Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 84

Thread: Trek Stache.

  1. #1
    Trail Junkie
    Reputation: dubdryver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,139

    Trek Stache.

    Just caught this across my FB.

    Wide Tires, ISCG Tab, super short stays. (Picture1)

    Superfly weighing in just under 900g (Picture2)

    Superfly100 SL that got a 20% weight drop (picture3)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Trek Stache.-stache.jpg  

    Trek Stache.-sf.jpg  

    Trek Stache.-sf100.jpg  

    Last edited by dubdryver; 08-01-2012 at 05:23 PM. Reason: Picture resize
    SC Tallboy C
    Intense Spider 29 C
    Cervelo S2
    Trek Boone 5 Disc
    Spech Tricross Expert
    Raleigh RX 1.0

  2. #2
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,205
    Re size pics please.

  3. #3
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: driver bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,858
    They are all pretty hot. The Stache looks Ike a barrel load of monkey fun !!!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    212
    the stache looks sweet. i would like to see what components it will have and geometry but i think it will be pretty cool, im definitely interested in it.

  5. #5
    meow meow
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,622
    the stache is pretty sweet but the sf100 is pure sex.

  6. #6
    get down!
    Reputation: appleSSeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,183
    Diggin the stache! Love the green cranks
    Rudy Projects look ridiculous

    visit my blog, BEATS, BIKES & LIFE

  7. #7

  8. #8
    Big Boy
    Reputation: texasnavy05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    938
    Wow!!

    I have hated the way the fly and the fly 100 have looked for the past few years, but these look awesome!!

    Stache looks sweet as well. (without the cheesy anodized crank arms)
    -It's time to shred some mild to moderate gnar!!

  9. #9
    get down!
    Reputation: appleSSeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,183
    Custom anodized Raceface cranks are cheesy? I'll buy them from anyone who thinks the same. Holler at me! :-) ill throw them on a Krampus and be the king of green!
    Rudy Projects look ridiculous

    visit my blog, BEATS, BIKES & LIFE

  10. #10
    spec4life???..smh...
    Reputation: spec4life's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,091
    Does Trek make good bikes?? (wait maybe it's RBR where that's funny)...

  11. #11
    Big Boy
    Reputation: texasnavy05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    938
    Quote Originally Posted by appleSSeed View Post
    Custom anodized Raceface cranks are cheesy? I'll buy them from anyone who thinks the same. Holler at me! :-) ill throw them on a Krampus and be the king of green!
    Im not a fan of the matchy-matchy look on a bike. matching the saddle, wheels, cranks, frame, grips, fork decal..... is for road bikes IMO. Now if everything on the bike was black and the frame was solid grey, i think the anodized cranks would look very nice!!

    For instance the stumpy ht 29er evo from last year (all black) with the anodized cranks would look cool.
    -It's time to shred some mild to moderate gnar!!

  12. #12
    B.Ike
    Reputation: ElwoodT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,062
    I't been a long time since trek has made a bike that didn't look like a nascar bike. These are nice.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    24
    it will be nice to finally see the pricing on these.

  14. #14
    The Rolling Resistance
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    11
    count me in. i am sold.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: esundell90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    766
    Really likein the look of the stache. I'd mob one for sure,
    -Eric
    Keeping the hardtail dream alive, one ride at a time.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    31
    def liking the stache, price is def the question though

  17. #17
    Big Boy
    Reputation: texasnavy05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    938
    LOL 'stache

    -It's time to shred some mild to moderate gnar!!

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    353
    The Stache is TREK's Singletrack Trailbike:
    Trek Unveils Their 2013 Lineup - Including All-New Superfly 100, Rumblefish, and Stache Models | News | mountain-bike-action

    4.7"=120mm travel, 142x12 enclosed rear thru axle, ISCG mounts, internal cable routing, Stealth routing, Shimano Plus, Convertible 142x12 rear wheel and E2 head tube.
    It didn't say anything about drivetrain, wheels and the rest of spec list.

    I guess were have to wait just a little bit longer...

  19. #19
    El Pollo Diablo
    Reputation: SnowMongoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,474
    Stache looked good until the 120mm part.
    Make it 140 and they've got my interest.

