Pinkbike Poll: How Much Further Should the Longer, Lower, & Slacker Trend Go?

Nov 5, 2021
by Seb Stott  
The Grim Donut
Will we be riding bikes like this in the future, or are modern bikes about right?

Recently I was talking to Evan Turpen of Contra bikes who said something which got me thinking. He wants his steel enduro bike to last a long time, partly because he thinks the transformative changes in geometry we've seen over the last few years won't go much further. He hopes a bike with modern geometry today won't look too out of date in ten years time.

Based on the bikes I've ridden, I think we're at least approaching the right geometry numbers for most riders. But then, some people thought that ten or even twenty years ago.

1999 FSR Enduro Pro
2020 Specialized Enduro
Geometry changed a lot in the twenty-or-so years separating these two Enduros, yet I suspect there were people at the time who thought the geometry of the bike on the left was pretty close to perfection

Certainly, I don't think we can make bottom brackets much lower without huge compromises to ground clearance. Sure, crank arms could afford to get a bit shorter to minimise the pedal-strike problem, but I'm already scraping my inside pedal on some turns even when riding with my feet level.

What about slacker? Downhill bikes have been hovering around the 62-64 degree mark for decades now and I don't see them getting any slacker. Enduro bikes are already getting very close to that (64-degrees is now the norm) and thanks to bigger wheels and shorter offset, the problem of twitchy steering or "jackknifing" in tight turns is pretty much eliminated. Sure, a slacker head angle might have benefits in some situations, but it also has drawbacks including poorer fork performance on small bumps.

As for longer reach, I think there's room for improvement in terms of getting bikes to fit riders at the extremes of the height spectrum better, but whether a size medium will get significantly longer over the next decade seems unlikely to me.

Isak Leivsson's homemade bike has 510mm chainstays, giving it a very balanced weight distribution.

One area where I think we could see change is in the chainstay length. For a while, manufacturers sought to make them as compact as possible for easy manuals and to keep the wheelbase number from looking too intimidating. Now though, brands and customers are becoming aware that a longer front-centre without a longer chainstay results in too little weight on the front tire in some situations.

Sure, some bikes have 10mm of chainstay length adjustment, but if you want to compensate for a front-centre that's grown by 100mm over the last few years, you'll need the rear-centre to grow by at least 50mm to maintain the same proportions and therefore weight distribution (rear-centres are typically around half of the front-centre length). So, I wouldn't be surprised if we see more bikes with chainstay lengths approaching 500mm in the biggest sizes. Of the bikes I've ridden, only Forbidden and Orange are in that ballpark, and there are clear advantages as well as some downsides.

But the point of this article is to find out what you think. So, if you could change the geometry on your current bike, would you go slacker, longer and lower?

Would you want your next bike have a slacker or steeper effective seat angle?


Would you want your next bike have a lower or higher bottom bracket?


Would you want your next bike have a longer or shorter reach?


Would you want your next bike have a longer or shorter chainstay?


Would you want your next bike have a slacker or steeper head angle?


In general how much further should the longer, lower, & slacker trend go?




356 Comments

  • 285 8
 I for one haven't ridden a trailbike that is too slack... My sentinel has a 63.5% head angle... and I love it! I don't find it cumbersome on slower trails or technical climbing. That being said... I haven't run into any situations where I've said "this bike could be a bit slacker..." as I have with all of my previous bikes.

I think the big leaps and bounds will be with suspension kinematic, and weight/durability. I want a 26 pound Sentinel that pedals like a Spur, but doesn't loose any of the descending prowess and won't feel like it is going to break. I also want it to cost $2,000 and I want a unicorn pony and a firetruck and my own personal pan pizza.
  • 128 4
 Personal pan pizza.... I see you too are a man of culture.
  • 30 1
 make sure you turn in your reading list to your local pizza hut to get your free personal mini pan pizza
  • 33 1
 Reading all those books for the Book-It program in grade school really paid off in the personal pan pizza department. My very *own* pizza?? King of the world stuff right there.

I know the push right now is that 'weight doesn't matter' or whatever, but I call bollocks. Capable bikes under 30lbs that are durable and don't cost $6.5k would be rad. I, too, would like a unicorn pony.
  • 6 0
 @misterha: Book it!
  • 16 1
 @mikealive: So today people want longer bikes, but smaller unicorns? I've never seen "horned equine offset" on a geometry chart, but sure, bring it on.
  • 26 1
 Look at this guy thinks pan pizza just grows on trees.
  • 5 0
 I have. Try a Nicolai G13. It’s harder to corner than my Raaw Madonna.
  • 2 0
 My full suss is at 64 ( geometron g13) and my hardtail ( on one hello Dave) is at 62 degrees head angles. Fine for me, perhaps not everyone's cup of tea.

Not everyone needs to rise the same geometry. I'm 6"4 and these bikes fit me, same geometry wouldn't work for my 5"4 wife who prefers the flat fire road to steep single-track. 71 suits her just fine
  • 23 0
 @BenPea: Are you crazy? Short reach unicorns are unrideable. I need at least 500mm of rainbow mane or I go OTH every third ride.
  • 8 2
 @tall-martin: The head tube angle on a hardtail is different than on a full-suspension as there is no sag in the rear suspension of a hardtail. The hardtail is pitched forward at static sag. You need a slacker HTA on a hardtail to match a full suspension.
  • 7 2
 Unicorn pony, is that code for ebike so it gets past the filter?
  • 3 0
 I think the next step will be more suspension, back to 12 inches(thank you Bender). But with much more sag.
  • 3 0
 @mikealive: I would like a unicorn jousting horse. That way he could joust with the other horse while
I joust with its' rider!
  • 2 0
 @haen: yep, hence my full suss and hardtail being similar to ride I couldn't swap back and forward with my old cove stiffee with the ( super slack at the time) 70 degree head angle and the geometron, they were too different.
  • 1 2
 You had me until pizza…
  • 4 0
 I know it's a mistake, but I just wanted to say that 63.5% would be 32.5°
  • 4 0
 @Cerberon: I can never figure out how to make a degree sign on my keyboard... but yeah 32.5 degrees sounds a bit much. (Turns you have to hold alt + 0176 on the number pad... wtf... °).
  • 4 0
 @tall-martin: I feel like sometimes people don't realize that variety is the spice of life (and bikes). Just because I want a 78 degree seat tube doesn't mean that it's right for my friend that lives in Texas. Ideal geometry isn't a thing because the ideal geometry changes with different riding locations and conditions.
  • 4 0
 @Spencermon: yep! I went for a ride round my local woods with a mate. I was on my geometron with a 64 head angle, he was on his cross bike with a 71 head angle. We both had fun! He was faster up and much less happy on the downs. I was flogging my guts out on the up and loving the downs. No such thing as the " right" bike or right geometry. It's all just having fun in the woods :-)
  • 1 0
 I sort of agree, I have a Whyte G170 (65.5 head angle) and an Orange Stage 6 (64 head angle) and sometimes I find the Orange cumbersome on twisty descents. Not Sure about the 469mm chain stay either, in combination with the head angle it probably adds to the feeling. The seat angle on the other hand is way better at 76 deg that the Whyte at 74.something. Still have the saddle fully forward though.
  • 1 0
 Ever tried hitting BMX style steep jumps on a slack bike? Or pushing it up really steep hills? Lower stack heights help but you end up with the bars in your chest on the jumps and a bike that wants to flip forward when you push it up hills.
  • 173 1
 I would like to see reach extended to a point that you no longer have a seat, but instead a sling of some sort that your body lays on.
  • 22 0
 super aero
  • 40 1
 Inverted recumbent
  • 17 0
 Superdowncountry
  • 24 0
 @jakemcab I believe there is a south park episode about this...
  • 1 2
 This is called a Unicycle.
  • 9 0
 @jakemcab Your comment is of the kind that makes me click on these articles.
  • 10 0
 youtu.be/K24dHLA8zpw

behold the bird of prey bicycle
  • 3 0
 Banana seat and sissy bars like then70’s then.
  • 2 1
 Bro, you,d just have a reversed 160mm stem to compensate for all that awesome reach. No need for that sling.
  • 1 1
 I've genuinely been trying to figure out something like this - ive had multiple spine injuries and the simple act of sitting can really aggravate my symptoms at times. I think it would be neat to have a bike where its more like you are standing/leaning against some flexible post. Almost like a standing desk but for bikes. Probably wouldnt be good for full on trail riding, but could make long seated rides much more tolerable
  • 3 0
 @mchance: Are you familiar with a 'hornless' saddle? Had a friend go cost-to-coast riding one of those. You give up a little bike control/stability (can no longer influence bike with body english from legs), but if you are looking purely for comfort it may be an option for you. You could raise the height and nose it down to get more of a 'lean against' platform. Dealing with injuries sucks, hope you can continue to enjoy your bike!
  • 95 1
 I'd like to see geo progress to where there's a middle size again that fits average height riders, say ~5'10".

Industry averages of size medium with 445mm reach for people 5'8", straight to large with 485mm reach for people 6'0" is bizarre.
  • 52 3
 Yes a million times. The average male is 5’9”-5’11”. Why not make a frame to fit this proportion and then work the bell curve and sizing from there. As of 5’10” individual I’m always between sizes and always end upsizing.
  • 10 13
 I used to agree, but I find my 490mm reach Guerrilla Gravity with a 40mm stem fits me very well(although I'm thinking of getting a shorter stem). My old bike was a Kona Process 153 with a 475mm reach and 35mm stem and it felt a little short.

For reference I am just over 5' 9".

Everyone's different however and 490mm for a size large quite probably is too long for a lot of people my height and the ~460 reach on a medium is probably too short. With this in mind it's bizarre so many brand share moving away from the ideal 470-480 reach size Large bikes.
  • 7 0
 @bedell99: I'm 5'10 too, just bought a Nukeproof Giga 275 size large with 480mm reach. While I love the WB and HTA, STA of this bike, I would actually prefer to have reach slightly shorter with the same WB, but a bit longer CS. It would be then a perfect bike Smile .
Still, Giga is a hell of a bike and I think Im getting use to this reach anyway.

Whats funny, I actually was faster on my previous bike - Capra 275 180mm size large, but I feel more comfortable and planted on this bike and generally prefer the way it rides and how stable it is.
  • 5 0
 yes please haha
  • 4 1
 Yes! The xxl is long enough now. Just make 10 sizes now! 5mm jumps between sizes would be so rad. Or at least offer more adjustment. I wish more bikes had ZS headsets.
  • 3 3
 I'd like to see more focus on front/rear center and trail. Reach on a Medium Scout is already 460. Though weight distribution is also determined by suspension spring rates
  • 4 0
 @Fullsend2-13: I also own a GG. A Smash in Size 3. Its a big bike. When GG originally introduced their bikes, a medium was tailored made around a person who was 5'10" with a corresponding 465mm reach. It owned the aluminum trail pistol and its geo was perfect. Another item to understand is stack height and how it interacts with reach. Curious to see how other individuals who are 5'10" and what they would want for an ideal reach. My ideal reach would be be 465mm/470mm for a trail bike with 40mm stem. and 615mm-620mm stack height. For DH I would want a smaller reach. 455-460.
  • 3 0
 I'm seeing recommendations on some bike manufacturer sites suggesting a person that is 5'8' ride a large with a 480mm reach.
  • 6 4
 Agreed- and the Giant Reign may be the worst offender. 451 … then 488 reach.

A lot of brands hit that middle size range better than others… which has been one of my metrics in choosing a bike.

Ibis, Santa Cruz, Trek, Specialized… there are quite a few brands with a 465-475 reach for their size large (or ML) that fit me like a glove at 5ft10

Shout out to Trek and Chromag for offering a ‘Marge” (medium-large)
  • 3 1
 @bedell99: that's what they've done incorrectly for 30 years. Frames should be sized appropriately for each size. Riders deserve bikes that fit. At these prices it's what manufacturers should deliver.
  • 4 1
 @bedell99: interesting. I think reach is something that everyone has their preferences on. What works for one doesn't work for another. One thing to think about is yes reaches have gotten longer but so have seatube angles so although the reach is longer it doesn't necessarily feel that way because of the seating position.
  • 2 0
 @fnk: have you noticed the giga has different length stems depending on model!
  • 5 1
 @basic-ti-hardtail: None of those brands have a reach number for a large under 473mm.
  • 4 0
 @bedell99: Ah that's a good suggestion. I'm on my third low-long-slack bike and been testing for a couple years looking for an ideal. I'd say for my average proportioned 5'10" height 465mm reach is what I've landed on as ideal.

460 feels ok too, 455 is slightly short, even with a 50mm stem. Haven't found the precise upper limit, but 480 feels definitely too long. Rode a few 485 bikes, they all felt completely ridiculous, regardless of stem stubbiness. Front center/rear center balance is really what I'm looking for, and going extra long in the front destroys that feeling. (Stack is a factor in reach too, though stack varied by under 10mm on everything I've tried so far, making an infinitesimal difference in reach).


@Fullsend2-13: Mind you these are *standing* reach numbers, not ETT. And assumed paired with a modern steep seat angle.

Rode a Devinci 465 that fit mint, but didn't care for rest of bike
  • 2 0
 470mm on my druid with a 35mm stem and I'm 5'10 13/16" fits pretty well perfect! Wouldn't mind trying it a bit slacker for comparison but it plows tech!
  • 3 0
 @mobiller: I hope the bike manufacturers read this thread and realize that they need to start to evaluating ergonomics. I think a good range of bikes sizes based on reach would be the following: 420-425, 445-450, 465-470, 485-490, 510-515. I like what the Canyon Sender and GG did with adjustable reaches. It’s a great idea.
  • 1 2
 @bedell99: apparently they read this a couple years ago...these are roughly the reaches on a Hightower v2, for example
  • 1 0
 @ceecee: You are right. Just checked it out. I haven’t rode a SC in ages. The last one I rode was a Bronson about 4 years ago and has since progress by 2 iterations. It was a good bike but didn’t blow me away however they have changed so much since the.
  • 3 0
 @ceecee: I'm seeing Hightower medium reach 453mm, large 473mm.

Much better spread than most, but still mostly skipping over that crucial 460mm- 465mm range.
  • 3 0
 100%
  • 2 0
 @bedell99: For me at 5’10” (and long 34” inseam), a large bike with a 475mm reach would be ideal, but keep top tube at least 625mm (630 ideally). Kinda means achieving that ideal 77 degree seat tube angle gets challenging though. My Trance X 29 is 486mm reach and it’s a bit long, I run a 50mm stem but have tried it with a 40mm. The bike feels worse with a 40mm stem so it’s the long reach that’s the issue. The short stem just messes with the bike’s stability and balance given the long wheel base. It un-weights the front wheel too much whereas the longer stem combined with the long reach means saving sketching situations in the steeps gets unnerving. Otherwise, the added room while descending is nice. Seat tube angle is awesome at 77.2 as is the 629 ETT; out climbs my previous Trance 29 by a long shot and it was lighter. That bike however felt amazing while standing and descending due to its shorter reach/50mm stem combo that keep my weight perfectly centred. The long reach on the X means the other numbers that make it so good are achievable however so it’s a trade off game.
  • 3 0
 Disagree. As a 6'3” guy, size large has gotten totally dialed in recent years
  • 2 0
 @Fullsend2-13:
I think you’re focusing too much on one variable while ignoring other pertinent information like stack. For instance, I went from a 465mm reach to a 490mm reach bike, and it felt ridiculous until I lowered the stem 20mm. As a 5’10” bloke, a 490 reach can be tots if you don’t have linguini for reachers.
  • 4 0
 @spankthewan: Linguini arms lol My riding buddy has the opposite, T-Rex arms.

Actually mentioned it a bit up top: "Stack is a factor in reach too, though stack varied by under 10mm on everything I've tried so far, making (I assume) an infinitesimal difference in reach."
  • 2 4
 @mobiller: Medium Scout, Ripmo, Mojo, Offering, Wreckoning, Clash, Meta TR, Mega 275, Spartan, Troy...

Satisfied yet?
  • 6 0
 Trek and Chromag both make frame sizes M/L. I'm 5'10 and run both these frames and they fit perfectly
  • 1 0
 @DirkMcClerkin: Sc Hightower in low > 470 Tallboy in Low >468

Slash ML in Low > 468

And Ibis is 475 …

I did list 465-475 as the range I was referencing.
  • 5 0
 @lone-ranger: lmao did you just give your specific height in 16ths of an inch? Do you change your height measurement before/after a haircut? Or is this with a shaved head? And socks or no socks? If socks, sport or suit socks?
  • 2 4
 @Fullsend2-13: I’m 5ft9 and ride a ht with 490 reach.. love it.
  • 3 0
 @dagzin: nice! Doesn't seem like mose people our height think 490 reach is acceptable.

@spankthewan very good point. However the stack on my new bike is definitely higher than my old bike the Kona. I extended reach and raised stack. Seems strange but it works for me!
  • 2 0
 @lone-ranger: This strikes home on a personal level because I've lived my entire adult life with a dark secret. I've always told everyone I'm 6'0 which is a lie. I'm actually 5'11 7/8ths in socks. Don't judge me!
  • 2 0
 @bedell99: even worse when your 5-9, and all legs. The 450 reaches get out there except with a 35mm stem.
I personally don’t really want to run a stem that short, but my current bike seems to favor it as far as handling goes.
  • 4 0
 @basic-ti-hardtail: I was going to mention the TREK M/L size, but you beat me to it.
It seems reasonable.
  • 4 0
 I’m 5’10” and all I want is a bike with 460 reach. Seems like they don’t exist. My current bike is 470 and it’s too long. I think my next bike will be a stumpjumoer evo. The size s3 I think has a perfect reach in the steep head tube setting.
  • 1 0
 @jwdenver: I still haven’t found my magic reach point. I’m on a Large SB100, it has 452?? I feel like I could go longer, but I need to try some different stems.
  • 1 2
 @jwdenver: ...Medium Spectral 29, Sqweeb v3, Switchblade. You're kidding, right? Evo shown at 448mm. If you can accept 455 there are lots of mediums. Evo Expert S3 happens to be in stock this a.m. though
  • 3 0
 @Fullsend2-13: I know.. funny thing is that I’m down voted for it… lol
  • 1 2
 @HumpDiesel: don't tell JW about Medium Yeti 130-165
  • 5 0
 @jwdenver: Tried a regular Stumpy yesterday (5'10" too) see if I could cram onto a 450mm reach medium with 50mm stem, and damn that felt short. Evo is even shorter at 448...

Struggle is real. That is if you are shopping for brands that you want to ride, and not just the few that make a proper average size.

Tried longer bikes with 35mm stems, stems that short are definitely not my jam. Accurate, but so squirrelly and weird. 60mm is worse, like a cargo ship in the fog.

Give us 460-470mm sizes! Dead Horse
  • 4 1
 @jwdenver: Canyon is 460 on the money, just looked into it. +$1000 CAD in shipping and duty to get to your door. That's a big nope
  • 2 2
 @50percentsure: Scout, Spire, Ripmo, Mojo, Offering, Wreckoning, Clash, Meta TR, Mega 275, Giga 275, Spartan,Troy, Spectral, Squeeb, Switchblade, Mach 6, Firebird, Jeht, Enduro S3, Rootdown...
  • 6 0
 @bedell99: I'm 5-10 as well and the 460 reach on my new medium spire is perfect. I like a 50mm stem to keep more weight on the front wheel so this lines up pretty much with your suggestion.
  • 4 1
 @50percentsure: I'm 6'0 with a long torso riding a 455mm reach, 65 degree head angle 150mm travel bike and it fits just fine with a 50mm stem. Riding everything except the gnarliest squamish/pemberton double blacks. Probably not suitable for hitting lines at race speed but I'm still riding fast at least for my skill level. Biggest thing is to have your bars high enough that you can have a more upright riding position, something all of the pros recommend anyway. Drop your heels, pivot at the hips Wink .
  • 3 0
 One Up bars (or other low sweep bars), extra wide bars, or higher rise bars help stretch out a slightly short bike too, but they're all crutches.

For a shuttle bike I'm ok with a shorter reach as long as the wheelbase is long. For an all around bike though I prefer my fit on the money.

I can adapt to most other variables, but cockpit length is a necessity.
  • 1 0
 @I’m glad someone said it. They probably still use fractions when giving their age haha.
  • 3 2
 @ceecee: Lots of good ideas. Cheers for the suggestions
  • 3 0
 @mtb-thetown: I’m going to go up to Bham in a couple of week a give their new steeds a ride. The Spire and Patrol are definitely on the list.
  • 1 2
 @50percentsure: Moir uses half a crutch, but it's in his contract. You'll get him straightened out.

Longer chainstays are a crutch too, right?
  • 6 0
 @50percentsure: I know, it's a pain. @ceecee has correctly pointed out that there are indeed bikes with 460 reach, but they're not the bikes I want. Ugh.
  • 6 0
 I have never understood why the bike industry does not start their sizing with the average height right in the middle of the medium size. Almost the entire industry is making bikes that are ill fitted to the median sized person!! haha wut?? Hopefully one or two more seasons and the reach on an average medium bike will be 465-470 and ETT something like 615-620 vs the current 450/605.

Medium Evil Offering is probably close to perfect.
  • 4 0
 @mtskibum16: Right it seems odd. Make your middle bike fit a person who is 5’9” - 5’11. I also think that bikes need five sizes to really capture all sizes.
  • 2 1
 @ceecee: The medium Yeti SB130 is money for me!
I finally switched the stem on my large SB100 to a 75, and it’s feeling pretty right.
  • 5 0
 @ceecee: Transition, Ibis, Specialized, Devinci, and Pivot all have 5'10" right between sizes. Other than maybe the more obscure models you listed, Evil is the only one that sizes 5'10" right in the middle of their recommended medium range. 460 reach is going in the right direction and getting close, but if the ETT is still ~605 it's a bike designed for someone 5'8" IMO. If you're 5'10" you basically have to choose which size compromise you're willing to make, because almost all brands design their bikes with 5'10" right between sizes.
  • 4 0
 @mtskibum16: And the marketing spins it like it's a good thing: "You can choose to go up or down in reach!"
Till you go there and actually try the bike and realize: "WTF, this bike is way way too long and next size down is for little people."
  • 2 0
 @DirkMcClerkin: exactly! "You get to choose how you like your bike to fit poorly!" Goes right along with "you get to choose either a bad SA or bad HA with this handy flip chip!"
  • 4 0
 @DirkMcClerkin: Makes no sense to me. I did some research on men's height and 68% of men fall in between 5'9" and 5'11". You would think a bike manufacturer would explore this and design a size to meet this large block of people. Same goes for average female. They fall in between 5'3 and 5'5". Now to be fair, each manufacturer might have a different definition on what is the optimal reach and stack for a person of these heights but they should start their sizing their. Personally I feel like for a person who is 5'10" this is 465mm however each bike manufacturer will think this is different measurement and make that unique to their own brand.
  • 1 1
 @mtskibum16: height doesn't take upper:lower body/leg length, stem and arm length, or STA at saddle topout into account. I prefer a DH seating position, am 6' and have one frame with a 429mm reach, 65.1d HTA, and 435mm chainstay. Another has 447mm reach, 65.4d HTA, and 427mm stay--otherwise identical. Frame one feels larger, and rear + front center, it is. How can you talk about reach without mentioning saddle offset at saddle height? Averages fit no one
  • 4 0
 @ceecee: I realize fit is far more complex than height and reach. What we're talking about here is that bike companies are designing a size medium for a 5'8" tall person and a size large for a 6' person. This leaves the MEDIAN height of males in the US directly between sizes. Why not design one size centered around the size that more people are?
  • 3 0
 @mtskibum16 @ceecee: Mtskibum16, This is exactly what we are discussing. "Most" bike companies are sizing their bikes during the design process above and below the median height of males instead of providing a size that in their opinion would fit a male who is 5'10". Ceecee, At 6' you are solid large in most brands. At 5'10" who the hell knows what size we are.
  • 2 1
 @mtskibum16: because the center is determined by where the rider compartment sits between the axles as much as it is by reach, which should complement seat tube angles/offset and stem length/fork rake for pedally bikes. It's okay with me if you want 42-44-46-48-50, but I'd still rather have an S1 Enduro, for example, based on sta, seat tube offset, and wheelbase. It has adequate front center, a nice reach to rear center ratio, and the working toptube is likely to be much longer given the actual sta, despite offset from bb. 50mm stem, like all the other Ssizes. All who think they know just what they want should be forced to get full custom frames and report back

@bedell99: larges give me a lower back ache and/or force use of too-short stem
  • 51 3
 I think more bikes should have meaningful geo adjustments. Take the specialized stumpjumper evo for example. It goes from a 65-63 head tube angle and you can change the chain stay lengths on it. Those are numbers that people are actually going to change to get their bike to feel right. Most bikes come with a flip chip with max 0.5 degree geo adjustments and most riders aren't going to be able to tell the difference between. I don't think riders will mind having an extra headset or chain stay part if it means they get substantial geo adjustment on their bike. There is potential for so much versatility on bikes that just isn't being taken advantage of.
  • 5 1
 I agree with you, which is why the guerrilla gravity reach adjustment is so radical and interesting.
  • 4 0
 If you're riding steep terrain you can slacken the head tube angle and if you're riding flat terrain then steepen it, makes sense. The problem is that's the opposite to what I want to happen to the STA in those scenarios (outside of shuttling). I think having some sort of angle set system is much more useful. The half degree flip chips are sort of useful for fine tuning against pedal strikes and kinematics.
  • 4 0
 @jeremy3220: The Stumpy Evo has a factory Angle set that comes with the bike.
  • 2 0
 @lefthandohvhater: Ok, didn't realize. That's pretty cool.
  • 3 0
 My GG has 2 shock positions. The shorter has 10mm less travel, a higher BB, steeper HA and a bit more progression. Takes 30 seconds to change and is very noticeable. Would like to see variable chainstays, seems so simple to put a flip chip in there. Other than that, low to mid level brakes improve and mid to high end drivetrains decrease in price. Generally think we are at the point where everything is good enough that brands should concentrate on making cheaper not better!
  • 8 0
 I want it all electronically adjustable on the go. Sram AI ( soon to be launched as Skynet) will control all aspects of the bike with only 12 separate batteries. Shifting, dropper and suspension are only the beginning for Skynet... I mean Sram AI.
  • 3 0
 @pink505: I know this was said in jest.. but i could see an "autonomous" shapeshifter concept in the future. Steeper/higher BB for climbs and bike adjusts automatically for the descents to slacker/lower/longer
  • 4 0
 @speed10: Guerrilla Gravity is basically the only company who got it right. HTA adjustment, reach adjustment and seat angle adjustment should be seperate from each other as much as possible so you can compensate the negative effects with the others if you change one. Specialized has unfortunately half-assed their system.
  • 1 0
 @BenTheSwabian: I totally get what your saying. Guerrilla gravity really has it dialed it. However we can’t down talk specialized too much because they are ahead of most other companies in bike adjustability with the stumpjumper evo than most other companies.
  • 2 0
 My problem is almost every bike with a flip chip makes you decide between a good head angle and a good seat angle. One setting should be the industry norm for both, and one an extreme. Right now they're trying to split the difference and missing on both. I want a correct bike not one that has two options for what kind of compromise I want.
  • 4 0
 Totally agree. The other problem with flip chips is they change too many variables simultaneously - I might want the slacker head angle but not the slacker seat angle, reduced reach or lower BB. Independent chainstay length, BB height (Acentric BB), head angle (headset) and reach (headset again) would be ideal. Then again, it's probably like a four-way adjustable damper in that most people don't know how / don't have time to optimise it. Convincing my riding mates to check their tire pressure is hard enough.
  • 47 3
 Give me more choice of bikes with a more playful geo, not everyone wants to be flat out all the time and the most fun I’ve ever had is on a steeper taller bike and playing about in the woods
  • 17 0
 I bought a little bike couple of seasons ago to complement the big bike. The little bike is comparatively squirrelly, poppy, and generally on the edge of death...and I love it.
  • 4 1
 I'm on board with this too. Was looking for a playful hardtail recently, but most folks have gone either XC or super progressive intended for long travel forks. The Stanton Sherpa is the closest thing I've found, but I'd love some options!
  • 10 0
 yep, according to all the experts my Cube Stereo with a 66 head angle should be un rideable but it suits me down to the ground. Previous bike was around 64 head angle and just not as much fun.
  • 6 1
 @nukedchipp: I agree with you here. Having fun is my primary goal these days, and ~66 is perfect. That applies from my hardtail all the way up to about 150mm or so. More travel than that and I've usually got myself into something I shouldn't have, and then I don't mind another few degrees of slack, heh.
  • 1 0
 @maximumunicorn: Esker Japhy. Wonderful middle ground. Rides like magic. I have had MANY hardtails in my life. None like the Japhy.
  • 2 0
 Thank goodness someone else feels this way. I have a 2013 Canfield hard tail that is my favorite bike most of the time. living in the Front Range, we can choose between big mountain riding and rolling, tight, technical terrain. And 2013 geometry is way better for that.
My long low slack bike is amazing at high speed gnarly stuff. But it’s impossible in tight technical stuff, be it up or down. The wheels fee like they’re in different places, doing different things. It takes a lot more effort to play around on.
66-68 is still a good head angle most of the timed or me, and an shorter wheelbase is ideal in a lot of circumstances.
  • 2 0
 @maximumunicorn: giant fathom is pretty underrated! 130mm fork, 66" HA, super fun
  • 2 0
 I agree..I have a gen 2 Slackline,its perfect,not too modern,but I'd say the gen 3 is still a little "oldschool" in the good way! Thanks Stanton!
  • 2 0
 @maximumunicorn: Pipedream Cycles offer a range of reach lengths.
  • 3 0
 Some good recommendations, thanks folks!
  • 60 31
 It's already gone too far. 75 percent of bikes or too "capable" for 75 percent of the trails most people ride. You don't need a 63 degree head angle on a trail bike, we are making bikes easier to ride at the expense of enjoyable/engaging handing for the majority of riders.
  • 41 4
 The bike you want is dependant on the trails you have available to you. Progress is good and ideally your skills improve along with the bike. If you aren't feeling challenged on your local trails, try exploring new areas to get the challenge you're looking for, don't wish for less capable bikes
  • 59 5
 That’s just buying the wrong bike.
  • 22 0
 It's not about need. It never was.
  • 3 2
 It all depends on what type of bike you are on. I ride the same trails on my gravel, xc, and enduro bike. All are fun and exciting. Yes, the bigger the bike, the easier it is to go fast, but that has skills on its own. But riding simple rock gardens on a gravel bike is painful but so interesting. If biking becomes boring, you just have the wrong bike.
  • 12 1
 I don't know about most people but I ride most of the North shore with 65-ish degree headtube and it's great. I had a bike with 62.5 and it sucked. My exception is the east side of Cypress I just ride a DH bike with a 63 degree headtube there.

Everyone wants what they want, I tried the modern geo thing and to me it's not as fun but some people probably really enjoy what I call a lifeless feeling bike? less to do for them when they are already having fun? Who can say really.
  • 3 0
 We should all just road bike to get the most engagement out of a dirt path. I agree.
  • 3 2
 I'm curious how you gained such impressive statistical awareness of the entire mountain biking community.
  • 2 0
 @CircusMaximus: Or riding the wrong trails.
  • 2 10
flag Jackson900 (Nov 5, 2021 at 13:36) (Below Threshold)
 @bobsaget: I ride the biggest jumps and gnarliest stuff the east coast has to offer on a 2018 jeffsy...maybe I should move
  • 3 2
 You don't need a 62 head angle. But my 62 head angle hardtail is also the best technical climber of any bike I've ridden in 20 years of MTB. It's also fine on the flat fields on the other side of town. Nothing, not even my 72 head angle gravel bike is fun on that flat stuff.
  • 9 0
 @BiNARYBiKE: 80% of statistics are made up on the spot
  • 4 1
 Just watch those poor single crown forks on the huck to flat tests. Scary with sub 65 degree bikes. Imagine the binding going on at the bushings. People really need to consider their terrain when choosing a bike and geo.
  • 1 3
 Head to BC and we will chat after a week.
  • 2 0
 @powderhoundbrr: I was quicker on my geometron than on a full downhill bike in Whistler. Maybe I'd got better in two years, maybe it was the bikes
  • 29 3
 I think you should have a marble for a back wheel. A 36er at front. A 500mm dropper post. A 1000mm wide bar. A horizontal head angle. A vertical seat angle. Everything made of plastic. Perfect!!
  • 5 1
 So what you're saying is all bikes should be mullets?
  • 15 0
 @DylanH93: he wants a penny farthing modernized for today's blue flow trails
  • 4 4
 @DylanH93: Oh yes. The smaller the rear wheel and the bigger the front wheel the better. It's more amazing you know to have odd size wheels!!!!!
  • 5 2
 @MattP76: I advise you not to check your testicles if you want to avoid an asymmetrical surprise.
  • 7 6
 @BenPea: How dare you assume my gender! Lol
  • 3 1
 Edgy
  • 2 0
 @MattP76: I ride a unicycle. Such an extreme mullet the rear wheel disappeared. Same size wheels on an mtb make me sick.
  • 3 0
 @taj please draw this bike
  • 26 1
 The reality is we've reached a point where...it depends! At this point, it's becoming more about the horse for the course. Depending on where you live, what terrain you have access to, and what style riding you favour is the bigger determinate of appropriate geometry. If you're living in, ahem, Wisconsin you don't need a big slacked out enduro rig (unless that's your thing, not judging) whereas living in Whistler you may favour geo pushing full on DH sleds. Grimm Donut FTW in Chile?!?
There's never been a better time to pick your poison, from super capable all-rounders to rigs favouring your conditions, there's a geometry for that. Long live the boutique builders, the people who will keep trying things the big brands won't risk for sake of bottom line, the little guys are where I'm looking for ongoing adaptation. God bless our fat tire renaissance.
  • 26 6
 Shorter seat tubes!
  • 5 0
 yes please, we have seatposts for this now.
  • 5 1
 I want shorter seat stays.
  • 4 0
 @pipm1: and longer down tubes.
  • 18 2
 Would like to stack height added to the pole.

As someone that is 6'3" just about all bikes out there don't have enough stack height to achieve a nice neutral body position when standing.
  • 1 0
 if you get a 31.8 stem, there are some good riser bar options. I have 60 and 70 mill rise bars on my bikes and they look weird but they ride nice
  • 4 0
 Stack height has been the best discovery for me this year, even though I'm only 6'. It's a number I'd like to see side by side with HT angle, ST angle, and reach.
  • 3 0
 @tttyyler: As a 6'3" I run 70mm rise bars on mine 632mm stack bike (+30mm spacer stack). Doesn't look as good as lore rise that I had before, but feels just about right.
  • 2 1
 As someone else that is 6'3'', I'd like 32'' wheels now. Geo will follow. And maybe the frame won't look naff for once.
  • 1 0
 Also 6'3" and I prefer a low stack height. Helps weight the front end, keep your center of gravity low, and works wonders in the corners. Sure it's a bit scary feeling on a steeper track, but if you're fully committed and riding with good body position it works better, even in the steeps.
  • 17 2
 Compared to your actual bike. So depending on what you're riding this poll is totally useless. Except for the last question about this totally shy and old school thing the grim donut is.
  • 1 0
 Of course! But interesting to see that for all other questions the most common reply was that the rider was happy with their current geo, no matter what that is. Now we can completely understand why the bike industry increments changes so slowly.
  • 1 0
 @the00: Makes me think of a story:
My dad had a 26, he thought its perfect. He bought last year a 2018 27,5, he thinks it's awesome.
As he has absolutely no idea why it's better and doesn't test anything else, he doesn't know what would better suits him.
Last time he told me about my Stump evo: "no way to pedal efficiently with a HA that slack !", he never rode a bike that slack before, tried it, find out it's pedalable and way better than his 27,5.
But still prefer his bike as there is no way to pedal efficiently with a HA that slack!!
So yes, we understand why the bike industry increments changes so slowly. But thankfully there is some brand who push something one big time to make things evolve.
  • 12 0
 To be fair: People should really be required to state what they ride for these polls to be relevant. If I had a 5-year old bike I would probably want it a little longer and slacker aswell. But I for example ride a '21 Norco Optic and it's as long and slack as bikes should be. Any more and I wouldn't like it. Context is extremely important to these answers.
  • 12 0
 For me bike geometry is borderline or has gone too far. The problem I see is that they are building the tracks to suit this kind of geometry and they're not technical or tight anymore. I don't know if it is the bike park influence, people not wanting to try and progress their riding because technical tracks are too hard or dangerous or the influence of slope style and jumping as opposed to 'traditional' mtb'ing. You can see it now in Enduro where the tracks are going back to older style dh tracks, raw and tighter and riders are now downsizing bikes
  • 11 0
 All I saw was, "Do you want your next bike to be more expensive, or about the same?" and the answer was a resounding, CHEAPER!!!!! but that's not gonna happen, so I'll just expect a downgrade on my next bike.
  • 11 1
 Part of the change in bike geometry has also been a change in the philosophy of how to ride a bike too. I'm fine with short chainstays and long front-centers for the most part. I lean forward way more now and feel comfortable doing so - but it took time. I was riding with one of my professor's husband and he has been riding a top of the line 2009 Stumpjumper since it was brand new. He was convinced I was riding wrong when I told him I just needed to get forward more on a corner I wiped out on. But when I did, I railed it. This is all to say, that if we're going to change bikes more, we're going to have to possibly make changes in the way we ride more too.
  • 13 0
 I think you could’ve run this poll at almost any time over the last 20 years and got the same results.
  • 1 0
 Exactly this!
  • 8 1
 I see the next frontier as “Master Bikes” aka old fart bikes with long chainstays for those of us that can’t manual or remember to stay over the front wheel all the time. They might also appeal to those that can still make it around a corner with 1-2 inches more wheelbase.
  • 7 0
 Don’t know if it’s camera angle or whatnot.... but on my phone those two specialized bikes have exactly the same seat tube angle, and if I’m using my calibrated eyeball, the head tube angle looks only 2-3 degrees apart!!?!
  • 4 0
 Maybe because seat tube on old bike goes through the BB, whereas new one is mounted in front? So looks the same but the effective is actually steeper on the new bike when the line is drawn through the bb
  • 8 1
 Whatever happens in 10 or 15 years we won't be able to believe the crap we were riding today. My Norco Shore 1 felt like the world best bike 20 years ago and I couldn't imagine a better bike, yet here we are. My current 2021 Altitude will be scoffed at in 10 years, and that is just the way it is.
  • 7 0
 I think we're really close to ideal geometry for trail/enduro bikes, with the biggest change left being a little bit steeper STA. I went from a Sentinel v1 to a Megatrail MX, and ended up with nearly the same geometry, but mixed wheels and better suspension kinematics. If I could take the 78* ST from my Sentinel and put it on my bike, that'd be perfect. Oh wait, that's the new Patrol.

Outside of geometry, I think suspension kinematics are the thing that's changing the fastest and will be the next thing that gets optimized. Look at how many bikes are made better by Cascade Components links. It makes so much more sense to have a stock linearly progressive curve so that people have the option of either air or coil, and being so much easier to dial in a suspension tune without weird regressive humps.
  • 9 2
 I've been riding a bike with 450mm chainstays this year, all my previous were 435 or shorter. I can say that this is the best cornering bike I've had. I'm on an XL frame at 6'2" and I think scaling the front and rear center is a good idea. I don't think that the 2-5mm some brands are doing is enough either.
  • 8 2
 I prefer super short chainstays 420-430 and basically no companies make this, but I also think that a wide range chainstay length adjust would benefit everyone and make bikes more sellable to more people.
  • 7 0
 One thing i've noticed is: bikes have gotten longer in reach but some brands cant seem to understand we dont want to lay over so more stack would be nice.
I've had alot of modern 2021 bikes in Large and at 6ft the best fit's ive had is on Nukeproof mega, Marin alpine and now my Altitude, hovering around that 475/480 reach mark seems ideal for a balanced ride, i've tried bikes that are around 490 but feel i start to get pulled forward and lose a bit of playfulness.*for me

Something that needs to grow.. is Dropper Drop, 210 is not enough for alot of people, especially when using like oneups with such a short insert depth. i have a 210 lifted out of every frame by a good chunk.. if someone makes a 230 drop ill happily pay a premium
  • 3 1
 Absolutely!! I'm 6'0" on a large V2 Transition Sentinel with a 210mm dropper on it far enough that I think I could easily go with a 250mm dropper.
  • 2 0
 @UncleChimney: yep, long inseam riders who want to properly setup their pedalling saddle height have been forgotten about, my knees cant handle being bent they have to nearly be straight to be comfortable(not locked out obv)
i see many many riders especially roadies who've biked for years now with knee trouble an have walked like frogs, and when i see them on the bike they are crunched up "but the shop setup my fit"

*we dont run with our knees up so why should we bike like that
  • 6 0
 I'll never forget reading a mid 90s mountain bike action magazine. The bike being reviewed had these new-fangled, wide, riser handlebars. The reviewer was complaining that they were 100g heavier than flat, narrow bars, and that it was RUINING mountain bikes lol. It was RC.
  • 5 1
 RC was an idiot. I still have the MBA issue where he came to the Shore and had his ass handed to him. Funny read. Even funnier was the admittance of his bike setup and how he walked more than half of the trails he went down. This issue was from 1998. I have never trusted mountain bikes and California in the same connection to be trusted since. Except Foes.
  • 4 0
 @blackfly: The Socal crew was probably on point for what they were riding at the time though?

The scene going on in B.C. at the time was in a whole other universe.

They just couldn't grasp how mellow their default San Gabriel/Santa Ana riding was probably, regardless of how many times they name dropped riding on The Shore lol.
  • 2 0
 @mobiller: I agree with you about being on point. Not like they would of known what they were about to get themselves into.....

The time of riding the Shore at that time will never come back. It was cutting edge and every year, every month, there was something new, new boundary being pushed. And the progression of bikes because of it is something I don't think I will see again. I think bikes are tapped out and as I have said I cannot see how a 75 STA and 64 HTA can be improved upon. I look back at the angles of my then Ellsworth Dare, a DH bike no less, with a 68 HTA. My Surface Ti had a 66 and it was a hardtail.
  • 10 1
 reach should get longer until medium sized people ride size medium bikes
  • 7 1
 I concur. All for progressive geo, but the sizing took a weird turn at some point. 490mm reach bike for an average height rider sounds progressive and cool till you throw a leg over it and try to turn or pedal...or go up or down a hill.
  • 2 0
 Do the 460mm mediums not work for you? I'm pretty happy with my Troy. I don't feel cramped and it looks like I can run a 180mm OneUp dropper. There's still a few coming out with ~445mm reaches and steep seat tube angles that don't fit at all, but most bikes are getting roomier.
  • 3 0
 @JayUpNorth: 460 is awesome, unfortunately Devinci is the *only* manufacturer I've seen offering a bike in that length.
  • 1 0
 @mobiller: Canyon Spectral is 460. Ripmo AF is 458, Trance X 29er is 456/464, RM Instinct is 462 in neutral. Marin and Transition are close at 455 for trail/AM bikes. It's think the trend is going in the right direction to fit the average male.
  • 4 0
 @JayUpNorth: Nice! Cheers for that. Been looking at a Spectral for the dialled geo, even though it has more travel than I wanted.

Fit>all.

465-470 would be ideal, but lowering expectations lol
  • 6 0
 Reach numbers gone too far with some brands. I ride a 2017 Pole Evolink at the moment. Newer models are ludacris tho. I’m 193cm tall (barefoot). 540mm reach in XL? Yeah, right… Got a 2022 Rallon coming my way!
  • 5 0
 I like my seat tube to slope a bit. When my seat is low, it goes forward which puts it in perfect seat pinch for my knees position for different tricks like barspins, tables and whips. Then when my seat goes up it is in the perfect ride position. If my seat tube was straight up and down, I would lose what ever style I have and it would position my seat to far back to pinch, but thats me.
  • 1 0
 I personally find it really hard to pinch the seat on a recumbent.
  • 5 0
 I'm still convinced the Ibis Ripley geo is best for me, in that category at least. Each individual geo number ticks the box without be too, long, low slack that makes climbing or pedal strikes a pain.
  • 9 2
 Head angles are about right, reach has gone a bit to far, and chainstays need to get a bit longer.
  • 4 0
 Was on a 525 reach Geometron with a 62 ha back in 2016 (I’m 6’1”) awesome bike but did miss the fooling around aspect of my riding so I got a small one and put a +2 headset in and a 220 dropper. Perfect. Think the numbers are 485 reach 77 sa 64 ha 445 cs. 340/350 bb depending on 29er or not. Works well all over the place.
  • 4 0
 Serious question: does the geo actually apply to tall-ass riders? I'm 6'5'' and I'm on an XL but I'm not sure the geo at this height & center of gravity, with the current weight of bikes, is actually as progressive as with shorter riders. I'm sure there's more to it, but its not a topic I see lots about. Maybe its just fine & normal - but being this big-bird size, I kinda think not.
  • 4 0
 We're in a good place now where you can choose traditional, modern or progressive geo. That most people dont buy or ask for Forward geometry / Geometron / moar LLS probably tells this just as well as this poll highlights it.
  • 11 3
 More cowbell
  • 4 1
 Well i just answered "about the same" to everything i love my ripmo af it became perfect after the cascade link install. I also have a 1 degree angleset and thinking of returning back to stock as ive lost the quicker handling i enjoyed in the tight stuff, its all about compromises isnt it.
  • 5 0
 Useless questions without asking the age of my current bike. Nobody with a 20 year old bike wants their next bike to be steeper and shorter.
  • 4 1
 I think the new Stumpy Evo nailed things with usable adjustments included with the frame at a reasonable cost… including the alloy model. Inquisitive riders can learn a lot from making these types of adjustments on one frame / setup.

I would love to see more brands follow suit - ZS press-in headsets that can take an Angle-set are great. Flip chips for chainstay length are also a good idea IMO… especially for bikes with slacker actual STAs. There can be a big difference in weight bias between body types, and chainstay length is a really useful way to tune for this.

My Tallboy 4 had an adjustable chainstay, which was fantastic. While I ended up liking the longer 440 setting, the bike had a different personality at 430 which would suit some riders better. (I was surprised to like the longer setting, as I usually favor a more playful bike… but it just climbed better and felt more balanced overall at 440)
  • 4 2
 Just a thought; I had an early Intense Uzzi DH in 1999 that had adjustable everything... leaving adjustments up to the uninformed is dangerous. Too much variation can be a bad thing. Getting it right from the start is a good thing. I do not like angle set headsets as the forces from the HS are now not uniform. There are other ways to increase/decrease a HS angle with a headset that offers non equal force loading.
  • 3 2
 As a Stumpy Evo owner I can totally agree on that, being able to adjust the HA from 65,5 to 63 is a really cool feature (plus the S-sizing let’s you choose from different Reach lengths). It’s a fantastic bike, for the next generation I would love to see adjustable pricing
  • 3 0
 I'd be hard pressed to say it's a trend, and say it's more of an evolution. Flood pants, baggy jeans, UGG boots... those are trends. Things that come from nowhere, and dissappear as quick as they came. We generally see a resurgence of these trends, like the current 80's theme that seems to be quite prevelant. No no, I think sometimes ideas might be too early to catch on, kinda like the 29er thing, but just as I feel it's a general progression, I feel the bikes may Plateau in evolution somewhat, but likely not going to regress.
  • 3 0
 I think the evolution over the past ~10 years is more to do with the fact that people started paying attention to geometry. My memory is hazy but I think in the 90s and 00s it wasn't thought about as much as 'we' were trying to get reliable components and appropriate suspension.

It has certainly changed the way a lot of people, including myself, look at bikes now, and (I think) proven that you don't need heaps of travel for a capable bike. I'd much rather be on a 120mm modern bike than a 160mm 2010 model of the same size, regardless of the ride.

I can't predict what geometrical parameters will change, however I think that we will all start looking into body kinematics and understanding 'mountain bike fit' a lot better, both as a function of the intended purpose but also the rider. It might lead to come interesting cocktails of geometric parameters.

On that basis... I think that, regardless of what geometry changes, bikes will become more adjustable (different rear triangles, flip chips that are significant, anglesets etc) to fit riders and their purposes better.

Personally I love short chainstays as I'm not that good and I want to have fun! So hope that the option for short chainstays exists into the future.
  • 3 0
 Back in the 90's most of my crashes were of the OTB variety, but on modern bikes it is more common to wash out the front or quite getting the right pop on a jump. For me at least, the key is balance so I can mostly ride in a neutral, centered position. I find that in a bike with ~440 CS, 450-460 reach, 66-67HA. When the reach to CS ratio is too large, I have to stay in attack position which just isn't ideal for a multi-hour ride. Pretty happy with my 2019 geo bikes now.
  • 6 0
 You're assuming there will be bikes in stock to buy in the future...
  • 3 0
 I think part of the problem is that there's still a decent amount of spread between manufacturers. There are plenty of companies who've reached a pretty ideal spot, and plenty who are dragging their heals.
  • 3 1
 Now hear me out. I know it’s a sin to say on a website that shows zero support for the company. But Evil has the best geo across the board on all their new bikes. They found good numbers and kinda stuck with them and made very very minor adjustments.
  • 2 0
 It'd be interesting to know roughly how old the average person's bike is for the sake of what everyone is comparing to for this survey. That being said, certain types of bikes have changed more significantly than others within the last 5-10 years and there's always outliers with different brands, so it probably wouldn't add much useful information to the survey anyways
  • 3 1
 Haven't you heard ? Steep Head tube angles make for faster steering response! You need faster steering response if you ride agressive. Eventually everyone will catch on to this astounding revelation. A 69 degree HT angle is 15 percent faster.
  • 2 0
 Bottom bracket heights have actually come up the last couple of years, on average, and are stabilizing now.

At the two more extreme ends of the spectrum, Enduro bikes and xc/light trail bikes are still getting incrementally longer and slacker, but the "goldilocks" mid travel 29ers have largely stabilized too.

There's always outliers, but overall I think the 130-140mm 29er with 65 degree head angle and 77 degree seat angle, plus or minus maybe half a degree, is kind of becoming a dialled machine for a significant majority of trails and riders.
  • 2 0
 Need more sizes! XS, S, SM, Ml, L, XL, XXL! Size smalls should NOT have 440mm reach, its insane. Smaller riders should also have the option to size down. You should be able to buy bike with sort reach and CS. Not everyone wants a bike that makes up for their lack of skill by being super long so they can feel "confident" and "go fast."

Also MORE adjustable Chainstays!!
  • 1 0
 Yeah at 5'7 I'm quickly being sized out of the market. 29 only, 450 reach size small, won't be long and Il have to buy 5 year old bikes just to be able to get on it.
  • 1 0
 @littleskull99: yes, and even bikes like the clash and furious that are supposed to be jump/freeride bikes that are easy to throw around start at 440 for a small
  • 2 0
 I thought twenty years from now we'd have more linkage front suspension (like the Structure bike) so the way we talk now about head angles is no longer relevant.

Plus a modern steel hardtail twenty years from now will look exactly like my steel hardtail from three years ago.
  • 2 0
 For us vertically challenged, 6'3'', modern frames have the same sizing as clothes. I can have a medium that fits my butt and waist, but comes about 30cm short on the sleeves. Or I can have an XL that feels like a tent, but still doesn't cover my ankles.
  • 2 0
 I feel like we've hit ideal geometry because companies have tried enough variations to land on what were difficult values to calculate due to many moving parts. Trail/feature design, ride goals, brake & suspension capabilities, wheel diameter, etc, all kept moving goalposts. But for around 5 years, all those things kinda settled into a groove and have stayed consistent, within a discipline band (XC, trail/AM, Enduro, DH).

I've always felt head angle is the Holy Grail for a bike and is like caster in cars. You always wanted to run more until it got weird, then dial it back a touch. Wider bars are a function of needing more "power steering" to deal with the increased HA/caster. Longer reach and steeper seat angles were to fix what has long been known: ideal ride posture. Slacker HA kept moving the bars and all the other variables get pushed around to suit.

Ultimately slacker HA allowed you to ride faster, which then necessitated slacker HA, and that cycle went until the next variable got in the way of speed and stability. We're at optimal HA for the speeds that tires and trail shapes let us ride, and so HA (and everything else) will likely stay the same until we generate more downforce, or run stickier tires, or just ride fast and straight....

Or just enjoy the rad balance we've stumbled into after 20+ years of trying things and breaking stuff. That's my plan, no more breaking stuff!
  • 5 0
 Till that god dam head tube shears off that's how far!
  • 1 0
 I need to try a modern bike that was built to be 64 degree HTA. But I honestly have zero problems with my 66/65.5 HTA on the past three bikes I've owned. In fact I had my Remedy overcooked to 170mm and disliked it so I went back to 160mm which felt much better.
  • 1 0
 I will be able to answer these questions when I finish building up my Kona Honzo ESD and compare it to my Salsa Timberjack. It will be a large change in geometry for me, as previously it was a 2011 Niner SIR 9 to the Timberjack. I have high expectations for the ESD.
  • 8 7
 Steve peat already showed us it doesn't matter what geo you ride and actually preferred his 2010 bike over his 2021 which goes against this whole longer, slacker, generation of bikes. Longer and slacker sucks in all aspects except downhill. So you may as well just stick with a downhill bike in the first place. Trail bikes are at the point where they are too long and slack. Sad when I blow dudes away well they're riding their brand new "dream mechines" and I'm on my old ass 26er with 2by drive train.
  • 9 0
 I think there's a chance those dudes don't know that they're racing.
  • 2 1
 65 HTA / 76 STA is about right for me.

But would definitely raise BB next bike, to lessen pedal strikes. Also shrink reach a bit to 490mm, from my current 510mm (XL Optic).

I'm right on the edge of Norco's sizing for XL @ 6'0", but bike shop enthusiastically said it's a good fit. My wingspan is 6'3" so maybe that's a factor.
  • 2 0
 For me wingspan is definitely a factor. I'm 6'2" and like bikes with less reach than a lot of manufacturers would put me on, but my wingspan is less than my height and I think that goes into the equation.
  • 1 1
 You cannot screw up a 75 STA and 64 HA. My Knolly Ty Ti has this and you cannot go wrong. I cannot see how it can be improved, either.
  • 1 0
 The STA is the key. A steep STA makes a long and slack climb and is one of the key ingredients that can't be overlooked.
  • 3 1
 After trying my dad's ebike (yeah I know, I know) and seeing how balanced it was I definitely want longer chainstays. I know they're not for everyone, and I wish more companies offered adjustable cs length flip chips.
  • 2 0
 Long reach short stem needs to go away. Stems can only get so short. I'm running a 35mm stem on most of my MTBs, but I need a Large frame and 170+ mm dropper due to my long legs.
  • 3 0
 The wright brothers built bikes, then built an aircraft. Progression is only limited by the imagination. I'm working on the byclocopter.
  • 1 0
 Naa, you want a helicycle.
  • 2 1
 People are not good at making projections about the future. These poll questions would generate the same results 10 or 20 years ago but geo has continued to change.

here are my predictions for bikes in 2030.

1. Seat tubes and standover will get shorter with longer dropper posts. Think BMX bike clearance when the seat is dropped.
2. Longer and size-dependent chainstays
3. Longer and slacker in general w/ a steeper seat tube angle. I have a privateer 161 and won't go back to a slacker seating position.
4. More travel as suspension kinematics improve
  • 8 3
 Long chainstays suck for tech climbing and anything besides super fast descending. And I think people will start riding less travel. “Downcountry” became a thing because people realized it bike has good geo you don’t need tons of travel.
  • 1 0
 As we stand now, we've pretty much explored the heights of progressive. I've bought lots of anglesets in my life, simply because just until couple years ago, most bikes were stupid steep (and flexy).
I've recently committed to remove the angleset to get my 29er enduro bike back to about 64.5deg HA.
It's made the bike about 2/3 inch shorter in wheelbase, and definitely much more manageable and enjoyable.
A slack and long front end is nice and stable at high speed, saving me from the odd OTB. But unless I rode super aggressive and deliberately pushed my front wheel into the ground all of the time, my 63deg HA felt like I was washing our halfway through the corners.
Sure, we can lengthen the CS to counter this sensation. This is how my Norco Aurum with 455mm chainstays and 62.5deg HA feels, and it's fine because it's a DH bike. I ride it for 2-4 minutes and I give it all. But there is only so much bike in terms of wheelbase that a trail/enduro rider can manage on a long and tight technical trail like those seen on EWS. Also, especially on my local trails, the 63ha bike made me feel disconnected.
Don't get me wrong, I still love my DH bike. But riding trail bikes with similar geometry is overkill unless we wanna ride the same DH trails.
  • 1 0
 Future seems more to me about people figuring out the high pivot/rearward axle path thing while making the bike still predictable and intuitive. Chainstay lengths and the mullet/29er battle with probably continue to evolve as well somewhat.
  • 2 0
 We've definitely gotten to a point where I feel that the slack geometry is inhibiting my ability to ride fast on tight trails. However on raw, fast and gnarly terrain the modern day bike is very good.
  • 3 0
 I think we've hit the sweet spot. Too long and it just gets hard to ride tight, twisty trails. I'm not interested in riding a semi-truck.
  • 1 0
 I think geometry needed to change because the riding changed. Way more lift assisted, shuttling, bikeparks nowadays than back then. I don't see that riding will change again to such a degree. Well...besides from e-bikes allowing gravity assisted type of riding on flat ground.
I think DH bikes havn't changed much (geometry-wise) during last years for a reason.
  • 3 0
 Everyone saying they want things just how they are now will still buy the next ‘greatest’ longer lower slacker SC/Transition/yt/yeti…
  • 2 0
 I couldn't participate. I just bought stumpjumper Evo and could not be happier. Wonderful meaningful adjustability. I do think 64-65 degree head angle is about perfect for a trail bike.
  • 3 0
 I feel like my answers don't quite fit the spirit of this poll, I'm still riding a 2007 Stinky Deluxe. My new bike seriously can't get here soon enough.
  • 1 0
 I feel like more and more pros are going to go for a smaller sized bikes. They do have their advantages. They are inherently better at cornering. Which is where the race is won on as quoted by many EWS and Downhill racers. I ride a very radical weird bike. I have a 420 chain stay which is one of the shortest 150mm travel chain-stays. And have a 450-ish reach with a pretty slack seat tube angle. This combo works really well position-wise, although my weight is too far back on technical climbs. But on the downhills it is super nimble and fun and way shorter than everyone else’s on the chair lift. I do think they will slacken the head tube angle more without further reducing the offset tho, but seeing the 37mm offset on the 27.5 forks I think it is just a matter of time before they bring it to 29ers. Geo wise, I do think 63 is as slack as needed for the head angle, you can definitely get away with steeper and definitely cope with slacker. And I really don’t think many bikes are going to be steeper than 80 in the seat angle department as it just push the front center out and start to put too much weight on the palms and the hands and ruin the mellower flowy downhills.
  • 1 0
 Have to say things have definitely gone too far for me tastes but A I'm old
& B my tastes are weird as FK!
I definitely won't be buying a new bike/frame until mini mullet is a regular thing or a 26/27 flip chip option an chain stays are super short with hella steep seat tube angle. Basically I want a bike that can pedal all day trail epics an then flow a set of DJ's, OH an f*ck pedal strikes!
  • 1 0
 I mean I love my Scout but, it needs a steeper ST angle an a higher BB. My old NS Surge Evo that it replaced was near on perfect, all it needed was a few MM shorter TT an full suss
  • 1 0
 Bottom bracket drop is about as low as I would ever want it now. I know it's rider error, but I've had some really nasty (and quite embarrassing) crashes over the past couple of years on slow easy trails and climbs because I forgot about my pedal position and hung up on rocks and roots. It's not so much of a problem when you're not coasting down some steep single-track, but mountain bikes need to pedal too!
  • 2 0
 Bottom bracket drop is less of geometry imo and more of a trail/style specific thing, like how suspension travel isn’t really geometry.
There were max-drop BB’s in the 2000’s on 26” (which isn’t much) that came with occasional pedal strikes, and safer, more reasonable ones available too. Just like today. The fact that the “compromise bike” (all mountain, enduro, or trail) is now leaning towards fast DH performance on controlled trails rather than slower clearance on rugged trails isn’t a change in geometry, it’s a change in bike genres, which has absolutely been happening in the last decade
  • 1 0
 without understanding what each voters's current bike's geometry is, this vote is pretty meaningless.

At 172cm riding a medium Geometron G1 (reach 495, HA 62.5) I wouldn't go longer or slacker, but I'm already way past what most would ride.
  • 1 0
 having just got a Titus Loco Moto - by Planet X - with a 77 seat tube and 62 head tube, this geo is almost there in my limited experience, the length of the bike could be a bit shorter, seat stays especially, having said that is so darn planted and stable as is - weighs in at 13.4kg having swapped the supplied non TLR schwalbe tyres for 2.4 DHR / 2.5 DHF combo. Some lighter wheels and a few careful component choice swaps and it'd be well under 13kg. totally acceptable weight.
  • 1 0
 We are all gonna have ebikes so a lot of the geo/tech related to climbing will stop advancing on bigger bikes and it'll all focus on dh performance. Bikes are pretty good now on the geo front. 1.5 years in on my Rimpo and I really don't have anything I care to change. Could maybe be a touch slacker but it wouldn't be a game changer. Just my take.
  • 1 0
 The big question is what small change brings about the next big change? Reduced fork offset made slacker head angles more rideable all around..

It looks like some of the geo numbers are starting to settle a bit.. But, options are still out there for people that want longer, lower and slacker..

For myself, my 2019 Slash has been seeing a lot of use this past summer since I didn't want to change tires on my smaller bike ( Giant Trance 29). It strikes a good balance to me.. Wouldn't mind a little steeper on the seat tube and a little deeper insertion. With my inseam, 150mm will be the max I get in that frame. That's livable for me, but it would be nice to have the option for more.

I personally am not a huge fan of long reach and short stems.. I think it takes too much weight off the front end. Not a bad thing if you are riding standing and attacking, but for the times you are riding at under 80%, you get a lot of front end push.. I'm contemplating a little longer stem on my Slash.. +10 is where I want to go, but I'm thinking +5 is where I may end up.. Plus, maybe a little taller bar to remove a spcer and gain a little reach that way too..

And if you haven't figured it out, I fall into the category of old.. LOL
  • 1 0
 I think it matters where you ride. Honestly a 70 degree head angle is great on flat trails. And a 66 degree head angle is a little steep on straight down trails but annoying to climb straight up with. I know those are ancient geometry numbers but that’s what i ride
  • 2 1
 Bikes definitely need longer chainstays for better balance and more weight naturally on the front… thus better cornering.
Especially for those XLs and XXLs like I’m on. There’s no reason why my chainstay should be the same as the size XS. There’s a reason it rides like garbage. Do chainstay adjustment and size specific rear triangles and let there be balance to all!
  • 1 0
 Typical so see majority to say "about the same". If it wasn't for forward thinking and trend breakers we would all be riding Raleigh hone grown with v brakes still. Geo can change all it wants, suspension ect, Bring it on! Only thing I don't want is batteries on my bike
  • 1 0
 I'm not yur average 13yr old ex BMX star on steroids riding a plow. I'm a ratty old fading long-timer on gummies riding trail bikes. On trails. Single-track. It took me 3 years and gallons of annoyances to finally pull the plug on my soon to be gone plastic elite-brand trail/enduro squishy sled. To long. To low. Not enough offset. To much noise. To much plastic. And just gets uglier & uglier. A beer in the garage to stare lustfully at my steel & alloy bikes, while plastic stays hidden in the shadows - where it belongs. After a year or more of shopping new & used, squish & hard, metal & (yup) plastic, slacker in the head, shorter in the back, slacker for my butt, shorter in the TT & reach - I just pulled the trigger on a 2014 elite-brand alloy replacement. A brand & bike I'm familiar with & trust. One that will do everything ol' plasticky can do, and stuff it won't. I shopped new metal pretty hard. Back to being to extreme in the geo. Even the most conservative, that're worthy of a frequent diet of hard trail work. Geez. Untill the brands stop trying to sell us on the newer bolder BS, and we keep being mesmerized by the false claims - well - there are a lot of really nice, lightly used, and purty used bikes out there to choose from. Well engineered, well equipped, better performing, built to last, better to ride, and more pleasing to the eye when sipping a beer in the garage, and letting your eyes wander gleefully over your freshly washed piece of functional art, still dripping from the washing it just got after your day's mud-infused storm-ride.
  • 6 2
 Seems people pretty much want tomorrow to be like today.
  • 2 0
 I wouldn’t want to go back to it, but my Maverick ML-7 is a better bike for Rocky Mountain single track. My old Tallboy doesn’t work as well because it doesn’t fit!
  • 1 0
 I'm pretty content with my trail bike as is, wouldn't change much besides maybe a degree off the HA. But I would like a super aggressive geo 180mm bike for really crazy stuff.
  • 1 0
 Tough questions to answer given the bike to chose to base this on is my Torrent- I feel like it's about as extreme as a mainstream design is right now and its excellent, so I'd like to see brands follow suit for big bikes.
  • 4 1
 my ktm 350 has a HA of 63.5 deg... i don t see why i d need or want an mtb chopper...
  • 1 0
 Really? That is a very interesting contrast. It also has 300 or 325mm of suspension travel too though no?
  • 2 0
 @mastadon: yep... i believe it does... and it also goes really fast...
  • 2 0
 I am in the process of designing/building my next bike and just realized it will have a wheelbase of 1316mm which is getting interning to mount on my Ford Fiesta...
  • 1 0
 You think that's long? My Pole Stamina 180 with normal parts has a wheelbase of 1346mm and it's not even the largest size. I would be happy riding a wheelbase of 1400mm.
  • 1 0
 @THJS: yeah it is 60mm or so longer than my rallon in size XL. I'm not trying to push boundaries with this build, but it certainly is long.
  • 2 0
 I'm riding a Patrol - so lots of "just about right" answers for me.. don't want long chainstays, ugh. Although, I could still handle a steeper seat tube angle
  • 2 2
 Modern Geo is gold, everyone can find the perfect bike. Now to focus on things like Bluetooth brakes to save the weight of archaic brake lines, and suspension that does not require the clever battle between gravity and the earths surface to actuate it. With cutting edge laser guided actuators the suspension can very reliably predict where the wheel should be at a given time to promote the smooth ride we have come to enjoy in our *gravrev commuting vessels. (*gravity reversing).
  • 5 1
 To everyone who wants longer chainstays, you are wrong
  • 4 0
 Haven’t bought a new MTB in about a decade. Take that polls!
  • 3 0
 Good to know over half the people on this enthusiast mountain bike website are riding the bike they wanted to ride
  • 1 0
 I have kept my bike for a long time, I have a 2014 yet Capra it used to be an enduro bike but now with all the changes its almost a trail bike. Good value that 2 bike for the price if one
  • 1 1
 I have a 2018 XL NP Mega that has been going through a constant evolution of change. Long shocking, angleset, dual crown fork.... It's big and it's been interesting to assess how these changes have impacted the bike. One thing I'd say is that long bikes can certainly tolerate taller bottom brackets. Also, I always knew this, but single crown forks can't compare to a dual crown. Fore and aft flex and lateral flex can be a huge detriment to steering in certain instances. The two things for taller folks that I think would be an improvement from where we are now are increasing stack dramatically on larger bikes. I'd also be keen to lengthen chainstays to the 485-500 range and perhaps reduce reach slightly with an increased stack.
  • 2 0
 Here's a quick sketch of a 300mm, front and rear, 29" single pivot.
I kept it at a conservative 60 deg head angle.

m.pinkbike.com/photo/21600483
  • 2 0
 We think alike. I've been configuring a bike in my mind, it would have 250-300mm of suspension, either a 32/29 or 29/650b+ setup with a plus-tyre that is actually strong and supportive. Obviously the rear wheelsize could be interchangeable. The fork would either be replaced by a linkage or it would be a DC-USD fork with metal bushings and proper longetivety and simplicity, while still remaining nicely adjustable. The wheelbase would be immensely long and the BB would be high. Obviously a gearbox would be the choice for transmission and the frame would be metal. No bullshit-plastic around this machine. If this would ever become a reality, I'd be happy if the complete bike with rideable parts would weigh under 20kg. Even if the bike would weigh 20kg, it could still ride fantastically, if the unsprung-sprung mass-ratio would be good. I have a lot of other ideas for the details too, but I'm not going into them here now.
  • 1 1
 Have currently built a Nicolai G1, Mullet. EXT coil, ZEB air fork with SECUS. Size medium. 3.5mm mutator @seatstay.
180mm travel front, 175mm rear. 165mm cranks. About 59* head angle currently. The bike is long low and slack for sure, and at 35 lbs with all extras, its not super light, but after some time on this bike I am convinced this is a viable direction for most riders. Maybe not for the xc race crowd, but a majority of riders will benefit from and appreciate its stabilty, comfort and ability to tackle anything. That, and this bikes ability to change geometry easily makes it a standout. The weight isnt even noticable on typical rides. But people will generally tend to either gravitate towards change or shy from it as two separate groups- its our nature. And change and progression will continue regardless.
  • 1 0
 I would like to see more of this in shorter travel bikes (cross country) i think there is still potential. enduro and trailbikes are well adapted to modern rinding at the moment.
  • 1 0
 I think most people answering those questions had no idea, what most of those terms mean and how they affect ride. Also, those questions are absolutely useless without any context to which bike the answerer already has.
  • 2 1
 I wonder what the results of this survey would have been in 2006. My guess is the same... most of us think things are good where they are at.
  • 1 0
 Judging by the results that are in at the time of writing, looks like some people had pandemic money to spend in the last 2 years!
  • 2 0
 Ass to the grass. I want a HTA of 180 deg with a non existent STA. And the suspension would be like a formula 1 car
  • 1 0
 I see kinda liquid metallic self inteligent frame that adapts constantly the geometry... kinda like the bad terminator guy...
  • 2 0
 I wonder what the answers on this poll would have been in 2006. Bikes have come so far.
  • 3 0
 Geometry may level out, but suspension will ALWAYS keep improving.
  • 2 1
 Geo is fine right now until wheels get better. If wheels get bigger or/and forks are different, geo will have to change. Bit slacker head angle,bit longer chainstays.
  • 2 0
 Just keep the seat tubes short with ability to run long droppers and folks can size up or down so reach is less relevant.
  • 1 0
 This!
  • 2 0
 Top enduro pros downsizing frame sizes should be telling enough what is fastest
  • 3 0
 I don't think riding a downsized frame is inherently faster.

In my opinion, the case is more that in the hands of a top top rider the gains you get in agility/maneuverability with a slightly smaller frame outweigh the gains of stability/control with a larger one...so while it makes sense for a pro to go that route because their bike handling skills warrant that decision. I'm not sure going that same route means the everyday rider would benefit the same way, or ultimately be any faster.
  • 1 0
 @MegalodonMatt: i agree. Not black and white like i originally said. Depends hugely too on type of trail the rider is riding too
  • 1 0
 The TREND to adjust our 'tools' to make the terrain we ride on feel the same needs to GO... Riders NEED to start adjusting to the terrain(or ride elsewhere)... >.>
  • 1 0
 I'm on a Fuji Auric from 2020 and the geometry is pretty much bang on. Maybe the chainstays could be tiny bit longer to make it that bit more balanced.
  • 2 0
 i need head angles to be in the 30's and ill be pleased
  • 4 3
 Well... We've been there for a long time now. 34 degrees from the horizontal axis is the same as 66 degrees from the vertical axis....
  • 6 2
 @jrouellet: No it isn't.
  • 6 0
 @jrouellet: A right angle is 90 degrees.
  • 3 2
 I think for trail bikes we're about maxed. Downhill bikes could go a bit longer and slacker I think.
  • 2 0
 don't care (but actually I care so hard)
  • 2 0
 Penny farthings are the future. Just add more reach!
  • 1 1
 Can a new bike brand end all bike brands with the do it all flying carpet complete with a Genie that grants 3 wishes who allows one wish to be infinite wishes
  • 2 0
 To the point it breaks...then pull back a few tenths.
  • 2 0
 Turns out I'm very happy with my current bike
  • 1 0
 I'm waiting for the Santa Cruz Adirondack with a 55 degree head angle, 550mm reach, and 350mm chain stays for a size md.
  • 1 0
 350mm chainstay? You'd be wheelieing pedalling downhill!
  • 3 5
 I must be in the minority but I think we have gone too far, as someone who owns an sb165 there is little things about the new geo that I dislike, don't get me wrong, in the class of enduro I think the geo is much better than a few years ago....I just feel it would have been better if they approached like dh bikes rather than the super long reaches. Imo I would prefer a slack head angle and longer chainstays to dictate the wheelbase, slacken the seat angle a bit so you don't need your saddle a mile high to get full leg extension and maybe improve the situation of too loow bb's causing pedal strikes....and again shorten the reaches so we can rely on the slack head angle for safety and longer chainstays to make sure the front wheel is weighted for grip without needing to be in a pushup position over the bars in order to generate traction on these long reach bikes. Imo dh bike geo is much better, you can stay in a more upright position comfortable position whilst being safer, and having longer chainstays to let the bike keep the front weighted rather than having to actively weight the front....the longer stays weighting the front will also prevent the front lifting up during climbs. That's what I like about dh bike geo, you just ride them in a neutral position, you don't really need to actively weight anything. The problem with the longer slacker lower enduros is you do have to weight the front which is uncomfortable and not neccessarily safe, as the reach is so long, this then meant designers introduced short chianstays to improve agility and not have too lomg a wheel base so the bike doesn't turn like a canal boat, but thebissue with that is now the weight is rear biased meaning you have to be actively expending energy to balance the bike that dh biies do naturally. There is no reason dh bike geo couldn't work for climbing with the longer chainstays and shorter reach, just give the bioe the same kinematics, travel and antisquat as current enduros and all will be perfect. But I know this will never happen, people always want the extreme as they think it's better, if a bike like the grip donut came out tmrw everyone would want it, even though in reality is woupd be total shit to ride.
  • 3 2
 Please change the material from Aluminum to Rope so that it can get slacker
  • 1 0
 Maybe when have to run shorter bars, shorter stems and more bar sweep we'll have finally arrived... Oh wait, thats me!
  • 1 0
 Or maybe you're just on a size that is too large for you?
  • 1 0
 @THJS: Maybe you’re right, but I haven’t changed brands or sizes in 6 years and now this 3rd iteration is at my limit all things being equal.
  • 1 0
 Hey bike industry, we are now happy with PB data to back it up, all you need to do now is keep making stuff.
  • 1 0
 I think humans can adjust to situations (i.e. bikes) and the bike, before everything else, needs to be balanced.
  • 2 0
 Transition Scout 2019, perfect geo..... For what I do.
  • 2 0
 How do you know that it's perfect, if you haven't tried a "perfecter" geometry?
  • 1 2
 @THJS:
Because I can see with my eyes that it wouldn't suit me. Also, I'm perfect.
  • 2 0
 To all of you who think we're at the ideal geometry...hold onto your hats!
  • 2 0
 Geo is dialed now lets get the weight down
  • 1 0
 Wrong. Geometry still needs to be refined and the bikes need to be made more robust at the cost of weight. Why do you think a light bike is so important?
  • 1 0
 Doesn't matter what your geo's are, Everest is still 8,849m high and it ain't gonna pedal itself.
  • 2 1
 Reach numbers are too high now. I'm 6'5" and honestly anything over 500mm is unridable.
  • 1 1
 That's the most ridiculous thing I've read. I'm 190cm (6'3 in Hamburger-measurements), and I ride a bike with a reach of 510mm. I would be happy to go up even 15mm.
  • 3 2
 Shows you how people like what they are used to. Change is scary.
  • 2 0
 Exactly. Also, I've found a funny constant here, most of the people saying that the geometry is "perfect" or that it's too progressive, seem to be from the USA. Whereas people from elsewhere seem to have more sensible answers.
  • 3 5
 I hate steep seat angles, but they need them to fit those long droppers , these days 150 mm is not enough ( so they tell us), more upright, u can climb better etc etc, then they stick em on a motor bike.
  • 2 5
 you can always downsize / upsize if you wish with model geometry, I like the trend that 3 sizes fits same rider depending on his preferences, just add more size and stop calling the s/m/l

so by S size I can be on S3 /S4 /S5 depending on my preferences, which I like a lot;
As a parallel to SKI's you can have same ski model in 5 sm increments to suit huge variety of rides;

I moved from 455 reach to 490 recently id does improve bike stability, however I need to push really harder to get wheel size bunny hop
  • 1 0
 Until it stops selling bikes.
  • 1 0
 Spot on as always, Seb. Cheers!
  • 1 2
 We have reached peak geometry in my opinion, the next innovations need to come in materials that are lighter and easier to recycle.
  • 1 0
 If the technology is stagnant bike prices will likely drop. Yay
  • 1 0
 I want to be riding on a deck chair
  • 1 0
 custom Schwinn Stingray chopper style
  • 2 0
 i just slack my self
  • 1 0
 I wanna make my own dh bike
  • 1 0
 Same
  • 1 0
 this was a fun questionnaire for me
  • 1 0
 Why no to push further?u can always downsize if needed
  • 1 0
 Because that is not sensible at all. Why push the sizes bigger, when you could just add a bigger size? Also, we really need to dump this "M, L, XL.." sizing system, because it is pointless. This system suggests that you need to be a certain height to ride a certain size of bike. That's not how it's supposed to be, obviously your height IS the main-factor, but some people like a shorter bike to throw around in the park and some people like a bigger bike to plough through rocks and roots at high speed. So it should be so that, let's say you are 190cm tall, and and you're buying bike "X", the bike X has 5 sizes to choose from. You're fairly tall and naturally on the upper end of the sizes. I think that if size "4" would be the "perfect" size, you should still be able to choose either size "3", or "5", if you wish so.
  • 1 0
 @THJS: I stated the same earlier, yes, to S sizing from speech and other's
  • 1 0
 Ah, the OG FSR…she was terrific!
  • 1 0
 All new enduro bikes should come with reach adjust headset
  • 1 0
 I disagree.
  • 1 0
 Gotta buy a new bike.....because reasons.
  • 1 0
 Telling when the rampage guys dont want to ride dh bikes anymore.
  • 1 1
 3 words: Diminishing Marginal Returns.
  • 1 0
 What bike tho?
  • 2 0
 Enduro with steeper seat angle please.
  • 1 0
 Math rools
  • 5 5
 Slack is wack
  • 4 2
 Steep is weak
  • 3 1
 Longer is stronger.
  • 1 2
 How about the “I don’t really care about all of this” option
  • 1 0
 You obviously cared enough to comment here, right?
  • 1 3
 The answer is simple.

If pro riders are riding smaller frames and putting in +anglesets then we may have gone too far.
  • 4 0
 I'm going to stick my neck out here, and say you can't ride like a pro... therefore you don't need/want the same bike as them.
  • 2 3
 @Tambo: thanks.
Can I ride like a pro at 46! Lol
But I am gonna stick my neck out here and say you don't know who I am, how I ride or even if I race.
  • 2 2
 I want a strap on bike.
  • 3 5
 I think the future is in integration and not in further geometry changes.
  • 1 0
 I disagree in the sense that I think there are still loads of improvements to be made in the geometry, when it comes to most bikes. But we are fairly close to a good geo, though, especially some manufacturers. What do you mean by integration? Hiding cables, hoses and things like that? If so, do you really think that is more important Tha making bikes more durable and making the components actually more high-performance, rather than marketing mostly? Also, the gearbox is something that is one of the most important things to come in the future.
  • 2 5
 I'm on a 2021 Stumpy Evo...i can just adjust almost all the geo settings in this poll
  • 2 3
 Who cares
  • 3 0
 I do. But if this is an existential question, then it doesn't matter.
  • 2 0
 I care, a lot. The geometry is pretty much the largest factor, when it comes to purchasing a bike. That and it having a gearbox. I won't do the mistake of buying a derailleur-equipped bike again.
  • 2 4
 YAWWWWWWWNNNNNN
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2021. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.031365
Mobile Version of Website