Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 52
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead! Anthem X Head Angle - back to the best of Old School and New School

    I have heard that Giant produce a slacker head angle for their XC bike (eg Anthem X) than what the pros want and use for their riding (eg Adam Craig).

    To me this is a little disappointing and presumes that us amateurs in the production market cannot ride as well to be able to handle a faster turning bike. Well, I am certainly no pro, but what I do know is that an ultra quick handling mountain bike with full suspension is an experience like no other. In terms of frame geometry, this results from a mixture of balanced rider weight distribution, a sufficiently high ratio between chainstay length and wheelbase (assisted by a steep seat tube angle), a steep head tube angle, and the shortest possible wheelbase.

    And if you have any doubts, just study up on your COUNTERSTEERING technique and those doubts will be erased (especially with modern suspension technology). And besides, slacker angles are for downhill riding 'confidence', and there should be at least one high performance bike in the range that is designed for skilled riders wanting less compromise in the frame geometry, or indeed those who want a sweet handling bike who do not plan to tackle aggressive downhill terrain anyway!

    Now this may be incorrect information, but it would be nice if Giant took the courageous step in returning to the Old School, and by blending it with the best of New School full suspension technology, had a little faith in the skills of the rest of us. (Not that the other manufacturers are any better in dialing their head angles mind you, but someone has to lead the way!)

    Let's hope that the Anthem X Advanced (2010 carbon version of Anthem X) has the geometry that Giant does not think the rest of us can handle... (ie ADD ONE DEGREE of steepness to the head angle, maintain the chainstay length and tighten the wheelbase) to make one sweet ride!
    Last edited by lookin; 02-23-2009 at 04:41 PM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    386
    You might want to do some research - Craig designed the Anthem X (exactly the way he wanted it).

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    413
    Yup and the last time XC bikes had 72 deg head angles was 1993 with rigid forks or 50mm suspension forks. 72 deg on a 80mm Anthem was ok for a short course race bike but 90% of consumers don't race and an Anthem could be a handful for a half bonked rider after an epic all day backwoods ride.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185
    I guess my focus is more on the benefits of combining aggressive frame geometry (steep angles, short wheelbase, etc) than making claims about Adam Craig.

    The honesty in my previous post was in stating that I had heard there was a difference in the frame geometry between pro and production bikes, as well as acknowledging that that information may be incorrect. So, thank you for correcting me about Adam Craig (assuming your sources are better than mine ).

    It would be great to hear how many people loved the handling of the original Giant Anthem, who wish that Giant could have bumped up the suspension on the Anthem X while maintaining the geometry...

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185
    ... even for trail riding (the Anthem that is)

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    130
    Slack head angles suck. Maybe I have to buy a couple of traditional anthems to last me a lifetime, since I love the sharpness of that bike. But, if they pull out a M/L anthem x I'll change...

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    636
    Had a 07 1st Gen Anthem and now have UPGRADED to a 09 X. The X is as quick turn to turn as the 1st Gen with with an added confidence that allows me to attack more aggressivly than I did on my 07. The extra 1/4" of stroke on the rear shock has taken some of the harshness away while still providing a very efficient peddaling platform.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: antonio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,977
    Steep head angles suck. I am so glad manufacturers are realizing this and making bikes with geometries that most riders want, and ignoring the rants of those few who don't like change.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: antonio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by lookin
    . . . presumes that us amateurs in the production market cannot ride as well to be able to handle a faster turning bike. . .


    Many riders have the skills to handle a twitchy handling bike, they just don't want to.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: EGF168's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,419
    Quote Originally Posted by antonio
    Steep head angles suck. I am so glad manufacturers are realizing this and making bikes with geometries that most riders want, and ignoring the rants of those few who don't like change.
    100% agree, slacker head angles put less stress on the bike and go over bumps easier with a less harsh ride. That slows me down much more than slower steering ever will...