  20. #20
    get down!
    Reputation: appleSSeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,183
    what's the chainstay length and head tube angle of the stache?
    Rudy Projects look ridiculous

    visit my blog, BEATS, BIKES & LIFE

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by SnowMongoose View Post
    Stache looked good until the 120mm part.
    Make it 140 and they've got my interest.
    What are you going to do with 140 that you can't do with 120? It's still a hardtail. I'm guessing MSRP $2600.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: eurospek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by ssalmons View Post
    What are you going to do with 140 that you can't do with 120? It's still a hardtail. I'm guessing MSRP $2600.
    Avoid pedal strikes, that's what.

    My Honzo at 110mm was a nuisance to ride on even Midwest trails, pedal strikes galore.

    Now at 140mm, it's a BEAST!!!

    As for the Stache line up, I'm not really completely sold just yet. It still reminds me too much of an XC hardtail (just look at that long stem on there lol) and not an All-Mountain HT shredder. Maybe the geo numbers will convince otherwise.

    But I'll give it to them on making a pretty looking bike. Digging the green ano RF cranks, that are pretty sick. Some Chromag Fubar OSX in ano green would be a dead match there.





    konahonzo

  23. #23
    B.Ike
    Reputation: ElwoodT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,062
    the chain stays look like 17+

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    410
    hmm. looks just like a Kona Big kahuna. pretty creative there guys!

  25. #25
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,210
    Their will be another Stache model slotting just below the one shown here previously, (the gray/green one- Stache 8) This is the Stache 7
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Trek Stache.-stache-2.png  

    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3
    Trek Stache 8... My future bike....
    Anyone with info regarding price?

  27. #27
    West Chester, PA
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,756
    I know canfield didn't invent short chainstays but DB, kona, trek, etc needs to cut some checks to all of us short chainstay slack hardtail beta testers. And maybe send the canfield brothers a friggen fruit basket or something.

  28. #28
    Baby Bear is in the house
    Reputation: r1Gel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,032
    Does anybody have the geo numbers of the Stache?
    Better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

  29. #29
    Baby Bear is in the house
    Reputation: r1Gel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,032
    Quote Originally Posted by ssalmons View Post
    What are you going to do with 140 that you can't do with 120? It's still a hardtail. I'm guessing MSRP $2600.
    A Brit online store already has it up for GBP1800 (about USD2800). The Stache 7 is GBP1300/~USD2000.

    "Out of stock" of course
    Better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wobbem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    561
    Quote Originally Posted by 92gli View Post
    I know canfield didn't invent short chainstays but DB, kona, trek, etc needs to cut some checks to all of us short chainstay slack hardtail beta testers. And maybe send the canfield brothers a friggen fruit basket or something.
    They all rode the Yelli and saw the light.

  31. #31
    Baby Bear is in the house
    Reputation: r1Gel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,032
    Quote Originally Posted by elwoodturner View Post
    the chain stays look like 17+
    I'm guessing (wishing actually) sub-17". Note the scalloped portion of the seat tube near the front derailleur mount. I reckon they did that to tuck in the rear wheel.

    EDIT: using the side view photo of the Stache and assuming 175mm cranks, the chainstays come out to be 453mm or 17.8"
    That's even longer than the chainstays of their FS 29ers! I hope my measurements are wrong, because if they aren't, I'd pass on the Stache and get a Kona Taro instead.

    2nd edit: using the fork, assuming a2c of 520mm, the CS comes out to be 443.9mm. Sounds more realistic as it's closer to the other Trek HT 29ers, but still too long for my tastes. I can't imagine it being the "fun play bike" Trek touts it to be with a rear end that long.
    Last edited by r1Gel; 08-13-2012 at 10:11 PM.
    Better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

  32. #32
    bike tester
    Reputation: syl3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,090
    How short is short enough? Does everyone here want the rear tyre to rub against the bottom bracket?

  33. #33
    Baby Bear is in the house
    Reputation: r1Gel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,032
    Quote Originally Posted by syl3 View Post
    How short is short enough? Does everyone here want the rear tyre to rub against the bottom bracket?
    Sub 17". Something along the lines of 16.5" or so. The Kona Honzo can go as short as 16.3". I consider the Honzo's geo to be the ultimate HT 29er "play bike" geo.
    Better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: eurospek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,458
    Trek Bicycle

    Geo and price is up.

