Results 1 to 61 of 61

Thread: Pole Stamina

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JakeMartell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    14

    Pole Stamina

    Looks like Pole are taking things even further. Wonder if it will be dual crown ready for crossover dh usage...Pole Stamina-fb_img_1539431356679.jpg

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    152
    Oh boy, they let the kids name it.
    Last edited by Dale-Calgary; 10-13-2018 at 01:03 PM.

  3. #3
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    623
    They really like that BB concentric pivot. I'm afraid of that being wonky...

    Story about it here: https://polebicycles.com/we-have-stamina/

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    They really like that BB concentric pivot. I'm afraid of that being wonky...

    Story about it here: https://polebicycles.com/we-have-stamina/
    Why would it be wonky?

  5. #5
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by DrPaulus View Post
    Why would it be wonky?
    When I think of the BB shell being stressed with even higher loads, flexing, and upsetting alignment and tolerances, I think of creaks and premature bearing wear. They said they went a season on the Machine without problems, so I shouldn't be worried, so I guess it's plain ol' epistemophobia, or whatever the fear of the unknown is called.

  6. #6
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    623
    Pole Stamina-gzfez0l.jpg

    Pole Stamina-yxkhdhn.jpg

  7. #7
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,535
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	GzFEZ0L.jpg 
Views:	1784 
Size:	408.8 KB 
ID:	1224176

    What in the world...

    They get full credit for not caring about aesthetics.

  8. #8
    Super Moderator SuperModerator
    Reputation: driver bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,456
    How far into its travel does it sit when you're riding it, 'cause that seat tube angle...

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    What in the world...

    They get full credit for not caring about aesthetics.
    I think it looks amazing.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    182
    Numbers and some footage: https://polebicycles.com/pole-stamin...is-rolling-in/

    If they will scale that beast down to Pike/Fox 34 territory my wallet will be in serious trouble.

  11. #11
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    623
    I notice that Leo is calling himself an engineer instead of industrial designer. Good upgrade in title, and explains the different look, to be one of function.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    99
    I really like the steep seat tube angle. That is my only complaint on the evolink 158. A steeper seat tube angle will make it easier for ppl like me who want longer reach but dont want long ett to size up. This bike will be out of my price range, but if they make a Evolink 180 then i am all in. But first i need to save some money for an Evolink 110.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,310
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    What in the world...

    They get full credit for not caring about aesthetics.
    Yep, that’s one fugly bike. I also wager that back end is flexy.
    Vermonter - bikes, beers and skis.

  14. #14
    Super Moderator SuperModerator
    Reputation: driver bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,456
    I'd really like to try one and see how it rides, it's geometry is really wild.

  15. #15
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,991
    Saw a Pole at an intersection at the local trail system recently. Asked the guy how he liked it. Said it was awesome, with typical platitudes like “pedals like an XC bike”.

    Then he rode away as I was responding to a text from my wife. Going up a smooth fire road, his suspension must have been going through half of the travel. Seated, low power pedaling.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  16. #16
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Saw a Pole at an intersection at the local trail system recently. Asked the guy how he liked it. Said it was awesome, with typical platitudes like “pedals like an XC bike”.

    Then he rode away as I was responding to a text from my wife. Going up a smooth fire road, his suspension must have been going through half of the travel. Seated, low power pedaling.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It amazes me when people can't feel a suspension cycling through it's travel as they pedal. Their pedal stroke must be so horrible that they just can't tell.

    In another note, I'm also amazed that any company can make a horrible rear suspension anymore. This isn't the 90's where all of the companies are trying new, wild designs. We know what works now. Very few designs are just plain bad. I'd be truly interested in a good review of this bike.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    I'm a mountain bike guide in southwest Utah

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    182
    The linkage on the Stamina should be pretty much the same as on the Evolink and the Machine and there is a bunch of reviews posted about them, including discussion about climbing and pedaling.

  18. #18
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Silentfoe View Post
    amazed that any company can make a horrible rear suspension anymore.

    I don't know that there is such a thing as 'horrible' anymore. Although there are wildly differing variants of 'good'.

    What surprises me is what people can get used to, and then defend, even when they haven't tried anything different for years. If ever.

  19. #19
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,091
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I don't know that there is such a thing as 'horrible' anymore. Although there are wildly differing variants of 'good'.

    What surprises me is what people can get used to, and then defend, even when they haven't tried anything different for years. If ever.
    Yeah, that's what I meant. Very few bad designs.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    I'm a mountain bike guide in southwest Utah

  20. #20
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Saw a Pole at an intersection at the local trail system recently. Asked the guy how he liked it. Said it was awesome, with typical platitudes like “pedals like an XC bike”.

    Then he rode away as I was responding to a text from my wife. Going up a smooth fire road, his suspension must have been going through half of the travel. Seated, low power pedaling.
    What model was it?

    Pole Stamina-p5pb11788441.jpg

  21. #21
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,991
    Evolink 140.