  11. #11
    bi-winning
    Reputation: rkj__'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,121
    You could put an 80mm fork on the X. That will steepen the angles, and drop the BB to get that lightning fast race geometry you want.
    When under pressure, your level of performance will sink to your level of preparation.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185
    not a big fan of making dramatic modification to original designs. it's a pity that can't have at least one bike designed for the purpose ie ultra quick handling. anyway, 100mm is good, i like that, and wouldn't be too keen on 80mm forks (which would not have a significant effect on bottom bracket height anyway)

    well, it seems clear that some people like steep angles and some like slack. hardly surprising. but manufacturers should at least deal with the full gamut of the spectrum, from ultra steep, to super slack - don't you think?

    it seems that almost every model in the range has now got slacker over the years - the slackness trend perhaps, forgetting about the steep end of the market. (and no i'm not fussed about the increase in suspension travel that has accompanied this, they can go very well together within limits)

  13. #13
    bi-winning
    Reputation: rkj__'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,121
    Quote Originally Posted by lookin
    it's a pity that can't have at least one bike designed for the purpose ie ultra quick handling.
    The Anthem Advanced is still in this year's lineup at least.
    When under pressure, your level of performance will sink to your level of preparation.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185
    not in my country
    besides, the 100m travel of the X is an improvement, just a pity they didn't keep the original geometry
    and besides, i would struggle to buy it when everyone knows there is going to be a new carbon Anthem X next year (and hopefully they bring back the old geometry )

    ... and hopefully they make it in a MEDIUM-LARGE FRAME SIZE , for all those average height folks around 6' (the average male height) who do not fit so well on either the Medium or Large sizes)

  15. #15
    May contain nuts
    Reputation: Haggis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,948
    Quote Originally Posted by lookin
    I guess my focus is more on the benefits of combining aggressive frame geometry (steep angles, short wheelbase, etc) than making claims about Adam Craig.

    The honesty in my previous post was in stating that I had heard there was a difference in the frame geometry between pro and production bikes, as well as acknowledging that that information may be incorrect. So, thank you for correcting me about Adam Craig (assuming your sources are better than mine ).

    It would be great to hear how many people loved the handling of the original Giant Anthem, who wish that Giant could have bumped up the suspension on the Anthem X while maintaining the geometry...
    You don't consider this steep enough???


  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: farmertan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    669
    Quote Originally Posted by lookin
    it's a pity that can't have at least one bike designed for the purpose
    There's no "pity" in the new Anthem X. Have you ridden one? I've owned an 08 Anthem and now the Anthem X. The new one out-performs the older one b/c it's a perfect combination of plushness and efficiency. Not sure what your angle is on your post (pun sorta intended), but I find it somewhat odd.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,386
    As much as I like Giant, I would probably recommend going custom. Yes, they're a large company with a lot of customers, but they still need to turn a profit.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185
    fair thought, so which custom frame builders make a high performance full suspension bicycle (when the major bicycle companies are full of patents protecting their rear ends - of their bikes that is?)

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,386
    I'm not sure...I've never had enough money to even consider going custom... I would probably go Titus or Pivot, if they make custom bikes. I'm pretty sure Titus does, but I'm not sure about Pivot.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185
    thank you for those suggestions. i'm not too enthusiastic about paying for custom either, just hoping that Giant will bring out the Medium-Large size to fit all those average height top-of-the-bell-curve people including myself (and hopefully steepen the geometry a little once more). one would think that the supply side of what is clearly a major company would have responded to this basic frame sizing need (at least for their high performance bikes)

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    636
    I looked at all those custom botique frames before going with the X, they were all twice as expensive while weighing in at 1/2 pound heavier or more (The Anthem frame is a scant 5 pounds beat that)I also rode many of the botique frames and to protect the guilty they shall remain nameless, none of them were as plush or efficient as the X (now thats a wicked combination) so whats not to like? If you have to have that Custom badge on the front of your frame, go ahead and throw your money away but try before you buy and make a informed decision.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185
    thanks for that - price alone would put me off going custom (and i certainly have no desire for a heavier bike)

    i wrote off the boutique manufacturers long ago (although i did study and compare their designs first)

    don't have the cash to buy cool (although i will pay for quality)

