Page 2 of 69 FirstFirst 1234561252 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 6834
  1. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    233
    From first ride reviews it looks that long wheelbase leads to those things that you have to put more weight to front on some situations. Was not able to fully get an idea about suspension function, but test ride helps.

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,390
    Quote Originally Posted by motoguru2007 View Post
    FC check your math on the bb height. 13.27 on 29 low
    Good catch. I was freaking out about a 12.7" BB height. That would not be rideable for me.

  3. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    129
    Would like to know the reasons behind why an RT3 only is specced, shame there is no choice, Fox DPS EVOL or even a Float X would be good.

  4. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,390
    Quote Originally Posted by m_t_b View Post
    Would like to know the reasons behind why an RT3 only is specced, shame there is no choice, Fox DPS EVOL or even a Float X would be good.
    There's almost never much of a choice, from any manufacturer, on the shock. They negotiate large volume purchases for these things. It's easy enough to sell on eBay if you want something else.

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation: seedubxj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    54
    Threw a leg over one this afternoon. It was a L frame, and I ride an XL TallBoy, but man, did the top tube seem low. Maybe it's just me, but it felt odd. Beautiful bike though. Looking forward to demo-ing an XL or XXL (if they even make one, didn't see it listed in the press release).

  6. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,630
    What's the hole that's right above the chainring??



    Santa Cruz Hightower-untitled.jpg

  7. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,909
    Pivot for lower linkage.

    Sent from my D6708 using Tapatalk

  8. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,540
    [QUOTE=Colin+M;12453412]Pivot for lower linkage.

    Ding! Ding!! Ding!!!

    -I'm going to take an afternoon off as soon as SCB get's their demo-fleet rollin' and take one for a spin.

    At the end of the day, I think this is going to be a pretty fun bike (duh!) myself....

  9. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    196
    [QUOTE=DMFT;12453501]
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    Pivot for lower linkage.

    Ding! Ding!! Ding!!!

    -I'm going to take an afternoon off as soon as SCB get's their demo-fleet rollin' and take one for a spin.

    At the end of the day, I think this is going to be a pretty fun bike (duh!) myself....
    What size are you hoping to ride? I was thinking of getting a small group together and get a nomad, bronson, and high tower, then the 3 of us could trade off to compare during the several hours of the demo ride.
    Last edited by spikebike; 02-03-2016 at 12:22 AM.

  10. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by trhoppe View Post
    Ok, back of the napkin math with 160mm fork and the low setting for 29" wheels would be:

    HA: 65.9
    SA: 73.2
    Wheelbase: 1173mm ~ 46.2"
    ETT: 605mm ~ 23.8"
    BB Height: 344mm ~ 13.54"
    Reach: 420mm ~ 16.54"
    Stack: 616mm ~ 24.25"

    Damn, that seems pretty solid. If it was 145mm travel, my credit card would be out already. At 135mm travel, going to have to think some more.......
    Don't forget, suspension is tire+suspension. The 2.8" is likely around 10mm taller than a 2.4".

  11. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation: andyfloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    486
    Full Enduro

    This guy put a 57mm shock on his for 150mm rear and went with 160mm up front
    2014 27.5" SC Blur TRa - 2014 IP-106 Chiner 29er - 2005 Fuji Team SL 16.2lbs -

  12. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation: seedubxj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Alias530 View Post
    What's the hole that's right above the chainring??



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Untitled.jpg 
Views:	1802 
Size:	116.9 KB 
ID:	1047457
    I was old by my LBS is for a chainguide/bashguard.

  13. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,540
    [QUOTE=spikebike;12453633]
    Quote Originally Posted by DMFT View Post

    What size are you hoping to ride? I was thinking of getting a small group together and get a nomad, bronson, and high tower, then the 3 of us could trade off to compare during the several hours of the demo ride.
    -I'm an XL guy spikebike...

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,540
    Quote Originally Posted by seedubxj View Post
    I was old by my LBS is for a chainguide/bashguard.
    This is incorrect. It is the lower-pivots mounting point to the Front triangle.
    Chain guide bolt holes are directly around the BB Spindle.......

  15. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    There's almost never much of a choice, from any manufacturer, on the shock. They negotiate large volume purchases for these things. It's easy enough to sell on eBay if you want something else.
    I understand that but the bronson is the same price and has a shock that is 2 nearly 3 times the price. RT3's sell for very little second hand so in reality you are adding quite a bit on to the frame cost.

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by andyfloyd View Post
    Full Enduro

    This guy put a 57mm shock on his for 150mm rear and went with 160mm up front
    That's more like it! Am confused by his Forks though as Fox don't make a 110mm/Boost 36 ?

    I guess that these are prototypes?
    Last edited by hughjayteens; 02-03-2016 at 07:48 AM.

  17. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,909
    Quote Originally Posted by andyfloyd View Post
    Full Enduro

    This guy put a 57mm shock on his for 150mm rear and went with 160mm up front
    I like the MS paint black out of the climb switch on the Float X2

  18. #118
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by hughjayteens View Post
    That's more like it! Am confused by his Forks though as Fox don't make a 110mm/Boost 36 ?

    I guess that these are prototypes?
    The guy sounds like he's a beta tester...they get to "play" with things, like in a lab type of setting

    Hey Colin...what the guy did sounds a lot like what I was talking about earlier, no?

  19. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,390
    Quote Originally Posted by andyfloyd View Post
    Full Enduro

    This guy put a 57mm shock on his for 150mm rear and went with 160mm up front
    Pau11y just had to go change his underwear.

  20. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Pau11y View Post
    The guy sounds like he's a beta tester...they get to "play" with things, like in a lab type of setting

    Hey Colin...what the guy did sounds a lot like what I was talking about earlier, no?
    You're ahead of the curve brother!

    Sent from my D6708 using Tapatalk

  21. #121
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    Pau11y just had to go change his underwear.
    Yup, it's a little mushy and swampy down there right now. ..

    Next, how does the Nomads upper link compare to the HTC link?

  22. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    968
    Wait, talk to me about this 150mm deal. I think that would take this bike to the top of my list over the Wreckoning.

    So with the flip chip in the 27.5+ position, there *is* enough room to increase the rear wheel movement by 5mm?