    68.6 HA, 72 SA, 445mm (17.52") CS , $2419.99.

    It makes the Diamondback Mason (better overall spec, Fox 34 and KS dropper) seem like a bargain at only $2100 currently from Jenson.
    konahonzo

  35. #35
    get down!
    Reputation: appleSSeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,183
    *FACEPALM*


    How Canfield can do it, but Trek can't is hilarious. Right on Canfield Bros!
    Rudy Projects look ridiculous

    visit my blog, BEATS, BIKES & LIFE

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    977
    68.6 HA, 72 SA, 445mm (17.52") CS
    Unbelievable! Have they not ridden a bike with slack ha and sub 17" chainstays?!?

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beer_coffee_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    642
    I would post a pic of my Trek Stache but I did a year ago. According to geo charts my Trek '11 Mamba is nearly the same bike (slighty slacker) with its 120mm fork. I can't wait to move up to a Yelli or a Honzo.
    Last edited by beer_coffee_water; 08-20-2012 at 07:37 PM. Reason: Used the 2013 frame cuz its the same as an 2011.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    77
    It's the exact same frame geometry as Mamba, X-Cal, etc. I'm sure that's disappointing to everyone here who was hoping for a Trek Yelli Screamy. But having demoed the X-Cal, loved it, and planning on purchasing one in October, the Stache 7 is very interesting to me.

    It's only $60 more, but there are some interesting trade-offs between he two bikes. Frame geometry is the same, but the Stache gets a bump up Alpha Platinum aluminum (also the head angle is slightly slacker due to the bump up to 120mm travel). Other upgrades for the Stache are the tapered head tube, 142mm thru axle, internal derailleur mounting, ISCG mounts, and a press fit bottom bracket.

    On the other hand, the X-Cal comes with the Reba RL and the Stache 7 gets a Recon Silver.

    Plus the Stache has a sexier paint job.

    The fork is the big sticking point to me. Anybody care to weigh in on the differences?

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    451
    Love the e-speculation, many lol's.

    I'd love to ride one but unfortunately they're not coming to Oz - presumably not a big enough market here.

    Have had the chance to demo the new Superfly SL hardtail and it was an absolute hoot - such a fast bike and loves being ridden hard. Big surprise for me was how much fun it was on rough terrain and being ridden more like a trail bike. Apparently despite the 17.5" chainstays.

  40. #40
    Florida Trail Monkey
    Reputation: Beckman4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    295

    Stache is where it's at

    At the TrekWorld Demo in Waterloo last week, the Stache was probably the most popular bike out there - and probably the most talked-about bike (MTB) of the week.

    I rode it twice on their trails and despite the Geo similarities with the other G2 bikes, it does handle differently. The front end angle and tires feel like you can't possibly make it lose it's grip on the dirt, which made me feel like I could rail corners much more confidently. And the "playfullness" of the bike had me pointing it at every rock / rock garden, skinny and berm I could find.

    Most fun I've ever had on two wheels, and a 19" was put on backorder that night

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    32
    Trek will be at Paris Mountain Sept. 2nd, will be interesting to see how the Stache compares to my 27lb 12 X-Cal converted to a 1x10 (tubeless 29.4 front+29.2 rear, Raceface 32T Single, BBG bashwich, X9 type 2 rear mech short cage, Azonic 420s).

    It looks like a nice bike out of the box, I will post a comparison with some pics (guess I need to up my post count hehe). If the Stache 7 rides as well as an X-Cal with $400ish in upgrades I will be a sad panda, and the Stache one hell of a bike ;-)

  42. #42
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,647
    Was comparing the geo to my Yeti SB95 and found them kind of similar. What's odd is that Yeti lists its offset at 2.0" as well, which is 51mm (1.8" for the more common 45mm offset).

    Image too big to post any bigger really, click for full size:

  43. #43
    Baby Bear is in the house
    Reputation: r1Gel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,032
    Quote Originally Posted by b.r.h. View Post
    It's the exact same frame geometry as Mamba, X-Cal, etc.
    Wow, talk about major disappointment. So basically it's just marketing? They just slapped on different parts and gave it a different paint job?
    Better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    19
    I was about to pull the trigger on a Superfly AL Elite, but now I'm wondering...

    I don't race; pretty much just ride single- and double-track. Is it worth it to wait a couple of months and grab a Stache when it rolls out? I'd appreciate any thoughts on the trade offs.

    Two different LBS—I was price shopping—suggested holding off.

