Opinion: Your Next Bike Will Be Steeper
The Lay of the Land
I don't know if I've ever mentioned it, and I'm often a little bashful when it comes to this sort of thing, but I really, really really enjoy riding my Transition Spire. After using it as a long-term loaner I finally got around to buying it at the start of the year. I love that thing, and it was only really procrastination that had stopped me from putting my money where my mouth was until then.
Bikes like the Spire are great because they can genuinely hold a candle to the stability of a downhill bike. People telling me that that their enduro bike basically is a downhill bike is something I had been growing very tired of because people have been saying it for years. "What downhill bikes are you riding that makes you think that your 2015 enduro bike is remotely similar in terms of capability?" I would often think to myself.
The meme-team.
That all changed in the summer of 2021. In that Field Test, there were five enduro bikes, and two of them finally made good on the promise of a 170mm-ish bike that could truly hold its own with downhill bikes - the Norco Range and the Spire. Both are fantastic bikes, although I would argue that the Spire is a bit more versatile. For years bikes had been getting incrementally slacker, all while reaches had grown and seat tubes had steepened. It finally felt like the enduro bike had arrived in earnest.
There were flashes before. One example has to be the latest and current version of the Specialized Enduro. This was a bike that was truly ahead of its time when it was released, and even though rumors swirl of the revised version it's still a very very good bike. While the Enduro does so many things so well, it never felt like a true brute. It's only small things, but the slacker seat tube angle can result in a stretched-out riding position with its comparatively long reach. The 64-degree head angle felt good, but compared to the slackness of the Spire, coupled with small dimension issues, it always felt just a little less capable. That said, it was better than nearly everything else when it was released, and probably represented an important stepping stone to the very bikes I'm comparing it to.
Isn't she lovely?
We tend to ride enduro bikes on just about anything going, and they certainly aren't limited to the flat-out speeds of true downhill runs. This means that they suffer from the negative consequences of excessive handlebar flop more. The consequences are exposed mainly on slower, techier and tighter trails. Handlebar flop becomes more apparent when the head angle becomes slacker. This is because as we turn the wheel it has a great effect on the height of the top tube. This can complicate leaning the bike, especially when we're not relying on a centrifugal force to help stand the bike up. But is there any way to reap the benefits of stability without encouraging this trait?
Heavy feet and light hands lay strong foundations in terms of technique, but could our bikes help us develop this habit more intuitively?
What the Hell is Stack?
Stack is the vertical height difference between the top of the head tube and the bottom bracket, and it's a cousin of reach. Reach, as we know, is the horizontal difference between the BB and the top of the headtube. The two are very relevant to one another, and when combined can paint a very vivid picture of how a bike will fit when you're standing up and descending. That said, both will have an effect when seated too, even if these changes are often considered as a byproduct of getting a particular standing position.
Stack is the vertical height difference between the top of the head tube and the bottom bracket, and it's a cousin of reach. Reach, as we know, is the horizontal difference between the BB and the top of the headtube. The two are very relevant to one another, and when combined can paint a very vivid picture of how a bike will fit when you're standing up and descending. That said, both will have an effect when seated too, even if these changes are often considered as a byproduct of getting a particular standing position.
A higher stack will bring the rider's weight rearward, and a lower stack will place more of it on the front wheel. We all know when a bike feels too high at the front, the feeling of the front washing and failing to find grip, as well as a sensation of vagueness as we transition between turns and feel the bike feel quite unpredictable as it goes through the y-axis. This can be the drawback of excessive stack. However, a higher front can also lower our center of gravity by putting more of our weight through our feet, changing our body position to make tackling steeper trails safer and easier, as well as making certain movements like front wheel lifts easier.
Why Your Next Bike Will be Steeper
To look at stack in isolation would be to do it a disservice. Like any geometry dimension it plays its role, but it needs to contribute to a balanced chassis and not undermine one. However, a higher stack can give us a lot of positives when finessed correctly.
I believe that stack and chainstay lengths are related very closely to one another and the higher the stack the longer the stays need to be to put weight back onto the front wheel. When you do have a bike that manages to give you a very upright position all while ensuring the bike has a very good balance, it's amazing how it can open up the terrain and be both comfortable and confidence-inspiring.
The Commencal Meta SX represents what I believe to be the new frontier of geometry and it's not the only one. The Unno Burn has some great angles and dimensions.
