Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 292 of 292
  1. #201
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    The cornering tangent is just sort of a way to prove how tweaking the geo to promote a certain out-of-the-saddle riding position, can be beneficial to learn about.

    I learned that it's quite hard to find flow on a trail, if I weren't well balanced on the bike. I'd be slowing the bike down, since I'd be thrown off-balance and needed time to recover, since I couldn't find that sweet spot that let me trust that I could ride the bike like I imagined. There are times I do find that spot and, for the lack of a better term, flowed without touching the brakes, except to tame my speed going into corners.

    I find that the best analogy I can come up with is that the CS to WB proportions are like an aircraft's pitch trim controls. You tweak these controls to make the aircraft fly at a level altitude when cruising. It's not autopilot. Without these trim controls, the pilot can still hold it level, and make it to the destination successfully, but I consider it a burden that the pilot has to spend effort to compensate for. For a fighter jet, that has the tendency to nose down, the pilot would need to hold the control stick back a certain amount--would this situation be ideal for more demanding flight maneuvers, such as dogfighting? What if pilots from this fighter squadron don't have assigned jets, and switch among them, and the jets have different nuances to them and you don't know which you'll be in when you scramble to sortie. It'd take time to adjust to, less so if you have experience, but what about the pilots that transfer in who don't have such knowledge?

    ----

    Lets take a look at 3 bikes:

    Bike A) 435mm CS and 1150mm WB. The wheelbase is short due to short reach and steep HA.
    Bike B) 435mm CS and 1235mm WB. The wheelbase is long due to longer reach and slack HA.
    Bike C) 420mm CS and 1220mm WB. Shorter chainstays by 15mm, but same "front center" as bike B (can have different reach and HA)

    There are bikes with this geo. A large Specialized Epic (FSR). A large Fezzari La Sal Peak. A large Cannondale Jekyll 27.5. Someone should be able to fit on all of these bikes to feel what I'm talking about.

    According to my hypothesis, I predict that Bike A is nose-heavy, Bike B is close to neutral, and Bike C is rear-heavy. If you were to look up images of people riding these bikes, you may find patterns, such as riders positioning themselves perhaps a bit more rearward on Bike A, than Bike B and C. Those riding bike B and C back-to-back, may notice all sorts of differences, and have differences in opinion from others doing the same test, like bike B feels like it rivals modern enduro bikes like the SB150, while bike C feels squirrely or less stable and capable as an Enduro bike, than Bike B. Can just search for video reviews on these bikes, making note of the size tested, like the Bike Bible of Bikes test.

    What I'm seeing is the marketing trying to fill people's minds with reasons why someone should buy these bikes. Bike C seems ideal for someone who wants to play on the trail, perhaps okay to race on, since Jerome Clementz validated it on the EWS it (on a smaller size)! Bike B is a potent enduro racer! It shows promise, so we'll be watching (in case Fezzari wants to get it more "validation" with a race team). Bike A cannot be compared to B and C, as it's in its own special league, where people purposely give up DH capability in order to showcase their ability on bikes with suspension that is designed not to move. It's race proven, so it deserves its spot in existence!

    I have said before, that I'm not sure why people put so much personal stake into the racing culture, when they don't do the racing themselves. Do they aspire to someday race? A handful of riders I ride with do race, but the only ones riding their race bikes on group rides are the Enduro racers. I do like this trend, as it's R&D money going towards the development of bikes that work for the riding I do, but the prices...

    So I ask, is "good" geo something that should cost a lot? Or is that just making that geo permanent into a carbon mold that results in that cost? I'm no Einstein, and not pioneering anything new. I'm merely trying to bring awareness to something that could possibly applied to any bike. These bike companies post geo charts of their products, but how much do we know about this geo chart as a whole, to be able to predict how the bikes will ride? Do we just cherry pick certain figures and compare to bikes that are getting praise? *shrug* people have problems understanding how longer reach is balanced with a steeper SA, to not stretch the rider out more, but instead give them room out-of-the-saddle so they can still have their head behind the bars when they get aggressive.

    CS length to WB length proportions. Is there something to be learned here or not? I think it's pretty huge, and I pretty much crossed a ton of bikes off my list of bikes I lust after, based off what I feel I understand from this one factor *alone*. I'll admit that I raised my standards quite a bit though. Plenty of bikes do have proportions that I'm looking for, but not in my size, or not in my price range. A Yeti SB150 in M suits me. I'd have to upsize to Yeti SB130 in L, or a Ripmo in L to get proportions I'm looking for. See a comparison between a rider trying a SB150 and SB130, both in L, and I would totally understand that they may prefer one or the other, based on their personal needs. Maybe the SB130 feels faster, but the SB150 feels like it loves back wheel more, and that's their style (maybe coming up with a few more reasons to support their preference, like the ability to go big). Not sure why such thinking is blasphemous from non-fanboys...

  2. #202
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    184
    @ninji, I won't be able to address all your points but here are some of my random thoughts:

    *I actually like to ride one bike for all my riding. But it's a personal taste. I ride my XC bike on XC trails, black diamond trails, etc. The only time I don't is on huge jump lines because I don't want to break the frame when it's not designed for that. For me, my bikes predictability is the single most important factor for me. And if I am constantly switching bikes, I have to readjust and I don't get to know my bike as well. So when I race, I have less confidence when I need to push it to try to catch someone near the end of a race. But this is a personal thing and you will get many difference responses on this.

    *I doubt I know enough about mtb geometry to give you an intelligent response but I have noticed that XC bikes from the major brands that having racing teams are pretty close to each other. For example, compare the geometries of XC bikes from Trek, Specialized, Canyon... Will the minor variations matter? Perhaps. But I would have to do some pretty extensive testing to detect it and I don't have enough resources to do that. For a guy like me, close is close enough. Then I will make adjustments on stem length rise, handlebar width etc to feel comfortable for me. I've done many demo days and realized that I just like XC bikes for their quick handling and get up and go. It's like driving a sports car whereas I find slack bikes sluggish. But again, this is a highly personal preference and probably a bit against the trend.
    You might find this article from Enduro magazine testing enduro bikes with very different geos interesting: https://enduro-mtb.com/en/10-fastest...bikes-in-test/

    *I think people focus on race culture because it's fun. It's a hobby. And it's good to know that the manufacturer spends so many money on R&D. It may not be relevant directly (e.g. nobody can ride Nino Schurter's bike with a negative 25 degree slammed stem except Nino), but it might be relevant in the future via trickle down of technology.

  3. #203
    mtbr member
    Reputation: s0ckeyeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,101
    Quote Originally Posted by hesitationpoint View Post
    @jeremy yeah good point about the braking transition. I learned to ride off road in MX before I got into mtb and it was always easy to load the front because hard braking does some of it and then you plop your body down as far up front as possible on the seat almost on top of the gas tank with your leg out. Transitioning to mtb was a bitch at first because dabbing is inefficient due to the need to pedal and there was no seat to put your weight on near the front. For me, the break through came when I started visualizing the feeling of hitting corners MX style except with my feet on the pedals but the same hard lean, outside pedal loading and braking until the last moment. Getting the timing down to load the front right at the apex did it for me. But I still find long sweeping corners with no obvious apex scary lol.
    I think people tend to be too on/off the brakes rather than getting a nice smooth transition. I think ideally, braking would transition smoothly from braking to pumping out of the turn. For long sweeping corners, it can be helpful to break them down into smaller sections and pumping those smaller sections instead of trying to do it all in one motion (light > heavy > light > heavy > light vs. light > heaaaaaavy-ish > light).

    Of course, a the heart of this is a good attack position, driving weight into the ground with the hips instead of the hands, and having hips with enough mobility to get the right lean.

  4. #204
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,870
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    CS length to WB length proportions. Is there something to be learned here or not? I think it's pretty huge, and I pretty much crossed a ton of bikes off my list of bikes I lust after, based off what I feel I understand from this one factor *alone*
    I think there is something to that, since it determines where the rider's weight is within the wheelbase.

    Not to be a fanboy about my bike, but going from a 2014 Pivot Mach 6 to first a Stache 9(AL) then to a Stache 9.8(carbon with revised geometry), I was shocked by how easy it is to ride and especially corner quickly. My 19.5" 9.8 has a 450ish reach and the stays are 420mm stock and I have them adjusted down to 412-413, halfway through their 15mm of adjustment range.

    Because of where the BB is within the wheelbase, getting the best weight distribution is easier and less fatiguing. That's because I'm able to keep my hips closer to directly over the bb than with other bikes, which is a more natural position. Going from 420 to 7-8mm shorter did make it a little more squirrelly, and it will slip temporarily inadvertently, it's also easy to use that tendency to induce a small slide (NOT a brake induced skid) to square off a corner slightly with a quick pump through the outside pedal. The tires, which provide good grip and a very forgiving transition from grip to slip, allow this normally bad tendency to be used and abused.

    It also has a 72mm BB drop, which is more like a road bike than a MTB. That is only possible with it's monster wheels, I'm not sure what that does, but it does something.

    Something about the sum of the parts, the CS length, the CS/WB ratio, the BB drop, and the tires make that bike not only easy, but fun (because it provides lots of feedback, yet is very forgiving) to ride very fast within the limitations of it being a hard tail with a little extra cush from the tires.

    Here's something, mountain bikes have only semi recently started to be designed specifically for mountain biking in varied conditions. In the dawn of MTB, they were beefed up cruisers with gears, which was actually a good guess. In the 90s, the popularity of XC racing, and the limitations of mass start events drove bikes towards road bike design. In a mass start event, you have to be narrower, and due to the amount of traffic on a race course, more time is gained through a focus on climbing (where it's easier to pass) than a focus on how fast you can descend or corner (where it's hard to pass), so that's what the bikes were good at. This is still true to a lesser degree today.

    Other segments of the MTB market have dropped those assumptions and gone for easy to ride, and now to easy to ride with respectable climbing ability within the limitations of having extra weight, more suspension travel and tires with more rolling resistance. Dropper posts helped this by making the STA irrelevant when the saddle is lowered.

    In the last couple years, XC bikes have gone in that same direction, towards the middle. Longer reaches and shorter stems to reposition the wheels under the rider, yet maintaining a good position for climbing and power production in general, becoming lighter weight, short travel trail bikes. Add a dropper post and grippy tires and you have potent enduro weapon for milder terrain. Which is the way it should be, if you can maximize one aspect without hurting another (moving the front wheel forward with reach and stem length, and changing the CS/WB ratio) why wouldn't you?

  5. #205
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    33,462
    Too much pondering and not enough practicing.

    ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponder


    ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponder


    ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponder

    ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder


    ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponder

    ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpo nderponderponderponderponderponderponderponderpond erponderponderponderponderponderponderponderponder ponderponderponderponderponderponder
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  6. #206
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,870
    If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything.

  7. #207
    mtbr member
    Reputation: s0ckeyeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,101
    Quote Originally Posted by DIRTJUNKIE View Post
    Too much pondering and not enough practicing.
    It's the bike's fault...

  8. #208
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    33,462
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything.
    Did you see the word anything in any of what I said? I didn’t say anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  9. #209
    Upcyclist
    Reputation: Cornfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,169
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything.
    If he did that his post count would only be in the hundreds.
    By continuing to browse my posts, you agree to accept my use of cookies.

  10. #210
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    Hmm, I'll try smoother braking to see if trail braking affects weight on the front enough for me to notice the effects it has on cornering. I may have been subconsciously doing this already, but haven't really been thinking about cause-and-effect from the different techniques I try out unless I specifically tried, instead just cruising and keeping pace with others.

    I tried testing flat cornering on a dirt lot around dried up puddles, but the soil is way dustier, and the testing isn't consistent enough for my liking. I found I liked singletrack better for testing.

    I found 1 nice sweeping off-camber downsloping to upsloping U turn to see there difference in speed carried through, using different bikes and techniques. I think it might be about half the radius of a running track's curve.

    I found 1 high speed singletrack flat corner that has braking bumps leading into it, and a moderate penalty for failure (1' tall rocks on the outside of turn), that I might use to as a final test if I become confident in a certain combination of bike, positioning, and technique.

    Proto started production. Not sure how long heat treating, powdercoat, finishing, and shipping (from out of country) will take.

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-qgjrlzg.jpg

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    184
    Ok after watching Jeremy's video and thinking about it more, I'm going to revise my suggestion about cornering. After thinking about my corner technique more, I'm realizing that I'm pretty much doing what Phil does - load outside pedal, load outside grip, lean forward. But thinking back, it took a while to feel comfortable in this position. It wasn't so much experimenting as much as spending a lot of my early season committing that position to muscle memory so that it became second nature. I think it's really hard to find flow and ride with your mind engaged where you are analyzing everything. I think just ride casually for a while developing muscle memory in that position and when it becomes second nature, you won't think about it and the flow will be there. You will be slow at first but the payoff will come....

  12. #212
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    740
    i've learned something very insightful from this thread. there are some people who have incredible discretionary time to spend typing on forums, and remarkable capacity for long form typing. mind blown.

  13. #213
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    33,462
    Quote Originally Posted by cunningstunts View Post
    i've learned something very insightful from this thread. there are some people who have incredible discretionary time to spend typing on forums, and remarkable capacity for long form typing. mind blown.
    Hence my pondering post above.
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  14. #214
    Nutrailer
    Reputation: JackWare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    442
    Maybe this is what the attack/ready position looks like?

    Name:  ninja.JPG
Views: 448
Size:  32.8 KB
    What a perfect waste of time

  15. #215
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,183
    blind leading the blind in this post but don't worry even most mountain bike coaches don't know what theyre doing or teaching either lol
    friends don't let friends Fred

  16. #216
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,870
    Quote Originally Posted by cunningstunts View Post
    i've learned something very insightful from this thread. there are some people who have incredible discretionary time to spend typing on forums, and remarkable capacity for long form typing. mind blown.
    Some of us also ride our bikes alot.

    Do you?

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tealy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    310
    OP, I want to congratulate you on thinking outside of the box.

    Now I think I get what you're looking for: You want a bike designed to plop your COG midway between the wheels so you can ride in a comfortable attack position and so remain stable at high speed in the bumps? So you'd have a bike similar to one with modern geometry except it would have longer chain stays, right?

    There's a principle of design that says something like: You can design a thing that will be really good at one thing but really suck at everything else. Or you can design a thing that will work okay at everything but not be great at any one thing.

    Now your bike with the long chain stays that keeps your COG centered between the wheels in the attack position is only going to be great in the attack position.

    What you don't realize because you haven't been riding long enough is that shifting your COG (which you find uncomfortable) is like the fundamental driving mechanism of mountain biking. If you want to hop or jump, you've have to to make hard shifts of your COG. If you want to turn hard and not wash out, you've got to shift your COG forward. If you want to climb, you got to get your COG back. Etc, etc.

    You don't reach flow state by staying centered between the wheels. You reach flow state by moving your COG constantly to pump the terrain. The problem isn't the bike. It's your riding.
    "You can be clipped in and be boring or ride flats and have a good time." - Sam Hill

  18. #218
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    @tealy You should confirm your assumption, before overthinking beyond it. Your entire post is based on an incorrect assumption.

    Post 1 should've given you a hint, with the picture. Post 4's picture exemplifies what people think the ready position looks like.

    I do ride out-of-the-saddle like shown in post 4, getting behind the BB, hovering my hips over where the saddle would've been on level ground. It's not a personal complaint, it's a want to drive innovation to make MTBing simpler. I accepted the fact that my riding is heavily dictated by the bike. There are shit bikes out there that just don't ride well. I've owned many, only realizing how shitty they were after experiencing better, since I didn't know better. I had other macro gains to focus on, like fitness and skill building, so getting a nice bike wasn't a priority. People haven't accurately figured out why their bikes suck. They compare to bikes they liked, and speculated it might be due to short chainstays or steep HA, or whatever. I've tried to find out myself, taking a different approach than just speculating.

    Pumping the terrain is more effective with one bike, more than the other, right? You can reason that you're no where close to riding the bike's limits, as a pro can make an even worse bike work better than you on yours. You can reason that bikes are compromised, to be optimized at one thing more than another, and you can't get it all. You seem to be discounting that people are opening up to new geo, discovering that the trade-offs associated with them are overblown and that you'd be giving up a lot more going back to old geo. I researched the heck out of bike geometry to understand, inspired by new geo, and ended up going custom--it may be no coincidence that the frame is almost a clone of a Starling Murmur, which was said to be easily top 2 favorite trail bikes ever for the pinkbike reviewer.

    Post #72, among many others, might explain why your assumption is off. It's not about putting the CoG between the wheels, it's about making a more upright position, like a boxer's stance, as far as the hip and leg alignment goes, into the ready position, rather than a "toilet bowl squat" position. I've had to juggle all the dimensions on the frame, including the tubing diameter, to make so there's minimal compromises. The seated position being hardly any different than the standing position is one of the design features (steepening the STA to place the seat under the rider's comfortable standing position).

    Can build skill on any bike, but one that makes it simpler would be better, would it not?

  19. #219
    2x is underrated
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,568
    Quote Originally Posted by tealy View Post
    If you want to climb, you got to get your COG back.
    You mean forward, not back, right...

    Uphill is leaning or standing forward, downhill more than 10% decline is crouching back or even butt behind saddle. If we can't agree on this the rest is gibberish.

  20. #220
    2x is underrated
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,568
    [QUOTE=ninjichor;13973403]@tealy You should confirm your assumption, before overthinking beyond it.

    I do ride out-of-the-saddle like shown in post 4, getting behind the BB, hovering my hips over where the saddle would've been on level ground. It's not a personal complaint, it's a want to drive innovation to make MTBing simpler. I accepted the fact that my riding is heavily dictated by the bike. There are shit bikes out there that just don't ride well. I've owned many, only realizing how shitty they were after experiencing better, since I didn't know better. I had other macro gains to focus on, like fitness and skill building, so getting a nice bike wasn't a priority. People haven't accurately figured out why their bikes suck. They compare to bikes they liked, and speculated it might be due to short chainstays or steep HA, or whatever. I've tried to find out myself, taking a different approach than just speculating.

    Pumping the terrain is more effective with one bike, more than the other, right? You can reason that you're no where close to riding the bike's limits, as a pro can make an even worse bike work better than you on yours. You can reason that bikes are compromised, to be optimized at one thing more than another, and you can't get it all. You seem to be discounting that people are opening up to new geo, discovering that the trade-offs associated with them are overblown and that you'd be giving up a lot more going back to old geo.

    Can build skill on any bike, but one that makes it simpler would be better, would it not?[/QUOTE/]

    There is a huge difference between old and new geometry. My 27.5 only has a 70 degree headtube and I still feel a big difference. It is better both uphill and downhill. It is better in every possible way.

    If you are espousing to build skill on a simpler bike then you would recommend hardtails to every beginner, correct?

  21. #221
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    You mean forward, not back, right...

    Uphill is leaning or standing forward, downhill more than 10% decline is crouching back or even butt behind saddle. If we can't agree on this the rest is gibberish.
    You're both right, depending on your bike's design.

    If the bike's rearward biased, as it often is for size XL bikes or bikes with super short CS, long top tube, & slack HA, you compensate by getting your weight forward.

    If the bike's weight bias is front heavy, through geo (long CS, steep HA, short reach), not heavy forks and front wheel, you compensate by getting your weight rearward, else you risk spinning the rear tire out when out-of-the-saddle. Luckily, you can just sit relaxed in the saddle when things get steep.

    I call the latter cruiser bikes. XC bikes are oftentimes like this, especially size S and M short travel 29ers. The former tend to come with the disclaimer that it needs a very advanced skill-level aggressive rider.

    See post #96, on my estimates on the sweet spot between these. This is one reason why I find skill coaching to be questionable, since they don't consider these differences in the bike. Newer long travel 29ers are getting longer front ends, so they are less cruiser like and closer to the sweet spot. What size hits the sweet spot, refer to post #96. Considering that STAs aren't as steep as they can be, prob safer to be slightly nose heavy, esp if you're used to hanging off the back a little: see Jeffsy 29 and how it has diff CS lengths for diff sizes.

    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    There is a huge difference between old and new geometry. My 27.5 only has a 70 degree headtube and I still feel a big difference. It is better both uphill and downhill. It is better in every possible way.


    If you are espousing to build skill on a simpler bike then you would recommend hardtails to every beginner, correct?
    Simpler MTBing is akin to a car that you just get in and go. It's engineered to make it so you don't have to adapt to it. It instead puts you in the ideal position to operate it, and asks little of you, in order to do the task you bought it for. All at a level that's comparable to veteran car drivers out there.

    These hardtails would have to be extremely advanced, but to keep costs down, the advancement would probably be all in the geo. Does it drive up the costs extra to cut the tubes differently and re-adjust the jigs? What if MTB were a family and friend sport with the advent of universally better bike geo at no extra cost?

    I can modernize a HT with a 70 HA, if for some reason you had to have 70 HA. What's your desired ETT and what's your BB to saddle height distance? I can plot it out in bikecad to show what I consider modernized. What region do you ride in? I'll lengthen the wheelbase if you ride in open desert, as opposed to tight wooded areas. Can then compare to what you are currently on for funsies.

  22. #222
    nya
    nya is offline
    I want to ride my bike
    Reputation: nya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    You're both right, depending on your bike's design.

    If the bike's rearward biased, as it often is for size XL bikes or bikes with super short CS, long top tube, & slack HA, you compensate by getting your weight forward.

    If the bike's weight bias is front heavy, through geo (long CS, steep HA, short reach), not heavy forks and front wheel, you compensate by getting your weight rearward, else you risk spinning the rear tire out when out-of-the-saddle. Luckily, you can just sit relaxed in the saddle when things get steep.
    Strange, I used to ride short reach, 72 HA, fairly long CS...I used to ride short CS, long TT, slack HA...I ride CX bike (short CS, steep HA)...and XC (short CS, slack HA) and EN (longish CS, very slack HA) etc....and on all of them, the climbing position is more or less the same for steep stuff, am I doing it all wrong, I never have to get my weight rearward somehow, and I can find the "sweetspot" on all of them with same ease as well...hmm...
    XCO results, races, riders etc http://mtbcrosscountry.com

    gearing ratios calculator http://gears.mtbcrosscountry.com

  23. #223
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    So you didn't have a single bike with forward bias? Any size S/M short travel 29ers? I ask specifically, because "short" and "long" is subjective/relative, and I doubt the standard you judge by is universal here.

    Have you yet found out that you have the same cognitive bias as everyone else who uses anecdote, in which you selectively pick out memories that support your beliefs? The existence of a disagreement doesn't get snuffed out by creating a majority agreement on one side. I recognize both cases as true, and have no reason to believe yours isn't. What's keeping you from doing the same?

    @richj8990 size "large" modernized 120mm HT with 27.5 wheels and 70d HA

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-0rcejga.jpg

    Differences from outdated geo:
    - proportional cs to wb length (425 to 1175, sagged)
    - steep STA (78), longer reach (491)
    - shorter seat tube (400, modeled with 175 dropper)

    Maintains familiar ETT, familiar head angle/steering response.

    To size this down for a shorter rider, one method I'd consider is to rejig the front triangle for a slacker HA (from 70 to 66), with the wheelbase kept constant (sagged):

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-50gygj2.jpg
    - Reach shortened from 491 to 451, seat tube from 400 to 360, ETT from 624 to 580, and stack height lowered to keep grips close to saddle level (saddle height lowered from 720 to 680, for someone with inseam less than 30").

    This is practically stating that the CS to WB proportions are far more important than HA. I'd like to hear the arguments about why this method comes with all sorts of drawbacks, compared to keeping the HA and shortening the front center. Remember that fork offset is now an option.

  24. #224
    nya
    nya is offline
    I want to ride my bike
    Reputation: nya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    So you didn't have a single bike with forward bias? Any size S/M short travel 29ers? I ask specifically, because "short" and "long" is subjective/relative, and I doubt the standard you judge by is universal here.

    Have you yet found out that you have the same cognitive bias as everyone else who uses anecdote, in which you selectively pick out memories that support your beliefs? The existence of a disagreement doesn't get snuffed out by creating a majority agreement on one side. I recognize both cases as true, and have no reason to believe yours isn't. What's keeping you from doing the same?
    You will pull out some logical fallacy with my argument anytime I will post something. It is like if you think that anyone who disagrees with you on any point must be inherently wrong. It is not just me and my personal anecdoes. I do very often a coaching rides for women, most of them on small bikes very few on medium. Quite often they are on a short travel 29ers, some of them on trail bikes some of them on enduro bikes. When we practice climbing steep or technical (loose etc) climbs, the biggest difference to their success is generally getting their weight forward, I do agree that if someone is really short and sitting more - what I would describe - between wheels, gets away with worse climbing technique more often.
    I do not know that much about geometry to try to argue with you about precise effects of this and that, but it does seem like you do luck some fundamental skills that would probably change your view on what is good and what is bad.
    XCO results, races, riders etc http://mtbcrosscountry.com

    gearing ratios calculator http://gears.mtbcrosscountry.com

  25. #225
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by nya View Post
    You will pull out some logical fallacy with my argument anytime I will post something. It is like if you think that anyone who disagrees with you on any point must be inherently wrong. It is not just me and my personal anecdoes. I do very often a coaching rides for women, most of them on small bikes very few on medium. Quite often they are on a short travel 29ers, some of them on trail bikes some of them on enduro bikes. When we practice climbing steep or technical (loose etc) climbs, the biggest difference to their success is generally getting their weight forward, I do agree that if someone is really short and sitting more - what I would describe - between wheels, gets away with worse climbing technique more often.
    I do not know that much about geometry to try to argue with you about precise effects of this and that, but it does seem like you do luck some fundamental skills that would probably change your view on what is good and what is bad.
    Feel free to call me out on logical fallacy. I do recognize it as wrong, and will put aside my pride to stand corrected. Don't sugarcoat it.

    That's an interesting scenario regarding women on S/M short travel 29ers. What gear are they in, and how slow they are going, compared to the others who really need the forward positioning? I ask because I'm curious about the torque and acceleration rate, as that affects how easy the front is to lift. Someone spinning@75rpm in 32x36 at 6 mph vs someone mashing@55rpm in 32x46 at 3-4 mph... would need to tuck forward to counter the torque and acceleration lifting the front.

    I still stand by the belief that standing in an upright pedaling position, on a size small short travel 29er, risks spinning the rear tire, because not enough weight is on the back. Leaning forward is not what you want to do then. I'll add that I find it's more comfortable pushing away from my bars, on easy winding uphills, and seemingly no less effective at climbing fast and efficiently.

    Not sure why people keep assuming my skill level. What's it even based on? Just FYI, I have 30k+ miles on MTB and this thread isn't about me, it's about improving bikes. I've repeated that I want to share the mtb experience with others, safely, lowering the skill and fitness demands, which act as a barrier to the sport. Coaching is one way, improving bikes is another. Can combine it, not just do 1 or the other. I'm betting people, esp those who don't even read instruction manuals, would appreciate the ability to just dive into riding without step-by-step guidance, maybe just a supervisor that does nothing but watch and be there for worst case scenarios. I'd rather tell 'em that they're advancing impressively, rather than saying back in our days, we trained to change out tubes, tune derailleurs, and lower seatposts quickly, and considered it an accomplishment to huck 2.5', or simply survive a downhill without crashing! With people's attn span becoming worse, where they seemingly act illiterate when faced with a wordy explanation, simplifying is a virtue.

  26. #226
    nya
    nya is offline
    I want to ride my bike
    Reputation: nya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    Feel free to call me out on logical fallacy. I do recognize it as wrong, and will put aside my pride to stand corrected. Don't sugarcoat it.

    That's an interesting scenario regarding women on S/M short travel 29ers. What gear are they in, and how slow they are going, compared to the others who really need the forward positioning? I ask because I'm curious about the torque and acceleration rate, as that affects how easy the front is to lift. Someone spinning in 32x36 at 6 mph and 75 rpm is putting out far less torque than someone mashing 32x46 at 55 rpm at 3-4 mph. Would need to tuck forward to counter the torque effect. I still stand by the belief that standing in an upright pedaling position, on a size small short travel 29er, risks spinning the rear tire, because not enough weight is on the back.

    Not sure why people keep assuming my skill level. What's it even based on? Just FYI, I have 30k+ miles on MTB and this thread isn't about me, it's about improving bikes. I've repeated that I want to share the mtb experience with others, safely, lowering the skill and fitness demands, which act as a barrier to the sport. Coaching is one way, improving bikes is another. Can combine it, can do 1 or the other. I'm betting people, esp those who don't even read instruction manuals, would appreciate the ability to just dive into riding without babysitting. I'd rather tell 'em that they're advancing impressively, rather than saying back in our days, we trained to change out tubes, tune derailleurs, and lower seatposts quickly, and considered it an accomplishment to huck 2.5', or simply survive a downhill without crashing! With ppls attn span becoming worse, where they seemingly act illiterate when faced with a wordy explanations, simplifying is a virtue.
    We are talking either steep or technical climbing, so generally lowest/2nd to lowest gear and fairly slow, those would be the scenarios where technique matters. At faster speeds, less hard climbs you can be very slack with your position/technique.

    https://image.redbull.com/rbcom/052/...d-cup-2018.jpg

    I guess what makes people judge your skills is the way you describe some of the situations, where my experiences and experiences of most people I know go against it, thus judging your skills.

    Perhaps you can make a bike that will be awesome for beginners because it will hide the need for skills in most beginner scenarios. But as others mentioned once you move into more advanced riding, there is just too much happening and too many effects to make the "I can just stand here and it will ride it all well" bike.
    XCO results, races, riders etc http://mtbcrosscountry.com

    gearing ratios calculator http://gears.mtbcrosscountry.com

  27. #227
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skiahh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,876
    The "advice" that keeps coming out in this thread is just eye watering.

