New VS Old Geometry - Page 5- Mtbr.com
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 801 to 948 of 948
  1. #801
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,039
    Quote Originally Posted by zooey View Post
    I asked around to see why more bike brands aren't aiming for 50/50 weight distro on the wheels. Initial answers basically said that heavy weight bias on the rear is what sells (short chainstays, front wheel moved further away from the rider, anti-endo and wheelie/manual geo). Still waiting to hear back from some others.

    The Intense Primer is the first bike I've ridden that introduced me to what I consider this 50/50 weight distro on the wheels. Seems Pole targeted this sort of balance too. They also seemed to have realized that longer wheelbase just makes everything easier, and that the trade off of a wider turning radius isn't as significant as people made it seem. Kind of reminds me of the Carbine 29's ride.
    Easier isn't always better. Or more fun.

  2. #802
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    That's not necessarily true, as motorcycles have a heavy rearward bias when you take acceleration into consideration. The front tire also almost automatically has less grip because it's slightly turned, and let's face it, if one tire is going to slide, you want it to be the rear, so you'd want that tire to reach it's limit first.

    Course, my experiences are that of an average sized man, it's very possible that lengthening both sides of the bike would work for taller people. I wouldn't know, I'm not tall.

    Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
    When it comes to motor vehicles, they have to worry much more about dynamics under acceleration/braking. I was told that's why Porsche is more heavily rearward biased, but you can take that with a grain of salt, as it came from a car enthusiast that plays a lot of street car racing sims. Something along the same lines as what you're saying, that oversteer is preferable to understeer. I personally prefer the 2-wheel drift.

    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Easier isn't always better. Or more fun.
    Yep! I already learned that. In fact, I mentioned that in a recent post on this thread. I prefer a challenge that is just right! Too easy is boring. There's a sweet spot for everything, and it's all dependent on personal circumstances like rider ability and terrain.

    I've also re-learned how much of a YUGE difference tires make to a ride, after trying something other than my favored Maxxis treads, and how a demo bike that happened to come with my favored Maxxis treads felt so at home for me. I've been tempted to say that tires make the bike, but not that convinced yet. Still think geo and suspension are part of the top 3 with tires, but just not sure how to rank them in order of significance. I think tires might very well be #1, after thinking about it.

  3. #803
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,476
    I think you have to ride one. one of the first things I found is that it's ok for either wheel to slide with a very slack front and a very balanced weight distribution, without it being a disaster, the space allows you to drive the front and generate grip if desired or to balance that between the wheels. You don't have that space on a short bike and the tolerance for error becomes much smaller.
    I am 178cm, very average size. My bike has a 660mm ETT and a 520mm 'reach' although centre saddle to centre bar (within stem) is 680mm with 30mm stem. HA is 60.5deg, SA 76.5deg. Bar end to centre of BB is 915mm.

    Lots of assumptions are made by people about how it rides, corners etc because (as an American journalist who has never ridden one famously said) it's 'deviant' geometry . I let lots of people ride it when I'm out riding, most are surprised, many have gone on to buy one.

    However, for most. it is definitely something to ride first.

    It corners differently, there is more lean due to the head angle and length, less turning of the front wheel, and less scrubbing of the front generating more grip with no real tendency to 'tuck'. You will get a controlled slide from the front but it's unlikely to just lose traction suddenly unless unweighted.

    As I've said many times it's a package, we can't talk about front triangle length or chainstay length, head angle, seat angle, bb height etc. As individual elements. there are too many interactions especially when you add the effect of a human that moves around and is 6 times the mass of the vehicle (typically) often more.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Aka chainline...

  4. #804
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,476
    And yes the fun thing, it depends on what fun means to you. fun for me is cornering at speed, that's why I love motorbikes. What I gain most from the GeoMetron is forgiveness, I am an average rider, no more, but even on fairly flat terrain where I have to generate speed from pedalling I regularly hit the limits of grip, drifting the bike, I love it, great fun, with this type of geo I know that like a great tire, it's not going to just break away but give me warning. I ride with guys that manual it with ease at any speed, I'm rubbish at that, but I was only ever ok at manuals on a 'normal' bike. I can jump it and use the terrain to lift the front no sweat.
    Again you have to ride it. I hear mention of 'poppy' a lot too, that's just a suspension set up thing, a choice not a bike characteristic derived from geo. Just depends what you like as most of these things.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Aka chainline...

  5. #805
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    735
    What made you decide to switch to the Endo? Do you ever miss your Warden on steep downhill trails? I have tried the Endo and also found it very playful and fun, but I think the Warden is a better tool for the steep and gnarly.

  6. #806
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,476

    New VS Old Geometry

    Current rig. This is a Longest at 660mm ETT. I'm 5'10".

    Running it 29/27.5 at the moment which is really nice. Angles come up at 61.5 HA/76.8 SA, 520mm reach. 335mm bb 160mm ebike 36 front/170mm rear.

    Last week I was running it 29 which came up 60.5 HA and 76.5 SA, 510mm reach, 340mm bb, same fork but a 216 Sh ok and 155m rear. I can run it 170mm rear it the bb is higher than I'd like at 345mm in that guise.

    The adjustable chainstay set to 445mm at the moment.

    I need to back to back it with the 27.5 next.
    The 29 is nice but The hybrid is ace, no need to have to steer the rear at all much like the 27.5 version.

    The front steers nicely at either head angle but we have noticed that sub 60.5 is about the limit before you need to service the fork lowers more often to keep them running nice.
    Feels very much like the 27.5 at this HA, calm but responsive using a 44mm offset. The 51mm is a little too fast on 29 and 27.5 for most people.
    gives amazing grip when loaded and huge confidence into anything steep but carves sooooo nice on flat singletrack corners too. 2 wheel drifts feel very safe so finding the limits of grip is S pleasant rather than scary experience.






    If you look closely you'll see Chris Porters XXL in there with judiciously placed lead weights testing the effect on handling and speed.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Aka chainline...

  7. #807
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Skooks View Post
    What made you decide to switch to the Endo? Do you ever miss your Warden on steep downhill trails? I have tried the Endo and also found it very playful and fun, but I think the Warden is a better tool for the steep and gnarly.
    I bought a used Endo frame and took the parts off of a Mondraker Vantage that I had built up. I loved the Mondraker geometry, but in the the end the HT ride was beating the crap out of my legs on quite a few of the trails here. I still have the Warden for the big boy trails.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  8. #808
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/transi...etry-2017.html

    Transition is going longer with less fork offset.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  9. #809
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    3,091
    The new geometry is a load of crap. Short, steep, and high is where it's at.

    A steep head angle and long stem are a perfect setup to really build your descending skills to a very high degree. Be sure to not use a dropper for maximum skill-building. Skinny tires and little or no suspension are also helpful in the skill-building.

    The old geometry is also a boon to the bottom line of the healthcare providers (not applicable in Canada) for the rash of OTB injuries.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  10. #810
    mtbr member
    Reputation: upstateSC-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,533
    So how do I know what i currently have? It's a '15 Jet 9 RDO with 70.5 HA (with 120mm fork) and a 455 (17.9") CS length and I can't imagine a better bike besides the few pedal strikes I get when I thought I would've cleared it.
    Niner Jet 9 RDO, Scalpel 29, XTC 650b, 04 Stumpjumper FSR Pro, Trek Rigid SS - No suspension, no gears....no problem

  11. #811
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    Quote Originally Posted by upstateSC-rider View Post
    So how do I know what i currently have? It's a '15 Jet 9 RDO with 70.5 HA (with 120mm fork) and a 455 (17.9") CS length and I can't imagine a better bike besides the few pedal strikes I get when I thought I would've cleared it.
    You have a Jet 9 RD0, and yes it old fashioned😉

    Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  12. #812
    high pivot witchcraft
    Reputation: mtnbkrmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    The new geometry is a load of crap. Short, steep, and high is where it's at.

    A steep head angle and long stem are a perfect setup to really build your descending skills to a very high degree. Be sure to not use a dropper for maximum skill-building. Skinny tires and little or no suspension are also helpful in the skill-building.

    The old geometry is also a boon to the bottom line of the healthcare providers (not applicable in Canada) for the rash of OTB injuries.
    Bahahaha!

    Why "not applicable in Canada"?

  13. #813
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    3,091
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbkrmike View Post
    Bahahaha!

    Why "not applicable in Canada"?
    Single-payer health care system means that the health care providers don't make money off your crashes like they do in the US.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  14. #814
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Question for bike geometry obsessed geeks.
    I see more manufacturers are now including Effective STA and Actual STA in their charts.
    What makes me scratch my head is that these numbers are always same for different bike sizes.
    Shouldn't they be different considering they are measured at different stack #, which increases with each size...
    You might need to look at some geometry graphs to see what I mean.
    Mondraker for example.

    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  15. #815
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,476
    They are the same as the ASA and ESA doesn't change.
    What changes is the ETT as it's a function of the horizontal measurement to the HT and of course the ATT.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Aka chainline...

  16. #816
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    34,655
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pilot View Post
    They are the same as the ASA and ESA doesn't change.
    What changes is the ETT as it's a function of the horizontal measurement to the HT and of course the ATT.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Hmmm I'll have the FBI look into this and get back with you.
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  17. #817
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,476



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Aka chainline...

  18. #818
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pilot View Post
    They are the same as the ASA and ESA doesn't change.
    What changes is the ETT as it's a function of the horizontal measurement to the HT and of course the ATT.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Hmm,
    The horizontal line (where the ESA is measured) rises as a result of higher stack. That also means the point of intersection (with ST) moves back, since the ST is angled.
    And this was my original question, Effective STA is measured from BB to this point of intersection. If this point moves back, it should effect the Effective STA. It should make the ESA slacker with rising stack height...
    Thats why I dont understand why are ESA and ASA # the same across all frame sizes?

    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  19. #819
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,476
    The angle never changes though. The point of intersection yes but that's. It what you asked.
    As stack rises, normally so does ATT and thus ETT.
    Higher stack doesn't change either the effective or actual seat angle.
    A higher stack for a fixed reach would change the ETT. But that's an unrealistic comparison as no one would do that. Stack rises either with frame size or fork length typically.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Aka chainline...

