Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 146
  1. #51
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,248
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    That's such an interesting change of position from a man who so vigorously touted the Paradox as the best bike in the history of ever.
    it shouldnt surprise you given that the vast majority of Barbadians are well versed in hypocrisy. I will not be surprised in fact if LyNx's next bike is a Niner

  2. #52
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    20,029
    It still is, but the jump for me in chainstay length was huge coming from my previous bike to the Paradox and flexy FS to super solid HT. Think the stays on the FS were 18.1" or something and then going to the Paradox @ 16.9" was a real eye opener. Now going from the Paradox to the Prime with 17.6" stays (not long at all to me for a 5" travel FS) I've found the bike climbs easier, but I think it's a lot to do with the FS factor and all the other parts that make up the whole, just like some said chainstay length is only 1 small part of the equation that = bike.

    Also as noted, the previous FS was like a wet noodle in terms of how flexy it was, so now having a really solid FS with a decently short CS and nice angles=heaven


    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    That's such an interesting change of position from a man who so vigorously touted the Paradox as the best bike in the history of ever.

    If you don't ride trails that wind through trees for miles at a time, then maybe wheelbase isn't a big deal to you. Having to take super wide lines to get the bike around will slow ya down. Ride what you like man.
    Don't let "for no good reason" get you all wound up. Your new bike has suspension, which is a sufficiently good reason to have longer chainstays, since it's pretty much mandatory.



    I get winded getting my bike out of the truck!
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
    MTB Barbados
    My Phantom pics

  3. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    710
    But you're making the comparison far more convoluted than it needs to be. I have a Performance Access that handles like absolute butt. The only real difference between it and a ton of other frames is that the Chainstays are almost 18" long, and the wheel base is right at 45". You get that thing in the trees and it's painful. I've ridden a billion other frames and you absolutely can find commonalities based on geometry specifics. So no, every short chainstay bike isn't fun to ride, just like every bike with long chainstays isn't a school bus. However, wheelbase is wheelbase, and when things get tight, it definitely has a dramatic effect. Even riding either of my bikes that are only .5" shorter feel notably easier to make tight switchbacks.

    If I was riding a medium, I probably wouldn't care nearly as much.

    Let me also add that the Prime looks like a lot of fun.

  4. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    However, wheelbase is wheelbase, and when things get tight, it definitely has a dramatic effect. Even riding either of my bikes that are only .5" shorter feel notably easier to make tight switchbacks.
    Yeah, because 10mm out of 1100+mm is crucial.

  5. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    710
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Yeah, because 10mm out of 1100+mm is crucial.
    Crucial? Not exactly. Beneficial? Absolutely.

  6. #56
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,248
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Yeah, because 10mm out of 1100+mm is crucial.
    i agree. the single parameter of chainstay length it not meaningful, frame material is the only thing that is noticeable (e.g,. carbon) and nothing else matters, not rider skill level, not build quality, not other geometry, not components, not tire PSI, nothing

  7. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Crucial? Not exactly. Beneficial? Absolutely.
    Dramatic? Hardly.

  8. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    710
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Dramatic? Hardly.
    You're welcome to demo my two bikes back to back, and get back to me on which one you prefer, and then you can look at the numbers and tell me why one magically rides better.

    You're showing your ass if you don't think that a half of an inch in wheelbase is notable, especially when we're talking about the far upper end of bike sizing.


    I used to ride a 19" framed 26" bike. Besides being absolutely ridiculous looking and feeling, it was very easy to navigate through twisty corners. Was it the wheel size? The Angles? Probably all of the above, and... here it comes... one of the contributing factors was that it had a 42" wheelbase.

    Everything related to bike handling is subjective. What I like and what I feel works well for my locale may very well be different than you feel about yours. I've chased enough fast dudes to notice their lines, and watch mine and try to figure out how to get a bike from point A to point B quickly. What is considered one of the best riding 29ers made? Check the jones space frame out, tell me what Jeff Jones has to say about wheelbase. Why do xc racers size down, sometimes to extremes? Less weight and a more "flickable" bike. Where do you think that term comes from?

  9. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vindiggitydog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    Last Saturday I swapped gears and went back to a 17.2 CS length from 17.6. I wasn't surprised when standing climbs felt more efficient, but I had forgotten how much better the bike steers/handles when set up like this. I got that "telepathic" feeling again. Definitely felt more fun. I also noticed the front end feeling a bit lighter, which is nice seeing how its rigid - I was naturally floating over rocks better. If the bike had gears, steep sitting climbs would probably be a problem (36" inseam). But it's a SS, so not an issue. I really can't understand long CSs on a SS unless (maybe) its a high-speed XC bike.
    I am always amazed at how someone can truly feel a .4 in. difference in CS IMO, there needs to be a more significant gap to see any real changes in performance.

  10. #60
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,676

    opinions are like axles

    Quote Originally Posted by vindiggitydog View Post
    I am always amazed at how someone can truly feel a .4 in. difference in CS IMO, there needs to be a more significant gap to see any real changes in performance.
    It's not amazing - my experience is different than your opinion.
    2016 Pivot Mach 429 Trail
    2011 Kona Unit

  11. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    505
    I do a lot of back to back blind comparisons specifically related to bike geometry and i can tell you that most people cannot tell the difference in small changes(1 or 2 degrees) to ht angle or cs length in a blind test. I Have real world data that shows if you think you are on a short cs bike then you will tell everyone how short they are and how great the bike took corners even when they are not. Your mind is a powerful thing.

  12. #62
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    20,029
    Yes, if I run my KM with the stays slammed all the way I can feel the difference between that and using the 10mm monkey nuts - bike feels a bit less squirely. I can also feel the difference when I run the same size tyres on it and when I throw a bigger one upfront, can def feel the steering relax a bit.

    All this being said, I thought like you while waiting on the Prime, my mind was going crazy thinking I should have sized down because I kept looking at the WB length and the fact it was 3"> longer than the Paradox, the bike I'd come to love and judge other bikes by - too many times people had their own HTs and hope on my Paradox for 2 minutes and when they hoped off were looking to order one because it felt much better than theirs. When I received the Prime I was still sort of freaking out and once I had it built I couldn't believe how big it was sitting there, but once I actually sat on it and pedaled it the extra 3" melted away.

