Part of the reason the following is light on the climbs is the slack seat angle. Evils geo charts are lies

 

It seems the STA changes dramatically because the bike sags deep into its travel.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

How did you measure this sa?

 

Bike on level surface long straight edge on center of BB to center of seat rails, Starrett protractor. I also checked it with a digital protractor which confirmed the measurements.

 

I'm probably going to try and fit on a medium SB when I demo one. My hope is that with a smaller bike and a lot of seatpost extended I'll get a slacker effective STA and a longer effective TT for seated pedalling with a shorter WB.

Not sure it will all work, but I figure it's worth a try if I can score a demo.

 

I'm probably going to try and fit on a medium SB when I demo one. My hope is that with a smaller bike and a lot of seatpost extended I'll get a slacker effective STA and a longe effective TT for seated pedalling with a shorter WB.

Not sure it will all work, but I figure it's worth a try if I can score a demo.

The demo will tell you a lot. I'm curious to hear more input after people rides these and their perception of them as an all around trail bike.

 

You can clearly see that the followings seat angle is much steeper then the nomad which is only 74 even.

 

I really don't understand all of this fuss about seat tube angles. After you set your seat height, don't you guys adjust the seat on the rails to line your knee up over the pedal spindle when you have the crank arms parallel to the ground? This is the whole point of the rail adjustment on seats. It's not meant to lengthen/shorten your cockpit.

I'm no expert, but every reputable bike shop I've been to in the 15 years I've been doing this mountain biking thing has set up a new bike for me this way. This puts you in the correct pedaling position and takes quite a bit of stress off your knees. It also changes the effective seat tube angle to whatever it needs to be for your leg length and femur/tibia proportions. Your leg length/proportions should define where you are in relationship to the bottom bracket (not the actual seat tube angle). If you set your ride up this way, your effective seat tube angle is the same no matter what bike you are riding. I don't even look at the seat tube angle when considering a bike. Seat tube angle is a fit issue, but by itself has no relevance to how a bike climbs.

I have a Following now. If you set it up this way (and have the sag set up properly), it is a great pedaling bike. Every bit as good as the Mach 5.7 I had before it. There's a ton of anti squat built into the Delta link (from the suspension analysis graphs I've seen it's 105%-145% throughout the travel range) and there's no detectable pedal bob for me. Some people may not like how the Following climbs, but that is because it's a slack a$$ bike with short stays (my head tube angle is 66.4 with a pike 130). If you are blaming a bikes inability to climb on the STA, then you just don't have it set up properly.

Rant over.

 

I blaming my inability to climb on my suckiness[emoji1]. Is that number in the low position? I hate to admit it but I originally set up my Following based on the traditional geo of past bikes and used a set back post. I'm a heavy rider and the bike needed more mid range support. I've dropped thirty pounds and I'm still going. I suspect the Following would be a different animal to me now, especially when I end the Akins diet.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Knee over the pedal spindle, IMO, is somewhat of an old way of thinking about bike fit and could be considered to be a fit myth just as your handlebars ought to intersect your front hub. I do not profess to be an expert on bike fit...just my 2 cents that my bikes feel comfortable taking a more soulful "feel" approach to where you are on the bike--sure make small changes when tinkering at home and see how it feels next ride. I've read knee over pedal spindle in another forum recently and just figured I'd share my experience with regards to this piece of fit advice. I think what I'm trying to say is keep an open mind, don't just use a rigid system like knee over the pedal spindle despite what a shop says.

Please don't flame me for my 2nd post--just my perspective! I've been a long time Pivot Fan/Rider and the new Switchblade is looking SICK!!!!! Obviously the 429 Trail shreds as well. Sure it has a short reach, but what have we done as mountain bikers for the last 20 years when you are shredding at speed--you get your butt back on the bike and let it rip--thereby allowing plenty of sled out in front of you to do its thing...and you know the pivot is going to track its line without flinching!

I hope I will be welcomed to the forums!

 

No offense taken at all. Fit is a relative thing which is different for different folks on mountain bikes. This fit method works great for me and solved some chronic knee pain that I had with biking way back when. When I ride with this set up, I have no knee pain at all. This is about the only fit rule I use.

The take away is that you can adjust the effective seat tube angle to whatever you want it to be (within reason) by moving the saddle fore or aft. I just feel pretty strongly that people should not judge a bike's climbing ability by the seat tube angle when this is so easily altered.

 

Anyone consider offset shock bushings to raise BB? Friend of mine did on his Trek Remedy to lower height,really liked the improvement in overall handling.

 

I don't know if you can do an offset bushing on the clevis mount.

Sent from my D6708 using Tapatalk

 

Well now I'm seriously considering this bike. All the bikes on the trail yesterday were from 135-150mm and the conversation was focused on how well they peddled. And I'm sore from the rocks and more rocks today. Of course the problem is fit. Going by reach, the medium is a better fit. The problem is my freakish inseam - 35 inches and I'm pushing 5'11". My current 150mm Fall Line will barely fit. I could go large but then I would have a bigger bike than my large Following. As far as climbing steeps go, I typically pass on longer rides because I'll blow up early. Anyhow this desire may pass. The 200mm Fall Line is on back order and I suspect the SB will be too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Well now I'm seriously considering this bike. All the bikes on the trail yesterday were from 135-150mm and the conversation was focused on how well they peddled. And I'm sore from the rocks and more rocks today. Of course the problem is fit. Going by reach, the medium is a better fit. The problem is my freakish inseam - 35 inches and I'm pushing 5'11". My current 150mm Fall Line will barely fit. I could go large but then I would have a bigger bike than my large Following. As far as climbing steeps go, I typically pass on longer rides because I'll blow up early. Anyhow this desire may pass. The 200mm Fall Line is on back order and I suspect the SB will be too.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Few things suck more on a long ride with lots of climbing than being on a too-small bike IMO.

