Descending The usual script for an XC race bike when talking about descending performance is to say something along the lines of, "While it may climb like a stabbed rat, it's crap on the descents." Only that’s not the case with the F-Podium: it’s probably the best XC race bike I’ve ever had the pleasure to ride down technical and fast descents.
Where traditional XC race bikes can scare the bejesus out of you on properly techy and rough descents, and make you wonder how the world’s best racers don’t kill themselves more often, the F-Podium is a revealing glimpse at an alternative future where XC race bikes can descend. And not just get down, but I mean absolutely hoon down with all the whoops and hollers normally reserved for bigger bikes.
The geometry and suspension both come together to provide excellent descending capabilities. It lets you enjoy the descents, and have as much fun as you might on a trail bike. It’s infinitely more capable than any traditional steep’n’short XC race bike I've ever ridden; stable, planted, composed, sure-footed, all those reassuring words spring to mind when describing the F-Podium. That’s in the hands of a mere mortal, but I have no doubt it’ll be an advantage in the hands of a world-class racer. Granted, XC races aren’t usually won on the descents, but they can be lost on the descents. The F-Podium is your ace card.
Is there a downside? Yeah, that 100mm travel is still 100mm regardless of how progressive the geometry is. But here's the thing - the F-Podium suspension is very good and makes the most of what’s on tap. It’s got a light and active action throughout its stroke, with buttery smooth small to medium bump compliance, and sufficient ramp up for big impacts. With some bikes, I run less sag to stop the bike from bottoming out too easily, but I was able to run generous sag with the suspension being well behaved and usable. It looks after you and lets you get away with mistakes, and it doesn’t punish you if you take an iffy line down the side of a hill or through a cluster of ugly roots.
The Fox 32 SC is an excellent fork, one of the best in this class, but I couldn’t help wonder how it would ride with the newer and stiffer Fox 32 SC fork I recently tested, or with another 20mm of travel. The latter query could be answered by riding the “downcountry” version of the F-Podium which does get a longer travel fork and a dropper post. That would be the bike to choose if you want all the benefits of a XC race bike but for light and fast trail bike riding.
Ah, dropper posts. Ubiquitous on trail and enduro bikes but still a rare sight on XC race bikes. That’s changing: testing the BMC Fourstroke with its neatly integrated dropper post showed me the future. The F-Podium needs one, for regular trail riders and amateur XC racers who have to pay for their bikes, if not for professionals who weigh their pasta for dinner.
Lack of dropper post aside, the F-Podium truly gifts the rider that magical ingredient that all bike riders look for: confidence. It lets you hit descents full throttle, to pummel through the rock garden, take the high line through a mangle rooty corner, safe in the knowledge the geometry and suspension will help you to clean the line each and every time.
It’s fun too. Poppy and lively at speed, blipping from apex to apex leaving clouds of loam in its wake. You can easily manual the front wheel to combat obstacles. It’s great in the air too, the suspension copes with big landings nicely, but again, remember we're talking about a 100mm XC bike here, not a big and squishy Rampage machine. The frame stiffness is apparent when you stomp on the pedals, but on a longer 100km all-day ride I didn’t find it overly stiff and harsh.
It’s just really good fun in an "Oh my god I'm going so fast" sort of way. I can’t remember the last time I had this much fun on an XC race bike.
This is very much a "how does a race bike work as a trail bike" story, but then the conclusions are hardly worth writing about. Of course it pedals better than trailbike, of course it descends better than bikes from 5 years ago.
www.bicyclerollingresistance.com
weightweenies.starbike.com
...in all seriousness, the mainstream sites which cover both road and mtb tend to cover XC stuff from a more "serious" perspective. Pinkbike is clearly biased more toward the gravity crowd.
I think this might be the most XC-ish review I’ve read here on Pinkbike. But a negative score for having lockout on a XC bike, lol.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14763141.2016.1176244
jsc-journal.com/ojs/index.php?journal=JSC&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=260
commons.nmu.edu/isbs/vol36/iss1/25
Putting yourself in a shit pedaling position because the enduro bros think super long reaches and steep seat tube angles are cool and "climb well" is dumb. XC racing is an endurance sport, you might want to select your STA to put your in the optimum position to make power and avoid injury, not just pick STAs based on the newest trends.
so if you just want a STA as slack as road bikes Like 74-75, just get a Scott or a Spe.
Seeing the results, the 2 deg difference in STA don't seem to make such a big difference.
Also are people not using seatpost with an offset anymore ?
If you start with a 76 SA, your position is at already 73 on that 3 degree climb, with no reduction of seat height. Sure, you maybe a little forward on flat sections, but the average part of the ride when you are seated pedaling is generally climbing as you stand for downhills. So, wouldn’t you want to be closer to that 73 degrees on what we pedal on mostly, the climbs? On a fairly common 10 degree climb, do you want an effective 63 SA?
Additionally, those studies were based on road bike positions which are lower in the handlebars which shifts the muscle engagement to the quads and away from the bigger muscle group of the glutes unless you slide your saddle back. A more upright mtb position engages the glutes/ hamstrings more at the sacrifice of some quad usage, unless you slide your saddle forward. The above muscle engagement is due to weight shifts and balance.
Nino on a road bike:
www.mtbcult.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/20144462_226867_670.jpg
Nino on a mountain bike:
reviews.mtbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Stage-Racing-900x506.jpg
Another paper, although its too old to be really relevant:
www.umass.edu/locomotion/pdfs/jhms-1998.pdf
Overly aggressive setup doesn’t always equal limited power, hip flexion and back mobility are fairly critical to how much drop you can efficiently run. Not comparing drop to long reach. Hell even a change is saddle can impact power output.
The questions about maximum power within UCI rules is another valid point.
Because you know, science.
Road bike geo is also a compromise made with respect to aerodynamic drag as well as tremendous length of races, it is not applicable to MTB. As to TT (please put triathlon aside, I mean road TT) vs road mass start power delivery, that’s a joke of an argument, anyone can easily see the difference in average speed, you don’t need a bloody lab and professor degree to see how big difference we are talking about. If road races looked like XCO races, that is 1-1,5h, nobody would ride the bloody Madone or Venge. They would rather opt for something looking like Shiv.
Finally geometry and bike fit is an extremely loose sobject and mentioning facts and data in the sea of variables is something I would call rather non intellectual, defying the purpose of mentioning facts.
The reality is you are looking at the position of the BB, grips and saddle. You may fot a pair of 26” as well as 32” wheels and this base formula will remain the same. The positioning of wheel patches becomes free to choose. Reach is exchangeable with stem length until stem becomes too short, which is often when grips end up behind the steering axis. There is no point what so ever for road bikes to have such long stems, when reach can be increased and head angle can be sleckened. Chainstays can be lenghtened. “I want short wheelbase and steep head angle for going 90km/h down Alpine road, head first” said nobody, Ever! But it still happens because the roadie world is too close minded.
In the very same way people jn Garda level XC/gravel world cannot grasp the fact that too steep head angle is bad for taking sharp turns at low speed while they are chanting that they need that for tight maneuvers. Because they have no idea about the technique of taking such turn, that too steep HA gives tendency to tip into the inside of corner and as this happens front decelerates and we get a typical bars to stomach hands on the ground fall because front wheel is too close to riders upper body. The effect is easily observable when doing track stand (that majority of XC/gravelers cannot perform). The steeper the head angle the more body language and brake control is necessary. With long enduro/dh bike you barely use brakes to track stand on flat parking lot and taking your hands off the bars is much less of a problem.
There are diminishing returns to everything but both XC and road bikes waste plenty of estate for wheelbase trying to keep whee patches as close to each other as possible as if (paraphrasing paranoic concept by Chris Porter) as if companies wanted to save money on bike box size
You have no idea about bike fit, just the very fact that you cannot separate location of grips, BB and saddle from all other factors makes you a typical offroad roadie.
Its impossible to be "infinitely more capable." I'msorry, but it just sounds like a gushing ad at this point. The purpose of a review is to help us know how it compares to other bikes. Saying it'sonfonitely better isn't helpful. It feels like someone trying to sell me something. I appreciate the work that goes into these reviews, but it's not helpful to gush and throw buzzwords at us.
Fusion bikes got this idea first back in 2003 or so...
geometrygeeks.bike/bike/mondraker-f-podium-rr-2020 (the XC one)
geometrygeeks.bike/bike/mondraker-f-podium-dc-r-2020 (the downcountry one)
Not that's anything wrong with that seatpost.
A fine description of a fixed post:
"...It worked fine enough with easy saddle adjustments and didn’t cause any issues...."
1- is there a rider weight limit?
2- is the frame designed to take an internal Dropper?