Sometimes you’ve got to know when good enough is actually good enough. As inspirational adages go, this one sucks, but it’s true all the same. There are occasions when life presents us with a happy balance; at such times you have to recognize that twisting the dial further—all the way to 11, so to speak—would be a mistake. Consider Mechagodzilla and the current rage to make every bike as long and slack as possible.
FIRST, THE LIZARDWe begin in Japan.
For decades, millions of people experienced the unrivaled joy of watching two grown men in ill-fitting monster suits pummel the crap out of one another. There is an undeniable majesty to old school, pre-CGI Godzilla. This was true whether the big lizard was handing Mothra his ass or simply running amok on a Friday night with his boys, Gidra and King Caesar, setting city blocks aflame and whatnot.
What is the exact source of that magic? You may as well ask why kittens are cute or why couples hold hands and stare off into the sunset. Hell if I know. I’m no scientist. But I do know this: An hour spent watching Godzilla was always an hour well spent. Right up until 1974; that’s when shit fell apart.
1974 was the year that someone in the marketing department of Toho studios decided that poorly performed judo in dinosaur suits had suddenly become passé. Consequently, the filmmakers attempted to turn that dial to 11 by rolling out the 84-minute pile of dreck that is
Godzilla Versus Mechagodzilla.
The plot is a veritable dumpster fire of bad ideas. A plucky spelunker finds some crazy space-metal from the future tucked away in a cave, which leads archaeologists to discover a cave painting containing a vague prophecy, then Godzilla suddenly shows up and starts stomping Tokyo to bits instead of protecting the city. This was intended to be a head scratcher because Japan’s capital city enjoyed the status quo “We’re totally bros” kind of relationship typically enjoyed by an atomic-age dinosaur and his Japanese hometown. Vive le Intrigue!
Anyway, after all sorts of tedious plot machinations, the real Godzilla shows up in Tokyo pissed off and then some. Up until this point in the movie, the true Godzilla has actually been chilling out on Monster Island with his buddy Megalon, downing 40s of virgin blood and watching repto-porn (as monsters are wont to do). But back to the plot... The OG lizard king gets wind that another monster is tarnishing his good name, so he turns up and launches a blast of fire breath at the impostor Godzilla. Said fire blast melts away a flesh suit to reveal Mechagodzilla--a mechanical Godzilla powered by aliens from “the Third Planet from the Black Hole” who are actually just dudes in cheap,
Planet of the Apes knock-off suits. By this point you just want the movie to end. It’s not even gratifying when Godzilla rips off Mechagodzilla’s head.
THE BIKE BIT…To be fair, the producers at Toho studios were probably just trying to spice up the Godzilla formula. They were 13 monster movies deep into the series and probably reasoned that adding a giant robot with laser-beam eyes and rocket appendages would be just the shot in the arm their franchise needed. It's a plausible strategy, but it also misses the point—the original Godzilla recipe was already perfect. Trying to turn the latest installment of the franchise into a space-dinosaur version of
The Usual Suspects only mucked it up. Sometimes trying to twist the dial to 11 on every product within sight is a mistake.
I feel the same way about some of the trends in the mountain biking world these days. I'll start with the obvious one: the goal to make everything long, low and slack. Let me begin by saying that if you looked at what was on offer five or six years ago, a lot of bikes stood to be improved by having their reach grow and their head angles relax. The most obvious choices were the bikes that swam on the aggressive end of the all-mountain swimming pool. The Giant Reign and Trek Remedy come to mind. But other less-obvious bike genres benefitted from getting a bit, for lack of a better word, "radder". The 2016 Kona's Hei Hei 29er, for example, became a bike that could be raced XC, but also rallied like an aggressive trail bike. Going longer and slacker with that particular model simply made it a good deal more capable and fun. Win, win and win.
