Recently I was talking to
Evan Turpen of Contra bikes who said something which got me thinking. He wants his steel enduro bike to last a long time, partly because he thinks the transformative changes in geometry we've seen over the last few years won't go much further. He hopes a bike with modern geometry today won't look too out of date in ten years time.
Based on the bikes I've ridden, I think we're at least approaching the right geometry numbers for most riders. But then, some people thought that ten or even twenty years ago.
Geometry changed a lot in the twenty-or-so years separating these two Enduros, yet I suspect there were people at the time who thought the geometry of the bike on the left was pretty close to perfection
Certainly, I don't think we can make bottom brackets much lower without huge compromises to ground clearance. Sure, crank arms could afford to get a bit shorter to minimise the pedal-strike problem, but I'm already scraping my inside pedal on some turns even when riding with my feet level.
What about slacker? Downhill bikes have been hovering around the 62-64 degree mark for decades now and I don't see them getting any slacker. Enduro bikes are already getting very close to that (64-degrees is now the norm) and thanks to bigger wheels and shorter offset, the problem of twitchy steering or "jackknifing" in tight turns is pretty much eliminated. Sure, a slacker head angle might have benefits in some situations, but it also has drawbacks including poorer fork performance on small bumps.
As for longer reach, I think there's room for improvement in terms of getting bikes to fit riders at the extremes of the height spectrum better, but whether a size medium will get significantly longer over the next decade seems unlikely to me.
One area where I think we could see change is in the chainstay length. For a while, manufacturers sought to make them as compact as possible for easy manuals and to keep the wheelbase number from looking too intimidating. Now though, brands and customers are becoming aware that a longer front-centre without a longer chainstay results in too little weight on the front tire in some situations.
Sure, some bikes have 10mm of chainstay length adjustment, but if you want to compensate for a front-centre that's grown by 100mm over the last few years, you'll need the rear-centre to grow by at least 50mm to maintain the same proportions and therefore weight distribution (rear-centres are typically around half of the front-centre length). So, I wouldn't be surprised if we see more bikes with chainstay lengths approaching 500mm in the biggest sizes. Of the bikes I've ridden, only
Forbidden and
Orange are in that ballpark, and there are clear advantages as well as some downsides.
But the point of this article is to find out what you think. So, if you could change the geometry on your current bike, would you go slacker, longer and lower?
I think the big leaps and bounds will be with suspension kinematic, and weight/durability. I want a 26 pound Sentinel that pedals like a Spur, but doesn't loose any of the descending prowess and won't feel like it is going to break. I also want it to cost $2,000 and I want a unicorn pony and a firetruck and my own personal pan pizza.
I know the push right now is that 'weight doesn't matter' or whatever, but I call bollocks. Capable bikes under 30lbs that are durable and don't cost $6.5k would be rad. I, too, would like a unicorn pony.
Not everyone needs to rise the same geometry. I'm 6"4 and these bikes fit me, same geometry wouldn't work for my 5"4 wife who prefers the flat fire road to steep single-track. 71 suits her just fine
I joust with its' rider!
behold the bird of prey bicycle
Industry averages of size medium with 445mm reach for people 5'8", straight to large with 485mm reach for people 6'0" is bizarre.
For reference I am just over 5' 9".
Everyone's different however and 490mm for a size large quite probably is too long for a lot of people my height and the ~460 reach on a medium is probably too short. With this in mind it's bizarre so many brand share moving away from the ideal 470-480 reach size Large bikes.
Still, Giga is a hell of a bike and I think Im getting use to this reach anyway.
Whats funny, I actually was faster on my previous bike - Capra 275 180mm size large, but I feel more comfortable and planted on this bike and generally prefer the way it rides and how stable it is.
A lot of brands hit that middle size range better than others… which has been one of my metrics in choosing a bike.
Ibis, Santa Cruz, Trek, Specialized… there are quite a few brands with a 465-475 reach for their size large (or ML) that fit me like a glove at 5ft10
Shout out to Trek and Chromag for offering a ‘Marge” (medium-large)
460 feels ok too, 455 is slightly short, even with a 50mm stem. Haven't found the precise upper limit, but 480 feels definitely too long. Rode a few 485 bikes, they all felt completely ridiculous, regardless of stem stubbiness. Front center/rear center balance is really what I'm looking for, and going extra long in the front destroys that feeling. (Stack is a factor in reach too, though stack varied by under 10mm on everything I've tried so far, making an infinitesimal difference in reach).
