Alchemy Launches 29/27.5 Mullet Bike

 It is not the longest bike but please also, consider the quite big stack. At one point people said tt length says nothing and replaced it by reach, which also says nothing without considering stack.

 @optimumnotmaximum: And STA.

 I’m with you on that. With dropper post’s getting longer and longer no reason seat tubes shouldn’t be getting shorter and shorter. Reach then Seat tube height is actually the first 2 things I look at when looking for a new bike now. If you’ve ridden down a trail with your seat post accidentally up that’s what a tall seat tube height feels like compared to a short seat tube

 ETT is the measurement you want.

 Let’s just skip to 2030 with 650mm reach, 30 degree headtube and 130 seattube.

In XS

 More like 1990. Just looking at the bike, the standover height is uber high. I think my manhood would be in jeopardy.

 Just copying the Giant Reign from 2015 probably.

 Go ahead and drink the cool aid

 @Twowheelsjunkie: www.bikemag.com/gear-features/bike-shop/bike-shop-27-5-rear-29-front-the-79er-trail-bike-done-right

 Maybe a typo? The medium is 442mm. Hard to believe the large only gains 8mm.

 450 because the bike is for freeride not XC!

 @optimumnotmaximum: Your point about stack is correct, but there is no justification for 483mm seat tube length on a size large trail bike in 2019. Riders that fit that size will struggle to fit some 150mm droppers that have high stacks, lack drop rails etc.

 @lkubica: Not true it requires a longer seat tube insert length. Which I get with some frames angles is not achievable. If a dropper only needs 300mm (for a oneup 210mm dropper) of seat tube insertion to slam the seat post. You don’t an extra 180 mm of length maybe 100mm in case you need to raise the post even further.

 @optimumnotmaximum: Stack is not reach.

 @optimumnotmaximum: considering the stack makes this bike worse, that bike has a huge stack... and with that short reach, slack seat tube and short wheelbase = definitely not a new gen long low and slack bike.

Looks to me like they didn't really "make" a mullet bike. Just through a 29 fork and wheel on the front which upped the stack, and slacked out the head and seat tube angle.

More like they're just offering people the opportunity to buy the bike with a 29 fork and wheel.

 @islandforlife: Jesse Melamed rides a VERY similar geometry bike in the RM Instinct (minus the mullet) and was ranked around 2nd or 3rd in the world. The idea is that NOT having a massively long bike affords it to be more nimble while still retaining the speed of the big wheel. Not having a massive reach allows a good rider to move around a bit more on the bike for agility. These are good things and clearly it works well at the highest level where margins are razor thin with riders looking for every advantage. For a mass produced bike, this "mid-sized" geometry is pretty damn nice, and I'm a tall guy. The marketing, super long stuff has now jumped the shark a bit in my opinion. I'm glad Alchemy isn't blindly following a trend. This is a good thing.

 @Svinyard: to your point, isn’t Ratboy on a medium Cannondale? He’s a pretty tall dude.

 @islandforlife: It says in the article that it uses the 29er frame with a different shock link that probably keeps the BB from lowering as much with a smaller rear wheel.

 @islandforlife: i did not say its good because of the high stack, its just bigger than think if you just look at reach alone. But i also do not think its reach /stack combination is bad, in fact i think every trailbike with this reach should have also this much stack. Reach 450 stack 600 shouts "spacers" pretty loud- which, you guessed it, shortens the reach.

 @jclnv: great catch

 I am 5.11 andprefer bikes with 460 reach and 630 stack, i have also no problems with seastmasts up to 490(with a 160 bikeyoke). But i agree if your built different or prefer highwaytrains it could be problematic. A 450 seattube would fit the bike better.

 @lkubica: The seat tube can be shorter, deeper and uninterrupted all the way to the down tube.

 @Svinyard: Jesse Melamed can ride anything fast. Jesse Melamed is small, he can't just jump up a size without the rest of the bike not fitting him... so he has limited options. If you could speak with him off the record about what kind of geometry he'd like to be riding, I have a feeling he'd say something different.