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,386
    I wouldn't go custom, either, but if you just aren't happy with what's already out there...
    I also wish they made more M/L frames. I have the M/L Defy 1 and I wish I could have gotten a M/L Reign X. If I had an extra thousand or two laying around, I could think of a few better ways to spend it than on a 1 degree steeper head angle or 1/2" longer top tube. It is an option for some people, though.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    413
    Lookin,

    You know...stems come in diffrent lengths and the seat posts can slide up and down to fit a bike to you.

    If you were to get a Large Anthem X and set it up right your worries about fit would dissapear after you first ride.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185
    formulaone33, thank you again for your comments on frame sizing. many good people such as yourself provided well-meaning and informative sizing advice based on height measurements on earlier threads. i am aware that stems come in different lengths and that seat posts can slide up and down, as i am sure most other participants and readers of this forum are too. but it became clear from those other threads as well as talking to riders (of Giant bicycles) in my local area that there is clearly market demand for more intermediate sizing, as the post above yours also attests. i can only hope and assume you are not trying to belittle those people who may not fit so well on the frames Giant currently make. when we all know the importance of bicycle fit (for comfort, efficiency, handling, not to mention injury prevention), and we know what a good fitting bike feels like to sit on and ride, it is hardly good faith for manufacturers to encourage people to step onto ill-fitting bicycle frames, especially ones that cost a lot of money. there is definitely a need in the market. Giant responded well to this need by broadening the range of frame sizes they offer for their road bikes. the time has come for Giant to recognise the importance of a properly fitting mountain bike, and to respond to the sizings needs - the demand for more precise sizing that is - of the mountain bike segment of the market. i will be the first one to laud Giant when they do, as i very much like Giant bikes and the Giant company, and i would not be bothering to encourage Giant to innovate in this manner if i didn't.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    Compare the sizing on the expensive Giant road frames to that of the Giant Anthem X. On the road frames, there is a 1.5 cm or 2 cm difference in TT depending on the size, on the Anthem X there is a consistent 2 cm difference in TT between sizes. In other words, the gap between sizes is, for all intents and purposes identical. While I do not believe much in fitting advice over the Internet, I do believe that a 2 cm difference in TT between sizes on an otherwise well laid out bike can't be a deal breaker, it's +/- 1 cm of stem length, depending on if whether you chose a medium or a large, that is hardly a compromise, fit-wise.

    As for the geometry, it only makes sense to slack the HA by one degree when moving to a 20 mm longer fork, otherwise the bike will get -very- interesting to handle when the fork is deep in its stroke. The Anthem X is still a very quick handler, the two guys that have tried mine thought so to a degree where it was a deal breaker, I can't imagine someone wanting something more lively - Adam Craig et al. included, fwiw.

    Honestly, get out and try the damn thing, instead of worrying about numbers on a paper, I don't think I've heard about anyone going from the Anthem to the Anthem X complaining it was too sluggish handling or a worse frame in any way.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: antonio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,977
    Good post, rasmusj.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: d365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,676
    I had commented, on putting on a shorter stem to make the large fit you, before in another thread, but just wanted to add that putting a shorter stem on the bike will also quicken up the steering.

    It could solve your dilemmas... did you ever get the lbs to let you try the large with a shorter stem, and straight post? just asking.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by rasmusj
    Compare the sizing on the expensive Giant road frames to that of the Giant Anthem X. On the road frames, there is a 1.5 cm or 2 cm difference in TT depending on the size, on the Anthem X there is a consistent 2 cm difference in TT between sizes. In other words, the gap between sizes is, for all intents and purposes identical. While I do not believe much in fitting advice over the Internet, I do believe that a 2 cm difference in TT between sizes on an otherwise well laid out bike can't be a deal breaker, it's +/- 1 cm of stem length, depending on if whether you chose a medium or a large, that is hardly a compromise, fit-wise.

