Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 948
  1. #201
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,328
    I think what LyNx was getting at is that even Scott's XC race frames like the Scale and Spark (for example) have HTAs 69* and lower.

  2. #202
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,772
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    I think what LyNx was getting at is that even Scott's XC race frames like the Scale and Spark (for example) have HTAs 69* and lower.
    And they are AMAZING bikes.

    Never been on a bike(s) that pedaled so well yet still handled very well too. The Yeti ASRc is another bike (medium size) that really does both well.
    Death from Below.

  3. #203
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,251
    Thanks Evasive, at least you got it

    I used to ride those 71* HTA "original" 29ers, thought they did alright, until I got my V1 Paradox and realised just how much I had been deluding myself, just how sketchy those old things had been and how much less fun and maneuverable compared to the Paradox. This was confirmed numerous times by people with that same old geo who threw a leg over my Paradox, they were amazed at how it felt, handled and the confidence it also inspired in the rough/tech and DHs, it literally changed quite a few riders ideas of what riding an MTB could mean and was the push they needed for a bike upgrade.
    The right geo, with the proper offset fork=
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    I think what LyNx was getting at is that even Scott's XC race frames like the Scale and Spark (for example) have HTAs 69* and lower.
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    And they are AMAZING bikes.

    Never been on a bike(s) that pedaled so well yet still handled very well too. The Yeti ASRc is another bike (medium size) that really does both well.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  4. #204
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,069
    Last edited by jazzanova; 07-28-2015 at 02:54 PM.

  5. #205
    Mantis, Paramount, Campy
    Reputation: Shayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,697
    That article didn't really seem to say anything in my mind.

    The title is "we're all riding bikes that are too small". He talks about how to fit 2 different sized riders on a 'medium' frame...ok...
    And then says "why should we have to buy a garden gate to get a decent wheelbase"

    If one is advocating bigger frames then one should embrace the garden gate.
    *** --- *** --- ***

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    I am not sire of this has been posted here before, but anyway, very interesting:
    Size matters: why we’re all riding bikes that are too small - MBR
    That is odd point of view writer has, I find seat tube being too short and top tube being too long at least in Trek, but maybe I have odd measurements, not sure how odd these are 32.6 inch inseam and bit over 6 feet tall?

    But I think that seat tube length is to blame why 19.5" frame size does not fit quite perfect to me, seat post must be near the mark and I need really short stem to have decent reach. Still would like top tube to be tad shorter for little bit more nimbleness and to be able to move saddle bit more rearwards from front most position.

    Not sure if 2014 model has new or old geometry though, straight from factory it is quite granny bike like.

    One point of smaller bike is that you can move weight more, as you are tied to pedals, there is only that much reaching you can do and by reaching you shift weight, with smaller bike weight shifts more when moving your body as wheel contact patches are closer to point you are tied to.

    When descending or climbing it might matter, but of course longer wheelbase helps if you don't shift your weight much. Going fast downhill longer wheelbase is needed as no one can keep up with terrain, shifting weight all the time.

    I think there is different point of views, different uses and thus different needs.
    Trek 3700 Disc, frame, wheelset, seatpost, fork and rear brake original, rest is upgraded.

  7. #207
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,852
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    I am not sire of this has been posted here before, but anyway, very interesting:
    http://www.mbr.co.uk/news/size-matte...o-small-321374
    There's so many things wrong in this article... Road bikers don't stand on descents? I guess the author has never ridden down a bumpy road. Also the steering arc is the distance from the center of the steerer to the center of your palm. Stem length has a small effect on this distance as compared to bar length.

  8. #208
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Shayne View Post
    That article didn't really seem to say anything in my mind.

    The title is "we're all riding bikes that are too small". He talks about how to fit 2 different sized riders on a 'medium' frame...ok...
    And then says "why should we have to buy a garden gate to get a decent wheelbase"

    If one is advocating bigger frames then one should embrace the garden gate.
    I think he means that most of the current frames come with a too long of a seat tube if one wants to upsize. I find this to be the case as well. I can't go with a large Ibis HD3, because I can't use a 150mm seatpost. The ST increases by more than 5cm, while reach by less than 2cm...

  9. #209
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,784
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    I think he means that most of the current frames come with a too long of a seat tube if one wants to upsize. I find this to be the case as well. I can't go with a large Ibis HD3, because I can't use a 150mm seatpost. The ST increases by more than 5cm, while reach by less than 2cm...
    That's the problem with only offering four sizes. Each of those sizes is meant to fit people within a height range, and the seat tube has to be long enough, and strong enough, to support a seatpost at typical max extensions.

    Guess what, maybe you can break down and use a 125mm dropper post instead. I'm sure the seat only being 5 inches, instead of 6, from normal height isn't a crippling disadvantage.

    Pretty sure the 150mm posts are made for people who are big on XL frames, not for everyone, which is why it won't fit.

  10. #210
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,587
    So, are folks in this thread primarily saying this "New Geo" is better for all types of mtb riding?

    Or, is the "New Geo" better for what seems to be the most commonly advertised type of riding these days, fast, open Enduro/DH-lite?

    Personally, I dig a somewhat slacker HTA, short stays, and low BBs. Don't care for the longer TTs. Step, slow speed tech climbing needs weight over the front wheel. Slower, tighter trails and short stems don't work well together. My riding is classic NE, tight, twistie, steep, and techie - not a ton of the open, super fast stuff. Pedalling through the rocky, twisties, while seated on bike with a steep STA has me perched up too high.

  11. #211
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,737
    Try this:

    New Geo is the buzzword just as Women's Specific was. It works for who it works for, just not for everyone or every kind of riding.
    I don't rattle.

  12. #212
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,096
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    Those articles reinforce what we've gone through earlier with how some bikes can fit 5' 6" guys well, but not 6' 1"+ guys due to how certain dimension increase by odd proportions within the size range offered for a specific brand/model. I think it's vice versa for small folks on 29ers, where they actually probably should go smaller if between sizes (avoiding steep geo with a tall front end).

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,251
    Don't know if I believe in the whole "New Geo" thing with uber short stems and such, but I definitely believe in HTA slacker than 69*, chainstays not like a semi, sub 17.3" for a 29er, stems shorter than 80mm and bars wider than 711mm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    So, are folks in this thread primarily saying this "New Geo" is better for all types of mtb riding?

    Or, is the "New Geo" better for what seems to be the most commonly advertised type of riding these days, fast, open Enduro/DH-lite?

