1 Question - How Long, Low And Slack Can We Go?
The phrase "longer, lower, slacker" has been cropping up a lot in technical jargon recently and for good reason. Bikes have been gradually getting that little bit longer, lower and slacker for some time now, and in their wake, an increasing volley of questions from would-be consumers unsure of what this all means. So what does this all mean for the average rider looking to buy a new bike right now and what does this all add up to on the trail? How far will the engineers responsible for designing these new bikes push the limits and does a limit even exist? For whom are these new bikes for, if anyone in particular and at what point do these so-called extreme angles and numbers start to work against us?
To get to the bottom of these questions and more, we did what we do best and pinned down an elite group of industry heavyweights to get their views on the subject. From as far afield as Bavaria, the Swiss Alps, the Welsh valleys and on to the rolling hills of Santa Cruz and the iconic landscapes of British Columbia. Our panel of experts are as varied in the homelands as they are rich in their knowledge of all things MTB. Over to the team...
 |
Ben Walker - Progressive Bikes Marketing Coordinator, Scott Sports
American expat Ben Walker knows a thing or two about the extreme end of mountain biking with the hallowed slopes of Champéry and Morgins only a stones throw from his Swiss mountain home. With such steep and demanding trails on his doorstep - many of which he's also responsible for creating - testing bikes and gear to their limits is all in a days work.
American expat Ben Walker knows a thing or two about the extreme end of mountain biking with the hallowed slopes of Champéry and Morgins only a stones throw from his Swiss mountain home. With such steep and demanding trails on his doorstep - many of which he's also responsible for creating - testing bikes and gear to their limits is all in a days work.
 | We can go as long, low and slack as needed - it's all about finding that happy place. If you put the rider in their happy place for their speed, style and location, it will all come together. Faster riders with steeper and looser trails on their doorstep will benefit from more extreme geometry while other riders who perhaps find themselves on less progressive terrain might find that such geometry is too extreme for their style and trails, and will ultimately make them slower. The bike needs to disappear under the rider and become an extension of their body. The advantages of such extreme geometry allows riders who regularly find themselves on demanding terrain, the ability to ride with the kind of speed and style they always dreamed of. The drawbacks are that they climb a little slower than a bike with traditional geometry and the front end tends to wander more than it would do on a bike with a steeper head angle. As long as the bike is confidence inspiring and encourages you to take the most aggressive line that your mind can envision, then we are on the right track, providing, of course, that's what you want and need. Ultimately though, I think it's all coming together. On the whole, riders are getting better as well as the quantity and quality of the trails out there, which in addition to all the frames and components, which are also getting stronger and lighter as well. I think it's a combined effect and geometry is merely catching up. These new evolutions are another tool to put the end user on the best possible bike for their needs. If someone wants to ride a certain trail in a certain way then we need to cater to those needs. For me, living in the Alps with Champery on my doorstep, a longer, lower and slacker bike suits my riding style and the spots where I like to ride. I love trying out extreme setups to see if I can push harder and get through sections with more speed and control and in the right situations and where such attributes are a huge advantage. I think we - as an industry - are not even close to the limits. Sure, there are a few examples out there, but overall we are creeping towards these more extreme geometry setups. However, moving forwards, we will probably have to steepen up the seat tubes to keep them climbable as there's far more to extreme geometry than just slack head angles, low BB's and long front centres. The evolution continues... |
Chris Porter - The Boss, Mojo Suspension
Hailed by many as an eccentric with an unhealthy fascination for gigantic bikes and extreme geometry, Chris Porter is actually a certified free thinker within the bike industry and someone who doesn’t give a damn about hearsay or fashion. The mastermind behind the Geometron bike range and someone who is quickly becoming a global authority on not only challenging the norm when it comes to MTB design, but your Strava times as well. Chris is someone we should all be paying close attention to...
Hailed by many as an eccentric with an unhealthy fascination for gigantic bikes and extreme geometry, Chris Porter is actually a certified free thinker within the bike industry and someone who doesn’t give a damn about hearsay or fashion. The mastermind behind the Geometron bike range and someone who is quickly becoming a global authority on not only challenging the norm when it comes to MTB design, but your Strava times as well. Chris is someone we should all be paying close attention to...
