Bike Check: Joe Nation's Pole Stamina

 PB can't handle engineering usually though...

 Can you explain ? I'm not familiar with this.

 @Forest-Gnome: Whenever you have a sharp edge or hole or any change in shape or thickness in a metal part, as CNC "details", the stress in the metal is locally amplified (higher than the average stress in the part). When stress is high and repetitive, fatigue becomes an issue. That is why you want avoid leaving CNC "details" on aerospace parts. That frame would probably be a lot more resistant to fatigue if it was smoothed down.

 Stress concentrations.

 @jfcarrier: You could get the complex geometry without the fatigue issue with another material. Maybe a material that's a composite. There's a reason the 787 has larger windows after all.

 It's the same as screws being well suited to resist pull/push forces but nothing like torsion or shearing isn't?

 @rootbird: Yes, exactly.

 @jfcarrier: They could smooth the frame with more tool paths but then the cycle time would be weeks and the frame would cost 20k. It'll be interesting to see what the longevity is like on these bikes but at the end of the day, warranty has you covered so who cares.

 @Tmackstab: The cycle time for these is already ridiculous

 @taquitos: I know. Finding the balance between cycle time and finish was probably a big debate during the proto phase. I still think it's a sick bike regardless.

 Came here thinking the top comment would be some "my pole has stamina" innuendo .... instead I got a lesson on the manufacturing of aerospace parts *golf clap*

 given that the bikes name is the "Pole Stamina" i would hope that it has as been vigoursly beat to ensure proper fatigue life

 Those "mismatches" are actually called scallops, and they're caused when a ballnose cutter is used to surface machine a part. The size of the scallop is dependent on the size of the cutter, and the radial stepover of the cut relative to the previous pass. Surfacing operations with a smaller stepover result in a finer finish (smaller scallops), at the obvious cost of a longer machining cycle.

Understandably, the finish left here is pretty rough due to the desire to keep machine times lower. Judging by the pics, I can imagine that the finishing ballnose was absolutely flying around the frame (if you look really closely, you can even see evidence of the high feed-per-tooth - tiny ridges showing up perpendicular to the scallops).

While a smoother finish might lead to a higher fatigue life, the scallops have nothing to do with mismatch.

 @rpl3000 I always hate that with mtb parts, one of the first things I learned studying machining and toolmaking was those marks were from rough cutting, you always program a finishing cut once your close to tolerance, I think its only art school students who think those machining marks look 'nice' lol

 @dh-walters: Mind pointing out which picture has the high feed-per-tooth marks? Just curious

 @Tmackstab: Does it though? (warranty coverage) Nothing like having to pay out of pocket to ship your $5000 frame all the way back to Finland so that the council of wizards can inspect your frame.

 I would also like to add that in my experience as a machinist and CNC programmer - manufacturing a bicycle frame in this way is kind of insane. I give the folks at Pole huge props to even attempt this. While I do think that this method has a lot of limitations - it's still pretty impressive. If someone were to tell me a few years ago that a company was about to introduce production bike frames that were machined from solid billets of aluminum, I'd say bullshit.

 @hbar314: ep1.pinkbike.org/p6pb16649800/p6pb16649800.jpg most visible on the bottom due to lighting but you can see it on all the toolpaths

 @alexsin: We made up and I like them again lol.

 And what the heck is up with all the holes on one side of the frame? Do they save weights? Aesthetics? Antman's secret lair?

 @Aaronhuang: That is how the two halves are connected.

 so the 'ole demo from like 2008 was two halves welded together. I wonder if that is better than screws and glue.

 @jfcarrier: does apply to welding too? e.g. GT's used to have huge, unfinished looking welds on their frames where, Crack N Fail and Klein's would sand down their welds to make them look purdy.. Klein's were legit still, Crack N Fail's had issues. *** me, I cracked 3 Cdales. I had a GT Zaskar that literally fell off a roof rack, doing about 25, 30 MPH, tumbled and broke a bunch of parts but, nothing was wrong with the frame at all..
all three 3 Cdales cracked even though I never really crashed hard on them. seriously , just normal XC riding, no monster truckin, nuttin.

 They dont look sharp enough to case any real problems? Hope components have plenty of machining marks and they are not exactly known to fail.

 @hamncheez: It is when you're welding 6000 series aluminum, 7000 series on the other hand...

 @dh-walters: I read in an interview that the frames are forged into rough shape and then machined. Sounds like the sensible thing to do to increase strength and save material.

 @hbar314 : What @vr6ix said.

 @taquitos: perhaps the aerospace industry and the cycling industry have different standards for said composite materials. There's a reason that carbon rims and frames are breaking a lot.

 @nohit45: Oh they definitely do. That's the bike industry's problem, not the material's though. Not all carbon components are made equal. There are some awesome ones out there, but some I would be skeptical of as well. I'm not a fan of carbon rims actually. Way to many sharp things hit them really hard.

