Is there a point at which the whole “long, low and slack” geometry thing goes too far? A Malcolm Gladwell-ian tipping point of sorts at which front ends get too floppy and wheelbases grow too long to be any fun on trails outside of the bike park? Have we already hit that tipping point? Are we years away from reaching it? Or, perhaps it’s more like the weird, bald kid in
The Matrix who pointed out that the ultimate truth is “There are no spoons”…. To wit, there is no tipping point at all—no such thing as too long, low and slack?
If you want to skip ahead to the poll, now’s as good a point as any to scroll on down and drop your own two cents into the bucket.
If, on the other hand, you are up for a bit of context, read on. I sincerely wonder about this geometry thing. I’m not suggesting that I have an answer here. I’m not trying to pose a straw man hypothetical. I’m no engineer. I’m just a guy who’s lucky enough to get to throw his leg over the theoretical top tubes of every generation of mountain bike—a professional taste tester who looks at the 2018 round of bikes and realizes, “Huh. Everything seems to taste like enduro these days. Didn’t expect that from the cross-country bikes, but okay…”
I look at the new bikes coming out for 2018 (some of which I am riding right now under the cloak of secrecy) and I watch the head angles slacken further, the reach and wheelbases growing longer and I can see both sides of the coin.
THE PRE-MONDRAKIAN ERA
Let’s step back for a second.
For years, decades really, you could argue that mountain bike geometry was static—stuck in the proverbial amber. Remember when the 71/73 head and seat tube angle combination was considered something of a Divine Truth—this was how GodAlmightyBabyJesus wanted mountain bikes to be!
Keep the front center short, slap on a stem that looked like a prop from an adult movie and—BOOM—it was on like Donkey Kong. Short, steep and sketchy was the name of the game for roughly forever. Which is odd when you consider how the rest of the mountain bike was evolving at a blistering rate. We may have traded in our fully rigid, double diamond bikes for full-suspension hydroformed aluminum or swank carbon machines, but the dimensions and angles of the proto-mountain bike lived on, well past the point when they should’ve gone tits up.
Until recently, at least.
The past four or five years have been a sort of long, low and slack revolution. Sure, brands like Gary Fisher and Specialized had long embraced pairing stubby chainstays with shorter stems, lower bottom brackets and longer top tubes, but brands like Mondraker and Kona took hold of that particular dial and twisted that thing waaaay past 11, so to speak. The rest of the industry soon followed suit.
This made a whole lot of us (myself included) happy. More stability, a more centered feel on the bike….there’s a lot to like here. If you were a fan of the fun part of riding (i.e., that part where you actually descend), the shifting wisdom on geometry was a “about damn time” kind of scenario.
BACK TO THE FUTUREBut as 2018 rolls up to the curb and a new crop of bikes pile out of the clown car with even longer wheelbases and slacker head angles, I wonder if we might not be pushing things a bit far. I mean, if you are racing enduro or riding a bike park, the answer is “No, we’re nowhere near the limit of long, low and slack.” Particularly as brands begin to experiment with a wider range of fork offsets to help fine tune trail.
But what about people who want, say, something akin to an all-mountain bike from just four years ago—a bike with six inches of travel, that is biased more towards descending, but is still nimble and an absolute weapon on the tightest of trails? Maybe they aren’t riding Mach Chicken all the time or maybe they never go to the bike park or maybe their home trails just tend to be crazy-tight and twisted and a 48-inch wheelbase is never going to light their fire… Is that rider well served by all this?
You can argue two things here—and I often have.
(1) Just size down: If you used to ride a large, buy a medium instead the next time around; and
(2) If you don’t like the long, low and slack thing, don’t buy a bike like that. No one is forcing you to go enduro, bro.
Fair play. To a point.
As every new generation of bike seems to get longer and slacker (you can only go so low, thanks to pedal smacking), there comes a point at which even the size small and medium bikes have fairly long wheelbases themselves. Longer than some shorter riders, or riders who just preferred tighter wheelbases, actually want.
Second, as consumers grab hold of the long, low and slack trend, there’s a tendency to pigeonhole any bike that isn’t pushing the boundaries of that newer formula as some kind of outdated, piece of shit the moment it blinks into existence. I’m not just talking about longer-travel bikes either. Trail bikes and XC bikes often get measured by the same enduro yardstick. And, hey, sometimes the result is absolutely awesome. Those genres were clutching old-school geometry for far too long. Bikes like the latest-generation Kona Hei Hei 29 and the Santa Cruz Tallboy make a strong case for adding some descending prowess to shorter travel bikes.
