Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 226
  1. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DrewBird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    Seat tube angle is slack at 71.5. The modern bike is much better off with a 74 degree seat angle to make the pedaling position ideal. And since 99% of these bikes will have a dropper post, the seat is out of the way anyway during descending.
    Francois, thanks for chiming in. I wonder if you could clarify your preference for a steeper seat tube? Is this just to give an ideal hip-pedal relationship, or related to front/rear balance on the bike?

  2. #27
    swag ho Administrator
    Reputation: francois's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    18,229
    Quote Originally Posted by DrewBird View Post
    Francois, thanks for chiming in. I wonder if you could clarify your preference for a steeper seat tube? Is this just to give an ideal hip-pedal relationship, or related to front/rear balance on the bike?
    A steeper seat angle seems to put my hips and my weight in a much better pedaling position. The knee seems to go right over the pedal in the 3 o clock power position.

    The downside is it's not ideal for descending when the seat is all the way up.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  3. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,278

    Re: Tell me bad things about the Mach 6

    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    A steeper seat angle seems to put my hips and my weight in a much better pedaling position. The knee seems to go right over the pedal in the 3 o clock power position.

    The downside is it's not ideal for descending when the seat is all the way up.

    fc
    But does the STA really matter if the ST is bend and does not come straight from the BB?
    I can imagine that riders with shorter inseam will be more over the BB and those with longer one will be farther back. While on a bike with less relaxed STA the difference will be not as pronounced.
    But theoretically, what really matters is where the seat is when fully extended for climbing or pedaling in seated position.
    If it is too far back it will negatively effect pedaling doesn't matter what the STA is.
    Or am I missing something here?

  4. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,902
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    This is a good thread since I'm reviewing the bike.

    BB height I think is a bit high for the modern rally bike. 13.0 to 13.3" make awesome handlers an this bike is at 13.6". But it does give it extra rock clearance for folks who live in rough terrain. I ride in Norcal so I'd much rather have 13.1"

    Cable routing... ay caramba. It's clean but it has to deal with all that suspension movement.

    Decals - holy moly there's a lot of them. 27.5, 155 mm travel, 650b do not have to be decals.

    Seat tube angle is slack at 71.5. The modern bike is much better off with a 74 degree seat angle to make the pedaling position ideal. And since 99% of these bikes will have a dropper post, the seat is out of the way anyway during descending.

    fc
    i live in Norcal as well and a 13" BB sounds downright scary and dangerous, plenty of rock trails around here. Would be scared to clip a rock while cornering with outside foot down, put you on your side in a heartbeat. Especially with a 6" bike, at full compression that pedal is going to be AWFULLY low

    Steep Seat tube angles are cool for a long travel Slack bike when going up steep climbs to keep it from wheeling, but thats about it. It positions you too upright and makes the reach too short, which is terrible for long rides or flat'ter terrain.

    Slack Seat tube angle puts the seat farther back meaning you have to get even farther back to get "behind the seat" for steep stuff, meaning you will need a seat dropper even MORE. What it does is allow you to stay centered or neutral IN the bike without the seat being in the way for flowy trails and jumping

  5. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,278

    Re: Tell me bad things about the Mach 6

    Quote Originally Posted by Yody View Post
    Slack Seat tube angle puts the seat farther back meaning you have to get even farther back to get "behind the seat", meaning you will need a seat dropper even MORE. What it does is allow you to stay centered or neutral IN the bike without the seat being in the way.
    This makes sense. Let's say 2 different bikes with the same TT length, different STA, everything else the same.
    Slacker SA bike should also have longer reach...

  6. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,802
    The BB is low because it's an AZ bike, not some pump track shuttle turd.
    Nice KOM, sorry about your penis.

  7. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DrewBird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    449
    I think that's right. It's also the case that no one makes a setback dropper post. I always found myself running my saddle pushed most of the way back on the rails on my Bronson (73 deg. ST), so I'm thinking I'd be able to run it closer to center-of-rails on a M6. (Test ride this weekend, so we'll see...)

  8. #33
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,119
    Steep STAs perch you "on top" of the bike, as opposed to slacker STAs that put you "in" the bike. I've got longer legs and on a steep bike I feel like I'm perched up too high. The higher I go the more forward lean I have, which leads to more pressure on the hands.

