how much better geometry is the RSD Mayor v4 compared to my Motobecane Sturgis NX- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 73 of 73
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    746

    how much better geometry is the RSD Mayor v4 compared to my Motobecane Sturgis NX

    i have the 19" Sturgis NX. Pretty good frame, except the standover is a bit high for me and I'm contemplating to buy a Mastadon EXT, which would raise the front (even if I limit travel to 80mm).

    So I went into the rabbit hole of new bike/frame research. In the far future I also like to use 27.5 x 4.5 tires (not right now needed).

    I came across the Mayor v4 in large to be a good value. Besides much lower standover (and designed for 10mm longer a-c) it also has slacker headangle (67° vs. 70°), steeper seattube (74° vs. 73°) and shorter chainstays (450 mm vs 460 mm). All which I assume is what is referred to as more modern geometry.

    Ignoring that a suspension fork would improve things, let's pretend I use both frames with the same rigid fork. What exact advantages in riding trails, snow (nothing too technical) would I have with the new frame?
    RSD say older geometries were for snow only and the new geometry (their's obviously) are for all year riding. Basically like a modern MTB. Do they sacrifice snow performance for better all-year performance?

    This is and will be my only and all-year MTB in southern WI. Winters and snow season seem to get shorter every year.

    I didn't see any red flags and their v4 frame seems to have every feature a modern bike would have inc. 27.5x4.5 clearance, internal dropper routing etc.

    My only gripe is a fork upgrade turns into a frame/fork upgrade , which is costly. I also would need a new frame bag. But I fear just adding the Mastadone to my sturgis frame will make it worse in other aspects (need to limit travel to 80mm, have higher standover, seattube will be even slacker etc.).

    So is doing it right (replace both frame and fork) the only viable option?

    The standover clearance with the 4.8" tires is just an inch and in snow my feet sink further than tires. lol. At some point I even contemplated to get the medium frame to get more standover, so this is a real issue to me. At the position in front of the BB where one stands the mayor seems to give me 70mm more clearance if their chart is correct.
    Mayor v4
    Giant Toughroad

  2. #2
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    I'd go with the Mayor, cause I have both the V3 and V4. They are solid performers with more of an off road influence with the geometry NOT being that of a bastardized grocery getter that some fatbikes have been over the years.

    My V4 L has more standover than my V3 although, I've been too lazy to measure it. The V4 has sliding dropouts that is a very nice feature for tuning the ride. With 4.8's, I have my sliders slammed forward with massive clearance. Ride quality, excellent since I feel like I'm riding a mountain bike and not some kind of cheesy townie. The handling is great and hard to beat. Price point is amazing vs. other options and RSD is light years ahead of others in terms of customer care. Can any other company respond to an inquiry on a weekend or a warranty claim on a weekend? Pfft! Not likely...
    While I doubt a warranty claim will be necessary, questions on compatibility of components etc. does get a speedy response

    I ride fat and plus year round because it's plain fun as it gets.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    746
    Well, if I didn't have a fatbike yet and knew what I know now, the mayor would be a sure choice. But I have what I have already. So "upgrading" has to be really worthwhile.

    Seattube: combined with a dropper the steeper ST helps climbing and downhill. Not sure if 1° will be noticeable. But how will regular flat surface riding be impacted? I ride quite a lot that is not very steep up or down. So does a steeper ST make that worse?

    HT angle: seems that gives me a longer wheel base to be more stable and better downhill stability. Probably no negatives?

    I'm now also contemplating the Mayor with the carbon fork. I originally came to toe mayor due to the "want" of a suspension fork. But hope with a bit better geometry the riding gets better even with just a similar fork. i read some bump-compliance improves with slacker HT. Again, not sure if 3° slacker will make a difference.

    I also wonder if the Mayor CF fork will create some sort of magic improvement compared to my current Cro-Mo fork besides weight savings.

    Maybe someone here rode both the Sturgis/Night Train and the Mayor or did a similar transition?

    On the long run I also would want 27.5 x 4.5 tires, which are a bit bigger than my current 26 x 4.8. Again hoping this would improve comfort and stability somewhat.


    What brought me to the suspension fork idea originally was some chattering riding over frozen snow (foot steps etc.). On some summer trails I sometimes have some bouncing, which also could be cured with lower pressure. So my hope is the mayor could resolve some of my issues (1st World problems really) just with the CF fork and better geometry.
    Mayor v4
    Giant Toughroad

  4. #4
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    Head tube angle directly affects caster angle which has a very noticeable affect on handling. What we don't want is a chopper, lest it's made by Orange County!

    Seat tube angles affect my ability to create power and too steep is catastrophic power loss, again, for me, dunno bout other peeps on that aspect. Most notable is that seat tube angle directly affects rider position on a bike as in fore/aft for the hip during seated pedaling. Steeper might assist in climbing but with descents, not so much.

    The plastic fork can be very nice in terms of absorbing some trail chatter. The other item there is not riding with too much pressure in a 4.8 cause it's akin to riding an over inflated basketball.

    27.5 vs. 26 is in the eye of the beholder. 27.5 is capped at 4.6 at the moment whereas, 26 is capped at 5.05. For what it's worth... I do desire to test a 27.5 setup with supple, light weight tires in the fattest available.

    On the squishy fork, cold temps may cause sluggish action of the fork. The other nice part is the fork will lift the front some and gain a bit of BB clearance for rock crawling. 80-100mm travel, I'm thinking.


    Wheelbase can be tweaked with the sliding dropout system that is standard on the Mayor.

    V3 has a more upright riding position than my V4 which my spine does appreciate. I'll admit, it has been a little tweaking and getting to know the V4. Now that the adjustments are complete, I'm a happy Mayor rider.
    My Mayor is rigid with the RSD issue plastic fork. This serves well for my Jeeping habit with the fat, and the snow riding that goes on throughout the winter. Just wouldn't be right if I couldn't let some air out of the tires in Four Mile Park for additional floatation. I've had the same pair of Surly Bud/Lou for six years and use them primarily for snow riding. After all those seasons, they still are in excellent condition.

    The ride is a little more leaning to the front as opposed to being more upright. It is only a small change in position.

    I think the Mayor would be an upgrade to older frame geometry since it gets more to mountain or off road than early designs ever could. I have a 2014 9:Zeero:7 frame/fork on mothballs since I took delivery of my V3 in 2015, the Mayor is lightyears better on every aspect including frame flex, geometry and BB clearance.

    Perhaps a Moto owner could chime in here.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  5. #5
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    7,787
    How much better? Way better. Anything from "Moto" pretty much sucks in the geometry department.

    I'm not a big fan of RSD either, but it's a big step in the right direction.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    How much better? Way better. Anything from "Moto" pretty much sucks in the geometry department.

    I'm not a big fan of RSD either, but it's a big step in the right direction.
    What fatbike has a better geometry than the mayor, in your opinion? I just started delving into this. One thing i learned is fatbikes started with a road type geometry with fat tires, and now come to be modern MTB. I'd say my Moto is somewhere in between.

    Kind of sad that the geometry is dated, the workmanship is excellent.
    Mayor v4
    Giant Toughroad

  7. #7
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,472
    The longer wheelbase of my V3 is definitely obvious and it's not very nimble IME. Still a fun bike, but more of a point n shoot rather than tight twisties and quick movements (to avoid trees).
    "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.

  8. #8
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    7,787
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun View Post
    What fatbike has a better geometry than the mayor, in your opinion?
    Currently on a Surly Wednesday, which isn't perfect by any means but it's a super fun bike. It just has a short Reach for me (size XL).

    If I were buying a new bike tomorrow it would be between a Kona Wozo and a Surly Ice Cream Truck (for the bigger tire clearance).
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  9. #9
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    5,796
    I have a large Sturgis and 2 forks: the 490mm Carver Popeye, which I ride most of the time, and a 120mm Bluto. I have it set up for more upright/heads-up pedaling.

    It is a little snappier handling with the Popeye (HA<70*), but when I install the Bluto (HA<69*) it just mows over everything. It makes me laugh out loud at what I can simply run over with it. The handling is good, esp. at speed.

    That said, the remaining standover is minimal. Not enough to bother me, though. It looks like I'd get an extra inch on the Mayor.

    Top tube length is only 10mm longer on the Mayor, but the wheelbase is an inch longer. The Sturgis feels stable enough to me, so more WB is unwarranted. I couldn't say what effect it would have. I do think the Sturgis chainstays could have been made a bit shorter, even if by only 10mm or something.
    Not sure of the reach on the Sturgis, but I think it shows up on a chart somewhere compared to other fatbikes.

    The Mayor tire clearance is better.

    Without deep snow as a deterrent, the Sturgis is pretty passable, and has been working great for me. If you are really getting on/off in deep snow, then maybe that extra inch of standover on the Mayor will make it better.

    I've only ever noticed slacker head angles when I'm going down something really steep. At that point, having the front wheel just that little bit farther out front is confidence-inspiring. Not sure how much that would matter between the Sturgis and the Mayor. 67* certainly sounds pretty forgiving.

