Chris Porter is not afraid to stand out from the crowd. In a marketplace where most bikes are within a few, if significant, millimetres from each other, his Geometron bikes stand apart. It would be all-too-easy to toss the mad scientist epithet at him, but that sells him short. Yes, his bikes are bigger and wilder than almost anything out there, but talk to him for more than a few minutes and it is clear that his ideas come from development, testing, trial and error.
Along with Cesar Rojo and Fabien Barel, he was one of the original figures to start experimenting with bigger and more extreme bikes. Over the past five years he has adapted, refined and, at least to his satisfaction, proven each iteration. By working with a custom frame builder like Nicolai and combining that with his day job of running the UK's long-standing Fox distributor, Mojo, he can fine-tune each aspect of his bikes to create something truly unique. We sat down with the softly-spoken giant to find out more about the man, where he came from, how his opinions of geometry evolved and what he sees as the fundamental problem with the modern mountain bike.
The first big question: why should people listen to you?They shouldn't necessarily, should they? That's their own decision, isn't it? I'm not saying I'm any better at it than anyone else. I'm still learning, but for my background, I came from motorcycle journalism, that was the start of what I do now. I worked for a motorcycle magazine and so rode an awful lot of motorbikes. You start to notice the differences between them and why some do this while some do that, why you've got to work hard to make this one work and not to make that one work, et cetera. You just start to learn the differences and I started to remember the feeling of riding each bike, so I could describe the feeling of riding a 1994 Gilera Nordwest U exactly. I could tell you exactly what it did well and what it didn't do well, even now. It's that sort of analytical process to try to figure out what it's doing and why it's doing what it's doing.
I wanted to race motorbikes but couldn't afford it so I ended up riding mountain bikes, racing mountain bikes. I started racing downhill in 1993 after a couple cross-country races because no one was doing that in the UK before that. After the motorcycle magazine, I then moved on to the mountain bike magazines and rode an awful lot of different types of mountain bikes. I wouldn't say people should listen to me. That's not what I'd say at all. I'd just say I've put a lot of time in and I've understood a lot of stuff about what I do.
Where do we start with your current theories? Where did your current view on mountain bikes come from and how should a mountain bike should feel when you ride? Basically from riding. If you go back to the early 1990s with the motorbikes, you had very few motorcycles that were really sweet handling in all situations. You had to fight them at some point. Oversteering here, understeering there. Leaning off because it didn't want to turn at this lean angle but was comfortable at that lean angle, et cetera. Every now and again you get one that's an absolute peach and you could just ride it, you didn't have to fight it.
Every single mountain bike I ever rode until we got the chance to draw one ourselves, you have to fight at some point. Basically, they're not turning correctly at the proper lean angle and so you end up trying to turn almost fully upright. That's not to say there aren't good handling bikes. There are. They're called downhill bikes, but nobody wants to pedal one of those around a 40 km loop. It's not rocket science. A long, slack bike works really well, so why not try it for a trail bike as well?
Your theories started with Mondrakers, didn't they?Yeah. We bumped into Caesar Rojo at the 2011 Trans-Provence and he was trying the forwards geometry prototype and it looked wild and radical then. I was on a Patriot from Orange and I had a minus two headset in it, I had offset shock hardware and I made a custom length shock. That had, I don't know ... It was like a 49-inch wheelbase, which at the time was incredible, and it was a 62-degree head angle. I still had a small cockpit between the handlebars and the cranks, and I looked at Caesar's bike and though, hey, he's got space. He's just got an old fashioned head angle. That's fixable with a headset. That's where it started. I got one of those prototypes and that was about the same time we were working with Fabien Barel and his downhill bikes. He had some massive bikes.
That's where we started with the Mondraker. We realised that every time we pushed it a little bit further, it just got better. Instead of having a bike that we pushed to the limit of its adjustment, we thought it'd be really nice to have a bike that's in the middle range of its adjustment where we currently are. That's where the project with Nicolai came there.
What's your overriding theory at the moment in terms of a bike that rides well and how would you describe that?There isn't one, really. You learn as you go along. Essentially I think the industry is ... It's not really progressing because currently, designs seem to go from the computer screen straight into production, with all the problems that entails with literally parts of frames hitting each other at full travel, parts of shocks hitting frames at full travel, no clearance. The kinds of things that you would find out if you actually built some prototypes, but they can't afford to because they're making huge CNC molds at, I don't know, 100 grand a time.