    I've already got a 200mmx57mm Cane Creek DB that is currently on my Intense Carbine. Already have the 160mm front 51mm Pike. Already have all the other parts. This would be a "BUY NAO" if this was the case.

    -Tom

  23. #123
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    You're ahead of the curve brother!

    Sent from my D6708 using Tapatalk
    Colin,
    Now do you see why I was hoping I can shoehorn in a 203mm i2i shock? If I can parse out about 1/2 of the additional stroke to physical length, then there should be very little chance for the link to over-rotate. The side effect is a bump up in BB height by shoving the rear axle down further...until you top out, or bottom that rear triangle against the main triangle or upper link against the seat tube.

  24. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,909
    Personally I'd welcome the increased BB height.

    Sent from my D6708 using Tapatalk

  25. #125
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    Personally I'd welcome the increased BB height.

    Sent from my D6708 using Tapatalk
    Me too. 13.27" is not functionally feasible for CO/Front Range trails. I've lifted just about every one of my SC bikes of the VPP2 and3 flavor to avoid destroying cracks, pedals, rings, and denting/cracking downtubes.

    Edit: I take that back. I tried to lower the BB of my Blur LTc by short shocking. It turned into something almost like a Blur TRc, but slacker.

  26. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation: andyfloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Pau11y View Post
    The guy sounds like he's a beta tester...they get to "play" with things, like in a lab type of setting

    Hey Colin...what the guy did sounds a lot like what I was talking about earlier, no?
    Im proud of you because I saw your comment earlier in the thread and when i read that i knew you had to know, lol.
    2014 27.5" SC Blur TRa - 2014 IP-106 Chiner 29er - 2005 Fuji Team SL 16.2lbs -

  27. #127
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by andyfloyd View Post
    Im proud of you because I saw your comment earlier in the thread and when i read that i knew you had to know, lol.
    Are you that guy in the article? If you are, can I bum you for some better photos (top down view) of the link to seat tube clearence,in both flip chip positions with the 200mm i2i shock?

  28. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation: andyfloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Pau11y View Post
    Are you that guy in the article? If you are, can I bum you for some better photos (top down view) of the link to seat tube clearence,in both flip chip positions with the 200mm i2i shock?
    I wish bro, I'm still riding my blur tr.
    2014 27.5" SC Blur TRa - 2014 IP-106 Chiner 29er - 2005 Fuji Team SL 16.2lbs -

  29. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ebeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    844
    Sorry if this has been asked before, too many threads on this new bike!

    Why are the Arc 27 rims only 28 hole? Spokes break, at least they do for me. Never had an issue riding along on one less with standard 32 hole rims. Anything to be concerned about here? 180lbs w/o gear.

  30. #130
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by andyfloyd View Post
    I wish bro, I'm still riding my blur tr.
    HEH, worth a shot

  31. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    486
    Just out of curiosity, how does adding a longer travel shock affect the leverage curve?

  32. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    Personally I'd welcome the increased BB height.

    Sent from my D6708 using Tapatalk
    Yeah the flip chip feature is really appealing to me, even though I intend to run in 29er mode full time. I'll see where the low setting gets me with 170mm cranks knowing that I can jack things up a bit if necessary, even trailside.

  33. #133
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by cmrocks View Post
    Just out of curiosity, how does adding a longer travel shock affect the leverage curve?
    Too much typing on a phone for an indepth breakdown. But just imagine the Linkage fish hook plot: min is slightly higher, saddle *should still be at the same percentage of travel if not a little earlier, and the max will climb faster and stepper than the old curve...complemented well with the exponential progression of a smallish air can.

  34. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    968
    Pau11ly, question about BB height for you.

    With the longer shock, don't you end up with a higher BB?

    A 650b wheel is somewhere around 720mm in diameter. With that wheel size the BB height is 335mm or 13.2". With a 740mm wheel (29") diameter in the 27.5 setting, won't we have a BB height of 345mm or 13.6"?

    edit: add to that the 160mm fork on a 29er, and you're sitting at 13.75"

  35. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,909
    Thats correct, it will be higher. Personally I don't think a bike with 130-150mm of travel should have a static BBH under 13.5 inches.

    Sent from my D6708 using Tapatalk

  36. #136
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by trhoppe View Post
    Pau11ly, question about BB height for you.

    With the longer shock, don't you end up with a higher BB?

    A 650b wheel is somewhere around 720mm in diameter. With that wheel size the BB height is 335mm or 13.2". With a 740mm wheel (29") diameter in the 27.5 setting, won't we have a BB height of 345mm or 13.6"?

    edit: add to that the 160mm fork on a 29er, and you're sitting at 13.75"
    HEH, I wasn't thinking along those lines, but that full Enduro link was on your page, and he came up with a value just shy of 13.5. Yes, I may be over-anal-izing based on what I already have and doing it your way with a Burgtec offset bushing WILL be easier

  37. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    968
    This bike at 150mm is sounding dreamy. This is exactly what I've been wanting. The 135mm rear travel scared me off, as I want MOAR than the 140mm of my Carbine 29.

    Short chainstays, 66ish HA, 160mm front, 150mm rear with a CCDB, VPP3, yassss

    edit: the only negative is no warranty

  38. #138
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by trhoppe View Post
    This bike at 150mm is sounding dreamy. This is exactly what I've been wanting. The 135mm rear travel scared me off, as I want MOAR than the 140mm of my Carbine 29.

    Short chainstays, 66ish HA, 160mm front, 150mm rear with a CCDB, VPP3, yassss
    I know, right!?
    It's been like an emotional roller coaster...at first the excitement of FINALLY getting real info, then the disappointment of only 135, and the thought of building my old TB LTc backup. Then, the realization of the flip chip and the growing excitement of the possibility of long shocking, and now busting a nut about having a real-world example of a 150mm Enduro/mini-DH class 29er!

  39. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    486
    Having ridden a Nomad for the past while, I don't think the 337 mm bottom bracket height will be an issue. The Nomad has a 341 mm bottom bracket but it has 30 mm more suspension travel. At sag, the new Hightower should have 6 mm more clearance than a Nomad.

  40. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    26
    Desperately torn between this and a Wreckoning. Currently on an LTC and loving it but just looking for a bit more of everything. Anyone else in a similar position? Both bikes just look too damn good but more than a little worried about build quality of the Evil.

  41. #141
    fc
    fc is online now
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    31,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Pau11y View Post
    I know, right!?
    It's been like an emotional roller coaster...at first the excitement of FINALLY getting real info, then the disappointment of only 135, and the thought of building my old TB LTc backup. Then, the realization of the flip chip and the growing excitement of the possibility of long shocking, and now busting a nut about having a real-world example of a 150mm Enduro/mini-DH class 29er!
    Don't get hung up on the 135mm rear. It feels much more than that. If someone had me guess it blind, I would have guessed 150mm. It is very useable travel.

    Don't mod it until you ride bro.
    IPA will save America

  42. #142
    fc
    fc is online now
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    31,220
    My friend Josh from Bikeradar has been riding an Evil Following for a while and he posted a comparison on the 29er forum. Here it is, fyi.

    ------
    It looks like I've been called out.

    I currently have a Following in for long-term test. In my opinion, it's a very different bike from the Hightower.

    Where the Evil feels like a mini-DH sled with big wheels, the Hightower is a much more well-rounded trail bike — more like Trek's Remedy 29 with better reach numbers, shorter chainstays, and a lower BB.

    I found the Hightower to be a better climber in terms of rider positioning than the Following. If we're comparing both bikes with 140mm forks, the Hightower is much less apt to wander on steep climbs than a Following with a 140mm fork.

    As for descending, it really depends on your local terrain. I think both bikes perform well on flowing, bermed trails. For the rocky, technical terrain I ride on the Front Range, I would probably prefer the additional travel and slightly higher bottom bracket of the Hightower.

    I say probably because my testing grounds are currently under 18 inches of snow. Once it thaws out I'll be able to do some back-to-back laps and provide some better informed observations.
    http://twitter.com/Pattersnap
    ------
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Santa Cruz Hightower-12644768_10153794048733213_5351908748570927313_n.jpg  

    Santa Cruz Hightower-img_8727-1-.jpg  

    IPA will save America

  43. #143
    A-X
    A-X is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    345
    Funny, the overwhelming impression is that the majority want either more or less travel then the Hightower offers. For me, running a Nomad 3 as well, I want travel in the 120mm range and a little bit of fat taken off the frame weight.

    I'm sure it is compliant enough to be used more towards the trail/XC end of the spectrum and for me to keep my Nomad this would compromise what this bike is designed to be. If it were in the weight range of the Remedy then this would be less of an issue but the nature of this bike points to it being more of a viable alternative to the Nomad in terms of the frame construction, weight, travel and wheel configuration.

    I see two options in that I can use this to replace the Nomad as it should be an awesome bike in its own right. This will be Hard to do as I still really love riding the Nomad. I keep the Nomad, wait to see if a Tallboy LTc update makes an appearance or venture back into 5010 v2 territory although I am, more than ever, sold on the shorter travel 29er trail bike.
    Bird Aeris : Remedy 9.9 29er : Procaliber 9.8 SL

  44. #144
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Milwillfly View Post
    Desperately torn between this and a Wreckoning. Currently on an LTC and loving it but just looking for a bit more of everything. Anyone else in a similar position? Both bikes just look too damn good but more than a little worried about build quality of the Evil.
    I'd like to see someone charge the Wreckoning in a WC level DH race!

  45. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    968
    Quote Originally Posted by Pau11y View Post
    I'd like to see someone charge the Wreckoning in a WC level DH race!
    Not world class, but it has won DH races: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnoimrkIsn8

    Right now, for me, it's Wreckoning against the 160mm/150mm modified Hightower. I'm very much torn.

    I *think* the 160/150 Hightower will still be a better pedaler and a better all around bike. My other bike is a 120mm/100mm Trek Superfly, so I could afford to have a "bigass bruiser" as my big bike. I would use a 50mm stem on the Hightower, where as I would have to do a 35mm on the Wreckoning because of the super long TT, so the Hightower would climb better on steep stuff. But maybe not as good on the way down?

    The SC stuff is more "proven", but the Wreckoning would have a warranty at least...

    And with the SC I could reuse my current CCDB where with the Wreckoning I have to buy a new shock...

  46. #146
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by trhoppe View Post
    Not world class, but it has won DH races: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnoimrkIsn8

    Right now, for me, it's Wreckoning against the 160mm/150mm modified Hightower. I'm very much torn.

    I *think* the 160/150 Hightower will still be a better pedaler and a better all around bike. My other bike is a 120mm/100mm Trek Superfly, so I could afford to have a "bigass bruiser" as my big bike. I would use a 50mm stem on the Hightower, where as I would have to do a 35mm on the Wreckoning because of the super long TT, so the Hightower would climb better on steep stuff. But maybe not as good on the way down?

    The SC stuff is more "proven", but the Wreckoning would have a warranty at least...

    And with the SC I could reuse my current CCDB where with the Wreckoning I have to buy a new shock...
    What's the sticker on the Wreckoning? If you did a straight conversion of Brit pounds to USD,is like $4300+ for that Evil, no?

  47. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    968
    I don't think so. Following frames are $2600 so I'm assuming worst case $2800? Which is the same as the Hightower.

  48. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    26
    Glad I'm not the only one then!

    Already running the Float X2 on my LTC so once fox start to offer spares for it I can easily increase the stroke to 57mm apparently, giving the first option. For the Wreckoning one of the suppliers have said they'd offset the cost of the supplied shock against an X2 so shouldn't loose out too much either way.

    Wreckoning's coming in at £2899 so current rate makes that $4230, Hightower is £2699 over here making it $3940. Both a lot of coin but only going to be running one bike for everything!

  49. #149
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    Don't mod it until you ride bro.
    Like I said above, 13.27/13.3, is a bit too low for my likey. My TB LTc I mod'd and got it up to 13.75" BB w/ ~143mm of rear squish. Paired that to a 36 Float 160, and a -2* Works HS, it was pretty monster trucky at Trestle Bike Park!

    The plan with the Hightower is to have two sets of wheels...a light set with light-ish rubber for trail rides and a monster truck set w/ wide plastic hoops and meaty shoes to plow chunks...and I don't even want a climb switch on the X2

    I mod'd my Nomad 3 too...running that baby DH at 180 frt and rear w/ a Float X2 and a 36 Float RC2, and it has a 13.7" BB. I like the BB at ~13.7 for the chunky goodness of CO/Front Range. BTW, the Nomad's squishy characteristics make that 180 pedal like it's a 120...seriously, it's amazing!

  50. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Pau11y View Post
    Like I said above, 13.27/13.3, is a bit too low for my likey. My TB LTc I mod'd and got it up to 13.75" BB w/ ~143mm of rear squish. Paired that to a 36 Float 160, and a -2* Works HS, it was pretty monster trucky at Trestle Bike Park!

    The plan with the Hightower is to have two sets of wheels...a light set with light-ish rubber for trail rides and a monster truck set w/ wide plastic hoops and meaty shoes to plow chunks...and I don't even want a climb switch on the X2

    I mod'd my Nomad 3 too...running that baby DH at 180 frt and rear w/ a Float X2 and a 36 Float RC2, and it has a 13.7" BB. I like the BB at ~13.7 for the chunky goodness of CO/Front Range. BTW, the Nomad's squishy characteristics make that 180 pedal like it's a 120...seriously, it's amazing!
    What did you do to the N3?

  51. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,481
    I asked this question somewhere in one of the threads on this bike. Don't know if it was the thread in the 29er section or of the two in the SC section. But here is my question if you all know the answer.

    SC website has the Easton Arc wheels coming with I9 Torch hubs. That is nice. Will they be black only or color options? Anyone know if those Easton Arc 40 wheels stand for 40 internal width? What is the 40 mean? Easton site doesn't even list an Arc 40, maybe they made it special for SC?

  52. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ethan F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    351
    Paully and I are on the same page for BB height and in fact was the first to long shock the Nomad 3 and he followed. That is still one of the best sets up out there, some one needs to do a full write up with a long stroke shock and really show what the Nomad can do, warranty blown or not!!. Mine is more set and forget for park riding a V2 Bronson for all round (yes, life is rough).
    While A-X above says people either want more or less travel, lots seem interject they want higher BB's, and companies are not listening. Slack head angles I get, better descender and with steep seat angles still okay climbers. Long front center I get, stable and short chain stays keep it agile. But low BB's I don't get it!
    Look at EWS racing, road climbs or non technical single track and if technical, nothing like a lot of front range Colorado or Utah riding, OR ITS ALL HIKE A BIKE! (look at all the pictures out there...) 95% of us mere mortal riders cannot tell the difference between, 13.4 and 13.7 BB height. But it can sure make the difference of riding up or not. And if you say you could, I'd still say no way! If I buy a HT, Bronson, Nmad3 am I then a EWS racer, HELL NO. I think I'm pretty good for an old fart, but at that level no way and happy to admit it! While I'm a huge Santa Cruz fan and will continue to be I think these bike can be more user friendly for us (okay me) than the top tiny .001 % Enduro crowd.

    On a side note having just put on a 11/6 shock on the v2 Bronson, this type of damping architecture may greatly help this issue. It has for the Bronson and would for other set ups. Its pretty amazing to have a coil sprung shock that stays higher in its travel is more compliant and less pedal strikes, sweet!

    I ramble, sorry, I agree with FC try stock then adjust! But just by number those pedals are going to hurt'in!
    Maverick Suspension Inc.
    Servicing all Suspension
    Mavericksuspension.com

  53. #153
    Demon Cleaner
    Reputation: Structure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    564
    You speak truth Ethan. I'm in the same boat. I want a BB 13.5+ or its just not going to bring joy.

    As a side note, SC is actually conservative on BB height. Check Ripley LS for example no like ...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Bicycling is politics by other means.

  54. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Structure View Post
    You speak truth Ethan. I'm in the same boat. I want a BB 13.5+ or its just not going to bring joy.
    I'm with you on this. 13.5" is the minimum for where I ride without spending the whole ride focused on my feet. I can ratchet my way through tech, but when it's all tech all the time it's hard to get excited about that when another bike with a higher BB solves the problem.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  55. #155
    fc
    fc is online now
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    31,220
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I'm with you on this. 13.5" is the minimum for where I ride without spending the whole ride focused on my feet. I can ratchet my way through tech, but when it's all tech all the time it's hard to get excited about that when another bike with a higher BB solves the problem.
    So here's my thinking. The BB height is 13.3 bone-stock on the low setting. Put the flip chip on high position and that should lift it up to around 13.7. Workable?

    It'll steepen the seat angle and head angle a bit but should be ok. To maintain the seat and head angles, change the fork to 150mm.
    IPA will save America

  56. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slider_phil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    538
    I would be interested to see some actual STA numbers compared to the effective. The Following was 72° effective on their geo chart but changed it this year to 74° without actually changing the frame. The actual number is 67° which is a bit too slack for the long legged individuals.

    Interested to see some figures on this bike on the actual numbers, around 69°would be perfect!

  57. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,164
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    So here's my thinking. The BB height is 13.3 bone-stock on the low setting. Put the flip chip on high position and that should lift it up to around 13.7. Workable?

    It'll steepen the seat angle and head angle a bit but should be ok. To maintain the seat and head angles, change the fork to 150mm.
    Sounds like a something worth trying.

    13.7" BB on a ~5" bike would work fine where I live.

    I'll be interested to see how that works for folks.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  58. #158
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethan F View Post
    On a side note having just put on a 11/6 shock on the v2 Bronson, this type of damping architecture may greatly help this issue. It has for the Bronson and would for other set ups. Its pretty amazing to have a coil sprung shock that stays higher in its travel is more compliant and less pedal strikes, sweet!
    On my Nomad3....agreed, 11.6 helps a lot with helping the bike ride higher in its travel and reduced pedal strikes. Switching to 165mm crank arms also helped a lot with pedal strikes without any noticeable detriment to my style of riding here in Colorado.

    But also agreed, a slightly higher BB would be an elegant and simple solution.

  59. #159
    fc
    fc is online now
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    31,220
    Quote Originally Posted by slider_phil View Post
    I would be interested to see some actual STA numbers compared to the effective. The Following was 72° effective on their geo chart but changed it this year to 74° without actually changing the frame. The actual number is 67° which is a bit too slack for the long legged individuals.

    Interested to see some figures on this bike on the actual numbers, around 69°would be perfect!
    I'll measure the actual STA.

