Hi. I'd like to hear opinions on what people think is the most ideal head tube angle for all mountain riding, that is, and angle that is a good medium between climbing and descending.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Ideal head tube angle for all mountain
Grey_Wolf
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
ha! but e-riding AM hardtails for year, b!tch!geolover said:
and another thing GheyLover, since when does fork discussions only apply to AM hardtails...last I checked a 140mm fork on a FS frame still has only 140mm if you put it on a hardtail, AM hardtail or otherwise
p.s. HTFU
Joined
·
437 Posts
I'd like to input that 71* is NOT an AM HT angle. I was seshing a nice flowy trail earlier and I cant stand how much the bike wants to nose over and twitch. It doesnt give you a stable feeling when you're at speed. This is a 130mm hard tail, measured static! I would say any aggressive riding you need at least 69*, assuming its at least a 5" bike. (any less travel i dont consider an AM bike). I have a 5" 5x5 bike that is 69* and thats as shallow as i'd ever want to go, even if i was xc'in that *****!
Joined
·
488 Posts
you can use my figures to calculate since I actually measured those, several times I might add.Halfrican said:
502-460 = 42mm
71°-68,5° = 2,5° 42mm/2,5=16.8
so on my bike every step of 16.8mm gives me 1°
assuming the wheelbase stays the same, which it doesnt, and static uncompressed/no load fork that is
Joined
·
1,768 Posts
69.5 is definitely not slack enough with a 140 mm fork.
Joined
·
1,912 Posts
I love 68*. My DB mission is 68* with 140mm fork, great handling fast as hell downhill and still can climb just fine. I also have a DB 09 Sortie w/ 70* hta 130 mm fork, ride it real agressive and I seem to really dig the hta. I like how quick and nimble it handles and ofcourse it flys up and downhill.
Joined
·
2,485 Posts
I think ST angle is more important on an AM bike...
Joined
·
107 Posts
my on-one summer season AM hardtail has with pike 66*...and is a blast...unbelievable fun....even in tight tech sections...
but for me ! it does not make much sense just to look on the head angle, how it rides up and down has much to do with the combination of toptubelength, seatangle, center of weight etc...
but for me ! it does not make much sense just to look on the head angle, how it rides up and down has much to do with the combination of toptubelength, seatangle, center of weight etc...
Hmm. I thought it might be this but then you can't you just adjust your seat forward or back? I mean, i know this adjustment is quite limited, but with head tube angle in comparison, there is really no adjustment at all (disregarding adjustable travel forks).longcat said:
Joined
·
954 Posts
+1
Pay attention to the final bar height relative to seat height. As long travel bikes are pushing the limits of climbing, a couple mm of spacers or 10mm in stem length etc can make all the difference. Head angle is only one small part of the equation.
Agree, used to have a bike that no matter how i tweak will never ride right at its intended max 140mm travel. Now my 160mm rides and climb better in every way.accutrax said:
Pay attention to the final bar height relative to seat height. As long travel bikes are pushing the limits of climbing, a couple mm of spacers or 10mm in stem length etc can make all the difference. Head angle is only one small part of the equation.
Joined
·
13,348 Posts
Like others have said, it's a relative measurement, but generally, I'd agree that 68 is a pretty happy medium for all-around AM riding.
As an example of how relative it is, I just rode my 71deg HH100x in an All-mountain enduro event and it did fine. It was better than my 67 deg Delirium-T for all the climbing and much of the descending.... and handled the final steep, rocky descent pretty dang well too.
I put on some bigger tires set up tubeless and a Speedball adjustable seat post and ran the 32 TALAS at 120 mm which slacked out the HA to 70deg...... Now it's an "AM" rig (sorta). A shorter stem would've been nice but I didn't have one so ran the 120.
One man's "twitchy bike" is another man's "sharp, telepathic carver".:thumbsup:
Climbing steep, tight switchbacks on the 67 deg big bike doesn't seem to be much of a problem either though.
Maybe I'm just too adaptable.
As an example of how relative it is, I just rode my 71deg HH100x in an All-mountain enduro event and it did fine. It was better than my 67 deg Delirium-T for all the climbing and much of the descending.... and handled the final steep, rocky descent pretty dang well too.