    I wonder if those bikes experience premature shock wear and tear. Dude looked like he was riding up a technical climb when going up an 8% grade fire road.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  22. #22
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    623
    The one I pictured looks like it's at high risk for premature shock wear. Evolink doesn't look to be at risk of it, at least not any more than other comparable dual link designs.

    What about the look of the rider gives you that impression that it looked like he was riding up a technical climb? His positioning and technique?




    Pole Stamina-p5pb14645450.jpgPole Stamina-p5pb14645449.jpg

    Here's a pic of a rider on an Evolink on about a fireroad with ~8% slope.

    One thing I notice is that the rider's entire body is seemingly comfortably between the two wheels. Looks like the seated position is still behind the standing position, based on hip location, despite the steep seat tube angle.

    The forward position might seem like something you do on a technical/steep climb, but fundamentally that technique is to compensate for weight being too rearward, which results in symptoms like the front being easily unweighted and easily deflected. A bike can have nose-heavy geometry, by lengthening the chainstay and/or shortening the front center, but then weight would need to be kept rearward to avoid the rear wheel slipping, so standing climbing is undesirable. It's a weight balance game. Pole seems to have changed the rules of such a game by lengthening the wheelbase, keeping the proportions of the front center in check with the rear center (chainstay length), centering the rider CoG between the axles. Maybe a bit more rearward in this example... I can see the reasoning behind going with an even steeper seat tube angle, compared to this.

    "Climbs like an XC bike." Lots of missing context to know what this means in his terms. While I wish people had better vocab, I can still deduce that there's something about an XC bike makes it desirable for climbing, that can also apply to the Evolink. It's quite doubtful that such a heavy long travel bike is going to get climbing KOMs on 8% grade fireroads, but I do know that XC bikes are chosen to save energy on the climbs (and long travel bikes to save energy on downhills). Perhaps that's what he means... do you not use/waste energy holding an unnatural position on a bike to maintain fore/aft balance?

  23. #23
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,091
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    What model was it?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	p5pb11788441.jpg 
Views:	190 
Size:	580.4 KB 
ID:	1224420
    Damn. Not often anymore that you see the shock as a structural member. Not since the old Amp days if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure there are other examples but the industry moved on for a reason. Over stressing and flexy as hell.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    I'm a mountain bike guide in southwest Utah

  24. #24
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Silentfoe View Post
    Damn. Not often anymore that you see the shock as a structural member. Not since the old Amp days if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure there are other examples but the industry moved on for a reason. Over stressing and flexy as hell.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    It's similar to the Specialized P.Slope.

    Arguably stiffer than the Orange and old Santa Cruz single pivots. Other designs include the Wild Insolent. Shocks have evolved since to have more bushing overlap.

    There's some 4-bars that are more flexy than these, especially ones that don't use 1 piece rockers (see Canfield Riot). Where do you see long flimsy structural members here?

  25. #25
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,091
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    It's similar to the Specialized P.Slope.

    Arguably stiffer than the Orange and old Santa Cruz single pivots. Other designs include the Wild Insolent. Shocks have evolved since to have more bushing overlap.

    There's some 4-bars that are more flexy than these, especially ones that don't use 1 piece rockers (see Canfield Riot). Where do you see long flimsy structural members here?
    As I said, the shock is being used as an actual structural member. There aren't any linkages before the shock to help alleviate side loading/twisting of the rear triangle.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    I'm a mountain bike guide in southwest Utah

  26. #26
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,091
    Also, yes, similar to the p slope.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    I'm a mountain bike guide in southwest Utah

  27. #27
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,991
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    The one I pictured looks like it's at high risk for premature shock wear. Evolink doesn't look to be at risk of it, at least not any more than other comparable dual link designs.

    What about the look of the rider gives you that impression that it looked like he was riding up a technical climb? His positioning and technique?




    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	p5pb14645450.jpg 
Views:	196 
Size:	460.1 KB 
ID:	1224438Click image for larger version. 

Name:	p5pb14645449.jpg 
Views:	137 
Size:	452.5 KB 
ID:	1224437

    Here's a pic of a rider on an Evolink on about a fireroad with ~8% slope.

    One thing I notice is that the rider's entire body is seemingly comfortably between the two wheels. Looks like the seated position is still behind the standing position, based on hip location, despite the steep seat tube angle.

    The forward position might seem like something you do on a technical/steep climb, but fundamentally that technique is to compensate for weight being too rearward, which results in symptoms like the front being easily unweighted and easily deflected. A bike can have nose-heavy geometry, by lengthening the chainstay and/or shortening the front center, but then weight would need to be kept rearward to avoid the rear wheel slipping, so standing climbing is undesirable. It's a weight balance game. Pole seems to have changed the rules of such a game by lengthening the wheelbase, keeping the proportions of the front center in check with the rear center (chainstay length), centering the rider CoG between the axles. Maybe a bit more rearward in this example... I can see the reasoning behind going with an even steeper seat tube angle, compared to this.

