Wreckoning and modern wheelbase- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    670

    Wreckoning and modern wheelbase

    Anyone else notice all the new LT travel 29ers coming out all have absurdly long wheelbases? Personally I think the guys at Evil have something with their effective STA. Sure it looks slack but in my experience this isn't the case when riding (effective STA). Kudos to the guys at Evil for creating a bike that checks all the boxes and doesn't turn like a barge. The others can chase but nothing rides like a Wreckoning.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    379172
    Guest
    Agree, the Wreck strikes a very good balance between stability and playfulness. I'm just over 5-9 with a bit more legs than torso on a M size and the STA is fine. Cockpit feels very similar to the size L HD3 I had, pedals just about as well and excels everywhere else. Awesome bike.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,518
    I honestly don't get the new crop of huge wb bikes. Is it beginner stability, is it confidence at straight away speed, or is everybody but me riding crazy steep shit?
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    96
    I 100% agree. I went from a 27.5" 160 bike to a wreckoning and shaved off 1" from the wheelbase and the bike climbs much better! Evil created the ultimate bike with no boundaries

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    201
    I assume some of the above comments are referring to the PB article about new geometry ideas from Transition... Transition was at the front of the crowd when they rolled out their 2015 bikes (Patrol, Scout, Smuggler), and it will be interesting to see if their new stuff will again be leading the industry.

    The Wreckoning is terrific, definitely the best all-around bike i've had.

    I would guess that the next generation of the Wrecker will evolve a bit - i'm pretty certain that the evolution of geometry for "all mountain" bikes for tough trails has not reached its final point. The current Wrecker is awesome, but it could be awesomer!

  6. #6
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,360
    Quote Originally Posted by WHALENARD View Post
    I honestly don't get the new crop of huge wb bikes. Is it beginner stability, is it confidence at straight away speed, or is everybody but me riding crazy steep shit?
    Yes, they are.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,597
    Quote Originally Posted by WHALENARD View Post
    I honestly don't get the new crop of huge wb bikes. Is it beginner stability, is it confidence at straight away speed, or is everybody but me riding crazy steep shit?
    Turning is so 2010. #PinItToWinIt
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    72
    I totally agree. At 6'3" on an XL Nomad 3, I demoed a Large Wreckoning & Trek Slash 29er back to back, size Large. The Trek felt just as nimble as the Wreck, even though it's .5" longer, but I loved the shorter feel (of both). Probably because it's lighter and stiffer.

    I'm in Arizona, lower speeds than California riding, and tighter turns & hiking style terrain, and I really think some of these bike are just getting really long for that type of terrain. The new Transition Geo is interesting, but the wheelbase is ridiculously long.

    I also thought the Wreckoning climbed exceptionally well, both the design and traction, especially in technical situations, it masks the weight incredibly well.

  9. #9
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,793
    Well, a few factors are at play IMO.

    People are convinced they need 65 degree HAs on everything, which if you have any kind of decent reach, is going to push the front wheel way out there. Can't have something for nothing. I also have to wonder how these bikes would handle with their short-ish chainstays (for 29ers) around 16.8-17.2 if they had much shorter wheelbases, but again, you can't have something for nothing, shorten the wheelbase and your reach will suffer and IMO you'd be on a cramped bike unless you went with a long stem or you could slacken the STA significantly, which would ride like crap everywhere but down. Slightly less slack bike would probably help and with a 29er if you have having problems with endos or roll-over you got real problems IMO and it's not because of the HTA. I'm not saying bikes should necessarily be as steep as my Spec E29 was, but I think it makes sense to keep a 29er a little steeper to give it a little more nimble feeling and the wheels that are already more stable and that will roll over anything will do the rest. But IMO you are seeing the effects of the geometry and tradeoffs. Something has to give.
    "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.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,597
    Quote Originally Posted by nolson450 View Post
    I'm in Arizona, lower speeds than California riding, and tighter turns & hiking style terrain, and I really think some of these bike are just getting really long for that type of terrain. The new Transition Geo is interesting, but the wheelbase is ridiculously long.
    I'm now on a bike that's one iteration of long and low back from current and it's already hard enough to get around tight trails. Thing is it seems trails in a lot of places are trending towards open and faster so the new geo makes a lot of sense....if you live in a place with those kinds of trails.

