider stays in a position that is easier to pedal from, and/or reducing the amount of movement needed to switch between two positions. It doesn't need to be that exhausting to be enjoyable.
> 
> I've been suggesting that it's the other way around, that the bike's geo forces you into unnatural positions, since if you don't have your weight balanced properly between the wheels, you disrupt the bike's capabilities. I said this in post #1, losing count of the times I've said this. It's like those I'm replying to fail to read, and just voice how closed their perception is, hoping to be convinced to open up.
> 
> ...


I don't know if you're trying to sound like a condescending, pompous ass or that's just the way it's coming across. Maybe dial it back a notch.

Mountain biking is an athletic sport. I don't know if it's asking too much for riders to assume athletic positions on the bike. It's not like holding an attack position feels uncomfortable once you learn how to execute it well and have reasonably flexible hamstrings. It's possible die-hard attack position nerds like Lee McCormack are wrong, but so far you seem to be conflating a lot of different things that haven't been all that cohesive or convincing.


----------



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

s0ckeyeus said:


> I don't know if you're trying to sound like a condescending, pompous ass or that's just the way it's coming across. Maybe dial it back a notch.
> 
> Mountain biking is an athletic sport. I don't know if it's asking too much for riders to assume athletic positions on the bike.


I agree. I _*like*_ being in an athlete, dynamic position. I don't want to be lounging, I want to feel like a Jedi warrior. I guess my attack position may not be technically comfortable but it feels good to me.

I know I have room for improvement as far as position goes but I don't think my bike is hampering that process, not much anyway.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

s0ckeyeus said:


> I don't know if you're trying to sound like a condescending, pompous ass or that's just the way it's coming across. Maybe dial it back a notch.
> 
> Mountain biking is an athletic sport. I don't know if it's asking too much for riders to assume athletic positions on the bike. It's not like holding an attack position feels uncomfortable once you learn how to execute it well and have reasonably flexible hamstrings. It's possible die-hard attack position nerds like Lee McCormack are wrong, but so far you seem to be conflating a lot of different things that haven't been all that cohesive or convincing.


So what you're saying is that your entire stance is based on personal principle (which you may argue isn't yours alone), and that you don't care for opposing opinions. They may sound right, but it's condescending to try to convince you that may be true, as it would make your stance seem inferior.

What's the pinnacle of athletic attack positions look like?








- looks athletic?


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

ninjichor said:


> So what you're saying is that your entire stance is based on personal principle (which you may argue isn't yours alone), and that you don't care for opposing opinions. They may sound right, but it's condescending to try to convince you that may be true, as it would make your stance seem inferior.


My stance is based on what I've learned from people who are considered experts, most notably Lee McCormack, and also what has been confirmed by my experience on the bike. Opposing opinions are fine, preferably ones with evidence to back them up.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

s0ckeyeus said:


> My stance is based on what I've learned from people who are considered experts, most notably Lee McCormack, and also what has been confirmed by my experience on the bike. Opposing opinions are fine, preferably ones with evidence to back them up.


These are all techniques that work. They look uncomfortable though.








- ready position before a steep slope, sourced from Reeb Ranch, learn with leelikesbikes: http://www.reebranch.com/event/1638/

Lee has teachings that I base my own riding on, but I'm trying to say that he, and other skill coaches, don't seem to account for differences in bikes. Some seem insistent that it shouldn't matter, also insisting that a "good" rider can adapt to any bike. To me, that's condescending and pompous.

Imagine going into a bike shop, saying that you want a bike they don't currently have in stock, from a brand they carry. They suggest you getting one at a similar price point that is in stock, perhaps a little bigger or smaller than you'd prefer. They try to convince you that many riders downsize for playfulness, or bigger for stability. You object, saying you researched your bike and think it's perfect for you, liked the geo, spec, and style, and they go on saying that any one of their employees/riders can ride their cheapest bike better than most average riders on nice bikes, who care more for looks and style, and that you wouldn't notice the difference. What would your response be? What would an outsider's response be, from a neutral corner?

I'm suggesting that conflict and controversy is from people trying to stick up for 1 viewpoint as being superior. People get mad over it, but why? I wouldn't be surprised if outsiders suggested something totally different. Being open means to find validity in all of the viewpoints. I get the impression that the aggravation comes from resistance to change.

The skill coaches aren't wrong with that point, but since they're resisting change, and I'm resisting change to also subscribe to their principles that bike differences don't matter, there's aggravation. The difference is being open vs closed minded. Insistence and discrediting each other is a lazy ineffective form of debate. That's why I went my own route, of going custom, opening up to the validity of other extreme ideas. I figure seeing from many more perspectives, and having better knowledge, makes for a sounder judgement, than trying to judge without such knowledge.


----------



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

ninjichor said:


> View attachment 1238909
> 
> - looks athletic?


It does to me, especially the other thumbnail. I'm no expert though.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

Look at the dude's arms. They can adapt pretty quickly to a decent drop. Move his torso up, and you'll start taking away that range of motion. It can get sketchy trying to roll a drop without that range. So while you might not want to stay hinged in that position for an extended period of time, that position is great for riding down a rock or rolling a ledge. Pretty sure that guy isn't running a dropper or else he could drop his hips a bit more, potentially allowing him to get even lower.