 Stress concentrations if left untreated, can lead to full metal breakdown Doc prescribed one a deez bikes an call him in the morning

 @BikesNBites: Cannondale's problem back then was using too thin walled tubes to keep the frames light. The F series hardtails were super light, but prone to letting go of their dropouts because the stays were made from so little material. I had a Prophet MX that lasted me 6 years, but they were much beefier frames compared to the rest of the range.

 @Ttimer: If that's true, that makes it even more insane! The cost of a bike-frame-sized 7075 forging would be incredibly high, given the relatively small quantities involved here. I can't imagine they're making too many of these.

Can anyone confirm this is true?

 I dont think it matters here. This bike isn't exactly made to save weight. As such, I can only imagine the frame is grossly overbuilt, so it's impossible to get to stress levels high enough for it to matter. If they were to make an xc frame, I bet it would be as smooth as [insert your favourite smooth thing] to maximaze strength to weight. Still, I would love to hear @polebicycles on this matter

 @dh-walters: Its not true. They get the aluminum in blocks then cut out the big areas in the triangle via plasma/waterjet or hacksaw I don't know for sure. With those cut out pieces they machine the linkage pieces.

 @dh-walters: I don't know man, it's cheaper than ever to get forgings made. If you think about the amount of chips going to recycle to cut a frame from billet vs. the forging tooling costs... the break-even may be at a lower quantity than you think.

 @ondrejaugustin: this is probably right. Grossly over built. I regret my comment. Would have preferred dick jokes.

 @Tmackstab: That makes a lot more sense.

 @Tmackstab: all you have to do is put the frame in a tumbler with plastic beads.
I prefer the machined look but hey I'm not buying just looking.

 @kookseverywhere: Ha. Likewise. Guess the PB lowbrow’s and Cletus have moved on. Crazy world we live in.

PS: I have a Pole Stamina. It’s in ma’ pants.

 @alexsin: indeed. The best warranty is the one you never need.

 @Aaronhuang: Bolts. Bolt holes!

 Fortunately this isn't the aerospace world. Those kind of tolerances would cost a fortune for zero benefit to the rider

 @dh-walters: Pole wasnt even first who did it, Empire bikes beat them by more than 10 years... (Search for empire AP1 dh bike)

 @dh-walters: It might also be that it´s. still a prototype. Optimizing the CNC program and process in that stage of the development can mean quite a bit of wasted time. When looking at the Machine there are some clear differences. youtu.be/qPXBw0uS66s

In my opinion the surface finish has little importance as long as it does not cause functional issues, such as lower the fatigue resistance.

 @winko: Not even close. Casting and machining are totally differend manufacturing methods.

 @hbar314: www.pinkbike.com/photo/16649800

 Luckily it's just a bike and not an aircraft.

 well none of my hope/raceface components have exploded yet

 @simooo: True, but they are also quite heavy for what they are. Maybe not as overbuilt as this frame but could be a lighter without sacrificing strength.

 In aerospace you also care a hell of a lot more about weight. Also the ratio of the cusp size to the part's geometry is in a completely different order of magnitude. You're right, saying that this "feature" is actually a product of the CNC machining and that it will detriment the fatigue life of the part. Where you're wrong is assuming that this is in any way in an order of magnitude relevant to the application here. In my opinion the cusp to part geometry ratio is more than acceptable and it offers a good compromise to production time.- A mechanical engineer

 @Tmackstab: I would care. Eating shit on a cracked frame is no fun, neither is waiting weeks for a new bike build.

 @yeti85: I might argue that the bike industry cares more about weight. Sure weight is important in aerospace, but it is a balance of extending overhauls vs the fuel cost to fly the extra weight around.

The size of the frame (or part) has nothing to do with the fatigue debit caused by the cusp. Fatigue curves (and associated debits/credits) are generated by making a boat load of test specimens and testing them. It's unclear if the cusp debit hurts the useful life of this frame in any meaningful way. For example, the debit could mean that this frame is only good for 25 years (vs 50 if it had a smooth finish) or it could be the difference between 2 seasons or 4. There is no way to tell without the material testing or a structural analysis.

Even with that data, the analysis is based on the load cases. A few huck to flats, a severe case or crash could be many orders of magnitude greater damage than what was planned for in the FEA analysis. Fatigue life is nonlinear. 10% more stress could mean twice the damage. For the non-engineers, you could look at it like this. You bike has a bank account and every time the frame is stressed, you pay. That money never gets returned. Some bikes start life with a lot more in the account than others, and typically this manifests itself in weight to reduce stress levels.

 @winko: Pretty sure the Empire was a cast bike frame. Still crazy, but not the same process at all.

 @yeti85: I fully agree with you. They seem to have struck a fair balance between "smooth enough" and "fast enough" machine cycle time.

 @rpl3000: I would say weight is not important in aerospace for sure. Lots of components on planes use a factor of safety on the order of 1.15. I would be surprised if anything comes close to that on a bike. They do try and balance service intervals, but a lot of parts fail if they see an unexpected load case.

