cross country geometry- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 95 of 95
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    539

    cross country geometry

    Why is it that cross country and race mountain bikes do not use modern geometry such as steep seat tube angle and longer top tube reach as is common in modern trail bikes?

  2. #2
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,693
    Quote Originally Posted by endo_alley View Post
    Why is it that cross country and race mountain bikes do not use modern geometry such as steep seat tube angle and longer top tube reach as is common in modern trail bikes?
    The seat tube on longer travel bikes that sag when you sit on them is steepened to replicate how it already is on shorter travel bikes. Reach has increased, seat tubes have steepend, but the seat tubes especially are not as dramatic on the longer travel bikes for the above reason. You also already have a good # of weight on your hands due to the shorter travel and steeper HA, what the radical geometry enduro bikes are not great at is all-around flat-terrain riding geometry, going up is decent because of the new changes and going down is ok because of the dropper post, although some are arguing the steeper seat tube puts too much weight and pressure on their hands, but in any case, these changes aren't going to be as radical for XC race bikes. To put it simply, unless it's going to make you faster, there's no point.
    "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.

  3. #3
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,005
    Quote Originally Posted by endo_alley View Post
    Why is it that cross country and race mountain bikes do not use modern geometry such as steep seat tube angle and longer top tube reach as is common in modern trail bikes?
    Because they have less travel AND run less sag than trail bikes. So they don't sink nearly as far backwards when going uphill.

    A 77-78 degree STA on a 160mm trail bike running 35% sag will be similar, when you're actually on it, to a 74 degree STA on a 100-120mm XC bike.

    As Jayem said, XC bikes are optimized for uphill speed and overall handling. Not just the ability to go downhill fast, while suffering up the hill. I've ridden modern trail and enduro bikes, and despite what some will claim, they are still garbage at going uphill compared to a proper XC bike. Different league entirely.
    Death from Below.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post

    As Jayem said, XC bikes are optimized for uphill speed and overall handling. Not just the ability to go downhill fast, while suffering up the hill. I've ridden modern trail and enduro bikes, and despite what some will claim, they are still garbage at going uphill compared to a proper XC bike. Different league entirely.
    Hmm. I notice that my V4 Ibis Ripley seems to have better more comfortable climbing geometry than a Pivot les 29 I have ridden. 76 degree sta Ripley vs 72 degree sta on les 29. I felt I needed to push the seat forward on the les 29 to get it to feel similar after I was accustomed to the Ripley. And when I look at other manufacturers bikes for cross country /race (Specialized, Orbea, Scott, etc,) the geometry seems quite similar. Sta has little effect on downhill prowess. As one is typically not seated.

  5. #5
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,693
    Quote Originally Posted by endo_alley View Post
    Hmm. I notice that my V4 Ibis Ripley seems to have better more comfortable climbing geometry than a Pivot les 29 I have ridden. 76 degree sta Ripley vs 72 degree sta on les 29. I felt I needed to push the seat forward on the les 29 to get it to feel similar after I was accustomed to the Ripley. And when I look at other manufacturers bikes for cross country /race (Specialized, Orbea, Scott, etc,) the geometry seems quite similar. Sta has little effect on downhill prowess. As one is typically not seated.
    I just read 73.5 for the Epic hardtail. That's a long way from 76 IMO. The Pivot is 1 degree slacker, except for the small, which is only half a degree slacker.

    What are you smoking?
    "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.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,171
    The STA on the V4 can be hit of miss for some people. There are a number of people saying that its too steep and the reach isn't long enough...therefore putting too much pressure on their hands. I rode a V4 vs a V3 LS...and the V4 didn't really blow me away. Found a good deal on a V3 and went with that.

  7. #7
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,819
    I think that steep seat angles and climbing ability is a weak correlation at best. There is a lot of reasons a modern trail bike tolerable to climb on, seat angle might be a contributing factor but I think modern suspension design is the biggest factor.

    My current XC bike is a 2019 Orbea Oiz. The seat angle on it is 75 degrees, 1 degree steeper than my old XC bike. I have some minor benifits and draw backs of the steepened seat angle. I do find that on steep climbs it take less effort to get into an optimal position. However, on flat ground I find I am a bit further forward then I like and just not as comfortable. It isn't intolerable but I suffered with sore wrists this year a lot more than in the past.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    I just read 73.5 for the Epic hardtail. That's a long way from 76 IMO. The Pivot is 1 degree slacker, except for the small, which is only half a degree slacker.

    What are you smoking?
    PivotLES
    SL Carbon Race XT Mountain Bike

    Tech SpecsGeometry
    100mm Travel Fork
    S M L XL
    a Seat Tube 16in 17.75in 19in 21in
    b Effective Top Tube 22.9in 23.9in 24.5in 25.5in
    c Stack 23.96in 24.13in 24.83in 25.64in
    d Reach 15.57in 16.29in 16.66in 17.43in
    e Stand Over 28.5in 29.2in 29.6in 29.7in
    f Head Tube 3.85in 4in 4.45in 5.5in
    g Head Tube Angle 69.3 69.5 69.5 70
    h Seat Tube Angle 73 72.5 72.5 72.5
    i Bottom Bracket Height 12.1in 12.1in 12.1in 12.1in
    j Bottom Bracket Drop
    k Chainstay 17.1in 17.1in 17.1in 17.1in
    l Wheelbase 42.58in 43.27in 43.9in 44.74in
    Find your size
    More LES builds
    Attached Files Attached Files

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,288
    Xc bikes have to perform well on positive, negative and zero gradients.
    trail bikes are built to perform best on negative gradients and be decent on the ups and flats. As mentioned previously, sag influences the seat tube angle so longer travel bikes should have steeper sta.

    If you focus on geometry charts to make a purchase decision then you will likely not end up with the best bike for your xco race needs

  10. #10
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,693
    Quote Originally Posted by endo_alley View Post
    PivotLES
    SL Carbon Race XT Mountain Bike
    My bad, 72.5 for the Pivot, except the small at 73 and 73.5 for the specialized.

    My point still stands.

    It's a long way from 76 and what are you smoking?

    The geometry is in no way what you are making it out to be in your original post. The SA is one degree or less apart, so your point isn't based on reality.
    "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.

  11. #11
    ccm
    ccm is offline
    aka Taprider
    Reputation: ccm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    778
    The PivotLes is a hard tail, so the seat tube will get steeper with fork sag; whereas, a long travel trail bike might get a slacker seat tube with suspension sag. So might be equal within the limits of seat rail travel.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    My bad, 72.5 for the Pivot, except the small at 73 and 73.5 for the specialized.

    My point still stands.

    It's a long way from 76 and what are you smoking?

    The geometry is in no way what you are making it out to be in your original post. The SA is one degree or less apart, so your point isn't based on reality.
    "76 degree sta Ripley vs 72 degree sta on les 29."

    My claim was that a Ripley (Which I was merely using as an example) had a 76 degree seat tube angle, optimized for climbing. Many have called these modern geometry parameters for a 29er trail bike. Many cross country bikes have much shallower seat angles and even somewhat shorter top tubes / reach. I was wondering why many hard tails do not use the same modern geometry parameters as modern trail bikes are using. These following geometry claims are copied from the Ibis website. Not "A long way from sta of 76 degrees." But 76 degrees exactly. I respectfully rest my case.


    • 66.5° Head Tube Angle
    • 76° Seat Tube Angle
    • 17" / 432mm Chainstays




  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    437
    I think the segment of consumers who will buy race bikes are probably very different from the segment who buy trail bikes. The racers are probably good enough bike handlers, on average, relative to the weekend warrior that going fast up, down, and on flat takes priority over worrying about whether you are going to endo on your next trail ride with your buddies on a blue trail. On top of that, for most casual riders, going down is the main goal and the climb is meant just to get to the cake. XC racers often prioritize climbing as fast as possible and aero advantages on flat from a lower cockpit. Modern geometry also takes weight off the front end making it harder to corner fast on flat corners while running low rolling resistance XC tires.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post
    Modern geometry also takes weight off the front end making it harder to corner fast on flat corners while running low rolling resistance XC tires.
    A steep seat tube angle puts more weight forward on a climbing bike. Climbing semi steep (to steep) trails with older geometry bikes, one had to slide very far forward on the nose of saddle to keep the front tire on the ground. If one stood on the pedals the back tire would probably slide out. The steep seat tube angle bikes do not require much saddle maneuvering on the steep climbs. Just keep on pedaling. Steep seat angle aids in climbing. And has little effect on down hill handling. Aero dynamics, which are less of a concern on mountain bike than road bike, is probably more a factor of stack height and handlebar width.

    I had no idea this would be such a contentious thread.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    437
    I wasn't trying to be contentious so I hope I didn't come across that way. I can't speak for the others.

    I have never had problems with front end lift even on a 74 degree seat tube and I ride some pretty steep stuff. Wind resistance is the primary form of resistance above 12mph and nowadays, many XC track average speeds are above that. Look at the local Cat 1, national and Word cup races. People are generally wearing very tight fitting clothing with aero helmets

  16. #16
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,819
    Quote Originally Posted by endo_alley View Post
    A steep seat tube angle puts more weight forward on a climbing bike. Climbing semi steep (to steep) trails with older geometry bikes, one had to slide very far forward on the nose of saddle to keep the front tire on the ground. If one stood on the pedals the back tire would probably slide out. The steep seat tube angle bikes do not require much saddle maneuvering on the steep climbs. Just keep on pedaling. Steep seat angle aids in climbing. And has little effect on down hill handling. Aero dynamics, which are less of a concern on mountain bike than road bike, is probably more a factor of stack height and handlebar width.