They kind of got stuck on the angles that they were at 20 years ago. They're not really trying different stuff. From my point of view, you'll never learn anything by looking at a drawing in 2D. You actually have to go out and ride it in three dimensions. That's the basis for everything that we do. It's all about experience, looking at a drawing and saying, "This amount of offset and this amount of trail is correct for handling," is complete bullshit, because when you lean it over, it gets a lot more complicated than that.
A huge amount more complicated. I think you just have to ride it and see what works. As far as I'm concerned, the downhill bike handles better than the trail bike, so trail bikes should be similar shapes, but just have more room for the rider.
It's interesting if you look at geometry charts at the moment, trail bikes tend to be longer than downhill bikes as the whole. They tend to reduce the reach on downhill bikes to keep the wheelbase shorter.I think there are few ... All the good downhill bikes have got a decent wheelbase, and you need a decent wheelbase because essentially if you imagine riding and old fashioned trail bike with a long stem and you imagine going down a steep hill, then there's a limit to how far you can move your weight forward before it feels like you're going to go over the bars. That's the end of your forward leaning envelope. Then with really short chainstays, lean back and there's a limit to how far you can go back before the thing loops out. You've got a very small window. A very small envelope within which to move backward and forward, and that's simply because the wheels are close together.
If you move those wheels six inches further apart, you've literally got six inches further you can move backward and forward. You've got more room to weight the wheels independently. Lower the bottom bracket, that gives you, even more, space to move backward and forward. I don't think that's rocket science. That's really easy. It just seems like ... The way I see it, I don't know, maybe it's just we build smaller bikes, we can fit more of them in a container. Is it as simple as that?
It seems that with mainstream geometry people are very worried about how long the wheelbase gets and people seem to be quite nervous about going past the 1,200mm mark.I'm at 1,318mm at the moment, and I test on very tight tracks. Tight tracks that were built by people under 5'6" six at Mojo, and it's fine. Most of them can't keep up with this old fellow down there. It's fine. I really don't think there is a sort of overarching theory on geometry or belief about what bikes should be. They just literally don't have a performance criteria. There's nothing driving it other than fashion. That's my thoughts. There are no performance criteria to what they do. The only performance criteria that seem to drive the bicycle industry is weight. Yet we still have no sport where the lightest bike wins, so why are we doing that? Why are we obsessed with weight in this industry, because having the lightest bike doesn't win you anything. It's nonsense.
Even in cross-country riding and racing, the fastest guy around the loop wins. It's not the guy with the lightest bike. To come back to the thought that there is no overarching theory, come back to cross-country and have a watch it at the Olympics this year.
Yeah?Hardly anyone sat down on the bike for any of the climbs. Does that suggest that the seat angle's too slack? If you think about riding a normal bicycle or cross-country bicycle up a really steep hill, you have to shuffle yourself so far forward on the saddle or it becomes uncomfortable. Maybe the saddle is at the wrong place, but it's just where it's always been. Nobody has put it there for any performance reason. That's just how it's always been.
Okay, take one of your Geometron bikes, they start at 480mm reach, is the problem that the average consumer realistically won't have time to try a bike before they buy it? They might get a quick test in. If they're lucky they may get a day with the bike, but actually moving a bike that could be 80mm longer in terms of reach, that's fairly plausible with common bikes, that's going to feel shit to the average consumer when they go test it.It isn't, no. It isn't. It feels completely natural. If you look at pictures of tall guys riding mountain bikes, you can see why. There's been an acceptance of coaching within mountain biking within the last few years and there's been an acceptance that there's a certain riding position that gives you a good connection between you, the bike, and the ground.
Coaches are going out trying to teach guys to get into this riding position, push the bike down, outside elbow up, turn your hips towards where you're going, and it's a really hideously uncomfortable position to be in. The reason you need to be in that position is because the bikes are too small, and if you had a bike that fits then the rider naturally goes into the position that is correct for riding the bicycle. If you like, I should be, as a bicycle designer, drawing the person into the correct position where they feel comfortable in the correct position, rather than forcing themselves into an uncomfortable position. No, I totally disagree with the idea that it's going to feel shit to them. I think when they go back on their own bike there might be issues and they realize, "Oh, actually, this doesn't feel quite as comfortable as I thought it did yesterday."