You're right about damage here. A harsh bottom out will cause more damage and since aluminum has no fatigue limit this does technically decrease the life of the part more than normal use. I suspect they keep the stresses low enough that the cycles for something like a harsh bottom out are up around 10^7. That's just a guess though. Where frames like to fail is when you do something out of the ordinary like hit a tree. The only aluminum frame I've had fail actually failed near the drop out while I was cornering because the chain rubbed in the highest gear and created a sharp groove.

 *weight is more important in aerospace. Got to love not being able to edit your autocorrected crap your phone leaves

 The stress risers with mismatches are one thing, especially with flat end mills, but you are referring to tool witness marks from the tool path step over and they did all that surfacing with a ball end mill so no sharp edges...

 Angle grinder would solve the problem.

 @ondrejaugustin: It's fun to read the speculations here. The surface highs can be counted as extra material. The force concentrations of forces are near joints and at sharp edges but not on the surface shape. The tops of the machining made by ball head can be calculated as extra. In the stress tests that we have made, there is no relevance on the surface quality other than weight. If you really need to think this to reality, imagine that the bike is made of really soft material like play-doh etc. and you start pulling to the desired direction. Imagine where the "frame" starts to break apart. More machining time equals a lighter frame, but also we lose some stiffness. So, what we are doing is that we are optimizing the surface quality in an aesthetical way compared to weight and stiffness. To note, everyone knows that bike can be too stiff and there is a difference in the stiffness directions as well. All our bikes go through a series of tests that we see if the bike is strong enough for the sport. The 7075 T6 aluminum is 80% stronger than 6061 T6 that is used generally in bikes. The frame takes a tremendous amount of abuse.

We can not comment on the actual weight of the frame in production but at the moment we think it's going to be significantly lighter than the prototype Stamina and the Machine. We are currently going through the last phase of the design process. There are still going to be some changes to overall aesthetics and amounts of bolts etc. We start delivering the bikes approx in two months.

Cheers!

 @ctd07: But that's still a (pretty shit) 3d finishing strategy with big stepover on there not some z level rough.

 @polebicycles: Thanks for the detailed reply! It's amazing to have some clarity after all those speculations made in this thread.

 @polebicycles: haha your bikes are going to be like Testa Cars, always improving! Each serie...

 @Tmackstab: So why not take this fancy aluminum, stamp/hydroform instead of machining it, and then glue and screw it together?

 @hamncheez: because by machining you can control the thickness of the material internally similar to a butted tube.

 @ctd07: This. So much of this. The only part where I have seen a sort of functional reason for such rough finish is Thomson seatposts (or any seatpost) as the machining marks help the post to stay in place. And even then, they are not that rough. It also depends on how the piece is made. If the stress risers are at a low stress area, it doesn't matter much. For example, you will only see scallops on Nicolai bikes at the inside of rockers or gussets

 @dh-walters: totally agree - the CNC time on a chainring in important, so a whole frikkin frame is mental!!!....i would imagine that actual sales at the moment means this isnt as "production" as that phrase would usually imply. Hats off to them for producing a stunning bike. I cant imagine its a scaleable product though.

 @dh-walters: “if someone told you bikes would be machined from solid billets of aluminium, you’d say bullshit”. You just haven’t heard of Empire bikes

 @WAKIdesigns: As already mentioned earlier in the thread, the Empire was cast aluminum. Still crazy, but big difference.

 @dh-walters: sorry, my bad.

 @dh-walters: The original Empire MX6 used an all CNC swingarm, with the front triangle being square tubes welded to CNC parts. It was so expensive to make they only sold it for 6 months-ish, then for the MX6evo they went to cast main parts welded to tubes. The AP1 DH bike was all cast parts (and it was crazy) while the newer VX8 is built the same as the MX6evo. Empire are a a bit loopy like that, they also made a one off MX6 that was entirely 3D printed titanium.

 "...since the down of modern mountain bikes."
Everyone looks forward to the down of modern mountain biking. Some people even look forward to going up too.

 I agree. I assume the machine is definitely heavier than my SC Nomad. But the 7075 aluminum is going to be way tougher than carbon for crash impacts. I'm guessing it is a stupidly fast bike downhill and is a perfect bike for fast riders who ride on the edge and crash every once in a while. Weight weenies and people who care about their uphill Strava times will hate this bike. It's a revolutionary bike that will be extremely polarizing.

 im not sure if i have the stamina to wait this out

 @slovenian6474: nobody looks forward to climbing Up this Pole.

 @erik2k10: "tougher" is not the word you're looking for. Aluminum is more ductile than carbon. So impacts to it tend to cause bending rather than breaking like carbon.

 @taquitos: Dude, thats just crazy talk.

 @intensemack10: It's worth noting that both of those qualify as broken. A dented frame is just as broken as a cracked one.

 @taquitos: Huh? Dented frames can be fixed sometimes, or continue to be ridden.

 @woofer2609: Denting negatively impacts the rigidity of a frame member. On top of that if you cause aluminum to yield the amount of plastic deformation that will occur before it fails entirely if you stress it again will be way way less than before so the next time it takes a hit (and that's not just from a crash) it might fail entirely. I suppose you could cut out the dented piece of tube and weld another in its place or weld a plate over that, but most people can't do that and it's a little goofy anyway. I've cracked a carbon frame and ridden it lightly all the way back to my car before replacing the half of the frame that was cracked. I'd do the exact same with aluminum too. No point in chancing catastrophic failure of a frame by riding hard with a dent.

 @taquitos: Completely untrue. Even though bending is plastic deformation of the metal, in many cases it is still very far from its ultimate yielding point. Whereas every break is a catastrophic failure. Maybe a particular point where a break occurs in carbon may not cause immediate failure of the entire structure (frame, rim, etc.) but that point is now unable to take any appreciable load, whereas a bent piece of aluminum can still take loads, in many cases.

 @intensemack10: Aluminum only gets to around 10% elongation before failure... doesn't take much yield at all to eat into that. If a frame member that experiences compression, bending, or torsional loads got a dent I just don't see the point in riding it. Not only has it been made weaker due to the fact it's cross section has been changed, it would also take hardly any force in excess of yield to cause it to snap. Just look up a stress strain curve for 7075 or 6061. It isn't a myth. The down tube is pretty much the only one I would be comfortable riding with a dent in it and that's because it pretty much only gets put in tension.

 @erik2k10: Leo's Large Machine was about the same weight as my XL 2018 Range - 32 lbs. The Machine was probably 33 lbs but he was also running Maxxis DH rear tyre and Huck Norris front and rear. It rides uphill lighter than the scale says it should.

 Having spent a bit of time on a Pole Machine this week, your lead in statement alludes to a big announcement and an first mass awakening on frame geometry. It really does ride and climb the way they say it does! One can only hope everyone else catches up quickly. There's the Geometron and that new Sick Bicycles frame that they are promoting. Maybe the closest to the Pole geometry stateside is Transitions Sentinal.

 With a sub headline like „Joe‘s stamina details” puns suddenly doen’t seem necessary anymore... still I’m impressed by the described capability to deliver new stamina to all Pole riders almost instantly...

 So this is coming from someone whose chicken strips.

 Absolutely. It's the same head angle as a Demo 8 or Tues, and 0.2° slacker than the new V10.

 Sooo.... down-duro bike?

 And many downhill 29ers have 190mm of travel instead of 200mm to accommodate bigger wheels. So it has nearly 95% the travel of a downhill bike too

 Easy to say, but it´s more of a DH bike with steep seat tube and single crown. It doesn´t surprises me it performs well on the most demanding DH racing tracks... (EWS sorry..)

 E-mail??? OK grandpa, this is how it works in todays world. You contact them via spybook, twatter, instagrope, snapcrap and air your dirty laundry for the whole world to see. Bonus points for making a big drama out of it.

 @Boardlife69: Aha and meanwhile they tell you on failbook that you should contact then via email..

 @Boardlife69: And the more drama you raise that is proportional to the level of service you'll get.

 @Serpentras:
I would have already a pole hardtail if they actually responded to my mails.
Well guess I will look for a frame by a real company.

 @OneTrustMan: well I try it tomorrow via email but I also will write that I am looking for a demo ride for a bunch of dudes. I think they respond faster if they sniff more money....

 Please send me a private message with your name and email information and we'll see if your message was caught in our firewall? Facebook messages sent from the Polebicycles -FB page will go directly to our customer service. If you try to send private messages to me (Leo) through Facebook, I'm not answering them anymore. I have not done any customer service for ages because we have hired a team to handle them. Due to the continually increasing amount of messages, we have some delays in our service now and then because it's hard to hire and train customer service staff beforehand to the demand. I hope everyone understands the growth pain. Our goal is to answer every email throughout without any doubt.

Instagram is poor for messaging as it can not be connected to multiple user accounts or link it to any professional customer service platforms. If you want any company to answer your requests, I suggest using Facebook or email. I'm sorry, but email is still the king in contacting companies. There is a corporate Whatsapp in development but it's not very common yet.

We are open to ideas. How would you like to contact us? I'll just say that we are not going to put up a call center because it's not going to work for numerous reasons.

 The steep seat angle takes a *lot* of that raw reach number away.
With reach being measured from the bottom bracket to the head tube, any degree difference in the seat angle modifies the "effective" reach by around 11-15mm (i.e. the distance from where you actually sit to the handlebars).
With a slacker seat angle you naturally sit further back than with a steeper one, increasing the effective reach value.

So 510mm reach and 81° seat angle would actually be roughly comparable to a bike with 450-460mm reach and a 75-76° seat angle, in terms of the how stretched you'd feel on the bike (besides all the other effects like better climbing capabilities).

 @sp00n82: regarding effective reach... You mean cockpit length? ????

Bikes like this one show really well how misunderstood reach is and how useless it is.

 @Primoz: I haven't heard the term Cockpit Length yet, but I guess you could call it that way. Its true value is affected by your seat position, seat angle, head tube angle, spacers, stem length, bar width/roll/backsweep, but I guess you could define default values for most of these parameters (i.e. seatrails in the middle position, x spacers, y stem, z backsweep, etc).

 @sp00n82: Yeah, that's why i'm saying the only relevant measure of a bike fit length wise and when seated (which is the majority of the time) is the cockpit length value. You can tune it with a shorter/longer stem, by moving the seat forwards and backwards and so on, but generally you need a certain value of it.

With an ultra steep seat tube you need a very long reach to get the same cockpit length as with a slacker seat tube and an overall 'shorter' bike. That's why looking at reach numbers is so useless, but there's a caveat.

For riders with inseam length around 10 cm longer than the stack height, the effective top tube length is a very good approximation of cockpit length (handlebars ignored), likewise for the seat tube angle, the effective value. This is for M and L sizes and thereabout mainly. Once you go outside this 'average rider sweetspot' is where you get the problems. With the current seat tubes you get an ultra slack seat tube angle for XL riders and effectively an ultra steep angle for S/XS riders. So that's why in some way reach, effective top tube and effective seat tube angle values work, because they work for the average rider. But they do not give the complete picture for the complete population. And you always have some smartasses that stick out of the average and spill vitriol over the internet.

Sincerely, should_be_riding_an_XL_Pole guy.

 @sp00n82:
No, the steep seat angle takes away the extreme ‘effective top tube’
At the end of the day, you increase reach, you increase wheelbase, no way around that.

On a side note, I think seat angles cant really go past about 80 degrees otherwise peoples knees would be falling off due to poor bike fit. When you are seated with feet on peddles at 3 and 9 o clock, your kneecap should be directly above the peddle axle. To far in front (or behind) and you’ll end up with knee pain...

 @Primoz: So with an 889mm inseam what's a reasonable bar height and or stack height for technical climbing and descending?

 @sp00n82:
Reach is a useful measure because it tells you something about how a bike will handle when you are standing on the pedals, not sitting in the saddle. For enduro racing, where the rider is standing for the overwhelming majority of the timed parts of the course, handling characteristics when standing are the most important.

The "effective reach" that you are describing is irrelevant when you are standing.

 @Richt2000: Zero data behind that knee over axle crap BTW.

 @sp00n82: what you descried is effective top tube lenght, SA has got no influence on reach number.

 @Mondbiker: Yeah there are some ding-dongs in here thinking they know something about bike fit and what should or shouldn't be. Talking about how a Seat Angle effects reach lol? Come on dude. Cockpit length? It like google doesn't exist for them.

 @Primoz: seated position is secondary on an enduro bike. Reach is what is meaningful, since that is your standing / attack position. Good enough up....Best down.

 @Richt2000: you can decrease wheelbase on increase reach by adjusting fork offset and head angle.

The knee thing has been debunked, not that it matters since it was really based on a flat level ground measurement. Up really steep climbs you could have a 85 degree STA and have knees behind pedal....which is kinda, like, the whole point here....

 @Richt2000:
You are right.
I don't care about steep SA.
I had enough knee pain issues already.
My idial angle is around 72.5° with 175mm cranks.

 @jclnv: as compared to the mountains of data proving that a seat angle of 80 or 85 degrees is better?

 @stuie321: If forward weight distribution on steep climbs is what's required then the steeper the seat angle the better. That's pretty basic vehicle dynamics.

Arguing counter is like saying a steeper head angle is better for weight distribution on steep descents.

 Regarding knees, would they explode if you rode a bike pedalling while lying on your stomach? Will you be able to pull kilowatts of power with no effects on the knees while on a recumbent bike?

The knee over pedal thing doesn't make sense since you can rotate the whole system, check those criteria but don't change the forces inside the system. The forces in the knee.

O
Also enduro bikes, standing up and the like, the downhill performance above all matters to the racers and even then sparing some energy on a liaison can be nothing but beneficial. For the average rider of an enduro bike sparing energy while seated (as mentioned, 90 percent of the ride) is also most important, because said average rider rides and even races for fun.

If downhill performance is above all other criteria, why don't you guys run shock rates that the pros ride? Clearly they work the best, otherwise they wouldn't use them.

And no, you (you as in 99 percent of all people on pinkbike) ate not at the level where you can argue you need descending performance over bike fit. After all, what good will 0.05 percent improvement going down help when you injure yourself on a liaison due to a poor bike fit?

 @stuie321: there are studies saying steeper is better efficiency wise. I can maybe get ahold of some of them.

 @Primoz: I would be very interested in seeing those as my knees are not what they used to be and I would love to see some data driven rather than opinion based studies. Please post if you find them.

 @stuie321: just a quick Google: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5786204
"Further analysis of other lower limb muscles is therefore warranted to fully explain neuromuscular mechanisms underlying improved metabolic efficiency when cycling at steeper STA."

A friend of mine has a PhD from kinesiology and he is a bike fitter now and he more or less said that steeper is more efficient a while ago, before the steep seat tube angle craze.

 @jclnv: The knee over pedal is a roadie thing because they have a fixed geometry controlled by UCI. Our steep seat tube angle is about opening riders hip angle to generate easier climbing posture and to take better use of the hamstrings and the glutes rather only the quads. Bent hip angle focuses your pedaling to quads.

 @polebicycles: Brushing of established pedaling positions as "roadie thing due to UCI" is far too simplistic. How do you explain that 73-75° seat angles are also used on all other bikes not controlled by UCI? I'm talking triathlon, hillclimbing, touring, commuting, etc..

 @Ttimer: Look at modern TT bikes, the actual pedaling position is close to 90°, the riders do all they can to cheat the UCI regulation.
A lot of what we see in production is based on what product managers believe their customers are expecting.
Customers and journalists do not like big changes and company boards to not like risk. Geometry changes are very slow but it is obvious that they are creeping towards a much steeper seat tube angle.

 @Konyp: In some cases they are actually creeping towards slacker... Everytime i see a grossly offset/bent seattube on a new bike these days i go 'what the hell are they smoking??'.

 @Konyp: They sometimes do, but the reasons given in TT and Triathlon for forward seating positions are different from and partially contradict Poles narrative.
In TT it is argued that sitting on the tip of the saddle allows for a more aero riding position, which doesn't matter for MTB. While Triathletes argue that sitting further forward saves power in their hamstrings for running. Which is the exact opposite of what was claimed above, that a forward riding position would involve the hamstrings more.

 @Ttimer: I can only add my own personal experience; I find bikes with steeper STA much easier to climb on MTB trails. With 75° i slam the saddle all the way forward and still find myself moving to the nose on steeper sections. Then again I tend to ride things that most people will walk.
On bikes with with slacker STA I feel that I loose a lot of energy trying to keep the front on the ground.
On the road this does not matter for climbing, you just stand up in the steeps, but I also find a more forward position more natural.

 @Ttimer: I partially agree. The upper body orientation and positioning is a big part of the equation here is well, the relative hand position to saddle and pedals (i.e. reach, stack). The hand position is much more consistent on other bikes so the same basic rules tend to work (and the relationship is static where it is dynamic on a suspension bike).

Knee over pedal makes sense in some instances, but the rule ignores a lot of complexity in a mountain bike situation.

 @tomcat: relative hand position to saddle has exactly NOTHING to do with reach and stack. Which is why i'm yelling all around the internet as to how useless this dimension is. As well as R.A.D. or whatever that derivative of reach and stack is.

 Presumably because a carbon mould is made from steel? I don't know this for a fact but assume a harder material would be needed for durability and harder materials take longer to machine precisely. Mainly guessing here tho

 The anti-carbon thing is more about the waste and environment than the cost.

 @sourmix: Carbon molds, in addition to being made from steel, require tighter tolerances and a much higher quality of finish than Poles frames. Machining steel wears out the expensive tools much faster than aluminium.

 @Ttimer: cheers, that all makes sense!

 @sourmix: doesn't really matter much. I find it as an CNC engineer really really every time they say the moulds are expensive not believable. There are a few steps and different machines to create a mould but it isn't that much and that complicated.

 @sourmix: even if the moulds cost 100k each ( probably 25k), that is absolutely nothing compared to the cost of one solid HSC 5 axis CNC milling machin with enough working space to clamp large AL blocks for the frame. Also this CNC machine need many tools and other stuff like a good maintenance service partner otherwise it won't run very long. The tool's alone can be more then 100k , the other part is to check if everything is right. Another set of tools to measure what you do for those machines are also expensive.

 @Serpentras: Yeah but worth noting that the bike manufacturers don't own the machine shop. This means there is a customer/supplier relationship meaning profits to be made. This is for the design and specification process, along with some prototypes and then final machining to get one steel mould for one frame size and section. That might explain the costs kicked about online.

 @sourmix: well yeah, still don't believe it. Why? I look at Unno who only made a few frames with a price of 5k each and they made their own moulds in house same as everything else in-house with European loans . Most big bicycle companies won't do that. All of the big players could do fast and simpler creating moulds if they actually invest in the machine's. You don't need all but the CNC is a must have for prototype construction. Also for moulds could a much less expensive machine work because 5 axis isn't a must have.

 @Serpentras: fair enough, you seem to know a lot more about it than I do!

 Water bottle cage mounts, 20 of them!!!!

 Planet-friendly drillium, maybe?

 You beat me to it. The holes have me confused.

 You mean the bolt holes, which hold the frame together?

 It is quite clever. You can use them for the tie wraps for external cable routing. You can also use them for entry and exit holes for internal cable routing. There are so many that you can even weave in and out if you can't quite decide what's best.

 @Ginepiece: the holes they are genuinely hiding by only taking pictures of the nice and clean side every time? These holes?

 Huh, maybe the ol' Flanders mobile could use some speed holes..

 It's a loom for when you're not riding.

 @fracasnoxteam: ....Except all of the pictures on the non-drive side. Most bike pictures are taken on the drive side. I don't think they are trying to hide anything at all.

 I witnessed Joe on Monday night defy physics on this thing while training on the 3rd base track, one of those bike moments I will remember for a long time, mainly because it was man and machine in perfect harmony well beyond what should be allowable to be done on this section track; with so much confidence, speed (insert “warp speed”) sliding grip and control. Unbelievable really!

 @Lahar72: yip, that’s what I’ve been seeing too. Looks so fast. Hope it translates into podiums for him, otherwise the top guys must be unbelievable and would blow my mind !

 So it's pretty ugly?

 Well if you are jumping around and want to jump into the flat's more often and also more more on the back wheel first then this is right. But if we talk about hitting obstacles the angel of attack is better to compress the fork.

 @Serpentras: Yup, basically what marshy said is a load of BS trying to find reason why SC is worried about making slack head angles, s he came up with this and many people bought it.

 @theberminator also bonded, like they use in aircraft wings, in the right application it can be stronger than a welded joint.

 @RadBartTaylor: I was under the impression after seeing the photos last month, it was a one piece alloy work of art made on some amazing multi axis rotating cnc machine,..

 @theberminator: If they could 3D print the whole frame that would be possible, they can't access the inside of the tubes if they tried to CNC the whole frame as one piece

 if you squat with your hips directly above the balls of your feet, you're squatting wrong.

 @bcmanucd: yes agreed but these steep seat tube angles are designed for climbing so that 90 degree seat angle on a 20-30 degree incline puts the seat back to 60 to 70 degrees pushing your hips back behind your feet in relation to gravity. When you descend, in theory you would drop the seat out of your way. Peddling on flat ground would suck yes but these bikes are being designed to go up and down steeps.

 I have a nicolai mojo g16 in a longer (I”m 5.9” for reference). Would say it definitely handles great in straight or flowly trail with out a problem and you would be more even more surprised how well it handles on the tighter trails. You definitely have to change you riding style to suit the bike otherwise it will be a pig

 @mattvanders: For flowtrails I'll still take the hardtail... More fun and just easier to ride.b

I like the idea of the progressive geometry but flow trails are really not a strong point at all.

 @NotNamed: you can ride flow trails on tricycle ffs, long and slack was build for hard trails not easy trails, but they will work for flow trails just fine, the same cannot be said if you turn it around.

 You really should try riding one of these "new" geometry bikes if you haven't already. And don't ruin it for yourself by trying to outsmart the designers-- ride the recommended size, period. Different brands will recommend what appear to be very different sizing, but appearances can be VERY misleading.

What you'll find if you give it a fair shake is that wheelbase has little if anything to do with overall maneuverability. Positioning between the wheels, relationship of stem length to fork offset (this is HUGE, and widely misunderstood), and fork length (A2C) are all way more important. Although this opinion will be unpopular with some of the forum dwellers, there's a reason that literally every mountain bike brand is moving in this direction. It's because it works better, and if you're going to shell out to upgrade, your new bike should damn well be better than your old one.

 @DirtCrab: Do you think there is a riding style that doesn't work for new geometry? I hear climbs well and descends well. Without any data to back this up, I'd bet most of my riding is flat but I'll still be shopping for min 150mm travel bike for the occasional drop.

 @rpl3000: Hard to say, since "new" geometry covers a really broad spectrum. That said, I really only think there's one group of people who would truly struggle with the new bikes as a whole. There are some real crusty old rippers out there who are set in their ways and honestly might not want to adapt their riding style to "get with the times". Jokes aside, I genuinely respect that. But I don't think that old habits should be taken as evidence that new riding styles and design philosophies are misguided. That's like writing off smartphones for everyone because your grandma prefers her rotary dial.

As a rule, "new school" geometry reduces the amount of body English you need to put into the bike. It also tends to demand that the rider shift their weight a bit farther forward. That can take some getting used to, but it's well worth the effort ATMO. It's also worth noting that, as ever, wheel size makes a difference. Big wheels and lots of BB drop makes for a bike that's more stable. Smaller wheels and less drop makes for a bike that's more responsive. New geometry hasn't changed that at all.

There are certainly compromises at the more extreme end of the geometry scale in either direction, but they might not be what you'd expect. The Poles, for example, actually corner VERY well even at lower speeds, but the timing is different than a more traditional bike. You also need to have the skill to carry momentum and lean, not steer. Where Pole loses me personally is that the combination of the massive reach and long rear end requires pretty dramatic weight shifts front to back if you're trying to link up technical manual lines, or if you're nosing into a steep landing. That said, if you're into riding flat out in open terrain, those things are very nearly in a league of their own. Not something I need to own, but a VERY cool option for the right rider.

My Ripmo, on the other hand, is definitely new school, and it's one of the EASIEST bikes to blast whips, slap corners, and generally get buck with that I've ever ridden, and I test and review a HUGE chunk of the new bikes from a ton of brands every year as part of my job. Obviously, I'm biased in favor of the new stuff. I just want to ride the best bikes that I possibly can, and we're at a point in mountain bike development where BIG improvements are being made every product cycle (Boost notwithstanding). Some people might think that makes me a shill. Hopefully it's apparent that in reality, I just have a lot more experience in with the latest gear than the average forum poster, and I'm trying to share that experience to help others make informed choices. Take that for what you will.

It looks like you're in CT? As you know, the riding there is pretty unique. With the trails being relatively slow and technical, you'll want to go on the steeper, and probably shorter end of the new bike spectrum. With all the rocks, some cush will definitely help. If you can, start by demoing a new Bronson on the Plus wheel package (I HATE Plus tires, but ~35mm rims and Maxxis WT tires make for a genuinely amazing setup) That bike is pretty conservative numbers wise, and it's REALLY good. If you don't like it or prefer your old bike, that's totally fine too. Happy hunting!

 @rpl3000: Trails. And someone who likes to manual for large amounts of time. But for everyone else, it's truly an improvement.

 @DirtCrab: when you said new school I tought purely Pole/Geometron etc.

And hell no- 470mm reach are the max. for me with 180mm- These long bikes feel like boats and most people dont have the trails to ridde them thee intended purpose.

I dont want to constantly center myself on the bike- youll get exhausted faster.

The Ripmo/Stumpjumper Evo etc. are not that crazy but for sure "easier" to ride.

 @rpl3000: I came from a large spitfire to my nicolai so definitely not from a short short bike. First 3 weeks I thought I had gone for a too long bike for me but on the 4 week everything clicked, you have to always be in an attack position with weight on the front wheel otherwise it will understeer. You have to put confidence in the bike that you won’t go over the bars and not ride with your ass hanging off the back with arms straight

 @DirtCrab: wow.

 You can read my comments to Steve from the Voorsprung video. I think he tries to oversimplify things.

 @NotNamed: you have to constantly move around on the shorter bike, riding longer bike is soooo much easier and forgiving it cannot really even be compared. Short bikes are exhausting to ride, not long bikes.

 @Mondbiker: No. Long reach and somewhat short CS make you drive over the rear wheel.
Constantly riding with bent ellbows and Always in attack positoon isnt what I call easy... You may be a bit faster but I wont be exhausted and do more laps.

Just to be sure: I dont mean 460mm Reach bikes long- Im talking 480mm++

 @NotNamed: So pole has short CS now? Since when is 455 short? And why the heck would you need to ride with bent elbows? Just set the bar height right and you can relax on the bike while hammering down everything. Putting short CS on long bikes is somewhat american thing, because we all know short CS are fun. Because understeery bike is sooo much fun lol.

 Some people also call it "enduro"...

 Reach in M is 480mm, chainstays might be shorter than the 455mm of the Pole Evolink.

 @SintraFreeride: Great, so I am 1,83cm with long torso riding a L Mojo HD 45,5 reach. 48 reach is the XL reach of mojo HD so I hope it will work the change... just worried 43 chainstay may be too short...

 @PauRexs: Pole advises people over 180cm to get a L which has a reach of 510mm. I doubt the Stamina chainstays will be shorter than 445mm. I am 180 and ride with a 20mm stem and a reach of 520mm.

 @SintraFreeride: Haha crazy! By the moment increase reach to 2'5 cm is going to be a big feat for me... Plus I curiouslu have the same wheigt size and proportions of Maes and he uses 46.5 reach with 55stem and 44 chainstays so I want first stick to his preferences and see if I can get close to him next EWS...
BTW not sure if you are shorter is a good idea on this bikes to use short stem, cause you need to put more wheigt on the front for grip...

 @PauRexs: My previous bike had a reach of 450mm and I adapted pretty quick, Short stems help speed up handling and don't affect front end grip. You just end up running the handlebar a tad lower and it is fine. Plus the benefits outweigh the negatives. 50mm stems in my opinion are for XC, haha.

 You can have a Knolly Delirium with 188mm in the Back and a DC/180mm fork and pedal uphill.

The Capra also does it.

 yes

 No

 Probably

 Yea and twice as long probably!

 @Richt2000: Yeah, you've got that right. It (the Pole) is almost 100mm longer! Also of course my geometry is without sag. No way it'd be still this slack with a sagged fork. Or I'd need to run an angleset/slackerizer headset. Don't quite feel then need for that .

 Their old DH bike was 176mm in the rear but the new one is 200mm

 Pole Evolink 140 29" (140mm rear/160mm front) is a magical bike with similarly progressive geo. Climbs & descends anything... anything!

 @manco:
"A shorter travel CNC-machined bike will be released this spring, stay tuned!"
:-)

 Fits 2 actually.

 @Clarkeh: Only 2?

 @mtbikeaddict: Actually it fits 3. 3rd one underneath the downtube.

 You`re f**king blind!!!

 @Franzzz: Yea after looking at it and getting f**king eye cancer!

 @EliasFritzen: Good eye recovery though... In 2 or 3 years you`ll probably buy that bike when both your eyes and brain will work properly