| Bikes that are both longer and slacker handle better than those that don't. It's as simple as that. Bikes with slacker head angles roll faster and are as stable around corners as much as they are in straight lines. The extra length allows the rider to weight the wheels independently and focus on being more dynamic on the bike. Such bikes also allow the rider to be more pro-active with their steering, removing that nervous twitchy handling sensation we've all experienced. But here's the problem. You can't simply fit a steep seat angle (for climbing!) and a slack head angle into a frame unless you grow the bike in the first place. A limit may exist as to how long and steep we can go with bike geometry, but we haven't gotten there yet. Why don't we turn the question around and ask where the limit sits for bikes that are too short and steep? There are limits in both directions, but right now, we're at the sh-t end of the handling spectrum, especially when we exist in a more fashion-focused world. A world where I've seen 29ers with steeper head angles than some road bikes. I've heard some people say that this 'new' geometry is only for experts. So we should let the novices, beginners and weekend warriors all ride the sh-t bikes then? Are we (the industry) trying to kill our customers? Experts and beginners alike can all benefit from a bike with a more dynamic geometry design. The biggest misconception surrounding this subject is that it's merely a trend. It's not a trend. A trend is 'this season's' pastel shade of pink or blue and wearing goggles and an open face helmet. Making bikes handle better should be at the heart of the MTB industries efforts right now, but seemingly not many people actually designing bikes, understand how they really work. There are however many people in the industry who understand exactly how high their socks should be this season or whether they should have stickers underneath or on top of their helmet peak. Geometry is engineering not fashion. |
Israel Romero - International Communications and Product Development, Mondraker Bikes
Speedy Spaniard Israel Romero and has been working in the bike industry for a lifetime and knows a thing or two about trends, past and present. Working for Mondraker, a brand heralded for its stance on progressive geometry, Israel has seen the encroachment of radical bike design and what it can do in the hands of the right rider and on the right trails, first hand.
Speedy Spaniard Israel Romero and has been working in the bike industry for a lifetime and knows a thing or two about trends, past and present. Working for Mondraker, a brand heralded for its stance on progressive geometry, Israel has seen the encroachment of radical bike design and what it can do in the hands of the right rider and on the right trails, first hand.
| We could make a statement that today's bikes, which are increasingly longer, lower and slacker, represent "modern MTB geometry" as we know it. Looking back most of the old school bikes were in stark contrast short, steep and tall, with slack seat angles, which ultimately made them very awkward going both up and down, especially on steep terrain. Looking at a solution to counter these performance shortfalls is not just a matter of going longer, lower or slacker, but about getting the best compromise for the application at hand, be it XC, trail, enduro or downhill, At Mondraker we started to experiment with the original idea of 'Forward Geometry' back in 2011 by just going longer in the front center and maintaining everything else as is, which proved to be a good approach five years ago. We initially started experimenting with the Foxy, our mainstay trail / AM chassis, welding an XL top tube (which was 60mm longer) onto a medium sized bike. This would normally have a 70mm stem, but utilising a super short 10mm stem instead helped offset the growth in reach gained through a longer front centre. Doing it this way allowed the riding position to remain the same, but the level of control, handling and confidence evolved to a whole new level. On the Summum DH bike with Forward Geometry, we had Damien Spagnolo finish 2nd at the 2011 downhill world championships in Champery, Switzerland, proving the concept worked in the most demanding of environments. Forward Geometry was later officially introduced into production bikes in 2013 and today's Mondrakers share the same principles of the original ones: longer, but not the slackest or the lowest. Geometry as a whole, for any bike, needs to be proportional to the task at hand. We have seen other brands go crazy slack on the on some of their trail or enduro models, but doing so sacrifices performance on everything except steep downhill trails.That is unless you only ride downhill trails and rely on shuttles or chairlifts to get you back to the top. But how far can you push things? Is a 65-degree head angle too slack and a 13" BB too low for a trail bike? It just depends on the bike, the rear suspension design, its intended use, plus a whole host of other factors that make modern geometry more complicated than simply adopting a longer, lower and slacker approach. At Mondraker we do believe that Forward Geometry inspired other brands to follow suit and that is something, that as a small bike brand, we are really proud of. |
Joe Graney - COO, Santa Cruz Bicycles
Graney's new title at Santa Cruz Bicycles is that of the Chief Operating Officer, but he's also the brains behind some of their most heralded designs, including the new Nomad and 5010c. Having been with Santa Cruz since 2001, he built and ran their test lab that we visited back in 2012, and has never been shy with his opinions on so-called industry standards.
Graney's new title at Santa Cruz Bicycles is that of the Chief Operating Officer, but he's also the brains behind some of their most heralded designs, including the new Nomad and 5010c. Having been with Santa Cruz since 2001, he built and ran their test lab that we visited back in 2012, and has never been shy with his opinions on so-called industry standards.
