Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910
Results 901 to 948 of 948
  1. #901
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    32,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Update... I have put my $ into a forward geometry bike because it makes sense in my mind, and I have been hankering after a hardtail for some time. Enter the Pipedream Moxie, http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/pi...e-1068714.html

    I finally feel that at 5'9" I have found the bike that I don't want to make longer. 470mm reach feels spot on. With my current 29er setup I have 1215mm of wheelbase. It certainly sounds extreme, but feels perfectly normal most of the time. That is until you hit the corners. This is going to sound like BS, but it's the best cornering bike I have ever been on period. It is a 6lb frame, but compliant and a great all rounder. It seems a lot of makers are slowly headed this way and I like it. I don't see all companies going full on forward geometry because tastes, vary and choice is always good.
    Major stretched out. Looks like a chopper.

    New VS Old Geometry-dd4916a4-d411-46f7-8847-7502e32c8099.jpeg
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  2. #902
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Sid Duffman View Post
    That Pipedream Moxie looks pretty sweet! Pics?

    What fork are you running? Have you played around with adjusting the chainstay length?
    The fork is 150mm which is 10mm more than the geometry chart uses. I found the shortest chain stay length spun on wet root climbs and have been liking 425-431mm more so far. It does look really long like a chopper, but doesn't feel like it???
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails New VS Old Geometry-20180214_111042.jpg  

    New VS Old Geometry-20180208_121306-1.jpg  

    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  3. #903
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,087
    How many hairpin corners have you got stuck on so far??


    Will the Moxie look "normal" in five years time?

  4. #904
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    32,540
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    How many hairpin corners have you got stuck on so far??


    Will the Moxie look "normal" in five years time?
    A switchback nightmare I would assume. Just donít ever ride San Juan Trail in SoCal. with that geometry. It has 32 switchbacks in a 12 mile climb up. Coming down the switchbacks are a bit easier, I laugh. On that geometry I suspect not possible both ways by even the best of the best of riders.

    New VS Old Geometry-a7e9628d-0874-4926-b817-c54372297433.jpg
    New VS Old Geometry-22ffb802-c3d5-421d-8786-248940c6bfe1.jpg
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  5. #905
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,057
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    How many hairpin corners have you got stuck on so far??


    Will the Moxie look "normal" in five years time?
    Surprisingly none, and I purposely went to specific trails to try.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  6. #906
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ladljon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    309
    I ride old school geometry, however I have ridden new school, and do believe that the new geometry does make trail riding easier, takes a lot less skill. One thing I don't like, is the wider bars....make my wrist hurt.

  7. #907
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,087
    Pfft, only 32 DJ? Last year in I rode the Wakamarina track (in Nelson NZ) which has over 75 in ~3.3km on the last big descent.
    https://www.strava.com/segments/3947198

    (to be fair they're not all super-tight 180* bends, but there are plenty of tight turns still)

    My moderately-long Endorphin ate it up and I would love to try it on something even longer. I'm not surprised TB has had little trouble negotiating tight turns on the Moxie, yeah it might not be quite as easy as on a shorter bike but IMO unless you ride trails that look like a bowl of spaghetti the advantages elsewhere are most likely going to out-weigh the downsides on those really tight slow turns. Only when the wheelbase exceeds the physical limits of the switchback do you start running into trouble, and obviously a longer bike will experience that sooner than a shorter one. I'm not sure how much of a difference an extra 50-100mm of wheelbase makes in terms of radius though, certainly not a deal-breaker for me anyway.

  8. #908
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    32,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Surprisingly none, and I purposely went to specific trails to try.
    What trails and how tight were the switchbacks?
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  9. #909
    Upcyclist
    Reputation: Cornfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,018
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    Pfft, only 32 DJ? Last year in I rode the Wakamarina track (in Nelson NZ) which has over 75 in ~3.3km on the last big descent.
    https://www.strava.com/segments/3947198
    How come I don't see your name on the leaderboard? You gotta be faster than #12 Oliver Klozoff.

