Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 159 of 159
  1. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,178
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    You can claim that the increased weight does come with a gross increase in grip, but the net result is reduced traction
    No, the net result is less deceleration, traction still increased. Friction is a force, not the rate at which the rider comes to a stop.

    Your scenario is about adding mass. That's not relevant to the geo discussion. A rider "weighting" (increasing normal force) the front or rear tire is not the same as adding mass. Again, the normal force is not the same as mass. This is why instructors teach about weighting and unweighting the bike at certain times on the trail (like pumping a turn). Next time you jump, try to brake and slow down in the air. It won't work, even though you're the same mass there's less weight/normal force on the tires. On the other hand, like coaches teach, if you weight the bike by pumping down as you brake you'll slow down quicker. You can also try bunnyhopping in a high speed corner...the tire load sensitivity will work in your favor right!? No, there will be less weight on the tires but the same rider/bike mass and momentum and you'll probably slide off the trail.

    Here's Simon Lawton explaining how to prevent front wheel wash outs by weighting the front tire.

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RSAmerica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by isleblue65 View Post

    Saddle back on the rails helped more than all of that (moving BB forward relative to saddle).


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I think this is the source of the hand pressure. With the longer reach and steep seat tube the pedals are further back. This puts more of your weight on the grips because your legs are not carrying as much weight.

  3. #103
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,703
    Here a technical explanation of weight balance. Vorsprung has the best nerd out videos.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5R60JHJbxI&t
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  4. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BacDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    625
    The OP was asking for feedback - any negatives to "modern geometry", interesting how some posters just love to argue.

    Anyway, coming off a 2013 Jet 9 RDO I demoed a few of the new FS 29ers. Everyone of them rode great, I mean noticeably for handling, response an suspension. Even the 160/170 forks felt smooth and as fast as my old 120. And most rode lighter than the weight of bike just lifting it. One thing I noticed is the total bike weights got heavier with boost, bigger forks/shocks and maybe extra frame, I dunno but all my demo bikes seemed heavier than the full squish 29ers of 5-6 years ago. Didn't weigh specific bikes but maybe couple pounds heavier? So negative for lifting bike out of truck but over ruled by improved ride IMO.

    Biggest negative for me and everyone I ride with has been pedal strikes. That sweet handling around corners and thru technical terrain comes with that price, Trek, Niner, Santa Cruz and Spec are bikes I tried. I've clipped some roots so hard that I almost went endo and even after several months on the new bike I still get hard strikes if I'm not careful. You do need to adapt to lower BB heights.

    So for the OP - negatives are increased weight of the bikes and pedal strikes. From my limited experience.

    I'd like to have a bike that is a friggin blast to ride and the latest tweaks in suspension and geometry are just that. Pedal strikes do suck and if they can figure that one out
    Yeuwwwwww!

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    108
    One negative is that you may be riding faster on a progressive geo bike, and that would probably translate to greater consequences when things go wrong.

  6. #106
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    729
    @DrPaulus I find at least half my mtb serious injuries are from low speed falls. I tend to slide, roll, tumble, spin, bounce, etc. when falling from high speed, while I splat or bend/twist things awkwardly when falling from a slow speed.

    Common high speed consequences - road rash, deep gashes, concussion, getting the wind knocked out of me, smashed toes/fingers, getting covered in nasties found alongside the trail, breaking something on the bike or knocking something out of alignment, trauma for others/witnesses
    Common low speed consequences - hyper-extensions, sprains, fractures, bone breaks, mystery bike faults (creaks, ticks, pops, rumble, and other unknown things that you can't attribute to anything but an assumed mfg defect), embarrassment and trauma for myself

    I don't like the long recovery times of the lower speed consequences. I guess you can argue that it's better than some life-threatening injury though, like slicing a femoral artery or impaling a vital organ.

    This is just my biased perception though. I never really formally recorded my findings to back it up. I don't really think the speed differential between old and new geo is that great, but I do feel that I can ride the trail's natural speed more confidently with better geo. It's when I am much slower, or much faster, than the trail's natural speed that things seem riskier.

  7. #107
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,297
    Quote Originally Posted by DrPaulus View Post
    One negative is that you may be riding faster on a progressive geo bike, and that would probably translate to greater consequences when things go wrong.
    IME a LLS bike is much safer at speed than a short, steep bike.

    Sent from my SM-G935S using Tapatalk
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  8. #108
    orthonormal
    Reputation: andy f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    IME a LLS bike is much safer at speed than a short, steep bike.

    Sent from my SM-G935S using Tapatalk
    Lol. Safer if you go the same speed.
    The glass is twice as large as it needs to be

  9. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    108
    @ninjichor I am glad you havent had any bad crashes at high speed. But i think energy increases by velocity squared, so a small increase in speed gives a large increase in energy. I think most agree that hitting a tree at high speed is probably worse than hitting the same tree at a lower speed. The meaning of my post was not to say that a progressive geo bike will most certainly kill you, but the potential for more serious injury is a fact with any increase in speed.

  10. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    133
    With all the advantages why are XC race bikes not adopting the new geometries (except maybe sb100)

  11. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Unbrockenchain View Post
    With all the advantages why are XC race bikes not adopting the new geometries (except maybe sb100)
    They are to a degree. The latest Specialized Epic hardtail has a sub 70° HTA and a 74° STA. Of course XC racing is about pedaling and not so much descending so the geometry reflects that.

  12. #112
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,063
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    They are to a degree. The latest Specialized Epic hardtail has a sub 70° HTA and a 74° STA. Of course XC racing is about pedaling and not so much descending so the geometry reflects that.
    Well, no, one descends the exact same amount as one climbs in an XC race, generally speaking. And races are regularly won by people with better technical ability.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  13. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Well, no, one descends the exact same amount as one climbs in an XC race, generally speaking. And races are regularly won by people with better technical ability. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Then why no XC bikes with 67-68 degree HTA and 76+ degree STA?

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Unbrockenchain View Post
    With all the advantages why are XC race bikes not adopting the new geometries (except maybe sb100)
    Because the ppl buying xc bikes are very conservative. Almost as much as roadies. There are pretty progressive choices out there for the few that wants a progressive xc bike. Pole evolink 110 is one of the more progressive ones. Also look at the BMC fourstroke if u want a pure race bike. That one is pretty progressive for a mainstream xc race bike.

  15. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Unbrockenchain View Post
    Then why no XC bikes with 67-68 degree HTA and 76+ degree STA?
    Intense Sniper is 67.5 Deg HA, but has 74 deg STA. 2018+ Epic full suspension have 74.75 deg STA with 69.5 HA. Scott Sparc RC has 68.5 deg HA and 73.8 STA.

    One thing to remember about XC bikes is that have to climb well and handle very well in the turns. While it is true a most of the race will be impacted by climbing there is still a significant impact from cornering especially cornering while pedaling. XC races are not just about steep ups and bombing down. There is also all the time in between. I think the biggest problem with really steep seat angles is leg/hip performance relative to bottom brackets. Road bikes have settled on 73-74 STA many with setback seat posts for reasons of overall power. Time trial bikes and Tri bikes are much steeper, but that is a reaction to the very low front end position needed for aero and how the body must rotate. You might lose 5-10watts from real tight aero position in terms of rider output, but gain back 20watts at speed for less air drag. For normal road racing and especially XC racing you don't need to be that low, but you want to ensure max power from the rider. In the case of XC you have to balance that max power with bike handling. This is in fact where droppers are starting to get deeper in XC racing. At least the World Cup course are getting to have some really nasty tech features and the dropper allows you to fully maximize seating position for power while getting it out of the way for the very nasty 5-10 seconds of tech which when you are fully gassed can be very hard. The only compromise is a little weight.