    Now don't ask me exactly where or how Keith did it with the Geo, but he did, the thing barely feels any different from the Paradox in terms of handling and maneuverability, the biggest thing I noticed is the extra weight of the frame (gained about 4lbs from the Paradox) but other than that, very nimble. I'm not really a "fast" type rider, I love slow, tech, rock crawling type riding, but when faced with sweeping, fast trails, most especially with tight trees, the longer wheelbase and 31" wide bars I seem to manage just fine getting through them, in fact guys were on my tail on the open sections often get dropped in the tight, tree lined sections.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    But you're making the comparison far more convoluted than it needs to be. I have a Performance Access that handles like absolute butt. The only real difference between it and a ton of other frames is that the Chainstays are almost 18" long, and the wheel base is right at 45". You get that thing in the trees and it's painful. I've ridden a billion other frames and you absolutely can find commonalities based on geometry specifics. So no, every short chainstay bike isn't fun to ride, just like every bike with long chainstays isn't a school bus. However, wheelbase is wheelbase, and when things get tight, it definitely has a dramatic effect. Even riding either of my bikes that are only .5" shorter feel notably easier to make tight switchbacks.

    If I was riding a medium, I probably wouldn't care nearly as much.

    Let me also add that the Prime looks like a lot of fun.

    Most powerful tool/weapon in the universe So as I say above, when I swung a leg over my Prime knowing full well it had a 3"> WB to my Paradox and it felt no different I was blown away.
    Quote Originally Posted by PeopleForScience View Post
    I do a lot of back to back blind comparisons specifically related to bike geometry and i can tell you that most people cannot tell the difference in small changes(1 or 2 degrees) to ht angle or cs length in a blind test. I Have real world data that shows if you think you are on a short cs bike then you will tell everyone how short they are and how great the bike took corners even when they are not. Your mind is a powerful thing.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
    MTB Barbados
    My Phantom pics

  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    You're welcome to demo my two bikes back to back, and get back to me on which one you prefer, and then you can look at the numbers and tell me why one magically rides better.

    You're showing your ass if you don't think that a half of an inch in wheelbase is notable, especially when we're talking about the far upper end of bike sizing.

    ...

    Everything related to bike handling is subjective.
    Right, and you are full of arbitrary hyperbole on the subject.

    A half inch of wheelbase may be "notable" in some respects but not in others. Just because 1/2 inch of extra BB distance may have an effect on some handling traits doesn't mean other traits are "dramatically" different. A bike's turning radius is determined by its wheelbase, but a difference of less than 1% results in a change of less than 1%. A minute difference, not a dramatic one.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    What I like and what I feel works well for my locale may very well be different than you feel about yours.
    Where have I heard that before? You resort to the "feel" argument when you can't win the fact argument. Typical MTBR tribalist garbage.

  14. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by PeopleForScience View Post
    I do a lot of back to back blind comparisons specifically related to bike geometry and i can tell you that most people cannot tell the difference in small changes(1 or 2 degrees) to ht angle or cs length in a blind test. I Have real world data that shows if you think you are on a short cs bike then you will tell everyone how short they are and how great the bike took corners even when they are not. Your mind is a powerful thing.

  15. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    710
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Right, and you are full of arbitrary hyperbole on the subject.

    A half inch of wheelbase may be "notable" in some respects but not in others. Just because 1/2 inch of extra BB distance may have an effect on some handling traits doesn't mean other traits are "dramatically" different. A bike's turning radius is determined by its wheelbase, but a difference of less than 1% results in a change of less than 1%. A minute difference, not a dramatic one.


    Where have I heard that before? You resort to the "feel" argument when you can't win the fact argument. Typical MTBR tribalist garbage.
    Half an inch on almost anywhere on a bike is going to be noticeable if your bike is on the edge of acceptable.

    If your bottom bracket is low, and then you ride a bike with one a half an inch lower and you start smacking pedals like crazy, is it noticeable? If you're riding a frame that's a little too small and you lose .5" off of your ETT, is it noticeable? Seatpost a half inch too low? If you're riding a Karate Monkey and then you ride a frame with a degree steeper headtube?


    If you're honestly telling me that riding a bike with .5" longer chainstays and < .5" longer wheelbase has no real effect on a rider's ability to get a bike through tight corners, then I'm not sure what to tell ya.

  16. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Half an inch on almost anywhere on a bike is going to be noticeable if your bike is on the edge of acceptable.
    There you go with "noticeable" again when it used to be "dramatic". There's a difference, you know...

    And while 1/2 inch may be "noticeable" in some dimensions, it is not in all.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    If your bottom bracket is low, and then you ride a bike with one a half an inch lower and you start smacking pedals like crazy, is it noticeable?
    A 10mm change in ground clearance is much more than 1%.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    If you're riding a frame that's a little too small and you lose .5" off of your ETT, is it noticeable?
    "Noticeable" maybe, dramatic no. I don't accept the popular wisdom here that bike sizing is that critical. Riders can easily adapt to multiple sizes. There is typically only about 20mm difference between sizes so all you are talking about is 1/2 a size, not very significant.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Seatpost a half inch too low? If you're riding a Karate Monkey and then you ride a frame with a degree steeper headtube?
    These are all irrelevant. You claimed that 10mm of wheelbase makes a dramatic difference, not that 10mm of ground clearance can be noticed. Not all 10mm dimensions are created equal and it doesn't take much intellect to understand that.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    If you're honestly telling me that riding a bike with .5" longer chainstays and < .5" longer wheelbase has no real effect on a rider's ability to get a bike through tight corners, then I'm not sure what to tell ya.
    You can't tell me anything. I don't buy into your fantasy. 10mm of wheelbase is not at all significant.

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    710
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    There you go with "noticeable" again when it used to be "dramatic". There's a difference, you know...

    And while 1/2 inch may be "noticeable" in some dimensions, it is not in all.


