How 'old' is my wheelbase/geometry compared to today's bikes..?

PB Forum :: Downhill
How 'old' is my wheelbase/geometry compared to today's bikes..?
  • Previous Page
  • Next Page
Author Message
flag nickkk
Posted: Oct 18, 2016 at 4:07 Quote
this is just an academic exercise but i'm curious to see just how dated in real terms my ride is compared to an modern evolution of my freeride bike.. Its a small sized Specialized BigHit 2006 so i'm well aware of its prehistoric stature in 2016, however some of the debate on the wheel sizes etc at Rampage this year got me thinking.

The wheel base is 1175mm
66.3 head angle
432mm chainstay,
560mm TT length
760mm standover height

Im 5' 9" btw.

and just for a laugh im running a 24" rear.

I've never had a problem with the feel of the bike in its present configuration, its the best it ever has been for me recently with some modern component choices but I'm from a time where choosing a frame size based on S,M or L was as far as it went..and I'm wondering if anyone out there is willing to humour a sensible discussion on how the numbers compare to something equivalent in the modern era of freeride/DH chassis? I'm aware there's alot to it apart from raw numbers but I'm trying to get my head around these things and learn whats happened in 10 years or so..
flag Loki87
Posted: Oct 18, 2016 at 9:37 Quote
The Big Hit was a very well balanced bike and rode great for it´s time.

However, what you will gain from a newer frame is a big increase in stability, which in turn will make you able to focus more on your riding and line choice.
I like to see it this way. On old bikes you constantly fight to keep the bike under control at higher speeds or in rough terrain. Some people like to call that lively, some (as myself) call it nervous handling. Modern bikes behave much more composed in those situations and therefore allow you to actively ride the bike instead of fighting against it.

The big hits numbers are well balanced though, and it´s really close to modern enduro bikes.
Also, you forgot bottom bracket height, which plays a huge role in a bikes handling.
flag nickkk
Posted: Oct 18, 2016 at 11:15 Quote
Loki87 wrote:
The Big Hit was a very well balanced bike and rode great for it´s time.

However, what you will gain from a newer frame is a big increase in stability, which in turn will make you able to focus more on your riding and line choice.
I like to see it this way. On old bikes you constantly fight to keep the bike under control at higher speeds or in rough terrain. Some people like to call that lively, some (as myself) call it nervous handling. Modern bikes behave much more composed in those situations and therefore allow you to actively ride the bike instead of fighting against it.

The big hits numbers are well balanced though, and it´s really close to modern enduro bikes.
Also, you forgot bottom bracket height, which plays a huge role in a bikes handling.

Interesting, thanks for that. The BB is currently 355mm/14" with a 24" rear on there which of course has its 'disadvantages' not that I really have any issue with it. That years frame was designed around a 26" rear but I'd always liked the 24 rear idea. The lively characteristic has cropped up on occasion you're quite right but I found this was mitigated somewhat with running a 780mm bar up front, which for me feels pretty stable now. I look back on the old 660mm bars I used to run on it with horror lol
flag DrOzone
Posted: Oct 18, 2016 at 19:10 Quote
For me, it has to be what feels right for you. In terms of how things have moved on then we are at a slacker, longer market or proper fit as I like to think of it rather than bikes that were made smaller because it's nimble pish. However, you really need to pay attention to the detail because not all is as it seems. I'm small at 182cm although it puts me at an arbitrary M/L in terms of the bike industry- but the likes of the German bikes don't fit at all- that's because I have a positive ape index and shorter legs whereas they are built around short bodied/ long legged freaks whereas we know there are more of us long bodied short arses ;-p.

Wide bars are another area where length appears to have overtaken function- like you I suit 780mm. I've tried 800mm but my shoulders are on the narrower side at 21in and it felt a bit too wide although ironically I see plenty of people with narrower shoulders that run 800mm so again it's very much a personal thing.

Running a 24inch wheel will help give the impression of a slacker head angle than you have which is a bit steep for a modern downhill bike and your reach/ top tube/ wheel base would also appear slightly short- but if you have T-Rex arms or don't feel any area of improvement I'd carry on- as said they aren't far off modern enduro bikes which are highly capable. I'm a great believer in perfect fit = faster run even in the face of lower spec components.

The proof would be in taking a modern DH bike down a known trail and timing the difference between the runs.
flag nickkk
Posted: Oct 18, 2016 at 23:52 Quote
DrOzone wrote:
For me, it has to be what feels right for you. In terms of how things have moved on then we are at a slacker, longer market or proper fit as I like to think of it rather than bikes that were made smaller because it's nimble pish. However, you really need to pay attention to the detail because not all is as it seems. I'm small at 182cm although it puts me at an arbitrary M/L in terms of the bike industry- but the likes of the German bikes don't fit at all- that's because I have a positive ape index and shorter legs whereas they are built around short bodied/ long legged freaks whereas we know there are more of us long bodied short arses ;-p.

Wide bars are another area where length appears to have overtaken function- like you I suit 780mm. I've tried 800mm but my shoulders are on the narrower side at 21in and it felt a bit too wide although ironically I see plenty of people with narrower shoulders that run 800mm so again it's very much a personal thing.

Running a 24inch wheel will help give the impression of a slacker head angle than you have which is a bit steep for a modern downhill bike and your reach/ top tube/ wheel base would also appear slightly short- but if you have T-Rex arms or don't feel any area of improvement I'd carry on- as said they aren't far off modern enduro bikes which are highly capable. I'm a great believer in perfect fit = faster run even in the face of lower spec components.

The proof would be in taking a modern DH bike down a known trail and timing the difference between the runs.

nice, cheers for that man. its curious to see that the numbers are relatively close to some Enduro rigs out there- but i would concur that there has been a few moments of feeling 'on top' of the bike rodeo rider style when its got really rough due to its short length. Its rare and unpredictable on the trails as they vary of course, but a series of 'whoop' like features on a trail where there's a lot of fore/aft pitching (like a see saw motion) at speed can make it pretty wild. I've definitely developed an off the back position to compensate for that but I've never really felt dangerously out of control.

The mention of body proportions is also funny because until now, its something I've never considered fully which seems mad considering cycling is really ALL about body position. I don't have my numbers but I don't think i have particularly exaggerated proportions although maybe id be surprised if the tape measure came out (steady now)
  • Previous Page
  • Next Page

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.008271
Mobile Version of Website