    Maybe your best bet is to plan to sell the Sturgis to finance the Mayor. Craigslist prices here were pretty crazy for awhile. You might get a decent penny for it.

    -F
    It's never easier - you just go faster.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    746
    Lot's of good information, thanks.

    The mayor thread yielded this video, which convinced me the Mayor also can ride well on long straight runs, not just up and down.

    I need to decide which type of fork and talk myself more and more into a carbon fork. My current steel fork is heavy, probably close to a Mastadon (worst of both worlds - heavy and rigid). In 99% of my riding I may enjoy the lighter CF fork and only 1% would benefit from a suspension fork. I also hope slacker HT and future larger 27.5x4.5 wheel may overcome some more problems.

    Key is not to invest in hardware proprietary to the Sturgis. The $180 CF fork from BD is a 481mm fork, unlike the RSD with 490mm. I don't know if I would trust a $100 noname fork. Most other CF forks are $300-$500 (ouch! - that is Mastadon price!)).

    The mayor frame and CF fork would cost $760 on current sale ($800 regular). My current dropper, XT drivetrain, M6000 brakes etc. should transfer over. My rearhub is upgraded to Bitex 54 PoE hub and double-butted spokes with the original Mulefut rims. so all better than what a complete mayor comes with (NX,Level T brakes). Unless I get a really good price for the Sturgis (doubtful now in spring), I'm probably better off just selling the Sturgis frame and fork.

    If I bought the Built 2 for currently $1404 ($1700 regular) I would transfer the SRAM brakes, NX etc. to the Sturgis and probably keep the new tires. But i wonder if i can get $700 or so for the Sturgis with SRAM low level components. i paid $1,100 for the 2018 model and nowadays fatbikes are a bit cheaper and more plentiful. Back then the Sturgis was a steal and in my area were 0 used bikes available. This changed.

    Mentally losing the custom frame bag is a loss, and also the loss of bag space since the Mayor has less frame space (the price to pay for lower standover).

    Standover: Currently I have very little room and once "hurt" myself a bit. It came to the point that i was even less confident riding around. Also in the snow it was an issue. but since i added the dropper post, this problem receded. I know, the standover is still the same, it is just the enhanced riding ability and confidence with the dropper. i know standover height is less an issue with proper technique. but I sometimes get stuck in a rock garden or so and as a noob I just stop where I am.

    Another idea would be to just buy the frame (the CF is not really on sale now, so can buy that later) and run it with my existing steel fork. would lose 9mm A-C (maybe 1° steeper, which still would be 2° slacker than my sturgis. Then I can think more about if i want suspension or CF fork.

    I don't know if that plays a role in geometry and riding style. both my good bikes have a Jones bar. that way I sometimes sit upright, or forward etc. i guess it has some rigid fork advantage.
    Mayor v4
    Giant Toughroad

  11. #11
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    HerrKaLuen,

    My experience with the V4 is that overall it performs. Riding though town, backcountry etc. with or without snow has been excellent. My only method toward improvement would be to open CAD, draw what works for me and not anyone else and go to a builder and hand em a blueprint with the appropriate "shall" statements in place.
    Frankly, I recommend the plastic fork along with the frame. If you're in the states, the price includes shipping...
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    746
    OK, I just thought screw that. RSD has the fork on sale for $276. After seeing all the darn expensive CF forks I though I start with that to improve the weight a bit. Then my wife told me I also can buy the frame, so I kind of had to place an order for the frame as well. I mean, when the wife tells me to do it, I don't want to disobey my wife.

    I will then just transfer everything and sell the sturgis frame, Cr-Mo-fork, seatpost (have a dropper I reuse on Mayor) and the original handlebar. It also has the custom-frame bag. Does anyone have an idea what a good asking price is? $200? A new frame with Bluto is $670 from BD. I know, depends on local market and it is spring...
    Maybe I keep it to make a 29+? But all fatbike stuff like hubs, crank etc. is more expensive than regular MTB stuff.
    Mayor v4
    Giant Toughroad

  13. #13
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,472
    Quote Originally Posted by BansheeRune View Post
    Frankly, I recommend the plastic fork along with the frame. If you're in the states, the price includes shipping...
    IME, makes a big difference in being able to loft the bike. Aluminum is kind of halfway there, but I've had a 5lb chromo fork on the front of a fatbike and holy crap, that feels like an anchor comparatively and significantly affects the nimble-ness of the bike and ability to ride tech. Sounds a bit elite-ist, but IME worth it.
    "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.

  14. #14
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    IME, makes a big difference in being able to loft the bike. Aluminum is kind of halfway there, but I've had a 5lb chromo fork on the front of a fatbike and holy crap, that feels like an anchor comparatively and significantly affects the nimble-ness of the bike and ability to ride tech. Sounds a bit elite-ist, but IME worth it.
    Avoiding strapping a bag of concrete mix to one's bars is recommended seeing as a fatbike is already hefty enough.
    With RSD's pricing, a frame/fork combo is a helluva good opportunity.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    746
    So I finally got it assembled. I didn't realize I had to install the headset and crownrace and cut the steerer. So after ordering tools etc. it is all assembled.

    It is raining here, so no off-roading.

    Just rode it a mile with my 8 year old daughter on the bike path. I like that my handlebar is a bit higher now (due to new fork) and like the slacker head angle.

    Obviously this may just me being happy after my purchase :-).

    I like the design details, like cable and brake routing along the top tube and seat stay. The top tube even has room for 3 things (I have an externally routed dropper).

    Looking forward to get some actual offroading in.

    Edit: another positive so far is that the CF fork is stiffer in the for-aft department. When braking with the old steel fork I felt the fork bending a bit. I have 203mm rotor and M6000 brakes.
    With the CF fork I didn't notice that. I assume the 3° slacker head angle also helps with that.... but think the Cf fork is just stiffer.
    Last edited by HerrKaLeun; 03-30-2020 at 09:36 AM.
    Mayor v4
    Giant Toughroad

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun View Post
    What fatbike has a better geometry than the mayor, in your opinion?
    Kona Wozo
    Trek Farley
    Mike
    Toronto, Canada
    2019 Scott Foil 10 Disc
    2019 Giant Revolt Advanced 0
    2017 Trek Farley 9.6

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by Swerny View Post
    Kona Wozo
    Trek Farley
    I know there is more to geometry than one angle. But head tube on the Kona is 68.5 and the Farley has 69° vs the 67° of the Mayor.

    I realize someone could consider a steeper head angle better and just slacker (think of 60°) isn't better. But 67° I think is pretty good... at least I like it.

    Both also have a frame production error and no recall so far. The manufacturers forgot to thread in the proper BB threads and out of desperation put in press-fit BBs. :-)

    I guess it is moot now, I'm not buying a new frame any time soon.....
    Mayor v4
    Giant Toughroad

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    746
    Yesterday I rode it on my normal MTB trails (which is 1% of the bike's capability lol). Probably subjective to my last ride with the Sturgis last fall/winter.

    What I mainly noticed is that ride is smoother going downhill and the small chatters and oscillations were less pronounced. Really liked it. Slacker head tube is really cool.

    Hard to tell if the 1° steeper seat tube really helped since I lost some weight since last year and overall physical condition is different. But i had the feeling i could climb better without having to get my butt up.

    So overall really happy with the better geometry and fork material.
    Mayor v4
    Giant Toughroad

  19. #19
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun View Post
    Yesterday I rode it on my normal MTB trails (which is 1% of the bike's capability lol). Probably subjective to my last ride with the Sturgis last fall/winter.

    What I mainly noticed is that ride is smoother going downhill and the small chatters and oscillations were less pronounced. Really liked it. Slacker head tube is really cool.

    Hard to tell if the 1° steeper seat tube really helped since I lost some weight since last year and overall physical condition is different. But i had the feeling i could climb better without having to get my butt up.

    So overall really happy with the better geometry and fork material.
    Good stuff! Glad you're enjoying the Mayor. I have enjoyed the overall performance of my V4. Just rides very well in most if not all conditions.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  20. #20
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    7,787
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun View Post
    I know there is more to geometry than one angle. But head tube on the Kona is 68.5 and the Farley has 69° vs the 67° of the Mayor.
    If this is your only point of reference than no, you don't.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  21. #21
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    If this is your only point of reference than no, you don't.
    So he made one reference... The sky is gonna fall!!

    Goin out to ride the Mayor followed by a Middlechild session...
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  22. #22
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    7,787
    Quote Originally Posted by BansheeRune View Post
    So he made one reference... The sky is gonna fall!!

    Goin out to ride the Mayor followed by a Middlechild session...
    Those bikes couldn't be more different. The Wozo has very different geometry than most other fat bikes and it's awesome. It's literally every other part of the bikes geometry that makes it special, not just the HTA.

    Singling out one angle and making a comparison to something completely different is ridiculous (as you probably know).
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  23. #23
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    Being an enginerd that is sarcastic at least and sometimes snarky!