    I'm cannibalizing my other bike and making this one my main bike because it fits so good. I couldn't imagine having a longer front, that's one of the reasons why I'm switching, I'm too stretched out on the other bike. Is this considered new or old geometry?

    New VS Old Geometry-dsc00503-edit2.jpg
    Cool heads prevail

  10. #910
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornfield View Post
    How come I don't see your name on the leaderboard? You gotta be faster than #12 Oliver Klozoff.
    HA! That's the only time I've ever had to stop for a breather half way DOWN a hill!! So much arm pump and cramp in my hands from squeezing the brakes. To get to that point there's a good climb, a good descent, and a ~50 minute hike-a-bike. And it was near the end of a week-long riding vacation too (excuses, excuses I know! ).

    RE the stretched out thing, are you talking about seated or standing? If the former, then the STA is the issue.

  11. #911
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,854

    New VS Old Geometry

    Quote Originally Posted by DIRTJUNKIE View Post
    Major stretched out. Looks like a chopper.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DD4916A4-D411-46F7-8847-7502E32C8099.jpeg 
Views:	123 
Size:	101.8 KB 
ID:	1183498
    https://youtu.be/xMPL8rKLXf8

    I question the wisdom of a long travel hardtail.
    Last edited by MikeDee; 02-19-2018 at 08:01 AM.

  12. #912
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Looks like new geo from here...

    New VS Old Geometry-dit2.jpg

  13. #913
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,087
    "Long and slack" starting to sneak its way into XC.

    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/first-...e-xc-2018.html


  14. #914
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,071
    Funny - the original Spider 29er had a 73* HTA and, IIRC, Jeff Steber personally preferred the prototype with 74.
    2017 Diamondback Haanjo
    2016 Pivot 429T
    2011 Kona Unit

  15. #915
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,057
    An interesting development. I still see a very long seat tube on the large which would prevent me from fitting on the Sniper. Nothing a hacksaw wouldn't fix though
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  16. #916
    Upcyclist
    Reputation: Cornfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    Looks like new geo from here...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dit2.jpg 
Views:	94 
Size:	107.4 KB 
ID:	1183690
    With Biopace wheels!
    Cool heads prevail

  17. #917
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,057
    The industry is moving toward steeper seat tube angles AND shorter seat tubes and while I know not everyone gels with this, but I am pretty stoked. I have been riding my Pipedream Moxie it's 76į seat tube angle and have noticed that I'm in a slightly bigger gear than before on the same climbs. I put this down to HT efficiency, but the steep STA isn't robbing my power. I don't have a power meter, and am not going to get one, but it doesn't feel harder. The head angle is 65į with a 30mm stem and within it's hardtail restraints the Moxie is the best climbing bike I've ever been on. The front end has come up once on a very steep climb when I was exhausted and sitting too upright. I don't have to sit on the nose of the saddle with this bike. It does look too long, but fits normally and handles amazingly. Next up I'm interested in trying a shorter offset fork.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  18. #918
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    883
    KOPS suffers, but F KOPS with mountain biking lol. I like the new geo.

  19. #919
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,854
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    The industry is moving toward steeper seat tube angles AND shorter seat tubes and while I know not everyone gels with this, but I am pretty stoked. I have been riding my Pipedream Moxie it's 76į seat tube angle and have noticed that I'm in a slightly bigger gear than before on the same climbs. I put this down to HT efficiency, but the steep STA isn't robbing my power. I don't have a power meter, and am not going to get one, but it doesn't feel harder. The head angle is 65į with a 30mm stem and within it's hardtail restraints the Moxie is the best climbing bike I've ever been on. The front end has come up once on a very steep climb when I was exhausted and sitting too upright. I don't have to sit on the nose of the saddle with this bike. It does look too long, but fits normally and handles amazingly. Next up I'm interested in trying a shorter offset fork.
    How do you keep the front wheel from flopping all over the place?

  20. #920
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,152
    You'll get used to controlling that. 1st it's like I'm leaning forward way over the bars, then we adapt to it. After a while I don't feel like I have to get forward (crouched or seated) much at all.
    oops I wasn't clipped in

  21. #921
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,057
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDee View Post
    How do you keep the front wheel from flopping all over the place?
    I don't notice flopping, but I've been riding slackish bikes for quite a while.