    It is interesting how some companies changed their Effective Seat Tube angle without changing the bike at all. Pivot and Evil did this. Really hokey if you ask me as they basically changed the way they measure to make it 'steeper' since that became a desirable trait.

    How exactly do they measure Effective Seat Tub Angle anyway? What is the prescribed height. Is it fairly standardized for manufacturers?
    IPA will save America

  60. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slider_phil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    538
    Bit of a crude diagram, but found this in the frame building section of MTBR



    Basically there's a bit too it. From my understanding saddle height will change the effective STA, as would the BB position in regards to frame design. I think most would measure effective STA at stack height but you can see if one wanted to fudge numbers they could simply change that intersection point.

    Having access to the actual just helps a bit in bike fitting when you dimensions aren't quite in proportion to the masses 😊

  61. #161
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    So here's my thinking. The BB height is 13.3 bone-stock on the low setting. Put the flip chip on high position and that should lift it up to around 13.7. Workable?

    It'll steepen the seat angle and head angle a bit but should be ok. To maintain the seat and head angles, change the fork to 150mm.
    13.7 is my sweet spot, so I'm good w/ that! So, seriously, was there an intention to put out a 150 TB LT replacement, and then the "+" thing came rolling around the corner and bam, no more 150...?

  62. #162
    Demon Cleaner
    Reputation: Structure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    564
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    So here's my thinking. The BB height is 13.3 bone-stock on the low setting. Put the flip chip on high position and that should lift it up to around 13.7. Workable?

    It'll steepen the seat angle and head angle a bit but should be ok. To maintain the seat and head angles, change the fork to 150mm.
    I like the way you think! Hope that some testing proves this to be workable. As much as I like all this overshocking discussion, I'm alergic to buying a bike that costs that much and then voiding the warrenty. A 13.7 BB really interests me.
    Bicycling is politics by other means.

  63. #163
    bog
    bog is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,265
    This sort of fudging drives me nuts and makes it really hard to judge the fit of a bike without a demo ride (and XL demo bikes are really rare). My Nomad3 is like this. I love the bike but when the saddle is at my preferred height I find that the STA is a bit too slack. I suspect the Hightower will be the same.

    It would help if the geo charts listed the effective STA at two points - at stack height and at another more realistic pedal height.

    On another note, the first thing I thought of when looking at the Hightower geo is to run it as a 29er but flip the chip to the 27.5+ position. Steeper STA, higher BB and steeper HTA!
    Tallboy3c : Stigmata2 : Hightower LT

  64. #164
    Cassoulet forever !
    Reputation: 20.100 FR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,259
    before looking at mods, it would be interested to have a real measurment of the rear travel, because there are some differences !

    For example, looking at 2 competitors
    - BMC trailfox is marketed at 150mm travel, but have around 142mm.
    - Trek Remedy is marketed at 140mm travel, but do have 150mm.
    Frenchspeaking 29"ers community site http://VingtNeuf.org

  65. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    196
    For all those looking for a higher BB. Seems like there's a few things you can do:
    * run slightly larger tires than the 27.5+ 2.8" or 29 2.3" stock tires
    * use the flip chip in 29" mode
    * run a 150mm fork (instead of the recommended 140mm) with 29"
    * run a 160mm fork with either 27.5 or 29"
    * run an angleset and increase the head tube angle a bit (shortening the wheel base
    and rising the bike a bit).

    The last seems pretty reasonable since a longer fork decreases the head tube angle, and the angleset would help bring that closer to the original angle.

    I'm considering similar, hoping to hear how any of the above ride.

  66. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slider_phil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    538
    As an example, I went out into the shed and did some dodgy measuring on seat tube angles on a few bikes out there. Measured with the seat at riding postion which for me is about 750mm from the middle of the BB

    Canfield Riot (140mm Fork)
    Actual: 69.1
    Effective: 76.4

    Claimed: 69.8 and 77

    Chromag Rootdown (140mm Fork)
    Actual: 69.8
    Effective: 72.4

    Claimed 73

    Knolly Endorphin 26" (150mm Fork) (wifes bike so not sure on exact BB to saddle height)
    Actual: 69.6
    Effective: 74.1

    Claimed 69 and 73.5

    As you can see the guys who quote both numbers are pretty spot on but we generally have to guess the 'actual' number on bikes that don't state that in the geo charts and it makes it even more confusing when manufactures change the effective number without changing the actual geometry (Looking at you Evil and Pivot :P)

  67. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vice grips's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    My friend Josh from Bikeradar has been riding an Evil Following for a while and he posted a comparison on the 29er forum. Here it is, fyi.

    ------
    It looks like I've been called out.

    I currently have a Following in for long-term test. In my opinion, it's a very different bike from the Hightower.

    Where the Evil feels like a mini-DH sled with big wheels, the Hightower is a much more well-rounded trail bike — more like Trek's Remedy 29 with better reach numbers, shorter chainstays, and a lower BB.

    I found the Hightower to be a better climber in terms of rider positioning than the Following. If we're comparing both bikes with 140mm forks, the Hightower is much less apt to wander on steep climbs than a Following with a 140mm fork.
    R
    As for descending, it really depends on your local terrain. I think both bikes perform well on flowing, bermed trails. For the rocky, technical terrain I ride on the Front Range, I would probably prefer the additional travel and slightly higher bottom bracket of the Hightower.

    I say probably because my testing grounds are currently under 18 inches of snow. Once it thaws out I'll be able to do some back-to-back laps and provide some better informed observations.
    http://twitter.com/Pattersnap
    ------
    FC-
    Could you please comment on the similarities pro/cons of the remedy/Hightower?
    I have a 2015 remedy 29er and really do enjoy it for its very rounded characteristics, but I love a fun bike as much as an efficient rig. I live in the mts of NE, I love a low BB for going down but climbing around here it dosnt always work so well. Thanks really excited!
    Once you go slack, you never go back!

  68. #168
    LCW
    LCW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,334
    Red vs matte black... Which looks better in person? Which finish holds up better over time?

    Santa Cruz Hightower LT


  69. #169
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,776
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    I'll measure the actual STA.