    Personally, I dig a somewhat slacker HTA, short stays, and low BBs. Don't care for the longer TTs. Step, slow speed tech climbing needs weight over the front wheel. Slower, tighter trails and short stems don't work well together. My riding is classic NE, tight, twistie, steep, and techie - not a ton of the open, super fast stuff. Pedalling through the rocky, twisties, while seated on bike with a steep STA has me perched up too high.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,069
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Don't know if I believe in the whole "New Geo" thing with uber short stems and such, but I definitely believe in HTA slacker than 69*, chainstays not like a semi, sub 17.3" for a 29er, stems shorter than 80mm and bars wider than 711mm.
    I have decided to find out on my own
    I have just purchased a large SC Nomad 3 frame with 30% off, no tax. I am 5`8.5" and santa cruz recommends Large from 5`10".
    I will go with a 30mm stem and 780mm bars. This bike is considered slack with 65degree HA and has almost 120mm wheelbase. It is still shorter than a medium Mondraker Dune though.
    I will attempt to learn to ride it and see how it works out for me. If it doesn't, no problem, I will just get rid of it and get something else.

    Regarding the bars, I went from 680mm up to 750mm within the last 3 years and feel I would like going even wider now. It has always taken me about 5-10 rides to fully adjust. There are very few trees here in SoCal.

  15. #215
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,037
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Don't know if I believe in the whole "New Geo" thing with uber short stems and such, but I definitely believe in HTA slacker than 69*, chainstays not like a semi, sub 17.3" for a 29er, stems shorter than 80mm and bars wider than 711mm.
    Have you tried long reach, short stem? It's a geometry not a belief.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  16. #216
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,251
    I believe it's for those who live for the downs, I don't, I love to climb and ride flats and rolling trails and yes I've tried my XL Prime with 472mm Reach 45mm stem and 786mm bar and had no issues with it, but did not do a whole lot of climbing on it, but then again don't have any issues with my 450mm Reach Large Phantom and 65mm stem/785mm bar Forgot to add, don't believe in the whole super steep STA, anything between 72-73 is just fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Have you tried long reach, short stem? It's a geometry not a belief.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  17. #217
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,037
    Steeper STA aid in climbing steep terrain.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  18. #218
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    594
    So - question for some of you guys who have this figured out. I am looking to buy a yelli screamy and currently have a ST HT. if I compare the larges of the two frames I am confused on if it will be right fit or not.

    I have maybe a 35 inch inseam (measured with a spring loaded crotch thingy). But I am 5'10.5". So the stumpy feels like I am stretched out when seated.

    The reach on yelli is 10% shorter. I think that is good in new geo thinking. But the ett is longer. And I'm worried I'll still be too stretched out when seated

    Thoughts? Will shorter stem remedy that? I think stumpy came with 105mm stem...

  19. #219
    SP Singletrack rocks
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek200 View Post
    So - question for some of you guys who have this figured out. I am looking to buy a yelli screamy and currently have a ST HT. if I compare the larges of the two frames I am confused on if it will be right fit or not.

    I have maybe a 35 inch inseam (measured with a spring loaded crotch thingy). But I am 5'10.5". So the stumpy feels like I am stretched out when seated.

    The reach on yelli is 10% shorter. I think that is good in new geo thinking. But the ett is longer. And I'm worried I'll still be too stretched out when seated

    Thoughts? Will shorter stem remedy that? I think stumpy came with 105mm stem...
    if you still have a 100 mm stem on the stumpy then yes a shorter stem as short as 35mm or less will make a longer bike fit right.

  20. #220
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Steeper STA aid in climbing steep terrain.
    Absolutely, but for guys with long levers, it's not so hot on the techie, pedally, non-climbing stuff.

    I think almost all geos have their pluses and minuses, and some of what is thought to be best right now is dictated by the "climb up only to bomb back down" mentality.

    The sustained climb/sustained high speed descent trail design definitely favors this new geo.

    This is not an argument, just thinking on why things are the way they are.

    A lot of positive mtb change, again, is just shedding the old roadie roots from where our bikes first came. IMO narrow bars and steep HTAs have no place on any trail bike.

    I think reach, stack, and stem length should vary based on the bike's intended purpose.

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
    if you still have a 100 mm stem on the stumpy then yes a shorter stem as short as 35mm or less will make a longer bike fit right.
    I guess my real question is if a large yelli is the right size

  22. #222
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,251
    Not everyone only slugs out the climb to enjoy the descent and only have up or down, some enjoy riding rolling terrain and long flat pedally stuff and not so steep tech climbs and a steep STA is not good for that when you have a long inseam and need to get yourself back to put the power down.
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Steeper STA aid in climbing steep terrain.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Absolutely, but for guys with long levers, it's not so hot on the techie, pedally, non-climbing stuff.

    I think almost all geos have their pluses and minuses, and some of what is thought to be best right now is dictated by the "climb up only to bomb back down" mentality.
    The sustained climb/sustained high speed descent trail design definitely favors this new geo.

    This is not an argument, just thinking on why things are the way they are.

    A lot of positive mtb change, again, is just shedding the old roadie roots from where our bikes first came. IMO narrow bars and steep HTAs have no place on any trail bike.

    I think reach, stack, and stem length should vary based on the bike's intended purpose.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,315
    Nine pages. Ah bugger it, who cares...

  24. #224
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,037
    The longer your inseam the further back your saddle is. Especially on modern bikes with bent ST's or ST's that don't intersect the BB. And while true it's awsome for up and down I don't feel handicapped on more rolling trails. I will lower my saddle 5-10mm for rolling, chunky tech and even tech climbing though.

    Mr Pig

    You are still reading...
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  25. #225
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Mr Pig You are still reading...
    Skimming to be honest. It got boring a while ago, kinda going round in circles.

  26. #226
    🗿 📄 ✂
    Reputation: Haint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    Skimming to be honest. It got boring a while ago, kinda going round in circles.
    Drop-down toolbar for the Forum went from Black to Red - is that retro new-school old school or, old-school retro new school?
    Geometry.

    Plussin'.

    Anyone with specs on the 26" Wheel Tricycles from Interbike a couple years ago? If it's old school, I'm out.
    I like Sand - I don't like Witches


  27. #227
    🗿 📄 ✂
    Reputation: Haint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,269
    This one BTW.



    Not the kind w/ wire baskets fore/aft. Dorky.
    I like Sand - I don't like Witches


  28. #228
    NWS
    NWS is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,463
    Quote Originally Posted by NWS View Post
    But getting back on topic, if only fractionally more serious, a 'new geo' bike arrived in my garage today. 443mm reach, 445 seat tube, 64.5 HTA, 438/422 chainstays (flip chip). Opinions arriving Sunday after I have a chance to ride it a while. Maybe even up some hills.