    Lower BBs handle much better than higher BBs IMO.

    Low, slack, and in the bike is where I want to be. Leave that tall, perched feeling for the roadies and canaries.

  9. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,653
    Has anyone else actually measured the ST angle? The "effective" angle is whatever. The actual angle is significantly slacker. I would agree with Francois that is should be steeper. The problem for them is that to make it steeper shortens the effective TT as well. Only way to fix this is move the BB back (would also lengthen the reach which would be nice) which then lengthens the wheelbase (maybe no so nice). Tough decisions to make for the designers.

  10. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robertj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    397
    I think the "virtual" SA is perfect for me on my Mach 6; it puts my saddle in the middle of the saddle rails with KOPS in perfect position with the seatpost fully extended. Same positon as my Mojo HD. For me, Pivot found that "magic" combination of geometry and suspension characteristics for climbing, descending, and all round riding. I agree with the other posters about a "too steep" SA that puts the rider too far forward; not good for general riding, and not good for KOPS with my long legs.

    -"virtual" SA because the seat tube does not intersect the bottom bracket; this is something a few manufacturers are doing.

    Claimed SA for Mach 6 (L): 71.5
    Claimed SA for Mojo HD (XL): 71.5

  11. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    375
    Good discussion on this. I am still building my new M6, but came from 2010 and 2012 Enduros. Steeper seat angles and longer chainstays. I have long legs, so maybe I will like this set up better. I have always felt a bit on top of my Enduros, so this feedback makes sense.

  12. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    104
    In currently on a 2014 sworks enduro with 650b wheels and fork but am very tempted to buy a mach 6.
    It's a size large enduro.
    Numbers are deceiving, especially with specialized.
    Their seat tube in relation to the bb is very far forward so people think that the tt is short, but the 'reach' it's big and i think this is why the Command post is a layback/setback design.
    I can imagine the m6 being a similar feel to my old mojo hd's, which i liked. ....until it kept cracking!
    The one thing that did bother me slightly with the dw was that the anti sqaut design did sit up alot on very steep stuff which forced the saddle to hit me in the crown jewels a lot.
    Reviews are saying the m6 dw is even more progressive, does this mean that the anti squat is more pronounced than a hd?
    Im very close to buying this frame and pouring all the kit from the sworks on to this.
    Will my shimano 73mm cranks fit with a conversion bb or is the width different?
    Also i have a 30.9 stealth reverb atm, will this fit or is the post a 31.6?

    Thanks,your advice is appreciated.

  13. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by waldo1 View Post
    In currently on a 2014 sworks enduro with 650b wheels and fork but am very tempted to buy a mach 6.
    It's a size large enduro.
    Numbers are deceiving, especially with specialized.
    Their seat tube in relation to the bb is very far forward so people think that the tt is short, but the 'reach' it's big and i think this is why the Command post is a layback/setback design.
    I can imagine the m6 being a similar feel to my old mojo hd's, which i liked. ....until it kept cracking!
    The one thing that did bother me slightly with the dw was that the anti sqaut design did sit up alot on very steep stuff which forced the saddle to hit me in the crown jewels a lot.
    Reviews are saying the m6 dw is even more progressive, does this mean that the anti squat is more pronounced than a hd?
    Im very close to buying this frame and pouring all the kit from the sworks on to this.
    Will my shimano 73mm cranks fit with a conversion bb or is the width different?
    Also i have a 30.9 stealth reverb atm, will this fit or is the post a 31.6?

    Thanks,your advice is appreciated.
    73mm cranks will fit. Seattube is 30.9.
    Go for it!

  14. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,653
    Quote Originally Posted by waldo1 View Post
    In currently on a 2014 sworks enduro with 650b wheels and fork but am very tempted to buy a mach 6.
    It's a size large enduro.
    Numbers are deceiving, especially with specialized.
    Their seat tube in relation to the bb is very far forward so people think that the tt is short, but the 'reach' it's big and i think this is why the Command post is a layback/setback design.
    I can imagine the m6 being a similar feel to my old mojo hd's, which i liked. ....until it kept cracking!
    The one thing that did bother me slightly with the dw was that the anti sqaut design did sit up alot on very steep stuff which forced the saddle to hit me in the crown jewels a lot.
    Reviews are saying the m6 dw is even more progressive, does this mean that the anti squat is more pronounced than a hd?
    Im very close to buying this frame and pouring all the kit from the sworks on to this.
    Will my shimano 73mm cranks fit with a conversion bb or is the width different?
    Also i have a 30.9 stealth reverb atm, will this fit or is the post a 31.6?