    Where I live [Vancouver Island] it's starting to feel like the Land-The-New-Geo-Forgot.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by WHALENARD View Post
    I honestly don't get the new crop of huge wb bikes. Is it beginner stability, is it confidence at straight away speed, or is everybody but me riding crazy steep shit?
    I agree with you, I like the steeps like anyone else but I like to earn em. Sometimes there are tight switchbacks and I want a bike that can turn and make it happen and a nice STA, like the Wrecker.

    I want a bike that can pedal me up that hill too. I'm looking for a Wrecker demo and I think I found one at the Hub. I was waiting for SC to release the HT LTc and to me they screwed up that deal. Slacker STA, longer wheelbase, longer chainstays, shorter reach. All they did was put a new link on it, pair up a new rear triangle and called it good. Not to mention the continuation of the "let's see what asinine paint jobs we can do this release" they keep doing. I currently have a Tallboy LTc and love the short wheelbase it has. The Wrecker may just be what I need.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,613
    These are the exact same complaints that everyone had when we went from 71* HA's to 68*. Too slack, too long, won't turn right, etc, etc. I highly doubt anyone here has ridden an Pole/GeoMetron/Mondraker/Transition SBG.

    I have yet to find any bike that I can't get around the tightest of switchbacks no matter what the Geo or HA is. If I could get around it on my old Intense 5.5 (1105 mm WB/70* HA) then I can get around it on my Enduro 29 or Hightower long shock (~1200 mm WB/66 HA). Remember that with the new bikes like the Transition or GeoMetron, they are significantly reducing the fork trail which changes the handling pretty dramatically. Personally I can't wait to try out the new Transition, but in the interim the new Orbea Rallon looks like they nailed the geo.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    These are the exact same complaints that everyone had when we went from 71* HA's to 68*. Too slack, too long, won't turn right, etc, etc. I highly doubt anyone here has ridden an Pole/GeoMetron/Mondraker/Transition SBG.
    I've been trying longer bikes as demos are available and they are not as easy to get around tight trails as shorter bikes. Obviously the longer lower slacker geo works well for some trails and some riders or the people designing and building them wouldn't have bothered, but that does not mean that longer lower slacker is going to work well everywhere since trails are not homogenous.

    Of the bikes you mention Transition is the only company we'll ever see a bike from around here and I'll try one at the next demo opportunity.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by WHALENARD View Post
    I honestly don't get the new crop of huge wb bikes. Is it beginner stability, is it confidence at straight away speed, or is everybody but me riding crazy steep shit?
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Yes, they are.
    Maybe or maybe not...but I am inclined to agree with Travis. The places this bike is opening up to me allow me to spin out a 32t front on 10t rear. That's one thing on a smooth, buffed trail. Its something entirely different when it gets rougher and steeper. A lil rear brake generously applied at the right moment in conjunction with some body English helps to bring the turning radius back in check.

    I am in the camp that thinks the STA actual is too slack, especially for those with disproportionately longer legs than torsos. bring it up to 75ish*, and the reach could benefit by opening up another 20mm on all sizes. be active on the bike out of the saddle to return the playfulness.

    Really, this debate probably has to do with the fact that 1) most of us over-bike (me included) and 2) our trail systems are changing to accommodate those who prioritize going down. If your trails are shuttle or lift oriented, see point #1) as it refers to the Wrecker.

