Results 1 to 37 of 37
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    225

    "Modern Geometry" vs. old school 26"

    I'm in the market for a new bike after 18 years with old 26" 4x4. I come from XC heritage, but where I ride now there is much more trial and all-mountain.

    Can someone, ideally someone who rode in the 90's and early 2000's explain to me the true benefits of today's "modern" geometry.

    Slack head angles - OK so you can roll DH with more ease..
    Longer wheelbases - OK so more stability at high speed
    Lower BB - OK - lower center of gravity, but is this true with 27.5 and 29 being the new standard if you compare back to 26??

    Hasn't the above made sacrifices in handling, cornering, and climbing abilities?

    To me it seems we have just made downhill bikes lighter...

    Please explain to this old-schooler....

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: l'oiseau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    986
    Short answer: Just buy a 29er XC/Trail bike - it will do everything better.

    Long answer: I think the some of the issue is making big wheel bikes behave like 26ers. It's been so long since I rode a 26" bike, but I still feel like I can remember, and I still feel like 29" feels way different.

    OK - big thing is rollover. Next is traction. This makes climbing incredibly easier in more technical stuff. The big wheels just eat that stuff up and you have way more traction. I'm climbing stuff I never even dreamed I could with my 26" bike.

    I think in most XC focused bikes, the BB is pretty close to where it would be with a 26", if not a little higher. Don't know though... I don't recall having many pedal strikes in my 26" days and I have a few here and there now. Was worse at first. I never measured, but eyeballing it, they look about the same.

    Slack head angles do a lot of things like increase the wheelbase, so all that stuff is related. The big thing is biasing the weight of the bike more rearward so at speed it naturally wants to roll over things rather than stall the front tire and throw you over the bars. That's not to say you don't have to work the bike over obstacles, but it's easier to do with more speed. Plow ability is increased but I try to avoid that except in really rough descents where I can't react fast enough to work the bike over stuff. That's just my technique though... it's not a bad one to remember if you are good at it. It works on all wheel sized and geos. The tradeoff is really low speed handling. Longer wheelbases and slack front ends are bears to handle in really tight twisties where you are moving at little over walking speeds. I can best describe it as the front doesn't turn, then goes way off line and you need to turn overly exaggerated and then pull the rear end around. This can be particularly tricky on tight, uphill switchbacks with obstacles like roots. Many of the more XC focused bikes will be a bit shorter and do this better.

    So with this rear weight bias, you need to consciously add weight to the front of the bike when necessary to make it grip where you want. Too much with too much steering angle it will dig in and plow, too little and it may feel like it wants to wash or just go straight. There's still a wide range of values here, so less slack generally will be a little easier to adapt to be better at more moderate terrain.

    Longer wheelbases not only have more stability at high speed but handle things like berms and flowy terrain better. They climb pretty well once you adapt to the technique of getting weight on the bars while climbing. It's not hard to figure out.

    DH bikes lighter? Not really. Adapted more DH ability into the average XC bike? Yes.
    Life is too short to ride a bike you don't love.

  3. #3
    wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,058
    Quote Originally Posted by smoothmoose View Post
    Can someone, ideally someone who rode in the 90's and early 2000's explain to me the true benefits of today's "modern" geometry.
    You need to do some reading, this question was answered years ago. Or better yet, just go rent/demo a bike and make up your own mind.

    Otherwise, L'oiseau gave you the best answer your going to get in his first line.
    Rigid SS 29er
    Fat Lefty
    SS MonsterCross
    SS cyclocross
    all steel

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  4. #4
    meatier showers
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    7,986
    Got my first mountain bike in '85 so I've been through it all. My current fav bike is a 2017 Guerrilla Gravity Trail Pistol with 160mm fork and 130mm rear travel. Slack front, short stem, wide bars, steep seat angle, long top tube, short chainstays, low-ish bottom bracket. In other words I've swallowed the "new geo" pill. (But I did that 4 years ago when I bought a Kona Honzo.)

    Anyway I. Love. It.

    In my opinion, yeah, if you're not into going fast, don't bother with new geo. But if you do like thrills, then new geo (along with a dropper seatpost) will allow you to progress from mere bike riding to low elevation flying. With more safety and confidence.

    LOTS more.

    Climbing? My rides never include less than 1000' of elevation change and often include 3-4000'. I love to earn my turns and yeah, the slacker front tends to wander a bit more. But not much. It's not bad. Any minor trade off is well worth the benefits on the other side, IMO.