| The premise of the question supposes that all things must go too far in a given direction, and then reverse back to some "perfect solution." But it's nowhere near as simple as that. This is something evolutionary that riders and bike designers explore and influence together. Bottom bracket height dictates only the height of the BB (not the handlebar) and choice comes down to a balance of rider preference versus terrain. Some riders prefer increased clearance over cornering stability while others will trade pedal strikes for that rad drifty control and only the rider can make that judgment call. If your BB height's so low that you're on the limit of clearing features on your home trail - then that's probably low enough. If a rider doesn't have enough front wheel traction to corner effectively then maybe the bike is too slack for their riding style. Slackness impacts other considerations such as the ability to climb certain terrain or navigate switchbacks for example, but on the whole, we're noticing traction as the principal driver behind head angle choice. At least no one is trying to ram new head angle or reach standards on anyone. If you don't like the geometry of a model or size you don't have to ride it. Our job is to make bikes people feel good riding. It's about enabling riders to find their own specific preference or sweet spot and not forcing people to like the same thing that I do. Take the Syndicate for example. The V10 we custom built for Peaty's World Champs win in 2009 was considered "huge" by our standards back then, with a whopping 431mm reach - that's medium Bronson territory these days. Shortly after, Greg won two World Championships on the new XL size with a 446mm reach. In 2015, he won World Cup races on an XXL V10 with 470mm of reach. So one could assume longer is faster right? Not quite. Josh Bryceland is almost identical in height to those guys yet chooses to race on a large V10 frame with 424mm reach. Those guys choose the reach they feel most comfortable with. The more comfortable they are, the more fun they have, The more fun they have the faster they go. And that's about the only thing we can all agree on. |
Owen Pemberton - Senior Design Engineer, Norco Bicycles
Owen Pemberton cut his engineering teeth working for Rolls Royce in the UK before jumping the big blue pond to Canada where he joined Norco over 6 years ago. Having witnessed the recent explosion of new standards first hand, Owen is well vested to see where things might be going next.
Owen Pemberton cut his engineering teeth working for Rolls Royce in the UK before jumping the big blue pond to Canada where he joined Norco over 6 years ago. Having witnessed the recent explosion of new standards first hand, Owen is well vested to see where things might be going next.
| This is a great question and it's something I've been thinking about for some time now. Mountain bike geometry has come a long way in the past few years and my gut tells me that there is still some way to go. Will things get longer? Most probably, but I don't think we can go any lower as we still need to pedal these things after all. It's the issue of a slacker head angle where it gets really interesting and it's where I also think we need to look at this question as (initially) being more category specific. In the 200mm (downhill) category, where geometry is generally being pushed more than any other category, I can't help but feel we are reaching the limits of steering geometry already. I think bikes might continue to get a bit longer here, but I think future DH improvements are coming, but from somewhere else. For the 150-170mm (enduro) category we have seen significant advancements over the past few years, and modern 'enduro' race bikes have geometry that is starting to approach that of DH bikes. The biggest thing holding back steering geometry in this category, are fork offsets. With current fork offsets we can't push head angles (slacker) without negatively affecting the ride experience. It all comes down to that trail number! Now the 140mm (let's call it 'trail') category is where I see the biggest opportunity for geometry improvement. Most people would look at me like I was crazy if I pitched a 120mm travel trail bike for the masses with a 65-degree head tube angle. But hey, why not? Think about that one for a minute... |
Daniel Oster - MTB Brand Manager, Canyon Bicycles
German buy-direct brand, Canyon, have been turning heads with their well-priced bikes for some time. But thanks to their revolutionary Shapeshifter technology and longer ‘race geometry’ they’ve quickly put themselves on the map for their progressive ideas towards bicycle design, which MTB brand manager Daniel Oster knows all about.
German buy-direct brand, Canyon, have been turning heads with their well-priced bikes for some time. But thanks to their revolutionary Shapeshifter technology and longer ‘race geometry’ they’ve quickly put themselves on the map for their progressive ideas towards bicycle design, which MTB brand manager Daniel Oster knows all about.
| With more purpose built trails and better bikes these days, people can ride faster than ever before. A direct result of that extra speed is the need for longer bikes to increase control. Longer wheelbases are good for better stability and delivering a smoother ride on fast and rough trails, help to reduce the risk of going OTB when it gets steep, and keeping your front wheel planted when climbing. That makes longer setups not only beneficial for DH or enduro, but for short travel disciplines too. It also doesn't matter if you're a first timer or an experienced rider. But length should only increase relative to the speeds being ridden. We need to find the right balance between agility and stability while also ensuring that the center of gravity is positioned evenly to both wheels. We can't simply keep extending the front center because you still need to apply enough pressure through the front wheel - otherwise, cornering becomes a problem. For me, enhancing a bike's stability through its front center is more about hitting the right compromise between reach and head angle in relation to cockpit length and width, in addition to chainstay length. Extending reach, slackening head angle and fitting a short stem with wide bars delivers extra stability from the front center, handling agility from the cockpit, plus enough pressure on the front wheel. By altering chainstay length we can either increase stability or agility depending on whether you go longer or shorter. The most important thing while playing around with these different factors is to ensure that the center of gravity remains central. |
Michael Prell - Design Engineer, Cube Bikes
Michael Prell is more than just the chief bike designer and engineer at Cube, residing as one of the brands three founders. With such an explosive rate of growth since they first opened their doors in 1993, Michael and his colleagues have been responsible for navigating this German juggernaut into new markets and through a series of minor and major advances in MTB design.
Michael Prell is more than just the chief bike designer and engineer at Cube, residing as one of the brands three founders. With such an explosive rate of growth since they first opened their doors in 1993, Michael and his colleagues have been responsible for navigating this German juggernaut into new markets and through a series of minor and major advances in MTB design.
| Everybody is using the words "modern geometry" right now and over the last few years there has been some noticeable changes with regards to angles, BB drop and reach. To say how far it's possible to go with these parameters is - I believe - not possible. Depending on the bike and its intended use (defined by the travel) we will always have to consider that that there will be no pair of riders with the exact same physical measurements. But there is also such a big diversity in riding skills amongst consumers who all buy the same bike making it even harder to presume how far is too far. Granted, a racer can benefit from a longer reach, but the average rider might have problems. As a frame designer, I always have always worked to find the best balance between these parameters to get the best possible bike for (nearly) everyone, but in the end we all want to sell bikes. However, looking at the diversity of the different bike categories available, it is more or less possible to evolve a bike in a certain direction. An enduro bike, for example, can be more extreme in its geometry than a trail bike due to the smaller group of possible buyers. On a downhill bike, these parameters can be more extreme yet again, but there are limiting points. At the moment, everybody is experimenting with these parameters and I think that most of the products that are available on the market now are within these borders, but perhaps not all. We must also not forget that these geometry changes came from extreme riding conditions and with that in mind, we might not get the same (positive) results across the board. This is evolution, plain and simple and done by trial and error. So geometry improvements are more or less a steadily on-going process that will probably not end. And there are so many parameters that influence this process such as the trails we now ride and the advances in kinematics and suspension technology we now have at our disposal. We're all riding so much faster now as well and with that speed comes the need for more control, especially when things get too nervous on the front end, needing more effort to get it around a corner for example. Currently I see most of the extremes on the market being focussed towards a small group of customers and their preferences. |
Colin Hughes - Lead engineer, Ibis Cycles
Colin Hughes and his colleagues at Ibis Cycles are well versed in the terms ‘longer, lower and slacker’ adopting many of these elements into their current fleet of carbon super bikes. Having made the decision to go down this path and considering the tooling costs associated with their material of choice, Colin did his homework and knows his mountain bike geometry inside and out.
Colin Hughes and his colleagues at Ibis Cycles are well versed in the terms ‘longer, lower and slacker’ adopting many of these elements into their current fleet of carbon super bikes. Having made the decision to go down this path and considering the tooling costs associated with their material of choice, Colin did his homework and knows his mountain bike geometry inside and out.
| Long: It seems there's still some room to go longer. It used to be that you'd want to keep the wheelbase short to get around tight corners. Today, suspension is allowing us to go faster and the trails are being built specifically for mountain bikes. That means that the cornering radius are larger and you don't need that tight wheelbase to snake through turns. Low: Looking at static BB height is not a very complete picture. What really matters is where it's going to be when you're riding and it's not as simple as where you set sag. Some bikes that have a very flat spring rate through the middle of the travel are going to have you between 25 and 75 percent and cause a lot of pedal strikes. A frame with a more progressive spring rate will keep you closer to the sag point more often. That means it will have less pedal strikes even if it has the same or slightly lower static BB height. Slack: Just talking about head angle is over simplifying things, as 'trail' is the most important number. How much trail you want depends on what speed you want your bike to be optimized for. The trail on the HD3 and LS for example are around 100mm - more than that would make the steering feel more stable at even higher speeds, but feel way too slow at low speeds. If speeds get higher and trails get straighter we'll add more trail, but it's all a compromise. |
Luke Beale - Owner, Designer and Engineer, Level One Engineering
Owner of Level One Engineering, Luke Beale is a freelance gun for hire in the world of bicycle engineering. With a resume packed to the rafters with notable brands and iconic bicycles such as Transition's popular new Giddy Up range, Luke’s seen more than his fair share of fads and fashions come and go and understands implicitly what is and isn’t going to work out on the trail for the end user.
Owner of Level One Engineering, Luke Beale is a freelance gun for hire in the world of bicycle engineering. With a resume packed to the rafters with notable brands and iconic bicycles such as Transition's popular new Giddy Up range, Luke’s seen more than his fair share of fads and fashions come and go and understands implicitly what is and isn’t going to work out on the trail for the end user.
| Today's downhill bikes established the current limits for both head tube angles and wheelbase lengths. These are now pretty similar to off-road motorcycles and I think it's safe to assume that DH bikes aren't going to get much slacker or longer. This progression has established the operating limit for head tube angles at around 62 degrees, but I also think that head angles in the range of 62-63 degrees will be used on any bike where stability and speed are important. Away from DH bikes, the growth in 'reach' has been driven by the increasing number of capable 160mm travel bikes (you can call these 'enduro' if you like) that have flooded the market. These bikes use slack head angles similar to a DH bike, but unlike a thoroughbred DHer, need to pedal efficiently uphill as well. The bar and pedal position (stack and reach) are what counts when you're pointing downhill, but for an AM bike, the seat position - which is important for climbing - adds another element to consider. Utilizing a steeper seat angle helps to keep weight over the front wheel when climbing and prevents the front wheel from wandering - especially on a bike with a slack head angle. Lowering the BB helps to keep the center of gravity nice and low, which is great for going downhill, but at the same time, can adversely affect an AM bike thanks pedal strikes. Because of this issue, BB height is limited by a rider's tolerance to catching their pedals - I think that the average 160mm bike can get quite a bit slacker and longer, but I don't think there is really a need to go any lower. Reducing the center of gravity can be accomplished in a lot of other ways such as thinner pedals or even thinner shoe soles for example. As a frame designer, I look at the BB drop relative to the rear axle instead of the actual height of the BB from the ground. |
Has that helped answer your questions on this matter or has it created some new ones? Let's hear your thoughts...
Author Info:
Member since Jun 8, 2005
Must Read This Week
[UPDATED] Final Elite XC Results & Overall Standings from the Mairiporã XC World Cup 2024
42355 views
42355 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
youtu.be/BbAXDAJcp1Y
"I thought you were a business brain, Mark, but you're better than that. You're someone my grandma would call a real piece of shit."
I even find a slacker head angle rides better uphill, I got on a 67° bike the other day and was wobbling about all over the shop, switched it to 65° and the world was good again. Also tried this short chainstay BS, the ride quality is just awful.
All I'm saying is that we're not all the same, and it's not even necessarily about how fast you go or the terrain you ride, whatever feels good to you will always be more fun.
Fwiw I ride what I consider a do it all bike - Vitus Escarpe with a 65° HA and the BB is at 335mm and sized up. Weirdest thing is I love it on dirt jumps.
Just goes to show I guess that one way isn't gonna work for everybody. Unless we're all taught to ride the same way, which would be the most boring thing ever. Here's to the crazy ones, etc, etc.
As a member of the "tall" community its good to hear (I) stacks aren't going any lower and that attention is being paid to (ii) seat angles getting steeper.....
We need Large and XL frames to have higher stacks so we aren't reaching down to the bars and over-squatting to keep hips low enough when descending!......... we also need the seat angle and chain stay lengths to work together so we don't end up with our buts over the rear axle when climbing!
You can always add to stack with headset spacers, high rise bars and stems, but it's much more difficult to adjust downwards
If you weld on a massive headtube it only limits the number of people that will want to buy the bike. I'm fine with headset spacers and riser bars
Its widely accepted that larger frame sizes fail to scale up correctly....The Stack/reach ratios drop significantly for most bikes from medium to XL. Looked at another way this implies tall people have relatively shorter legs and or longer arms than average height people.
To make matters worse a lot of steerers are cut so low you cant realistically move up the stem from the start position by more than 5 or 10mm.
The one issue mentioned above is that often as the reach gets longer Cs stays the same, and I find that hopeless for anything other than moderate downhill. Even no good for steep stuff, too far over the back and unbalanced. Uphill is impossible. Flat is fine I guess...
Norco has to some extend addressed this with chain stay length varying by size - what they are calling Gravity Tune.
Basic premise being the goal is not to make the shortest CS, but rather optimize the riders position on the bike.
I had two Coilairs with the Magic Link, and I put a 180mm fork on one. It put the HA at around 65.5 degrees when pedaling, but the BB was so high that it didn't feel too slack. When I was really charging it the HA was closer to 64 degrees and the BB dropped over an inch. It was magical. I didn't realize how slack it was until I sold it and got my Enduro 29er with a HA that feels like I'm on a road bike compared.
If a magic link could be put on a bike that had similar geometry to the Giant Reign when it was pointed downhill, but steepened it up by a degree and raised the BB when pedaling that would be a machine!
Canyon does use a similar system but with a climb switch which I prefere over the self switching Kona version!
I doubt many people would buy the 29er enduro in it's current form if it wasn't for a predominantly American media telling us it's the best bike ever.
Personally I think it's a poor choice for 160mm travel but until people who get paid to review bikes stop telling people it's a great bike it will have to be a bike I can show to customers.
What we need to be talking about in a discussion about long low and slack is more than just head angles, bottom bracket heights and stack/reach lengths. It's wheel size, wheel base, fork rake and in turn the generated trail of fork travel, rake and head angle.