  28. #228
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    @nya https://youtu.be/V-N1XmkCGxg?t=1558

    My perspective when watching this video is: "Kate Courtney looks like she's much more comfortable than the rider behind her, Emily Batty."

    It's not a perspective in judging which position is more effective, optimal, faster, etc. If anything, I'd like to see this side perspective for riders and bikes of different shapes and sizes and scenarios, to get a better idea of the big picture regarding comfortable positioning and what specific compromises are associated with it.

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-mfk24lh.jpg

    I figure a longer wheelbase is more forgiving in terms of being too far forward and losing rear wheel traction, and being too far back and losing front wheel traction/control. Making it so both the seated and standing position fall in the balanced position, naturally, would further reduce the chance of doing it wrong. That's why I am preparing to test with a 81d STA on my proto. I measured how far forward I am out-of-the-saddle compared to my seated position, and steepened the seat angle to minimize the difference between seated and standing CoG. About 1d of STA change was equivalent to 12mm of saddle horizontal movement (3-4" total, offset with other geo changes such as longer reach and recentering the fore-aft balance through CS to WB proportions).

    Name:  4Xzslih.png
Views: 387
Size:  194.0 KBName:  x6oOeUV.png
Views: 391
Size:  195.5 KB
    - would this not be easier with better geo? Reduce the strain/demand to hunt with your body's CoG to hover in that balanced spot when traction and control is at their limit, so you can spend your effort on putting down power and negotiating obstacles? Does it not suck to be at your limit and get tripped up by just a tiny bump, and forced to dismount; is it pride that makes you think it's cheating to get around this with a better bike, spreading BS to possibly influence people to just harden up and make a shit bike work instead? Speaking of BS, I can use it too: when pros don't ride a shit bike by choice, despite knowing they can ride it better than most people can ride the nicer bikes, something tells me that a better design has indisputable merit. Such BS is just too easy to argue, that it's pointless, and only shows how snobby the arguers are.

  29. #229
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LargeMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    @nya https://youtu.be/V-N1XmkCGxg?t=1558

    My perspective when watching this video is: "Kate Courtney looks like she's much more comfortable than the rider behind her, Emily Batty."

    It's not a perspective in judging which position is more effective, optimal, faster, etc. If anything, I'd like to see this side perspective for riders and bikes of different shapes and sizes and scenarios, to get a better idea of the big picture regarding comfortable positioning and what specific compromises are associated with it.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MFk24lh.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	133.3 KB 
ID:	1236574

    I figure a longer wheelbase is more forgiving in terms of being too far forward and losing rear wheel traction, and being too far back and losing front wheel traction/control. Making it so both the seated and standing position fall in the balanced position, naturally, would further reduce the chance of doing it wrong. That's why I am preparing to test with a 81d STA on my proto. I measured how far forward I am out-of-the-saddle compared to my seated position, and steepened the seat angle to minimize the difference between seated and standing CoG. About 1d of STA change was equivalent to 12mm of saddle horizontal movement (3-4" total, offset with other geo changes such as longer reach and recentering the fore-aft balance through CS to WB proportions).

    Name:  4Xzslih.png
Views: 387
Size:  194.0 KBName:  x6oOeUV.png
Views: 391
Size:  195.5 KB
    - would this not be easier with better geo? Reduce the strain/demand to hunt with your body's CoG to hover in that balanced spot when traction and control is at their limit, so you can spend your effort on putting down power and negotiating obstacles? Does it not suck to be at your limit and get tripped up by just a tiny bump, and forced to dismount; is it pride that makes you think it's cheating to get around this with a better bike, spreading BS to possibly influence people to just harden up and make a shit bike work instead? Speaking of BS, I can use it too: when pros don't ride a shit bike by choice, despite knowing they can ride it better than most people can ride the nicer bikes, something tells me that a better design has indisputable merit. Such BS is just too easy to argue, that it's pointless, and only shows how snobby the arguers are.
    Second pic looks good, IMO not too far forward.

    Cornering, outside pedal pressure down, bar inside grip pushed down.

  30. #230
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    So you didn't have a single bike with forward bias? Any size S/M short travel 29ers? I ask specifically, because "short" and "long" is subjective/relative, and I doubt the standard you judge by is universal here.

    Have you yet found out that you have the same cognitive bias as everyone else who uses anecdote, in which you selectively pick out memories that support your beliefs? The existence of a disagreement doesn't get snuffed out by creating a majority agreement on one side. I recognize both cases as true, and have no reason to believe yours isn't. What's keeping you from doing the same?

    @richj8990 size "large" modernized 120mm HT with 27.5 wheels and 70d HA

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0RcejGA.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	176.2 KB 
ID:	1236515

    Differences from outdated geo:
    - proportional cs to wb length (425 to 1175, sagged)
    - steep STA (78), longer reach (491)
    - shorter seat tube (400, modeled with 175 dropper)

    Maintains familiar ETT, familiar head angle/steering response.

    To size this down for a shorter rider, one method I'd consider is to rejig the front triangle for a slacker HA (from 70 to 66), with the wheelbase kept constant (sagged):

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	50gYGJ2.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	174.2 KB 
ID:	1236518
    - Reach shortened from 491 to 451, seat tube from 400 to 360, ETT from 624 to 580, and stack height lowered to keep grips close to saddle level (saddle height lowered from 720 to 680, for someone with inseam less than 30").

    This is practically stating that the CS to WB proportions are far more important than HA. I'd like to hear the arguments about why this method comes with all sorts of drawbacks, compared to keeping the HA and shortening the front center. Remember that fork offset is now an option.
    Personally, a 78° STA is too steep for the terrain a 70° HTA is suited for. On flat ground you'll have a lot of pressure on your hands or have a bar that's too high. On steep terrain a slacker HTA is exponentially better.

  31. #231
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    Personally, a 78° STA is too steep for the terrain a 70° HTA is suited for. On flat ground you'll have a lot of pressure on your hands or have a bar that's too high. On steep terrain a slacker HTA is exponentially better.
    How about putting reason to your concerns about hand pressure, perhaps by considering the numbers? You say your opinion is personal, but I just see that as a challenge to convince you, by filling in with evidence that you lack.

    The ETT and stack height determine how your hips and hands are situated while seated. 624mm ETT and 626mm stack are typical for size large. 580 ETT and 607 stack are typical for size small. What's changed? The hip was brought forward by 60mm, relative to the BB, compared to a 73d STA bike. The bars are further away in the standing position by 60mm, if running the same stem length as a short reach bike.

    What creates this hand pressure? It's all from the upper body, right? What is supporting the weight of your head, your torso, and your arms (and backpack)? It's being transferred to your contact points, the grips, the saddle, and pedals, right? What makes it so you support more of your weight with your grips, than your saddle and pedals? You tell me your concerns here.

    What changes when you raise bar height? You can give me a subjective answer. My expectations are that the rider's position becomes more upright, namely the angle of their back, and this shifts the burden of the upper body weight support from the grips to the saddle.

    My subjective belief on what makes this work is the weight transfer to the pedals in a more vertical vector, having the saddle there to allow you to rest between pedal strokes so your hips don't bob up and down, resulting in more of a rocking motion. Having all this weight here also pleases the weight bias I created through the CS to WB proportions, with the concept of heavy feet, light hands. It's not 50/50 between the wheels, but more like 60/40 in favor of the rear, allowing you to go 50/50 if you lean forward. If you look, the front pedal is approximately centered between the two wheels. Bringing the hips forward reduces the change of CoG between the seated and standing position, making it easier to optimize handling for both, for less compromise.

    70 HTA was merely used as an example to show that you can modernize an entry level HT with a 70 HTA. I bet the modernized geo will be preferable to a large number of size L slack HTA HT you can think of, despite having a 70 HTA, due to how well rounded it became.

    P.S. A 80d seat tube angle is scientifically proven to be more efficient than 74d or slacker. I used 78 here, because HTs get steeper as the fork compresses. I used 81d on my proto, because the rear sags more on climbs. Reducing the CoG change, and the resulting handling change, from sitting to standing position was also a good reason to use these seat angles. Comfort was a top priority. Hence why I took this concern seriously, even if it were imagined.

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-rxfpmf7.png

    @LargeMan The rider seems well-centered in that pic, but in that scenario the rear tire could've used more traction to allow for more power transfer. Shifting bodyweight rearward would've provided that traction. I don't consider such a position to be comfortable to pedal from, hence why I welcome how modern geo pushes the bars forward (reach) & steepens the STA. I insistently believe they can go further--rather than rolling out 20mm at at time, I suggested up to 60mm. xD

  32. #232
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,093
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post

    P.S. A 80d seat tube angle is scientifically proven to be more efficient than 74d or slacker. I used 78 here, because HTs get steeper as the fork compresses. I used 81d on my proto, because the rear sags more on climbs. Reducing the CoG change, and the resulting handling change, from sitting to standing position was also a good reason to use these seat angles. Comfort was a top priority. Hence why I took this concern seriously, even if it were imagined.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	rXfpmf7.png 
Views:	19 
Size:	52.5 KB 
ID:	1236679

    @LargeMan The rider seems well-centered in that pic, but in that scenario the rear tire could've used more traction to allow for more power transfer. A rearward weight shift would've provided that.



    You cite a study that uses road bikes as the test sample.
    Wanted, SRAM GX 2x11 rear derailleur

    It ain't supposed to be easy.

  33. #233
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    You cite a study that uses road bikes as the test sample.
    Please elaborate on your concerns. Does the hip to BB position change not apply to pedaling MTBs? Pole vaguely suggests that it works for their latest bike, but doesn't go into specifics.

    https://polebicycles.com/pole-stamin...is-rolling-in/

    "Seat tube angle is 80º (effective 81º). It’s hilarious that in 2014 we started to play with 76.5º and every time we went steeper angle the bike worked better."

    I liked the part about their design further enabling all-day riding, but was hoping to offset the local trails into highways feel, by making the bike more compact in various ways (shorter wb, shorter travel, shorter ST, shorter standover*, smaller rear wheel).

    * does this even make sense? Lower standover? More standover clearance? Lowered top tube?

    P.S. Your "avatar" pic is blurry. I half read it as, ebikes save/have no soul. I guess the message is the same. xD

  34. #234
    jcd's best friend
    Reputation: Battery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,641
    My Sentinel has a 76.8-degree seat tube angle and 64-degree head tube angle. It works perfectly for me. I don't need to get scientific over it because it just works. It will get me up the mountain so I can race right back down it. My physical fitness program helps with the climb and everything else.

    I prefer to just ride my bikes, increase my skill, and build endurance rather than brood over the math behind it. In fact, I did just that all weekend! I managed to lose 2 pounds in body weight by climbing over 3,500ft and riding 40+ miles all last week! I'm glad I didn't spend my weekend pondering the math behind how my bike and technique works.
    Trek Emonda | Transition Sentinel | Transition Scout

  35. #235
    nya
    nya is offline
    I want to ride my bike
    Reputation: nya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    @nya https://youtu.be/V-N1XmkCGxg?t=1558

    My perspective when watching this video is: "Kate Courtney looks like she's much more comfortable than the rider behind her, Emily Batty."
    You can see in the video that both of the riders change their positions constantly and at several points Emily is in your "more comfortable" position and Kate in the close to the handlebars one. That is kind of whole point of technical or steep / loose climbing and riding a mountainbike in general. When you will make a bike that climbs those climbs without the need to shift your body, wouldn't that bike be really hard to wheelie/manual, corner sharp uphill switchback (and downhill i guess as well) etc.

    Btw from your geometry pictures it looks like you are trying to put the rider between the wheels, but that is what short people on 29 already look like, they are in general very stable because they have big wheel infront and behind them. While tall people are more on top of them so they will have to use more effort to keep grip/balance on steep stuff generally.
    XCO results, races, riders etc http://mtbcrosscountry.com

    gearing ratios calculator http://gears.mtbcrosscountry.com

  36. #236
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    @nya Do you have the names mixed up? Why are you attributing Emily's position to be my ideal of a more comfortable position, when I said Kate (rider in front) looks more comfortable? I'm trying to promote comfort, not the strain of holding an unnatural position.

    What's the misunderstanding here? Did you not read any what I said, instead maybe going off of others' misinterpretations, such as Harold's misunderstanding, in which he thinks I want the rider to stay static and unchanging? That assumption is akin to picturing that I'm a noob who doesn't know how to ride, complaining about normal demands while riding.

    You seem to be declaring what's right and normal, as if you hold authority, and that alone should be convincing. The point of mountain biking is not the same for everyone. Having a bike that is sensitive to weight shifts is a double-edged sword. It's something I've learned through experience.

    I'm not here suggesting bikes to not be sensitive, I'm suggesting that bikes can be made so you can comfortably ridden so you can do less wrong intuitively. They can be as sensitive or insensitive as you want, by scaling up/down the wheelbase. The important part is the CS to WB proportions held between sizes, and minimizing the difference ebetween sitting and standing CoG through even further than modern geo trends. Pushing engineered comfort through bike geo alone, by factoring in what kind of position you want the rider to be in to get optimal handling, rather than the other way around having riders adapt to the bike.

    When you say short riders on 29ers, you again are using subjective terms. You could mean children who are a bit small to even fit on the bike, rather than riders who fit on size S and M. That's the only way I can interpret your observation.

  37. #237
    nya
    nya is offline
    I want to ride my bike
    Reputation: nya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    @nya Do you have the names mixed up? Why are you attributing Emily's position to be my ideal of a more comfortable position, when I said Kate (rider in front) looks more comfortable? I'm trying to promote comfort, not the strain of holding an unnatural position.

    What's the misunderstanding here? Did you not read any what I said, instead maybe going off of others' misinterpretations, such as Harold's misunderstanding, in which he thinks I want the rider to stay static and unchanging? That assumption is akin to picturing that I'm a noob who doesn't know how to ride, complaining about normal demands while riding.

    You seem to be declaring what's right and normal, as if you hold authority, and that alone should be convincing. The point of mountain biking is not the same for everyone. Having a bike that is sensitive to weight shifts is a double-edged sword. It's something I've learned through experience.

    I'm not here suggesting bikes to not be sensitive, I'm suggesting that bikes can be made so you can comfortably ridden so you can do less wrong intuitively. They can be as sensitive or insensitive as you want, by scaling up/down the wheelbase. The important part is the CS to WB proportions held between sizes, and minimizing the difference ebetween sitting and standing CoG through even further than modern geo trends. Pushing engineered comfort through bike geo alone, by factoring in what kind of position you want the rider to be in to get optimal handling, rather than the other way around having riders adapt to the bike.

    When you say short riders on 29ers, you again are using subjective terms. You could mean children who are a bit small to even fit on the bike, rather than riders who fit on size S and M. That's the only way I can interpret your observation.
    Why the massive attack? Don't be so defensive if you want a debate.

