Ask Pinkbike: Tire Width, Bike Geometry, and DH Hub Standards

Apr 18, 2017
by Pinkbike Staff  
Ask Pinkbike Header

Here at Pinkbike we get inundated with all kinds of questions, ranging from the basic "Can I have stickers" to more in-depth, soul-searching types of queries like if you should pop the question or what to name your first child. Ask Pinkbike is an occasional column where we'll be hand-picking and answering questions that have been keeping readers up at night, although we'll likely steer clear of those last two and keep it more tech oriented.

Skinny or Wide?

Question: Pinkbike user AdamC86 asked this question in the 27.5'' forum: I'm looking at purchasing my first 27.5'' wheeled bike, and I'm weighing my options between running either 27.5'' or 27.5+ wheels and tires. Most of the riding I do is in Michigan and on singletrack with a lot of short, punchy climbs with switchbacks, roots, etc.. Are the 27.5+ bikes much slower rolling than a standard 27.5'' bike? And will the wider tires take away some of the characteristics that have made 27.5'' so popular?

Any recommendations for bikes? I'm wanting to go full-suspension and am currently looking mostly at Santa Cruz's 5010 (27.5'') and a Salsa Pony Rustler (27.5+).

bigquotesWheel size talk usually garners a lot of hate, sometimes for valid reasons, but one thing that's awesome is how we have so many different tools to choose from to do the same job. All of these bikes do stuff a little differently, and part of the fun, at least for some people, is picking the one that best suits their needs.

I've spent a lot of time on a handful of 27.5+ bikes and have never felt them roll appreciably slower once up to speed. My stopwatch also confirms this, although they can feel slower because they're more forgiving, and the big tires and rims usually weigh more, so stop-and-go riding takes a bit more effort. Speed and effort aside, it's how the plus-sized tires act on the trail that sets them apart. I've found that 27.5+ rubber steals some of a bike's playfulness, which is the most important ride quality to me. For this reason, I'm not usually a huge fan 27.5+ machines. Regardless, they do excel on rocky, ledgy terrain where their higher volume is handy at taking the edge off of things. So, if you want a sporty feeling, precise bike that's playful, go with 27.5''. If you're more concerned with forgiveness, traction, and aren't the type of rider who pops and plays on a trail, the wider rubber might be a good choice.

That Pony Rustler is a sweet rig but, if it were me, I'd choose the Santa Cruz and run some wide rims and high-volume tires to get the best of both worlds.- Mike Levy

Santa Cruz 5010

What Geometry is Appropriate?

Question: Pinkbike user rapit2theredline asked the question in the All Mountain, Enduro & Cross-Country forum: With geometry changing so much, I see some brands changing to unheard of numbers. However, we still have companies not willing to change, or If so, have made sure the market accept it first. That being said, what do you think is an appropriate head tube angle as well as wheelbase, and/or any other numbers you want to throw out there?

bigquotesThe recent trend in bike geometry has definitely been more towards, longer, slacker, and sometimes lower, but to be honest, this has been the case for at least the last 8 or so years, so while it seems like there are a lot of changes currently, it’s been happening for a little longer than we often remember. Nevertheless, it would be hard to deny that the rise of enduro racing and aggressive trail riding has had an effect on bike geometry.

Will the pace of change ever slow? To some degree I hope so, but not to the point that we see a stop to the progression of what our bikes are capable of. Geometry is one of the things that brands are constantly playing with but it’s a fine balancing act. Some decide they wish to go longer in reach, and may slap on a slacker headtube angle too, but may not adequately update the seat angle or chainstay length to accommodate these changes. Being a tall guy (193cm) this is more apparent and while it’s becoming easier to find bikes with a suitable length out front and a nice aggressive head angle for the riding I prefer in the Vancouver to Whistler area, it’s often more challenging to get one that doesn’t leave the rider hanging off the back of the bike (over the rear hub) when climbing, which is a little sad.

