Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 111
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    8

    your thoughts on new geometry?

    Hi, I will preface this by saying I am a beginner who has been riding for about a year. I love the sport and ride my local trails 3 times a week. I have a new school modern geometry enduro bike. I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are on the new geometry? While I find that the bike is super stable in straight line, I often find the bike "getting away" from me if that makes sense. Also weight shifting in the corners has to be done quite aggressively. I have noticed professional enduro racers often will size down on the new school bikes. I think Richie Rude rides a medium sb150 and Maes also rides a large at 6ft. I have also read from bike coach Lee Mccormack that the new school bikes are way too long for most riders and the trend will likely go back to not-so-long reaches. Anyhow was just wondering what others' thoughts and experiences were. For reference I am 5'6" with 29 in inseam and ride a s/m orbea rallon and ride pretty rocky steep trails.

  2. #2
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,040
    The Orbea is not very long compared to a lot of bikes out there. It is a a 150/160 29 with a slack head tube which makes it pretty stable, and you are still a beginner who is still developing skill. Have you trimmed the bars yet? They are 800mm stock and probably too wide. Take a skills clinic and work on cornering. I have been mountain biking over 30 years and am still working on my cornering.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,063
    Low I like, long wheelbase I like (within reason), slack head angle I like, but long reach I'm not so keen on.

  4. #4
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,576
    I have long arms, so I'm comfortable with somewhat longer reach than some. My wife, however, had to size down on her newest bike because she's the opposite of me. Shorter arms, so long reach bikes don't work for her.

    It's all going to be pretty intensely personal.

  5. #5
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,588
    Longer reach, shorter stem, wider bars. It works. I was hesitant to get on board, but now wouldn't go back.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,248
    Reach has gotten a lot longer than stems have gotten shorter. My body dimensions have not changed. I subscribe to the theory that the long front- center that comes with slack head angles and long reaches is advantageous, but the long reach is not necessarily a good thing in itself after a point. It makes for a bike that might plow through stuff more easily but does not respond to input as well. I agree with McCormack that the super long reach bikes are going to need revision and mellow out some day soon. Prophecy Bikes is already thinking that way.

    The long reach thing has jumped the shark.
    Last edited by mack_turtle; 1 Week Ago at 09:47 AM.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,153
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    does not respond to input as well.
    Not sure I'd put it that way or say that's necessarily a bad thing. I'd say they respond to input differently. I'm a fan of longer reach as it really extends the sweet spot window on the bike. It allows me to move around much more which I'd consider all benefit when getting after it. I have found they can dumb down some trails though. If my trails were really tight twisty I'd probably want more traditional geo. Bikes work really really well these days imo, for me that equals more fun.
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  8. #8
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,757
    Geometry has been pretty good for the last 10 years, anyone convincing you some change in the last 1-2 years will make some kind of big difference needs to be beaten with an e-bike. It's mostly the rider and humans are amazingly adaptable. That last part is really important, you aren't going to take a huge hit by not having the latest and greatest, but marketing and anyone trying to sell you anything will do everything in their power to convince you otherwise.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by ashmtb View Post
    Hi, I will preface this by saying I am a beginner who has been riding for about a year. I love the sport and ride my local trails 3 times a week. I have a new school modern geometry enduro bike. I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are on the new geometry? While I find that the bike is super stable in straight line, I often find the bike "getting away" from me if that makes sense. Also weight shifting in the corners has to be done quite aggressively. I have noticed professional enduro racers often will size down on the new school bikes. I think Richie Rude rides a medium sb150 and Maes also rides a large at 6ft. I have also read from bike coach Lee Mccormack that the new school bikes are way too long for most riders and the trend will likely go back to not-so-long reaches. Anyhow was just wondering what others' thoughts and experiences were. For reference I am 5'6" with 29 in inseam and ride a s/m orbea rallon and ride pretty rocky steep trails.
    Your comment of being a newish rider on a modern bike is a little difficult to digest in terms of "how do you like it". You make it sound like your bike is making you relearn how to adapt to trail conditions. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that you are learning on the bike you own without much comparison?

    I had a 73-degree head angle stumpjumper hard trail. I got really fast on it, my first mountain bike. About 7 years later I got a new FSR. Totally different handling and I actually crashed when I demoed one. My first crash actually. I was sore too from the different geometry treating my muscles differently. Even when I made the switch to the new bike I was sore. Different seating position, different reach and different climbing technique.

    It didn't take long for my previous bike to become foreign to me. Today, 2 years after the FSR, I can ride the old hard tail, but not at all aggressively. I'd have to relearn because I don't ride the two often enough between rides.

    Regardless of which bike I am on I must position myself on the bike in a way that the bike wants and what trail conditions require.

    I don't know the specs of the Orbea but others seem to have some insight on it. I know my one bike isn't ideal for all trail conditions, but I am quite comfortable on the FSR in tight stuff. My old HT was more nimble in tight stuff, but not stable on descending. I'm happy to trade off a tiny bit of curvy trail handling for all of the other benefits the FSR comes with.

    Hope to continue reading of how your comfort increases and how you 'once thought' that the geometry of your bike wasn't ideal.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    144
    Not a fan.

    The longer wheel base and longer chainstays in particular needed to accommodate bigger wheels that have made bikes steering sluggish and the front end prone to digging in, unless you've heavily weighted the back. But moving back on the bike makes steering less responsive!

    Then all of this steering slop is exasperated by ever slacker head angles. So now you need enormous bars to man-handle the banana boat you're trying to steer. Through the woods, mind you. Not exactly gonna slip betwixt and between on a rig like that!

    Old geo kept weight more centered between the wheels and maintained responsive steering. Some find this too 'twitchy' but they are probably standing too high and pitched forward to begin with
    "I may not be fast descending, but I'm pretty slow climbing."

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    946
    I like it but think it depends on you're riding style. I went to a skills clinic recently and one of the drills was to slalom through cones. There were guys that had ridden for years and years who looked like the tin man trying to do ballet during that drill. There were guys who couldn't bunny hop, didn't know basic cornering technique, didn't one finger brake, didn't have a dropper, couldn't jump, etc. Those guys aren't going to be able to utilize the benefits of progressive geometry. You don't need progressive geo to pedal around the woods.

    The newer geo allows for an aggressive, low stance with a flat back while running a short stem. Watch older DH races. The riders tended to be really hunched over. That's because they were trying to keep their weight between the wheels on a bike that's too small. The shorter the reach, the higher your center of gravity has to be to get a flat back and the more hunched over you have to be to get low. Progressive geo is a big benefit when you're trying to ride super steep stuff or fly through a rock garden at stupid speeds. It's not a benefit to the guy whose saddle is always at max height and 'doesn't do air'.

    Of course, there's too long also. Your hip angle can become large enough that you start to lose some control over the bike. There's also no benefit to having a 63 degree HTA for normal singletrack.

  12. #12
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,080
    I'm enjoying the responses, but i don't think we'll be able to draw any conclusions. XL frame sizing has been fairly shit up until recently. Modern small/medium bikes turn to shit when they're trying to be long travel and/or 29ers. It's too hard to distinguish what you like and what it is that makes it work.

    Add to that that the OP is a newbie who probably doesn't have the bike set up optimized or have the experience to know when to blame his equipment.... pointless thread.



    I like new school geometry cuz i'm 6'3 with a positive ape index. The old stuff was garbage and relatively unrideable. I have a worthless opinion.
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,553
    Quote Originally Posted by scottzg View Post
    I'm enjoying the responses, but i don't think we'll be able to draw any conclusions. XL frame sizing has been fairly shit up until recently. Modern small/medium bikes turn to shit when they're trying to be long travel and/or 29ers. It's too hard to distinguish what you like and what it is that makes it work.

    Add to that that the OP is a newbie who probably doesn't have the bike set up optimized or have the experience to know when to blame his equipment.... pointless thread.



    I like new school geometry cuz i'm 6'3 with a positive ape index. The old stuff was garbage and relatively unrideable. I have a worthless opinion.
    We won't be able to draw conclusions, so you drew a conclusion that small and medium bikes shouldn't be long travel or 29ers.

    Sorry, that post was ironic and dead wrong simultaneously.

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,080
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    We won't be able to draw conclusions, so you drew a conclusion that small and medium bikes shouldn't be long travel or 29ers.

    Sorry, that post was ironic and dead wrong simultaneously.
    Weird that that would be contentious. If the wheel size and/or fork length/wheel travel is dictating saddle-bar drop, front-center, rear-center, or reach then you can't scale the sizes evenly. You can optimize each size, but then everyone is riding a slightly different bike. ...which they are anyway.

    All of this is full of nuance when you're the one designing the frame. We can chat about it if you're not feeling so confrontational; that's not very fun.
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Forest Rider View Post
    Your comment of being a newish rider on a modern bike is a little difficult to digest in terms of "how do you like it". You make it sound like your bike is making you relearn how to adapt to trail conditions. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that you are learning on the bike you own without much comparison?

    I had a 73-degree head angle stumpjumper hard trail. I got really fast on it, my first mountain bike. About 7 years later I got a new FSR. Totally different handling and I actually crashed when I demoed one. My first crash actually. I was sore too from the different geometry treating my muscles differently. Even when I made the switch to the new bike I was sore. Different seating position, different reach and different climbing technique.
    Not trying to attack your post, but I do have a couple questions/comments...

    1) I didn't get that feeling from his post. Maybe he has experience with bmx or road bikes, but it seamed to me he was just describing how his bike feels. You don't need much experience to know your bike holds a straight line well but requires a lot of I out to steer.

    2) What Specialized did you have with a 73 degree head angle? It must have had a non-suspension corrected rigid fork on a 100mm optimized frame, because the steepest head angle I can ever recall seeing was 72 degrees. Not a huge deal, but I am curious.
    Last edited by mountainbiker24; 1 Week Ago at 06:01 AM.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,553
    Quote Originally Posted by scottzg View Post
    Weird that that would be contentious. If the wheel size and/or fork length/wheel travel is dictating saddle-bar drop, front-center, rear-center, or reach then you can't scale the sizes evenly. You can optimize each size, but then everyone is riding a slightly different bike. ...which they are anyway.

    All of this is full of nuance when you're the one designing the frame. We can chat about it if you're not feeling so confrontational; that's not very fun.
    Now you just said that a builder can "optimize each bike" in reference to small and medium on long travel or large wheels, but the other post said "they turn to shit".

    Your first post was ironic. You dismissed everyone else then tried to make a conclusion. Sorry, in calling it what it is.

    You may have a valid point somewhere in there about scaling geometry for different sizes, but "they turn to shit" doesn't reflect your knowledge in the matter... So it sounds bogus.

    Not trying to be confrontational, but it wasn't a good post so I pointed it out. Calling it wrong was maybe heavy handed. Calling it ironic was true though.

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Not trying to attack your post, but I do have a couple questions/comments...

    1) I didn't get that feeling from his post. Maybe he has experience with bmx or road bikes, but it seamed to me he was just describing how his bike feels. You don't need much experience to know your bike holds a straight line well but requires a lot of I out to steer.

    2) What Specialized did you have with a 73 degree head angle? It must have had a non-suspension corrected rigid fork on a 100mm optimized frame, because the steepest head angle I can ever recall seeing was 72 degrees. Not a huge deal, but I am curious.
    Honestly I don't know the exact head angle. Just what I've heard of Rumors. I never actually looked it up now that you bring it up, which is odd that I never have.

    The bike is a 2000 Stumpjumper hardtail. I love that bike and it got me to where I am today. But sitting over the front wheel unlike today's 67.x head angle is different. It sure did turn fast but it was far less comfortable on steep rocky descents. I managed well, just not AS well. I feel I can descent better on the new bike and I turn a little less good. But on the old bike I was way worse at descending than the new bike. Meaning, the compromises from old to new are minor due to other design characteristics that allow better handling than the spec sheet may indicate.

    I'm about to add another bike to mix, we'll see how this new one differs pretty soon.

  18. #18
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,040
    I just reread the OP's post and studied the Rallon's geometry. For steep, rocky trails it sound like he's on the right bike. It's not really that long, nor does it have long chain stays. It sounds like a good skill clinic is in order. If I was the ashmtb I would want my stem slammed and probably a lower rise bar as well, but the bike is a good one for his riding.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  19. #19
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,576
    I think the argument that new geo bikes turn worse than old geo bikes is a little misleading and not entirely accurate.

    I rode a 2003 Stumpjumper FSR for about 11yrs before changing to a Salsa Bucksaw. Not super progressive on the long/low/slack scale, but a HUGE jump in that direction from the old bike.

    The new bike handled VERY differently from the old one, that's for sure. If I directly transferred everything from the old bike to the new one, yeah, it handled worse. But the thing is, the new geo required me to ride it differently.

    I had to lean it into corners more, and found that it railed. I had to think more about fore-aft body position than previously. In turning, I needed more weight forward. In climbing, I needed more weight rearward for traction. Everything was about me figuring out the new bike. I've practiced trackstands for years, and never had a problem with slow speed handling on the new bike. Hell, last year I won New Belgium's Tour de Fat slow ride race on a rickety steel cruiser with a coaster brake that's older than I am.

    I like being more centered on the bike. I like feeling between the wheels, rather than perched above them.

    Those who are especially tall, those who are especially short, and anyone who's relative body proportions (torso length vs inseam) are outside of the "norm" that bikes have been designed for have always had the short end of the stick. In selling bikes for a number of years, I saw that a LOT of tall guys have super long legs and the torso/arm length of a more average height person. So the only solution for them was a seatpost shooting to the sky, and a really aggressive saddle-handlebar drop. Couple this with old geo bikes, and you got a REALLY high endo frequency. People with longer torsos and short legs have issues with standover clearance and dropper post fitment. Take a person who's really short, who has these same issues, and they can have a really tough time with bigger wheels. Bike geometries have always been chosen for some middle percentage of the population's body dimensions. It seems the "modern" mtb geo works a touch better for those who need longer reaches than for those who need shorter reaches. Some other geo trend will pop up eventually that will fit some other subgroup a little better.

    Short of buying full custom, there's ALWAYS going to be some segment of the population who is less thrilled with a particular geometry trend. IME, shops tend to sell more larger-sized frames than smaller-sized ones. I'm not surprised that most manufacturers have adjusted geometries to favor slightly taller people as a result.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LarryFahn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,062
    Quote Originally Posted by ashmtb View Post
    Hi, I will preface this by saying I am a beginner who has been riding for about a year. I love the sport and ride my local trails 3 times a week. I have a new school modern geometry enduro bike. I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are on the new geometry? While I find that the bike is super stable in straight line, I often find the bike "getting away" from me if that makes sense. Also weight shifting in the corners has to be done quite aggressively. I have noticed professional enduro racers often will size down on the new school bikes. I think Richie Rude rides a medium sb150 and Maes also rides a large at 6ft. I have also read from bike coach Lee Mccormack that the new school bikes are way too long for most riders and the trend will likely go back to not-so-long reaches. Anyhow was just wondering what others' thoughts and experiences were. For reference I am 5'6" with 29 in inseam and ride a s/m orbea rallon and ride pretty rocky steep trails.
    Lucky for you, your into biking at the right time.

    Even though companies are all aiming towards the same thing, they all offer little tweaks that make a big difference. You can find a bike with 6" of travel front and back in a "medium", or 16", or a 17". One may have a 420 mm reach, or a 427 or a 413 or a 398 or a 435mm. It all depends on the brand.


    It also depends on what type of bike you should be on. An XC race bike with 4" of travel might be more your style than a 6" enduro. My 1996 rigid-turned-hardtail with 100mm of travel took me anywhere I wanted to go despite it having a "steep" headtube angle (as per what the industry tells us).

    Some food for thought- I was lok king to build a beater hardtail this year and wanted an inexpensive frame. I looked at the On-One 456 (medium 16") and the Ragley Blue Pig (medium 17").
    The On-One medium has a reach of 394mm (I can't find the geometry, or the 45650 on their site anymore).

    The Ragley Blue Pig has a 430mm reach!

    Even the small 15" Blue Pig has a 410mm reach!

    For comparison, my Devinci Spartan has a 420mm reach. On the Spartan I changed from a 45mm stem to a 60mm.
    By putting the 45mm stem from the Spartan on the Blue Pig I should be very close to how these bikes feel.

    Spartan-- 420(reach) +60(stem) =480mm
    Blue Pig - 430(reach) +45(stem) =475mm

    They don't feel even close! The Ragley feels about an inch longer. But I'm comfortable on both because they're 2 different bikes for 2 different riding styles.

    So, if you don't feel comfortable on your bike, try a different model, wheel size, amount of travel, brand, etc...

    Whatever you do, don't believe that "this bike is the best!"

    Ttyl, Fahn
    Last edited by LarryFahn; 1 Week Ago at 11:41 AM.
    Hubbard Bike Club

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,315
    Quote Originally Posted by ashmtb View Post
    your thoughts on new geometry?
    Is it still new?

  22. #22
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,395
    I think we getting to a great balance of reach when you can run a 35-50mm stem. You can fine tune front center with fork offset and HTA. The bike needs to be tailored to the terrain that you are going to ride on and will determine a lot of variables.
    As a tall person I have always said, give me your longest bike. Oh this is still way too short, guess i'll put a 90mm+ stem slammed and slide the seat all the way back.
    520-540 reach seems like the perfect length for me. I could run a 35mm stem and have a 74-75 STA for a decent ETT. I would like slightly longer rear stays too in the 440-445 range.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  23. #23
    Ride On
    Reputation: geraldooka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    803

    your thoughts on new geometry?

    I consider reach when looking at bikes but only as a result of my preferred seated cockpit length. We may stand a lot while riding but we are all still seated more than any other position on a bike. So given where I want my seat (e.g how steep Iím willing the effective SA to be) and my preferred stem length and bar width (E.g. how fast or slow I want my steering to behave) and sweep Iíll arrive at a seated cockpit length Iím happy with. At this point reach will be what it will be.

    In other words; I like a lot of room in my standing cockpit (reach) but Iím still limited by my seated cockpit preferences.

    I should note that it is still possible for shorter folks like me and in particular folks who like me also have shorter torsos to add front centre to a bike. While reach may be limited, you can add front centre length by slacking out the head angle and looking for a bike that has a taller head tube to avoid having to install too many spacers and effectively shorten seated and standing room (reach).
    Last edited by geraldooka; 1 Week Ago at 02:58 PM.
    Michael

    Ride on!

  24. #24
    the half breed devil
    Reputation: shekky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    3,564
    in the summer of 2017, i purchased my first long-low-slack bike, a 2017 marin hawk hill.

    i actually felt cramped on my new size large hawk hill when i first rode it. the medium i test rode was even worse. i'm just under six feet and i suppose i've got a long-ish torso and arms.

    i took care of the cramped feeling on the large by going with a 90mm stem over the stock 60 and in time have settled on an 80mm stem.

    even before i installed a dropper post on my hawk hill, i felt like i was riding "in" the bike rather than "on top" of it. now, when i hop aboard either of my hardtails, i feel precariously high. i've even slightly lowered the saddles on both my hardtails to mimic the suspension bike.

  25. #25
    Music & Bikes
    Reputation: fokof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    ..... needs to be beaten with an e-bike.
    Love that concept !
    "There is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over" -FZ

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ALimon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    802
    Youíre on one of the best all arounderís out there, and youíre on the right size too. If you feel the bike is getting away from you itís only because youíre new to the sport. (Lack of skills) As your skills increase, the feeling of the bike getting away from you will disappear.

    Youíre quite lucky to learn on a bike like the rallon.

  27. #27
    tire to rim ratio tester
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,344
    Quote Originally Posted by WHALENARD View Post
    I have found they can dumb down some trails though. If my trails were really tight twisty I'd probably want more traditional geo.
    Yes, if it's twisty an old-geometry 26" can keep up OK with the more modern bikes (but not better). It falls behind (at least in my case) around 8-12% on more straight-line downhill trails.
    "A $1700 bike is not fit to be hucked from a curb"
    MTB B'Dos

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    Yes, if it's twisty an old-geometry 26" can keep up OK with the more modern bikes (but not better). It falls behind (at least in my case) around 8-12% on more straight-line downhill trails.
    8-12%? Interesting... Also, traditional geometry does much better on tight and twisty trails. Long wheelbases require more room to either set up for the turn or maneuver through it. On wider trails, you can accommodate a longer wheelbase. Not so much on tight trails.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,315
    I reckon new trails will be built to suit newer bikes. More 'flow', wider turns etc. Progress eh?..

  30. #30
    Not helpful.
    Reputation: Finch Platte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    15,478
    Quote Originally Posted by fokof View Post
    Love that concept !
    x2. Nice, JM.
    I wouldn't even get my hair cut except it's near the liquor store and it seems like my eyebrows need trimming now and then.

  31. #31
    Not helpful.
    Reputation: Finch Platte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    15,478
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    Is it still new?
    Nope, he posted a day ago.
    I wouldn't even get my hair cut except it's near the liquor store and it seems like my eyebrows need trimming now and then.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Also, traditional geometry does much better on tight and twisty trails. Long wheelbases require more room to either set up for the turn or maneuver through it.
    I have an XXL AM bike with a ~49.5" wheelbase. It's rare that my wheelbase is an actual hindrance on tight old school east coast XC trails. Sure, it's not as nimble but if the corner is tight enough to make a significant difference it's going to be an really slow corner anyway. There's literally only one uphill switchback I can think of that my wheelbase prevents me from climbing without doing some trials maneuvers. It's not like I've ever been on a group ride and thought 'if only my bike weren't so long I could keep up'.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    8
    Thanks everyone for your replies and input. I definitely agree with those that say skill development is in order. I think that with time and practice come confidence and that will make the issues I have with the bike disappear. Learning how to ride this specific bike will take time and I am sure requires its own unique rider inputs to get the desired output.

    That being said, I think that I would agree with other people that say they like a steep HTA, long wheelbase (within reason) for the stability, steep STA, and low BB. However, I wonder if long reaches might not be beneficial for all riders as they tend to stretch them out more over the bike and require more aggressive input to get the same directional output. Furthermore, as we increase reach on any given bike we increase the front center of the bike. For given chainstay lengths, wouldn't this increase the front centre/rear centre ratio of the bike? Doesn't this result in a bike that is less balanced as the rider drives their feet into the pedals? Most manufacturers don't increase chainstay length per a given size either (exception I know of is Norco). I would think that this results in different ride characteristics for a given model even between sizes.

    Anyhow, thanks again for your insightful comments and I hope everyone got some great riding in this weekend!!

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,083
    Yesterdays "long, low, slack" is todays middle of the road. My 130mm "trail bike" with 465mm reach in large and a 66.5 HA was on the crest of the wave when it came out in 2015, but is now pretty average in many regards. Doesn't make it any less awesome though.

    It's all about perspective IMHO. Someone talking about how you have to "manhandle" longer bikes or that the steering is "sluggish", that may be true in their world compared to what they're used to riding and how they like to ride. But "manhandle" and "sluggish" can easily be reinterpreted as stable, and the "nimble" or "responsive" bike that person may like could just as easily be twitchy and nervous handling to someone else. My feeling is that having to "manhandle" the bike a little more than the old days is a good thing, as you have to be more deliberate with how you move the bike around. I feel my bike is more "playful" despite it being at least 60mm longer reach and several degrees slacker than any of its predecessors as it moves when I want it to and doesn't when I don't.

    As for Ritchie downsizing, if you're riding like him then maybe you should take fitting tips from him.

  35. #35
    Life's a Garden, dig it!
    Reputation: chuckha62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,996
    New Geometry? Is that like that "New Math" I've been hearing about?
    You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

  36. #36
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    32,486
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckha62 View Post
    New Geometry? Is that like that "New Math" I've been hearing about?
    No, thatís old math. New Geometry is so old now itís old geometry. I ride an old / old geometry bike. And hope to someday advance to a new / new geometry bike that hasnít come out yet. Skipping right over new geometry.
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  37. #37
    Ride On
    Reputation: geraldooka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    803
    I hate new math...

    New geo is great even if we are only busting myths in a lot of ways. Itís not better but it is different and without trying new things we fail to innovate and there is always room for improvement.

    As to the comment of being ďmore stretched outĒ I hear this a lot with regards to longer geo. Just because a bike is longer doesnít mean one should ignore fit. I mean if itís not comfortable and you have given it some time to get used to it then Iíd say itís worth investigating why. Everyone has a range of comfort in their seated or standing cockpit for the way they ride and the terrain they ride. As I mentioned previously for me Iím not willing to compromise my seated cockpit to the degree that it is uncomfortably long in order to accommodate a perfect standing cockpit. The same is true in reverse but less so because Iím sitting more than Iím standing generally. Find the balance you are willing to deal with and go from there. Factor in other front centre factors and youíll eventually arrive at your range of sweet spots. For example if you want a super long reach bike and super slack head angle consider how youíll be able to apply traction to the front wheel.
    Michael

    Ride on!

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,622
    People have not changed and how people fit on bikes has not changed. However changes have been made.

    Back in the old days stems were long, top tubes were short and seat tube angles were slack.

    Now Top tubes are longer, stems are shorter and seat tube angles are steeper. This tends to keep the riders in similar position, but the pedals do seem to be moving back also. Adopting more of Triathlon bike position. This has been combined with slacker HA and longer forks. So the front wheels move forward relative to the rider and also short chainstays are moving the rear wheel back under the rider. In the old days longer chainstays worked with the slacker seat tubes and offset seat posts. Now you need to have shorter chainstays to keep the rear wheel under the rider. Moving the front wheel forward has given more stability for DH riding. but makes the bikes less responsive to turning since you have less weight on the front wheel.

    The feeling people have of "on the bike" vs "in the bike" is I think really due to where the front wheel is. "On the bike" occurs when the front wheel is closer to your and more under you. "In the bike" is when the front wheel is way out there and feels farther in front you. Remember if you want real "in the bike" then have super long chainstays and long front end to get that feeling. But the rage is for short chainstays. That means our perception of the bike is based more on the front end that back end. So it is for descending where the location of the front wheel relative to where our body core and head is determines greatly how we "feel" and also what happens if the front wheel stops. The OTB ability of a bike is really due to physics driven by geometry. Location of the CG relative to the point of rotation. CG is the person's core and point of rotation is where the tire contacts the ground.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  39. #39
    tire to rim ratio tester
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,344
    BTW there is at least one carbon-fiber 26" you can buy for $469 that has new geometry!!!

    BEIOU 3k Carbon Fiber Mountain Bike Frame T800 Ultralight 26-Inch MTB Matte Black Unibody Internal Cable Routing

    I'd consider it but I like having a 27.5" frame better and then have the option of putting on 26" tires or not. But if the 26" back frame could take a wider tire, like a 2.5 or 2.8, and the rest of the frame fit me well, I would really consider getting a 26" again, but only if all of the variables were acceptable. One variable that's not good = I will do 27.5".
    "A $1700 bike is not fit to be hucked from a curb"
    MTB B'Dos

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: twd953's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    I had to lean it into corners more, and found that it railed. I had to think more about fore-aft body position than previously. In turning, I needed more weight forward.
    ..............
    Those who are especially tall, those who are especially short, and anyone who's relative body proportions (torso length vs inseam) are outside of the "norm" that bikes have been designed for have always had the short end of the stick. In selling bikes for a number of years, I saw that a LOT of tall guys have super long legs and the torso/arm length of a more average height person. So the only solution for them was a seatpost shooting to the sky, and a really aggressive saddle-handlebar drop. Couple this with old geo bikes, and you got a REALLY high endo frequency.
    This exactly ^^^ I spent 20+ years riding/racing steep head angle XC geometry bikes with short reach, narrow bars, and long stems. The long legs/short torso, super high saddle position (out of necessity for pedaling) and aggressive bar to saddle drop describes my setup with the old XC geometry and my long legs/short torso. Wasn't so bad when I lived in flatter terrain, but not nearly as good for me when it gets steep. I was able to ride those bikes better than most of my riding companions, and manually lowering the saddle for the long/steep descents helped, but the chance of an OTB was always a consideration.

    About 8-9 years ago I started by going shorter on the stem, then added a dropper, then got on newer bikes with slacker head angles, shortened the stem even more, went progressively wider on the bars to match my large wingspan, and went with frames with longer reach (not extreme long). All of these have been positive changes for my riding.

    I can't even remember the last time I have gone OTB. It isn't even something I really consider any more, despite the fact that my riding steeper gnarlier terrain than ever since I have shifted from XC racing/trail focused to more AM/DH/freeride focus.

    Learning to aggressively lean the bike and keep my weight more forward (centered) helped me immensely when riding slacker head angle bikes. My DH bike has a 62.5 degree head angle, and I don't feet like I have a problem cornering that bike.

    Now, I will say that where I live we don't have any flat terrain, nor super slow speed singletrack where your are often going less than 5 mph. If I rode a lot of that terrain with super tight/slow singletrack, I may feel differently about geometry.
    No dig no whine

  41. #41
    the half breed devil
    Reputation: shekky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    3,564
    also this:

    "Learning to aggressively lean the bike and keep my weight more forward (centered) helped me immensely when riding slacker head angle bikes."

  42. #42
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,576
    Quote Originally Posted by shekky View Post
    also this:

    "Learning to aggressively lean the bike and keep my weight more forward (centered) helped me immensely when riding slacker head angle bikes."
    You still hear the near constant refrain from older riders to "get your weight back" that came from that shitty old geo that put your weight too far forward by default, esp if you have a long inseam and short torso and therefore had an endo machine.

    Gotta train that advice out of the old pharts. Cause following that advice on a new geo bike is going to result in losing the front end.

    Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,153
    Another thing I'd say about wide bars is they open my breathing up. Way up.
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    You still hear the near constant refrain from older riders to "get your weight back" that came from that shitty old geo that put your weight too far forward by default, esp if you have a long inseam and short torso and therefore had an endo machine.
    Heard a dad telling his son to 'get your butt back' while taking the B line down a short hill that didn't even require braking. They were in their snazzy XC team jerseys. I died inside a little bit.

  45. #45
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,576
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    Heard a dad telling his son to 'get your butt back' while taking the B line down a short hill that didn't even require braking. They were in their snazzy XC team jerseys. I died inside a little bit.
    I honestly have done more educating the adult ride leaders for the NICA team I am helping than I have been doing skills coaching with the kids (I have skills coaching certs).

    Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

  46. #46
    the discerning hooligan
    Reputation: MOJO K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    I reckon new trails will be built to suit newer bikes. More 'flow', wider turns etc. Progress eh?..
    This is my observation. Even on old established trails, corners get cut and trails get braided to accommodate the "bigger" faster bikes. The irony to me is that, while the speed increases, the sensation of speed decreases.
    MERCY! MERCY! MERCY!

  47. #47
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,395
    As a tall guy I don't see what all the fuss is about with long bikes. Anything under 1200mm wheelbase is tiny and handles like a bmx bike. I don't have to cut corners, the bike doesn't take ages to change direction and it works on all the normal trails.

    There are only 2 areas that give me trouble. Bmx style jumps that are shorter than the bike and switchbacks that are significantly shorter than the wheelbase. Of course I have always had trouble on those two features.

    People cut corners because they can and maybe STRAVA!!!! Go to any XC race and every corner that can be cut will be cut to save time. I like curves on my trail.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    You still hear the near constant refrain from older riders to "get your weight back" that came from that shitty old geo that put your weight too far forward by default, esp if you have a long inseam and short torso and therefore had an endo machine.

    Gotta train that advice out of the old pharts. Cause following that advice on a new geo bike is going to result in losing the front end.

    Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
    Do people really say "get your weight back" when cornering? I have never heard this as a cornering technique from either new schoolers or old schoolers.

  49. #49
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,576
    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post
    Do people really say "get your weight back" when cornering? I have never heard this as a cornering technique from either new schoolers or old schoolers.
    For some people, it's the standard refrain for everything. Usually low-moderate skill riders on older bikes that DO endo easily if you are too far forward. Also riders who don't have a solid grasp on explaining what's going on (even though they're doing it fairly well when they ride). And ESPECIALLY when they're talking to kids. These same people, rather than teaching their kid how to use the front brake correctly, often tell their kids not to use the front brake at all.