I do a lot of climbing on my nomad, it's actually quite good at it. It's not the fastest, but that's ok. I did keep the monarch plus and put a lighter wheelset on to help the longer climbs. One of my favorite loops includes a 1:30-2hr climb depending on my mood. (Armstrong/pinecone)
I do actually use all of it's travel as it's the bike that fits a lot of the local trails i ride (park city and trips to moab/st george). Some of the calmer canyons i dont, (corner canyon) but the geometry still rocks and it's a good enough all rounder i dont really care.
I was faster in spots with my trail bike (trance sx) but don't really care. I'm way faster in the rough stuff and it climbs the same. The geometry is spot on for me as I'm finding i like a larger wheelbase with a shorter reach.
With all the latest trends most manufacturers have just fallen into line yet again, none have truly innovated. I ride a Kona Process and liked the fact that they started with the angles and lengths they wanted and let the travel determine itself, its the most different (good thing) bike ive ever ridden but i still think it could be better.
Chances are selling a bike with numbers too far out there would be risky for a manufacturer
Every rider is different. Different mind set, different sizes, different attitudes, different riding style and different trail environment.
And Joe Graney makes a great example of this:
"In 2015, he won World Cup races on an XXL V10 with 470mm of reach. So one could assume longer is faster right? Not quite. Josh Bryceland is almost identical in height to those guys yet chooses to race on a large V10 frame with 424mm reach. Those guys choose the reach they feel most comfortable with."
Seriously, buy the bike that feels right for you and for your riding needs. (easier said than done I know)
As a result you can have a "shorter bike" which is more agile or a "longer bike" which is more stable with the same balance.
Seat angle will then change the way your balance is on your bike seated for climbing.
As a result it still depends where your priorities and preferences are and not fashion.
Eg giant reign has a fork with a different offset to change the trail for what giant thought is a good trail. Never rode the bike but like the approach.
Happy new year. 27.5+ boost ...
As for length, try fitting such a Geometron bike into a normal cars' trunk. Won't be an issue with pickup trucks, but for regular cars it is. Also for air travel bags.
TL;DR: No slacker, no lower, no longer.
I for instance have long legs and short torso and I have found that bikes with longer reach suit me much better. That is kind of strange because I probably should prefer shorter reach due to my short torso but that is not the case. Until I bought my Kona Process 153 (L) I have always struggled with finding the right center of gravity. On my older bikes with the "old school" geometry (short reach) I was either to far back or to far infront. I got it right about just 5% of the time. With the Kona I´m right on spot 80% of the time. The large Process has a reach of 460mm and I think I actually could go for 20-40mm extra reach to get the optimal centre of gravity. That would probably give me the right amount of pressure on bought wheels 100% of the time.
My conclusion is that ALWAYS try out the bike you´re buying. If possible try some other bike, with different geometry and compare. I believe that different bikes are optimal for different body compositions and different riding style. You just have to find what works for YOU.
I have the weight forward problem descending due to only average arms and relatively high hips (due to leg length)......need high stack but not too long a reach. I run 800mm bards on Trail bike and 820mm on DH
I am sure an article on how to profile our own geometry and finding matching bikes would be helpful to many.....
good luck steve!
I agree with you @Travel66, an article on this would be very helpful. I have never read one about this so it could be a first.
Other than that I have to wonder if the Dune is right for you...the stack isn't that high, an XL is very long and the stem is already very short?
CS should be proportional but I can only think of a few where CS varies or there is any adjustment possible...but what the hell its only the rear triangle!!! LMAO
I don't think any of this is such "black magic" as you would think it is. Longer will always be more stable, shorter more maneuverable, slacker equals more stable, but harder to steer. Lower of course more stable, but more pedal strikes. None of this is rocket science. And its funny how people get on one style of bike (long wheelbase/slack HA) and think because it goes faster in straight line that it is better. Reminds me of the 29r hype. Everyone swore that they'd never go back to a smaller wheel....but now as time has gone we understand better the pros and cons. Just like frame geometry, once you get over the hype of the latest trend, you end up with a more realistic view point.
I think the key point that reverberates within all the interviews is it depends on what kind of trails you are riding. That should always be the first thing you consider when thinking about picking a new bike.......
instagram.com/p/BAKRhSts636
I think 63-64º headangle is ideal for allmountain. Personally their bikes seem to fit my kind of riding. Last year I changed from a medium to a large frame thus gaining 30mm of reach and 25mm of wheelbase. At first I was worried I'd have a hard time changing direction in tight corners but it was just a matter of getting used to the bike. Now I'm thinking of going up to +1335mm wheelbase which will be over 10cm longer than my current bike and wondering if that might be a tad too much or will I be able to adjust to it as well!