As one of the people who'd been inserting the "This could be better if it were longer and slacker" line in at least half of my bike reviews for years, I was gratified when bike companies listened to the many riders who were calling for the same. But that doesn't mean that every bike must necessarily grow longer and slacker in order to be "modern' or even, simply, worth your consideration. What happens, for instance, when a model was already pretty damn long and slack? What if that bike was already pretty dialed in the "progressive geometry" department? Do we really need to add another 20 millimeters to a model's reach every three years? Is it absolutely imperative to slacken the head angle another degree while we're at it? Suddenly we find ourselves in a world where 460 millimeters of reach on a size large is
sooooo 2014 Kona Process. Now we better make that reach 480 millimeters or--wait--make it 500 millimeters!
Look, there comes a moment when you pass the tipping point and you wind up with a bike that is reaaally long and stable--an absolute marvel of high-speed stability--but a bit of an annoying armful to muscle through super tight trails. Or to put it simply: A dose of long, low and slack can be truly awesome, but a size Medium bike with a 48-inch wheelbase is just a mighty long-ass bike.
Of course, if you are racing enduro or shuttling all the time or looking for a single-crown, mini-DH bike, then it's hard to go too long and too slack. All is right in your world. But it's decidedly less awesome for that rider who is still looking for that one bike that he can ride everywhere. That rider will hit a point when they are wishing 2015's, six-inch travel, all-mountain bike still occupied floor space at their local bike shop.
Enduro is still the hot librarian or "it girl" of the bike industry in 2018, but what if you aren't an enduro racer or your trails or your riding style don't merit the slackest, longest bike possible? Well, it's not like you'll exactly find yourself adrift in a barren, bike-less world when it comes time to buy a new rig. For starters, you could opt for a new bike with less travel, slightly steeper geometry and a shorter wheelbase. There's that option. And, yes, some companies are also still offering both all-mountain and enduro models (selling a Bronson alongside a Nomad or a Stumpjumper
and an Enduro, to employ just two examples). There are, however, other brands that now have a sizable black hole in their line up between all-purpose, trail bike and mini-DH bike.
I realize, of course, that this may all come across as just one "old guy" bitching about how shit has changed and how great everything would be if life was just fixed in stone. You can dismiss what I'm saying here as just another "You kids get off my goddamn lawn!" kind of rant, but that's not actually what I'm saying here. I think people who wanted mini-DH bikes should have gotten them a lot earlier and it's great that those bikes exist. For the record, on the right trails, they are a blast to ride. But I also wind up traveling to parts of the country that don't boast the gnarliest trails and I meet people who
want sub-47 inch (1194 millimeter) wheelbases and head angles somewhere north of 66 degrees.... The trend to make every bike long, low and "slack-as-f*ck" misses the mark for those riders.
Theoretically, turning the dial up to 11 is going to make everything awesome. From here on out, it's going to be lazer eyes and rocket hands and space aliens and mini downhill bikes for everyone. All the time. On every trail. Yay!
But when we reach for that dial each and every time, we sometimes risk launching right off the tipping point and into a world where fashion trumps function. There is a fine line, a wise man once said, between clever and stupid. It pays to know where that line starts and where it ends.
363 Comments
Manufacturers need to fix your issue by adding an additional larger size in the lineup. Maybe then everyone could enjoy riding without tasting bitterness the whole time.
Fact. Taller riders need more stack, more reach, steeper seat tubes and longer CS.
Fact. Shorter riders need something proportionally different.
There is no reason why bikes manufacturers can't accommodate this. Though it's entirely possible that some bike brands don't understand that different sized people require different sized bikes.
It's absurd that a taller rider should resort to buying a bike like a Pole Evolink to get the dimensions he needs. And to wit, Pole doesn't vary STA or CS length between sizes either - they are just as guilty as anyone else. A Pole Evolink in small must be ridiculous.
Just sayin...
Many thanks to Santa Cruz for doing XXLs in some of their bikes for many years!
sorry @vernonfelton . Time for us tall dudes to finally have bikes that do not make us cringe at lower back pain and vomit-induced style.