Rocky is behind on their bike designs and you'll see their numbers change as they redesign. 460 to 480 reaches in a size large are not massively long... we've just come to realize it's proper geometry for high speeds. Still no issue moving around and works so much better.

I could use your same argument and point to Richie Rude (who is arguably better than Jesse) riding the large SB150 with a 480mm reach and 50mm stem. That's a pretty long, low and slack bike, yet he appears to be doing better than Jesse... so based on your logic, that must mean it's better, right?

 These bikes are dope!!!

 @islandforlife: Rude is slightly bigger than Melamed.

 @Twowheelsjunkie: glug glug glug glug......

 483 seat tube / 450 reach and no place for water bottle inside front triangle? So bro

 @tacklingdummy: Do you ride or sit around the parking lot with both feet flat on the ground?

 @TheOriginalTwoTone: I ride on some technical trails where you have to dab occasionally on some steep technical sections. So, I am not quite fond of a high standover height.

 @islandforlife: pretty sure Rude rides a medium with 50mm stem

 @islandforlife: I was just pointing out that just because it isnt super long doesn't mean it's not nextgen or not modern or behind or highly highly functional. It's all just pros and cons on the margins. All the other stuff you said I'll just leave to you because I want talking about any of it. Cheers

 @Svinyard: As part of the big and tall crowd I disagree that a shorter bike allows you to move around on the bike. The newest generation of bikes have allowed me to move around on the bike for the first time in 30 years of riding mountain bikes. Instead of transferring weight from front to back by moving my body weight around by millimeters I have at least a little bit to play with.

 @jvo1: From one of his bike checks:

"Reach is nice and roomy as well, with a 460mm number for the medium, and 480mm for the large size that Richie prefers."

 @islandforlife: his insta says he rides a med. because he prefers the quickness in the turns.

 @Chris97a: I'm 6-4 tall guy as well. I hear you and cant say the longer bikes are bad by any means. I never intended that...just that the more mid-size bikes are pretty damn good for people too and not automatically flawed.

Now I hated riding all of the short bikes like Yetis and SC stuff in the past, I'd have to find something in an XL that felt like a Lincoln. I've enjoyed the mid-size stuff and the longer stuff too. I ride 490ish in reach with some riser bars and it's fun. The longer wheel base of the longer stuff is noticeable along with 29er wheels.

 @Chris97a: XXL felt like a Lincoln I mean.

 @Svinyard: a massive long reach also makes it harder to weight the front wheel.

 @Svinyard: and long reach needs active aggressive riding position over the front all the which is harder on longer descents. Brosnan called it the „ recovery position“ when you get tired at the end of the DH run. Long reach does not work well with this more over the back recovery position.

 @MTB-Colada: this isn't really an XC sit and spin and look at the flowers type bike...

 @Lasse2000: Aren't you and everyone else forgetting that this new trend of longer reach also comes with longer chainstays and shorter stems? If you ignore the longer chainstays, then the longer reach with a shorter stem doesn't actually put you that much further forward. A size Med Specialized Enduro from a few years ago had a reach of roughly 420mm, but it came with a 70mm stem. Nowadays a 450mm reach for a medium is more normal, but if you spec the bike with a 40mm stem the reach is the same, so your body position is the same, not "harder on long descents".

The front wheel, esp. when combined with a slacker HTA, is further away from you, true, requiring you to move forward to weight it, all things being equal. But all things aren't equal. With longer chainstays, more of your weight is naturally put on the front wheel. Also, the general trend is that riders are riding faster on steeper trails with less travel than years past. The faster/steeper you're going, the easier it is to weight your front wheel just by braking. Also, less suspension means a shorter axle-to-crown, which brings the wheel back closer to your center of mass.

These changes aren't happening in a vacuum. They are evolving this way for a reason. When Cathro interviewed Minnaar, they both talked about how much better longer bikes are, esp. for taller guys. However, back when Cathro was racing in like 2005, he was given the option to design any geometry he wanted, but he didn't make a modern-length bike. Both him and Minnaar concluded that tracks, riding styles, tires, and culture weren't ready for longer bikes, so they wouldn't have worked as well as they do now.