    I had no idea this would be such a contentious thread.
    A quick question for you. Do you own a modern XC bike yourself?
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DrewBird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,394
    “Modern” trail bike geometry is all about optimizing descending with saddle dropped. Longer reach and slacker HTA opens up the hips and puts you behind the front wheel on steep descents.

    Then, given these design parameters, the question is: how do you make a bike that climbs OK? Steep STA lets you reach the bars on your long-reach geometry and keeps that slacked out front end on the ground when climbing. This, more than sagging into suspension, is what let to steep STAs.

    Bikes with these designs are pretty awesome for Enduro-type riding, I.e. grinding through ups to reach downs. They climb acceptably and are fun as hell downhill. My Ripmo is a great example.

    BUT, it kinda sucks on level ground. That steeper STA puts a ton of weight on the hands. Reminds me of my old TT bike from my triathlon days. I would not enjoy riding either bike for several hours on flatter terrain.

    True race bikes need to work without a dropper, as many very high-level WC types still don’t run them. They also need to be balanced enough to let you hammer away on a rolling course for a couple hours without losing all feeling in your hands.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    243
    IMO people/marketing focus too much on HA, STA, and reach. Yes, they can give a good picture of what a bike will feel like but they aren't the whole story.

    Marketing has made people feel like they can't ride downhill without a slack long bike, and now you can't climb without a steep sta.

    There are many different sizes, dimensions of people, different riding preferences, skill set, etc. They make a difference in what bike you rode and is good to you.

    For example, the steep sta on the Ripley didn't really feel more comfortable to me than a slacker hardtail, even though I'm over 6' and it's supposed to be a revolutionary thing for tall people. Didn't make a difference to me either, I'm still faster on the hardtail. I noticed the suspension platform more than the seat tube. Doesn't mean it's bad or someone's wrong, our bodies and preferences are different.

    Luckily there are a lot of bike manufacturers that make a lot of different sizes, styles, and dimensions to fit everyone.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post
    I wasn't trying to be contentious so I hope I didn't come across that way. I can't speak for the others.

    I have never had problems with front end lift even on a 74 degree seat tube and I ride some pretty steep stuff. Wind resistance is the primary form of resistance above 12mph and nowadays, many XC track average speeds are above that. Look at the local Cat 1, national and Word cup races. People are generally wearing very tight fitting clothing with aero helmets
    I guess at 74 degree seat tube angle, you are getting closer to the sweet spot. This post has seemingly has turned into a me against the world argument. I should probably reluctantly assume that the world is right. But dammit, not without first putting up a good fight.

  20. #20
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,819
    Quote Originally Posted by endo_alley View Post
    This post has seemingly has turned into a me against the world argument. I should probably reluctantly assume that the world is right. But dammit, not without first putting up a good fight.
    Nothing wrong with asking the question.

    Race bikes are always conservative (this is true for XC, DH, Enduro, Road, and CX). A high level racer is very in-tune with their bike and any change to it is going to initially make them slower. Consequently changes have to happen slowly, any big swing is going to be rejected out of hand.

    Seat angles have steepend on XC bikes. Not as quickly as they have on trail bikes but the trend is towards steeper seat angles. I am not sure where they will end up. I suspect the sweet spot on FS bikes is somewhere around 75.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    Nothing wrong with asking the question.

    Race bikes are always conservative (this is true for XC, DH, Enduro, Road, and CX). A high level racer is very in-tune with their bike and any change to it is going to initially make them slower. Consequently changes have to happen slowly, any big swing is going to be rejected out of hand.

    Seat angles have steepend on XC bikes. Not as quickly as they have on trail bikes but the trend is towards steeper seat angles. I am not sure where they will end up. I suspect the sweet spot on FS bikes is somewhere around 75.
    This. Just like pro skiers that said they would NEVER race on shaped skis, people that take themselves too seriously (sometimes WAY too seriously) are usually the last to adopt a change in their equipment, no matter what the clock tells them. The same folks saying that XC STA's will never change (but they have) for XC bikes are the same type that said anything slacker than 71* HTA and tires bigger than 2.1 should only be on DH bikes. You can't even FIND a 70* HTA or 2.1 tired anymore unless you look awfully hard.
    Ibis Ripmo
    Ibis Ripley V4
    Ibis Mojo HD5
    Pivot Mach 4SL
    Pivot LES SS (loaned out)
    A road bike

  22. #22
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,693
    Quote Originally Posted by BmanInTheD View Post
    This. Just like pro skiers that said they would NEVER race on shaped skis, people that take themselves too seriously (sometimes WAY too seriously) are usually the last to adopt a change in their equipment, no matter what the clock tells them. The same folks saying that XC STA's will never change (but they have) for XC bikes are the same type that said anything slacker than 71* HTA and tires bigger than 2.1 should only be on DH bikes. You can't even FIND a 70* HTA or 2.1 tired anymore unless you look awfully hard.
    To point out the other side, we tried real large tires in DH, went to 2.7, then 2.8, then 3.0, but turns out around 2.3-2.5 is the fastest and anything bigger just slows you down. Just because some people are doing one thing doesn't mean it's the best or fastest way. XC is generally about the fastest way. I still see tires around 2.1" in XC racing, some companies 2.2s measuring 2.1 at the best, sometimes more like 2.0.

    There most definitely was a "big tire bandwagon" in DH back in the day for a while.
    "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.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by endo_alley View Post
    A steep seat tube angle puts more weight forward on a climbing bike. Climbing semi steep (to steep) trails with older geometry bikes, one had to slide very far forward on the nose of saddle to keep the front tire on the ground. If one stood on the pedals the back tire would probably slide out. The steep seat tube angle bikes do not require much saddle maneuvering on the steep climbs. Just keep on pedaling. Steep seat angle aids in climbing. And has little effect on down hill handling. Aero dynamics, which are less of a concern on mountain bike than road bike, is probably more a factor of stack height and handlebar width.

    I had no idea this would be such a contentious thread.
    Just seems like you're driving an agenda. I've seen this before.
    XC bikes have always had seat tube angles between 73 and 74 degrees. There's a few now with 75 degrees but if you look at the design you will realise that those bikes are available in two versions; 100mm and 120mm. THEY USE THE SAME FRAME but with different shock lengths to get the extra travel.
    Hardtails have generally had slacked seat tube angles because there isn't any suspension. The seat tube angles are positioned to provide optimum pedalling efficiency for a seated rider using an inline seatpost. This has been the design norm for a long time. Unlike trail bikes, XCO race bikes are focussed on how to get the rider into the best position to create leverage on the pedals to aid faster climbing, sprinting, and laying down power on the flat or twisty sections of a course. So keeping the wheelbase in check (i.e. not too long, the shorter the better while recognising that length has advantages)
    Trail bikes are focused at creating stability under braking and on steep descents.

  24. #24
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    Seat tube angle and reach is something that steepens and lengthens, respectively, with longer wheelbase.

    NS Bikes Synonym is an example of a 100mm FS bike getting the modern treatment. Tallboy v4 and Ripley v4 are 120mm bikes with the modern treatment.

    Longer top tube is not part of modern geo. ETTs are trending shorter with modern geo. Reach is what's getting longer, because in order to get the same ETT with a steeper seat tube angle, it needs to be.

    They seem to be called downcountry bikes, and those that test them typically seem to wonder how they'd feel with more travel, due to how the riders' confidence on the bikes exceeds what it's capable of doing for the rider.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    They seem to be called downcountry bikes, and those that test them typically seem to wonder how they'd feel with more travel, due to how the riders' confidence on the bikes exceeds what it's capable of doing for the rider.
    The people that I know who buy downcountry bikes in the first place are XC riders who aren't confident with XC bikes in general. They really want the trail or enduro bike but don't want the weight. So it's a bit of a self selected group. IMO of somebody came up with a 24lb 150mm bike, it would sell like hotcakes. It wouldn't be the fastest or the most durable but it sure is hell would sell.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    162

    cross country geometry

    I owned a rowdy slacked-out hardtail for awhile and did not care for it. The handling felt sluggish. I like the razor sharp handling of XC geometry. I like having a lot of weight over the front wheel to aid in traction. I use a dropper post for descents.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    To point out the other side, we tried real large tires in DH, went to 2.7, then 2.8, then 3.0, but turns out around 2.3-2.5 is the fastest and anything bigger just slows you down. Just because some people are doing one thing doesn't mean it's the best or fastest way. XC is generally about the fastest way. I still see tires around 2.1" in XC racing, some companies 2.2s measuring 2.1 at the best, sometimes more like 2.0.

    There most definitely was a "big tire bandwagon" in DH back in the day for a while.

    Seems like there is a bit of a "mullet" movement going on in DH and enduro. I don't know how long it will last.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    A quick question for you. Do you own a modern XC bike yourself?
    No. All I presently have an IBIS Ripley V4 for longer rides, a Pivot Mach 6 with a 170mm coil fork as my Moab/Fruita bike, and A Chinese made "P9" (160mm travel) 29er that I bought for shts and grns. Also a Les Fat and something called a Sno4 that I ride around in the winter. And a bunch of old bikes. My garage looks like an mtb museum. I used to race cross country a fair bit in the late 80's and the 90's. Now I am just an old fart out trail riding. I am helping sponsor a 20 year old young Mexican kid that I know and ride with who just learned to mountain bike last spring. After a couple rides he was hooked. And started racing local enduro and cross country in Western Colorado. He is a natural and by the end of the season he was tearing it up. Showing some talent. Bike riding has become his whole life. So I told him I would help him find a decent but affordable cross country bike this winter so that he can up his game next spring. I have always been a Pivot fan. So the Les29 is one of the bikes that I was steering him towards. But anything that fits the bill will be fine. Anyhow, That is how I started getting interested in geometry of the latest cross country bikes.

