Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 52
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    72

    The evolution of MTB XC geometry?

    I've ridden off and on for years and recently got back on the saddle. Catching back up with the latest trends has been fun, but in regards to hard tails, what has changed about mountain bike geometry in the last 10+ years?

    Looking at the latest offerings from the big brands it seems like head tubes are still at 71, seat tubes at 73 and chain stays are still around 17-inches. If things have changed, what? I have to be missing something.

    I ask because I was at a bike shop the other day and the tech mentioned that modern mountain bikes are a lot different than they were 10 years ago. This didn't seem right to me, but I didn't want to argue with the guy, out of fearing of exposing my ignorance -- I was asking him for advice after all.

    Obviously, 29ers, disc brakes, and long travel forks have come a long way in the last decade, but in regards to geometry on a XC mountain bike, what's different?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,639
    XC hardtail geometry really hasn't changed much in the past decade except the frames are now designed around 100mm or 120mm forks. Top tubes (ETT) may be a smidge longer.

    The biggest changes are in the components. Suspension forks are much better now and disc brakes are the norm.

    There have been geometry changes for long-travel "all-mountain" hardtails though. primarily slacker geometry.
    Warning: may contain sarcasm and/or crap made up in an attempt to feel important.

  3. #3
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Bjdraw View Post
    I've ridden off and on for years and recently got back on the saddle. Catching back up with the latest trends has been fun, but in regards to hard tails, what has changed about mountain bike geometry in the last 10+ years?

    Looking at the latest offerings from the big brands it seems like head tubes are still at 71, seat tubes at 73 and chain stays are still around 17-inches. If things have changed, what? I have to be missing something.

    I ask because I was at a bike shop the other day and the tech mentioned that modern mountain bikes are a lot different than they were 10 years ago. This didn't seem right to me, but I didn't want to argue with the guy, out of fearing of exposing my ignorance -- I was asking him for advice after all.

    Obviously, 29ers, disc brakes, and long travel forks have come a long way in the last decade, but in regards to geometry on a XC mountain bike, what's different?
    Not sure which bikes you are looking at, but in general, but over the past 15 years your average xc/trail bike has gotten slacker in the head tube, longer in the top tube (and typically run with shorter stems).

    It may be that you are looking at bikes more aimed at xc racing, not sure, people have different definitions of what counts as an "XC" bike. It seems to me that back in 2000, you had mostly either xc bikes with the geo you are talking about, or FR bikes. It is the vast ground between them that has been filled in since then. So while there are bikes out there now with the same numbers, there are also more other options.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    72
    That is what I suspected. The handle bars are higher as a result of the 100+ forks, but other than the obvious suspension benefit for rough terrain, does the higher handle bar make the bike more comfortable, less likely to endo and/or faster?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    Not sure which bikes you are looking at, but in general, but over the past 15 years your average xc/trail bike has gotten slacker in the head tube, longer in the top tube (and typically run with shorter stems).
    The bike he referenced specifically was a Specialized Rockropper 29er. Its head tube is at 70 and seat tube at 73 with 100mm of travel.

    My bike, which he said was much different is a '96 Univega Aluminum 808. I measured the head tube at 71 and the seat tube at 73, with 60mm of travel. The discussion was spurred when I was asking about replacing the front fork with a RS XC30 with 80mm of travel, which I estimate will change the head tube angle to ~70 degrees.

    I know that the new bike has much better components, more travel, etc. The only thing I'm trying to understand is how the geo is different/better.
    Last edited by Bjdraw; 06-24-2012 at 11:29 AM.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Bjdraw View Post
    That is what I suspected. The handle bars are higher as a result of the 100+ forks, but other than the obvious suspension benefit for rough terrain, does the higher handle bar make the bike more comfortable, less likely to endo and/or faster?
    Longer travel, shorter stems, wider riser bars provide more control. Faster on the downhills, but not on the flats or uphills (though full susp is actually better on some uphills). I'm still a bit old-school (started in the early 90s) so I still like longer stems and narrower bars than the typical newer rider, but my stems today are about 20 mm shorter than they were 10 years ago and I'm running riser bars that are 1 to 2 inches wider than the flat bars I used to run. New fatter tires are awesome. There are plenty of lightweight 2.3-2.35 XC tires available today.
    Warning: may contain sarcasm and/or crap made up in an attempt to feel important.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by trailville View Post
    Longer travel, shorter stems, wider riser bars provide more control. Faster on the downhills, but not on the flats or uphills (though full susp is actually better on some uphills). I'm still a bit old-school (started in the early 90s) so I still like longer stems and narrower bars than the typical newer rider, but my stems today are about 20 mm shorter than they were 10 years ago and I'm running riser bars that are 1 to 2 inches wider than the flat bars I used to run. New fatter tires are awesome. There are plenty of lightweight 2.3-2.35 XC tires available today.
    Good point. Stems, riser bars, wider tires, all great advancements in recent years, but all easily swapped out. It seems the biggest reason my frame is outdated is because it can't handle a 100mm fork or disc brakes.