    A 10mm change in ground clearance is much more than 1%.
    First off, 1/2" is 12.5mm, so stop trying to trivialize the number by rounding down. This is where I should point out that you're using hyperbole.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    "Noticeable" maybe, dramatic no. I don't accept the popular wisdom here that bike sizing is that critical. Riders can easily adapt to multiple sizes. There is typically only about 20mm difference between sizes so all you are talking about is 1/2 a size, not very significant.
    Pay very close attention to the words I type, please. I wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon
    Half an inch on almost anywhere on a bike is going to be noticeable if your bike is on the edge of acceptable.
    If your bike is on the edge of acceptable. I'm guessing you just glanced over that one. If the bike is not in that happy medium of sizing or angles that you like, then differences will be noticeable.




    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    These are all irrelevant. You claimed that 10mm of wheelbase makes a dramatic difference, not that 10mm of ground clearance can be noticed. Not all 10mm dimensions are created equal and it doesn't take much intellect to understand that.
    You're saying that a half inch doesn't make a difference, I say that it does. I have two bikes built up that are almost identical except for one of them is 44.4" long and one is right at 45" long. The longer one has a slightly steeper STA and .5" longer Chainstays. I have ridden them back to back, in addition to dozens of other frames. The difference between the two is noticeable, I'm not telling you to sell your bike and buy a shorter one. I'm telling you that my trails are tight and winding, and being able to square off the corners on a shorter wheelbase bike is MUCH easier and faster.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    You can't tell me anything. I don't buy into your fantasy. 10mm of wheelbase is not at all significant.
    Do your thing, broseph. How much would it take to be significant? Would 1" added to the chainstays on your current frame be significant?

  18. #68
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,610
    Quote Originally Posted by PeopleForScience View Post
    I do a lot of back to back blind comparisons specifically related to bike geometry and i can tell you that most people cannot tell the difference in small changes(1 or 2 degrees) to ht angle or cs length in a blind test. I Have real world data that shows if you think you are on a short cs bike then you will tell everyone how short they are and how great the bike took corners even when they are not. Your mind is a powerful thing.
    I ride prototype bikes and equipment for a variety of different companies (no divulging names due to confidentiality) for both biking and skiing. The engineers/designers almost always do not give us tech details re changes for reasons that are explained as not wanting to colour our input. The other people who test like me have decades of experience and literally have ridden tens if not hundreds of frames, bikes, skis, boots, etc etc.

    The majority of us (say 9 out of 10) cannot tell the difference between 1 deg of HTA or STA change; or 12mm of BB delta; or degrees of bevel of edge. Some of us can but those who can tend to be the ones who are really picky about bike setup - eg one guy knew that his test bike had a less than 5mm change in chainstay length.

    I'm throwing this out there to give a real world small sample of anecdotal unverified data. Fwiw speaking for myself personally, I adapt easily to different bikes and doubt I could tell differences between 10mm in wheelbase but that maybe, possibly somebody else could
    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  19. #69
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,248
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeL View Post
    I ride prototype bikes and equipment for a variety of different companies (no divulging names due to confidentiality) for both biking and skiing.
    wow! you are almost as awesome as JNC

  20. #70
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,610
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle View Post
    wow! you are almost as awesome as JNC
    Almost! Wish I knew who JNC is so I could compare e-penises
    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  21. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    If your bike is on the edge of acceptable. I'm guessing you just glanced over that one.
    I didn't glance over it, I just think it's pathetic that what was once so dramatic has now devolved into b*tching about the difference between 10 and 12.5mm on bikes that are barely suitable to start with. Why do you even bother?

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    I'm telling you that my trails are tight and winding, and being able to square off the corners on a shorter wheelbase bike is MUCH easier and faster.
    Yeah, 1% easier and faster. You couldn't tell that in a blind test of your life depended on it.

    I say do your own thing as well, just don't tell us how special the benefit you imagine is. You don't understand how trivial the change in wheelbase is because you don't want to.

  22. #72
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,248
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeL View Post
    Almost! Wish I knew who JNC is so I could compare e-penises
    dont get carried away...i was very clear in saying "almost"

  23. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    710
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    I didn't glance over it, I just think it's pathetic that what was once so dramatic has now devolved into b*tching about the difference between 10 and 12.5mm on bikes that are barely suitable to start with. Why do you even bother?


    Yeah, 1% easier and faster. You couldn't tell that in a blind test of your life depended on it.

    I say do your own thing as well, just don't tell us how special the benefit you imagine is. You don't understand how trivial the change in wheelbase is because you don't want to.
    You're really good at multi-quote. Even better at ommission!

  24. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoshM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    First off, 1/2" is 12.5mm
    It's actually 12.7mm

  25. #75
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,676
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    I didn't glance over it, I just think it's pathetic that what was once so dramatic has now devolved into b*tching about the difference between 10 and 12.5mm on bikes that are barely suitable to start with. Why do you even bother?


    Yeah, 1% easier and faster. You couldn't tell that in a blind test of your life depended on it.

    I say do your own thing as well, just don't tell us how special the benefit you imagine is. You don't understand how trivial the change in wheelbase is because you don't want to.
    You're very confident of what others are perceiving and when they're being delusional. OneBadWagon and I have posted some of our experiments and findings. Its true that we can't prove we're not fooling ourselves. On the other hand, have you conducted any experiments or are you just eyeballing the geo numbers and announcing what you think looks significant?

    My interest has largely been the effect of shortening chainstays upon standing climbs. On my Niner, I shortened the CS .5" w/o changing the WB one iota and then rode trails I've ridden 100+ times. The CS was ~3% shorter. Please tell me if I should have been able to tell a significant difference in climbing and handling.
    2016 Pivot Mach 429 Trail
    2011 Kona Unit

  26. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vindiggitydog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    It's not amazing - my experience is different than your opinion.
    Not meant as a dis......

  27. #77
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    My interest has largely been the effect of shortening chainstays upon standing climbs. On my Niner, I shortened the CS .5" w/o changing the WB one iota and then rode trails I've ridden 100+ times. The CS was ~3% shorter. Please tell me if I should have been able to tell a significant difference in climbing and handling.
    Your experiments are all blind, I assume, to preclude the very powerful and well documented effects of confirmation bias. Right?
    As I'm sure you know, blind and double blind testing, particularly when human interpretation is involved, is a crucial component of experimental protocol for a reason. Without it, most results are considered worthless.
    Nobody can make an argument against what you think you feel/see/hear. Getting defensive if questioned is a typical response. That's why these discussions usually dont go anywhere.
    If I told you I saw a unicorn ****ing a leprechaun trail side, you'd probably be suspicious.