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

  22. #922
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    I don't notice flopping, but I've been riding slackish bikes for quite a while.

    Sent from my SM-G935S using Tapatalk
    People make way too big a deal out of that.

    It's something you feel initially, then you just ride the bike. (Based on a short low speed ride on a 65į HTA Pivot Firebird)


    The new Trek Full Stache has a 494mm reach for the 19.5 frame size. Big manufacturers are jumping on the new school bus!

  23. #923
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDee View Post
    How do you keep the front wheel from flopping all over the place?
    Hold the handlebars and keep pedalling.


    Travis have you spent much time aboard the Endo since buying the Moxie? How does it feel going back to a shorter bike?

  24. #924
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,057
    Just had the bearings replaced and have not had it out since. I'll take it out for a spin but my feeling is it's too short.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  25. #925
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,087
    Funny how quickly perspective change, "long and slack" very quickly becomes "normal" or even "short". My Warden felt like a limo compared to my old Turner, and never once have I wished it [or the Endo] was shorter. If we had a bigger used frame market, or if international shipping wasn't such a killer I'd try pick up a cheap XL Endo.

  26. #926
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,057
    I can probably pick one up locally here in Knolly country
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  27. #927
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,087
    Going by what I see in the Pinkbike classifieds they are certainly more plentiful in your part of the world! Realistically, I'm probably better to put my cash towards something that will satisfy my curiosity of big wheels as well as longer geo. I'd be all over an XL carbon Smuggler if it weren't for the abysmal rear tyre clearance.

  28. #928
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,057
    2 1/2 years since my original post and many brands have gone longer and slacker since then. They are not copying Geometron, but with more reach and less seat tube I can find the fit I like on more bikes than ever. Seems to me it's easier to size up or down than ever before, partly thanks to the availability of droppers from 100 to 200mm.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  29. #929
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,057
    Knolly, Ibis, Yeti, and now Evil have all gone longer now. XC race bikes are slowly creeping "forward" as well

    I really wanted to post this from Handbuilt Bicycle News. Sam Whittingham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Whittingham is a frame builder not far from where I live and I recently read his thoughts on frame design.

    Naked's framebuilder notes on a prototype

    "Naked's framebuilder notes on a prototype
    This is a candid, insider view to the development of a new frame design. Sam Whittingham, designer and builder at Naked, wanted to experiment with what's extreme for a well-rounded trail bike. This is his first prototype in that line.


    Photos courtesy Naked Bicycles and Design

    Sam Whittingham: "When we started building hardtails again 12 years ago, designing specifically for technical west coast BC riding, we were really progressive. Already we were doing super-long top tubes, long fronts, short stays. As trends have gone longer, lower, slacker weíve kept on our path because we felt ahead of the curve. But in recent years it's accelerated to oblivion. We felt a need to do more r&d, so this one takes everything we think is good and then takes it a step further. Most of the numbers are more than I think would be a good idea, but I'll know more after riding it more. Funnily enough a lot of companies in the area, like ChroMag, said it looks normal. It's definitely progressive compared to traditional geometry. Maybe not as progressive as Peter Verdone or Pole Bikes, or Mondraker have done, but it's pushing the limits for us and what we think. I wanted to see whatís extreme for a well-rounded trail bike, not a downhill bike.

    Below are Sam's written notes about the bike BEFORE riding it. His notes AFTER riding it are lower down in the page.

