Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
I wonder if both sets of figures were based on the same length fork, or if the new Heckler was developed around a longer fork (it would then be steeper than the old Heckler with the same length fork)
 

·
fraid of heights
Joined
·
2,375 Posts
Yea I hate it when bike companies don't post at least what fork they used to measure geometry with. ( though I do believe SC does on their website? )

When I was looking for an inexpensive trail hardtail I looked very closely at the Flyte celsius (previously airborne). (yes I know I shouldn't have been such a cheap @$$ and I should have bought a chameleon) And I e-mailed Flyte and asked what the A-C was for the fork they measured the geometry with. And whoever answered the e-mail didn't even know what A-C meant? :) And even when I explained, they still didn't reply in a way that made me feel comfortable with their geometry numbers...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,663 Posts
Nice table, always fun to compare numbers strait like that. I think I kind of prefered the old geometry though, a bit more compact in the top tube and wheel base. They probably based the new one on a higher fork so for one to slacken the head angle a bit will mean going to a 170-180mm fork which is not the greatest for an all mountain like the Heckler. I think they probably wanted to acknowledge the fact that many owners of Hecklers were using it with a 145-150mm fork but I also think it was the whole idea behing it, to slacken it from it's original 69 head angle number! Anyway, I may be wrong, after all I'm not riding a Heckler, I'm on a Nomad but I'm really happy to have a slacker head angle for all mountain riding.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top