I'm 6.4 and I hate the obsession with low stack heights. My 2010 XL Enduro had a 170m headtube! My next bike had 130mm... I lost 40mm stack in a second and I had neck ache all the time.
And I don't agree the this conversation is about geometry and not size issues. If an XL was truely that with better longer reach and stack it would be fine, but for years most bikes are a size smaller at least than they should be. Look at the recent (until the current super long trend anyway) trend of sizing up... fine if your a midget (average height!) but what if your over 190? No where to go.
But then you get the problem mentioned to do with seat angles. Santa Cruz have released an XXL at last, but the seat puts you so far over the rear axle it's a joke. And they are not the only ones.. I think as mentioned this is about cost of production more than anything, but I think it's time for someone to start making bikes with taller riders in mind specifically, not just adding a few mil to a current model and calling it an XXL.
Not sure about longer chainstay though, wheelbase get so long anyway as the reach grows that handling would be a barge. My old Enduro had a massive WB and it was a 26" enduro bike.. it was already longer than many normal sized DH bikes were at the time!
A key part of the theory behind this evolution in mountain bike design has been to break free from road bike design hang-ups, seat tube and top tube length are always linked on road bikes for efficiency reasons etc, but on mountain bikes designers/engineers have finally realised that for a really wide range of rider heights there is an optimal seat tube length 'window' (modern dropper posts really help here), the taller riders just need more reach, or upper body room. This is not only a massive change for anyone outside of 'normal' height (shorter as well as taller riders benefit) but a win for all of us is that if for example you usually ride a Large you can also look at the M or XL model in a range, you'll still be able to pedal properly on either size but you now get to choose how long you want the bike to be to suit your body shape and riding style.
The extremes of 'longer, lower, slacker' frame designs are what people comment on (or get hung up on) now, and they have their place for certain types of rider or riding, but actually it is the break away from our road bike ancestors that is the real revolution.
So, we get much higher reach to seat tube length ratio. If you don’t like the long reach, then hust buy a fkng smaller ize of the frame. You used to buy M or L, buy a fkng S which is as long as your former Large
I think at some point it will balance out and find a happy medium. I just hope it's not a the expense of bikes for suitable for people. Maybe once the price of tooling CF moulds comes down they'll keep the wider range of frame sizes.
Maybe if the race for longer, lower, slacker slowed down then bike designs would have a longer lifespan which would mean that they could afford to make the extra sizes due to not having to scrap the moulds and start again each year?
I feel like once things level off and a frames geo is relevant for more like 5-7 years THEN you'll see a wider range of sizes. Until then the the small window of geo popularity, hype, whatever you want to call it will dictate the few sizes a manufacturer is willing to invest in.
Also yes they can make aluminum bikes, I actually own one. Manufacturers need to make what the customer wants however, and a majority of them want carbon. If they offered more sizes in alu than their carbon models then all of the carbon lovers would cry foul as there is less carbon options.
You highlight on the economic and environmental expense here of carbon fiber production too. Why not aluminium? At least when I break my chainstay, the parts do not end up in a dump, the aluminium can be recycled into window frames, beer cans, etc.
Development of a jig and computer programming is significantly less of an expense than new sizes in carbon fiber production as well.
@fahrwerk: I believe while long geo (or amount of travel or 29", 2 ply tyres) helps in particular situations it is still the riders input that makes things happen. I'm not saying we should all ride 2010 FS XC bikes then, I can appreciate a big bike. But just because a semi pro can rail a Pole around switchbacks doesn't mean that most of their clients can. Many of us can't corner anyways so making riding straight through rock gardens does seem appealing. It's funny that people who are proponents of long geos treat themselves as experts at riding while it seems like it is Joeys who will benefit most of such compromise. Another funny thing is that people are shouting I want a playful bike, then they want 1300 wheelbase... come on...