    "Climbs like an XC bike." Lots of missing context to know what this means in his terms. While I wish people had better vocab, I can still deduce that there's something about an XC bike makes it desirable for climbing, that can also apply to the Evolink. It's quite doubtful that such a heavy long travel bike is going to get climbing KOMs on 8% grade fireroads, but I do know that XC bikes are chosen to save energy on the climbs (and long travel bikes to save energy on downhills). Perhaps that's what he means... do you not use/waste energy holding an unnatural position on a bike to maintain fore/aft balance?
    What I was referring to is this: his bike was bobbing not from the terrain, but from his pedal stroke. While he might have had his bike set up per the manufacturer's recommendation, it looked horrendously inefficient. He was riding non-technical terrain (a fire road) but his suspension was compressing and bobbing significantly under that load. There was a lot of excessive motion occurring.

    Given that I ride the trails there every day, I was kind of perplexed by this. I was wondering if some braking bumps had developed there since I'd last ridden that area. As I was coming up behind him I switched lines to see what was going on. Nope, nothing. No bumps, no rocks. Just suspension bobbing wildly under pedaling forces.

    Re: position. I'm more worried about hip angle than I am with maintaining traction. I don't lean forward or scoot forward on the saddle for traction; that's mostly a technique thing.
    Death from Below.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    833
    Must've contracted Cove Bikes to name this.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    46
    Stamina presale starts tomorrow. So is anyone going to buy it tomorrow?
    For those who live near the big mountains and have always been dreaming of a bike with dh geometry and ability to climb this must be dream come true.
    Just think about numbers 180 front and rear travel, about 80 degrees seat angle and head angel about 63. If it climbs as well as the Machine it will be a phenomenal one.
    I would definitly buy it but I already have Machine so I think I will skip Stamina.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    12
    Just a quick question, do you think 180 will be too much my trails aren't rough but I buy my bikes to go racing where it is. Also do you have lots of creaking in your Machine like some have reported

  31. #31
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by miamia View Post
    Stamina presale starts tomorrow. So is anyone going to buy it tomorrow?
    For those who live near the big mountains and have always been dreaming of a bike with dh geometry and ability to climb this must be dream come true.
    Just think about numbers 180 front and rear travel, about 80 degrees seat angle and head angel about 63. If it climbs as well as the Machine it will be a phenomenal one.
    I would definitly buy it but I already have Machine so I think I will skip Stamina.
    Too rich for my blood. I'd be more likely to order a bamboo DIY kit to try out geometry, than this.

    Quote Originally Posted by henricksen View Post
    Just a quick question, do you think 180 will be too much my trails aren't rough but I buy my bikes to go racing where it is. Also do you have lots of creaking in your Machine like some have reported
    Tried google search, but not finding any obvious reports of creaking on the Evolink and Machine. Mind if I ask what your source(s) are for these reports of creaking?

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    12
    I honestly can't remember it was on a forum somewhere a guy did a mini review, he really liked it but said it creaked and couldn't solve it. He said that others had that issue too. Sorry if I blew it out of proportion.

  33. #33
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by henricksen View Post
    I honestly can't remember it was on a forum somewhere a guy did a mini review, he really liked it but said it creaked and couldn't solve it. He said that others had that issue too. Sorry if I blew it out of proportion.
    This one? https://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/e...l#post13717206

    Pole Stamina-6xtiaxw.png

    In this case, I don't think he'd be recommending the frame so often if he thought it had a creaking issue. Couldn't find any follow up to his first ride mystery creaking.

    Looking on other forums...

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    46
    I don't have any creeks in my Machine. Of course all mountainbikes, specially full suspension bikes can develop some creeks for example in bb and pivot bolts etc. I have also Evolink and I have had it over 2 years and it developed couple creeks, one in bb and anorther on was rear derailleur. I changed the bb and creased the clutch in rear derailleur and now all the creeks are gone.
    If you are racing then definitly the Stamina, it is suppose to be yber fast race bike altough Machine is very fast bike also.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    12
    No that wasn't the post I was thinking of. It was a longer review than that of the machine. Might have been on single tracks forum or something. But glad to hear that nobody else is having big issues with it. Honestly thinking the Stamina is too expensive. Might still think about the Machine or the 158. The other option is just keep my Sentinel and get a better shock.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    What I was referring to is this: his bike was bobbing not from the terrain, but from his pedal stroke. While he might have had his bike set up per the manufacturer's recommendation, it looked horrendously inefficient. He was riding non-technical terrain (a fire road) but his suspension was compressing and bobbing significantly under that load. There was a lot of excessive motion occurring.
    Well maybe he doesn’t know how to adjust the suspension valving properly or it was intentionally plush and he didn’t care about pedaling efficiency. I might reserve making that judgement without some further understanding on the situation.