    With the number of frames I have welded together over the years, I just leave peeps alone on all the angles.
    Meanwhile, I will open CAD and draw some more bike stuff once more!
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  24. #24
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun View Post
    What fatbike has a better geometry than the mayor, in your opinion?.
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    If I were buying a new bike tomorrow it would be between a Kona Wozo and a Surly Ice Cream Truck (for the bigger tire clearance).
    Quote Originally Posted by Swerny View Post
    Kona Wozo
    Trek Farley
    Interesting. I just ordered a mayor v4 as it seems to have the best geometry for All Mountain/Trail riding when compared to bikes like the Kona, ICT and especially the trek. In fact, trek had such outdated geo, I used it as a my measure against Generic/Old School geometry, while on the other end of the spectrum I had the Pole as my measure against Modern/Forward geometry.

    Surprisingly, the Kona scored second to last (just ahead of the trek) for geometry with several metrics that were very close to geo from the 90s/00’s or even worse, road bike geo. For example, the chainstay length being a squirmy super short 420mm. That is a geometry number that was carried over to mtb from road bikes. Another example for the Kona was the extreme BB drop, again another geo metric more inline with road bikes. Combine both those metrics with the steep 69* head angle and now the bike is starting to look like the geo on some of my vintage 90’s bikes in my shed. Nothing wrong with that geo as it works great for XC, but for AM/trail, it’s not good.

    Also, super long TT/Reach on this bike with the super short CS and steep HA is not a combo I want for AM riding with it forcing all my weight over the front wheel and making the back end even that much squirlier especially going down or at speed. I am sure this would work great for slow speed maneuverability making it feel quicker.

    The trek Farley was a joke with only 4 degrees of separation between the HA and SA. Only 3 to 4 degrees of separation between HA and SA brings me back to 1994. That, plus the extreme bb drop and shorter reach scream old school mtb geo. The bike is even spec with a 90mm stem for an XL. Again, bringing me back to the 90’s and 2000’s.

    The ICT scored better with it being somewhat more middle of the road, but with some quirks like larger than desired bb drop, shorter than desired CS and also spec with a 90mm stem.

    I’ll see if I can upload the bike geo comparo chart I made as it really helped me to see all the geo metrics combined for a bigger picture vs just comparing individual geo metrics.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  25. #25
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,421
    They are fat bikes. And for fat biking things we sure as the hell don't want things that are more modern trial/AM riding. Makes them ride like total shit at low speeds in snow and such.

    The geo you want comes into what kind of riding you plan to do. My fat bike is a 2011 and works amazing at what it's designed for. Some of these newer fat bikes going with modern MTB geo are just not fun for stomping around. And still ride well on mellow trails but you find the shortcomings real fast if you get into anything but rather mild stuff.

    Geometry is all over the place for all bikes (except road it seems, they always look the same) just for different riders and disciplines. Manufacturers have to have something different so they can appeal to a different group.

    Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

  26. #26
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by tigris99 View Post
    They are fat bikes. And for fat biking things we sure as the hell don't want things that are more modern trial/AM riding. Makes them ride like total shit at low speeds in snow and such.
    I have limited experience on Fat bikes in the snow, but i am not understanding how modern geo would make a fat bike ride like shit in the snow. I realize it would be more difficult to maneuver at lower speeds due to it being longer and slacker, so not ideal for tight twisty trails while riding slowly, but i don't imagine many tight and twisty trails or a lot of close quarter obstacles to maneuver around when the ground is covered with snow.

    What riding attributes are you referring to when you say “rides like total shit at low speed in the snow”?
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  27. #27
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    7,787
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Interesting. I just ordered a mayor v4 as it seems to have the best geometry for All Mountain/Trail riding when compared to bikes like the Kona, ICT and especially the trek. In fact, trek had such outdated geo, I used it as a my measure against Generic/Old School geometry, while on the other end of the spectrum I had the Pole as my measure against Modern/Forward geometry.

    Surprisingly, the Kona scored second to last (just ahead of the trek) for geometry with several metrics that were very close to geo from the 90s/00’s or even worse, road bike geo. For example, the chainstay length being a squirmy super short 420mm. That is a geometry number that was carried over to mtb from road bikes. Another example for the Kona was the extreme BB drop, again another geo metric more inline with road bikes. Combine both those metrics with the steep 69* head angle and now the bike is starting to look like the geo on some of my vintage 90’s bikes in my shed. Nothing wrong with that geo as it works great for XC, but for AM/trail, it’s not good.

    Also, super long TT/Reach on this bike with the super short CS and steep HA is not a combo I want for AM riding with it forcing all my weight over the front wheel and making the back end even that much squirlier especially going down or at speed. I am sure this would work great for slow speed maneuverability making it feel quicker.

    The trek Farley was a joke with only 4 degrees of separation between the HA and SA. Only 3 to 4 degrees of separation between HA and SA brings me back to 1994. That, plus the extreme bb drop and shorter reach scream old school mtb geo. The bike is even spec with a 90mm stem for an XL. Again, bringing me back to the 90’s and 2000’s.

    The ICT scored better with it being somewhat more middle of the road, but with some quirks like larger than desired bb drop, shorter than desired CS and also spec with a 90mm stem.

    I’ll see if I can upload the bike geo comparo chart I made as it really helped me to see all the geo metrics combined for a bigger picture vs just comparing individual geo metrics.
    I'm sorry but you haven't got a clue what you're talking about when it comes to geometry. You are so misguided I'm not even going to attempt to explain.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  28. #28
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    I'm sorry but you haven't got a clue what you're talking about when it comes to geometry. You are so misguided I'm not even going to attempt to explain.
    I would genuinely like to hear it.

    I have been riding since 1991 and have owned many bikes with geometry all over the spectrum. Started in the Bay Area when and where mtb started to get popular and more advanced, then to riding in Nor Cal while in Chico and the last decade riding all disciplines here in Lake Tahoe including DJ. Lot of difference between the geo of a DH bike to a DJ bike to an Xc bike and one of the things I love about mountain biking is all the different disciplines and how geo can improve performance for each discipline. Getting a new bike has got me back into really looking into the details so I would love to hear your opinion.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  29. #29
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    7,787
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    I would genuinely like to hear it.

    I have been riding since 1991 and have owned many bikes with geometry all over the spectrum. Started in the Bay Area when and where mtb started to get popular and more advanced, then to riding in Nor Cal while in Chico and the last decade riding all disciplines here in Lake Tahoe including DJ. Lot of difference between the geo of a DH bike to a DJ bike to an Xc bike and one of the things I love about mountain biking is all the different disciplines and how geo can improve performance for each discipline. Getting a new bike has got me back into really looking into the details so I would love to hear your opinion.
    Squirmy? That word has never been used to describe the handling of a bike with short chainstays.

    Most of your comments sound like speculation based on an online geometry chart, not first hand experience based on test riding bikes.

    I'd be willing to wager you've never ridden a mountain bike with sub 425mm chainstays. I can't for the life of me figure out how you equate road bike geometry with something like the Kona Wozo. Baffling.

    You need to read more articles from trusted sources or better yet go ride some demo bikes.

    I'm honestly not interested in going any farther with this conversation. There's lots of good information out there.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tahoebeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    Squirmy? That word has never been used to describe the handling of a bike with short chainstays.


    Most of your comments sound like speculation based on an online geometry chart, not first hand experience based on test riding bikes.


    I'd be willing to wager you've never ridden a mountain bike with sub 425mm chainstays. I can't for the life of me figure out how you equate road bike geometry with something like the Kona Wozo. Baffling.


    You need to read more articles from trusted sources or better yet go ride some demo bikes.


    I'm honestly not interested in going any farther with this conversation. There's lots of good information out there.


    Wow, way to be helpful.

    FYI: a short CS for sure makes a bike less stable or “squirmy” at speed just as a long CS will help the bike more stable at speed. That’s geometry 101.

    Also, Mack has been riding mtbs since the early 90’s so I’m sure he’s ridden plenty of squirrley short chain stay mtbs. Lord knows I have since I also started riding in the 90’s.

  31. #31
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    Squirmy? That word has never been used to describe the handling of a bike with short chainstays.

    Most of your comments sound like speculation based on an online geometry chart, not first hand experience based on test riding bikes.

    I'd be willing to wager you've never ridden a mountain bike with sub 425mm chainstays. I can't for the life of me figure out how you equate road bike geometry with something like the Kona Wozo. Baffling.

    You need to read more articles from trusted sources or better yet go ride some demo bikes.

    I'm honestly not interested in going any farther with this conversation. There's lots of good information out there.
    Thankfully, I have a Mayor cause I like the build and features. Not a fan of the Bozo, but thanks anywho!
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  32. #32
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    . I'd be willing to wager you've never ridden a mountain bike with sub 425mm chainstays. I can't for the life of me figure out how you equate road bike geometry with something like the Kona Wozo. Baffling.

    You need to read more articles from trusted sources or better yet go ride some demo bikes.

    I'm honestly not interested in going any farther with this conversation. There's lots of good information out there.
    That’s fine. I explain anyway. But before, you should check out this guy named Gary Fisher to see what I am talking about here with old school geo. He was the first with many things in mountain biking including the whole short chain-stay, long front center thing. I still have a Gary fisher AM bike with this genesis geometry and owned one of his hard-tails as well.