    Oh, and you also changed the fit of your Niner in that experiment. Of course, that has no effect on your results.
    Last edited by meltingfeather; 05-18-2012 at 04:58 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  28. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    You're very confident of what others are perceiving and when they're being delusional. OneBadWagon and I have posted some of our experiments and findings. Its true that we can't prove we're not fooling ourselves. On the other hand, have you conducted any experiments or are you just eyeballing the geo numbers and announcing what you think looks significant?
    I quoted the comments that I responded to and am not interested in your misrepresentation of my position. If making the basic observation that 10mm, or even 1/2 inch, is a trivial change to overall wheelbase then my "eyeballing" should be celebrated, not condemned. It's a simple fact, no experiment necessary. Wheelbase does affect maneuverability but it takes more than 1% for a "dramatic" dfifference. The fact that OneBadWagon doesn't understand that should tell everyone how tainted his opinions are. He is no scientist and I suspect neither are you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    My interest has largely been the effect of shortening chainstays upon standing climbs. On my Niner, I shortened the CS .5" w/o changing the WB one iota and then rode trails I've ridden 100+ times. The CS was ~3% shorter. Please tell me if I should have been able to tell a significant difference in climbing and handling.
    That is a difference subject than OneBadWagon's turning radius. Go bait someone else.

  29. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    710
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    I quoted the comments that I responded to and am not interested in your misrepresentation of my position. If making the basic observation that 10mm, or even 1/2 inch, is a trivial change to overall wheelbase then my "eyeballing" should be celebrated, not condemned. It's a simple fact, no experiment necessary. Wheelbase does affect maneuverability but it takes more than 1% for a "dramatic" dfifference. The fact that OneBadWagon doesn't understand that should tell everyone how tainted his opinions are. He is no scientist and I suspect neither are you.


    That is a difference subject than OneBadWagon's turning radius. Go bait someone else.
    I've decided that I'm going to sell my bike that has shorter chainstays and wheelbase. You've convinced me that all bikes ride the same, and there is no reason for me to have any preference at all. Since we've determined that according to you, chainstay length, wheelbase, and to a certain extent fit measurements don't matter, I'm saving myself a lot of money. Please keep our little secret long enough for me to make my money back out of two bikes that I previously thought rode great.

    Hopefully you can share some more enlightenment on components next. I'd previously been using parts that I found had good feel and good durability. I'm waiting with bated breath for you to fill me in on the next round of "My opinion is better than yours 2012".


    You've chosen to ignore plenty of my points, and misconstrue / manipulate many of the others. There's no point in discussing things with you. I could tell you that i average 1mph faster on my bike with shorter CS/Wheelbase, and you'd say that was ******** too. Have a nice day sir.

  30. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    I've decided that I'm going to sell my bike that has shorter chainstays and wheelbase. You've convinced me that all bikes ride the same, and there is no reason for me to have any preference at all. Since we've determined that according to you, chainstay length, wheelbase, and to a certain extent fit measurements don't matter, I'm saving myself a lot of money. Please keep our little secret long enough for me to make my money back out of two bikes that I previously thought rode great.
    Grossly misrepresenting what others say is a sign of a weak mind. This clearly makes you angry but that's not my fault. Next time, don't say stupid things and try to learn something.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Hopefully you can share some more enlightenment on components next. I'd previously been using parts that I found had good feel and good durability. I'm waiting with bated breath for you to fill me in on the next round of "My opinion is better than yours 2012".
    I've offered no opinion. That's your domain.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    You've chosen to ignore plenty of my points, and misconstrue / manipulate many of the others. There's no point in discussing things with you. I could tell you that i average 1mph faster on my bike with shorter CS/Wheelbase, and you'd say that was ******** too. Have a nice day sir.
    Yes it would be, but an approach like that would be right up your alley. As for "manipulating points", look at you. Go ahead and tell some more outright lies, it's done so much good so far.

    It's fine if you wish to wallow in ignorance, just don't inflict it on others.

  31. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    710
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Grossly misrepresenting what others say is a sign of a weak mind. This clearly makes you angry but that's not my fault. Next time, don't say stupid things and try to learn something.
    Well, you've said:
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    Yeah, because 10mm out of 1100+mm is crucial.
    Completely ignoring that I said that reduced wheelbase AND reduced chainstay length had a cumulative benefit that is noticeable. I also said that I didn't want a bike that was long in both regards due to wheelbase, which is the reason I don't ride XXL bikes.


    The point that you don't seem to understand is that given the choice to somehow cram the ST and ETT that I want onto a frame with a 22.5" wheelbase would be ideal. I'd love to have a bike as maneuverable as a "normal" bike, but since my height precludes that, I have to worth with what I can. You are the only schmuck I've ever seen on the internet or elsewhere that will spout forth about a reduction in wheelbase not having a difference in the feeling of what motorcyclists would call "flickability", or a reduced turning radius, decreased steering effort and a more playful feeling bicycle.

    The fact that you won't address any of my questions directly only further proves that you have no interest in the discussion and only look to be swinging your e-dick around.

    You said
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    Grossly misrepresenting what others say is a sign of a weak mind. This clearly makes you angry but that's not my fault. Next time, don't say stupid things and try to learn something.
    following these statements:
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Yeah, because 10mm out of 1100+mm is crucial.
    Please show me where I said it was crucial. You start trying to put words in my mouth here, a practice which you obviously use to flavor the readers interpretation.
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Dramatic? Hardly.
    I thought you said that you weren't offering opinions? Here's a little snippet of subjective information. Thanks for stopping by.
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    A half inch of wheelbase may be "notable" in some respects but not in others. Just because 1/2 inch of extra BB distance may have an effect on some handling traits doesn't mean other traits are "dramatically" different. A bike's turning radius is determined by its wheelbase, but a difference of less than 1% results in a change of less than 1%. A minute difference, not a dramatic one.
    Do you ride a bike with a 45" wheelbase? Please answer the question. It has a lot of bearing on your opinion on the subject, since your entire argument is flavored on what does or doesn't make a difference on XL+ bikes. What would constitute "dramatic"? To me, any tangible benefit is a benefit just the same. I didn't say that jesus came down and blessed my shorter CS/WB bike, just that it handled better. And it does, and you have provided zero evidence that a bike with shorter chainstays and wheelbase wouldn't handle better, because there isn't any.