    Which in the Stamina vid link earlier in the thread it looked a tad too stiff imo, at least for the speeds he was riding at. Probably quicker than me to be fair, but didn’t seem all that quick in the context of what the best of the best might be capable of ...

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    This one? https://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/e...l#post13717206

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	6XTIAXw.png 
Views:	93 
Size:	79.2 KB 
ID:	1225239

    In this case, I don't think he'd be recommending the frame so often if he thought it had a creaking issue. Couldn't find any follow up to his first ride mystery creaking.

    Looking on other forums...
    I can comment on the creaking on my evolink 158. It dissapeared after a week or two after that review and never reappeared. It was actually more like a squeaking sound, and i saw a few others reporting the same on the pole facebook page. I think there was a theory that it was the shock bushings and that the sound would dissapear when they wear in. Since the squeaking is gone i havent given it any more thought.

    Regarding pedal bob i can only comment on the 158. The 158 is a very good pedalling bike. No doubt. I would not say that i notice much bob when pedalling. The ripley feels like it is bobing more, but the ripley has like a "shelf" in the suspension travel that the pole does not, so it just feels different. I do often use the pedal platform on both bikes, but that is because my riding usually consist of 1-2 hours of straight climbing and then one long continous decent. the 158 is not a fast climber, and it is no xc bike. But it does not bob wildly. For me i do not believe i could have had the machine or stamina as the only bike since i occasionally do some xc riding. And even tho ppl say they are like xc bikes, i dont believe I would have any fun on one in flat xc terrain.

  38. #38
    Here, diagonally!
    Reputation: JACKL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,050
    I just became aware of this bike. Full-on nuts!! I'm truly speechless.

    180 / 180 travel
    Room for 29 x 3" (!) tires
    Room for 3 water bottles what, not 4??

    Oh and they make it in a SMALL. I want to see what that looks like.

    Can't say I remotely want or need something like this, but I sure would love to throw a leg over one!

    They don't even publish the full geo on it, mostly some flip descriptions and a mic drop:

    1. Head angle: Slack
    2. Reach: Plenty
    3. Top tube: Upright pedaling
    4. BB height: Not too low, not too high
    5. Seat tube angle: Steep
    6. Seat tube angle (effective): Very steep
    7. Stack: 640 / 650 / 660 / 670
    8. Wheelbase: 1276 / 1306 / 1336 / 1361
    9. Chainstay length: Balanced
    10. Seat tube length Very short, but we use 34.9mm Seatpost so it’s not a problem. There’s plenty of lengths.
    11. Head tube length: 115 / 125 / 125 / 145
    12. Fork offset: Choose whatever your fashion tells you
    13. Front center: Balanced

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,147
    Quote Originally Posted by henricksen View Post
    Just a quick question, do you think 180 will be too much my trails aren't rough but I buy my bikes to go racing where it is. Also do you have lots of creaking in your Machine like some have reported
    180 is just 20 mm more than 160 mm which is what I have on my 2014 specialized Enduro 29. When I bought that the local shops wouldn't even carry the Enduro because They thought it was way too much bike for our local trails. We don't have proper mountains but we do have rocks and big ledges. I bought an E29 anyway and -- hard to say this without sounding like a dork --but I have podium several times in cross country races and have completed a couple of IMBA Epics on it. I also have a Hardtail and pure XC bike but I wouldn't hesitate to ride the Enduro pretty much anywhere and I don't think anyone ever claimed the E29 peddled well. How much worse could another 20mm make it on tame trails.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jbsocal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    321
    I’m considering a size small for a custom build in 2019...

    I picked up a 180 mm Yari for $400 (will probably put a Lyrik RC2 or avalanche damper in it)...wish I could have got it with the shorter offset...

    I wonder if you can buy both shocks with the frame (at a discount).

    What bothers me is that Pole didn’t respond to my email about the reach...publish the *&$#! reach, otherwise I will have to get it from someone else who buys one.

    The medium Machine lists as 480 mm.

    I think the reach on the medium (assuming it is similar to the Machine) would be too long for me (I’m 5’7” with a 27” inseam)...

    One of the bikes I ride is a large Marin Wolfridge Pro and the 462 mm reach is a bit too long so I have 3” riser bars tilted back to compensate...my other bikes are mediums with short stems...except for my Full Stache (has the stock stem).

    I would love to hear from someone that buys one...
    ‘19 Trek Full Stache 8 29+
    ‘18 Marin Wolf Ridge Pro
    '17 Specialized Enduro 29 S-Works Jaw Breaker

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by JACKL View Post
    I just became aware of this bike. Full-on nuts!! I'm truly speechless.

    180 / 180 travel
    Room for 29 x 3" (!) tires
    Room for 3 water bottles what, not 4??

    Oh and they make it in a SMALL. I want to see what that looks like.

    Can't say I remotely want or need something like this, but I sure would love to throw a leg over one!

