First Ride: Nicolai Mojo GeoMetron
Mojo Suspension and Chris Porter have a history of ruffling feathers: Remember the PVC style skinsuits that popped up at the Fort William World Cup in 2008? Technology taken from ski racing that gave two team riders their best results ever? What about strapping lead weights to his racer's bikes to improve the sprung - unsprung mass ratio? More recently, Chris has been seen riding chopped out monster bikes with crazy angles and even racing an EWS with FOX 40 downhill forks on his bike. After years of testing and timing, Chris has put his money where his mouth is, and in conjunction with Nicolai, the 'GeoMetron' has been born. The black beast is now available through his Mojo Suspension Centre in South Wales, so I headed down to Risca to ride and get the low-down direct from the source.
GeoMetron customers have various build options, starting from a frame kit with custom-tuned Fox Float X or X2 shock, for £2100 GBP, to a top-range complete build for £6700 GBP. For that price, you're not only getting a bike. Included with your complete build is a full day of testing and tuning with Mojo, where you can try a choice of frame sizes, tires, damper tunes, handlebar widths, gear ratios and anything else you might fancy. Once you have decided on all of the above, Mojo will build your fresh frame up to your personal spec's and include two pairs of wheels (Crossmax SL and Crossmax XL) for different riding styles. Plus - if you're not happy - you can keep going back to Mojo to try different options until you are - an unparalleled service in the mountain bike industry.
• Intended use: all-mountain/enduro, going insanely fast.
• Wheel size: 27.5''
• Rear-wheel travel: 150mm
• Fox 36 fork and Float X or X2 shock - custom tuned.
• Welded aluminum frame
• 77° seat angle
• 62-63.5° head angle, dependent upon shock and fork length.
• Sizing: Long, Longer, or Longest
• ISCG 05 chainguide tabs
• MSRP: £5200-£6700 ($8150-$10,500 approx) dependent upon build kit and service package.
• Contact: Mojo Nicolai GeoMetron
Frame Details
All Nicolai frames are 100-percent hand-built in Lübbrechtsen, Germany. Nicolai say this helps them to create some of the best bikes in the world as design to final test riding can all be performed under one roof. The tubes are cut and welded, dropouts and links are machined, frames are straightened, painted and assembled then shipped worldwide. The GeoMetron sports a ZS 44/56 tapered head tube, a 73mm BSA threaded bottom bracket surrounded by ISCG 05 chain guide tabs, a PM 180mm brake mount and a 142mm x 12mm rear axle.
It's all in the details.
A custom tuned Float X shock with an EVOL air can.
Replaceable drop outs and hanger.
More hand-crafted goodness.
The GeoMetron is a result of a lifetime of fiddling, testing and timing from Chris. After years of running a race team, the crucial measure is the stopwatch. Every angle, setting and detail has been timed and tested to find what he thinks is the fastest recipe on the market. So what is the GeoMetron all about? It's the longest bike on the market, and Chris says his personal bike is the longest mountain bike ever made with a limo-like wheelbase of 1370mm. He also says that, against the clock, it's the fastest bike they have taken down the 'Mojo Test Track' (and several) others between the legs of three different riders and pitched against many other bikes time and time again. He was also keen to point out that the Mojo track is one of the tightest and twisty in the area but the biggest bike still shone through.
The geometry certainly is extreme but as current trends continue to get lower, longer and slacker Chris says "Why not keep going!" The head angle sits between 62° and 63.5° with rear-wheel travel between 145mm and 155mm. The seat angle is around 77° and the bottom bracket height drops around 17mm below the axles. On my 'Longest' test bike, the wheelbase was 1320mm. Why such vague values? Your GeoMetron will be built with different fork travel, fork offset and shock length, dependent upon your riding style and favorite terrains.
The GeoMetron's Suspension Explained
The GeoMetron uses a basic design taken from a Nicolai ION 16 bike. A four bar linkage using a Horst-style pivot, with a solid, CNC machined rocker link to drive the customized shock. Of course the kinematic isn't just lifted from the standard ION, the pivot placement and leverage curve has been tweaked to give certain anti-squat ratios and progression. Chris built my bike with a Fox 36 fork set at 180mm. This was to raise the front end and slacken out the head angle even more in to the 62° degree range. He also built the fork using a crown/steerer assembly from a 26" travel Fox 36 fork, which has a shorter offset than the 27.5" version, meaning the steering feel will quicken slightly to offset the lag given by the slacker head angle.
Chainring size is also considered for suspension set-up. Decided not by leg power but by the required level of anti-squat for the rider and style. My bike was built with a 36t chainring, which raises the chain in comparison to the main pivot. This was chosen to suit my riding style - I try to pump to create speed more than pedaling through rough sections, and care more about going downhill fast than speeding up hills.
Being the UK's FOX distribution and service center for the last two decades, the damping should be the jewel in the crown. Suspension will be tuned to your riding style using air pressure, volume spacers, shim stacks, oil weights and whatever other 'Suspension Hoodoo' they have up their sleeves.
Climbing: I often find that being a tall rider on L or XL frame sizes with modern, short chainstays that my mass is too far over the rear axle when climbing. This can lead to an overly saggy rear and a wandering front end. The GeoMetron solves this 'lanky riders' issue with the super steep 77° seat angle, combined with the long-ish 445mm chainstay and the elongated front triangle that moves your mass into a more central position between the wheels and reduces the wheelie effect. This was taken even closer to the extreme by the saddle being slammed as far forward as possible on the rails, even the seat clamp had seen and angle grinder at some point to gain couple of extra millimeters forwards. As for the strange looking seat angle - this bike is designed for going up and then down, on steep climbs it's more comfortable than it looks.
I rode the bike for two full days, only at the end of which, I realized that not once had I felt the need to reach for the compression lever. Normally I feel the need to stiffen the compression in order to keep the bike sitting high at the rear and give better climbing geometry. Admittedly I never got in to any super-technical climbs, but trail center hairpins were manageable and however steep the incline I was more centered and comfortable than anything else I have ridden.
Descending: When turning back down the hill a change of riding style is required. If you're used to hanging off the back off your bike like Fairclough, or getting your weight back for the steep stuff, a massive, high speed accident is more than likely. A more central riding position is required, and when conquered magic things can happen. You can charge down steeps in a neutral riding position with plenty of front end grip and braking traction, without the fear of going out the front door. The massive wheel base makes front to rear weight distribution a cinch on flat corners and long camber - subtle fore to aft movements can gain grip at one end or the other. A short travel downhill machine, and possibly a bike that would out-descend many true downhill bikes.
Suspension: The customized suspension has next to zero breakaway and the support in the fork mixed with the super slack head angle leads to no noticeable dive at the front end even on steep, stepped switchbacks. As mentioned previously, being tall makes life difficult with seat angles but another problem I face is weighing 72kg, but riding fairly hard and having a downhill and BMX background where pumping and driving the bike in to compressions and corners is the norm. What does this mean? It's hard to get suspension supple enough for small bump compliance and grip, but also progressive enough for the big hits (RockShox suspension offerings over the last few years with Bottomless tokens have been a godsend).
The takeoff is behind that tree, and I went waaay too deep, missing the landing and just about holding on to the barge. Suspension? Ten millimeters of travel left at either end.
The custom tune from Mojo also solved this - meaning I could run 30-percent sag and get great support thanks to volume spacers and valving. In fact the suspension progression is unlike anything I have felt on any other air suspended bikes - Here's the proof: Going straight in to our photoshoot on the first run, I overshot a big hip jump, going about 45 feet out and 15 down pretty much to flat and just about holding on at my limit of strength and range of motion; my chin was almost on the stem and crown jewels on the top tube. The result was exactly 10mm of suspension travel left at each end. I suggested to Chris that it should have bottomed out here and his response was, "If you did bottom out when you where that close to blowing up, the extra impact of hitting the bottom-out stops might have sent you past your limit."