    417mm chain stays, with about a 450 reach for the large. Mine has a HA of about 69* with a more modern fork 10mm longer than OE.

    Those are very similar geo numbers to the wazo and my Fisher is from 2004.

    It may have a reach that is about an inch shorter than the wazo, but it is the same as a Large surly ICT which you recommended and longer than other “modern” fat bikes like the trek Farley. So, I am very familiar with the geo of a bike like the wazo as I have been riding that geo for over one and a half decades.

    As for road bike geo, a lot of the current fat bikes I have seen have geometry not much different at all from mtbs in the 90’s, which were based off road bike geo. An example would be whatever the specialized fat bike is with its 1990 mtb gold standard 71/73, head angle/seat angle geo.

    As for the wazo the only thing that stood out special/or modern about the geo was an inch longer reach from what I had back in 2004. So that is why I deemed it to have old school geometry. I realize you are focused on the chainstay length, but it is important to look at multiple metrics when analyzing geo and some geo combos still stand out to me as flags from bitd when trying to avoid 90’s road bike based mtb geo. The BB drop and CS length combo of the wazo is very similar to that of road bikes. That along with its other old school geo metrics from 2004 had my road bike influence 90’s geo warning light come on. Probably not fair as I am sure Kona didn’t look to road bikes for their cs and bb drop numbers. I am just wary of old geo and the fat bike industry seems to be lousy with it.

    Kona will move to a slacker HA when they refresh the geo next which will help modernize things. They sure won’t be making it any steeper that’s for sure.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  33. #33
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by tahoebeau View Post
    Wow, way to be helpful.

    FYI: a short CS for sure makes a bike less stable or “squirmy” at speed just as a long CS will help the bike more stable at speed. That’s geometry 101.

    Also, Mack has been riding mtbs since the early 90’s so I’m sure he’s ridden plenty of squirrley short chain stay mtbs. Lord knows I have since I also started riding in the 90’s.
    Ha! The good old days of quick handling mtbs. Remember the whole elevated chain stay fad in the 90’s? Moving one of the chain stays higher allowed for crazy short rear center, supposedly making for super maneuverable bikes, which it did, but also out right scary at speed. I remember the Gary fisher montare with that curved seat post like the Kona has to get the rear wheel in even tighter. That bike was a handful going fast and really squirrelly, but super maneuverable a slow speed.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  34. #34
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,472
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    That’s fine. I explain anyway. But before, you should check out this guy named Gary Fisher to see what I am talking about here with old school geo. He was the first with many things in mountain biking including the whole short chain-stay, long front center thing. I still have a Gary fisher AM bike with this genesis geometry and owned one of his hard-tails as well.
    Not sure about that, maybe some of the very old 26ers, once he went to 29 he was famous for miles-long chainstays more than 18", part of the genre that refused to do anything more than stretch the chainstays to fit a front derailleur for 29ers. This crop of 29ers was totally unacceptable for me and I waited years to buy a FS one until the industry sorted this out.
    "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.

  35. #35
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Not sure about that, maybe some of the very old 26ers, once he went to 29 he was famous for miles-long chainstays more than 18", part of the genre that refused to do anything more than stretch the chainstays...
    I actually thought you were being sarcastic when I first read that because he is extremely well known for exactly the opposite of what you said. Especially the part about him “refusing to do anything more” about what I assume you mean is shitty 29er handling. Not sure why the obsession in this forum with short chain stays, but the handling of the early 29ers had a lot more to do with other geo metrics not really CS length, but redardless, here is so you know about Gary Fisher and his old-school short chainstay geometry and other things...

    Gary Fisher is famous for a lot of things in mountain biking, but miles-long chain-stays is not even close to one of them. He is known for things like the reason why almost all of today’s 29ers have a 51mm offset and other big innovations with 29ers like inventing them. He also is known for developing the ETT and other mtb geo measurements, having the first production mountain bike with front suspension and developing suspension correct geometry for it. And, is famous for developing the first commercially produced full suspension mtb way back in 1990 (it even had disc brakes). Oh, and he’s also famous for naming the sport.

    As for short chain-stays, he has been famous for that for about 4 decades now. That’s right kids, your dad was talking about short chain stays and steeper seat angles while watching Anakin kill Sidious way back in 1983. Then in the late 90’s while listening to the Pharcyde, your dad was talking about this crazy new short seat stays combo with a longer top tube and a shorter stem geo Gary had just coined as genesis geometry. And then after Gary introduced your dad to 29ers, in the early 00’s, he realized they handled like shit with mtb geo of the day, so he developed G2 geometry, which the vast majority of 29ers use today.

    So, if anyone thinks short chain stays aren’t old-school, ask your dad.

    The very first production 29 mtb in 2002 Gary had a 433mm CS on it. Full suspension 29ers were more difficult back then and having to work around a front der and narrow hubs (well before boost) really limited how short chain stays could go on a full squish 29er. Given his reputation and well known views on geo, I am sure he would have gone squirrley short if he could have.

    Here is some more information on Gary Fisher and short chain stays.

    From pink bike...

    how much better geometry is the RSD Mayor v4 compared to my Motobecane Sturgis NX-5fc3ce13-32c3-4293-8eb5-78448fa80eaf.jpg
    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/too-lo...poll-2017.html



    From one of his catalogues from 2 decades ago...

    how much better geometry is the RSD Mayor v4 compared to my Motobecane Sturgis NX-93339119-d470-4d4e-b5f0-1f6df2d2232b.jpg



    Video on his g2 geo from 2 decades ago...




    Random forum people explaining G2 geometry well over a decade after it came out...
    https://singletrackworld.com/forum/t...k-g2-geometry/
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  36. #36
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,472
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    The very first production 29 mtb in 2002 Gary had a 433mm CS on it. Full suspension 29ers were more difficult back then and having to work around a front der and narrow hubs (well before boost) really limited how short chain stays could go on a full squish 29er. Given his reputation and well known views on geo, I am sure he would have gone squirrley short if he could have.
    Looking at that picture, the chainstays are 451 for that 29er FS bike by GF. 18" chainstays. I'd be interested to even see a measuring tape by an old sugar or cake to be sure they weren't padding the numbers too, as that has happened in the past. As a comparison, my Foes FXR was around 16.75, my Karate Monkey was about an inch shorter (and yes, it had a front derailleur!). 17.8 may have been "short" for back then, but it was by no means short compared to what was available in other wheel sizes and even some other 29er hardtails. I don't think it was all that challenging to design the front derailleur in there, several eventually did it, it was just a matter of economics and not wanting to do so (figuring it was "good enough"). My Specialized Enduro 29er had stays almost an inch shorter than the GF, with a front derailleur.

    It's his FS bikes I'm talking about, besides the cracky-ness/failures: him, and everyone else, kind of "gave up" when it came to 29er FS bikes and trying to make the geometry work. It wasn't until several years later, like with the Enduro, BMC, a few others, where they started to shorten this. It happened at about the same time as the 1x revolution, but when these bikes came out they were still being designed for front Ds, so that wasn't really the driving force. I think 29ers reaching criticality was, where the FS bikes became a popular enough wheelsize to warrant full development.
    "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.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,380
    I rather agree with One_Speed. Short chain stays DO NOT make a bike squirmy. You can still have a stretched out frame and a slack head tube resulting in a long wheelbase.

    Furthermore, fat bikes are not build for high speed DH rides. They don’t need ridiculous 65 or 66 degree head tube angles. That will result in awful low speed and climbing handling. And that is how you generally ride on snow and tight single track.

    My fat bike (Rocky Mountain Suzi Q) has 68 degree and it is already slack enough. With suspension it would be even worse.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SS
    RM Suzi Q 90 RSL
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    34
    I ride my Mayor in Texas same trails as my all mountain and enduro and love it. but, that damn hanger is a cheap POS, spensive to replace.

  39. #39
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    Quote Originally Posted by illflipya View Post
    I ride my Mayor in Texas same trails as my all mountain and enduro and love it. but, that damn hanger is a cheap POS, spensive to replace.
    Which version do you have? With a V3 and V4, both equipped with short cage RD's, never has a hanger been an issue. Wide rage pizza sized cogs do not work with short cage so no need for em.
    Geared like the Jeep a Mayor is.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by illflipya View Post
    I ride my Mayor in Texas same trails as my all mountain and enduro and love it. but, that damn hanger is a cheap POS, spensive to replace.
    On my v4 Alex told me the slider (that acts as hanger) is so strong that it is very unlikely to break unless you throw the whole bike on the RD. It isn't made of the soft sacrificial hanger material that acts as a fuse. they cost $75 to replace, but if they "never" break, I'm OK with that risk. It seems solid to me.

    Now tell me more about yours breaking? Do I need to be worried?
    Mayor v4
    Giant Toughroad

  41. #41
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun View Post
    On my v4 Alex told me the slider (that acts as hanger) is so strong that it is very unlikely to break unless you throw the whole bike on the RD. It isn't made of the soft sacrificial hanger material that acts as a fuse. they cost $75 to replace, but if they "never" break, I'm OK with that risk. It seems solid to me.