As one of the old guys of mtb, I look back at decades of photos of me hunched over the biggest bike I could get (with little more than a long seat tube).
Now I can finally ride a bike that fits me.
It has changed everything!
I'm like, "How!? How are those guys doing that!? They must stuff their dick up their arsehole or something!?"
(and on)
Difference between moto and bicycle is, you don't really have the limitations of the human that bicycles do. If the human wasn't a weak motor, XC bikes would have 6" of travel, be a bit more slacked out for more comfort, better suspension handling, and the suspension would actually sit in it's sag. And this bike would work well for everything. Thus creating one standard. Sure you have 'enduro/offroad' models in the moto world, but it's not vastly different from the mx version like say an xc to an 6-7" AM rig is. The other problem is, manufactures create 3-5 different sized bicycles in the same model to try and make it 'fit' every individual. Moto world shoots for that higher end 5' mark and than people have the options to buy parts to make it suite their height more if they struggle with how it is. Just my .02
If you don't believe me you can watch Ping walk the pits at A1 and talk about all of the top 5 guys bikes up close in detail. Husky and KTM running stock motor and gears. The coat the outside of the motor for durability but that's it. Obviously everything else is tricked out to the Nth degree.
I'd say components have made huge advancements in the last 20 years with suspension, dropper posts, wheels, brakes, shifting, etc. The recent trend has been materials and making carbon fiber frames more sleak and affordable. It's no wonder the focus of companies has now turned to dimensions and tweaking those numbers for a few years until it gets pushed too far or no longer trendy.
Once you have almost the perfect bike or component sometimes you just buy time by making minor tweaks until a new large break through in racing styles, componentry design or materials comes along.
In the end, remember that the target market are those who buy bikes at full price/MSRP. That segment of the market is typically called "early adopters," or "innovators." These are the people that the bike company is trying to woo into buying their bikes, and this segment thrives lining up to put their pre-order in as soon as they can so they can be seen on the trails having the latest and "greatest." They are likely to believe the hype and jump on new trends too!
Remember when we had this same discussion over larger wheels, tubeless tires, coil vs air shocks, wider rims, wider bars, steer tube sizing, boost/axle width, 1 by X drive train, bottom bracket standards? Are we going to complain about every innovation in this sport?
www.pinkbike.com/news/Pinkbike-Poll-Are-You-Scared-of-Change-2013.html
So as a result, we seem to have found ourselves at the limit of how much bike we really want. We seem to be mostly in agreement that our next bikes will be a step down in "burliness"...in fact one member of the group has already made the drop (from a 170mm bike to a 130mm bike)...and it has actually made him an even better rider. Personally i've worked my way through a bunch of Specialized enduros, onto a Tracer, then a Firebird, another Enduro, and currently a Carbine (pre-2018 model). Seeing that both the tracer and Carbine have gone into "mini-DH" territory, my sights have turned towards the Primer and Recluse, or maybe something akin to the Pivot Switchblade.
In short, I think the dilemma isn't so much that bikes are getting too big, just that we are faced with jumping categories in order to keep riding the way we love to ride. I am classically what you would call an "Enduro" rider, but the current crop of "Trail" bikes appear to be better choices for me than what they are now calling "Enduro" bikes. I just don't need that much bike for the descents that I tackle regularly, so i'd rather have the lighter weight and climbing benefits.
Thats why I got a hardtail for my hometrails+ other not so burly stuff. You learn to work in the bike- absorb impacts with your own body+ really push+pump the bike easily. If you switch to your full suspension then you will see that you dont need that much travel &you will be faster.
Oh and HT are friggin fun.
It happens in other fields, like ski and snowboard for example
That Switchblade is incredible. "only" 135mm travel, but i can ride this thing like its a full on enduro rig, like my old Mach6. But the ability to switch wheels between 29 and 27.5 (with room for plus or my preference the 2.5 Maxxis) makes this the only bike i need - unless its that rare visit to a Bikepark, then the old Firebird gets a wipe down and run out.