    I had to take a guy (who's a good decade or two older than me) aside at one of our practices a couple weeks ago. He had been telling the whole group to get their butts back/get their weight back on a downhill we were doing. Not a particularly steep one, but for some of the kids in our group, it was challenging. I had to explain to him that it's better to talk about getting low and stable, bending your arms and legs, and staying loose. When you do this, your butt naturally pokes behind the saddle, but your weight is actually more centered, which lets you adapt to the terrain quicker. I had to explain to him that telling kids to "get your weight back" is going to encourage straight armed hanging off the back of the saddle, which is definitely not what we want. I had to get him to switch his phrasing to "get low". Thankfully, he understood what I was talking about, but sometimes you run across the guy with an ego bigger than his skills who wants to argue about it.

    This last week, a younger college guy who signed up as a coach came out for his first practice as a coach/leader. He seems to have a reasonably good grasp on teaching skills. In talking to him, he's much more of an xc/fitness oriented guy, but he's taken a recent interest in developing his technical skills, and he's definitely learned a bit about teaching/learning progressions. I watched him work with a kid on manuals the other day.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    For some people, it's the standard refrain for everything. Usually low-moderate skill riders on older bikes that DO endo easily if you are too far forward. Also riders who don't have a solid grasp on explaining what's going on (even though they're doing it fairly well when they ride). And ESPECIALLY when they're talking to kids. These same people, rather than teaching their kid how to use the front brake correctly, often tell their kids not to use the front brake at all.

    I had to take a guy (who's a good decade or two older than me) aside at one of our practices a couple weeks ago. He had been telling the whole group to get their butts back/get their weight back on a downhill we were doing. Not a particularly steep one, but for some of the kids in our group, it was challenging. I had to explain to him that it's better to talk about getting low and stable, bending your arms and legs, and staying loose. When you do this, your butt naturally pokes behind the saddle, but your weight is actually more centered, which lets you adapt to the terrain quicker. I had to explain to him that telling kids to "get your weight back" is going to encourage straight armed hanging off the back of the saddle, which is definitely not what we want. I had to get him to switch his phrasing to "get low". Thankfully, he understood what I was talking about, but sometimes you run across the guy with an ego bigger than his skills who wants to argue about it.

    This last week, a younger college guy who signed up as a coach came out for his first practice as a coach/leader. He seems to have a reasonably good grasp on teaching skills. In talking to him, he's much more of an xc/fitness oriented guy, but he's taken a recent interest in developing his technical skills, and he's definitely learned a bit about teaching/learning progressions. I watched him work with a kid on manuals the other day.
    Ok makes sense. I got confused because you were replying to a post that was discussing leaning into corners. I agree though I have heard people talk about getting your weight back for descends and obstacles.

    It's interesting watching pro motocrossers. Those guys are hitting whoops and jumps at 30-50mph and their body is mostly centered rather than back. There is nothing worse than having the seat kick you in the butt and throwing you over the bars. In mtb a dropper alleviates this problem somewhat. And I think the slacker Geo helps with this.
    Still I find it amazing that a guy like Nino Schurter can descend as fast as many DH guys on an XC bike with a slammed stem and no dropper. But he is not mortal like the rest of us.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    926
    I rode my 2006 Enduro for the first time in a long time yesterday. Felt remarkably similar to my 2014 Enduro! Maybe I need to take a 2018 one out for a blast to see where the difference is.

  52. #52
    One ring to mash them all
    Reputation: the one ring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,045
    ^If that saddle position is considered innovative, chalk up one more for the shun bucket.
    All Li es Matter

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post

    Still I find it amazing that a guy like Nino Schurter can descend as fast as many DH guys on an XC bike with a slammed stem and no dropper. But he is not mortal like the rest of us.
    When did he race downhill on an XC bike against DH racers?

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    When did he race downhill on an XC bike against DH racers?
    There was a GMBN video doing a timed comparison between Nino to Marc Beaumont on downhills.

    I just rewatched it ......my bad, it wasn't so much about the bikes as much as whether a pro downhiller like Marc was faster than a pro XC guy on the downhill. So it was more about skills than bike Geo etc. Scratch what I said about droppers and slammed stems. But it does say Nino has some amazing all around skills even against a specialist.

  55. #55
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,576
    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post
    Ok makes sense. I got confused because you were replying to a post that was discussing leaning into corners. I agree though I have heard people talk about getting your weight back for descends and obstacles.
    To be clear, I HAVE heard it said when referencing corners. Just not quite as recently.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by the one ring View Post
    ^If that saddle position is considered innovative, chalk up one more for the shun bucket.
    Ha. Ultimate downhill angle. Was to clear the scales to get a proper weight.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    You still hear the near constant refrain from older riders to "get your weight back" that came from that shitty old geo that put your weight too far forward by default, esp if you have a long inseam and short torso and therefore had an endo machine.

    Gotta train that advice out of the old pharts. Cause following that advice on a new geo bike is going to result in losing the front end.

    Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
    Of course, there are times when you need to get your weight back, which is more difficult on new geo. Slow speed drops come immediately to mind. This and tight twisties are where new geo fails to live up to the hype.

  58. #58
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,717
    I like long ett but not long reach.

  59. #59
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,576
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Of course, there are times when you need to get your weight back, which is more difficult on new geo. Slow speed drops come immediately to mind. This and tight twisties are where new geo fails to live up to the hype.
    I don't find it more difficult at all. It probably seems counterintuitive to you, but weight more forward in tight and twisty stuff works really well to keep the front tire planted at more aggressive leans. Yes, there are always occasions where you will want to put your weight back, and initiating a drop (recentering before you hit the ground) is one of them. I have a positive ape index, and don't have a problem getting my weight back at all. Maybe you need to size down on a modern geo bike the way my wife has to, in order to get the range of motion you need.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    864
    First the new math, then common core, now new geometry, what next?

  61. #61
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,080
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    Now you just said that a builder can "optimize each bike" in reference to small and medium on long travel or large wheels, but the other post said "they turn to shit".

    Your first post was ironic. You dismissed everyone else then tried to make a conclusion. Sorry, in calling it what it is.

    You may have a valid point somewhere in there about scaling geometry for different sizes, but "they turn to shit" doesn't reflect your knowledge in the matter... So it sounds bogus.

    Not trying to be confrontational, but it wasn't a good post so I pointed it out. Calling it wrong was maybe heavy handed. Calling it ironic was true though.

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
    You're right. I've been riding 'modern geometry' for about 8 years; ever since i decided everything on the market was too small for me and if i wanted a bike that fit i had to figure it out and build it myself. I've internalized a lot of this stuff that is still news to the mtb world at large. Now that what i like is normal i assume everyone knows the why behind the what, which is ridiculous, but there you go.

    (the current market coalescing around my 7 year old opinions has no doubt bolstered my certainty. If there's a major geo direction change from the current norm i'm gonna retrogrouch SO HARD)


    Whatever. The closer we get to the ideal optimization for a given individual, it gets harder to scale that design up and down. I think we're getting pretty close, so i don't see so much value comparing across sizes and riding locations.
    Last edited by scottzg; 1 Week Ago at 10:08 AM.
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  62. #62
    the half breed devil
    Reputation: shekky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    3,564
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Of course, there are times when you need to get your weight back, which is more difficult on new geo. Slow speed drops come immediately to mind. This and tight twisties are where new geo fails to live up to the hype.
    even with a dropper post?

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Of course, there are times when you need to get your weight back, which is more difficult on new geo. Slow speed drops come immediately to mind.
    I'm not sure what you mean. I've never gone off any drop and wished my bike was shorter, steeper, taller and with a longer stem. Are you talking about some type of trials maneuver?

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,887
    There is really no "new geometry". It is marketing fantasy. Pick any bike from the last 8-10 years and you would be very, very, VERY happy.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plummet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    362
    Bullshit theres been no step change in 10 years. Modern geo mixed with lighter weight, stiffer frames, better suspension, wider mud clearance all add up to some freak awesome kit.


    To answer your question. Just ride ya bike. Its not the bike getting away from you, its your lack of experience riding it. Put the miles in and learn

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by plummet View Post
    Bullshit theres been no step change in 10 years. Modern geo mixed with lighter weight, stiffer frames, better suspension, wider mud clearance all add up to some freak awesome kit.