 

I went and looked at this bike the other day at one of my LBS and it looks sweet. They had the blue in 29 and the black in 27.5. I wanted to ride one so bad but none are for demo. I'm really interested in this bike but want to demo it before buying and hoping they come out with a SRAM build soon.

 

hoping they come out with a SRAM build soon.....

Looks like it is on its way (Eagle 12 speed)

 

Knee over pedal spindle (KOPS), recumbent bike position, whatever, the effective STA angle has little to no effect on your knees or your power output as long as your ankle-to-knee angle stays consistent. KOPS was first used as a way to get the right fore-aft balance on the bike. It's a good starting point to get a good pedaling and balance position, but it's just that: a good starting point.

 

The STA just determines the adjustment range for your saddle. I agree that if you can adjust your saddle to the desired position you are golden. The problem comes if the STA on your bike is too far forward or backwards to let you adjust your saddle to where you want it.

As we have already noted the STAs reported on the geo charts are effective STAs at one specific saddle height and not the actual STA a rider will experience on a unsagged or sagged bike.

But at least it gives you some idea when comparing bikes.

 

Now the $1k question.... which wheel size to order first? Since I won't be able to demo this anytime soon, I'd like some opinions on who likes which, and why. Eventually, I'll try both, but one will have to wait a bit.

This will be a first for me, for either size.

Any suggestions on how I should go about blindly choosing?

 

Any suggestions on how I should go about blindly choosing?

Did you see the Vital story on the Switchblade? They go into the plus vs. 29" question pretty deeply.

I'm going 29" personally. I need this broken rib to hurry up and heal! :madmax:

 

Vital is really dropping science on the rest of the online MTB sites. Great story.

 

Wont have a SRAM build with eagle until 17 because of the cranks.

 

Won't the Race Face cranks work with SRAM?

 

Yes but apparently SRAM won't sell eagle to oe without the cranks. You would also need a 12 speed chainring. I'm just going to buy the cheaper kit with the Reynolds and when eagle comes out swap out the drivetrain and use a cinch crank. I already have some guides, bar/stem, and saddle I prefer sitting in my garage.

 

Good to know....thanks.

I may also get the cheaper kit, put a XD driver on and swap over my XX1 drivetrain.

 

Wow, I'm a Pivot fan now!

 

I'm with you on that. I built our shop's demo on Saturday with the 27+ - great experience to try it out, but I think that travel combined with a laterally stiffer rear 29er wheel is going to be the ticket.

I took pics of the build if any one is interested; could post a build thread if so.

 

I did go with 2X Di2[emoji85]. Some times unexpected punchy climbs await at the bottom of a hill. If I like it I'll throw on a XX0 cassette. I'm not thrilled about the degradation of my E13 cassette's shifting. Even when I was younger and ripped I was a mediocre climber. All I need now is a E motor.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Don, Has the E13 cassette not proven to be very durable? How long have you had it and how many miles have you put on it?

 

Build pics would be great... Especially if it's the black and red frame

 

I'm looking at a 27.5 setup and was looking at the Mojo 3. I saw Ibis' advice for most folks, the Mojo 3 is a better choice then the HD3 (if you're not doing big drops, racing etc). The Switchblade seems closer to the HD3 side of things when setup for 27.5 as the head angle slackens. Does that limit the Switchblade for regular trail riding (vs Enduro Racing) perhaps making it less versatile for 27.5 ? I don't intend to have 2 wheelsets.

 

The seat tube lengths are short on this puppy, people should doublecheck that the seatpost they plan to use will get them high enough. I only did a quick calculation, but for me, a KS Lev Integra 125mm wouldn't suffice on the large. My 9point8 125mm should though - I bought the longer length model (415mm, I think).

 

Yes good point. Tall people downsizing to get a reasonable WB may have a problem. My list of "fixes" for this bike may start to sound a bit silly. If so I'll have to scratch it from my list and acknowledge not every bike is going to work for every person.

 

200mm max insertion depth for a medium

 

I just rode the Sram eagle for 3 rides. It's that good!!!!

Really bummed it won't be on this bike for a while.

My Pivot Mach 4 had 2x11 di2 with one synchro shifter.

 

Which do you like better?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Francis, has that been confirmed, or is it just speculation? Was hoping I might be able to pick one up with Eagle by August.

 

That's not confirmed. There is no SRAM Eagle crank that will fit this bike. I suppose one can use the Raceface one but the crank tooth profile is different.

What I'm hearing is if you're not gonna use the Eagle crank, you get no Eagle group. (as OEM)

And if it's still up in the air by now, it's not gonna happen this year for the end consumer

 

This bike is not really that long ETT or reach at least in the 3 smaller sizes. It does seem to grow in length proportionately in the L and XL sizes as compared to the Following but the delta in comparison at the XL is around and inch of reach and .6" on ETT. The ST is on the short side so downsizing is not a great option in my opinion, even within the longer droppers. Well maybe a 170 dropper would help to down size for some riders with short torso and long legs.
I'd bet in 29er guise this bike would still ride very well with a 140 fork at approx. 67.6 deg. HA, 13.2" BB height, slightly longer reach and a slightly shorter WB.
Just MHO.

 

How does this bike measure up to Remedy for comparison sake?