Good luck with what ever you purchase, and thanks for talking much sense.
I ride a 145mm travel bike, definitely a 'Trail' bike number, but with 510mm reach and slack angles it feels like a 180mm bike and can handle a lot more than I can!
And despite that, we are still classifying bikes by their travel. So no matter the geo, a 120-140mm bike is a "trail bike" and a 150-160 bike is an "Enduro" bike.
real urban beater
i'm 5'8" and 130lbs though
a veritable "Who will grab the dong first?" Whodunnit...
Another issue is that some brands use very low stack on S and M frames. So you end up with a bike which simply looks ridiculous.
Now I think things have gone a touch wrong but in a way others are still saying good - steep seat tubes. I just bought a Radon Swoop in medium, standing up on the bike it's bang on perfect again, reach dialled. Sit down however and it's now a bit to short due to the steep seat tube, so weird it's got 10mm more reach than my NS Snabb but 10mm shorter top tube as the seat tubes so steep. It's acceptable as it's really a mini DH bike with 170mm travel but it would be better with a slacker seat tube so seat right up I'd me in a more traditional stretched out XC position to ride fast on the flat or up hills - it would make it a true all rounder.
If it's not slack enough for you, there is a good 3-4 degrees difference in your saddle rails, not to mention several dropper posts have a lay-back head design (Specialneeds Command post for example). There are numerous options for slackening seated position if you like to feel like you're pedalling a recumbant, but you're limited when trying to steepen.
Furthermore, a slack seat angle for a tall rider is double bad as all your weight is over the rear axle, making the front end light when climbing, as the on trend short chainstays designed around short arses.
Anyway, as you said, if it makes people happy I'm okay with that but I just hope that we will still have some nice choices in the future.
Im back on a rigid 29er and its a heap of fun as my local trails don't have a massive amount of gnar.
I'm all for the LLS trend to allow us to establish the limits on geo but would not sure now if I would want one for local trails.
"YOU GET THE COMMUNITY ON BOARD OR WE PULL ALL OUR ADS!!!"
and thus we got a second article trying to convince us that DUB is not just a money grab
BTW, my "don't give a fcuk" credentials: XT 9s rear mech with Sram Attack shifter. Every time I click, a little part of Sram dies.
@xeren: can't fault that analysis
I also have t-rex arms and I'm short, so yeah...
Dude, if you were around in the early 70's, you could've subbed in for MechaGodzilla
Modern MTB tech is sick and I LIKE IT!
And just to be sure: I don't even ride particularly well, I wuss out on the big jumps, my cornering technique disappears at certain speeds, and still... it is just more fun with those kind of bikes. More margin before you have to bail out.
Curiously enough, my 30-year-old "gentleman's bike" for cruising around the city has peculiarly long reach and slack head angle and its ride characteristics are really fun (they just didn't get it with the steep seat angle back then). And my father used to rage all my adult life about modern bikes being way too twitchy and unstable at high speeds, back in his days things were better.... so were just doing the full circle here, really
Some brands came to the long, low and slack party a lot later than other brands, but I don't think any brand (including the ones that were NOT late to the party) feels like they can put out a new shredder of a bike without also adding 15 to 20mm of reach and lopping another degree of the headtube angle.
All design decisions entail tradeoffs. No way around that. I'd argue that "old school" bikes with steep head angles and very short wheelbase had severe drawbacks for some riders. Absolutely. But if we get to a place where every bike has a sprawling wheelbase, we'll get to a place where we gained a lot of stability and lost a lot of maneuverability. We haven't gotten to that point yet. Most companies have not jumped the shark yet...but I look at the continuing trend and think we could reach that point eventually. This column is just a reminder that there comes a point where you don't have to pursue "long, low and slack" every time you remodel a bike.