  8. #8
    T.W.O.
    Reputation: mimi1885's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Bjdraw View Post
    Good point. Stems, riser bars, wider tires, all great advancements in recent years, but all easily swapped out. It seems the biggest reason my frame is outdated is because it can't handle a 100mm fork or disc brakes.
    100mm fork may be the issue with intended geometry. Strength not as much I'm sure it could handle a bit more than 80mm. I'm building my old Ibis Szabo as SS it was designed with 80mm in the front and 125mm in the back, it was too steep and quick for my liking. I'm putting a 120 fork in the front, the handling is quite similar to the modern geometry.

    Disc brake, there are a few adapter you can find to fit your bike and make it disc compatible.

  9. #9
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    66
    It isn't the geometries that have made the differences over past years as much as how the frame material twists and flexes.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Bjdraw View Post
    The discussion was spurred when I was asking about replacing the front fork with a RS XC30 with 80mm of travel, which I estimate will change the head tube angle to ~70 degrees.
    Putting a new 80mm fork on your bike shouldn't be a problem. But I'd suggest looking for a better fork than the XC30. You've currently got a nice lightweight 90s hardtail, putting a 5-pound lower end modern fork on it may not be the best plan. Unfortunately, I don't think any of the higher end 80mm forks come with brake bosses any more, so if you go to something like a Reba, you're going to have to put a disc up front and get a new front wheel. If you run a mechanical disc (like a BB7) you can use your same current v-brake lever. Running a mechanical disc up front with a v-brake in the back works fine.
    Warning: may contain sarcasm and/or crap made up in an attempt to feel important.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    72
    Yes, the selection of 80mm shocks is the one part of the geometry of my bike that I do not like. In fact the XC30 was the highest end model I could find available in 80mm and with mounts for rim brakes -- didn't consider mixing brakes, but that's a good idea. I essentially settled on it because I'm sure it is far superior to my old school Rockshox -- especially since it is locked up. The weight of the XC30 is about 2lbs heavier than the one I have now, but at $150 it much more affordable than a new bike -- not to mention the bike Rockhopper comes with just as heavy of a shock. I figure I'll get a new bike in the next year or so and keep this one as a spare or use it to ride around town. After I understand all the advancements since the last time I bought a bike.
    Last edited by Bjdraw; 06-24-2012 at 11:36 AM.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: drag_slick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    314
    How about a Manitou Minute Expert - 4.1 lbs with Alu. steerer, 80mm with v-brake mounts.

    Manitou Minute Expert 26" Suspension Forks 100076029 at CambriaBike.com

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by drag_slick View Post
    How about a Manitou Minute Expert - 4.1 lbs with Alu. steerer, 80mm with v-brake mounts.
    Not sure how I missed that one. It is a little more than I wanted to spend and not much lighter at 1905g than the XC30 at 1917g (my old Rockshox is only ~1400g). Based on the specs, though, it does look worth the extra $120.

  14. #14
    g3h6o3
    Reputation: PissedOffCil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,707
    Quote Originally Posted by Bjdraw View Post
    Not sure how I missed that one. It is a little more than I wanted to spend and not much lighter at 1905g than the XC30 at 1917g (my old Rockshox is only ~1400g). Based on the specs, though, it does look worth the extra $120.
    The Manitou has a much better damper. I also see the XC30 listed at 2180g versus 1861g for the Minute with aluminium steerer. It should also be stiffer since it has 32mm stanchions versus 30mm.

    Much better fork honestly.
    Check out my SportTracks plugins for some training aid software.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    72
    That is part of what makes all of this so frustrating. One site lists the weight at 2180, while another one lists it at 1917g. I can only assume that one is the 80mm and the other is 100mm.

    Even worse, the axle to crown measurements are impossible to obtain. In the interest in retaining as close to original of a head tube angle as possible, I'd really like to know if the a2c of two 80mm forks is the same. I was able to find a site online that indicated my old RS fork a2c is 408mm -- I can't measure mine because it is seized.

    I already ordered the xc30tk and my plan is to keep riding my old frame until I choose a new bike. If I decide to stick with a 26-inch hardtail, then I'll evaluate my need for 100mm of travel and disc brakes, and if I still bike old frame geometry with an 80mm fork on it. I may also try to find a good deal on a shorter stem (currently running 130mm) and longer riser bar so that I can test out my old frame in the more modern seating position.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,639
    The 63mm Judy's had an A2C around 420mm.
    Newer 80mm forks range from 450mm to 460mm depending on brand and model.
    The difference isn't as great once you take sag into account.
    Warning: may contain sarcasm and/or crap made up in an attempt to feel important.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    72
    I have a Quadra 21r on mine, but the Aluminum 808 was also available with a Judy.