    Bike geometry is always a balance. You can't ever get something for nothing and every change one place impacts some where else. Depending on how you ride the net benefit will always be different. It has already been noted that the new SB130 and SB150 are getting so long up front that you have re-weight your body to get the front ends to stick under certain situations. This tells me that they may not be ideal for "general" riding and may have pushed at least one dimension too far. Time will tell if they are correct or not.

    BTW.... On the racing scene there Intense Sniper is a rare beast. Where as the more traditional bikes are everywhere. I can say for certain that 68.5 HA (and associated geometry) on the Scott Spark RC is NOT holding it back.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Well, no, one descends the exact same amount as one climbs in an XC race, generally speaking. And races are regularly won by people with better technical ability.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Obviously the time spent climbing far exceeds the time spent descending so the greatest opportunity to decrease your lap time is on the climbs. Which is why XC bikes are designed with an emphasis on pedaling efficiency and the opposite of a bike designed for strictly descending...but we all already know this.

  17. #117
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Unbrockenchain View Post
    Then why no XC bikes with 67-68 degree HTA and 76+ degree STA?
    Intense Sniper, BMC Fourstroke, Scott Spark meet the former number. The latter isn't a thing in XC because they are low travel, low sag bikes. It makes sense on long travel, higher sag bikes, as that helps compensate for the bike rotating backwards on a climb at 30%+ sag. With a 100mm bike at 20% sag, the seat tube is rotating backwards a lot less. This is oversimplifying axle paths, but if you envision the rear axle connected to the BB or another virtual pivot point, rotating on a radius the length of a typical chainstay, think about how much more 30% of 150mm of travel is, when compared to 20% of 100mm; 45mm of movement around a theoretical circle as opposed to 20mm. And, then people need to realize that sag set on flat ground won't account for the redistribution of weight towards the rear on a 10% grade, for example, and that number will get even worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrPaulus View Post
    Because the ppl buying xc bikes are very conservative. Almost as much as roadies. There are pretty progressive choices out there for the few that wants a progressive xc bike. Pole evolink 110 is one of the more progressive ones. Also look at the BMC fourstroke if u want a pure race bike. That one is pretty progressive for a mainstream xc race bike.
    Nah, they just don't jump on the bandwagon of every new trend that comes along, particularly that trend when it has no provable benefit in their particular application.

    Don't get me wrong, I like some aspects of "modern" geometry. My next bike will be an Intense Sniper, unless something else comes along that suits me even more. But, there are some aspects of modern geometry that are particularly ill-suited to XC racing, notably super long wheel bases. And, as I alluded to above, super steep STAs have no tangible benefit to short travel applications, at least not proven benefits.
    Death from Below.

  18. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Nah, they just don't jump on the bandwagon of every new trend that comes along, particularly that trend when it has no provable benefit in their particular application.

    Don't get me wrong, I like some aspects of "modern" geometry. My next bike will be an Intense Sniper, unless something else comes along that suits me even more. But, there are some aspects of modern geometry that are particularly ill-suited to XC racing, notably super long wheel bases. And, as I alluded to above, super steep STAs have no tangible benefit to short travel applications, at least not proven benefits.
    Waiting for something to be proven beneficial over time is a conservative approach in my mind. Benefits or not, i do not think that theoretical benefits or disadvantages is in the bike manufacturers minds when they make a bike. Trends and brand loyalty sells bikes, and selling bikes is king. That means bikes are made by the marketing department, not the engineers. when you have a conservative buyer, the brands will make conservative approaches towards the latest trends.

    I think all xc bikes will get long, slack and with steep sta in the future. And the last ones there will be the large volume brands. You cant really look at pros and ask "why dont they ride a better bike?" because they ride the bike they get paid to ride. and in the end it mostly comes down to the riders skill, not what brand bike he or she rides.

    I think modern geo is very beneficial for a majority of us normal riders who ride for fun and/or exercise. But probably not for all. This is just my personal opinion, and is not really worth alot.

  19. #119
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,063
    Quote Originally Posted by DrPaulus View Post
    Waiting for something to be proven beneficial over time is a conservative approach in my mind. Benefits or not, i do not think that theoretical benefits or disadvantages is in the bike manufacturers minds when they make a bike. Trends and brand loyalty sells bikes, and selling bikes is king. That means bikes are made by the marketing department, not the engineers. when you have a conservative buyer, the brands will make conservative approaches towards the latest trends.

    I think all xc bikes will get long, slack and with steep sta in the future. And the last ones there will be the large volume brands. You cant really look at pros and ask "why dont they ride a better bike?" because they ride the bike they get paid to ride. and in the end it mostly comes down to the riders skill, not what brand bike he or she rides.

    I think modern geo is very beneficial for a majority of us normal riders who ride for fun and/or exercise. But probably not for all. This is just my personal opinion, and is not really worth alot.
    You should read my entire post and try to understand what I'm saying.

    A 77 degree STA on a long travel, high sag bike might end up being SLACKER than a 74 degree STA on a short travel, low sag bike, particularly on a steep grade.

    The idea that a bike designed for pedaling performance should increase STA beyond what is optimal for that specific purpose to chase a marketing trend is crazy.
    Death from Below.

  20. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    133
    JoePaz and Le Duke- good points and kind of what I was looking for. Thanks

  21. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    90
    Owned four mountain bikes over 35 years. “Modern geometry” has many obvious similarities to the bikes I was riding in the early 80s. Heavy, Long WB slack angles, wide bars, and flat pedals.

    By the early nineties, my 24# bike had 41”WB, 73/72 angles, 24” bars, and SPD clip pedals. I am still riding this bike.

    The geometry of the 2019 HT that I picked up at my LBS yesterday is 5” longer, 5 degrees slacker, and 5# heavier, similar to what I was riding in the mid eighties. To me, it feels a bit ponderous. Expect it to climb worse and descend better.
    Last edited by gwlee; 1 Week Ago at 10:25 AM.

  22. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,188
    Quote Originally Posted by DrPaulus View Post
    I think all xc bikes will get long, slack and with steep sta in the future.
    If you mean relatively, then yeah, you are already seeing it. XC used to mean 71 HT now you are seeing 68-69. 63? No.
    Small ring in front makes it easier. Small ring in back makes it harder. That blows my mind.

  23. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    253
    I'm currently riding: longer wheelbase, slightly longer chain stays, more reach, slightly wider bar, slacker head angle (65°), steep STA (77°), 46mm offset fork.

    What I noticed is how much more 'sweet spot' in the center of the bike. In some situations, like dropping into something steep, there is less pronounced movement needed. Now, even with more travel, being above or slightly behind the seat is the same as dropping far back and getting buzzed by the rear 29 tire on my old bike. A lot easier to recover for next feature and way more control on the steeps.

    The only downside I've noticed is when it comes to cornering/turning at speed (berms, etc). Currently feels like it understeers more and needs more input. Definitely takes a different approach and currently I feel like I'm so far forward over the front that the rear gets light and slides out. This is more of a fit issue that I'm trying to dial in so I'm trying a shorter stem, possible shorter stack height, and maybe trimming down the bars a smidge, to help bring my body back towards the center.