    It is interesting how some companies changed their Effective Seat Tube angle without changing the bike at all. Pivot and Evil did this. Really hokey if you ask me as they basically changed the way they measure to make it 'steeper' since that became a desirable trait.
    Which is quite unfortunate. The desire for ever-longer top tubes is resulting in bikes that we'll barely be able to pedal while seated. The idea that steep seat posts = better climbing/pedaling is not born out by reality.




    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  70. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,164
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    It is interesting how some companies changed their Effective Seat Tube angle without changing the bike at all. Pivot and Evil did this. Really hokey if you ask me as they basically changed the way they measure to make it 'steeper' since that became a desirable trait.
    It's hokey if they are changing the way geo gets measured to a methodology their competition doesn't use that distorts the numbers.

    OTOH if they changed the methodology so it was the same to make the numbers comparable that seems pretty reasonable and legit.

    Bike companies spend all day coming up with ways to make their bikes more attractive to people. If buyers are going to obsess about one or two stats you can't be shocked and appalled that bike companies want their marketing material to be as positive in those areas as possible.

    I met Chris C at Pivot HQ and chatted about the STA thing with him. He didn't sound like a man interested in bull$hitting anyone.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  71. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Which is quite unfortunate. The desire for ever-longer top tubes is resulting in bikes that we'll barely be able to pedal while seated. The idea that steep seat posts = better climbing/pedaling is not born out by reality.
    I'm with you on that and I ride tight techy forest trails so long WB bikes don't make me happy. Not to mention the low BB's.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  72. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dogboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Pau11y View Post
    Me too. 13.27" is not functionally feasible for CO/Front Range trails. I've lifted just about every one of my SC bikes of the VPP2 and3 flavor to avoid destroying cracks, pedals, rings, and denting/cracking downtubes.

    Edit: I take that back. I tried to lower the BB of my Blur LTc by short shocking. It turned into something almost like a Blur TRc, but slacker.
    Funny, I had no issue with a 13.25" BB height on a 165mm bike (Nomad) out there.

  73. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    471
    Quote Originally Posted by spikebike View Post
    For all those looking for a higher BB. Seems like there's a few things you can do:
    * run slightly larger tires than the 27.5+ 2.8" or 29 2.3" stock tires
    * use the flip chip in 29" mode
    * run a 150mm fork (instead of the recommended 140mm) with 29"
    * run a 160mm fork with either 27.5 or 29"
    * run an angleset and increase the head tube angle a bit (shortening the wheel base
    and rising the bike a bit).

    The last seems pretty reasonable since a longer fork decreases the head tube angle, and the angleset would help bring that closer to the original angle.

    I'm considering similar, hoping to hear how any of the above ride.
    Good ideas, but it is a telling tale of current bike design that riders use work-arounds like these to make a new bike rideable.

    If a > 6000$ bike would, right out of the box, force me to do this, I'd first consider buying another.

  74. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation: D_Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Which is quite unfortunate. The desire for ever-longer top tubes is resulting in bikes that we'll barely be able to pedal while seated. The idea that steep seat posts = better climbing/pedaling is not born out by reality.




    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Honest question:

    I don't understand why in the last couple years people have started claiming that they can't climb unless a bike has a steep, 74-77, STA. Is this because the bikes are getting so slack, stems so short, and TTs so long that you aren't getting enough weight on the front wheel when climbing? or something else?

    It confuses me since for decades people have ridden bikes with 72-73 STAs on road and off, and AFAIK, they were able to climb jus fine. On steep pitches of 15-20 degree grade, they just slid forward on the saddle, weighed the bars, and voila!

    This is a separate question from the problem of manufacturers not being transparent about how effective STAs are calculated, at what saddle height, etc. I agree that's something that needs to be added to the geometry charts.

  75. #175
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,776
    Quote Originally Posted by D_Man View Post
    Honest question:

    I don't understand why in the last couple years people have started claiming that they can't climb unless a bike has a steep, 74-77, STA. Is this because the bikes are getting so slack, stems so short, and TTs so long that you aren't getting enough weight on the front wheel when climbing? or something else?

    It confuses me since for decades people have ridden bikes with 72-73 STAs on road and off, and AFAIK, they were able to climb jus fine. On steep pitches of 15-20 degree grade, they just slid forward on the saddle, weighed the bars, and voila!

    This is a separate question from the problem of manufacturers not being transparent about how effective STAs are calculated, at what saddle height, etc. I agree that's something that needs to be added to the geometry charts.
    Agreed. XC bikes, and road bikes, both of which climb much better than this category of bike, have slacker STAs than these new bikes.

    I don't understand how or why people equate having the nose of your saddle over the BB = better climbing but it's just not the case.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  76. #176
    fc
    fc is online now
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    31,220
    Quote Originally Posted by D_Man View Post
    Honest question:

    I don't understand why in the last couple years people have started claiming that they can't climb unless a bike has a steep, 74-77, STA. Is this because the bikes are getting so slack, stems so short, and TTs so long that you aren't getting enough weight on the front wheel when climbing? or something else?

    It confuses me since for decades people have ridden bikes with 72-73 STAs on road and off, and AFAIK, they were able to climb jus fine. On steep pitches of 15-20 degree grade, they just slid forward on the saddle, weighed the bars, and voila!

    This is a separate question from the problem of manufacturers not being transparent about how effective STAs are calculated, at what saddle height, etc. I agree that's something that needs to be added to the geometry charts.
    Bikes are changing indeed for the better. We used to ride road bike geometry.

    The biggest thing is head angles are getting slacker. 66 degrees and long top tubes for a 160mm travel bike seems to be the target now. That slows down the steering and makes the front wander on climbs. So they shorten the stem to quicken the steering and make the bike safer.

    To improve climbing leverage, front wheel weight and rear suspension action, the seat tube is steepened. 74 to 75 degrees seems awesome indeed but they are a no-go on descending. That's where dropper posts come in. Drop it and the steep seat angle is negated on descents.

    Best of both worlds it seems. They're desired these days but not required. I bought a Pivot Mach 6 a couple years back and it had a 71.5 seat angle. I just could not enjoy it as I tried all kinds of hacks and reverse offsets. I tried a Nomad, Bronson and Orbea Rallon and instantly sold the Mach.

    In Europe, there's all the rage with these Mondraker long top tubes and zero stems. Change is constant but good concepts will stick.

    Thoughts?
    IPA will save America

  77. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Agreed. XC bikes, and road bikes, both of which climb much better than this category of bike, have slacker STAs than these new bikes.

    I don't understand how or why people equate having the nose of your saddle over the BB = better climbing but it's just not the case.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    But descend much worse... It's all a compromise.

    Sent from my D6708 using Tapatalk

  78. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev. 14 View Post
    I asked this question somewhere in one of the threads on this bike. Don't know if it was the thread in the 29er section or of the two in the SC section. But here is my question if you all know the answer.

    SC website has the Easton Arc wheels coming with I9 Torch hubs. That is nice. Will they be black only or color options? Anyone know if those Easton Arc 40 wheels stand for 40 internal width? What is the 40 mean? Easton site doesn't even list an Arc 40, maybe they made it special for SC?
    The 40 would designate a 40 mm wide rim. Have not seen an Arc 40 listed either.

  79. #179
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,776
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    But descend much worse... It's all a compromise.

    Sent from my D6708 using Tapatalk
    I'm not sure you'd be able to quantify, let alone have statistically significant, differences in descending capabilities between a bike with a 72 degree STA and one with a 76 degree STA, everything else being constant.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  80. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,909
    When I'm descending the seat angle is useless as I'm not sitting.

    This is where the head angle/reach becomes important and an XC bike will be at a disadvantage.

    Sent from my D6708 using Tapatalk

  81. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,164
    ----
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  82. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,909
    Beat ya

    Sent from my D6708 using Tapatalk

  83. #183
    bog
    bog is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,265
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Agreed. XC bikes, and road bikes, both of which climb much better than this category of bike, have slacker STAs than these new bikes.

    I don't understand how or why people equate having the nose of your saddle over the BB = better climbing but it's just not the case.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    I think you guys are missing some critical info here. On most of these bikes the effective seat tube angle at pedaling height is not steep. It falls right around 73 for average saddle heights. Don't be fooled by the geo charts because the ESTA on those charts is usually measured at the stack height of the bike.
    Tallboy3c : Stigmata2 : Hightower LT

  84. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard View Post
    Good ideas, but it is a telling tale of current bike design that riders use work-arounds like these to make a new bike rideable.

    If a > 6000$ bike would, right out of the box, force me to do this, I'd first consider buying another.
    How about we wait to decide how rideable it is until after we... you know... ride it.

  85. #185
    fc
    fc is online now
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    31,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard View Post
    Good ideas, but it is a telling tale of current bike design that riders use work-arounds like these to make a new bike rideable.

    If a > 6000$ bike would, right out of the box, force me to do this, I'd first consider buying another.

    Yup. Understand though that geometry, specially BB height is a regional thing. In general, West Coast wants low and East wants high BB.

    Santa Cruz Bikes is in the heart loam and berm territory so low bb bikes ride so well. So the company will tend to optimize bikes for where they ride, what they understand the sport to be and where they do all their testing. (see video). On the other hand, I never understood Jamis bikes with their high BBs until I visited them and rode there.

    These flip chips are a great idea. A little bit of adjustability broadens the sweet spot of the bike. Trek has used them with great success. They even ship media test bikes to us with the flip chip optimized for our geographic location. I hope they incorporate these on their other bikes.

    This is the SC bikes lunch ride.
    IPA will save America

  86. #186
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,776
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    When I'm descending the seat angle is useless as I'm not sitting.

    This is where the head angle/reach becomes important and an XC bike will be at a disadvantage.

    Sent from my D6708 using Tapatalk
    You completely ignored what I said. That "everything else being constant" thing.

    Two theoretical bikes. They have the same angles everywhere except for STA. Same tube lengths. As such, your seated position in relation to the BB is different.

    They will descend the same. They will not climb the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by bog View Post
    I think you guys are missing some critical info here. On most of these bikes the effective seat tube angle at pedaling height is not steep. It falls right around 73 for average saddle heights. Don't be fooled by the geo charts because the ESTA on those charts is usually measured at the stack height of the bike.
    My responses are mostly a reaction to the 5'10" reviewer riding an XL with the seat slammed forward, claiming it improved climbing. And other such malarkey.

    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    To improve climbing leverage, front wheel weight and rear suspension action, the seat tube is steepened. 74 to 75 degrees seems awesome indeed but they are a no-go on descending.
    Again, if "climbing leverage" were improved by this, why don't we see Specialized Epics and Scott Sparks with the nose of the saddle over the BB? I'm sure those WC XC pros would do it if it made climbing easier or faster. Or, are you saying that Joe Trundle-Up-the-Hill knows more about the physiology of cycling than the people that fit these guys on their bikes?
    Death from Below.

  87. #187
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    You completely ignored what I said. That "everything else being constant" thing.

    Two theoretical bikes. They have the same angles everywhere except for STA. Same tube lengths. As such, your seated position in relation to the BB is different.

    They will descend the same. They will not climb the same.
    How do you change STA without at least impacting TT length? Do the pivot at the top tube cluster, your CS will shorten. Thus, "all things being equal, " is a non-starter, no?

  88. #188
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,776
    Quote Originally Posted by Pau11y View Post
    How do you change STA without at least impacting TT length? Do the pivot at the top tube cluster, your CS will shorten. Thus, "all things being equal, " is a non-starter, no?
    Ok, sure. TT changes a bit.

    Reach measurements are from BB to the center of the HT, measured at the top of the HT, no? The reach can stay the same, regardless of TT length. Adjust your bike fit accordingly. Boost your 40mm stem to a 55mm. It's not the end of the world.
    Death from Below.

  89. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    When I'm descending the seat angle is useless as I'm not sitting.
    I agree with this but it disagrees with your comment that slacker seat angles "decend much worse".

  90. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Agreed. XC bikes, and road bikes, both of which climb much better than this category of bike, have slacker STAs than these new bikes.

    I don't understand how or why people equate having the nose of your saddle over the BB = better climbing but it's just not the case.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    I agree with this. The only explanation that makes sense to me about the advantage of a steep STA for climbing is that when you stand you have more room (longer reach goes with steep STA).
    Standing climbing is of very little concern to me, as a rarely do it, and it usually results in a loss of traction on dirt.

  91. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    How about we wait to decide how rideable it is until after we... you know... ride it.
    Don't be ridiculous.