    NS Bikes - Soda Evo Air - Freeride / Bike park / Mini DH
    So far the biggest difference is that I have to change my body position a bit when I'm out of the saddle. My hands are a little further forward than I'm used to, so I have to move my body back to get my weight in the right place. Most noticeable when climbing.

    Otherwise, well... It's a bike. It's a little different from my other bikes, but it fits just fine and it goes where I tell it to.

    Not that I'm complaining. I wanted near-DH travel with nowhere-near DH weight, because no chairlifts, and I got that. The other changes (as compared to my 2009 140mm Marin Wolf Ridge AM bike) seem pretty subtle.

  29. #229
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,315
    You guys don't even know what old-school is! Last week I rode a bike in Amsterdam, geometry circa 1890, and it was comfy as heck! ;0)

  30. #230
    NWS
    NWS is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    You guys don't even know what old-school is! Last week I rode a bike in Amsterdam, geometry circa 1890, and it was comfy as heck! ;0)

    New VS Old Geometry-rust_03.jpg
    Nice! How did it handle in the rocks and roots?

  31. #231
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,315
    Quote Originally Posted by NWS View Post
    Nice! How did it handle in the rocks and roots?
    Didn't see any but rolls over fallen junkies just fine :0)

  32. #232
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    358
    On today's ride I was imagining what it would like to have longer bar, if it would have more sweep, I think my hands would be in more natural position with something like 780mm bar than with my current less than 700mm bar.

    With bar ends I feel that they could be about about palm width wider apart, to get easier breathing, so for me such would be worthy experiment to see what happens, at least what little I could imagine by placing other hand to imaginary bar position.
    Trek 3700 Disc, frame, wheelset, seatpost, fork and rear brake original, rest is upgraded.

  33. #233
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,315
    You just have to look at mountain bike history to see how much bollocks this all is. Bars have been all shapes and sizes and I bet there was a bunch of guys in the eighties talking about how great the new straight, ruler-flat bars were. They were crap, but at the time I have little doubt that buyers were blinded by marketing gobbledyg00k, just like they are today.

    Of course an Amsterdam-style bike would be no use off road but they do put things in perspective. The design of those bikes literally has not changed in a hundred years. Most of the bikes in use are very old, even the new ones are mostly the same design as the old ones. So why is no one in Amsterdam clamouring to buy the next best thing in city bikes?

    Their bikes work, they do the job and people consider that good enough. Despite being heavy and using antiquated technology the bikes are supremely comfortable and easy to ride. People are the same shape as they were a hundred years ago so if the bike fitted properly then, what's the problem?

    But in the fickle fashion parade that is mountain biking we need newer, better which by definition means different to what went before. So the changes never end, yawn....

  34. #234
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,251
    Dude, they're cruising around a town in normal clothes, wanting to get from point A to point B, in that scenario, nothing fancy is needed, simpler is best.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    ...Their bikes work, they do the job and people consider that good enough. Despite being heavy and using antiquated technology the bikes are supremely comfortable and easy to ride. People are the same shape as they were a hundred years ago so if the bike fitted properly then, what's the problem?
    As someone who's ridden stuff from back in the 90s up until my current Phantom, I can say without a doubt that on an MTB, having the right bike for the intended use makes a world of difference, heck just going from the older school early 29er geo with 71* HTA and 18" stays to just a 69* HTA, short stayed bike was an amazing, eye opening experience and not just for me, I have lent that bike to numerous friends who older bikes and they have had the same revelation.
    Why try to run an F1 when you're racing off road, or even why run a standard WRC rally car instead of a GRC car when you're competing in GRC The right tool for the job makes things much more funner
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Pig
    But in the fickle fashion parade that is mountain biking we need newer, better which by definition means different to what went before. So the changes never end, yawn....
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  35. #235
    Mantis, Paramount, Campy
    Reputation: Shayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,697
    What is considered long reach for an XC bike?
    I had never considered sizing by reach and am intrigued but looking at various geo charts (Trek, Spec, Scott, Cannondale) the reaches don't seem all that long.
    *** --- *** --- ***

  36. #236
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,852
    I love my Trek (Fisher) Superfly 100. Gary Fisher pioneered the long top tube, shorter stem, slacker head angle geometry, he called Genesis geometry, plus 29" wheels. What you guys are calling new isn't so new.

  37. #237
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,737
    From 2005:

    Re: What exactly is "Genesis" Geometry?

    Postby jajones October 27th, 2005, 9:53 pm
    Sony..

    There is a good explanation of Genesis geometry at the Fisher site...

    Trek Bicycle

    Yes, GG is characterized by a longer top tube, shorter stem and shorter chainstays. A main theory espoused by Fisher is that it provides a better center of gravity.

    My personal opinion is that GG is a good option for people with a certain physiology and bad for others.

    Personally, it really works for me. I own Fishers and I actually have had some custom bikes made to mimick GG. But, I think it is highly personal. We could get into a whole discussion on long/short torso, long/short legs, chainstay length for climbing and descending and stem length for climbing/singletrack/descending, but I think the best solution is to hop on a Fisher with GG and then hop and ride a comparably sized bike (i.e. medium, 26er). If it is right for your body type, I believe you will notice pretty quickly. Ditto if it is not.

    User avatar
    jajones

    Posts: 5040
    Joined: June 20th, 2002, 9:39 am
    I don't rattle.

  38. #238
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Dude, they're cruising around a town in normal clothes, wanting to get from point A to point B, in that scenario, nothing fancy is needed, simpler is best.
    Maybe sub "Gravel" for "around a town"?
    Oh wait, you weren't describing people here?

  39. #239
    SP Singletrack rocks
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    From 2005:

    Re: What exactly is "Genesis" Geometry?

    Postby jajones October 27th, 2005, 9:53 pm
    Sony..

    There is a good explanation of Genesis geometry at the Fisher site...

    Trek Bicycle

    Yes, GG is characterized by a longer top tube, shorter stem and shorter chainstays. A main theory espoused by Fisher is that it provides a better center of gravity.

    My personal opinion is that GG is a good option for people with a certain physiology and bad for others.

    Personally, it really works for me. I own Fishers and I actually have had some custom bikes made to mimick GG. But, I think it is highly personal. We could get into a whole discussion on long/short torso, long/short legs, chainstay length for climbing and descending and stem length for climbing/singletrack/descending, but I think the best solution is to hop on a Fisher with GG and then hop and ride a comparably sized bike (i.e. medium, 26er). If it is right for your body type, I believe you will notice pretty quickly. Ditto if it is not.

    User avatar
    jajones

    Posts: 5040
    Joined: June 20th, 2002, 9:39 am
    their stems were not actually short and neither were their chainstays.