@Fullsend2-13: Mind you these are *standing* reach numbers, not ETT. And assumed paired with a modern steep seat angle.
Rode a Devinci 465 that fit mint, but didn't care for rest of bike
Much better spread than most, but still mostly skipping over that crucial 460mm- 465mm range.
I think you’re focusing too much on one variable while ignoring other pertinent information like stack. For instance, I went from a 465mm reach to a 490mm reach bike, and it felt ridiculous until I lowered the stem 20mm. As a 5’10” bloke, a 490 reach can be tots if you don’t have linguini for reachers.
Actually mentioned it a bit up top: "Stack is a factor in reach too, though stack varied by under 10mm on everything I've tried so far, making (I assume) an infinitesimal difference in reach."
Satisfied yet?
Slash ML in Low > 468
And Ibis is 475 …
I did list 465-475 as the range I was referencing.
@spankthewan very good point. However the stack on my new bike is definitely higher than my old bike the Kona. I extended reach and raised stack. Seems strange but it works for me!
I personally don’t really want to run a stem that short, but my current bike seems to favor it as far as handling goes.
It seems reasonable.
Struggle is real. That is if you are shopping for brands that you want to ride, and not just the few that make a proper average size.
Tried longer bikes with 35mm stems, stems that short are definitely not my jam. Accurate, but so squirrelly and weird. 60mm is worse, like a cargo ship in the fog.
Give us 460-470mm sizes!
For a shuttle bike I'm ok with a shorter reach as long as the wheelbase is long. For an all around bike though I prefer my fit on the money.
I can adapt to most other variables, but cockpit length is a necessity.
Longer chainstays are a crutch too, right?
Medium Evil Offering is probably close to perfect.
I finally switched the stem on my large SB100 to a 75, and it’s feeling pretty right.
Till you go there and actually try the bike and realize: "WTF, this bike is way way too long and next size down is for little people."
@bedell99: larges give me a lower back ache and/or force use of too-short stem
My long low slack bike is amazing at high speed gnarly stuff. But it’s impossible in tight technical stuff, be it up or down. The wheels fee like they’re in different places, doing different things. It takes a lot more effort to play around on.
66-68 is still a good head angle most of the timed or me, and an shorter wheelbase is ideal in a lot of circumstances.
Everyone wants what they want, I tried the modern geo thing and to me it's not as fun but some people probably really enjoy what I call a lifeless feeling bike? less to do for them when they are already having fun? Who can say really.
There's never been a better time to pick your poison, from super capable all-rounders to rigs favouring your conditions, there's a geometry for that. Long live the boutique builders, the people who will keep trying things the big brands won't risk for sake of bottom line, the little guys are where I'm looking for ongoing adaptation. God bless our fat tire renaissance.
As someone that is 6'3" just about all bikes out there don't have enough stack height to achieve a nice neutral body position when standing.
My dad had a 26, he thought its perfect. He bought last year a 2018 27,5, he thinks it's awesome.
As he has absolutely no idea why it's better and doesn't test anything else, he doesn't know what would better suits him.
Last time he told me about my Stump evo: "no way to pedal efficiently with a HA that slack !", he never rode a bike that slack before, tried it, find out it's pedalable and way better than his 27,5.
But still prefer his bike as there is no way to pedal efficiently with a HA that slack!!
So yes, we understand why the bike industry increments changes so slowly. But thankfully there is some brand who push something one big time to make things evolve.
Outside of geometry, I think suspension kinematics are the thing that's changing the fastest and will be the next thing that gets optimized. Look at how many bikes are made better by Cascade Components links. It makes so much more sense to have a stock linearly progressive curve so that people have the option of either air or coil, and being so much easier to dial in a suspension tune without weird regressive humps.
I've had alot of modern 2021 bikes in Large and at 6ft the best fit's ive had is on Nukeproof mega, Marin alpine and now my Altitude, hovering around that 475/480 reach mark seems ideal for a balanced ride, i've tried bikes that are around 490 but feel i start to get pulled forward and lose a bit of playfulness.*for me
Something that needs to grow.. is Dropper Drop, 210 is not enough for alot of people, especially when using like oneups with such a short insert depth. i have a 210 lifted out of every frame by a good chunk.. if someone makes a 230 drop ill happily pay a premium
i see many many riders especially roadies who've biked for years now with knee trouble an have walked like frogs, and when i see them on the bike they are crunched up "but the shop setup my fit"
*we dont run with our knees up so why should we bike like that
The scene going on in B.C. at the time was in a whole other universe.