    They don't even publish the full geo on it, mostly some flip descriptions and a mic drop:

    1. Head angle: Slack
    2. Reach: Plenty
    3. Top tube: Upright pedaling
    4. BB height: Not too low, not too high
    5. Seat tube angle: Steep
    6. Seat tube angle (effective): Very steep
    7. Stack: 640 / 650 / 660 / 670
    8. Wheelbase: 1276 / 1306 / 1336 / 1361
    9. Chainstay length: Balanced
    10. Seat tube length Very short, but we use 34.9mm Seatpost so it’s not a problem. There’s plenty of lengths.
    11. Head tube length: 115 / 125 / 125 / 145
    12. Fork offset: Choose whatever your fashion tells you
    13. Front center: Balanced
    Pulled this from a "spy shot" article.
    Quote Originally Posted by Article
    The new Pole Stamina is a real monster, 29-inch wheels and 180 mm of travel, this is an EWS race bike through and through, and with Leo appointing Matti Lehikoinen to run an EWS race team you can see that Pole is planning a full-on campaign on the podiums. Of course, the geometry redefines radical with an 80º (effective 81º) seat tube, balanced by a 63.5º head angle, 455 mm chainstays, 480 mm reach (medium) and a whopping 1306 mm wheelbase. The shock has been moved inside the front triangle to provide more space for a straight seat tube and a new link design that protects the exposed bearing faces, important for those looking for improved reliability. The Pole Stamina also has some new changes over the Pole Machine, the Stamina uses a 34.9 mm Seatpost to maintain strength with a shorter overlap, an integrated headset, improved foldability and increased mud protection with the shock now tucked away behind the seat-tube.
    Those numbers seem pretty similar to the Machine in medium.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,335
    So I get the long reach thing and the steep head tube angle, but why the long chainstay?

    Must go great in a straight line ... but I like to ride on trails with turns

    You’d need a motor to manual that thing!
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+ (for sale)
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Fezzari Signal Peak 29/27+
    Lrg Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife's)

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    So I get the long reach thing and the steep head tube angle, but why the long chainstay?

    Must go great in a straight line ... but I like to ride on trails with turns

    You’d need a motor to manual that thing!
    The early reviews I've seen say it turns pretty well. Also, how high are you needing to manual for its intended use, 6“? You have to remember it's built to be an unapologetic race bike.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  44. #44
    shredthögnar
    Reputation: bike_futurist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    17
    to have your weight distributed somewhat evenly between the axles

  45. #45
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    So I get the long reach thing and the steep head tube angle, but why the long chainstay?

    Must go great in a straight line ... but I like to ride on trails with turns

    You’d need a motor to manual that thing!
    This should help give some insight, it's a little on the tech side and wordy, but very interesting IMO and worth it, even to just see the conclusions. Leo (Pole) takes some issue with it, as you read in the comments, but I think Steve addresses those well and in general these guys (Vorsprung) really seem to know what they are talking about when it comes to bikes, it's a fresh no-BS approach:

    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    99
    I kind of agree with some of the things in the video. Shorter bikes give more traction on the front wheel, and a longer bike does not mean you will become sam hill. A shorter bike will not make you sam hill either. My ripley gets lots of grip on the front wheel just by pushing down on the pedals. The evolink needs more upper body work to get the same grip. For me this is not really a problem, and i think most ppl will adapt quickly. The big advantage of the evolink, or similar bikes in general, is that the riding position is so incredibly comfortable. so that every discomfort you will get in theory will at least for me be made up for by the comfortable riding position. In fact, i have a lot less fatigue on the evolink than on the ripley.

    Also the sweet spot (or margin of error) for when your body position gives you the best traction front and rear is much bigger on the evolink, so you can afford to move around more on the evolink and get about the same amount of traction. This gives you a less static riding position on the bike, and this will possibly contribute to less discomfort over time.

    Im sure the theory in the vid is sound, but my empiry does not quite agree with it. Im just one person, and this is just my subjective opinion, so i guess ppl will just have to try for themselves and figure out what is best.

  47. #47
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,389
    Quote Originally Posted by DrPaulus View Post
    I kind of agree with some of the things in the video. Shorter bikes give more traction on the front wheel, and a longer bike does not mean you will become sam hill. A shorter bike will not make you sam hill either. My ripley gets lots of grip on the front wheel just by pushing down on the pedals. The evolink needs more upper body work to get the same grip. For me this is not really a problem, and i think most ppl will adapt quickly. The big advantage of the evolink, or similar bikes in general, is that the riding position is so incredibly comfortable. so that every discomfort you will get in theory will at least for me be made up for by the comfortable riding position. In fact, i have a lot less fatigue on the evolink than on the ripley.

    Also the sweet spot (or margin of error) for when your body position gives you the best traction front and rear is much bigger on the evolink, so you can afford to move around more on the evolink and get about the same amount of traction. This gives you a less static riding position on the bike, and this will possibly contribute to less discomfort over time.

    Im sure the theory in the vid is sound, but my empiry does not quite agree with it. Im just one person, and this is just my subjective opinion, so i guess ppl will just have to try for themselves and figure out what is best.
    It's definitely "take it or leave it" with the conclusions, but a lot of riders are agreeing with them in the same sense too. I at least appreciate Steve's approach to associate these things to science and processes and be objective, rather than the typical bike review BS we usually get. That kind of analysis is at least the direction we should go in to gain understanding of how bikes work and what changes do.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    It's definitely "take it or leave it" with the conclusions, but a lot of riders are agreeing with them in the same sense too. I at least appreciate Steve's approach to associate these things to science and processes and be objective, rather than the typical bike review BS we usually get. That kind of analysis is at least the direction we should go in to gain understanding of how bikes work and what changes do.
    The problem is that his conclusions are not as solid as he portrays them. Unlike most of the stuff he does this conclusion is not based solely in the numbers. He's attempting to correlate the numbers to a subjective, personal experience. Perhaps he did not ride the bike long enough to get used to how it rides? Maybe he was having an off day that day? We will never know but that undoubtedly influenced his interpretation of the numbers.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  49. #49
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,389
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    The problem is that his conclusions are not as solid as he portrays them.
    How is this different than anything else (he does)? If he says damping is too fast based on calculations, then rides the bike and says the damping is too fast, isn't that literally the same thing?
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    How is this different than anything else (he does)? If he says damping is too fast based on calculations, then rides the bike and says the damping is too fast, isn't that literally the same thing?
    That's the same thing, so it wouldn't fall into most. It's different because quite a few of his videos have no subjectivity at all.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  51. #51
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by DrPaulus View Post
    I kind of agree with some of the things in the video. Shorter bikes give more traction on the front wheel, and a longer bike does not mean you will become sam hill. A shorter bike will not make you sam hill either. My ripley gets lots of grip on the front wheel just by pushing down on the pedals. The evolink needs more upper body work to get the same grip. For me this is not really a problem, and i think most ppl will adapt quickly. The big advantage of the evolink, or similar bikes in general, is that the riding position is so incredibly comfortable. so that every discomfort you will get in theory will at least for me be made up for by the comfortable riding position. In fact, i have a lot less fatigue on the evolink than on the ripley.

    Also the sweet spot (or margin of error) for when your body position gives you the best traction front and rear is much bigger on the evolink, so you can afford to move around more on the evolink and get about the same amount of traction. This gives you a less static riding position on the bike, and this will possibly contribute to less discomfort over time.

    Im sure the theory in the vid is sound, but my empiry does not quite agree with it. Im just one person, and this is just my subjective opinion, so i guess ppl will just have to try for themselves and figure out what is best.
    My impression matches yours.

    I agree with the fundamentals of RC and FC proportions.

    I believe that adjusting the rider's CoM to a location that matches their standing position, should be used to balanced the bike's weight bias through RC and FC. I'd take it a bit further and adjust the seated position CoM to be in the same place (steepen STA). This makes it so you can save energy by knowing you are in a balanced position to react to terrain by just being in your standing position. That standing position should be a much more natural/comfortable position that takes less effort to hold, compared to hanging low and back or leaning forward. The combination of longer FC and steeper STA balance each other out to not affect the seated position (with whatever ETT you find comfortable), but it dials in the standing position. One difference to be noted is that as the STA steepens, the saddle rises over the grips, so stack heights can also rise to bring the grips higher.

    Regarding moving around more on a long bike, it reminds me of turning down sensitivity on a computer mouse. It allows you to fine tune on a micro level, those things that require precision, but it also makes large deliberate movements appear more flamboyant. Those kind of techniques happen rare enough that I also can see why you prefer saving energy on just holding a fairly static position.

    All his subjective conclusions, I just take with a grain of salt. Rider body proportions make a big difference. That Zep guy vs Steve vs Sam Hill vs me... yea, all different body proportions that affect where our CoM is. Rather the bike geo be adapted to where my CoM naturally is, rather than spend effort shift my CoM to where the bike wants. That Zep guy looks like he'd be more comfy with grips a bit higher, that way the weight of his upper body and head don't need to be supported so much by his arms and back, and more supported by the legs.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    My impression matches yours.

    I agree with the fundamentals of RC and FC proportions.

    I believe that adjusting the rider's CoM to a location that matches their standing position, should be used to balanced the bike's weight bias through RC and FC. I'd take it a bit further and adjust the seated position CoM to be in the same place (steepen STA). This makes it so you can save energy by knowing you are in a balanced position to react to terrain by just being in your standing position. That standing position should be a much more natural/comfortable position that takes less effort to hold, compared to hanging low and back or leaning forward. The combination of longer FC and steeper STA balance each other out to not affect the seated position (with whatever ETT you find comfortable), but it dials in the standing position. One difference to be noted is that as the STA steepens, the saddle rises over the grips, so stack heights can also rise to bring the grips higher.

    Regarding moving around more on a long bike, it reminds me of turning down sensitivity on a computer mouse. It allows you to fine tune on a micro level, those things that require precision, but it also makes large deliberate movements appear more flamboyant. Those kind of techniques happen rare enough that I also can see why you prefer saving energy on just holding a fairly static position.

    All his subjective conclusions, I just take with a grain of salt. Rider body proportions make a big difference. That Zep guy vs Steve vs Sam Hill vs me... yea, all different body proportions that affect where our CoM is. Rather the bike geo be adapted to where my CoM naturally is, rather than spend effort shift my CoM to where the bike wants. That Zep guy looks like he'd be more comfy with grips a bit higher, that way the weight of his upper body and head don't need to be supported so much by his arms and back, and more supported by the legs.
    I agree with you both. If I had to guess it sounds like Steve just didn't take the time or have the desire to adapt to the way the bike handles.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,417
    I'm not on the Pole, but on a Foxy 29 which is similar-ish, and I can't go back to those old geo bikes. I do everything better from this more centralized position. Climb, flats, jumps, straights, comfort, front end traction, turning, etc...

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    I'm not on the Pole, but on a Foxy 29 which is similar-ish, and I can't go back to those old geo bikes. I do everything better from this more centralized position. Climb, flats, jumps, straights, comfort, front end traction, turning, etc...

    The only similarish thing on the Foxy to the Pole is the reachnumber... thats about it. I testrode the Foxy 29 a whole day in the swiss alps and didnt feel to adjust my riding. Its not like they feel totaly different.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,335
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Perhaps he did not ride the bike long enough to get used to how it rides? Maybe he was having an off day that day? We will never know but that undoubtedly influenced his interpretation of the numbers.
    Or the bike doesn't ride well for him. Not every configuration of bike works for every person. I have friends who have issue with bikes and geo configurations that work great for me. I don't think there is one solution that's going to make everyone happy.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Or the bike doesn't ride well for him. Not every configuration of bike works for every person. I have friends who have issue with bikes and geo configurations that work great for me. I don't think there is one solution that's going to make everyone happy.
    Six one way, half a dozen the other. I'm a firm believer that inside certain parameters for just about any athletic pursuit there are multiple correct ways of doing things. Some will just feel more natural than others to a given individual.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,335
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Six one way, half a dozen the other. I'm a firm believer that inside certain parameters for just about any athletic pursuit there are multiple correct ways of doing things. Some will just feel more natural than others to a given individual.
    If you are saying there are multiple bike geo options/configurations and they are all equally good for different riders I would agree. If the Pole geo works well for you awesome, but if it doesn't work well for someone like Steve who is a sophisticated mountain biker I don't think it's an issue of him not trying hard enough or having a bad day. He'd figure that out.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    If you are saying there are multiple bike geo options/configurations and they are all equally good for different riders I would agree. If the Pole geo works well for you awesome, but if it doesn't work well for someone like Steve who is a sophisticated mountain biker I don't think it's an issue of him not trying hard enough or having a bad day. He'd figure that out.
    Yes to the first part. No, to the second. A "sophisticated mountain biker" like Steve can adapt to the different geometry. Will he have the desire to, probably not since he knows what he likes. That doesn't mean he isn't able to.

    Same thing with my jumpshot when I actively played basketball. I honed it while rehabbing from a broken femur. As a result it was ugly as sin. But, I could knock threes down at a very high clip, both set and moving. I worked with people who tried to change it, and it would have made me slightly more efficient. However, I could never get past the initial drop off in accuracy as I was relearning because I could already do it at a high level.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  59. #59
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    623
    The fundamentals of RC and FC should scale. Short-travel short-wheelbase bikes can have RC and FC proportions that suit your [new-found] preferences. I just see it as harder to pull off, since I recognize that the balance sweet spot is smaller with a shorter wheelbase, and more sensitive to different rider body sizes. That and people are used to seeing a full size range: S, M, L, and XL, rather than something like the Spec SJ Evo's 2 sizes (named S1 and S2).

    The direction that Pole, the Mondraker Foxy 29, and many recent long travel 29ers have taken is drawing the rider's positioning forward through many geometry tweaks (essentially an evolution of Forward Geometry). This should probably only be welcome to those who actually want their position to be more forward, such as when they're cornering, plowing, jumping, and/or dropping. If they are already too forward for their liking, they have more right to say it's not for them, than those who want proclaim such "modern/progressive" geo as the new king and want to see it made official by the rest of the industry following suit.

    It's a peculiar desire to want to see a higher frequency of something, to feel like such a new concept is accepted/validated. Some feel that seeing it win world cup overalls is the kind of validation they need to even consider it. I'd prefer if people just make this decision for themselves through more rational reasoning, rather than trying to talk over each other, while plugging their own ears, preaching their own sacred beliefs.