    As for the geometry, it only makes sense to slack the HA by one degree when moving to a 20 mm longer fork, otherwise the bike will get -very- interesting to handle when the fork is deep in its stroke. The Anthem X is still a very quick handler, the two guys that have tried mine thought so to a degree where it was a deal breaker, I can't imagine someone wanting something more lively - Adam Craig et al. included, fwiw.

    Honestly, get out and try the damn thing, instead of worrying about numbers on a paper, I don't think I've heard about anyone going from the Anthem to the Anthem X complaining it was too sluggish handling or a worse frame in any way.

    rasmusj -

    1) as you know, small differences in frame measurements can make a significant difference to overall bike fit

    2) if you look at the stats around the intermediate sizes, there is a consistently larger gap between sizes with the mountain bikes than the road bikes. still, unless you work for a part of Giant which is trying to stonewall the introduction of more extensive sizes into their range, i don't think we should profess to be arguing about the insignficance or otherwise of 0.5cm on the charts. in the flesh, there is enough of a difference between the bikes that even a 1cm stem length change cannot surmount (without going into all the earlier discussion on seat fore-aft adjustments, how head tube length gets affected, wheelbase gets affected, etc)

    3) i did ride the large, and despite a shorter stem, the bike felt too big for me. still, i am glad that you and others are happy for how they fit on their bikes - but there is plenty of flip-flopping between M's and L's on the threads, that an M-L might have been able to fix for some of those people. now i am not saying that an M-L would suddenly introduce a 1cm sizing gap into the range, it would most likely be less (as with the road bikes), and the other sizes (as with the road bikes) would be shifted somewhat deeper into their ideal fit ranges, which would now be narrower and more accurate, so the entire range of bikes would end up fitting more people more accurately, which can only be a good thing.

    4) i don't see what cause you have for arguing against all the other people out there (not to mention those in previous threads) who would benefit from Giant introducing a more extensive sizing range

    5) i like to drift on my bike. pulled a nice one cornering on the ashphalt street yesterday. i want a bike that fits me so i have a better chance of cornering well (and not crashing), as i'm sure everyone else does too. fit and frame dimensions are too important to compromise on (Giant market their bikes as high performance with a price tag to match after all). and i want to be able to keep riding in a way that is good for my health and back and knees rather than hurting them, ditto everyone else.

    thanks for your desire to help though, but for my part, i would like to put this issue to rest. i have made my decision. the confusion is out there. the knowledge is out there. people can see for themselves (and test ride for themselves) if they wish.



    now rasmusj, because you can, go ride your Anthem X!

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185
    try doing the following with a slack head angle and long wheelbase...

    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by lookin; 03-02-2009 at 08:28 PM.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: antonio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by lookin
    thanks for your desire to help though, but for my part, i would like to put this issue to rest. . .
    So what happened?!?!? Bored?

    Quote Originally Posted by lookin
    try doing the following with a slack head angle and long wheelbase...

    (sigh)

    Yes, you're right, it can not be done on a bike with slack angles. Only 72 deg HA's and short wheelbases can be used when posing for pictures while kneeling on the ground and holding up a bike.

    I suggest you head over to the Turner forum and share some of your bike knowledge with those guys. We've got it all under control over here.

    Ant
    Last edited by antonio; 03-03-2009 at 04:56 AM.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185
    I know someone who is selling a sense of humour. Interested?

    1,397 posts? Bored?

    What makes you so conceited that you think this forum belongs to you?

    Or are you somehow judge and jury? And if so, of what?

    Check your attitude pal.