  20. #820
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pilot View Post
    The angle never changes though. The point of intersection yes but that's. It what you asked.
    As stack rises, normally so does ATT and thus ETT.
    Higher stack doesn't change either the effective or actual seat angle.
    A higher stack for a fixed reach would change the ETT. But that's an unrealistic comparison as no one would do that. Stack rises either with frame size or fork length typically.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Well,
    I will have to diseagree.
    If the stack rises, it moves the point of intersection back and if the ASA is unchanged across the different sizes, the ESA has to change. The more the stack rises the slacker the ESA will be.

    I know about changes in ETT and reach, byt I am not talking about those here...

    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  21. #821
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    Hmm,
    The horizontal line (where the ESA is measured) rises as a result of higher stack. That also means the point of intersection (with ST) moves back, since the ST is angled.
    And this was my original question, Effective STA is measured from BB to this point of intersection. If this point moves back, it should effect the Effective STA. It should make the ESA slacker with rising stack height...
    Thats why I dont understand why are ESA and ASA # the same across all frame sizes?

    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

    You are correct. The ESA is a BS number anyway. No one has their saddle the same height as the head tube, and all manufactures have different ASAs, so it is extremely difficult to project the real seat tube angle an individual will end up with. My actual is not even close to the geometry chart.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  22. #822
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    I see more manufacturers are now including Effective STA and Actual STA in their charts. What makes me scratch my head is that these numbers are always same for different bike sizes.
    I haven't seen that many companies providing both. Like you say, Mondraker does. The first Mondraker bike geo I looked at actually didn't have the same angles across sizes (but the next one did). I'm not yet convinced they're "always" the same (or that these bike companies report correct ST #s).

    I started to think Stack and ST (vertically measured) heights negated one another, but that's probably not the case. But it does diminish the variances we would expect to see across sizes, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by the_pilot View Post
    The angle never changes though. The point of intersection yes but that's. It what you asked.
    As stack rises, normally so does ATT and thus ETT.
    Higher stack doesn't change either the effective or actual seat angle.
    I can't agree with most of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    The ESA is a BS number anyway. No one has their saddle the same height as the head tube, and all manufactures have different ASAs, so it is extremely difficult to project the real seat tube angle an individual will end up with. My actual is not even close to the geometry chart.
    I think eSTA can be helpful. And when coupled with the aSTA, it's not hard to determine the eSTA at a given saddle height. Another 90* triangle is created north of the HT, so plug two numbers (one being eSTA - aSTA) into an online calculator, and you'll get the rear offset created by the aSTA vs. eSTA, which you can use to determine your personal eSTA (I think..., no engineer here). I did something similar here when questioning Pivot's published eSTA numbers for the 429T.

  23. #823
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,476
    EST angle as quoted by any mfr is the angle of a straight line drawn through the centre of the BB and the centre of the top of the ST.
    The ETT is measured from where that line when extended from intersects with a horizontal line drawn from the top of the centre of the HT and measure between the two.

    I read the question as being that that angle changes depending on extension. That isn't true.

    It also does not change between sizes except in certain circumstances where mfs can't package elements on the very small bikes, sometimes you will see slightly different angles quoted on XS bikes.

    If you change the effective seat angle between sizes you change the bike. it will pedal very differently for a given height saddle.

    Which I think some are alluding to here in that, yes as the extension increases the weight of the rider is more rearward and that has the impact of making the ETT for that rider longer and climbing performance worse depending on the length of chainstay and head angle etc etc. Also affected by stem length....





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Aka chainline...

  24. #824
    Co Springs
    Reputation: bachman1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,348
    Quote Originally Posted by DIRTJUNKIE View Post
    Hmmm I'll have the FBI look into this and get back with you.
    If this had anything to do with the Fabricated Bottom bracket Intersection,
    you would have been subpoenaed.

    I wish I had my old geometry back. I used to be skinny.
    "Before you criticize, you should walk a mile in their shoes. You'll be a mile away from them and you have their shoes"

  25. #825
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pilot View Post
    EST angle as quoted by any mfr is the angle of a straight line drawn through the centre of the BB and the centre of the top of the ST.
    The ETT is measured from where that line when extended from intersects with a horizontal line drawn from the top of the centre of the HT and measure between the two.

    I read the question as being that that angle changes depending on extension. That isn't true.

    It also does not change between sizes except in certain circumstances where mfs can't package elements on the very small bikes, sometimes you will see slightly different angles quoted on XS bikes.

    If you change the effective seat angle between sizes you change the bike. it will pedal very differently for a given height saddle.

    Which I think some are alluding to here in that, yes as the extension increases the weight of the rider is more rearward and that has the impact of making the ETT for that rider longer and climbing performance worse depending on the length of chainstay and head angle etc etc. Also affected by stem length....





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I dont think you are right about the EST angle way of measurement.
    It is measured at stack height, not at the top of the ST....

    Here you can clearly see that if the stack height increases, it moves the point of intersection back and therefore slackening the EST angle, while the AST angle stays unchanged.
    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
    Last edited by jazzanova; 07-07-2017 at 10:51 AM.

  26. #826
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,476
    I didn't say measured at the top, I said through the top to the horizontal intersection.
    The angle never changes along that line no matter where you measure it!

    All that changes is the point of intersection with the horizontal which is the ETT.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Aka chainline...

  27. #827
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pilot View Post
    I didn't say measured at the top, I said through the top to the horizontal intersection.
    The angle never changes along that line no matter where you measure it!

    All that changes is the point of intersection with the horizontal which is the ETT.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Your exact words where "the center of the top of the seat tube."

    Anyway. Look at the geometry drawing again.
    If the stack increases, the point of intersection moves up and back. It does not change the AST angle but it certainly changes EST angle, since it is measured from the BB....
    With higher stack it gets slacker.

    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
    Last edited by jazzanova; 07-07-2017 at 10:50 AM.

  28. #828
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pilot View Post
    EST angle as quoted by any mfr is the angle of a straight line drawn through the centre of the BB and the centre of the top of the ST.
    I've seen Niner measure it this way but no one else. I remember because it made me think, "WTF is Niner doing now?" Hey, don't they have a model named...

    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    these numbers are always same for different bike sizes.
    Shouldn't they be different considering they are measured at different stack #, which increases with each size...
    Jazzanova, I see what you're saying. All else held constant, increased Stack should slacken eSTA. But all else is not held constant. eSTA is a function of, among other things, the point in space that is the center/top of the ST (where post begins to extend). This is a unique point for each frame size. Move this point forward and you steepen the eSTA, right? Vertical height of the top of ST is another variable. So, for a given size, a designer, working with given Stack and aSTA #s, could offset and/or bend the seat tube so the top of it arrives at such a point as to produce the desired eSTA. In this way, a designer could "zero out" any eSTA variances among Stack heights (if they wish) by manipulating this unique point. Mondraker appears to have very purposely offset the ST from the BB - I'd guess this is why. Alternatively, a designer could manipulate aSTA to get their eSTAs to match up (or combine the various methods).

  29. #829
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    I've seen Niner measure it this way but no one else. I remember because it made me think, "WTF is Niner doing now?" Hey, don't they have a model named...



    Jazzanova, I see what you're saying. All else held constant, increased Stack should slacken eSTA. But all else is not held constant. eSTA is a function of, among other things, the point in space that is the center/top of the ST (where post begins to extend). This is a unique point for each frame size. Move this point forward and you steepen the eSTA, right? Vertical height of the top of ST is another variable. So, for a given size, a designer, working with given Stack and aSTA #s, could offset and/or bend the seat tube so the top of it arrives at such a point as to produce the desired eSTA. In this way, a designer could "zero out" any eSTA variances among Stack heights (if they wish) by manipulating this unique point. Mondraker appears to have very purposely offset the ST from the BB - I'd guess this is why. Alternatively, a designer could manipulate aSTA to get their eSTAs to match up (or combine the various methods).
    Yup, it is possible.
    Few things though.
    If they bent the ST to maintain the same eSTA across the sizes, that would also change the aSTA.
    They could of course just move the ST forward to maintain both angles the same, but it is very unlikely. It would also mean changes in the way the rear triangle is mounted to the front or even changes to the rear triangle itself, again very unlikely...

    Some designs might allow for maintaining both effective and actual STA constant, but most will not.

    I believe most manufacturers just pick numbers somewhere in the middle of the road and use them on geo charts across all sizes.


    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  30. #830
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    If they bent the ST to maintain the same eSTA across the sizes, that would also change the aSTA.
    I was talking about bending the bottom half of the ST forward (like my 429T) which facilitates offsetting the ST forward of the BB (no matter; I think we agree that the ST can be offset forward while maintaining the same aSTA, regardless of how it's described).

    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    They could of course just move the ST forward to maintain both angles the same, but it is very unlikely. It would also mean changes in the way the rear triangle is mounted to the front or even changes to the rear triangle itself, again very unlikely...
    Some designs might allow for maintaining both effective and actual STA constant, but most will not.
    Very unlikely? Perhaps. Suspension design confuses me. But can't designers just design the necessary post-mount thingees (and/or bend tubes) so that linkages are mounted where they need to be? Similarly, they can design huge ugly (and stiff) ST/BB areas to facilitate mounting linkages where they want them? All while designing whatever geo they want (within reason).

  31. #831
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    I am very much wanting to demo a Pole, but I'm in Canada so that is unlikely.

    #thegeometryaffair - Part 2, The Threesome | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  32. #832
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    I am very much wanting to demo a Pole, but I'm in Canada so that is unlikely.

    #thegeometryaffair - Part 2, The Threesome | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine
    I hope more manufacturers will implement the steep STA. Keep the TT in check for proper seated distance to bars, give it a steep ST and option to adjust the HA & CS. Forget about the WB, the least important #, unless its too short.
    And give us the option of different offsets!
    Its amazing it is taking this long. Even this thread is now over 2years old..