    Here is where I got the 408 mm from.
    BikePro.com / Buyer's Guide / Suspension Fork Comparison Table - Bicycle Parts at discount prices / the Buyer's Guide / Bicycle Parts at their finest! / Professional Bicycle Source / Bike Pro

    I was hoping for a little sag, I was thinking that I may be able to adjust the preload a bit as well. I only weight 160lbs so I'm hopeful that the xc30tk can get me by while I figure out what to do next.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,639
    Your Quadra may have been 408mm, but the Judys were a little longer (I still have a 1996 Judy XC). As frames were gradually adjusted for suspension, the A2C of newer fork models became longer even with the same travel.
    Warning: may contain sarcasm and/or crap made up in an attempt to feel important.

  19. #19
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    Bikes have changed with improvements in technology. Components are the obvious target but frame materials going from tubes to all sorts of extruded and "laid-up" shapes have made frames respond differently by putting strength and flexibility where it is needed and still reduce wieght.

    One of the big reasons for bikes changing is that the rider who that enters the sport, and stays with it, is different. The old designs required a certain amount of hardnosed stick-to-it-ness due to the skill demands. Modern bikes forgive a lot and a more general type of athlete will stay with the sport. The modern bike is more comfortable and doesn't demand as much from the rider. That said, good riders, who can ride anything, now do phenominal things on modern bikes.

    Old school good riders don't ask if a design will keep one from going OTB; you did that by knowing how to ride what was under you. If you didn't you quit and took up road or golf. You didn't put your bars up high, you learned how to get your weight behind them and drive the wheel past an obstical or learned to pick a good line. With a rigid fork, thinner tires, or a limited travel fork it was your only option. Now with the wonderful shocks, wide and durable tubeless tires you can just wham into and over things with little regard for a line.

    I don't mean to say "well scout, back in the day we knew how to ride and didn't have all these new-fangled gizmos that did everything for us." I do mean to say that the modern rider, who is growing our sport by the way, is different. Manufacturers have come to understand what works a lot better for more riders and keeps them riding and newer technologies make that chicken-and-egg paradigm more intimate and comprehensive.

    In my lifetime some of our folks felt that in order to learn to drive you had to learn on a stick. That's how I learned and in SF no less. In High school we all eschewed the automatic, a slushbox, and raced around with dual carbs with 4-speeds with no syncros and disc brakes if you had an import, maybe on all 4 wheels. What am I driving now? 5 speed automatic? No, computerized fuel injected flat 4 and a CVT with infinite ratios and computerized 4-wheel disc anti-lock brakes that work better than I ever could.

    That said, I am not so sure that one need to ride an HT to learn to ride well. That said, that said, it is really cool when you are out in the hills and people look at you and say, "you're doing that on a hardtail?" My lower bars on my dual-suspended bike draw some looks but I can't seem to give that up.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails The evolution of MTB XC geometry?-ebonti852.jpg  

    I don't rattle.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    72
    My new fork arrived today and I just finished my first test ride after installing it (just around the neighborhood) and am happy with how it turned out. I have no doubt it'll hold me over while I look for my next bike and serve as a good backup. Thanks for al the insight, it'll definitely come in handy as now I'll know what to look for. The evolution of MTB XC geometry?-img_0539_md.jpg

  21. #21
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    Bikes have changed with improvements in technology. Components are the obvious target but frame materials going from tubes to all sorts of extruded and "laid-up" shapes have made frames respond differently by putting strength and flexibility where it is needed and still reduce wieght.

    One of the big reasons for bikes changing is that the rider who that enters the sport, and stays with it, is different. The old designs required a certain amount of hardnosed stick-to-it-ness due to the skill demands. Modern bikes forgive a lot and a more general type of athlete will stay with the sport. The modern bike is more comfortable and doesn't demand as much from the rider. That said, good riders, who can ride anything, now do phenominal things on modern bikes.

    Old school good riders don't ask if a design will keep one from going OTB; you did that by knowing how to ride what was under you. If you didn't you quit and took up road or golf. You didn't put your bars up high, you learned how to get your weight behind them and drive the wheel past an obstical or learned to pick a good line. With a rigid fork, thinner tires, or a limited travel fork it was your only option. Now with the wonderful shocks, wide and durable tubeless tires you can just wham into and over things with little regard for a line.

    I don't mean to say "well scout, back in the day we knew how to ride and didn't have all these new-fangled gizmos that did everything for us." I do mean to say that the modern rider, who is growing our sport by the way, is different. Manufacturers have come to understand what works a lot better for more riders and keeps them riding and newer technologies make that chicken-and-egg paradigm more intimate and comprehensive.