    Purpose and inspiration
    This one is all about pushing the limits. I have been racing and riding all types of Mountain Bikes since the mid eighties and watched geometry evolve from cruiser klunkers, to steep glorified road bikes, to massive huck-to-fail tanks, to the pick-a-wheel-size-and-be-a-dick-about-it battle raging over the last 10 years, to the current march towards "longer, lower, slacker". Over the last few years we have been evolving our classic naked hardtail as well. Every bike we build gets little closer to the forward geometry preached by such advocates as Pole, Mondraker, and Peter Verdone. We have always embraced big wheels, big tires, short stays and long front centre, but we have been conservative in pushing the boundaries. This Mountain bike is built for testing some of those limits, to answer the question: Have we gone too far?
    At the time of writing Sam hadn't ridden the bike, but it looks like it should work


    Favorite features
    There are a few feature we have refined in our hardtails over the years. The swooped curve TT that flows into the seat-stays not only gives a classic look, but also allows strong bracing of the rear triangle and and natural internal tunnel for brake and shifter lines. In order to run Chainstays as short as 415mm with these massive wheels we choose to use what we affectionately refer to as "Roost" spacing. No, this isn't yet another choice (please don't call it a standard!), the component parts are already there. We use a 177x12mm fatbike rear end with an 83mm DH BB (downhill bottom bracket) width with the single ring flipped to the outside. This gives a perfect chainline, the strongest possible rear wheel bracing, wide bb bearing spacing and shortest possible stays. This isn't for everybody of course. Some riders might place more priority or need on narrower q-factor, more heel clearance or simply not want or need stays that short or tires that big. Cuz custom.
    There's really a lot going on here. You just have to read the paragraph above...


    Material and component choices
    That was easy on this bike. Steel for the frame as it allows for a quick build and if we hate this monster, the investment wasn't huge. Parts are all our proven favourites from Shimano, Industry Nine, 9point8, RaceFace, Maxxis Chris King and Fox.
    Naked has some regular go-to companies for components


    Design challenges or features
    The extremes are the real feature on this one. Biggest rolling diameter possible. shortest rear stays possible. Longest front-centre that still fits. Longest dropper post available. Shortest normal stem available. Lowest BB height we dare. All of these things individually or as a whole might be a step too far, but we are excited to find out.
    Some riders might choose a smaller tyre for muddy days


    Other notes
    I have always been obsessed with what makes a bike joyful to ride. It doesn't matter how nice a bike looks, if it doesn't fit or isn't fun, it won't be ridden. We are excited to start tinkering with the limits of our cross and road bikes as well.







    AFTER


    "It has definitely been a good learning experience and it forced me to confront some old assumptions. The question we were attempting to answer with this bike was "how far is too far?". After riding this beast, all I can think is: I haven't found the end yet. What follows are some initial thoughts on where we are currently in our thinking about modern mountain bike geometry designed for technical all-mountain/trail/enduro/aggressive XC style riding. We built a bike to test that pushed at the boundaries of what we thought was a good idea. We pushed a couple of things too far, but barely, and to be honest I had a feeling that would be the case.

    Bottom Bracket Height
    310mm unsagged or 295 sagged is too low for technical XC/Trail riding. It would be fine for descending only. At least now I have more data on the right range for the amount fork travel, ride terrain, crank length and pedal type.

    Rear-Centre
    410mm is about as short as you would ever want to go and only for shorter riders. The shorter the better for technical riding but you lose some suspension ability. I don't mean frame flex here, I mean the amount and speed of movement you have to absorb with your legs as the rear wheel strikes an obstacle. I think the traditional range of 410-440 is about right depending on rider height.

    Head Angle
    This is basically unimportant. This obsession with this number has got to stop. It is all about where this lets you get the front wheel placed. This number changes drastically depending on how your fork is set up. On this bike, the head angle varies from about 64.8 to 71 depending on how much travel is used. One thing that can be said is that a hardtail should have a MUCH slacker starting head angle than an equivalent duty full-squish. On a hardtail the head angle is always steepening under compression, where as a full suspension can either steepen or slacken. In most cases a fully tends towards more rear compression and so tends to slacken more during use. I can see pushing head angle out to 61 degrees (unsagged) if needed on a hardtail, but no more than 65 degrees on a fully. After that, you are starting to get too much fork binding on all but the steepest descents.