  29. #29
    ccm
    ccm is offline
    aka Taprider
    Reputation: ccm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    778
    isn't the Les29 more of a Tour DiVide bikepack race bike (gravel grindery all day) than modern XCO (steeps and drops ~1.5 hour) race bike?

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    437
    I got a chance to demo a 2020 Pivot Mach 4SL not too long ago. A very slack XC/downcountry bike. It was a very schizophrenic bike. At slow and medium speeds, it's amazing. Suspension is super plush and it just felt like you were floating on pillows with that live valve suspension. But once it was pushed, I really struggled to hold a line when bombing root gardens. And then I crashed on a sweeping semi-rooty turn. I normally don't crash on demo bikes because I am usually pushing at most 80-90% max due to unfamiliarity. But on this bike I didn't even want to ride it that hard because it was so nervous and all the pedal strikes didn't help. Honestly, the specialized chisel hardtail I also demoed was way more confidence inspiring when pushed.

    I just chalked it up to the suspension being tuned for comfort rather than speed. But then I read the recent pinkbike review and the reviewer complained about the same thing I experienced. On paper, this paper should have been one of the most stable XC bikes you can ride so I suspect there is more to it than just reading geometry charts.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by ccm View Post
    isn't the Les29 more of a Tour DiVide bikepack race bike (gravel grindery all day) than modern XCO (steeps and drops ~1.5 hour) race bike?
    No idea. Bikes and bike niches are getting much to specialized these days for my taste. Which frames do you recommend?
    Last edited by endo_alley; 12-22-2019 at 03:44 PM.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post
    I got a chance to demo a 2020 Pivot Mach 4SL not too long ago. A very slack XC/downcountry bike. It was a very schizophrenic bike. At slow and medium speeds, it's amazing. Suspension is super plush and it just felt like you were floating on pillows with that live valve suspension. But once it was pushed, I really struggled to hold a line when bombing root gardens. And then I crashed on a sweeping semi-rooty turn. I normally don't crash on demo bikes because I am usually pushing at most 80-90% max due to unfamiliarity. But on this bike I didn't even want to ride it that hard because it was so nervous and all the pedal strikes didn't help. Honestly, the specialized chisel hardtail I also demoed was way more confidence inspiring when pushed.

    I just chalked it up to the suspension being tuned for comfort rather than speed. But then I read the recent pinkbike review and the reviewer complained about the same thing I experienced. On paper, this paper should have been one of the most stable XC bikes you can ride so I suspect there is more to it than just reading geometry charts.
    I had a similar experience with the Mach 4 SL. On paper it seems similar to the spark RC, which I ended up with. And people were raving about it only so I decided to give it a chance. But the actual ride was very, very different.

    It felt really long, and I had a hard time getting to my line on technical climbs. It pedaled awesome, but wasn't very responsive up or down. Not twitchy, not scary old school steep xc like, but something was off.

    The spark, on the other hand, climbed technical stuff better. It's almost too responsive. Picking a line was easy. Downhill was super stable though. In my mind, it feels like it should be twitchy but it's not. It only turns when I want it to.

    It's amazing what a few millimeters and degrees difference does to the feel of a bike.
    Last edited by Ksanman; 12-22-2019 at 02:43 PM. Reason: Clarification

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Ksanman View Post
    I had a similar experience with the Mach 4 SL. On paper it seems similar to the spark RC, which I ended up with. And people were raving about it only so I decided to give it a chance. But the actual ride was very, very different.

    It felt really long, and I had a hard time getting to my line on technical climbs. It pedaled awesome, but wasn't very responsive up or down. Not twitchy, not scary old school steep xc like, but something was off.

    The spark, on the other hand, climbed technical stuff better. It's almost too responsive. Picking a line was easy. Downhill was super stable though. In my mind, it feels like it should be twitchy but it's not. It only turns when I want it to.

    It's amazing what a few millimeters and degrees difference does to the feel of a bike.
    Did you demo the Mach 4sl with the 120mm fork, which most of them have? I have one and rode it for a while with the 120mm fork but when I put a 100mm Step-cast fork on it, it came alive. I've said it in some other threads, IMO the bike shouldn't try to be "Down-country" or whatever, but it's a damn good XC bike at 100/100 of travel. It had a weird personality at 120 that didn't really work for me. The Spark RC is 100mm also on front and is similar geo the the Mach 4 with 100mm up front.
    Ibis Ripmo
    Ibis Ripley V4
    Ibis Mojo HD5
    Pivot Mach 4SL
    Pivot LES SS (loaned out)
    A road bike

  34. #34
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,819
    Quote Originally Posted by BmanInTheD View Post
    Did you demo the Mach 4sl with the 120mm fork, which most of them have? I have one and rode it for a while with the 120mm fork but when I put a 100mm Step-cast fork on it, it came alive. I've said it in some other threads, IMO the bike shouldn't try to be "Down-country" or whatever, but it's a damn good XC bike at 100/100 of travel. It had a weird personality at 120 that didn't really work for me. The Spark RC is 100mm also on front and is similar geo the the Mach 4 with 100mm up front.
    A good friend of mine rides for Pivot. He did the Vedder Mountain double header on Mach 4 with a step cast. Day one is an XC race, which he placed 2nd overall and day two is a round of the Canadian Enduro series, which he placed 5th overall. Both races were done on a Mach 4 with a 100mm stepcast and XC tires.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad View Post
    Just seems like you're driving an agenda. I've seen this before.
    No. Other than just trying to be factually correct. (And a stubborn as hell slow learner) I guess we will see where bike geometries go in the next few years. If there is a better formula, someone will probably exploit it and make a killing.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    A good friend of mine rides for Pivot. He did the Vedder Mountain double header on Mach 4 with a step cast. Day one is an XC race, which he placed 2nd overall and day two is a round of the Canadian Enduro series, which he placed 5th overall. Both races were done on a Mach 4 with a 100mm stepcast and XC tires.
    Yeah, I don't know why their marketing insisted on "down-countrying" it and over-forking it. They've had good results with it as an XC bike. I know the cool kids all want something "more capable", but this bike IMO is a pretty lightweight, aggressive, fast XC bike. And is PLENTY slack at 68.5* HTA with the 100 fork.
    Ibis Ripmo
    Ibis Ripley V4
    Ibis Mojo HD5
    Pivot Mach 4SL
    Pivot LES SS (loaned out)
    A road bike

  37. #37
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,693
    I think companies testing is much better these days too, they are able to look specifically at watt output and what designs maximize transferring this to forward movement. Modern geometry on an XC race bike is going to be what does this, not what feels "fun" or "poppy" or even what "feels" like it's better while climbing. It "feels" better for me to rider in a larger rear cog a lot of the time, but it's not faster, especially over long distances.

    The downcountry thing is sad IMO. If the Yeti SB100 actually came with an in-line coil shock and a build that was smartly aggressive, but not super heavy, I might actually believe it. With air shocks and 100mm of rear travel, it's a joke. You already went that fast or faster on an XC bike with a dropper post, there's nothing "special" in this category and if 1 degree HA was making you endo on a 29er that literally rolls over everything, you got bigger problems.

    I run the 120 fork on the 429SL for a bit more rigidity and travel on some longer endurance stuff, like more than 60 miles, in the ~100 mile category. It's noticeably harder to climb up steep stuff with the 20mm higher front end and quick steering to insert yourself in a line/make a pass is hugely important in XC racing. Some people can't understand how XC racers can go so fast downhill on XC bikes...but that's what you see at the top levels. It doesn't take 65 degree HA or 150mm of front travel to do it. If you make the compromises to where you get a more comfortable ride at those speeds, you are usually tacking on weight that will slow you down more overall in the race.
    "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.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    5,031
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    I think that steep seat angles and climbing ability is a weak correlation at best. There is a lot of reasons a modern trail bike tolerable to climb on, seat angle might be a contributing factor but I think modern suspension design is the biggest factor.

    My current XC bike is a 2019 Orbea Oiz. The seat angle on it is 75 degrees, 1 degree steeper than my old XC bike. I have some minor benifits and draw backs of the steepened seat angle. I do find that on steep climbs it take less effort to get into an optimal position. However, on flat ground I find I am a bit further forward then I like and just not as comfortable. It isn't intolerable but I suffered with sore wrists this year a lot more than in the past.
    On my 2020 Orbea Oiz which is the same frame as yours, with a 75 degree seat tube angle, I fitted a 25mm layback FSA K-Force light 31.6mm x400mm layback seatpost to make sure I would have enough rearwards saddle adjustment to be in the same place relative to the bottom bracket as I had been on my 2016 Specialized Epic. That had a 73.75 degree seat tube angle so I needed the added layback to get the saddle far enough back on the Orbea Oiz.

    https://shop.fullspeedahead.com/en/t...post-sb25-3568

    To pedal it's the same position as my old bike. If you're having sore wrists I'd consider looking at raising the bars a bit and maybe some handlebars with a different backsweep. It's the handlebars that usually seems to cause me hand problems. I swapped the Specialized S-Works flat bars from my old bike onto the new one as their sweep has been working ok for me this year.

