Enduro/AM - The Weight Game

PB Forum :: Pinkbike Groups
Enduro/AM - The Weight Game
Author Message
Posted: Oct 21, 2019 at 10:52 Quote
"We had a lot of internal debates about how to present geometry and the biggest concern we hear are people who are concerned about what size bike to get given modern wheelbase, reach, and seat tube angle numbers. These concerns were why we moved away from traditional bike sizing (S-XL to 1-4) and built the configurator. Compared to most companies, we'll have twice as many columns to present, which is cumbersome and ugly."

Posted: Oct 21, 2019 at 10:55 Quote
PHeller wrote:
"We had a lot of internal debates about how to present geometry and the biggest concern we hear are people who are concerned about what size bike to get given modern wheelbase, reach, and seat tube angle numbers. These concerns were why we moved away from traditional bike sizing (S-XL to 1-4) and built the configurator. Compared to most companies, we'll have twice as many columns to present, which is cumbersome and ugly."

Doesn't make it any less wrong.

Post geo charts AND your configurator.

If you feel people don't understand the geo you have designed then take the time to explain it to them and teach them how to figure it out.

Posted: Oct 21, 2019 at 11:25 Quote
shirk-007 wrote:
PHeller wrote:
"We had a lot of internal debates about how to present geometry and the biggest concern we hear are people who are concerned about what size bike to get given modern wheelbase, reach, and seat tube angle numbers. These concerns were why we moved away from traditional bike sizing (S-XL to 1-4) and built the configurator. Compared to most companies, we'll have twice as many columns to present, which is cumbersome and ugly."

Doesn't make it any less wrong.

Post geo charts AND your configurator.

If you feel people don't understand the geo you have designed then take the time to explain it to them and teach them how to figure it out.

This^^^ I hate it when bike companies play this game.

Posted: Oct 21, 2019 at 11:30 Quote
I think it's disingenuous for brands to size things "S2, S3, S4, etc.." Yes, there are forum nerds like us who know exactly what reach, STA, HA, ETT, leverage rate, anti-squat, etc... who know what they're looking for in a bike, but the vast majority of folks don't know. This makes it really hard for a consumer.

From the brand perspective, I do get it. There's folks who are curmedgeony about their sizes. They insist they're X size, whether they should or shouldn't be...Changing the sizing helps reframe the conversation.

And, it also masks the fact that alot of brands with these new naming schemes aren't offering extra small, small, or extra large sizes. I understand that 70% of bikes sold today are medium or large, but I think it's kinda f*cked for bigger brands to just ignore those consumers. We talk about being more inclusive, but then we exclude those folks by not making bikes that fit them.

For reference, the vast majority of bikes sold in Asia and South America are smalls and mediums.

Posted: Oct 21, 2019 at 11:39 Quote
At lest put the closest applicable size above their sizing.

They will loose out on sales as well since riders that feel like they don't understand the sizing will just move along to something they can relate to.

Posted: Oct 21, 2019 at 12:11 Quote
I think it probably ends up more on the sales floor guy to tell the customer, hey this s2 (or whatever the name is) is comparable to your size medium.

What I find funny with all these new naming systems is that if I got solely off of reach numbers I vary all over the place even between the same brands. For example my medium kona process has a reach of 450, that puts me on the size 1 long of the trail pistol but the size 2 long of the smash according to those pictures of the charts above. And I believe this puts on the smallest size they make of the new specialized bikes, enduro and stumpy evo. I am by no means a tall person but theres a large amount of people smaller than me or who prefer smaller bikes than me who simply can’t get on these newer bikes.

Posted: Oct 21, 2019 at 12:21 Quote
theweaz wrote:
I think it probably ends up more on the sales floor guy to tell the customer, hey this s2 (or whatever the name is) is comparable to your size medium.

What I find funny with all these new naming systems is that if I got solely off of reach numbers I vary all over the place even between the same brands. For example my medium kona process has a reach of 450, that puts me on the size 1 long of the trail pistol but the size 2 long of the smash according to those pictures of the charts above. And I believe this puts on the smallest size they make of the new specialized bikes, enduro and stumpy evo. I am by no means a tall person but theres a large amount of people smaller than me or who prefer smaller bikes than me who simply can’t get on these newer bikes.

Like myself at 5'3". Unfortunately GG discontinued alum and XS. I went with Knolly instead. .

Posted: Oct 21, 2019 at 12:27 Quote
dchill wrote:
theweaz wrote:
I think it probably ends up more on the sales floor guy to tell the customer, hey this s2 (or whatever the name is) is comparable to your size medium.

What I find funny with all these new naming systems is that if I got solely off of reach numbers I vary all over the place even between the same brands. For example my medium kona process has a reach of 450, that puts me on the size 1 long of the trail pistol but the size 2 long of the smash according to those pictures of the charts above. And I believe this puts on the smallest size they make of the new specialized bikes, enduro and stumpy evo. I am by no means a tall person but theres a large amount of people smaller than me or who prefer smaller bikes than me who simply can’t get on these newer bikes.

Like myself at 5'3". Unfortunately GG discontinued alum and XS. I went with Knolly instead. .

I legit think the new naming system is a way for brands to stop offering a S/XS (which might be money losers) without anyone knowing...

Posted: Oct 21, 2019 at 12:32 Quote
Starting with s2 (specialized) seems to imply there might be an s1 in the future? Maybe even an s0. But in the meantime it means no one small can get any of the new bikes, which isn’t that cool.

On a different note, the replaceable head tube cups that GG offers seems like it wouldn’t be hard to make an angle adjusting version of, especially if you used a gimbal style mount like the cane creek angle set.

Posted: Oct 21, 2019 at 14:47 Quote
dchill wrote:
theweaz wrote:
I think it probably ends up more on the sales floor guy to tell the customer, hey this s2 (or whatever the name is) is comparable to your size medium.

What I find funny with all these new naming systems is that if I got solely off of reach numbers I vary all over the place even between the same brands. For example my medium kona process has a reach of 450, that puts me on the size 1 long of the trail pistol but the size 2 long of the smash according to those pictures of the charts above. And I believe this puts on the smallest size they make of the new specialized bikes, enduro and stumpy evo. I am by no means a tall person but theres a large amount of people smaller than me or who prefer smaller bikes than me who simply can’t get on these newer bikes.

Like myself at 5'3". Unfortunately GG discontinued alum and XS. I went with Knolly instead. .

GG has plans to make a Size 1, but alloy is gone from all but the rear end of the bikes.

Posted: Oct 21, 2019 at 14:52 Quote
Circe wrote:
I think it's disingenuous for brands to size things "S2, S3, S4, etc.." Yes, there are forum nerds like us who know exactly what reach, STA, HA, ETT, leverage rate, anti-squat, etc... who know what they're looking for in a bike, but the vast majority of folks don't know. This makes it really hard for a consumer.

That's exactly why GG has the size configurator thinger. If they didn't, buyers would be lost on the sizes.

I think the bigger issue is the industry de-emphasizing the importance of ETT. Reach is useful, but you could essentially have a newschool reach number (500) with an oldschool ETT (415) if the STA was 90º.

GG is just trying to guide the consumer towards the best size possible.

Posted: Oct 21, 2019 at 16:08 Quote
Warning for a fork? I’m not sticking my pecker in it

CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 65 WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including (Cadmium, Phthalates, Bisphenol, Nickel (Metallic), di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate "DEHP"), which is known to the State of California to cause cancer and/or cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information, go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.

Posted: Oct 21, 2019 at 16:28 Quote
dchill wrote:
Warning for a fork? I’m not sticking my pecker in it

CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 65 WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including (Cadmium, Phthalates, Bisphenol, Nickel (Metallic), di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate "DEHP"), which is known to the State of California to cause cancer and/or cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information, go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.

That Prop 65 legislation was such a piss off. I'm all for protecting consumers, but the packaging containing a carcinogen is way less likely to give you cancer/cause birth defects than that exhaust filled air you're breathing or those sick vape tricks you're performing for the boys.

Posted: Oct 21, 2019 at 19:04 Quote
clapforcanadaa wrote:
dchill wrote:
Warning for a fork? I’m not sticking my pecker in it

CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 65 WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including (Cadmium, Phthalates, Bisphenol, Nickel (Metallic), di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate "DEHP"), which is known to the State of California to cause cancer and/or cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information, go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.

That Prop 65 legislation was such a piss off. I'm all for protecting consumers, but the packaging containing a carcinogen is way less likely to give you cancer/cause birth defects than that exhaust filled air you're breathing or those sick vape tricks you're performing for the boys.

Ferda


 
Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.023459
Mobile Version of Website