    First (might be that english isn't my native language), what I meant with the first paragraph is that you said Kate's looks comfortable but Emily is in Kate's position a lot as well and Kate is in Emily's position a lot as well, because in certain parts of the climb / effort the comfort*effort needs different positions.

    I don't do anything with kids, so not sure why you mention them, I told you I work a lot with women riders and yes they are generally pretty short and quite often (unless they have long legs) they sit (or even stand) in between the bike's wheels pretty much (exaggeration obviously, but the point stands) while taller people sit more on top of the bike, thus harder to stay balanced and harder to maintain proper front/rear pressure control (terrain pressure not tire pressure ). But the taller people might have it easier to throw bike in a wheelie/manual or do other maneuvers because of that. You (as far as I understand) are trying to put the shorter people even more between the wheels. I do agree that WB to CS should be proportional, but with a lot of bike geometries having short CS I would say it affects more tall people than short, which is opposite to what you are after.

    And sitting and standing positions are very different in what they are for and what muscles you will use, so trying to match them will again (and I said it before and agreed) work for more of a beginner rider, once they progress the difference between those 2 will be more apparent.

    And I will say it again, I understand what you are trying to achieve, but what I am trying to say is that (yes from my experiences, I don't have extensive science behind me) it will suit a beginner rider but could hinder more advanced rider.

    And I am not declaring anything, I am discussing. Aren't you declaring the whole time the same way as well, saying you know better than us?
    XCO results, races, riders etc http://mtbcrosscountry.com

    gearing ratios calculator http://gears.mtbcrosscountry.com

  38. #238
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    24,726
    Quote Originally Posted by nya View Post
    Why the massive attack? Don't be so defensive if you want a debate.
    I don't think he really wants to talk candidly, owing to the verbal diarrhea that took WAY too long to figure out wtf he actually wanted. Any misunderstanding I or anyone else had was because ninji is unable to succinctly get to the f*cking point.

    And that is why I backed out of this discussion a long time ago. He's still not making a whole lot of sense.

    Frankly, I feel like ninji just wants to talk AT people in this thread.

    Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

  39. #239
    the discerning hooligan
    Reputation: MOJO K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    I don't think he really wants to talk candidly, owing to the verbal diarrhea that took WAY too long to figure out wtf he actually wanted. Any misunderstanding I or anyone else had was because ninji is unable to succinctly get to the f*cking point.

    And that is why I backed out of this discussion a long time ago. He's still not making a whole lot of sense.

    Frankly, I feel like ninji just wants to talk AT people in this thread.
    I'm comfortable in my attack position. Harold, how are you feeling about your attack position these days?

    Maybe instead of a long and fruitless dialog, this thread needs to be reduced to a poll question. Yes or no, are you comfortable in your attack position?
    MERCY! MERCY! MERCY!

  40. #240
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,093
    Is this leading to an entirely new category, "attack position" bike? Good for posing in the attack position and not much else?
    Wanted, SRAM GX 2x11 rear derailleur

    It ain't supposed to be easy.

  41. #241
    jcd's best friend
    Reputation: Battery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,641
    Quote Originally Posted by MOJO K View Post
    I'm comfortable in my attack position. Harold, how are you feeling about your attack position these days?

    Maybe instead of a long and fruitless dialog, this thread needs to be reduced to a poll question. Yes or no, are you comfortable in your attack position?
    My attack position has been hanging a little to the left these days. I should probably get it checked out. Harold, when is your next available appointment?
    Trek Emonda | Transition Sentinel | Transition Scout

  42. #242
    the discerning hooligan
    Reputation: MOJO K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Battery View Post
    My attack position has been hanging a little to the left these days. I should probably get it checked out. Harold, when is your next available appointment?
    Try sleeping on your right side.
    MERCY! MERCY! MERCY!

  43. #243
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    @nya I'm asking for you to provide more clarity to your perspective, so I can understand the differences in perspective and clear up any misunderstandings. More clarity, less assumptions.

    Was there not a misunderstanding of my intentions in that perspective of Katie and Emily? I said I wasn't trying to judge them specifically, but to get more data. I implied my intention of comparing relative comfort in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and scenarios. It was merely a comment on that 1 freeze frame, as that's something I can compare side-by-side. Just like comparing the pic in post #4 to post #1, or the pictures on the bottom of that post, showing weight too far back, vs too far forward. Wasn't sure why you went on to argue that it's normal to change in and out of comfortable positions, based on this topic...

    I'm not trying to put shorter people on big wheeled bikes. They're already on big wheeled bikes. This is yet another misunderstanding. You notice a contradiction in your understanding, yet it's as if you believe I'm the one responsible for it. I'm trying to make it so the bikes handle well in all sizes, rather than the 1 size that happens to get the numbers right. I'm saying it's wrong to lengthen the front, but ignore the CS length.

    Is it desirable to have different muscle groups used for seated and standing pedaling? I know that's how it is, and I'd even say that the muscles are different enough for seated pedaling on a 73d STA bike vs a 76d STA bike to need re-training. Is the standing pedaling position not similar for all bikes, and not also similar to daily life use? Ever have a gung-ho fit freak runner, firefighter, crossfitter, etc. accompany a ride and find they have no pedaling stamina? Why is this? Why not work the muscle group that is most versatile in daily life? Are you worried that it gets worn out? Do you think you can get one set of muscles a rest for better endurance, switching between them? I am betting that the body simply gets more efficient at what it repeats, and that training one muscle group will reduce the fitness demand/barrier of MTB.

    Without evidence, your statements appear to be declarations. For example: "it will suit a beginner rider but could hinder more advanced rider." How is this like my suggestions? Are you trying to shift the burden of proof for *your view* to me? Do I not have the right to ask you why you think this, or do you consider my act of questioning to be defensive or an attack?

    There's a common stance in which a person claims to be open to a differing view, but in reality they're not. I see it as them telling the differing side that the door to their mind should be unlockable. They specify how the keyhole is shaped for a key which others should have. The challenge is to pick the lock by inserting the key evidence, which in turn opens their mind. In this case, I have to insert key evidence in the form of convincing that the idea doesn't hinder an advanced rider. In my experience, this exercise is futile, due to excessive pride refusing any answer.

    I accept that I have the burden of proof for my own views, but I'd like to keep things less personal and more academic. This isn't about me, or you. I'd answer the concern in case it's a common one, but I'm not going to try and personally convince you, or anyone else that tries to take a similar "I'll open my mind if (insert requirement to be convinced here)" stance.

    The topic is about what a comfortable attack/ready position looks like. Half the thread's been about skill coaching, trying to say it's the rider not the bike, when I've been pointing out how the bike could be improved for much more than a comfortable position. Still waiting for refutes backed by evidence, on why these bike improvements aren't good. Why overlook improvement here? Good bike geo principles should be applicable to everything from high end mtb, to children's bikes. It's not like bike skill needs are being ignored with the want for a comfortable position, like bike skill advocates have ignored bike improvements. RipRow motions should actually be enhanced on a better bike.

  44. #244
    nya
    nya is offline
    I want to ride my bike
    Reputation: nya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    @nya I'm asking for you to provide more clarity to your perspective, so I can understand the differences in perspective and clear up any misunderstandings. More clarity, less assumptions.

    Was there not a misunderstanding of my intentions in that perspective of Katie and Emily? I said I wasn't trying to judge them specifically, but to get more data. I implied my intention of comparing relative comfort in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and scenarios. It was merely a comment on that 1 freeze frame, as that's something I can compare side-by-side. Just like comparing the pic in post #4 to post #1, or the pictures on the bottom of that post, showing weight too far back, vs too far forward. Wasn't sure why you went on to argue that it's normal to change in and out of comfortable positions, based on this topic...

    I'm not trying to put shorter people on big wheeled bikes. They're already on big wheeled bikes. This is yet another misunderstanding. You notice a contradiction in your understanding, yet it's as if you believe I'm the one responsible for it. I'm trying to make it so the bikes handle well in all sizes, rather than the 1 size that happens to get the numbers right. I'm saying it's wrong to lengthen the front, but ignore the CS length.

    Is it desirable to have different muscle groups used for seated and standing pedaling? I know that's how it is, and I'd even say that the muscles are different enough for seated pedaling on a 73d STA bike vs a 76d STA bike to need re-training. Is the standing pedaling position not similar for all bikes, and not also similar to daily life use? Ever have a gung-ho fit freak runner, firefighter, crossfitter, etc. accompany a ride and find they have no pedaling stamina? Why is this? Why not work the muscle group that is most versatile in daily life? Are you worried that it gets worn out? Do you think you can get one set of muscles a rest for better endurance, switching between them? I am betting that the body simply gets more efficient at what it repeats, and that training one muscle group will reduce the fitness demand/barrier of MTB.

    Without evidence, your statements appear to be declarations. For example: "it will suit a beginner rider but could hinder more advanced rider." How is this like my suggestions? Are you trying to shift the burden of proof for *your view* to me? Do I not have the right to ask you why you think this, or do you consider my act of questioning to be defensive or an attack?

    There's a common stance in which a person claims to be open to a differing view, but in reality they're not. I see it as them telling the differing side that the door to their mind should be unlockable. They specify how the keyhole is shaped for a key which others should have. The challenge is to pick the lock by inserting the key evidence, which in turn opens their mind. In this case, I have to insert key evidence in the form of convincing that the idea doesn't hinder an advanced rider. In my experience, this exercise is futile, due to excessive pride refusing any answer.

    I accept that I have the burden of proof for my own views, but I'd like to keep things less personal and more academic. This isn't about me, or you. I'd answer the concern in case it's a common one, but I'm not going to try and personally convince you, or anyone else that tries to take a similar "I'll open my mind if (insert requirement to be convinced here)" stance.
    How is Emily's or Kate's position too far back or too far forward, is it your "opinion" could you provide facts instead?

    Have you asked them if they find any of those position not comfortable or is it just your assumption?

    I am not saying anything about big wheeled bikes, I am talking about geometry (which is partially forced by big wheels). Where is the contradiction?

    Any source for need for muscle retraining when changing STA from 73 to 76d?
    Ever have a runner who doesn't ride a bike start biking and become a extraordinaire biker faster than anyone who bikes for yonks? (I do, I don't know anyone from your example though).
    Why is that?
    Why not work on multiple muscle groups to be versatile?
    I am not worried about anything, assumptions much?
    I do think you can rest muscles by switching them, others do think so as well.
    Body definitely gets better at what it repeats, training one muscle group will reduce your versatility, MTB is very versatile.

    Without evidence, your statements appear to be declarations. For example: "..." nvm I would have to list all your posts.
    I am not trying to shift anything, I am telling you my (and my cycling friends) experiences. Are experiences not valid in a discussion anymore, thought that is how it started, your and your experiences didn't seem to be good you you are making something better.

    You do have the right to ask, feel free to do so.

    There's a common stance in which a person claims to be open to a differing view, but in reality they're not. I see it as them telling the differing side that the door to their mind should be unlockable. They specify how the keyhole is shaped for a key which others should have. The challenge is to pick the lock by inserting the key evidence, which in turn opens their mind. In this case, I have to insert key evidence in the form of convincing that the idea doesn't hinder an advanced rider. In my experience, this exercise is futile, due to excessive pride refusing any answer.
    XCO results, races, riders etc http://mtbcrosscountry.com

    gearing ratios calculator http://gears.mtbcrosscountry.com

  45. #245
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post


    What changes when you raise bar height?
    The front wheel becomes less weighted. I've done this before (raise bars to alleviate hand pressure) but lowered them back because the front felt too light. Everything is a compromise. I'm in the similar situation with my current hardtail... I have the seat slid back on the rails because the 75 deg STA is personally a bit too much on a hardtail for rolling terrain.

  46. #246
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    @nya

    1) I'm not judging by too far or too far back. I'm judging position by relative strain, and any compromise on effectiveness.

    2) I stated my comparative observation, "looks more comfortable than ___". I didn't declare fact.

    3) The contradiction was here: "I do agree that WB to CS should be proportional, but with a lot of bike geometries having short CS I would say it affects more tall people than short, which is opposite to what you are after." CS to WB proportions, if you understood correctly, dictates how far forward/back you have to be to make the bike feel balanced. Rider height shouldn't matter, if they are in an upright position.

    4a) One of many empirical accounts of how there's an adjustment period for steep STA bikes: https://forums.mtbr.com/guerrilla-gr...s-1068322.html
    4b) That's not the question, but would not deny that. I mean first bike ride, implying that their prior fitness did not transfer over. Their training habits and understanding of sports science and from experience with the environmental physics helps with progression speed.
    4c) I answered why above, but you didn't answer properly, let alone give a reason why.
    4d) To save time, not training muscles not frequently used. If I do seated pedaling with a 81d STA, and it works the same muscles as standing, stair climbing, and hiking, etc., the training time used is more effective in making me versatile.
    4e) Is this shared belief proven anywhere? Do you rest your seated pedaling muscles by using standing pedaling muscles? I can understand resting standing muscles, if they were not well trained for endurance. Numerous Olympic track racers sprint in the saddle, since that's how they trained.
    4f) Spending time training one group that is anticipated to get much more use is more effective than training muscles for rare use, in anticipation of the unknown. "MTB is versatile" sounds like fear-based reasoning, looking for a security-based answer, presuming you mean MTB has diverse challenges. It's like training by riding on skinny street curbs in order to ride Portal or GMG in BC. I'd argue that you can experience these by just seeing them in person and watching others, having the fitness and skill just to reach and plan for these locations is enough. Don't need to be so gung-ho about getting skill to brave such risks. How about a more family-friendly image, rather than an extreme one that appeals to jocks?

    5) If you say such modern bike geo hinders advanced riders is based on your experience, then state your experience more specifically. What example of modern geo? What was your experience? That would be called empirical evidence.

    Your English is fine. Your debating skills need more work, as I get the impression that you use status/title (e.g. coach) to pressure others in arguments, based on how you leave much to assumption, leaving nothing but your authority to reinforce your declarations. Replace this with evidence, examples, and/or explanations, and you're fine. It's about as questionable as someone saying, "trust me, I'm a doctor/engineer/lawyer."






    @jeremy3220 It's true that higher bars reduces weight on the front end. You must be thinking that you must compensate for this, therefore purposely apply pressure that was lost. You were applying pressure before, but since you were more on top of the bars, shoulders more forward, it was less demanding.

    In the modern design I made, the weight bias was handled by the CS to WB proportions, done so the bike is well balanced with only weight on the pedals and light touch on the bars. Since the seated position's CoG is in the same location as standing, it should make sense that this light touch on the bars remains consistent in both positions. Actually want the upper body weight supported through the pedals for aiding in pedal stroke, and hoping it's more intuitive to put pressure on the pedals to get out of the saddle when obstacles come. Should just go with it, and push away from the bars.

    In this following video, Lee McCormack describes a high hinge, low hinge, and bad squat. I want to make it so the bad squat is not a bad move, and make it so the high hinge is an actual move, rather than a position you hold. Maybe move like a boxing/fighting stance, optionally getting into a "flying stance" in which the bars are like the wings on an aircraft and you're behind it doing rolls and pulling Gs.