    Are you using a dropper seatpost? They commonly come with inline heads, which limit fore aft adjustment, but you can also get offset heads for some dropper seatposts, allowing you to have the dropper post whilst also not having to be pushed so far forwards over the bottom bracket. eg: 9point 8 offset dropper post heads:

    https://intl.9point8.ca/index.php?ro...egory&path=116

  39. #39
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,819
    Quote Originally Posted by WR304 View Post
    On my 2020 Orbea Oiz which is the same frame as yours, with a 75 degree seat tube angle, I fitted a 25mm layback FSA K-Force light 31.6mm x400mm layback seatpost to make sure I would have enough rearwards saddle adjustment to be in the same place relative to the bottom bracket as I had been on my 2016 Specialized Epic. That had a 73.75 degree seat tube angle so I needed the added layback to get the saddle far enough back on the Orbea Oiz.

    https://shop.fullspeedahead.com/en/t...post-sb25-3568

    To pedal it's the same position as my old bike. If you're having sore wrists I'd consider looking at raising the bars a bit and maybe some handlebars with a different backsweep. It's the handlebars that usually seems to cause me hand problems. I swapped the Specialized S-Works flat bars from my old bike onto the new one as their sweep has been working ok for me this year.

    Are you using a dropper seatpost? They commonly come with inline heads, which limit fore aft adjustment, but you can also get offset heads for some dropper seatposts, allowing you to have the dropper post whilst also not having to be pushed so far forwards over the bottom bracket. eg: 9point 8 offset dropper post heads:

    https://intl.9point8.ca/index.php?ro...egory&path=116
    This is where we hit the trade off game.

    For climbing I happen to like the steeper seat angle, and on all but the steepest descents I like my bars as low as possible. Moving the seat back and raising the bars would put me in a position that may be more comfortable but would make me less happy with the bike set-up.

    Plus, there are a lot of possible reasons why I have had sore wrists. I put nearly 5000km on my MTB this year, that is a lot of single track time. And the most probably one is I am in my early 40s, getting aches and pains is reality.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    243
    In reference to ops original question, I've been analyzing xc and trail bike geometries for the past five years. Effective top tube has remained the same and is about the same for both genres. Reach and wheelbase have grown, and the longer the bike the steeper the sta. Which means op is right, the steeper sta puts you in a better climbing position. Xc bikes haven't ignored that. They don't need as steep sta because they aren't as long, but they give about the same ett as the trail bikes. The longer the front of the bike, the steeper the sta needs to be.

    OPs pivot, seems like the 2015 model, which is has super short reach compared to other xc hardtails or the time. A slack sta on a short bike makes sitting down comfortable, but also puts the rider being the bb. Newer bikes with longer front ends don't have this problem as much.

    Not science, but logically makes sense to me. I'm no pro though, I usually just off feel and be done with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanInTheD View Post
    Did you demo the Mach 4sl with the 120mm fork, which most of them have? I have one and rode it for a while with the 120mm fork but when I put a 100mm Step-cast fork on it, it came alive. I've said it in some other threads, IMO the bike shouldn't try to be "Down-country" or whatever, but it's a damn good XC bike at 100/100 of travel. It had a weird personality at 120 that didn't really work for me. The Spark RC is 100mm also on front and is similar geo the the Mach 4 with 100mm up front.
    Both, still didn't like it. The only pivot bike that's ever jived with me is the 5.5. I don't what it is but the others always feel off. Same with Trek.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DrewBird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,394
    At 6’3”, I can say with certainty that steeper STA is a boon when climbing. At my height, with saddle appreciably above stack height, the actual STA of older designs (I.e. real angle of the tube, not the “effective” STA as measured at stack) would put me way over the back wheel. Some modern designs still suffer from this issue, and published STA is often only applicable to shorter riders due to slacker actual STA. Having to climb on the nose of the saddle, or bent double at the waist to keep the front wheel down, is not a recipe for comfort or success.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by endo_alley View Post
    No. Other than just trying to be factually correct. (And a stubborn as hell slow learner) I guess we will see where bike geometries go in the next few years. If there is a better formula, someone will probably exploit it and make a killing.
    For sure, marketing works like that. If there's an opportunity to exploit a feature to differentiate your product then they will take it. Whether that feature brings a real benefit is dificult to measure because of rider placibo; we're told its better so we buy into that and instantly feel faster , more in control or whatever else they're selling.

    the Pivot LES 29 is an extreme example I think. I have a suspicion that they are using the same front triangle and onding in different chain stays to the LES27.5 (that has a steeper 73.8 deree seat tube).
    So its likely that the reason the 29er version has a slacker seat tube is due to making most economical use of the mould.
    Many companies use common moulded frame sections and put them together in different combinations, especially with road, gravel, CX and Hardtail frames.

    What ever the reason I don't think it makes a massive difference to the ride and handling as there are other design attributes like carbon lay up, builtin flex etc that contributes more meaningful differences to ride quality

  43. #43
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by ccm View Post
    isn't the Les29 more of a Tour DiVide bikepack race bike (gravel grindery all day) than modern XCO (steeps and drops ~1.5 hour) race bike?
    To really get into the intent of the bike design, you have to look at when it was released/last revised.

    If someone is using a three year old bike as "the example," they may find their argument undermined when the bike is redesigned.

    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post
    I got a chance to demo a 2020 Pivot Mach 4SL not too long ago. A very slack XC/downcountry bike.

    On paper, this paper should have been one of the most stable XC bikes you can ride so I suspect there is more to it than just reading geometry charts.
    Not really, you could tell "on paper" that it was a half-step behind. I was honestly a little surprised to see that from Pivot.

    I happen to have a 2020 Top Fuel because I work for a Trek dealer, but "on paper" that kind of geo, like the Intense Sniper before it (and even more so), is the leading edge.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post

    Not really, you could tell "on paper" that it was a half-step behind. I was honestly a little surprised to see that from Pivot.
    Yes you are right when compared to other downcountry bikes. I was thinking of how it compared to standard XC bikes. I wish pinkbike (or someone else) would do some time tests of the fastest downcountry bike to the fastest standard XC bike on an XC loop.

    Maybe your dealer will let you take the supercaliber out for some timed laps compared to your Top Fuel

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DrewBird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,394
    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post
    Yes you are right when compared to other downcountry bikes. I was thinking of how it compared to standard XC bikes. I wish pinkbike (or someone else) would do some time tests of the fastest downcountry bike to the fastest standard XC bike on an XC loop.

    Maybe your dealer will let you take the supercaliber out for some timed laps compared to your Top Fuel
    Yeah, I’d be curious about this too. Reason for not-crazy-steep STA on an XC bike has been discussed, but what about the front end? Is there really a disadvantage to a longer reach/slacker HTA/shorter stem geometry on a technical XC course, within reason?

    My suspicion is that the answer is no, that given comparable suspension efficiency, weight, wheels and tires a long-reach ~66.5 HTA bike will perform as well as a “real” race bike in an XC race (as long as a dropper is included). I think the main uncontrollable variable is the rider; down country steering geometry feels different and rewards a slightly different riding style, but I’d guess that once a given rider had some time on it they’d be just as fast on the DC bike on a XC course, as well as faster on steep tech.

  46. #46
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,693
    Quote Originally Posted by DrewBird View Post
    Yeah, I’d be curious about this too. Reason for not-crazy-steep STA on an XC bike has been discussed, but what about the front end? Is there really a disadvantage to a longer reach/slacker HTA/shorter stem geometry on a technical XC course, within reason?

    My suspicion is that the answer is no, that given comparable suspension efficiency, weight, wheels and tires a long-reach ~66.5 HTA bike will perform as well as a “real” race bike in an XC race (as long as a dropper is included). I think the main uncontrollable variable is the rider; down country steering geometry feels different and rewards a slightly different riding style, but I’d guess that once a given rider had some time on it they’d be just as fast on the DC bike on a XC course, as well as faster on steep tech.
    With my own experiments, there's a significant disadvantage going slack when trying to navigate uphill turns and switchbacks. You start having to concentrate on keeping the front end down and not lifting too much, vs. just being able to pedal and maintain speed through these sections. While not as radical as my 170mm front travel bike, it's still noticeable and saving energy/dedicating it all to going forward is what it's about. And on the flipside, 29er wheels aren't being gobbled up by wheel-catchers or stalling out on rock gardens, requiring a slacker angle to get our weight back and lighten the front for these features. Wider modern bars also increase our control and give us more leverage through these features without them displacing our front wheel. I just don't see a point to it. A lot of people *think* they are "faster on the downhills", but a lot of those people have just never seen a high-level XC racer that is good at all sections, because they are so slow they never get that high in the pack/standings...

    I love riding my AM/enduro bike, dropping off of bridges, hitting gaps, riding chutes and nasty root-balls in the Pac NW, but it takes a pretty gnar trail to make that bike faster on the downhill than my XC bike. It's sometimes funner to ride that enduro bike on the more mild downhills, but it's not faster and it's sometimes funner to ride the XC race rig, because I can "pop" off of everything and corner at faster speeds due to carrying more speed.

    Lots of people don't belong on an XC race rig.
    "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.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by DrewBird View Post
    Yeah, I’d be curious about this too. Reason for not-crazy-steep STA on an XC bike has been discussed, but what about the front end? Is there really a disadvantage to a longer reach/slacker HTA/shorter stem geometry on a technical XC course, within reason?

    My suspicion is that the answer is no, that given comparable suspension efficiency, weight, wheels and tires a long-reach ~66.5 HTA bike will perform as well as a “real” race bike in an XC race (as long as a dropper is included). I think the main uncontrollable variable is the rider; down country steering geometry feels different and rewards a slightly different riding style, but I’d guess that once a given rider had some time on it they’d be just as fast on the DC bike on a XC course, as well as faster on steep tech.
    As someone who went from a DC to and pure XC race bike, there are disadvantages that out weigh the advantages. Longer and Slacker means slower cornering. Most XC course have a lot of tight corners, switchbacks, and slow tech. You lose more time in those corners than you can make up on a super technical descent. Even more if you are racing skilled riders.