    Thanks,your advice is appreciated.
    What they mean by progressive is that the initial stroke is very supple and then the spring curve ramps up as you move through the travel to keep it from bottoming. Anti squat is different, but it feels good while pedaling!

  15. #40
    swag ho Administrator
    Reputation: francois's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    18,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    Has anyone else actually measured the ST angle? The "effective" angle is whatever. The actual angle is significantly slacker. I would agree with Francois that is should be steeper. The problem for them is that to make it steeper shortens the effective TT as well. Only way to fix this is move the BB back (would also lengthen the reach which would be nice) which then lengthens the wheelbase (maybe no so nice). Tough decisions to make for the designers.
    The actual seat tube angle looks to be about 68 degrees. The actual SA is slack because the the seat tube starts forward of the bb to make room for the suspension pivots.

    So I assume they draw a line from the bb center to the center of the seatpost at a prescribed height. That is the virtual seat tube angle and it is only accurate at that set height. Probably 6 inches of post showing.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  16. #41
    swag ho Administrator
    Reputation: francois's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    18,229
    As far as Seat Tube Angles is concerned, I think 71 degrees is the safe, old-school bet. It'll work for sure.

    But there are new geometries now that are dropper post optimized. Bronson is at 73, Enduro is at 74+, Kona Process is at 74 and the sweet new Orbea Rallon is at 74+. And having ridden all these, I would say steeper is better for climbing and tooling around. And when the going gets going, drop the post.

    So it is not a deal breaker but the 73 degree neighborhood is better than the 71 Seat Angle hood.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  17. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,278

    Re: Tell me bad things about the Mach 6

    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    As far as Seat Tube Angles is concerned, I think 71 degrees is the safe, old-school bet. It'll work for sure.

    But there are new geometries now that are dropper post optimized. Bronson is at 73, Enduro is at 74+, Kona Process is at 74 and the sweet new Orbea Rallon is at 74+. And having ridden all these, I would say steeper is better for climbing and tooling around. And when the going gets going, drop the post.

    So it is not a deal breaker but the 73 degree neighborhood is better than the 71 Seat Angle hood.

    fc
    I still don't get it.
    Let's assume the sitting position for a certain rider is ideal on both bikes, one with steep SA and another one with more relaxed SA.
    I always assumed that if the wheels, saddle, bars and BB were in the same places and the 2 bikes were identical in everything else, except for the SA, then they would handle exactly the same.
    The only difference is when the saddle is raised/lowered. On a bike with a slacker SA the seat will be moved farther back when raised.
    So theoretically, in this particular case it doesn't matter what the SA is. And it also shows that one cannot say a bike with a steeper STA will climb better, unless we take into the consideration the whole geometry.

    Can somebody correct me if I am wrong?


    Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

  18. #43
    ZEN RIDER!
    Reputation: Mt.Biker E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    720
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Steep STAs perch you "on top" of the bike, as opposed to slacker STAs that put you "in" the bike. I've got longer legs and on a steep bike I feel like I'm perched up too high. The higher I go the more forward lean I have, which leads to more pressure on the hands.

    Lower BBs handle much better than higher BBs IMO.

    Low, slack, and in the bike is where I want to be. Leave that tall, perched feeling for the roadies and canaries.
    ^this
    its 2014 time to leave that old school geo in the past! Especially considering this is an Enduro bike. If it performs and feels good who cares
    Life in every breath

  19. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,182


    My 5yr old Nomad has the same 71.5 STA and the Pivot M6 does in the geo chart. It climbs tech just fine.

    Thing is the M6's ST doesn't connect with the BB so the STA has to be a virtual measurement which will depend how high you place your saddle. The higher the saddle the slacker the STA and the lower the saddle the steeper the STA.

    Question is - how did Pivot measure the 71.5 deg value in the M6 geo chart?