Personally I think headangles steeper than 66º have no place on a modern mountainbike as it makes cornering terrrible e.g. folding the front end. Same goes for slack seat angles as they only induce wheeling and make the front wander up climbs.
Having said that yes you can still have variation within a certain range of geometries. For my type of riding (alpine) the difference between my DH and XC bike would be travel and a few parts not geometry.
An easy one is head angle. Steep head angles are terrible and useless specially in mtbiking where you tend to lean the bike when doing turns. The old idea that slack head angles make the bike wonder when going uphill was true for short reach bikes but is solved when you stretch the bike out. So it is no longer necessary to compromise with a steep head angle in order to make it up that tech singletrack.
Steep seat angles also work best for climbing and are not a hassle on flat sections.
Chainstay size is a choice between traction and stability (long) or easy of picking up the front end, manualing and agility.
Wheelsize depends on type of riding you want to do and also frame size. Bigger wheels are faster but not quite as agile and may not be best on XS and S frame sizes.
Of course, you do have to adapt your riding style in order to handle these new breed of longer bikes. Riding off the back is no longer possible since you have to weight the front end more. Some people adapt to that more easily than others. I met a German guy last year would didn't like long bikes because he preferred to ride off the back of the bike. He complained that he kept losing the front end.
@SintraFreeride pretty much perfectly summarized it. Of course there is a TOO long-low-slack, but that's somewhere beyond the extreme Nicolais. All the new bikes right in the middle between old-school and Geometron are probably going to be pretty much the new normal, and THESE bikes actually ride well-rounded. The tendency to go over the bar is so immensely reduced, people will look back shaking their heads, eventually.
With one exception, that is the seat angle: Anyone still doing 75° and calling it "steep" is just too lazy to try something steeper or too afraid of customer reactions. But just look at those pictures from actual ridden bikes: All the saddles slammed to the front, even on many of those "modern" 75° bikes.
I personally wanted to go more towards the extreme edge (and that steep seat angle), so I chose accordingly. I just cannot understand how anyone can shed tears about losing the all-mountain geometries of yesteryear - they were just shitty XC bikes with blown up travel. Of course I loved them back then, but thats because I didn't know what was possible. I don't even like to ride my dirtbike that much anymore, its just too damn twitchy.
Hindsight is 20/20 - or so I thought. That is why I was so confused by your verdict.
Ultimately, though, what I'm saying is that not every rider or every trail is best served by bikes that are pushing the outer limits of long, low and slack. If a company makes a wide enough range of bikes--some with shorter wheelbases and others with longer wheelbases, then we've got balance. If brands, on the other hand, feel a need to grow every model in their line--to enduro-ize every model, so to speak--then we are back at the unhappy place of building bikes to all fit on one end of the riding spectrum. That would be just the mirror image of building everything super steep and short.
There's a happy medium somewhere in between. That's what I'm saying. Cheers.
"Personally I think headangles steeper than 66º have no place on a modern mountainbike as it makes cornering terrible"
I'd be with you if you had said 69º or even 68º.
It strikes me how in most bike reviews and checks of pro bikes it is mostly a large model or even extra large. Because well back in the days bikes apparently were too short so average length riders chose to size up. Which apparently solidified their belief that this is their size. If you're (almost) six feet tall you're going to ride at least large, right? People seem to be missing the point of what "medium" implies. Medium size is supposed to fit the average sized customer (or average sized bike journalist). Sure you could be the "taller than average" rider (or at least have a longer torso and/or arms) but statistically that would imply some of your colleagues would be shorter than average hence ride a small modern frame. But again, what I see is (male) bike journalists pretty much exclusively ride large or extra large. And now the time has come they complain about the bike being too long... If you've got average length, just get the average (medium) size and try again.
However, I don't believe there is such a thing as a too steep seat tube.