    The only straw you're grasping at is the linear relationship to wheelbase and turning radius, ignoring the easier maneuverability/easy to manual nature of a bike with a shorter back end and belittling any rider opinion, because it's anecdotal. If I had liked the way my long chainstay bike rode, I would have never purchased another frame! It rode like crap, so I looked at the differences between it and the frame previous. Guess what the difference was? .4" shorter Chainstays and a slightly slacker HTA. By your mentality, none of that matters, but since I'm out riding my bike everyday, and riding the one that I don't like makes me enjoy that time just a little less, I gladly made a change. Just as I would make a change to a bike that I felt was too twitchy, or too soft in the bottom bracket, or anything else I didn't like.

    The simple fact of the matter is that I can tell the difference between two of the bikes that I currently own. It is a very real difference, and just because you don't care to believe that doesn't make it any less true. This isn't internet speculation, this isn't me letting my mind run wild, this is me riding bikes back to back and picking the ones that I like more. If I like the one that has a shorter wheelbase and shorter chainstays, but overall the rest of the geometry is very similar, then call me crazy, but I'm going to have to say that those variables are the deciding factor.


    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    Yes it would be, but an approach like that would be right up your alley. As for "manipulating points", look at you. Go ahead and tell some more outright lies, it's done so much good so far..
    Please tell me where I'm manipulating points. I'm simply trying to find out how big of a change in geometry are us feeble minded riders supposed to notice.

    Care to support any of your previous statements, or is this just more diarrhea of the keyboard coming from your end?

  32. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Completely ignoring that I said that reduced wheelbase AND reduced chainstay length had a cumulative benefit that is noticeable.
    It isn't a cumulative benefit when it is one change. You also said "dramatic", then changed it to "noticeable" when you got caught.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    You are the only schmuck I've ever seen on the internet or elsewhere that will spout forth about a reduction in wheelbase not having a difference in the feeling of what motorcyclists would call "flickability", or a reduced turning radius, decreased steering effort and a more playful feeling bicycle.
    I have said nothing like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    The fact that you won't address any of my questions directly only further proves that you have no interest in the discussion and only look to be swinging your e-dick around.
    Again, look who's talking. The biggest e-dick here is you. I have, in fact, addressed your absurd statements more than once.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Please show me where I said it was crucial.
    Where did I say you said that?

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    You start trying to put words in my mouth here, a practice which you obviously use to flavor the readers interpretation.
    Tiny intellect on display again. Flavoring the interpretation is your game, not mine. You said the difference was "dramatic".

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    I thought you said that you weren't offering opinions? Here's a little snippet of subjective information. Thanks for stopping by.
    Claiming a 1% difference is subjectively small isn't opinion, it's well established fact. You just can't accept it because you want to believe otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    What would constitute "dramatic"? To me, any tangible benefit is a benefit just the same.
    Creating special meanings for words in another tactic of the desperate. It doesn't matter what I believe constitutes "dramatic", the word means what it means. If you wish to communicate, learn the language. Your illiteracy may be the problem here, but it's not my problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    I didn't say that jesus came down and blessed my shorter CS/WB bike, just that it handled better. And it does, and you have provided zero evidence that a bike with shorter chainstays and wheelbase wouldn't handle better, because there isn't any.
    I've provided as much as evidence as you, I just don't make indefensible claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    The only straw you're grasping at is the linear relationship to wheelbase and turning radius, ignoring the easier maneuverability/easy to manual nature of a bike with a shorter back end and belittling any rider opinion, because it's anecdotal.
    It's you that's ignoring that linear relationship because (a) it's a fact, and (b) it disproves your position. The easier "manual nature" of the bike is a different subject, and I won't let you change the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    By your mentality, none of that matters, ...
    I do not have that mentality, you just wish to represent me that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    The simple fact of the matter is that I can tell the difference between two of the bikes that I currently own. It is a very real difference, and just because you don't care to believe that doesn't make it any less true.
    That has nothing to do with your claim that small CS length differences result in dramatic differences in maneuverability. You are welcome to offer your retraction on that statement; I'm not interested in your other b*llsh*t.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Please tell me where I'm manipulating points. I'm simply trying to find out how big of a change in geometry are us feeble minded riders supposed to notice.
    Have done so repeatedly. It's funny that someone so eager to tell the feebleminded how it is should say something like this.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Care to support any of your previous statements, or is this just more diarrhea of the keyboard coming from your end?
    What more do you need? It's clear you are neither able nor interested in learning here.

  33. #83
    get down!
    Reputation: appleSSeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,183
    I guess this goes to show you that whether the chain stays on a bike are long or short, people can still be @ssholes
    Rudy Projects look ridiculous

    visit my blog, BEATS, BIKES & LIFE

  34. #84
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,793

    For those who are interested

    There is a lot of science in determining the "just noticeable difference" in all areas of human perception (commercially, this is a great way to, say, make your candy bars just enough smaller that you spend less on ingredients, but customers don't notice). I doubt anyone has done this with bikes, but for most stimuli, humans are pretty bad at judging differences in magnitude (regardless of sense) of <10%.

    If you have a lot of expertise with something (say, you're the QC guy who picks up and weighs each candy bar and you've done it 10,000 times) you can get quite a bit better at it, but off the top of my head I'd say that most people are not "expert" to the point that they'll notice a 10mm difference (or more) in most bike dimensions (I include myself in that category, btw, so don't get offended).