    Looking at the history of MTB evolution, I'd simplify old designs as simply pairing up familiar #s, that were generally regarded as standard, with one or two new things. Take a standard 73d SA, the usual ETT and seat tube length to fit riders of diff sizes a HA, and vary the HA and BB height depending on what discipline you're riding: 71ish for saving energy/time on the climbs, 63ish for saving energy/time on the descents, and everything in between, with higher BB for pedaling and lower BB for carving. There was a long era of pairing this up with tweaked chainstay length, travel length, and tire/wheel size; recently it's about anti-squat, rim width, axle spacing, and fork offset. There probably was a micro-era of people stressing over fork stanchion diameter--heck, some are predicting a Fox 38 and a freeriding comeback.

    I get the impression that designers were focused on certain improvements. Sometimes it was one big move, such as revolutionizing the compromise between weight, stiffness, and strength with an entirely new material and/or construction technology, or developing an entirely new rear suspension linkage. Sometimes it was a combination of a lot of small refinements, refreshing a model to be more up to date, such as gaining compatibility with the the latest component innovations (disc brake mounts, BB standard, thru-axle, tapered steerer, larger dropper post, bigger handlebar, drivetrain system, electronic susp, etc.). Perhaps these things were passed down from the top; "there's demand for a short travel trail 29er. It needs this checklist of features to be competitive: A) lighter weight, B) clean aesthetics (seat stays parallel to top tube, and seat tube to the fork), C) extra bottles inside the front triangle, D) shorter chainstays, E) whatever else that is marketable according to current consumer demand."

    Maybe the rest of the industry, who chase the wave of commercial opportunity, are shifting focus now to bridge the gap between the Pole and classic geo. The guys at Unno have gone from introducing Forward Geo, to dialing it a little back towards classic geo, it seems, touting that one the many things that can shave time off a race run is the rider feeling comfortable, and have been targeting similar macro gains in their development. They recognize that riders have a very strong bias towards familiarity, especially if they have a lot of time spent on it, and feel uncomfortable on such a drastic change. Leo, at Pole, teamed up with a fellow Finnish rider who actually had much experience with long chainstays, and youthful riders were able to adapt to the new concept quite easily. Sounds similar to how some people were reluctant to switch to all the other new things, from 29ers to carbon, while others adopted these without much fuss.

    Damn it, pardon my wall-of-text. My "keyboard logorrhea" comes out when something truly interests me on a technical/academic level... maybe it's cathartic, just like the desires I talked about in paragraph 3.

  60. #60
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,213
    Manufactures will chase sales, and don't want to be left behind. If LLS sells then everyone will jump on board. If there is a market for shorter bikes, someone will fill it.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  61. #61
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    623
    I wonder what the tough sell for slack HA is. Long and low, I can understand being taken too long for individuals.

    It's like people don't see how HA it fits into the big picture fully. They might see it affecting steering. Or just sum it up as, "the XC pros run steep HA and the DH pros run slack HA. The engineers and pros know better than me/us." They extrapolate from this...

    Steering is more determined by the mechanical trail of the front wheel, which is also affected by offset. Since offset is now an option you can choose from, you can tune to a small degree how strong of a "caster effect" you want, which is the self-centering effect when moving forward. For some, perhaps it's more intuitive to have light finessed precision with less caster effect at low speed, and a strong-armed control-freak hold to stabilize steering at high speed. For others, perhaps it's more intuitive to have strong deliberate moves at low speed, and a lighter touch at high speeds. I'm in the latter group, since at low speeds turning the bars 90 degrees is a thing, while micro-precision inputs at high speed can be the difference between avoiding an obstacle or going off-line or off the trail.

    I recognize that the better the fork is angled to absorb an impact, the less harshness is transmitted to the rest of the bike and body. For high speed plowing, a slack HA would be smoother.

    The big one, is about creating balance between the front center and rear center (AKA horizontal CS length), to determine weight bias of the bike and where the rider will naturally center themselves. Do they need to have their backs hunched flat with weight resting on the bars, to get weight on the front? Do they need to tilt their legs back, so they are pushing forward into the pedals and slightly hanging on the bars, to get weight off the front? It's a continual balancing act to make it so the weight is distributed to the wheel that can use it to maintain traction/control, when the other wheel has more than enough. Good to hear people finding things to be more comfortable and simplified by bikes designed with this in mind (doing everything better from a centralized position).

Similar Threads

  1. Making some progress on stamina
    By plupien79 in forum Clydesdales/Tall Riders
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 09-21-2015, 12:09 PM
  2. Breathing/stamina issues = lung cancer
    By luckybastard26 in forum Rider Down, injuries and recovery
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-04-2013, 06:11 PM
  3. Advice for building up enurance/stamina?
    By GTKRider in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-08-2013, 06:26 PM
  4. wife's leg stamina issue
    By evilazonic666 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 06-09-2012, 05:03 PM
  5. Interval Training Plans for Speed, Strength and Stamina
    By Apaulo88 in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-10-2011, 05:24 AM

Members who have read this thread: 380

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.