Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In looking at MTB frames, does anyone else think new school frames are getting a tad too long in the wheelbase? I get the whole long, low, slack thing but for northeast single track where it's rather tight, the new frames are maybe are not ideal.

Anyone else out there experiencing this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,890 Posts
Anyone else out there experiencing this?
Assuming you don't need the steepest STA possible you can buy one size down and use a setback dropper to get a shorter bike that fits bigger seated. There are some brands with higher BBs as well if you are not into that either.

This is what my current bike is - medium GG Smash with a 1" setback dropper. It's still longer than my old bikes by a significant margin, but going one size down keeps things reasonable enough. I also like the higher BB. I can corner just fine and being able to pedal without constant thought to pedal position is nice. Rides great. Fits well. I'm not wishing I was on a bigger size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Good point there. I might look at a smaller frame size and setback post. This could accomplish getting a slightly more compact wheelbase since frames are essentially growing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
I am located in Northern NJ and I am inclined to agree that for Northeast riding, the wheelbases may be getting a little long and not just wheelbase but some of the reach numbers as well in certain cases.

I got back into mountain biking after being away from it for almost twenty years and coming from a 26er bike background everything these days are more "stable" but I kind of like the feel of my short WB "snappy" 26'er on my home trails.

I had been riding my old 26er this last year just to get back into things and did a lot of demo's (both locally and I also went to outerbike bentonville) in preparation for buying a new rig. Just a sampling of the bikes I rode (Yeti SB130/150, Evil Offering, Mondraker Foxy, Jamis Portal and Hardline, Esker Elkat, Pivot Switchblade, Ibis Ripley, Ibis Ripmo, etc )

I ride a medium and I demo'd a size medium in all of them.
They were all great but turns out the ones I liked the most had the shorter wheelbase compared to the rest...

In the 27.5" camp the Esker Elkat was my favorite bike. (46.6")
In the 29er camp the Ripmo really stood out for me. (47.0")

most of the others which were still great were usually an 1" longer...
Offering (47.3)
SB130 (47.5)
Mondraker (48.1)

I was basically planning out my build on a Ripmo when as fate would have it, I ended up getting a Jamis Portal from someone locally that was moving onto something else and was selling it at just too good a deal to pass up.

Wheelbase on the Portal is 46.2 in the medium. Progressive Geo but not super slack or steep compared to the so called "top dogs" but a few rides in I am really enjoying it. For comparison my brother has an Evil Offering in medium and that thing is awesome to ride but I definitely have an easier time navigating tight technical terrain than he does.

Two pieces of advice...

DEMO if you can...and hopefully on your local trails...

Another good piece of advice I've heard is to stick to brands that are located in terrain similar to your own. They are typically developing their bikes to work well on their home trails. So its funny that by chance I ended up with a bike from a Jersey company for riding my NJ trails.

As vikb suggested, going one size smaller can accomplish same net effect. For example if I did the Evil Offering I may go to the size small instead of the medium. It would have similar WB and Reach to my Portal, but with slacker HA and steeper STA...I've got the bike bug back so I wouldn't be surprised if I add something else to the stable next year :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
913 Posts
My 2012 SC Blur LTc had a wheelbase of 42.7 inches. My current bike, a 2017 NS Snabb 29er has a wheelbase of 47.4 inches. Almost 5 inches longer! And let me tell you what... I am heaps faster on my Snabb.

I think it depends on riding style, though. If you're just along for the ride, a long bike may feel a bit unwieldy. But, if you are a bit more "foot out, flat out" then I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the longer numbers.

For what it's worth, Ibis, Santa Cruz, and Giant have nice trail bikes with more conservative numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
I think NE riders need to spend time with newer geo before saying they are getting too long. I'm 6'4" so my 2018 XL framed Kona Process 153 is a huge bike. This combined with the tight NE terrain is why I chose 27.5 vs 29 model. I never measured actual height but I need to 'kitty corner' in my 6'6" truck bed to close tailgate. My buddy just bought a 2019 Jeffsey 29er in Large and my bike is quite a bit longer.

All that being said, I'm on the extreme end of LONG for tight NE trails. I've been riding these trails for 30 years and have been on various FS bikes since 2001. After over a year and 2000+ miles on this bike, it's far superior than any bike I've ever owned. I really don't know if a 29er would be much more of a challenge regarding maneuverability. If I had more open and flowy terrain I def would have gone 29 but I'm really happy with the 27.5 and don't feel like I'm missing out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,920 Posts
I think the wheelbase issue is a bit more complex than typically talked about. I've found that the total wheelbase often isn't as important as where that length comes from. I don't think reach is the main culprit (unless you're really on the wrong size bike). I think HTA, chainstay length, how the bike handles as a whole, and how comfortable you are on the bike are all more important than total wheelbase length. I'll take a longer bike that fits well, feels balanced and holds a line well over a smaller bike with a shorter reach and longer stem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,890 Posts
One thing I'll just highlight is that my "downsized" modern geo bike is still several inches in WB longer than the old bike I sold a buddy. So at least if we are talking about the idea of selecting a smaller size in a modern geo model it's not a choice between short and long. It's a choice between long and really long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,094 Posts
My issue is more HTA and BB height. Honestly, for lots of NE riding, a 71 degree head angle can still work, and work well...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Yeah my two hard tails are 45.5" and 47" Wheelbases. The 47" is new school and the shorter bike is still fairly modern but everything is a bit shorter.

The longer bike is slacker, lower, and longer. It does what it should, descends better and is more stable. However, it definitely makes wider arcs and sometimes I feel it puts me into the woods. I am just skeptical about going with an even longer frame as these new school bikes keep getting longer.

I do like some of your suggestions of going down a size as long as the reach and stack numbers work. I stand and climb so for me, I don't want my bars in my thighs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
I think the long, low and slack movement has gone too far in many cases, and not just for the NE. I live in AZ, where we have a mix of fast open desert and tight technical switchbacks. The fact is, ultra long, low and slack bikes just get unwieldy in certain contexts and are often not very playful.

But there's a range even within new school geo bikes. For example, the reach on my GG Smash (size large) is 490mm. The Evil Offering and Kona Process I demoed both have reach of about 475mm in size large. Wheel base, BB height and HTA vary like that even among the "new school" geo bikes.

But, I like moderately long reach, moderately slack HTA (29ers just don't need to be slacker than 66, maybe 65.5) and too low of BB just smacks peddles in the rocks. 13.4-13.6 is plenty low, IMO. Some of these wheel bases these days too... man they're getting long.

That said, it's always hard to pinpoint because it's how all the numbers, including suspension kinematics etc all come together to make the bike ride a certain way. Then of course there's suspension components, tires, setups....

I will say its been really interesting demoing a lot of this years bikes. Many are similar on paper, but they ride pretty different.
 

·
Dream it, Do it.
Joined
·
1,781 Posts
I used to ride in the NY/CT/NJ area. I will say that the modern 29ers, despite being more slack in their geometry, seem a bit more agile than the typical XC-oriented 29ers of 4-5 years ago.

I'm not sure that I would go with a 29er in that area given that the trails used to ride were both tighter and typically had shorter descents than what I ride now on the West Coast. Of the 29ers I've ridden, the Yeti SB100 stood out as a bike with faster handling that would have fit well on the trails I used to ride on the East Coast. It felt pretty stable descending given that it felt pretty nimble in its handling.The new Pivot Mach 4 SL seems to have a similar wheelbase and geometry. The Pivot Trail 429 would be borderline in how fast it steers for East Coast singletrack in my opinion. Generally, given less benefit of 29" for the shorter climbs and descents in the East Coast, I personally would be more apt to get a bike with 27.5" wheels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,427 Posts
YES.

When I got my 2015 Remedy 29er, I NOTICED the long wheelbase.
I had a 2014 Fuel Ex 29, and it was a little shorter, and was a handful sometimes. The Remedy, although longer, just didnt care if I was off line like the Fuel.
But regardless - yes. The wheelbases are getting to be quite the handful in certain areas.
That said, the fast way to get a long wheelbase around tight twisty stuff, assuming it's really tight? Lock the rear brake and skate it around. I know it's not the best thing to do, but it does make a long bike turn tight...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,890 Posts
That said, the fast way to get a long wheelbase around tight twisty stuff, assuming it's really tight? Lock the rear brake and skate it around. I know it's not the best thing to do, but it does make a long bike turn tight...
I have seen a lot of trails I ride are "losing" trees as folks on long bikes with uber wide bars "adjust" the corners/choke points to better suit their machines. Along with the "Strava lines" that straighten out corners.

To be clear I'm not recommending or supporting that, but I am seeing it happen.
 

·
Dream it, Do it.
Joined
·
1,781 Posts
I have seen a lot of trails I ride are "losing" trees as folks on long bikes with uber wide bars "adjust" the corners/choke points to better suit their machines. Along with the "Strava lines" that straighten out corners.

To be clear I'm not recommending or supporting that, but I am seeing it happen.
That sucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,920 Posts
How have riders adjusted their technique for the longer bikes? I recall reading that leaning more as opposed to merely turning the bars is preferred.
You definitely have to lean the bike into the turns more and maybe keep your weight more forward. The modern geo favors more aggressive riding in general. People who already ride like that will feel at home. People who have been riding for the last 10+ years in a stiffer style will have issues. I think it's going to be a lot more than making a few adjustments for some people. There a lot of local racers who would wipe the floor with me in an XC race but ask them to ride the pumptrack or do some cornering drills and they'll look like a fish out of water. A lot of riders have gotten by with just pedaling and steering around the woods since they started. Those people would need to go to some classes and revisit the fundamentals.
 
1 - 20 of 28 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