Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    165

    2013 Superfly100 SL Geo

    I am pretty excited about the new Superfly's. I have logged 3000 miles on a 2012 SF100 Al Pro this past year and am a huge fan. It's extremely effective in all of my adventures on the east coast from short track, XC, endurance to light gnar backcountry trail riding. I have been studying the geo on the new bikes and the biggest thing that sticks out to me is the "Effective Seat Tube Angle." Seat angle is 73.8 but ESTA is 70 degrees! I am a big fan of the current (2012) carbon and aluminum design because the seat is over the cranks in a very powerful position. It's really good for XC in my opinion. The slack design of the new SF100 causes me concern because I do not like the "pedal from the backseat" feeling. I find it especially weak on steep climbs.

    Can any Geometry specialists console me or other concerned Trek consumers out there on this new design and how its better? Is it just as effective and looks different? Maybe I should keep riding the 2012 for another year and wait to see how this new design pans out. Test riding is out of the question, I ride XXL and no one keeps carbon samsqaunch bikes around. Thanks for entertaining this "issue" and may the trails be good to all of you.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    14
    I really like the looks of the 2013's. It appears that they have been listening to us after all by moving away from the real crazy graphics and odd color combos. I like the clean looks and sometimes just the tinted clears they are using on the frames these days. Clean and high tech!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    45
    If you are concerned, use a straight post, or maybe even flip a setback post so it offsets forward over the BB. Some smaller riders flip small setback posts to get the position they want.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    687
    I wouldnt be concerned with the different seat tube angle. get one, if you need to adjust they get a zero setback post or a flip around a setback post, as has been suggested.

    Related geo question: why do they make their full suspension race bike with a STEEPER head angle than their hardtail superfly? Seems to me a full suspension begs you to ride downhill with a bit more reckless abandon than on a hardtail.... so why the steeper HA? Is it an attempt to keep the wheelbase measurement tight? What gives?

  5. #5
    Pure Evil
    Reputation: [TA]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    34
    I'm normally more of an observer than poster on this site but I figured I'd jump in with some geometry info.

    Seattube angle: Virtual, effective, and actual seat angles! So many angles why does it all matter? We went with a slacker Actual seat angle on this bike to allow room for a seat stay bridge behind the seattube instead of in front like on the old bike. Putting the bridge behind the seattube helps us make a stiffer lighter chassis. We moved the seattube by pivoting about median saddle height, doing this helps keep the saddle in approximately the same spot as the old bike, even with the new slacker seat angle. So even though the seattube angle looks slack, the bike puts over the BB in a more powerful position. We did have to make some compromises though, the slacker angle does mean that people with SUPER high saddle heights will have a slightly longer cockpit and low saddle heights will see a slightly shorter cockpit, but you should easily be able to offset this with the saddle rails or a offset post. I can't comment on your exact fit, but rest assured we didn't just slap a slack seatangle on the stock geometry.

    Headangle: The key here is the rear suspension. Remember the geometry numbers are all static, once you're on the bike things are going to change. Most of us set our forks up with less sag than our rear suspension systems, this increased rear sag effectively slackens the headangle. So the hardtail has a slightly slacker HA and the fully is slightly steeper, but with proper suspension setups the two bikes should feel nearly identical at sag. This is why you see about .5 degree of HA difference between the hardtail and fully.

    Hopefully this helps clear things up a bit.
    |Trek Bicycle Corporation|

    Check out my Sweet Tweets!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    687
    Very cool of you to chime in. Thank you.

    As a Cat 1 racer that likes to stand and mash, I guess I've always set up a bit more sag in the front than rear-- although I've often had remote lockout front and not rear. I guess I like a stiff rear shock for pedalling, and since I can remote lockout the front, there's no "downside" to setting up a plush front end.

    With my older top fuel 9.9, the dual remote lockouts made for a "busy" setup on the bars but dang it was pretty sweet.

    I applaud the fact that in 2012, you moved slackened the HA of the remedy from 68 to 67-- excellent move. I've put an angleset on on my 2011 remedy 9.9 to get it to just under 67deg and i love it.

    Right now I'm falling in love with a superfly hardtail-- I'm late to the 29er party, i know. I'm scared to try a SF100 though, I can't afford to fall in love that hard yet.

