PatMAE

MMA is basically Redbull Rampage. The best of the best put themselves at high risk for our entertainment (and money). The sanctioning body for the UFC maintains strict rules. And there's a referee that will stop the fight the instant someone stops intelligently defending themselves. Yes, it's a violent spectacle, but there are many controls in place to prevent the most harm while providing the most entertainment. Cracking someone's head on the floor isn't really even accurate, that's where wrestling and jiu-jitsu come in, which are far less consequential than striking/boxing.

@Struggleteam: You should prob re-read my comment, I said oldheads who ball out believing it makes up for lacking skills, that ain't all oldheads. The fastest dude I know is over 50 and could blow your doors off. Chill

Dario, you literally said the thing. In the LT's slackest modes, you liked the long chainstay. In the steeper modes, you liked the balance of the short chainstay. That is the front center to rear center ratio. We gotta start discussing it more. It's a super easy number to quantify, and it's size agnostic, unlike "short" vs "long" chainstays. Which is inconsistent across sizes.

@totaltoads: Bless the oldheads who think spending more money makes them faster, I love buying their barely ridden used stuff for a fraction of what they paid. These origami bike racks will be 100 bucks on facebook marketplace in no time.

@threehats: That is false. My numbers are not reach:RC, they are FC:RC. I calculated wheelbases using existing bikes with matching fork spec, head angle, and similar stack to determine how much wheelbase the fork adds for each hypothetical bike. My FC is using the fork horizontal length and reach number combined.

@jessie-mmorgan: I bet if you checked the front center to rear center ratio of those bikes, you would find a discernable trend in your geo preferences!

@ebikederangementsyndrome: The numbers I came up with demonstrate how many bikes on the market today (especially in Small and XL) skew far outside of what riders actually want, and what works best for the average rider at a given height. Yes, I had to make assumptions to simplify it to a single number. Go run some numbers on bikes and you'll see that many of them sit way outside of any of the editors' optimal numbers, far beyond any assumption could skew my numbers. The averages of PB editor's numbers are 1.80 for trail bikes and 1.85 for enduro bikes. Many, many bikes skew far outside of that, for example an XL Commencal Clash is 1.98. That's going to significantly affect the performance of the bike, but unless there's a reviewer riding that same XL size, you'll never know that there's a serious issue with the bike you're looking to buy. And you'll be left scratching your head why all the reviews are praising a bike that you just can't seem to get along with. This is literally what happened to me, I spent thousands on a bike that was kneecapped from the jump, spent forever trying to figure out why it had such major ride quality issues, and finally got to a quantifiable answer. Riding a bunch of other bikes with very different geo (long and short stays) confirmed my math. Size specific stays and a consistent FC/RC ratio are necessities to a good bike.

retweet

@ebikederangementsyndrome: my brother in christ, I am literally making the point that the folks asking for "long" chainstays are actually asking for the same proportion of chainstay as a typical size medium. That's what the 'magic number' quantifies. I'm honestly surprised more size Small riders haven't started asking for even shorter stays, I certainly think they deserve them.

and using the averages of Dario's ranges, his are: trail=1.79 and enduro=1.82