    Climbing is a million times better even though the bike is more enduro, 3 pounds heavier, and has 20mm more travel. As a long legged rider sitting above the rear axle line on my old short chain stay bike was always a wheelie fest up climbs. The steeper STA and longer chain stay is a world of difference. Climbing switchbacks is easier also despite the 3" longer wheelbase. Maybe the shorter offset fork contributes to the understeer/less twitchy feel at slow speeds.

  24. #124
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by DrPaulus View Post
    @ninjichor I am glad you havent had any bad crashes at high speed. But i think energy increases by velocity squared, so a small increase in speed gives a large increase in energy. I think most agree that hitting a tree at high speed is probably worse than hitting the same tree at a lower speed. The meaning of my post was not to say that a progressive geo bike will most certainly kill you, but the potential for more serious injury is a fact with any increase in speed.
    I've been in bad high speed crashes, resulting in the injuries I've listed under high speed consequences. My bad high speed crashes resulted in people cursing out loud in empathy, but after discovering that I was good enough to continue riding, they said I'm lucky. They'd be like, you were so close to being impaled by that chopped off branch, or hitting that jagged looking rock, or hitting that tree. I consider this to be some sort of pride, in not being able to admit that their predictions/expectations were off, instead using confirmation bias to pick out imagined possible scenarios that they believe could've happened under different circumstances. It's why I list "trauma for others/witnesses" as a consequence. It's like watching Red Bull Rampage, and saying that guy who crashed is super lucky to be standing and vowing to never do that, reasoning that you aren't made out of rubber like these youngins, perhaps traumatized by your lower speed accidents.

    I think there's some sort of instantaneous/instinctive reaction to avoid the worst case scenarios in falls. I seem to tense my body to guard my head, arching it away from impact risks. Might explain my scorpion poses. I've gone off the trail and hit trees at high speed (bike park). In one case, I was on the brakes hard once I knew that I wasn't going to be able to stay on the trail, and managed to smash my dropper lever on the tree in the resulting head-on tree collision. The tree flexed, despite being as thick as my head. I didn't go head first into it--I ejected off to the side and tumbled a bit down the side of the hill's slope.

    I see injury severity risk from a deceleration perspective, not a total energy perspective. It's like the difference between landing in water, foam or sand, or sliding on resin floored landing ramps (indoor bmx parks), vs splatting on concrete. It's the basic physics principle behind why people can jump great heights and distances in parkour without getting hurt. Lower the rate of deceleration, by spreading the transfer of energy over a longer time period, and the impact is less. Hit a tree with high energy and the tree & your body are likely to flex/deform, allowing the energy to continue on, not being any worse than the worst low speed crashes. You have control on your approach and you can sense the crash coming... it's not like you're freefalling unconsciously and your body is attracted strongly to tree and sticks to it, stopping instantly.

    See here for real scenarios. Pay attention to high speed vs low speed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmXppOXhwlo

    The stance I take is that I prefer to be more in control with a better handling bike. Even if you change your argument to hinge on the fact that there's less reaction time when you're going fast, therefore are more helpless in a bad situation, I still have faith that the energy is more likely to get dissipated over a longer period of time. I'm implying that there's a point in which injury severity doesn't really get any worse in many common cases, despite an increase in speed; I also imply there's a chance in the opposite, that injury severity is decreased due to naturally rolling out a fall (better falling technique). Many people agreeing with your stance just makes it defined as a common misconception, if it's untrue. Look up world cup DH crashes, perhaps from Lourdes or another new challenging track, for more real-life examples of this concept in action. If you need #s for comparison, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaXb8cpIC8Q (I believe proper modern designs try to tame/smooth out this "chaos")

    TLDR: rather than dropping the melon from greater heights, to show how greater energy smashes it, to try and demonstrate your point, try slinging it (horizontally) with different amounts of energy at a tree you'd find on the trail. Repeat the test by using a melon with limb-like attachments on it.

  25. #125
    sbd
    sbd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    699
    Been riding MTBs since 1991. Bought a 29er in 2008 and rode it until April of 2018. Finally upgraded to a Ripmo and the difference was HUGE.

    Totally different geo and it took me months to relearn how to ride. I crashed a lot, and started to wonder what the heck I had gotten myself into.

    Figured it out and WOW. No going back for me. I have never had so much fun on a bike.



    Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

  26. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,127
    Quote Originally Posted by DrPaulus View Post
    I think all xc bikes will get long, slack and with steep sta in the future.
    They kinda have, haven't they? It seems like most of the latest crop are mostly longer/slacker/steeper than the 6" travel All-Mountain bike I was riding 6-7 years ago. Is anyone still making an XC bike with a 71 degree head angle?

  27. #127
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,063
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    They kinda have, haven't they? It seems like most of the latest crop are mostly longer/slacker/steeper than the 6" travel All-Mountain bike I was riding 6-7 years ago. Is anyone still making an XC bike with a 71 degree head angle?
    A couple of smaller Euro brands, but none of the bigger players are above 70, IIRC.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  28. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation: the_joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    974
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    A couple of smaller Euro brands, but none of the bigger players are above 70, IIRC.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    There are still a handful of xc bikes with geometry from the dark ages https://opencycle.com/ONEplus/Geometry
    2008 BMC Fourstroke 19-559 ISO (RIP in peace)
    2017 BMC Speedfox 25-622 ISO
    2017 Salsa Timberjack 40-584 ISO

  29. #129
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,297
    XC geometry is moving to what "all mountain/trail" was a few years ago, while AM/T is getting even slacker HTAs. Be interesting to see where geometry is in 5 years.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  30. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by the_joe View Post
    There are still a handful of xc bikes with geometry from the dark ages https://opencycle.com/ONEplus/Geometry
    There are a LOT of bikes with XC geometry from the dark ages. They're called gravel, adventure, or monstercross bikes and they have drop bars.


  31. #131
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,063
    Quote Originally Posted by the_joe View Post
    There are still a handful of xc bikes with geometry from the dark ages https://opencycle.com/ONEplus/Geometry
    Think about how many open mold, <1100g, 69 degree HTA Chinese hardtail frames you could buy for the price of one of those.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  32. #132
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    XC geometry is moving to what "all mountain/trail" was a few years ago, while AM/T is getting even slacker HTAs. Be interesting to see where geometry is in 5 years.
    The bigger bikes might have geo similar to 150 moto bikes (CRF150 1326mm wheelbase, 62-63 HA), motor optional. Almost there with the Pole Stamina and Nicolai G1. Heck, Chris Porter showed a pic of bike side-by-side with a moto in one of his interviews. Current mainstream bikes are already at 125cc geo (CRF125 48"/1220mm wheelbase 63.5HA), which I think is a good sweet spot considering the 430-435 chainstays.

    Good to see that mfgs are starting to notice the compromise between optimizing seated position and optimizing standing position. Out-of-the-saddle handling is a big deal for what people call "downhill" riding, which is getting better due getting the seated position closer to the standing position, and the handling being optimized for one also carrying over to the other.

    Having tried modern designs, read: designed with more factors in mind while building upon the past (not super long, super slack), and getting over the preconception that you give up uphill performance for downhill, I can say that the trade-offs are heavily in favor of modern bikes. I'm not a type that tries to PR climbs though. I consider a short wheelbase bike like the Canfield Riot (AKA Toir), to have modern geo.

