Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

861 - 880 of 948 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,413 Posts
jazz, didn't you say you'd choose a 5010 in large though? I figured accounting for the slightly slacker STA and the slightly shorter reach compared to the Hightower they'd practically ride the same no?
In the case of 5010 I definitely would.
That bike felt shorter and also seated fit better.
Its misleading to look at the STA without sitting on the bike. While the effective ST on 5010 is slacker on the paper, the actual might as well be steeper. I like my seat higher + shorter cranks and taller clipleas shoes. All this will move the seat higher and with the slacker actual ST moves me back even more. I believe that was the case on the Hightower.
It still felt OK though.
However, the fact I had to move the saddle all the way forward (not solely because the need to get closer to bars, bit also to get nice steep ST for good pedaling position) isn't the best. When the saddle is so far of the center it can be harder to push down the dropper...

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 

·
Trail Ninja
Joined
·
6,167 Posts
I agree with much of what you are saying, but some of it doesn't make any sense. Take the above for example, if the rear of the bike stays the same and front gets longer then more weight is on the rear axle. Not really.

If you were to sit in the same place then the weight on the rear axle would remain exactly the same but in practice that's not the case. Stretching the front end will make the rider lean forward more and put less weight on the rear end. The opposite of what you are saying.
I stated what the difference in weight bias is between the two different geometry bikes when the weight at the BB is near identical, with a standing rider placing 90% weight on the BB, with a very light amount being supported at the bars.

This is a basic experiment that helps explain how moving the front away from the rear, where the weight load stays the same distance away from the rear, clearly results in significantly more rearward weight bias. The leverage effect doesn't show in this experiment as much, since the levers are so short. It's a 500g weight and leverage only increases it to 502.19g with the slightly wider "wheelbase", and 501.6g with the prior shorter "wheelbase", which is within the margin of error.

Riders on such new geo may likely find themselves moving forward to offset this increased rearward weight bias, and in the end can wind up in the balance they're familiar with on classic bikes, rather than too forward as some of you feared. If anything, it's more rearward than I thought, except with lessened downsides that typically come with such rearward bias, at cost of needing to be more deliberate with movements to manipulate the pitch of the bike.

WeightBiasTest01.jpg
- scales tared before placing the 500g weight

WeightBiasTest02.jpg
- 356.90g (left/rear) + 144.7g (right/front) = 501.6g total

WeightBiasTest03.jpg
- 377.89g (left/rear) + 124.3g (right/front) = 502.19g total (additional total weight due to effect of increased leverage)

* nothing about the experiment is exactly precise, nor needs precision. The scale on the right is slightly shorter, but by less than half a cm. The camera was hand held, so the angle isn't perfect between the 3 shots, but I assure only the front support was slid away between the measurement shots.

** this makes me question the leverage effect. I need to get two identical scales for an on-the-bike test. Might very well be that increased control comes solely from the front not pitching up nor bouncing as much, due to the increased length.
 

·
Ride Fast Take Chances :)
Joined
·
3,327 Posts
I have ride a XXL tallboy with a 505mm reach. It has the same rear as the 400mm small.

Extending the front without changing the back puts more weight on the rear wheel. That's physics and easy to demonstrate.

I have the same reach from my old XL bike to my XXL but the XXL has 40mm more frame and 40mm less stem. The total wheel contact point with greater fork offset and rake is around 100mm. Thats a huge change!

I'm having problems with front weight balance while descending. I simply can't get enough weight on the front wheel. I've slammed and lengthen my stem to help remedy this and it's going in the right direction.

My next step is to swap out the 51mm offset to a 44mm offset uppers. This is the future of long reach bikes. Since I can't stretch my rear I need to reduce the front or lower my bars even more. I'm running a 85mm drop from saddle to bars and can't go lower without getting new bars. I have 800mm SixC 20mm rise 35 bars if anyone wants to trade for some 10mm rise ones.

I'm never going back to a short reach bike, but getting the balance right is important and rear chainstays need to grow too.

The speed difference in steering that everyone fears from long reach bikes is easy to adapt to and you get the benefit being able to move around in the center of the bike without upsetting it. It's kind of like short stems and long bars. If you jump on them from a long stem short bar bike the feel and timing is all off. Once you get your timing synced to the bike they are money.

Anyway

Long front = longer rear for balance
slack HTA = less offset to keep the front under you. Trail is your friend too.
Stem = fork offset +- 10mm. When your bars mirror your front axle, good things happen.
Steep STA = good climbing
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ryder1

·
Registered
Joined
·
997 Posts
In the case of 5010 I definitely would.
That bike felt shorter and also seated fit better.
Its misleading to look at the STA without sitting on the bike. While the effective ST on 5010 is slacker on the paper, the actual might as well be steeper. I like my seat higher + shorter cranks and taller clipleas shoes. All this will move the seat higher and with the slacker actual ST moves me back even more. I believe that was the case on the Hightower.
It still felt OK though.
However, the fact I had to move the saddle all the way forward (not solely because the need to get closer to bars, bit also to get nice steep ST for good pedaling position) isn't the best. When the saddle is so far of the center it can be harder to push down the dropper...

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
but wouldn't the seat height be the same on the 5010 this a tad slacker still?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,413 Posts
but wouldn't the seat height be the same on the 5010 this a tad slacker still?
No it wouldn't.
If the actual ST is slacker, it moves me back more and therefore the seat won't be as high in order to maintain the same seat to BB/pedals distance.
The steeper the ST, the higher the saddle needs to be.

You have to be careful when comparing STA of 2 bikes. The effective STA can be exactly the same, but if one has much slacker actual ST, it could move your saddle further back. The difference could easily be couple of cm or more.

Another thing which effects this is stack height, since the STA is measured at this point. So unless these bikes have the same stack its a bit harder to compare them in this regard.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
997 Posts
No it wouldn't.
If the actual ST is slacker, it moves me back more and therefore the seat won't be as high in order to maintain the same seat to BB/pedals distance.
The steeper the ST, the higher the saddle needs to be.

You have to be careful when comparing STA of 2 bikes. The effective STA can be exactly the same, but if one has much slacker actual ST, it could move your saddle further back. The difference could easily be couple of cm or more.

Another thing which effects this is stack height, since the STA is measured at this point. So unless these bikes have the same stack its a bit harder to compare them in this regard.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
ah I get it. The HT has higher stack and steeper STA so makes sense why the 5010 fit better. I'm missing that large, I admit it!
 

·
Trail Ninja
Joined
·
6,167 Posts
I rode a riding buddy's '17 Enduro 29 comp (entry level model) the other day, and his bike rides a lot like a SUV with its upright position, over my more rearward and seemingly lower SB5c. And damn, his rear wheel was an anchor on the climbs; it was so heavy!

The '17 E29's riding position showed no obvious weakness, nor misbehaved in any manner, but found that the ride experience was affected more by the heavy rear wheel than anything else, such as the geo. This coming from someone that owns and raced a '14 E29, already familiar with its general qualities. I thought the 1st gen's pedaling position was well dialed in stock form, but could've used a geo tweak, which could be attained by swapping out the rear wheel for a 27.5 (lower BB, slacker HA, swap in zero setback post). If anything, riding these bikes made me wonder if high stack height is really that big of an issue for a short rider (I'm 5' 7").
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Pig

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,036 Posts
This is a basic experiment that helps explain how moving the front away from the rear, where the weight load stays the same distance away from the rear, clearly results in significantly more rearward weight bias...
Thanks for going to the trouble of doing that. It's very interesting and demonstrates that what I thought about weight shift, or lack of it, was wrong.

If the rider had to lean forward due to the extra length of the front that would still counter this though, but if the extra length was due to an increase in rake only that wouldn't apply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,235 Posts
The new geometry is a load of crap. Short, steep, and high is where it's at.

A steep head angle and long stem are a perfect setup to really build your descending skills to a very high degree. Be sure to not use a dropper for maximum skill-building. Skinny tires and little or no suspension are also helpful in the skill-building.

The old geometry is also a boon to the bottom line of the healthcare providers (not applicable in Canada) for the rash of OTB injuries.:rolleyes:
Thank you for the reminder. It's been a while since my seat scratched my stomach and tires itched my balls.

The new stuff makes you change your scenery watching. We're at the cabin this weekend and you'd think 29 years more of age would slow you down but late model bikes get the same old school trail loops done 15 - 30 minutes faster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,734 Posts
Personally, I think people that are full in on this new geometry fall into at least one of these five categories:

1). No real experience riding old geometry.
2). No real experience riding tight, twisty, technical trails.
3). No real ability to ride a bike without a geometric crutch.
4). Race and need every competitive advantage they can find.
5). Have talked themselves into the illusion that one geometry is better at everything without compromise.
What a completely arrogant and ridiculous thing to say. I've been riding since 1993 so 1 and 3 are out, I haven't raced since highschool so not 4 either, definitely not 2 as we have plenty of tight twisty tech here, so I must be number 5?

Did you even read the 'geometry affair' article above? The writer found tight turns were actually BETTER on the longer wheelbase and it wasn't until they got so tight (like a complete 180* hiking-trail type switchback) that the length of the wheelbase became a hindrance. My Knolly isn't exactly Pole-length but certainly longer than the average bike of old, there is literally only a handful of corners on the trails I ride where the length becomes an issue, it wouldn't even be 0.5% of the time spent riding, and even then with a little practice and skill I seem to be able to get it around those switchbacks and tight corners.

Maybe you're the one who needs the "geometric crutch" if you need to ride a short bike to get it around tight corners?
:winker:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,048 Posts
What a completely arrogant and ridiculous thing to say. I've been riding since 1993 so 1 and 3 are out, I haven't raced since highschool so not 4 either, definitely not 2 as we have plenty of tight twisty tech here, so I must be number 5?

Did you even read the 'geometry affair' article above? The writer found tight turns were actually BETTER on the longer wheelbase and it wasn't until they got so tight (like a complete 180* hiking-trail type switchback) that the length of the wheelbase became a hindrance. My Knolly isn't exactly Pole-length but certainly longer than the average bike of old, there is literally only a handful of corners on the trails I ride where the length becomes an issue, it wouldn't even be 0.5% of the time spent riding, and even then with a little practice and skill I seem to be able to get it around those switchbacks and tight corners.

Maybe you're the one who needs the "geometric crutch" if you need to ride a short bike to get it around tight corners?
:winker:
You are definitely number 5. What's arrogant is telling people that one type of geometry is automatically better, and anybody that disagrees is wrong. I'll trust my experiences over some random internet poster. Anyways, to me it's not about speed, comfort, or stability. Short wheelbases are just more fun for me to ride.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,734 Posts
You are definitely number 5. What's arrogant is telling people that one type of geometry is automatically better, and anybody that disagrees is wrong. I'll trust my experiences over some random internet poster. Anyways, to me it's not about speed, comfort, or stability. Short wheelbases are just more fun for me to ride.
If you find the handling of short wheelbase bikes "fun" that's fine, that's your preference and you're just as entitled to that as anyone else.

I've readily admitted that there is a compromise with my bike, and that is on ultra-tight switchbacks/corners that are getting so tight they're bordering on requiring a trials move to get around them. That's it, and that type of corner makes up a tiny fraction of my riding, I'd be a fool to even really consider it when looking at what sort of bike to ride. For everything else, even slow flat pedally twisty tech, I prefer my Endo (which, granted, isn't really all that extreme by modern standards, but is a good mix between capability on the rowdy stuff and agility/playfulness on the less gnarly trails). This is probably the first time in 24 years of riding I feel completely at home and comfortable on a bike; it fits me perfectly, and feels really capable every time I push it without feeling like a burden the rest of the time. It is the very essence of what I feel an all-round mountain bike should be.

I'm not brainwashed, I haven't had to "convince" myself of anything, I've ridden plenty of different bikes over plenty of different trails and based on my experiences I feel like what I'm riding now is better than anything else I've ever ridden.
 

·
Ride Fast Take Chances :)
Joined
·
3,327 Posts
I have a 1997 Cannondale super v, a 2008 Santa Cruz blur XC and a 2017 Tallboy in my garage as I type this. I just got back from winning the CCCX XC championship too. Been riding mountain bikes for 30 years.
New school gets a big thumbs up from me. :thumbsup: Although I did ride the old Blur converted to 27.5 in the XC races.

FYI the super V has a 170mm stem. :cool::eekster:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,048 Posts
All I've been saying this whole time is that different trails and different people will benefit from different geometries, even the old geometry.

A long, low, slack bike takes a lot of the fun out of most trails, in my opinion. I enjoy choosing a good line or the challenge of a bad line. I don't want my bike erasing technical features and straight-shooting down the trail. If I want to throw the bike around a turn or get a little sideways in the air, I don't want to fight my bike. Dodging trees and pedaling through rock gardens are common on many of the trails I ride. Lengthening the wheelbase, slacking out the headtube, and dropping the pedals to root level does not do it for me.

I just wanted one person to admit that this new geometry is not better in every circumstance.
 

·
Ride Fast Take Chances :)
Joined
·
3,327 Posts
All I've been saying this whole time is that different trails and different people will benefit from different geometries, even the old geometry.

