20mm less length in the head tube on a Zaskar - 130mm vs 110.RedToasty said:Well yeah, the extra height could also be down to the longer head tube on the Avalanche. Higher front end, shorter top tube, more upright riding position, the stay lengths will differ as well I'd guess. Even GT themselves class it as All Mountain, I'm not saying you can't race on it, I'm just questioning "That's what the Avalanche frame geometry is set up for." on a bike which is pretty much a generic trail setup.
20mm in ETT that's A LOT. it's a whole size up/down. I can't imagine myself riding on an M-sized Avalanche, it's too short for me and I'll need a 120mm stem :nono:Sideknob said:The Zaskar has always been a bit longer in the TT and generally set up lower - this year the Zaskar sports a 100mm fork as opposed to last year's 80mm Reba.
According to GT's site there's not a huge difference in the geometries at all - the M Avalanche is listed as 71/73.5 degree angles which is pretty standard for an XC hardtail. The Zaskar Carbon is 71/73.
As for length the M Av is listed as 577mm effective TT length while the Zaskar is 597 - 20mm difference.
Ah, perfect fit I suppose, that's why it looks so proper. I'm taller by 3.5" and Ava M doesn't fit me and L size looks too high and utterly stiff due to very short seat port.Sideknob said:Thanks - I reluctantly sold it last year to finance this:
That Av was a Medium. I'm about 5' 7" I loved that bike!