    Front-Centre is KING!
    This is the big revelation (along with steering axis below). I have always moved front-centre around as a resultant of bike fit, as I put most of my faith in handling characteristics of head angle and trail. No more! We have all been riding mountain bikes that are way to short in the front. I had always assumed that the slack head angles required to move the front wheel out would result in a chopper feel and too much wheel flop. I realize now that as long as the stem length is kept to a minimum, the whel flop virtually disappears. What is left is a very stable feeling bike that demands to pushed harder. A normal front-centre for us was in the 70cm range. Even a few years ago, it was not uncommon to be as low as 65cm. Now, I'm thinking 77-830 is the sweet spot, even in our tight twisty west coast trails. I think the biggest advantage is that you are now balanced on a much longer see-saw, so every bump is felt less and keeps you away from both tipping points a little longer (think: less likely to go over the bars). I thought tight climbs would suck, but this was also easier. The long resulting longer wheelbase obviously is far more stable through chunder. Cornering feels awkward at first. This is because positioning is identical to the bikes I have had for the last 10 years but the front wheel is 10cm further out in front so I have to get used to initiating a turn 10cm sooner. When done properly, you can really load the front wheel and carve hard without the feeling of jack-knife. This is also about steering axis.

    Steering Axis
    Needs to be as direct as possible. For most mountain bikes this means super short stems. It is not so much the short stem that is important but the resulting hand placement relative to the steering axis. A stem with a 32mm reach on a 780mm bar with normal sweep gets you pretty close to being in line with the steering axis of the front fork. being in front of the steering axis in the old days especially with shorter bars and long stems is what gave us the feeling of wheel flop and the horrible jack-knife scenarios.

    Wide bars
    I think we have already pushed this one too far. I just don't see the mechanical advantage of going past 800 for most people or even 780. I go a bit less than this, but only because my local trails are a bit too tight for super wide.

    Steep seat angles
    We haven't really pushed this yet. I can see the advantage on a forward geo bike though to get your body weight more centred between the wheels especially when climbing. I can see effective seat angles of 74-77 becoming a useful range.

    Lower bars
    The long front-centre gives you so much more stability and less chance of pitching over the bars, you no longer need to have a high hand position. I can see a real return to wide flat bars, with "riser" bar looking dated real fast. Slacker head angles helps lower the bars. It will be interesting to see what people do to keep bars low enough as the forks get longer and longer.
    Frame design and straight down tubes. I'm so excited from a structural point of view to be returning to straight downtubes. With a long front-centre and slacker head angle, I no longer need to use kinked downtubes for fork crown clearance. This is so much stronger.

    30.5" wheels
    I don't want to get into a wheel-size debate, but after years of trying everything I am hooked on getting the biggest rolling diameter that still fits into desired geometry parameters. For me this is 29x3" wheels and tires. For most this is actually the biggest thing they would notice riding this bike. For me it is the most normal part as I have been riding 29+ for 6 years now. It feels normal. I actually think a 3-3.1" rear tire and 2.6-2.8 front would be optimum volume on a hardtail. For a full suspension trail machine, 2.6-2.8" front and back would be ideal. Fatter tires don't carve as well in hard cornering and feel a bit more vague, especially if rims are not wide enough. They make up for this in chunder sections and general traction. I don't see any disadvantage to having the biggest rolling diamter you can get away with. This has a similar effect to longer wheelbase when you encounter a bump. It is less abrupt, leading to more conservation of forward momentum. larger wheels don't "turn slower", this is a myth. The turn just needs to be started sooner. Once this becomes second nature, the feeling is the same and you can actually corner harder. Again, this is about diameter, not width.

    ROOST spacing
    We use a 170/177 wide rear hub spacing and an 83mm front BB standard for our 29+ bikes including this one. this allows for rear-centres as short as 405mm and perfect chainline with a DH crank and flipped ring. The 170/177 rear hub allows for a near zero dish wheel which is as strong as you can get. The wider hub spacing does mean heel clearance issues for some riders. Also, the q-factor is a bit wider than a standard mtb but nothing close to a fat bike. I ride everything from very narrow q-factor track bikes to extreme wide fat bikes and find that from an efficiency point of view there is no measurable difference. I prefer the wider stance on a mountain bike especially while standing climbing and all descending. The old mtb standard needs to be killed with fire along with "boost" which was a half-ass attempt to solve strength and clearance issues. I like the current trend of "super boost" which simply uses the 150/157 DH rear spacing along with a traditional 73mm bb and flipped ring or unflipped on 83mm bb. This makes sense for 27+ and standard 29ers. For 29+, though, you need ROOST.

    Dropper post
    Yup, they all fail. They are all expensive. And I won't be without one ever again. From my cold dead hands. The more drop the better. In order to get a drop in the range of 175-200mm it means having more straight seat-tube. I acquired some seat tubes from Peter Verdone which solve this little dilemma quite nicely for shorter riders by putting the bend to the BB shell at the last possible moment, giving lots of post depth to work with.

    Ok, that ended up being way more than I thought I'd write."
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  30. #930
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Head Angle
    This is basically unimportant. This obsession with this number has got to stop. It is all about where this lets you get the front wheel placed. This number changes drastically depending on how your fork is set up. On this bike, the head angle varies from about 64.8 to 71 depending on how much travel is used. One thing that can be said is that a hardtail should have a MUCH slacker starting head angle than an equivalent duty full-squish. On a hardtail the head angle is always steepening under compression, where as a full suspension can either steepen or slacken.
    I like where he's going with this. however, for the purposes of a few of us who are still fiddling around with rigid forks, I want to recognize that HTA is sometimes basically static. In a way, this is great because it also means that front-center is static. if you can build a bike that handles great in a rigid format, you can add suspension and tweak a few angles to make up for the extra movement have have a superb-handling bike, right? perhaps that is how Vassago is able to make a "stable" bike with a 70-degree HTA with a short travel/rigid fork- the reach/ top tube is long, which puts the front wheel far out in front, which maintaining precise steering with a "steep" HTA.

    It might be instructive to consider how the angles and measurements of a bike change as they shift under load by planning around the full range, rather than just one point in the bike's travel - or lack thereof. just like using reach and stack instead of ETT, it would create a common denominator.

    I wonder if we could optimize a frame's fit by reach and stack measurements first, then dial in the saddle position mostly by means of STA with some wiggle room provided by seatpost and cockpit choice.

    how the bike handles would than depend on front-center and rear-center design choices. this might be behind the "magic" of Jones frames that I have yet to experience. I have not seen Jones' geometry numbers, and maybe it's because too many people will misread them.
    Last edited by mack_turtle; 4 Weeks Ago at 06:44 AM.

  31. #931
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    It might be instructive to consider how the angles and measurements of a bike change as they shift under load by planning around the full range, rather than just one point in the bike's travel - or lack thereof. just like using reach and stack instead of ETT, it would create a common denominator.
    This is why my HT has a 65.5į HTA with a 140mm fork. When it bottoms out it's 72.5į, which is steep by anyone's definition. I have bottomed it out once or twice when I have made a mistake, but usually have 10-20mm to spare at the end of a ride.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  32. #932
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,057
    "Steering Axis
    Needs to be as direct as possible. For most mountain bikes this means super short stems. It is not so much the short stem that is important but the resulting hand placement relative to the steering axis. A stem with a 32mm reach on a 780mm bar with normal sweep gets you pretty close to being in line with the steering axis of the front fork. being in front of the steering axis in the old days especially with shorter bars and long stems is what gave us the feeling of wheel flop and the horrible jack-knife scenarios."

    This is kind of where I have arrived with 30-35mm stems on my bikes. I get enough reach in the frame and then put a short stem on to give me a normal seated position. I had not heard of steering axis before. What I do know is that I like the feel and handling. I reckon that with alt bars and a longer stem hand placement could be the same. Anyone have thoughts on steering axis and hand placement?
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  33. #933
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,270
    I set my bike up with a SQ Labs 12 degree backsweep bar and a 50mm stem. the frame has a long reach and a "steep" HTA, but the front-center is pretty long considering. the bar is cut to about 740mm and my hands are definitely in line with the steering axis because the backswept bar has a strong backward affect.

    incidentally, I set my bike up this way based on Lee McCormack's fit recommendations. the point is to optimize the BB-to-hands distance. He recommends a short 35-60mm stem on most bikes and wide-ish bars based loosely on rider height. he also promotes the SQ Labs bars or something like them. he doesn't say that the short stem and wide, swept bars are to get your hands lined up with the steering axis, so that might be unintentional. so I used a 50mm stem and set it up low to get that distance dialed in.

    most people would have set my bike up with a longer, higher stem to make the seated pedaling position comfortable. I have had two bike fitters do that to me- watch me pedal a trainer and try to put a 80-100 mm stem on my bike. that sounds boring.