    If you want to try testing your visual just noticeable difference ability, you can do it online (but it will take you a while, you have to do 200 comparisons!)
    Weber's Law of Just Noticeable Difference (Edit: apparently you need to be a psych student to log in and do this, sorry)

    That said, the fact that you can't *feel* the difference between 420 and 435mm chainstays does NOT mean you are wrong to prefer the shorter ones. That would be akin to saying that the smaller candy bar is just as good as the bigger one - it's not, even if you can't quickly tell the difference by look or feel.

    Some benefits/drawbacks of shorter chainstays are indisputable - with an infinitely long chainstay, you'd never be able to lift the front wheel, for example. A chainstay length of zero, on the other hand, would make it impossible to keep the front end down on almost any climb. I could go on and on but the bottom line is that picking shorter (because you're short, or you want to be able to wheelie just a little easier, or whatever) chainstays isn't wrong, even if the differences you think you notice are mostly in your head.

    -Walt
    Waltworks Custom Bicycles
    Park City, UT USA
    www.waltworks.com
    waltworks.com/blog/
    instagram.com/waltworks/

  35. #85
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,676

    you're all conducting a case study, but ignore all your findings

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    Your experiments are all blind, I assume, to preclude the very powerful and well documented effects of confirmation bias. Right?
    As I'm sure you know, blind and double blind testing, particularly when human interpretation is involved, is a crucial component of experimental protocol for a reason. Without it, most results are considered worthless.
    Nobody can make an argument against what you think you feel/see/hear. Getting defensive if questioned is a typical response. That's why these discussions usually dont go anywhere.
    If I told you I saw a unicorn ****ing a leprechaun trail side, you'd probably be suspicious.
    I generally agree with you. You deleted this portion of my post: "Its true that [OneBadWagon and I] can't prove we're not fooling ourselves." And it's because one rider's experience is not conclusive that I read/post in threads like this one. I want to read other people's experiences like those by OneBadWagon, Lynx and Leel. Yes, Lynx may be deluding myself, but until I see blind data of seasoned riders, I'll consider his and others' experiences. A collection of testimonies, while still not journal-ready data, is more reliable than a sample size of one.

    What I don't find helpful is the use of arbitrary math in a vacuum to form a "fact argument" while not doing any testing and ignoring/ridiculing the experiences of others. The data must derive directly from the ride itself, not selective math calculations. Would a bike journalist reviewing a frame analyze the frame's geo and carbon layup and not bother to build and ride it? A 1% delta may sound insignficant, but I would need to add 4.4" to my chainstay to increase the WB by 10%. And if tonight I somehow alter my bike to have 22" stays, I'm not going to sit around caculating the WB delta. I'll go ride the thing!

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    Oh, and you also changed the fit of your Niner in that experiment. Of course, that has no effect on your results.
    Yeah, exactly my point. The math quickly appears futiley when multiple variables are introduced. And any single change causes multiple variables.Solution? Ride it!
    2016 Pivot Mach 429 Trail
    2011 Kona Unit

  36. #86
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,676
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    It's a simple fact, no experiment necessary. Wheelbase does affect maneuverability but it takes more than 1% for a "dramatic" dfifference. The fact that OneBadWagon doesn't understand that should tell everyone how tainted his opinions are.
    Yes, it's a fact. I just think its not very useful - especially when you can conduct the experiment.. I don't see how you can take a number on a page and become convinced what a rider is or should be experiencing. What does a 2% delta feel like? 3%? How do you make that leap, that nexus? It seems like you're just shrugging, and saying, "looks small to me; person X is obviously delusional."
    Last edited by Ryder1; 05-18-2012 at 03:06 PM. Reason: screwed up the quote
    2016 Pivot Mach 429 Trail
    2011 Kona Unit

  37. #87
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    I generally agree with you. You deleted this portion of my post: "Its true that [OneBadWagon and I] can't prove we're not fooling ourselves." And it's because one rider's experience is not conclusive that I read/post in threads like this one. I want to read other people's experiences like those by OneBadWagon, Lynx and Leel. Yes, Lynx may be deluding myself, but until I see blind data of seasoned riders, I'll consider his and others' experiences. A collection of testimonies, while still not journal-ready data, is more reliable than a sample size of one.

    What I don't find helpful is the use of arbitrary math in a vacuum to form a "fact argument" while not doing any testing and ignoring/ridiculing the experiences of others. The data must derive directly from the ride itself, not selective math calculations. Would a bike journalist reviewing a frame analyze the frame's geo and carbon layup and not bother to build and ride it? A 1% delta may sound insignficant, but I would need to add 4.4" to my chainstay to increase the WB by 10%. And if tonight I somehow alter my bike to have 22" stays, I'm not going to sit around caculating the WB delta. I'll go ride the thing!

    Yeah, exactly my point. The math quickly appears futiley when multiple variables are introduced. And any single change causes multiple variables.Solution? Ride it!
    I think a safe assumption is that everyone here rides mountain bikes. "Ride it!" is not a novel concept. There is no "math in a vaccum." We all ride bikes. Some of us also think analytically. We talk about bikes in analytical terms because we like both of those things. It doesn't mean I'm sitting in a lab somewhere poking a bike with forceps. I'm sitting at my desk in a kit cooling off from my early afternoon ride.
    I myself mostly ride singlespeed with sliders, so I have a pretty solid base of comparative riding on differing chainstay lengths.
    I don't quote all of every post I respond to... just the parts I'm responding to... for clarity.
    Most people here seem to respond better to stuff like, "flickability was way high, bro" than any type of quantitative look at things. The thing is, "flickability" doesn't mean anything... or at least it doesn't mean anything that I can understand when two different people use it.
    The irony in the whole thing is... I (almost) only ever talk about bikes analytically here on mtbr... which is where people inevitably say, "go ride your bike." Well... I just got back.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  38. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    What I don't find helpful is the use of arbitrary math in a vacuum to form a "fact argument" while not doing any testing and ignoring/ridiculing the experiences of others.
    This didn't happen, of course. The claim made was that a 1/2" difference in wheelbase made a "dramatic" difference in turning ability. Pointing out that a 1/2" amounts to 1% is in no way "math in a vacuum". It is exactly the opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    A 1% delta may sound insignficant...
    And it is...with respect to the subject at hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    Yeah, exactly my point. The math quickly appears futiley when multiple variables are introduced.
    This was your failure, not mine. I did not introduce additional variables nor change the subject as you did. In fact, I resisted those things...and for a reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1
    I just think its not very useful - especially when you can conduct the experiment..
    It is incredibly useful and there would be no experiment that would shed more light on the subject. Experiments aren't needed for everything, that's why we have educations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1
    I don't see how you can take a number on a page and become convinced what a rider is or should be experiencing.
    Because I think logically and am familiar with the concept of "just noticeable differences" that Walt referred to earlier. A change of this nature as small as 1% would not be noticeable without some means of discriminating. Just because there are people who don't understand this on MTBR doesn't mean it can't be understood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1
    What does a 2% delta feel like? 3%? How do you make that leap, that nexus? It seems like you're just shrugging, and saying, "looks small to me; person X is obviously delusional.
    Start here. There is a science to this and not everyone is ignorant of it.