    This is my prediction for geo in 5 years:

    Modern Geometry-Any negatives???-r6rxjhj.jpg
    - mixed wheel size, 1295mm wheelbase, 385mm seat tube length, 81d effective SA, 490 reach, 590 ETT (for a 5' 7" rider with 690mm saddle height from BB). I personally opted for a taller bb (15 bb drop for 160mm travel), since I have an affinity for tech riding, despite being in the SW US, riding fast open desert.

    Modern Geometry-Any negatives???-waea2tz.jpg
    ^ production delay, due to missing the sliding dropouts. Doh!

    Someone say "optimized" seat angle? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9293416 (80d researched to be more efficient, at least when not going all-out)

    490 reach, from 400-440 on mainstream bikes in size 17"... eh, I just see it as it centering my out-of-saddle position so my hips are over the saddle. I already do this for 440mm reach bikes with slacker STA, hovering over where the saddle would typically be if the seatpost were up and bike leveled out. Just a difference in how far my hips are behind the BB/pedals... figure that's why they call it forward geo. Convenient that I tuned the fore-aft weight bias for this spot, which works for both sitting and standing.

    Honestly worried about the bar height being too low. I hate being stretched out to the point that I need to support my upper body weight with my arms/back--would be equivalent to pushing my seat away from my keyboard and jacking it up a foot or two. I get why people do it, since you can get in a rhythm to have your upper body weight resting on the legs during the downstroke, but with a steep STA, a more upright position with weight going through the hips works similarly to pedaling out of the saddle, and for other activities like stairclimbing and running, perhaps better for cross training.

    Did the math on the 385mm seat tube. Saddle + clamp head = 85mm. Collar = 25mm. My 690mm saddle height - 385mm seat tube length = 305mm - 85mm - 25mm = 195mm... 200mm travel dropper barely possible if I run shorter cranks (e.g. Trailcraft 152 or 165), or find a dropper with a lower stack height. Max slammage, for "cross-stuntry", able to really tuck the bike up underneath me on max height bunnyhops.

  33. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,594
    I have gone from a 70* HA and 1104 mm WB Intense 5.5 that everyone thought was too long

    https://forums.mtbr.com/intense/inte...cs-165675.html

    to a Specialized Stumpjumper Evo with a 63.5 HA and 1252 mm WB that everyone thinks is too long...

    That is a 5.8" difference in WB for those that are metrically challenged.

    Still riding the same trails and making the same corners going faster than ever. Bike is so much more fun and confidence inspiring both up and down. My climbing times are faster everywhere and descending is not even close yet I am 14 years older.

    What are the downsides? You do have to relearn body positioning which takes 10-15 rides if you are focusing on it. You cannot ride these bikes on the back tire like you can older geometry. You have to be over the front, but you learn very quickly that it is incredibly difficult to be too far forward. You have to do something really stupid to get there. Second you will probably want to go to shorter cranks to help with rock strikes. My Evo has a BB height of 328 which is ~20 mm lower than an average AM bike these days. I ride in very rocky terrain and do get some hits, but it is not terrible.

    New bikes are amazing machines and once you adapt you will wonder why it took so long to get to this point.

  34. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    I have gone from a 70* HA and 1104 mm WB Intense 5.5 that everyone thought was too long

    https://forums.mtbr.com/intense/inte...cs-165675.html

    to a Specialized Stumpjumper Evo with a 63.5 HA and 1252 mm WB that everyone thinks is too long...

    That is a 5.8" difference in WB for those that are metrically challenged.

    Still riding the same trails and making the same corners going faster than ever. Bike is so much more fun and confidence inspiring both up and down. My climbing times are faster everywhere and descending is not even close yet I am 14 years older.

    What are the downsides? You do have to relearn body positioning which takes 10-15 rides if you are focusing on it. You cannot ride these bikes on the back tire like you can older geometry. You have to be over the front, but you learn very quickly that it is incredibly difficult to be too far forward. You have to do something really stupid to get there. Second you will probably want to go to shorter cranks to help with rock strikes. My Evo has a BB height of 328 which is ~20 mm lower than an average AM bike these days. I ride in very rocky terrain and do get some hits, but it is not terrible.

    New bikes are amazing machines and once you adapt you will wonder why it took so long to get to this point.
    I knew pretty much nothing about geometry when I picked up the used 2016 FSR in mid 2016. All I knew was that I thought I was ready for something 'newer' than the 2000 HT stumpy.

    I told myself for a very long time that I probably shouldn't test a newer bike until I was ready to buy because despite how comfortable and fun my current bike was, I would like something newer.

    I test rode a used bike, rented a bike and decided on the FSR that popped up as a 'bargain' on CL.

    Best choice ever. Despite the bike being pretty much different in every way, everything was perfect.

    A lot of the same experiences as Salespunk, faster climbing. Way better down the hills. The smile was probably bigger.
    I haven't been a life long rider but the thousands of miles over the years I owned the bike was plenty to know that the newer bike was superior in every way (except weight if anybody cares about that) -for my riding style/location.
    A cross country style bike would suite a lot of my riding conditions better but no way would I feel it to be as much fun as what I'm on.

  35. #135
    sbd
    sbd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    I have gone from a 70* HA and 1104 mm WB Intense 5.5 that everyone thought was too long

    https://forums.mtbr.com/intense/inte...cs-165675.html

    to a Specialized Stumpjumper Evo with a 63.5 HA and 1252 mm WB that everyone thinks is too long...

    That is a 5.8" difference in WB for those that are metrically challenged.

    Still riding the same trails and making the same corners going faster than ever. Bike is so much more fun and confidence inspiring both up and down. My climbing times are faster everywhere and descending is not even close yet I am 14 years older.

    What are the downsides? You do have to relearn body positioning which takes 10-15 rides if you are focusing on it. You cannot ride these bikes on the back tire like you can older geometry. You have to be over the front, but you learn very quickly that it is incredibly difficult to be too far forward. You have to do something really stupid to get there. Second you will probably want to go to shorter cranks to help with rock strikes. My Evo has a BB height of 328 which is ~20 mm lower than an average AM bike these days. I ride in very rocky terrain and do get some hits, but it is not terrible.

    New bikes are amazing machines and once you adapt you will wonder why it took so long to get to this point.
    This

    Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

  36. #136
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    729
    It's not the HA and wheelbase that makes the bike modern. There were DH bikes with the HA and WB you're on now. It's making the bikes more well rounded that makes them modern (versatile, capable, and tolerable for the riding you want to do). The geo alone doesn't take credit, it just one of the factors that makes things easier for the rider when the trail gets demanding. Lots of advancements added up, that explain the difference between the two bikes.

    I can design a modern bike with the same HA and WB as your Intense, and would put a large wager down that it'd be more preferable over the SJEvo in certain areas that like such short wheelbases, like east coast tech.

    Just cognitive bias in work here... flavor of the month happening to suit your needs better. Flocking to the bandwagon that's been experimenting with more progressive stuff maybe? Anyone in your crew on even more extreme stuff, like a Pole or Geometron, Salespunk?

  37. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    Nobody said you have to ride an enduro bike on xc trails. But even more recent xc bikes are adopting some modern geo elements.