    To answer your question. Just ride ya bike. Its not the bike getting away from you, its your lack of experience riding it. Put the miles in and learn
    I don't think suspension is any better, air has got better. But not to the point that its better than coil. That bike I attached earlier is 12 years old, has six inches of travel, 66.5 head angle, a stiffer front axle still over newer bikes (20mm) and as pictured weighs 14kg.
    So it really depends on what you were riding ten years ago.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by shekky View Post
    even with a dropper post?
    V
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean. I've never gone off any drop and wished my bike was shorter, steeper, taller and with a longer stem. Are you talking about some type of trials maneuver?
    New geo has a longer reach and steeper seat tube angle. To achieve the proper body positioning for climbing and pedaling, you end up further forward on the bike. The slacker head tube angle pushes the front wheel out more, which increases the wheelbase even more and centers the rider more "in" the bike. This is good most of the time, because it gives the rider a bigger zone of proper positioning with less input required for most terrain. It also requires bigger body shifts for certain situations, such as tight turns and slow speed drops. A dropper post helps, of course, but it doesn't bring the bars and weight of the bike any further towards the back of the bike. I'm still getting used to how far I have to get my weight back on my new bike for slow speed drop offs and setting the bike up for tight turns.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,248
    My concern is that the longer reach means your hands are much farther away from your feet, even with a short stem, low rise, and wide bars. You can move the saddle position to make up for the reach for a balanced sitting position, but the stand-and- wrangle the bike position might suffer. I'd like to build a rigid bike that does not hold me back in the handling department, then build a hardtail or FS bike based on those dimensions so I can do it all faster and with more grace.

    There's an optimal position for each riders' body dimensions for wrangling the bike to loft the front end, unweight the back end, and bunnyhop. It's analogous to doing a push-up with your hands too far in front of you. Bike design might make up for that with suspension and giant tires, but fitting the bike to optimize the effective reach and stack from a biomechanical perspective (which is what McCormack is trying to do) should come first.

    In short, from a biomechanical perspective, I suspect most modern bikes are too long.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    There's an optimal position for each riders' body dimensions for wrangling the bike to loft the front end, unweight the back end, and bunnyhop.
    Sure but the problem is a bike that's optimized for the things you listed is going to be a bmx or trials bike. Those are generally not my priorities on a mtb.

    Part of the issue is, like I mentioned before, the more progressive geo is great for charging downhill in a low, aggressive, flat back position... which has nothing to do with the average rider I see on the trails. While I don't totally agree with his logic, mountainbiker24 is right in that progressive long slack bikes are more optimized for higher speeds and give something up in low speed scenarios. The older XC dudes at my trails who basically just pedal around putting in miles aren't going to benefit from a bike with long slacked out geo. They're rarely if ever in the same riding posture as Sam Hill or Loic Bruni.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    Sure but the problem is a bike that's optimized for the things you listed is going to be a bmx or trials bike. Those are generally not my priorities on a mtb.

    Part of the issue is, like I mentioned before, the more progressive geo is great for charging downhill in a low, aggressive, flat back position... which has nothing to do with the average rider I see on the trails. While I don't totally agree with his logic, mountainbiker24 is right in that progressive long slack bikes are more optimized for higher speeds and give something up in low speed scenarios.
    I can't agree with this. My area has some old-school tight twisty trail left and when I take out my old '05 XC racer, it doesn't seem as eager to turn as the 'new' (2015) bike does. Yes I had to change my technique back in 2015, example at first it seemed impossible to make a tight up-hill corner. It didn't take long to find out that old bike cannot keep up with the new one, even in the tight stuff.
    oops I wasn't clipped in

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,248
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    Sure but the problem is a bike that's optimized for the things you listed is going to be a bmx or trials bike. Those are generally not my priorities on a mtb.
    Those are priority for me and the way I ride. 30+ mile days of rocky singletrack and I make a point of hopping and manualling everything in sight. That mentality comes from spending 20 years riding a BMX bike, so perhaps I am in the minority here. If I can't easily hop and manual a mountain bike because it's set up to be more "stable" than "flickable," that sounds boring as hell to me. Like driving a Cadillac instead of a [insert name of sports car here, I don't know anything about cars]. YMMV and all that.

    I think this exposes a fundamental difference between two approaches to riding. Some want to play on the trail, being in control of and maybe "on" the bike, while others want to be "in" the bike. Different strokes and all, but I think the "in the bike" market is winning so the few BMX old farts who don't trust the bike to take them for a ride are left with fewer options, or sizing down and using a flagpole of a seatpost to make up for it

  72. #72
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,576
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    Sure but the problem is a bike that's optimized for the things you listed is going to be a bmx or trials bike. Those are generally not my priorities on a mtb.

    Part of the issue is, like I mentioned before, the more progressive geo is great for charging downhill in a low, aggressive, flat back position... which has nothing to do with the average rider I see on the trails. While I don't totally agree with his logic, mountainbiker24 is right in that progressive long slack bikes are more optimized for higher speeds and give something up in low speed scenarios. The older XC dudes at my trails who basically just pedal around putting in miles aren't going to benefit from a bike with long slacked out geo. They're rarely if ever in the same riding posture as Sam Hill or Loic Bruni.
    I think the way you're addressing this makes more sense than mountainbiker24.

    I've always sorta referred to those old xc guys pedaling and putting in miles as "dirt roadies" in sort of a joking manner. But there's a degree of truth to the statement, because the way they ride and handle their bikes is more similar to how you would ride a road bike. The fitting that those riders would want would much more closely mimic a road bike fit. Because they're in one position a lot more, and don't as frequently vary their body position drastically from that seated pedaling position.

    Early on in my riding, I started using a larger range of motion when I rode. I'm sure at least some of that is related to my ape factor making it a little easier for me to use the range of motion. Sure, based on the type of riding I do, I spend good amounts of time seated and pedaling, but I also have no problem moving around on the bike when the conditions warrant. I enjoy moving around over the bike.

    I have grown to appreciate the fact that longer front-center bikes require a bit more movement to accomplish certain things. It means that the "centered" position is much farther from the point of no return, so the bike is more forgiving of mistakes and sudden brushes with unpredictable conditions. Yes, it does mean that getting my wheels off the ground takes better technique than it used to. But I also find that to be a good thing, as the bike feels more stable and predictable when doing so. On my old bikes, I'd actively work to avoid getting my wheels off the ground, because the bikes felt sketchy and unstable when doing so. Changing to a longer/lower/slacker bike was immediately noticeable in this regard and I started seeking these opportunities out for the first time. There are other benefits to working on my bike handling skills to improve my technique. Primarily being that I make fewer mistakes and crash less often and less severely. That's always a win in my book.

    I did have to adjust the way I rode my bike to feel good on twisty xc stuff. But it wasn't hard. It just took an open mind and some practice to re-train myself. Learning to get comfortable intentionally weighting the front of the bike and trusting it in corners has probably been the biggest learning curve. All that practice made me a better rider overall, so I'm not complaining.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plummet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudguard View Post
    I don't think suspension is any better, air has got better. But not to the point that its better than coil. That bike I attached earlier is 12 years old, has six inches of travel, 66.5 head angle, a stiffer front axle still over newer bikes (20mm) and as pictured weighs 14kg.
    So it really depends on what you were riding ten years ago.
    My ride is 13kg, 165/180mm 64. Something hta. It rides up stupidly good and down close to dh bike performance.

    The key difference I see between. Now and 10 years ago is that you get a bike the is insanely capable down but clumbs like a goat going up. To get a capable 160/180 bike back then you were punished on the ups.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by jim c View Post
    I can't agree with this. My area has some old-school tight twisty trail left and when I take out my old '05 XC racer, it doesn't seem as eager to turn as the 'new' (2015) bike does. Yes I had to change my technique back in 2015, example at first it seemed impossible to make a tight up-hill corner. It didn't take long to find out that old bike cannot keep up with the new one, even in the tight stuff.
    What is your 2015 bike?

    I'm not saying older bikes are better or that new bikes don't turn well. I'm saying how 'progressive' you should go depends on what you're going to use the bike for. If you're careening through rock gardens and park jumps then a long 63* HTA bike might be great. If you're just hammering out miles on regular singletrack then a long 63* HTA bike may not be the best tool for the job. In other words, one's perception of progressive bikes and what is too long or too slack depends on who they are and how they ride.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plummet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    362
    Not buying into super long either. I'm 5'11 and on an M. People say I should be on a L. I laugh and say shit no!. For fast straight chunkyou need long. For tight twisty tech you need short. Im the tight steep tech rider. So short is good.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    Those are priority for me and the way I ride. 30+ mile days of rocky singletrack and I make a point of hopping and manualling everything in sight. That mentality comes from spending 20 years riding a BMX bike, so perhaps I am in the minority here. If I can't easily hop and manual a mountain bike because it's set up to be more "stable" than "flickable," that sounds boring as hell to me.
    Stable and flickable are relative to terrain and speed too though. Your flickable mtb is stable and boring compared to a bmx at the skate park. My stable AM bike is flickable and twitchy compared to a DH bike hitting a jump line at 35+ mph.

    I'm a former bmx rider so I know what you mean. I have a stable FS bike and a hardtail with short stays for more playful rides.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    What is your 2015 bike?

    I'm not saying older bikes are better or that new bikes don't turn well. I'm saying how 'progressive' you should go depends on what you're going to use the bike for. If you're careening through rock gardens and park jumps then a long 63* HTA bike might be great. If you're just hammering out miles on regular singletrack then a long 63* HTA bike may not be the best tool for the job. In other words, one's perception of progressive bikes and what is too long or too slack depends on who they are and how they ride.
    I'm not sure why you'd need a 63 HTA bike for park jumps. For Rock gardens yes. Even the Trek Ticket which is a slopestyle bike is at 68.5. The guys doing these big jumps and flicking the bike around actually prefer short wheelbases and more manageability not stable and hard to maneuver.

    I think the popularity of the new Geo makes it easier for avg Joe to ride safer and feel more in control not necessarily to help a highly specialized and skilled rider bomb through Rock gardens. If you are super skilled, you will likely have very quirky bike setups anyways that probably won't work for avg Joe. And quirky setups don't sell well.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post
    I'm not sure why you'd need a 63 HTA bike for park jumps. For Rock gardens yes. Even the Trek Ticket which is a slopestyle bike is at 68.5. The guys doing these big jumps and flicking the bike around actually prefer short wheelbases and more manageability not stable and hard to maneuver.

    BMX dirt jumps, slopestyle courses and DH jumps lines are different things. I didn't say anything about need. The benefit of a DH bike on a DH jump line is stability on long jumps and all the stuff between the jumps. Those 'smooth' DH flow trails will murder your hands more in 5 minutes than 15 miles of tight rocky tech trails.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,248
    So a bike with a longer front-center for stability, low BB for stability, long reach as a result of the long front-center, and a steep seat tube angle to make up for stretched out seated position that results from the long reach. Ride that on dumbed-down flow trails at high speed.

    Sounds like dirt roadie logic to me. They just optimized dirt roadie fit for actual trails. Nothing new to see here, move along.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,248
    So a bike with a longer front-center for stability, low BB for stability, long reach as a result of the long front-center, and a steep seat tube angle to make up for stretched out seated position that results from the long reach. Ride that on dumbed-down flow trails at high speed.

    Sounds like dirt roadie logic to me. They just optimized dirt roadie fit for actual trails. Nothing new to see here, move along.

  81. #81
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,576
    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post
    I'm not sure why you'd need a 63 HTA bike for park jumps. For Rock gardens yes. Even the Trek Ticket which is a slopestyle bike is at 68.5. The guys doing these big jumps and flicking the bike around actually prefer short wheelbases and more manageability not stable and hard to maneuver.

    I think the popularity of the new Geo makes it easier for avg Joe to ride safer and feel more in control not necessarily to help a highly specialized and skilled rider bomb through Rock gardens. If you are super skilled, you will likely have very quirky bike setups anyways that probably won't work for avg Joe. And quirky setups don't sell well.
    Truth here. There wasn't much difference between mountain bikes in the early years. They were just "mountain bikes" back then. It hasn't been like that for a long time now. That ship sailed. Most bikes now are made for that "average" rider with "average" desires, and that tends to follow trends. Right now, the trend is for less climbing focus and more emphasis on the downs, with stable handling at speed being a priority. Also, fewer riders now are coming to mtb after starting with a background in BMX. BMX just isn't as popular now as it used to be, so fewer riders just entering the sport are going to be seeking bmx-like handling characteristics from their mtb's. I did run into a custom builder in AZ with this specific goal, however. So such bikes DO exist.

    I think your second paragraph hits on at least part of what's going on. I'm not sure that super skilled is necessary, but I think that riders who are very specialized into a specific discipline, or riders seeking a bike with very specific handling characteristics, who may be (but not necessarily are) extremely skilled will be seeking quirky bikes/setups. it is certainly true that quirky setups will never consistently sell well, but they may well go through periodic fads. You will always be able to find SOMEONE willing to produce such a bike, but you will have to be willing to spend for it.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    BMX dirt jumps, slopestyle courses and DH jumps lines are different things. I didn't say anything about need. The benefit of a DH bike on a DH jump line is stability on long jumps and all the stuff between the jumps. Those 'smooth' DH flow trails will murder your hands more in 5 minutes than 15 miles of tight rocky tech trails.
    Sure if you are riding DH specialist, you should ride a DH bike. But the modern geo thing is permeating all bikes not just DH bikes. You argued earlier that it is about going fast because it puts people in an aggressive position.

    I don't think it's necessarily about going fast - it's about making that avg MTB more confident and less crash prone even when the skills aren't there.

    Most skilled guys can go fast on pretty much anything build in the last 10 years within reason. In fact the we have a trail that was used for a local DH race that was later incorporated into an XC race. The fastest dude on that section on Strava was an Open class elite CAT 1 XC guy riding a five year old XC hardtail with a 71 HTA.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by plummet View Post
    My ride is 13kg, 165/180mm 64. Something hta. It rides up stupidly good and down close to dh bike performance.

    The key difference I see between. Now and 10 years ago is that you get a bike the is insanely capable down but clumbs like a goat going up. To get a capable 160/180 bike back then you were punished on the ups.
    Your current ride is very similar to mine. 170/165mm and bang on 13kg, I don't know the head angle or HTA.
    I would say the only evolution has been in weight. Where manufacturers have dropped the overbuilding of early downhill and 'freeride' bikes.
    Still I have a spare dropper I could put on that 06 to see how it climbs! When new the came with some seriously burly parts. I've just put old spare parts on it, nothing fancy. In fact my current bike is all alloy aside from the bars.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post
    Most skilled guys can go fast on pretty much anything build in the last 10 years within reason. In fact the we have a trail that was used for a local DH race that was later incorporated into an XC race. The fastest dude on that section on Strava was an Open class elite CAT 1 XC guy riding a five year old XC hardtail with a 71 HTA.
    ^ It is sooo this. ^
    je3220 asked what '15 bike I'm comparing to the old '05 XC. AS stated above my now 5 or 6yr old design Kona Process is not very progressive compared to some '17 bikes. 140mm travel 68* HTA 74* STA. However the short CS (under 17") and lowish BB are mostly what separates it from my old Santa Cruz Blur. I wasn't faster on it right away, had to learn/adapt. Jeremys take on it; that these bikes are easier, and that's why we're faster has some truth, but is missing most of the point. The bike IS a faster design, but I still have to learn to ride it quicker, it's not automatic. The real (actual) fast guys/gals will drop me while riding an old geo bike, I see it happen often enough.
    oops I wasn't clipped in

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post
    Sure if you are riding DH specialist, you should ride a DH bike. But the modern geo thing is permeating all bikes not just DH bikes. You argued earlier that it is about going fast because it puts people in an aggressive position.

    I don't think it's necessarily about going fast - it's about making that avg MTB more confident and less crash prone even when the skills aren't there.

    Most skilled guys can go fast on pretty much anything build in the last 10 years within reason. In fact the we have a trail that was used for a local DH race that was later incorporated into an XC race. The fastest dude on that section on Strava was an Open class elite CAT 1 XC guy riding a five year old XC hardtail with a 71 HTA.
    It's definitely about going fast downhill. That's why enduro bikes use the long low slack geometry and no one is winning EWS races on XC bikes. This is obvious outside of these arguments on the internet. The fastest dude at the latest local enduro race was Dakotah Norton and he was not on an old XC bike. The fact that you're bringing up anything that could be incorporated into a XC course explains your perspective.

  86. #86
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,040
    This thread is now for entertainment, not information.

    Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by jim c View Post
    The bike IS a faster design, but I still have to learn to ride it quicker, it's not automatic.