    Making more room in front, and making it so you can load the front foot without it being a bad thing, because it happens. Just have to shift everything CoG-wise forward 2-3" of where many bike mfgs imagine the rider CoG is. The center point between the axles roughly 175mm forward of the BB.

  47. #247
    nya
    nya is offline
    I want to ride my bike
    Reputation: nya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    @nya

    1) I'm not judging by too far or too far back. I'm judging position by relative strain, and any compromise on effectiveness.

    2) I stated my comparative observation, "looks more comfortable than ___". I didn't declare fact.

    3) The contradiction was here: "I do agree that WB to CS should be proportional, but with a lot of bike geometries having short CS I would say it affects more tall people than short, which is opposite to what you are after." CS to WB proportions, if you understood correctly, dictates how far forward/back you have to be to make the bike feel balanced. Rider height shouldn't matter, if they are in an upright position.

    4a) One of many empirical accounts of how there's an adjustment period for steep STA bikes: https://forums.mtbr.com/guerrilla-gr...s-1068322.html
    4b) That's not the question, but would not deny that. I mean first bike ride, implying that their prior fitness did not transfer over. Their training habits and understanding of sports science and from experience with the environmental physics helps with progression speed.
    4c) I answered why above, but you didn't answer properly, let alone give a reason why.
    4d) To save time, not training muscles not frequently used. If I do seated pedaling with a 81d STA, and it works the same muscles as standing, stair climbing, and hiking, etc., the training time used is more effective in making me versatile.
    4e) Is this shared belief proven anywhere? Do you rest your seated pedaling muscles by using standing pedaling muscles? I can understand resting standing muscles, if they were not well trained for endurance. Numerous Olympic track racers sprint in the saddle, since that's how they trained.
    4f) Spending time training one group that is anticipated to get much more use is more effective than training muscles for rare use, in anticipation of the unknown. "MTB is versatile" sounds like fear-based reasoning, looking for a security-based answer, presuming you mean MTB has diverse challenges. It's like training by riding on skinny street curbs in order to ride Portal or GMG in BC. I'd argue that you can experience these by just seeing them in person and watching others, having the fitness and skill just to reach and plan for these locations is enough. Don't need to be so gung-ho about getting skill to brave such risks. How about a more family-friendly image, rather than an extreme one that appeals to jocks?

    5) If you say such modern bike geo hinders advanced riders is based on your experience, then state your experience more specifically. What example of modern geo? What was your experience? That would be called empirical evidence.

    Your English is fine. Your debating skills are not.
    1) Any source on how their position compromises effectiveness and causes strain?

    2) So pretty much irrelevant to the discussion, as you dismissed all my observations/experiences

    3) I was saying that larger bikes need longer CS

    4a) What about all those that never experienced this need and thus never shared that, are they accounted for in your statistics?

    4d) Do you have any physio or some research who could confirm your hypothesis, I do have only one physio's opinion and that one disagrees

    4e) Haven't really tried to find a research paper that would cover it, I am just sharing this shared experience in case you would like to account for it in your research

    4f) See 4d, any logical explanation why most of the XC pros train pretty much any and all muscle groups instead of just going for the seated peddling one?

    5) I haven't said that modern geo hinders advanced riders, I said your geometry that tries to match sitting and standing position, but I give you that it is my opinion and my experience with coaching, not a fact (as almost everything in this thread)


    P.S. if you value your debating skills so much, avoid changing your posts after you post them (excluding typos etc) since I noticed they change and people not gonna read your post again and again in case you change them
    XCO results, races, riders etc http://mtbcrosscountry.com

    gearing ratios calculator http://gears.mtbcrosscountry.com

  48. #248
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    1) The video is the source. Strain is observable through muscle tension. Effectiveness judged by the result from the task they wanted to complete: climbing the hill fast. Less strain, and similar result = "looks more comfortable", with the question if there was any compromise.

    2) You declared it's normal to switch from comfortable to non-comfortable, saying Emily and Katie did so. I questioned why. Do you not understand that I cannot read your mind? Okay, you observed that, but what's your experience have to do with this? The answer I expect is one explaining the need to switch to a non-comfortable position. Is it because that's how bikes are? If so, that's my point--I suggested changes to bikes, so you don't have to switch to an uncomfortable position as often.

    3) Post #223 has an example of two bikes I designed with the same CS and WB, but for different size riders. "Larger bike needs longer CS" is an oversimplification, because it has such exceptions (unless you don't consider the two bikes to being any bigger/smaller than each other). Tuning the CS length to the WB length is something that can be calculated. I haven't been able to simplify it into a formula or magic ratio. It about tuning for weight distro, with the rider considered. I considered it more important than the steering and bump absorption factors of the HA.

    4a) It's not statistics. It's not about consensus. It's not a popularity contest or poll. It's information from people who are describing first hand experience with steep STA. If you read through, some actually try to move their saddle back, since they were not happy with the results using the steep STA, but were encouraged to "acclimate" by others.

    4d) Logical fallacy: appeal to authority. Who disagrees doesn't matter. It's the reason why they disagree that matters. Give the reason why they disagree. If they are experts, they merely have more attention than those who are not.

    4e) How do you propose I research this? Should I look to swimming, to see if any use a different style if they're tired and want to swim a longer distance than they ever have before? The burden of proof is on you. It's a logical fallacy to shift this burden to those you want to convince, especially when they are the ones with question. It's like me saying I think you're a jock, and telling you to figure it out yourself if you question it. No way to debate.

    4f) I cannot answer the question since I do not have sufficient information. I don't even know where to start with any speculation. Couldn't they train on the actual race courses themselves, or replicas of sections they find challenging?

    5) Okay, so it's the matching of the seated position to the standing position that you have a concern with, hindering advanced riders. And your experience is of that of a coach, and not of someone who ridden a bike that had such matching position. Okay, so what's your reason behind your prediction? Saying you're a coach is appeal to authority again. Am I to speculate that you know something about this? You merely have my attention. I'm still waiting for a reason. I don't accept, "trust me, I'm a coach," as a reason to be convinced that this design hinders advanced riders.

    Why should I not edit my posts? Revisions are meant to refine the quality of the post. I edited the end of the post, to clarify why your debating skills are not fine, as I doubt you can't read my mind. Also edited to answer jeremy3220's post, rather than add a consecutive reply.

  49. #249
    nya
    nya is offline
    I want to ride my bike
    Reputation: nya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    171
    Enjoy creating your bike mate, hope you will let us know of your progress. And if you succeed I will be happy to suggest your bike to my friends. Cheers
    XCO results, races, riders etc http://mtbcrosscountry.com

    gearing ratios calculator http://gears.mtbcrosscountry.com

  50. #250
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    It's not about my bike or my endeavor. Saying so is like viewing this discussion as my own personal one. It's not. It only appears like I know the most, since I'm the one sharing a bulk of the knowledge on the topic. I suppose since I'm creating something that doesn't exist yet, people can only speculate, but the topic's still simply about the theory of a mtb design with comfortable ready position.

    Someone said 80d STA only applies to road bikes. I argue that I'd consider aerodynamic losses on a road bike, considering seat angle and the resulting position that can be comfortable held. I believe it's safe to move away from that on mtb, and considering that we roll over bumps constantly, it would be better to design for that instead, considering it's a pain in the ass to changing position out of the saddle and back in repeatedly, with people preferring to just stay plopped in it, and get infrequent practice out-of-the-saddle.

    Here's the cliff notes:

    - design a bike around a certain rider position: tall/upright standing with hips only ~110mm behind BB, with front knee & shoulders over the front pedal.

    - calculate the weight bias balance of this position, so the CoG of the rider should be between the front pedal and BB on level ground. Done through RC to FC tuning.

    - realize that this would only benefit the standing position, question if there's any downside to steep STA, decide to experiment with the seated position CoG matching the standing CoG

    - consider that bb drop is key to cornering performance, but questioning if the rear really needs it, considering my bike's weight bias and how the rear wheel follows a different line (cuts inside, compared to the front wheel's line), so I downsized the rear wheel to 27.5 to encourage a little drift

    - calculate how low I can slam the seat without contacting the rear wheel while bottomed. Realize this is an extra bonus for having a steep STA. Plan ahead to take advantage of 200mm dropper posts on market.

    - estimate handlebar height to make it so I can apply the "heavy feet, light hands" concept to both the seated and standing position, making it so it's only high enough, but not too high, without needing to resort to headset spacers (affects cockpit stiffness), riser bars (risks rotating in stem), nor stem rise (affects length choice, unless I find a On.off stoic stem, or use a DM stem with dual crown fork).

    - implement HA initially for bump absorption merits, and not due how I felt they rode on prior bikes, or classifying a certain range to a certain riding discipline. Happy that it affects the stack height and reach of the bike favorably, allowing a longer fork and longer wheelbase.

    - adjust CS according to the front center, but decide to add sliding dropouts to allow for more experimentation on how this affects the ride handling and further validate parts of my knowledge with better first hand experience.

    Based on all that I've learned here, I've questioned if current bike mfgs even are doing things smartly, if they're not taking any of this into account. I then figure that they aren't pushed to, since buyers aren't demanding it. Hence why I share info, saying things like:

    - the balance of bikes is seemingly skewed to optimize for the seated position, making the handling from the standing position feel inconsistent between various bikes, which affects the quality of flow one feels when riding "gravity-assisted" trails. I highly believe geo is part of the reason, along with chassis stiffness, suspension design, and spec. One easy way to recognize this is to ride 2-3 different sizes of the same bike model back-to-back, with the same spec, noticing changes in the front center/reach affecting the handling.

    - we're forced into unnatural riding positions, to compensate/adapt for the bike's design. Yes, I realize this is a skill. Yes, I do it on my current bikes. I'm tired of people suggesting skill coaching, unless skill coaches realize this. If they don't, then I'm a step ahead of them in this case, and their info probably should be updated.

    - opening up to the pioneers in geo (Pole, Geometron, Starling), could be worth your time. I found reasons for all their changes, plus more, in my research, enough to implement them into a custom design, with eagerness to test it out.

    - what are the trade-offs for optimizing design for good bike handling out of the saddle? I hopefully expect people might imagine DH, bike park, or freeride bikes, and consider the changes needed to make them pedal in the saddle close to trail bike standards, and imagine what it would it look like. An enduro bike? I picture the Pole Stamina, but since I don't have money for one, I got a steel one that's made a bit more compact. I imagine that a bike with the Tantrum MissingLink would be interesting to design geo for.

    - do buyers really not know any better and just have blind faith in the mfgers as being the indisputable experts? Looking at factory tours, it seems like taboo for employees to be seen on anything but their own stuff. I seemingly have doubts that they know what else is out there to test ride like some people do, probably being relatively closed off to unfamiliar suggestions, trying to conserve a brand image instead.

  51. #251
    nya
    nya is offline
    I want to ride my bike
    Reputation: nya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    171
    J/W how do geometries of Intense Carbine and Intense Sniper fit in your theories? (both L in my case)
    XCO results, races, riders etc http://mtbcrosscountry.com

    gearing ratios calculator http://gears.mtbcrosscountry.com

  52. #252
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    In the modern design I made, the weight bias was handled by the CS to WB proportions, done so the bike is well balanced with only weight on the pedals and light touch on the bars.
    The issue I see is that the dimensions you listed are nothing out of the ordinary expect for pairing the steep HTA with an otherwise progressive design. Once you change it to a HTA people want the front center gets longer then the chainstays have to be lengthened to maintain that ratio. If you change the HTA to 65° the chainstays will have to be around 465mm (if my quick math is right). Even if that's the perfect weight bias, it's not necessarily going to corner better. That will be a very long bike (~1287mm WB) for someone the height that bike would fit (5'9"-6'0"?). That will probably feel pretty cumbersome on most trails given the long wheelbase and stays. The perfect rider position won't matter if you can't get the bike around the corner.
    Last edited by jeremy3220; 2 Weeks Ago at 08:42 PM.

  53. #253
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by nya View Post
    J/W how do geometries of Intense Carbine and Intense Sniper fit in your theories? (both L in my case)
    Here's my process of doing a quick analysis on them.

    I find a side-pic and deduce its size, by comparing the top of the rear wheel to the top of the seat tube. Generally with a 340BB and 74d STA, a 440 ST is even with a 29er wheel. I confirm that I found pics of size L frames.

    I load the pic into a simple image editor, and I find out how many pixels wide the wheelbase is, then find the center point between the axles through simple division. The software tells me where my cursor is, and/or how large the selection box is.

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-kznwwov.jpg

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-zwkxhuo.jpg

    I make my predictions off of this center line, picturing how a rider would balance themselves accordingly.

    I'd predict that the Sniper has a dialed seated position. Knowing the STA is 74, I expect the standing position to be moderately strained, with the typical toilet seat hover position, when the situation calls for traction and control (e.g. plowing and cornering). Some might call this a defensive position, one that has your hips rearward.

    I predict the Carbine's seated position would feel a bit too relaxed, especially on climbs, wishing the seat weren't so far back. The standing position would be slightly more strained than the Sniper, considering the center line is even closer to the BB, meaning the rider needs to shift their position even that much further back.

    Generally, it's a pain in the ass to keep a majority of my body mass behind or centered between the tire contact patches when out of the saddle in demanding situations, when it appears as a line that's forcing me even more rearward. To contrast with other bikes:

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-qjbxlj1.jpg

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-dliaytr.jpg

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-psxfqlp.jpg

    All of these seated positions are relatively dialed (I'd go steeper STA on the blue bike, Starling Murmur). What I want to illustrate is how the line's distance from the BB varies, meaning that they all ride differently out-of-the-saddle. The Ripley is very much a "riding off-the-back" bike, while the Starling Murmur has your hips more forward when out-of-the-saddle, in comparison.

    I'm looking for a more upright/comfortable ready position, one that's properly balanced, but has no compromise elsewhere. If I tried this upright position on the other bikes, I'd be punished by risking an OTB due to too much weight up front. Having the right proportions, regarding the distance of the wheels from the BB, is just the first step. From these examples, I'd be open to the Fezzari if size L actually fit me. The Starling Murmur looks like it could be downsized and still qualify. Don't want to push that line so forward that I need to actively weight the front--just want to experiment with a bike that allows for a fighter's/boxer's stance (without the hands/grips slightly below hips, not guarding), with weight heavily supported by the legs/feet and virtually none at the grips.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    The issue I see is that the dimensions you listed are nothing out of the ordinary expect for pairing the steep HTA with an otherwise progressive design. Once you change it to a HTA people want the front center gets longer then the chainstays have to be lengthened to maintain that ratio. If you change the HTA to 65° the chainstays will have to be around 465mm (if my quick math is right). Even if that's the perfect weight bias, it's not necessarily going to corner better. That will be a very long bike (~1287mm WB) for someone the height that bike would fit (5'9"-6'0"?). That will probably feel pretty cumbersome on most trails given the long wheelbase and stays. The perfect rider position won't matter if you can't get the bike around the corner.
    The 70d HTA bike was just an example to show that a bike could be modern, despite having a steep HA. I was making a wager that having the CS-WB proportions was more important than HA. What do you give up with HA, a bit of noise, harshness, and vibration from impact forces that are perpendicular to the fork and a bit of "auto-center" from the caster effect? If you saw an entry level bike with that geo at the bike shop, how interested would you be in trying it? See above for the difference between steep HA (Ripley) and fashionably "slack/modern" HA. Doesn't look like much, does it?