@Slabrung : The bike may not be ideal for the pumptrack but I don't mind. I've got thirteen year old BMX for that
My hardtail is an old lovely steel fully rigid trail bike with about 100 deg head angle that I now use for commuting. I started mountain biking on it which makes me wonder how I survived. I love full sus but the efficiency of a light hardtail has so much charm! What ht do you plan on buying?
I've found this picture of me riding:
klaasbil.home.xs4all.nl/mm1139_vinayschans.jpg
Good riders don't need to wave both arms to maintain balance
Oh yeah, as for the hardtail, I'm already on the build queue. As mentioned in a previous post here, it is a BTR Ranger for 26" wheels. I went with the large size frame but, as I prefer my top tube low, I went with the 400mm seattube so that the top of the top tube meets the seatpost at about 325mm from the bb. I think this will make it so much more fun cornering. I chose to have the bike made exactly the way I want it so I went with matt emerald (RAL6001-M) powdercoat with white decals.
I always knew I needed a longer bike but always chose the low top tube as a main parameter. But now that with that low height I can get the proper length I went for the bike for life
As for unicycling, it is just like riding bikes. Everyone here probably learned to ride bikes without much issues and seemingly little effort. Just try, after a while you can do it. Rising above and beyond up to pro level obviously requires much more dedication. I think it is just like that with unicycling. When I got it, I practiced half an hour a day and then just put it away. Next day I was better than when I stopped the previous day. Within two weeks I could consistently ride on a paved road. I probably could have learned it quicker if I practiced in more open space as it obviously is easier to learn if you've got more room to wander and not worry too much about staying on track. But really, how many kids learn to walk or ride bikes in two weeks anyway? When Kris Holm started he was showing people what could be done. Now he's actually trying to convince people that it really isn't that hard. It is probably mostly just due to the association with acrobats that it is not too common. Still there is always this direct link with mountainbiking. Kris Holm did quite well at the BC Bike Race 2010, I think Finn Iles rides a MUni too. I found some old reports about two gatherings I attended. Was fun riding with people of all ages and abilities. I wasn't even a half decent rider (especially back then) but it was a good laugh. You can find those here:
klaasbil.home.xs4all.nl/munimeet2011.htm
klaasbil.home.xs4all.nl/munimeet2012.htm
Mountainbiking is fun, but never forget there is so much simple fun you can have with something new instead of perfectioning something you're already reasonably good at (or have solidified a couple of bad habits). A unicycle is one of them. I also got a Gibbon slackline a while ago. Again, no risk, loads of giggles. My daughters (6 and 7yo) decided to ride their inline skates more so I join them a bit there too. They've got rings or a trapeze in their room, we've both got a 10ft trampoline in the backyard. I never hear them call for tv or a game console (they probably don't even know what it is) so as long as they at least develop some good skills they'll be fine.
I also have a slackline
enduro-mtb.com/en/thegeometryaffair-supersized-geometry-work-average-guy
Monster Zero was a far better monster (same space suit aliens).
Looking forward to seeing Mecha and party in 2019...
For pure fighting, I think Godzilla Vs. King Kong has some dope moments because Kong is, comparatively speaking, nimble as a mofo. I mean, this is comparing him to Megalon and Mothra, but you know, Kong was spritely. However, I am still pissed (some 40 years on) about the bullshit ending. Godzilla was robbed. Kong is a punk. The movie's ending with Kong as the winner is an affront to all that is right in the world. My six year old summed it up perfectly "Godzilla has atomic fire breath. King Kong just beats his chest. This isn't fair."
It was a hard lesson for a child to absorb, but sometimes in life, Kong wins when we all know Godzilla is the champ.
What people don't seem to accept is mtb geometry has been evolving from its beginnings & there has never been a "ideal" geometry. I applaud the brands who have taken the gamble to build bikes like these. People forget early mtb geometry came from road dimensions, so why are they surprised when radically different mountain bike frames work better than bikes derived from road bikes?