    People focus so much on equipment they end up praising it for successes and blaming it for failures, negating their own skill or lack thereof. I don't think bikes have suddenly become faster in the last year because of advanced geometry. IRL, the fast people are still marginally faster then the people dancing on DC bikes, on pure XC bikes.

    That said, I think new geometry has undeniable benefits. The biggest is comfort. Longer reach is more comfortable. More travel is more comfortable. Stability is comfortable. I'm not convinced slacker HA really matters that much after 68 degrees though. It kills the steering input too much. Most XC bikes this year have those attributes.

    IDK why everyone thinks modern XC bikes still have road bike geometry, or they can't descend fast on them. Really baffles me. Probably because you can never get a demo of one.

  48. #48
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,005
    It depends on where you are. Where I live in CO, the only time I'll ever have a truly tight corner in a race is in short track. Instead of my 23lb Sniper, I'll ride my 19-20lb, 69 degree HTA carbon hardtail.

    Otherwise, many/most of the races here are not the modern format XCO at all, but the single or multiple big loops of some high altitude, forested area where there are relatively few switchbacks.

    Now, when I'm traveling, my Sniper will be a far better, jack-of-all trades option than a traditional XC bike. Yes, I realize I'm getting outside the realm of pure racing, but the vast majority of my bicycle riding is done outside the realm of a mountain bike race course. But, if/when I travel to Moab and am gunning for the Hymasa/Ahab KOM, the Sniper I'm building up will most definitely be a better option for it than my current ASRC. That said, I think most people will be surprised by how fast a (120/100mm) bike like the ASRc can go down a "double black" like that.
    Death from Below.

  49. #49
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by DrewBird View Post
    Yeah, I’d be curious about this too. Reason for not-crazy-steep STA on an XC bike has been discussed, but what about the front end? Is there really a disadvantage to a longer reach/slacker HTA/shorter stem geometry on a technical XC course, within reason?

    My suspicion is that the answer is no, that given comparable suspension efficiency, weight, wheels and tires a long-reach ~66.5 HTA bike will perform as well as a “real” race bike in an XC race (as long as a dropper is included). I think the main uncontrollable variable is the rider; down country steering geometry feels different and rewards a slightly different riding style, but I’d guess that once a given rider had some time on it they’d be just as fast on the DC bike on a XC course, as well as faster on steep tech.
    Any advantage a Supercaliber would have would probably be due to the rear suspension and weight and be marginal at best. The main thing is it would be less suitable as a do-it-all MTB because it's undoubtedly harsher than 100+mm travel frames.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    With my own experiments, there's a significant disadvantage going slack when trying to navigate uphill turns and switchbacks. You start having to concentrate on keeping the front end down and not lifting too much, vs. just being able to pedal and maintain speed through these sections. While not as radical as my 170mm front travel bike, it's still noticeable and saving energy/dedicating it all to going forward is what it's about. And on the flipside, 29er wheels aren't being gobbled up by wheel-catchers or stalling out on rock gardens, requiring a slacker angle to get our weight back and lighten the front for these features. Wider modern bars also increase our control and give us more leverage through these features without them displacing our front wheel. I just don't see a point to it. A lot of people *think* they are "faster on the downhills", but a lot of those people have just never seen a high-level XC racer that is good at all sections, because they are so slow they never get that high in the pack/standings...

    I love riding my AM/enduro bike, dropping off of bridges, hitting gaps, riding chutes and nasty root-balls in the Pac NW, but it takes a pretty gnar trail to make that bike faster on the downhill than my XC bike. It's sometimes funner to ride that enduro bike on the more mild downhills, but it's not faster and it's sometimes funner to ride the XC race rig, because I can "pop" off of everything and corner at faster speeds due to carrying more speed.

    Lots of people don't belong on an XC race rig.
    This post has really turned out fairly interesting. I do question the notion that a bike's front end feels lighter and tends to pop up more on a longer reach or slacker hta bike than on a shorter reach steeper bike, if all other parameters of geometry remain equal. If other parameters are changed, like very short chain stays, along with a slack seat tube angel, then I do see a connection. Of course, a slack hta does want to wander a bit on steep technical climbs. Where I live, a lot of our local race courses are fairly well maintained. Often there is a double track section along parts of the climbs to let the fastest riders get out away form the pack. Corners are usually somewhat well maintained. We have a local group that keeps the corridors clear and erosion at bay. I don't know if in other parts of the country the race courses are as well maintained. So that could effect bike choice. On the other hand I completely agree, and
    I am truly amazed, when riding with people on cross country race bikes, how fast some of the people are in descents. Providing it is not too gnarly. Sometimes even when it is quite gnarly. But these tend to be people who have put countless miles and hours of riding on these bikes. People with very quick reaction times who know their bikes intimately. I admit that I am that other type of person with slow reaction time. who tends to take a straighter, but sloppy path as fast as I can down the middle and over the top of everything. And I have the scars to prove it. I think I ski the same awkward way. (Pull over when you hear me coming- usually a loud "oshit !" and a lot of branches breaking). Anyhow, that may be why I feel that cross country race bikes can be a little too reactive for my taste.

  51. #51
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Ksanman View Post
    As someone who went from a DC to and pure XC race bike, there are disadvantages that out weigh the advantages. Longer and Slacker means slower cornering. Most XC course have a lot of tight corners, switchbacks, and slow tech. You lose more time in those corners than you can make up on a super technical descent. Even more if you are racing skilled riders.
    The "longer" part is a non issue because the only thing being moved is the front tire, the longer reach is offset by shorter stems and rider position is unchanged. The "slacker" part becomes a non-issue when you change your technique to lean more and steer less. That also aids stability regardless of the front end geometry. It's not like these are DH bikes that are undeniably so long and so slack that it makes low speed handling difficult.

    Like with dropper posts, it isn't necessarily that more progressive geo is "faster," it's that it's easier to be more consistent and is a touch more forgiving. The only price you pay is a few more grams for slightly longer tubes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ksanman View Post
    IDK why everyone thinks modern XC bikes still have road bike geometry, or they can't descend fast on them.
    That depends on the size choices people make, when people don't upsize a dedicated XC race bike, it is pretty road like. Not like it was a few years ago, but you still end up with a short frame/long stem/very low bars that's going to be a lot more sporty when pointed downwards, especially when not using a dropper post.

    If you upsized a Supercaliber, or even a Procaliber you end up with a lot more friendly bike. (Just using Treks as an example) The 2020 Top Fuel is pretty much an upsized version of the previous generation with shorter head tubes for bar height and seat tubes to fit longer droppers.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    The "longer" part is a non issue because the only thing being moved is the front tire, the longer reach is offset by shorter stems and rider position is unchanged. The "slacker" part becomes a non-issue when you change your technique to lean more and steer less. That also aids stability regardless of the front end geometry. It's not like these are DH bikes that are undeniably so long and so slack that it makes low speed handling difficult.

    Like with dropper posts, it isn't necessarily that more progressive geo is "faster," it's that it's easier to be more consistent and is a touch more forgiving. The only price you pay is a few more grams for slightly longer tubes.



    That depends on the size choices people make, when people don't upsize a dedicated XC race bike, it is pretty road like. Not like it was a few years ago, but you still end up with a short frame/long stem/very low bars that's going to be a lot more sporty when pointed downwards, especially when not using a dropper post.

    If you upsized a Supercaliber, or even a Procaliber you end up with a lot more friendly bike. (Just using Treks as an example) The 2020 Top Fuel is pretty much an upsized version of the previous generation with shorter head tubes for bar height and seat tubes to fit longer droppers.

    That technique change costs more energy and that's the margin between winning and losing. Longer in wheelbase is crap for tight xco courses that's why Scott kept the Sparks wheelbase as short as they could.
    Haven't seen anyone win on a top fuel or intense Sniper since launched, especially an upsized one. The riders are squeezing themselves onto the smallest size they can fit. Long low and slack is a load of marketing bollocks and it results in poor trail bikes being sold as xco race bikes.

  53. #53
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad View Post
    That technique change costs more energy and that's the margin between winning and losing. Longer in wheelbase is crap for tight xco courses that's why Scott kept the Sparks wheelbase as short as they could.
    Haven't seen anyone win on a top fuel or intense Sniper since launched, especially an upsized one. The riders are squeezing themselves onto the smallest size they can fit. Long low and slack is a load of marketing bollocks and it results in poor trail bikes being sold as xco race bikes.
    Does it? How do you know? Can you point to any data or studies that support that statement? Even any anecdotal evidence?

    Bec McConnell had her best season to date on a LLS bike...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post
    Yes you are right when compared to other downcountry bikes. I was thinking of how it compared to standard XC bikes. I wish pinkbike (or someone else) would do some time tests of the fastest downcountry bike to the fastest standard XC bike on an XC loop.

    Maybe your dealer will let you take the supercaliber out for some timed laps compared to your Top Fuel
    Pivot mach 4 SL 2019 is an XCO race bike. They took it as far as they felt they could go without turning into another "dowblncountry" clone. What is that #### anyway? I've tried the intense and it's a fantastic marathon bike. But even in 10mm set up its too flexible, too long too low (pedal strikes are a problem). As a xco race bike the Pivot is much better.
    The 2020 top fuel also great marathon bike really poor xco bike. Feels heavy and pedals with the gusto of a corpse. Point it down and it comes alive. These traits are not lost on xco racers and the people who build their bikes. Hence Trek have the super calibre.
    One of the liveliest xco race bikes I've ridden is the niner rkt rdo. Of the longer lower slacker bikes the Giant Anthem probably comes closest to being the best jack of all trades yet cannondale Scalpel does the same with a higher bb and steeper head tube 73.5degree sta and medium reach.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Does it? How do you know? Can you point to any data or studies that support that statement? Even any anecdotal evidence?