    See above to see how I'm calculating the CS to FC. I want the centerline to be slightly in front of the forefoot. That way you can actually put half your weight through your forefoot and not have excessive weight on the front. There's no way the CS is changing that much. Generally, it's about 4-5mm of CS for 25mm of WB to maintain the balance.

    The fear of long bikes being cumbersome and not being able to get around a corner is a prejudiced myth. Not saying this position is perfect. Just saying it's possible if brands calculate it. I've already given a rough method to find out. If they copy, then that's fine for me, as the general quality of bikes becomes more to my liking. *shrug* Everyone copied DW-Link's anti-squat strategy for suspension tuning. Geo shouldn't be any diff. Can take my table of CS to WB lengths and go shorter than 415 cs and longer than 450 cs through simple extrapolation, if it proves to be what people demand. Giddy-Up 2.0 is just a step in this direction, not unlike how Boost was a small step. Might take 5+ years for the trends to spread.

  54. #254
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    The 70d HTA bike was just an example to show that a bike could be modern, despite having a steep HA. I was making a wager that having the CS-WB proportions was more important than HA. What do you give up with HA, a bit of noise, harshness, and vibration from impact forces that are perpendicular to the fork and a bit of "auto-center" from the caster effect?
    Massive changes in steering characteristics and endo angle. The irony is it will also throw off weight balances since riders will have to get back further on descents because there will be much more weight on the hands. Your bike is basically an XL Nomad with a steep HTA.

    See above to see how I'm calculating the CS to FC. I want the centerline to be slightly in front of the forefoot. That way you can actually put half your weight through your forefoot and not have excessive weight on the front. There's no way the CS is changing that much. Generally, it's about 4-5mm of CS for 25mm of WB to maintain the balance.
    It's a ratio (425/750) if you want to maintain the same front to rear balance. I just calculated the distance between the BB and top of the HT to find the other constant dimension then calculated front center distance with a 65° HTA. I may have missed some small geo caveat but it's definitely in the ballpark given other bikes with similar HTA, reach and stack.

    The fear of long bikes being cumbersome and not being able to get around a corner is a prejudiced myth.
    No. I ride XXL and XL bikes so it's knowledge from extensive experience. My Hightower LT wheelbase is 1261mm and while it's not terrible on normal trails it's definitely not as nimble in the tight stuff as my old bike with 1174mm WB. Someone half a foot shorter on a 1280mm WB is going to have a hell of a time turning it.

  55. #255
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    Here's my process of doing a quick analysis on them.

    I find a side-pic and deduce its size, by comparing the top of the rear wheel to the top of the seat tube. Generally with a 340BB and 74d STA, a 440 ST is even with a 29er wheel. I confirm that I found pics of size L frames.

    I load the pic into a simple image editor, and I find out how many pixels wide the wheelbase is, then find the center point between the axles through simple division. The software tells me where my cursor is, and/or how large the selection box is.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	KznwWov.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	165.5 KB 
ID:	1237111

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ZWkXhUo.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	136.5 KB 
ID:	1237116

    I make my predictions off of this center line, picturing how a rider would balance themselves accordingly.

    I'd predict that the Sniper has a dialed seated position. Knowing the STA is 74, I expect the standing position to be moderately strained, with the typical toilet seat hover position, when the situation calls for traction and control (e.g. plowing and cornering). Some might call this a defensive position, one that has your hips rearward.

    I predict the Carbine's seated position would feel a bit too relaxed, especially on climbs, wishing the seat weren't so far back. The standing position would be slightly more strained than the Sniper, considering the center line is even closer to the BB, meaning the rider needs to shift their position even that much further back.

    Generally, it's a pain in the ass to keep a majority of my body mass behind or centered between the tire contact patches when out of the saddle in demanding situations, when it appears as a line that's forcing me even more rearward. To contrast with other bikes:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	qjbXLJ1.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	116.9 KB 
ID:	1237109

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dLiaytR.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	60.2 KB 
ID:	1237113

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	pSXfqlp.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	314.8 KB 
ID:	1237112

    All of these seated positions are relatively dialed (I'd go steeper STA on the blue bike, Starling Murmur). What I want to illustrate is how the line's distance from the BB varies, meaning that they all ride differently out-of-the-saddle. The Ripley is very much a "riding off-the-back" bike, while the Starling Murmur has your hips more forward when out-of-the-saddle, in comparison.

    I'm looking for a more upright/comfortable ready position, one that's properly balanced, but has no compromise elsewhere. If I tried this upright position on the other bikes, I'd be punished by risking an OTB due to too much weight up front. Having the right proportions, regarding the distance of the wheels from the BB, is just the first step. From these examples, I'd be open to the Fezzari if size L actually fit me. The Starling Murmur looks like it could be downsized and still qualify. Don't want to push that line so forward that I need to actively weight the front--just want to experiment with a bike that allows for a fighter's/boxer's stance (without the hands/grips slightly below hips, not guarding), with weight heavily supported by the legs/feet and virtually none at the grips.

    Interesting analysis. Just curious, what is your assessment of a pure XC bike, like say, the S-Works Epic Hardtail (Men's)?

  56. #256
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,071
    Wait. Did the OP design a HT bike with the same STA as a 160mm FS, which typically runs 30%+ sag, and expect it to put him in the same seated position as that 160mm FS?

    That's a bold move, Cotton.
    Death from Below.

  57. #257
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by hesitationpoint View Post
    Interesting analysis. Just curious, what is your assessment of a pure XC bike, like say, the S-Works Epic Hardtail (Men's)?
    What size? Provide a pic if you want more. These are all the same old-school designs to me, and uninteresting.

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-zqiocdb.jpg

    Same story as the Ripley. Looks like the mfgs at least ride their bikes to ensure it's dialed when sitting down. Standing up, same story: hips hovering over where the saddle would be, for plowing/cornering on level ground, and a similar distance behind the BB on descent, when the bike's pitched forward. Not surprising that people claim to stay seated 90+% of the time, perhaps only getting out when things get steep and/or bumps are bucking them out of the saddle, since it's not too comfortable to pedal from such a standing position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Wait. Did the OP design a HT bike with the same STA as a 160mm FS, which typically runs 30%+ sag, and expect it to put him in the same seated position as that 160mm FS?

    That's a bold move, Cotton.
    I designed a bike with 81d STA even before that, which is in custom one-off production. I designed that HT as an example to show what I see is modernized, which is steeper than what's currently out. I brought the balance point forward, so the out-of-the-saddle for plowing/cornering is more comfortable to pedal in. When I found research that 80d STA was more efficient, and found trading the aero position for a ready-for-bumps position was a good trade-off, nothing to keep me from spec'ing a seat angle steeper than what's being marketed now. Just stopping at the point in which the seated position should match a comfy standing position, in terms of hip location.

    I determined what the STA should be based on placing the saddle a specific horizontal distance behind the BB (~112mm, vs ~160mm or more from others). The STA is what it is, for me, based on a rider's BB to saddle height (690mm for my 30"/76cm inseam). If I find the sweet spot angle, and offset, for a seat tube to fit multiple riders on one bike design (FS or HT), correlating to rider femur lengths, that'd be a standout discovery.

    Hip distance behind the BB could be the dimension that really sum this all up. I'd like to shorten that distance to allow for the position in post #1, yet retain a balanced handling bike. Problem is that CS can only get so short, so the front wheel needs to get further from the BB. At the same time, the bars and seat should move forward... starting to sound like forward geo, right?

    ----

    I'd like to find an example of an XL bike, with super long front end and super short rear end. The first thing to came to my mind was the Moxie Pipedream, but I keep finding ones with the sliding dropouts fully rearward and seat tube lower than the rear tire. I'd like to see where these "aggro-position" bikes have the center point in comparison.

  58. #258
    nya
    nya is offline
    I want to ride my bike
    Reputation: nya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    171
    If I don't feel like I am too far back when I am in the "balanced" position, is it that my position is wrong? Since both of my bikes especially the carbine which I ride a lot is supposed to put me too far back when standing.
    XCO results, races, riders etc http://mtbcrosscountry.com

    gearing ratios calculator http://gears.mtbcrosscountry.com

  59. #259
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by nya View Post
    If I don't feel like I am too far back when I am in the "balanced" position, is it that my position is wrong? Since both of my bikes especially the carbine which I ride a lot is supposed to put me too far back when standing.
    I haven't judged wrong or right. My observation of the standing position being strained, and riders spending 90+% of their time in the saddle, on old school bikes is just an observation, or in this case a mere prediction. I use observation as part of the process of introducing deliberate change (not for all, but for myself), being a base to compare to, in order to come up with solid reasons for the change.

    If anyone wants a simplified formula to analyze bikes with math, use this:

    wheelbase/2 - horizontal CS length

    This tells you how far the center point is in front of the BB. You should determine the "ideal/sweet spot" # yourself, test riding various bikes and calculating what feels better for out-of-the-saddle positioning.

    I find that I've been happier increasing this # up to 175mm, but it feels like I'm getting close to the peak, and any more could push me over to the other side (being more aggro and needing to weight the front). I should note that this # doesn't account for suspension compression affecting CS and WB, so longer travel bikes should have a higher #, and shorter ones have a lower #.

    Coincidentally, most cranks tend to be 175mm and side-perspective shots have the cranks level and forward. Easy to do the quick analysis yourself, if you have a decently featured image program (I use irfanview for simple jobs and ImageJ for measurements).

  60. #260
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    392
    You shouldn't be thinking about comfort when you are in your attack position. So I guess if something is wonky enough to distract you into thinking about it, something is wrong with it.

  61. #261
    nya
    nya is offline
    I want to ride my bike
    Reputation: nya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    171
    Well, your predictions regarding those 2 Intense bikes seem to be wrong.
    XCO results, races, riders etc http://mtbcrosscountry.com

    gearing ratios calculator http://gears.mtbcrosscountry.com

  62. #262
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Len Baird View Post
    You shouldn't be thinking about comfort when you are in your attack position. So I guess if something is wonky enough to distract you into thinking about it, something is wrong with it.
    One can perceive this as saying the "attack" position is what it is, you must get into such a position when you want to tackle the trails in a certain way.

    Another can perceive this as, if the "attack" position is so uncomfortable that you are distracted, then something must be wrong with your positioning. This judgement is based from personal experience; I don't get distracted about it being uncomfortable, no matter what bike I've been on, so this must be something wrong with you personally.

    The way I'm perceiving it: the attack/ready position could be more comfortable (less straining). Can it be done so without compromise? Why not make it that way through better design? Since no one else is seeing it this way, I'll figure it out myself.


    ----

    @nya I'd like to learn why my predictions are wrong. Any evidence to support your claim? Are you saying that the entire prediction is wrong? Perhaps show pictures of your positioning on the bike, pedaling out of the saddle vs plowing/cornering out-of-the-saddle? Burden of proof is on you. I'm not a mind reader and such a judgement is meaningless without any proper justification. I'll wait for clarification from you. If none comes, I'd simply disregard your judgement, rather than overthink the possibilities why.

    Your subjective belief that you don't feel too far back is relative to your personal tolerance level. It's normal to you. I wouldn't be surprised to hear this because that's how a great number of bikes are. I would value such a belief more if it were instead compared to an experience on extreme new geo, or at least modern enduro geo (e.g. Fezzari La Sal Peak).

  63. #263
    nya
    nya is offline
    I want to ride my bike
    Reputation: nya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    @nya I'd like to learn why my predictions are wrong. Any evidence to support your claim? Are you saying that the entire prediction is wrong? Perhaps show pictures of your positioning on the bike, pedaling out of the saddle vs plowing/cornering out-of-the-saddle? Burden of proof is on you. I'm not a mind reader and such a judgement is meaningless without any proper justification. I'll wait for clarification from you. If none comes, I'd simply disregard your judgement, rather than overthink the possibilities why.
    .
    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-dl_cp20x30-232-whab1370-2517.jpgShould the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-42301769_160884908171656_6857111155752566784_n.jpgShould the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-37564143_1908034189256221_9105857170380947456_n.jpgShould the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-37126070_1897515670308073_6514070966769811456_n.jpgShould the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-26904584_1760310080945035_439869907136771281_n.jpg
    XCO results, races, riders etc http://mtbcrosscountry.com

    gearing ratios calculator http://gears.mtbcrosscountry.com

  64. #264
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    Thanks. So pics 1, 2, 4 are plowing/cornering out-of-the-saddle. Pics 3 and 5 are pedaling out-of-the-saddle.

    Pic 4 is a good angle, since it I can sort of gauge how far the hip is behind the BB, and length of femur. Generally it does have you hovering over where the saddle would be if extended.

    Seems similar to how I see others on the trails here:

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-ijzxgpp.jpg

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-yiuyshj.jpg

    Their standing positions do mimic their seated position, with their hips hovering over where the saddle would be.

    The thing is that I don't see this in *everyone*.

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-e2lmeur.jpg

    Some are rearward, some are forward, some mimic their seated position.

    Seemingly two beliefs here:

    A) it's a skill/technique that can be taught.

    B) it's a natural adaptation to the bike.

    Tend to hear all sorts of ride reports when people try out new bikes. Some like 'em and say they can't go back to what they now call junk. Some are not so impressed, and wait for something to increase the "wow factor" even more, to be worth their money.

    What are the reports for skills coaching? Mostly positive, some mixed, a few not impressed? I'm not so optimistic. I immediately get the urge to ask someone if they took a skills class recently if it looks like they're exaggerating their position and movements. Last time I brought this up, some high school coach classified these instructors as hack youtubers.

  65. #265
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    What size? Provide a pic if you want more. These are all the same old-school designs to me, and uninteresting.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	zQIOCdB.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	153.1 KB 
ID:	1237181

    Same story as the Ripley. Looks like the mfgs at least ride their bikes to ensure it's dialed when sitting down. Standing up, same story: hips hovering over where the saddle would be, for plowing/cornering on level ground, and a similar distance behind the BB on descent, when the bike's pitched forward. Not surprising that people claim to stay seated 90+% of the time, perhaps only getting out when things get steep and/or bumps are bucking them out of the saddle, since it's not too comfortable to pedal from such a standing position.

    Thanks. Being primarily a hardtail rider, I tend to be out of the saddle at least 50% of the time. Is it uncomfortable? Yeah, initially because the handlebars felt too high but things are much better after I flipped the stem and removed the spacers. Ironically, I am trying to sit more because it is more efficient when climbing (less suspension bob) and trying to train myself to have more power in a seated position.