  34. #934
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    815
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    "Steering Axis
    Needs to be as direct as possible. For most mountain bikes this means super short stems. It is not so much the short stem that is important but the resulting hand placement relative to the steering axis. A stem with a 32mm reach on a 780mm bar with normal sweep gets you pretty close to being in line with the steering axis of the front fork. being in front of the steering axis in the old days especially with shorter bars and long stems is what gave us the feeling of wheel flop and the horrible jack-knife scenarios."

    This is kind of where I have arrived with 30-35mm stems on my bikes. I get enough reach in the frame and then put a short stem on to give me a normal seated position. I had not heard of steering axis before. What I do know is that I like the feel and handling. I reckon that with alt bars and a longer stem hand placement could be the same. Anyone have thoughts on steering axis and hand placement?
    I think most bars correct for hand placement without needing a longer stem. I like some sweep in my bars. I have run Soma Clarence bars and currently Answer 20/20. Both bars curve forward before sweeping back similar to the Jones H bar.

    The short stem does make steering input quicker by reducing the distance from the hand position to the steer, in effect reducing the length of the bar. Secondly, it keeps one more centered over the bike. A long stem tends to move some weight to the side in which you are turning. Is that good, bad or just personal preference? Not sure.

  35. #935
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,270
    indeed, most "alt bars" are designed so they change your wrist angle but don't mess with hand placement relative to the steering axis. so something like an Answer 20/20 bar should fit the same way as a normal bar with the same stem.

    I bought the SQLabs 12 degree bar (they have a 16 degree one too) specifically because I wanted to shorten the reach on my bike even more without getting a crazy-short stem. this works because that handlebar is just swept back and doesn't have a forward-wiggle.

  36. #936
    mtbr member
    Reputation: inonjoey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    606
    Thanks for posting and linking to that, Travis - really interesting read.

    For me, the 470mm+ reach with a 35mm stem and 780mm/9deg bars has been a revelation. Itís the first of the more progressive geometry bikes Iíve been on where I didnít feel cramped while seated and still got that feeling of direct but not twitchy steering. Iím also amazed at how much I can push into the front while steering and have the bike carve without feeling like Iím about to high side.

    Iím hoping to get a hardtail in the next 6 months or so, will be interesting to see how that compares; the drastic change in head angle with a longer travel fork on a hardtail is gonna be interesting.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "So you think it's the hat?... A lot of people hate this hat. It angers a lot of people, just the sight of it." - Uncle Buck

  37. #937
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,419
    There is a bike fest coming up in my area. It will be the best chance for me to demo a bunch of bikes over a couple days. I'm going to try out the long reach, steep STA bikes. If they are some kind of revelation...then I'll have a new bike soon...if not...then I'll hang onto mine a bit longer.

    The long reach number can be a bit deceiving with a steep STA. The body position with a 480 reach and a 76 deg STA can feel similar as a bike with 430 reach and a 74 deg STA.

  38. #938
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,270
    Quote Originally Posted by RS VR6 View Post
    The long reach number can be a bit deceiving with a steep STA. The body position with a 480 reach and a 76 deg STA can feel similar as a bike with 430 reach and a 74 deg STA.
    When you're sitting down, yes. It is a totally different story when you stand up, which, I think, is the point.

  39. #939
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,419
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    When you're sitting down, yes. It is a totally different story when you stand up, which should be a lot of the time.
    Most of my time will be spent pedaling and climbing. If they do make me go "damn!" then I'll be getting one.

    I'm going to bring my bike and am going to ride it last after demo'ing all the other bikes.