    Bec McConnell had her best season to date on a LLS bike...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Look at the mondraker again. Its not as lls as you think. She had a decent season probably due to having a sponsor and getting proper rest rather than anything to do with that fugly bike
    And I gave you anecdotal evidence.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DrewBird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad View Post
    Look at the mondraker again. Its not as lls as you think. She had a decent season probably due to having a sponsor and getting proper rest rather than anything to do with that fugly bike
    And I gave you anecdotal evidence.
    So your anecdote in support of “LLS is crap” boils down to “it’s more about the athlete than the bike.” Hmmm...

  57. #57
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad View Post
    Look at the mondraker again. Its not as lls as you think. She had a decent season probably due to having a sponsor and getting proper rest rather than anything to do with that fugly bike
    And I gave you anecdotal evidence.
    A small Mondraker has a reach 5mm shorter than a Medium Sniper.

    Also, it’s strange that you’d be concerned with energy costs of a LLS bike, then describe the RKT RDO, a bike that pedals like a wet mattress, as “lively”.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    437
    If we go bike World Cup anecdotal evidence, I'm not sure we'll learn a lot. We've seen wins last year from a range of geometries (albeit in a tight window), hardtails and full suspension bikes, dropper and rigid seatposts.

    I think what might be more informative is what we don't see. Heavy bikes, non-XC tires and plus tires, bars wider than 740mm, mountain bike helmets with visors, baggies, anything else?

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    The "longer" part is a non issue because the only thing being moved is the front tire, the longer reach is offset by shorter stems and rider position is unchanged. The "slacker" part becomes a non-issue when you change your technique to lean more and steer less. That also aids stability regardless of the front end geometry. It's not like these are DH bikes that are undeniably so long and so slack that it makes low speed handling difficult.

    Like with dropper posts, it isn't necessarily that more progressive geo is "faster," it's that it's easier to be more consistent and is a touch more forgiving. The only price you pay is a few more grams for slightly longer tubes.



    That depends on the size choices people make, when people don't upsize a dedicated XC race bike, it is pretty road like. Not like it was a few years ago, but you still end up with a short frame/long stem/very low bars that's going to be a lot more sporty when pointed downwards, especially when not using a dropper post.

    If you upsized a Supercaliber, or even a Procaliber you end up with a lot more friendly bike. (Just using Treks as an example) The 2020 Top Fuel is pretty much an upsized version of the previous generation with shorter head tubes for bar height and seat tubes to fit longer droppers.
    This was response to: Is there really a disadvantage to LLS? And there is. And as Jaymen pointed out, they are noticeable. Whether or not you care about that disadvantage is up to you and your individual riding preferences.

    I'm not sure about the guy who thinks leaning a bike takes more energy, that's just stupid and you should be leaning a bike in corners because good technique. Personally I don't just like the feel longer 29er bikes. I tried a few DC bikes before I picked up my spark rc, I really didn't like how they felt. Too much like a trail bike. I got a spark and I think it's a great balance. I don't have problems "leaning" into corners, going downhill, going through technical terrain, etc. I don't have a problem in steep technical terrain either.

    I'm not trying to say that no one should ride DC bikes. Some people have them and really like them. Some people need them. They definitely have their place. Right now, for me personally, they all weigh and climb about the same as a trail bike but without the benefit of longer travel. And, for me, they aren't faster. Or even consistently faster. Sometimes, slower.

    I'm personally waiting for Scott to release the 120mm version of the spark rc Ninos been riding. Comfort of a DC bike with XCO racing geometry.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post
    If we go bike World Cup anecdotal evidence, I'm not sure we'll learn a lot. We've seen wins last year from a range of geometries (albeit in a tight window), hardtails and full suspension bikes, dropper and rigid seatposts.

    I think what might be more informative is what we don't see. Heavy bikes, non-XC tires and plus tires, bars wider than 740mm, mountain bike helmets with visors, baggies, anything else?
    120mm forks, long dropper posts, hip packs, tube straps....

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Ksanman View Post
    This was response to: Is there really a disadvantage to LLS? And there is. And as Jaymen pointed out, they are noticeable. Whether or not you care about that disadvantage is up to you and your individual riding preferences.

    I'm not sure about the guy who thinks leaning a bike takes more energy, that's just stupid and you should be leaning a bike in corners because good technique. Personally I don't just like the feel longer 29er bikes. I tried a few DC bikes before I picked up my spark rc, I really didn't like how they felt. Too much like a trail bike. I got a spark and I think it's a great balance. I don't have problems "leaning" into corners, going downhill, going through technical terrain, etc. I don't have a problem in steep technical terrain either.

    I'm not trying to say that no one should ride DC bikes. Some people have them and really like them. Some people need them. They definitely have their place. Right now, for me personally, they all weigh and climb about the same as a trail bike but without the benefit of longer travel. And, for me, they aren't faster. Or even consistently faster. Sometimes, slower.

    I'm personally waiting for Scott to release the 120mm version of the spark rc Ninos been riding. Comfort of a DC bike with XCO racing geometry.
    Don't be an idiot all bikes leaned to turn. If not they carry straight on. Longer bikes require more pressure on the pedals and a greater angle of lean to turn the same radius as a shorter bike. That's just science. So the more physical you need to be with the bike the more energy it takes to turn unless you in the getting something for camp which is also a member of the flat earth society.

  62. #62
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,005
    Thought I'd post a screenshot of the geometry of all of the bikes discussed on here recently. Pretty remarkable differences between them all. Note that the non-RC Spark and the RKT RDO are running 120mm forks, and the non-RC Spark also has 120mm of rear end travel. cross country geometry-bikegeoscreenshot.png
    Death from Below.

  63. #63
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Ksanman View Post
    This was response to: Is there really a disadvantage to LLS? And there is. And as Jaymen pointed out, they are noticeable. Whether or not you care about that disadvantage is up to you and your individual riding preferences.

    I'm not sure about the guy who thinks leaning a bike takes more energy, that's just stupid and you should be leaning a bike in corners because good technique. Personally I don't just like the feel longer 29er bikes. I tried a few DC bikes before I picked up my spark rc, I really didn't like how they felt. Too much like a trail bike. I got a spark and I think it's a great balance. I don't have problems "leaning" into corners, going downhill, going through technical terrain, etc. I don't have a problem in steep technical terrain either.

    I'm not trying to say that no one should ride DC bikes. Some people have them and really like them. Some people need them. They definitely have their place. Right now, for me personally, they all weigh and climb about the same as a trail bike but without the benefit of longer travel. And, for me, they aren't faster. Or even consistently faster. Sometimes, slower.

    I'm personally waiting for Scott to release the 120mm version of the spark rc Ninos been riding. Comfort of a DC bike with XCO racing geometry.
    Big thing: Not having a problem doing something doesn't mean that you've reached the optimum setup. I didn't have a problem a few years ago riding and racing an enduro bike with a reach shorter than most new XC race bikes, doesn't mean it was the best it could be. I mean geez, I "don't have a problem" doing light mountain biking on my CX bike...it's definitely slower though.

    The Spark RC isn't exactly short, wheelbase-wise compared to pretty much anything else, so you're off on that. That's the great thing about geometry charts...if you choose to actually look at them.

  64. #64
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Does it? How do you know? Can you point to any data or studies that support that statement? Even any anecdotal evidence?

    Bec McConnell had her best season to date on a LLS bike...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Naturally, he ignores the extra speed and confidence that comes from not riding a fat-tire'd CX bike...speed that needs to be made up by a slower descending bike somewhere, by exerting a lot more energy.

  65. #65
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,819
    Quote Originally Posted by DrewBird View Post
    Yeah, I’d be curious about this too. Reason for not-crazy-steep STA on an XC bike has been discussed, but what about the front end? Is there really a disadvantage to a longer reach/slacker HTA/shorter stem geometry on a technical XC course, within reason?

    My suspicion is that the answer is no, that given comparable suspension efficiency, weight, wheels and tires a long-reach ~66.5 HTA bike will perform as well as a “real” race bike in an XC race (as long as a dropper is included). I think the main uncontrollable variable is the rider; down country steering geometry feels different and rewards a slightly different riding style, but I’d guess that once a given rider had some time on it they’d be just as fast on the DC bike on a XC course, as well as faster on steep tech.
    Everything is a trade off.

    The trend to go long and slack on the front centre of bikes is about changing the weight distribution backwards on the bike. This is great when you are going in a straight line but when you want weight on front wheel (like when you are going around a turn) it is less than desirable. If you ride a truely slack angled bike you know that to make them corner with any kind of pace you better know what your doing. The same is true but to a lesser extent on newer slacker XC bikes that are appearing.

    I am not judging slack HAs but I am aware, like everything, in mountain biking they are a compromise.

    I do think that we tend to overplay these small changes in geometry. A degree here or there is minor change that is going to make a minor difference to a bike. When I look at my XC descent times on my test loop since 2012, there has been small improvements. I would like to say that those improvements are due to improved technique.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Big thing: Not having a problem doing something doesn't mean that you've reached the optimum setup. I didn't have a problem a few years ago riding and racing an enduro bike with a reach shorter than most new XC race bikes, doesn't mean it was the best it could be. I mean geez, I "don't have a problem" doing light mountain biking on my CX bike...it's definitely slower though.