    Put your manners back in your mouth Antonio.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: antonio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by lookin
    1,397 posts? Bored?
    Definitely. WAY too much snow this year.

    But at 100 posts a month, you'll catch up to me soon enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by lookin
    What makes you so conceited that you think this forum belongs to you?

    Or are you somehow judge and jury? And if so, of what?
    I don't think this forum belongs to me, but I am inclined to call out BS, especially when someone writes with an element of authority - you might persuade those with less experience to buy into what you're writing. One of the purposes of these boards is to share good knowledge.

    And, hey, if you disagree with my opinion, just keep on posting.

    Quote Originally Posted by lookin
    Check your attitude pal.

    Put your manners back in your mouth Antonio.
    Ok, internet-tough-guy. Sorry.

    Seriously tho, check out the Turner forum. Or try Ibis.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185
    Antonio, you are obviously doing a wonderful service for people trying to quash false arguments wherever they may lie.

    Why don't you let the various arguments and images (including their ironies) speak for themselves, and let them stand or fall by themselves, rather that trying to destroy the credibility of those people whose arguments you do not like?

    People can read your arguments, then they can read mine, and anyone else's for that matter. There is no need to follow me around various threads just because you are bored and keen to launch some imaginary vendetta with personal attacks - who did you say was the internet tough guy?

    When you quoted me out of context referring to my desire to put an issue to rest, I was referring to the really wonderful help and advice people had provided me with, and wonderful discussion that ensued, over choosing a frame size for an Anthem X (mostly on other threads - and it puzzles me here why you would want me to head to another manufacturer's forum when I clearly like Giant bikes, and I clearly care enough to have a discussion on their design characteristics, of one model in the range mind you, rather than simply heading to purchase from another manufacturer).

    Well, I thought it courteous to let people know at a certain point that I no longer needed further advice. It became a situation of diminishing returns from extra opinions, and I did not want to waste people's time in them providing their opinions for me at that stage, which is a perfectly reasonable position. I have enough knowledge on that matter, and am grateful for it.

    Antonio, have some faith in the intelligence of other readers of this forum. Have faith in people to discern humour, uncertainty, points for discussion. Have an open mind that you might not know everything yourself, which I for my part clearly indicated at the beginning of this thread. State your assumptions. State your context. (Within reason of course - not everyone is so bored as to lend their existence to perfecting arguments on internet forums.)

    Also, just because someone writes clearly does not mean they are assuming any airs of authority or whatever you think that means. You might like to re-train your so-called BS meter, and in your re-calibrating, take a class or two in verbal and contextual reasoning (aka logic, so you don't pervert my arguments or take them out of context, globalise their relevance, misunderstand or falsely endorse the arguments of myself and others), and perhaps one in physics (make that dynamics so we can have a productive discussion about bike geometry), one in product development (to account for their being a variety of bicycle designs within a product range), one in manners, and one in humour. (Just so there is no confusion about manners, I am here defending myself against your insults and vociferous attacks, which, by the by, is not very humorous.)

    And maybe after that it could be worth talking to someone about why you are obsessively following and attacking other people on the internet. No need to project your own insecurities, Mr Internet Tough Guy! Attack Arguments yes, provided you attempt to back them up - otherwise what are people meant to make of them - or at least provide some sort of justification for your statements. And don't attack people, unless you need to defend yourself. That is base and uncivilised.

    I like Giant bikes. I am staying on this forum. I will continue to post from time to time, freely as I see fit.

    You should not be allowed to get away with insulting people and aggressively trying to kick them out of public places when they are making their best efforts to contribute to a productive discussion.

    And on the purposes of a forum like this, they are multiple I would assume, and as well as attempting to share 'good' knowledge (for which I have made my best efforts), one might like to consider the purpose of developing new knowledge also, as contributors to this forum, using logic and creativity rather than always taking the information we read on the internet, from bicycle companies or otherwise, as gospel.

    I would certainly hope you don't behave in this manner towards anyone else.


    'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.' (Edmund Burke)

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: antonio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by lookin
    blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah


    Well, I guess I’ll respond.

    By stating your flimsy opinions as facts, then brushing aside the opinions of other experienced cyclists who don’t agree with your facts, you are trying to inject an essence of authority and knowledge in your posts that they don't merit.

    By calling me “pal” and ordering me to “put manners in my mouth”, you come across as a wannabe tough guy. (And, really, other than disagreeing with your posts, how have I personally attacked you?).

    And by confusing my spending too much time on MTBR with my stalking you, well, you’re just a wee bit self-centered.

    Ant

    Oh, and regarding your advice/snobbery/insults – nice try. A long-winded weak comeback is still . . . well . . . weak.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185
    This is really not worth responding to - only because we are wasting everyone's time, not to mention each other's.

    1) But people like you act as a roadblock to authentic discussion by disrespecting others opinions and understanding of what facts may exist, and then simply retaliating with you own apparently superior 'opinions' and complaining about others making their best efforts to contribute to a robust discussion - self-centred???

    2) You still don't understand humour, or rather you are prepared to dish it out but not get it back. Also, the 'manners' comments, as well as being justifiable and intended (in a civilised fashion - nothing 'tough guy' about that), are a reference to an infamous interview with Tom Cruise, where an interviewer went too far and he asked for restraint.

    3) You don't simply disagree with my posts, you make it personal by telling me I'm not welcome (for example) - who are you to judge? - and you certainly don't give reasons for any disagreement. It's how you spend too much of your time on MTBR, not simply that you may or may not spend too much time on it - who am I to judge? - it's your life.

    4) You have 'won' by wrecking this thread (among others) - so congratulations!!!

    5) Please spend some time to reflect. This is all most unnecessary, but that does not make it ok.

    6) Re insults and snobbery (see above, and various other threads)

    7) I really couldn't give a rat's arse whether you think this is weak 'tough guy'. Since when is attempting to seek justice considered weak?

    8) There is a difference between being an experienced cyclist and being able to think about bicycle design and dynamics. These attributes exist in an optimal fashion together, but they can also exist independently. The past few years I have begun to think about cycling as well as doing it, but I can imagine that there are engineers around who might spend some time thinking about bicycle design and dynamics without necessarily doing much cycling. Adam Craig is obviously a very valuable asset because he is clearly great at cycling but also provides valuable feedback to Giant, but it is just as easy to imagine a pro cyclist who is only good at, well, cycling - just as some cyclists are better at promotion and sponsorship than others. Obviously all top level cyclists are going to be able to intuitively know how to operate and understand their machines, but some will be better at putting that into words than others, and then again some will be better at giving reasons rather than simply making comment. So what?

    9) My apologies for wasting people's time, and being involved in a situation which has corrupted public discussion rather than advanced it.


    Good riddance, Antonio. (and no, that's not a 'tough guy' comment, it's a mark of exasperation!)

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: EGF168's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,419
    Take ya time, I’ve been waiting 4 long hours for the handbags to resume flying around!

    Good news is my popcorn has finally finished popping in the microwave.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185
    Ha!

    So perhaps we have not been wasting (absolutely) everyone's time after all?

    Glad you have been entertained, sir.

    Let's see, it may even continue, but I'm leaving. Anyone want to take my role? No audition required.

    Enjoy your popcorn!

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    130
    One of my countrys best mountainbikers is going to use 80 mm fork on his Anthem X. And yes, he's faster than you.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: antonio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,977
    lookin, stop flattering yourself. I didn't wreck this thread - it was junk from post #1. You didn't want to engage in a "robust discussion", you wanted a soapbox.

    Stop whining. I didn't think much of your posts, and it showed - oh, well.

    Are you sure you don't want the last word/lengthy diatribe?

    It's been (ahem) fun.