    I'm not sure you'll get it with a demo ride. I didn't really exploit the benefits of new geo until I'd gotten used to the new feel. And if you're moving from 26" wheels to larger wheels at the same time, you may not be able to tell what's coming or going. Do some research. Ask opinions. Then make the leap. Buy a new bike -- there are lots of good ones out there -- and enjoy getting used to it. In a few months time you'll wonder how you were ever able to ride that old sled.
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    8
    Good question. I'm in the same boat, 19 years with my current bike. Bought it brand-new in 1998. It still rides, nothing wrong with it. But maybe time to see what all the new hype is about.... things like:

    -disc brakes
    -27.5/29 wheels
    -fat tires
    -more than 60mm of fork travel.

    I just don't know if all the hype is worth sandbagging a perfectly good bike. I think the answer is to go rent a demo. The devil on my shoulder holding the debit card says a whole new exciting world of mountain biking is out there. And the frugal old grouch in me says my 19 year old bike is fine, ride the wheels off.

  6. #6
    Trail Gnome Moderator
    Reputation: griz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by smoothmoose View Post
    I'm in the market for a new bike after 18 years with old 26" 4x4. I come from XC heritage, but where I ride now there is much more trial and all-mountain.

    Can someone, ideally someone who rode in the 90's and early 2000's explain to me the true benefits of today's "modern" geometry.

    Slack head angles - OK so you can roll DH with more ease..
    Longer wheelbases - OK so more stability at high speed
    Lower BB - OK - lower center of gravity, but is this true with 27.5 and 29 being the new standard if you compare back to 26??

    Hasn't the above made sacrifices in handling, cornering, and climbing abilities?

    To me it seems we have just made downhill bikes lighter...

    Please explain to this old-schooler....
    What is your current bike? You're going to be in for a shock...lots of advances have been made, some good some bad. Test ride as many bikes as you can...on actual trails you ride/know. I'm not going to lie...I'm not a huge fan of the newest trend in geometry. Talk with locals...ride their bikes, if they'll let you. I'm in the market myself but, I'm coming off a 3 year old 27.5" bike...pretty sure I'm going to stay with 27.5" for now.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    6,579
    Its pretty serious diminishing gains. The first few steps away from the oldschool are pretty huge! The improvements in the last few years hasnt been a big deal.

    Im on a 2010 giant reign. It pedals great, its fun to ride, it fits well. Its geometry is appropriate enough to run a short stem and wide bars. I demo'd the new 2016 trance, and... it felt like my bike. A lot like my bike. Even on paper it shared a lot of similarities.

    Ill happily admit the new trance had some characteristics that were a really nice upgrade, and I do prefer the newer bike, but again, just not that different. I left without much bike lust, happy with what ive got. Checking out the new 17 and 18 trance, I see some changes, but nothing that makes those bikes wildly different than my 8 year old bike.

    Ive had oldschool late 90's bikes, and the gap between my old steel GT and my newer reign is MASSIVE. The capability is incomparable. It might as well be a different sport, riding the two bikes. In some ways it is. Thats no small changes, no hype, and worth every penny to get into something more modern.

    Imo, somewhere closing in on 2010 we sorta figured it out. The changes since then have been minor improvements.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    47
    I'm still riding an '06 SC Heckler, but I'm looking to get something new in the next year or so. The two main things I'm interested in for a newer bike (that haven't really been mentioned here) are increased stiffness and the steeper seat tube angle. My Heckler has the older 1-1/8" straight steerer, but the thing feels like a noodle through rougher stuff. Tapered steerers were coming into their own back then, but now they're pretty ubiquitous. As for the steeper seat tube angle, I think it'll help me get more weight out over the pedals and be more efficient. I already slam my seat forwards on the rails to try to achieve this, but when riding a bike that already feels a bit cramped this only goes so far.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,633
    I think the new geometry (long front center) helps when descending, but not necessarily when climbing. I still enjoy riding my Cannondale F900 SL hardtail, since it's light and nimble. I did put wider bars and a shorter stem on it, which I think improved the handling some.