I get what you're saying. Working at the Chatel bikepark I see more and more people riding their trail bikes and of course inevitably I see many of them break and/or see the nasty effects of when 150mm isn't enough...This "I can do that on a small bike" mentality is getting out of hand! haha
As for trail bikes with aggressive geometry I'm all for it so long as the user does not forget how much travel they have!
Who's pretending
""The rear simply doesn't cope with what you can throw at it with such slack geo. I can send it straight through a gnarly rockgarden and if everything goes well, no probs, but when it doesn't, things go south immediately - your rear end is flying up and sideways and you hold on for your life.""
Whaat? If you just throw an angleset to a XC bike, it doesn't make it a modern geometry bike. The bike is far more complex than just changing the head angle. The frame stiffness, suspension kinematics, weight balance and overall dynamics have to be adjusted as well to compensate the weight shift. Also the reach is always too short on the bikes which have been anglesetted. And if you take an Large bike and change the angleset, you should check where the BB is after the modification. You may need to change the fork to a stiffer one and as well or get some more stack under the headtube.
When I started to ride trailbikes after riding DH I thought the geometry of the trailbikes was s*it. I tried to make a trailbike trom my DH bike, which was also s*it because it couldn't pedal uphill. I also made a trailbike from a XC bike which was total disaster. Then we founded a company (Pole Bicycles) and I designed bikes that have our ideal trail bike geometry. We found out that the longer and slacker bikes are actually more rideable uphill and downhill. The riding style is different, more fast but safer than a steep and short bike. At Pole bicycles our mission is to make safer, faster and easier bikes. There are limitations in shorter travel but for example the Honda downhill bike had only 180mm travel and Matti Lehikoinen finished WC overall 2nd after Hill. Our downhill bike is more tactics than all in type of a deal. In front you get that big support from 200mm fork, which is more important than a 200mm travel in rear. Don't worry, there are still companies who make short and steep bikes
We can talk hours if our design good or not but I know that usually people only realise the advantages when they get on the bike. I am quite amused about people upsetting about our concept because usually when you upset people by creating something new, you are doingsomething right
-Leo
stability at speed? Like 5-10 km/h on a climb hummm... Unless off course you referred to Scandinavian XC, a HT with 140-160 forks
Sorry that you had to hear it, i criticize the general trend in AM bike design chatter. Complete mess with points of reference...
@WAKIdesigns I find a lot of arrogance and overconfidence in your comments. For example it sounds like you think that people would not understand physics and now you are reminding about mass on this equation? It's not a very healthy way to make a conversation. You need to understand the diggerence of marketing and facts. In marketing people create images of stuff. "Climbs like an XC bike
" don't mean that we say that the bike is faster than a XC-bike. I bet you would like to work for bicycle industry because I see you have done a lot of sketches and all. Good looking stuff. Chill out a bit and you might make it.
I recently joined Strava. Here's my Strava site so you can look what kind is riding I'm using the 140mm travel 29" Evolink. Note that I have many bikes in stock and I could use whatever geometry I want. I still choose this bike over the steeper XC?
www.strava.com/athletes/12427807
My geometry is:
HA: 63º
SA: 75.6º
Reach: 520mm
WB: 1340mm
CS: 460mm
BBH: ~345mm (higher with bigger tires)
Center of BB to handlebars: 824mm (I run a 10mm stem) This is a better measurement than toptube + stem length.
I live in Chatel so when the lifts are open I ride the bikeparks in the Portes du Soleil and during the offseason I pedal up the same mountains but tend to ride natural terrain. Stuff over here is steep both up and down. So traction both up and down is very important. This bike has it in spades! I can now climb stuff both sitting and standing which I couldn't before easily! I have ridden it in all sorts of terrain and it just works everywhere. When things start getting really tight you just have to look ahead and chose your line and/or be a little more aggressive. I have also ridden the bike on more mellow trails abroad and the bike works just as well. The slack headangle isn't a problem on the climbs due to the long front end, it makes going over the bars on the downhills practically impossible (obviously) and it allows you to corner harder with the risk of the front folding. I am currently running a 584mm front (650b) and 559mm (26in) back with plus tire but will soon test bigger wheels. I highly recommend this bike and remember that you can always size down if you think the bike is too big (which it isn't!!!).
Am I the only one who feels like we didn't get answers?
I wanted to hear "62.5° HA with 480mm reach for L sized AM bike" for example.
Don't get me wrong - those answers were interesting, but I don't feel like I learnt many things.
As always, it's a compromise. Many agree to say that it depends on the intended use, so that's why I think Shapeshifters etc are the way to go. Less pedal strikes and good handling uphill , and low center of gravity and slacker downhill... isn't this the best solution?