I put on some bigger tires set up tubeless and a Speedball adjustable seat post and ran the 32 TALAS at 120 mm which slacked out the HA to 70deg...... Now it's an "AM" rig (sorta). A shorter stem would've been nice but I didn't have one so ran the 120.
One man's "twitchy bike" is another man's "sharp, telepathic carver".:thumbsup:
Climbing steep, tight switchbacks on the 67 deg big bike doesn't seem to be much of a problem either though.
Maybe I'm just too adaptable.
Joined
·
610 Posts
Personally I like more slacker angles - 67 or even 66. Now - running on a 67,7 (it`s not 67,5... so putted on the middle. Measuring angle is not very accurate... so give it a discount!)
Low BB height is also a thumbs up (350 or even less! I don`t worry about smashing pedals on the ground)
If you put it on a low height top tube, rigid frame and a low center of gravity, then it will be my future bike!
Looks like new Reing X has all of that...
Low BB height is also a thumbs up (350 or even less! I don`t worry about smashing pedals on the ground)
If you put it on a low height top tube, rigid frame and a low center of gravity, then it will be my future bike!
Looks like new Reing X has all of that...
ive seen people absolutely rail corners on 64 degree, long downhill bikes. on paper those bikes should be pigs, but people manage to toss them around pretty well. ive also seen people claim some 70 degree hta bikes steer too slow.
id rather muscle a bike a bit than have that over the bars feeling! i think its more about what you're going for. 68 works for an xc bike to me
id rather muscle a bike a bit than have that over the bars feeling! i think its more about what you're going for. 68 works for an xc bike to me
Joined
·
6,514 Posts
I agree seat angle (and chain stay length) has more to do with climbing than head angle. There's a couple things going on- good pedalling ergos and good weight distribution.
An AM type bike is going to have the front wheel pretty far out in front of you, so its tough to lean forward and get enough weight on the front wheel. A steep seat angle puts you that much further forward to start with. Long chainstays can help here too. By comparison, an XC bike is going to have a much shorter wheelbase, so the rider can make more of a difference by shifting her weight around.
A slack seat angle and long chainstays offer good weight distribution, but when the rider stands up the bars are very close, and it's tough to stand and mash. On the other hand, the slack seat angle keeps the muscle that runs over your butt (totally blanking on the name) snug despite the higher bars, which is good for peak power. So you get a bike that has good weight distro, climbs well in the saddle, offers you a dh-like cockpit, and sucks to climb standing. Sound like a nomad?
DJ bikes suck ass to climb with, they have short chainstays and slack seat angles. The same attributes make them really easy to get up on the rear wheel to jump and wheelie though, and if they had longer top tubes they'd climb standing like an XC bike.
That's my take, anyway.
An AM type bike is going to have the front wheel pretty far out in front of you, so its tough to lean forward and get enough weight on the front wheel. A steep seat angle puts you that much further forward to start with. Long chainstays can help here too. By comparison, an XC bike is going to have a much shorter wheelbase, so the rider can make more of a difference by shifting her weight around.
A slack seat angle and long chainstays offer good weight distribution, but when the rider stands up the bars are very close, and it's tough to stand and mash. On the other hand, the slack seat angle keeps the muscle that runs over your butt (totally blanking on the name) snug despite the higher bars, which is good for peak power. So you get a bike that has good weight distro, climbs well in the saddle, offers you a dh-like cockpit, and sucks to climb standing. Sound like a nomad?
DJ bikes suck ass to climb with, they have short chainstays and slack seat angles. The same attributes make them really easy to get up on the rear wheel to jump and wheelie though, and if they had longer top tubes they'd climb standing like an XC bike.
That's my take, anyway.
Joined
·
1,296 Posts
My Bionicon Golden Willow is adjustable on the fly between 68 and 73 degrees. I much prefer the slack setting to the steep setting, except when climbing. And on rocky climbs the slacker angle actually makes the bike easier to lift up over rocks. So I primarily use the slack angle on long steep climbs on hard back, and so that I can stay in the saddle longer.peternguyen said:
If I had to choose a bike with a fixed setting, I'd go with the slack angle, move the seat forward and perhaps even get some bar ends to help with climbing, and then use a gravity dropper to get the seat out of the way when descending.
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