    Thanks for creating some pretty rad bikes.




    Quote Originally Posted by [TA] View Post
    I'm normally more of an observer than poster on this site but I figured I'd jump in with some geometry info.

    Seattube angle: Virtual, effective, and actual seat angles! So many angles why does it all matter? We went with a slacker Actual seat angle on this bike to allow room for a seat stay bridge behind the seattube instead of in front like on the old bike. Putting the bridge behind the seattube helps us make a stiffer lighter chassis. We moved the seattube by pivoting about median saddle height, doing this helps keep the saddle in approximately the same spot as the old bike, even with the new slacker seat angle. So even though the seattube angle looks slack, the bike puts over the BB in a more powerful position. We did have to make some compromises though, the slacker angle does mean that people with SUPER high saddle heights will have a slightly longer cockpit and low saddle heights will see a slightly shorter cockpit, but you should easily be able to offset this with the saddle rails or a offset post. I can't comment on your exact fit, but rest assured we didn't just slap a slack seatangle on the stock geometry.

    Headangle: The key here is the rear suspension. Remember the geometry numbers are all static, once you're on the bike things are going to change. Most of us set our forks up with less sag than our rear suspension systems, this increased rear sag effectively slackens the headangle. So the hardtail has a slightly slacker HA and the fully is slightly steeper, but with proper suspension setups the two bikes should feel nearly identical at sag. This is why you see about .5 degree of HA difference between the hardtail and fully.

    Hopefully this helps clear things up a bit.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    165
    Thanks for the inside scoop, doesn't get much better than that. I stared at the geometry for a while and figured out a good way to compare the median seat position in relation to the bottom bracket. It turns out the new SL bikes are setup in an even more powerful position than the 2012 design. I simply subtracted the "Frame Reach" from "Effective Top Tube." The resulting number is the distance from the bottom bracket back to the median seatpost height. I currently ride a 21" XL SF100 but am looking to get an XXL SF100 SL. The new SL would put me in an even more effective position than my current bike. I can't wait to ride this new design!




    Quote Originally Posted by [TA] View Post
    I'm normally more of an observer than poster on this site but I figured I'd jump in with some geometry info.

    Seattube angle: Virtual, effective, and actual seat angles! So many angles why does it all matter? We went with a slacker Actual seat angle on this bike to allow room for a seat stay bridge behind the seattube instead of in front like on the old bike. Putting the bridge behind the seattube helps us make a stiffer lighter chassis. We moved the seattube by pivoting about median saddle height, doing this helps keep the saddle in approximately the same spot as the old bike, even with the new slacker seat angle. So even though the seattube angle looks slack, the bike puts over the BB in a more powerful position. We did have to make some compromises though, the slacker angle does mean that people with SUPER high saddle heights will have a slightly longer cockpit and low saddle heights will see a slightly shorter cockpit, but you should easily be able to offset this with the saddle rails or a offset post. I can't comment on your exact fit, but rest assured we didn't just slap a slack seatangle on the stock geometry.

    Headangle: The key here is the rear suspension. Remember the geometry numbers are all static, once you're on the bike things are going to change. Most of us set our forks up with less sag than our rear suspension systems, this increased rear sag effectively slackens the headangle. So the hardtail has a slightly slacker HA and the fully is slightly steeper, but with proper suspension setups the two bikes should feel nearly identical at sag. This is why you see about .5 degree of HA difference between the hardtail and fully.

    Hopefully this helps clear things up a bit.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chomxxo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    783
    Can I get advice about the 21" and 23" Superfly 100 models? Looking at the effective top tube length, I'm not sure about which would be the best for me.

    I'm 6'4" with long legs. My current bike which fits me very well is the Niner Jet 9 size XL. Its effective top tube is only a little shorter than the 23" Superfly 100, but the wheelbase of the SF100 23" is much longer.

    Do I need to take into account the G2 geometry? The 628mm ETT on the 21" seems pretty short to me but if I add 7mm from the 51mm fork offset, that would make it 635mm, identical to my old Salsa Dos Niner size XL, which was a pretty good fit.

    I'm trying to understand why the wheelbase of even the 21" Superfly100 is so long?