  15. #15
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,360
    I was 3/4 joking. I'm 5'9.5" and the STA on the medium felt bang on for me. Also the WB is shorter on the medium, so my experience was different than those on larger sizes.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,518
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    Maybe or maybe not...but I am inclined to agree with Travis. The places this bike is opening up to me allow me to spin out a 32t front on 10t rear. That's one thing on a smooth, buffed trail. Its something entirely different when it gets rougher and steeper. A lil rear brake generously applied at the right moment in conjunction with some body English helps to bring the turning radius back in check.

    I am in the camp that thinks the STA actual is too slack, especially for those with disproportionately longer legs than torsos. bring it up to 75ish*, and the reach could benefit by opening up another 20mm on all sizes. be active on the bike out of the saddle to return the playfulness.

    Really, this debate probably has to do with the fact that 1) most of us over-bike (me included) and 2) our trail systems are changing to accommodate those who prioritize going down. If your trails are shuttle or lift oriented, see point #1) as it refers to the Wrecker.
    The Wreckoning has a relatively short WB. Not shure why you quoted me.

    I don't have much issue turning long bikes and they are easy to outright fly on. It's everywhere else they feel dull. One of the reasons the following is universally loved and arguably reignited 29ers is because of the fun factor the short base provides. Tech riding & especially low speed chunky tech, long wb bikes are a handful for me. By the time you get the front wheel through up & over something it takes all kinds of weight shift to to get the rest to cooperate.

    I think we're in a time where bike geo is more or less pretty dialed & do not see this as an apples to apples argument with head angle. Long wb bikes have their place I'm sure, but I'm already mach chicken on my evil with a unique fun factor to boot.
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by WHALENARD View Post
    The Wreckoning has a relatively short WB. Not shure why you quoted me.

    I don't have much issue turning long bikes and they are easy to outright fly on. It's everywhere else they feel dull. One of the reasons the following is universally loved and arguably reignited 29ers is because of the fun factor the short base provides. Tech riding & especially low speed chunky tech, long wb bikes are a handful for me. By the time you get the front wheel through up & over something it takes all kinds of weight shift to to get the rest to cooperate.

    I think we're in a time where bike geo is more or less pretty dialed & do not see this as an apples to apples argument with head angle. Long wb bikes have their place I'm sure, but I'm already mach chicken on my evil with a unique fun factor to boot.
    I quoted both you and TB because of the comment about straight away speed and crazy steep...the point I was trying to make is that most of us are over-biked for our daily drivers (again, me included). "Tech riding & especially low speed chunky tech" are not what the Wrecker was designed for. On Evil's webpage, they frame the Wrecker's intent as "the idea of the Wreckoning began with the idea of a bike that could shred the down like a true DH bike and still pedal pedal up."

    Having owned a 2016 SB6c, a 2017 Enduro 650b, and now a Wreckoning (all XLs), I can confidently say that the actual seat tube angle of the Enduro puts the rider in a more foreward seated position for climbing, allowing more weight on the front wheel and resulting in "pulling" the rear wheel around tight uphill switchbacks rather than "pushing" the front wheel around them. The more slack ST actual angle of the wrecker shifts the riders weight over the rear wheel as a longer seat post is used...the higher the seat post, the slacker the ST effective angle becomes, exacerbating the issue.

    The wheelbases range form 48.23" (enduro) to 48.9" (sb6c), and I cannot feel a difference in them, seated or in the attack position. I can feel a difference in chainstay length, however, most notably in tight technical downhill switchbacks w front wheel drops.

    At the end of the day, this modern, perfect 29er we are debating about, is more likely a Following, and less likely a Wrecker....but it sounds like many of us are willing to sacrifice lower speed prowess in favor of being over biked...just in case a party happens on the trail haha.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,117
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I've been trying longer bikes as demos are available and they are not as easy to get around tight trails as shorter bikes. Obviously the longer lower slacker geo works well for some trails and some riders or the people designing and building them wouldn't have bothered, but that does not mean that longer lower slacker is going to work well everywhere since trails are not homogenous.