This is the interview, timestamped to where they start talking about wheelbases

youtu.be/KhLeyUPF-pA?t=330

 @clink83: As already mentioned, when prettily combined with longer chainstays this is not an issue. Plus you can always size down. Us taller folk have never been able to size up. Some bikes are longer than I would want as I'm not charging huge stuff all day. Get me on a bike with around 490 or up reach and I'm pretty happy. I have been running 50mm stems since my first full sus bike (98 stinky) to get behind instead of out in front of the front wheel. My most recent bike had a reach of 508 so I finally used a bit shorter stem, 45mm. Cockpits are finally sized right.

 @Chris97a: Good point about sizing up or down. I love this new trend of S1, S2, S3 etc sizing instead of S, M, L, or even worse giving inch lengths of the seat tube. It was so incredibly short sighted to have the only real variation in frame size be the length of the seat tube, the only part of the frame sizing that can actually be adjusted!

 @tacklingdummy: I’ve spoken with your other her .......... she said not to worry.

 *half

 @trocko911: Problem with Droppers getting longer is longevity/maintenance of the post.

Think about it for a second. The longer the drop on the post, the more leverage on the bushings. Equals more friction and force.

 @peterguns: slack actual seat tube angle makes it worse. My Reign SX with a 170 dropper and the bushings were shot in under 8 months.

 27.5 tubes fit fine. Since buying two 29ers I havent bought a 29 tube. Just have a 27.5 strapped on both bikes.

 Learned a new verb today!

 I've run a 26 tube in a 29er before. Rubber stretches...

 Like giving birth?

 Foreskining is the answer

 Nah just two sizes of patch kit.

 I want to see a review about Guerrilla Gravity's MegaSmash from their website's secret menu. It is an upgrade you can add to their Megatrail with an additional cost of...that's right...$29.27!

 @unconsenting81: ugh. Thats so ... reasonable?

 @atourgates: Reasonable?
They could have easily gone for $27.29, but they went for the money grab.

 here's to hoping the Yeti SB5 gets updated soon with a shorter steeper seat tube and longer reach. It would be a perfect candidate for my dream mullet bike.

 @laksboy: give it a week, sb140 is coming soon

 @IntoTheEverflow: We're glad to credit you back $1.98 if you want a 27.5 wheel up front and 29 wheel in the back.

 @GuerrillaGravity: so aero!

 @GuerrillaGravity: Nice to read your reaction.
Maybe I was to harsh in my verdict...
My next bike might be a GG!

 Agreed, the alchemy looks like it still uses the 29er rear triangle...

 I feel like the unique stock Scout front end geo already gives it more stability and control than other 27.5 bikes, and adding a 29" wheel and less travel would not be a huge gain. The stock Scout already has a long wheelbase, etc, and rips through rough stuff like it has more travel and a bigger front wheel than it does, and defintiely doesn't need more weight. All that said, I'm not against it. Would be super interested to ride it since I love the Scout so much. Did they ever say if they used the reduced offset Manitou to keep in the same vein as the Transition "giddy-up" geo design? If so, I missed it.

 @sdurant12: I'd be most interested in a SB120 or SB125 mullet.

 @unconsenting81: been thinking about GG Shred Dog with 29er 130mm fork

 @GuerrillaGravity: once ebike drag racing catches on those will fly off the shelves

 @Grmasterd: I'm already there, just got a 29er 150mm fork, which makes the BB tall, but 130mm of travel ain't much. Personally I'd go with a longer fork and just deal with a tall BB, 130/130 is fine, but the Crush setting is quite firm and the Plush setting is just right. If you want a playful 29er and don't care about 27.5, take a look at the Trail Pistol.

 @dirt-klaud: bike mag said they used the reduced offset fork in the youtube comments. I think it was a marzocchi fork not a manitou.

 @dirt-klaud: giddy-up based geometry is something I can get behind

 @GuerrillaGravity: when are the reviews for your new carbon bikes coming out? Haven’t heard squat since the announcement!

 @Ktron: We just queued up a Trail Pistol for Pinkbike to review this Fall, stay tuned!