They just couldn't grasp how mellow their default San Gabriel/Santa Ana riding was probably, regardless of how many times they name dropped riding on The Shore lol.
The time of riding the Shore at that time will never come back. It was cutting edge and every year, every month, there was something new, new boundary being pushed. And the progression of bikes because of it is something I don't think I will see again. I think bikes are tapped out and as I have said I cannot see how a 75 STA and 64 HTA can be improved upon. I look back at the angles of my then Ellsworth Dare, a DH bike no less, with a 68 HTA. My Surface Ti had a 66 and it was a hardtail.
Fit>all.
465-470 would be ideal, but lowering expectations lol
I would love to see more brands follow suit - ZS press-in headsets that can take an Angle-set are great. Flip chips for chainstay length are also a good idea IMO… especially for bikes with slacker actual STAs. There can be a big difference in weight bias between body types, and chainstay length is a really useful way to tune for this.
My Tallboy 4 had an adjustable chainstay, which was fantastic. While I ended up liking the longer 440 setting, the bike had a different personality at 430 which would suit some riders better. (I was surprised to like the longer setting, as I usually favor a more playful bike… but it just climbed better and felt more balanced overall at 440)
It has certainly changed the way a lot of people, including myself, look at bikes now, and (I think) proven that you don't need heaps of travel for a capable bike. I'd much rather be on a 120mm modern bike than a 160mm 2010 model of the same size, regardless of the ride.
I can't predict what geometrical parameters will change, however I think that we will all start looking into body kinematics and understanding 'mountain bike fit' a lot better, both as a function of the intended purpose but also the rider. It might lead to come interesting cocktails of geometric parameters.
On that basis... I think that, regardless of what geometry changes, bikes will become more adjustable (different rear triangles, flip chips that are significant, anglesets etc) to fit riders and their purposes better.
Personally I love short chainstays as I'm not that good and I want to have fun! So hope that the option for short chainstays exists into the future.
At the two more extreme ends of the spectrum, Enduro bikes and xc/light trail bikes are still getting incrementally longer and slacker, but the "goldilocks" mid travel 29ers have largely stabilized too.
There's always outliers, but overall I think the 130-140mm 29er with 65 degree head angle and 77 degree seat angle, plus or minus maybe half a degree, is kind of becoming a dialled machine for a significant majority of trails and riders.
Also MORE adjustable Chainstays!!
Plus a modern steel hardtail twenty years from now will look exactly like my steel hardtail from three years ago.
I've always felt head angle is the Holy Grail for a bike and is like caster in cars. You always wanted to run more until it got weird, then dial it back a touch. Wider bars are a function of needing more "power steering" to deal with the increased HA/caster. Longer reach and steeper seat angles were to fix what has long been known: ideal ride posture. Slacker HA kept moving the bars and all the other variables get pushed around to suit.
Ultimately slacker HA allowed you to ride faster, which then necessitated slacker HA, and that cycle went until the next variable got in the way of speed and stability. We're at optimal HA for the speeds that tires and trail shapes let us ride, and so HA (and everything else) will likely stay the same until we generate more downforce, or run stickier tires, or just ride fast and straight....
Or just enjoy the rad balance we've stumbled into after 20+ years of trying things and breaking stuff. That's my plan, no more breaking stuff!
But would definitely raise BB next bike, to lessen pedal strikes. Also shrink reach a bit to 490mm, from my current 510mm (XL Optic).
I'm right on the edge of Norco's sizing for XL @ 6'0", but bike shop enthusiastically said it's a good fit. My wingspan is 6'3" so maybe that's a factor.
here are my predictions for bikes in 2030.
1. Seat tubes and standover will get shorter with longer dropper posts. Think BMX bike clearance when the seat is dropped.
2. Longer and size-dependent chainstays
3. Longer and slacker in general w/ a steeper seat tube angle. I have a privateer 161 and won't go back to a slacker seating position.
4. More travel as suspension kinematics improve
I've recently committed to remove the angleset to get my 29er enduro bike back to about 64.5deg HA.
It's made the bike about 2/3 inch shorter in wheelbase, and definitely much more manageable and enjoyable.