  66. #266
    mtbr member
    Reputation: s0ckeyeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,101
    Most of the examples posted are too upright. When you think attack position, think hip hinge. A good attack position will have the rider's weight centered over the BB, torso will be relatively low (think 0 to like 30 degrees), and the arms will be neutral.

    If you're going to practice your attack position on or off the bike (off the bike is ideal), you might as well practice it at the limits of your range of motion (what you might call "exaggerated"). You should ideally be able to stand in bike stance with your hips square, knees even, and your core locked and back completely flat. I'm willing to bet most people can't do this. If you can, you'll have a huge range of motion. This in turn makes riding just about everything easier.

    The purpose of the attack position is to set you up to adapt to changing conditions. If you're too upright (like the original photo in this thread and many of the subsequent photos), you greatly limit your ability to adjust without constantly moving your torso.

    Just for fun, here's a pic of me rolling a drop. It's not perfect by any means (my hips need to be a bit lower), but I could have never pulled this off if I didn't have the ability to get low with my back flat on the approach.

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-48183812_10156859261239294_9208520379247624192_o.jpg

    And here are a few pics of Aaron Gwin, who has a fantastic attack position.

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-gwin-yt-race3.jpgShould the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-s1600_gwin_no_g_out.jpg
    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-yt-tues-cf-pro_new-carbon-200mm-travel-downhill-dh-race-mountain-bike_liquid-metal_gwin-air.jpgShould the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-maxresdefault.jpg

  67. #267
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,196
    You can find static pictures of riders to support any position you want. I could pull photos of riders doing 360's mid rotation to show you should always jump backwards.

  68. #268
    mtbr member
    Reputation: s0ckeyeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,101
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    You can find static pictures of riders to support any position you want. I could pull photos of riders doing 360's mid rotation to show you should always jump backwards.
    Everything's fluid, but it's not like it's impossible to glean things from pictures just because it's only one moment in time. Hopefully no one is going to base their whole riding technique off of one photo. If you're going to post a photo, it's always better to post a photo of someone obviously doing things right.

    Whatever the case, trying to gauge another person's femur length and analyzing how their butt hovers over the saddle is not the right approach to dialing in attack position. The saddle really shouldn't have anything to do with attack position. It has everything to do with the feet on the pedals while executing a hip hinge.

  69. #269
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    184
    The attack position is a good general guideline. But I wouldn't over think it either. I've seen advanced riders ride a variety of variations of that basic pose and some of them are not textbook examples, but it works for them because it gives them confidence for their style/conditions.

    Bike setup will affect it too. I tend to like front weight bias. It isn't going to be textbook. But I like running minimalist tires to address my weakness (my motor isn't as biggest as some of my competitors') and having more pressure on the front end gives me more confidence in the corners with these tires. I am also confident on long descends so fear of endoing with a frontward bias isn't a concern. But you take a different guy and he may have a whole different set of priorities about where he wants the bias.

  70. #270
    jcd's best friend
    Reputation: Battery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,641
    Skills with Phil is selling his bike. You can buy it up or critique his "attack position" and tell him he needs a ninjichor frame for his next bike. He has plenty of 3rd person angles of his rides over the past year or so.

    Trek Emonda | Transition Sentinel | Transition Scout

  71. #271
    2x is underrated
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,568
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post

    I can modernize a HT with a 70 HA, if for some reason you had to have 70 HA. What's your desired ETT and what's your BB to saddle height distance? I can plot it out in bikecad to show what I consider modernized. What region do you ride in? I'll lengthen the wheelbase if you ride in open desert, as opposed to tight wooded areas. Can then compare to what you are currently on for funsies.

    I was thinking of the Suntour Axon 120mm, alternate would be Manitou Mattoc 130mm. For drivetain, 1st choice is Eagle NX 12-speed, 2nd choice is Shimano 1x11 with Sunrace 11-50t cassette. I don't really care about bb height, pedal strikes are just part of the ride for me lol. This would be mainly for climbing and some moderate downhill stuff in Southern California.
    From Ancient Times - Scarlet Skies Burn to Ash

  72. #272
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    184
    Ninji, would be interested to see your analysis of Nino Schurter's new race bike:

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-pro-bike-check-nino-schurter-2019-scott-spark-sram-racing-01.jpg  


  73. #273
    the discerning hooligan
    Reputation: MOJO K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,172
    Quote Originally Posted by hesitationpoint View Post
    Ninji, would be interested to see your analysis of Nino Schurter's new race bike:

    Schurter is probably one of those backwards thinking old school guys that think technique should be practiced and trained. His mind will be blown when he finds out the bike can do it all and he can finally be comfortable.
    MERCY! MERCY! MERCY!

  74. #274
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by MOJO K View Post
    Schurter is probably one of those backwards thinking old school guys that think technique should be practiced and trained. His mind will be blown when he finds out the bike can do it all and he can finally be comfortable.
    I'm not agitated by your post. Your post just challenges me to find the proof for my hypothesis. I need my proto though, to prove my own case. I suspect people would want me to get Nino himself to ride it and say it's more natural feeling and needs less adapting to, but for that, I'd need to design around what Nino finds natural/comfortable.

    Had me looking up what Nino looks like when riding his bike. I see a video on him on a Genius (teal colored sleeve): https://youtu.be/SjbYNm0ZU68?t=194

    His positioning looks fine on the Genius. That's what I'm after on my proto, the ability to get CoG lower with a less flat back. I'm thinking more of a stance for ski moguls, rather than an aero one.

    Things I'm looking for:
    - how much the rider's CoG moves forward between the sitting position CoG and standing position.
    - how strained their body appears to be, to hold their various positions.
    - taking note of the angle of their back
    - taking note of the distance their weight is behind the BB shell

    I aim to minimize the CoG movement and strain through design. The notes are just part of data collecting to understand more about individual rider fit.

    Looks like his race bike could use a dose of forward-geo trends: slacker HA, longer reach, steeper STA.
    - slacker HA would reduce the stack height.
    - moving the front wheel further out, from both the slack HA and longer reach, also makes the aggro forward leaning position more natural
    - since the balance point of the bike is moving forward with this change to the front wheel, the seated position needs to be moved forward too

    Doing the quick analysis, the centerline of the bike is a bit behind the front pedal, so would not be surprised if all the changes mentioned above to the race bike were welcome, and the next iteration of the bike incorporates these changes.

    I'd go beyond this simple analysis and would check out the courses he races on, to see just how fast and how overwhelmed he is, in terms of reaction speed and maintaining control. If he's getting overwhelmed, I'd add to the wheelbase length proportionally to how much more bike he feels he needs. If his reaction speed and control is being overwhelmed, but the bike makes it through if he trusts it and just holds on, without doing "safety braking" or "curling up into a defensive tuck", then it might actually not need to be made bigger.

    There's multitudes of optimizations to be made in every case. What works well for Nino, won't suit just anyone else. I question what the cost of tweaking geo is, or what the cost of learning geo and yourself well enough is, to be able to pick a better bike that suits yourself more naturally, rather than just picking what's seemingly popular, and adapting to it, trying to copy the lead of others. Looks like Nino's comfort zone is quite expansive--can't assume that's copy-able by just anyone, and I sure don't believe getting the same bike model as him will make it easier. It just makes it so you know that it's not the bike, but the rider, since the bike is no longer a variable. I believe I can make a bike that brings the most out of you, being well suited to your area, so if Nino comes to your neighborhood, you can show off how comfortable you are riding your trails to what you imagine is the limit of what's possible by mere mortals (minus variables like having world cup legs).

    Did more research: looks like the XC race position is quite similar to the roadie position: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81RrEsnZg_M

    Again, you get more efficient at what you practice... if you trained on the road, in such a position, then it makes sense that the mtb should put you in a similar position for you to tap into that training. I'd prefer just 1 bike, personally, hence I'm willing to move away from the positioning found on other bikes, for just one that suits me and my trails (open SoCal), skipping the whole incremental improvement process.

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-ylwjutv.jpg
    - new rear triangle tacked together with sliding dropout. About to learn, first hand, why FS bikes don't have sliding dropouts. I know that it affects the suspension kinematics.

    The angle of the seat tube vs the angle of the HT (62.5 HA)... wow. The seat tube is even slacker than it should be, due to the offset (81d effective STA). xD

    I heard stories about these kind of dropouts breaking, if put too rearward:

    Name:  6u40OUP.png
Views: 179
Size:  42.0 KB

    At least the bolt spacing on my proto is wider.

  75. #275
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,491
    Quote Originally Posted by Battery View Post
    Skills with Phil is selling his bike. You can buy it up or critique his "attack position" and tell him he needs a ninjichor frame for his next bike. He has plenty of 3rd person angles of his rides over the past year or so.

    Phil looks to ride a smaller frame for his height...but I can see him going with a smaller frame with the way he likes to ride his bike.

  76. #276
    mtbr member
    Reputation: broncbuster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,220
    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-screenshot_20190211-102556_01%7E3.jpg

  77. #277
    Nutrailer
    Reputation: JackWare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    442
    I'm guessing the bars are that high to be perfect for his attack position..

  78. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation: broncbuster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,220
    Quote Originally Posted by JackWare View Post
    I'm guessing the bars are that high to be perfect for his attack position..
    Yep classic attack position..

    Name:  587773e8dbc3165d4b70cbe02071cf23~2.jpg
Views: 139
Size:  11.5 KB

  79. #279
    the discerning hooligan
    Reputation: MOJO K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,172
    Quote Originally Posted by broncbuster View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot_20190211-102556_01~3.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	254.8 KB 
ID:	1237779
    No,no, no....the rider's mass needs to be centered between the wheels, like this.

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?-muscle-spasm.jpg

    ( the bike was created for a "muscle bike build-off" on ratrodbikes.com)
    MERCY! MERCY! MERCY!

  80. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation: broncbuster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,220
    Quote Originally Posted by MOJO K View Post
    No,no, no....the rider's mass needs to be centered between the wheels, like this.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	muscle spasm.jpg 
Views:	26 
Size:	85.2 KB 
ID:	1237805

    ( the bike was created for a "muscle bike build-off" on ratrodbikes.com)
    Nah... my boy's got it set up for downhill

  81. #281
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,093
    Quote Originally Posted by MOJO K View Post
    No,no, no....the rider's mass needs to be centered between the wheels, like this.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	muscle spasm.jpg 
Views:	26 
Size:	85.2 KB 
ID:	1237805

    ( the bike was created for a "muscle bike build-off" on ratrodbikes.com)




    Looks flexy.
    Wanted, SRAM GX 2x11 rear derailleur

    It ain't supposed to be easy.

  82. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    I'm not agitated by your post. Your post just challenges me to find the proof for my hypothesis. I need my proto though, to prove my own case. I suspect people would want me to get Nino himself to ride it and say it's more natural feeling and needs less adapting to, but for that, I'd need to design around what Nino finds natural/comfortable.

    Had me looking up what Nino looks like when riding his bike. I see a video on him on a Genius (teal colored sleeve): https://youtu.be/SjbYNm0ZU68?t=194

    His positioning looks fine on the Genius. That's what I'm after on my proto, the ability to get CoG lower with a less flat back. I'm thinking more of a stance for ski moguls, rather than an aero one.

    Things I'm looking for:
    - how much the rider's CoG moves forward between the sitting position CoG and standing position.
    - how strained their body appears to be, to hold their various positions.
    - taking note of the angle of their back
    - taking note of the distance their weight is behind the BB shell

    I aim to minimize the CoG movement and strain through design. The notes are just part of data collecting to understand more about individual rider fit.

    Looks like his race bike could use a dose of forward-geo trends: slacker HA, longer reach, steeper STA.
    - slacker HA would reduce the stack height.
    - moving the front wheel further out, from both the slack HA and longer reach, also makes the aggro forward leaning position more natural
    - since the balance point of the bike is moving forward with this change to the front wheel, the seated position needs to be moved forward too

    Doing the quick analysis, the centerline of the bike is a bit behind the front pedal, so would not be surprised if all the changes mentioned above to the race bike were welcome, and the next iteration of the bike incorporates these changes.

    I'd go beyond this simple analysis and would check out the courses he races on, to see just how fast and how overwhelmed he is, in terms of reaction speed and maintaining control. If he's getting overwhelmed, I'd add to the wheelbase length proportionally to how much more bike he feels he needs. If his reaction speed and control is being overwhelmed, but the bike makes it through if he trusts it and just holds on, without doing "safety braking" or "curling up into a defensive tuck", then it might actually not need to be made bigger.

    There's multitudes of optimizations to be made in every case. What works well for Nino, won't suit just anyone else. I question what the cost of tweaking geo is, or what the cost of learning geo and yourself well enough is, to be able to pick a better bike that suits yourself more naturally, rather than just picking what's seemingly popular, and adapting to it, trying to copy the lead of others. Looks like Nino's comfort zone is quite expansive--can't assume that's copy-able by just anyone, and I sure don't believe getting the same bike model as him will make it easier. It just makes it so you know that it's not the bike, but the rider, since the bike is no longer a variable. I believe I can make a bike that brings the most out of you, being well suited to your area, so if Nino comes to your neighborhood, you can show off how comfortable you are riding your trails to what you imagine is the limit of what's possible by mere mortals (minus variables like having world cup legs).

    Did more research: looks like the XC race position is quite similar to the roadie position: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81RrEsnZg_M

    Again, you get more efficient at what you practice... if you trained on the road, in such a position, then it makes sense that the mtb should put you in a similar position for you to tap into that training. I'd prefer just 1 bike, personally, hence I'm willing to move away from the positioning found on other bikes, for just one that suits me and my trails (open SoCal), skipping the whole incremental improvement process.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	YlwjUTv.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	96.0 KB 
ID:	1237624
    - new rear triangle tacked together with sliding dropout. About to learn, first hand, why FS bikes don't have sliding dropouts. I know that it affects the suspension kinematics.

    The angle of the seat tube vs the angle of the HT (62.5 HA)... wow. The seat tube is even slacker than it should be, due to the offset (81d effective STA). xD

    I heard stories about these kind of dropouts breaking, if put too rearward:

    Name:  6u40OUP.png
Views: 179
Size:  42.0 KB

    At least the bolt spacing on my proto is wider.
    Thanks for taking time to do that analysis on Nino's bike. Interesting observations.

    I'm going to withhold judgment on your theories until you report some test results. Just out of curiosity, what metrics are you using? What data will you record? Laptimes? Time to fatigue? Subjective feel? It's probably good to be clear about those upfront.

  83. #283
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    Tests will be video taped back to back comparisons to observe:
    - position differences
    - amount of visually observable strain to hold such a position
    - ability to pedal in between corners
    - differences in timing (strava)
    - the "dual scale test" to measure the rear:front weight bias in a seated and comfortable standing position
    - other subjective comparative observations to describe personal feeling (confidence, stability, etc.), which likely are a combination of all the factors that can't be isolated out of the test, but worth a mention

    Been looking at other sports too. Checked out mogul skiing position, inspired by how quick they can react to consecutive obstacles:

    https://youtu.be/X8289VnVLQg?t=133

    Witnessed some cases of racers actually falling back on their ass. Reminded me of the rearward position I wanted to get away from.