  45. #45
    I hate that name.
    Reputation: blunderbuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by r1Gel View Post
    Wow, talk about major disappointment. So basically it's just marketing? They just slapped on different parts and gave it a different paint job?
    Well, no. You can tell just by looking at it that it is not the same frame with a different paint scheme, but also the numbers are not all the same, just certain ones that people are talking about, like cs length.
    Worked at Trek/Fisher dealer 2008-2013. Only a little biased.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,431
    Quote Originally Posted by syl3 View Post
    How short is short enough?
    Either:

    1. Just a little bit shorter than they are now (regardless of length, this applies), or

    2. Just a little bit shorter than physically possible.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    307
    Actual bike aside, Trek is once again late to the party with a poor attempt at cool by co-opting the already trite "Stache" from the already trite hipster scene. Add to that the nasty anodized green cranks and they can keep it. Alright, alright, I'm feeling grumpy, but it is how I feel. Trek has always been behind the curve aesthetically, IMO. They are the conservative broom of the market, sweeping up after the innovators once the moment has passed.

  48. #48
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,647
    Quote Originally Posted by blunderbuss View Post
    Well, no. You can tell just by looking at it that it is not the same frame with a different paint scheme, but also the numbers are not all the same, just certain ones that people are talking about, like cs length.
    Yep, don't overlook frame design. There are many more differences between bikes than the few geo numbers that people seem to be obsessed about. It's all supposed to work as a system, so you have to take it all into consideration. Not just the geo, but frame construction and component choices as well.

    There are many ways to tune the ride feel with tubing, which many people neglect to notice. Bikes with downtubes that swoop and curve and connect to a large tapered head tube horizontally help make the front end stiffer. Well designed modern 29ers keep the head tubes short and combine them with zerostack headsets to help get the front end lower, which helps solve a problem for 29ers and a good fit for short riders. In fact, that's the main reason I chose the SB95 over the likes of the TB LT, Sultan, etc (3.7" HT w/zerostack HS, extremely fine tuned/shaped tubing and frame design, etc.). That swooping design's not just for helping fork crowns to clear hitting the downtube, despite what editors (who specialize in writing, not designing bikes) have to say about it. Most of the forces a bike experiences are forces that affect front end, pushing it back. With force vectors pushing the front end of the bike directly back, everything from hard braking to hitting bumps, the extra stiffness gained from aligning tubes to better resist those forces helps to allow you to remain more confident on a bike, but resisting the forces and remaining stiff. I wouldn't be surprised when people say that the best feeling bikes are this and that, and look at their design and find that they have downtubes that are so huge at the head tube, which also are swooped to connect more at a horizontally level angle, that the top tube connects more to the downtube than the head tube, if it connects to the head tube at all.

    You are more confident with more balance and capability. It's like walking a slack line, vs walking a tight rope. If the tight rope was made beefier and tighter, resisting more unwanted motion, it would be easier to walk on. You could dance and do acrobatics on it if you wanted to, if beefy and tight enough. A force that's strong enough to make the tight rope give just the slightest would possibly make you tense up and fortify your balance until the tight rope stabilizes. It's similar on a bike; a platform that's unstable will have you spending more effort to stay steady on it, maybe making you become tensed up and reducing your amount of control to basically just holding on and making last second reactions, rather than focusing on flow and line choice well ahead of time. Of course, you can get used to the unstableness of it and naturally compensate after developing muscles to stabilize it, but that takes time and practice to get that strong. When the frame is made that much more stable, you have to wonder what the trade offs are, over the more unstable one. In the SB95's case, it's a frame weight of 7 lbs that you must settle for. That's 7 lbs of meaningful mass to some, but experienced racing and super fit types may be more willing to accept some flex over some stiffness, taking advantage of their strength. Trek has a lot of athletes giving them feedback, which is probably why they, and other big names with racing teams, are more focused on high stiffness to weight ratios and low weight on their flagship lines, trying to give the consumer it all, as they know they can attract customers by claiming silly low weights and saying "we retained the stiffness". Basically, athletic types that want to race seem to find it more suitable, than the average Joe looking to trail ride for fun, with improving fitness and a welcome secondary benefit. The brands that don't participate in high level XC racing, and build their trail frames relatively beefy for stiffness, seemingly are becoming a hit with those average Joes.

    Geo can tell you a little about bikes, but only after you have ridden different bikes enough to determine which you like and don't like. You might have been unhappy with a low BB height due to pedal strikes, or have a high BB height and wanted better handling and had not problems with pedal strikes, so you have room to lower it. Narrowing it down to the ideal height takes at least 2 tries, maybe 6 tries (that's a lot of different frames to go through), but good designing from frame makers can minimizes this process. It might be wise to go with a brand that is local to your area. You might choose Yeti for the CO Range, Knolly for Northshore, Turner for SoCal, etc. because their design prototypes were mostly tested and fine tuned in those areas.

