Sorry, I didn't mean to come across rude.
My point was that the poster was basically asking for an XC race frame having had good experiences with a Scottt Scale, Giant XTC and Giant Anthem. The 256 is an excellent riding frame and an excellent option for the poster. Dismissing it based on one isolated number doesn't make sense.
Relevance of a Scott Scale in my post is that, one, it is the type of bike the poster enjoyed in the past (mentions a 26er Scale) and secondly that it is the most similar frame to the flagship Chinese XC race frame, the 256.
2 degree slacker HTA might well feel different if everything else was kept the same- but they aren't the same between the XTC and 256... hence looking at the entire bike as a whole, you would not notice that difference in terms of steering feel at slow and mid speeds (and I didn't having ridden them). In terms of "how quick the steering feels" those 2 degrees between the XTC and 256 are accounted for by a longer front centre on the 256 and longer reach on the 256- You have to consider how the designer intended for the centre of mass of the rider to be distributed over the bike. Basically the trend for slightly slacker HTA's is offset by the trend for a longer reach and shorter stems. This gives the same "quick turning" feeling as shorter reach, longer stem but places the rider further behind the front axle and lengthens the wheelbase. The overall effect is the same "quick turning" feeling at slow and mid speeds between the XTC and 256 but the XTC-style geometry has more of a tendency for the front wheel to "tuck under" slightly in slow, steep turns and feel like it is being tripped up a little plus lacks some of the 256's straighter line high speed stability. It sounds like having your cake and eating it but that is how it works in practice.
It is true that there is no "right" geometry for everyone as we are all different but considering the frames as a whole, there is no reason for someone happy with an XTC to discount the 256- if anything, there is every chance they'll appreciate the stability in slow, steep corners and stability on straighter high speed sections with almost every other aspect feeling the same.
Basically, the 256 is a very quick handling yet stable ride (hard to explain but those who've ridden similar geometry on an XC race application will completely understand).
Sizing and choosing a bike would be made easier if people understood stack and reach and then worked out what bar and stem position is required from one frame (or size) to another and how this required stem length and height relates to the designers intention for weight distribution of the bike.
The calculator to the right of this
bb2stem: Stack & Reach Calculator v1.00 website is invaluable if you really want to make proper comparisons between frames and sizes.
Sorry for the long post but it all leads to misinformation on the thread like this:
The Open is very different geometry to the 256. Very different! The same kind of ride characteristics on the XTC vs 256 that I mention above apply here too. The net affect of the geo is a very different set up and different approach to rider weight distribution over the frame required between the Open and 256.
For a start Open quote different fork axle to crown heights to those on the geo of the Chiner frames. That is a difference before you even get started in how manufacturers arrive at quoted numbers.
Assuming you are using the fork heights the manufacturers quote, the Open and 256 have the same chainstay length, same seattube length, headtube length and same STA. Sounds kind of similar besides the HTA but in reality the 256 has a front centre that is 12mm longer. Again, sounds similar but this comparing a Large to a Large but in reality the stack and reach of a Large 256 are most similar to a Medium Open. So to get the same fit on a Medium Open you would need a Large 256. When you do this, the front centre and wheelbase difference between the two frames extends to 37mm which is a sizeable change. This leads to noticeably different wheelbase lengths and noticeably different weight distribution of the rider relative to the front wheel despite the relationship between the rider and rear wheel being broadly similar between the Open and 256.
You could go on and on, but looking any single number be it the HTA, chainstay length, horizontal TT length, etc, doesn't give the true story of fit or ride characteristics. As I said above, the best way forward is to compare stack and reach, work out the stem length and position required and then see how this fits with the philosophy of the designer (i.e. geometry as a whole)
Phew
Summary for the original poster: The 256 (Scott Scale) geometry is really rather good for XC racing :thumbsup: