Where Turner ought to be.....!- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 29 of 29
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    267

    Where Turner ought to be.....!

    The Raaw Madonna is where Turner ought to be, 29 170/160 Horst link bomb proof alloy bike that is staggeringly good. A modern day RFX.
    Then produce a 130/120 29 er alloy version with similar kinematics !
    Winners all round

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,575
    Except the Turner wouldn't have such a silly name and would look better.

  3. #3
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    34,169
    I don't want to go back to pedaling a wet-mattress uphill.
    "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.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,635
    Did you buy one?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    19
    No, this is where Turner should be:

    https://www.ibiscycles.com/bikes/ripmo

    -or-

    https://store.pivotcycles.com/en/bike-switchblade-1

    Having ridden both, Iíll be ordering a Ripmo frame that Iíll slowly build up, which I wonít get in till December. As good as both are, Iím pretty sure Dave would have made a superior version. Dave would have also made his bike more reasonably priced. Ibis and Pivot price their bikes ridiculously.

  6. #6
    Pixie Dust Addict
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,361
    I've been thinking of updating my mountain bike quiver, and would like to stay with a DW Link design. Between the Pivot Trail 429 and the Ibis Ripley, do either of them come close to the Turner "not too squishy, not too firm" kinematics?

    Also, what are people's impressions of bikes with the new generation of geometry with the long front end and steep seat angles, compared to the Turner geo?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by 2TurnersNotEnough View Post
    I've been thinking of updating my mountain bike quiver, and would like to stay with a DW Link design. Between the Pivot Trail 429 and the Ibis Ripley, do either of them come close to the Turner "not too squishy, not too firm" kinematics?

    Also, what are people's impressions of bikes with the new generation of geometry with the long front end and steep seat angles, compared to the Turner geo?
    Would be interested what people thoughts are on this. Would have another Turner at the drop of a hat when it's time to retire the old ones. Something modern that rides and feels like a Turner, with the same great customer service.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,994
    Quote Originally Posted by 2TurnersNotEnough View Post
    I've been thinking of updating my mountain bike quiver, and would like to stay with a DW Link design. Between the Pivot Trail 429 and the Ibis Ripley, do either of them come close to the Turner "not too squishy, not too firm" kinematics?

    Also, what are people's impressions of bikes with the new generation of geometry with the long front end and steep seat angles, compared to the Turner geo?
    I ended up getting a Ripley to compliment my old 5-Spot and it is a great bike. Very fast but also very playful and stable. Honestly, my 5-spot has a firmer peddle feel but the IBIS is not bad in any way. I still actually ride my 5-Spot a lot as my son rides the Ripley when we ride.

    Honestly, the geometry changes are not as dramatic as you would imagine. Might require a little less body movement to climb and might descend a little better but honestly, feels just like a well sorted bike. I will also say that nice fat 29 X 2.6 tires really work for me - which feels like of more of an impact than a degree change in head or seat angle...

    Turner can be where Turner wants to be. Kicking myself for buying a stupid carbon road bike instead of their new Titanium ART. Nice looking and versatile stead.
    It is the Right of the People to Alter or to Abolish It.

  9. #9
    Pixie Dust Addict
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    I ended up getting a Ripley to compliment my old 5-Spot and it is a great bike. Very fast but also very playful and stable. Honestly, my 5-spot has a firmer peddle feel but the IBIS is not bad in any way. I still actually ride my 5-Spot a lot as my son rides the Ripley when we ride.

    Honestly, the geometry changes are not as dramatic as you would imagine. Might require a little less body movement to climb and might descend a little better but honestly, feels just like a well sorted bike. I will also say that nice fat 29 X 2.6 tires really work for me - which feels like of more of an impact than a degree change in head or seat angle...

    Turner can be where Turner wants to be. Kicking myself for buying a stupid carbon road bike instead of their new Titanium ART. Nice looking and versatile stead.
    Thanks for the feedback. As I ponder updates to the MTB stable, my skinny-tired bikes still keep me in good standing as a homer. The ARTi frame is really well made, and I already have 2 sets of wheels for road riding, and gravel-lite riding. My biggest challenge has been to get the parts I need to build it, and finding a new home for my old Lynskey road bike so I have room for the new one. I'm hoping that later this year I can update my Cyclosys to titanium.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,994
    Quote Originally Posted by 2TurnersNotEnough View Post
    Thanks for the feedback. As I ponder updates to the MTB stable, my skinny-tired bikes still keep me in good standing as a homer. The ARTi frame is really well made, and I already have 2 sets of wheels for road riding, and gravel-lite riding. My biggest challenge has been to get the parts I need to build it, and finding a new home for my old Lynskey road bike so I have room for the new one. I'm hoping that later this year I can update my Cyclosys to titanium.

    Yeah, I have been road riding a lot more. I have an old Tommasini that I still ride and love (almost 21 years old!). I got a carbon Cinelli recently but that cracked within a week of ownership and is in the process of getting repaired - Cinelli-USA is a terrible company and offered no support whatsoever.

    I seriously thought about an ARTi as I have both carbon wheels for the road and gravel wheels that would work perfectly. However, I went with a Campagnolo groupset and dealing with the bottom bracket and 160 rotors front and back on the ARTi seems like too much of a hassle at the moment.

    If you are looking for a dw linked bike, I do recommend IBIS. Good solid company with good products. The carbon is strong and well thought out. The Ripley is fast and fun. Highly recommended.
    It is the Right of the People to Alter or to Abolish It.

  11. #11
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    10,823
    Quote Originally Posted by UK-FLATLANDER View Post
    Would be interested what people thoughts are on this. Would have another Turner at the drop of a hat when it's time to retire the old ones. Something modern that rides and feels like a Turner, with the same great customer service.
    Personally I'd look at the Banshee Titan. I loved the DW suspension of my Turner Sultan.
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by 2TurnersNotEnough View Post
    I've been thinking of updating my mountain bike quiver, and would like to stay with a DW Link design. Between the Pivot Trail 429 and the Ibis Ripley, do either of them come close to the Turner "not too squishy, not too firm" kinematics?

    Also, what are people's impressions of bikes with the new generation of geometry with the long front end and steep seat angles, compared to the Turner geo?
    I may be in the minority, but I think theyíve gone a little too far with ďmodernď geometry. Bikes are unnecessarily long and slack. Theyíre great for monster trucking through steep rocks, but lose the agility in the tight stuff. A little more slackness and reach would have been ok, but I feel everyone has overshot the mark by 10-15mm and a degree of slackness. There is no reason a trail bike should be any slacker than 65. The reach on a size large doesnít need to be 480mm. Size down you say? Not so simple, then your sitting too close to the bars because the stupid steep seat angles. A size large in 455-460 reach (27.5 or 29) with a 65 degree head would be the sweet spot for me, Iím sure there are bikes out there like this, but very few, mail order, not DW. Iím not an editor at Pinkbike or Vital paid to shill a brand, so what do I know.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,635
    Hey Vespa... the ARTi takes 140 on the rear and Enduro make Campy compat BB for T47

    VMaxx, you're right, you are in the minority..

  14. #14
    Pixie Dust Addict
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,361
    Quote Originally Posted by VMaxx View Post
    I may be in the minority, but I think theyíve gone a little too far with ďmodernď geometry. Bikes are unnecessarily long and slack. Theyíre great for monster trucking through steep rocks, but lose the agility in the tight stuff. A little more slackness and reach would have been ok, but I feel everyone has overshot the mark by 10-15mm and a degree of slackness. There is no reason a trail bike should be any slacker than 65. The reach on a size large doesnít need to be 480mm. Size down you say? Not so simple, then your sitting too close to the bars because the stupid steep seat angles. A size large in 455-460 reach (27.5 or 29) with a 65 degree head would be the sweet spot for me, Iím sure there are bikes out there like this, but very few, mail order, not DW. Iím not an editor at Pinkbike or Vital paid to shill a brand, so what do I know.
    Looking at the geometry of modern bikes, I feel the same way. I like the idea of a bit more reach than I have on the Czar (and especially the Sultan), and maybe a slightly more slack head angle. But a 2 degree slacker head angle and short offset fork is great for stability, but I ride a lot of tight singletrack and am concerned that it would be less-than-ideal for that.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by 2TurnersNotEnough View Post
    But a 2 degree slacker head angle and short offset fork is great for stability, but I ride a lot of tight singletrack and am concerned that it would be less-than-ideal for that.
    It's interesting to see how different people interpret things. One persons "playful and nimble" is anothers "twitchy and nervous", or "stable and confident" could just as well be interpreted as "sluggish and boring". I think people read too much into it sometimes, and also don't take enough time to adapt to a new bike with different geometry.

    People also focus on individual numbers too, getting freaked out that the [stated] reach is 10mm longer than they think they'd like without considering the bigger picture of the effective reach when stack height is taken into consideration. Same with the difference between "effective" and "actual" STA.

    I generally like the way geometry has progressed over the past few years, and love the idea of the latest wave of short-travel-aggressive-geo bikes like the SC Tallboy or Norco Optic. But at the same time I think we're probably at the point of diminishing returns, and even the two bikes I mentioned won't suit everyone. I certainly don't think things will continue to progress at the same rate they have, we won't see "Grim Donut" style trailbikes in 5 years time.

    As an aside, the two fastest guys I ride with both ride bog-standard Treks (2019 Fuel EX and Remedy) and neither one could tell you what the STA or HA of the bike is. One of them didn't even know what setting his flip-chip was in because he'd never bothered to look int he 18+ months he'd owned the bike.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    It's interesting to see how different people interpret things. One persons "playful and nimble" is anothers "twitchy and nervous", or "stable and confident" could just as well be interpreted as "sluggish and boring". I think people read too much into it sometimes, and also don't take enough time to adapt to a new bike with different geometry.

    People also focus on individual numbers too, getting freaked out that the [stated] reach is 10mm longer than they think they'd like without considering the bigger picture of the effective reach when stack height is taken into consideration. Same with the difference between "effective" and "actual" STA.

    I generally like the way geometry has progressed over the past few years, and love the idea of the latest wave of short-travel-aggressive-geo bikes like the SC Tallboy or Norco Optic. But at the same time I think we're probably at the point of diminishing returns, and even the two bikes I mentioned won't suit everyone. I certainly don't think things will continue to progress at the same rate they have, we won't see "Grim Donut" style trailbikes in 5 years time.

    As an aside, the two fastest guys I ride with both ride bog-standard Treks (2019 Fuel EX and Remedy) and neither one could tell you what the STA or HA of the bike is. One of them didn't even know what setting his flip-chip was in because he'd never bothered to look int he 18+ months he'd owned the bike.
    A long bike is a long bike, any way you slice it. Itís not as easy to throw around as a shorter bike, itís physics. Throw in these slack angles, and itís even less nimble. Bikes like this are great for fast, technical downhills, not so much for trail riding. If you live somewhere like these reviewers in the magazines, where you climb 8 miles of logging road with the suspension locked out, to bomb down a 30min technical descent, thatís fantastic, but that also represents a small percentage of what everyone else is doing. And these short travel bikes with the aggressive geo are stupid. Why have the geometry to go fast, but not the travel to back it up? Theyíre great on flow trails, but the ones I tired were a little outgunned in the tech. The suspension couldnít cash the checks the geometry was writing. Also, most riders that I see have a hard time loading that front wheel. Only the most skilled riders can get the most out newer bikes. If you want to get agility back, reducing travel is not the answer, but reducing length is. You can still have a stable bike without making it a mile long. Make the reach more reasonable, lengthen the stays, then you have a bike that you are centered on vs. riding the back wheel.

    Itís all a moot point though. Almost all Bikes are like this now. Itís like politics, you pick the lesser of all the evils. Iím getting the Ripmo because I love my RFX. At least Iíll have another bike to beat on where I can get parts when I break it. If I break my RFX, that might be it.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by VMaxx View Post
    A long bike is a long bike, any way you slice it. Itís not as easy to throw around as a shorter bike, itís physics. Throw in these slack angles, and itís even less nimble.
    Yes, but "long" and "slack angles" aren't fixed numbers across the board. What one person considers "long and slack" is just normal to another. And what one person considers perfectly normal now they probably thought of as long and slack 4-5 years ago.

    And these short travel bikes with the aggressive geo are stupid. Why have the geometry to go fast, but not the travel to back it up? Theyíre great on flow trails, but the ones I tired were a little outgunned in the tech. The suspension couldnít cash the checks the geometry was writing.
    To me flow trails are the one place where the long and slack geometry is of little advantage. Trails that are like a big BMX track are best suited to bikes that are like big BMX bikes.

    Short travel + aggressive geo is a much better combo than the opposite IMO, and as close as you get to a "best of both worlds" compromise. Sure it's good to have both if you're bombing high-speed chunk or huck-to-flat drops, but if you like riding technical terrain but not at EWS-speeds the aggressive geometry helps keep you confident on steeper terrain and at speed while not feeling like a soggy couch on the more mellow trails. Obviously you do need to be realistic about what the suspension will absorb and not treat it like a point-and-shoot enduro bike. But hey, maybe your "tech" is different to my "tech". What works for me might not work for you.

    As someone said in another thread, it's the key to being adequately-gunned even when under-gunned.

  18. #18
    roots, rocks, rhythm
    Reputation: Dawgprimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    772
    Well, I added to my collection this year.
    After riding my 08 RFX for the last 11 years I finally decided to replace it.......sadly might I add. I liked riding a retro bike!

    Took awhile checking numbers, comparing all the info I could including price, availability, material choice..... and seeing how it would work for me.
    (Also, local or close by is a plus in my opinion.)
    Being 6' 7" it is a bit of a roll dice if the bike will fit.
    I finally settled with a 2020 Knolly Warden.

    I will add that building up a bike during the Covid 19 time made it interesting.......luckily I did most of the searching/ordering of the big items in January and February. Also I worked with the owner of my LBS, who is awesome, super nice and the worst/best/dumbest/smartest business man ever.

    So........
    Loved the bike 10 minutes into my first ride. Awesome first day of riding! Riding that bike put a smile on my face just like the first time I finally rode my first Turner. Climbs very well and wants to just go on the down.
    (The only problem right now is that I am the weak point in this whole story and need to let some parts of me heal up........as my dad says "Getting old sucks!")

    I will say I have no regret so far!
    I see a lot of similarity with my new Knolly and my old Turner.
    (It is hard to explain but the bike just feels right and I am not fighting it.....
    Will add, love the raw aluminium and did not want carbon!)
    Cheers
    Kevin
    Last edited by Dawgprimo; 08-09-2020 at 08:11 AM.
    97' Brodie Expresso
    00' Turner RFX
    08' Turner RFX
    13' Surly Troll
    15' Surly ICT
    20' Knolly Warden

  19. #19
    Big Test Icycles
    Reputation: Hangtime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,479

    Where Turner ought to be.....!

    Quote Originally Posted by 2TurnersNotEnough View Post
    I've been thinking of updating my mountain bike quiver, and would like to stay with a DW Link design. Between the Pivot Trail 429 and the Ibis Ripley, do either of them come close to the Turner "not too squishy, not too firm" kinematics?

    Also, what are people's impressions of bikes with the new generation of geometry with the long front end and steep seat angles, compared to the Turner geo?
    I can weigh in on ďNew GeometryĒ. After selling my 5Spot and Highline I waited for the RFX Enduro That was never to be. I moved on to a Firebird then to a Banshee Spitfire. Both great bikes for their time. (DW and almost DW style KS link bikes). They both left me wanting a longer reach. I just moved to a Pole 158 Evolink. Itís super LONG, slack HA and steep SA.

    After a few rides it feels as good or better than any other bike Iíve owned. My buddy, also a Banshee fan just got a new Titan. The long CS and reach bikes give you great stability while the steep seat angle centers you over the bike and pedaling is easy. I recently did a 26 mile XC ride on the Pole. Bend Or to Sunriver Or on the Deschutes River Trail. This is not a XC bike by any means but it ripped it up. If I had lighter tires it would have been even better. So the new Geo is coming fast, more and more companies are buying into it. Pole, Cotic and Nicolai are just a bit ahead.

    This all said if Turner ever does come back with an Aluminium RFX with modern geometry Iíll be in line, the quality of my 5Spot and HL were second to none.

    Do it Dave!!!!!!!!!!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  20. #20
    Hisforever
    Reputation: SHAHEEB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,834
    A long time forum member thought I was on a Turner this past week. Does anyone think the Nicolai Saturn looks like what could be a modern RFX?

    truth be told, I tried to get a raaw madonna before the v2 came out, but they were sold in the size i wanted, ordered a nicolai saturn and G1 instead. guess I'll find out if they have gone too far on the G1...first ride soon, the saturn st rips, a little heavier than I thought it would be -would go for just the standard saturn if were to do it over again. this rigs built like a tank...

    imo newish geo is great, feels like now we are riding lower, and more centered b/w the wheels, like you are 'in' the bike rather than up on top of it. I just want to ride faster and harder and sliding without skidding if you know what i mean. sure my wheelbase is long but i'll make my bike turn, its not holding me back from riding any certain trails

    Add One more to the list of those who would put money down on a current gravity oriented climbable smasher from DT.

    If we put $1k down each would that do any damage?

    I thought the carbon material was great, but aluminum and even steel all are great as well. To me the bike market is overpriced and a very nicely made Turner in alloy with a reasonable price would sell very very well.
    Turner VS. banshee, cotic, stanton, last, raaw, comenncal, ripmo af, BTR, Kona, Nicolai?
    For the record, my wife is on a v1 ibis ripmo : )

    Cheers for a Genio built, Turner designed Coaster : )

    Ibis Ripmo -wifes
    Scout
    Saturn St
    G1
    Yz 250x - no ebikes



  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,635
    Uhhh, please take Shaheebs comments about longer gooderer and sliding and 'making' the bike turn with a huge grain of salt. I cannot begin to even remember all the riders of all types I have ridden with over the years, but Shaheeb is in the top 2% of them that work for a living and to my knowledge never held a pro license or a GoPro in anger. When you watch an advertainment video of pros shredding, you need to realize that Shaheeb could be an extra on any of these edits. What is the point of me saying this? That new school geo really requires new school technique.

    As for the longer/slacker wave it has hit the wall and terminated it's 5 year hyper drive charge. Like so many other sports that progressed mightily, like skis, snowboards, tennis, motocross etc etc, there is a time when the real big changes stop. Skis and snowboards are not getting any fatter or longer. Tennis rackets are not the size of a 29" wheel. motocross stopped the travel increases where it is decades ago. A decade later the geometry 'revisions' dropped down to minuscule refinements.

    Nowadays it's all about tuning, 1/2 degree here, a few mm's there. We have already seen chainstays growing and tall guys complaining they are not long enough. As many have pointed out, the front wheel in the next county has already been done, and many can't effectively weight the front wheel, reduced offset or not. Chris Porter has been preaching and influencing the LOOOOONGER SLAAAACKER for many years, hence the Geometron. POLE followed. Maybe a couple others? How many are as long? It's not like the fringe has been hiding, since the introduction of Forward Geo by Mondraker it has been a regular point of articles. The outer limit has been set, other might go into POLE or Porter territory, but there won't be many. I think many realize we have already jumped the shark. Mondraker has even pulled back a bit since the introduction of Forward Geometry. When looking at Cesars current geometry, it is far from the ragged edge of longer slacker that he started, when, as a World Cup pro downhiller, was on a 'large' when others his height were all on mediums. There are more than a couple WC DH racers now on 'undersize' frames. If one cannot control the front wheel, there is not control.

    Something else that has happened in the last few years, the bullshit STA measuring method. At the same time the growing Reach numbers were pushing the front wheel out, the industry started measuring the STA at the Stack line. Regardless of where the seat actually ended up. Since there are not 2 bikes with the same dog leg in the seat tube, where the seat actually lands is completely random in the world of comparability. The designers would make sure that as the post passed the Stack line the 'faux' STA would measure 76-77ish, the required numbers for acceptability. But most of the seat POST angles are much slacker than the claimed STA, and a rider of average height could easily be on a sub 73 STA. This pushes the riders weight further from the front wheel which is already way in front of the BB due to increased Reach and slacker HTAs. Now, many riders are not too comfortable with the effective TT length, NOT the TT length listed on the Geometry Chart which is based on the Stack line, but the one that the riders seat height/Post angle actually nets. So, instead of using the stock 40 or 50mm stem.... they reach for a 30-40 to sit up a bit more, or add some steerer tube spacers and a taller bar or all of the above, further taking weight off the front wheel. Trimming a thumbs breadth of fork offset is not enough to compensate for the riders weight moving further and further from the front wheel.

    For the record I like the pretty long and slacker feel. I ride a large Flux with 2 degree Works components headset. Jumping up a size gives me a lot more length and stability, as does the now 65.5 HTA. I know that a totally contemporary 27.5 bike should have a 63/64 HTA but not a ride goes by that I don't wonder about ordering a 1 degree headset from Works as the front end goes over there when I wanted it right here.. Of course not the high speed sections, but the twisties where staying focused and over the stem is hard for an old man. Maybe it's time for a ride clinic...

    DT

  22. #22
    "Furruccio....Bite Me!"
    Reputation: Zeke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by VMaxx View Post
    I may be in the minority, but I think theyíve gone a little too far with ďmodernď geometry. Bikes are unnecessarily long and slack. Theyíre great for monster trucking through steep rocks, but lose the agility in the tight stuff. A little more slackness and reach would have been ok, but I feel everyone has overshot the mark by 10-15mm and a degree of slackness. There is no reason a trail bike should be any slacker than 65. The reach on a size large doesnít need to be 480mm. Size down you say? Not so simple, then your sitting too close to the bars because the stupid steep seat angles. A size large in 455-460 reach (27.5 or 29) with a 65 degree head would be the sweet spot for me, Iím sure there are bikes out there like this, but very few, mail order, not DW. Iím not an editor at Pinkbike or Vital paid to shill a brand, so what do I know.
    You just described the Niner Rip 9 RDO. Demo'd a bunch of bikes and this one was very close in feel, climbing and descending, to my Burner. I got the 27.5 and it is a bit slower in the tight stuff , but that was an easy adjustment. Nothing like other bikes I demo'd with the longer and slacker geo, there were noticeable slower and did not like it very much. I think yours and my experience showed DT knew what he was doing: making bikes for the average rider...noy the pro who ride 0.5% of what most people ride. To me it seems like the industry got hijacked by the new geo and DT wasn't having it.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,994
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes View Post
    Something else that has happened in the last few years, the bullshit STA measuring method. At the same time the growing Reach numbers were pushing the front wheel out, the industry started measuring the STA at the Stack line. Regardless of where the seat actually ended up. Since there are not 2 bikes with the same dog leg in the seat tube, where the seat actually lands is completely random in the world of comparability. The designers would make sure that as the post passed the Stack line the 'faux' STA would measure 76-77ish, the required numbers for acceptability. But most of the seat POST angles are much slacker than the claimed STA, and a rider of average height could easily be on a sub 73 STA.

    DT

    I have been screaming this for years (nobody listen to me!). Nobody actually measures their angles anymore. My Ripley, has a real seat tube angle of 73 not the "76" they claim but guess what, it rides fine. For the record, my old 5-spot also has a seat angle of 73 degrees.
    It is the Right of the People to Alter or to Abolish It.

  24. #24
    on a routine expedition
    Reputation: Marshall Willanholly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,581
    I bought a RAAW Madonna last year, and for me the geometry has been a revelation. For reference, I'm 5'11" and am riding a large. In the nine years since I was on a DW-Link Turner Burner, I've owned (in order): a Transition Bandit 29 (med), a Banshee Prime (med), an Ibis HD3 (large), and an Evil Insurgent (large). I live and ride in the PNW.

    Based on DT's description, my riding skills are nowhere near Shaheeb, but I love the geometry of the RAAW just the same. Once I learned to get more weight on the front in corners, I can't stop smiling.

    I also feel the longer geo allows me to ride more centered, more of the time, while feeling like there's more room to move forward or back before I end up on my ass or my head.

    I continue to enjoy this bike more and more. It has taken some adjustments to my technique, but nothing crazy. I think it's easier (and more fun) to ride than, for example, the Evil with its long front end and short chain stays.

    So there's another data point for ya. I don't see myself going back to a shorter bike. I also don't know if I want to go much longer. We'll see what the future holds. Ten years ago, I never thought I'd be happily riding a trail bike that is longer and slacker than my IH Sunday!

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,635
    No doubt, the old bikes were too short. Surprisingly there are still quite a few that are not that long. Sure, the press releases may blather on about aggressive this and progressive that, but when reading the actual numbers, many are pretty conservative in their LONGER Lower slacker. But the trend is certainly way longer wheel bases, longer Reach and a bit longer top tubes. And in general they DO ride better. Like the ski/snowboard/surfboard industries that offer a myriad of suggested sizes within the different categories, there will always be a range of fit depending on the developers skills, style, terrain, age, sponsored pros etc. And of course there are those that eschew the recommended sizing and go up or down depending on their opinion. There will certainly never be one size fits all for bicycles.

    On the faux seat tube angle measurements of today, either the makers have to start listing real STA at differing seat heights, every 20mm or so, Or, the press needs to get make a mechanical protractor with a couple of low cost Wixie type digital angle finders on it to check the STA of the test bikes they are riding. BB center to center of seat clamp. Simple. I guess they could also whip out a simple matrix to plug in the 'set back' number from BB to seat clamp, and the seat height from same two points.

    Yes there are a couple, maybe even a few, that will be dead on accurate to their geometry charts. Most will be well off and of no importance for actual fit.

    DT

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    118
    After having a quick ride on a few modern bikes, I came away feeling that they don't actually feel long when seated. So I have been compiling a spread sheet of modern bike geometries for a possible replacement for my DW link Flux and 5 Spot in due course. When you account for the stems currently used on modern bikes verses those used 10 years ago, the distance from saddle to bars is shorter on most modern bikes, hence my feeling the bikes are short when seated. The one saving grace with the trend for shorter seat tubes is it's much easier to size up.

    If it's not too cheeky to ask, which bikes would you consider a worthy replacement for your bikes DT?

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by UK-FLATLANDER View Post
    After having a quick ride on a few modern bikes, I came away feeling that they don't actually feel long when seated. So I have been compiling a spread sheet of modern bike geometries for a possible replacement for my DW link Flux and 5 Spot in due course. When you account for the stems currently used on modern bikes verses those used 10 years ago, the distance from saddle to bars is shorter on most modern bikes, hence my feeling the bikes are short when seated. The one saving grace with the trend for shorter seat tubes is it's much easier to size up.

    If it's not too cheeky to ask, which bikes would you consider a worthy replacement for your bikes DT?
    Yep for sure. Slacker HTA, steeper STA, shorter stems and straight dropper posts all contribute to modern LLS bikes having shorter cockpits and feeling smaller while seated and pedaling than the older crop of bikes. I will no doubt size up with the next bike I buy.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Stahr_Nut View Post
    Yep for sure. Slacker HTA, steeper STA, shorter stems and straight dropper posts all contribute to modern LLS bikes having shorter cockpits and feeling smaller while seated and pedaling than the older crop of bikes. I will no doubt size up with the next bike I buy.
    As I like to earn my descents, climbing and seated performance is equally important as it's descending capability. Being short in the leg, sizing up is really only possible with certain brands otherwise I would really need to compromise on the dropper post and all the gains from geometry on the downs would be negated by the seat height.

  29. #29
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,791
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes View Post
    Nowadays it's all about tuning, 1/2 degree here, a few mm's there. We have already seen chainstays growing and tall guys complaining they are not long enough. As many have pointed out, the front wheel in the next county has already been done, and many can't effectively weight the front wheel, reduced offset or not. Chris Porter has been preaching and influencing the LOOOOONGER SLAAAACKER for many years, hence the Geometron. POLE followed. Maybe a couple others? How many are as long? It's not like the fringe has been hiding, since the introduction of Forward Geo by Mondraker it has been a regular point of articles. The outer limit has been set, other might go into POLE or Porter territory, but there won't be many. I think many realize we have already jumped the shark. Mondraker has even pulled back a bit since the introduction of Forward Geometry. When looking at Cesars current geometry, it is far from the ragged edge of longer slacker that he started, when, as a World Cup pro downhiller, was on a 'large' when others his height were all on mediums. There are more than a couple WC DH racers now on 'undersize' frames. If one cannot control the front wheel, there is not control.
    In a Downtime podcast, Cesar Rojo says that the Mondraker he designed back then was a XL with a medium seat tube, and would be similar to a M or L Unno. He said that he finished 3rd in the roughest stage of the Trans-Provence race, crediting the advanced nature of the bike and its stability, beating the likes of Jerome Clementz and only being beaten by local stars Fabien Barel and Nico. He says that other bikes have gone longer since.

    Cesar is 6' 3", to give some context, if it matters at all.

    ----

    I believe that tall people designing bikes generally put CS that are too long on bikes in their smaller sizes, and that how Forbidden has been tweaking the location of the BB for each size is the way forward. This gives taller people longer CS, without affecting handling adversely for shorter people.

    I predict that bikes like the '21 Commencal Meta AM 29 will stir some controversy, about whether or not LLS has gone too far. In size small, it has 433mm CS and 1231mm WB, which matches quite a few popular enduro bikes in size M (SB150) and quite a majority in size L. In size L and XL, the 433mm CS is matched with 1285mm WB and 1312mm WB. Geometron and Pole use 450 and 455mm CS for those wheelbases respectively (Pole doesn't give the exact #, saying "effective"). The new Meta AM might serve Cecile Ravanel well, but the media crowd doing shootout-style reviews might judge it harshly, suggesting that they much preferring the TR (435mm CS and 1230mm WB in size M) and maybe the last gen of Meta AM 29 over the new Meta AM, suggesting the new one might've gone too far.

    People downplay the importance of this balance too much. They claim that riders can just shift their weight, and that a few mms shouldn't matter. Judging by how people notice a difference in handling between two sizes of the same bike, and how natural one feels over another, I'm inclined to point out that there's more to this feeling than the reach, top tube length, seat tube length, and head tube length playing a role, that it's the balance. Tall guys going to shorter travel bikes think they are doing it because they like short travel, but the feel they get from the shorter WB could explain their preference, when they're choosing a Ripley over a Ripmo, for example.
    "The challenge is not in developing new ideas, but in escaping old ideas."

Similar Threads

  1. MTB access on NBC news tonight - this ought to be fun
    By tswitz1234 in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 05-08-2016, 01:53 PM
  2. Ought Five Month by Month.
    By KRob in forum Riding Passion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-02-2006, 11:49 PM
  3. Manufacturer's ought to indicate frame weights
    By Spinny in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-26-2004, 09:08 PM
  4. Manufacturer's ought to indicate frame weights
    By Spinny in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-25-2004, 05:54 PM

Members who have read this thread: 190

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.