  40. #240
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    Chainstays have been under 17" since the late 80s. "short chainstays" is nothing new. Go find an old MBA magazine when bikes were all rigid and all the bike reviewers had to talk about was chain stay length, weld quality, and cable routing lol.

    The challenge lately has been to have short chain stays with bigger wheels, but, again, they aren't any shorter they they have been for decades, on average.

  41. #241
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,737
    Quote Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
    their stems were not actually short and neither were their chainstays.

    A 135mm stem was not uncommon in those days. I started with a 125 on my '95 Bontrager Racelite but was down to 110 when I sold her in 1014. I still have them out in the shed.

    The large sized Genesis frames used a 105, a small used a 75.


    My Bontrager chain stays were considered short at 16.75 and she climbed like a goat.
    A 2015 26er Hardrock has 16.75" chain stays.

    The Genesis frames had 16.25" chainstays.
    I don't rattle.

  42. #242
    SP Singletrack rocks
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    A 135mm stem was not uncommon in those days. I started with a 125 on my '95 Bontrager Racelite but was down to 110 when I sold her in 1014. I still have them out in the shed.

    The large sized Genesis frames used a 105, a small used a 75.


    My Bontrager chain stays were considered short at 16.75 and she climbed like a goat.
    A 2015 26er Hardrock has 16.75" chain stays.

    The Genesis frames had 16.25" chainstays.
    yeah lots of people are running 35mm stems now. 75 on small is not even close to 35 on all sizes. Also why does a larger size need a longer stem?

  43. #243
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    594
    The 2015 ST HT is specced with a 105mm stem

  44. #244
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,737
    Quote Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
    yeah lots of people are running 35mm stems now. 75 on small is not even close to 35 on all sizes. Also why does a larger size need a longer stem?
    It may be a regional thing or a riding style thing.

    Different stems may be simple function of proportion. What a 5' 2" rider needs and a 6' 2" rider needs may be quite different. Try this model for understanding:

    each inch of height is about 1/2" in the upper body. The seat/bar part of the triangle needs 1/4" to equal out the comfortable riding position re the back angle.

    1/4 x 12 (height difference) = 3 inches (about 80mm length)

    I know it's not perfect. I mean I just roughed this in but it does demonstrate the need for a longer stem for bigger riders. Similar with bar width. Not everyone can use an 800mm bar.

    Upper body strength probably figures into both of those, too.
    I don't rattle.

  45. #245
    SP Singletrack rocks
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    It may be a regional thing or a riding style thing.

    Different stems may be simple function of proportion. What a 5' 2" rider needs and a 6' 2" rider needs may be quite different. Try this model for understanding:

    each inch of height is about 1/2" in the upper body. The seat/bar part of the triangle needs 1/4" to equal out the comfortable riding position re the back angle.

    1/4 x 12 (height difference) = 3 inches (about 80mm length)

    I know it's not perfect. I mean I just roughed this in but it does demonstrate the need for a longer stem for bigger riders. Similar with bar width. Not everyone can use an 800mm bar.

    Upper body strength probably figures into both of those, too.
    I think everyone could use a 35mm(or less) stem if the TT was long enough.

    you do not need weight on the front end to climb fast..... you really do not.

  46. #246
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    You guys don't even know what old-school is! Last week I rode a bike in Amsterdam, geometry circa 1890, and it was comfy as heck! ;0)
    Lol! That is hilarious. Seriously though, how to you even keep the balance on those things.

  47. #247
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,737
    I hear you about climbing. I think the best model for climbing is the unicycle; feet, hips, and keep driving.

    As to length up top....

    The difference between a Small and Large Stumpy Carbon Expert 29 is 77 mm made up from 30 mm stem and 47 in top tube. That is spread over a 58mm increase in wheelbase.

    The difference between a Small and Large Enduro Carbon Expert 29 is 60mm made up from 15mm stem and 45mm top tube. That is spread over a 50mm increase in wheelbase.

    So someone is thinking that bigger riders, independent of bike purpose, need longer stems even with longer top tubes.
    I don't rattle.

  48. #248
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Reallytho View Post
    Lol! That is hilarious. Seriously though, how to you even keep the balance on those things.
    It's dead easy. Riding one of those bikes feels as natural as walking. They are really heavy but when riding it you don't even notice, it doesn't feel heavy at all. If you get off and try to lift the bike, to turn it around for instance, you realise it weighs a ton!

    I'm going to post something about cycling in Amsterdam, it's a very interesting situation. It's hard to get your head around how many bikes are in the city, every year the council fish fifteen-thousand of the things out of the canals!

  49. #249
    SP Singletrack rocks
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    I hear you about climbing. I think the best model for climbing is the unicycle; feet, hips, and keep driving.

    As to length up top....

    The difference between a Small and Large Stumpy Carbon Expert 29 is 77 mm made up from 30 mm stem and 47 in top tube. That is spread over a 58mm increase in wheelbase.

    The difference between a Small and Large Enduro Carbon Expert 29 is 60mm made up from 15mm stem and 45mm top tube. That is spread over a 50mm increase in wheelbase.

    So someone is thinking that bigger riders, independent of bike purpose, need longer stems even with longer top tubes.
    just because someone thinks its does not make it right. Not saying I am right either just saying there is nothing that is quantifiable to why a larger frames needs a bigger stem. Kona seems to think all frames should use the same size stem.

  50. #250
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,784
    Quote Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
    yeah lots of people are running 35mm stems now. 75 on small is not even close to 35 on all sizes. Also why does a larger size need a longer stem?
    Point being that they were short for the time.

  51. #251
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    It may be a regional thing or a riding style thing.

    Different stems may be simple function of proportion. What a 5' 2" rider needs and a 6' 2" rider needs may be quite different. Try this model for understanding:

    each inch of height is about 1/2" in the upper body. The seat/bar part of the triangle needs 1/4" to equal out the comfortable riding position re the back angle.

    1/4 x 12 (height difference) = 3 inches (about 80mm length)

    I know it's not perfect. I mean I just roughed this in but it does demonstrate the need for a longer stem for bigger riders. Similar with bar width. Not everyone can use an 800mm bar.

    Upper body strength probably figures into both of those, too.
    Don't forget longer arm length on top of the longer torsos.

  52. #252
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,096


    1890 new school geo - super slack, super short stem (0mm!), rear wheel slammed to the BB with a curved seat tube, wide bars.

  53. #253
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
    just because someone thinks its does not make it right. Not saying I am right either just saying there is nothing that is quantifiable to why a larger frames needs a bigger stem. Kona seems to think all frames should use the same size stem.
    I'm not really sure on how bike companies size stems. My 54cm road bike came with a 90mm stem. I had to switch it out to a 110mm.

    That's why I don't buy stock bikes. Bar, stem, and saddle would all go as soon as it got home.

  54. #254
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,737
    Another thing that hasn't changed is the pride in the bike.
    I don't rattle.

  55. #255
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    1890 new school geo - super slack, super short stem (0mm!), rear wheel slammed to the BB with a curved seat tube, wide bars.
    No dropper, can't shred.

  56. #256
    SP Singletrack rocks
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,789
    was nt short back then....

    2002 lots of guys on 50mm stems...


  57. #257
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,631
    Old roadie bikes were way slack


  58. #258
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,414
    ^^Thats pretty awesome!

  59. #259
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,737
    Quote Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
    was nt short back then....

    2002 lots of guys on 50mm stems...

    Good find!
    I don't rattle.

  60. #260
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,037
    There was an interesting article on MBR a while back that questioned why as sizes increase the reach and TT increase less than the seat tubes. But yes there is no good reason that taller people need longer stems and more weight in front of the head tube. Kona and Mondraker have figured this out.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  61. #261
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,737
    Travis,

    I'm not sure it is a matter of weight over/in front of the head tube. Remember that larger bodies, statistically, have longer legs. That puts the seat up higher and further back, even before fore/aft adjustment.

    So, at least to some degree, the disposition of stems may be a matter of balancing weight over some sort of bike center, notably the cranks.

    We have far more power thrust into the cranks and seat than anywhere else. I wonder if, in this discussion, we are so focused on the front of the bike that we forget that.
    I don't rattle.

  62. #262
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    Travis,

    I'm not sure it is a matter of weight over/in front of the head tube. Remember that larger bodies, statistically, have longer legs. That puts the seat up higher and further back, even before fore/aft adjustment.

    So, at least to some degree, the disposition of stems may be a matter of balancing weight over some sort of bike center, notably the cranks.

    We have far more power thrust into the cranks and seat than anywhere else. I wonder if, in this discussion, we are so focused on the front of the bike that we forget that.
    You are talking about seat, so you are talking about seated performance.
    How about the most important fit aspect on a mountain bike? How the bikes feels when in standing attack position?
    I don't think either there is a good reason why stems should be longer on bigger bikes.

  63. #263
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,737
    We are still talking about driving force into the wheels, sitting or standing. So we are talking about placing the center of gravity. The attack position is, statistically, not a high frequency usage. Further, the attack position is not always centered over the bike in line with the axles. The attack position on a flat is still centered over the cranks or very slightly forward so you are pushing backwards with bar leverage upon acceleration. You can't do that for long .

    The attack position out of the saddle is still centered over the cranks on a climb though that is a very tricky technique and takes a lot of skill. Too far forward and you spin out.

    I am out of the saddle more than most. (Far too many years on a hard tail.) That said, I don't think it too much of a stretch to suggest that most people spend far more time in the saddle than out of it. That is why bikes are fit when seated.

    If one were to create a bike that was only used for going down a hill the fit position would be very different from a bike created only for climbing. Either one is extreme and impractical for general use.

    So bikes are setup for the majority of use. That means a seated position that delivers power without damaging the knees (proper height) and allows you to use your weight to advantage (proper fore/aft.)

    Funny thing is that you hands end up where they end up based upon how far you can comfortably lean forward and for how long. I used to train racers and what they could do in the first weeks was very different from what they could do after months of training.

    So if the rider is set up to center the major force over the cranks in a given fit position some body is going to be behind the cranks and some body in front of the cranks. The keester is now hanging over the rear wheel more so the hands will move more forward over the front wheel. If the seat is further back then the bars will be a bit further forward. Hence, longer stem.

    This picture says it best.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    I don't rattle.

  64. #264
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post


    1890 new school geo - super slack, super short stem (0mm!), rear wheel slammed to the BB with a curved seat tube, wide bars.
    Quite modern then eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by RS VR6 View Post
    ^^Thats pretty awesome!
    It's also not a road...

  65. #265
    SP Singletrack rocks
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    We are still talking about driving force into the wheels, sitting or standing. So we are talking about placing the center of gravity. The attack position is, statistically, not a high frequency usage. Further, the attack position is not always centered over the bike in line with the axles. The attack position on a flat is still centered over the cranks or very slightly forward so you are pushing backwards with bar leverage upon acceleration. You can't do that for long .

    The attack position out of the saddle is still centered over the cranks on a climb though that is a very tricky technique and takes a lot of skill. Too far forward and you spin out.

    I am out of the saddle more than most. (Far too many years on a hard tail.) That said, I don't think it too much of a stretch to suggest that most people spend far more time in the saddle than out of it. That is why bikes are fit when seated.

    If one were to create a bike that was only used for going down a hill the fit position would be very different from a bike created only for climbing. Either one is extreme and impractical for general use.

    So bikes are setup for the majority of use. That means a seated position that delivers power without damaging the knees (proper height) and allows you to use your weight to advantage (proper fore/aft.)

    Funny thing is that you hands end up where they end up based upon how far you can comfortably lean forward and for how long. I used to train racers and what they could do in the first weeks was very different from what they could do after months of training.

    So if the rider is set up to center the major force over the cranks in a given fit position some body is going to be behind the cranks and some body in front of the cranks. The keester is now hanging over the rear wheel more so the hands will move more forward over the front wheel. If the seat is further back then the bars will be a bit further forward. Hence, longer stem.

    This picture says it best.
    agakin why does the stem have to longer why can the TT be longer?

  66. #266
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    You are talking about seat, so you are talking about seated performance.
    How about the most important fit aspect on a mountain bike? How the bikes feels when in standing attack position?
    I don't think either there is a good reason why stems should be longer on bigger bikes.
    Since when did that become most important?
    I think Berkeley Mike makes a good point about taller riders having longer legs and therefore being farther back on the saddle. When they get off the saddle they are still farther back. They also are riding on longer wheelbases. Weight distribution differs between people of different sizes on bikes of different sizes.
    The point for me is that there is not only one precise position that is best, and not everyone can have the same exact position and weight distribution, even if that was the goal.

  67. #267
    Mantis, Paramount, Campy
    Reputation: Shayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,697
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    How about the most important fit aspect on a mountain bike? How the bikes feels when in standing attack position?
    That ranks 0 on my list of important fit questions.


    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    I don't think either there is a good reason why stems should be longer on bigger bikes.
    As was hashed over earlier:
    A) for fit. They come in different lengths for a reason. It's virtually the same as a seatpost in that resepct. If there were only 180mm long seatposts available and 4-5 frame sizes how many people do you thing would be compromising? Same with stems. Some people like a 35mm stem for the fit they like. Others like a 150mm stem for the fit they like.

    B) it is somewhat correlated with bar length.

    C) is there a good reason why some bikes are green
    *** --- *** --- ***

  68. #268
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    heck just going from the older school early 29er geo with 71* HTA and 18" stays to just a 69* HTA, short stayed bike was an amazing, eye opening experience and not just for me, I have lent that bike to numerous friends who older bikes and they have had the same revelation.
    Why try to run an F1 when you're racing off road, or even why run a standard WRC rally car instead of a GRC car when you're competing in GRC The right tool for the job makes things much more funner
    I'm sure I notice the same differences between my old 29er and my new 29er that you do.

    But I still think my old 29er is a blast to ride. I don't think of it as being worse, just different. I definitely ride technical downhills differently with it. My weight has to be farther back, and I ride slower, with more maneuvering and lifting and less plowing through. That doesn't make it worse. I don't care how fast I get down the hill, I care about enjoying the experience of it.

    I can ride anything I ride with my new bike with any of my old bikes also. Its a little bit different, and I emphasize "little bit". I scoff at these ideas that an inch of stem or half inch of chainstay is a life or death difference, and I think some people here (not you LyNx) need to remember that not everyone cares, or should care, about the same stuff they care about.

  69. #269
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    Since when did that become most important?
    I think it has something to do with jumping over shark tanks.

  70. #270
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,737
    Quote Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
    agakin why does the stem have to longer why can the TT be longer?

    You may find that answer when you answer the question of why you have to ride such a short stem.
    I don't rattle.

  71. #271
    SP Singletrack rocks
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    You may find that answer when you answer the question of why you have to ride such a short stem.
    I dont have to I choose to, there is a differenc. the reason why I run a 35mm stem are these.

    Front wheel more out of front of me, basically eliminates any chance of endoing. I have never endod my Honzo nor have I ever endo my Trance SX.

    Longer front center of the up sized frame let the bike remain more planted of rough stuff.

    I can move rear ward on the bike easier, while still getting as much weight on the front tire as i would ever want or need.

    Going though rough stuff the front wheel is tons easier to keep from jack knifing from side to side with the 35 stem.

    Bike is more eager to be leaned over with a long TT and short stem vs a short TT and long Stem.

    As far as I can tell as Cat 1 XC the bikes are no slower climbing than a short TT long TT setup beside the fact these bike are quite bit portly than my XC race bike, which I basically do not ride anymore because it just is not fun.

  72. #272
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,037
    Stems have always been used for fit because that is what is done on road bikes. Mountain bikes are different, and now stems and bars have moved away from the roadie past and evolved into modern short&wide for handling. Sure some trails are not much more than dirt sidewalks wherein is not critical, but on a modern bike than can handle everything from mild single-track, steep climbs, and Whistler like DH a short stem is a critical part of the handling and safety. Why not have a light HT with modern geometry, dropper, Short&wide combo that can rip and descend almost anything. After years on too long stems I will never handicap myself again. Fit should be 95% done when picking a frame.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  73. #273
    Mantis, Paramount, Campy
    Reputation: Shayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Fit should be 95% done when picking a frame.

    This is not possible when MTB manufacturers offer at most 5 frame sizes. It's not possible when road manufacturers offer 15 frame sizes.

    Stem, seatpost, bars, crankarms are all used for fit and should continue to be.


    Unrelated to this comment but I'm still curious as to what the consensus is on what a 'long reach" for an XC bike would be.
    *** --- *** --- ***

  74. #274
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,737
    So stems are adaptive devices.

    Short stems, as I said at the beginning of this thread, deal with issues of OTB amongst other things.

    Coming from old school HT, which has its roots in road geometries, you either learned how to get your weight back and down or you didn't. MTB has evolved into many disciplines since then as a function of design opportunities as technology evolves and markets support them.

    Have you ever noticed how many truly old school bikes are used as commuters: Nishiki, Specialized from the late 80s? Just help out at a Bike To Work Day station and you will see them by the zillions.Road geometry, rigid forks, long stems, flat bars? Those bikes nearly died in garages because folks bought them to have fun and found out that they demanded a lot of skill and commitment to ride. Hence they sat in garages.

    So MTB had huge dip in its growth in the mid 90s. Many older MTBR denizens will recall discussions about this in the MTBR Pre-big Bang period. What relaunched us was the adaptation of frames into something normal people could ride, the development of shock/forks, an increased use of aluminum (then to scandium after the defeat of the USSR), and then extruded shapes.

    Between that and the development of a second population of riders, that is mountain bikers with kids, our sport exploded. The two populations are quite different, much as those of us who learned to drive on a stick and those who learned on an automatic.

    I can put my weight where I need it when I need it. I don't find the short stems a necessity for my riding. I don't site as far back or upright as many though as I have aged my cockpit is smaller; my hands are closer to my seat by about an inch over 15 years.
    I don't rattle.

  75. #275
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Shayne View Post

    Unrelated to this comment but I'm still curious as to what the consensus is on what a 'long reach" for an XC bike would be.
    The BMC's have fairly long reach numbers. A medium has a 426mm reach compared to a Scott Scale with 405mm and Trek Procaliber with 412mm.

  76. #276
    SP Singletrack rocks
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    So stems are adaptive devices.

    Short stems, as I said at the beginning of this thread, deal with issues of OTB amongst other things.

    Coming from old school HT, which has its roots in road geometries, you either learned how to get your weight back and down or you didn't. MTB has evolved into many disciplines since then as a function of design opportunities as technology evolves and markets support them.

    Have you ever noticed how many truly old school bikes are used as commuters: Nishiki, Specialized from the late 80s? Just help out at a Bike To Work Day station and you will see them by the zillions.Road geometry, rigid forks, long stems, flat bars? Those bikes nearly died in garages because folks bought them to have fun and found out that they demanded a lot of skill and commitment to ride. Hence they sat in garages.

    So MTB had huge dip in its growth in the mid 90s. Many older MTBR denizens will recall discussions about this in the MTBR Pre-big Bang period. What relaunched us was the adaptation of frames into something normal people could ride, the development of shock/forks, an increased use of aluminum (then to scandium after the defeat of the USSR), and then extruded shapes.

    Between that and the development of a second population of riders, that is mountain bikers with kids, our sport exploded. The two populations are quite different, much as those of us who learned to drive on a stick and those who learned on an automatic.

    I can put my weight where I need it when I need it. I don't find the short stems a necessity for my riding. I don't site as far back or upright as many though as I have aged my cockpit is smaller; my hands are closer to my seat by about an inch over 15 years.
    why would you want to make it harder especially harder in a not fun way....the old bikes sucked and were based of road riding which make ZERO sense.

    I mean if you want it harder why not just ride a rigid fixie with a 150mm stem and 500mm bars....

  77. #277
    Mantis, Paramount, Campy
    Reputation: Shayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,697
    Quote Originally Posted by RS VR6 View Post
    The BMC's have fairly long reach numbers. A medium has a 426mm reach compared to a Scott Scale with 405mm and Trek Procaliber with 412mm.
    See, now that's tiny to me, not long.
    The reach on my 9yr old's 24" bike is ~400mm.

    The bike closest at hand has a ~480mm reach and I run a 130mm stem on a ~L frame.
    *** --- *** --- ***

  78. #278
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
    why would you want to make it harder especially harder in a not fun way....the old bikes sucked and were based of road riding which make ZERO sense.

    I mean if you want it harder why not just ride a rigid fixie with a 150mm stem and 500mm bars....
    I don't think that's necessary.

    Just the rigid part pisses off enough posers... and marketers.

  79. #279
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,737
    Quote Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
    why would you want to make it harder especially harder in a not fun way....the old bikes sucked and were based of road riding which make ZERO sense.

    I mean if you want it harder why not just ride a rigid fixie with a 150mm stem and 500mm bars....

    My point is, harder for who? I'm not having any problems. I wasn't the one who told designers to make bike geometry different so I could ride better. My riding in the 80s was rigid and long-stemmed and I was just so glad to be out riding in dirt. Who knew I was "having fun wrong"?

    That said, carbon has been great and between that and sophisticated suspension I don't feel so beat up after I ride. I didn't ask for that, either, but I'm not complaining.

    Now saddles......
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails New VS Old Geometry-mtbrhardrock1235.jpg  

    New VS Old Geometry-anthem2542.jpg  

    I don't rattle.

  80. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Shayne View Post
    See, now that's tiny to me, not long.
    The reach on my 9yr old's 24" bike is ~400mm.

    The bike closest at hand has a ~480mm reach and I run a 130mm stem on a ~L frame.
    For me the whole reach thing came about for me from road bikes. It was something I used when getting a new road bike.

    BMC's come with pretty short stems when it comes to XC bikes.

    For me on the my HT 29er...I look for reach around 415mm. I run a 66mm Flatforce. Whatever the reach is on the frame...my hands will always be in the same spot. It'll just be adjusted with the stem. Hope that made sense.

  81. #281
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Shayne View Post
    This is not possible when MTB manufacturers offer at most 5 frame sizes. It's not possible when road manufacturers offer 15 frame sizes.

    Stem, seatpost, bars, crankarms are all used for fit and should continue to be.


    Unrelated to this comment but I'm still curious as to what the consensus is on what a 'long reach" for an XC bike would be.
    When I recently bought a bike I looked at all manufacturers not just 1 or 2. I compared all the bikes in the range I was looking for and eliminated many because I would not have room for a short enough stem or a decent length dropper. Lots of big name popular bikes were taken off the list due to this.

    My medium Warden has 433mm of reach and I might want a bit more for a XC bike depending on the STA.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  82. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    It's dead easy. Riding one of those bikes feels as natural as walking. They are really heavy but when riding it you don't even notice, it doesn't feel heavy at all. If you get off and try to lift the bike, to turn it around for instance, you realise it weighs a ton!

    I'm going to post something about cycling in Amsterdam, it's a very interesting situation. It's hard to get your head around how many bikes are in the city, every year the council fish fifteen-thousand of the things out of the canals!
    Dang, would be a blast to try out those things one day.

    15 000 O_o that is insane. Wow. How does that even happen LoL!

  83. #283
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    My point is, harder for who? I'm not having any problems. I wasn't the one who told designers to make bike geometry different so I could ride better. My riding in the 80s was rigid and long-stemmed and I was just so glad to be out riding in dirt. Who knew I was "having fun wrong"?

    That said, carbon has been great and between that and sophisticated suspension I don't feel so beat up after I ride. I didn't ask for that, either, but I'm not complaining.

    Now saddles......
    The new bike has a lot less rake/offset, slackening the head angle instead to get the wheel out there, and that susp fork pushes the front end up so much that they shrunk the head tube to compensate.


    Here's a new one to think about: where do you like having your handlebars, in relation to your hips:





    Watching this vid got me to ponder it, and thought the lower they were, the more awkward the riders looked: Vital RAW - Mont Sainte Anne DH Rock Smashing - Mountain Biking Videos - Vital MTB
    - Pretty distinctive contrast in relaxed positioning, seeing how comfy Ratboy is at 2:10 compared to the others.
    - Bulldog at 2:45 looking comfy too. Cockpit setup looks proportionate to him and Ratboy.

    Thinking that bar width should be proportional to hip width and hip movement, rather than shoulder width, after watching this vid. The narrower the bars, the more constricted the riders' hips looked, especially if they were standing taller.

  84. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Shayne View Post
    See, now that's tiny to me, not long.
    The reach on my 9yr old's 24" bike is ~400mm.

    The bike closest at hand has a ~480mm reach and I run a 130mm stem on a ~L frame.
    Are you sure you are measuring reach correctly?
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  85. #285
    Mantis, Paramount, Campy
    Reputation: Shayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,697
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    Are you sure you are measuring reach correctly?
    Yes, plumb line through center of BB to center of head tube. ~19"
    TT is 23.6"
    *** --- *** --- ***

  86. #286
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,037
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    Are you sure you are measuring reach correctly?
    What large frame has a 480mm reach?
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  87. #287
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,737
    Like I said, a bike set-up for climbing will be very different than a bike set-up for going downhill. The images show that pretty clearly.

    And then, this shows a race course. I never ride like that.
    I don't rattle.

  88. #288
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,037
    Unless you only shuttle, ride the lift, or your trails only go up hill (I think this is quite rare). What is the point of having a bike that is only suited to go up or down. Unless your trails are flat dirt sidewalks a bike that climbs well and goes down hill well is great. Different areas have different degrees of steepness so bikes need varying degrees of capability. My ideal bike climbs like a goat and descends with confidence. Some trails have sections I can't walk down without holding on to trees, but I can ride down without difficulty. Steep techy climb, no problem a as long I'm combobulated. MTB is up and down whatever you have.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  89. #289
    🗿 📄 ✂
    Reputation: Haint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Unless you only shuttle, ride the lift, or your trails only go up hill (I think this is quite rare). What is the point of having a bike that is only suited to go up or down. Unless your trails are flat dirt sidewalks a bike that climbs well and goes down hill well is great. Different areas have different degrees of steepness so bikes need varying degrees of capability. My ideal bike climbs like a goat and descends with confidence. Some trails have sections I can't walk down without holding on to trees, but I can ride down without difficulty. Steep techy climb, no problem a as long I'm combobulated. MTB is up and down whatever you have.
    Having watched MTB progress to present day from BMX, kinda-sorta took up MTB wanting to be kept a rigid discipline from inception - hence the road specific componentry and user controls. And also the lack of immediate accessibility to freestyle BMX riders. BMX was almost put full stop from Freestyle riding.
    The same can be said for Modern Geometry and Modern bikes in general: If stem length and frame clearance were offered from the start, MTB would have lost it's direction, like BMX had suffered and done.
    No hard factoid to gauge progression, almost regressive toward majority riding population, it is however something to consider.
    I like Sand - I don't like Witches


  90. #290
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Haint View Post
    Having watched MTB progress to present day from BMX, kinda-sorta took up MTB wanting to be kept a rigid discipline from inception - hence the road specific componentry and user controls. And also the lack of immediate accessibility to freestyle BMX riders. BMX was almost put full stop from Freestyle riding.
    The same can be said for Modern Geometry and Modern bikes in general: If stem length and frame clearance were offered from the start, MTB would have lost it's direction, like BMX had suffered and done.
    No hard factoid to gauge progression, almost regressive toward majority riding population, it is however something to consider.
    Huh?

  91. #291
    🗿 📄 ✂
    Reputation: Haint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    Huh?
    It is what it is, when freestyle riding began taking riders from BMX Racing it made BMX seem too structured and expensive. Freestyle adopted a street image. Whether or not you could ride a bike was irrelevant so long as you had one. BMX proved the rider with the drop of the starting gate.
    It's highly likely MTB did not immediately evolve to the current crop of frame design out of wanting to avoid a loss of core riders, like BMX. Freestyle BMX evolved from true BMX riding and never was considered much of anything until it was manufactured-entity.
    I like Sand - I don't like Witches


  92. #292
    Mantis, Paramount, Campy
    Reputation: Shayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    What large frame has a 480mm reach?
    Old Stumpjumper.

    After doing more measuring at home and checking out geometry charts it seems that the huge stack heights are more of an issue. Lots of frames would have more acceptable (to me) reaches if the head tube wasn't up in the clouds.
    *** --- *** --- ***

  93. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    What large frame has a 480mm reach?
    Seems hard to believe considering an XXL Tallboy reach is only 458 mm. and that's a big frame.

  94. #294
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    327
    Mondraker's large has a 490mm reach. But not sure how many other companies have that kind of reach. Or wheelbase at 1232mm. That is one stretched out bike.

  95. #295
    CoolArrow
    Reputation: jhazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Haint View Post
    Having watched MTB progress to present day from BMX, kinda-sorta took up MTB wanting to be kept a rigid discipline from inception - hence the road specific componentry and user controls. And also the lack of immediate accessibility to freestyle BMX riders. BMX was almost put full stop from Freestyle riding.
    The same can be said for Modern Geometry and Modern bikes in general: If stem length and frame clearance were offered from the start, MTB would have lost it's direction, like BMX had suffered and done.
    No hard factoid to gauge progression, almost regressive toward majority riding population, it is however something to consider.
    Okay, first off, mtb didn't really progress from BMX. It came from Road Riding. The road specific geo came from the influence of the bike builders at the time, who were former roadies.

    And freestyle isn't what really put the screws to BMX either. While some of the biggest names in Freestyle came from roots of bmx, they weren't the top stars of the time. Huge rider salaries, huge prizes, (on both sides of bmx/freestyle) really helped to nearly kill both genres.

    ...AND the "street image" of freestyle didn't really come about until the industry started dying, and you saw a rise in rider-owned comanies.

    Either way, none of that has much to with the evolution of mountain bike frame design. Though I would say the influx of some of the bmx riders in the 90's might have "helped" (riser bars and low seats?).
    Cool BandolArrow

    Jerry Hazard website

  96. #296
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,083
    *edit* replied to the wrong thread....

  97. #297
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    Norco increases the chain stay length with frame size (on the Sight anyway).

    Just thought I'd throw that in.

  98. #298
    mtbr member
    Reputation: l'oiseau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,200
    I've not read all of this but I'd have to say there must be some trade off between 'modern' geometries and 'old' ones. And what defines old? My bike from '94 had a longish stem but mainly because I was riding a small frame and needed it for fit. If I went to medium I needed a shorter stem to fit my body and not be bent over like a hunchback. I guess people were riding like that back then but I figured out pretty quick a small bike was easier to maneuver even with a long stem (shorter wheelbase). Compared to what it is now it was horribly slow going down and my ass was two feet back off the saddle for the slightest drop.

    Anyway, I was thinking about skis and xc and dh and how they have changed in the past 20 years. Ever try to kick and glide with a shaped ski? Have fun! It's about as enjoyable as trying to turn a straight, narrow, double cambered ski down hills. Designers got smart and started integrating as much turning ability as was needed for the intended usage of the ski i.e. fatter, slow touring skis got shorter, curvier, and maybe even rockered. It's tolerable if all you are doing is climbing and descending. Have to cover any rolling terrain or 'flats' and you might as well put snowshoes on. So in that case you'd opt for a longer, straighter ski with more camber. It's going to test you on the down, but you can cover the miles and get some glide.

    I'm not that knowledgeable on the biomechanics of a bike, but I'd assume there is a point of diminishing return where you're so optimized for downhill that xc becomes a chore. We all know it goes the other way if you take a really upright bike it's going to try to kill you down something steep and rough.

    Anyway, it seems to me modern geo just trades off these things a bit more to give you either a bit more cornering stability amd ability to absorb forward obstruction or put you in an optimal position to crank on the seat and roll over things (usually while climbing) without pedal strikes.

    A lot like skis, there is no magic - figure out what you are doing and pick the best tool for the job, or whatever one you prefer.
    Life is too short to ride a bike you don't love.

  99. #299
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,631
    Quote Originally Posted by jhazard View Post
    Okay, first off, mtb didn't really progress from BMX. It came from Road Riding. The road specific geo came from the influence of the bike builders at the time, who were former roadies.
    Road specific geo? Lots of the pioneers were also roadies but they were designing and building bikes specifically for off road use. The first mountain bikes had ~68 degree headtubes, long wheelbase, not even close to road bike geometry.

  100. #300
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,096
    They were far enough from road bikes that they were featured in various BMX mags:

    Old Mountain Bikes: Full Bore Cruisers - January 1980

    Old Mountain Bikes: Ritchey Mountain Bike Review - February 1980

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

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.