    What people are saying is that different bike geo in general requires adjustments to your riding technique. As a rider, you need to be flexible enough to adjust to that. Bikes are not going to be the same for all time and even if you try to keep the same bike, you will EVENTUALLY have to replace it and adapt to riding something a little different.

    You might still love your old bike you can't ride anymore, and have lots of fond memories of riding it, but life will suck if you cannot adapt to and enjoy riding the new one, too.

    Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
    You, and many other people, are missing the point. Why do we want our bikes to make trails easier? Do you mountain bike for the challenge, or just to go as fast as possible? I ride because I enjoy the challenge. If I want to just go fast, I have a road bike. Faster is not better for non-racers. It increases trail conflicts and consequences without increasing the fun. Of course, everybody finds different things enjoyable, and certain bicycle improvements increase the fun factor. I think we've crossed that line. I didn't have more fun on my modern geo, full-suspension 29er, so I sold it. I am having a blast on my conservative geo, big tire hardtail, so I'm going to keep riding that. Slower? Definitely. More fun? Absolutely.

    I don't want to adapt my riding style to a bike that is less fun to ride. That has nothing to do with adapting to a new bike. That has everything to do with choosing the wrong bike. It does look like I have plenty of custom steel bikes in my future, however.

  38. #138
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    24,663
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    You, and many other people, are missing the point. Why do we want our bikes to make trails easier? Do you mountain bike for the challenge, or just to go as fast as possible? I ride because I enjoy the challenge. If I want to just go fast, I have a road bike. Faster is not better for non-racers. It increases trail conflicts and consequences without increasing the fun. Of course, everybody finds different things enjoyable, and certain bicycle improvements increase the fun factor. I think we've crossed that line. I didn't have more fun on my modern geo, full-suspension 29er, so I sold it. I am having a blast on my conservative geo, big tire hardtail, so I'm going to keep riding that. Slower? Definitely. More fun? Absolutely.

    I don't want to adapt my riding style to a bike that is less fun to ride. That has nothing to do with adapting to a new bike. That has everything to do with choosing the wrong bike. It does look like I have plenty of custom steel bikes in my future, however.
    I said nothing about whether a bike is faster or whether a given bike is more fun or not.

    Simply that every bike is different and has its own quirks. Many are fun in their own ways. Some are fun in more limited circumstances. Obviously if you aren't riding those trails, or ride in a style that the bike is built for, you won't enjouly it as much.

    Extreme examples might be using a dirt jump bike for xc riding, or a downhill bike as a trail bike. But it can be more subtle, too.

    Unless you are so rigid that your mountain bikes must be facsimiles of each other (and that would speak more about the rider than the bikes), then each bike will have quirks you will have to adapt to.

    Myself, and many other people have no problem with this concept in a general sense, and might seek out very different bikes for the same trail on different days just to mix things up and keep it interesting.

    Yeah, I have ridden plenty of bikes that left me underwhelmed. And others that I loved. Whether the geometry was "modern" or not had nothing to do with it. Sure, the geometry plays a role in whether I like a bike, but what really matters is whether the sum of the parts is well suited for the way that I ride my local trails, and whether it fits my body or not. I still have to take a little time every time I take a new bike out to get a basic feel for it. And yes, it takes longer to feel truly connected with a bike. But I am comfortable with my skills enough that I can figure out each bike's quirks and adapt to them on a ride.

    This comment really makes you come off as quite inflexible to change. If you aren't already, I can see you becoming a retro grouch in a very literal sense of the phrase. Life is too short to be cranky like that.

    Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

  39. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    I said nothing about whether a bike is faster or whether a given bike is more fun or not.

    Simply that every bike is different and has its own quirks. Many are fun in their own ways. Some are fun in more limited circumstances. Obviously if you aren't riding those trails, or ride in a style that the bike is built for, you won't enjouly it as much.

    Extreme examples might be using a dirt jump bike for xc riding, or a downhill bike as a trail bike. But it can be more subtle, too.

    Unless you are so rigid that your mountain bikes must be facsimiles of each other (and that would speak more about the rider than the bikes), then each bike will have quirks you will have to adapt to.

    Myself, and many other people have no problem with this concept in a general sense, and might seek out very different bikes for the same trail on different days just to mix things up and keep it interesting.

    Yeah, I have ridden plenty of bikes that left me underwhelmed. And others that I loved. Whether the geometry was "modern" or not had nothing to do with it. Sure, the geometry plays a role in whether I like a bike, but what really matters is whether the sum of the parts is well suited for the way that I ride my local trails, and whether it fits my body or not. I still have to take a little time every time I take a new bike out to get a basic feel for it. And yes, it takes longer to feel truly connected with a bike. But I am comfortable with my skills enough that I can figure out each bike's quirks and adapt to them on a ride.

    This comment really makes you come off as quite inflexible to change. If you aren't already, I can see you becoming a retro grouch in a very literal sense of the phrase. Life is too short to be cranky like that.

    Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
    Reread what you told me. You told me my life would suck if I don't adapt to new technology. I don't know how you interpreted my desire to have fun on a bike as cranky and makes me a retro grouch, but if wanting mountain biking to stay challenging makes me a cranky retro grouch then call me a retro grouch 🙄. Honestly, you've been coming across as a pompous, know-it-all douche in your last couple posts. Get off it.

  40. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,178
    Really, most mountain bikers are terrible bike handlers. I think about these silly internet arguments when I'm on the trail sometimes. I think about it watching person after person roll baby jump lines, bypass drops, walk over 12" logs, etc. I think about it when I see XC riders in their team jerseys taking the go around and wonder if they tell others riders all they need is an XC hardtail for their trails. The average mountain biker will never learn to properly bunny hop, jump a gap jump, corner with proper form, endo around a switchback, etc. It's not that good riders are so rare but that most riders are so bad. Most of us are mediocrities and it just doesn't matter what bike we ride, there's someone out there that can do stuff you can't with a shittier bike than yours.

  41. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,491
    Aren’t all things on a continuum? So what’s trending now will continue tonchange, but do you honestly believe we’ll be riding steep HTA, slack STA, and short reaches some day?

    In other words, do you have a point or are you just being contrary?

    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    You can claim that the increased weight does come with a gross increase in grip, but the net result is reduced traction, since the grip doesn't increase enough to offset the increased traction demands of the higher weight. If the grip didn't increase at all, then the 50 lb heavier bike+rider wouldn't come anywhere near close to decelerating as quickly or cornering as tightly as the lighter bike/rider.

    Why am I wrong for saying coefficient of friction? Slick surface or slick tire material not matter as much as weight? Put a dumpster on a slope and drop a giant lead weight in it, and the jostling of the weight can break static friction and cause the dumpster to slide down the rest of the slope, despite having extra weight in it. The dynamic friction (sliding) is different from the static friction. Objects at rest and objects in motion...

    If you purposely load the tires, you can break the surface tension of the ground itself. Doing this with the rear wheel in a corner is called a cutty. With the front wheel, a washout. Traction loss from too little, and also too much...

    Why does a wider tire have better grip if it spreads out the load over a larger area, so there's essentially less force on any 1 point between the ground and tire?