    That's true. Like I said it depends on where you're riding also. On certain down hill segments I'm no faster on my AM bike than my old hardtail.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    This thread is now for entertainment, not information.
    Ya welcome

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    I reckon new trails will be built to suit newer bikes. More 'flow', wider turns etc. Progress eh?..
    That reminds me of this cool essay.

    https://www.bikemag.com/features/gri...metry-lessons/
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    It's definitely about going fast downhill. That's why enduro bikes use the long low slack geometry and no one is winning EWS races on XC bikes. This is obvious outside of these arguments on the internet. The fastest dude at the latest local enduro race was Dakotah Norton and he was not on an old XC bike. The fact that you're bringing up anything that could be incorporated into a XC course explains your perspective.
    Ha my perspective? I guess not everyone can be a hero like you.

    Sure at the world cup and super gnarly courses you want to right bike for the job. That local cat 1 guy I referenced will not win EWS. But that isn't my point. The point is most local dudes just aren't skilled enough for geometry to be a deal breaker as far as speed is concerned. Let's be honest. For 99% of mountain bikers in the world, there is so much low hanging fruit to pluck before you even get to geometry. What the avg trail rider wants is confidence and cushion on the trails. That's what sells.

  91. #91
    slow
    Reputation: sgltrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,373
    My thought on new geometry is that it probably makes sense for a lot of folks because it is more forgiving for newer riders and is faster downhill for most riders. Downhill speed seems to be the goal of most riders these days. However, I don't feel that the benefits to my type of riding are worth changing what works for me. As someone who likes long rides with big climbs and downhills on old school rocky backcountry trails, all of the bikes I have with 8-10 year old geometry suit my needs. My bikes are all uniquely set up to work with my riding style on my trails and to help me knock minutes off climbs instead of shaving seconds off the descents.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post
    Ha my perspective?
    Yep, I don't think progressive geo would have a big benefit on XC race courses either. That's why I've repeatedly said what a rider is going to find ideal or too progressive is dependent on how and where they ride. You countering by bringing up XC courses kinda makes my point.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    Yep, I don't think progressive geo would have a big benefit on XC race courses either. That's why I've repeatedly said what a rider is going to find ideal or too progressive is dependent on how and where they ride. You countering by bringing up XC courses kinda makes my point.
    Honestly, I have no clue what you are talking about. Pretty much all bike are going modern geo including some XC bikes in the 67hta range.

    You keep bringing up specialized situations when the reality of the situation is that most trails are not neatly partitioned as enduro, world cup DH or buff XC trails. It's like you have this little segregation in your head when the reality of the situation is that 95% of trails normal mountain bikers ride are just "trails" that aren't classified except by people that worry about whether something is "Enduro enough" or "too XC" or whatever.

    Most trails in Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Tennessee don't have DH, XC or Enduro listed on them. Neither do the ones I've ridden in California. They only vary by difficulty level as in black diamond vs blue. But they all have ups and downs. Does that mean they are XC because they have climbs? Or are they Enduro because they also have descends?

  94. #94
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    32,486
    I have some old thoughts on new geometry, but I wonít bore you with whatís been beat to death for 5 years.
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post
    Honestly, I have no clue what you are talking about. Pretty much all bike are going modern geo including some XC bikes in the 67hta range.

    You keep bringing up specialized situations when the reality of the situation is that most trails are not neatly partitioned as enduro, world cup DH or buff XC trails. It's like you have this little segregation in your head when the reality of the situation is that 95% of trails normal mountain bikers ride are just "trails" that aren't classified except by people that worry about whether something is "Enduro enough" or "too XC" or whatever.
    In fact the we have a trail that was used for a local DH race that was later incorporated into an XC race. The fastest dude on that section on Strava was an Open class elite CAT 1 XC guy riding a five year old XC hardtail with a 71 HTA.

    I was responding to mack_turtle pointing out that whether a bike feels stable or flickable depends on the situation. I only used DH as an illustration. Longer wheelbases are more stable anywhere. Have stable vs how maneuverable you want depends on the operating speed. You brought up the specialized situations about where what bike is faster on a trail you classified as XC.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,622
    XC bikes are also getting the same geomerty trends as the longer travel bikes. So now you can get 100/100 sub 24lbs bikes with 69-67 deg HA, 75deg Seat angles and 60-80 mm stems. So other than travel these bike are similar geometry to older enduro bikes. But at a light weight.

    So to me these XC bike are getting very capable DH and still be fast climbs and fast turning bikes.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    I was responding to mack_turtle pointing out that whether a bike feels stable or flickable depends on the situation. I only used DH as an illustration. Longer wheelbases are more stable anywhere. Have stable vs how maneuverable you want depends on the operating speed. You brought up the specialized situations about where what bike is faster on a trail you classified as XC.
    I didn't classify any trail as XC. I was talking about race formats. A part of the trail was incorporated into a DH race. Then later into an XC race (yes, many XC races incorporat jump lines and descends).

    Anyways, we are just going in circles now. you made your point, I made mine, we agree to disagree.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    I think the way you're addressing this makes more sense than mountainbiker24.

    I've always sorta referred to those old xc guys pedaling and putting in miles as "dirt roadies" in sort of a joking manner. But there's a degree of truth to the statement, because the way they ride and handle their bikes is more similar to how you would ride a road bike. The fitting that those riders would want would much more closely mimic a road bike fit. Because they're in one position a lot more, and don't as frequently vary their body position drastically from that seated pedaling position.

    Early on in my riding, I started using a larger range of motion when I rode. I'm sure at least some of that is related to my ape factor making it a little easier for me to use the range of motion. Sure, based on the type of riding I do, I spend good amounts of time seated and pedaling, but I also have no problem moving around on the bike when the conditions warrant. I enjoy moving around over the bike.

    I have grown to appreciate the fact that longer front-center bikes require a bit more movement to accomplish certain things. It means that the "centered" position is much farther from the point of no return, so the bike is more forgiving of mistakes and sudden brushes with unpredictable conditions. Yes, it does mean that getting my wheels off the ground takes better technique than it used to. But I also find that to be a good thing, as the bike feels more stable and predictable when doing so. On my old bikes, I'd actively work to avoid getting my wheels off the ground, because the bikes felt sketchy and unstable when doing so. Changing to a longer/lower/slacker bike was immediately noticeable in this regard and I started seeking these opportunities out for the first time. There are other benefits to working on my bike handling skills to improve my technique. Primarily being that I make fewer mistakes and crash less often and less severely. That's always a win in my book.

    I did have to adjust the way I rode my bike to feel good on twisty xc stuff. But it wasn't hard. It just took an open mind and some practice to re-train myself. Learning to get comfortable intentionally weighting the front of the bike and trusting it in corners has probably been the biggest learning curve. All that practice made me a better rider overall, so I'm not complaining.
    I don't know what I'm saying that's so difficult to understand. In fact, much of what you are saying here supports my experience. New geo requires exaggerated body movements for certain situations, which makes quick changes and reactions more difficult. Easier for most situations, but not all. What doesn't make sense about that?

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    946
    My new hardtail (Guerrilla Gravity Pedalhead) is pretty slack (65į HTA w/130mm fork) and long (495mm reach - not that long for me). However it has short 419mm chainstays. On very tight turns where a hefty steering angle is required it will push/understeer a bit. However it's actually super easy to get off the ground. The rear feels really light and almost comes off the ground too easily. It has a bit more of a bmx feel on the trail than my Giant Fathom did, which had more conservative geo (came with a 110mm stem!).

  100. #100
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,576
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    I don't know what I'm saying that's so difficult to understand. In fact, much of what you are saying here supports my experience. New geo requires exaggerated body movements for certain situations, which makes quick changes and reactions more difficult. Easier for most situations, but not all. What doesn't make sense about that?
    I am saying that it is not harder. It is just different.

    Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Thoughts on new frame size/geometry - Help
    By ZipMTB in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-26-2014, 04:21 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-16-2013, 10:38 AM
  3. specialized epic new geometry vs pre 2009 geometry?
    By mountainclimb in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 03:13 PM
  4. Effect of G2 geometry with Niner geometry
    By yourdaguy in forum Niner Bikes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-22-2013, 04:40 PM
  5. ASR5 Alloy geometry vs ASR5-C geometry
    By biggusjimmus in forum Yeti
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-13-2011, 02:21 PM

Members who have read this thread: 290

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

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

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