    Scalpel 29er: 1143mm
    Jet 9: 1152mm
    Jet 9 RDO: 1161mm
    S-Works Epic: 1163mm
    21" Superfly 100: 1171mm
    23" Superfly 100: 1190mm (must be like a limo ride through the woods )

    Seriously though I'm very interested in buying this bike from my team's dealer, I would appreciate some knowledgeable answers. One last thing, when can we expect the Superfly 100 Pro to be equipped with XX1? Thanks in advance.

    reference:
    Trek Bicycle

    JET 9

    Jet 9 RDO

    Salsa Cycles | Bikes | Dos Niner

    Specialized Bicycle Components
    Last edited by chomxxo; 12-23-2012 at 10:25 PM.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jpatt28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by chomxxo View Post
    Can I get advice about the 21" and 23" Superfly 100 models? Looking at the effective top tube length, I'm not sure about which would be the best for me.

    I'm 6'4" with long legs. My current bike which fits me very well is the Niner Jet 9 size XL. Its effective top tube is only a little shorter than the 23" Superfly 100, but the wheelbase of the SF100 23" is much longer.

    Do I need to take into account the G2 geometry? The 628mm ETT on the 21" seems pretty short to me but if I add 7mm from the 51mm fork offset, that would make it 635mm, identical to my old Salsa Dos Niner size XL, which was a pretty good fit.

    I'm trying to understand why the wheelbase of even the 21" Superfly100 is so long?

    Scalpel 29er: 1143mm
    Jet 9: 1152mm
    Jet 9 RDO: 1161mm
    S-Works Epic: 1163mm
    21" Superfly 100: 1171mm
    23" Superfly 100: 1190mm (must be like a limo ride through the woods )

    Seriously though I'm very interested in buying this bike from my team's dealer, I would appreciate some knowledgeable answers. One last thing, when can we expect the Superfly 100 Pro to be equipped with XX1? Thanks in advance.

    reference:
    Trek Bicycle

    JET 9

    Jet 9 RDO

    Salsa Cycles | Bikes | Dos Niner

    Specialized Bicycle Components
    I can tell you I went from an XL Specialized and am now on a 23inch superfly 100 elite. I'm 6'4 also and the only thing I have needed to do is cut the stock bars. I'm in love with not having 8ft of seat post like on my old bike.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    687
    Look at head angle. Head angle alone can make wheelbases longer or shorter. I would buy size 23" Superfly, don't over analyze the wheelbase measurement. Lean it over and whip it around through turns, you'll be fine. I find superfly's even ones too big for me, beg to be leaned hard around corners. If you got long legs, your center of gravity is high. don't make the mistake of getting on a bike thats too small.

    I'm a Cat 1 racer with long legs on tight twisty midwest trails and I've come to appreciate a long wheelbase and trek geo. Do it.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    165
    I currently ride an XL 2012 Superfly 100. I stand 6'6", I have logged several thousand miles on my XL but I have a lot of seat tube showing, near max on a 400mm Thomson and I put on a 40mm riser bar. I feel really good with the setup but know I could have run the stock flat bar and had much less seatpost showing had I gone for the XXL. I have stared hard at the current numbers of the new bikes and I know the XL would be the same or worse than what I am currently dealing with. I have grown so comfortable in all situations on my current SF100 that I hesitate to switch to the new one...I have discussed this with

    Dear Trek,

    I currently ride a 2012 XL Superfly100. I am 6'6" and the bike works fine for me with a 40mm riser bar and a much exposed seat post. I am going to get one of your new SF100 SL's and am trying to figure out what size is best. The new bikes seem to have shorter top tubes and longer wheelbases. An older XXL would be great, should I feel the same about the new SL?

    Response:

    Thank you for writing in. The new bikes rider compartment is a little shorter and may ride different from the 2012 bike as far as being quicker in the corners and more stable.




    Quote Originally Posted by chomxxo View Post
    Can I get advice about the 21" and 23" Superfly 100 models? Looking at the effective top tube length, I'm not sure about which would be the best for me.

    I'm 6'4" with long legs. My current bike which fits me very well is the Niner Jet 9 simze XL. Its effective top tube is only a little shorter than the 23" Superfly 100, but the wheelbase of the SF100 23" is much longer.

    Do I need to take into account the G2 geometry? The 628mm ETT on the 21" seems pretty short to me but if I add 7mm from the 51mm fork offset, that would make it 635mm, identical to my old Salsa Dos Niner size XL, which was a pretty good fit.