    The Spark RC isn't exactly short, wheelbase-wise compared to pretty much anything else, so you're off on that. That's the great thing about geometry charts...if you choose to actually look at them.
    I'm sorry my, and thousands of others, "optimum" is different than yours?

    If you actually looked at geometry charts, you'd see that the spark RC is right on line with the epic, oiz, blur and other modern fs xc bikes, and 20-30mm shorter than all the "downcountry" bikes.

  67. #67
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Ksanman View Post
    I'm sorry my, and thousands of others, "optimum" is different than yours?

    If you actually looked at geometry charts, you'd see that the spark RC is right on line with the epic, oiz, blur and other modern fs xc bikes, and 20-30mm shorter than all the "downcountry" bikes.
    The Spark RC isn't "modern" in this context because it's about to be revised. The Niner, that's short, an inch of wheelbase isn't going to make a perceptible difference either. Saying it would would be like saying I can't ride my MTB effectively after riding my road bike for a few days. You just ride the bike, because none of these bikes have wheelbases that will impact what you can or cannot do while riding it.

    I doubt the optimum is different for anyone, just that some people can make do with what they have better than others. Also, "lol" at your "thousands of others." Most people ride...descend and corner, better with more modern geometry.

    It's pretty easy to see how well you stack up on descents using Strava.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post

    I doubt the optimum is different for anyone, just that some people can make do with what they have better than others. Also, "lol" at your "thousands of others." Most people ride...descend and corner, better with more modern geometry.

    It's pretty easy to see how well you stack up on descents using Strava.
    Well the "optimum" is pretty hard to judge at the amateur/weekend warrior level because there are so many rider inefficiencies in both fitness and bike handling that people rarely reach the bike's limits. I am in the top 3% on all the descents in my area and I ride a hardtail and half the KOMs are held by CAT 1 XC racers on hardtails. Does that mean hardtails are the "optimum" because Strava says they stack up well?

    Where we really see optimality is at the highest levels of competition where rider weaknesses are eliminated through a Darwinistic process. And at that level, downcountry bikes are the exception not the rule.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Big thing: Not having a problem doing something doesn't mean that you've reached the optimum setup. I didn't have a problem a few years ago riding and racing an enduro bike with a reach shorter than most new XC race bikes, doesn't mean it was the best it could be. I mean geez, I "don't have a problem" doing light mountain biking on my CX bike...it's definitely slower though.

    The Spark RC isn't exactly short, wheelbase-wise compared to pretty much anything else, so you're off on that. That's the great thing about geometry charts...if you choose to actually look at them.
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    The Spark RC isn't "modern" in this context because it's about to be revised. The Niner, that's short, an inch of wheelbase isn't going to make a perceptible difference either. Saying it would would be like saying I can't ride my MTB effectively after riding my road bike for a few days. You just ride the bike, because none of these bikes have wheelbases that will impact what you can or cannot do while riding it.

    I doubt the optimum is different for anyone, just that some people can make do with what they have better than others. Also, "lol" at your "thousands of others." Most people ride...descend and corner, better with more modern geometry.

    It's pretty easy to see how well you stack up on descents using Strava.
    So, you're going to attack me because my experience and opinion of bikes is different than yours? I bet you're fun at parties.

    Are you also that guy that shows up to XC races on his Enduro bike so he "shred" the downhill? I'll make sure to wave at you from the podium as you cross the line, since apparently bike geometry doesn't matter at all.

  70. #70
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Ksanman View Post
    So, you're going to attack me because my experience and opinion of bikes is different than yours? I bet you're fun at parties.

    Are you also that guy that shows up to XC races on his Enduro bike so he "shred" the downhill? I'll make sure to wave at you from the podium as you cross the line, since apparently bike geometry doesn't matter at all.
    Funny how you cry about an "attack" that didn't happen and then make up some strawman to argue against.

    If you have something to say about the subject at hand, go ahead and give it a shot.

    Big "LOL" about the see you from the podium. How did you do at True Grit? Because saying "I'll be sure to wave at you from the podium" to someone significantly older than you who happens to have smoked you pretty well would be an unfortunate mistake.

  71. #71
    chasing simplicity
    Reputation: MattMay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,134
    This is getting good. And to think I hated geometry in school.
    Never underestimate an old man with a mountain bike.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Ksanman View Post
    I had a similar experience with the Mach 4 SL. On paper it seems similar to the spark RC, which I ended up with. And people were raving about it only so I decided to give it a chance. But the actual ride was very, very different.

    It felt really long, and I had a hard time getting to my line on technical climbs. It pedaled awesome, but wasn't very responsive up or down. Not twitchy, not scary old school steep xc like, but something was off.

    The spark, on the other hand, climbed technical stuff better. It's almost too responsive. Picking a line was easy. Downhill was super stable though. In my mind, it feels like it should be twitchy but it's not. It only turns when I want it to.

    It's amazing what a few millimeters and degrees difference does to the feel of a bike.
    what you felt is more to do with frame stiffness and carbon layup than the geometry numbers. Fitting a 120mm fork when a 100mm is recommended or the rear suspension leverage ratio is worked out around a specific shock stroke, tune and sag, is going to lead to trouble because the more rearward weight bias changes the kinematics. So one bike coming alive is more likely due to the suspension being in the sweet spot.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by midwestmtb View Post
    Well the "optimum" is pretty hard to judge at the amateur/weekend warrior level because there are so many rider inefficiencies in both fitness and bike handling that people rarely reach the bike's limits. I am in the top 3% on all the descents in my area and I ride a hardtail and half the KOMs are held by CAT 1 XC racers on hardtails. Does that mean hardtails are the "optimum" because Strava says they stack up well?

    Where we really see optimality is at the highest levels of competition where rider weaknesses are eliminated through a Darwinistic process. And at that level, downcountry bikes are the exception not the rule.
    completely agree

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad View Post
    what you felt is more to do with frame stiffness and carbon layup than the geometry numbers. Fitting a 120mm fork when a 100mm is recommended or the rear suspension leverage ratio is worked out around a specific shock stroke, tune and sag, is going to lead to trouble because the more rearward weight bias changes the kinematics. So one bike coming alive is more likely due to the suspension being in the sweet spot.
    I tried both forks, still didn't love it. Big deal. I went with a different bike that I felt fit and handled better. I know a lot of people who have pivots and love them. Different bikes for different people.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    133
    Santa Claus has to test all the bikes and it's what he prefers to race on.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Thought I'd post a screenshot of the geometry of all of the bikes discussed on here recently. Pretty remarkable differences between them all. Note that the non-RC Spark and the RKT RDO are running 120mm forks, and the non-RC Spark also has 120mm of rear end travel. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BikeGeoScreenshot.PNG 
Views:	42 
Size:	48.8 KB 
ID:	1300851
    The Spark 120mm is a sort of marathon / light trail set up. It's not an XCO bike and Scott make no claim to it being so. Can't see the point you're trying to make other than alll those different numbers don't tell you whether a bike suits your needs or not.
    The Mondraker is a bus btw, a real bus. I won't be buying one anytime soon

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Ksanman View Post
    I tried both forks, still didn't love it. Big deal. I went with a different bike that I felt fit and handled better. I know a lot of people who have pivots and love them. Different bikes for different people.
    I can't fault that. If you tried the bike and didn't like it then fair enough. That's a million times better than looking at a geometry chart and saying "that's crap because...."

    I did find the DW link bikes to be a little more tricky to get into the sweet spot than say a linkage driven single pivot like the Spark and Scalpel. Set up is a process but once completed to satisfaction the platform is very very good, efficient and well balanced.

  78. #78
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad View Post
    The Spark 120mm is a sort of marathon / light trail set up. It's not an XCO bike and Scott make no claim to it being so. Can't see the point you're trying to make other than alll those different numbers don't tell you whether a bike suits your needs or not.
    The Mondraker is a bus btw, a real bus. I won't be buying one anytime soon
    Pretty sure Nino did an interview saying he was racing the 120mm travel version in XCO. No doubt he's running much more pressure in the shock than someone normally would (so it's not riding like a 120mm travel bike) and he used it for the geometry changes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brad View Post
    I can't fault that. If you tried the bike and didn't like it then fair enough. That's a million times better than looking at a geometry chart and saying "that's crap because...."

    I did find the DW link bikes to be a little more tricky to get into the sweet spot than say a linkage driven single pivot like the Spark and Scalpel. Set up is a process but once completed to satisfaction the platform is very very good, efficient and well balanced.
    A DW-link bike certainly feels lively, as the chain torque forces the shock to extend, maybe that power that's converted into heat inside of the shock doesn't matter as much as the perception of liveliness...who knows.

    But in the end these are short travel bikes and there's just not much difference between them, they're all influenced by chain torque in one way or another.

  79. #79
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,819
    A lot of time the 120mm travel versions of XC bikes (Spark, Oiz, Pivot, ect...) are running a softer tune on the rear suspension which moves them out of "XC race bike" range.

    My issue with these 120mm travel bikes is that is a lot of travel for a frame that is under 4.5lbs. Give me that much rear wheel travel and I start doing things that I really shouldn't do on a frame that light.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brentos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,817
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    ...A DW-link bike certainly feels lively, as the chain torque forces the shock to extend, maybe that power that's converted into heat inside of the shock doesn't matter as much as the perception of liveliness...who knows.

    But in the end these are short travel bikes and there's just not much difference between them, they're all influenced by chain torque in one way or another.
    Oh man, I though I was the only one who held that rather unpopular opinion. I love those high anti-squat DW bikes on fast, punchy, rolling terrain, but every one I've ridden felt less and less efficient as the vertical added up.