Pinkbike's Take:
 | I remember saying to a friend in 2007, "why doesn't somebody just make a six-inch travel trail bike with downhill geometry, that you could pedal up the hill?" Eight years later and this is what we have! The GeoMetron is the ideal machine for people who want to get to the top in their own time, then challenge the downhillers' on the way back down. The customized suspension is sublime, with initial breakaway unnoticeable. Progression is unreal from the air units, not even bottoming out when overshooting a huge jump, even though I was sitting well in to the travel with 30-percent sag. The cockpit isn't as enormous as it looks, with the longest size having the exact same bottom bracket to handlebar measurement as my XL Specialized Enduro, bearing in mind different stem lengths and stack heights. The support offered by the fork and the super slack head angle means I could load, and charge at the front end whatever situation I was in and keep it under control. The GeoMetron is a bit futuristic, but take the time to get used to the geometry and you'll be having a blast. - Paul Aston |
Visit the high-res gallery for more images from this review
The latest addition to the Pinkbike Technical team, Paul Aston is a racer and dirt-jumper at heart. Previously competing in World Cup DH, now he's attacking Enduro and has been since before it was fashionable. Based in the UK, but often found residing in mainland Europe allows him to experience a huge variety of terrains and trails.Stats: Age: 29 • Height: 6'1” • Ape Index: +4" • Weight: 161lb • Industry affiliations / sponsors: Rockwell Watches
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Having said that, if I could afford one of these I would be buying one right now.
@mountainbiker24 ST length is one of the least important geo details. Longer post!
Stack and reach are in some respect even more important when standing up since they are relative to the BB (i.e. your feet) and are independent of the saddle position/ ST angle. Exactly what you describe.
The two "unimportant" sides of the triangle are actually very important as you can have two bike with the same BB to Bar length but very different fits and feels (explained by Sontator)
Two bikes with the same bb to head tube length could theoretically have very different reach and stack figures, but in practice they couldn't, since every large size enduro bike this year has a the same 160mm Pike fork, 65 degree head angle, 120mm head tube (give or take 10mm) and 175mm cranks. If the fork crown and bb are in the same place, the only way to alter reach and stack is by altering the length of the head tube isn't it?
It seems I am missing the point. Would someone mind explaining it again please? BB to head tube is the long side of a right angled triangle yes? The reach is
"Two bikes with the same bb to head tube length could theoretically have very different reach and stack figures, but in practice they couldn't"
You are assuming way to much.
Stack and reach are affected by a combination of HTA angle, HT length, TT length (forward of the BB) BB drop, fork offset, fork AC height, headset stack the frame is designed for, etc, etc
Take a look at 3 random popular ~160mm travel frame. Maybe YT Capra, SC Nomad and Yeti SB6. Med YT has slighter shorter reach than the Yeti with about half and inch less stack, whereas the SC has half and inch less reach than the Yeti but the same stack. Even with 3 very similar frames you get subtle "fit" differences that will suit some people more than others. The "fit" differences also get skewed when you size up or down from this medium example and different manufacturers change the stack/ reach relationship differently across frame sizes (i.e. stack and reach do not usually have a linear relationship across the different frame sizes)
Stack and reach tell you everything about "fit" (BB to HT relationship). You need stack and reach because variation does exist even between apparently similar frames.
This isn't too hard to understand and you gain nothing by trying to make two simple measure in to one meaningless measure
However, reach and stack are the easiest way to differentiate between them. Otherwise manufacturers would have to provide measurments for effective downtube length, and downtube angle. As Jaame says, that angle is never gonna change much if the fork length and head angle remain the same (as with most modern enduro bikes). However, very subtle changes to that angle make a massive difference to the ride of the bike. I think rather than changing the DT angle by 0.2 of a degree, it is easier to see what actual change has been made by looking at the reach and stack.
Basically its two different ways of looking at the same measurement, but one is just a lot more user friendly, if that makes sense.
It is not ; ) What you say is at same head angle, atc lenght and bb to head tube top distance there is not much variability possible in stack/reach apart through change in head tube length.
bb drop together with atc+head tube length will determine the reach/stack ratio. At same bb to head tube top distance a higher bb will have more reach and less stack and the other way around. add to that even little differences in head tube angle with considerable effect and you get a lot of possibilities.
Reacha nd stack are great, when you're concerned about the downhill fit, since they give you handlebar to BB relation. It can make the enduro bike feel more like a DH bike on the down sections, cockpit wise. But when it comes to pedalling, oh boy is it a useless metric!
'What the hell are you talking about' i hear you say. Simple. Seat position. You can have two bikes with the same reach and stack, but one has a 75° effective seat angle, while the other has a 70° effective seat angle (i will leave the actual seat tube angles out of this, since i'm with the author of the article, i have massively long legs, that necessitate me to fully extend my post, throwing me even MORE rearwards).
The difference between the two will be the position of the ass, the 70° bike will, for the upper body, be much much longer. And will therefore have a much longer cockpit and thus fit.
Top tubes are, with today's virtual and actual seat angles, just as useless as reach and stack. When it comes to cockpit fit, pedalling is important. THe most of the time and most of the energy spent on an enduro bike is STILL pedalling while sitting down. Therefore the fit of the cockpit needs to be right. So we need an equivalent of reach and stack, but for the handlebar to seat dimensions. But for that every individual rider will need to know how high the seat must go for him. So yeah, what a nice world we live in
:-P
And i said "Reach and stack are great, when you're concerned about the downhill fit, since they give you handlebar to BB relation. It can make the enduro bike feel more like a DH bike on the down sections, cockpit wise. But when it comes to pedalling, oh boy is it a useless metric!"
Don't know about you, cool if you use your AM/enduro bike for park duties or push it up the hill. Personally, i tend to ride it on flats and uphills for an hour, two or even more on rare occasions and then descend with it for ~15 minutes, maybe half an hour.
To me, the AM/enduro bike is something that pedals well, but also descends well. But given the time and, more importantly, energy ratio between the two use modes, pedalling mode should be the one these bikes are optimised for. Maybe not for pros, maybe not for really good riders with lots of energy and stamina, but definitely for the average rider.
Also, with a 91 cm inseam, where i'm a couple of cm from min insertion mark on the XL Reign and on the limit with the L version, yeah, i'll just throw out all the bikes that have a slack actual seat tube angle and be left with... What exactly? GeoMetron and Nukeproof's Mega AM? Besides bikes having really slack seat tube angles they are also getting ridiculously low, GeoMetron being a nice example of this (490 mm seat tube length, which could easily be 3 or 4 cm longer in my opinion, at least for me), Also, a 640 mm top tube on the L Reign isn't exactly short, even though it has a ~62° actual seat tube angle - the XL Capra measures in at 625, but does indeed have a more sensible seat tube angle, which then shortens the cockpit at (my) extreme.
So yeah, not much point in reach and stack numbers on anything you intend to pedal for a prolonged time. If you don't intend to do that or just don't care (people have been doing crazy stuff with DH bikes after all), by all means, compare away! In the mean time I'll still be looking at the top tube figures.
The measurement itself isn't, I didn't mean that. I mean that slack STA's aren't generally helpful
Some measurements are misleading. ETT is one of these since you assume it tells you how roomy a frame will feel but need to break it down to stack/ reach and STA to see what proportion of the ETT length is going to be forwards or backwards of the BB.
You're right, it can be misleading but if you cross reference it with the others, like you say, it all helps I think.
I also agree that STa are stupid on many modern AM/ Enduro bikes. The idea of these bikes (in my mind) is to get you to the top in the saddle, then to fly back down. Why wouldn't you put a steeper seat angle for the climb since it's just getting slammed out the way at the top anyway. Most of us aren't really using our saddle for support on descents as much as DH racers might so we don't need a slack seat angle like DH bikes, we just need steep ones to get us to the top efficiently.
As to what sucks at the moment, either the reach/stack metrics r the seat tube angles, it's a bit of the chicken or the egg issue in my opinion. I'd much prefer having a more uniform seat tube angle set across enduro bikes (so, a situation that's identical to hardtails, seat tube angles of ~75° with tubes going straight down to the BB), but the reality is different, thus we must work with what we've got. For better or for worse.
Also, ETT and seat angle measurements are in the useless ballpark as well, like you said, yeah, because of the virtual and effective seat tube angles. Some companies actually provide actual seat tube angles, the majority don't (Santa Cruz saying it would confuse people. It would, but many would in fact be grateful for the number, since they could do a better fit).
So, we agree, all current virtual measurements are useless and the industry shoudl start making proper bikes with sensible geometry numbers that are actually comparable one to another?
***
As for the geometries being like they are, there's a concerning trend of offering four at most, in many, MANY cases only 3 sizes of a bike. That means that besides the BB to seat length the effective cockpit length (seat to bar) must also change quite a bit within one size. A slack actual SA helps this (it moves you upwards and backwards). You can then fine tune it with the stem and seat position.
Secondly, giving the riders enough room in the cockpit (600 to 650 mm top tubes and all) with a straight, 75+° seat tube would mean massive wheelbases. Look at the GeoMetron. A 75° SA, a 630 mm effective top tube, a 420 mm chainstay and a 65° head angle on a 160 mm 27.5" bike will give you something around 1270 mm of wheelbase. Which for the current state of the industry (and most likely for the average rider) is too long. So the bent/broken/etc. seat tube gives you the cockpit length while not giving you an extreme wheelbase.
The third thing is that fitting a suspension system under a 70° to 75° seat tube that's not bent is actually hard, at least at the shorter chainstay measurements and with four bar linkages (Nukeproof does that with a 445 mm chainstay on the Mega AM). The wheel itself might fit, but you can get into problems with the linkages themselves, pivot locations, etc. A bent seat tube with a more vertical bottom part gives you more space.
It's about a Klein and a half
A long chainstay makes movements longer but also slower and less loopy.
I probably manuals just fine.
Hop 3:s though, with that wheelbase? No way..
This statement is wrong!
A slacker angle, as well as a shorter offset both 'increase trail which slows steering.
to the best of my knowledge a new 27.5 Boxxer has a 48mm offset. He's running 42 on this.
He's either a genius or nuts. Or both. It makes no sense to me on paper.
But at high speed, yes this makes for a very heavy steering bike because of increased trail.
This bike is still stupid long. At 5'7" I would need a negative 30 stem to approach a comfortable fit. Also i would be unable to fit a dropper with more than 100mm drop for the most part. 6' would be the minimum height to ride this thing, which eliminates about 80% of potential customers.
www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/article/pushing-the-limits-of-fork-offset-an-experiment-45343
Higher offset increases vertical upwards montion of the bars off center which reduces flop in tight switch backs. However, bikes oversteer quite a bit, especially with big tires up front, and thus when countersteering on rough terrain the extra motion is justed wasted in the sawing correction, forcing the rider to do more work.
The "push" on exit described in that article, which is absolutely exceptional by the way thanks, is a common occurence on vehicles with lots of rearward, highly polar mass and is correctable by accelerating out of the turn earlier, which conviently is exactly what one attempts to do anyway.
Secondly, I am super psyched that ONE person/shop/brand is finally getting serious about modern geometry as opposed to tip-toe'ing into it like every major framebuilder. I think the big brands are taking the (rumoured) Usain Bolt approach to geometry improvements:
The rumour is that one of Usain Bolt's sponsors wrote a sizeable cash bonus for breaking world records into his contract. This is why he continually broke his own record by just a little bit every time (several times in a row at world-level track meets).
The big brands probably have a very good idea of where things are going geometry wise (probably a lot like this bike, like it or not) but are afraid of alienating current customers if they jump straight to the "current state of the art". Furthermore it then puts the pressure back on them to innovate and find the next big improvement.
Instead, they release slow iterations towards the "current state of the art" so as to profit at several points (years) before achieving the final design. THEN and only then do they have to work on the "next big thing" (though surely they are in the background constantly).
And for what it's worth, in my opinion this type of innovation (frame geometry and suspension rate curve tweaking) is in a completely different league to wheel size, hub spacing, BB design, etc. - the component changes do effect ride quality but in my opinion, nowhere near the "paradigm shift" that occurs between geometry "generations". Just go hop on a top-of-the-line xc, freeride, or dh bike from 2008 or so and then back on one of todays comparable steeds - lighter and bigger wheels help but really, it's all in the geo in my opinion.
This bike could well be a Nightclub scenario, you spend all night drooling over the hot girls but get nowhere, so you go home with the plain Jane that gives you the best night of your life.
Not Target Audience = People who disregard non-pretty bikes, even if they offer something no other bikes company does.
Yes, there are lots of bikes out there that look pretty AND work well but that's not what these guys are focused on right now. If it takes off, and I hope it does, then subsequent models may get aesthetic face lifts but for now they are putting all their money into developing the best handling bike possible.
The bike is ugly not because of the paint is not flashy neon, its ugly like a Frankstein its an abomination... Thats anyones taste... But this bike is so ugly
The people worried about the long WB really need to ride a long bike. It never became apparent while riding the Megatrail. I am sure if you are riding super tight switchbacks it may happen but nobody really likes riding those now do they?
XC racers have 72ish seat angles but they ride semi slicks and need to provide weight for rear tyre for grip. They also need better power transmission through the whole race. Slack seat angle is good for riding technical climbs where you stand a lot anyways, but you often want to lift your front wheel to get it over obstacles, like rock steps. For max 1,5-hourish fire road climbing (which most Enduroers do) steep seat angle is indeed a good idea. On Enduro bike, steep seat angle allows you maintain control over wandering front end but I also heard that although it is slightly less efficient, it taxes "DH muscles" less making them fresher for descent. Gotta ask James Wilson about it
Non-rotating cockpit will the next big thing in MTB - much lighter, much stiffer, much cheaper and no bearings!
Question, is it good to ride? Does it perform? Will it snap like a twig when I hit some big descents, rocky trails or heavy landings? Coz it looks like it would with the skinny tubing. Is it butt ugly and would my mates take the piss out of me for riding what looks like a budget catalogue bike?
These are the important questions we need answering.
just my 2 cents
@brutalpedz How much sag? 55%?
30% plus the fact that when you climb the fork doesn't sag very much, this ends with a good angle on the saddle.
Tech talk appart, I don't use such extreme saddle angle, just a bit to avoid mashed potatoes at the end of the ride
vimeo.com/127136080
youtu.be/ZJH4ayFZNK4
his personal claims of this bike being the fastest are spurious at best. who are these three other riders, name and shame them!!! do they ride bmx normally or 29ers or that historical 26" wheeled machine normally, how long they been riding for and etc etc -
i'll hold my hands up i know jackshit about suspension setup and the finer point of geometries, but for once in my cynical life, i'm going to side with the larger brands making normal good looking conforming bikes on this one
I have no idea if the bike is any good, but I wouldn't slam it until I had at least tried it.
Mondraker have been doing similar things with geometry for a while, and most other brands have been slowly heading in the direction of longer and slacker bikes, whether any will get to this extreme is still to be seen.
So what he has to say about how a bike handles is worth listening to.
If you really want all the science then use google to get CP's email and ask him the questions you think need answering rather than being the usual negative forum "expert".
@dobbs. fair point
@adamsemmens yes i want a slack and stable bike, but i also want the headtube to stay on longer than a week, and i want it to be able to climb comfortably seeing as i put in a lot of 5hr rides, and i want it to be able to sprint properly when i'm competing for podium in the enduro races
@dingus, his ability to to ride hard is extremely important. how can he design a bike that handles well when its being ridden hard if he nonces down the hill, and is so unable to control a bike on an enduro race that he needs fox 40s to stop him from crashing. if he doesn't ride it hard then how do we know the headtube can even take the abuse, how does he know how to design it to corner well if he doesn't know how to corner well. this is a bike for beginners who want a safe ride down a hill not someone who actually wants to race it in enduro and get decent results. although maybe i'm missing the point and its not an enduro race bike (as thats all i seem to think about at the goddamn moment)
@amrskipro thats a fair point but i don't know if paul is a yesman for CP, and i'm looking at bike here thats being compared to an enduro race bike ....... its not - its a fast dh capable bike, thats what paul aston was fairly good at...and is a fairly to above average rider at enduro when compared to the world circuit. feck... i came a few secs behind him on each stage in a race we both attended last year, finishing 1 minute behind at end of day due to a puncture on one of the stages..........on my hardtail!!!!
at end of day i'm saying that this is not a 5hr sprinty fast race capable enduro bike, its most likely a bike that can get you up the hill ok, and ride very nicely down some steep fast terrain and gets less skilled riders out of a lot of trouble. hardly anything special
A. It's made by Nicolai. It can take the abuse.
B. There is such a thing as strength analysis software, as well as various impact and structural tests which no doubt these frames go through. Riding is not the only to know that a bike can take abuse.
I don't see how you can write off a bike just because the designer isn't especially fast. Surely by that logic you must have no faith in his ability to do the custom suspension tuning work that he does with Mojo, since he is 'so unable to control a bike'.
however i have to admit my argument of him being not a fast rider means he can't design fast bikes is a pretty shit one. as that would create a situation whereby you need to be performing at top 20 level in a given discipline in order to actually know how to make a fast bike, which obviously is a crock of shit. i'll finish this off buy saying its a goddamm ugly bike., there said it done!
And yet, no indications that this is faster on any sort of terrain. I'm guessing the stopwatch wouldn't be your friend if, God help you, you were to ride uphill on this bike.
Tranny and an ASR... bro, you already lost any style cred you had. Now you're just making yourself sound stupid trying to hate on a bunch of dope bikes. I think it's probably your riding skills that you're feeling wallow like a pig in mud.
And believe homie... I have fun on all my bikes.
The SR curve is dialed on the Nomad, at least for people who like to ride. Maybe you chart monkeys stuck on bananas should ride a bike sometime. It's regressive to the sag point for dialed small bump compliance, and then mildly progressive the rest of the way to give bottomless control all the way through the stroke.
Come on now buddy, you've lost all credibility. You don't know sexy, you don't know leverage rates, you're just showing your ass now you stupid bastard. Trying to talk shit about one of the most dialed bikes available today, which is universally well regarded... you're just making yourself sound like a moron. Have a beer, stop being so angry.
Maybe if you improve your reading comprehension, this article might educate you in the future: www.santacruzbicycles.com/en/de/news/348
Now go back under your bridge and have a nice day!
PS - You should look at the shit you post before you post it. The near little hand drawn chart on the SC page illustrates my point but I guess that was too complicated for you.
f*ck bruh, you so mad you can't even use your words right!
I'm enjoying my awesome existence... riding dope bikes and laughing at posers like you. You find some peanut butter to mix with all your jelly yet?
And he certainly isn't looking for take up, that more of a niche bike.