    Modern geometry is merely a trend. The longer front ends and shorter rear ends makes 29ers less front-heavy, which is welcome for shorter riders, but taller riders who are on size XL seemingly are getting bothered by the front end being a bit too light for their tastes. Again, too much and too little. IMO, more brands need to adjust chainstay length per size. Glad to see YT is starting to do it.
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+ (Frameset For Sale)
    Lrg Fezzari Signal Peak 29+
    Lrg Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife's)

  42. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    428
    One thing no one has mentioned is that people buying XC bikes right now seem to be sizing up. A person who used to buy a medium is buying a large and claim they need the reach. Weather they do or not doesn't matter, it how they are getting some of he new geo in the xc world.
    I have a older Intense VP. Last summer I took it on a trail ride. My new geo bike had a flat and I was stressed for time. Now the Intense I own I have rode it thousands of miles of trail, it is like a old friend. When I got home I told my wife that I would never ride it again. The new geo is that good in my opinion.
    As a negative though, in the longer travel frames you do have to get used to pedal strikes.

  43. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dude!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,108
    I have always been a person who tends to prefer shorter geometry bikes and then slowly adapt to the geometry at the time.

    I am now riding one of the longer geometry bikes and the benefits between comfort pedaling, climbing, confidence, jumping, etc are significant and real.

    One important aspect that I learned by riding the longer geometry, was that I had bad riding form, particularly with corners. I was doing it all wrong, even though I was fast on my shorter bike. With shorter bikes, you can compensate for bad riding form based weight distribution and muscling the smaller size.

    With the longer geometry, there is no avoiding bad riding form. I am still re-learning to ride properly, but with proper form on a longer bike, when it all connects the speed and that feeling on nailing it awesome. I like the longer geometry besides the comfort because of the challenge it presents in riding correctly, even on simple trails. Ironically it makes riding fun. Its very similar to riding with flat pedals. You have to flow with the bike. I feel the longer geometry bike is similar in that you that you have to flow with it to optimize it.

    Last noticeable tidbit, when I first started riding the longer geometry (with my bad form), and would hop on my older bike it felt like a tiny bmx bike. However with proper riding form, the sizing difference isn't as noticeable, but still prefer the benefits of the longer bike, particularly in the saddle.

  44. #144
    VENI VEDI BIKI
    Reputation: skankingbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    You, and many other people, are missing the point. Why do we want our bikes to make trails easier? Do you mountain bike for the challenge, or just to go as fast as possible? I ride because I enjoy the challenge. If I want to just go fast, I have a road bike. Faster is not better for non-racers. It increases trail conflicts and consequences without increasing the fun. Of course, everybody finds different things enjoyable, and certain bicycle improvements increase the fun factor. I think we've crossed that line. I didn't have more fun on my modern geo, full-suspension 29er, so I sold it. I am having a blast on my conservative geo, big tire hardtail, so I'm going to keep riding that. Slower? Definitely. More fun? Absolutely.

    I don't want to adapt my riding style to a bike that is less fun to ride. That has nothing to do with adapting to a new bike. That has everything to do with choosing the wrong bike. It does look like I have plenty of custom steel bikes in my future, however.
    Agree
    Veni Vidi Biki

    I came, I saw, I biked.

  45. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Zerort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    983
    I'll chime in here.

    As one of the the first person, if not the first person to own a Pole Evolink in the United States when they came out, I thought that bike was great, and a ton of fun. It was playful and very confidence inspiring. However, due to the weight, I couldn't keep up with my riding friends on their XC bikes for much over 1/2 hour of riding - so I sold it.

    I then moved to the new 2018 Specialized Epic. I bought 2. One geared and one I ran SS. Both were great bikes until I went through 3 blown shocks so I sold them. Not worth the trouble waiting on Specialized to fix them. I am 5'9"and bought size large and ran it with a shorter 60 mm and 50 mm stems. The 42mm offset was shit and the front tire would tuck under the bike on slow tight singletrack turns often leading to a crash. I sold both Brain forks and bought 51mm offset Fox Stepcast forks that made the bikes handle so much better. Don't believe the hype about short offsets.

    In August last year, I bought a new Santa Cruz Blur size large. That bike was just boring. PERIOD. It neither climbed as fast as the Epic, nor did it descend any better. It was a bit more plush than the Epic, but just flat out boring. SOLD.

    I now ride an Orange Stage 4 size Large. That bike climbs decent, but descends great. It is longer and slacker than the those others and is in another league as far as being a fun bike.

    So for me, new modern geometry is so much better in regards to riding a fun bike. I'm not much slower on it than my XC bikes, and I know it can handle more than I can throw at it. With that confidence, I can enjoy my rides more.
    by Silentfoe
    I'm satisfied knowing that what I wear during my "day" job makes me more of a man than you'll ever be.

  46. #146
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Aren’t all things on a continuum? So what’s trending now will continue tonchange, but do you honestly believe we’ll be riding steep HTA, slack STA, and short reaches some day?

    In other words, do you have a point or are you just being contrary?
    The point is that there's seemingly 2 opposing views:

    "If a little change in this direction is a good thing, then an even larger change should be better."

    "Moderation in everything."

    Some might describe this as a liberal vs conservative view. I describe them as both being over-simplistic. I prefer a more educated view. I don't want to classify it as moderate or advanced, just "more educated" is accurate enough. I have trouble trying to simplify my view, but I'd say, "there's a perfect balance point in all things", which implies there's a sweet spot (not too much, nor too little, just right), but a change affects the balance of the whole, so other things must be tweaked to find a balance.

    Factor in far more than those 3 geo figures, going beyond understanding the entire geo table (and extrapolating important figures from it), and you will have an educated view. In doing this, you are taking a step in becoming more modern yourself.

    I believe what makes something modern is being able to make something better by reducing overall compromise. Factoring in more variables to make things more well rounded, is one way. Simplifying and reducing unnecessary things is another. You can find a fine balance in multiple ways--there's no single right answer, especially when you are trying to pair an object with a diverse crowd of people, in different parts of diverse world. When trying to find the perfect balance, you end up doing a juggling act of many different variables, and can get very far away from what people find familiar, to the point that they close up from the idea since it's too complex for them to understand.

    If people better understood these things, they'd be more open to accepting that there's a place for so-called modern geo. Just focusing on a few geo figures in explanations isn't going to cut it, especially considering some people don't even want to open up to learning. It's a challenge to teach someone something that they don't even recognize is the answer they're looking for. Some of them don't even know themselves, and how their own character plays a huge role in finding something that pairs up with them with a good balance/harmony.

    -----

    Things I've learned about geo that feel others should know:

    Stack height pairs with ETT to determine how the seat and bars are positioned to each other, just like how stack pairs with reach to determine how the hips and bars are positioned to each other. A bike with a 640mm stack height and 620mm ETT (73d STA) will have a much different seated position than a bike with 620 ETT and 600mm stack (same 73d STA). There's also 2 different ways of measuring ETT, from the top of the HT, and from where the centerline of the top tube meets with the centerline of the HT. Not surprised that measuring fit by ETT has been losing popularity/importance, and why some have been able to use 35-50mm stems vs 70+mm stems with a similar ETT (on different bikes) without complaints about the seated position, but mfgs know that people still cling to a favored figure. What's keeping them from lying about a virtual measurement to sell their stuff? Probably why some have opted to measure distance and angle from BB to bars (e.g. "RAD and RAAD" figures).

    Seat angle pairs with BB-to-saddle height to determine how far your hips are behind the BB. How far your hips are behind the BB determines whether putting pressure on pedals lifts your upper body, or your ass. In other words, a stretched position on a bike with steep STA can be more taxing on your hands.