    In my lifetime some of our folks felt that in order to learn to drive you had to learn on a stick. That's how I learned and in SF no less. In High school we all eschewed the automatic, a slushbox, and raced around with dual carbs with 4-speeds with no syncros and disc brakes if you had an import, maybe on all 4 wheels. What am I driving now? 5 speed automatic? No, computerized fuel injected flat 4 and a CVT with infinite ratios and computerized 4-wheel disc anti-lock brakes that work better than I ever could.

    That said, I am not so sure that one need to ride an HT to learn to ride well. That said, that said, it is really cool when you are out in the hills and people look at you and say, "you're doing that on a hardtail?" My lower bars on my dual-suspended bike draw some looks but I can't seem to give that up.
    Some of the advancements are certainly in technology that was simply not an option in the old days (brakes, tires, suspension), but some have been changes in frame geo and cockpit setup.

    I'm not sure if I could consider my self "old school", but I started riding in 1998 with a bike from the early 90's. Me (and everyone I rode with) learned on "old school" bikes. Long stems, low, narrow bars, bar ends, and shorter top tubes.

    To be honest, I think we all rode that kind of geometry and setup because nobody knew any better.

    Not saying that the old-school geo does not work for some folks, but I think we now have a much better understanding of the advantages of different ways to approach frame geometry and cockpit setup.

    Forward 14 years, almost everyone I rode with then that has stayed active in the sport has migrated away from the old school setups to some extent (some more than others).
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,873
    Mike.. I am an old school guy as well. Part of this due to my path I have taken in this.

    I started in 98 on a hardtail. My friends also rode hardtails and we had blast on in fact had a rigid because we could never find fork to fit is giant giaint (he his 6' 4"). We rode everywhere could on these hardtails and loved it. By the 2003 we had some nice bikes. My friend ended up on a GT Ti Ligthning with 63mm Carbon Sid race fork on it. I ended with KHS Alite 4000 with full XT components and an ok 100mm Judy SL.

    Then two of us go married in 2004 and that realy cut the riding back. Fast forward to 2011 and we both got back in to riding. Dusted off the old bike and picked up where we left off. Now everyone (including our 6'4" friend) is on either a 29er or FS bike. The two of us still ride our V-brake 3x9 26" hardtails still have as much fun as before. I guess you can call us old school.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails The evolution of MTB XC geometry?-khs01-s.jpg  

    Joe
    '12 Santa Cruz Highball 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", '06 Rocky Mtn Switch 26" XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    72
    JoePAz,

    Your story is so much like mine, wow. Starting riding while I was at school in Tallahassee in '98, rode non-stop until about 2002. Had kids, other hobbies and now I'm trying to get back onto my bike and love it. The sad part of my story is that the elastomers in my shock were completely gone, so riding it was like riding a rigid. I rode it for a few months and decided to upgrade the shock. Had two different techs at two different shops tell me to just buy a new bike, cause my wasn't worth fixing -- although I suspect it is because they think Univega is a cheap wal-mart brand, guess they aren't old enough to remember.

    Anyways, didn't mean to turn this into an old bike glory days post, but glad to know that while geometry does change over the years, old bikes don't die.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Bjdraw View Post
    JoePAz,

    Your story is so much like mine, wow. Starting riding while I was at school in Tallahassee in '98, rode non-stop until about 2002. Had kids, other hobbies and now I'm trying to get back onto my bike and love it. The sad part of my story is that the elastomers in my shock were completely gone, so riding it was like riding a rigid. I rode it for a few months and decided to upgrade the shock. Had two different techs at two different shops tell me to just buy a new bike, cause my wasn't worth fixing -- although I suspect it is because they think Univega is a cheap wal-mart brand, guess they aren't old enough to remember.

    Anyways, didn't mean to turn this into an old bike glory days post, but glad to know that while geometry does change over the years, old bikes don't die.
    Wow... your story is almost identical to mine.
    I stopped riding 2004 due to wife and then kids. When I started back in 2011 I considered getting rebuild kit for my Judy since she is s old. Judy is 2002 vintage and I had seen some damp spots around it. So I figured I would rebuild it myself. I was in my LBS and they told me no they don't have any kits and that I would need new fork and probably a new bike. I said mine was only 23lbs and did not really want to change it. They said they don't come that light any more with disc brakes and tubeless tires. Well I walked out figuring that I will just ride what I have. The judy is coil spring based with oil damper and low pressure air assist. It seems to be holding so I will just ride it.

    My KHS frame is pretty rare yet back in 2003 was pretty well respected. So I plan on keeping it as long as I possibly can. I am even staying with tube tires and v-brakes. I am concerned that if my wheels get buggered up that I will have a hard time finding good quality rim brake wheels. At least my frame and fork have the attachments for disc brakes if I am forced that way.