A long, low, slack bike takes a lot of the fun out of most trails, in my opinion. I enjoy choosing a good line or the challenge of a bad line. I don't want my bike erasing technical features and straight-shooting down the trail. If I want to throw the bike around a turn or get a little sideways in the air, I don't want to fight my bike. Dodging trees and pedaling through rock gardens are common on many of the trails I ride. Lengthening the wheelbase, slacking out the headtube, and dropping the pedals to root level does not do it for me.

I just wanted one person to admit that this new geometry is not better in every circumstance.
Dude. I can directly compare generations of the same bike, in this case a tallboy 1 vs 2 vs 3. Each generation gained about .5lb. The 3 is better everywhere except weight. It's stiffer, the suspension is more refined and the cable routing is perfect. If you build it with the same parts it is better everywhere.

Anyway enduro bikes are not your thing and that's cool. I don't want to ride one as my main bike either. Overall they are better than the old enduro bikes though.

Apples to apples, I'll take new geometry every time.

New bikes don't make trials less fun, you just go faster.

http://forums.mtbr.com/california-n...t-point-does-one-out-weigh-other-1051636.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,048 Posts
Dude. I can directly compare generations of the same bike, in this case a tallboy 1 vs 2 vs 3. Each generation gained about .5lb. The 3 is better everywhere except weight. It's stiffer, the suspension is more refined and the cable routing is perfect. If you build it with the same parts it is better everywhere.

Anyway enduro bikes are not your thing and that's cool. I don't want to ride one as my main bike either. Overall they are better than the old enduro bikes though.

Apples to apples, I'll take new geometry every time.

New bikes don't make trials less fun, you just go faster.

http://forums.mtbr.com/california-n...t-point-does-one-out-weigh-other-1051636.html
Why go faster to get the same excitement? What's the point?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,734 Posts
Lengthening the wheelbase, slacking out the headtube, and dropping the pedals to root level does not do it for me.

I just wanted one person to admit that this new geometry is not better in every circumstance.
So are we debating what is better, or what you personally prefer?

I've never found the feeling of gravity trying to take me over the bars on a steep drop fun, nor struggling to keep the front end down on steep climbs. Each to their own, I guess.
 

·
Ride Fast Take Chances :)
Joined
·
3,327 Posts
Why go faster to get the same excitement? What's the point?
Are you still riding a clunker? why have gears or suspension at all. It's personal preference. I also tend to wear out my bikes to the point that I don't trust them. You can only push the limits of a bike that you know isn't going to break in half. I broke my blur classic and upgraded to a better in every way blur XC carbon. I rode the wheels off that bike for 5K+ miles and just last year thought I broke it on a drop. That was the signal for a new bike. The cost is nothing compared to breaking your neck or your hip like I did on my original blur.
Ride whatever you want, but the new bikes are better and the choices for your personal slice of bike heaven is out there.
 

·
high pivot witchcraft
Joined
·
4,424 Posts
It's shocking to me that this issue can possibly be subject to a meaningful debate. It's like the guy in the downhill forum who smashed his head so hard that he has seen stars for a week, or something like that, and then asks if this is something he should consider seeing a doctor about.

How anyone can reasonably advocate old school geo over new school geo, in any circumstances, apart from perhaps a museum owner, is beyond me. I'm seriously lucky I did not kill or seriously injure myself on some of the old death traps I used to ride (e.g., Spesh SJ FSR). But whatever. Live and let live.

Edit: granted, I did not wade my way through the entire thread. Maybe there is something I am missing here...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,048 Posts
Are you still riding a clunker? why have gears or suspension at all. It's personal preference. I also tend to wear out my bikes to the point that I don't trust them. You can only push the limits of a bike that you know isn't going to break in half. I broke my blur classic and upgraded to a better in every way blur XC carbon. I rode the wheels off that bike for 5K+ miles and just last year thought I broke it on a drop. That was the signal for a new bike. The cost is nothing compared to breaking your neck or your hip like I did on my original blur.
Ride whatever you want, but the new bikes are better and the choices for your personal slice of bike heaven is out there.
Actually, I often ride a rigid 26er singlespeed. My point is it is just as fun, and sometimes more fun, than any other bike I have ever ridden. Isn't that the point? On some trails, it is more fun (ie better) to have a quick handling, no nonsense bike. It is faster for me on tight twisty trails and smooth singletrack, as well. Why is it so difficult for you guys to just admit that this new school geometry has compromises?
 
861 - 880 of 948 Posts
Top