ceecee

@SEA5ONS: 4/5 mammoplasts recommend

@ak-77: all arms and legs. A failed variant of 'these are tall person problems.' I'm only 1.83m but based on overall dimensions including bike length would take a Small Firebird and use it for anything. Toptube is congruous with many other makes' frame size Medium. Does this mean the seat tube is too slack? Probably @Linc: the subtle backwards bend in the seat tube just above the lower link has a less subtle effect at saddle topout. The bend could have been even more subtle with minor changes to subframe and rocker. I don't think it's a packaging issue, since their 165mm bike in size Small has 2mm shorter stays

@ak-77: more makes are publishing actual angles now. Pivots are historically slack--I think the owner is stuck on it, and dimly recall a minor scandal with Firebird 29 geochart editing. You can see that the toptube effectives are a couple cm longer than average by frame size. Site reviews could publish actual toptubes at dropped, half-dropped, and undropped saddle heights--stem cap bolt center to post center at saddle top--but I don't know if people would be able to use the info. I just look up from bb center to saddle nose in a profile shot and make note of bb offset, bends in seat mast, saddle height and fore/aft. You are a spider

@vinay: your current bike is a 26" dropperless hardtail and you're in NL. Stem and fork offset have more effect on front weighting than reach. I bet the forks on your two samples are also improperly comparable

@mi-bike: brunutte

If Boyd can compete with Fratelli--and their alloy is produced in N.A--rims could be delivered to I9 by horse-drawn cart. That's not nothing. Their all-mountain rims are all carbon, tho

(User name) @TimnberG: CBSA--extended stay unit

@ak-77: I'm just a guy w/ a tape measure and an elementary physics education, but thanks for the offer. The smaller rotor case was ignorable but the claim on +1kg of circumferential seemed sensational. It must come down to the force required to move the total mass vs the force required to rotate/accelerate the wheel/s. I'm keen on weight since I move it around a lot and clearing the same gap at the end of a ride can be more difficult than towards the beginning--still don't see how fatigue doesn't come into play when one can't produce the same effort, but must accept that lifting +1kg is more laborious than rotating it. Reduce weight, but not because it's rotating weight. Use lighter tires because they're lighter, not because they're easier to accelerate--and worry over rolling resistance first, esp when racing. It has the greatest effect on fatigue, followed by total mass, followed by accelerability. Never mind wind speed and direction! Tally ho

@ak-77: but saving rotating saves total. Did the simulations account for rider fatigue accelerating a kg heavier rear tire w/ same tread? Were they published anywhere respectable? I'm sceptical