 @Rageingdh: Cool! That would make sense...not manitou, that was a weird subconcious typo.

 Reverse mullets, so short in the back and go extra big in the front. . . So I guess we'll have to call it a telluM, but I like the sound of Party Bangs

 Mullets have always been cool. -Billy Ray

 Ya, looks like the Alchemy is using the 29'er chainstay - just a different linkage to keep the bottom bracket at normal height. The Scout has a way shorter chainstay to fit the 27.5" wheel.

Some people might like that longer chainstay, but I'd rather have the shorter stay with the smaller wheel.

 I have first gen and '18 Scouts...I'd be curious to see how this would ride. I have the new Z1 on the new bike too(to replace the Fox 36 with low offset)

 It's cool for sure but I can't take a guy with a man bun seriously.

 @whitebirdfeathers: Man buns are whack, no argument there.

 @pinhead907: every hot chick I know thinks man buns are sexy...too bad I can't grow one.

 @unrooted: It's obviously more important what men on the internet think of your hair.

 @whitebirdfeathers: Agreed, but then again it's Michigan... I guess it's finally 2005 there. LOL!

 @whitebirdfeathers: 50 upvotes.

 You should of used the water bottle mount content filter.

 So good lol @dwmetalfab:

 That thing has a high enough top tube they couldve put 2 sets of bottle mounts on the underside of it.

 its important to built $3000+ frames around the ability to fit a $15 bottle into the front triangle.

 It's nothing new, bikes were coming 26"/24" in the 00's.

 While that may clear the bridge, does it clear the crown at full travel?

 @Austink: maybe i never used full travel, or maybe it clears it, but i didnt notice any problem like that so far, that the front wheel would rub in the fork crown or in the frame.

 @mendoza1940: You should really let all of the air out or remove the coil so you can compress the fork all the way and test the crown clearance. I don't think you would enjoy finding out the hard way out on the trail. It would probably send you over the bars pretty hard.

 @dlxah @Austink : to not leave your question (at least half) unanswered, i did try what you suggested, to let all the air out and compress the fork (the Manitou Minute), and (to my relief ) the wheel does clear the crown too, by a much larger margin that i would have expected, about 15-20mm. So in dry conditions, it's perfectly and safely rideable

 hes from ky?

 They can be converted to 27.5 front and rear by simply increasing fork travel by 10mm (or running one of those crown spacer things). Depending on clearance you may get a 29 out back, on most bikes the bb height/geometry difference isn't exactly night and day. I ran a customised mullet bike for about a year with 27.5 frame and 29 fork. (Disclaimer, I am NOT an engineer).

 @tremeer023: it’s actually a lot more than 10mm. A 170 Fox 36 27.5 is the same axle to crown as a 150 Fox 36 29. Then the radius of a 29 inch wheel is 20mm longer on top of that

 @kleinblake: ah, yes. I kept my 29 fork and switched to a slightly fatter tyre when I did mine. Still doable though if you get the numbers right.

 For those wondering, it's roughly 37mm depending on the fork you choose. The axle to crown is 18mm longer on a 29er Fox fork with the same amount of travel, and a 29er wheel raises the axle by 19mm compared to 650b.

 I'll be by on trash day to pick through your garbage heap in search of vintage same size wheels and hilariously narrow 1x11spd drivetrains.

 Depends... how old is your bike?

It sounds like: ``Time to throw out my old wife, here comes the new trend``. A bit sad :/

 Please PM me street address and location of refuse receptacle.

 Don’t you mean Park City? I shot this video. This is in Park City. It’s an IMBA gold riding destination. Tell your friends.

 @justinolsen: ?? 3 seconds in is a clear view of the back side of Timp. How is that not AF?

 @hamncheez: sarcasm, that's how.

 @dfinn: I was going to say, 21 seconds in looks JUST like the view from the summit parking lot, looking north towards snowbird, and at 36 seconds that looks just like the blown out left hand turn on Ridge 157 where the Forest Service piled a bunch of logs to keep people from taking the rooty, rough outside line.

 @justinolsen: IMBA gold can I get a badge for that

 shhhhhh