    Test this concept yourself. Sit down on a chair. Put your feet in the knee-over-spindle position (shin almost vertical). lean your upper body forward with your arms hovering in front. Put downward pressure on your feet. Notice how it supports the weight of your upper body, sort of wanting to make it upright. Test again with your feet forward and rearward. You'll notice that putting the knee forward of pedal spindle (feet behind knee) makes it so only your ass lifts, but your upper body is still hunched. Feet even more forward, and foot pressure wants to lift your upper body even more.

    Take the test to the bike with a classic 73d STA. Find a nice long clear path to pedal non-stop. Try to sprint in the saddle with your arms locked out, and back relatively upright. Try again with your elbows unlocked and upper body tucked forward. Notice how this weight is actually being transferred to the pedals as power.

    Those who have modern steep STA bikes, who might know this leaning forward power trick, probably found it no longer works, and their power output was reduced and their hand pressure increased from the stretched position. From here, they either try to return to what they're used to, pushing their seat back and addressing hand pressure by adjusting handlebar position (with stems, spacers, rise, etc.), or they further embrace the steep STA and try to even go steeper (forward with saddle) and become more upright, adopting a heavy feet, light hands riding style in the seated position similar to their standing position. Being upright with the steep STA transfer weight from the upper body to pedals too, and once riders adjust, they struggle to find any significant trade-off, other than the time it took to adjust and possible time to adjust back to old geo.

  47. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,594
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    It's not the HA and wheelbase that makes the bike modern. There were DH bikes with the HA and WB you're on now. It's making the bikes more well rounded that makes them modern (versatile, capable, and tolerable for the riding you want to do). The geo alone doesn't take credit, it just one of the factors that makes things easier for the rider when the trail gets demanding. Lots of advancements added up, that explain the difference between the two bikes.

    I can design a modern bike with the same HA and WB as your Intense, and would put a large wager down that it'd be more preferable over the SJEvo in certain areas that like such short wheelbases, like east coast tech.

    Just cognitive bias in work here... flavor of the month happening to suit your needs better. Flocking to the bandwagon that's been experimenting with more progressive stuff maybe? Anyone in your crew on even more extreme stuff, like a Pole or Geometron, Salespunk?
    I actually ride a lot of tight technical trails and my main problem has always been weight shift to the front in rocky terrain. The momentum of the weight shift is regularly timed with the front wheel being in a hole or hitting a rock causing an OTB or something close to it. Could it just be my riding style? Maybe, but having the same WB as my Intense won't work because the length of the front end is the key. Even my old Mojo HD was an issue, I broke over 25 bones on that bike in a few years of riding on it.

    I have not ridden some of the more extreme bikes like the Geometron or Pole yet, but am open to trying them. It has been a moderate progression for me to get to this point. First bike I noticed a big difference on was the Nomad 3. The steeper SA resulted in being noticeably fresher at the top of some local technical climbs. After a lot of switching back and forth I figured out that I was not fighting to keep the front wheel down which takes a significant amount of energy.

    The next big jump was to a 2017 Specialized Enduro 29. The long front center was a revelation that extended my sweet spot for technical descending and climbing. One of my regular rides has very tight switchbacks going up and then a rocky flattish descent that loves to grab front wheels. I did not have any problems getting around the corners going up and didn't feel like I was going to get pitched over the front on the descents. Plus it had an even steeper SA which I loved as well. To be clear there were a lot of bikes between the N3 and the Enduro, but both of these bikes were major turning points.

    Last big jump was the Evo. Front center is even longer than the Enduro. super slack HA and a longer rear center. Bike is incredibly composed in every situation and I can comfortably control it in a two wheel slide. I also have the ability to square up corners and feel like I am Bryn Atkinson about to rip the tires off my rims. Even the people I ride with normally have commented on how much higher my cornering speed is on this bike.

    Now I am fortunate because I can keep several bikes at one time switching back and forth to see what I like. My experience is that you don't really understand the differences until you riding something new consistently for a few weeks and then switch back to your old setup. Then you begin to understand the large and small differences. I am also lucky enough to have owned a lot of bikes to help figure out what I like and don't like. Since I have been on an MTB since 1988 I have some decent history to pull from. Starting from 2004 my progression has been roughly

    Intense 5.5>Intense Tracer>Mojo HD>Mojo HDR>Pivot Mach 6>Enduro 29 v1>N3>Bronson v2>SB5c>Hightower>Enduro 29 v2>Hightower LT>Stumpjumper Evo>Stumpjumper>Kenevo

    I have owned multiples of the same bikes like the N3 and also have overlap with two to four bikes at a time.

    So what does this mean? To me, I just need to have an open mind when trying the latest geometry trends or anything new in general. My experience has been that if I go into trying something new thinking it is stupid I will hate it. If I flip the switch and think about how much fun it is just to try something new then I can honestly decide what the positives and negatives are. Finally, it takes several weeks to a few months to adapt to new school geometry. Riding it in a parking lot at a bike shop will tell you exactly zero beyond it is way different from what you are riding today.

  48. #148
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    729
    Yep, being open minded means to be ever learning, gaining wisdom and maturity, being willing to listen, and not being prejudiced.

    Plenty have prejudice, believing long CS and WB or whatever is not good, not even trying to listen or learn.

    It's like the difference between a computer that is being programmed to calculate in a certain way, authorizing only certain people to make new changes VS a computer that has AI-machine learning, that is gathering its own data to get a more accurate calculation based on unimaginably large amounts of data. Props to whoever can be like the latter. Who has the time and discipline for that?

    It's like showing a mere struggle against prejudice is an acceptable qualification to claiming being open minded these days... too bad pride gets in the way and denies that their beliefs are wrong, and nothing changes.

    Easier to be complacent than investing time, money, and/or effort to change yourself. It's like an improvement is not desirable. "Why do you want to make trails easier?! I don't understand. Isn't continually struggling the point?" *makes a grouchy fuss so progress pauses to consider their view, delaying what they see inevitable change and being forced to accept "improvements", due to their ways becoming outdated* xD

    I am implying that I see people as being hopelessly closed minded, deluding themselves into thinking they're not. I don't even know what true open-mindedness would be like, but I get the impression that it's not as virtuous as it seems. Would probably be confused by all the conflicting/contradictory data in their heads, unable to determine what's fact from fiction, hence why humans filter/close ourselves off to all sorts of data deemed "useless", "undesirable", or "noise", including long preachy posts like this one.

    I would go all into making geo better, and how current mfgs have it wrong even in the most modern geo, but I imagine it would fall onto deaf ears, and the density of the posts would be repulsive. Just the fact that mtb geo ever changing, should be enough to be open to believing there's a possibility of truth in my words.

  49. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,178

  50. #150
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,299
    In mountain biking everything is a compromise.

    "Modern geometry" in my opinion is attempting to optimize bikes for steep grades (both up and down). It is the stuff in between that perhaps it does not do as well. For most of us this is not a big deal, after all not a lot of people are looking for marginal gains on green and blue trails.