    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  33. #833
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    991
    After reading some of this I thought of something. It seems much advice for sizing a bike is given for reach and stack. People say size a bike off reach/TT most importantly. Now, since some bikes have steeper STA's, doesn't that change what people are looking at?

    So, take a bike with a seemingly huge reach like 450 for a medium frame. If it has a super steep STA, then the actual rider reach would be equivalent to say a bike with reach of 430, BUT with a slacker STA right? So shouldn't STA be an important number to reach?

  34. #834
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by ejewels View Post
    After reading some of this I thought of something. It seems much advice for sizing a bike is given for reach and stack. People say size a bike off reach/TT most importantly. Now, since some bikes have steeper STA's, doesn't that change what people are looking at?

    So, take a bike with a seemingly huge reach like 450 for a medium frame. If it has a super steep STA, then the actual rider reach would be equivalent to say a bike with reach of 430, BUT with a slacker STA right? So shouldn't STA be an important number to reach?
    They are all important #s and we should look at the geometry as a whole.
    Reach & Stack are the most important # in regards how a bike fits when standing. Add CS, HA, offset and WB and it will define how a bike will feel when descending/standing pedaling.
    Add TT & STA and it defines how the bike will feel while sitting.
    ST length is another important #, but it seems this one most manufacturers get correct these days and the era of long seat tubes is behind us.
    My biggest problem is with slack seat tubes. Ones they get steeper, reach gets properly adjusted. If only reach gets longer without making the ST steeper, the TT stays uncomfortably long for seated position.

    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  35. #835
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    I am very much wanting to demo a Pole, but I'm in Canada so that is unlikely.

    #thegeometryaffair - Part 2, The Threesome | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine
    Same here, I'm very curious but would really want to try it, preferably on my home trails, before laying down the cash.

    I'm also really interested to see how the new SBG Transitions ride once they're released, and the chances of getting a demo on one are much higher for me.

  36. #836
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,039
    Steep STA and long reach make it more difficult to get your weight over the back wheel. Count me out if that becomes the norm.

  37. #837
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,424
    A fad that I will be happy to see gone.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  38. #838
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Steep STA and long reach make it more difficult to get your weight over the back wheel. Count me out if that becomes the norm.
    When exactly are you trying to get your weight over the back wheel? Not something I've ever found myself struggling with, can you give me an example?

  39. #839
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Steep STA and long reach make it more difficult to get your weight over the back wheel. Count me out if that becomes the norm.
    Which longer reach, steep ST bikes have you tried?

    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  40. #840
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMISSIONARY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    I am very much wanting to demo a Pole, but I'm in Canada so that is unlikely.

    #thegeometryaffair - Part 2, The Threesome | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine

    i would love one....But at over $7000 aud its never going to happen

  41. #841
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,039
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    When exactly are you trying to get your weight over the back wheel? Not something I've ever found myself struggling with, can you give me an example?
    Manualling, dropping, adjusting body position while jumping, going down super steep sections... It's more difficult with longer wheelbases.

    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    Which longer reach, steep ST bikes have you tried?

    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
    Does it matter? Physics is physics. It is more difficult to get your weight over the back wheel when your hands are farther from the rear axle. I realize that a longer wheelbase centers the rider's mass more on the bike, it makes it more difficult to weight either wheel. You can still do it, but the rider needs to exagerate their movements much more.

  42. #842
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Manualling, dropping, adjusting body position while jumping, going down super steep sections... It's more difficult with longer wheelbases.



    Does it matter? Physics is physics. It is more difficult to get your weight over the back wheel when your hands are farther from the rear axle. I realize that a longer wheelbase centers the rider's mass more on the bike, it makes it more difficult to weight either wheel. You can still do it, but the rider needs to exagerate their movements much more.
    Of course it matters.
    The bottom line is, you have never ridden it and your experience with this kind of geometry is exactly 0%, none.
    You can say what you want, until you try it, it is just an opinion not based in real life testing.

    Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by jazzanova; 08-18-2017 at 08:07 AM.

  43. #843
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    Yup, lot's of opinions based on biases, not experience. Thank God that not all designers think like that, or we would all be on 1985 Stumpjumpers. I try to keep an open mind when new things come along. Designers don't come up with stuff like the Pole on a whim, they experiment, and find what they like. Those who don't experiment with new things never know.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  44. #844
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,039
    I don't need to try the extreme geometry to understand math. I've ridden a bunch of bikes that had all kinds of geometry, and when the front end gets longer, it is more difficult to get over the back axle.

  45. #845
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,039
    I don't need to try the extreme geometry to understand math. I've ridden a bunch of bikes that had all kinds of geometry, and when the seattube angle gets steeper and reach gets shifted forward, it is more difficult to get over the back axle. The only way to fix it is to incorporate super short chainstays, which is not always practical or beneficial, either. I'd draw you a picture comparing body positions, but you should be able to figure it out.

  46. #846
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    I don't need to try the extreme geometry to understand math. I've ridden a bunch of bikes that had all kinds of geometry, and when the seattube angle gets steeper and reach gets shifted forward, it is more difficult to get over the back axle. The only way to fix it is to incorporate super short chainstays, which is not always practical or beneficial, either. I'd draw you a picture comparing body positions, but you should be able to figure it out.
    How does the steep ST have any effect whatsoever on weight distribution? We are talking descending, right?

    Regarding the longer front center and short CS. The opposite is desired. The longer you make the front the longer you want the CS to be. Fortunately, the obsession with short CS is slowly becoming the thing of the past.

    Another good article on the topic is here:
    http://www.starlingcycles.com/news/2...o-get-it-right

    And again, these are written by people doing some real life testing.
    Fortunately their word means tons more than some armchair engineer claiming he knows it all without even trying it.

  47. #847
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Yup, lot's of opinions based on biases, not experience. Thank God that not all designers think like that, or we would all be on 1985 Stumpjumpers. I try to keep an open mind when new things come along. Designers don't come up with stuff like the Pole on a whim, they experiment, and find what they like. Those who don't experiment with new things never know.
    Stop it!
    We all know suspension is a gimmick, hydraulic brakes arent needed and carbon frames will crack within a week of riding!
    We don't need to try it to understand how the physics work.




    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  48. #848
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Steep STA and long reach make it more difficult to get your weight over the back wheel. Count me out if that becomes the norm.
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Manualling, dropping, adjusting body position while jumping, going down super steep sections... It's more difficult with longer wheelbases.

    Does it matter? Physics is physics. It is more difficult to get your weight over the back wheel when your hands are farther from the rear axle. I realize that a longer wheelbase centers the rider's mass more on the bike, it makes it more difficult to weight either wheel. You can still do it, but the rider needs to exagerate their movements much more.
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    I don't need to try the extreme geometry to understand math. I've ridden a bunch of bikes that had all kinds of geometry, and when the seattube angle gets steeper and reach gets shifted forward, it is more difficult to get over the back axle. The only way to fix it is to incorporate super short chainstays, which is not always practical or beneficial, either. I'd draw you a picture comparing body positions, but you should be able to figure it out.
    New VS Old Geometry-framegeometry.jpg

    May I ask for your attention, looking at the rear center and front center on this illustration and thinking about all of this in terms of body weight balancing.

    When you extend a wheelbase, yet keep the RC (chainstay length) the same, the front center gets longer. The BB effectively becomes farther away from the front axle, and a higher % of your weight resting on the BB becomes supported by the rear axle; the geo change effectively makes the bike more rearward biased. This is similar to keeping the front the same length, but shortening the RC.
    - A steep STA balances out this rearward weight shift, putting your seated pedaling position back into a more balanced position that riders are more familiar with.
    - A long reach balances out the steeper STA, to retain a familiar distance between the seat and bars. It's unwise to have much of the FC gain come from longer and more slacked out telescopic forks, due to how the geometry changes as it goes through its travel.

    While seated, your weight would be balanced similarly to conventional bikes, with the changes balanced out like this. It's a different story when you're standing. If the longer reach was balanced by a shorter stem, then the bike will be even more rearward biased than conventional bikes while standing. On the Pole Evolink, the reach is increased to around 500mm. There'd be excessive rear weight bias, if it were not balanced out by extending the rear center.

    A longer wheelbase actually makes holding a manual in its balance point a lot easier. Drops, jumps, and steeps actually can be tackled with more stability (less nervousness). They all would feel more calmer and relaxed on a longer wheelbase bike. A heavier rearward bias helps. The longer wheelbase bike doesn't better center the rider... a rider naturally finds a "balance point" on any bike, but the sweet spot for it is broader on a long wheelbase bike. This effectively gives you "more room to move", since you don't feel like you're throwing yourself off balance by moving around on the bike.

    Exaggerating movements is not exactly a bad thing. I'd say becoming more active on the bike is a good thing. It's better than to be "frozen stiff" in a precise position that is maintaining your balance, to avoid being thrown off your intended course. Think of how rockets correct their course--they over-correct with a heavy movement then counter the previous movement with another strong movement once back on course. It's more beginner friendly to require broader, less precise movement. It takes a lot of repetition to develop conditioned muscles or muscle memory to pull off movements that require a high degree of sensitivity, like riding a BMX bike trials-style on a tight rope. Think about it in this sense, if you normally held your handlebars with a narrow grip by the stem clamp and used micro movements, you might think that using a wide grip on wider bar exaggerates your movements. Or maybe think about it as using a computer mouse with sensitivity turned up, so a small flick can send the cursor from one edge of your screen to the other, vs using a sensitivity setting that requires more movement to do the same--then think about how this affects various common and uncommon tasks and how one would choose based on personal needs. A dancer jumping and landing on one foot is trained to control their inertia by spreading their weight out widely.

    I believe the main reason why these bikes can turn better than expected is because that the longer downtube acts as a longer lever, so the % of weight from the BB that goes to the front wheel is multiplied before it reaches the lower headset cup and puts weight through the fork to the wheel. Having weight on the front prevents the understeer that is the main weakness of extremely rearward biased vehicles. On conventional geo mtbs, this weakness tends to be compensated for by running super grippy front tires. The longer front center also makes rolling over uneven ground not upset the bike's pitch as much.

    TL;DR: think of it as the ratio of weight on the rear wheel, vs the front, rather how having the bars farther forward affects your ability to get your ass hanging over/behind the rear axle.
    Last edited by Varaxis; 08-19-2017 at 11:38 AM.
    We're all on the same ship, and it's sinking.

  49. #849
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Varaxis again."

  50. #850
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    When you extend a wheelbase, yet keep the RC (chainstay length) the same, the front center gets longer. The BB effectively becomes farther away from the front axle, and a higher % of your weight resting on the BB becomes supported by the rear axle; the geo change effectively makes the bike more rearward biased.
    I agree with much of what you are saying, but some of it doesn't make any sense. Take the above for example, if the rear of the bike stays the same and front gets longer then more weight is on the rear axle. Not really.

    If you were to sit in the same place then the weight on the rear axle would remain exactly the same but in practice that's not the case. Stretching the front end will make the rider lean forward more and put less weight on the rear end. The opposite of what you are saying.

  51. #851
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    I agree with much of what you are saying, but some of it doesn't make any sense. Take the above for example, if the rear of the bike stays the same and front gets longer then more weight is on the rear axle. Not really.

    If you were to sit in the same place then the weight on the rear axle would remain exactly the same but in practice that's not the case. Stretching the front end will make the rider lean forward more and put less weight on the rear end. The opposite of what you are saying.
    Yep. Lots of contradictions in his jabbering. Some is correct, like a wider range of balance and easier centering, but that doesn't make riding more fun or switchbacks and tight turns easier.

    Personally, I think people that are full in on this new geometry fall into at least one of these five categories:

    1). No real experience riding old geometry.
    2). No real experience riding tight, twisty, technical trails.
    3). No real ability to ride a bike without a geometric crutch.
    4). Race and need every competitive advantage they can find.
    5). Have talked themselves into the illusion that one geometry is better at everything without compromise.

  52. #852
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    991
    Yeah really makes me wonder if the long WB long bike guys mostly just ride bomber DH type tracks. I upsized to a 5010 large and regretted it in twisties and switchbacks.

  53. #853
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,990
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    ...5). Have talked themselves into the illusion that one geometry is better at everything without compromise.
    I certainly think it's true that longer bikes are no free lunch. Most changes in bike dynamics are compromises, it's hard to get around that, and the idea that a longer wheelbase vehicle can be easier to get round a tight bend? Na, not having it.

    I've watched guys on big 29er bikes on tight switchbacks. They are not having an easier time of it. The idea that it easier to move around on a bigger bike is also not true, BMX bikes are small for a reason.

    I'm not saying longer bikes are rubbish, far from it, but they're not a golden bullet either. They'll be better over some kinds of terrain, worse on others.

  54. #854
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    I agree with much of what you are saying, but some of it doesn't make any sense. Take the above for example, if the rear of the bike stays the same and front gets longer then more weight is on the rear axle. Not really.

    If you were to sit in the same place then the weight on the rear axle would remain exactly the same but in practice that's not the case. Stretching the front end will make the rider lean forward more and put less weight on the rear end. The opposite of what you are saying.
    Nope.
    The distance from the saddle to bars stays the same.
    What changes is the STA, reach, HTA, front centre...
    The rider doesn't have to lean forward more.

    The slack ST is the problem on most current bikes.
    5'8.5", 31" inseam.
    I wanted to go with a L SC Hightower frame. Standing it felt fine, the 450mm reach was OK. While seated it was still fine, but only with a 35mm stem and saddle all the way forward.
    If the ST was properly steep, the bike would have been perfect.


    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  55. #855
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,990
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    The distance from the saddle to bars stays the same. What changes is the STA, reach, HTA, front centre... The rider doesn't have to lean forward more.
    You need to read what he said more carefully.

  56. #856
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    You need to read what he said more carefully.
    I reacted to your claim:
    "Stretching the front end will make the rider lean forward more and put less weight on the rear end. The opposite of what you are saying"
    Which isn't the case...


    Not sure what are you hitting at in Varaxis statement. Can you point out exactly to it?

    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  57. #857
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,990
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    Not sure what are you hitting at. Can you point out exactly to his statement?
    Sure.

    In his first main paragraph he said that extra weight on the rear axle would result from extending the front of the bike, with no other changes. He doesn't introduce a change in STA until the next paragraph where he says; "A steep STA balances out this rearward weight shift".

    So he's saying that your weight shifts backwards solely due to an extension of the front.

    Making the STA steeper will indeed move your weight forward, no argument there.

  58. #858
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    Sure.

    In his first main paragraph he said that extra weight on the rear axle would result from extending the front of the bike, with no other changes. He doesn't introduce a change in STA until the next paragraph where he says; "A steep STA balances out this rearward weight shift".

    So he's saying that your weight shifts backwards solely due to an extension of the front.

    Making the STA steeper will indeed move your weight forward, no argument there.
    And yet he wasn't incorrect. You are trying to devide his statement into 2 separate paragraphs, while it is obvious that he meant it as a whole...

    You automatically assumed that the extension of the front center could be done solely by increasing the reach. Change in the front center can be done in numerous ways, and some will indeed shift the weight without changing how stretched out the rider would be.
    - slacker HA
    - increased offset
    - steeper ST
    - fork change
    - tire size

    The weight change rear vs front center is a tricky subject.
    The extended front center also means more mass (talking frame) in the front and at the same time more rear weight bias of a rider, due to the unchanged rear center.

    I found out I can climb strep stuff better on my AM bike with relatively steep ST and longer front center and 40mm stem than I ever could on my XC bike with old school geometry - slack ST, short WB, steep HT and 90mm stem....


    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  59. #859
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    Nope.
    The distance from the saddle to bars stays the same.
    What changes is the STA, reach, HTA, front centre...
    The rider doesn't have to lean forward more.

    The slack ST is the problem on most current bikes.
    5'8.5", 31" inseam.
    I wanted to go with a L SC Hightower frame. Standing it felt fine, the 450mm reach was OK. While seated it was still fine, but only with a 35mm stem and saddle all the way forward.
    If the ST was properly steep, the bike would have been perfect.


    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
    jazz, didn't you say you'd choose a 5010 in large though? I figured accounting for the slightly slacker STA and the slightly shorter reach compared to the Hightower they'd practically ride the same no?

  60. #860
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,990
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    And yet he wasn't incorrect. You are trying to decide his statement into 2 separate paragraphs, while it is obvious that he meant it as a whole...

    You automatically assumed that the extension of the front centre could be done solely by increasing the reach. Change in the front centre can be done in numerous ways.
    I'm sorry but I think it's you who are misinterpreting what he said. He said that when you "extend a wheelbase, yet keep the RC (chainstay length) the same, the front centre gets longer". No mention of the STA, in fact changing the STA does not make the wheelbase longer. He refers to this 'change', singular, at the end of the paragraph so it's pretty clear he meant that extending the front of the bike puts more weight on the rear axle. Which is what I said I didn't agree with.

  61. #861
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by ejewels View Post
    jazz, didn't you say you'd choose a 5010 in large though? I figured accounting for the slightly slacker STA and the slightly shorter reach compared to the Hightower they'd practically ride the same no?
    In the case of 5010 I definitely would.
    That bike felt shorter and also seated fit better.
    Its misleading to look at the STA without sitting on the bike. While the effective ST on 5010 is slacker on the paper, the actual might as well be steeper. I like my seat higher + shorter cranks and taller clipleas shoes. All this will move the seat higher and with the slacker actual ST moves me back even more. I believe that was the case on the Hightower.
    It still felt OK though.
    However, the fact I had to move the saddle all the way forward (not solely because the need to get closer to bars, bit also to get nice steep ST for good pedaling position) isn't the best. When the saddle is so far of the center it can be harder to push down the dropper...

    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  62. #862
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    I agree with much of what you are saying, but some of it doesn't make any sense. Take the above for example, if the rear of the bike stays the same and front gets longer then more weight is on the rear axle. Not really.

    If you were to sit in the same place then the weight on the rear axle would remain exactly the same but in practice that's not the case. Stretching the front end will make the rider lean forward more and put less weight on the rear end. The opposite of what you are saying.
    I stated what the difference in weight bias is between the two different geometry bikes when the weight at the BB is near identical, with a standing rider placing 90% weight on the BB, with a very light amount being supported at the bars.

    This is a basic experiment that helps explain how moving the front away from the rear, where the weight load stays the same distance away from the rear, clearly results in significantly more rearward weight bias. The leverage effect doesn't show in this experiment as much, since the levers are so short. It's a 500g weight and leverage only increases it to 502.19g with the slightly wider "wheelbase", and 501.6g with the prior shorter "wheelbase", which is within the margin of error.

    Riders on such new geo may likely find themselves moving forward to offset this increased rearward weight bias, and in the end can wind up in the balance they're familiar with on classic bikes, rather than too forward as some of you feared. If anything, it's more rearward than I thought, except with lessened downsides that typically come with such rearward bias, at cost of needing to be more deliberate with movements to manipulate the pitch of the bike.

    New VS Old Geometry-weightbiastest01.jpg
    - scales tared before placing the 500g weight

    New VS Old Geometry-weightbiastest02.jpg
    - 356.90g (left/rear) + 144.7g (right/front) = 501.6g total

    New VS Old Geometry-weightbiastest03.jpg
    - 377.89g (left/rear) + 124.3g (right/front) = 502.19g total (additional total weight due to effect of increased leverage)

    * nothing about the experiment is exactly precise, nor needs precision. The scale on the right is slightly shorter, but by less than half a cm. The camera was hand held, so the angle isn't perfect between the 3 shots, but I assure only the front support was slid away between the measurement shots.

    ** this makes me question the leverage effect. I need to get two identical scales for an on-the-bike test. Might very well be that increased control comes solely from the front not pitching up nor bouncing as much, due to the increased length.
    We're all on the same ship, and it's sinking.

  63. #863
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,263
    I have ride a XXL tallboy with a 505mm reach. It has the same rear as the 400mm small.

    Extending the front without changing the back puts more weight on the rear wheel. That's physics and easy to demonstrate.