  10. #10
    Mud Horse
    Reputation: Grassington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    199
    After 16 years of riding a 26" Marin Attack Trail, I've just bought a 27.5" Ghost Riot 8. I was being cautious for the first few miles on the Ghost as this is the first modern geometry bike I've ridden, but I was pleasantly surprised to find it really didn't take long for me to get acclimatised. My initial impressions of new vs old:

    • Rolls over rocks and roots with greater ease. I put this down to the slacker head angle rather than the slightly bigger wheels.
    • Steering is slightly less responsive due to the longer (by 25 mm) wheelbase, bigger wheels and slacker head angle, but still responsive enough and it handles the twisty rutted sections just fine.
    • It's a bit easier to pop the front end up (chainstay is shorter by 10 mm), but for some reason I can't quite fathom it's not so eager to loop out. This makes wheelies and manuals noticeably easier.
    • It's slightly harder to kick the back end up, possibly due to heavier wheel and cassette.
    • I have to move my body further forward to bias for oversteer when cornering hard.
    • The cornering grip is a huge improvement. I've got the same tyres fitted to both bikes (albeit different diameters), inflated to the same pressures. Possibly a combination of factors here: better compliance in the 27.5" tyres because of the larger volume, improved suspension linkage design, improved fork and shock, stiffer frame.
    • Markedly better climbing performance, despite the slacker head angle. The Ghost is 1.1 kg lighter, but I don't think that explains it - it's probably down to the rear suspension design and frame stiffness.
    • The 2017 Fox 34 Performance Elite absolutely creams the 2007 Rock Shox Pike fork - it's like night and day. I dread having to service the Fox fork though - the manual for just the damper mechanism alone runs to 93 pages of A4.


    New bike is going to be a summer only bike as it'll be more vulnerable to the erosive effects of Grinding British Mud, so I'll be switching back to the old Marin for the winter. That's going to hurt as normally I have to choke back a sob when I fit my heavier, slower winter tyres; giving up that lovely new geometry goodness for the muddy months is going to be extra painful.
    ...and midgemagnet.

  11. #11
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,705
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDee View Post
    I think the new geometry (long front center) helps when descending, but not necessarily when climbing.
    Are you speculating or is this based on experience?
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,633
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Are you speculating or is this based on experience?
    Isn't it obvious? Less weight on the front wheel causes it to wander.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  13. #13
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,705
    There is more going on than that simplistic head angle theory.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  14. #14
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,793
    Just a question, nothing behind this: are XC racers using old geometry or modern geometry or something in-between (modern XC)? What are the angles on a modern XC race bike?
    There are two types of people in this world:
    1) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,633
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    There is more going on than that simplistic head angle theory.
    Please enlighten me. What advantage is having the front wheel cantilevered out there on a climb? I'm not saying it hurts that much, but I can't see it being of help.

    I've got two bikes, one an old school Cannondale and the other a Trek with G2 geometry. The Cannondale is the one I prefer if I were to do a ride where the climbs dominate, or technical singletrack with lots of switchbacks.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: l'oiseau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    Just a question, nothing behind this: are XC racers using old geometry or modern geometry or something in-between (modern XC)? What are the angles on a modern XC race bike?
    They are trending more toward modern, but I don't think modern "XC" bikes will ever be as "modern" as some trail bikes are... unless of course XC racing format changes.

    From what I have seen they tend to be around 69 degree head angles with 73 degree seat angles, lowest stack possible and still somewhat short front centers comparatively. Generally built around 100mm travel but some are going 120.

    Compare that to more modern trail bikes and many are in the 66 HTA range with >74 STA with longer top tubes and front centers. There are more and less extreme examples, but those are numbers I tend to see a lot of. Wheelbases of course follow suit to the rest of the geo.

    XC race bikes still tend to keep the w/b in check while allowing the riders to keep the bars forward and low to keep good weight on the front end.

    I never throw out numbers for w/b because that's a function of reach and thus rider size.

    I tend to think of old geometry more like HTAs >71 and STA <= 73 with shorter top tubes leading to longer stems. Also depending on how old you go, shorter travel forks can lead to lower stack height bikes.
    Life is too short to ride a bike you don't love.

  17. #17
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,793
    ^ thanks
    There are two types of people in this world:
    1) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    83
    I have a question regarding the new geometry and the long bikes like Pole, Mojo Geometron and Nicolai. With the long front center, long chain stays and steep seat angle doesn't this put you more above the cranks and so put your knee way in front of the pedal axle? I know when I've slammed my seat fully forward, it's not very comfortable to pedal but they may be that my 'normal' bike may be too cramped like that.

    Just wondering if there is potential for knee issues.

  19. #19
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,705
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDee View Post
    Please enlighten me. What advantage is having the front wheel cantilevered out there on a climb? I'm not saying it hurts that much, but I can't see it being of help.