But, again, maybe there are riders out there who really dug the original formula and are bummed that it’s becoming harder to find in even non-enduro circles. And it’s becoming harder to find those bikes because bike companies don’t want to put out a new bike that looks like the old man on the porch, who’s yelling at the kids to get off his lawn. I’ve spoken with more than a few designers from companies who’ve flat out said as much…and we were talking about their 100 and 120-millimeter travel bikes.
Every time a bike company has rolled out a new model this spring, it seems like the marketing spiel has been “We added 15 to 20 millimeters of reach to every size.” In some cases, that’s a great thing. In other cases—particularly when a bike company has been steadily growing their bikes in that direction for a few years now, the end result is some seriously lonnnng wheelbases.
Conventional wisdom holds that all design is a matter of trade offs. You generally make one trait better at the expense of another. If we keep choosing stability and high-speed performance, do we get to a point where agility and slower-speed performance in tight conditions truly suffers?
Have we hit a limit here?
Are we still a long ways from hitting that limit?
Or is there no such thing as a limit at all when it comes to geometry?
What do you think?
Give me knuckle-dragging low BB with 165mm crank arms!!
The folliowing is an interesting read... www.starlingcycles.com/news/2017/7/12/nailing-the-geometry-part-1-getting-it-wrong-to-get-it-right
How often does everyone here spin out their biggest gear ratio? Most people I talk to rarely use it, let alone spin out, yet we all occasionally wish for lower gears. I've become a fan of shorter cranks, super low gear ratios, and a lower than average BB.
Even if you think things have gone too far, the only way to find the optimum design is to go too far, then dial it back a little. I'm thankful for the experimentation.
I've now gone to 170mm as a compromise and I'm very happy. It's shocking how much difference a few millimeters here or there can make to a bike.
@hamncheez - roadie science is good for road racing, always, for mtb, when you ride on road or fireroad. Not among chunky sht.
I guess you get both ends on a FS comressing around a corner dropping the BB even further whereas a HT will only drop 10-20mm as the fork compresses.
It is probably why HT BB height matters more as it is static. FS you can change how the suspension reacts to give you a different feeling.
Put simply, like the Alpina motto:
Don't confuse fast with fun.
Which to be honest is the ONLY reason we ride our bikes, very few of us race and expect to win...
My point is certain bike suits a certain trail and terrain and riding style. He we are, trying to find one solution to every trail and every rider in every terrain in every corner of the world.
I'm all for experimentation and geo changes and extremes- hopefully we will achieve a situation where a basic understanding of what works where is acheived and there is a choice available to the consumer.
This reminds me a little of recent surfboard evolution. After the thruster was invented boards were tending to get smaller and thinner, when Kelly Slater started winning everything in the late 90s early 00s riding super thin toothpick like boards everyone tried to emulate. Sadly, not everyone is superhuman like KS, and the general public suffered. Thankfully, (and possibly because of this) a longboard 'revolution' gained pace, this also went in funny direction (performance? Longboards!) but the result now is a much greater range of acceptable sizes and shapes to suit the general surfing public. When bike geo reaches this point I'll buy a new bike.
I think this will likely be the answer too, but most of my friends prefer to have the bike for 10% of their riding as opposed the 90% of local stuff.
One of my mates has just bought a 100mm travel hardtail and he's having more fun than ever before. I've been trying to sell them on this idea for ages, same with old cars. You can do half the pace and be on the ragged edge and have way more fun! You sir are onto something, it's just whether or not Joe public agrees...
I think there are a few companies getting close to the geometry limits (Pole, Nicolai) and the rest will catch up in a few years. I think somewhere around a 64.5 HA is the ticket as you can alter it between 62 and 67 with an angleset. Reach of 475-500mm for a 6" rider seem about right and ST angles of mid to high 70s. OK you need to change BB heights, bar heights etc.
In coastal BC, an all around bike can't really be one just built for speed because our best trails (my opinion) are the steep and tech ones (mmmmmm, Treasure Trail!). So for me, when the guy at the bike store tells me I'm an XL, I'll probably end up going for the L.
My Santa Cruz 5010 V1 is the most ridiculously fun bike I've ever ridden. Against the common wisdom (and probably common sense)I ride it everywhere from flows XC to the most technical trails at bike parks and places like Sedona. Is it outmatched by the terrain at those latter places? Maybe...
Do I have more fun on a bike that isn't always the most stable and "fastest"? F**k yeah I do.