    I have the same reach from my old XL bike to my XXL but the XXL has 40mm more frame and 40mm less stem. The total wheel contact point with greater fork offset and rake is around 100mm. Thats a huge change!

    I'm having problems with front weight balance while descending. I simply can't get enough weight on the front wheel. I've slammed and lengthen my stem to help remedy this and it's going in the right direction.

    My next step is to swap out the 51mm offset to a 44mm offset uppers. This is the future of long reach bikes. Since I can't stretch my rear I need to reduce the front or lower my bars even more. I'm running a 85mm drop from saddle to bars and can't go lower without getting new bars. I have 800mm SixC 20mm rise 35 bars if anyone wants to trade for some 10mm rise ones.

    I'm never going back to a short reach bike, but getting the balance right is important and rear chainstays need to grow too.

    The speed difference in steering that everyone fears from long reach bikes is easy to adapt to and you get the benefit being able to move around in the center of the bike without upsetting it. It's kind of like short stems and long bars. If you jump on them from a long stem short bar bike the feel and timing is all off. Once you get your timing synced to the bike they are money.

    Anyway

    Long front = longer rear for balance
    slack HTA = less offset to keep the front under you. Trail is your friend too.
    Stem = fork offset +- 10mm. When your bars mirror your front axle, good things happen.
    Steep STA = good climbing

  64. #864
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    In the case of 5010 I definitely would.
    That bike felt shorter and also seated fit better.
    Its misleading to look at the STA without sitting on the bike. While the effective ST on 5010 is slacker on the paper, the actual might as well be steeper. I like my seat higher + shorter cranks and taller clipleas shoes. All this will move the seat higher and with the slacker actual ST moves me back even more. I believe that was the case on the Hightower.
    It still felt OK though.
    However, the fact I had to move the saddle all the way forward (not solely because the need to get closer to bars, bit also to get nice steep ST for good pedaling position) isn't the best. When the saddle is so far of the center it can be harder to push down the dropper...

    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
    but wouldn't the seat height be the same on the 5010 this a tad slacker still?

  65. #865
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by ejewels View Post
    but wouldn't the seat height be the same on the 5010 this a tad slacker still?
    No it wouldn't.
    If the actual ST is slacker, it moves me back more and therefore the seat won't be as high in order to maintain the same seat to BB/pedals distance.
    The steeper the ST, the higher the saddle needs to be.

    You have to be careful when comparing STA of 2 bikes. The effective STA can be exactly the same, but if one has much slacker actual ST, it could move your saddle further back. The difference could easily be couple of cm or more.

    Another thing which effects this is stack height, since the STA is measured at this point. So unless these bikes have the same stack its a bit harder to compare them in this regard.



    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  66. #866
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    No it wouldn't.
    If the actual ST is slacker, it moves me back more and therefore the seat won't be as high in order to maintain the same seat to BB/pedals distance.
    The steeper the ST, the higher the saddle needs to be.

    You have to be careful when comparing STA of 2 bikes. The effective STA can be exactly the same, but if one has much slacker actual ST, it could move your saddle further back. The difference could easily be couple of cm or more.

    Another thing which effects this is stack height, since the STA is measured at this point. So unless these bikes have the same stack its a bit harder to compare them in this regard.



    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
    ah I get it. The HT has higher stack and steeper STA so makes sense why the 5010 fit better. I'm missing that large, I admit it!

  67. #867
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    I rode a riding buddy's '17 Enduro 29 comp (entry level model) the other day, and his bike rides a lot like a SUV with its upright position, over my more rearward and seemingly lower SB5c. And damn, his rear wheel was an anchor on the climbs; it was so heavy!

    The '17 E29's riding position showed no obvious weakness, nor misbehaved in any manner, but found that the ride experience was affected more by the heavy rear wheel than anything else, such as the geo. This coming from someone that owns and raced a '14 E29, already familiar with its general qualities. I thought the 1st gen's pedaling position was well dialed in stock form, but could've used a geo tweak, which could be attained by swapping out the rear wheel for a 27.5 (lower BB, slacker HA, swap in zero setback post). If anything, riding these bikes made me wonder if high stack height is really that big of an issue for a short rider (I'm 5' 7").
    We're all on the same ship, and it's sinking.

  68. #868
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    This is a basic experiment that helps explain how moving the front away from the rear, where the weight load stays the same distance away from the rear, clearly results in significantly more rearward weight bias...
    Thanks for going to the trouble of doing that. It's very interesting and demonstrates that what I thought about weight shift, or lack of it, was wrong.

    If the rider had to lean forward due to the extra length of the front that would still counter this though, but if the extra length was due to an increase in rake only that wouldn't apply.

  69. #869
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    The new geometry is a load of crap. Short, steep, and high is where it's at.

    A steep head angle and long stem are a perfect setup to really build your descending skills to a very high degree. Be sure to not use a dropper for maximum skill-building. Skinny tires and little or no suspension are also helpful in the skill-building.

    The old geometry is also a boon to the bottom line of the healthcare providers (not applicable in Canada) for the rash of OTB injuries.
    Thank you for the reminder. It's been a while since my seat scratched my stomach and tires itched my balls.

    The new stuff makes you change your scenery watching. We're at the cabin this weekend and you'd think 29 years more of age would slow you down but late model bikes get the same old school trail loops done 15 - 30 minutes faster.
    ƃuoɹʍ llɐ ʇno əɯɐɔ ʇɐɥʇ

  70. #870
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Personally, I think people that are full in on this new geometry fall into at least one of these five categories:

    1). No real experience riding old geometry.
    2). No real experience riding tight, twisty, technical trails.
    3). No real ability to ride a bike without a geometric crutch.
    4). Race and need every competitive advantage they can find.
    5). Have talked themselves into the illusion that one geometry is better at everything without compromise.
    What a completely arrogant and ridiculous thing to say. I've been riding since 1993 so 1 and 3 are out, I haven't raced since highschool so not 4 either, definitely not 2 as we have plenty of tight twisty tech here, so I must be number 5?

    Did you even read the 'geometry affair' article above? The writer found tight turns were actually BETTER on the longer wheelbase and it wasn't until they got so tight (like a complete 180* hiking-trail type switchback) that the length of the wheelbase became a hindrance. My Knolly isn't exactly Pole-length but certainly longer than the average bike of old, there is literally only a handful of corners on the trails I ride where the length becomes an issue, it wouldn't even be 0.5% of the time spent riding, and even then with a little practice and skill I seem to be able to get it around those switchbacks and tight corners.

    Maybe you're the one who needs the "geometric crutch" if you need to ride a short bike to get it around tight corners?

  71. #871
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,039
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    What a completely arrogant and ridiculous thing to say. I've been riding since 1993 so 1 and 3 are out, I haven't raced since highschool so not 4 either, definitely not 2 as we have plenty of tight twisty tech here, so I must be number 5?

    Did you even read the 'geometry affair' article above? The writer found tight turns were actually BETTER on the longer wheelbase and it wasn't until they got so tight (like a complete 180* hiking-trail type switchback) that the length of the wheelbase became a hindrance. My Knolly isn't exactly Pole-length but certainly longer than the average bike of old, there is literally only a handful of corners on the trails I ride where the length becomes an issue, it wouldn't even be 0.5% of the time spent riding, and even then with a little practice and skill I seem to be able to get it around those switchbacks and tight corners.

    Maybe you're the one who needs the "geometric crutch" if you need to ride a short bike to get it around tight corners?
    You are definitely number 5. What's arrogant is telling people that one type of geometry is automatically better, and anybody that disagrees is wrong. I'll trust my experiences over some random internet poster. Anyways, to me it's not about speed, comfort, or stability. Short wheelbases are just more fun for me to ride.

  72. #872
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    You are definitely number 5. What's arrogant is telling people that one type of geometry is automatically better, and anybody that disagrees is wrong. I'll trust my experiences over some random internet poster. Anyways, to me it's not about speed, comfort, or stability. Short wheelbases are just more fun for me to ride.
    If you find the handling of short wheelbase bikes "fun" that's fine, that's your preference and you're just as entitled to that as anyone else.

    I've readily admitted that there is a compromise with my bike, and that is on ultra-tight switchbacks/corners that are getting so tight they're bordering on requiring a trials move to get around them. That's it, and that type of corner makes up a tiny fraction of my riding, I'd be a fool to even really consider it when looking at what sort of bike to ride. For everything else, even slow flat pedally twisty tech, I prefer my Endo (which, granted, isn't really all that extreme by modern standards, but is a good mix between capability on the rowdy stuff and agility/playfulness on the less gnarly trails). This is probably the first time in 24 years of riding I feel completely at home and comfortable on a bike; it fits me perfectly, and feels really capable every time I push it without feeling like a burden the rest of the time. It is the very essence of what I feel an all-round mountain bike should be.

    I'm not brainwashed, I haven't had to "convince" myself of anything, I've ridden plenty of different bikes over plenty of different trails and based on my experiences I feel like what I'm riding now is better than anything else I've ever ridden.

  73. #873
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,263
    I have a 1997 Cannondale super v, a 2008 Santa Cruz blur XC and a 2017 Tallboy in my garage as I type this. I just got back from winning the CCCX XC championship too. Been riding mountain bikes for 30 years.
    New school gets a big thumbs up from me. Although I did ride the old Blur converted to 27.5 in the XC races.

    FYI the super V has a 170mm stem.

  74. #874
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,039
    All I've been saying this whole time is that different trails and different people will benefit from different geometries, even the old geometry.

    A long, low, slack bike takes a lot of the fun out of most trails, in my opinion. I enjoy choosing a good line or the challenge of a bad line. I don't want my bike erasing technical features and straight-shooting down the trail. If I want to throw the bike around a turn or get a little sideways in the air, I don't want to fight my bike. Dodging trees and pedaling through rock gardens are common on many of the trails I ride. Lengthening the wheelbase, slacking out the headtube, and dropping the pedals to root level does not do it for me.

    I just wanted one person to admit that this new geometry is not better in every circumstance.