    Ant

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    132
    I am surprised that nobody has brought this up. Anytime a manufacturer increases suspension travel it also has to slacken the head angle. Everytime the front fork compresses the head angle becomes steeper while you are riding. This happens everytime you hit a bump. The more travel, the more the steepening of the HA during compression. If a manufacturer increases travel without also changing the head angle the bike would become very twitchy on rough terrain or during foward weight transfer such as going downhill.

  42. #42
    May contain nuts
    Reputation: Haggis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,948
    Quote Originally Posted by TomBouch
    I am surprised that nobody has brought this up. Anytime a manufacturer increases suspension travel it also has to slacken the head angle. Everytime the front fork compresses the head angle becomes steeper while you are riding. This happens everytime you hit a bump. The more travel, the more the steepening of the HA during compression. If a manufacturer increases travel without also changing the head angle the bike would become very twitchy on rough terrain or during foward weight transfer such as going downhill.
    'Zactly. Well done Tom.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185
    Tom's point is both valid and true.

    His point is also one that, although perhaps I was remiss not to make explicit earlier, to my mind has already been implied in the discussion so far.

    There can still be a desire for steeper angles, while realising that front fork compression effectively steepens the head angle - obviously provided that the rear suspension is not otherwise relatively more compressed.

    The way I see it is that provided the suspension is correctly set up, these brief moments of steepening at the front have a less undesirable effect on handling than having a head angle that is too slack - for riders who like precise handling through steep head angles, that is.

    Also, the half inch increase in suspension travel from the Anthem to the Anthem X (without bothering to do the trigonometric calculations) should not justify a full degree slackening of the head angle,* assuming the intention to maintain an equivalence of steering precision.


    * and properly set sag would mitigate against the angular effect of this half inch even further

  44. #44
    May contain nuts
    Reputation: Haggis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,948
    Hmmm, choosing between fractionally slower steering vs over-the-bars on any momentum slowing obstacle under braking... Tough decision.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lookin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    185
    I thought that's what a Trance X was for?

    Different riding style, different terrain priorities I guess...

    Just wanting the steep end of the market to stay sharp

  46. #46
    May contain nuts
    Reputation: Haggis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,948
    Quote Originally Posted by lookin
    I thought that's what a Trance X was for?

    Different riding style, different terrain priorities I guess...

    Just wanting the steep end of the market to stay sharp
    Then I'm not the best person to comment (my Anthem has a Revelation on it). Horses for courses eh?

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: antonio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by TomBouch
    I am surprised that nobody has brought this up. Anytime a manufacturer increases suspension travel it also has to slacken the head angle. Everytime the front fork compresses the head angle becomes steeper while you are riding. This happens everytime you hit a bump. The more travel, the more the steepening of the HA during compression. If a manufacturer increases travel without also changing the head angle the bike would become very twitchy on rough terrain or during foward weight transfer such as going downhill.
    rasmusj brought it up in post 26, although you explained it with more detail.

    Ant

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    132
    On the average mountain bike with average wheelbase 20mm of travel is worth about .7 degrees of HA. On a fully rigid bike a 72 degree HA was always 72. With the advent of front suspension you had to worry about fork compression. We now must also take into consideration rear suspension extension. Unfortunetly the time when you need the slackest HA is when descending. This happens to be the time when it is at it's steepest. Just as an example, when descending the fork me be compressed an extra 20mm and the rear extended an extra 20mm. This should equal about 1.4 degrees. The more travel, the more this is exaggerated.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    160
    How much does it change the angles when I use a 2.25er tyre in the rear, but a 2.4er tyre in front (e.g. Nobby Nic) ? Or is it negligible?

    By the way, in a German bike magazine there was a test with an Anthem X0. They don't quote the manufacturers values towards angles but make their own measurements with the bikes. The angles were 69,6/72,6 instead of Giant's 71/73 degree. And for the rear they measured 110mm instead of 100mm (official) travel.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    132
    Negligible.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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