I far prefer laser quick handling, maneuverability, and the playfulness a bike like this brings me on every ride. I get worked on the more technical trails but it's always more fun for me. I'm even a little miffed that they changed the geo as much as they did for V2, which is why I'll prob find a gently used V1 frame when my current one wears out.
There are times when I wish I had a more forgiving bike, because it would be less tiring on some trails, but that feeling soon fades as I remember how many times that I experienced those wild moments where I almost lost it, which are sometimes the best parts of riding.
I decided I wanted to try something a little slacker and sold the Scout to get on a Patrol, while the Patrol is an amazing bike it just doesn't carry the same fun factor on a regular trail decent, sure when you get on a proper DH track it's better than the scout but having that super slack head angle and long wheelbase makes your regular trail just feel kinda boring.
Moved onto a 2017 Devinci Troy hoping that it would be the happy medium but it's got an even longer reach than the Patrol and Scout (which were considered long 2 years ago) and it just doesn't feel right. Having that long reach puts my body position is a weird spot for cornering. I'm either right over the front wheel causing it to be close to washing out or I'll move more over the back wheel and now the front wheel with be waivering about and not really have control. These mega long reach bikes make it hard to find a nice centered spot for cornering, sure its nice for wide open terrain but not if your in twisty fast trails that required a nimble bike
Hopefully within the near future people will realize the negative aspects of these super long reach, long wheelbase bikes and will start to purchase and demand the bikes that are just fun and nimble.
On the flip side, I had a 5010 and it was good, but I found it too steep and not quite as fun as I would like. I Got a Capra and that was too much travel and a little too slack. Now I have a 2016 Troy which feels pretty much perfect. I like that it has long reach, but isn't ridiculously slack, so the wheelbase is stable but still manageable when I'm riding something that's more "trail" than "track"
Also, much of the BB height question depends on terrain. In the NW we have lots of non-technical climbing and technical descending, and I think low BBs are great here. If we had lots of rocky climbing I might feel differently. I notice a lot of bikes (like the Troy) have high/low BB height settings which seem to address this.
I already think old cars rule, won't be long til I look back on bikes in the same manner the ways they're going....
The problem is so many people were sizing up, at 5'10" I was always sizing up to large, now I ride a medium as I should. Of course this is just one opinion and could be wrong.
Ultimately it's about your position on the bike, which is a combination of size and rider posture. I have quite short arms and torso, so my medium Capra (422mm reach) that is considered short these days is actually quite roomy for me. It would be a shame if riders who fall outside of the perfect/average posture have trouble finding a properly fitting bike, downsizing wouldn't work as the ST would be way too short.
And what I also don't like is the fact that the industry is basically telling us how to sit on our bikes, and where they should excel. Like Vernon said, some people just like short TTs, regardless of their posture. Shorter bikes are more playful and IME easier to ride on steep terrain.
EDIT: SC Syndicate comes to mind, with Minnaar going longer and longer while Bryceland keeps it relatively short..
Longer legs for your height likely means you'll want a shorter reach along with a higher seatpost and stack compared to someone who is the same height but has shorter legs(they'll likely want a longer reach but lower seatpost and stack)
I'm on the shorter end of the sizing at under 5"7 and having long legs means bikes are starting to get to the stage where I can't size down anymore to get a bike that fits. 430mm is my limit for reach(preferably 420) but the brands making longer bikes have either passed that or their size small has a seatpost so tiny and a stack so low it won't fit.
For now I'm fine but every year I have less options, 29ers seem to be staying slightly shorter at the moment which is excellent as the big wheels suit me alot better.
I also appreciate the taller guys and girls won't have the same problems as we all seem to be on more or less the same length chainstays anyhow and those with proportionately shorter legs and longer upper body reach must suit this push to longer and lower very well.
Why is there not a sizing app that takes into account your own individual 'human geometry' and proportions via a few basic measurements and then matches them to a data base of bike sizes?
Yeah that would be great
I'm not really an advocate of longer/ lower/ slacker or the idea that a bike that is clearly too small is 'chuckable' and 'nimble'- I prefer to think of it that what I want, is a bike that fits. For me, a bike that fits is a faster bike and more enjoyable- I can chuck a bike that fits around far easier than a tiny bike that wants to throw me OTB's at every opportunity because I'm already level/ over the front axle with it's stupidly short reach.
Perfect bike for me is around 470mm reach, max seat tube height 470mm and stack of 610-620. I find that everything else - wheelbase etc fits together ok if they can get those bits right.
I think it's clear bikes have been too small in the past- a bike with a 430mm reach is not a large. When people my height are riding XXL bikes, you know there's issues- that's the kind of size I expect basketball players to be using ;-p
Not sure where I stand on the BB- never given it too much thought as more concerned with other attributes. I think cranks are often too long for intended use- mine came with 175mm cranks which is just too long with the BB height- not the end of the world but not ideal.
Very difficult to please everyone and I'm not sure what the answer is- I think with longer dropper posts there's just no excuse for say a 510mm seat tube on what I'd class as a medium/ large bike.
If you look at radon and propain- their 'freeride bikes' have decent geometry but when you look at what they class as 'enduro' they revert back to stupidly long seat tubes for decent reach. Canyon are the same- strive is ok but on the spectral, stupidly long seat tube. Obviously if you have long legs then it's not an issue but for us 'short leggers', we're just shafted.
I definitely think most brands are hitting the practical limit for riders on smaller size bikes. I see too many shorter riders on bikes that are clearly too long. It can be comical seeing them trying to muscle these long, slack bikes around tight trails.
I see the same thing with handlebars. 5'2" tall riders in full flight on 800mm handlebars looks downright stupid and awkward!
I think dh bikes now are already too slack for most bike parks. In Whistler, i am constantly riding much steeper/gnarlier stuff on my trail bike than what the park has to offer. The length/stiffness/strength is nice though for stability
I also went thru the process of trying to buy an all mountain bike. I needed something that could handle chilcotins/xc races and all round non bike park stuff in the sea to sky. I also didnt want to get completely schooled if i did the odd enduro race. there really is nothing around the 6inch 66 degree, not too long, 27.5 bike any more. Its all 165mm, 65, long and super low which makes a pig for all day rides.
And Troy and Jeffsy 27.5.
I demoed a large Troy this spring and it didn't feel long at all (I'm 6'1"). But I've been on 29ers long enough that 27.5 bikes all feel pretty damn agile to me.
As someone who works in a bikepark I notice that more and more people what flow trails with jumps and berms. Natural gnarly stuff? Not so much. And if you take that crowd into the natural stuff they are unable to ride most of it, specially offcamber turns!
As I have gotten better at riding I am leaning more and more towards bikes that arent the "fastest" most stable speed machines god ever created, they are fast but they take away all the challenge of riding. Ride your local trails enough and they become easy enough to get through ad a super good bike and they become a snooze fest.
But everyone is free to think and do as they want just dont go chopping up my gnar trails and make some more goddamn flow trail!
I would agree. But I have a feeling that if Kona made a Honzo 27.5 that the reach would be ok. My beef with my Honzo is just that with the 29" wheels you have to work really hard to manual it with it being so long. It's not like it's "not doable" or "impossible", it's just that it takes more planning, effort, and commitment. I also have a v2 5010 and when I get back on that thing after riding the Honzo I love how much easier it is to lift the front end in comparison.
I try to buy from my LBS & they just can't keep all the generations of any decent component -- so really I'd rather they slow down how fast 'standards' change (can we have 5-7 yrs SRAM???) -- and then let the frame builders go nuts making a range of frames for different rider styles.
Heck, right now I bet most of the companies you can't use the same hubs across all their 2017 lineup, it's that bad.
Do not try and turn the bike, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth...there is no bike. Then you'll see that it is not the bike that turns, it is only yourself.
I have recently gone from a large Capra to a long (small) nicolai geometron that is 80mm longer wheelbase and 30mm longer reach at 5'9" and it is so much better for the steep tech that I enjoy riding, and it climbs WAY better with its "radical" geometry, but I miss being able to manual without planning in advance, but owning my dream bike offsets any negatives.
You get used to what you have, just buy the bike you want and you'll love it no matter what the numbers say.
Nico vouilloz said everyone was on too small a bike a few years back, and look at MX - one size fits all to a degree...
Small - 165mm
Medium/large - 170mm
XLarge - 175mm
That or buy your bike from a good LBS and ask them to swap the cranks out for a 'shorter' trail friendly length before you collect the bike!
Most bikes seem to be at or around the 66/67 degree head angle unless you head into the geometron world
in my thoughts ( after owning 4 different enduro full sussers)
ballanced geo : 425mm chainstay , 445-450 reach , 65 - 65.5 headangle ,75 seat angle ( prefferably adjustable geometry mounts ) bb drop 10 mm
all that in mind Rocky Mountain Slayer geometry is pretty sweet.
Hmmmm....Pinkbike - agility isn't everything. You have to have power as well in those high speed situations.