    As for changes... seems like the biggest changes are the riding style. Like Mike was eluding to back in our day there was XC and downhil. Not much in between. FS were evolving and many had lots of drawbacks still. Now FS has changed so much that what would pass for crazy downhill bikes 10 years ago are now typical trail bikes. Riders today think nothing of jumping off 3' drops. These bikes are also quite heavy in many cases. This progression into simply flying over nasty terrain while letting the bike soak up the bumps seem more prevelant.

    Still a good rider on an old school hardtail can still wipe up on mediocre rider on FS bike any day. After all going up a hill is still about the motor pushing the pedals and arms pulling on the bars.
    Joe
    '12 Santa Cruz Highball 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", '06 Rocky Mtn Switch 26" XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  25. #25
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    If my hands, feet, and butt are in the same position as it was in 1995, does geometry make a difference?

    Actually, my cockpit has gotten smaller as I have aged but the attack position has been the heart of things. Come to think of it I used to be just a mountain biker but, now with all the special purposed bikes while my riding hasn't changed much I am considered an XC guy. I think that means I get my butt out of the saddle more than most, as opposed to sittn' in my sled with my hands high.
    I don't rattle.

  26. #26
    Rock and/or Roll
    Reputation: turbogrover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    485
    I started riding mtb's in the 80's!
    I had a top-of-the-line, Gary Fisher ProCaliber with deore xt components back then. It was an 18" frame, and had a 21" top tube. I used a 125mm stem when I first bought it, but ended up using a 135mm stem to get the reach I wanted. Sounds ridiculous by todays standards, but it suited me well, and I thought it handled well, even without a suspension fork.
    Today, I'm riding a state-of-the-art carbon wonder bike that weighs 10lbs less, and has an awesome suspension fork. Its a 16" frame, with a 22 3/4" top tube, and I use a 110mm stem. The cockpit is actually longer than the old school Fisher, and even though the head and seat angles are the same, the handling, comfort, and fit are far more advanced on the modern bike. I would say the changes in geo are subtle, but have evolved slowly over the years. Like the other guy said, modern mtb's just let you do everything better.

  27. #27
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    It would be intersting to know the VTT on these two bikes as top tubes are hard to compare. Also, were you using a flat bar on the Procaliber and a riser on your current bike? So far it is apples and oranges. That makes it hard to compare geometries.
    I don't rattle.

  28. #28
    Rock and/or Roll
    Reputation: turbogrover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    485
    Its actually really easy to compare frame geometry. Just measure. Ignore the cockpit measurements, since those are rider specific. The Fisher has a level tt, and the carbon was measured using the virtual tt, since it has a sloping tt.

  29. #29
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    Quote Originally Posted by turbogrover View Post
    Its actually really easy to compare frame geometry. Just measure. Ignore the cockpit measurements, since those are rider specific. The Fisher has a level tt, and the carbon was measured using the virtual tt, since it has a sloping tt.
    The problem with this thinking is that it begs the root of the IP's question.

    Again:

    What does frame geometry, not materials, not top tube slope, have to do with where the hands, feet, and butt go?
    I don't rattle.

  30. #30
    Rock and/or Roll
    Reputation: turbogrover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    The problem with this thinking is that it begs the root of the IP's question.

    Again:

    What does frame geometry, not materials, not top tube slope, have to do with where the hands, feet, and butt go?
    I'm sorry. I thought I answered the op with my earlier opinion. I was merely answering you more specifically when I replied. Even though my rider position hasn't changed hardly at all, the frame geometry has, and it has improved my ability. Its just an opinion. Sorry for offering my input.

  31. #31
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    Your top tube numbers cannot be compared as given unless both bikes had the same angle to the ground. VTT would be better but I doubt you have the old bike for comparison. Beside, back in the 90s no one used VTT.

    Longer top tubes and the identical angles you describe would make for a longer wheel base; nice for climbing but not for handling. So it doesn't add up. As such your comparison is hard to understand, that's all.

    My take is that he biggest difference in your riding experience comes years of riding and modern shocks. Take some credit, dude.
    I don't rattle.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: awai04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,093
    HA! Well said, Berkeley Mike! I like the car analogy. An aside, the interesting part is that automatics are going beyond what's possible in a slush box. 0 - 60mph times are now lower with dual-clutch paddle-shift gearboxes than with comparable six or seven speed manual-shifting transmissions.

    As for the bike, I look at today's "it" bikes and wonder how riders ten years from now are going to see them when they say, "Remember when..." What will they giggle at - the thorough use of aluminum throughout the bike, silly "S" shaped curves to the top and down tubes, external cable routing, or what?? I already idealize the mid-noughties' mountain bike as the archetypal bike by which all newer bikes are judged, yet in 2006, a 2003 bike was so "last year" to me, lol. Just goes to show that age is relative, and how powerful is marketing to creating the hype for selling a bike.