    -- is that the virtual STA at a specific saddle height?
    -- is it the actual STA of the seat tube which due to the fact it's not lined up the BB means we need to figure out the virtual STA [which will be steeper] to really compare bikes?
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  20. #45
    swag ho Administrator
    Reputation: francois's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    18,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Mt.Biker E View Post
    ^this
    its 2014 time to leave that old school geo in the past! Especially considering this is an Enduro bike. If it performs and feels good who cares

    Who cares what the numbers are? I bought this bike and it rides great!! True statement.

    But hey, you guys asked.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  21. #46
    swag ho Administrator
    Reputation: francois's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    18,229
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post

    My 5yr old Nomad has the same 71.5 STA and the Pivot M6 does in the geo chart. It climbs tech just fine.

    Thing is the M6's ST doesn't connect with the BB so the STA has to be a virtual measurement which will depend how high you place your saddle. The higher the saddle the slacker the STA and the lower the saddle the steeper the STA.

    Question is - how did Pivot measure the 71.5 deg value in the M6 geo chart?

    -- is that the virtual STA at a specific saddle height?
    -- is it the actual STA of the seat tube which due to the fact it's not lined up the BB means we need to figure out the virtual STA [which will be steeper] to really compare bikes?

    Yes, it is at a set saddle height. What it is, we don't know.

    Their 71.5 measurement is virtual at that set height. Any higher saddle height will be slacker.

    Nomad at 71.5 is cool. But for sure a new Nomad or SC bike will have a steeper Seat Angle.

    fc
    IPA will save America

  22. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,554
    Knollys have a seat tube angle of about 68 degrees but the seat tube is in front of the BB making the effective seat tube angle 74 degrees.

  23. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,278

    Re: Tell me bad things about the Mach 6

    I will say it again.

    If the wheels, saddle, bars and BB were in the same places and the 2 bikes were otherwise identical, except for the SA, then they would handle exactly the same.

  24. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,653
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    The actual seat tube angle looks to be about 68 degrees. The actual SA is slack because the the seat tube starts forward of the bb to make room for the suspension pivots.

    So I assume they draw a line from the bb center to the center of the seatpost at a prescribed height. That is the virtual seat tube angle and it is only accurate at that set height. Probably 6 inches of post showing.

    fc
    Mine measured out at 66 to be exact. Personally I would say not to get too wrapped up in the STA. Yes, I like the steeper angle of my Enduro 29 better, but it is far from a deal breaker. Just push the seat forward on the rails and have at it. The bike climbs like a mountain goat. I was getting farther up steep loose climbs than my buddies on their HT's earlier this week and I wasn't even wearing spandex!

  25. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,649
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    This is a good thread since I'm reviewing the bike.

    BB height I think is a bit high for the modern rally bike. 13.0 to 13.3" make awesome handlers an this bike is at 13.6". But it does give it extra rock clearance for folks who live in rough terrain. I ride in Norcal so I'd much rather have 13.1"

    Cable routing... ay caramba. It's clean but it has to deal with all that suspension movement.

    Decals - holy moly there's a lot of them. 27.5, 155 mm travel, 650b do not have to be decals.

    Seat tube angle is slack at 71.5. The modern bike is much better off with a 74 degree seat angle to make the pedaling position ideal. And since 99% of these bikes will have a dropper post, the seat is out of the way anyway during descending.

    fc

    These are my concerns as well. I've found lower and steeper STA works good for me too and nice for loading the front end (better attack position) in corners and steaming down the hill. My SB66 had similar STA/HTA/BB height w/160 fork and needed dropper fork to make the climbs comfortable (non wander) and found myself descending a lot in 130 fork position (not enough travel) to allow for lower ride height. Trail/AM bikes with BB >13.4" is too high IMO as well, even for rocks and chunk.
    Ride On!

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Things Fitting Perfectly Into Other Things...
    By CHUM in forum Off Camber (off topic)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-23-2014, 05:54 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-13-2013, 10:04 AM
  3. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-27-2013, 01:55 PM
  4. Mach 4 and Mach 5.7 Frame Weights? (Alloy)
    By ccarbot in forum Pivot Cycles
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-07-2013, 04:58 PM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-18-2013, 10:44 PM

Posting Permissions

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