    I do wonder if road can change, as that seems to be holding XC racing back from adopting gravity-based changes. Will a steeper STA have too much of a draw back, such as with aero? I know some gravity racers train on the road too, such as Sam Hill, Athertons, Gwin. Even seen Eddie or Wyn masters on a CX bike, so not surprised by how they adopt a flat backed position on the mtb.

  84. #284
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    33,462
    It’s all about technique:

    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  85. #285
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,071

    Should the attack/ready position be comfortable? What should it look like?

    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    Tests will be video taped back to back comparisons to observe:
    - position differences
    - amount of visually observable strain to hold such a position
    - ability to pedal in between corners
    - differences in timing (strava)
    - the "dual scale test" to measure the rear:front weight bias in a seated and comfortable standing position
    - other subjective comparative observations to describe personal feeling (confidence, stability, etc.), which likely are a combination of all the factors that can't be isolated out of the test, but worth a mention

    Been looking at other sports too. Checked out mogul skiing position, inspired by how quick they can react to consecutive obstacles:

    https://youtu.be/X8289VnVLQg?t=133

    Witnessed some cases of racers actually falling back on their ass. Reminded me of the rearward position I wanted to get away from.

    I do wonder if road can change, as that seems to be holding XC racing back from adopting gravity-based changes. Will a steeper STA have too much of a draw back, such as with aero? I know some gravity racers train on the road too, such as Sam Hill, Athertons, Gwin. Even seen Eddie or Wyn masters on a CX bike, so not surprised by how they adopt a flat backed position on the mtb.
    The problem is that some of the changes you suggest are not going to make someone faster around an XC loop. Science nor “appeal(s) to authority” (examples of pro bike setups) support the super steep STA theory.

    Serious question: have you ever ridden a modern XC bike at race pace? A Spark RC or similar? They really are a superior tool for the job, even compared to a “trail” bike, on a “black diamond” trail. They really are a good bit faster than anything else going up, and give up very little going down.

    Here’s a post from another thread from the husband of a woman who has been the fastest woman in the world twice, and has an Olympic bronze medal from Rio:

    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    In mountain biking everything is a compromise.

    "Modern geometry" in my opinion is attempting to optimize bikes for steep grades (both up and down). It is the stuff in between that perhaps it does not do as well. For most of us this is not a big deal, after all not a lot of people are looking for marginal gains on green and blue trails.

    XC racers on the other hand are trying looking for a bike that allows them to carry the highest average speed, performance on greens and blues matters. This is probably why XC bikes are a bit more conservative.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  86. #286
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    @LeDuke Yes, I have ridden a modern XC bike at race pace. I did a lap of Bonelli plus extra credit on a Yeti ASR. I liked it better than the other Yeti bikes for that kind of trail system, and for riding solo. It egged me on to always go race pace. Usually I'd be happy with ~7-8 mph on the climbs, but this rocketed up to 10-12 mph, and once at that speed, I was compelled to hold it. I basically disappeared on a solo ride deep into the hills on that thing, and came back at sunset wanting to buy one. Only real issue I had was lack of braking traction from the Ikons, especially on fireroad descents before corners. The position was kind of scary for steep descents, but once I tested to see if it could roll down short chutes, I just let it go on all them after that.

    For local trails, I prefer a different position for all the "stunting" (e.g. hucks, rock rolls, drops, little kickers) I try to do. I used to have the roadie position too, and was reluctant to open up to things like heavier tires, wider rims, big brakes, modern geo, but I've learned so much that I ended up abandoning my old conservative ways.

  87. #287
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    Tests will be video taped back to back comparisons to observe:
    - position differences
    - amount of visually observable strain to hold such a position
    - ability to pedal in between corners
    - differences in timing (strava)
    - the "dual scale test" to measure the rear:front weight bias in a seated and comfortable standing position
    - other subjective comparative observations to describe personal feeling (confidence, stability, etc.), which likely are a combination of all the factors that can't be isolated out of the test, but worth a mention


    I do wonder if road can change, as that seems to be holding XC racing back from adopting gravity-based changes. Will a steeper STA have too much of a draw back, such as with aero? I know some gravity racers train on the road too, such as Sam Hill, Athertons, Gwin. Even seen Eddie or Wyn masters on a CX bike, so not surprised by how they adopt a flat backed position on the mtb.
    ----------------------------
    For local trails, I prefer a different position for all the "stunting" (e.g. hucks, rock rolls, drops, little kickers) I try to do. I used to have the roadie position too, and was reluctant to open up to things like heavier tires, wider rims, big brakes, modern geo, but I've learned so much that I ended up abandoning my old conservative ways.
    My biggest reservation at the moment is that you are a bit unclear about the objectives. You have a lot of metrics and I can't seem to pin you down on something precise.

    For example, for XC racing, all that matters is the clock over a 2 hour or so period of time on singletrack loops. The other stuff doesn't matter. Even comfort can be sacrificed if it makes you faster over that period of time. A roadie position can be beneficial because it does cut down on wind friction.

    So I don't really know what you mean by "....if road can change, as that seems to be holding XC racing back from adopting gravity-based changes." Or "I used to have the roadie position too, and was reluctant to open up to things like heavier tires, wider rims, big brakes, modern geo, but I've learned so much that I ended up abandoning my old conservative ways."

    What do you mean? You changed your ways and abandoned the XC positions because you discovered that people can be faster? Or are you referring to something else.

    To be clear, I am not saying going fast on a singletrack loop should be one's only objective for general mountain biking. But you did critique an XC race bike so I am trying to get you to be more precise.

  88. #288
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    Problem(s): an uncomfortable position on a bicycle that is exhausting to maintain for plowing and cornering. In the case I'm looking at, it's a flat backed and rearward position, with the hips well behind the BB. Evidence of it playing a role on rider exhaustion, leading to a crash, on what was supposed to be an epic fun flowy trail for someone known to be able to handle 3+ hour climbs to the summit of local mountains. He had energy, but not the muscle endurance for plowing and cornering for hours on what is essentially a series of descents of varied roughness stretched out over a huge distance due to the shallow downslope, with elevation charged up from short punchy climbs (Palm Canyon Epic).

    Origin of the problem(s): 1) road racing, and their desire for light compact bikes and an aerodynamic position. 2) a defensive stance to avoid going over the bars when braking and/or rolling over obstacles on a mountain bike. 3) bike design that optimizes for a rider CoG point above the BB, in the seated position. 4) riders not knowing better, when choosing and setting up their bikes, doing what they feel is right, through a combination of intuition and what they see others are doing (set it up similar to the road bike they train on)

    Challenge(s): research the possible solutions that prove to have ample opportunity to be implemented, from skills/technique coaching on an individual basis, bike fitting, marketing to ensure riders are properly matched up to the bike that best suits their individual needs

    Proposed solution(s): redesign bike geo to be optimized around the rider's CoG, when they're in a specific position which that call comfortable/neutral. In my case, a standing pedaling position was selected to be the definition of the neutral position, and the CoG was calculated from my own body's measurements, such as distance of my hips behind the BB.

    Desired outcome: confirm that a bike will feel balanced in an upright position in all sorts of demanding situations, particularly the situations that call for technique that intentionally puts you in an uncomfortable position. If it looks like the rider is lazily riding all sorts of things usually deemed challenging, such as tall drops, fast corners, chunky rock gardens, steep downhill chutes, etc. without any variables taking the credit besides optimized geo, the solution is deemed successful. If there are no significant trade-offs, such as reduce pace, it may be prove to be commercialized.

    Analysis: experiment/test procedures listed above, with several specific test locations selected.

    Current state: awaiting analysis. Prototype frame with geo is still in production. Shipping will take up to a month. Production was estimated to take up to 3 weeks, but has been delayed.

    Improving XC race times is not one of the goals specified in the scope of this project.

  89. #289
    mtbr member
    Reputation: s0ckeyeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,101
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    Problem(s): an uncomfortable position on a bicycle that is exhausting to maintain for plowing and cornering. In the case I'm looking at, it's a flat backed and rearward position, with the hips well behind the BB. Evidence of it playing a role on rider exhaustion, leading to a crash, on what was supposed to be an epic fun flowy trail for someone known to be able to handle 3+ hour climbs to the summit of local mountains. He had energy, but not the muscle endurance for plowing and cornering for hours on what is essentially a series of descents of varied roughness stretched out over a huge distance due to the shallow downslope, with elevation charged up from short punchy climbs (Palm Canyon Epic).
    There's nothing wrong with hips being behind the BB. The lower a person gets in their attack position, the farther back their hips are going to be in relation to the BB. It's impossible to balance over the BB with your butt forward and your torso leaning over. Try it on a trainer without touching the handlebars.

    Climbing fitness and descending fitness are largely two separate things. The person in the scenario you described probably doesn't need a new bike or new geometry but rather a different focus in training. Riding a pump track regularly would help (or a RipRow). Lifting weights would help, especially hip hinging exercises like deadlifts or kettlebell swings. Pump everything. Pump rollers, pump roots, pump flat ground, pump corners, etc. Pedaling is only one facet of mountain biking.

    Also, what is a "comfortable" attack position? That's going to vary from person to person. Your average rider is probably going to have tight hamstrings and mobility issues. They might not even be able to pull off a good hip hinge. Other people, will be fairly comfortable in a wide range of positions, including having their backs near-parallel to the ground.

    Post up a pic of the perfect "comfortable" attack position you're referencing.

  90. #290
    nya
    nya is offline
    I want to ride my bike
    Reputation: nya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    Thanks. So pics 1, 2, 4 are plowing/cornering out-of-the-saddle. Pics 3 and 5 are pedaling out-of-the-saddle.

    Pic 4 is a good angle, since it I can sort of gauge how far the hip is behind the BB, and length of femur. Generally it does have you hovering over where the saddle would be if extended.

    Seemingly two beliefs here:

    A) it's a skill/technique that can be taught.

    B) it's a natural adaptation to the bike.

    Tend to hear all sorts of ride reports when people try out new bikes. Some like 'em and say they can't go back to what they now call junk. Some are not so impressed, and wait for something to increase the "wow factor" even more, to be worth their money.

    What are the reports for skills coaching? Mostly positive, some mixed, a few not impressed? I'm not so optimistic. I immediately get the urge to ask someone if they took a skills class recently if it looks like they're exaggerating their position and movements. Last time I brought this up, some high school coach classified these instructors as hack youtubers.
    There is a lot of coaches who do not have the eye / skill to do more than just repeat the advice they got taught. But there is a lot of coaches who are good, who can see and help to fix the mistakes people do, and sessions with them will give people way more than 10mm longer chainstay (or any other geometry adjustment).
    Modern bikes definitely help people with less skills to ride what years ago you could do only with decent skills. But it doesn't encourage them to work on those skills. I see it all the time, people can ride decent advanced tracks, but their skills are just meh.
    To me balance and that means good position comes from skills not from good geometry. Good bike allows you to ride "hard" but good skills allow you to ride any bike "hard".
    Good start is drop your heels and relax them, while hardly holding the handlebars will usually put them in good position, but for example dropping heels takes them time to learn and use while riding tracks.
    XCO results, races, riders etc http://mtbcrosscountry.com

    gearing ratios calculator http://gears.mtbcrosscountry.com

  91. #291
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    9
    It’s good that you are trying to put your design into practice, but I don’t think we’ll learn much from it, because in this discussion it appears that you are too invested in believing that you are right to be an unbiased tester.

  92. #292
    ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by andrewbn42 View Post
    It’s good that you are trying to put your design into practice, but I don’t think we’ll learn much from it, because in this discussion it appears that you are too invested in believing that you are right to be an unbiased tester.
    Your thought/belief is called skepticism, but by voicing a judgement, it turns into prejudice.

    I find credibility not in character, but in results gained from test methods that can be verified through peer review. If someone tests something unscientifically, using their own body and locale as measuring equipment, I can see why people need to judge the credibility by their character. I cannot verify personal experience, without getting in their body and in their test location--this data has no defined value, unless you have some extra context of your own to fill in and offer relative value.

    Don't worry about that. I will create evidence to be shared that can be analyzed and interpreted, so you can draw your own impressions. I am merely the technician, like the astronaut on the ISS, running the process, and transferring the data back to home where the true experts can analyze it.

    The perspectives given here in this thread are just our interpretation of reality. It should be considered an illusion, unless it's found to be universally agreeable. When dealing with something complex, there's likely to be disagreement among different perspectives. We have to question why if we are able to better understand reality.

    This thread is not to promote a mere opinion as prevailing knowledge. It's to explore an idea. If you are interested in a comfortable ready position, what's holding you back from testing yourself? How about suggesting some test methods that you can use yourself to test among different bikes that you own?

    Perhaps we need to define the ready/attack position? It's the position a rider puts themselves into before entering a technical section that challenges the rider's ability to stay in control. Plowing a rock garden, cornering, approaching a jump or drop, landing from a jump/drop, maintaining traction in a low traction situation...

    This topic assumes that there's no fixed ready/attack position, and asks if it should be comfortable, and asks what it should look like.

    Does anyone take videos/pics of themselves, or of others? Does anyone try to give others pointers on how to position themselves? Is there some image that pops into mind that looks "right" to you? It's an opinion piece, not a piece about me making a long personal journey to figure it out myself. I would've titled this thread differently if that were the case.

    The basic theory I suggested, was having a certain CS length for a certain WB, to dictate what kind of ready/attack position the rider should have:
    - For a "defensive rearward leaning/hanging" position, lengthen the CS for that WB range. A 1150-1195mm wheelbase should have 425-450mm to give you this positioning if you find it your preference. A 1210-1260mm wheelbase should have 445-470mm CS.
    - For an "aggro forward leaning, fork-riding" position, the CS should be short for a certain WB range. A 1235mm wheelbase could have a 415-425mm chainstay.
    - For a "neutral standing" position, a bike with 420mm chainstays should have a 1150-1195mm wheelbase. If it has 435mm CS, the wheelbase should be 1210-1260...

    I presume that a natural, instinctive/intuitive, position is comfortable. For some, it's more natural to have the defensive position. For others, it's more natural to have the forward position, such as hardcore HT riders who are excited by the Chromagg Doctahawk. For me, I got comfortable with and used to the defensive position, but it's more natural (less straining) for me to have a neutral standing position.

    Is there any disagreement here? If so, how do you want to test "who's right", or more specifically what's true in reality, in a credible way? I can't argue personal opinion, but I can argue that a long CS, short WB bike will have a rider hanging back off the bike when they need to maintain control, and that a bike with similar geo but shorter CS, or longer WB will allow the rider to be more upright under the same conditions.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-19-2018, 04:40 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-11-2018, 01:42 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-22-2015, 07:20 PM
  4. Attack Position
    By horriefic in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 03-09-2011, 02:22 PM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-02-2008, 08:07 PM

Members who have read this thread: 424

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 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.