    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    Bikes have changed with improvements in technology. Components are the obvious target but frame materials going from tubes to all sorts of extruded and "laid-up" shapes have made frames respond differently by putting strength and flexibility where it is needed and still reduce wieght.

    One of the big reasons for bikes changing is that the rider who that enters the sport, and stays with it, is different. The old designs required a certain amount of hardnosed stick-to-it-ness due to the skill demands. Modern bikes forgive a lot and a more general type of athlete will stay with the sport. The modern bike is more comfortable and doesn't demand as much from the rider. That said, good riders, who can ride anything, now do phenominal things on modern bikes.

    Old school good riders don't ask if a design will keep one from going OTB; you did that by knowing how to ride what was under you. If you didn't you quit and took up road or golf. You didn't put your bars up high, you learned how to get your weight behind them and drive the wheel past an obstical or learned to pick a good line. With a rigid fork, thinner tires, or a limited travel fork it was your only option. Now with the wonderful shocks, wide and durable tubeless tires you can just wham into and over things with little regard for a line.

    I don't mean to say "well scout, back in the day we knew how to ride and didn't have all these new-fangled gizmos that did everything for us." I do mean to say that the modern rider, who is growing our sport by the way, is different. Manufacturers have come to understand what works a lot better for more riders and keeps them riding and newer technologies make that chicken-and-egg paradigm more intimate and comprehensive.

    In my lifetime some of our folks felt that in order to learn to drive you had to learn on a stick. That's how I learned and in SF no less. In High school we all eschewed the automatic, a slushbox, and raced around with dual carbs with 4-speeds with no syncros and disc brakes if you had an import, maybe on all 4 wheels. What am I driving now? 5 speed automatic? No, computerized fuel injected flat 4 and a CVT with infinite ratios and computerized 4-wheel disc anti-lock brakes that work better than I ever could.

    That said, I am not so sure that one need to ride an HT to learn to ride well. That said, that said, it is really cool when you are out in the hills and people look at you and say, "you're doing that on a hardtail?" My lower bars on my dual-suspended bike draw some looks but I can't seem to give that up.
    It's not dirt in my apartment --it's Earth.

  33. #33
    Rock and/or Roll
    Reputation: turbogrover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    Your top tube numbers cannot be compared as given unless both bikes had the same angle to the ground. VTT would be better but I doubt you have the old bike for comparison. Beside, back in the 90s no one used VTT.

    Longer top tubes and the identical angles you describe would make for a longer wheel base; nice for climbing but not for handling. So it doesn't add up. As such your comparison is hard to understand, that's all.

    My take is that he biggest difference in your riding experience comes years of riding and modern shocks. Take some credit, dude.
    ??
    I measured both bikes myself. I think I have enough knowledge and qualifications to understand and compare frame geometry. In my personal opinion, the longer t-t and shorter stem, made the bike easier to control, for me personally. The longer wheelbase made the bike a more stable descender. When I first bought the carbon bike, it was a rigid, and I added the 80mm xc fork later. The rigid fork was designed to be suspension corrected.
    I only wanted to make one simple point, and not draw this out. Frame geometry HAS changed over the decades, and in my case it has changed for the better.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    Your top tube numbers cannot be compared as given unless both bikes had the same angle to the ground. VTT would be better but I doubt you have the old bike for comparison. Beside, back in the 90s no one used VTT.

    Longer top tubes and the identical angles you describe would make for a longer wheel base; nice for climbing but not for handling. So it doesn't add up. As such your comparison is hard to understand, that's all.

    My take is that he biggest difference in your riding experience comes years of riding and modern shocks. Take some credit, dude.
    The numbers absolutely compare, and they aren't apples to oranges. You can put your pedals, grips, and seat in the same spot as on another bike and still have completely different geometry, which translates to completely different riding characteristics. Riser bars, stem length, etc. are dependent on the frame geometry. A longer top tube and shorter stem change the handling and feel of the bike drastically without changing your body position. Your weight is shifted further back on the bike, which instills confidence on technical sections while maintaining an efficient pedaling position. A slacker seat angle or set back seatpost allow you to run a shorter stem, given proper alignment for pedaling. A lower bottom bracket lowers your center of gravity, which provides better cornering stability and traction. That also requires a lower seat and bars to maintain body position. Geometry matters, regardless of body position. I could go on about fork trail, wheelbase, chainstay length, head tube angle, etc., but there are plenty of sites out there that go into it in more detail than I care to or know about. Suspension makes a huge difference, no doubt, but don't underestimate the impact geometry can have on riding experience.