    Now tell me more about yours breaking? Do I need to be worried?
    Frankly, the slider is durable beyond the hanger used on V1-V3, by a long shot. If that hanger gets damaged, you're looking at compromised rear triangle. The answer to the damage to a V4 is to notify the rider that it is in no way a DH or freeride bike, plain and simply put.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by BansheeRune View Post
    Frankly, the slider is durable beyond the hanger used on V1-V3, by a long shot. If that hanger gets damaged, you're looking at compromised rear triangle. The answer to the damage to a V4 is to notify the rider that it is in no way a DH or freeride bike, plain and simply put.
    That is what I thought and why I wondered how illflipya broke multiple. Maybe he has v3 or older.

    My sturgis required occasional some hanger alignment and the hanger is soft. I saw myself buying a new CNC hanger for that some time. My scenario is more sticks int he RD or riding by a rock. Although, the shimano shadow RD is really great hiding the RD. Still, sticks and grass is frequently found in my RD :-)
    Mayor v4
    Giant Toughroad

  43. #43
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun View Post
    That is what I thought and why I wondered how illflipya broke multiple. Maybe he has v3 or older.

    My sturgis required occasional some hanger alignment and the hanger is soft. I saw myself buying a new CNC hanger for that some time. My scenario is more sticks int he RD or riding by a rock. Although, the shimano shadow RD is really great hiding the RD. Still, sticks and grass is frequently found in my RD :-)
    This is why I prefer a short cage RD. Keep the bike's junk outta the dirt!
    Like I said, a sliding dropout set is not cheap, I'll give it that. You can look them up through the various frame builder suppliers, expensive they are. Alex is not off the mark on his price for the slider portion.
    Damage to a RD hanger on a slider is not easily achieved as the plate is rather hard, thick and durable.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  44. #44
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by serious View Post
    I rather agree with One_Speed. Short chain stays DO NOT make a bike squirmy. You can still have a stretched out frame and a slack head tube resulting in a long wheelbase.
    Yes, but I don’t want a completely stretched out frame for my fat bike. On a long travel trail/enduro bike... yes please! But a bike like the Kona with the an ETT longer than any XXXL from Zinn cycles (the big and tall bike brand) is not a fit I want for a bike that may be used on long treks or bike packing. Actually, that Kona fat bike has a longer ett than any other mtb available of any kind on the market and if the bike fit feels a little too long or you want wider bars, or you want to raise or lower the front cockpit with a +/- degree stem for different types of riding, you really can’t as every one of those options will stretch out the cockpit/fit even further. I want my fat bike to be versatile.

    Regardless of that, a 420mm chainstay on a hardtail is a lot different for someone who is 5’10 vs someone who is say, 6’4 like me. At 6’4 with a 74*ish SA the front end gets floaty and difficult to keep down, losing traction. This makes for an unstable bike while climbing. When standing, I need to shift my weight forward to keep the front down causing the rear to loose traction making it a balancing act between the two all while I am already exerting a lot of energy just climbing.

    With a longer rear center, I can sit and focus on powering thru. This is especially beneficial when climbing rocky sections. If I am already having to work to keep my front end down because of the incline, and now, all, the sudden the incline increases substantially even more to get over an obstacle, it is very, very easy to end up popping a full wheelie and having to get off the bike. This gets especially frustrating and tiring when the climb is quite rocky with many obstacles.

    When standing with the longer rear center, I can just power away with a more centered balance between the wheels helping to keep the front end down especially when powering thru rocky inclines and having to maneuver around. Trying to maneuver around obstacles with your front end constantly lifting and loosing traction is exhausting and I don’t want any more work while climbing.

    Quote Originally Posted by serious View Post
    I Furthermore, fat bikes are not build for high speed DH rides. They don’t need ridiculous 65 or 66 degree head tube angles. That will result in awful low speed and climbing handling. And that is how you generally ride on snow and tight single track.
    Well, first off, this is a fat bike we are talking about, so it will never be a tight twisty single-track slayer no matter what the geo. I’ll choose another bike from the stable for my tight, twisty single-track slaying rides. Second, I don’t want whippy geometry, I want smash geometry. Fat bikes are monster trucks, not whippy, weight-wennie, skinny tire bikes and I want mine to smash over everything and for that, I feel stability is the way to go, especially in the snow and smashing at speed.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  45. #45
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    7,787
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Yes, but I don’t want a completely stretched out frame for my fat bike. On a long travel trail/enduro bike... yes please! But a bike like the Kona with the an ETT longer than any XXXL from Zinn cycles (the big and tall bike brand) is not a fit I want for a bike that may be used on long treks or bike packing. Actually, that Kona fat bike has a longer ett than any other mtb available of any kind on the market and if the bike fit feels a little too long or you want wider bars, or you want to raise or lower the front cockpit with a +/- degree stem for different types of riding, you really can’t as every one of those options will stretch out the cockpit/fit even further. I want my fat bike to be versatile.

    Regardless of that, a 420mm chainstay on a hardtail is a lot different for someone who is 5’10 vs someone who is say, 6’4 like me. At 6’4 with a 74*ish SA the front end gets floaty and difficult to keep down, losing traction. This makes for an unstable bike while climbing. When standing, I need to shift my weight forward to keep the front down causing the rear to loose traction making it a balancing act between the two all while I am already exerting a lot of energy just climbing.
    You are so wrong this needs to be addressed. You've never ridden this bike and are making WILD assumptions based on an online geometry chart. You clearly don't understand how modern geometry works, sizing or handling characteristics.

    Like I said before, you should go test ride some bikes instead of speculating and posting ignorant crap all over the internet.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  46. #46
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    I'm sorry but you haven't got a clue what you're talking about when it comes to geometry. You are so misguided I'm not even going to attempt to explain.
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    Squirmy? That word has never been used to describe the handling of a bike with short chainstays.

    Most of your comments sound like speculation based on an online geometry chart, not first hand experience based on test riding bikes.

    I'd be willing to wager you've never ridden a mountain bike with sub 425mm chainstays. I can't for the life of me figure out how you equate road bike geometry with something like the Kona Wozo. Baffling.

    You need to read more articles from trusted sources or better yet go ride some demo bikes.

    I'm honestly not interested in going any farther with this conversation. There's lots of good information out there.
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    You are so wrong this needs to be addressed. You've never ridden this bike and are making WILD assumptions based on an online geometry chart. You clearly don't understand how modern geometry works, sizing or handling characteristics.

    Like I said before, you should go test ride some bikes instead of speculating and posting ignorant crap all over the internet.

    Yeah, let's address a couple things.

    First off, it is getting tiring explaining to you how the ol' short chain-stay, long front center" is old school geometry still left over from the 2000's and the teen's, and not sure why you keep replying to this thread which about a bike designed with geometry for the new decade. Being that you are stuck in this old-school geometry mindset and cannot comprehend how the short-chainstay, long front geo is unbalanced and therefore not as stable when climbing or cornering or going down or riding thru chunk and most likely the snow, then please, watch the linked youtube video below. Just click the youtube link and play. I timed it to the good part just for you with the next question in the video all about tech climbing and longer chainstays.

    As for others on this thread looking to see why the long chainstays of the Mayor may give it an advantage when climbing tech vs short CS bikes, please checkout this youtube link as well. I think you will find it very interesting.

    https://youtu.be/tyzenHyv8sU?t=1234



    As you heard, from a highly regarded bike maker, who i am sure you will say doesn't know what he is talking about, long chainstays are not only better for tech climbing, but also have other advantages when it comes to keeping the bike balanced. Versus how "when a bike has a long front center and really short rear end, the turning axis of the bike is in front of the rider, which makes those bikes feel ponderous. The force feedback they give you is that something is moving around in front of you. That kinda 'wheelbarrow' feeling."




    Now, the second thing we should address...
    You just said "I'm honestly not interested in going any farther with this conversation" and yet here you are again. You're clearly not being honest with your self making it quite apparent you are most likely not being honest with us here in this thread and probably this forum as well. It is actually starting to feel like your trolling this thread.
    Last edited by singletrackmack; 05-02-2020 at 10:48 AM. Reason: Spelling
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  47. #47
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    Ride what ya like, where ya like, put a shit eatin' grin on your face, that and only that is what it's all about.
    Now cut the bickering and ride fat, plus or minus!
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  48. #48
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by BansheeRune View Post
    Ride what ya like, where ya like, put a shit eatin' grin on your face, that and only that is what it's all about.
    Now cut the bickering and ride fat, plus or minus!
    I am with you on that. lets focus on the new-school geo of the Mayor V4. Not sure what's up with the need to tell people they don't have any idea what they are talking about when all they are doing is expressing what type of bike they would like to get and looking for insight. I am open minded and want to hear other peoples opinion and clearly expressed that by saying things like...