    XC racers on the other hand are trying looking for a bike that allows them to carry the highest average speed, performance on greens and blues matters. This is probably why XC bikes are a bit more conservative.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  51. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,178
    If by modern you mean progressive, I agree. A lot of guys buy bikes that are capable of racing in the EWS to use for plopping off of 3ft drops on XC trails. They'd probably be better off learning to do that stuff on a hardtail but not everyone has that ability. I do think there's something to be said for having a bike that fits your riding style... if anything it will make you want to ride more. Just because I can get an XC bike down a jump line doesn't mean I want to.

  52. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,491
    Ahhh, a Luddite in our midst!

    Well then, you are surely destined for mountain unicycling. Why ride two wheels when you can ride one? No gears, no drivetrain, your legs are the motor, the brakes, and the gyroscope.

    Another convert to the ultimate riding experience!

    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    You, and many other people, are missing the point. Why do we want our bikes to make trails easier? Do you mountain bike for the challenge, or just to go as fast as possible? I ride because I enjoy the challenge. If I want to just go fast, I have a road bike. Faster is not better for non-racers. It increases trail conflicts and consequences without increasing the fun. Of course, everybody finds different things enjoyable, and certain bicycle improvements increase the fun factor. I think we've crossed that line. I didn't have more fun on my modern geo, full-suspension 29er, so I sold it. I am having a blast on my conservative geo, big tire hardtail, so I'm going to keep riding that. Slower? Definitely. More fun? Absolutely.

    I don't want to adapt my riding style to a bike that is less fun to ride. That has nothing to do with adapting to a new bike. That has everything to do with choosing the wrong bike. It does look like I have plenty of custom steel bikes in my future, however.
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+ (Frameset For Sale)
    Lrg Fezzari Signal Peak 29+
    Lrg Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife's)

  53. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Ahhh, a Luddite in our midst!

    Well then, you are surely destined for mountain unicycling. Why ride two wheels when you can ride one? No gears, no drivetrain, your legs are the motor, the brakes, and the gyroscope.

    Another convert to the ultimate riding experience!
    I do believe single speed hardtails, no brakes and with no front tire will be the next big thing.

    people please fill out your donor cards

  54. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Ahhh, a Luddite in our midst!

    Well then, you are surely destined for mountain unicycling. Why ride two wheels when you can ride one? No gears, no drivetrain, your legs are the motor, the brakes, and the gyroscope.

    Another convert to the ultimate riding experience!


    Like I said, there's always someone out there that can do stuff you can't with a shittier bike than yours.

  55. #155
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    729
    Wait what, is that a fixie? Is he absorbing all those landings with feet that move? Seems more like trail running, than biking, but impressive nonetheless. xD

    Makes me feel like going out on a trail run, since I got the urge to strengthen up the muscles around my ankle.

  56. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,491
    So yeah, in a way riding a muni is a lot like walking or running, your feet and legs take up the impacts, tires help of course, your legs are the power to move by pedaling or hopping, your legs are also the brakes.

    I run a disc brake, but it's mostly for resistance when riding downhill, helps keep your legs from burning out.

    Once you get proficient at riding, muni is most definitely more like riding a bike, you can get some excellent flow and go quite fast depending on spin rate and wheel size.

    I've ridden some pretty tough stuff in Moab, GJ, Bellingham, NC/TN/VA (where I used to live). You'd be surprised what you can ride, but it's really hard and requires serious time and energy committments.

    I did a few endurance races and a few overnighters, the training it takes to do distance on rough terrain is pretty serious, comparable to what you'd do for big bike events. When I was riding hard, my quads were enormous and my right arm looked like Popeye's

    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    Wait what, is that a fixie? Is he absorbing all those landings with feet that move? Seems more like trail running, than biking, but impressive nonetheless. xD

    Makes me feel like going out on a trail run, since I got the urge to strengthen up the muscles around my ankle.
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+ (Frameset For Sale)
    Lrg Fezzari Signal Peak 29+
    Lrg Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife's)

  57. #157
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Unbrockenchain View Post
    Then why no XC bikes with 67-68 degree HTA and 76+ degree STA?
    Just speaking for myself, the xc hardtail has a 70 degree hta and 72 sta which is probably 71 with the setback post factored in. Honestly I've never thought I needed a slacker hta. The descents are short so a little upper body strength sorts them out. For longer descents I'd want slacker. I put the sb seatpost for pedaling position.

  58. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,491
    XC riding is less technical, so the riders are more easily satisfied with geometry that is closer to a road bike. Perhaps the steeper geometry is more efficent for low tech riding, but I have no idea as I gave up road riding years ago.

    I'm pretty sure that when folks are talking about "modern geo", XC bikes are not the bikes they are talking about (insert eye roll), so building up a straw man is kinda silly.

    Geometry changes are on a continuum, the most extreme geometry is going to be at either end of the continuum, so DH bikes will be super slack and super long, XC bikes will be super short and super steep.

    As the lines blur, DH becomes enduro, XC becomes trail, so there will be bikes that have cross purposes. Take an "XC bike" like the Whyte 120 which has a 120/120 travel, in an size Large it has a 480 reach, 430mm chainstay, 75 deg STA, and a 65.6 deg HTA. For an XC bike, the Whyte 120 is on the fringe, but for a trail bike it's the norm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbrockenchain View Post
    Then why no XC bikes with 67-68 degree HTA and 76+ degree STA?
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+ (Frameset For Sale)
    Lrg Fezzari Signal Peak 29+
    Lrg Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife's)

  59. #159
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,063

    Modern Geometry-Any negatives???

    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    XC riding is less technical, so the riders are more easily satisfied with geometry that is closer to a road bike. Perhaps the steeper geometry is more efficent for low tech riding, but I have no idea as I gave up road riding years ago.

    I'm pretty sure that when folks are talking about "modern geo", XC bikes are not the bikes they are talking about (insert eye roll), so building up a straw man is kinda silly.

    Geometry changes are on a continuum, the most extreme geometry is going to be at either end of the continuum, so DH bikes will be super slack and super long, XC bikes will be super short and super steep.

    As the lines blur, DH becomes enduro, XC becomes trail, so there will be bikes that have cross purposes. Take an "XC bike" like the Whyte 120 which has a 120/120 travel, in an size Large it has a 480 reach, 430mm chainstay, 75 deg STA, and a 65.6 deg HTA. For an XC bike, the Whyte 120 is on the fringe, but for a trail bike it's the norm.
    Is it?

    I mean, sure, everything is a continuum from XC to DH. But, one man’s blue is another man’s double black diamond. Similarly, one man’s XC is another man’s “Enduro”.

    There are plenty of people white knuckling down Ahab or Zen on super “modern” geometry. Getting lapped by guys on XC bikes with their “steep” 68 degree (modern) head tube angles. At some point, if someone can’t ride down an intermediate trail on a 150mm, 66 degree HTA bike, they need to stop chasing trends, blaming the bike and learn how to ride a bike.

    Geometry development isn’t limited to one end of the spectrum. XC bikes change, too, in response to course demands and market forces. Pretending that _______ bikes (insert segment here) are static is foolish and ignorant.






    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. 51mm offset fork on TB2. Any negatives?
    By cackalacky in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-17-2017, 12:54 PM
  2. 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
  3. JONES Negatives....any downside
    By Onetrack in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 06:49 PM
  4. any negatives to Hope Pro II hubs?
    By gabbard in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 01-04-2008, 04:07 PM
  5. Any negatives about running more than 30% SAG?
    By sanjosedre in forum Intense
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-30-2007, 11:51 AM

Members who have read this thread: 706

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.