    Just to be doubly clear, I never said that riders couldn't tell the difference in CS length. I have taken no position on that. I said that riders couldn't notice a 1% difference in wheelbase in regard to turning ability. People love to talk about CS length and it's effect on turning, most of which is ridiculous. CS length affects the behavior of the bike when out of the saddle, it's effect on turning is grossly overblown.

  39. #89
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,676
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    I think a safe assumption is that everyone here rides mountain bikes. "Ride it!" is not a novel concept. There is no "math in a vaccum." We all ride bikes. Some of us also think analytically. We talk about bikes in analytical terms because we like both of those things. It doesn't mean I'm sitting in a lab somewhere poking a bike with forceps. I'm sitting at my desk in a kit cooling off from my early afternoon ride.
    I myself mostly ride singlespeed with sliders, so I have a pretty solid base of comparative riding on differing chainstay lengths.
    I don't quote all of every post I respond to... just the parts I'm responding to... for clarity.
    Most people here seem to respond better to stuff like, "flickability was way high, bro" than any type of quantitative look at things. The thing is, "flickability" doesn't mean anything... or at least it doesn't mean anything that I can understand when two different people use it.
    The irony in the whole thing is... I (almost) only ever talk about bikes analytically here on mtbr... which is where people inevitably say, "go ride your bike." Well... I just got back.
    I'm not saying, "just ride." I'm saying "ride AND analyze". My criticism is of the "analyze and don't ride" camp (not that you're part of that camp - I was simply continuing my thought).
    2016 Pivot Mach 429 Trail
    2011 Kona Unit

  40. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    My criticism is of the "analyze and don't ride" camp (not that you're part of that camp - I was simply continuing my thought).
    Your ongoing personal attacks are tiresome. I know that one and one makes two and I don't need an experiment each time I need that answer. If you need an experiment to understand that, by all means do it but don't come here afterward claiming the answer is three. The answer is what it is whether you realize it or not.

    When you try a new bike, do you try every size in order to know what you like best, or do you rely on your personal fit experience? Does using your experience put you in the "analyze and don't ride" camp? Do you start over again every time you make a purchase? If you like a 100mm stem, do you try every stem length again when you switch models? How could you know without an experiment?

  41. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoshM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    511
    This whole thread sucks a bunch of e-dick.

    Who let you guys on the internet anyways?

  42. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,102
    I just went from 18.3" chainstays to 17.3", with an increase of 1" in the top tube, with a 72-69.5 HA. Bike felt more sprightly and eager to change direction than the one before. I can't believe how much the handling improved...or maybe I just can't believe how bad the handling was on the old bike.

  43. #93
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,676

    asking the same question twice

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    The claim made was that a 1/2" difference in wheelbase made a "dramatic" difference in turning ability.
    Perhaps you two (and I) don't disagree all that much. If OBW narrowed his claim and said that shortening a bike's CS by .5" (and therefore its WB by .5") causes a dramatic change in tight stuff, would you say his claim was necessarily false?

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Just to be doubly clear, I never said that riders couldn't tell the difference in CS length. I have taken no position on that. I said that riders couldn't notice a 1% difference in wheelbase in regard to turning ability.
    Still not clear to me. I don't see how you can be entirely agnostic towards CS length while making a universal (?) statement about WB. Question: Are you saying that your statement holds true even in instances when the 1% comes soley from shortening the chainstay (e.g. sliding dropouts forward)?
    2016 Pivot Mach 429 Trail
    2011 Kona Unit

  44. #94
    Old school BMXer
    Reputation: Blaster1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    There is a lot of science in determining the "just noticeable difference" in all areas of human perception (commercially, this is a great way to, say, make your candy bars just enough smaller that you spend less on ingredients, but customers don't notice). I doubt anyone has done this with bikes, but for most stimuli, humans are pretty bad at judging differences in magnitude (regardless of sense) of <10%.

    If you have a lot of expertise with something (say, you're the QC guy who picks up and weighs each candy bar and you've done it 10,000 times) you can get quite a bit better at it, but off the top of my head I'd say that most people are not "expert" to the point that they'll notice a 10mm difference (or more) in most bike dimensions (I include myself in that category, btw, so don't get offended).

    If you want to try testing your visual just noticeable difference ability, you can do it online (but it will take you a while, you have to do 200 comparisons!)
    Weber's Law of Just Noticeable Difference (Edit: apparently you need to be a psych student to log in and do this, sorry)

    That said, the fact that you can't *feel* the difference between 420 and 435mm chainstays does NOT mean you are wrong to prefer the shorter ones. That would be akin to saying that the smaller candy bar is just as good as the bigger one - it's not, even if you can't quickly tell the difference by look or feel.

    Some benefits/drawbacks of shorter chainstays are indisputable - with an infinitely long chainstay, you'd never be able to lift the front wheel, for example. A chainstay length of zero, on the other hand, would make it impossible to keep the front end down on almost any climb. I could go on and on but the bottom line is that picking shorter (because you're short, or you want to be able to wheelie just a little easier, or whatever) chainstays isn't wrong, even if the differences you think you notice are mostly in your head.

    -Walt
    That was the only sensible post that I could tolerate to read the entire post.
    May the air be filled with tires!