    Of the bikes you mention Transition is the only company we'll ever see a bike from around here and I'll try one at the next demo opportunity.
    It takes time to adjust the riding style to these new progressive geo bikes.
    A demo will not do. Especially if you are coming from a much shorter WB, slacker ST, steeper HT, shorter reach bike.


    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,597
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    It takes time to adjust the riding style to these new progressive geo bikes.
    A demo will not do. Especially if you are coming from a much shorter WB, slacker ST, steeper HT, shorter reach bike.
    Well if a demo won't do than I won't ever be riding a bike with a "progressive geo". Going up in WB a little less than 2" between my last bike and my current bike has proven to be a significant difference in how they get through our tight slow speed tech.

    I can't see how going another 2" longer is going to work and I certainly am not going to spend $$$ on a hunch or someone's marketing campaign.

    OTOH if a demo is available I'll take it. I don't expect to get the full potential from a bike during a demo. However, I do expect to see some of the broad strokes of how the geo would work on my local trails. If I see potential for it to be a good move then I'd be okay spending some $$.

    As I noted above I have no doubt that these uber long WB bikes work great for some riders in some places, but that's not to say they are a good solution everywhere and for everyone.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  20. #20
    I fix choppers
    Reputation: HELLBELLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev. 14 View Post
    I agree with you, I like the steeps like anyone else but I like to earn em. Sometimes there are tight switchbacks and I want a bike that can turn and make it happen and a nice STA, like the Wrecker.

    I want a bike that can pedal me up that hill too. I'm looking for a Wrecker demo and I think I found one at the Hub.

    Blue Mountain Bikes
    has Wrecker demos available. 3.5 hours south of The Hub.

    I now have a month and half on my Wrecker. It is flat out the fastest bike I've ever ridden both up and and down. It's capabilities are astounding.

    "Everything popular is wrong." -Oscar Wilde

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OneSlowBusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev. 14 View Post
    I agree with you, I like the steeps like anyone else but I like to earn em. Sometimes there are tight switchbacks and I want a bike that can turn and make it happen and a nice STA, like the Wrecker.

    I want a bike that can pedal me up that hill too. I'm looking for a Wrecker demo and I think I found one at the Hub. I was waiting for SC to release the HT LTc and to me they screwed up that deal. Slacker STA, longer wheelbase, longer chainstays, shorter reach. All they did was put a new link on it, pair up a new rear triangle and called it good. Not to mention the continuation of the "let's see what asinine paint jobs we can do this release" they keep doing. I currently have a Tallboy LTc and love the short wheelbase it has. The Wrecker may just be what I need.
    Thought i would chime in as the current owner of both a LTc and a Wreck (X1 build offering). I think I recognize you as from my region from the LT thread.

    Anyhow I live in SW VA and have owned two LTs prior to buying the wreck this year. They are vastly different bikes - as aggressively as I could set up the LTc 150mm fork, -1.5 works headset, cane creek air IL etc - the wreck is 100% more capable bike on the downs - however - the LT is still the bike of choice for after work training rides, all day epics, pretty much everything but rides that I know will be rowdy or Bryce/Snowshoe laps.

    Part of this is the 50t set up on the tallboy, but a majority is the 4 lb weight difference between the two. The wreck is a capable climber, particularly on fire roads - but the disclaimer needs to be there that its a good climber "for what it is"

    Until I can pair some more weight from the wrecker - I dropped almost a lb in just bar/stem change to carbon - I plan on holding onto the TB.

    Also - I ordered the wreck site unseen, it took me several rides to get used to the new school geo. I'm not sure I would have been convinced to purchase on anything less than a few hours of actual seat time.

    Hope that helps some
    If you Google "Judy Butter" to reminisce on the good ole days, do NOT click on images...

  22. #22
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,360
    Lucky that I have an LBS that will let you demo all day☺

    Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by OneSlowBusa View Post
    Thought i would chime in as the current owner of both a LTc and a Wreck (X1 build offering). I think I recognize you as from my region from the LT thread.