    I'm trying to understand why the wheelbase of even the 21" Superfly100 is so long?

    Scalpel 29er: 1143mm
    Jet 9: 1152mm
    Jet 9 RDO: 1161mm
    S-Works Epic: 1163mm
    21" Superfly 100: 1171mm
    23" Superfly 100: 1190mm (must be like a limo ride through the woods )

    Seriously though I'm very interested in buying this bike from my team's dealer, I would appreciate some knowledgeable answers. One last thing, when can we expect the Superfly 100 Pro to be equipped with XX1? Thanks in advance.

    reference:
    Trek Bicycle

    JET 9

    Jet 9 RDO

    Salsa Cycles | Bikes | Dos Niner

    Specialized Bicycle Components

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chomxxo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFCuddy View Post
    I currently ride an XL 2012 Superfly 100. I stand 6'6", I have logged several thousand miles on my XL but I have a lot of seat tube showing, near max on a 400mm Thomson and I put on a 40mm riser bar. I feel really good with the setup but know I could have run the stock flat bar and had much less seatpost showing had I gone for the XXL. I have stared hard at the current numbers of the new bikes and I know the XL would be the same or worse than what I am currently dealing with. I have grown so comfortable in all situations on my current SF100 that I hesitate to switch to the new one...I have discussed this with

    Dear Trek,

    I currently ride a 2012 XL Superfly100. I am 6'6" and the bike works fine for me with a 40mm riser bar and a much exposed seat post. I am going to get one of your new SF100 SL's and am trying to figure out what size is best. The new bikes seem to have shorter top tubes and longer wheelbases. An older XXL would be great, should I feel the same about the new SL?

    Response:

    Thank you for writing in. The new bikes rider compartment is a little shorter and may ride different from the 2012 bike as far as being quicker in the corners and more stable.


    Thanks for posting. Trek's response confirms what I'm seeing about the numbers: slacker geometry with a shorter top tube length for 2013. This is an industry trend with 29ers I believe. 628-635mm would be on the short side of XL, but their wheelbase is pretty long.

    What I've picked up from World Cup racers is that they prefer a smaller frame size with a setback post and long, slammed stem. It gives better control and maneuverability.

    Now my only concerns are XX1 and BB95. I guess all the manufacturers had their models already configured with XX when the new stuff came out, but I wouldn't want to buy a complete without XX1, so maybe we'll see a midyear adjustment.

    Another geometry issue would be the dearth of 180mm crank options for XX1. Somebody is going to have to do something about that because that's as short as I'll ride.





  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    165
    Interesting that XX1 comes up...I am in the middle of tracking down an XX1 crank to run on my current SF100. Once I get the new SL I will switch the cranks and BB bearings out and sell my 12' SF100. What are your concerns with XX1 and BB95? I am hoping the only issues will be a switch from Shimano PF BB bearings to GXP PF bearings...Am I missing something?

    Quote Originally Posted by chomxxo View Post
    Thanks for posting. Trek's response confirms what I'm seeing about the numbers: slacker geometry with a shorter top tube length for 2013. This is an industry trend with 29ers I believe. 628-635mm would be on the short side of XL, but their wheelbase is pretty long.

    What I've picked up from World Cup racers is that they prefer a smaller frame size with a setback post and long, slammed stem. It gives better control and maneuverability.

    Now my only concerns are XX1 and BB95. I guess all the manufacturers had their models already configured with XX when the new stuff came out, but I wouldn't want to buy a complete without XX1, so maybe we'll see a midyear adjustment.

    Another geometry issue would be the dearth of 180mm crank options for XX1. Somebody is going to have to do something about that because that's as short as I'll ride.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chomxxo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    783
    My concern with XX1 is that I can't buy it on a Superfly 100 yet

    My concern with BB95 is that it complicates the search for a 180mm, XX1-compatible crankset. Right now such a thing doesn't exist.

    I love my S-Works BB30 cranks for which an XX1 spider should be coming to market soon (it is already available on complete bikes). I wish companies hadn't taken Cannondale's opening of BB30 as a threat rather than an opportunity to work with a new, single standard. All the myriad new BB types are uncalled for and counterproductive, IMHO.

Posting Permissions

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