If you want to see where geometries are going to be by 2020 check out www.polebicycles.com/bicycles/mountain/enduro/evolink-150-hd-275
From a Small frame to an XL, stack height only goes up 30-40mm. While saddle height may go up 200mm.
I know a long headtube makes the frame weaker, but having 40mm spacers below the stem is not good either
Spandex is as simple at it gets, on the right body.
Here is a good Video to put things in perspective on DH Bars. Hence, the majority of riders are not strictly DH riders.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GxjVCU7Zck
Personally at 5"6 I've hit my limit for reach at about 430(plus at 35mm stem) any longer and shifting weight back for jumps drops etc becomes hard. Also the longer bike requires constant aggressive riding otherwise its just not fun.
with these new longer cockpits on bikes 2013 and up, go demo a couple of sizes first to find your happy. i assumed previous nomads i owned would feel close when i bought the 27.5 version and new geometry... i was wrong. hope this helps anybody looking at getting into this geometry trend.
HA: 65.7 degrees
Chainstays: 439mm
Top Tube: 609mm
Looks pretty good to me. Wish my stupid enduro 29er had a HA slacker than 67.5. I would want to start it at 66 flat and test going even slacker. Thanks Specialized, for proprietary, integrated headsets!
"For the 150-170mm (enduro) category...The biggest thing holding back steering geometry in this category, are fork offsets. With current fork offsets we can't push head angles (slacker) without negatively affecting the ride experience. It all comes down to that trail number!"
When Giant mass produced their flagship 160mm travel Reign with a 65* H/A they did the smart thing with the 46mm offset Pike crown.
I went from an 80mm 26" hardrock to a 130mm 27.5" hardtail, mainly because the speshy started feeling cramped for how I ride. I have a definite bmx style to how I ride, so I opted for a "trail" bike just for the playfulness. Turns out, my XC bike is longer and lower than the trail bike, but the trail bike handles so much better to me because of HOW I RIDE. It's just more relaxed. It's great for XC and flow trails and even riding a little bit of street/skatepark, but it doesn't stop me from trying to ride down/off of something that's "too steep" or "too loose" for the type of bike I've got.
I know people who have AM rigs near me and they either never ride them anywhere on the local trails or if they do it in the shorter travel option. 130mm front and rear is all I would EVER want for a bike, and I want it to be shorter so I can still turn the f*cking thing around when I realize I forgot my keys at home and need to get them.
i thought 65 was slack!
might need to try that with my suppressor...
(Oh, and the degree symbol is obtained by typing alt+248 on a PC, in case anyone was wondering)
It may be better to talk about BB drop instead?
It is the center of gravity.
Do you feel on "top" of the bike, or do you feel "inside" the bike?
BB height is a variable related to tire and wheel size. Running 2.0 tires or 2.8 will change the BB height. But will not significantly change the way a bike feels.
'nuff said
Wako... Get a job! and stop pretending you know what you talking about...
'Nuff said
Bingo. Someone tell Kona, because when I asked why my process had a steep head angle for it's category and the type of bike it is (68deg, wtf) the attitude was that they made it for beginners and that they know best. No Kona, you don't, the bike is too steep, and your arrogant attitude will remove me from buying another. Chris has it right, we can all benefit from good geometry and learn to ride better. Stop making bikes for the lowest denominator. Glad the industry, more or less, grasps this and has changed geometry to suit the demands.
Cue downvotes from the lowest denominator ridership.
Bronson (150mm) 66
5010 (130mm - comparable) 67
Nomad (165) 65
Enduro (165) 65.5
Reign (160) 65
Trance SX (140- comparable) 66
Trance (140 - comparable) 67
See what I'm getting at?
Type of trails rocky not a lot steep tight turns, more hike trails.
@Rubberelli Thanks! glad you get it. I didn't get a chance to ride it at all, no demos, not many people on them, so I trusted the online reviews (some pointed out the HA as being an issue as well). It was a great deal and in the travel range I wanted so I gravitated towards it, which is why I bought it. In hindsight, I probably would have ordered an angleset with it as well! I've since modified it to work for me, but as the consumer (guy who drops $$$$.$$ on a bike!) my gripe is why I was more or less told to eff off when I sent an email asking about offset bushings or other options to slacken out the bike. Why not. A: listen to the guy spending money on your product, and B: Pay attention to the market and what, literally, everyone else is doing to evolve.
I think you will discover that most bike makers are reluctant to tell you how to tweak their frame's geo. Santa Cruz is the only exception I have found to this. You can call them and they will transfer you to someone who rides your model and can tell you all about it. I've found that those guys are trying all kinds of things on their bikes, which probably leads to the next year's tweaks. Think of the old Blur and its ability to run 27.5 wheels as an example of this.
With droppers becoming ubiquitous and (finally) longer, why not?
How about this?