swansejack22

@lehott: Same country, different Manon.

@roma258: I appreciate the detail in this answer. I am with you regarding the long wheel base: you definitely lose some maneuverability. Do I find a 66 HA twitchy? I mean, it's all relative. My go-to ride in these parts is a custom Cannondale RZ120 with 26" wheels. I don't know what the HA is, but my guess would be 67-68 degrees. Do I find it twitchy? I mean, I can shred it and have a great time doing so, but, given the choice, would I suggest it over something slacker for a newer rider, based solely on geometry? No way. It's my opinion that the limitations that you did a great job explaining, whilst annoying, are outweighed by the positives in any terrain that is even mildly challenging. 26" wheels are good analogy here, I think. Do they feel twitchy to ride? No. My bike is an incredibly capable trail bike that has been ridden on severe black diamond trails and smooth Minnesota green trails. It brings me joy and I love it. 26" wheels are widely accepted to offer more maneuverability and have a lower weight (all things being equal) than 29 and 27.5 wheels. So why have we moved to these new standards? In my opinion it's because we want bikes that help us overcome challenges, and the challenges faced riding on flat terrain are less severe and dangerous than the challenges we face when the trail points down. When we overcome challenges it feels good. The more severe and dangerous the challenge, the better it feels. Modern bike development has occurred to provide help to the rider in these high consequence situations. I totally respect anyone's decision to ride any bike on any terrain: if it gives you joy, go for it. But I also see a lot of opinions on here re: modern geometry that echo the same MTB conservatism that objected to disk brakes and dropper posts and 29" wheels and wide bars etc because what they ride is "just fine" and so they see no need for progression, it's "just a fad" that will pass, or a "marketing ploy" by manufacturers to sell more bikes. Having been a mountain biker for over twenty years it becomes increasingly frustrating to see the continuous push back against development. I believe it's important for a bike company to go "too far" in their progressiveness because only then will we find the sweet spot of which you speak.

@Kiotae: I live in Minnesota. There are no hills here. Well, actually, that's a lie, there is A hill and it's genuinely called "The Hill" by locals because it's so unique. Anyhow, I mention this because the trails here are the literal opposite of gnarly, they are anti-gnarl trails with the average descent lasting 5-10 seconds. And yet, even here, this geometry makes sense for a lot of riders as it provides them with stability, and stability equals safety, Safety increases speed, and increased speed, for most of us, equals increased fun. I get that might not be you, and I love how we all love and enjoy different types of riding, but the assumption that less stable bikes are inherently more fun because they're twitchy and challenging to ride only adds up for a tiny number of riders. However I'd suggest a lot of those riders were the types who ride single speed rigids on enduro tracks and and scoff at any bar that is wider than 700mm. I'd love to know what negative traits geometry like this brings to the majority of people?

I don't hate Specialized, I would just never want to buy one. On my local trails 80% of bikes are Specialized, Santa Cruz, Trek, and Transition. They're all great bikes, but there are plenty of other great bikes that also manage to be interesting. For me the weird thing is not why some people don't want to own a Specialized, but why some people do.

@usmbc-co-uk: For sure. My first bike was a 16" Cannondale Beast of the East so I could pretend I was Martyn Ashton, and my riding buddy had a 14" GT Zaskar. We rode trials, dirt jumps, street, and trails and didn't give an eff about head angles and chainstay lengths. Back then any bike was a hardcore hardtail if it was small and you slapped some Z1s, D521 on Hope Bulbs, and Azonic bars on it. I agree that the DMR is perhaps the first production frame I can remember that was built specifically for tackling all the abuse, although I have vague memories of the Spooky being the first such bike I read a review of in MBUK.

1:28 - Winner of the "Big Slams on Small Jumps" contest.

If you, like me, find carbon frames about as appealing as a turd sandwich, there is an alu version of this frame coming in October too.

There is an alu version of this bike coming in Oct.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no........

@RadBartTaylor: Fair enough, but I'd question how "having to 'market' yourself in highly controlled / edited / cultivated environment" is any different to featuring in a photo shoot for MBUK, or filming a video segment for NWD or Sprung. Sponsored riders have always had to market themselves using more than just their pure riding ability, the only thing that has changed is that now the rider has more control over that branding. There are very few professional jobs where a single strength in your skillset is enough to see you succeed, and being a professional mountain biker is just one more example of this.