As for what's appropriate, that is a very open question. There are so many variables that I don’t believe there is a one-size-fits-most setting and the sum of the whole package plays greatly into how an individual area of the geometry could be – that includes the suspension design of the bike. Let’s not forget terrain and a rider's personal preferences in that equation too.

I do, however, feel that there are a lot of riders that would benefit from a longer frame and who currently compensate with a longer stem (within reason). That’s not to say that I'm advocating the massively long end of the spectrum (at least yet), but I have found that every year my bikes get longer, and every year I have less of an issue with back pain and in the real world don’t see the longer wheelbase as a result, to have any lasting, overall negative effects. There is a happy medium that will suit a lot of riders in regards to fit, but I don’t think we’ve hit that sweet spot just yet, and once some brands realize they can now drop an inch or two from their seat tube lengths, even more riders will be able to jump on a longer bike and still have an appropriate seat tube extension and clearance. Let’s see more brands working with frame geometry and how it affects the rider position within the bike, more than simply extending the front center and only minorly tweaking the other areas. 
AJ Barlas

Nicolai GeoMetron Review
The Nicolai GeoMetron is one of the first bikes to take everything to the far end of the scale.

Kona Process 153 review
The Kona Process was one of the first bikes from a mainstream brand that began to really push geometry in the direction we're seeing more commonly now.
Mondraker Foxy review test Photo by Paris Gore
The current direction of geometry can't be mentioned without Mondraker, a brand that with the initial help of Cesar Rojo, really started to shake things up.

What Will Be Standard Spacing for DH in the Near Future?

Question: Pinkbike user @partsengineeringbikes asked this question in the Downhill Forum: Is it safe to say that 12x150mm rear and 20x110mm front will be around for a while? With the possibility of 29" wheels becoming more than just prototypes for DH, does anyone have any good guesses on where we're headed?

bigquotesAsking whether or not a hub standard is 'safe' in the mountain bike industry could be likened to asking "Is it safe to jump off this cliff without a parachute?" The number of hub/axle sizes we have plowed through in recent years is pretty spectacular, although it can be frustrating at the same time.

The 12x157mm rear hub is becoming more popular. It's not really a new 'standard' as the distance between the frame dropouts remains the same as 150mm. The difference is that the rear triangle of the 150mm frame has no recesses for the hub to slot in to, while a 157mm frame has a 3.5mm recess on either side where the wider end caps on the hub can sit. This is a good thing, as it makes installing the wheel easier and reduces stress on the axle; it's is basically the same change that we went through from 135mm to 142mm, and can be fixed with wider end caps. Hopefully, we will see more hubs like the LG1 from E*13, and the DH-7 EFS from Reverse components. These hubs are likely to be found on big wheeler downhill bikes as they make better use of space between the disc and spoke flanges like some older style hubs. This space is put to use to make a wider and more symmetrical spoke bracing angle, but can only be used with a narrow seven-speed cassette – I never understood how we ended up with 10/11 gears on a DH bike anyway.

Front hubs are likely to stay the same 20mm axle size as it should be stiffer, stronger and lighter than a 15mm axle, as well as using a larger bearing, all of which should be better for extreme use. I did get a tip off that new 29" downhill forks could use a 'Boost' 20x110mm standard. Of course, what you are going to say next is "that's the size we already have for DH." Not so fast, buddy, rumors suggest that a Boost 20x110mm hub will be the same width as before, but the spokes flanges will be set wider apart, and the disc rotor closer to the fork leg. So no, you can't build a new rim onto that old hub you have...
Paul Aston

Aaron Gwins winning YT Tues
E-Thirteen's 12x157mm LG1 hub is 7-speed only, but makes good use of the rear axle real estate.
Fox 49er Boost
An Instagram shot of a Fox 49 fork, which may or may not accept your existing hubs.

Have some unresolved tech questions? Jump in the Pinkbike Forum and we'll look to answer it for next time.


  • 175 0
 pinkbike taking on wheel sizes and axle standards in the same article? are you guys trying to start a fight?
  • 46 2
 A fight? More like a war...
  • 47 0
 Ah Pinkbike, the well at which I drink Smile
  • 24 2
  • 180 9
 Sometimes I ask my wife to lower her head angle, is that appropriate?
  • 208 3
 Does she complain there is not enough length in your top tube? Sounds like you could both benefit from something more modern in your relationship.
  • 22 4
 @SpillWay: Sometimes you gotta use a headset spacer. Just one though.
  • 47 2
 @Rucker10: Not sure about that. But there are 3rd party options for a different head angle.
  • 45 1
 Sometimes you just have to extend your post. 125mm used to be standard but now'adays 170mm and up is becoming normal.
  • 33 1
 could always try some offset bushings make it look longer
  • 3 2
 @SpillWay: Don't forget the angle of the SpillWay if we're getting into HA adjustments.. You'll definitely need some of 100%'s new enduro tear offs for this to work for both parties.
  • 9 1
 Well the head angle decreases when you use less travel
  • 16 1
 For a comfortable fit, it;s often about reach and head tube length.

Also bottom brackets are getting a bit wide these days. Nothing worse than a loose fitting press fit.
  • 9 0
 @dontcoast: True, but that's why it's better to screw the bottom bracket together.
  • 7 9
 Speaking of oval sex...
  • 1 0
 Boy, that would be an epic ride with a happy ending!
  • 38 1
 That saddle position. Makes my eyes twitch. Even when I see it for the second time....
  • 4 0
 It works for some people... well, of the people i know who ride, only me... anyway its what i need to do to be comfortable, i thought that was because my legs are really long and so my bars are way below my seat so i angled the seat down to make leaning lower more comfortable. Now i see that guy who has his dropper almost bottomed out and his bar height and saddle height difference not being that much and im thinking to myself "maybe its not that, maybe my ass is just very unusual"
  • 3 0
 The stuff of nightmares...
  • 2 0
 wtf happened there? ha!
  • 13 1
 If you are talking about the geometron, the reach seems too long for this particular guy, which kind of an irony as it supposed to be part of some ground breaking geo.
  • 2 1
 You'll see lots of pics (not staged photos) of the Geometron with the saddle slammed forward. If it's probably won't be able to reach the bar. Look how far forward the seat tube is from the bottom bracket.
  • 2 2
 that frame is too big for the rider. notice the seat post dropped all the way.
  • 2 0
 Different spokes for different ...gooch?
Most comfortable bike setup choice I ever made for sure.
I use similar seat position and angle on any bike I hop on to these days.
  • 4 0
 @makripper: That could just as easily indicate the perfect fit - maximum dropper post extension = perfect sat down riding position, therefore allowing full use of seat post travel. Sounds good to me!
  • 5 1
 From the comments on the original Geometron review on PB: "The saddle is angled down because CP has a bad hip and this relieves some of the pain."
  • 29 2
 "Front hubs are likely to stay the same 20mm axle size as it should be stiffer, stronger and lighter than a 15mm axle", so uh, what gives with the 15x110? Sheesh, what silliness
  • 24 9
 because let's face it, none of us are getting rad enough on enduro bikes to warrant a 20mm axle.
  • 5 14
flag swamper1 (Apr 18, 2017 at 16:29) (Below Threshold)
 @adrennan: I don't get why this is so hard for people to grasp. Most of us simply don't need a 20mm axle. The weight savings from shrinking the hub from a 20 to 15mm hole is pretty significant, and I feel like all the clamoring for going to 20mm on enduro machines just means straying further away from having a single standard.
  • 6 0
 @adrennan: I've seen some pretty crazy things on Enduro bikes, like massive drops, I definitely wouldn't discount what people are doing. Personally I'd be most worried about the people than the bikes, should people really have to worry about their bikes? It's not like they haven't just been constantly improved on for centuries, why should there be problems?
  • 6 2
 @swamper1: generally a 20mm axle system is lighter, going to 15mm has added weight to your bike.
  • 11 0
 @Kramz: yeah but how many broken 15mm front axles have you seen?
  • 4 0
 @tetonlarry: BUT I NEED THAT 20mm AXLE
  • 18 0
 I guess my point is that 110x20mm existed already, then it was 100x15, then back to 110x15...I can't be the only one thinking that's ridiculous.
  • 4 5
 The only reason 15mm front axles exist is because they fit shimano centerlock rotors while 20mm doesn't. Shimano got fox on board years ago and the simplicity and logic of 20mm went out the window.
  • 14 0
 @carym: How do you explain a Shimano Zee hub being centerlock and 20mm then?
  • 1 0
 @swamper1: 15mm pulls the first together, so in theory they may be some bushing binding. 20mm doesn't and both side of the fork are locked down, straight.
  • 2 0
 @smuggly: I think you're right. I had a Specialized Enduro with the E150 fork and it had their proprietary 25mm axle, and that thing was very light. That fork was really ahead of it's time, too bad they had such problems with it when it came out.
  • 27 1
 20 x 110mm Boost, with wider spaced hub flanges and disc spacing than standard 20 x 110mm hubs? Go f*ck yourself bike industry.
  • 12 0
 It's something we should have had a decade ago (skipping 15mm axles entirely) but some idiot Italians decided to sit on a patent instead. Those idiot Italians went bust and got bought out a couple of times in intervening time, now their stuff is owned by some Californians who like to actually make money by selling their bright ideas. If the rumor is true I expect all 29ers and DH bikes to be using it within a couple of years, plus old 20mm hubs will work fine with a 5mm rotor spacer added.
  • 4 0
 @Fix-the-Spade: there's your opportunity. Start machining 5mm spacers for the new "standard " and make a few bucks. Do it now.
  • 2 0
 @vw4ever: They are already available from Wolf Tooth and others.
  • 31 5
 Everybody +1 if you have an old part that deserves to be on your new bike but can't because of new standards.
  • 1 0
 Have a brand new set of 26" DH aluminum wheels that I can't sell and install cause the rear hub is too wide. FU bike industry! ...Bikes and parts are built to last like cars, but industry changes standards like the electronic industry...
  • 20 3
 Can we please worry less about what's appropriate and just ride more? Thanks
  • 4 1
 Amen. Ride your FFFFFF Bike!!!
  • 24 0
 The vast majority of us ride no more than 2-3hrs a day, at the very most. What are we supposed to do the other 21-22hrs in the day?
  • 12 0
 @packfill: fix shyt and spend money. C'mon.
  • 22 0
 @bishopsmike: i found the sram rep
  • 3 1
 Riding more is appropriate
  • 3 0
 You do have to worry if you are a small frame manufacturer. It gets expensive to retool and then you have to worry how much stock you can keep when it might become obsolete before it gets built/sold.
  • 2 0
 @partsengineeringbikes: all part of the big companies drive to remove smaller companies and therefore remove competition and make more money.

Keep drinking the big brand kool aid and stop asking questions Wink
  • 6 2
 @Bustacrimes: I'm not arguing with you nor do I disagree but you sound like you are drinking leftist kool aid. There's a good market supply for it these days. Make sure your brain eats a varied diet so that quality shit comes out of it, that's all i mean...

Like: I just ate a terrible dinner in a vegan restaurant, I should have told them about importance of proteins, because I ate like 2 kilos of vegetables swimming in vegetable fat, so plenty of fats, plenty of carbs and max 10g of protein... those fkrs don't even serve beans. Not a sign of auliflower or broccoli. Humus and some sun flower seeds was the top protein weapons they had. I went straight to a sandwich shop down the street to buy a egg and bacon sandwich... I was so full I was barely moving, I threw away the bread, spat out dressing, and just shoveled egg and bacon slices into my mouth. And veggie lunch costed 10€, while eggs and bacon sandwich costed 6€ - aaaaawwww those meat companies getting tax cuts while hippies must pay full price for their healthy holistic greenies - aaaaaaaawwwww... where's justice!!!!!

You see Lefties and Righties - they are always worth each other...
  • 7 0
 I've owned a 157 bike and it felt more than adequate for a Horst-Link design in terms of stiffness. However, I got lucky. The bike came with a hope hub that had a 135 shell with adaptors. The wheels were running on endcaps Honestly, if we need another hub standard we are going to need to find a new way to orient frames. With the widening trend we are turning the chain stay into an impediment.
  • 12 5
 What is this "DH" thing? I thought pinkbike was all about the extreme long travel 160mm enduro bixe. Why would anyone want a bike that you could not pedal unless it was a ebike. This dh thing seems like a total drag
  • 8 1
 160 mm? Get with the times, that's a trail bike. Enduro is 170 mm or higher now.
  • 6 0
 @tmcp1127: @tmcp1127: No, no, no... What you need these days is a 130mm travel bike with a 30-inch top tube, 9-inch bb height and a 62-degree head tube angle.
  • 6 0
 I've been on a Honzo for the last few weeks and I definitely think there is something to be said for the new MTB geo trends. I'm blown away by how well my bike with a 140mm for and 66ish degree head angle climbs.

As for tire size, the more I try 27.5 plus the more I think you're better off with a 29er and old fashioned 2.35-2.5 tires. More stability, very similar grip. If you love being nimble regular or are on a full suss a 27.5 is probably the way to go, maybe with 2.6 or extra beef.

B+ has it's moments, but I have more fun on a more traditional set up, at least on my smoother flowier trails. For slower ugly stuff bigger tires are nice. Ideally you just have a few bikes so you can have it all.
  • 1 0
 Kona's recent geo is spot on for both the 27.5 and 29er. For me pluses is fun for a second bike or as a spare wheel/ tires set as I find them too pressure sensitive which imho also means lower usable pressure range. I don't think you can just let air in and out when ever you fancy it like when it starts to get muddy or when the soil is too dry. For most condition i think 27.5 x 2.5 minions or 29 x 2.35 mm are adequate.
  • 2 0
 @AlexS1: rad minds think alike. I have a chunk bike as a #2 and it works for me.
  • 2 0
Love my Honzo....
  • 2 0
 that's my experiences trying it. not a fan of all, it's so squrmy under hard cornering loads on hardpack berms like we see in the don. it's also a myth that it has less rolling resistance, it doesn't, its just smoother over small bumps because pressures are so low and you *feel* less. try rolling down a road with a road bike, and this bike, stop pedaling and see which one goes further (shwalbes infographic is a joke, comparing two different size tires at the same pressure. lmfao). It's a perfect example of how companies/people take truths (less hysteresis over high frequency bumps, aka a specific surface) and stretch them to become fallacies (less rolling resistance overall). Any grip advantages are lost once you start leaning into them. Great for trails like Hilton falls to take the edge off, kinda pointless everywhere else. They are also heavier and slower to accelerate and the extra heft, low pressure, make jumping them a chore. I see them like big offroad car tires, fun for specific environments, and thats it.
  • 2 0
 @atrokz: 100% Pretty fun when the terrain is right, though. And yeah, comparing two different sized tires at the same pressure is such a wank. No one rides a 2.35 at 12psi unless they have a slow flat, likewise a 3.0 tire at 20psi is a beachball.
  • 5 0
 @AdamC86: I've ridden many hours on plus tires. They have good and bad points.

Because of the lower pressure and bigger meat, they roll over chattery rocks and roots much better (as mentioned) and the climbing grip on loose dirt, gravel, roots is sensational - climbing rock or rolling on hardpack is no different. The downside to plus is they tend to deform more easily when you hit turns and berms very hard or if you land slightly askew or leaned over. Grip will vaporize at this point. The solution is to put more air in, but then you lose all advantages of the tire size.

Another downside is the weight. In the first hour of riding, you're fine. In the second hour, you start struggling to keep up with your mates. In the third hour you are being left behind. Every extra little effort saps you gradually. If you are doing long endurance rides, dirt crits, XC or marathon racing, I'd avoid plus tires. They are great for cruising and having fun. I was able to pop air here and there like I do with regular tires. An upside to the weight is they are more stable. If you are getting bounced around on your roots then they are magic.

Test ride will be crucial as you will find you either love 'em or hate 'em.

Everything in MTB is a compromise - you gotta choose your poison.
  • 1 0
 That Santa Cruz 5010 is a lot of bike. You can jump it, take on really burly terrain, race enduro, or even race XC if you if go light on the tires (losing the Minions® will shed 2lbs off the bike, down to XC weight territory).
  • 4 0
 Can someone please explain - is there any difference between Mondraker Forward geometry and new Giant Reign models? Numbers look almost the same, but Mondraker is using super short stems... Is it the only difference and putting 0 mm stem into Reign makes it Giant Forward Geometry? Smile
  • 2 0
 Mondraker started to push a lot in terms of long front centers, shorter stems, and at the time, steeper seat angles. As you point out, a lot of brands models, including the Giant Reign, have somewhat caught up. The Forward Geometry was originally developed with the help of Cesar Rojo (now of Unno Bikes) and early models were designed to work with zero reach stems, which Mondraker have since adjusted over the last while.
  • 1 0
 @AJBarlas: I am thinking of adding zero stem to Reign and curious about the outcome. Mondraker has steeper seat angle, so I think Reign will behave terribly on uphills. Zero stem makes a difference - when sitting on medium Reign with 50 mm stem I feel too stretched, while on medium Mondraker with 0 mm perfect Wink .
  • 4 1
 Ride a few things, find what fits. Buy that.

It's tantamount to standing outside a Ferrari dealership and complaining that it doesn't come with off road tires and seat 6.

The aim in the bike industry is to be faster, better and more fun to ride.

Feel like you are getting gouged when new tech comes out?

Don't worry buddy! Now pinkbike buy/sell will be flooded with outdated standard NOS.

You don't have to have the newest stuff and compatibility with old standards is never an issue. (Ok apart from rockshox pull shock and trying to buy any spares for an evil undead)

I got a 26" transition TR450 for a steal, it's more bike than i can handle.
  • 4 0
 I don't get the tire size comment. If 27.5+ has about the same friction with the ground (aka rolling resistance) as 27.5 then it has about the same level of traction. That is not consistent with my understanding.
  • 1 1
 The difference lies in the relative magnitudes between rolling friction and sliding friction (both static-breakaway force, and kinetic-sliding friction.) They are caused by two different phenomena. Static friction is caused by the molecular forces (gripping) between the two materials, in this case rubber and dirt. Rolling resistance is caused by the deformation of the tire casing against the ground and the energy lost (turned into heat) in that interaction. In the case of mountain bike tires, the coefficient of static friction (responsible for traction) is roughly two orders of magnitude (100x) greater than the coefficient of rolling friction.

While friction would be increased overall with the plus sized tires, the increase in rolling resistance would be less noticeable to the rider since the absolute magnitude of the forces involved are relatively small in comparison to the magnitude of the forces required to break traction.
  • 1 0
 @mrleach: Interesting points. I did not know that about the relation between coefficient magnitudes.

As long as your tires are not slipping they are being held to the ground by some kind of static friction, even when they are rolling (which I think you know, I'm just stating that explicitly). The point on the surface of the tire that contacts the ground has zero velocity. I assume that if one tire has more grip than another tire, it's because one tire has a higher coefficient of static friction.

I assume that if you have a higher coefficient of static friction then you are losing more energy as the tire rolls. This is distinct from the deformation process that you are describing as 'rolling resistance.'
  • 2 0
 Are these geo numbers good at slower speeds? I ride some very tight and windy singletrack and I'm not known for speed. A lesser rider or mere mortal like myself doesn't want to be stuck with bikes whose geo numbers and suspension design are only good at unattainable speeds. Whether that's skill or Trail based...

That said I feel cramped on my "appropriately" sized (med.) 2005 Prophet. (Top tube too short without stupid long stem but stand over and seat tube are right etc) So I definitely get the change to a point. Legit question here. I know I'm riding an ancient relic and I will be looking to move into a bike from this evolutionary epoch eventually.
  • 3 0
 go 27.5+ just for the ability to easily swap between 26, 27.5, 27.5+, 29er, and maybe 26+ if it fits, as if you can find a rim and spokes it'll fit.
  • 4 0
 Think of how boring life would be without wheel size and axle standard debates. Rule #1: Pick a size and be a dick about it!
  • 3 0
 20x110 boost? Ermmmm, you mean 20x110 magura gustav hubs from 15years ago? Nothing's changed but the people and the name of the product.
  • 1 0
 Lets talk about XL bikes my recent experiences are with a Divinci Spartan 449 reach 622 stack, 1200mm wheel base and 65.8 HA> and a 650 Stumpy 464 reach 617 stack and 1184 wheel base 66.5 ha . I m 6'3 so 190cm's not 193 and I'm on the heavy side pushin 110kg. These bikes have pretty different geometry's but the seat angles are pretty close around the 74 mark. I noticed the reach difference immediately by just loosing 15mm on the Spartan and it gave me an feeling of being awkwardly over the front past my bars even though the bars were higher.
So for me I could use an XL bike with a longer than 617 reach, 620mm stack, longer than 1200mm wheel base, steeper seat tube than 74deg and slightly more than 435mm chainstays. I dont even know where to start for a 29er.
Its funny how a bike that has more progressive travel can lose to a bike that has 15mm less reach in 90% of my daily riding.
I really just needed to ride them back to back to figure out what fit I liked best. Now throw em in the gutter and go buy another.
  • 1 0
 Is the 617mm reach you're talking about including the stem length? That's still extremely large!
  • 1 0
 i like as 690 reach & 420 sack ~*& wait what was the question?
  • 1 0
 @adamdigby: Spartan 449mm reach Stumpjumper 464 reach. Id like to try a bike with more reach as I prefer the feel of the Stumpjumper.
  • 2 0
 @HackSawyer: Current Devincis are relatively short in reach. Lots of bikes out there with longer reach than Specialized, including Kona and Mondraker as noted above. I'm 6'3"/191cm and ride an XL Banshee phantom with ~480mm reach -- it feels great.
  • 14 14
 I have a question, well I guess I am in need of advice. I can't stop eating Gu. Well not just Gu, pretty much anything that's similar, like clif bar makes basically the same product (though I prefer Gu). I started using the gu pretty rarely. I would only bring a packet or two on really big rides, but my usage continued to grow. I started bringing at least two packs of gu on every ride, even if it was a short one. Then I would eat a couple packs on my way to the ride and then a couple on the ride, and then a couple after the ride. But now I'm eating them like all the f*cking time. When I wake up in the morning I will sometimes just eat the caffeinated gu instead of having coffee, usually like 6-10 packs that I will squeeze out into a bowl and eat with a spoon, maybe add in some granola or honey bunches of oats. I do the same thing for desert, except with the decaf gu, because if I have caffeine after dinner I can't fall asleep. But when I eat them for dessert I usually use at least 10 of them. My favorite is the chocolate gu and I put it in the microwave for about 30 seconds and then I add some chocolate chips and whipped cream, I make this twice a day. I'm spending more money on gu than anything else in my life, and I really need to stop or else I'm going to lose my apartment. Has anyone experience anything like this? Any advice appreciated, thank you.
  • 7 0
 Terrible copy-pasta is terrible. Stop this cancer.
  • 8 0
 You should switch to Geico
  • 3 0
 Didnt they ride Pony Rustlers in Brokeback? (Not that there is anything wrong with that!)
  • 3 2
 I can remember Joe Murray bringing frame geometry light years in to the future when he went to work for Kona (who have always been ahead of the curve). The sloped top tube was his brain child.
  • 4 0
 Joe Murray, great dude and racer but there were a few frame designers in BC building sloping top tube frames before Kona was even founded as a company. Paul Brodie comes to mind who began as a frame builder for Rocky Mountain Cycles. I had an early model Off Road Toad (Rod Kirkham), also prior to the birth of Kona. The only slightly sloping top tube bike I remember seeing in person prior to this time was a Cunningham of WTB fame - rare and very expensive aluminum.

I've always liked Kona though. Nice bikes and as a Canadian company, they figured out early the business advantages of having offices and distribution from both sides of the US/CAN border - smart move.
  • 1 0
 @teamtoad: Just read Paul Brodie's book and apparently he'd had quite a bit of trouble with Kona. When Brodie was growing his brand he signed a contract with the same distributor Kona was using. A little while later Kona releases new bikes with the exact same geometry as bikes Brodie had already been producing. Kona even put an add in magazines showing Murray riding a Brodie, and when confronted they just edited the photo to remove the Brodie logo from the frame. Paul spent a few years and a ton of legal fees trying to get out of that contract. Even still Brodie was not the first person to build a bike with a sloping top tube, but he helped bring it into the mainstream, and Kona even more so.
  • 1 0
 @arden0: "Even still Brodie was not the first person to build a bike with a sloping top tube"

Never meant to imply Brodie was the first to design a sloping top tube MTB, hence the C. Cunningham reference in my comment (open to speculation and not the point). The point of my comment above is that it was not Joe Murray since I had not only observed a few sloping TT frames, but had owned and raced one prior to the existence of Kona. Anyways, I appreciate your MTB historian stance especially since, if your PB profile age profile is correct, this progress occurred prior to your first birthday.

  • 1 0
 @teamtoad: Oh I understood that, I wasn't trying to dispute any of your points, my comment was just to point out to anyone else reading that everyone in the bike industry to some extent borrows the geo/tech that they believe in and adapts it to make it their own. I had recently read an interesting anecdote that I felt was relevant to the discussion here, so thought I would share, don't see what my age has to do with it.
  • 1 0
 Why not buy an adjustable geometry frame / then you've got a twenty niner, 650 b and 650 b plus in one bicycle. Gorilla gravity come to mind.
  • 8 1
  • 6 1
  • 1 0
 Banshee Phantom on 27.5+ has been working for me lately.
  • 2 0
 Guerrilla of Gorilas
  • 2 0
 Go ride your FFFn bike....says the dudes reading this thread, and not riding their FFFn bike.
  • 3 0
 rumer has it "stupid-boost" 148x15 will be bigly in 2019
  • 1 1
 is this different than ultra and mega boost? or similiar to turbo boost
  • 2 0
 @saskparkrider: waaay moar dumber than those boostesses
  • 3 0
 I'm looking at my 26" bike and thinking I have none of these issues!
  • 2 0
 Standards?!? Pfff! Go and ask SRAM and Trek what standards mean.
  • 1 1
 Heavy wheels are hard to accelerate. Wide tires need more pressure and still feel soapy. Bikes get longer - good thing. This is a marketing war against bikers. No likey
  • 1 0
 I don't even know what all these fancy industry terms even mean, I just buy the bike that the coolest color and ride!
  • 1 0
 waiting for a front hub to settle down and stop being an idot
  • 1 0
 Buy more wheels and tires and keep swapping around, $heep.
  • 1 2
 My Mondraker Crafty XR+ that combines forward geometry and plus tires is by far the best bike I have ever owned.

Post a Comment

Copyright © 2000 - 2019. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.045656
Mobile Version of Website