    It's easy to attribute geo numbers for certain ride characteristics, but people neglect that they affect other things. As an example, for 29ers, higher BB height also sort of helps overcome the front end too tall problem. Having a taller BB gets the seat higher in relation to the handlebar, as the distance between the crank and your ideal seat height shouldn't change, so it moves up as the BB height moves up. People think of seat angle as something that affects climbing performance, with people thinking that steeper is better. On the other hand, people think that getting more weight back helps with climbing traction. They think short CS, to get more weight bias on the rear, and setback seatposts will increase climbing traction. There are some that combine all of it, and throw in the steep SA, thinking it's the best climbing geo... misleading statements and people perceiving things wrong has lead to misinformation; long story short, the chainstay length, seat angle, and seatpost setback also play a significant role for fitting and weight balance, which can greatly affect the ride handling of the bike.

    Trends that seem to be driven by misinformation are the worst. I find it's an ugly part of the biking community and I find myself more likely to avoid it all--you don't see many true engineering types here explaining it all, since they have better things to do than to facepalm and get headaches from the stupidity here. One example is the trend for wanting shorter chainstays. Short chainstay bikes are not fun for everyone. I honestly found the drawbacks of riding any bike with CS shorter than 16.9" to be too harsh to consider owning and riding one very often. They are fun for short and tight tracks, or the kind of tracks that fast and twisty, made tight since you are trying to carry a lot of speed through the turns. They seem more suited to 4x, pump track, and DJ type of riding, than long stretches of singletrack. There's just not many areas near me that I can really use the bike to its full ability, without building them myself. I find bikes with CS at around 17.5" to be at home on the big mountains. Easy to steadily climb up and easy to bomb down with speed and stability. 16.9" CS seems to be the "golilocks" CS, nimble enough to play in tight singletrack without resorting to tricks such as drifting (Scandinavian flick/pendulum turn) to get through the tight and sharp turns, but not as confident on the super fast big mountain descents. In regards to the misinformation about climbing and CS length, I find the short CS seems to encourage out of the saddle climbing more and long CS encourages in the saddle climbing, because of *balance*. Your body will naturally figure out the best balance point for best traction, which is getting your weight centered over the point the rear tire touches the ground. Setback posts at full height and slack seat angles might put your weight behind the rear axle, which is far behind the tire contact point--you would be out of the saddle and tucked low and forward on such a setup to climb well, to get less weight off the rear. A better balanced geo will make the bike more comfortable to climb on, with less of that tucking required, and taking advantage of the smooth power output in the saddle. Basically, certain geo makes the bike feel more natural and requires less compensation to ride well through trails that they are suited for. A skilled/pro rider more than likely can make any bike look fast through any terrain.

    Balance seems to be underestimated as to what it can offer, in terms of handling. Perfect 50/50 weight balance between the front and rear offers a sort of handling that can be amazing. Cars that are balanced 50/50 with low center of gravity are praised for their ability to do high speed cornering, to the point that drifting is very natural and the driver is drifting to the point that it's so intense that they're inducing Gs that peels them sideways out of their seat and are basically clinging on to the steering wheel. The 50/50 balance on a well designed bike offers very neutral handling, that doesn't have personality and doesn't beg to be ridden any certain way or certain speed, but basically matches your stride. If you want to go slow, it'll handle well going slow. If you want to go fast, it'll match you and handle going fast as well... the balance basically minimizes any sort of weakness. You might be sold into a bike that is like a rabbit in some aspects, showing off speed and agility, but there's wisdom the shows the smooth and steady turtle can win races. Of course, there are rabbits that excel at certain tracks, but the balanced bike will do well no matter what the track. You can take it on a road trip across the country or world and it will feel just as capable. In my experience, Treks tend to to get their bikes extremely well balanced, to the point they feel like they have no personality, just very well behaved and "obedient".