    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    What riding attributes are you referring to when you say “rides like total shit at low speed in the snow”?
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    I would genuinely like to hear it.
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    I would love to hear your opinion.
    but was meet by some with nothing but a closed-minded-I know better than you attitude for some reason with zero input as to why. I had about enough of that bringing negativity to what is otherwise a great positive thread on a bike with great geometry.


    Now, onto something positive... just 3 more days until my Mayer V4 shows up! Getting pretty excited and can't wait to get her out on some of my favorite local trails. Getting pretty pumped up!
    Last edited by singletrackmack; 05-03-2020 at 05:55 PM. Reason: Spelling
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post

    https://youtu.be/tyzenHyv8sU?t=1234


    ...long chainstays are not only better for tech climbing, but also have other advantages when it comes to keeping the bike balanced. Versus how "when a bike has a long front center and really short rear end, the turning axis of the bike is in front of the rider, which makes those bikes feel ponderous. The force feedback they give you is that something is moving around in front of you. That kinda 'wheelbarrow' feeling."
    .
    Great video! Thank you for posting this. As a smaller rider, the idea of the shortest chain stays seems like it makes sense, but on the trail on these mega long front-end bikes, it does feel a little off especially if i am riding a friends medium. Never really could describe the feeling very well, but “wheelbarrow” is perfect. Looking at possibly a new fat or plus bike and will look to keep the chain stays in check and not go too short to keep things balanced.

    I also liked what he had to say about the turning axis of the bike and wanting to keep that more centered. I have to test ride some more bikes, bike so far liked the balance of the blizzard, but not the weight. Not sure if I can test ride the mayor anywhere near me, but will check it out.

    As for the Motobecene Sturgis versus the Mayor I think the main thing would be to have a slacker front end maybe 68 or 67 would improve things for the Sturgis. I have looked at some bikes direct stuff, but they always seem to be somewhat behind on current geometry trends
    keepoaklandfresh

    I'm gonna put on an iron shirt and ride my bike all over this eart'

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    746
    If people say short or long chainstay is better, it would help to say how many mm they are talking about. Many of the videos and other sources talk about regular MTB,many probably 27.5". So they may consider a 430mm to be long. but for a fatbike with large tire clearance, you will have inherently longer stays. Fatbikes also typically are slower. So there are other priorities.

    That is a general fatbike problem. 99% of all MTB "teaching" and "theorizing" is based on regular MTB, and often FS bikes. for fatbikes that often are rigid and used differently, much does not apply that much (or at least is not as important).

    The Sturgis has 460mm, the Mayor has 450-465 mm. I rode the Mayor with both short and long setting and didn't really notice much of a difference. the compromise from stable to faster turning will be shifted a bit. But during one ride, one probably needs both longer and shorter chainstay. if for some reason RSD would have not had adjustable dropouts and would have settled on 455 or so, i would be totally fine with that.

    I ended up with using it on the short side. just thinking having some better traction in snow with the wheel closer to my butt may help.

    The slacker HA, is on the other hand, is better in all conditions.
    Mayor v4
    Giant Toughroad

  51. #51
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    Quote Originally Posted by shortbutfunky View Post

    I have to test ride some more bikes, bike so far liked the balance of the blizzard, but not the weight. Not sure if I can test ride the mayor anywhere near me, but will check it out.
    I recommend you email Alex and see if he can work with a shop close to you for a test ride. Sometimes, this can be done with the shop renting the bike to ya for a week. Following the rental period, should you buy it, the rental fee goes toward the purchase at many shops. Not a guarantee however, can also be a blessing to avoid buyer's remorse.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tahoebeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by shortbutfunky View Post
    on the trail on these mega long front-end bikes, it does feel a little off especially if i am riding a friends medium. Never really could describe the feeling very well, but “wheelbarrow” is perfect.



    I like “shopping cart” (shopping trolly from in the vid) or “barge” to describe the super short-chain stay, long front-end bike handling.




    Quote Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun View Post
    If people say short or long chainstay is better, it would help to say how many mm they are talking about. Many of the videos and other sources talk about regular MTB,many probably 27.5". So they may consider a 430mm to be long. but for a fatbike with large tire clearance, you will have inherently longer stays. Fat bikes also typically are slower. So there are other priorities.

    That is a general fatbike problem. 99% of all MTB "teaching" and "theorizing" is based on regular MTB, and often FS bikes. for fatbikes that often are rigid and used differently, much does not apply that much (or at least is not as important). .
    In this video he says 29er plus with 448mm chain stays. While fat bikes are typically slower, many like to roll 29+ in the summer, so while geometry may not be as important just farting around with 4.8” tires on groomed xc trails or snowmachine tracks, if you go 29+ plus for summer/fall riding, especially with a sus fork, then the geometry plays a much bigger roll. Given it is a fat bike probably a good idea to back off some of the extremes like super slack ha of 65 or less or super long reach. 67-66 HA for fat snow riding and 29+ for trail with a sus fork is much more trial friendly and will still work fine on the snow than say the 70.5* on the sturgis which is more limited really only working in the snow and mellow trails and limited for trail riding especially when it gets rowdy or steep.

  53. #53
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    I run my Mayor V3 and V4 both, year round on flow trails, backcountry deer trails and other places with zero drama. Basically, they are Jeeps and not Porsche's. Some of the places are 4.0 required although, I run exclusively 4.8's because there is room for 5.05's. I get to choose between 3 plussers and two fatbikes for any given ride and it is the cat's meow.

    As for turning a Mayor into a plusser, I am in the 29+ camp for that application but have not pulled the trigger on lacing up another set of wheels. As a 29+, either it will be 3.0 or 3.25 with no consideration of 2.8 or less.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    437
    What the narrowest q-factor you can get on the Mayor? I got 204mm Q on my sturgis.
    Bucksaw, Farley, and a Sturgis....

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by bcriverjunky View Post
    What the narrowest q-factor you can get on the Mayor? I got 204mm Q on my sturgis.
    I don't know how many mm my crank is. But the RF crank I transferred from the Sturgis barely fits. Alex said the SRAM cranks don't fit. the complete Mayors come with RF crank. Assuming your Sturgis also came with RF, it should be fine.

    The rear triangle is wide. I had to take the cadence sensor of my crank for it to fit.
    Mayor v4
    Giant Toughroad

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun View Post
    I don't know how many mm my crank is. But the RF crank I transferred from the Sturgis barely fits. Alex said the SRAM cranks don't fit. the complete Mayors come with RF crank. Assuming your Sturgis also came with RF, it should be fine.

    The rear triangle is wide. I had to take the cadence sensor of my crank for it to fit.
    I built my Sturgis from the frame up. I have Hollowgrams with a 166mm spindle, I think the factory RF have a 213 Q.how much better geometry is the RSD Mayor v4 compared to my Motobecane Sturgis NX-imgp6852-edit-edit.jpg
    Bucksaw, Farley, and a Sturgis....

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    40
    Nice sizing chart by RSD. Digging their style. I’m barely a storm trooper.

    how much better geometry is the RSD Mayor v4 compared to my Motobecane Sturgis NX-27913d15-43d2-42c6-a86b-2860fab1fc7c.jpg



    May the 4th be with you.
    keepoaklandfresh

    I'm gonna put on an iron shirt and ride my bike all over this eart'

  58. #58
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,155
    ^ That’s awesome. I’m with the Wookies
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  59. #59
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    May the Schwartz be with ya!!

    Alex does have a sense O' humor.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  60. #60
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun View Post
    I know there is more to geometry than one angle. But head tube on the Kona is 68.5... vs the 67° of the Mayor.
    It’s actually a lot more than that..

    Was bored at lunch and checking out the Kona some more today (shop across the street from a place I work) and was wondering why the HA felt so steep. It turns out the Wazo is more like 70* when riding with a 120mm travel fork and 71* with a 100mm fork. The sturgis and the Kona have pretty much the same HA with sag with a 100mm travel fork so very similar geo between those two there. Obviously, much different reach and RC between them though.

    Unlike Kona and Motobecane, RSD accounts for sag, so with a 100mm travel fork, the Mayor rides at 67*. This matters a lot as there is really a 4* head angle difference between the Wazo/Sturgis and Mayor.
    The Wazo and sturgis (with 100mm fork) head angle will steepen all the way over 74* .
    While the Mayor will steepen to only just over 70*.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    It turns out the Wazo is more like 70* when riding with a 120mm travel fork and 71* with a 100mm fork. The sturgis and the Kona have pretty much the same HA...

    ...the Mayor rides at 67*. This matters a lot as there is really a 4* head angle difference between the Wazo/Sturgis and Mayor.
    The Wazo and sturgis (with 100mm fork) head angle will steepen all the way over 74* .
    While the Mayor will steepen to only just over 70*.
    Huh, crazy the Wazo is running the same HA as bikes-Duh-rect. With a 70* to 71* ha at ride height, the Wazo is pretty much out of the question for me now. I can’t go back to that type of sketchy geometry after riding modern geometry.

    Quote Originally Posted by BansheeRune View Post
    I recommend you email Alex and see if he can work with a shop close to you for a test ride...
    Thanks! I will look into this. I would love to try the pole tioga as well, but may be a bit harder to do. Going to check out the blizzard again hopefully this weekend. Crazy how hard it is to find fat bikes with decent geometry. You’d think there would be more viable options in 2020.
    keepoaklandfresh

    I'm gonna put on an iron shirt and ride my bike all over this eart'

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    It’s actually a lot more than that..

    Was bored at lunch and checking out the Kona some more today (shop across the street from a place I work) and was wondering why the HA felt so steep. It turns out the Wazo is more like 70* when riding with a 120mm travel fork and 71* with a 100mm fork. The sturgis and the Kona have pretty much the same HA with sag with a 100mm travel fork so very similar geo between those two there. Obviously, much different reach and RC between them though.

    Unlike Kona and Motobecane, RSD accounts for sag, so with a 100mm travel fork, the Mayor rides at 67*. This matters a lot as there is really a 4* head angle difference between the Wazo/Sturgis and Mayor.
    The Wazo and sturgis (with 100mm fork) head angle will steepen all the way over 74* .
    While the Mayor will steepen to only just over 70*.
    i have the rigid CF fork and assume that has 67°. Their Mastadon fork is the EXT (extended) (100mm travel) that is sized for 27.5x4.5 wheels. that fork is a bit longer than the more common regular Mastadon that is only for 26" wheels. So i assume with that EXT Mastadon it may even be slacker.

    I looked into adding the Mastadon EXT to my Sturgis first, but was afraid the longer length makes the standover an even larger problem. I don't recall exact numbers, but even with 25% sag it would have lifted the front by almost an inch. BTM, the Sturgis rigid fork is 10mm shorter than the Mayor CF fork. To not slacken seat angle too much and to not get in conflict with standover, i would have had to decrease the Mastodon travel to 80mm.
    Mayor v4
    Giant Toughroad

  63. #63
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun View Post
    i have the rigid CF fork and assume that has 67°. Their Mastadon fork is the EXT (extended) (100mm travel) that is sized for 27.5x4.5 wheels. that fork is a bit longer than the more common regular Mastadon that is only for 26" wheels. So i assume with that EXT Mastadon it may even be slacker.

    I looked into adding the Mastadon EXT to my Sturgis first, but was afraid the longer length makes the standover an even larger problem. I don't recall exact numbers, but even with 25% sag it would have lifted the front by almost an inch. BTM, the Sturgis rigid fork is 10mm shorter than the Mayor CF fork. To not slacken seat angle too much and to not get in conflict with standover, i would have had to decrease the Mastodon travel to 80mm.
    Thank you for the info. Good to know about the difference in the EXT version. I asked RSD if the head angle would change a lot going from the stock 490mm length rigid fork to the Mastodon and they replied with:

    “...average sag is 25%. 100mm x 25% = 25mm. Mastodon STD 510mm -25 = 485mm. Mastodon EXT 530mm - 25 = 505mm. The answer is no if you use the Standard (STD) version and very slightly (half degree) if you use the Extended (EXT) version. BUT....that will change base on the amount of sag you choose or the tire choice. Best, Alex”
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tahoebeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun View Post
    i have the rigid CF fork and assume that has 67°. Their Mastadon fork is the EXT (extended) (100mm travel) that is sized for 27.5x4.5 wheels. that fork is a bit longer than the more common regular Mastadon that is only for 26" wheels. So i assume with that EXT Mastadon it may even be slacker.
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Thank you for the info. Good to know about the difference in the EXT version.

    “...average sag is 25%. 100mm x 25% = 25mm.
    Mastodon STD 510mm -25 = 485mm.
    Mastodon EXT 530mm - 25 = 505mm.
    I didn’t realize the ext was to clear 27.5x4.5? I thought it was needed to clear 26x5.05. I was thinking this because I see other 27.5” fat bikes like the Kona Wazo come with STD version

    Do you know if the mastodon STD can clear 5.05?

  65. #65
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,855
    Quote Originally Posted by tahoebeau View Post
    I didn’t realize the ext was to clear 27.5x4.5? I thought it was needed to clear 26x5.05. I was thinking this because I see other 27.5” fat bikes like the Kona Wazo come with STD version

    Do you know if the mastodon STD can clear 5.05?
    On the 5.reallyfat, Cannot say however, the choice by Kona was likely based on cost and to keep the price down on the Bozo, um Wozo.
    My buddy has a Wozo he named Bozo. We do name our bikes, don'tcha know!
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  66. #66
    Your bike sucks
    Reputation: Carl Mega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,917
    Don't run a 5+ front with a STD Mastodon. I have a STD and I can run a 4.6 (26) without fear - it's not tire clearance - it's on the compression you need to worry about.

    Also - you guys are nuts bantering on the "Wozo 70 HTA". It's publish 68.5 static @ 100mm and I can tell you from direct experience and ownership that mine is at around ~67 actual w/ a ~120 fork. Measured. I ride two other bikes with 64 degrees and as progressive and progressive gets geometry and the Wozo is right there with them. That one metric is not absolute defining - sort of like how the Mayor has fire truck chain stays - there's more to it than that. Ride what you like. Carry on.
    Working to stomp out redundancy, I repeat, working to stomp out redundancy.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tahoebeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Mega View Post
    Don't run a 5+ front with a STD Mastodon. I have a STD and I can run a 4.6 (26) without fear - it's not tire clearance - it's on the compression you need to worry about.

    Also - you guys are nuts bantering on the "Wozo 70 HTA". It's publish 68.5 static @ 100mm and I can tell you from direct experience and ownership that mine is at around ~67 actual w/ a ~120 fork. Measured. I ride two other bikes with 64 degrees and as progressive and progressive gets geometry and the Wozo is right there with them. That one metric is not absolute defining - sort of like how the Mayor has fire truck chain stays - there's more to it than that. Ride what you like. Carry on.
    Thanks for the info on the mastodon. I assume a 4.8” would be about the max then on the std if the 4.6 fits fine.


    For the HA of the wozo, of course ride what you like. Why wouldn’t you? but not sure what that has to do with discussing the geo of different bikes. Regardless, if the wozo is 68.5* static with a 100mm fork then that means the actual HA is around 70ish when riding, that’s the number we care about. The mayor’s ha is about 67* with a 100mm fork when riding and 66* with a 120mm. I wouldn’t consider an actual ha of 70* as progressive in any way.

    However, the wozo is actually 68.5* with a 531mm a2c. Kona is very accurate and specific with their geo measurements. (For example the woo, same frame, has a rigid fork with a different a2c and all other geo measurements this effects Kona accounts for and the woo shows a 69* ha with the 515 a2c rigid fork).
    No offense, but I’ll trust the measurements Kona has published and that are given by my LBS over some person I don’t know on the internet.

    Now, a 100mm fork runs 511 a2c putting the static ha for the Kona at 69.5ish and an actual riding HA of 71ish or 70ish for the 120mm fork.

    I rented/demoed a large wozo over the winter and it is a more nimble bike than most other fat bikes I have been on, especially with the 27.5” wheels and 4” tire compared to say some 26x4.8s. However, it is a fat bike, so not really nimble in general and has some seriously steep angles with that +70* ha and +75* sa when riding. That plus the short chainstays gave it the shopping cart/barge handling effect with the steering axis out of balance way out in front.

    I agree that there is a lot more to how a bike rides than one geo measurement, and having longer chainstays and a slacker ha would bring more stability and better handling with proper balance front to rear. Now, adding multiple geo elements together: with the chain stays that short putting the steering axis way in front of you, along with the long tt and steep angles, the wozo felt like riding a swing-gate; ya know, with the rear tire right under your butt, super long top tube and front tire straight down under the bars with that 71* actual head angle.

    Contrast that with a bike that has a nice slack and stable HA, a roomy front end and a rear end long enough for more balanced handling with a centered steering axis.

  68. #68
    Your bike sucks
    Reputation: Carl Mega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,917
    ^I'll just say horses for courses. And riders. I love the short stays and the nimble and maneuvering feeling it brings to the ride. Preference and style - hence they are desirable target for me. The longish front-center - yeah that's up my alley too. Adding more personal preference, 450mm+ stays are a deal breaker for me on most bikes. Also, I'm ultra active on the bike with very aggressive ride posture and body english and positioning - I feel short stays rewards this type of rider.

    I rode the Kona on all terrain for about 2 years - in legit conditions. Drops, jumps, wheelies/manuals, chunk. It's not my 'enduro' bikes but surprisingly good and quite a shocker to the hacks getting dropped.

    I wasn't even going to post in this thread as it deviated too far for most rational people. However, I have pet peeve about false info with an internet long shelf life - esp. when I have personal experience/ownership of one of the bikes. Internet wizards fixating on one metric without ummm experience or a pedigree are a dime a dozen in these parts. And, even worse, extolling 'modern' and 'progressive' attributes of one bike (which is a mix at best) and down playing another brand's take (also a mix) is just trying to shape a narrative vs. getting to useful information.

    In short:

    Mayor has a tiny, tiny reach and not really modern at all - example: XL is like 460mm and I ride 500mm. Even the large Wozo has like 475mm.