A slack and long front end is nice and stable at high speed, saving me from the odd OTB. But unless I rode super aggressive and deliberately pushed my front wheel into the ground all of the time, my 63deg HA felt like I was washing our halfway through the corners.
Sure, we can lengthen the CS to counter this sensation. This is how my Norco Aurum with 455mm chainstays and 62.5deg HA feels, and it's fine because it's a DH bike. I ride it for 2-4 minutes and I give it all. But there is only so much bike in terms of wheelbase that a trail/enduro rider can manage on a long and tight technical trail like those seen on EWS. Also, especially on my local trails, the 63ha bike made me feel disconnected.
Don't get me wrong, I still love my DH bike. But riding trail bikes with similar geometry is overkill unless we wanna ride the same DH trails.
I think DH bikes havn't changed much (geometry-wise) during last years for a reason.
& B my tastes are weird as FK!
I definitely won't be buying a new bike/frame until mini mullet is a regular thing or a 26/27 flip chip option an chain stays are super short with hella steep seat tube angle. Basically I want a bike that can pedal all day trail epics an then flow a set of DJ's, OH an f*ck pedal strikes!
There were max-drop BB’s in the 2000’s on 26” (which isn’t much) that came with occasional pedal strikes, and safer, more reasonable ones available too. Just like today. The fact that the “compromise bike” (all mountain, enduro, or trail) is now leaning towards fast DH performance on controlled trails rather than slower clearance on rugged trails isn’t a change in geometry, it’s a change in bike genres, which has absolutely been happening in the last decade
At 172cm riding a medium Geometron G1 (reach 495, HA 62.5) I wouldn't go longer or slacker, but I'm already way past what most would ride.
It looks like some of the geo numbers are starting to settle a bit.. But, options are still out there for people that want longer, lower and slacker..
For myself, my 2019 Slash has been seeing a lot of use this past summer since I didn't want to change tires on my smaller bike ( Giant Trance 29). It strikes a good balance to me.. Wouldn't mind a little steeper on the seat tube and a little deeper insertion. With my inseam, 150mm will be the max I get in that frame. That's livable for me, but it would be nice to have the option for more.
I personally am not a huge fan of long reach and short stems.. I think it takes too much weight off the front end. Not a bad thing if you are riding standing and attacking, but for the times you are riding at under 80%, you get a lot of front end push.. I'm contemplating a little longer stem on my Slash.. +10 is where I want to go, but I'm thinking +5 is where I may end up.. Plus, maybe a little taller bar to remove a spcer and gain a little reach that way too..
And if you haven't figured it out, I fall into the category of old.. LOL
Especially for those XLs and XXLs like I’m on. There’s no reason why my chainstay should be the same as the size XS. There’s a reason it rides like garbage. Do chainstay adjustment and size specific rear triangles and let there be balance to all!
180mm travel front, 175mm rear. 165mm cranks. About 59* head angle currently. The bike is long low and slack for sure, and at 35 lbs with all extras, its not super light, but after some time on this bike I am convinced this is a viable direction for most riders. Maybe not for the xc race crowd, but a majority of riders will benefit from and appreciate its stabilty, comfort and ability to tackle anything. That, and this bikes ability to change geometry easily makes it a standout. The weight isnt even noticable on typical rides. But people will generally tend to either gravitate towards change or shy from it as two separate groups- its our nature. And change and progression will continue regardless.
I kept it at a conservative 60 deg head angle.
m.pinkbike.com/photo/21600483
In my opinion, the case is more that in the hands of a top top rider the gains you get in agility/maneuverability with a slightly smaller frame outweigh the gains of stability/control with a larger one...so while it makes sense for a pro to go that route because their bike handling skills warrant that decision. I'm not sure going that same route means the everyday rider would benefit the same way, or ultimately be any faster.
Because I can see with my eyes that it wouldn't suit me. Also, I'm perfect.
so by S size I can be on S3 /S4 /S5 depending on my preferences, which I like a lot;
As a parallel to SKI's you can have same ski model in 5 sm increments to suit huge variety of rides;
I moved from 455 reach to 490 recently id does improve bike stability, however I need to push really harder to get wheel size bunny hop
If pro riders are riding smaller frames and putting in +anglesets then we may have gone too far.
Can I ride like a pro at 46! Lol
But I am gonna stick my neck out here and say you don't know who I am, how I ride or even if I race.