    These are just few of the things that most people miss when they look at geo tables. Many people are mislead by very simple statements, like marketing that says their bikes climb well because of their short CS and are left guessing what the reasons are why that is. It leads to more confusion. Seems to go against why people come online to research in the first place, to become more educated consumers who are able to wisely decide how to spend their money. More people waste time clearing myths from people perceiving marketing wrong, than narrowing down the choices of what they want or are interested in. In the end, it's a matter of personal test riding that ends up being the thing that narrows down choices, as well as price, convenience, popularity, appearance, and/or support. I've said before that the human body and its senses aren't really a good at being scientific instruments, but it sure offers more information on narrowing down choices and making an informed decision than 95+% of people's brains trying to work on reviews, marketing, and hype without specific context. Reviews, marketing, and hype actually make your decision-making more difficult, widening your choices and instilling doubt. On top of all that, all the misinformation out there just makes research efforts a huge waste of time. Also, it's not really fair to compare one frame to another, when the difference in fit and between one's wheelset and tire setup, which could drastically change the feel of a bike, basically gets ignored when comparing the two.

    I think adjustable geo is gonna get more popular once people understand geo more. You should be able to change your dropouts, HA, or other links in the bike in order to adjust your frame to the trails and take advantage of your stronger skillset while minimizing the need for your weaker skillset. People adjust their suspension and accept the weight of all those adjustments, but why can't they accept the weight of modular dropouts? Those who favor simplicity might cringe at the thought of the complexity and other issues it might bring, such as slipping and creaking, but I'm sure there's a market out there for it, just like there's a market for suspension travel adjustment on the fly.

    That all said, from what I know, this Stache seems to be made for groomed bike park type trails, or big mountain trails that aren't so raw, and are more open. Fireroad bomber, steady climber, with an emphasis on stability and balance and carrying lots of momentum with smooth speed control. Doesn't seem like it would suit the guys who like rapid acceleration, hard braking, and exaggerated flick type handling skills, though I imagine you would need to develop and improve Scandinavian flick skill to be competitive in the switchbacks and tight 90 degree turns. I guess if you wanted to ride a hardtail in Mammoth or Whistler (there are lots of HT friendly trails there, and not just gnarly ones like those popularized in videos), which would be equally as good on long stretches of singletrack like the Monarch Crest Trail in CO, this would be one that you would choose.

    Sorry for the huge wall of text and the lack of proper editing for grammar, spelling, etc. I could just have just summed it up with some one-liner, using convention wisdom or some quote, but I don't think the message would have gotten through clear enough in the manner I intended. Basically, ride before you buy; there's no substitute for telling what works best for you and your trails than your own body and your own local trails; words found on the internet just don't cut it. Also, don't be *that guy*; you know, that d-bag that thinks he knows it all, but can't explain it himself, but feels that it's necessary to get his opinion out, which is usually worthless hype or some marketing that was "translated and simplified" which winds up misleading people.
    Last edited by Varaxis; 08-21-2012 at 10:57 PM.

  49. #49
    Big Boy
    Reputation: texasnavy05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    938
    ^^ tldr
    -It's time to shred some mild to moderate gnar!!

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wobbem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    561
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    Yep, don't overlook frame design. There are many more differences between bikes than the few geo numbers that people seem to be obsessed about. It's all supposed to work as a system, so you have to take it all into consideration. Not just the geo, but frame construction and component choices as well.

    There are many ways to tune the ride feel with tubing, which many people neglect to notice. Bikes with downtubes that swoop and curve and connect to a large tapered head tube horizontally help make the front end stiffer. Well designed modern 29ers keep the head tubes short and combine them with zerostack headsets to help get the front end lower, which helps solve a problem for 29ers and a good fit for short riders. In fact, that's the main reason I chose the SB95 over the likes of the TB LT, Sultan, etc (3.7" HT w/zerostack HS, extremely fine tuned/shaped tubing and frame design, etc.). That swooping design's not just for helping fork crowns to clear hitting the downtube, despite what editors (who specialize in writing, not designing bikes) have to say about it. Most of the forces a bike experiences are forces that affect front end, pushing it back. With force vectors pushing the front end of the bike directly back, everything from hard braking to hitting bumps, the extra stiffness gained from aligning tubes to better resist those forces helps to allow you to remain more confident on a bike, but resisting the forces and remaining stiff. I wouldn't be surprised when people say that the best feeling bikes are this and that, and look at their design and find that they have downtubes that are so huge at the head tube, which also are swooped to connect more at a horizontally level angle, that the top tube connects more to the downtube than the head tube, if it connects to the head tube at all.

    You are more confident with more balance and capability. It's like walking a slack line, vs walking a tight rope. If the tight rope was made beefier and tighter, resisting more unwanted motion, it would be easier to walk on. You could dance and do acrobatics on it if you wanted to, if beefy and tight enough. A force that's strong enough to make the tight rope give just the slightest would possibly make you tense up and fortify your balance until the tight rope stabilizes. It's similar on a bike; a platform that's unstable will have you spending more effort to stay steady on it, maybe making you become tensed up and reducing your amount of control to basically just holding on and making last second reactions, rather than focusing on flow and line choice well ahead of time. Of course, you can get used to the unstableness of it and naturally compensate after developing muscles to stabilize it, but that takes time and practice to get that strong. When the frame is made that much more stable, you have to wonder what the trade offs are, over the more unstable one. In the SB95's case, it's a frame weight of 7 lbs that you must settle for. That's 7 lbs of meaningful mass to some, but experienced racing and super fit types may be more willing to accept some flex over some stiffness, taking advantage of their strength. Trek has a lot of athletes giving them feedback, which is probably why they, and other big names with racing teams, are more focused on high stiffness to weight ratios and low weight on their flagship lines, trying to give the consumer it all, as they know they can attract customers by claiming silly low weights and saying "we retained the stiffness". Basically, athletic types that want to race seem to find it more suitable, than the average Joe looking to trail ride for fun, with improving fitness and a welcome secondary benefit. The brands that don't participate in high level XC racing, and build their trail frames relatively beefy for stiffness, seemingly are becoming a hit with those average Joes.

    Geo can tell you a little about bikes, but only after you have ridden different bikes enough to determine which you like and don't like. You might have been unhappy with a low BB height due to pedal strikes, or have a high BB height and wanted better handling and had not problems with pedal strikes, so you have room to lower it. Narrowing it down to the ideal height takes at least 2 tries, maybe 6 tries (that's a lot of different frames to go through), but good designing from frame makers can minimizes this process. It might be wise to go with a brand that is local to your area. You might choose Yeti for the CO Range, Knolly for Northshore, Turner for SoCal, etc. because their design prototypes were mostly tested and fine tuned in those areas.

    It's easy to attribute geo numbers for certain ride characteristics, but people neglect that they affect other things. As an example, for 29ers, higher BB height also sort of helps overcome the front end too tall problem. Having a taller BB gets the seat higher in relation to the handlebar, as the distance between the crank and your ideal seat height shouldn't change, so it moves up as the BB height moves up. People think of seat angle as something that affects climbing performance, with people thinking that steeper is better. On the other hand, people think that getting more weight back helps with climbing traction. They think short CS, to get more weight bias on the rear, and setback seatposts will increase climbing traction. There are some that combine all of it, and throw in the steep SA, thinking it's the best climbing geo... misleading statements and people perceiving things wrong has lead to misinformation; long story short, the chainstay length, seat angle, and seatpost setback also play a significant role for fitting and weight balance, which can greatly affect the ride handling of the bike.

    Trends that seem to be driven by misinformation are the worst. I find it's an ugly part of the biking community and I find myself more likely to avoid it all--you don't see many true engineering types here explaining it all, since they have better things to do than to facepalm and get headaches from the stupidity here. One example is the trend for wanting shorter chainstays. Short chainstay bikes are not fun for everyone. I honestly found the drawbacks of riding any bike with CS shorter than 16.9" to be too harsh to consider owning and riding one very often. They are fun for short and tight tracks, or the kind of tracks that fast and twisty, made tight since you are trying to carry a lot of speed through the turns. They seem more suited to 4x, pump track, and DJ type of riding, than long stretches of singletrack. There's just not many areas near me that I can really use the bike to its full ability, without building them myself. I find bikes with CS at around 17.5" to be at home on the big mountains. Easy to steadily climb up and easy to bomb down with speed and stability. 16.9" CS seems to be the "golilocks" CS, nimble enough to play in tight singletrack without resorting to tricks such as drifting (Scandinavian flick/pendulum turn) to get through the tight and sharp turns, but not as confident on the super fast big mountain descents. In regards to the misinformation about climbing and CS length, I find the short CS seems to encourage out of the saddle climbing more and long CS encourages in the saddle climbing, because of *balance*. Your body will naturally figure out the best balance point for best traction, which is getting your weight centered over the point the rear tire touches the ground. Setback posts at full height and slack seat angles might put your weight behind the rear axle, which is far behind the tire contact point--you would be out of the saddle and tucked low and forward on such a setup to climb well, to get less weight off the rear. A better balanced geo will make the bike more comfortable to climb on, with less of that tucking required, and taking advantage of the smooth power output in the saddle. Basically, certain geo makes the bike feel more natural and requires less compensation to ride well through trails that they are suited for. A skilled/pro rider more than likely can make any bike look fast through any terrain.

    Balance seems to be underestimated as to what it can offer, in terms of handling. Perfect 50/50 weight balance between the front and rear offers a sort of handling that can be amazing. Cars that are balanced 50/50 with low center of gravity are praised for their ability to do high speed cornering, to the point that drifting is very natural and the driver is drifting to the point that it's so intense that they're inducing Gs that peels them sideways out of their seat and are basically clinging on to the steering wheel. The 50/50 balance on a well designed bike offers very neutral handling, that doesn't have personality and doesn't beg to be ridden any certain way or certain speed, but basically matches your stride. If you want to go slow, it'll handle well going slow. If you want to go fast, it'll match you and handle going fast as well... the balance basically minimizes any sort of weakness. You might be sold into a bike that is like a rabbit in some aspects, showing off speed and agility, but there's wisdom the shows the smooth and steady turtle can win races. Of course, there are rabbits that excel at certain tracks, but the balanced bike will do well no matter what the track. You can take it on a road trip across the country or world and it will feel just as capable. In my experience, Treks tend to to get their bikes extremely well balanced, to the point they feel like they have no personality, just very well behaved and "obedient".

    These are just few of the things that most people miss when they look at geo tables. Many people are mislead by very simple statements, like marketing that says their bikes climb well because of their short CS and are left guessing what the reasons are why that is. It leads to more confusion. Seems to go against why people come online to research in the first place, to become more educated consumers who are able to wisely decide how to spend their money. More people waste time clearing myths from people perceiving marketing wrong, than narrowing down the choices of what they want or are interested in. In the end, it's a matter of personal test riding that ends up being the thing that narrows down choices, as well as price, convenience, popularity, appearance, and/or support. I've said before that the human body and its senses aren't really a good at being scientific instruments, but it sure offers more information on narrowing down choices and making an informed decision than 95+% of people's brains trying to work on reviews, marketing, and hype without specific context. Reviews, marketing, and hype actually make your decision-making more difficult, widening your choices and instilling doubt. On top of all that, all the misinformation out there just makes research efforts a huge waste of time. Also, it's not really fair to compare one frame to another, when the difference in fit and between one's wheelset and tire setup, which could drastically change the feel of a bike, basically gets ignored when comparing the two.

    I think adjustable geo is gonna get more popular once people understand geo more. You should be able to change your dropouts, HA, or other links in the bike in order to adjust your frame to the trails and take advantage of your stronger skillset while minimizing the need for your weaker skillset. People adjust their suspension and accept the weight of all those adjustments, but why can't they accept the weight of modular dropouts? Those who favor simplicity might cringe at the thought of the complexity and other issues it might bring, such as slipping and creaking, but I'm sure there's a market out there for it, just like there's a market for suspension travel adjustment on the fly.

    That all said, from what I know, this Stache seems to be made for groomed bike park type trails, or big mountain trails that aren't so raw, and are more open. Fireroad bomber, steady climber, with an emphasis on stability and balance and carrying lots of momentum with smooth speed control. Doesn't seem like it would suit the guys who like rapid acceleration, hard braking, and exaggerated flick type handling skills, though I imagine you would need to develop and improve Scandinavian flick skill to be competitive in the switchbacks and tight 90 degree turns. I guess if you wanted to ride a hardtail in Mammoth or Whistler (there are lots of HT friendly trails there, and not just gnarly ones like those popularized in videos), which would be equally as good on long stretches of singletrack like the Monarch Crest Trail in CO, this would be one that you would choose.

    Sorry for the huge wall of text and the lack of proper editing for grammar, spelling, etc. I could just have just summed it up with some one-liner, using convention wisdom or some quote, but I don't think the message would have gotten through clear enough in the manner I intended. Basically, ride before you buy; there's no substitute for telling what works best for you and your trails than your own body and your own local trails; words found on the internet just don't cut it. Also, don't be *that guy*; you know, that d-bag that thinks he knows it all, but can't explain it himself, but feels that it's necessary to get his opinion out, which is usually worthless hype or some marketing that was "translated and simplified" which winds up misleading people.

    Sorry message still didn't get through, hurts my eyes just trying..

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •