Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 500 of 948
  1. #401
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,096
    Well, your Remedy likely benefits from a stiffer fork, better tires, and stiffer wheels, all of which made 29ers viable enough to be desireable for anything more than XC/trail. And tech to lighten things up, yet remain adequately strong, notable with carbon,... all that has drove up prices though. Not to mention your bike has exclusive rear shock tech that makes it stand out from the competition.

    Gotta give credit where it's due, but G2, just like Genesis geo, is the true "new school" in my eyes, despite it being old. I know I personally don't want to get any fork with low offset anymore.

    Mtn bikers are notoriously slow to pick up on change (can be said to be resistant to change), so the bike companies have resorted to introducing the extreme, then dialing it back and work back up to it, it seems. Rather than jump to 60mm offset (Lefty Supermax), maybe 56mm would be good bridge between the two. Rather than jump to 17.5" CS, maybe 17.2"... with 40mm rims introduced, a bet a bunch of people are going to wait to bite on the tweener width rims (~32mm).

  2. #402
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,069
    Check out the new Nikolai.
    Forward geometry plus.
    77 or 77.7 degree ST
    Looong reach 485mm for the smallest size. This is size XL with many other brands using the conventional geometry.

    Over 126mm WB for medium, which they call long. Large is called longer and xl the longest...
    http://shop.nicolai.net/index.php/ion-gpi.html

    Some riding impressions here:
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=986181
    Nicolai GPI/Geometron Ride/Info/Pics
    Last edited by jazzanova; 08-23-2015 at 05:49 PM.

  3. #403
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,069
    New VS Old Geometry-111.jpgAnother new bike with the long reach geometry:
    Lapierre Spicy 2016
    First Look: Lapierre Spicy 2016 - Pinkbike

  4. #404
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,416
    Thats some reach. I'd have to size down to a small.

  5. #405
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,069
    New VS Old Geometry-3.jpg

    The new 27.5 Evil Insurgent goes new geo as well. The reach is nicely long The ST is a bit too slack though.

    New VS Old Geometry-2.jpg

  6. #406
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,069
    Knolly Warden Carbon

    Reach:
    Medium: 43.7cm
    Large: 46.5cm
    New VS Old Geometry-knolly2.jpg
    New VS Old Geometry-knolly.jpg

  7. #407
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,416
    Thats Evil looks pretty awesome!

    Name:  image.png
Views: 1009
Size:  130.7 KB

  8. #408
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,069
    Quote Originally Posted by RS VR6 View Post
    Thats Evil looks pretty awesome!

    Name:  image.png
Views: 1009
Size:  130.7 KB
    Of course it does. Evil is always black.

  9. #409
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,045
    Looks like the reach on this year's medium is in the 420-440mm range. Sounds good.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  10. #410
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ecurb_ATX840's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    180
    Up until this year I was riding an 18 year old Giant, now I have a 6 year old specialized hard tail. Of course the new bike is better, but at the end of the day I'm not sure if I'm really any faster. And actually I don't feel really like I'm in better control or anything, I feel like I just sort of adapt to whatever I'm riding.
    check out my youtube channel if you want: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfv...pWjU4574BDVNxw

  11. #411
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Looks like the reach on this year's medium is in the 420-440mm range. Sounds good.
    The reach on a medium Specialized Demo is 420mm.

  12. #412
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    You guys know that "effective" seat tube angle is a bunch of crap, right?

  13. #413
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,096
    In other words, it's not as steep as you'd like to believe, due to most people having their seatpost much higher than level with the top of the head tube.

    How about some exposure to some out of the box geo, in case some have never seen it:


    - Artistic Cycling bikes


    - Cycle ball bikes

    These sports have been around for way longer than mtb.


  14. #414
    Mantis, Paramount, Campy
    Reputation: Shayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,697
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post

    The reach is nicely long
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova
    Knolly Warden Carbon

    Reach:
    Medium: 43.7cm
    Large: 46.5cm
    See, now those reaches are short (even in XL sizes) compared to anything I ride regularly. To me it looks as if all the extra toptube length is going behind the BB, not actually lengthening the front at all.
    *** --- *** --- ***

  15. #415
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,045
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    You guys know that "effective" seat tube angle is a bunch of crap, right?
    True, but I don't believe there is a standard way to measure it. I measured my Warden's using a straight edge from the centre of the BB to the top centre of the seat post head at my riding height and got 75 degrees. Move the saddle up or down and the angle changes. I have always likes steeper than 73 and am quite happy with it.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  16. #416
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,069

    Mondraker Foxy Carbon

    PRODUCT REVIEW: MONDRAKER FOXY CARBON:

    http://www.bikezilla.com.sg/posts/PR...ER-FOXY-CARBON.

    HOW IT PERFORMS

    Do all these innovative concepts add up to a good ride? We tested this bike at a few local trails - from technical ones to flowy ones, and rode it with various riding styles - efficient pedaling for long rides as well as fast aggressive explosive bursts for those Strava lap records.

    On our first ride, we had to admit we needed some time to get used to the bike. It is definitely unlike the usual bikes we ride. In fact, Mondraker assures that "after a short adaptation", the rider would feel that overall control in riding will improve more than expected. And that was exactly what happened.

    In our first few minutes of riding, the bike felt hard to control. Rock garden upslopes which we used to clear easily became harder to climb, requiring a lot more effort, and the weight shifting from our usual body English just didn't seem to work as well. We sort of suspected the bike fitting was bad for us. But then it became easier as we rode, as our body got used to the bike. For an average height rider on a medium Foxy Carbon, we simply needed to slide forward and pedal as usual when climbing. The bike performed its duty effectively. We advise using a slightly lighter gear for that first ride to get used to this "new school" geometry before going back to your usual gear ratios for climbing. A few more days into the testing of the bike, we got so used to it that there was no conscious effort needed for climbs. It climbed just as well as what we would expect of a good trail bike.

    On fast flowy sections, the Foxy Carbon held its speed very well. The long wheel base gave the bike its added stability. At speed bumps, we simply adopt a neutral position and pump the bike through for a long rolling high speed momentum cruise.

    During cornering of berms, we noticed that shifting the body slightly forward could help maintain the speed throughout. We tried it with our normal riding position and there was no perceivable loss of traction. As such, we believe different riders may be able to find their sweet spot posture easily when cornering and carving through berms.

    At tight switchbacks, the best way to maneuver through the tight bends is to ride the Foxy Carbon - a 27.5 inch bike - like you would a 29er. It rides easier with a flowy bigger turning arc. That's logical of course, considering its long wheel base. It is also at tight turns and switchbacks that the short stem's responsive steering became evident - sometimes a little too responsive. As we rode the bike more, we became very addicted to its sure-footed and responsive steering.

    On the descent, this trail bike amazed us. One of the testers, who just rode a downhill bike down a slope section tried the same section with the Foxy Carbon and came back smiling saying he was convinced that the long wheelbase and Forward Geometry did indeed work to give him that stable downhill bike feel. As for other downslope sections, there were times we forgot that it was only a 140 mm bike.

    At one section, the bike's front wheel went fully into a hole which was previously housing a small rock while the tester was bombing through at a relatively good speed. Given other bikes of 140 mm, he may not be too sure he could recover from the sudden dip. As claimed by Mondraker, it is "almost impossible" to go over the bar due to the Forward Geometry. We cannot be sure if it was our tester's good riding experience or the virtue of the Forward Geometry, we will let the readers decide for themselves. (Ed: No bike was hurt in the process)

    Throughout the ride, the Foxy Carbon felt stiff and predictable. The head tube and the split top tube seems to work well, although we thought the split top tube was only an aesthetic feature initially.

    The Zero Suspension, like all other variations of floating pivot systems, has their little shortcomings. Some of us do not like the rear shocks' "locking up" when going over bumps. The best way when going over a series of bumps for the Foxy Carbon is to flow through and fight as little as possible with the obstacles at mid point.

    Another issue to note about riding a bike with Forward Geometry is that; after riding the Foxy Carbon for a few days, the other bikes we own suddenly felt a little tight. More adaptation needed again?

    WHO SHOULD RIDE IT

    This bike is for those who wants a fast trail bike with that extra confidence to bomb down steep slopes or carve berms faster. It is also for those who are ready to embrace a possible future of "new school" bike designs. With its sleek lines, Stealth Technology and Zero Geometry, this bike has very little flaws. More like, it just needed time for the rider to adapt to it. And once rider and bike got well acquainted, the experience would be all good.

    Currently, Mondraker bikes are still rare to find at the trails. As such, it would be a perfect choice for those who wants a special keeper.

    Due to the special geometry, the Onoff Stoic 30mm stem and 760mm handlebar are essential parts of the whole "new school" Forward Geometry system. As such, we strongly advise buying the complete bike as opposed to just the frame set only.

    Welcome to the new world!

    New VS Old Geometry-foxy2-large-.jpg
    New VS Old Geometry-foxy_carbon_xr_1_foto_.jpg
    New VS Old Geometry-foxy-geo.jpg

  17. #417
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,045
    I am fascinated by the new 27.5+ Vantage. I note that the S Mondraker is longer than my M Knolly.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  18. #418
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    If a stupidly long wheelbase is good for "carving berms," why are DS bikes so short?

  19. #419
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,069
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    If a stupidly long wheelbase is good for "carving berms," why are DS bikes so short?
    Don't resist the change. Welcome to the future.

  20. #420
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,788
    Where no one tries to go uphill fast. Ever.
    Death from Below.

  21. #421
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Where no one tries to go uphill fast. Ever.
    waaaaaaa.

    Unless you're a dedicated uphill specialist/XC racer, this modern geometry "fad" is going to be a good thing for the average trail rider, by increasing confidence on the steep stuff, improving stability at speed, and making it harder for endo-inducing objects to induce endos. How many crashes happen while climbing compared to descending fast or steep sections? If you want to go faster up hills then buy a road bike and start smashing out some serious training rides. The geometry of your bike has very little to do with how quick you are up a hill (within reason, of course, before anyone gets all stupid on me and starts pointing out extreme examples) compared to the power of your legs and lungs.

  22. #422
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    waaaaaaa.

    Unless you're a dedicated uphill specialist/XC racer, this modern geometry "fad" is going to be a good thing for the average trail rider, by increasing confidence on the steep stuff, improving stability at speed, and making it harder for endo-inducing objects to induce endos. How many crashes happen while climbing compared to descending fast or steep sections? If you want to go faster up hills then buy a road bike and start smashing out some serious training rides. The geometry of your bike has very little to do with how quick you are up a hill (within reason, of course, before anyone gets all stupid on me and starts pointing out extreme examples) compared to the power of your legs and lungs.
    I think there is this inane fear of going over the bars that is driving things to ridiculous extremes.

  23. #423
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,096
    This thread only really made me wonder why they aren't going for dishless wheels, perhaps using offset dropouts, and even wider spaced hubs than Boost, and also wonder why fork offset is still too conservative for slacker long travel bikes.

    Mfgs can alter a lot of parts to fine tune the feel of a complete bike as a system, yet leave out certain components like the fork and wheels. I'm hoping they take the idea of a complete bike as a system even further, similar to how wheel makers are thinking of their wheels as a system to make them better, rather than treating the bike like a parts hanger and hoping it all turns out alright when it comes time to riding protos and trying a bunch of things out. The big brands are getting there, but aren't committing really.

  24. #424
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    This thread only really made me wonder why they aren't going for dishless wheels, perhaps using offset dropouts, and even wider spaced hubs than Boost, and also wonder why fork offset is still too conservative for slacker long travel bikes.
    Because people have to pedal without hitting their heels on the chainstays. Proprietary parts are used by companies like Cannondale and Specialized, and it can be quite difficult to source those specific parts or upgrade after a couple of years.

  25. #425
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDee View Post
    I think there is this inane fear of going over the bars that is driving things to ridiculous extremes.
    Yes there is. Going over the bars sucks, but I don't think this extreme new geometry would have saved most of my endos..

  26. #426
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    waaaaaaa.

    Unless you're a dedicated uphill specialist/XC racer, this modern geometry "fad" is going to be a good thing for the average trail rider, by increasing confidence on the steep stuff, improving stability at speed, and making it harder for endo-inducing objects to induce endos. How many crashes happen while climbing compared to descending fast or steep sections? If you want to go faster up hills then buy a road bike and start smashing out some serious training rides. The geometry of your bike has very little to do with how quick you are up a hill (within reason, of course, before anyone gets all stupid on me and starts pointing out extreme examples) compared to the power of your legs and lungs.
    Just like this new geometry is going to make up for a lack of descending skills.

  27. #427
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,083
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Just like this new geometry is going to make up for a lack of descending skills.
    IMO a well set up bike with good forward geometry will make far more difference to a new/unconfident riders descending than a XC bike will to a fat bastard [like me] going up.

  28. #428
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,045
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Just like this new geometry is going to make up for a lack of descending skills.
    The same can and has been said of every advancement in mountain biking since it's inception. XC racing is a minuscule part of mountain biking so why has it had such a large influence on bike design in the past? Bike design is moving past the NORBA standard and developing into better all round geometry. How is a short bike with a steep head angle going to help me climb? I've had bikes like that in the past and it doesn't help. In non tech, it's all power to weight, and in tech it's the ability to put power to the trail and keep it there while getting over obstacles.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  29. #429
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDee View Post
    I think there is this inane fear of going over the bars that is driving things to ridiculous extremes.
    Yes.

    Just because something is a good thing doesn't mean that there isn't a point where it becomes bad again.

  30. #430
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    The same can and has been said of every advancement in mountain biking since it's inception. XC racing is a minuscule part of mountain biking so why has it had such a large influence on bike design in the past? Bike design is moving past the NORBA standard and developing into better all round geometry. How is a short bike with a steep head angle going to help me climb? I've had bikes like that in the past and it doesn't help. In non tech, it's all power to weight, and in tech it's the ability to put power to the trail and keep it there while getting over obstacles.
    The difference is that the new geometry isn't universally better. It is better in the majority of applications, but not all. That's all I've been trying to say in this thread. Unlike disc brakes or lighter bikes, some, albeit a minority, of riders are better served by older geometry.

  31. #431
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    IMO a well set up bike with good forward geometry will make far more difference to a new/unconfident riders descending than a XC bike will to a fat bastard [like me] going up.
    You might be right, but a skilled cross-country rider might be faster on classic geometry.

  32. #432
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    You might be right, but a skilled cross-country rider might be faster on classic geometry.
    Nope. That's why riders that are objectively more skilled don't use "classic geometry."

    Maybe there's no mass produced old style bikes for the same reason you can't find shit flavored licorice.

  33. #433
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    The difference is that the new geometry isn't universally better. It is better in the majority of applications, but not all. That's all I've been trying to say in this thread. Unlike disc brakes or lighter bikes, some, albeit a minority, of riders are better served by older geometry.
    How exactly are you served by steep angles, long chainstays and short reaches?

    Just because some bikes take new geometry to an extreme, it doesn't mean that it's a bad idea in general.

  34. #434
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,788
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Nope. That's why riders that are objectively more skilled don't use "classic geometry."

    Maybe there's no mass produced old style bikes for the same reason you can't find shit flavored licorice.
    Are they?

    Can anyone honestly tell me that Jared Graves would beat Nino Schurter down a descent after climbing at Mach Chicken, on the same bike (Spark 700)?

    I don't think Jared would make that claim.

    It's all fine and dandy if you trundle to the top of a climb, drop your seat and "rip" down an XC trail on DH tires on a 140mm "trail" bike.

    If you fall into the increasingly passive, wide bodied section of Americans (or other nationalities, too, I'm sure.) that doesn't want to push yourself, go get yourself a Nicolai Geometron or similar. It's a license to not give a shit about anything other than DH, while not actually riding DH terrain.

    I don't necessarily *disagree* with you; my new XC race bike will have a 68.5 degree HTA and a 120mm fork (Yeti ASRc, size medium. I'm 5'6"). My current HT has a 69 degree HTA with a 95mm fork. Both have 740mm bars and short stems (55mm and 66mm, respectively). But, as you said in a previous post, it seems to me that some bike manufacturers are taking things so far the other way as to make the bikes useless for anything other than going down the mountain.
    Death from Below.

  35. #435
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    357
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    ........
    It's all fine and dandy if you trundle to the top of a climb, drop your seat and "rip" down an XC trail on DH tires on a 140mm "trail" bike.

    If you fall into the increasingly passive, wide bodied section of Americans (or other nationalities, too, I'm sure.) that doesn't want to push yourself, go get yourself a Nicolai Geometron or similar. It's a license to not give a shit about anything other than DH, while not actually riding DH terrain.

    I don't necessarily *disagree* with you; my new XC race bike will have a 68.5 degree HTA and a 120mm fork (Yeti ASRc, size medium. I'm 5'6"). My current HT has a 69 degree HTA with a 95mm fork. Both have 740mm bars and short stems (55mm and 66mm, respectively). But, as you said in a previous post, it seems to me that some bike manufacturers are taking things so far the other way as to make the bikes useless for anything other than going down the mountain.
    Ha, my thoughts exactly. Let's make the wheelbase so long you can't turn it around in a field. And rake out the fork so far the Harley guys are jelous. But boy howdy, its awesome for a total of 15 minutes of "downhill" of a 2 hour ride.
    '15 Giant Anthem SX - '01 Schwinn Homegrown Comp - '12 Giant Defy 1 - '14 Kona Jake the Snake

  36. #436
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Are they?

    Can anyone honestly tell me that Jared Graves would beat Nino Schurter down a descent after climbing at Mach Chicken, on the same bike (Spark 700)?

    I don't think Jared would make that claim.

    It's all fine and dandy if you trundle to the top of a climb, drop your seat and "rip" down an XC trail on DH tires on a 140mm "trail" bike.

    If you fall into the increasingly passive, wide bodied section of Americans (or other nationalities, too, I'm sure.) that doesn't want to push yourself, go get yourself a Nicolai Geometron or similar. It's a license to not give a shit about anything other than DH, while not actually riding DH terrain.

    I don't necessarily *disagree* with you; my new XC race bike will have a 68.5 degree HTA and a 120mm fork (Yeti ASRc, size medium. I'm 5'6"). My current HT has a 69 degree HTA with a 95mm fork. Both have 740mm bars and short stems (55mm and 66mm, respectively). But, as you said in a previous post, it seems to me that some bike manufacturers are taking things so far the other way as to make the bikes useless for anything other than going down the mountain.
    LOL that's funny. So Nikolai bikes are for someone who doesn't want to push himself? That's a new one...
    The ironic thing is that you mention Nikolai and US in one sentence, while in reality there is very few Americans actually riding a Nikolai or those who have seen one.

    Let's be happy for the companies like Nikolai and Mondraker pushing the envelope. They aren't afraid to try new things and see how far (long, low and slack) we can go.

    I honestly doubt you have ever tried a bike with forward geometry, but you are quick to claim they are only good for DH.
    These new bikes come with a steep ST, which helps climbing more than a long stem on a short reach bike would.
    I have found a long reach/TT + short stem + steep ST climbs much better than any of my bikes of past with short reach and long >60mm stem.

    You should at least try it...

  37. #437
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    How exactly are you served by steep angles, long chainstays and short reaches?

    Just because some bikes take new geometry to an extreme, it doesn't mean that it's a bad idea in general.
    Read the earlier posts. If you don't get it, then just pretend there are other people in the world with different experiences than your own.

  38. #438
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    LOL that's funny. So Nikolai bikes are for someone who doesn't want to push himself? That's a new one...
    The ironic thing is that you mention Nikolai and US in one sentence, while in reality there is very few Americans actually riding a Nikolai or those who have seen one.

    Let's be happy for the companies like Nikolai and Mondraker pushing the envelope. They aren't afraid to try new things and see how far (long, low and slack) we can go.

    I honestly doubt you have ever tried a bike with forward geometry, but you are quick to claim they are only good for DH.
    These new bikes come with a steep ST, which helps climbing more than a long stem on a short reach bike would.
    I have found a long reach/TT + short stem + steep ST climbs much better than any of my bikes of past with short reach and long >60mm stem.

    You should at least try it...
    Because this person doesn't necessarily agree with your limited experience means he has never tried the new geometry and is wrong? Arrogance doesn't make you right. I honestly wonder how many people that are all for the new geometry being better at everything have been around long enough to know what the old geometry and old-school mountain biking actually was. The bikes weren't perfect, but the geometry worked well for the trails back in the day. Not every trail is 3 feet wide and machine cut.

  39. #439
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Are they?

    Can anyone honestly tell me that Jared Graves would beat Nino Schurter down a descent after climbing at Mach Chicken, on the same bike (Spark 700)?

    I don't think Jared would make that claim.

    It's all fine and dandy if you trundle to the top of a climb, drop your seat and "rip" down an XC trail on DH tires on a 140mm "trail" bike.

    If you fall into the increasingly passive, wide bodied section of Americans (or other nationalities, too, I'm sure.) that doesn't want to push yourself, go get yourself a Nicolai Geometron or similar. It's a license to not give a shit about anything other than DH, while not actually riding DH terrain.

    I don't necessarily *disagree* with you; my new XC race bike will have a 68.5 degree HTA and a 120mm fork (Yeti ASRc, size medium. I'm 5'6"). My current HT has a 69 degree HTA with a 95mm fork. Both have 740mm bars and short stems (55mm and 66mm, respectively). But, as you said in a previous post, it seems to me that some bike manufacturers are taking things so far the other way as to make the bikes useless for anything other than going down the mountain.
    Pretty sure Jared did crush Nino when he tried EWS. Thanks for playing. Not that the particular bike has anything to do with it in either EWS or XCO, other than it being the right tool for the job and not a complete shitbox.

    He's not riding an old school geo bike anyways.

    One person with ****ed up bike setup doesn't prove anything other than the fact that he wants to be down in that position so badly that he'll even forego using 29" wheels.

  40. #440
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Read the earlier posts. If you don't get it, then just pretend there are other people in the world with different experiences than your own.
    The person not getting it appears to be you. Steep angles, long chainstays and short reaches don't help climbing and hurt descending and cornering.

    Tell us why nobody sells old style bikes in any mentionable quantity, or why there isn't shit flavored licorice while you're at it. The answer is the same.

  41. #441
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,223
    I have two mountain bikes that I ride fairly regularly. One is a a "new-school bike" 67 degree head angle, dropper post, short stem, 130mm of travel front and rear; the other is a full-blown modern XC race-wip, 70 degree head, 90mm stem, no dropper, and 100mm of travel front and rear.

    On the majority of trails found here in BC I am just as quick or quicker on the XC bike. Slack-angles and short stems are inferior on easy to moderate trails, which is the majority of trails. Even more difficult trails usually only contain a couple of sections where "modern geometry" really shines.

    With a modern-geometry bike I really struggle for front end grip on moderate grades. To get same cornering grip as my XC bike I have to put grippy but painfully slow tire like Minon on the front. That slows the bike down everywhere.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  42. #442
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Hint: those are both new school bikes.

  43. #443
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,223
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Jared did crush Nino when he tried EWS. Thanks for playing.

    He's not riding an old school geo bike anyways.
    Really that is your response? Of course Jared crushed Nino, he is an best Enduro racer in the world. It would be certain embarrassing if Nino picked up a long travel bike and was even close to competitive to a guy who has raced and trained specifically for Enduro. The fact that XC guys are placing in the top 30 at EWS is embarrassing enough.

    I don't think there is a single person who would even suggest that "old school geometry" is the was to go for Enduro. "New school geometry" is entirely designed around needs of high level Enduro racing. High level Enduro racing is a long ways away from trails that most people ride ever day.

    And steep angles, long chainstays and short reaches absolutely help climbing.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  44. #444
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,223
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Hint: those are both new school bikes.
    Really? 70 to 70.5 degree head-angle is what I have had on near every XC bike since 1995. Stem(s) have shortened as my bar have gotten wider but top-tube is the exact same length.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  45. #445
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    If you fall into the increasingly passive, wide bodied section of Americans (or other nationalities, too, I'm sure.) that doesn't want to push yourself, go get yourself a Nicolai Geometron or similar. It's a license to not give a shit about anything other than DH, while not actually riding DH terrain.
    So not everyone is a strava-douche who wants to torture themselves every time they get on the bike. Wow, who would of though people actually like mountain biking BECAUSE IT IS FUN.
    Sheesh, sorry for not being a sadomasochist.

  46. #446
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    Really? 70 to 70.5 degree head-angle is what I have had on near every XC bike since 1995. Stem(s) have shortened as my bar have gotten wider but top-tube is the exact same length.
    Yes, really. We've already gone over how even when it comes to XC bikes, reach has increased slightly, chainstays have shrank since the early 90's (despite bigger wheels) and shorter stems/longer bars are how the "new" is different from the "old." Shorter stems and wider bars are NOT a zero sum game placing you in the same position, either. For that to be the case there would have to be a 3:1 ratio in change in bar width to stem length.

    "Classic XC" geo had 72 degree head angles, short reach and long stems, which is what we're arguing is dumb. Are you referring to mid-90's Gary Fishers?

  47. #447
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    Really that is your response? Of course Jared crushed Nino, he is an best Enduro racer in the world. It would be certain embarrassing if Nino picked up a long travel bike and was even close to competitive to a guy who has raced and trained specifically for Enduro. The fact that XC guys are placing in the top 30 at EWS is embarrassing enough.

    I don't think there is a single person who would even suggest that "old school geometry" is the was to go for Enduro. "New school geometry" is entirely designed around needs of high level Enduro racing. High level Enduro racing is a long ways away from trails that most people ride ever day.

    And steep angles, long chainstays and short reaches absolutely help climbing.
    If they help, why have designers and racers gone away from them? New school geometry applies to all bikes, just that the difference grows as the bike becomes more and more gravity orientated. If you can't see how XC bikes have changed over the last 20 years, and are trying to argue that they haven't, you have got some serious research to do before attempting to make an argument.

    What XC guy place in the top 30? He finished 179th at Finale Ligure in 2013, 40th without penalties...10% slower than Clementz and well behind a relative old fogies like Steve Peat and the not quite as old Cedric Gracia, along with a host of other non-world class athletes.

    You people need to stop worshiping at the foot of Nino like he's the greatest thing since disk brakes. Or, if you really feel the need to use him as an example, set up your bike like his and tell us all how awesome it is.

  48. #448
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    The person not getting it appears to be you. Steep angles, long chainstays and short reaches don't help climbing and hurt descending and cornering.

    Tell us why nobody sells old style bikes in any mentionable quantity, or why there isn't shit flavored licorice while you're at it. The answer is the same.
    Really? Longer chainstays don't help with weight distribution while climbing? Steep angles don't help climbing? I bet you don't think slacker angles don't help descending, then. Who said anything about a short reach? Shorter toptube, maybe, but not a shorter reach. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Companies sell what people want to buy, and most people prefer the newer geometry. That's never been in question, here.

    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Hint: those are both new school bikes.
    Hint: No, they are not. Cross-country bikes are more of a middle ground between new and classic. Steep angles, longer stem, narrower bars, and longer chainstays than the new trend. Still a nod to climbing, but courses these days are focusing as much on descents as climbs with much more technical terrain than back in the day. New trails benefit from different geometry.

    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Yes, really. We've already gone over how even when it comes to XC bikes, reach has increased slightly, chainstays have shrank since the early 90's (despite bigger wheels) and shorter stems/longer bars are how the "new" is different from the "old."

    "Classic XC" geo had 72 degree head angles, short reach and long stems, which is what we're arguing is dumb. Are you referring to mid-90's Gary Fishers?
    Again, reach hasn't changed! What has changed is a reflection of a different type of trail and riding style. Yes, the new geometry is better suited for wide, machine built trails and bombing downhills. Not everybody rides the new style of trail with the intention of focusing on the downhills. The new geometry does not excel on every trail in every situation. This isn't difficult for the average person to understand.

  49. #449
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,223
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Yes, really. We've already gone over how even when it comes to XC bikes, reach has increased slightly, chainstays have shrank since the early 90's (despite bigger wheels) and shorter stems/longer bars are how the "new" is different from the "old."

    "Classic XC" geo had 72 degree head angles, short reach and long stems, which is what we're arguing is dumb. Are you referring to mid-90's Gary Fishers?
    I ride a small bike, there has not been a lot of changes in the geometry of small bikes. My old 92 Rocky Mountain hammer had a 70 degree headangle when I put a suspension fork on it.

    The changes to "Classic XC" geo are pretty small. 72 to 70.5 (which is the current standard for XC bikes) is actually a very small change. Probably switching from a 600mm bar to a 660mm bar is much more significant.

    No doubt that "new XC" geo is different then classic, but they are pretty darn close. Occasionally I will ride a vintage XC bike, the terrible brakes, barely functioning suspension, and rubber pucks for tires terrify me much more than the dated geometry.

    BTW: I did have a mid-90s Gary Fisher (you know your bikes). It was a Joshua, the non-functioning rear suspension and frame life span of 4 weeks, prevented me from really getting a feel for the Genisis Geometry.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  50. #450
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,821
    Nevermind. This is just getting stupid, now.

  51. #451
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,223
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post

    What XC guy place in the top 30? He finished 179th at Finale Ligure in 2013, 40th without penalties...10% slower than Clementz and well behind a relative old fogies like Steve Peat and the not quite as old Cedric Gracia, along with a host of other non-world class athletes.
    From:
    ENDURO WORLD SERIES EWS - FINALE LIGURE 2014
    23rd: LINDGREN Emil
    29th: GUTHRIE Evan
    32nd: COOPER Anton

    The other two XC guys were just outside the top 40. Lindgren was in front of old foggy Greg Minnaar. The other old foggy Nicolas Vouilloz got him by a couple of seconds though.

    I actually coach Evan Guthrie. Ride and train with him all the time. It is a lot of fun watch him smash good riders on 6 inch trail bikes with "modern geometry" on his 29er hardtail with a 120mm stem and no dropper.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  52. #452
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,788
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Pretty sure Jared did crush Nino when he tried EWS. Thanks for playing. Not that the particular bike has anything to do with it in either EWS or XCO, other than it being the right tool for the job and not a complete shitbox.

    He's not riding an old school geo bike anyways.

    One person with ****ed up bike setup doesn't prove anything other than the fact that he wants to be down in that position so badly that he'll even forego using 29" wheels.
    Did you even read what I wrote?

    Let me help you out:

    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Can anyone honestly tell me that Jared Graves would beat Nino Schurter down a descent after climbing at Mach Chicken, on the same bike (Spark 700)?
    That means Jared Graves, on a Scott Spark 700, and Nino Schurter, on a Scott Spark 700, with low profile tires.

    After hitting a 1min XCO climb at near max HR.

    Jared is a great athlete, but I have to imagine that starting out at near-blackout intensity isn't really something he practices. Just like Nino doesn't train to trundle to the top of climbs, ******** with 30 people in line and switch from one helmet to another while making sure that his Camelbak straw is safely tucked away.
    Death from Below.

  53. #453
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,653
    I always sucked at geometry. My bike is fun, I like riding it.

  54. #454
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbkrmike View Post
    I built a 2015 Norco Range Carbon 7.2. I'd say it is textbook new geo - 800 mm bar, 50 mm stem, slack 160 mm fork (66 degree HA I believe), super short chain stays, etc.

    It took me a while to finally get used to it and I have only recently concluded that it is the cause of my massively screwed up shoulder (MRI in a week). Climbing, it's great. Downs standing on the pedals, great. But flats where I pedal seated with my dropper fully extended, result in a HUGE amount of weight on my hands. I was out tonight and actually started wondering if maybe my core strength could be a little sketch (not holding my torso more upright with less weight on my hands). I am going to start blasting crunches and planks tomorrow, but really, I'm in great shape and I have never previously had this problem with a bike or otherwise. I am thinking it's a combo of the wiiiiiiiide bar, looooooong top tube and super low front end (even though it's a 160mm fork, it rides really low in the front).

    Maybe I am wrong on all this, but I don't think so.
    I've been running into this issue with my new hardtail as well. Try some different saddle tilts and fore/aft saddle positions. I found that to be key to helping with relieving some of the hand pressure during seated pedaling.

    What sag are you running? A softer sag optimized for downhilling will also place your front end lower under seated pedaling. I think this issue magnified with longer travel forks. Some platform on the fork might help keep it higher in the travel for seated pedaling.

    I continue to try different stem lengths/rise positions. Interestingly I found the lower bar position to be better for me. Core strength and flexibility to be able to tilt at the hips helps too.

  55. #455
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Did you even read what I wrote?

    Let me help you out:



    That means Jared Graves, on a Scott Spark 700, and Nino Schurter, on a Scott Spark 700, with low profile tires.

    After hitting a 1min XCO climb at near max HR.

    Jared is a great athlete, but I have to imagine that starting out at near-blackout intensity isn't really something he practices. Just like Nino doesn't train to trundle to the top of climbs, ******** with 30 people in line and switch from one helmet to another while making sure that his Camelbak straw is safely tucked away.
    Here's the thing, they're training for two different things...but at the same thing, where bike handling matters more than raw fitness, on basically equal bikes, Graves and the rest of the EWS heavy hitters blew him away. When the total time is ~25 minutes, a minute or two is a HUGE margin.

    I'm not even sure what you people are trying to argue here, since the Scott bikes certainly aren't using old school geometry.

    Like has been said before, nobody is claiming an enduro bike is going to climb like an XC bike, because that not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is the march away from the silly old school long chainstay, short reach, stupidly long stem fad. That this is happening is an undeniable fact. The Scott bikes are LONG, the stems are shorter, yet you use Schurter as evidence that the old school design that he isn't even using (!) is somehow superior.

    I'm still waiting for someone to switch their stem out for a negative rise with some flat bars in order to get the handlebar drop measurement like Schurter's and report back on how awesome it is. Know why? Because it would suck, you know it, I know it, everybody knows it...so stop using his setup as the be-all-end-all. Those guys are so stretched out that while it is awesome for producing power, it makes them have to tiptoe down anything reasonably technical because their seat is up their ass and their nose is over the front axle. Just because a few people do some tiny little tail whips while making some tiny little jumps doesn't change that...people do that on CX bikes, ffs, but nobody suggests that they're good for all around mountain biking.

    Unless you are going for the absolute best in power production, people would be better served by riding more relaxed geometry. Especially considering the usual chorus of "well, I'm not going for maximum speed." How about comfort and confidence? Not going to get that with a steep XC setup.

  56. #456
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,223
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Here's the thing, they're training for two different things...but at the same thing, where bike handling matters more than raw fitness, on basically equal bikes, Graves and the rest of the EWS heavy hitters blew him away. When the total time is ~25 minutes, a minute or two is a HUGE margin.

    So you are using a race where Nino lost huge time due to Mechanical to make your point? Wow, just wow. Ignorance is bliss.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  57. #457
    Sneaker man
    Reputation: mik_git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,694
    what are we calling old geometry?
    my 1989 Diamondback Apex had a 70 degree head angle (with a 80mm high rise stem), my 96 Xizang has a 71, so too my 2008 Zaskar. To me the first is really old school geometry, the later two, are mroe norba geometry.

    My Scott Spark has ~68 something degree. Thing is it came with a 700mm bar and 80mm stem, not as wide or as short as what a lot of people are running, but in the slow and tight stuff which I ride a lot of (slow becasue 'm super slow), but not particularly steep, I found it to steer like a pig. I stuck it out for a while, as figured I shoudl try it and it I might get used to it, but eventually putting on a 100mm stem made it much better - for me.
    All the gear and no idea.

  58. #458
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Like has been said before, nobody is claiming an enduro bike is going to climb like an XC bike, because that not what we're talking about.

    this is exactly what some people are saying.

    What we're talking about is the march away from the silly old school long chainstay, short reach, stupidly long stem fad. That this is happening is an undeniable fact. The Scott bikes are LONG, the stems are shorter, yet you use Schurter as evidence that the old school design that he isn't even using (!) is somehow superior.

    it is, in certain situations!

    I'm still waiting for someone to switch their stem out for a negative rise with some flat bars in order to get the handlebar drop measurement like Schurter's and report back on how awesome it is. Know why? Because it would suck, you know it, I know it, everybody knows it...so stop using his setup as the be-all-end-all. Those guys are so stretched out that while it is awesome for producing power, it makes them have to tiptoe down anything reasonably technical because their seat is up their ass and their nose is over the front axle.

    There are plenty of people with a setup like that. They are called "cross-country racers".

    Unless you are going for the absolute best in power production, people would be better served by riding more relaxed geometry. Especially considering the usual chorus of "well, I'm not going for maximum speed." How about comfort and confidence? Not going to get that with a steep XC setup.
    But some people want maximum power ouput! Hence the reason for different geometries!

  59. #459
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,853
    A wide bar and shorter stem definitely helps on old school geometry bikes. I just went from 560mm/140 (bar/stem) to 650/110. It made a definite positive difference. I think I may try a 700mm bar like I have on my other bike, and go to a 100mm stem. Longer than 700 and I feel like I'm driving a London bus.

  60. #460
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    I have nothing to add other than I got passed by a BMX bike on near slicks the other day. That hurt. I doubt he had optimal geometry lol. I'm definitely going to be spending more time riding and less time worrying about geometry or the next upgrade to the bike.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  61. #461
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    974
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    ...Maybe there's no mass produced old style bikes for the same reason you can't find shit flavored licorice.
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    ...Tell us why nobody sells old style bikes in any mentionable quantity, or why there isn't shit flavored licorice while you're at it. The answer is the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    Really? 70 to 70.5 degree head-angle is what I have had on near every XC bike since 1995. Stem(s) have shortened as my bar have gotten wider but top-tube is the exact same length.
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    ..."Classic XC" geo had 72 degree head angles, short reach and long stems, which is what we're arguing is dumb. Are you referring to mid-90's Gary Fishers?
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    The changes to "Classic XC" geo are pretty small. 72 to 70.5 (which is the current standard for XC bikes) is actually a very small change. Probably switching from a 600mm bar to a 660mm bar is much more significant.

    No doubt that "new XC" geo is different then classic, but they are pretty darn close.
    Quote Originally Posted by mik_git View Post
    ...what are we calling old geometry?
    my 1989 Diamondback Apex had a 70 degree head angle (with a 80mm high rise stem), my 96 Xizang has a 71, so too my 2008 Zaskar. To me the first is really old school geometry, the later two, are mroe norba geometry.

    I don't think there has been much change in XC geo over the years, at least not in the last 15 years. XC geo has pretty much stayed the same and I would assume there is a very good reason for that. So I wouldn't say XC bikes have modern or new geo. XC bikes today for the most part seem to have the same standard XC geo as they did many years ago. Sure there are some tweaks to HT angle, and top tube, but these are very minor when compared to the changes in geo on modern AM/trail and DH bikes compared to 15 years ago.


    For a good example of the minor changes in XC geo from a mass produced XC bike from 15 years ago here is the geo chart for a bike I used to own (trek 8000) and a geo chart for a mass produced 2015 XC bike (spec stumpy) The differences are very small especially given that older has 26" wheels and the 2015 has 29" wheels.

    New VS Old Geometry-image.jpg

    New VS Old Geometry-image.jpg
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.
    .

  62. #462
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,653
    Quote Originally Posted by BuickGN View Post
    I have nothing to add other than I got passed by a BMX bike on near slicks the other day. That hurt. I doubt he had optimal geometry lol. I'm definitely going to be spending more time riding and less time worrying about geometry or the next upgrade to the bike.
    Those bmx boys be laughing at all of us, they roll with 75 degree HA's and no helmets.

    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	681 
Size:	130.2 KB 
ID:	1014157
    Funny^ that's nearly identical to my 2015 xc hardtail, htf do I even stay on that thing?

  63. #463
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,316
    Quote Originally Posted by BuickGN View Post
    I have nothing to add other than I got passed by a BMX bike on near slicks the other day.
    Ah, but was he happy?

  64. #464
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    I don't think I'd buy a bike with 35mm stem, even if it felt perfect.
    If you want to try a little less reach? No options.

    I keep bikes a long time and I try different bar, stem, seatpost combos to experiment, and just change things occasionally.

    Just knowing I couldn't try 1/2" shorter cockpit after riding a bike for a while would bug me, even if I was ok with the current set up.

    And I have fiddled with bikes long enough to know that there isn't just one position that works.

  65. #465
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    I always sucked at geometry. My bike is fun, I like riding it.

  66. #466
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,045
    PDent

    You can go much shorter than 35mm.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  67. #467
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    974

    Hope

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    PDent

    You can go much shorter than 35mm.
    PDent is not even close to short enough. If you want real modern geo try the new patent pending "Drastically Opposed Negative Geometry" from NS bikes.

    They claim that "After various lab and field tests, we found that adding even more length to the front triangle, and at the same time using a special stem with negative reach, riders will improve climbing efficiency (by 14.31%) and descending speeds (by up to 18.85%). This groundbreaking technology will be introduced in all 2016 bikes."

    Seriously, why get a PDent when you can get a D.O.N.G.

    New VS Old Geometry-image.jpg

    New VS Old Geometry-image.jpg

    NS Bikes Introduces Radical New Geometry for Mountain Bikes - Pinkbike
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.
    .

  68. #468
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,045
    I'm sure there are are guys who will prefer dong over pdent, and that's okay.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  69. #469
    SP Singletrack rocks
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,789
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    PDent is not even close to short enough. If you want real modern geo try the new patent pending "Drastically Opposed Negative Geometry" from NS bikes.

    They claim that "After various lab and field tests, we found that adding even more length to the front triangle, and at the same time using a special stem with negative reach, riders will improve climbing efficiency (by 14.31%) and descending speeds (by up to 18.85%). This groundbreaking technology will be introduced in all 2016 bikes."

    Seriously, why get a PDent when you can get a D.O.N.G.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	105 
Size:	235.7 KB 
ID:	1014366

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	147 
Size:	121.2 KB 
ID:	1014368

    NS Bikes Introduces Radical New Geometry for Mountain Bikes - Pinkbike
    why wouldnt it work?

    I know is a joke but seriously why wouldnt it work. If someone wants to send me a XL Trance Frame I gladly guinea pig the idea.

  70. #470
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,096
    Quote Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
    why wouldnt it work?

    I know is a joke but seriously why wouldnt it work. If someone wants to send me a XL Trance Frame I gladly guinea pig the idea.
    It works (turning the stem around, though not combined with a longer front). Actually works well, but only if you really like/want your weight rearward, and want to extend just how far rearward you can get.

    Can try it on your own bike. It doesn't feel unrideable at all. I didn't try it on a technical DH... only on a basic XC loop with rough/neglected singletrack. I thought it was amusing, since I was expecting far worse. I'm not a rearward biased rider, so I obviously changed it back right away.

  71. #471
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    For a good example of the minor changes in XC geo from a mass produced XC bike from 15 years ago here is the geo chart for a bike I used to own (trek 8000) and a geo chart for a mass produced 2015 XC bike (spec stumpy) The differences are very small especially given that older has 26" wheels and the 2015 has 29" wheels.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	681 
Size:	130.2 KB 
ID:	1014157

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	1116 
Size:	108.3 KB 
ID:	1014156
    Now look at current Trek HT geometry.

    HT angle: 69.5
    Chainstays are 17.13" (limited by packaging, since the 27.5 15.5 model is shorter.)
    Wheelbase is almost 2" longer, due to the .2" longer chainstay, slacker HT angle and LONGER REACH, which is evident from the longer effective top tube length. The Scott Scale wonderbike is also longer and slacker.

    These XC bikes that you're claiming don't have this "new school geo" actually do. It's not as drastic as the difference between an old XC bike and a longer travel trail or enduro bike, but they still have it. Comparing old XC bikes and new, more gravity orientated bikes is a false comparison anyways, of course they're different, that kind of bike barely existed back then.

    Sheesh....

  72. #472
    SP Singletrack rocks
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,789
    chainstays can be silly shot on a 29er......

    The new Stache is 16.3 and a 29x3.0 tire.

  73. #473
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
    chainstays can be silly shot on a 29er......

    The new Stache is 16.3 and a 29x3.0 tire.
    The part I didn't type was packaging a front derailleur...boost might end up shortening chainstays, but that's in the (near) future if ever. But I think designers have decided that chainstays should be in the neighborhood of 17" for XC bikes anyways.

  74. #474
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Now look at current Trek HT geometry.

    HT angle: 69.5
    Chainstays are 17.13" (limited by packaging, since the 27.5 15.5 model is shorter.)
    Wheelbase is almost 2" longer, due to the .2" longer chainstay, slacker HT angle and LONGER REACH, which is evident from the longer effective top tube length.
    So when you keep saying the reach is longer, are you strictly referring to the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to center of headtube, or the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to the center of the handlebar?

  75. #475
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    PDent

    You can go much shorter than 35mm.
    From that website:
    "Reducing a stem from 30 to 25 mm is a net 17 percent change. That's HUGE."

    Lol. Pacenti is full of sh1t.

  76. #476
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    So when you keep saying the reach is longer, are you strictly referring to the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to center of headtube, or the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to the center of the handlebar?
    Reach is from the BB to the head tube, it can't change...that's why it's listed in geometry charts and why the illustration always shows it going through the head tube..

    I'm not "saying" they're longer, I'm showing that they're longer.

  77. #477
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,821
    There are different ways to measure reach. When talking bike fit, reach often meant from bottom bracket to handlebar. Just clarifying.

  78. #478
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,069
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    There are different ways to measure reach. When talking bike fit, reach often meant from bottom bracket to handlebar. Just clarifying.
    There is only one way how to measure reach. BB to HT.
    What you are talking about is reach + stem.

  79. #479
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    974
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Now look at current Trek HT geometry.

    HT angle: 69.5
    Chainstays are 17.13" (limited by packaging, since the 27.5 15.5 model is shorter.)r
    Wheelbase is almost 2" longer, due to the .2" longer chainstay, slacker HT angle and LONGER REACH, which is evident from the longer effective top tube length...

    Sheesh....
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    I'm not "saying" they're longer, I'm showing that they're longer.
    The geo from that old trek ht frame vs a new trek ht frame is a lot closer than you think.

    First off the reach on the older trek is LONGER than on a new trek ht. The older trek would have a reach of about 460mm for the 19.5" vs a reach of 444 on a 19.5 x-caliber.

    Reach is not just about top tube length. That is part of the calculation, but seat angle and BB drop also need to be accounted for. The older trek has a steeper seat angle and less BB drop. That along with a TT that is only 14mm shorter than the new trek would make the reach longer on the old trek.

    For the ht angle, throw the same travel fork on the old trek as the x-caliber (80mm to 100mm) and that would bring the HTA down to 70 and the SA down to match the x-caliber at 72. This would also decrease the reach to about 447 and raise the BB up to about 315 which is just about the same as the 2015 x-caliber 19.5" frame.

    Wheel base will be the only thing that is really different between them due to the shorter chain stay and fork offset on the older trek, but even then it would be about 1.5". Which on an XC bike I believe the shorter wheel base would be preferable.

    2015 X-cal geo:
    New VS Old Geometry-image.jpg


    Looking at a giant XC bike and it doesn't look like their geo is that different from the old trek either. Pretty much only diff is the HTA. Throw that 100mm fork on the old trek and you would end up with a longer TT, reach and about the same HTA with the same SA of the trek x-cal.

    New VS Old Geometry-image.jpg

    As far as the title of this thread "old geo vs new geo" there is not much difference between old XC geo and new XC geo for obviously a good reason. For XC riding that 15 year old geo works just as good today as it did back then. Now old Am/trail and DH geo vs new am/trail and DH geo, that is an actual difference.
    Last edited by singletrackmack; 09-09-2015 at 11:49 PM.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.
    .

  80. #480
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    There is only one way how to measure reach. BB to HT.
    What you are talking about is reach + stem.
    There is frame reach and bar reach. I was just clarifying which was being referenced.

    Technical FAQ: Setting your bikes up identically - VeloNews.com

  81. #481
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,045
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    From that website:
    "Reducing a stem from 30 to 25 mm is a net 17 percent change. That's HUGE."

    Lol. Pacenti is full of sh1t.
    Have you tried 30 & 25mm stems?
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  82. #482
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    I've tried stems 5 mm apart, and the difference is not HUGE. It's a ridiculous assertion.
    I'm sure you can recognize a sales pitch when you see one, right?

  83. #483
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,155
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    I've tried stems 5 mm apart, and the difference is not HUGE. It's a ridiculous assertion.
    I'm sure you can recognize a sales pitch when you see one, right?
    About the same level of validity as claiming that going from a 30lb bike to a 25lb bike would make a rider 17% faster uphill (all other things being equal). In other words, not to be taken seriously.
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  84. #484
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    The geo from that old trek ht frame vs a new trek ht frame is a lot closer than you think.

    First off the reach on the older trek is LONGER than on a new trek ht. The older trek would have a reach of about 460mm for the 19.5" vs a reach of 444 on a 19.5 x-caliber.
    Comparing medium to medium...

    No, the reach would be slightly shorter, add to that the longer stem that's on the older bike and you have quite a bit of difference. That's also assuming that they have the same length head tube, which I highly doubt.

    Using the same fork makes the difference even greater, which goes to show how the geometry has changed.

    Geometry calc:
    geometryCalc

    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    For XC riding that 15 year old geo works just as good today as it did back then.
    Which is to say not as well as modern geometry...that's why it's been changing.

  85. #485
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    About the same level of validity as claiming that going from a 30lb bike to a 25lb bike would make a rider 17% faster uphill (all other things being equal). In other words, not to be taken seriously.
    Hey, people come onto these forums all the time saying that going from 440mm chainstays to 435mm, or 335mm BB to 330mm, or 5mm added/removed from their cranks, or pedal thickness from 17.5mm to 12, 5mm in their tire (0.2") and rim width, etc. made a HUGE difference in their riding. Pacenti sees the potential to make money off those those types that value little differences, also considering how Giant's % based marketing sold people on 650b.

  86. #486
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    Hey, people come onto these forums all the time saying that going from 440mm chainstays to 435mm, or 335mm BB to 330mm, or 5mm added/removed from their cranks, or pedal thickness from 17.5mm to 12, 5mm in their tire (0.2") and rim width, etc. made a HUGE difference in their riding. Pacenti sees the potential to make money off those those types that value little differences, also considering how Giant's % based marketing sold people on 650b.
    Speak for yourself. When I went to chainstays that were 5mm shorter, it instantly made me 5mm faster. Whoever says you can't buy speed is wrong. I'm going to buy another 5mm of speed next week and dust my riding crew.
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  87. #487
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    974
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Comparing medium to medium...

    No, the reach would be slightly shorter, add to that the longer stem that's on the older bike and you have quite a bit of difference. That's also assuming that they have the same length head tube, which I highly doubt.

    Using the same fork makes the difference even greater, which goes to show how the geometry has changed.

    Which is to say not as well as modern geometry...that's why it's been changing.
    Actually, the medium 17.5" HT trek from 2000 has a longer reach than the 2105 17.5" x-caliber. Weird how a bike from 15 years ago has a longer reach than the same brand XC bike of today. Man that XC geo from 2000 was so old school huh?

    If you add 20mm to the fork travel the 2000 17.5" trek would have 5mm less reach than the 2015 x-caliber, but still a longer reach than other mordern XC bikes.

    New VS Old Geometry-image.jpg

    So, like I said earlier, there is virtually no change in the XC geo of today and that ht trek from 2000. XC bikes of today have HTA's of between 69 and 71, which the old trek has, they have TT's slightly shorter or longer than the old trek, they have SA's equal to or a degree slacker or steeper than the old trek and they have a reach that is probably shorter in most cases or a little longer than the old trek.

    The geo chart for the old trek looks perfectly in place with XC geo charts of modern bikes. Could you honestly say that someone would look twice at the below geo chart thinking it was out of place in 2015? Which by the way it is the geo chart for the 2015 Ellsworth XC ht and virtually identical to the '00 trek ht for the medium size (which appearently is the size you like to look at) with the main exception of the medium trek having a LONGER reach on a 1/2" smaller frame.

    New VS Old Geometry-image.jpg

    Since for whatever reason you just can't admit that mordern XC geo has not changed from xc bike's geo from 15 years ago, how about you point out which metric or metrics on the geo chart below for the '00 trek HT would look out of place on a 2015 XC bikes geo chart.

    New VS Old Geometry-image.jpg
    Last edited by singletrackmack; 09-11-2015 at 01:03 AM.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.
    .

  88. #488
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,821
    Apparently my go to mountain bike company, Santa Cruz, is switching to the new geometry. Like I've said earlier, I actually prefer the short stem/wide bar geometry, but these extremes just don't fit my body well. I have a relatively short torso and long legs, so these super short seat-tubes will be a deal-breaker for me, since I don't want the super long wheelbase that comes with a 25mm stem. It looks like I won't be buying a Santa Cruz again.

  89. #489
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    Speak for yourself. When I went to chainstays that were 5mm shorter, it instantly made me 5mm faster. Whoever says you can't buy speed is wrong. I'm going to buy another 5mm of speed next week and dust my riding crew.
    I understand, ever since I got a new slacked out frame I've been two minutes faster, every ride. Can't argue with the facts.

  90. #490
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,069
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Apparently my go to mountain bike company, Santa Cruz, is switching to the new geometry. Like I've said earlier, I actually prefer the short stem/wide bar geometry, but these extremes just don't fit my body well. I have a relatively short torso and long legs, so these super short seat-tubes will be a deal-breaker for me, since I don't want the super long wheelbase that comes with a 25mm stem. It looks like I won't be buying a Santa Cruz again.
    Funny how different riders and their preferences are.
    I hoped for even longer front end on V2 Bronson and 5010 and a touch shorter CS on the Bronson.

    There are still many other high end companies sticking with the short geometry. Ibis, Turner, Pivot, YT...

  91. #491
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,045
    I looked at the new Santa Cruz's and for the first time ever would consider getting one.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  92. #492
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    91
    Obviously a lot of people think this newer geometry is better for a lot of things, but do most think it is more important than the suspension design?

    Also, everyone is saying it is good for descending and technical climbing. Would these typically longer travel trail bikes be over kill for more flat terrain with smaller rocks and roots and the occasional rolling hill?

  93. #493
    SP Singletrack rocks
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,789
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaMtnBkr View Post
    Obviously a lot of people think this newer geometry is better for a lot of things, but do most think it is more important than the suspension design?

    Also, everyone is saying it is good for descending and technical climbing. Would these typically longer travel trail bikes be over kill for more flat terrain with smaller rocks and roots and the occasional rolling hill?
    yes they are overkill....

    the biggest reason is on flatter terrain the STA feel very uncomfortable on even the slightest of DH and the slack HTA is better for really leaned over cornering.

    You basically need a dropper post to ride on modern bike. I would go so far to say that I have never met a person who likes a modern bike but does not run a dropper post. On the flats you end up using a dropper a ton, because simply put the bike will not turn unless you can get your hips low to the ground.

  94. #494
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    974
    ^^^ these are just some of the reasons XC bikes have not adopted any sort of new school geometry and have kept their geo the same for a decade and a half. New vs old geometry does not apply to XC bikes since it hasn't changed.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.
    .

  95. #495
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Actually, the medium 17.5" HT trek from 2000 has a longer reach than the 2105 17.5" x-caliber. Weird how a bike from 15 years ago has a longer reach than the same brand XC bike of today. Man that XC geo from 2000 was so old school huh?

    If you add 20mm to the fork travel the 2000 17.5" trek would have 5mm less reach than the 2015 x-caliber, but still a longer reach than other mordern XC bikes.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	365 
Size:	120.4 KB 
ID:	1014651

    So, like I said earlier, there is virtually no change in the XC geo of today and that ht trek from 2000. XC bikes of today have HTA's of between 69 and 71, which the old trek has, they have TT's slightly shorter or longer than the old trek, they have SA's equal to or a degree slacker or steeper than the old trek and they have a reach that is probably shorter in most cases or a little longer than the old trek.

    The geo chart for the old trek looks perfectly in place with XC geo charts of modern bikes. Could you honestly say that someone would look twice at the below geo chart thinking it was out of place in 2015? Which by the way it is the geo chart for the 2015 Ellsworth XC ht and virtually identical to the '00 trek ht for the medium size (which appearently is the size you like to look at) with the main exception of the medium trek having a LONGER reach on a 1/2" smaller frame.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	163 
Size:	91.0 KB 
ID:	1014655

    Since for whatever reason you just can't admit that mordern XC geo has not changed from xc bike's geo from 15 years ago, how about you point out which metric or metrics on the geo chart below for the '00 trek HT would look out of place on a 2015 XC bikes geo chart.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	583 
Size:	130.2 KB 
ID:	1014647
    You're comparing a 17.5 and a 16.5. One of the annoying things that Trek does these days is to add an inch to the seat tube length for frame size.

    There's a 20mm difference when you use the same frame measurement for sizing...then add in the stem difference, and the theory that it hasn't changed sounds rather silly.

  96. #496
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
    yes they are overkill....

    the biggest reason is on flatter terrain the STA feel very uncomfortable on even the slightest of DH and the slack HTA is better for really leaned over cornering.

    You basically need a dropper post to ride on modern bike. I would go so far to say that I have never met a person who likes a modern bike but does not run a dropper post. On the flats you end up using a dropper a ton, because simply put the bike will not turn unless you can get your hips low to the ground.
    When taken to extreme, and then upsized, very much so.

    But then again, I think that AM/enduro bikes should be shorter than XC bikes....using the logic that XC bikes should be setup for max power production with handling taking a back seat. AM/enduro is the opposite. A dropper post should be something that merely aids your ability to move around on the bike, not a necessity.

    I'm 5'10", with a similarly average 32.5" inseam. I rode a medium Pivot M5.7, Pivot has and still does make longer travel bikes with shorter reaches, which I found very easy to manipulate even before I got a dropper post. The post made it feel like it disappeared beneath me. I test rode a M6 at interbike last year and got stuck behind the seat while fooling around on the pump track. Turns out that while I asked for a medium, they gave me a large, which was too long for more technical riding. I bought a medium and it works out great for any kind of riding where a 6" travel bike would be expected to work well. Won the local super-d race series in Cat 2...it's a fast and capable bike. How I position myself on the bike relative to the front axle is still limited by the length of my arms, just like it would be on a larger bike, so I don't see how a longer reach provides more of anything on descents.

    Had the same experience with a Trek Stache, which is a pretty long bike. My shop has a few available for rental, and the large is fun until you start to ride aggressively. Then it becomes apparent that it's too big for someone my size to really move around on. The small is actually more similar to my Pivot as far as reach goes, and it's very fun to ride aggressively. There's no medium available, for whatever reason, but the temptation (and recommendation) is still there for someone my size to ride a large, which is unsuitable if handling is a priority.

    Why the longer reach trend is getting out of control is a good question. While it is true that the use of a dropper post makes it a non issue while descending, it does hurt handling when it comes to cornering by making it harder to steer and properly position your weight at the same time. Is it a case of if a little is good, even more is better? The ability to look at your bike and see how long and low it is? Being able to say you ride a big boy's bike?

    As far as the changing taste in trails go, I'd put most of the blame on the elevation of Whistler, with its straight and wide "flow trails," as the new MTB mecca over more natural (and challenging) places like Moab.

  97. #497
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    You're comparing a 17.5 and a 16.5. One of the annoying things that Trek does these days is to add an inch to the seat tube length for frame size.
    I don't know Richde, it sure looks like what he is showing is spot on. And what do you mean trek adds an inch to the seat tube length? That doesn't make any sense. The older trek only had 4 sizes and the new one has 6. Trek just added more sizing range, not an extra inch to their seat tube length. But as far as the comparison goes, mack is just comparing the same size frames to each other by using the seat tube length to match up the frames to since there are more frame sizes available with the newer trek models. This makes complete sense since seat tube length is how the industry determines sizing of bike frames. Trek now added a 13.5" and a 18.5" to their line up. Comparing the old 17.5" to the new 18.5" wouldn't be an accurate comparison since trek still has 17.5". If trek had a 18.5" back in 2000, it's geo would be in between the 17.5" and 19.5" just like the new models.

    Regardless, that geo chart for the 2015 Ellsworth XC bike pretty much proves his argument that xc geo has not changed no matter how much you don't like it. Not sure why you can't admit he's right, but have fun looking for more BS reasons to prove your point.

    Also, i would love to see how you answer the below question mack posted earlier, because I can't see anything in that geo chart that would look out of place on a modern XC bike. It has been a hella of a lot of fun to see how you rationalize things so you think your never wrong. Pure entertainment.

    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Since for whatever reason you just can't admit that mordern XC geo has not changed from xc bike's geo from 15 years ago, how about you point out which metric or metrics on the geo chart below for the '00 trek HT would look out of place on a 2015 XC bikes geo chart.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	583 
Size:	130.2 KB 
ID:	1014647

  98. #498
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by tahoebeau View Post
    I don't know Richde, it sure looks like what he is showing is spot on. And what do you mean trek adds an inch to the seat tube length? That doesn't make any sense. The older trek only had 4 sizes and the new one has 6. Trek just added more sizing range, not an extra inch to their seat tube length. But as far as the comparison goes, mack is just comparing the same size frames to each other by using the seat tube length to match up the frames to since there are more frame sizes available with the newer trek models. This makes complete sense since seat tube length is how the industry determines sizing of bike frames. Trek now added a 13.5" and a 18.5" to their line up. Comparing the old 17.5" to the new 18.5" wouldn't be an accurate comparison since trek still has 17.5". If trek had a 18.5" back in 2000, it's geo would be in between the 17.5" and 19.5" just like the new models.

    Regardless, that geo chart for the 2015 Ellsworth XC bike pretty much proves his argument that xc geo has not changed no matter how much you don't like it. Not sure why you can't admit he's right, but have fun looking for more BS reasons to prove your point.

    Also, i would love to see how you answer the below question mack posted earlier, because I can't see anything in that geo chart that would look out of place on a modern XC bike. It has been a hella of a lot of fun to see how you rationalize things so you think your never wrong. Pure entertainment.

    It's simple, look at the actual seat tube length on the geo chart. The 18.5 has the same 17.5 seat tube length as the old medium. Then throw in the fact that people frequently upsize bikes, i.e. medium sized people are riding larges now.

    The size number that Trek uses is arbitrary and confusing.

    Everything he's referring to is based on ignoring those things.

    If nothing else, stem length has changed, which means that something HAS changed in matter how you want to cherrypick frames to compare. Bar width doesn't totally compensate for stem length either.

  99. #499
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    It's simple, look at the actual seat tube length on the geo chart. The 18.5 has the same 17.5 seat tube length as the old medium. Then throw in the fact that people frequently upsize bikes, i.e. medium sized people are riding larges now.

    The size number that Trek uses is arbitrary and confusing.

    Everything he's referring to is based on ignoring those things.

    If nothing else, stem length has changed, which means that something HAS changed in matter how you want to cherrypick frames to compare. Bar width doesn't totally compensate for stem length either.
    Didn't catch that in the geo charts, however trek wouldn't do this arbitrarily. They do this in order to lower the standover, but still have people get the right size bike. For example if they are comfortable on an old 17.5", then they would want to get a new trek in the what they are referring to as a 17.5" otherwise the bike would be too big if they simply went with the 18.5" because it has a seat tube of 17.5". Really, an inch differences in seat tube length doesn't effect the bikes handling geometry. If someone used to ride an older trek with a 17.5" frame, then they would want to get a new trek in what they call a 17.5" since as it has been pointed out on this thread, they would have similar TT and reach.

    Regardless, I would still like to hear you explain how Ellsworth is using just about the identical geo on their 2015 XC HT as the trek from 2000 if xc geo is now more modern than 15 years ago, and most importantly answer the below question from mack, because that geo from 15 years ago is the same geo that is being used on XC bikes today.

    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Since for whatever reason you just can't admit that mordern XC geo has not changed from xc bike's geo from 15 years ago, how about you point out which metric or metrics on the geo chart below for the '00 trek HT would look out of place on a 2015 XC bikes geo chart.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	583 
Size:	130.2 KB 
ID:	1014647

  100. #500
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by tahoebeau View Post
    Regardless, I would still like to hear you explain how Ellsworth is using just about the identical geo on their 2015 XC HT as the trek from 2000 if xc geo is now more modern than 15 years ago, and most importantly answer the below question from mack, because that geo from 15 years ago is the same geo that is being used on XC bikes today.
    What is really odd to me that this is being framed as a dichotomy.
    It's either this or that, new or old.

    You have a number of tubes that can be put together in a dizzying array of lengths and angles to make a decent riding bike, and here's twenty pages, coming across as if the only question in modern frame design is 'Chocolate or vanilla--which one do you like'?

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... 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: 158

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.