I think it's a more natural position. It's going to feel odd to some people and certainly, some people who are so used to riding a very short bike with flat pedals and short chainstays will spend a lot less time hanging off the back of the bike because that's the only way they can get downhill safely. That doesn't mean it's the correct way to do it. In order to turn a singletrack inline vehicle, which is a bicycle, you need to load the front tire, and mountain bikers currently are watching a lot of videos of guys skidding into corners and smashing turns. That's not the fastest way around a corner. Those guys are not winning the World Cups. You don't see videos of Aaron Gwin smashing loamy turns and coming to a halt in each one. He's holding speed through corners but his bike is big enough for him. Look at pictures of Aaron Gwin on the bike and his body is flat over the bike and he's able to lift his body parallel up and down full amplitude arms and legs. He doesn't have to ride the bike with his arms at full stretch and try to do everything in his hips.
I think it's quite natural. One of the reasons you wanted to do the interview was because the Americans are obsessed with this deviant geometry idea that's coming from Europe. It's because they haven't ridden it. Nobody's building one low slack bikes over there. They still think that 430mm is a very long chainstay over there. They don't get a chance to ride it, but they're welcome if they want to come over here.
Is that a symptom of the trail culture, the way that they've got a lot of the IMBA style of flow trails, where you don't particularly need that good a bicycle to ride it because it's not challenging in the same way a lot of the trails are in Europe?I think that's absolutely right. One of the differences we've noticed when we go to the States, and you dream of California as an amazing place to ride, but one of the big differences between their riding culture and ours is that they will go for a ride. They'll do a loop. They'll go somewhere that takes in a scenic route that takes in a few little downhills on the way. We'll go to a patch of woodland and we'll ride up and down the same patch of woodland all day, riding the gnarliest trails we can find, mostly. The other thing is the legality of the trails thing—in Europe, it doesn't seem to be a problem. In Britain, yeah, most of the trails are technically illegal, but nobody's actually going to fine you for it, whereas in the States they actually do get a fine for leaving the legal trails. They don't have that sort of interesting and illegal trail network that we've got.
Basically, yeah, the trails are not as difficult so you can get away with riding basically a rubbish bike, can't you? You wouldn't design a plus tire unless you could get away with riding basically a rubbish bike. Plus tires are, honestly, who thought of that? Let's make paper thin, rock hard compact tires that are supposed to be ridden at low pressures. Of course they don't work. As soon as you try to load it in a turn, it folds. You put it up to normal pressure, it feels like it's rattling your teeth out, and it's still as heavy as a normal tire that's good. Honestly.
Talking to Fabien Barel recently, he feels that with current technology he'd want 2.8" on the front of his DH bike and 2.6" or so on his trail bike.On his DH bike, yes, because you set the speed by using the brakes. The hill is steeper than you need for pedalling, but in a human-powered sport, grip is going to slow you down, isn't it? Essentially if you have a real grippy bike ... Let's imagine a downhill bike with real grippy tires and you're going to try to ride a cross-country loop, it's not going to be the best, is it?
No.You want narrow rims, harder compact tires, et cetera. On a downhill bike you can get away with more grip, but on a trail bike, no. On a trail bike grip is going to slow you down.
You feel that a limiting factor is weight? There's a certain acceptable weight for tires and then you have to maximize within that weight kind of thing? Is plus taking you outside that window?In order to make a tire that doesn't fold, you're going to have to make a motorcycle tire, and in order to get it down to the pressures where they think you can run them, like 12, 15, 17 PSI, then it's going to have to have such a stiff carcass that it's going to be unusable and it'll still fold. It will still fold when you load it in a corner. Tire technology is one thing that we're lacking in the mountain bike industry. I'm not defending a 2.4", 27.5 enduro tire as the pinnacle of all development. It's not. We're 20 years into the sport. If you watch downhill, every weekend you still see people getting punctures. If I was paying someone a quarter of a million quid a year to race eight races, I wouldn't want to see him getting punctures. Being devil's advocate, I'd say people often say, "What would your perfect fork look like?" Well, it certainly wouldn't look like what we've got now, because one of the main design criteria of the bicycle and therefore the fork, is ease of getting the wheel out so you can fix the puncture.
One of the design criteria of the fork is that a wheel's got to be easy to come out because we get punctures. No! Solve the puncture problem. It's actually quite simple. No one else gets them, in your motorcycles, motocross, car racing. It's very, very unusual for them to get punctures. You watch a downhill race and probably 30% of the competitors are suffering from punctures on a weekend. I'm not defending the 2.4" and enduro tires as the pinnacle of all development. All I'm saying is it's better than the rest.
Okay. How would your ideal fork be different to what we have now? How would you like to see it change?God blimey. That's too long a conversation. I don't think there's a single part on the mountain bike that you couldn't look at and say, "Well, that could be better." It's similar with all the internal parts of shocks and other components as well. There's not a single thing that hasn't been compromised by standards or assumptions from 20, 30 years ago. The reason we've got bigger axles on the front wheel than the rear wheel is because we've got a cassette on the rear with a cassette locking ring that will only allow a 12mm axle through the middle of it. It's pathetic.
We've got a wider rear axle at the rear at 12mm than we do at the front at 20mm and then people wonder why axles and hubs break in the middle on the rear wheel, it's not rocket science. Nobody has taken the rear derailleur off the rear wheel yet, so we still have to have a derailleur and a cassette on the rear wheel.
Is that one of the big things for you then, that you'd like to see the gears move forwards?Well, it's only one of them, isn't it? It's only one of them. There's not a single piece on the bike that couldn't be made better. Instead of making them better, all we get is just basically desktop publishing, almost, rather than design. We just get nicer graphics and new colors. There's nothing really different, or we just get a different material like a carbon crank. Why would that be any better than an aluminum crank? I don't know. Why are they making carbon cranks? Aluminium ones were fine. That wasn't the problem. The problem is the punctures, the derailleur, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The focus is all on basically weight and looks, it's not performance criteria. Not really performance criteria other than it weighs less than this guy's product of the same style.
MENTIONS: @mattwragg /
@SaskiaD
Actually, I'd like more of his taken, not just on the geometry, but all the components/elements that are "designed" for mountain biking. I real like his approach of "fixing" the real issue, not just the symptom.
I'd be happy to read Mr. Porter answer that
Now I agree with pretty much all he said and I knew before reading this what my next bike will be (though a 29er version, despite Chris Porter made them to prove they are less good than the 27er).
So, he's trying to use Gwin, who rides a size large Tues, with a reach of 450mm, to prove his minimum of 480 reach on a bike theory? Bikes are getting longer, but there is definitely a limit to how long we can go before we compromise comfort and the safe feeling of a longer reach and not going over the handlebars for actual speed.
Realistically, with a gearbox bike, there is no longer a pressing need to run small axles, so why not go 20x110 out front, and 20x157 out back (with blind pivots and 440-455mm chainstays to get heel clearance)? Tire development can happen, likely focusing on 2.5-2.75" tires in the 1kg range with 29-35mm internal width rims, and in properly sized bikes (480/510/540mm reach) with wide bars and fork offset matched stems, they'd actually handle properly.
@hamncheez people need to stop putting a Gates on a Pinion FS bike for one.
@tehllama I'm not sure if 157 is necessary. I understand the benefits of 157 over 150 are related simply to wheel removal/installation. The frame would no longer need a rear mech so the risk of such a wide axle are less though... A single speed hub with flanges pushed to the max. Rear axle diameter can increase as gearbox driven sprockets aren't limited to being able to fit an 11, 10 or 9 tooth cog anymore.
Cool dude though and he's def talking my launguage I see similar problems occurring here now that MTB has become mainstream re trails the right type of trails and again what majority of riders lay to ride or are force fed, you see more injuries on these so called professionally built trails than illegal trails and others are like roads, Clubs focusing on numbers rather than track quality, which lead to lower easier maintenance now just an increase in costs all round is happening everywhere by these insiders, they call it progression! so again the industry one design bike will suit those parameters, jo blow riders get force fed the LBS what's yr budget oh you want this bike! And you look cool so buy it, I'll give you 10% discount (off the inflated std price last week) lol..
Why do you hate people that ride the gnar!
I won't get into a full review, but just to say it's NOT a bulldozer. More like a scalpel, or a Porsche sports car, or a fountain pen. Clean, quick, precise and incredibly capable.
It was suggested that I try the 'Longester', extra large G13, but I felt that was a step too far. With a 35mm step, the Longest is a very nice fit.
@mikelevy: @paulaston:
Sure it would be hard to sit them down together at the same place and at the same time so you could also devise a list of questions and send it them.
Sounds like a mission for @vernonfelton
notable difference is longer shock stroke on nicolai which is better for downhill IMHO + its horstlink which is my favourite suspension design also. chainstay is shorter on nicolai also , so another plus point for me.
I would like to try them too though..
Compare it to the skiing industrie: Most people are riding really slow with a bad technic on beginner slopes. They are not happy with a 190mm GS Ski with 27m turning radius. For good skiers this ski is perfect for riding on slopes, but not for beginners.
This ist why we will see lot more Fashion MTBs than real riding-machines. Thank you for building some of them.
What I think I mean is, in the hands of a good rider a shorter, more nimble bike can do everything but you can't take a back country powder board to the park and expect to have a good time.
I hope that makes sense to somebody...
on powder, I'm more on skis though, so let me give you another analogy why I like people like Porter thinking out of the box:
In the old days, we used to ride our normal skis a lot in the backcountry (doing some seriously steep couloirs and stuff). It was the question if the RS skis where better than the SL skis, but objectively, both skis sucked... But we had no alternatives.
Then the large powder skis came along, which made it much better off-piste, but they seriously sucked everywhere else (like your powder board )
Finally, some guys started to think out of the box, and skis like Atomic Bent Chettler with win tips, rocker, small radius side cut, but very wide, were invented.
And now I pick them 80% of the time, because you can go backward, fool over small obstacles, carve them, but also do some serious powder much better than we ever could...
If designers had accepted current truth, we would never have seen this evolution.
I feel it to be the same with 29er bikes, slack head angles etc. It's clear to me that super long slack bikes will be more for DH, but if you take a Jeffsy29 CF, add a 160 fork, a coil shock, it's amazing how it rides in 95% of all conditions up and downhill.
Key ingredients are a really playful 29er geometry, 65 degree head angle, and a progressive suspension that allows for a coil shock. All that below 13kg..... I see real progress
I also really like the sound of your coil shocked jeffsy idea...you got me thinking about 29ers again when I thought I never would. Trouble is YT size me out of their frames with stupidly tall seat tubes but that's a different matter.
Let the beginners buy the oldschool geometries and have some brands like Pole, Mondraker, Starling and Nicolai be there for the connaiseurs like Lotus, Porsche, Caterham and Co in the automotive sector!
By the way you can fold a Pole (although its 1300mm+ wheelbase) so it fits a Golf's trunk! And a XL G13 would fit a midsize estate with the wheels removed, although you wont carry them on the back of the car!
For me, it clicked really quickly. Am sure some people will take longer, some may never like it, but I'd encourage anyone to give the bikes a try
But that's why bikes are awesome.. you have to get in tune with each and every one of them to "get" where they are at and what they are aimed at achieving.
Excellent all round @mattwragg ; a brilliant, thought provoking read. Thanks. If there is a way for us to get to hear / read the rest, I would be very grateful.
With a 78° seat tube and a rather low cockpit I think, you're sort of level when the road is actually going up by 10%, so it pedals really well (consequently it's not so good for pedalling on flat roads).
I've also read reviews about how it's surprisingly easy to handle in tight corners, cuz' with such a slack head angle, it's actually easier to do nose turn.
And that part about Americans not riding gnar? What the hell? I guess that's why america has the number on ranked dh and eduro rider in The world. And not everything is about speed. A lot of his points can be counter argued.
I think the point about geometry is that the industry is conservative. If an engineer at Giant or Trek or Specialized say put forward an extreme geometry design. Would it ever get made into production? Would it even get prototyped?
This will mean we get a LOT of flow trails, bikes designed for beginner/intermediate riders and the more serious/skilled of us will be on completely different terrain and equipment. Exactly like most skiing.
His UNNO bike also features 435mm chainstays.
RC: You pretty much established the rider-forward geometry movement while working with Mondraker. The 2017 Tracer, however, seems to be a step back from the more exaggerated numbers that we would expect from you. Can you explain?
Rojo: Well that initial Forward was developed around a ten-millimeter stem, so we did compensate the bike length for that. But, once Mondraker went back to the 30-millimeter stem, they never compensated, so the bike was 20 millimeters longer that it was designed for.
In the latest years, I have been jumping around some Mondrakers we still have in the office, and other not-so-extreme long bikes and the main difference for me was that those extreme long bikes are super stable, give lots of confidence, but also take away fun due to being so long and hard to maneuver - even more if you are not so strong.
So, in the end, when you buy a bike (at least from my point of view), fun to ride is on the high side and performance, for sure, is super important. But, since I am not trying to win EWS’s, I put the fun part as a quite important one. So, in the end, it is all about compromises, and those [long] bikes have advantages, but for a certain, very small group of persons. And, they still need to be proven by winning races. As you know, in downhill, Mondraker has no forward geometry, so really, no wins on long bikes yet.
www.pinkbike.com/news/2017-intense-tracer-review.html
The USA has rubbish IMBA flow trails (honestly, how many of those are there in the country) that we ride in a loop and stop to take 18 snack breaks on because we are all fat and the UK is full of awesome muddy ditches filled with rocks that they ride 35 times in a day because they are so gnarly... ok dude.
Looking forward to arguing with people in real life who read this and didn't quite understand it either.
This is why we can't have roadie like uci standards governing our sport. Let our top kidney dollars paid towards meaningful innovations instead of buying as Chris put it Desktop Publishing beauty upgrades. Have a look at road.cc, all they reporting are basically just carbon this and carbon that, the latest ultegras and the still endless bickering over disc brake trial runs at uci sanctioned races. Pathetic.
#12mmrearaxleaintdead
Everywhere is different and maybe the industry just wants an average...and a bike that can still fit on a car rack!
It is good what CP is doing though. If you dont try new things we stagnate. Well done that man.
Or maybe the locals didn't want to show an old British man on a strange looking bike the goods
Think there is no thing like the perfect puncture resistant, low roll resistance, high grip tyre. Not even with a Schwalbe Citizen Pro in road cycling!
"because currently, designs seem to go from the computer screen straight into production, with all the problems that entails with literally parts of frames hitting each other at full travel, parts of shocks hitting frames at full travel, no clearance"
Is so telling. How many times have we heard about this kind of thing? I'd always assumed it was from poor manufacturing tolerances, but if what Chris is saying is true, this is INSANE. Selling £5k bikes that have literally had zero testing??!?!?!
This guy seems a little pissy about how nobody is making the most efficient or ideal bike or geometry. There are a handful of riders in the world that make enough money to support themselves. The rest of us do it for fun. So we don't need the best of the best or the most efficient for our weekend rides. Just give me a bike that handles great, shifts good and is somewhat light and ill get by and have just as much fun as the next guy!
We don't have technical trails? Or illegal trails? Has he ever ridden Mammoth, or at the TDS enduro site? I have to ride on illegal trails every day, too. And most of them are quite technical. And a Brit can't hate on 'merican trails! Just cause you have a ton of rain doesn't mean it's ultra techy! We have rain too!
„...having the lightest bike doesn't win you anything...“ – lightest bike doesn't win itself for sure, but it really helps to win, or to pedal uphill... it makes difference to pedal 12 kg bike or 15 kg bike
When you go up, the steep seat angle and low front sort of put you in a level position. You're climbing as if you were on a flat road.
This bike is made for going up and going down, but probably not at its best on flat ground and very tight turns.
Also explains why so many US components die in the mud. (Crank bros, I'm thinking of you)
Quoted for posterity.
Are dirtbikes more expensive, yeah, but the margine ain't that big. If you got enough money to race mtb, you probably got the $$ to race dirt bikes too. A 2t top end, premix oil, and cheap rotella for the gearbox brings me a long way.
-when braking they have problems because your weight is pushing under the contact patch
-turning is too much affected by the gyroscopic forces of the big wheels
-the bb gets too low compared to the axles, which makes turning difficult
..thats at least what i remember
Yeah I thought he had been pretty anti in the past I just wondered if that had changed with the new breed of modern geometry long travel speed machines. His number one motto seems to be the clock never lies after all!
He now makes a trail 29er....the G13
Also agree that gearing should change, I spent a long time working on sealed gearing
Will talk to you at Fort Bill if you are there
Great salesman.
dirtmountainbike.com/features/production-vs-prototype.html
#chrisknows
From a Factory Jackson article.
This seems to be a trait of those who ride the super long reach bikes who are more laid out over the saddle. Images on the Pole Bicycles website show a similar saddle setup - looks very odd at best, to each their own.
Or he just likes feeling like hes about to go OTB every ride
From a Factory Jackson article.
Join Pinkbike Login