  81. #81
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,819
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    A DW-link bike certainly feels lively, as the chain torque forces the shock to extend, maybe that power that's converted into heat inside of the shock doesn't matter as much as the perception of liveliness...who knows.
    In theory there would be a little bit of energy dissipated in the shock, but I suspect that it is very, very small.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  82. #82
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,693
    But it doens't extend, he's thinking of the old Giant NRS where if you ran it with any sag, it sure did extend with chain torque. The DW link allows the anti-squat to keep the shock from compressing due to chain torque, but it's not making it extend. It's possible to do that and designs before have, but it's not what the DW link is doing. It'd be very noticeable if it was.
    "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.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Pretty sure Nino did an interview saying he was racing the 120mm travel version in XCO. No doubt he's running much more pressure in the shock than someone normally would (so it's not riding like a 120mm travel bike) and he used it for the geometry changes.



    A DW-link bike certainly feels lively, as the chain torque forces the shock to extend, maybe that power that's converted into heat inside of the shock doesn't matter as much as the perception of liveliness...who knows.

    But in the end these are short travel bikes and there's just not much difference between them, they're all influenced by chain torque in one way or another.
    Nino rides the standard 100 mm travel bike in XCO with 20%sag
    He uses a modified version with 110mm travel front and rear for the Absa Cape Epic with 25%sag. The slightly softer bike is easier to live with over a 100km stage than his XCO race bike.

  84. #84
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    But it doens't extend, he's thinking of the old Giant NRS where if you ran it with any sag, it sure did extend with chain torque. The DW link allows the anti-squat to keep the shock from compressing due to chain torque, but it's not making it extend. It's possible to do that and designs before have, but it's not what the DW link is doing. It'd be very noticeable if it was.
    The same chain torque that keeps the suspension from compressing is the same chain torque that extends the shock. It doesn't have a mind of it's own or self-awareness. Anti-squat is anti-squat, and since we don't provide constant power, the suspension will compress under less torque and extend under more.

    All suspension designs do it because we're riding bicycles, not motorcycles. Some less, some more, some compress the suspension, some extend it. It's not a big deal, it just impacts the subjective "feel" of the bike.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad View Post
    Nino rides the standard 100 mm travel bike in XCO with 20%sag
    He uses a modified version with 110mm travel front and rear for the Absa Cape Epic with 25%sag. The slightly softer bike is easier to live with over a 100km stage than his XCO race bike.
    Look at any bike check from this year. Nino ran a spark RC with a custom swingarm. 120mm back, 110mm front.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad View Post
    Nino rides the standard 100 mm travel bike in XCO with 20%sag
    He uses a modified version with 110mm travel front and rear for the Absa Cape Epic with 25%sag. The slightly softer bike is easier to live with over a 100km stage than his XCO race bike.
    Nope: https://www.bikeradar.com/features/p...cott-spark-rc/

    Custom swingarm, 120mm rear and 110mm front. He ran it pretty much every race this year.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Ksanman View Post
    Nope: https://www.bikeradar.com/features/p...cott-spark-rc/

    Custom swingarm, 120mm rear and 110mm front. He ran it pretty much every race this year.
    I'm not going to argue with someone who hasn't actually touched his bike or assisted the team during a race like the Cape Epic. He has mentioned himself that they run the bike in XCO set up for the XCO season. They used a 110 F&R set up for the Cape Epic. I know this as I saw it in and discussed this with his mechanic and the rider himself.
    Nino did say they experiment with the set up depending on the course, but mostly they leave it at 100mm.
    Bikeradar is well known for typos. I tend to trust in what I see, and touch rather than journo's who obtain information 2nd , 3rd 4th , 5th hand and down the grape wine. That 110F and 120 rear is not something they would use at every event if they actually used it at all

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad View Post
    I'm not going to argue with someone who hasn't actually touched his bike or assisted the team during a race like the Cape Epic. He has mentioned himself that they run the bike in XCO set up for the XCO season. They used a 110 F&R set up for the Cape Epic. I know this as I saw it in and discussed this with his mechanic and the rider himself.
    Nino did say they experiment with the set up depending on the course, but mostly they leave it at 100mm.
    Bikeradar is well known for typos. I tend to trust in what I see, and touch rather than journo's who obtain information 2nd , 3rd 4th , 5th hand and down the grape wine. That 110F and 120 rear is not something they would use at every event if they actually used it at all
    Ok, here's an interview where he says it himself. https://www.mtb-mag.com/en/33-questi...nino-schurter/

    There is literally an entire thread about this.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WR304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    5,031
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    This is where we hit the trade off game.

    For climbing I happen to like the steeper seat angle, and on all but the steepest descents I like my bars as low as possible. Moving the seat back and raising the bars would put me in a position that may be more comfortable but would make me less happy with the bike set-up.

    Plus, there are a lot of possible reasons why I have had sore wrists. I put nearly 5000km on my MTB this year, that is a lot of single track time. And the most probably one is I am in my early 40s, getting aches and pains is reality.
    That's cool. From your original post I thought it was that you couldn't get the position you wanted to be in due to the limitations of the bike.

    There's quite an interesting video on the Pinkbike field test where they try to climb up a difficult hill with tight turns on all the test bikes, ranging from long travel slack enduro bikes through to shorter travel XC bikes. On the climbing test it was the XC style bikes such as the Trek Top Fuel that got further:

    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/field-...ideo-2019.html

    .

  90. #90
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,693
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    The same chain torque that keeps the suspension from compressing is the same chain torque that extends the shock. It doesn't have a mind of it's own or self-awareness. Anti-squat is anti-squat, and since we don't provide constant power, the suspension will compress under less torque and extend under more.

    All suspension designs do it because we're riding bicycles, not motorcycles. Some less, some more, some compress the suspension, some extend it. It's not a big deal, it just impacts the subjective "feel" of the bike.
    But it doesn't "extend". The amount of AS is such that it keeps your pedaling input from compressing the shock. You'd have to radically change the chainring size to make it actually extend under power, like two-teeth chainring up from or something of that nature. Unless you are talking about some old-school radically high AS design around 200%, like an old NRS or some of super high-pivot bikes from 25 years ago.
    "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.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Ksanman View Post
    Ok, here's an interview where he says it himself. https://www.mtb-mag.com/en/33-questi...nino-schurter/

    There is literally an entire thread about this.

    Thanks for sharing. I've seen that interview. He doesn't state that he uses the 120mm set up all year. Like I mentioned at Cape epic it was 110mm front and rear. NOVE Mesto it was 100 mm, Albstadt 100mm,then they they tried the 110/120 again. They experiment with the set up for different courses
    But like I said the measured travel on the bike for Cape epic was 110mm with the RS.
    Does it change the geometry? I doubt it, if anything its probably to steepnen the head angle and raise the bb as the Spark is a bit too low for my liking

  92. #92
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,819
    Quote Originally Posted by WR304 View Post
    That's cool. From your original post I thought it was that you couldn't get the position you wanted to be in due to the limitations of the bike.

    There's quite an interesting video on the Pinkbike field test where they try to climb up a difficult hill with tight turns on all the test bikes, ranging from long travel slack enduro bikes through to shorter travel XC bikes. On the climbing test it was the XC style bikes such as the Trek Top Fuel that got further:

    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/field-...ideo-2019.html

    .
    Position on a bike or "what feels right" is an evolving process. The set-up that I run now would have felt absolutely aweful to me 10 years ago, and my 10 years old set-up is just about un-rideable now.

    Funny enough probably the most important angle for pedalling performance is seat tilt. I find that if that tilt by the smallest margin is drastically changes the whole feel of the bike.

    No surprise about the pink bike tests. Bikes with lots of rear wheel travel are a handle full when making slow speed moves while climbing. I have a Rallon, which is am amazing pedalling bike but on really technical switchback climbs I do not have the same success rate.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  93. #93
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    But it doesn't "extend". The amount of AS is such that it keeps your pedaling input from compressing the shock. You'd have to radically change the chainring size to make it actually extend under power, like two-teeth chainring up from or something of that nature. Unless you are talking about some old-school radically high AS design around 200%, like an old NRS or some of super high-pivot bikes from 25 years ago.
    An anti-squat number that isn't 100% means that chain torque acts to either extend or compress the shock, there really isn't much more to it.

  94. #94
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,819
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    An anti-squat number that isn't 100% means that chain torque acts to either extend or compress the shock, there really isn't much more to it.
    Have you ever used a shock wiz? With them you can dynamically see the sag in your suspension.

    I have an Orbea Rallon, which has pretty high anti-squat values. On that bike, according to a shock wiz, my sag goes from 30% to about 25% when I am climbing at moderate effort. Basically the shock wiz measures exactly why you are describing, the anti-squat causes the rear suspension to extend.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN View Post
    Have you ever used a shock wiz?
    My god I just went down that rabbit hole. What a cool device.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-12-2015, 05:44 AM
  2. Would a Jamis Cross Country SX 14" fit me? - Same as Cross Country 2.0?
    By Biker_Bob in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-10-2015, 09:06 AM
  3. A cross-country cross-country tour?
    By penser in forum Washington
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-30-2008, 02:15 AM
  4. A cross-country cross-country tour?
    By penser in forum Idaho, Montana, Wyoming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-30-2008, 02:07 AM
  5. A cross-country cross-country tour?
    By penser in forum Great Plains - OK, KS, NE, SD, ND
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-30-2008, 02:06 AM

Members who have read this thread: 192

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.