    Anyhow I live in SW VA and have owned two LTs prior to buying the wreck this year. They are vastly different bikes - as aggressively as I could set up the LTc 150mm fork, -1.5 works headset, cane creek air IL etc - the wreck is 100% more capable bike on the downs - however - the LT is still the bike of choice for after work training rides, all day epics, pretty much everything but rides that I know will be rowdy or Bryce/Snowshoe laps.

    Part of this is the 50t set up on the tallboy, but a majority is the 4 lb weight difference between the two. The wreck is a capable climber, particularly on fire roads - but the disclaimer needs to be there that its a good climber "for what it is"

    Until I can pair some more weight from the wrecker - I dropped almost a lb in just bar/stem change to carbon - I plan on holding onto the TB.

    Also - I ordered the wreck site unseen, it took me several rides to get used to the new school geo. I'm not sure I would have been convinced to purchase on anything less than a few hours of actual seat time.

    Hope that helps some
    This is my one hang up with the Wreck vs HT LT and SB 5.5 as my next bike. Climbing isn't my strong point. I'm not the last guy up the climb but I'm definitely not the first. I like to conserve a little for on the way down which is what I really look forward to (doesn't everyone). But most of my rides are anywhere from 2400'-3200' of climbing before bombing all the way down. I just down want to lug a couple of extra pounds up the trail of I don't have to.

    That being said I think they nailed the geo numbers on the wreck which still has me considering it regardless of the 2 or so extra pounds of frame weight compared to the other bikes I'm looking at.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,613
    Quote Originally Posted by OneSlowBusa View Post
    Thought i would chime in as the current owner of both a LTc and a Wreck (X1 build offering). I think I recognize you as from my region from the LT thread.

    Anyhow I live in SW VA and have owned two LTs prior to buying the wreck this year. They are vastly different bikes - as aggressively as I could set up the LTc 150mm fork, -1.5 works headset, cane creek air IL etc - the wreck is 100% more capable bike on the downs - however - the LT is still the bike of choice for after work training rides, all day epics, pretty much everything but rides that I know will be rowdy or Bryce/Snowshoe laps.

    Part of this is the 50t set up on the tallboy, but a majority is the 4 lb weight difference between the two. The wreck is a capable climber, particularly on fire roads - but the disclaimer needs to be there that its a good climber "for what it is"

    Until I can pair some more weight from the wrecker - I dropped almost a lb in just bar/stem change to carbon - I plan on holding onto the TB.

    Also - I ordered the wreck site unseen, it took me several rides to get used to the new school geo. I'm not sure I would have been convinced to purchase on anything less than a few hours of actual seat time.

    Hope that helps some
    I agree, demo rides don't really tell me anything. It takes me a few weeks to get a bike really dialed in. First time on any setup is completely worthless to me especially if it is not my setup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duffman1976 View Post
    This is my one hang up with the Wreck vs HT LT and SB 5.5 as my next bike. Climbing isn't my strong point. I'm not the last guy up the climb but I'm definitely not the first. I like to conserve a little for on the way down which is what I really look forward to (doesn't everyone). But most of my rides are anywhere from 2400'-3200' of climbing before bombing all the way down. I just down want to lug a couple of extra pounds up the trail of I don't have to.

    That being said I think they nailed the geo numbers on the wreck which still has me considering it regardless of the 2 or so extra pounds of frame weight compared to the other bikes I'm looking at.
    Orbea Rallon...

Similar Threads

  1. Wheelbase and technical climbs
    By GnarBrahWyo in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 03-24-2017, 07:16 AM
  2. Firebird or Wreckoning? Pros and cons?
    By daveypetey in forum Pivot Cycles
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-10-2016, 04:33 PM
  3. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 07-13-2016, 07:23 AM
  4. 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
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-07-2012, 07:10 PM

Members who have read this thread: 2

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.