  35. #35
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    BB ht and chainstay length really haven't changed much at all in about a billion years.For that matter wheelbase hasn't done much either. Regardless, these have always been tradeoffs for handling characteristics no matter what year you are talking about. This is nothing new.

    Just for grins I went out and measured 4 bikes:Spec M4 c2002, Stumpy Pro 2005, Yeti Arc 2008, Bontrager Racelite 1995; they all have wheelbase of 44 inches +/-.25 inches and chainstays from 16.75 to 17 inches. I don't want hear hear that these are huge differences; I don't buy it.

    That said, if my hands, feet and butt are in the same place and you give me longer top tube, the stem will have to be shorter (twitchier/quicker steering) and/or the bars will have to have more sweep giving my hands an odd angle at the wrist. So.... riders go with wider bars which may offset some of the twitchiness in the steering. That said, that said, I am 6 ft, 34 inch inseam, my '95 Bontrager Racelite has a long top tube of 23.5. w/ 120mm stem.1995. Perhaps I was just ahead of my time.

    I think manufacturers sell people by making them more comfortable in managing fatigue, confidence, and style; higher hand position, bikes that allow you to stay in the saddle more, cool and swoopy designs.They suit people more. I love it all. Bikes do so much more for us than they ever did but geometry? Maybe a trip down memory lane on Bike Pedia will shed some light on this. It is interesting but I still think componentry and materials are the most radical and effective change.
    Last edited by Berkeley Mike; 07-04-2012 at 04:17 PM.
    I don't rattle.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BacDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    610
    24" inseam and 23.5" top tube

    That geo seems off but if it works

  37. #37
    Rock and/or Roll
    Reputation: turbogrover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    485
    It's not hard to see how frame geo has evolved over the years. While I can put my bars and saddle in the same relative position, the basic frame geometry is radically different, and the ride is dramatically better. At least in my case.


    The Fisher in the first pic is larger than mine, but looks basically the same with the horiz top tube. The headtube length on my Fisher is only around 4". The pic of my carbon bike is with the rigid fork it came with. I've since added a Fox fork with 80mm travel.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,399
    The OP was comparing his old bike with the angles of a 29er (see 5th post).

    The angles may be the same but their overall effect on handling with 29er wheels is not equivalent to a 26er.

    Perhaps the usual advice of "go test ride" is more appropriate. Many replies here have been a little bit off target for missing this important distinction.

    Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    72
    You are right, I was comparing a 29er to a old 26er, but I realize that there is a big difference between a 26 and 29er. So my original post was really more about a 14-year old 26er to a modern 26er. The angles of my '96 Univega look more like a modern bike than they do that of the image turbogrover posted.

    The evolution of MTB XC geometry?-modernvsold.jpg

    The fork travel, stem and riser bars are obvious, but what else is different?

  40. #40
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    Quote Originally Posted by BacDoc View Post
    24" inseam and 23.5" top tube

    That geo seems off but if it works
    Opps. 34.
    I don't rattle.

  41. #41
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Bjdraw View Post
    You are right, I was comparing a 29er to a old 26er, but I realize that there is a big difference between a 26 and 29er. So my original post was really more about a 14-year old 26er to a modern 26er. The angles of my '96 Univega look more like a modern bike than they do that of the image turbogrover posted.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ModernVsOld.jpg 
Views:	1831 
Size:	60.0 KB 
ID:	708263

    The fork travel, stem and riser bars are obvious, but what else is different?
    When I lay the 29er over the Univega it looks it shows that you have lowered you set, raised you bars and shortened the ccokpit. The shorter cockpit may or may not have you sitting upright but with skills your elbows may be bent more. One can attribute that to many things simply relating to "fit" or experience in the sport.

    Also, with a longer travel fork things have to higher up front to manage the travel. Maybe that is the geometry people are talking about.
    I don't rattle.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    72
    The only thing I've done is swap the front fork. I do plan to swap the fork and bar soon to try to see how the ride compares to modern bikes.

  43. #43
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    I took your bike images a and corrected them as much as I could for level and scale and lens distortion/shot position. I stripped the white from the Trek and laid it over the Uni. The bikes are centered at the Bottom Bracket. The scale and overlay are pretty close.

    The comparison reveals that the Trek has longer wheelbase, of course, a steeper seat tube but nearly identical head tube angle.

    The Trek seat is about 12% lower than the Uni and moved forward. The hand position, as indicated by the grip ends, shows the Trek hand position higher and further back than the Uni (I estimated Uni position due to the fact that the bars are rotated counter clockwise a bit.) This makes the Trek cockpit shorter than the Uni by about 14%.

    The angle from the Uni seat to the hands is -3º below the seat. The angle from the Trek seat to the hands is +3º above the seat. You have raised your hands 6º.

    What you have done is gone from a sort of attack position to a sitting back in the sled position and your leg extension is less.