  40. #940
    mtbr member
    Reputation: inonjoey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    606
    Quote Originally Posted by RS VR6 View Post
    The long reach number can be a bit deceiving with a steep STA. The body position with a 480 reach and a 76 deg STA can feel similar as a bike with 430 reach and a 74 deg STA.
    This is why I wasnít enamored with the 2017 Transition Scout I rode for a few days - I felt cramped and overly upright climbing and pedaling seated. The bike was more than fine descending or pumping and popping, but I was uncomfortable anytime I was seated. I donít have this problem at all with the Fugitive.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "So you think it's the hat?... A lot of people hate this hat. It angers a lot of people, just the sight of it." - Uncle Buck

  41. #941
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,413
    I'm a huge fan of the new longer bikes, but even the XXL bike are too small. Can't wait until 520-540 reach is a thing.
    Sucks being tall sometimes.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  42. #942
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,270
    Quote Originally Posted by RS VR6 View Post
    Most of my time will be spent pedaling and climbing. If they do make me go "damn!" then I'll be getting one.
    yeah, if just planting your butt and pedaling is your thing, you're going to be let down.

  43. #943
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,057
    I'm sure I spend the large majority of my ride time with seated pedaling. However that is just a means to an end, the fun part. The fun is always standing.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  44. #944
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,270
    I am sure that most of us spend more time sitting and pedaling, so a bike has to be set up for that. since we are presumably riding mountain bike trails and not paved bridle paths, the bike needs to be capable of wrangling over technical features, so basing how you like a bike based 100% on how it feels to plop your butt down and bimble around is not advisable.

    I have had three professional fitters analyze my fit (paid for one of these fittings) and all of them based my mtb fit 100% on a static, seated pedaling position. this is only partially helpful for riding trails.

  45. #945
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,413
    Mountain bike fitting comes from road fitting. They set you up to pedal on level ground. This does not help keep the front wheel down on 20% climbs or correctly distribute your weight on a decent.
    Riding an XL and having to use a setback post limited my climbing while running a 90mm+ stem fubared descending.
    The best way to figure out your personal best setup is to start with a comfortable seated position and start changing 1 variable at a time. test it and see if it's better or worse for you. Sometimes lowering your bars helps descending by loading the front wheel. Other people the opposite is true.
    I can tell you exactly how far back my seat can slide before I loop out on steep climbs, because that is where I set it. I can also tell you how long of a stem makes me endo on the decent. My XC bike wants to kill be every time I ride it.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  46. #946
    tire to rim ratio tester
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,361
    I have a question about geometry: instead of looking at the dozen or so different numbers and angles, and doing all this math in your head to see if you like the geometry, can't you just do a quick and dirty test by looking at how much the seat stays line up with the top tube?

  47. #947
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,413
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    I have a question about geometry: instead of looking at the dozen or so different numbers and angles, and doing all this math in your head to see if you like the geometry, can't you just do a quick and dirty test by looking at how much the seat stays line up with the top tube?
    I don't see how looking at the seat stays would give you any information about the bike. There are way too many designs that that can change the look without effecting the geometry.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  48. #948
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    951
    Moving the saddle forward literally makes the hills feel less steep. I have my saddle slammed forward on my bike. Before I did that on certain climbs I'd have to do the whole scoot forward, lower the chest, drop the elbows thing while struggling up the hill. After slamming the seat forward, I could casually pedal up those same climbs. Climbing with a more open hip angle is so much more pleasant. Of course there's always steeper hills but the forward saddle position makes a big difference.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910

Similar Threads

  1. Frame Geometry Opinion ? geometry attached
    By madpanda in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-08-2015, 10:10 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-16-2013, 10:38 AM
  3. specialized epic new geometry vs pre 2009 geometry?
    By mountainclimb in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 03:13 PM
  4. Effect of G2 geometry with Niner geometry
    By yourdaguy in forum Niner Bikes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-22-2013, 04:40 PM
  5. ASR5 Alloy geometry vs ASR5-C geometry
    By biggusjimmus in forum Yeti
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-13-2011, 02:21 PM

Members who have read this thread: 160

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

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.