  75. #875
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,263
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    All I've been saying this whole time is that different trails and different people will benefit from different geometries, even the old geometry.

    A long, low, slack bike takes a lot of the fun out of most trails, in my opinion. I enjoy choosing a good line or the challenge of a bad line. I don't want my bike erasing technical features and straight-shooting down the trail. If I want to throw the bike around a turn or get a little sideways in the air, I don't want to fight my bike. Dodging trees and pedaling through rock gardens are common on many of the trails I ride. Lengthening the wheelbase, slacking out the headtube, and dropping the pedals to root level does not do it for me.

    I just wanted one person to admit that this new geometry is not better in every circumstance.
    Dude. I can directly compare generations of the same bike, in this case a tallboy 1 vs 2 vs 3. Each generation gained about .5lb. The 3 is better everywhere except weight. It's stiffer, the suspension is more refined and the cable routing is perfect. If you build it with the same parts it is better everywhere.

    Anyway enduro bikes are not your thing and that's cool. I don't want to ride one as my main bike either. Overall they are better than the old enduro bikes though.

    Apples to apples, I'll take new geometry every time.

    New bikes don't make trials less fun, you just go faster.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/california-no...r-1051636.html

  76. #876
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,039
    Quote Originally Posted by alexbn921 View Post
    Dude. I can directly compare generations of the same bike, in this case a tallboy 1 vs 2 vs 3. Each generation gained about .5lb. The 3 is better everywhere except weight. It's stiffer, the suspension is more refined and the cable routing is perfect. If you build it with the same parts it is better everywhere.

    Anyway enduro bikes are not your thing and that's cool. I don't want to ride one as my main bike either. Overall they are better than the old enduro bikes though.

    Apples to apples, I'll take new geometry every time.

    New bikes don't make trials less fun, you just go faster.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/california-no...r-1051636.html
    Why go faster to get the same excitement? What's the point?

  77. #877
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Lengthening the wheelbase, slacking out the headtube, and dropping the pedals to root level does not do it for me.

    I just wanted one person to admit that this new geometry is not better in every circumstance.
    So are we debating what is better, or what you personally prefer?

    I've never found the feeling of gravity trying to take me over the bars on a steep drop fun, nor struggling to keep the front end down on steep climbs. Each to their own, I guess.

  78. #878
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,263
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Why go faster to get the same excitement? What's the point?
    Are you still riding a clunker? why have gears or suspension at all. It's personal preference. I also tend to wear out my bikes to the point that I don't trust them. You can only push the limits of a bike that you know isn't going to break in half. I broke my blur classic and upgraded to a better in every way blur XC carbon. I rode the wheels off that bike for 5K+ miles and just last year thought I broke it on a drop. That was the signal for a new bike. The cost is nothing compared to breaking your neck or your hip like I did on my original blur.
    Ride whatever you want, but the new bikes are better and the choices for your personal slice of bike heaven is out there.

  79. #879
    high pivot witchcraft
    Reputation: mtnbkrmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    3,543
    It's shocking to me that this issue can possibly be subject to a meaningful debate. It's like the guy in the downhill forum who smashed his head so hard that he has seen stars for a week, or something like that, and then asks if this is something he should consider seeing a doctor about.

    How anyone can reasonably advocate old school geo over new school geo, in any circumstances, apart from perhaps a museum owner, is beyond me. I'm seriously lucky I did not kill or seriously injure myself on some of the old death traps I used to ride (e.g., Spesh SJ FSR). But whatever. Live and let live.

    Edit: granted, I did not wade my way through the entire thread. Maybe there is something I am missing here...

  80. #880
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,039
    Quote Originally Posted by alexbn921 View Post
    Are you still riding a clunker? why have gears or suspension at all. It's personal preference. I also tend to wear out my bikes to the point that I don't trust them. You can only push the limits of a bike that you know isn't going to break in half. I broke my blur classic and upgraded to a better in every way blur XC carbon. I rode the wheels off that bike for 5K+ miles and just last year thought I broke it on a drop. That was the signal for a new bike. The cost is nothing compared to breaking your neck or your hip like I did on my original blur.
    Ride whatever you want, but the new bikes are better and the choices for your personal slice of bike heaven is out there.
    Actually, I often ride a rigid 26er singlespeed. My point is it is just as fun, and sometimes more fun, than any other bike I have ever ridden. Isn't that the point? On some trails, it is more fun (ie better) to have a quick handling, no nonsense bike. It is faster for me on tight twisty trails and smooth singletrack, as well. Why is it so difficult for you guys to just admit that this new school geometry has compromises?

  81. #881
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,039
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbkrmike View Post
    It's shocking to me that this issue can possibly be subject to a meaningful debate. It's like the guy in the downhill forum who smashed his head so hard that he has seen stars for a week, or something like that, and then asks if this is something he should consider seeing a doctor about.

    How anyone can reasonably advocate old school geo over new school geo, in any circumstances, apart from perhaps a museum owner, is beyond me. I'm seriously lucky I did not kill or seriously injure myself on some of the old death traps I used to ride (e.g., Spesh SJ FSR). But whatever. Live and let live.

    Edit: granted, I did not wade my way through the entire thread. Maybe there is something I am missing here...
    Because different trails and riding styles.....

  82. #882
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,263
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Actually, I often ride a rigid 26er singlespeed. My point is it is just as fun, and sometimes more fun, than any other bike I have ever ridden. Isn't that the point? On some trails, it is more fun (ie better) to have a quick handling, no nonsense bike. It is faster for me on tight twisty trails and smooth singletrack, as well. Why is it so difficult for you guys to just admit that this new school geometry has compromises?
    This is similar to car technology. People freaked out when manufactures went to EFI form carburetors. I can with a say with out a doubt that EFI is better in every way.

    Even your ridge single speeds have gotten better and there are plenty to pick from that will match your style. Have you tried belt drive? No mess/maintenance. The new carbon layups are crazy light and comfortable at the same time too.

    You seem to be focusing on aggressive enduro bikes that have no place on your smooth flat trails. Riding a DH bike would suck there too. Doesn't matter if it's new or old.

    Every segment of the bike market has evolved and improved over the years. You are just look at bike you don't want to ride and saying they suck.

    Now get off my lawn.


    Edit
    I challenge you to tell me one thing my 1997 super V does better than my 2017 Tallboy. Just 1.

  83. #883
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,537
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Actually, I often ride a rigid 26er singlespeed. My point is it is just as fun, and sometimes more fun, than any other bike I have ever ridden. Isn't that the point? On some trails, it is more fun (ie better) to have a quick handling, no nonsense bike. It is faster for me on tight twisty trails and smooth singletrack, as well. Why is it so difficult for you guys to just admit that this new school geometry has compromises?
    Because we honestly don't see them as compromises. There is give-and-take with every aspect of bike geometry and with experience you learn to choose the right fit for your application, but none of that leads me feeling like I've sacrificed something coming from my old bikes. I've done my time on NORBA somersault geometry and my modern bike is improved in every way. In the real world, a few inches of wheelbase makes very little difference in cleaning a switchback. I've had wheelbases ranging from 43" to 48" and the tight switchbacks are still tight but I ride them just the same.

    Riding your rigid 26" SS is analogous to fishing with a Tenkara rod. Doing less with more can be a fun challenge. It's completely understandable that an individual may find it more fun and more rewarding, but that doesn't require everyone else to admit their equipment is compromised.

  84. #884
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,039
    It is a compromise.

  85. #885
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Quote Originally Posted by alexbn921 View Post
    I challenge you to tell me one thing my 1997 super V does better than my 2017 Tallboy. Just 1.
    Butt pucker factor. Thrills. Spills. Icebreaking ability whenever someone sees your bike while you're stopped. Hold my beer moments, followed by laughter from friends, AKA ability to impress your friends, trying to ride any where near the same level you do on your Tallboy, if it's at a level comparable to your friends. Level of frustration looking for tires, rims, and suspension components. Potency for increasing your skill in most things, especially braking modulation and general balance.
    We're all on the same ship, and it's sinking.

  86. #886
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    That, and tight 180-degree switchbacks...

  87. #887
    high pivot witchcraft
    Reputation: mtnbkrmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Because different trails and riding styles.....
    Okay. Fair enough.

    That said, I just checked with my LBS. According to them, nobody of late has been beating down their doors for a Trek Y Frame. May just be my neck of the woods though...

    Kidding aside, I would have thought that it was beyond debate that today's offerings were generally superior, geo-wise, to the old school offerings. Pick the trail and riding style. Pick the perfect bike for that combo today. Pick the perfect bike for that combo 10 years ago. Can there be any doubt that today's bike would be a better ride overall?

    EDIT: shit - maybe I missed the issue. If the issue is whether today's long, slack, long travel enduro machines rule all things dirt, regardless of the nature of the terrain, then yeah, I missed the point. Apologies if that is the case.

  88. #888
    high pivot witchcraft
    Reputation: mtnbkrmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    That, and tight 180-degree switchbacks...
    I honestly am not trying to stir things up, but nobody is suggesting that a modern day (or old school for that matter) DH or enduro style bike is the right bike for tight 180-degree switchbacks.

    Comparing apples to apples, are you of the view that a 10 year old geo on a suitable XC or trail bike is superior to the geo of comparable offerings on the sales floors right now?

    Generally speaking, I am ecstatic to see how far the industry has come. Then again, I started out on a rigid with cantilever brakes and a top tube about a half inch below my nutsack, and a 71 degree HTA, or something equally ridiculous. I would have thought that most people would have been happy with the progress we have seen (although maybe not the accompanying pricing).

    EDIT: maybe I misunderstood the issue in this thread. Please see my post above. Apologies if I flat out missed it.

  89. #889
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbkrmike View Post
    EDIT: maybe I misunderstood the issue in this thread. Please see my post above. Apologies if I flat out missed it.


    I'm saying super-tight switchbacks are about the only think I can think of that any of my "old geometry" bikes might do better than my current Knolly.

    I appreciate that some may enjoy the challenge of riding rigid or single speed or older bikes, but that doesn't make them better. If you're having fun on your bike then you're doing it right, but if you want to talk about overall performance then hands down the geometry of a nosey modern trail bike is better in almost every situation a modern mountain biker will encounter.