    I've got two bikes, one an old school Cannondale and the other a Trek with G2 geometry. The Cannondale is the one I prefer if I were to do a ride where the climbs dominate, or technical singletrack with lots of switchbacks.
    I know that my Knolly Endorphin is the best climbing bike I've had in 30 years of MTB. IME seat tube angle has a greater influence.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,633

    &quot;Modern Geometry&quot; vs. old school 26&quot;

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    I know that my Knolly Endorphin is the best climbing bike I've had in 30 years of MTB. IME seat tube angle has a greater influence.
    That makes a lot of sense. I noticed when I blow it in a climb, when I'm seated pedaling, it's not because the rear wheel loses traction, but it's because the front wheel wanders off line. Lifting of the front wheel is the worst. Standing climbing is a reverse situation though, with the rear wheel losing traction.

  21. #21
    Ambassador of Chub
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    IME seat tube angle has a greater influence.
    Agreed. I recently tried a bike with one of the the slackest HTAs I've ever ridden. I assumed it would be a terrible climber. On the contrary, it climbs at least as well, if not better, than some other bikes I've ridden with steeper HTAs. And I think the difference largely comes down to the fact that this bike has a 75º STA.

    I also think that (at least some) companies are finally starting to design frames that incorporate the dynamics of droppers into the function of the geometry as well. When you have a seat/post that you can get entirely out of the way for descents, it really changes what you can do with a frame, imo. It's possible to have a bike that puts you in a very 'XC' position for climbing with the dropper fully extended, and that morphs into a downhill banshee when you get the seat out of the way. Thus the ability to combine quite slack HTAs with steep STAs and have it work as an all-around bike.
    "The only way we can truly control the outcome of a ride is not going on it, which is a choice I'm unwilling to make." -K.B.

  22. #22
    meatier showers
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    7,986
    Quote Originally Posted by Smithhammer View Post
    Agreed. I recently tried a bike with one of the the slackest HTAs I've ever ridden. I assumed it would be a terrible climber. On the contrary, it climbs at least as well, if not better, than some other bikes I've ridden with steeper HTAs. And I think the difference largely comes down to the fact that this bike has a 75º STA.

    I also think that (at least some) companies are finally starting to design frames that incorporate the dynamics of droppers into the function of the geometry as well. When you have a seat/post that you can get entirely out of the way for descents, it really changes what you can do with a frame, imo. It's possible to have a bike that puts you in a very 'XC' position for climbing with the dropper fully extended, and that morphs into a downhill banshee when you get the seat out of the way. Thus the ability to combine quite slack HTAs with steep STAs and have it work as an all-around bike.
    ^^^ this is so right on.
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    138
    Lots of good answers here. I'll just add that I rode GTs in the 90's, and have and still ride an early-00's Surly 1x1, which still has fairly old-school geo. I recently got a modern Specialized Fuse (27.5+ hardtail, long, low, slack), and was blown away at how much easier it is to ride in difficult situations.

    In the early days, MTBs were still ridden much like road bikes were - narrow bars for aerodynamics, high saddles, weight forward, etc. Now MTBs are ridden more like an offroad motorcycle - wide bars for leverage, weight 100% on the feet (yes, 100%) when on anything not smooth+flat, low saddles for range of motion.

    That change in riding style comes hand in hand with a change in geometry - putting your weight on your feet means that optimal weight distribution can be set directly by spacing the wheelbase out front to rear. Slacker front, lower seats and wider bars support a different turning style as well where you can rely a lot more on the camber thrust of the bike geometry to turn, rather than having to "steer" the bars.

    If you try out a modern geo bike (and I recommend you do), then you should also try some of the newer school of riding technique, since they go together. Mastering Mountain Bike Skills by Lee McCormack is great, for example. Since the 90's mountain bikes have benefited from new technology (making parts possible at reasonable weights that would have been impractical in the 90's), as well as lessons in technique from motocross, BMX, skiing, and other sports.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by trail-blazer View Post
    I have a question regarding the new geometry and the long bikes like Pole, Mojo Geometron and Nicolai. With the long front center, long chain stays and steep seat angle doesn't this put you more above the cranks and so put your knee way in front of the pedal axle? I know when I've slammed my seat fully forward, it's not very comfortable to pedal but they may be that my 'normal' bike may be too cramped like that.

