DirtGuru2

Kaz dropped a big clue, and few of you picked up on it. The Scott Ransom (still) makes a killer starting point for a super capable-yet lightweight bike. That's not fragile. If Brendog isn't breaking them, chances are you won't be. The current frame is the same as Kaz's 2019. It's mullet ready with the flip chip. But when Scott decides to update the Ransom and go "integrated" like they've done on the Genius and Spark, the lightweight days will be over. I've built up a best of everything dream machine starting with a 2020 Euro model Ransom LTD HMX frameset, and every single nut, bolt, lever, saddle was a carefully chosen balance of performance, weight and durability. The final weight tally? 27.6 lbs, which is ridiculous for a bike that slays it so well. I've stopped riding every other bike in the quiver, because this much capacity for rowdy, at that little weight, makes it a super manageable trail bike too. You can whine about the slightly slack seat tube angle and taller than the latest trend seat tube, yet there was plenty of adjustment in the saddle rails for me, plus I'm running a 180mm dropper with room for 200.

@ponyboy24: I'm actually fully attuned to the effects of this. For the extra 10-15mm of actual effective stem reach that we're talking about, I'm suggesting that taller riders should be including this variable within their experiments to create the best possible front to rear weight bias, rather than giving it all to longer chainstays. Also, at which point, and measured within which plane is this "in front of the axle" happening? Have you considered that your handlebar sweep (creating your actual hand position) erases all of this? Even on one of my bikes with a 60mm x 17° stem (equals zero spacers), my bar sweep brings my hands back slightly behind the wheel axle (figuring for the forward axle offset), and approximately equal to the steering axis. You could have an absurd theoretical 150mm stem, and as long as the equally absurd handlebar sweep brings your hands back to their ideal position... Bottom line, for taller riders, stem rise and reach should be one of the variables in play, rather than short or shorter stems being a religion that cannot be questioned

Seems like this debate could be mostly distilled down to solving this challenge: Creating a properly balanced fit and weight bias for taller riders. Which the rider will then decide if they want to... bias (slightly compromise) their particular setup towards either climbing or descending. And it seems like - with rare exception - the only part of the available arsenal that gets thrown at this problem is more reach, and more chainstay length. And occasionally seat tube angle. but that debate seems to have settled down into the 76° - 78° range, with plenty of available fore and aft adjustment for most anybody. So this current debate seems to dictate that we create the supposedly ideal (theoretical) proper bike fit for a 6'-5" (195.58cm) rider, by only using more reach and chainstay length. And by following these supposed ideals, you could quickly end up with 520+ reach and 450+ of chainstay length. Without my geometry calculator handy, and with today's slack head angles that's gotta be ~1300mm or more of wheelbase. Now you've got a bike that handles like a 70's station wagon on anything that isn't plowing straight down the hill. Yet, why is it blindly assumed that the best stem choice for EVERY rider is 40-50mm? And don't get me started on the 6'5" guy who thinks that the latest 35mm stem is a performance upgrade. And for some reason it's also blindly accepted for many taller riders to automatically go with a stem in 0° (maybe 6°) rise, often with 2"-3" of spacers under the stem. Does anyone ever consider how DORKY this looks?! Let alone how less-than-ideal this is. Does anyone ever consider how much flex might be happening in this extra steerer tube length - especially with a 6'-5" 220lb guy torquing on a set of 800mm bars? And extra useless weight with steerer tube and spacers? So the only direction we've been heading (we've been allowed to go) over the last handful of years since modern geometry has taken it's course, says that as the rider gets taller, his body mass can ONLY shift rearward, along with the upward that he has no control over - and this can only be addressed and compensated for with longer chainstay length. Consider this: For taller riders, as the handlebar height (which is actually hand position we're talking about) gets taller, through stack height (headtube length), stem spacers, and handlebar rise, did you ever think about how far rearward your hands, arms, and body mass are being pushed, further amplifying the effects of what this article is about? Did you ever think about the "normal" hand position that the average 5'-10" (178cm) guy or gal has on the average large bike, in vertical relation to the front axle? Think about how much further rearward a 6'-5" guy's hand position is once you get your stack, stem spacers and handlebars up to the altitude you want them. Which, along with their mega seat height, has their center of mass WAY BACK over the rear wheel. What if the real sweet spot for taller riders - along with modest (500-510mm?) reach, and maybe 10mm more chainstay length), might be in moving their body mass... not so far rearward, as dictated only by the seat tube angle and how high the seatpost is extended, but instead use a strategic amount of stem rise and reach, along with a similar amount of handlebar rise to get their hand position somewhat further forward. Thus allowing for easier control of weighting the front tire. So here's what I'm proposing. And trust me here... the world will not stop spinning on its axis if you go over the 50mm line on your stem length. Taller riders will have more than enough extra arm length to compensate for a bit more stem length. It's a non-issue. **A case study of sorts** I have two lifelong friends who are 6'-4" to 6'-5", 210-215lbs, who have always struggled with finding or creating a bike that fits them properly, feels right, climbs well, and inspires confidence. Modern reach numbers have gone a long way to help their situation. But they were still struggling to find something that truly felt like THEIR bike. So one of them asked for my help in creating the mythical/magical ideal bike for him, starting with a blank canvas (which doesn't mean a custom frame). In watching them ride their current bikes - both of them being Horst Link arrangements - the first thing I noticed was how deep into their rear travel they would run / wallow. The "chopper" effect was always there, extremely so with their height and rearward weight (shift). Don't get me wrong, BOTH of my bikes are Horst Link, and for certain riders and situations, they are awesome. 5'-10" 155lb me thinks so. Always balanced and active, predictable and plush. But you know the downsides that come with the uphills, and the Band-Aids that we have to accept with Horst Link bikes, be it the blue lever, or on my Scott Ransom the REAR ONLY Twin-Loc (which is actually VERY effective in controlling the wallow and raising the bottom bracket for climbs). But Horst Link bikes may not be the best choice for taller and heavier riders, because all of the leverage and weight shift that their height and weight generates... just doesn't work so well on such an active suspension design. I'm getting off track. But my point here is, maybe first choosing choose a rear suspension design that works better with your height and weight is the best starting point. For my friend, our starting point was the latest model Ibis Ripmo. An XL has a modest 500mm reach, and it's reputation as a magical do it all bike is earned and well deserved. What about the horrifically short 435mm chainstays? But a major key in my friend's equation is that a DW link design (at least Ibis' particular one) doesn't sit very deeply into it's travel, or at least doesn't respond so radically to the extra height and weight (shift). And it pedals and climbs like a raped ape. So fast forward... all of the relatively Gucci - yet robust enough to handle his size and weight - parts were carefully chosen, the bike was built. Yet the two most carefully considered parts were the stem and handlebars. The goal was the aforementioned strategic amount of stem rise and reach, along with a similar amount of handlebar rise to get his hand position somewhat further forward. While hopefully using zero stem spacers. For the stem we chose (oh, the horror...) a 25° x 80mm Profile Design Aris, which is forged, safe, beautifully crafted and relatively lightweight (around 140g with titanium bolts installed). That got him part way to the hand height he needed. For the other part, we chose a set of Specialized S-Works Carbon DH bars with 38mm rise, weighing a reasonably light 235g. We specifically chose 31.8mm. You may be thinking that this combo would look gangly and awkward. The 80mm reach NUMBER on the stem may remind you of the early days of MTB, and the 80-100mm tillers that we used to run. But, however they measure this 80mm appears to be NOT on the 0° plane, but along the 25° plane. They also have 60mm and 70mm, which look very normal ACTUAL reach, with some extra rise. So it looks remarkably natural, and along with the bars - in using both of their rise, reach and sweep to get the grips up to where the hands want them - looks remarkably correct... and actually ELEGANT. You have to see it to believe it, especially watching a 6'4" to 6'5" guy ride by. "Well yeah... how could it be any other way?" was my reaction Fast forward... as we're doing some final fitting and fiddling before the maiden voyage. Only a few experiments were made with the fore and aft position of the saddle, simply 5mm each way to try it, and a bit of handlebar roll for personal taste. The first test ride? It was an absolute revelation to my friend. Never before has he so instantly felt comfortable on a bike. Instantly felt properly centered (weight biased) between the wheels. The next few rides - after fine tuning suspension, saddle tilt etc - produced similar WOW! moments. To him, no bike has ever felt so automatically comfortable, confident, flowy, and connected directly to his brain. I've since done the same experiment with my other tall friend, this time starting with an XL Ibis Ripley V4. Same bars and stem, nearly identical components. The results were equally mind blowing for him. So rather than knocking it, or dismissing this out of hand, maybe give it a try. Are you less tall (6'-1" to 6'3"), or want to split the difference? Give a 17° FSA V Drive stem a try, in 60mm or 70mm reach.

Definitely a cool project and a major accomplishment. Apart from being a micro boutique brand with a front triangle made in USA that we should love to support... From a performance - everything that matters when riding - perspective, why would you buy this over a Scott Gambler (aluminum or carbon), which is a super refined work of art, is mullet or 29 ready, with a lower shock flip chip?

Though it's often the ideal material for a trail hardtail - in the way the inherent flex and give of titanium helps to mute the trail harshness and helps to keep the bike comfortable and tracking in the rough - I've never found titanium to be an acceptable material for a full suspension bike. For the case of a fully, the frame (front triangle) and material choice really has one main job: To tightly control all of the pivoting things, i.e. swing arm, linkage(s), as well as steerer and crank spindle, and keep them rigidly aligned with each other. Once the designer accomplishes this first / main goal, they can then tune in a bit of compliance. So this bike is a fail from the get-go, and that's before we even get to the sub-awesome single pivot / flex stay design and performance, which will introduce even more wiggle and wallow into the system. It is a good looking bike though.