I believe that the next generation of enduro bikes will further explore this, and designers will embrace how much stability can be delivered with a higher front and longer rear-centre. As this concept is played with, I think we'll rarely see bikes come with anything slacker than 64-ish degree head angles because simply it's not needed, and by maximising the relationship between stays and stack we might be able to get bikes that offer the same level of high-speed stability all while doing so without the handlebar flop at slower speeds. Expect more mixed wheeled bikes, too. I'm not 100% convinced about them in every application but having the small rear wheel can really blend in with these aspects of geometry, giving us a position that bleeds into solid technique and plenty of clearance to let the bike get busy while letting the rider remain calm and composed
I'm just gonna leave Brohm's dogstagram here.
What a sweetheart. Not a bad day in the office, that one. Plus, I think I did Tina proud.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
But yes, bikes have gotten too slack and too long IMO.
FWIW, I agree and landed on a very similar setup on my Knolly Chilcotin to what you're talking about here. +1* angleset to steep HA, 40mm rise bars for higher stack, and geometry in the slack position for longest chainstay possible. Also running it as a mullet with a Cascade Components MX eyelet to ~preserve geometry with the smaller rear wheel. I wish the reach was a bit shorter so I could run a 45mm stem instead of 31mm stem, but it rips.
Glad your bike is running mint! Fun to play with and satisfying to get.
Aka, what Banshee and Raaw have been doing for years. The Titan and Madonna v3 in particular are good examples of long chainstays and high stack.
That said, the Commencal Meta is also a good example, particularly because it has iterated so quickly recently, going from pretty steep/low with shortish chainstays (2019 model), overpivoted on the trend with suuuuper long and slack with very short chainstays (2020 model), and they've been slowly been making it steeper in HTA, longer in chainstays, and taller in stack since then.
I've been arguing this same thing for the past few years here in the comments section (and other places). Longer chainstays enable more front end grip (at the same stack), or more stack (same front end grip), or a combination of both. And for taller people, that is more acutely noticeable.
Chainstay length, Reach, and Stack are the main measurements I look at when I look at a bikes geo, and if it will fit/suit me.
Buddy has been threatening to +2 angleset his Spire for a while now.
Very curious how you've gotten on with it.
Cool stuff to change yer Spire around a bit....I'll volunteer for the full Cascade link, 180 fork, +1 angleset, mullet set up if youd like....
I'd like to make a general suggestion to the group.
Would it be naive of me t suggest there is no "right" or "best" and certainly no need for "arguing" our own personal opinion?
Would it be crazy to think that there is only "different" and that all different setups are just a series of compromises on the any given trail? Like a long chainstay might be better for some on the way up, but be great on one section of trail, and be no where near as fun on the next section of trail?
Sometimes the compromise suits you, sometimes it doesnt, and there really is no right or wrong, cause its just bikes in the woods?
Of course. It is just biking, and it is a combination of preference, and "best tool for the job". And all design is a compromise.
In my other comment on this article I do mention that "for me personally" this is what I've liked. I neglected to state that here (sorry), perhaps just because I found it interesting to see an article stating something similar to my view.
If you're (the royal you in this case) looking for "maximum poppy bike", and have a "50:1 crew" or "Ride or Die" riding style, your preferences are likely going to guide you to a bike with way shorter stays (as to some degree, you could describe that riding style as wanting manuverability/instability). If you're racing (or ride like you're racing), you're probably looking for something more on the stable side. So its good to be able to find bikes that match those desires.
So yeah, my preference due to my body size/riding area/riding style is longer stays, and higher stack. But I'm not saying thats "best" for everyones preferences. But I am jazzed that longer stay'd bikes are becoming easier to find, as previously it was pretty hard to find.
This is correct, one thing Quinney fails to mention, is that modern bikes have gotten very long. The short chain stays help to keep the front “wheelie-able”. If these changes come, the bikes are going to get even longer and more unwieldy. They will be super stable , but good luck lifting a 34lb 1300mm bike with the rear axle, even further behind than it already is…
Why i didnt “upgrade”
my 20 Meta.
If both stack and chainstays grow, bikes might actually end up easier to manual than the current crop of low-stack, very-long-reach bikes.
How come there is never any Banshee in the bike field tests?
Maybe because they reviewed one separately, and they don't tend to have bikes in the field tests that they have already stand-alone reviewed?
That said, they certainly haven't shied away from including other smaller/more boutique/less mass market bikes in various field tests (Pole, Raaw, Unno, Contra just to name a few offhand).
VitalMTB did a field test a year or two ago with a Titan mullet in it, and it seemed to do well (iirc at least one editor chose it as their pick).
Maybe you’re right, but doing that will require a trade off some where else on the bike.
I suspect, higher stack and longer chain stays will negate each other, except that bikes will be longer and heavier, and still be harder to manual because that.
Both bikes are what youd consider long, low, slack. I dont think either of us having any issue with getting the bikes in the air, or manualling when needed. I have a shorter travel bike, but in the same weight range, and its more fun on mellower trails for sure, but obviously not as good on the terrain that the Spire excels at.
We are incredibly adaptable animals, and its not hard to get used to, and its not hard switching back and fourth between bikes
Agreed. People act like long wheelbase bikes with long chainstays can't manual. While the longer chainstays do make it harder to manual than a short chainstay bike, the taller stack height actually helps make it easier (you're standing more upright with your hands an inch or two higher than on a short stack bike). It may be a net-negative (or a wash), but its definitely not as bad as you'd "think".
However a Tictok dancer on a salary, as opposed to the other Tictok / YouTuber that is seeing directly proportional financial gains to their embarrassing non pro racer videos.
For Henry’s sake, I do hope he negotiated some form of profit share with his involvement in the video content. This one didn’t really do it for me, however I found his involvement in the pinkbike team to be very good and his bike show vids and pit walks are fun.
Really depends on the rest of the measurements, and intended use id say.
66* would be a slack XC bike, but not a Slack enduro bike, does that make any sense at all?
1200mm would be along Medium XC bike, but not a long Enduro bike....And so on.
Lets say 625 stack on a medium, 450-460 reach, is in the middle. Meta SX in medium is 639, Arrival 170 in medium is 619.
Spire in medium is 619, which is the same as the Arrival. Arrival has been criticized for its low stack, but I have never considered the Spire to have a low stack. its just another number to take into account with all the other BS numbers and such.
Always remember, there is no "best" and everything is a tradeoff or a compromise of something else
@naptime: Yeah my BTR (Ranger #166) is actually from May 2018. This fall I clipped a pedal on a stump which sent me into a bit of a spin and a crash. There was a crack where the seattube joins the bottom bracket and progressed into the downtube. Thinking of it, this small area must have taken quite a beating when this happened. There also turned out to be some corrosion at the bottom of the seattube so the area was already weakened. Burf is now building me a new one under his crash replacement policy. It will be pretty much the same as what I had (26" wheel specific, size large with a 400mm seattube, RAL6001M, ISCG05 mounts...) except that I'm not getting the decals and I'm getting the integrated seatpost clamp. I hope this will allow me to protect the frame with a wrap without creating channels for moisture and dirt (where the wrap would overlap the decals). And I was using a seatpost clamp with a lip seal but I'm afraid it might have been counterproductive and worked as a funnel instead, so now I'm just getting his integrated clamp instead. I don't have an account on Instagram but as you mentioned it, I can see the tiles on his page. It's a beauty, I missed her! I also noticed a yellow bike with what looks like an UDH mech hanger and I can't see what's on my bike. I'm fine with either. As long as I can just bolt on my good old Zee mech, I'm good
TL;DR: If BTR bikes match with what you're looking for in a bike, go for it. Just really think hard about what you're looking for as the options are endless!
Fun fact: DH bikes never hopped onto the short-fork-offset trend. Mabye because dual crown forks have made it super easy to swap between and test out different offsets?
Prime/Titan in xl, 650 stack, 460 cs, 495 reach, 65 HA, FC:RC ratio of 1.8
If you fit the L with 450 cs, or the XL with a 460 cs, perfect balance.
RAAW is basically the same. Lots of well balanced mediums out there from other companies, always have been.
Yep, this.
I went from a Kona Process 153 29'er, with 425mm chainstays, and like 621mm of stack that had a FC/RC ratio of ~1.9, to the Banshee Titan (FC/RC ratio of 1.8 in size L as mentioned, with 452mm chainstays, and 647mm stack) and immediately felt an improvement for me/my riding style/location.
Yeah, frame to frame variance is a thing, I was just going by spec sheet geo. I haven't measured mine.
I've also got mine with using a fork with a longer A2C, so the stack is higher/reach is shorter (calc says 467mm reach 652mm stack).
Have wanted to try out the longer dropouts, just to see how it feels, but haven't done it yet. But that would also push the FC/RC ratio even lower if one was wanting that.
Also, Forbidden bikes are really interesting for this reason. They're one of the few brands who seem to try to keep the FC/RC ratio the same across sizes. If the seat tube length on the XL dreadnought was shorter, I may have one of those already (the L is a smidge small for me :/).
Trying to dial in my v2 prime. Wanted a burlier fork so scored on a 38 that was already at 170. Bike had a -2 angleset in and it feels like a MFing chopper. Might need to mellow something out lol.
It’s really just a way of looking at bike geo, that will tell you something about its weight distribution.
It’s super simple. It’s literally just the number you get when you divide the front center of the bike (distance from BB to front axle), by the rear center (distance between BB and rear axle, ie, chainstay length).
A bigger number means more wheelbase in front of the BB than a bike with a smaller number.
If you put a -2 angle set in, and a longer fork, the “waaaayyyyy” choppered out feeling is from your front center getting super long, and not having enough grip (weight on it). To fix that either lower your bar height/stem, get a longer stem, or get the long dropouts to add some chainstay length.
Got my lightly used XL prime w/ DHX coil on it when my L prime cracked. Had an angleset in when I got it. Took it on some fast DH trails on friday and it absolutely plowed at speed. I was amazed.
so sitting somewhere around 64* HA, 448 CS, 650 Stack (approx) but only 480 Reach (approx)
The Stack, seems high, or would for me anyway, the rest seems like a Large Transition Sentinel.
I'd drop that fork to 160, and see what you think.
Then keep on keeping on my man!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=imgGyD6waTA
The Spire is a pretty "out there" bike, it really seems to sit on the edge of sillyness, when it comes to geo. It works so well in some areas, and struggles in others, but is much more playful than i ever would have imagined on paper
So instead we get to read about how this goof ball loves headset routing, 2 Cross wheels, spokes made of strings, and now steep geometry.
The rock gardens were hell. The steeps were hell, the jumps were based on small trail features i normally just ignored while looking for something big to hit.
The amount of fun on the smoother tight twisty backwoods trails suddenly came back.
The very dangerous speeds likely to cause huge medical bills in the event of a mistake...dropped to normal casual and somehow very fun.
The climbs became interesting, (singletrack anyway) and the distance covered out back increased dramatically.
No more suffer the climb to get the good down hill.
Yeah, I also like head angles and bikes geared for the mountain tour, rather than downhill specific now.
But I don't rip. And I dont park unless rental bike.
I may be on the wrong site...
So why did you ever get an enduro bike? That's pretty much what they're for: suffer the climb to rip the downhill, and probably the best one-bike quiver if you like to hit park and trails (unless those trail are like totally flat, then maybe LT trail bike for best middle ground, but it doesn't sound like yours are totally flat).
My riding has improved with milder geometry. (My riding enjoyment on local trails I have to ride up and down)
I can rent decent rig for park days. Lift served. Tons of fun.
The enduro bikes are sold on to others.
Just my experience. Not trying to talk others into it...they should do what is most fun for them.
FWIW I agree with you, although often we need to try things out for ourselves.
Most moto guys tall or short - have a MUCH more sim position on the bike than varying rider heights on a MTB.
I'm tall @ 6-4 but run a S4 Specialized and run a fairly stock setup on my moto...they are very close in stack and reach, a very average setup for most guys.
It's part of the reason I like the idea of shorter bikes....if the tall moto guys run a setup damn close to the short riders why won't it work on a MTB?
Most top moto guys raise/lower bars maybe 20mm, push/pull them 10mm, seat up or down 20mm and pegs 5-10mm max.....so it's basically less than an inch in every direction from riders 5-4 to 6-6.
I'm no expert in either moto or mtb, but you are right here. Taller guys on moto just add seat height, maybe bar height, but they run the same bike the short guys ride.
Its always suspension setup with moto. Stiff for supercross, soft for woods/enduro.
Rarely seen is a long bike reach and maybe that is because you can snug forward or back along the seat to get in a good position.
Guys hanging back on a long seat never seems to happen, more riding forward almost up the gas tank is what I see a lot.
A long stretched out almost horizontal position is very rare, and not effective.
They ride forward, upright, and they rip. They also put foot forward and lean super hard while givin the balls on the gas.
Not even remotely close to mountain biking in terms of body position.
My guess is when your on the gas, you move back a tad to dig in, forward a bit to get her to slide and dig into a berm.
You cannot hit gas to set her up on a turn in, and no seat (dropped outta the way entirely) changes everything.
If the "effective reach" (BB to grips horizontally) remains the same, there won't be much difference if the effective stack (BB to grips vertically) comes from bar rise, stem rise, spacers, or head tube, for the aspect of climbing balance. There could be some difference for steering feel if the stem length requires changes to keep that effective reach the same.
So if a bike is designed with a high stack and you don't have to adjust it (add stack), you obviously don't mess with your reach.
There are some bikes out there that are designed with this flexibility in mind. They start off with a short head tube (and stack) and a long reach. So you can add spacers (stack) and reduce your reach. Or add a higher rise bar (stack) and keep your reach. Or you can do both or neither. Some people love that long, low and forward attack position as well. Short head tube bikes with long reaches are the most flexible platform. Add in flip chips at the rear and you can customize these bikes quite a bit.
Bikes that come with a high stack can't be adjusted as much since you can't reduce their stack. You're sort of stuck with whatever reach number you have.
What you're describing is the same as adding spacers and a longer stem...yeah it preserves the 'effective reach' but I don't want a longer stem. Riser bars (with no roll back) increase your effective stem length as a way to maintain effective reach. You can't cheat the actual reach unless you have a reach adjusting headset. Yes, in theory you could buy a frame with a reach longer to compensate for the low stack but this make sizing a bit more difficult as you have to predict what it will feel like once you add spacers, swap stems, bars, etc.
In the last 3 years, sb150, tyee, spindrift, altitude, stump evo, slash, fuel ex, Meta TR & SX, Alpine trail, Reign, tues, v10, sight, range, enduro Plus several others.
Im lucky to be in a position to own/have owned many bikes which lets me experience every design etc.
Wheel base is Always the same - boat or not(the general rule to this doesnt really apply to HP bikes due to changing WB)
I'm joking, but that's almost one bike per month.
A) we don't rely on "a centrifugal force" to help stand the bike up. Even if you mean "gyroscopic inertia", it's been shown that really doesn't have a huge influence on keep a bike upright. Bikes have been created with an "extra" counter-rotating non-ground-contacting wheel and they can still self-balance. It's more about the front being able to move laterally faster than the rear which allows the bike to move around under the CG to provide the inverted-pendulum balancing effect.
B) "handlebar flop" is not a thing in the context of leaning a bike and the front end lowering as the wheel turns. "Wheel flop" is the measurable metric and it lowers the entire front-end, from the axle up, not just the top-tube. If you mean "handlebar flop" in that it takes more bar input to induce a given steering force, sure, but that's not necessarily bad since it widens the input range, meaning it takes much bigger moves of the bar to put you in a bad position. Especially important at speed since too much steering input will either break front-wheel traction and cause a low-side wash-out crash, or if the traction holds you'll be thrown into a high-side OTB-ish crash.
C) I think wheel flop is overrated as a metric. Or rather, backwards-rated. Yes, more wheel flop means the bars will be turned more for a given lean, with no rider input on the bars. But there is always rider input on the bars, and more wheel flop means there is also more counter-steering force available from that rider input to help pull the bike out of the lean. It widens the range of steering and turning inputs, making bar rotation (steering) more forgiving while also increasing the effect of both hand and foot pressure in adjusting the lean (turning). More wheel flop doesn't directly make turning harder, it just makes riding no-handed harder because larger inputs are needed through the seat to alter the lean in order to pull the front wheel around with no handlebar inputs. Since handlebar inputs are a given for normal riding, wheel-flop combined with mechanical trail provides a nice feedback mechanism to how the front end is managing traction in relation to both steering and leaning.
With a longer reach but un-extreme slack head angle, you still get plenty of bike out in front of you for confidence on the steeps, but the bike is much easier to control through techy sections at slower speeds, or technical climbing. 63.5 is still fine, but sub 63 I’ll not sure about…
Have tried pretty much everything from 68 down to 62 and inbetween.
Levi used to talk about steep angles helping him when "breathing through my eyeballs (eyelids?)", and I never understood that because steep HTA requires more preciseness in steering inputs, and precision hand-movement seems like something that would go out the door early when eye-breathing.
Traditional XC geometry put a lot of weight on front wheel to the point that you get enough grip from slicker and faster front tires.
Make HTA slack and front wheel kick forward then suddenly, you need a more aggressive and slower front tire.
My current bike is 63°, and the extended front-end length of this head angle makes the weight balance too back-heavy.
I've attempted a lot (longer stem, lower handlebars, knobbier front tire, rolling my handlebars forward) to combat this, but it looks like I'll have to get a different frame for the steeper head angle alone.
Squamish was the only place it was ideal for, and that was mostly 90° slabs lol.
Steepened it up a degree and everything clicked into place all around.
Some of this is front center length but I also think a lot of this has to do with steering geometry. The same feeling use to occur at steeper head angles when longer offset forks were the norm. I would highly recommend trying the below before moving to a different frame:
+1.5-2 degree angleset (any angleset installed backwards will give you this. Works makes a nice 1.5deg one and Wolftooth a nice 2 deg angleset)
40-45mm stem (seems to play the best with short offset forks)
A 1.5 degree anglset would bring the head angle from 63 to 64deg (angle change is not 1:1 with head angle change), shorten the reach by 5mm, raise the stack by 4mm, and shorten the front center by 17mm. The combination of everything will likely help a huge amount.
One of the best things is that you can start to feel "safe" with respect to being behind the front axle while still having some nice bend in your arms and be standing over the BB in a nice strong position, as opposed to being in the back-seat with mostly straight arms and effectively doing a wall-sit with your legs in a fairly weak and useless position.
It takes some getting used to, and the tweaks you mentioned all can help, but the real help is changing your mindset and position. Thinking more about staying in the middle of the bike and driving the front, since you can load it way more relative to the back while still not overloading it and risking an OTB, can really help with the "always washing out" feeling. You can still get way back if you really need to, but you'll find much less need for the straight-arms wall-sit quad-burning position.
Of course, it could just be too much front-center for you and a smaller size or steeper HTA may be the best solution, but instead of thinking "it's too back-heavy", I like to think of it as "there is so much more room to make it (relatively) front-heavy when needed". More space to "ride the fork" while staying "safe" from OTB.
Why would a +1.5 angleset decrease the reach? It's either pushing the top bearing forward or the bottom bearing backward, both of which are going to move the bars away from the rider by steepening the steerer tube angle. The raising of the front end will reduce the frame reach a bit, but the reach decrease from that will be less than the increase in stack, so close to break-even or better for reach when combined with the steerer angle increase.
And based on their own pictures, both Works and WolfTooth get the new angles by offsetting the upper bearing for most headsets. Certain types & sizes (EC56) offset the bottom bearing, but unless the stem is absolutely slammed, it's still going to move the stem & bars forward a tad, not back. And if you're trying this steep and tall thing, you're probably not slamming the stem since you want more stack.
This sentence was poorly worded "The reach reduction is from an increase in stack with a bottom cup offset" but was combining two things. I am assuming a bottom cup offset, and therefor the only reach change will be from the inherent stack change.
Reach is not measured to stem and bars it is measured to centre of upper headset cup. If you use an upper headset adjust then the reach impacts will largely be washed out. In any event 4mm of reach will not be the the primary impact when making the change.
Yes, reach is measured where you said, but the effective reach of where the grips are is the real important measurement. If the reach at the cup changes but the reach at the grips doesn't change, should it even count as a change in reach? I say no.
*Why did you assume it's the bottom cup? Did you not even look at the available products?
The Raised height helps improve the riders stance with a better arm angle to the bars for confidence, proper bend in the elbows for control, and more rider weight supported by their legs instead of hands. It also gives a longer lever between their hands and feet to give them more leverage for maneuvering the bike. These help the rider to feel more comfortable and confident, and makes the bike more maneuverable.
The Reversed offset improves and calms the steering dynamics. Since it arcs out instead of in when turning relative to the frame, it allows the rider to position themselves on the outside of the bike when cornering to load their side knobs properly while also leaning the bike in further for a kinematically tighter turn. The hand to front axle position parallels a 59 degree headtube angle for ultimate confidence in steep terrain, with a steering feel that is less floppy and more direct than the stock headtube angle of the bike with a traditional stem. These help the rider corner much better with improved feel of the front end, keep better balance in loose terrain, and feel more confident in steep terrain.
I am consistently significantly faster riding on a bike with the RR stem relative to traditional 50mm - 35mm stems. I have gotten better race results, such as when I won the Southridge USA DH Expert Men 19-29 race with a time 3 seconds faster than 3rd place in Pro Men, and I can now ride more technical terrain and bigger jumps than I ever could before using the RR stem. The RR stem has been in development for over 3 years testing all kinds of different heights and offsets on various bikes and terrain, always benchmarking against the traditional 50mm - 35mm stem. I tested anything from below traditional height to about 80mm taller than the RR stem you see here, and 70mm offset forward all the way to 70mm offset Reversed. The RR stem that I now sell on the Be More Bikes website:
bemorebikes.com
is the culmination of all of that testing to find the best Enduro mtb stem geometry with a -15mm Reversed offset. If you have any questions please leave a reply, or check out my Tech and FAQ’s page here:
bemorebikes.com/tech-and-faqs.html
I love having discussions.
youtu.be/lo9zK7gWef0?si=XlIqPG5x6-4h00oX
joke aside, rode XL so with 509 reach 649 stack but going for an L with 490 reach 640 stack. Shorter Reach isn't that much of a problem, but the stack is. Going with 25mm spacer and 38mm riser. To compensate the even shorter reach, i slapped on a 50 mm stem. don't get this whole 35mm thing anyway.
I have seen the assertion that a lower stack puts more weight on the bars many times but I really only carry my weight on my feet, with only enough on my hands to feel a little pressure and know I'm not hanging off the back. So lowering stack only seems to me to make the bars harder to reach while not affecting my front to rear balance at all. Maybe I'm weak, or old and inflexible, or maybe I just learnt on old and super short bikes but it's hard to understand how people can actually lean on the bar and still stay on the bike.
For perspective, I ran North American marketing for a major ski brand and frequently experienced pressures (often unspoken but nonetheless real) to spend ad dollars with those who alluded to favor with our products. It's a very real thing in these (& all
The difference in handling is profound, the highlander really is much more enjoyable on tight techy stuff and I don’t think it’s any less capable in a straight line than the chilcotin. I wouldn’t say the chilcotin was incapable though, just that the highlander is an improved experience.
Low and slack for bike park trails and berms, high and mid/steep for EWS enduro trails and Alpine switchbacks.
I find low is great if I’m doing full send type riding, so less chance of catching my chain ring or pedal striking, but if I’m doing more techy stuff I prefer it higher.
Well done.
The bike industry is going around n circles with geometry. Everyone has personal preferences and adjustable head angle, bb height, reach and chainstay length is always a bonus on a bike.
It does annoy me when so personal ideas are pushed on readers.
Until you have tried and tried all the different styles and geometry’s available you won’t know what is best for you. After 33 years of riding and racing I now know what suits me best. 475-480 reach, 62.5-63 deg head angle, 1310mm wheelbase, 445-450 chainstay length. Bar height from the ground on all bike stays the same at 1100mm
Every one is different found out for yourself it makes all the difference when it right for you (Not someone else or manufacture telling you)
I don't measure wheelbase, I think of it as an output of getting everything else right for me.
This is for enduro-y riding. On a trail bike I'd be happy with a 64deg HA and slightly shorter rear. Though I am going to try a -2deg headset in my Stage Evo and see how it goes at 63deg.
Increasing camber, generates grip. Who doesn't want to get more front grip as you steer?
I'd like to see experimentation with sub 60deg HA. Remember the grim donut...
All this to say that I'm on board with Henry's theory here: higher stack for DH confidence + slightly steeper HA to manage wheel flop when climbing.
There’s a lot going on even with minor changes to any bike and there are usually a number of ways to achieve a change in any specific number. Said change should be made with a larger picture of what it will do to every other aspect of the bike and subsequently its handling. It doesn’t hurt to strike up a conversation with a reputable suspension shop beginning with where you are (set up wise), what you intend to ride, and how you want the bike to feel. Just going to some random thread on the interwebs is a great way to invest a crap-ton of cash into screwing up a good bike. Keep notes and when in doubt, go back to zero (stock, even if just on paper) and think about other ways you could arrive at the “feel” you are looking for.
Keep up the good work Henry, your as entertaining as you are annoying!
I would love to spend a few hours in the pub discussing geometry, kinematics, stack and reach and how they really work, we could do some interesting tests to dispel your beliefs with ease.
If someone on the Mx position theory can show me some flat Mx tracks with big jumps and how that relates to riding down an average 25% gradient into tight turns at speed with roots and rocks and no throttle and the majority of the wight being the rider...
Enduro Mx bike v Gee on his old Dh bike (how diddy does it look and nobody on here could match the speed he came down the hill on the latest any bike!)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqBy1R7IMGE&t=1s
For example: I've been shopping for a new enduro bike and debating the between a M and L. The M has a 455 reach, 625 stack, 440 CS, 64º HTA and comes stock with a 42.5mm stem. To make it feel longer I'd fit a 50mm stem, 50mm rise bar and use 5mm of headset spacers. Perceived reach (I made that term up) is now 460mm and the handlebar height is 1025 mm from the ground.
the L has a 475 reach, 640 stack, 445 CS and comes stock with a 42.5mm stem. To make it feel shorter I'd fit a 35mm stem, 20mm rise bar and use 25mm of headset spacers. Perceived reach is now 455mm and the handlebar height is 1030mm from the ground.
Would these bikes ride drastically differently? I'd assume the biggest handling difference would now come from the CS length and different stem lengths, but what the hell do I know?! I'm not an engineer, and I suck at math
For riding on dirt in disciplines where cornering speed is the most important performance metric, the correct head tube angle is 63.5 degrees. If you want to change the way the bike corners, those changes are best made by adjusting stem length and fork offset, not HTA. It's not coincidence that every full size MX bike since the early 90's has been 63.5 degrees (=/- 1/4 degree), or that every relevant DH bike, and basically every long travel enduro bike, has settled on that exact number, despite wide variations in fork length, wheel size, fork offset, wheelbase, reach, stack, rear center, etc.
• Centre of mass: Higher for a mountain bike + rider
• Control over the centre mass location: Greater for a mountain bike + rider
• Average ground angle: Downward sloping bias for a downhill or downhill-priority bike.
The first and third points favour a slacker head-tube angle. The second point creates uncertainty. I have no opinion on the perfect head-tube angle for a downhill-priority bike, only that moto learnings probably need modifications for the different physics of mountain biking.
just incase anyone finds themselves in thesame situation as me 9 months ago. God bless you all
Next bike was a 27.5 (2016) stumpy with shorter rear end i upsized to an L shorter stem (50mm), up forked it by 10mm and it finally felt great once I got high rise bars on it.
Anyway love all this discussion as it’s right on point!
Cheers
I’m now convinced 63.5-64 ha seem perfect for most things. Look at mx bikes. High stack heights and a 63.5 ha across the board.
Looking forward to getting a Madonna v3 next year and seeing if it answers all my woes
There was a time in the early 90s when anything with a head angle less than 71 degrees was described as slow steering and old fashioned. Ditto bars wider than 650mm.
“grips roughly level with the saddle top when it's at full extension (so zero saddle-bar drop)”
www.pinkbike.com/news/importance-of-handlebar-height-mountain-bike.html
This happened with skis about a decade ago. Waist widths ballooned up to over 120 underfoot. That was overkill for all but nips deep blower. Now, the two ski quiver (at least in western NA) is a pair of narrower skis (80-90 waist) and a second set wider set (100-115 waist). That covers the most bases for maximum fun.
Both thrive in cold and sparsely populated environments.
You can see this trend in the new Madonna, also Nicolai have moved away from the 62 degree head angles and more to this approach.
My crossworx (which is a company started by a couple ex Nicolai guys) has 653 stack, 447 stays, and a 65 degree head angle. Same idea. I think since they were able to start from a blank slate they were able to apply things Nicolai have learned that are only appearing on their latest bikes now.
I am running it with a 170 Ohlins which is an even taller fork, for about 660+ stack and head angle around 64.25.
Less capable at what? Smashing down chundery steeps with no regard for line choice? That's one small aspect of riding, pretty reductive to use that as the sole basis for applying the label of "more capable".
And if you are reducing "capable" down to an aspect of descending, how does the slack seat tube angle and "stretched-out riding position" (which really should be "pedaling position") have anything to do with that?
I'm only 5'6 riding medium XC bike. Stock stem set my bar in a very tall position. A few inch higher than my seat. Small sizes don't have any lower head tube. The reach is just shorter.
I need FSA SL-K drop stem just to have my bar a tiny bit lower than my seat. A bare minimum for me to be able to lean over and pedal efficiently. If I don't lean over a bit, I don't pedal well. Then if I lean but the bar is too tall, I have to absorb the short distance between my shoulder and the bar with highly bent elbow. That zap a lot of energy.
Lower handlebar allow my elbow to be less bent, saving me energy for the lean over posture I require to pedal efficiently.
When bike HTA get steeper, that increase stack height on top of already too tall 29" wheels bike with full suspension fork (which also gain more travel over the years). NOPE. Maybe try steeper HTA for L to XL bikes. But please don't make S-M bike any taller.
These days, this 5'6 rider can still ride a normal adult mountain bike size M.
But if the bike keep getting taller. I'd have no choice but to migrate to youth bike.
Unless you only ride park
Autocorrect strikes again
And @ 10:48