  92. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation: D_Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    I agree with this but it disagrees with your comment that slacker seat angles "decend much worse".
    If I understand it correctly, I think Colin's point is that you are unlikely to find a slack STA bike with the loooong reach that, combined with a short stem, makes standing descents confidence inspiring. A super long reach with a slack STA would make seated climbing interesting as the front end would feel extremely light. So most slack STA bikes are going to be more conservative in the reach department, and thus possibly less aggro on the descents.

    Is that the argument?

  93. #193
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Ok, sure. TT changes a bit.

    Reach measurements are from BB to the center of the HT, measured at the top of the HT, no? The reach can stay the same, regardless of TT length. Adjust your bike fit accordingly. Boost your 40mm stem to a 55mm. It's not the end of the world.
    15mm increase in stem length IS significant, tho. 15mm change in CS length is also pretty huge.
    And, if you don't change CS length because the front and rear triangles are separate in full squishy frames, then you start to mess with links and leverage rates and axle paths, opening another can of worms.
    Point being, idealized piecewise analysis of a system don't work, at least in this case.

  94. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,164
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    How about we wait to decide how rideable it is until after we... you know... ride it.
    The only time I'm going to get to demo a SC Hightower in my size on my local trails is the day I buy one. I had to buy my last $7K bike with no test ride.

    If bikes I wanted to own were demo'd locally I'd be all over it. So far that hasn't happened.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  95. #195
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,776
    Quote Originally Posted by D_Man View Post
    If I understand it correctly, I think Colin's point is that you are unlikely to find a slack STA bike with the loooong reach that, combined with a short stem, makes standing descents confidence inspiring. A super long reach with a slack STA would make seated climbing interesting as the front end would feel extremely light. So most slack STA bikes are going to be more conservative in the reach department, and thus possibly less aggro on the descents.

    Is that the argument?
    I think these bikes HAVE to have the seat jammed forward not to generate more power, but to keep the rider from doing a wheelie with every pedal stroke.

    Saying they climb better is a bit dishonest, at best. This geometry tweak keeps enough weight on the front wheel. That's it.
    Death from Below.

  96. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,909
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    I agree with this but it disagrees with your comment that slacker seat angles "decend much worse".
    No. I meant in regards to the XC climbs much better part of the comment.

    Sent from my D6708 using Tapatalk

  97. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,609
    Quote Originally Posted by D_Man View Post
    If I understand it correctly, I think Colin's point is that you are unlikely to find a slack STA bike with the loooong reach that, combined with a short stem, makes standing descents confidence inspiring. A super long reach with a slack STA would make seated climbing interesting as the front end would feel extremely light. So most slack STA bikes are going to be more conservative in the reach department, and thus possibly less aggro on the descents.

    Is that the argument?
    A slack STA bike can have less reach but the same effective top tube length. In that case stem length would be the same also.
    Since your weight is on the pedals and the BB is a little farther away from the front wheel, I suppose that would have an effect on descending with a longer reach bike.

  98. #198
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    What did you do to the N3?
    Shoehorned a 8.75x2.75 shock into a large N3. Coincidentally, the fit gets better with the smaller sizes. I have about 2mm of clearence between link and seat tube on my large while there's like 3 or 4mm on Ethan F's medium, and even more on his wife's small.

  99. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I think these bikes HAVE to have the seat jammed forward not to generate more power, but to keep the rider from doing a wheelie with every pedal stroke.

    Saying they climb better is a bit dishonest, at best. This geometry tweak keeps enough weight on the front wheel. That's it.
    I agree with you. No one I know of is complaining about power meter numbers. My issue with the slack seat angle was that seated climbs felt like I had to slide up to the nose of the saddle or even stand to keep the front wheel from wandering. The steeper seat angle keeps your weight more centered and allows for sustained seated climbing without feeling like you have to stand up.

    If I was XC or even Enduro racing, I'm sure that quantifying how many watts of power I was generating would be of more significance. However I'm more interested in a comfortable climbing position that allows me to climb longer and easier without having to stand up and crank it out.

    Sent from my D6708 using Tapatalk

  100. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,493
    Quote Originally Posted by D_Man View Post
    Honest question:

    I don't understand why in the last couple years people have started claiming that they can't climb unless a bike has a steep, 74-77, STA. Is this because the bikes are getting so slack, stems so short, and TTs so long that you aren't getting enough weight on the front wheel when climbing? or something else?

    It confuses me since for decades people have ridden bikes with 72-73 STAs on road and off, and AFAIK, they were able to climb jus fine. On steep pitches of 15-20 degree grade, they just slid forward on the saddle, weighed the bars, and voila!

    This is a separate question from the problem of manufacturers not being transparent about how effective STAs are calculated, at what saddle height, etc. I agree that's something that needs to be added to the geometry charts.
    My personal experience is exactly what you state. Going from an old school geometry short front end, long stem and short WB to a longish front end, super slack (64.6 degree) HA, fairly long WB and steep SA I have found the new bike climbs technical stuff way better than any of my old geometry bike. I am not constantly fighting to keep the front end down in the steep stuff and actually arrive at the top much fresher.

    Another point on this is that the way HT bikes and older full suspension bikes were built, actual and effective STA was the same since the seat tube was a straight line from the BB. Any of the newer full suspension bikes this was absolutely not the case. With the new design the seat at full extension is still have an effective STA significantly below 72/73 degrees. My guess is that my Nomad is probably around 69 degrees. The Mach 6 or Following is probably going to be closer to 65 degrees effective with the seat at extension.

    So with that in mind the steeper STA's are actually bringing the new school geometry bikes closer to the old school geometry but still not steeper than them in actual measurement.

    One point I want to make is that I am not claiming my 30 lb Enduro bike is faster on the climbs (although all my climbing PR's are on the new bikes even going all the way back to 2009). I am saying compared to my old geometry bikes with similar travel like an Ibis Mojo HD or Pivot Mach 6 were slower than the new geometry bikes like the N3 or B2.

Page 2 of 69 FirstFirst 1234561252 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Stolen Santa Cruz Tallboy - XXL Carbon, Santa Cruz, CA - 12-8-15
    By jasonpriz in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-16-2015, 09:57 AM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-08-2015, 08:06 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-06-2013, 11:47 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-21-2012, 09:04 AM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-16-2012, 02:04 PM

Members who have read this thread: 948

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.