    Just wondering if there is potential for knee issues.
    There's really nothing different about your knee behind the pedal, over it, or in front of it as far as potential for pain as long as you keep your ankle angle the same. If you keep your pedal stroke the same, with the same knee and ankle angle, your knee doesn't care where it is from a vertical perspective. You can ride a recumbent bike, or an opposite-recumbent bike (pedals way behind you) and not have knee issues everything else being the same. IDK why people think they have to have their knee right over the pedal axel, there's nothing physiological that would necessitate this.
    You can't buy happiness. But you can buy a bike. And that's pretty close.

  25. #25
    meatier showers
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    7,986
    Quote Originally Posted by BmanInTheD View Post
    IDK why people think they have to have their knee right over the pedal axel, there's nothing physiological that would necessitate this.
    That's a great observation. For me it's all about climbing. I love climbing wicked steep pitches. With a slack SA, I feel like I'm falling off the back of the bike. But with a steep SA, when the front of the bike is several inches higher than the rear of the bike due to grade, a steep SA allows me to use the saddle to push the rear tire into the terrain while staying in contact with the bike. Traction! Makes it much easier for me to clean heinously steep sections.

    When I'm descending, bang -- the seat goes down and who cares what the SA is -- the seat is gone. This is why I prefer a frame designed & built around a steep SA.
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  26. #26
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20,878
    Quote Originally Posted by phidauex View Post
    you should also try some of the newer school of riding technique
    This is absolutely true. I rode a 2003 Stumpjumper FSR for about 11 or 12 years and bought a Salsa Bucksaw. While the Salsa isn't the most progressive modern geometry bike, it certainly has a lot of characteristics of modern geometry. My riding technique absolutely had to change. I had no choice in the matter. But once I did, I had no problems climbing, or navigating tight turns. But I did have to adapt my riding position and style to work with the bike. The biggest thing I found was that I was all around more comfortable and confident on the bike. And ESPECIALLY when my tires left the ground. My old stumpy was downright terrifying in the air, so I did everything to avoid it. With the new bike, I now find excuses to get air. I'm not sure I could endo it if I tried, but that old xc geometry seems like it was built to throw you OTB if you made a tiny mistake.

  27. #27
    meatier showers
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    7,986
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    This is absolutely true. I rode a 2003 Stumpjumper FSR for about 11 or 12 years and bought a Salsa Bucksaw. While the Salsa isn't the most progressive modern geometry bike, it certainly has a lot of characteristics of modern geometry. My riding technique absolutely had to change. I had no choice in the matter. But once I did, I had no problems climbing, or navigating tight turns. But I did have to adapt my riding position and style to work with the bike. The biggest thing I found was that I was all around more comfortable and confident on the bike. And ESPECIALLY when my tires left the ground. My old stumpy was downright terrifying in the air, so I did everything to avoid it. With the new bike, I now find excuses to get air. I'm not sure I could endo it if I tried, but that old xc geometry seems like it was built to throw you OTB if you made a tiny mistake.
    LOL! This is SO right on! All of it! Thanks, Harold!
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justwan naride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    547
    For me switching from old school XC 26" to new school trail 27.5" (both hardtails) meant going from constant overcorrecting, tying to avoid OTB's and struggling to keep flow, to careless charging both up and down.

    It took me the best part of a year and around 2000km to fully trust the new bike and let myself go, but I'm faster and safer everywhere, while having more fun. I still ride the older bike every other weekend and enjoy it, but it's clear that it has a narrower range of conditions where it feels "right" (despite being fully upgraded with modern parts and a dropper). And that's the biggest difference between tha old and new style of geometry in IMHO.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,633

    &quot;Modern Geometry&quot; vs. old school 26&quot;

    I think I'm with the OP on questioning the validity of modern geometry for anything other than going downhill. I also am thinking of going to a 650b wheeled bike instead of a 29er. This over the bar fear that some of you have is a bit overblown. I only once ever went over the bars in 30 years of riding and am unconvinced that new geometry will prevent the problem under all circumstances. However, I don't live for the downhills and prefer an XC bike so YMMV.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  30. #30
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,793
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDee View Post
    I only once ever went over the bars in 30 years of riding
    You're doing it wrong.
    There are two types of people in this world:
    1) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,633
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    You're doing it wrong.
    Probably... I had a friend that would crash and get bloody on every ride. I used to think he thought it wasn't a good ride unless he drew blood. He used to say "You are not pushing yourself enough." I'd say "I'd rather live to ride another day" and "please don't bleed on the upholstery" (in my car).