    I know that this overlay is not perfect but even at this coarse level the comparison is revealing and kinda cool. I've done this with many bikes. These differences may be a function of a maturation of your style, a function of mistaken ideas from you or other people, or just the early stages of setting up a bike. At this point the geometry discussion is not important but seeing your relative position on the bike may open you up to ideas about how you have set things up.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails The evolution of MTB XC geometry?-unitrekcomp.jpg  

    I don't rattle.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    72
    That is really cool and insightful, thanks for taking the time to do that. According to the trek site, the head tube angle is 71, which is what mine was before I swapped out the fork with one with more travel.

    I've never give that much thought to the setup and in fact have only ever adjusted the seat height to ensure my legs were extended and seat angle for comfort. When I get a new stem and riser bar I'll be referring back to your comments, and other's, when it comes time to position it. But I've never once adjusted the bars on my bike, they are the way they were when I bought it/replaced the stem(the original stem started slipping).

    My takeaway here is that I won't be buying a new 26er hardtail. A 29er or full suspension perhaps, but my old bikes geometry is not different enough from modern bikes.

  45. #45
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Bjdraw View Post

    My takeaway here is that I won't be buying a new 26er hardtail. A 29er or full suspension perhaps, but my old bikes geometry is not different enough from modern bikes.
    Geometry? whatever....

    Disc brakes, carbon fiber frame/bars/seatpost, cranks, sweet-buttery smooth shock, lighter and stiffer wheels, tubeless....
    I don't rattle.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: XCProphet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    331
    I've found Cannondale's Lefty J-swing arm innovative in regards to all-mountain riding between high rock gardens. I am not sure why it's not more popular.

    Someone else could chime in why not?

  47. #47
    Rock and/or Roll
    Reputation: turbogrover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    485
    The overlay makes the TREK ground clearance look a mile higher than the univega. I would think that would affect handling.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ottoreni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,039

    Very Similar ...

    Reading the stories here echo of mine very much ...

    Back in Tallahassee in the early 90's I lusted for a mountain bike. Saw all the Cannondales, Giants, and Specialized bikes going across Landis Green.

    I picked up a "Tomac Designed" Raleigh in 1994 and rode that frame stock, with the exception of Ritchey pedals and Syncros post. Did the whole family thing in the late 90's and turn of the century.

    Once I hit 200 pounds I had to do something. Dusted off the Raleigh and rode her with the stock Rock Shox Quadra 21 fork. Fork was shot, so I picked up a Manitou Axel Comp at 80mm. I wanted to make sure I was going to stick with this mountain bike thing before I put money towards a new ride.

    After six months of consistent riding, I picked up a new warranty replacement Specialized Stumpjumper HT frame off of Ebay. I remember winning the auction while we were on a family vacation in Disney World. Learned how to build her up myself. Rode that for about another six months and picked up my first FS frame. A Turner Burner on closeout from Supergo.

    Had those three frames for a year or so, then the 29er bug bit me. Over a decade later, I have sold all of them except my original Raleigh. Now my brother uses it to ride around with his kids.

    Frame materials I think have been one of the biggest changes. Aluminum was the "new hot" light frame material, but I have Ti bikes now. Between the ti and 29er wheels, I can ride longer, faster, and harder than I did in the early 90's. Back in the day Ti was waaay pricey.

    BY the way, that Univega is awesome looking. It was one of those underground brands back in the day. I always wanted a Univega or Nishiki back then ...
    Last edited by Ottoreni; 07-22-2012 at 12:29 PM. Reason: missing words
    You cannot go against nature, because when you do, its part of nature too.

  49. #49
    Dive Bomber
    Reputation: jackspade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    770
    The geometry should be change due the suspension fork because the sag so it's should be slacker. Imagine with steep fork when you hit the front brakes it's gonna getting shorter and steeper causing the rider to front flip easily.

    Regarding the trend of suspension fork doesn't work for an oldschool and small body rider like me, It's just makes the cockpit higher.
    Even though with integrated headtube the stem cannot go lower because the fork is long. Changing to shorter or rigid fork might solve the cockpit problem but change the whole bike geometry.

    I have no problems with 90s MTB like MB series the geometry works fine even though the size is too big for me but the rides is great, compare to new bike takes time to adapt with lots of settings and still doesn't comfort.

    I just wanna say there's 2 generation of MTB: steel and aluminum

  50. #50
    Dive Bomber
    Reputation: jackspade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    770
    Notice that 90s MTB stem is longer with steep angle like 15-30 degree upfront.

    Actually this make handlebar in the same position as nowaday higher fork, also the stem angle effect the shock absorbing on impact. So instead using suspension to absorb the shock the angle of stem and headtube also the fork rake work to reduce the impact or even bent the force.

    For rider who like the stem position lower than the seat is kinda difficult with new geometry.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 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
  •