  90. #890
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,263
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    That, and tight 180-degree switchbacks...
    LOL. have you ever tried to turn 180 on a bike with a 170mm stem? It's a tiller.
    It is a conversation starter and makes a great around town bike. Scarry is the only way to describe it on steep stuff.

  91. #891
    high pivot witchcraft
    Reputation: mtnbkrmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by alexbn921 View Post
    LOL. have you ever tried to turn 180 on a bike with a 170mm stem? It's a tiller.
    It is a conversation starter and makes a great around town bike. Scarry is the only way to describe it on steep stuff.
    I neglected to include above that my 2015, 66 degree HTA, 50mm stem, 160mm enduro is my go to bike and weapon of choice regardless of terrain, including tight, 180 degree switchback infested trails, and I currently have 8 bikes in my garage, of varying vintage, including this beauty:

    New VS Old Geometry-fullsizeoutput_20.jpg

    I thought that might be too over the top a comment, regardless of its truth...

  92. #892
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by alexbn921 View Post
    LOL. have you ever tried to turn 180 on a bike with a 170mm stem? It's a tiller.
    It is a conversation starter and makes a great around town bike. Scarry is the only way to describe it on steep stuff.
    150mm was the longest I ever ran IIRC, on my 1998 SC Heckler, certainly not ideal that's for sure! Went back to a hardtail after that and ran a bmx stem with Answer Alumilite bars (the ones with the removable shims) which was much better in some places, but a bit cramped on long rides and a bit twitchy at speed. TBH the super-tight switchbacks aren't even really a problem on the Knolly, though I guess something shorter would probably be easier, even my old Warden in slack mode could be manhandled around them easily enough.

  93. #893
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,039
    You guys keep talking about switchbacks, but switchbacks aren't high on my list of reasons I usually prefer a shorter bike. If you honestly don't see why Indy cars are compact and bmx bikes don't have 27" toptubes, then I really am wasting my time.

  94. #894
    mtbr member
    Reputation: IPunchCholla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    718
    The longer the wheel base the more you have to lean the bike to achieve the same turn radius. So every time you turn, not just switchbacks, you have to lean the bike over more. How much more? Is it noticeable? I have no idea.

    I do know I can tell that my 27.5 trail bike is harder to lean over than my 26 dh rig. The have the same wheel base, but obviously the 27.5 had larger wheels. I can tell after a weekend at the park. Usually for the first half or so of a ride. Then it goes away.

    I switched stems from 60mm to 40mm and back. I think maybe I could tell a difference. Maybe. Same for when I put my seat forward 20mm.

    What gets me about 90 percent of the stuff in mountain biking and the conversations around it is that the differences should be mathematically defineable. The lateral and vertical stiffness of rims, effect of trail, effect of steel length, wheel base, bb height, should be each able to be measured. Yes, taken together the effects become very complicated, but broken down at least we would have a starting point to have a meaningful discussion.

    It's like the rim material debate. How much stiffer are carbon rims? For how much weight savings? At what cost? Without knowing at least that, the debate is pretty meaningless.

    I find I can tell a 5 to 10 percent difference fairly reliably in things I'm expert in. Anything less is pretty much invisible to me. To make something worthwhile to drop significant chunk of change on the difference needs to be about 50 to 100 percent before I notice it all the time. Anything less I just adapt to and the difference disappears. The experience is the same. And since I'm not racing times that are imperceptible to me don't matter (have you ever played the game PR or not? On certain trail segments I'll try and guess if u got a PR before I check Strava. I'm wrong more than I'm right.).

    That being said, I'm a fan of the new geometry and I would love to try out some of the bikes that are pushing the boundaries.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    It's just a flesh wound!

  95. #895
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,294
    https://ibb.co/cDczP5

    Transition Sentinel & Patrol
    I love the STA!

    Name:  Sentinel 2.JPG
Views: 566
Size:  29.8 KB

    Name:  Patrol2.JPG
Views: 566
Size:  29.2 KB
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails New VS Old Geometry-patrol.jpg  

    New VS Old Geometry-sentinel.jpg  

    Last edited by jazzanova; 08-22-2017 at 09:24 AM.

  96. #896
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    Those numbers for the new Trannys look great! I'm really hoping they do some demo days down here as the Large frames look like a small jump from what I'm riding now but I could theoretically fit onto an XL too which would be a massive leap (~40mm increase reach) and about as close as I'm going to get to trying out something "extreme" like a Pole or Nicolai. Also I could see myself having a hard time choosing between Smuggler, Scout or Sentinel, I'm even more 29er-curious now that they're starting to make them with "proper" geometry.

    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    You guys keep talking about switchbacks, but switchbacks aren't high on my list of reasons I usually prefer a shorter bike. If you honestly don't see why Indy cars are compact and bmx bikes don't have 27" toptubes, then I really am wasting my time.
    I fail to see the similarities between Indy car geometry and MTB geometry, but whatever. The only reason I keep mentioning switchbacks is because you asked me to admit there is a compromise with modern longer geometry, and that's the only one I can think of from my perspective of how I ride and what I ride.

  97. #897
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  98. #898
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    https://nsmb.com/articles/transition-sbg-source/

    Interview with Transition's Sam Burkhardt.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  99. #899
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    Update... I have put my $ into a forward geometry bike because it makes sense in my mind, and I have been hankering after a hardtail for some time. Enter the Pipedream Moxie, http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/pi...e-1068714.html

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

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  100. #900
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sid Duffman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Update... I have put my $ into a forward geometry bike because it makes sense in my mind, and I have been hankering after a hardtail for some time. Enter the Pipedream Moxie, http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/pi...e-1068714.html

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

    What fork are you running? Have you played around with adjusting the chainstay length?

  101. #901
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    34,655
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Update... I have put my $ into a forward geometry bike because it makes sense in my mind, and I have been hankering after a hardtail for some time. Enter the Pipedream Moxie, http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/pi...e-1068714.html

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

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

  102. #902
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Sid Duffman View Post
    That Pipedream Moxie looks pretty sweet! Pics?

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

    New VS Old Geometry-20180208_121306-1.jpg  

    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  103. #903
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    How many hairpin corners have you got stuck on so far??


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

  104. #904
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    34,655
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    How many hairpin corners have you got stuck on so far??


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

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

  105. #905
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    How many hairpin corners have you got stuck on so far??


    Will the Moxie look "normal" in five years time?
    Surprisingly none, and I purposely went to specific trails to try.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  106. #906
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ladljon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    360
    I ride old school geometry, however I have ridden new school, and do believe that the new geometry does make trail riding easier, takes a lot less skill. One thing I don't like, is the wider bars....make my wrist hurt.

  107. #907
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    Pfft, only 32 DJ? Last year in I rode the Wakamarina track (in Nelson NZ) which has over 75 in ~3.3km on the last big descent.
    https://www.strava.com/segments/3947198

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

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

  108. #908
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    34,655
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Surprisingly none, and I purposely went to specific trails to try.
    What trails and how tight were the switchbacks?
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  109. #909
    Upcyclist
    Reputation: Cornfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,287
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    Pfft, only 32 DJ? Last year in I rode the Wakamarina track (in Nelson NZ) which has over 75 in ~3.3km on the last big descent.
    https://www.strava.com/segments/3947198
    How come I don't see your name on the leaderboard? You gotta be faster than #12 Oliver Klozoff.

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

    New VS Old Geometry-dsc00503-edit2.jpg
    I'm not a robot

  110. #910
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornfield View Post
    How come I don't see your name on the leaderboard? You gotta be faster than #12 Oliver Klozoff.
    HA! That's the only time I've ever had to stop for a breather half way DOWN a hill!! So much arm pump and cramp in my hands from squeezing the brakes. To get to that point there's a good climb, a good descent, and a ~50 minute hike-a-bike. And it was near the end of a week-long riding vacation too (excuses, excuses I know! ).

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

  111. #911
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,919

    New VS Old Geometry

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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DD4916A4-D411-46F7-8847-7502E32C8099.jpeg 
Views:	179 
Size:	101.8 KB 
ID:	1183498
    https://youtu.be/xMPL8rKLXf8

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

  112. #912
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Looks like new geo from here...

    New VS Old Geometry-dit2.jpg

  113. #913
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    "Long and slack" starting to sneak its way into XC.

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


  114. #914
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    Funny - the original Spider 29er had a 73* HTA and, IIRC, Jeff Steber personally preferred the prototype with 74.

  115. #915
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    An interesting development. I still see a very long seat tube on the large which would prevent me from fitting on the Sniper. Nothing a hacksaw wouldn't fix though
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  116. #916
    Upcyclist
    Reputation: Cornfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,287
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    Looks like new geo from here...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dit2.jpg 
Views:	101 
Size:	107.4 KB 
ID:	1183690
    With Biopace wheels!
    I'm not a robot

  117. #917
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    The industry is moving toward steeper seat tube angles AND shorter seat tubes and while I know not everyone gels with this, but I am pretty stoked. I have been riding my Pipedream Moxie it's 76 seat tube angle and have noticed that I'm in a slightly bigger gear than before on the same climbs. I put this down to HT efficiency, but the steep STA isn't robbing my power. I don't have a power meter, and am not going to get one, but it doesn't feel harder. The head angle is 65 with a 30mm stem and within it's hardtail restraints the Moxie is the best climbing bike I've ever been on. The front end has come up once on a very steep climb when I was exhausted and sitting too upright. I don't have to sit on the nose of the saddle with this bike. It does look too long, but fits normally and handles amazingly. Next up I'm interested in trying a shorter offset fork.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  118. #918
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    991
    KOPS suffers, but F KOPS with mountain biking lol. I like the new geo.

