New Progressive Geometry

  • Next Page
Author Message
flag fronthole
Posted: Apr 10, 2019 at 1:35 Quote
Just a thought... have you considered Guerilla Gravity Smash 29r? they make them in Co and they have nearly identical geo numbers/style. that way you're not buying some Chinese carbon made bike, but instead spending about the same amount for something made in the states. Frame only is around $2200 USD. you can buy them frame only, frame and shock or frame shock and fork. Completes too! Beer
flag RidingSam77
Posted: Apr 10, 2019 at 4:06 Quote
fronthole wrote:
Just a thought... have you considered Guerilla Gravity Smash 29r? they make them in Co and they have nearly identical geo numbers/style. that way you're not buying some Chinese carbon made bike, but instead spending about the same amount for something made in the states. Frame only is around $2200 USD. you can buy them frame only, frame and shock or frame shock and fork. Completes too! Beer

Yep, I saw they cane up with a new system to build carbon frames. Hopefully they broke the code to make carbon more affordable. $2200 is still steep though considering you can get a complete aluminum bike for $2600-2800.
flag 2socks
Posted: Apr 11, 2019 at 13:01 Quote
RidingSam77 wrote:
fronthole wrote:
Just a thought... have you considered Guerilla Gravity Smash 29r? they make them in Co and they have nearly identical geo numbers/style. that way you're not buying some Chinese carbon made bike, but instead spending about the same amount for something made in the states. Frame only is around $2200 USD. you can buy them frame only, frame and shock or frame shock and fork. Completes too! Beer

Yep, I saw they cane up with a new system to build carbon frames. Hopefully they broke the code to make carbon more affordable. $2200 is still steep though considering you can get a complete aluminum bike for $2600-2800.

You may be able to find a used aluminum model for a reasonable price now that GG riders are switching to the new carbon. Their alloy frames are actually a little less "progressive" in geo than the new ones: a little slacker in the STA, steeper in the HTA compared with the new carbon models.
flag twonsarelli
FL
Posted: Apr 11, 2019 at 22:27 Quote
RidingSam77 wrote:
Bozeman10 wrote:
I got a Ripmo and it has a steep SA and DW suspension, the combination of the two with 29" wheels makes it a great climber and still fun to just ride along the boardwalk.
Test ride a few bikes
Try a SB130

I spotted the Ripmo as soon as it came out. I have a Pivot 429 Trail now and love the DW link. However, I cannot swing that amount of $$ and the used Ripmo market is/will be steep, so I am trying to find something with similar geometry but in aluminum and/or carbon on direct sale. So far I narrowed it to YT Capra and Commencal Meta E or Meta T (shorter travel). Both bikes don't have the propertary DW link so they don't have the climbing abilities of the Ripmo but apparently do DH pretty good from the overall reviews and Commencal results in competitions.

Yetis are top notch, but like Ibis, come at a price point that doesn't fit the bill at my house, not event used.

You can grab a yeti 5.5 at a heavy discount now that the new 130 and 150 are out. Brand new gx builds for less than $4k and it’s an amazing bike, very similar to the ripmo
flag R-M-R
Posted: Apr 11, 2019 at 23:37 Quote
twonsarelli wrote:
You can grab a yeti 5.5 at a heavy discount now that the new 130 and 150 are out. Brand new gx builds for less than $4k and it’s an amazing bike, very similar to the ripmo

I disagree that the SB5.5 and RipMo are similar bikes. Not saying the 5.5 is bad, just more different that indicated. Let's compare, keeping in mind the topic of this thread is exploring new geometry:

One measure I like to use is (seat tube angle) - (head tube angle).
RipMo: 10.1°
SB5.5: 7.1°

For me to use a super long dropper, my maximum seat tube length is about 475 mm. On the Yeti, this forces me onto a Medium, with normalized reach (adjusted to a standardized stack height to facilitate comparison) of only 420 mm. That's smaller than the Small RipMo. On the RipMo, I could ride XL, allowing me to try a reach up to 506 mm. Four sizes different.

If I (grudgingly) use a mid-length dropper on the 5.5, I can ride a Large. It's not a very large Large, with a reach of 447 mm, which is a little smaller than the RipMo Medium.

A geometry parameter I like to use that illustrates this is (normalized reach) - (seat tube length). The RipMo has some of the highest values in it's category from the past six years, while the 5.5 has slightly lower values than the average from 2014. The reaches across all 5.5 sizes are almost precisely the category average values for 2014.

The RipMo geometry is among the leaders of the "new" geometry, certainly among mainstream companies, particularly due to the ability to size up. The SB5.5 geometry was already "traditional" when it was released.

Again, not saying it's a bad bike, but the two are very different in terms of geometry.
flag twonsarelli
FL
Posted: Apr 12, 2019 at 6:18 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
twonsarelli wrote:
You can grab a yeti 5.5 at a heavy discount now that the new 130 and 150 are out. Brand new gx builds for less than $4k and it’s an amazing bike, very similar to the ripmo

I disagree that the SB5.5 and RipMo are similar bikes. Not saying the 5.5 is bad, just more different that indicated. Let's compare, keeping in mind the topic of this thread is exploring new geometry:

One measure I like to use is (seat tube angle) - (head tube angle).
RipMo: 10.1°
SB5.5: 7.1°

For me to use a super long dropper, my maximum seat tube length is about 475 mm. On the Yeti, this forces me onto a Medium, with normalized reach (adjusted to a standardized stack height to facilitate comparison) of only 420 mm. That's smaller than the Small RipMo. On the RipMo, I could ride XL, allowing me to try a reach up to 506 mm. Four sizes different.

If I (grudgingly) use a mid-length dropper on the 5.5, I can ride a Large. It's not a very large Large, with a reach of 447 mm, which is a little smaller than the RipMo Medium.

A geometry parameter I like to use that illustrates this is (normalized reach) - (seat tube length). The RipMo has some of the highest values in it's category from the past six years, while the 5.5 has slightly lower values than the average from 2014. The reaches across all 5.5 sizes are almost precisely the category average values for 2014.

The RipMo geometry is among the leaders of the "new" geometry, certainly among mainstream companies, particularly due to the ability to size up. The SB5.5 geometry was already "traditional" when it was released.

Again, not saying it's a bad bike, but the two are very different in terms of geometry.

I was really thinking more in terms of rider intent- the all rounder 29er with 140-160mm travel, designed to be a relatively efficient climbing bike with great descending characteristics, rather than a numbers for numbers carbon copy. I suspect that a lot of people who are looking at one of these bikes would be equally happy on the other. As we know, the names of the sizes S, M, L, are basically irrelevant, as you’ve pointed out.
flag R-M-R
Posted: Apr 12, 2019 at 7:02 Quote
twonsarelli wrote:
I was really thinking more in terms of rider intent- the all rounder 29er with 140-160mm travel, designed to be a relatively efficient climbing bike with great descending characteristics, rather than a numbers for numbers carbon copy. I suspect that a lot of people who are looking at one of these bikes would be equally happy on the other. As we know, the names of the sizes S, M, L, are basically irrelevant, as you’ve pointed out.

There are over 60 other 29ers with 140 - 160 mm of rear travel.
flag twonsarelli
FL
Posted: Apr 12, 2019 at 7:48 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
twonsarelli wrote:
I was really thinking more in terms of rider intent- the all rounder 29er with 140-160mm travel, designed to be a relatively efficient climbing bike with great descending characteristics, rather than a numbers for numbers carbon copy. I suspect that a lot of people who are looking at one of these bikes would be equally happy on the other. As we know, the names of the sizes S, M, L, are basically irrelevant, as you’ve pointed out.

There are over 60 other 29ers with 140 - 160 mm of rear travel.

Yeah, we're definitely spoiled with choice! I was just suggesting a really good deal for the person looking to get into that category, since they mentioned being on a budget.
flag R-M-R
Posted: Apr 12, 2019 at 8:06 Quote
twonsarelli wrote:
Yeah, we're definitely spoiled with choice! I was just suggesting a really good deal for the person looking to get into that category, since they mentioned being on a budget.

That's kind of you and I don't mean to be hassling someone with good intentions! It's just that the whole point was to test experimental geometry and the SB5.5 has extremely traditional geometry.

In the spirit of testing weird geometry for as little money as possible, I ride a Bird Aeris AM9 that's cheaper than an on-sale SB5.5 and has the geometry in question. Not quite to the level of Pole or Nicolai, but getting there.

Another cheap option is a Fuji Rakan, Auric, or Auric LT - especially with an off-axis headset. Their new products have surprisingly bold geometries from a company that's often overlooked.
flag twonsarelli
FL
Posted: Apr 12, 2019 at 9:44 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
twonsarelli wrote:
Yeah, we're definitely spoiled with choice! I was just suggesting a really good deal for the person looking to get into that category, since they mentioned being on a budget.

That's kind of you and I don't mean to be hassling someone with good intentions! It's just that the whole point was to test experimental geometry and the SB5.5 has extremely traditional geometry.

In the spirit of testing weird geometry for as little money as possible, I ride a Bird Aeris AM9 that's cheaper than an on-sale SB5.5 and has the geometry in question. Not quite to the level of Pole or Nicolai, but getting there.

Another cheap option is a Fuji Rakan, Auric, or Auric LT - especially with an off-axis headset. Their new products have surprisingly bold geometries from a company that's often overlooked.

Yeah, you're definitely right about that. I wasn't really keyed in on the geometry side of things - just been seeing awesome deals on the 5.5, so was passing on the recommendation.

Although the #s on the 5.5 are conservative on paper, it absolutely smashes. I've got a bunch of climbing times that compare favorably to my ripley ls, which is an amazing climbing bike in itself (despite having conservative geometry as well) and descending times that I can't match on my capra 29 (which has 130mm additional real travel and 10mm front, plus slacker HT). So basically, I've found it to be an amazing rig and a bit of a quiver killer, even though I maintain a quiver anyway =-p
flag R-M-R
Posted: Apr 12, 2019 at 10:16 Quote
twonsarelli wrote:
Yeah, you're definitely right about that. I wasn't really keyed in on the geometry side of things - just been seeing awesome deals on the 5.5, so was passing on the recommendation.

Although the #s on the 5.5 are conservative on paper, it absolutely smashes. I've got a bunch of climbing times that compare favorably to my ripley ls, which is an amazing climbing bike in itself (despite having conservative geometry as well) and descending times that I can't match on my capra 29 (which has 130mm additional real travel and 10mm front, plus slacker HT). So basically, I've found it to be an amazing rig and a bit of a quiver killer, even though I maintain a quiver anyway =-p

There's no one perfect bike - even for a single rider. That's what keeps us searching! And it's kind of a fun, if futile, pursuit - which describes our entire sport Big Grin
  • Next Page

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.020101
Mobile Version of Website