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    121
    I just made the switch from a 1990s full suspension bike to a modern trail bike. I've ridden and raced dh a little and mx a lot. I really like the new geo. It's basically a much better version of what I always tried to do--long top tube to allow a short stem and wide bars, seat way forward so the nose says down on climbs and high volume tires. Comparing my new spider to my old pro flex the spider handles nearly as well as a DH bike going down (but obviously doesn't have the burly suspension or tires) and goes up most things faster than the pro flex. About the only disadvantage is that it's harder when standing to get way forward and low so the front is a smidge more wonder prone than the pro flex with bar ends, a long stem and narrow bars (by today's standards). Overall I climb a bit faster and corner and go down a lot faster on the spider. Brakes, dropper post, and clutched mechs are major improvements along with much higher quality suspension that lets us have 5" of plush travel with less bob than an old 4" xc rig.

    Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Eric Malcolm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus View Post
    That's a great observation. For me it's all about climbing. I love climbing wicked steep pitches. With a slack SA, I feel like I'm falling off the back of the bike. But with a steep SA, when the front of the bike is several inches higher than the rear of the bike due to grade, a steep SA allows me to use the saddle to push the rear tire into the terrain while staying in contact with the bike. Traction! Makes it much easier for me to clean heinously steep sections.

    When I'm descending, bang -- the seat goes down and who cares what the SA is -- the seat is gone. This is why I prefer a frame designed & built around a steep SA.
    =sParty
    Correct. Well stated.
    Eric
    If I don't make an attempt, how will I know if it will work?

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    6
    Great thread and very helpful. I'm in a similar situation to OP. Been riding since approx. 1990. My current bike is an Independent Fabrication I bought in approx. 1991-2. Steel frame. Front suspension with about 60 mm of travel. Haven't ridden for a couple of years due to injury, but would like to start up again. Also moving from MA to CO, so the trails are going to be completely different. Looking forward to getting a new bike and starting to ride again, but somewhat overwhelmed by all the changes. Trying to understand new geometry, wheel size, plus size tires, full suspension vs. front, 1 cog up front, etc. I've never been a particularly strong rider, at least technically, so I'm hoping all these changes will help me conquer more challenging trails.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by houndogone View Post
    Great thread and very helpful. I'm in a similar situation to OP. Been riding since approx. 1990. My current bike is an Independent Fabrication I bought in approx. 1991-2. Steel frame. Front suspension with about 60 mm of travel. Haven't ridden for a couple of years due to injury, but would like to start up again. Also moving from MA to CO, so the trails are going to be completely different. Looking forward to getting a new bike and starting to ride again, but somewhat overwhelmed by all the changes. Trying to understand new geometry, wheel size, plus size tires, full suspension vs. front, 1 cog up front, etc. I've never been a particularly strong rider, at least technically, so I'm hoping all these changes will help me conquer more challenging trails.
    OP here. After 2 months - I bit the bullet and ordeed a new bike a couple days ago (impatiently waiting for it to get built.). Short answer is the new geo works. I PR the 1500' switchback climb I use as my benchmark on each of my test rides on new bikes compared to my older 26er. And yes, overall feel more at ease descending and more comfy riding in general. I ended up getting a 140/130mm travel bike, but also tested 150/140mm travel and again they all did better uphill than my 100/100mm 26er.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    6
    So smoothmoose, what did you end up getting? Did you go with 27.5 or 29 inch wheels?

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    225
    I went with 27.5 PLUS. But only with 2.6" tires. 2.6" felt already like 50% more traction than 2.3. So 2.8 or 3.0 seemed like overkill - but I never tried on the trail.

    I tried one 29er with Santa Cruz Hightower. The improved rollover capabilities on technical stuff is very noticeable (technical stuff just becomes easier), but handling wise for me it felt like a road bike on flowy switchback stuff. But note, I'm 5'5" 145lbs. I was tempted to try other 29er like Evil the Following and Ibis Ripley. But after I demo'ed the Ibis Mojo 3, it just felt like the bike for me.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 02-24-2017, 10:15 AM
  2. "Modern" Geometry
    By xray_ed in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-05-2016, 12:32 PM
  3. Old School Thumbshifters On Modern Drivetrains 11-42t
    By phoenixbikes in forum Vintage, Retro, Classic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-30-2014, 12:02 PM
  4. "Old school" or new school parts for build
    By JayboFett in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-14-2014, 06:34 AM
  5. Help with A-C heights on modern forks and modern frames
    By Blatant in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-28-2012, 05:24 PM

Members who have read this thread: 217

Posting Permissions

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