  119. #919
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    The industry is moving toward steeper seat tube angles AND shorter seat tubes and while I know not everyone gels with this, but I am pretty stoked. I have been riding my Pipedream Moxie it's 76 seat tube angle and have noticed that I'm in a slightly bigger gear than before on the same climbs. I put this down to HT efficiency, but the steep STA isn't robbing my power. I don't have a power meter, and am not going to get one, but it doesn't feel harder. The head angle is 65 with a 30mm stem and within it's hardtail restraints the Moxie is the best climbing bike I've ever been on. The front end has come up once on a very steep climb when I was exhausted and sitting too upright. I don't have to sit on the nose of the saddle with this bike. It does look too long, but fits normally and handles amazingly. Next up I'm interested in trying a shorter offset fork.
    How do you keep the front wheel from flopping all over the place?

  120. #920
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,184
    You'll get used to controlling that. 1st it's like I'm leaning forward way over the bars, then we adapt to it. After a while I don't feel like I have to get forward (crouched or seated) much at all.
    oops I wasn't clipped in

  121. #921
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDee View Post
    How do you keep the front wheel from flopping all over the place?
    I don't notice flopping, but I've been riding slackish bikes for quite a while.

    Sent from my SM-G935S using Tapatalk
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  122. #922
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    I don't notice flopping, but I've been riding slackish bikes for quite a while.

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

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


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

  123. #923
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDee View Post
    How do you keep the front wheel from flopping all over the place?
    Hold the handlebars and keep pedalling.


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

  124. #924
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    Just had the bearings replaced and have not had it out since. I'll take it out for a spin but my feeling is it's too short.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  125. #925
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    Funny how quickly perspective change, "long and slack" very quickly becomes "normal" or even "short". My Warden felt like a limo compared to my old Turner, and never once have I wished it [or the Endo] was shorter. If we had a bigger used frame market, or if international shipping wasn't such a killer I'd try pick up a cheap XL Endo.

  126. #926
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    I can probably pick one up locally here in Knolly country
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  127. #927
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,373
    Going by what I see in the Pinkbike classifieds they are certainly more plentiful in your part of the world! Realistically, I'm probably better to put my cash towards something that will satisfy my curiosity of big wheels as well as longer geo. I'd be all over an XL carbon Smuggler if it weren't for the abysmal rear tyre clearance.

  128. #928
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    2 1/2 years since my original post and many brands have gone longer and slacker since then. They are not copying Geometron, but with more reach and less seat tube I can find the fit I like on more bikes than ever. Seems to me it's easier to size up or down than ever before, partly thanks to the availability of droppers from 100 to 200mm.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  129. #929
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    Knolly, Ibis, Yeti, and now Evil have all gone longer now. XC race bikes are slowly creeping "forward" as well

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

    Naked's framebuilder notes on a prototype

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


    Photos courtesy Naked Bicycles and Design

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

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

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


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


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


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


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







    AFTER


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ok, that ended up being way more than I thought I'd write."
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  130. #930
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    9,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Head Angle
    This is basically unimportant. This obsession with this number has got to stop. It is all about where this lets you get the front wheel placed. This number changes drastically depending on how your fork is set up. On this bike, the head angle varies from about 64.8 to 71 depending on how much travel is used. One thing that can be said is that a hardtail should have a MUCH slacker starting head angle than an equivalent duty full-squish. On a hardtail the head angle is always steepening under compression, where as a full suspension can either steepen or slacken.
    I like where he's going with this. however, for the purposes of a few of us who are still fiddling around with rigid forks, I want to recognize that HTA is sometimes basically static. In a way, this is great because it also means that front-center is static. if you can build a bike that handles great in a rigid format, you can add suspension and tweak a few angles to make up for the extra movement have have a superb-handling bike, right? perhaps that is how Vassago is able to make a "stable" bike with a 70-degree HTA with a short travel/rigid fork- the reach/ top tube is long, which puts the front wheel far out in front, which maintaining precise steering with a "steep" HTA.

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

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

    how the bike handles would than depend on front-center and rear-center design choices. this might be behind the "magic" of Jones frames that I have yet to experience. I have not seen Jones' geometry numbers, and maybe it's because too many people will misread them.
    Last edited by mack_turtle; 10-19-2018 at 06:44 AM.

  131. #931
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    It might be instructive to consider how the angles and measurements of a bike change as they shift under load by planning around the full range, rather than just one point in the bike's travel - or lack thereof. just like using reach and stack instead of ETT, it would create a common denominator.
    This is why my HT has a 65.5 HTA with a 140mm fork. When it bottoms out it's 72.5, which is steep by anyone's definition. I have bottomed it out once or twice when I have made a mistake, but usually have 10-20mm to spare at the end of a ride.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  132. #932
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    "Steering Axis
    Needs to be as direct as possible. For most mountain bikes this means super short stems. It is not so much the short stem that is important but the resulting hand placement relative to the steering axis. A stem with a 32mm reach on a 780mm bar with normal sweep gets you pretty close to being in line with the steering axis of the front fork. being in front of the steering axis in the old days especially with shorter bars and long stems is what gave us the feeling of wheel flop and the horrible jack-knife scenarios."

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

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  133. #933
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    9,785
    I set my bike up with a SQ Labs 12 degree backsweep bar and a 50mm stem. the frame has a long reach and a "steep" HTA, but the front-center is pretty long considering. the bar is cut to about 740mm and my hands are definitely in line with the steering axis because the backswept bar has a strong backward affect.

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

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

  134. #934
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    "Steering Axis
    Needs to be as direct as possible. For most mountain bikes this means super short stems. It is not so much the short stem that is important but the resulting hand placement relative to the steering axis. A stem with a 32mm reach on a 780mm bar with normal sweep gets you pretty close to being in line with the steering axis of the front fork. being in front of the steering axis in the old days especially with shorter bars and long stems is what gave us the feeling of wheel flop and the horrible jack-knife scenarios."

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

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

  135. #935
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    9,785
    indeed, most "alt bars" are designed so they change your wrist angle but don't mess with hand placement relative to the steering axis. so something like an Answer 20/20 bar should fit the same way as a normal bar with the same stem.

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

  136. #936
    mtbr member
    Reputation: inonjoey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    682
    Thanks for posting and linking to that, Travis - really interesting read.

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

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


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

  137. #937
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,106
    There is a bike fest coming up in my area. It will be the best chance for me to demo a bunch of bikes over a couple days. I'm going to try out the long reach, steep STA bikes. If they are some kind of revelation...then I'll have a new bike soon...if not...then I'll hang onto mine a bit longer.

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

  138. #938
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    9,785
    Quote Originally Posted by RS VR6 View Post
    The long reach number can be a bit deceiving with a steep STA. The body position with a 480 reach and a 76 deg STA can feel similar as a bike with 430 reach and a 74 deg STA.
    When you're sitting down, yes. It is a totally different story when you stand up, which, I think, is the point.

  139. #939
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,106
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    When you're sitting down, yes. It is a totally different story when you stand up, which should be a lot of the time.
    Most of my time will be spent pedaling and climbing. If they do make me go "damn!" then I'll be getting one.

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

  140. #940
    mtbr member
    Reputation: inonjoey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    682
    Quote Originally Posted by RS VR6 View Post
    The long reach number can be a bit deceiving with a steep STA. The body position with a 480 reach and a 76 deg STA can feel similar as a bike with 430 reach and a 74 deg STA.
    This is why I wasnt enamored with the 2017 Transition Scout I rode for a few days - I felt cramped and overly upright climbing and pedaling seated. The bike was more than fine descending or pumping and popping, but I was uncomfortable anytime I was seated. I dont have this problem at all with the Fugitive.



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

  141. #941
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,263
    I'm a huge fan of the new longer bikes, but even the XXL bike are too small. Can't wait until 520-540 reach is a thing.
    Sucks being tall sometimes.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  142. #942
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    9,785
    Quote Originally Posted by RS VR6 View Post
    Most of my time will be spent pedaling and climbing. If they do make me go "damn!" then I'll be getting one.
    yeah, if just planting your butt and pedaling is your thing, you're going to be let down.

  143. #943
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    I'm sure I spend the large majority of my ride time with seated pedaling. However that is just a means to an end, the fun part. The fun is always standing.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for I suck at brake control. Heres a free tip: get better."

  144. #944
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    9,785
    I am sure that most of us spend more time sitting and pedaling, so a bike has to be set up for that. since we are presumably riding mountain bike trails and not paved bridle paths, the bike needs to be capable of wrangling over technical features, so basing how you like a bike based 100% on how it feels to plop your butt down and bimble around is not advisable.

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

  145. #945
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,263
    Mountain bike fitting comes from road fitting. They set you up to pedal on level ground. This does not help keep the front wheel down on 20% climbs or correctly distribute your weight on a decent.
    Riding an XL and having to use a setback post limited my climbing while running a 90mm+ stem fubared descending.
    The best way to figure out your personal best setup is to start with a comfortable seated position and start changing 1 variable at a time. test it and see if it's better or worse for you. Sometimes lowering your bars helps descending by loading the front wheel. Other people the opposite is true.
    I can tell you exactly how far back my seat can slide before I loop out on steep climbs, because that is where I set it. I can also tell you how long of a stem makes me endo on the decent. My XC bike wants to kill be every time I ride it.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  146. #946
    Maxxis cult follower
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,891
    I have a question about geometry: instead of looking at the dozen or so different numbers and angles, and doing all this math in your head to see if you like the geometry, can't you just do a quick and dirty test by looking at how much the seat stays line up with the top tube?

  147. #947
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,263
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    I have a question about geometry: instead of looking at the dozen or so different numbers and angles, and doing all this math in your head to see if you like the geometry, can't you just do a quick and dirty test by looking at how much the seat stays line up with the top tube?
    I don't see how looking at the seat stays would give you any information about the bike. There are way too many designs that that can change the look without effecting the geometry.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  148. #948
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,139
    Moving the saddle forward literally makes the hills feel less steep. I have my saddle slammed forward on my bike. Before I did that on certain climbs I'd have to do the whole scoot forward, lower the chest, drop the elbows thing while struggling up the hill. After slamming the seat forward, I could casually pedal up those same climbs. Climbing with a more open hip angle is so much more pleasant. Of course there's always steeper hills but the forward saddle position makes a big difference.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

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: 25

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.