    Mayor also has a very slack 74/73.5 STA. Wozo is like 74.5 and my more modern bikes have 77 degrees. Again, not a progressive measurement these days.

    I do like the Mayor's low-stack height tho. That's nice.

    As far as HTA, as that feels like the local fixation here, I'll post a picture with a angle meter on my bike later today. Been in this business 35 years and there are posted numbers and comparisons but nothing beats bike in hand measurements. For the record, I think Kona could have pushed this further and I'd like to see how slack we can go before the big fat front wheel feels wonky. I think RSD is on track here - I've gone as far as 63 degrees on my bikes before I want to dial it back so my overall preference is for slack - but again, sum of the parts.

    So - if someone was being objective - both these bikes have progressive and non-progressive geo aspects. You get to pick: short front, long rear & low = mayor with extra bonus of getting slacker HTA but suffering a slack STA. Long front center, short rear, medium stack = Kona but you are getting a steeper HTA and STA.

    Something that is actually progressive-ish would have Mayor's low stack & HTA (or slacker), Kona's FC+/reach+, probably 'tween CS and steeper STA. And with that I basically have described 3 of my bikes - not fatties tho so there's room for a mfgr in this space.

    Finally - I mistyped - my FBF 26 4.8 fits in a STD mastodon. But you should check the fork with a big tire prior to using - release all air, compress fully - how close are your tires from contact? The EXT is nothing special - it's just some extra A2C that is not part of the travel. Push comes to shove, you can even arrange the spacers in the STD to ensure you limit bottom out (but at the expense of overall travel).

    Edit: just did angle measurement on the Wozo - can't snap a picture because I was using the phone LOL. Long story short - in my current travel of around 130mm it's in the 66 range. In the 120 it's in the 67 range and if you compress to factor in sag you approach 68. If it really mattered, I could get the precision & margin of error to a better mark but the point is made. I even compared against 2 other know bikes for a control. 3.8 27.5 tires.
    Working to stomp out redundancy, I repeat, working to stomp out redundancy.

  69. #69
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    7,787
    ^ great input! Good to see some actual experience and FACTS. Agreed on all points.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    69
    Carl Mega, thanks for the post. I'd hate to take the thread into the weeds, but my frame of reference is a 2016 RM -30 Blizzard. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how it compares.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tahoebeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    386
    ...

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Mega View Post
    ^I'll just say horses for courses. And riders. I love the short stays and the nimble and maneuvering feeling it brings to the ride. Preference and style - hence they are desirable target for me...

    In short:

    Mayor has a tiny, tiny reach and not really modern at all - example: XL is like 460mm and I ride 500mm. Even the large Wozo has like 475mm.

    Mayor also has a very slack 74/73.5 STA. Wozo is like 74.5 and my more modern bikes have 77 degrees. Again, not a progressive measurement these days.

    I do like the Mayor's low-stack height tho. That's nice.

    As far as HTA, as that feels like the local fixation here, I'll post a picture with a angle meter on my bike later today. Been in this business 35 years and there are posted numbers and comparisons but nothing beats bike in hand measurements. For the record, I think Kona could have pushed this further and I'd like to see how slack we can go before the big fat front wheel feels wonky. I think RSD is on track here - I've gone as far as 63 degrees on my bikes before I want to dial it back so my overall preference is for slack - but again, sum of the parts.

    So - if someone was being objective - both these bikes have progressive and non-progressive geo aspects. You get to pick: short front, long rear & low = mayor with extra bonus of getting slacker HTA but suffering a slack STA. Long front center, short rear, medium stack = Kona but you are getting a steeper HTA and STA.

    Something that is actually progressive-ish would have Mayor's low stack & HTA (or slacker), Kona's FC+/reach+, probably 'tween CS and steeper STA. And with that I basically have described 3 of my bikes - not fatties tho so there's room for a mfgr in this space.
    Edit: just did angle measurement on the Wozo - can't snap a picture because I was using the phone LOL. Long story short - in my current travel of around 130mm it's in the 66 range. In the 120 it's in the 67 range and if you compress to factor in sag you approach 68. If it really mattered, I could get the precision & margin of error to a better mark but the point is made. I even compared against 2 other know bikes for a control. 3.8 27.5 tires.
    Great info! I really would like to get a fat bike, but most all have straight xc oriented geometry. I am learning more about this new progressive geometry and would like something more in that direction, but not necessarily a fat bike with geo meant for a 150mm full sus enduro rig.

    Was curious about a couple things with the progressive geo and how that related to hardtail fat bikes. For example, my understanding of why progressive geo bikes have a steep SA is to counter the negative effects of long travel rear sus when climbing and to help keep the rider in a more upright position when the rear sus is compressing and fork is extending which effectively slackens the sa. But hardtails don’t have this issue and the SA actually steepens a degree or two when riding. So what would be the advantage of a steep SA on a hardtail/fat bike like the Wozo?

    For the reach, I thought the long reach of progressive geo bikes was to help keep the super slack, 64 degree and below HAs in check with a more easily weighted front end. 500mm reach seems great for one of these enduro bikes with a crazy slack HA, but what would be the reason for a super long reach on a fat bike if none of them have anything close to the slack HAs of these progressive geo enduro rigs?

    As for the HA angle of the Wozo, I think you guys are arguing the same thing in different ways. If your saying the Wozo’s HA with a 120mm fork is in the mid 67 degree range, then with 30% sag it would ride at +69 degrees. (120 x .30 = 36). That is if I am correct in saying that 20mm of fork travel equates to 1 degree in HA angle. If that is right, then a 100mm fork on the Wozo should ride at +70 degree. That would jive perfect with the geo charts Kona has and seems to fall inline with what you and everyone else is saying about the HA on the Wozo. (I have been out on a Wozo a few times now (100mm) and to me it feels like it rides about 70 degrees so that makes sense).

    The chain stay seem to be personal preference and I used to be all about the short chainstays. But after 15 years of that and seeing the video posted above with someone who I for sure trust knows what they are talking about, I am starting to lean in the direction of a longer rear to help balance out handling and get the turning axis more centered. I have been testing out a lot of bikes recently and ever since I heard those comments about turning axis being way in front or centered, I can’t stop noticing it.
    keepoaklandfresh

    I'm gonna put on an iron shirt and ride my bike all over this eart'

  73. #73
    Your bike sucks
    Reputation: Carl Mega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,917
    Quote Originally Posted by shortbutfunky View Post
    I am learning more about this new progressive geometry and would like something more in that direction, but not necessarily a fat bike with geo meant for a 150mm full sus enduro rig.
    Howdy. Just happen to recheck this thread because I was pretty sure I saw the same strong opinions being pitched by the same loud people in an other thread... and saw your comment.

    The long and short of it is this - you should test ride bikes on the terrain you intend to use them and in the manner of what your technique allows. The rest of the hand-wringing is mostly wasted energy. You will be the best arbitrator of what works for you.

    People seek to find patterns and attribute observations to what they find in common - that's ok but the value of that conclusion is going to vary by the expertise of the person making the judgment and not all are equal. Even worse, some will attempt to extrapolate to scenarios and context beyond their experience and package it with absolute-isms like "bad" "garbage" "best"...etc. Avoid doing that but better yet - place those opinions exactly where they belong. I digress.

    A few things from your reply:

    I don't think it's best to view progressive geometry as a reaction or a fix to long travel FS design. Progressive hardtails largely benefit from similar geometry choices when used the same terrain and context. Will that apply to you? It depends. Oh -longer front centers / reach have many drivers and impacts than just HTA. For the record, I don't select my reach number based strictly on HTA - if anything, I need to be considerate of the overall impact as long FC + slack HTA + fork travel = long WB + front wheel being placed further from your control center.

    You are correct that HT HTA will steepen when sag is introduced. Similarly, so will STA. While many people have found that steeper STA have resulted in a more cooperative seated climbing position, the impact of that in isolation is going to vary on the individual. However, you are correct that slackening STA on a FS is a consideration there and IMHO a stronger driver to selecting on the steeper-end if it suits you. I, personally, have a very large tolerance for a range of STAs.

    Sounds like you've been riding some bikes and forming your preference. That's great. This sort of use for Fat bikes is all over the place (eg: there is not a density of common use) and there are not many options so concessions are to be expected. It's an odd bird because by the nature of it - you are not choosing the most performant AM platform - but maybe one that will work great for you. Best of luck.
    Working to stomp out redundancy, I repeat, working to stomp out redundancy.

Similar Threads

  1. RSD Bikes "The Mayor"
    By RSD Bikes in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 1829
    Last Post: 3 Weeks Ago, 06:56 PM
  2. Motobecane Sturgis NX Review
    By HerrKaLeun in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 01-19-2019, 03:14 PM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-29-2017, 06:57 PM
  4. Framed Alaskan Alloy vs RSD Mayor vs Mukluk 3
    By aarontriton in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-08-2014, 03:08 PM
  5. RSD Fat Bike "The Mayor"?
    By bikeshane in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-05-2014, 05:53 PM

Members who have read this thread: 150

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 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.