  45. #95
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,676
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Your ongoing personal attacks are tiresome.
    I don't see how I attacked your person. I summarized your method as I understood it and actually made a point not to personally refer to the method as being yours. That's as impersonal as I can get.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    When you try a new bike, do you try every size in order to know what you like best, or do you rely on your personal fit experience? Does using your experience put you in the "analyze and don't ride" camp? Do you start over again every time you make a purchase? If you like a 100mm stem, do you try every stem length again when you switch models? How could you know without an experiment?
    Yes, I still experiment quite a bit. Based on past testing and working conclusions from that testing, some types of testing are no longer necessary (I've owned a medium frame and several XL frames and now have the basic size question fairly narrowed down). Of my current build, stem and bar dimensions are TBD. I'm also going back to 175mm crank which will be interesting. And I'll be trying the fork at different lengths. I'll be sure to post every detail about every change I make and each dramatic difference I find.
    2016 Pivot Mach 429 Trail
    2011 Kona Unit

  46. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    710
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    I don't see how I attacked your person. I summarized your method as I understood it and actually made a point not to personally refer to the method as being yours. That's as impersonal as I can get.



    Yes, I still experiment quite a bit. Based on past testing and working conclusions from that testing, some types of testing are no longer necessary (I've owned a medium frame and several XL frames and now have the basic size question fairly narrowed down). Of my current build, stem and bar dimensions are TBD. I'm also going back to 175mm crank which will be interesting. And I'll be trying the fork at different lengths. I'll be sure to post every detail about every change I make and each dramatic difference I find.

    Don't mind craig, who has been blatantly attacking everything about my argument and me personally while failing to address my initial claim of a bike that was .5" shorter in BOTH WHEELBASE & CHAINSTAYS is quicker steering than a comparable bike with .5" longer wheelbase and chainstays. Since I must absolutely be making up my assertion that I can tell the difference, he's made no bones about attacking my intellect, because we disagree on something subjective.

    Craigsj, you're doing everything that you claim I'm doing in this thread, and you look like a chump because of it. There's no reason to continue posting here, as you've already made your mind up to the difference (or lack of) in handling between two of MY bikes.

  47. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    Perhaps you two (and I) don't disagree all that much. If OBW narrowed his claim and said that shortening a bike's CS by .5" (and therefore its WB by .5") causes a dramatic change in tight stuff, would you say his claim was necessarily false?
    He has said exactly that and I already responded. I say it is not dramatic and generally not even noticeable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    Still not clear to me. I don't see how you can be entirely agnostic towards CS length while making a universal (?) statement about WB. Question: Are you saying that your statement holds true even in instances when the 1% comes soley from shortening the chainstay (e.g. sliding dropouts forward)?
    CS length defines the relationship between the BB and the rear axle. It only affects WB if you assume the front-center stays the same. It would be equally valid to assume that altering CS length changes the front-center because WB stays the same. People don't typically think like that but I do. With interdependent dimensions, you can't change one thing without changing another; you need to understand what effects are attributable to what.

    CS length has no influence on steering. Wheelbase and steering geometry do. CS length can change body position and body position can influence the perception of steering. There is a difference between how a bike turns and how you perceive it. I liken that the the difference between the front and rear seat of a roller coaster. You may like the feel of being further back on the bike, but you can move further back on a bike with longer stays, too. People can be very close-minded when it comes to fit. Once you stand, though, your seated fit becomes irrelevant.

    I am not agnostic regarding CS length, I just haven't expressed opinions here regarding standing handling. Standing vs. sitting is at the heart of the issue, not wheelbase and turning radius.

  48. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    I don't see how I attacked your person. I summarized your method as I understood it and actually made a point not to personally refer to the method as being yours. That's as impersonal as I can get.
    You objectively summarized me as an "analyze and don't ride" person based on what? What did you hope to accomplish with that description and why did you think it so important to tell MF that he didn't fit that description so as not to offend him? It's hard in that context not to take that comment as a personal insult because that's precisely what it is. It is unfounded as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    Yes, I still experiment quite a bit. Based on past testing and working conclusions from that testing, some types of testing are no longer necessary (I've owned a medium frame and several XL frames and now have the basic size question fairly narrowed down). Of my current build, stem and bar dimensions are TBD. I'm also going back to 175mm crank which will be interesting. And I'll be trying the fork at different lengths. I'll be sure to post every detail about every change I make and each dramatic difference I find.
    So it should be easy to understand that the issue here is that you don't know why this is so easy to know without further experimentation.

    If developers took the "always start over from scratch" approach, we would never have progress in anything, bicycles or even the wheel. We build on past knowledge and achievements and do that through education. Some of us have that education and others do not. Forums make it appear that those groups are on equal footing, and people who lack basic knowledge often believe temper tantrums can get them their way.

  49. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Don't mind craig, who has been blatantly attacking everything about my argument and me personally while failing to address my initial claim of a bike that was .5" shorter in BOTH WHEELBASE & CHAINSTAYS is quicker steering than a comparable bike with .5" longer wheelbase and chainstays.
    You cannot change one without the other unless you make another change. These changes are one in the same. They are interdependent measurements.

    Yes, I have been attacking your argument because it is delusional and you are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Since I must absolutely be making up my assertion that I can tell the difference, he's made no bones about attacking my intellect, because we disagree on something subjective.
    The personal attacks start with you, you are absolutely making up your assertion, and this is not a subjective matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Craigsj, you're doing everything that you claim I'm doing in this thread, and you look like a chump because of it. There's no reason to continue posting here, as you've already made your mind up to the difference (or lack of) in handling between two of MY bikes.
    Yes, this is called "tit-for-tat". Look it up. Everything you do to me comes back at you and will continue. You will never dominate an argument with me by being a bigger a-hole. I can play your game too. As for looking like a "chump", look who's talking. At least I know what I'm talking about and I couldn't care less about your bikes.

  50. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    710
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    You cannot change one without the other unless you make another change. These changes are one in the same. They are interdependent measurements.
    Of course they are interdependent, when talking about two different frames with comparable specs otherwise. However when you have two frames that are virtually identical, with the most notable difference being a half inch off of the CS length, thus a half inch off of the wheelbase, it's a bit easier to compare. How ****ing hard is it for you to understand that?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •