Results 1 to 84 of 84

Thread: Trek Stache.

  1. #1
    Trail Junkie
    Reputation: dubdryver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,186

    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
    Ibis Ripley LS
    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
    19,200
    Re size pics please.

  3. #3
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: driver bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,140
    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
    978
    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
    978
    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
    1,099
    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
    978
    LOL 'stache

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

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    401
    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
    5,468
    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
    1,099
    the chain stays look like 17+

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    415
    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
    8,258
    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
    4,223
    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
    2,033
    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
    2,033
    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
    575
    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
    2,033
    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
    1,175
    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
    2,033
    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
    5,468
    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
    985
    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
    758
    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
    87
    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
    34
    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
    4,745
    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
    2,033
    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
    24
    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
    1,639
    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
    6,027
    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
    324
    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
    4,745
    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
    978
    ^^ tldr
    -It's time to shred some mild to moderate gnar!!

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wobbem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    575
    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..

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    34
    Awesome post Varaxis. This may be tl;dr for some, but I do have a point, I think.

    I just started biking again in June after a 13 year break, and the amount of information available today is somewhat overwhelming when you start digging into details. It seems like there is a lot of over analysis everywhere you look, and what is right for some may not be right for others, etc..
    Hehe, it kinda reminds me of the stuff you would see on the WoW boards about which talent tree build was best for xxx and you would have multi page threads over whether or not 1 point made a difference in this skill, then someone would break out the calculus.

    **Not that there is anything wrong with this***
    People take their hobbies seriously and bike companies rake in money and innovate, innovate, innovate. The business of bike stuff has changed soo much since I had Grip Shift X-Rays on my Trek 8700, and the bikes made today are incredibly superior to what was considered epic 10 years ago.

    In the mid 90's after college I lived in western CO (Grand Junction), Salt Lake City, Reno, San Fran, Vegas, and took my bike everywhere and biked anything I could find a trail map for at the LBS. A mountain bike was a mountain bike, and that was that. If I went down anything that was even slightly steep, I had to pull my ass off the back of the seat to not feel off balance.

    Fast forward 13 years, I picked up a 12 Trek X-Cal and absolutely love the geometry of the bike, I never feel off balance, and since converting it to a 1x10 with a SRAM type 2 rear mech I feel like I can go over, off, or climb anything---infinitely more stable and solid than my old 26" 8700.

    I don't see anything wrong with the Stache. As competitive as the business is now with so many players making great bikes, the tangible difference from marginal changes between frame types/angles/etc are probably close to subjective and personal preference (when talking about bikes in the same class). Companies need to sell stuff to make investors happy, and seriously, how much more can a hardtail be tweaked before its at a point of diminishing returns?

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: eurospek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,468
    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.


    konahonzo

  53. #53
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,745
    Quote Originally Posted by eurospek View Post


    Cliff notes version:

    Bikes are complicated. Judging them by a few numbers is foolish.

    Not sure if you can call all this CS length talk healthy nerdy discussion or something worse. Was funny seeing how people were getting outraged, thinking that the Stache was hardly any different than the hardtails that Trek makes, cause they were just looking at a few geo numbers and conveniently ignored everything else.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    352
    Here's my cliff notes version (CS length) =/= Entire ride experience.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jtorlando25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    201
    hard tail "trail" 29er. uhhhhh wtf.

    oh wait, it has pretty green crank arms. I'm sold!

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    34
    green crank arms use the power of mother nature to make you pedal faster.

  57. #57
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,433
    Vraxis, WTF Dude, you missing writting papers for college or some such? Please, Mods, can we delete the posts quoting Vraxis' post in it's entirety, don't think we need that quoted so many time pushing evetrythign down ut


    Wobbem, that was after they (Canfield) rode the Paradox and then came out with the Yelli and all of that after some paid attention to small custom builders like Stickle etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by wobbem View Post
    They all rode the Yelli and saw the light.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  58. #58
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,745
    Any engineering types able to explain why 142x12 may be better for hardtails than standard drop-outs and skewers, or show why they are pointless and offer virtually no benefit?

    The way I understand it, there's nothing to be gained other than the fact that more heavier duty (than XC) wheels are starting to come in 142x12.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wobbem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Wobbem, that was after they (Canfield) rode the Paradox and then came out with the Yelli and all of that after some paid attention to small custom builders like Stickle etc.
    Ok I'll give you that

  60. #60
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,433

    Def not an engineer, but have chatted with one about it.

    You will gain a bit of stiffness from the 12mm instead of 10mm, but besides that, not a whole lot different between them, just 142mm is easier to install for the "special" folkes It's just like the Fox 15mm fork setup, has slots and is easier to install since it slides in instead of you having to line it up, but unlike Maxle it doesn't expand to make it a complete solid unit, just clamps everything together tightly adding more side load to the bearings than a normal QR can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    Any engineering types able to explain why 142x12 may be better for hardtails than standard drop-outs and skewers, or show why they are pointless and offer virtually no benefit?

    The way I understand it, there's nothing to be gained other than the fact that more heavier duty (than XC) wheels are starting to come in 142x12.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beer_coffee_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    758
    As far as addressing the Stache's chainstay length, they were being touted as short. I was hoping they would deliver sub 17" stays with all the features they built into the frame; ISCG tabs, dropper friendly seat tube with stealth routing, tapered head tube, and the rear thru-axle. I do like my Trek 29er hardtail. It is fun for me to ride and it only lacks the new features of the Stache frame not the travel. I really wanted to see if I could get a frame-only through my LBS, but the geo between my bike and the Stache are too similar to justify purchasing it.

  62. #62
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,745
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    You will gain a bit of stiffness from the 12mm instead of 10mm, but besides that, not a whole lot different between them, just 142mm is easier to install for the "special" folkes It's just like the Fox 15mm fork setup, has slots and is easier to install since it slides in instead of you having to line it up, but unlike Maxle it doesn't expand to make it a complete solid unit, just clamps everything together tightly adding more side load to the bearings than a normal QR can.
    I also had some rather in-depth discussions with engineers, and actual designers (see quite a few of them out here in SoCal at events). They seem rather disappointed in the direction some brands are going with designs, being driven more by marketing and trying to differentiate themselves. They say that there's no real difference in stiffness on their torsional stiffness testing jigs, and that if riders say they feel a difference, it's more due to other changes in their setup, like a wheel, tube, tire, and/or tube change, rather than the axle.

    They basically sum up that the TA only stiffens up the rear triangle if it were flexy to begin with. It's not like a FS with lots of moving parts, an unbalanced amount weight hanging off each side, where the driveside half of a swingarm could move out of sync with the non-driveside half. On a HT, they say that the rear triangle is as solid as it gets. They go as far as saying that a little flex is good, as it helps the rear wheel stay planted and hunt for "grooves", rather than bounce around and slip. One suggested that a good Shimano QR skewer will hold your wheel in tighter and more securely than the vast majority of other skewers available on the market, especially Ti shafted ones, and that if you're experiencing flex on your HT, it would be wiser to try upgrading your skewers (to Shimano) before you think about upgrading your wheel (he didn't mention 142x12 as a viable option).

    They also explain that there's no extra wheel stiffness between a hub in its 135x10 config and its 142x12 config, as it would take a larger diameter axle* and wider spaced bearings to increase stiffness in the hub. On number of hubs, the actual TA (maxle, etc) is still nothing more than an oversized skewer, as it runs through an axle already in the hub; even hubs that have you change the axle for the new 142x12 configey don't change anything like the size of the bearings, so the diameter of the actual axle, which contacts the inner diameter of the hub's load bearing cartridge bearings, does not change, therefore the wheel stiffness is the same.

    To maybe verify this, I called up and e-mailed some companies to try and get their opinion and also asked for details on 142x12. They gave me really simple answers saying that "they" (as in the person answering my question, not the company) have felt a noticeable increase in stiffness going to 142x12. Some others added that it is the "future standard" for rear wheels and "increases rear wheel security". Some add that it helps them design "better" rear derailleur hangers. Apparently the marketing and sales teams have different answers than their staff with actual credentials, which I guess is understandable, as their job is to interest you in their fancy new bikes. I quoted the things that they said, that may be up for argument, depending on the context, which they conveniently didn't provide to clearly explain it all.

    In summary, if you want to believe the people with actual credentials, 142x12 on HT is more of a marketing gimmick than a feature you should put on a list of things you want in a bike, next to short CS, carbon and/or Ti everything, thru axle or post mount everything, integrated this and that... If you want to believe consumer hype and marketing/sales, to maybe give you a placebo effect, thinking that it's actually benefiting you and makes you more confident on a bike, that's not a bad thing. But for the sake of being a well informed and educated consumer, I think it's best to know the truth. There's benefits, but stiffness probably ain't one of them. Even a Trek world cup mechanic said that they use 142x12 on their HT more because it reduces the amount of wheels they need to stock between their SF100 FS bike (which actually benefits from the 142x12 in terms of stiffness) and their SF hardtails, than for any benefit it may offer on the HT.

  63. #63
    get down!
    Reputation: appleSSeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,183
    The point to me is that they are marketing and hyping this up as some sort of "all-mountain", so tired of hearing that!, bike that was slack and short like the Canfields etc. and it's really not that different from their other models. It's mostly aesthetic.
    Rudy Projects look ridiculous

    visit my blog, BEATS, BIKES & LIFE

  64. #64
    Baby Bear is in the house
    Reputation: r1Gel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by beer_coffee_water View Post
    As far as addressing the Stache's chainstay length, they were being touted as short. I was hoping they would deliver sub 17" stays with all the features they built into the frame...
    Ditto.
    That's why I'll pass as well.
    Better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

  65. #65
    Baby Bear is in the house
    Reputation: r1Gel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,033
    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.
    I was exaggerating of course.

    And whoever neg rep'd me and called me "dumb," hyperbole and sarcasm sure are lost on you...
    Better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    178
    I like that they are designed for 120mm, but they seem really pricey for what you get even compared to other Treks.

  67. #67
    get down!
    Reputation: appleSSeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,183
    I'll take the Koa Taro @ $1,300 over the Stache any day.
    Rudy Projects look ridiculous

    visit my blog, BEATS, BIKES & LIFE

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    95
    Will the stache feel harsher than something like the x-caliber or superfly? In terms of them making it more of an all mountain built up bike.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    59
    Has anyone actually ridden this bike yet?

    While I agree its a stretch to call it "All-mountain," I think it might be perfect for someone coming from a 100mm HT 29 looking for a little more play without giving up a ton of climbing ability/weight. (Like me!)

  70. #70
    247
    247 is offline
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,333
    I think it might be perfect for someone coming from a 100mm HT 29 looking for a little more play without giving up a ton of climbing ability/weight.
    The difference between my old G1 Paragon frame (with 80mm fork) compared to my 2012 Superfly AL Elite (with 100mm fork) is like Night and day!! Also with the slacker geometry (my bike now really feels like a trail bike)----maybe the Stache would feel like an All-Mountain H.T.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by dubstings View Post
    Has anyone actually ridden this bike yet?

    While I agree its a stretch to call it "All-mountain," I think it might be perfect for someone coming from a 100mm HT 29 looking for a little more play without giving up a ton of climbing ability/weight. (Like me!)
    I demo'd one a couple weeks ago. I really liked it. I rode a 19" (or 19.5"?). The 21" Rumblefish I demo'd next felt like a sack of potatoes compared to the Stache. I fit both bikes fine at 6'2.5" with a 36" actual inseem (I have a shorter reach for my height).

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    59
    Im hoping to get out and ride the Stache and compare it to the Superfly 100 AL. Seems like a win-win either way.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeffreyjhsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    235
    You could win a Stache here. NEMBA Access Raffle 2012

  74. #74
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    28,592
    We have things to say. Check it and comment on the article!!!

    Review: Trek Stache 8 – Rally 29er Hardtail | Mountain Bike Review
    IPA will save America

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    434
    The Diamondback Mason looks more like what a lot of people were hoping the geo of the Stache would be.

    Diamondback Bicycles - Mason

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Chuch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    513
    Guys I'm second guessing this bike after some of the more challenging posts on here. I was sold...putting this bike as my next. THEN I went and compared the two geo charts between the xcal and the stache. There are such minimal geometry differences between the two that I'm am starting to wonder if this isn't just basically the same frame slightly redesigned and lighter weight aluminum with a longer travel fork creating a slacker angle. The chain stays are exactly the same length.

    Do you guys REALLY think this bike will ride any differently than the xcal style frames? I dig the marketing approach for my needs until second guessing. I'm pulling the specs on the kona and its obviously different!

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,135
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuch View Post
    Guys I'm second guessing this bike after some of the more challenging posts on here. I was sold...putting this bike as my next. THEN I went and compared the two geo charts between the xcal and the stache. There are such minimal geometry differences between the two that I'm am starting to wonder if this isn't just basically the same frame slightly redesigned and lighter weight aluminum with a longer travel fork creating a slacker angle. The chain stays are exactly the same length.

    Do you guys REALLY think this bike will ride any differently than the xcal style frames? I dig the marketing approach for my needs until second guessing. I'm pulling the specs on the kona and its obviously different!
    Test ride it and find out!1 That's the only way you'll ever really know. My LBS actually had one in but I didn't bother with it.

  78. #78
    I hate that name.
    Reputation: blunderbuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,639
    The numbers may be close or the same on most of the dimensions, but trust me, it is a completely different frame. It's obvious if you compare them side by side in person. If it truly was the same geometry with a longer fork attached, the numbers would all change as the front end rises. And yes it does ride different. Think Rumblefish vs Superfly 100.
    Worked at Trek/Fisher dealer 2008-2013. Only a little biased.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beer_coffee_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    758
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuch View Post
    Guys I'm second guessing this bike after some of the more challenging posts on here. I was sold...putting this bike as my next. THEN I went and compared the two geo charts between the xcal and the stache. There are such minimal geometry differences between the two that I'm am starting to wonder if this isn't just basically the same frame slightly redesigned and lighter weight aluminum with a longer travel fork creating a slacker angle. The chain stays are exactly the same length.

    Do you guys REALLY think this bike will ride any differently than the xcal style frames? I dig the marketing approach for my needs until second guessing. I'm pulling the specs on the kona and its obviously different!
    Well, if you were closer to Fresno, CA I'd let you ride my Stache-lite all over. It's a '11 Mamba frame built up just like a Stache, different 120mm fork and 1x10 though. I like the way it rides compared to when it had a 100mm fork, but I will be getting a Honzo frame shortly. The Honzo has a better fit or me, better geo, and it's made of steel.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    48
    The stache frame is nothing like the sport hardtails in treks lineup. You've got thru axles front and back, post mount for the rear brake, routing for a dropper post. An xcal or mamba feels like a wet noodle compared to this ride

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beer_coffee_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    758
    Which is why I call my bike a Stache-lite. It doesn't have the new features of the frame but I am willing to say they ride very similar. I might not have a 142 rear but I have a tapered/15mm fork. The Geo between my bike and the Stache match in every faucet except seat angle. But my bike has rides much better at 120 vs 100. I doubt it feels like a wet noodle in comparison.

    I did ride a Honzo recently. It is what I tried to build my bike into. It is a nimble playful bike not ground hugging like mine. What it has over my bike is the shorter rear center. I have always felt when jumping or leaning my bie the rear is slow to come up or around. Wheelies are also easier.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,876
    recent issue of Bike mag basically said the Stache geo was a bit out of date/mediocre compared to the trail/AM HT's already mentioned in this thread. They suggested that if Trek shortened the CS by 0.5 inches, the bike would be more suited for the intended market.
    Originally posted by bucksaw87
    I still fail to see how mustaches, fixies, and PBR are ironic.

  83. #83
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by frorider View Post
    recent issue of Bike mag basically said the Stache geo was a bit out of date/mediocre compared to the trail/AM HT's already mentioned in this thread. They suggested that if Trek shortened the CS by 0.5 inches, the bike would be more suited for the intended market.
    Yep. When I looked at the numbers and then compared it to the GT Peace 9r I had I just shook my head.

    Back when the Paradox came out my buddy who had one let me try it. Night and day with the short chainstay. Could never get comfortable again on the Peace 9r again. The Stache reminds me of what I tried to make it ride better...longer travel forks, stems...basically tried doing this exact thing. Nope..ended up stripping the frame and sticking it in a dark corner of neglect. And wait for things to get where they are currently.

    Sure I understand the mtbr tester is saying it's a different bike despite this. But one has to take that with a large dose of salt. Let's remember that if all you do when reviewing something like this is go on about the similarities between old XC geometry companies won't send stuff to review. And one has to pay the bills.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Enduramil View Post
    Yep. When I looked at the numbers and then compared it to the GT Peace 9r I had I just shook my head.

    Back when the Paradox came out my buddy who had one let me try it. Night and day with the short chainstay. Could never get comfortable again on the Peace 9r again. The Stache reminds me of what I tried to make it ride better...longer travel forks, stems...basically tried doing this exact thing. Nope..ended up stripping the frame and sticking it in a dark corner of neglect. And wait for things to get where they are currently.

    Sure I understand the mtbr tester is saying it's a different bike despite this. But one has to take that with a large dose of salt. Let's remember that if all you do when reviewing something like this is go on about the similarities between old XC geometry companies won't send stuff to review. And one has to pay the bills.
    Tell me what you define each of the following bikes (trail, cc, all mtn, freeride)?
    Paradox
    Honzo
    Mason
    Stache

    Personally, I'd say the Paradox, Honzo and Mason are geared toward the all mtn/ free ride light segment of bike users... where as the Stache is geared towards a trail bike specifically.

    Just like on FS trail bikes, you can venture into the all mtn genre from time to time, but if most of your riding is flat or rolling terrain w/o a ton of techy features, it makes sense to have a trail bike.

    Visa versa for all mtn/freeride light frame designs, sure you could ride a heavier built short stay ride like a honzo but all things being equal, you'll typically get smoked on the uphills (or have to be in above avg shape b/c of single chainring requirements) compared to a more trail oriented bike. Of course, you get to shred on the DH.

    All the bikes are awesome and a great step forward for 29er hardtails allowing for aggressive riding that we've grown accustomed to on our FS bikes.

Members who have read this thread: 2

Posting Permissions

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