I am a fan of fitting my bike so that the distance from the center of the BB to my grips matches the distance of my feet to my hands (not necessarily the most popular approach to fit). If the bike doesn't fit that framework, then it's a no go. So in your scenario, I'd try a different shop or order online. 

Everyone has their opinions and biases. I don't know if it's a bad thing to get in heated debates, but not all ideas are equally valid. At the end of the day though, we're just talking bikes here and not anything ultra-important.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

The attached image was of Nino. You can see the subtle differences in fore-aft positioning. Nino's chin is over his stem and legs aren't looking like they're tilted back, to a rearward-positioned hip.








- https://bikerumor.com/2018/04/26/fi...n-cubes-affordable-ews-ready-stereo-150-29er/








- https://www.mbr.co.uk/reviews/29er-full-suspension-bikes/cube-stereo-150








- Greg Callahan, pro who placed 3rd

Notice the differences in fore-aft positioning here? These guys are media guys invited to ride the just-launched Cube Stereo 150 29 at Finale Ligure. They're used to other bikes, and their impressions vary. The one way far back (2nd pic), says the bike's reach is cramped and was felt like the fork loading was forced as a result. He was getting his weight back to compensate. The Bikerumor thought it was very comfortable to ride in the rough. Greg has top level results on it.

Do you choose one to believe in one view, or is there a view that explains all 3 and more? The latter is what I'm interested in. I have no doubt that this isn't the last time these guys experience these kind of things about bikes in the future, at least until the industry figures this out.


----------



## nya (Oct 22, 2011)

Those 3 are different positions. I think the concept of attack position is useful for beginners/intermediate but after that it stops having meaning. As it was said before you are in constant fluid process of adjusting your position depending on the obstacles/speed/skills/grip/etc. And you don't really stay in attack position instead you keep attacking. And when the track allows you just to cruise in attack position, you will most likely assume more relaxed position because you don't need to attack anything. The first 2 photos looks very defensive, while the 3rd one is the closest to what an attack position could be. But it is so dependent on so many factors that unless you have a "full picture" you can't really tell much.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

The guy in the 2nd pic is hanging off the back too much, for sure, especially when you account for camera tilt. The bike isn't forcing him into that position though. He might prefer more reach, but he has plenty of room to operate. Hit a jump like that, and you're likely to dead sailor. Roll a 2ft drop and you'll get pulled forward and likely go OTB.

Pic #3 is way better. His COG is pretty much directly down into the BB.

In that hidden attachment, Nino is riding an XC bike. He looks a bit tired, but his weight is still in his feet and centered over the BB.


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

Thread:
Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? 
Yes, why would you ever not want to be comfortable on your bike in any situation, unless you're upside down in a ditch. 

What should it look like?
Does that really matter? Compare Steve Peat to Aaron Gwin to Brian Lopes to Christoph Sauser, to Jaroslav Kulhavy, different styles for different disciplines and still different styles within the discipline. 

I'll tell you what, you could get a good look at a T-bone sticking your head up a bulls ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

This subject has been . . .


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

s0ckeyeus said:


> The guy in the 2nd pic is hanging off the back too much, for sure, especially when you account for camera tilt. The bike isn't forcing him into that position though. He might prefer more reach, but he has plenty of room to operate. Hit a jump like that, and you're likely to dead sailor. Roll a 2ft drop and you'll get pulled forward and likely go OTB.
> 
> Pic #3 is way better. His COG is pretty much directly down into the BB.
> 
> In that hidden attachment, Nino is riding an XC bike. He looks a bit tired, but his weight is still in his feet and centered over the BB.


So you're okay with a forward position, but not one that isn't hunched over or too upright?


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

ninjichor said:


> They look uncomfortable though.
> 
> They try to convince you that many riders downsize for playfulness, or bigger for stability. and they go on saying that any one of their employees/riders can ride their cheapest bike better than most average riders on nice bikes, who care more for looks and style, and that you wouldn't notice the difference. What would your response be?
> 
> ...


I'll respond to four points here...

1. Whether or not something "looks" uncomfortable or not is completely irrelevant. Does a downhill skier "look" comfortable in the tuck position? Doing sports in the pursuit of comfort is an idea lost on me.

2. The shop guy "who can ride the cheapest bike better than an average rider,"...Has he settled on buying the cheapest bike in the shop? Has he compromised on his bike fit, or does he ride exactly what he wants as it fits in his budget? I imagine my response would mirror his....I'll buy what I want to buy, and it matters not what people are trying to sell me.

3. Aggravation comes from the fact that there are viewpoints that contain no validity whatsoever no matter what people think or say. Have you spoken to a flat earth believer?

4. Insistence (presumption) and discrediting each other (rebuttal) with the backing of evidence is exactly the form of effective debate.


----------



## ctxcrossx (Jan 13, 2004)

MOJO K said:


> I'll respond to four points here...
> 
> 1. Whether or not something "looks" uncomfortable or not is completely irrelevant. Does a downhill skier "look" comfortable in the tuck position? Doing sports in the pursuit of comfort is an idea lost on me.


This x 1,000,000,000.

I have no idea how this thread has gone past post 10. Whether it looks comfortable is
1. Completely subjective
2. Irrelevant

How does comfort factor in at all? When I'm riding to get by obstacles, comfort doesn't factor in at all. It's all about what position will get me through the terrain the best. Furthermore, it's not a static location that can be located on a bike. The attack position is a fluid position that depends on terrain, conditions, fatigue, etc.

I want a bike that allows me to be in a neutral position where I can adjust to the terrain.

I mean no disrespect to the OP, but none of this makes sense to me.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

*Bump*, it’s been 5 hours since this “attack ready position” has been critiqued.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

1) Would that downhill skiier be as comfortable if they were forced to ski with poorly designed skis for their purpose? Wouldn't they have to adapt whatever weird design they came up with? What if it were downsized entirely by 15% (length, width, thickness), had lightening holes drilled throughout, the foot position put more towards the center, and the heel wasn't fixed (like a nordic ski)? Good athletes can adapt np right? What if the athlete trained on ice skates in the off-season and wanted to mimic that position on their skiis... (similar to how people who train on the road bike transfer such over to their mtb)

2) So you imagine why the shop employee owns a bike which isn't the cheapest one there, not knowing what it precisely is, and use that as justification to ignore his point and not change yours. Imagination is valid evidence?

3) Any sort of friction in general causes aggravation. I've watched a video of a flat earther conference out of curiosity. Was like some sort of church where they got community, and the members fought their anxiety (govt deception) and other stuff with questionable beliefs. Didn't seem too far off from any niche religion. Seemed harmless to me. Got people believing in all sorts of supernatural things that cause them legit fear, which affects their life choices, but these guys have a renewed attitude which is driven to develop/progress, which is a good thing if I see things from a Carl Jung style perspective. I've no urge to cause them friction. *shrug* I don't tell people God and spirits are unproven, why should I tell these guys the planet is spherical? The rational side of me overrides the principled side of me, in looking for merit to back the action.

4) That method often fails in debate, due to the backfire effect.


----------



## ctxcrossx (Jan 13, 2004)

You're assuming comfort is a significant contributor to success in an attack position. Pretty much never in the history of attack position discussions (outside of this thread) has this ever been discussed. One theory...it's an untapped area where significant gains can be found. More likely, it's not important.

And even if what you say is true, combining scientific principles and analysis to a photograph and guessing as to the comfort level of a rider, without even talking with them or knowing the context of the situation......seems pretty nuts.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

ninjichor said:


> 1) Would that downhill skiier be as comfortable if they were forced to ski with poorly designed skis for their purpose? Wouldn't they have to adapt whatever weird design they came up with? What if it were downsized entirely by 15% (length, width, thickness), had lightening holes drilled throughout, the foot position put more towards the center, and the heel wasn't fixed (like a nordic ski)? Good athletes can adapt np right? What if the athlete trained on ice skates in the off-season and wanted to mimic that position on their skiis... (similar to how people who train on the road bike transfer such over to their mtb)
> 
> 2) So you imagine why the shop employee owns a bike which isn't the cheapest one there, not knowing what it precisely is, and use that as justification to ignore his point and not change yours. Imagination is valid evidence?
> 
> ...


1. You're projecting onto the situation deficiencies that have no foundation.

2. Let me correct the sentence and use the phrase " I expect, based on my experience, having known dozens of shop employees" in place of "I imagine" to avoid any incorrect connotation . Still, I was answering your question "What would your response be?" in the context of the fiction that you first imagined and presented.

3. That you observed members of a flat earth group enjoying the sense of belonging in a group of like-minded people in no way adds any validity to their assertion that the earth is flat. I hope you enjoy your custom bicycle, but does that mean I also need to accept your ideas about riding technique, bicycle geometry, and the general complacency of both the bike industry and it's consumers?

4. Please explain this "backfire effect". I'm also not sure I understand how a debate can fail as it doesn't require any reconciliation of the opposing ideas in the end


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

ninjichor said:


> So you're okay with a forward position, but not one that isn't hunched over or too upright?


I'm OK with a position that is neither forward nor back. One that isn't hunched over and one that isn't too upright for the demands of the terrain.


----------



## JackWare (Aug 8, 2016)

After 300+ posts maybe you should be asking yourself ' Why do I find the attack - ready position uncomfortable'.

If you're not doing it already, for every hour you spend composing lengthy replies and studying photos trying to divine a solution, why not spend an equal amount of time researching and working on core strength exercises. 

One thing I would bet you will find with all of the pros you've looked at in photos is that they are incredibly fit and don't even consider 'comfort' an issue, certainly not one to be mulled over for weeks on end.

And I would explain to a flat earther who spends hours on YouTube 'researching', how the world has been proven scientifically not flat, and that maybe they could spend their time more usefully.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

JackWare said:


> After 300+ posts maybe you should be asking yourself ' Why do I find the attack - ready position uncomfortable'.
> 
> If you're not doing it already, for every hour you spend composing lengthy replies and studying photos trying to divine a solution, why not spend an equal amount of time researching and working on core strength exercises.
> 
> ...


But it's not a sphere, as we've known for quite some time. It's an oblate ellipsoid.

That's why the peak of Chimborazo is the furthest point from the center of the earth, not Everest.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JackWare (Aug 8, 2016)

OK I can stop my timer, I knew someone would be along to point out this fake fact. 

Post edited to correct this obvious mistake. :thumbsup::smilewinkgrin:


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

This is just a guess on my part, but I'm thinking maybe there is some undiagnosed asperger's going on. Spending time analyzing mountain bikes is not the worse thing in the world and there is no real harm here. To make progress, we actually need people to scrutinize the minutiae that most people wouldn't bother with. I say more power to him.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

JackWare said:


> OK I can stop my timer, I knew someone would be along to point out this fake fact.
> 
> Post edited to correct this obvious mistake. :thumbsup::smilewinkgrin:


As someone who deals with maps, map projections and the distortions associated with those things, it was bothering me.

Back to our normal programming.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Anybody else getting a headache reading this dribble? Let it go already. Every person will have a different technique. Stop forcing your, my way is better, egotistical opinions on others. I mean really? 5 pages of this ****. I can see maybe 2 but it’s getting a bit redundant.


----------



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

I keep thinking of hucking kitty flying through a rock garden while lounging on a lazy-boy that's mounted to his mountain bike. Maybe while also enjoying a pipe or a fine single malt scotch.

If someone with the appropriate skills and free time could make that happen it would make me really happy.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

A hydration bladder full of vodka will help greatly with any discomfort on the bike.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Curveball said:


> A hydration bladder full of vodka will help greatly with any discomfort on the bike.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

ctxcrossx said:


> You're assuming comfort is a significant contributor to success in an attack position. Pretty much never in the history of attack position discussions (outside of this thread) has this ever been discussed. One theory...it's an untapped area where significant gains can be found. More likely, it's not important.
> 
> And even if what you say is true, combining scientific principles and analysis to a photograph and guessing as to the comfort level of a rider, without even talking with them or knowing the context of the situation......seems pretty nuts.


No, I'm assuming discomfort/strain is a significant contributor to fatigue. The more technical the trail, the more you're an uncomfortable position, the more fatigue becomes an issue. This creates an artificial barrier on what trails one would be ready to do. Some may have ridden years, and still feel like they're not ready to try some certain trails. Why? Why aren't they training for it? Is it mental or physical? What if the bike compensated for these things, mitigating the need to train, by being better designed?

According to this research, grip strength was a big factor in endurance, inspiring my refinement of the bicycle position to put less load on the hands:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02640414.2012.718091

Research on fitness demands in various sports, that also indicate grip strength is a factor in other sports, and gave me inspiration for enabling more efficient cross-training through refining the bicycle position to use muscle groups utilized in other activities (suspecting that seated pedaling endurance is only gained through cycling):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4306765/



MOJO K said:


> 1. You're projecting onto the situation deficiencies that have no foundation.
> 
> 2. Let me correct the sentence and use the phrase " I expect, based on my experience, having known dozens of shop employees" in place of "I imagine" to avoid any incorrect connotation . Still, I was answering your question "What would your response be?" in the context of the fiction that you first imagined and presented.
> 
> ...


1) Bike geo greatly varies. The rider can sense the differences in geo and how it affects their experience--can be as simple as test riding two sizes of the same bike model. There's parabolic shaped skis and straight skis. This small change affects how the user makes use of the equipment. The analogy needs to be apples to apples, does it not? Refer to the context in post #1?

2) It's still imagination, even if it's shaped by patterns from past experience. The answer to that was a matter of determining whether you're closed minded or open minded, based on the response given. Was intended to show how someone responds to a rational point, when they have emotional interest.

3) You seemingly never opened up. Instead, you've been pushing your ideas on me. What have I been trying to push onto you, personally? I responded to some of your ideas, saying there's some sort of common agreement. You've sent challenges from many different perspectives, and I see it no other way than that you have emotional interest to just not find any agreement, despite saying things that do imply that being comfortable on the bike is important. You just don't clearly define that comfort in any way that can be measured/verified.

4) Backfire effect is when facts and evidence contradicts someone's belief, and in order to not let their vision of the world break down, they strengthen their beliefs. They hype up these beliefs as "truths", and hype themselves up as seekers of truth. They hope to push their beliefs onto others to create "universal truth", forming support groups of like-minded people, which are known in the world of science as tribes. This is what has me rationalizing to not try hard to correct these types. What I've been doing in this thread is more about clearing up misinterpretations. While I suspect people are just illiterate, unintelligent, too lazy to read, trolls, bored drunks, a$$holes, etc. based on my past experience (and their post history), this is my imagination, which in principle, can't be acted on. I instead act on what I feel is more rational, offering another explanation that's hopefully easier to understand.



JackWare said:


> After 300+ posts maybe you should be asking yourself ' Why do I find the attack - ready position uncomfortable'.
> 
> If you're not doing it already, for every hour you spend composing lengthy replies and studying photos trying to divine a solution, why not spend an equal amount of time researching and working on core strength exercises.
> 
> ...


Interesting point, but I'm not the one relying on pro pictures. I recall posting 2 of them so far by my own will, to contrast to non-pros, but didn't use one because I didn't have context (just was loosely attached). The other time I posted pros, was because someone was interested in a certain source (Val di Sol?), and I went to verify it, to see if there was any agreement between our two perspectives.

If you really have been following, this research was spurred by my concern for others who don't have time to train. I noted one case in which a rider in my group got fatigued enough to worry about their ability to finish an epic ride (Palm Canyon Epic). I'm an advocate of making MTB more inclusive. I was hoping to discover bike geo that makes it more welcoming to those who don't have the luxury to train due to other responsibilities. Technique for cornering and plowing is not is something an e-bike motor helps with, and expensive bikes designed racing probably isn't a help either. What's it cost to change geo of entry level bikes?

The ones trying to suggest me to toughen up are making false assumptions. I believe I wrote somewhere that I have 45k+ miles ridden on mtn bikes, and have owned at numerous (10+) different bikes in the past decade. I'm just practicing open-mindedness, using this opportunity to justify my exploration of various new things, including mixed wheel size, slack HA, steep HA, upright position, handlebar height, RC to FC proportions, etc. I figure if there's going to be change, I'd rather come along willingly, rather than being dragged along. There's that wise saying, "fate leads the willing, but drags the unwilling."


----------



## ctxcrossx (Jan 13, 2004)

ninjichor said:


> No, I'm assuming discomfort/strain is a significant contributor to fatigue. The more technical the trail, the more you're an uncomfortable position, the more fatigue becomes an issue. This creates an artificial barrier on what trails one would be ready to do. Some may have ridden years, and still feel like they're not ready to try some certain trails. Why? Why aren't they training for it? Is it mental or physical? What if the bike compensated for these things, mitigating the need to train, by being better designed?
> 
> According to this research, grip strength was a big factor in endurance, inspiring my refinement of the bicycle position to put less load on the hands:
> 
> ...


But you're assuming that their fatigue is due to discomfort as opposed to physical exertion. There's no basis for this claim. How are you measuring this and able to eliminate other variables (such as the physical exertion) to make this statement?...I should be considerably more than looking at a still photo and guessing as to how comfortable they are. I'm sure discomfort could contribute, but I'd guess it's fairly inconsequential compared to the effort they are putting forth.

And people who have ridden for years yet can't handle a trail has nothing to do with what you're working with (respectfully). It's the bell curve. Most people in any situation over in the middle. If you want to grow as a rider, you put in more time, you try different techniques, lines, etc. Not everyone cares to improve or is willing to put in the time.

Finally, from the abstract, it looks like they did a study that shows that when you actively employ a muscle group, those muscles get fatigued. I'm sure you'd get the same results if you did the same type of test with rock climbers (another activity focused on grip). Seems fairly straight forward. But I don't see that it has anything to do with what you are trying to do.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Discomfort is not only a physical state, but also a mental state. Comfort zones, fear, anxiety... it's strain on the mind, not only on the body. I'm looking for a relaxed ready state, rather than a tense one that's focused on getting position just right. The relaxed neutral position should be one that's easy to use a wider variety of techniques from--hard to use techniques when you're hanging off the back or already hunched over. Needing to return to a neutral position wastes time and energy, and affects the timing of the technique, perhaps forcing you to lower your speed to give time to prepare.

"That trail has drops, jumps, is too fast, is too steep, has chunk, etc., I'm not comfortable riding that yet." Common excuse, yes? Sure, there's variables like suspension, tires, wheels, brakes, etc. that mitigate fatigue, and there's also the rider's intensity and excitement/recklessness to consider, but if you read through the first research paper, the it's not about heart rate, intensity, or pedaling/leg endurance, it's the grip strength. You can measure that with a grip strength tester, or even a bathroom scale. What's a good way to increase grip strength, chin/pull-ups? Do you do these? What's your grip strength, 70 lbs? Measure it before and after a fatiguing technical ride, maybe bike park laps, and see how much it drops.

I'm seeking an alternative solution, to redirect loads into larger muscles that can handle it. I want the legs to take it. It'd be like dirt surfing if done right, hands only used to steer, rather than to hold on and hold balance. The "athletic positions" people show are using quite a bit of lower back, to hold up their upper body weight. I want the legs to hold up the upper body weight too, so there's no question of the hands taking the load, in case the lower back fatigues.

If there's any argument, it's about fatiguing the legs sooner. It's valid to fear the leg day consequences. I choose to accept this trade-off, optimistic about the strength this develops. I highly doubt every ride will leave you unable to walk. With a more upright position, and a steeper STA, the position mimics more of a stair climbing position, even while seated--I essentially optimized for the casual out-of-the-saddle pedaling position. The challenge was to make it so the bike behaved well with the rider in this position, as it'd be endo prone if people tried this on a current bike, at least one that was optimized for the seated position with a slack STA.

The solution was to increase the front center, but how much exactly? I estimated that the balance I'm looking for exists along a scale (see post #96). Some 160mm enduro bikes found one of the sweet spots, 435mm CS with 1210-1245mm WB (some long travel 26ers found it with 420 CS and 1150-1190 WB). I wanted a longer WB, since I am more ambitious with the speed I want to achieve on the trails I ride. I played it relatively safe and looked to the most extreme examples of it today, the Geometron and Pole, and followed people's impression of them. Now there's the Doctahawk to get impressions from...

Rather than imagining hucking kitty, imagine a crash test dummy rigged like the picture in post #1, maybe with a gimbal to keep the back angle fixed and a spring between the calf and hamstring to allow knee flex, being able to successfully straight line over all sorts of obstacles, from dead sailoring over jumps and drops, to just standing as the bike pitches up and down over chunk and rollers, all in-control. The trade off is that a defensive stance, or an aggro chin-forward-of-the-handlebar position makes the bike misbehave. A "static" position will work, but it won't look static because the bike pitches up and down, making it look the rider has outstretched arms and is behind the saddle on downslopes, or making it look like the rider is forward of the saddle and ready to hammer on an upslope, on top of the legs being used as suspension (like a crouch, rather than a rearward hip hinge); it's just faster and more efficient to be more dynamic, and transfer weight back and forward to negotiate over obstacles with the typical rowing/pump-track motion.

In my perfect world, bike shoppers would choose a bike based on complexity/maintenance requirements (singlespeed, gearbox, derailleurs, rigid, hardtail, FS), the wheelbase (shorter for slow tech, longer for high speed/momentum), how much feedback they want to feel from the ground (susp, wheel/tire size), and luxury level (reduced weight burden, extra conveniences like built-in storage accommodations, head lights, motor assist, etc.). I suppose bike brands could further differentiate based on toughness/strength, aesthetics, style (defensive, vs neutral or aggro positioning), and shopping experience (warranty, partnered service centers).

See all the different riding disciplines here, all using a more neutral position: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6pTrW6QGFHQIjkKbzrmAFPh9WoCzueM6


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

IF you're uncomfortable in the attack position then your bike doesn't fit or you have a fitness/health issue. Both of my bikes are comfortable in the attack position and it doesn't matter that one has 419mm chain stays and the other 438mm.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

jeremy3220 said:


> IF you're uncomfortable in the attack position then your bike doesn't fit or you have a fitness/health issue. Both of my bikes are comfortable in the attack position and it doesn't matter that one has 419mm chain stays and the other 438mm.


Can't argue with that. It really should be that simple.

How important is fit though? Seems people insist that the body can adapt, getting used to it, and coaching is recommended to help... I suppose this is one of those things you don't know/learn, until you explore and discover for yourself.


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

ninjichor said:


> How important is fit though?.


There's nothing more critical than fit!


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Train Wreck said:


> There's nothing more critical than fit!


How does one learn what fit is best though? Keep test riding bikes, replacing if you feel a newer bike fits better? Any other alternative?


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> Can't argue with that. It really should be that simple.
> 
> How important is fit though? Seems people insist that the body can adapt, getting used to it, and coaching is recommended to help... I suppose this is one of those things you don't know/learn, until you explore and discover for yourself.


It's very important but it's not that hard to find a bike that fits well. I'm 6'5" and still am able to find bikes that fit well. And yes, it takes a bit of experience to figure out what works well for yourself. Coming from BMX, when I bought my first mtb I almost bought the size large of model bike I ended up on. Thankfully the shop talked me into the XL. A year later I realized even that bike was too small and sold it.


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

ninjichor said:


> How does one learn what fit is best though? Keep test riding bikes, replacing if you feel a newer bike fits better? Any other alternative?


People make a living out of fitting bikes for people, you see like a resourful cat, I'm sure you could find someone local to offer an opinion.I've tried adapting to bikes that were not a proper fit for me and that resulted in back pain.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

jeremy3220 said:


> It's very important but it's not that hard to find a bike that fits well. I'm 6'5" and still am able to find bikes that fit well. And yes, it takes a bit of experience to figure out what works well for yourself. Coming from BMX, when I bought my first mtb I almost bought the size large of model bike I ended up on. Thankfully the shop talked me into the XL. A year later I realized even that bike was too small and sold it.


Ever ride a long travel bike and thought it was worse than a shorter travel bike from the same brand? Or maybe the size L felt more balanced than the XL? Ever think you wanted something for going faster (e.g. Enduro racing), but the CS was too short in XL or the HA too slack (causing instability with the front wheel)?



Train Wreck said:


> People make a living out of fitting bikes for people, you see like a resourceful cat, I'm sure you could find someone local to offer an opinion. I've tried adapting to bikes that were not a proper fit for me and that resulted in back pain.


What was your experience with trying to solve your back pain? Did you try inexpensive solutions first, before eventually going from one bike to another? What limitations did the back pain cause, looking back, that you were able to overcome with the better fit?

Just looking for merit behind the fitting, to understand how critical it is in your view.


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

ninjichor said:


> What was your experience with trying to solve your back pain?


Foam roller. Proper stretching and warmup routines which were designed by my fitness coach. I've never had a back problem on any bike ever since.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

ninjichor said:


> Ever ride a long travel bike and thought it was worse than a shorter travel bike from the same brand?


Not really.



> Or maybe the size L felt more balanced than the XL?


The fit aspect is too overriding once the bike is that undersized for me.



> Ever think you wanted something for going faster (e.g. Enduro racing), but the CS was too short in XL or the HA too slack (causing instability with the front wheel)?


I do prefer longer chainstays for high speed. I've never thought the HTA was too slack for going fast (slack HTA is more stable at speed).


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

ninjichor said:


> I see it no other way than that you have emotional interest to just not find any agreement, despite saying things that do imply that being comfortable on the bike is important. You just don't clearly define that comfort in any way that can be measured/verified.


I'll respond here, because I think this paragraph gets to the refined point that we disagree about. I don't simply imply that comfort is important, I pointed out in the "Rank the most important factors" thread that I think having a bike that I can be comfortable on is first and last. I "just don't clearly define that comfort in any way that can be measured/verified", because I don't believe it can be reduced down to numbers. After reading all the reviews, considering the parts spec.s, and crunching the geometry numbers, I know more about a bike from a two minute test ride blasting over the curbs and pedaling through a few turns. The numbers may influence me enough to go try a bike, but it'll never get me to buy a bike...the data means nothing when my hands hit the bars. So we view these things through two very different lenses, and ours is a good and honest disagreement. My "emotional interest" here is not to be contrary, only to be understood. It's good that there are people like you in the world Ninji, and it's good that there are people like me.

I will say that, going back to the original question, my ideas about what the "attack position" means have been reshaped. I've had this verbal picture of the attack / ready position the same way I think if the crash position on an airplane...a sort of bracing for impact We've used still photos in this thread to study this attack position, but none of that describes what happens in mountain biking. Nothing that happens on the bike is still. There wasn't a static moment before and after the picture was snapped. The forces acting on the rider and the bike were changing, met with anticipation, reaction and motion from the rider. A rider needs to be dynamic moving front to back, high and low and be comfortable and strong within that range of motion. I'm not sure isolating a single posture a rider might have within that space as an attack position is really that useful?


----------



## ctxcrossx (Jan 13, 2004)

MOJO K said:


> A rider needs to be dynamic moving front to back, high and low and be comfortable and strong within that range of motion. I'm not sure isolating a single posture a rider might have within that space as an attack position really that useful?


It's as basic as this. An attack position is a fluid position where you are able to adjust with the terrain. Making changes to a static position for this benefit has very little relevance, if any.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

So we're back to making new definitions of what the attack position is... the semantics game again.

Is the ready position is different from the attack position?

- The ready position is the position one takes to prepare to use a technique? Before hitting a drop, before pumping an obstacle, before shifting weight to lessen an impact of rolling over a large obstacle, before taking off of a jump? It could be neutral, it could be defensive, it could be aggressive?

- The attack position is the position one takes to attack a feature? Taking any of the features above, with more momentum maybe? How much more momentum is relative to what the rider feels is comfortable?

So all these positions that are successful, but are judged not to be good attack positions compared to the pros, are what? I called some of them to be defensive, and some to be roadie-inspired, but said they're uncomfortable looking, and that techniques probably required moving back to a neutral position to be executed, wasting time and energy.

If I describe them like that, then am I asking, what's an efficient ready position look like? A neutral position that is balanced and stable, and requires the least amount of movement to execute a technique from? If there's demand to make things faster, and execute skills faster, then it should be uncomfortable, at least from a mental standpoint, therefore an attack position maybe by definition should be uncomfortable?

What about fatigue? If you were to figure out how to get through a rough trail, and wanted to make sure you stayed fresh to the end, how would you plan your approach? Reduce the amount of total movement you make, trying to stay smooth, use a heavy feet and light hands strategy, stayed loose and relaxed, and selectively pumped/rowed the terrain? Would bike choice and/or position play a role? If so, what would be ideal for a trail that can be ridden on an XC bike, Enduro bike, or chubby/fat-tire bike, all being valid choices due to the roughness (backcountry) and overall length/elevation (3+ hours).


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ninjichor said:


> what's an efficient ready position look like?


You've been espousing your version of it for four pages, why ask us now?


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

life behind bars said:


> You've been espousing your version of it for four pages, why ask us now?


Lol


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> You've been espousing your version of it for four pages, why ask us now?


Do you not have an opinion? I'm trying to get outside input, not explain my own for 4 pages. I've been repeatedly saying, this isn't some "help me" thread. It's one where I want to see pictures of what people think is a good position, and speculate how much more efficient it would be with some tweaks.


----------



## ctxcrossx (Jan 13, 2004)

ninjichor said:


> So all these positions that are successful, but are judged not to be good attack positions compared to the pros, are what? I called some of them to be defensive, and some to be roadie-inspired, but said they're uncomfortable *looking*, and that techniques *probably *required moving back to a neutral position to be executed, wasting time and energy.


...Bold is mine

I'm out of this thread after this (took me longer than others since I didn't start when it started), but dude, safe yourself the time and energy here. Using the words looking and probably makes what you're doing a random guess. You're tackling something that isn't even a problem to any actual rider and even your evidence to convince yourself is speculation.

Let me help you with that last part, you're right that a neutral position is required to execute something, but you seem to think that there's one specific neutral position. There isn't. First of all, it's different for each technique. Getting over a rock will be different than taking a turn which is different than getting through a tricky narrow passage. And now take any one of those techniques that one may claim has a specific neural/ideal position to attempt, well, now change the run up to that obstacle. That same rock that you need to make over....if you're on a flat vs. descent vs. climb vs. any other number of things will now modify that position.

This is why a rider just needs a neutral position....because it's fluid. It's not static.

Good luck and peace out!


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

If I wanted scientific answers, I'd ask scientists. How do you experiment on this, with a scientific approach? Build your own terrain and build your own varied test mule bikes, loaded with data logging? Use a human or a robot (e.g. can be advanced like disney's acrobatic robot)?

What's the reason why the neutral position changes? Do you deny that the bike's geo and the fitment of the rider on it affects this greatly?

I already suggested that the neutral position doesn't have to change based on slope, with my claim that the rigged crash test dummy with gimbal to hold the back angle steady can successfully straight line terrain w/jumps, drops, chunk, and that it's simply the bike that pitches up and down underneath it. Are you suggesting that there's a "different ready position" mid-turn, as if you can perform another technique within a technique? What forces the cornering position to change? Can bike geo improve it to make it more efficient?

You make it sound like a rider makes a lot of movements to their "ready position", but the difference between various ready positions seems hard to detect, besides bump absorption and executing sharp, but subtle techniques to change the direction of the bike. I wouldn't call those movements as them getting more ready... more like the ready position is what they're returning to, and what they're executing techniques from.






Notice how he pedals all the way up to the sender (1:10) with hardly a pause before. I see many cases where riders stop pedaling way before hitting these kind of things. I suspect it's geo to blame, making it so the standing pedaling position is in a different spot from the ideal ready position to go off the jump safely with balance maintained. Richie Rude's bike is one that I claim has the balance I'm looking for (Med SB150, not large, not small, not XL, but Med only)--that CS to WB ratio, 435mm to 1225mm in this case, that gets the balance point aligned with the out-of-saddle pedaling position.


----------



## ctxcrossx (Jan 13, 2004)

ninjichor said:


> If I wanted scientific answers, I'd ask scientists. How do you experiment on this, with a scientific approach? Build your own terrain and build your own varied test mule bikes, loaded with data logging? Use a human or a robot (e.g. can be advanced like disney's acrobatic robot)?
> 
> What's the reason why the neutral position changes? Do you deny that the bike's geo and the fitment of the rider on it affects this greatly?


Ugh...you sucked me back in....

I explained specifically why it changes....because no two obstacles are the same or the run up to those obstacles. Since it all changes, the rider has to adjust based on that. You go over 100 rocks in a ride, you may have 100 different attack positions.

...and I agree with geo and fit are extremely important, but not nearly as much for the attack position, since it's likely that the rider is off the seat anyway. They're adjusting to the terrain as they ride. It would be more relevant to someone who's just sitting on the seat in a static position riding along, but then they're not really in an attack position. I'm good with current geometry and fit and all of the companies and people over the decades of refinement of the mtb frame.

I'd be good with experimenting on new methods and theories, but this one to me doesn't make sense. I don't think comfort as an issue for riders, and certainly not one that is holding them back. Even if this were the case, your argument that there is just one position for a rider to be in an attack positions just makes no logical sense.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ninjichor said:


> Do you not have an opinion? I'm trying to get outside input, not explain my own for 4 pages. I've been repeatedly saying, this isn't some "help me" thread. It's one where I want to see pictures of what people think is a good position, and speculate how much more efficient it would be with some tweaks.


I as well as many other posters offered it up on the first page, anything after that was mental masturbation on your part. Unsatisfying and incomplete at that. But you'll continue to ignore everyone and continue to beat this unicorn to death for four more pages when at last this thread will be put down, just like the unicorn that you've beaten to death.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

ninjichor said:


> So we're back to making new definitions of what the attack position is... the semantics game again.


Whatever. Maybe I'm just closed minded? You go off with your pencil and ruler and tech articles and become the rider you want to be.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Every time I open this thread I either shake my head in disgust or laugh. My necks getting tired from the side to side motion.


----------



## JackWare (Aug 8, 2016)

Sounds like you're in the wrong position - check the leg and backrest angles of your chair.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

JackWare said:


> Sounds like you're in the wrong position - check the leg and backrest angles of your chair.


I'm currently lying in bed. Kind of a soft mattress so maybe that's the issue.


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> I'm currently lying in bed. Kind of a soft mattress so maybe that's the issue.


Perhaps you need custom springs in your mattress for the best ready position.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Battery said:


> Perhaps you need custom springs in your mattress for the best ready position.


To...attack?

I'm in his town right now. ::shudder::

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

I'm just waiting for the OP to post the link to the asinine Kickstarter he created to address this 'issue' already.


----------



## Connor Burden (Jul 27, 2020)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Agree.
> 
> This is basically what it looks like but every individual is different.
> 
> ...


late response lol, but shouldn't the rider keep his eyes and head looking forward.. not at the front wheel?


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Connor Burden said:


> late response lol, but shouldn't the rider keep his eyes and head looking forward.. not at the front wheel?


Correct, and in the photo he is looking ahead and not at the front wheel. I took the liberty of adding a line of sight from what we can tell of how his head is angled. Looking even further down the trail would be more ideal.
BTW Thanks for the memories of this thread. Lol


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

He's shooting lasers.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

RS VR6 said:


> He's shooting lasers.


We could all learn something from him.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Y'all know what the term "situational" means, so add that to the equation...


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

i really wasnt ready for this thread.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

BansheeRune said:


> Y'all know what the term "situational" means, so add that to the equation...


See post #3.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> See post #3.


C'est la vie...


----------