I see new bikes with sooo slack head angle and too looong front centre, that will be so long, that you front wheel touch the finish line immediately after you leave the start gate.
In other geometry aspects: this radical lenght of bikes brings new revolutionary technology called "FAST". Front Angled Seattube Technology. This comes with new Hoo(c)k saddle standard, a little hook under the front of the saddle. Because you'll be stretched between handlebars and pedals on that long bike, so need of additional support is undisputed. Also you can ride at Full-Gwin mode (read chainless), because pedalling will be near to impossible. Everything you need is push the bike by foot in the start gate, and thats all, because the FAST technology is included...
Maybe Waki can make some drawing.
youtu.be/VQDwhAK95ds
But.... you still see loads of long-travel, pseudo-DH/Enduro, slack hard-core weapons being ridden - in trail centres & places where uplifts aren't really an option - so you have to crank it up techie singletrack and fire road combo's for a while (with undulating singletrack sections as well) - before you get to fire it down for a bit.
So I've thought maybe overall along similar lines - I'm shopping for something a bit less "radical" that is more of an all-rounder, trying to avoid pedal-striking everywhere when cranking, decent climber and in tighter stuff, and accept that to have a playful bike I have to lose a bit to the Enduro weapons on the downs.
I'm 5"9",but with stumpy legs (Inside Leg / Inseam only about 30" / 762mm).
On top of that, if I have a "long" reach to the cockpit - I have trouble unweighting the front in a hurry to ride over a sudden snag or rock in the trail while descending, and also can find a bike more trouble to "pop" and fool about a bit on (in my own small and meagre talented way). Plus being stumpy in the legs, standover and ability to drop the seat enough to move around and get low enough can be an issue....
So... it seems like I need a bike that isn't as long as modern stuff (so I can get the front up when I want), not too slack (as I want it to be agile), and with a low seat tube that can slam a dropper as low as possible (which given the short tube means you can only insert the post so far) - so I have room to move body position.
At least on older bikes - going to a small frame though meant TOO short in the ETT - meaning too twitchy and undermining my bottle on the descents due to the instability.
Bottom line? I'm thinking a 2018 bike geo is not for me, while a low standover frame IS for me. Also, as I'm simply not good enough to hammer Diamond Black DH runs (& Reds are more fun to me) - I do need it to help my aged lumpy carcass crank it up the hills too..... so I'don't need 170/160mm travel -I need a "trail bike" and 140mm-ish should be just fine.
So - I'm going to look over and try out a "new" bike this Saturday (currently on a 2013 160/155mm travel Medium Frame Ghost, which really is a fraction big on seatpost height and standover, plus I had to shorten the stem to unweight the front).....but have found an old-stock (2016) Cube Stereo 140 27.5" at a discount. 67.5 head angle, low standover, moderate geo, "only" 150/140mm. Considered archaic and out-dated (so am I lol).... but I'm thinking it might actually just be a better all-around ride for my particular odd build, needs, riding and talent level than a 66 degree, long-low weapon which I couldn't fully exploit on the couple of minutes of descending, but would hinder me on the rest of my ride.
Am I making any sense? Is it just me that is thinking the very latest trends are a step too far to suit me?
Ok.... I'm a) a relatively old guy for MTB (but only really been riding it for a bit over 5-years with any kind of regularity), and b) in the great scheme - not all that fantastic a rider (but seem to be not too different to loads of others you see riding the Trail Centres of Wales)..... and I have frame sizing issues as well as Geo issues.... that I think the newer "Longer, Lower Slacker" trend doesn't help much.
I'm 5"9",but with stumpy legs (Inside Leg / Inseam only about 30" / 762mm).
On top of that, if I have a "long" reach to the cockpit - I have trouble unweighting the front in a hurry to ride over a sudden snag or rock in the trail while descending, and also can find a bike more trouble to "pop" and fool about a bit on (in my own small and meagre talented way). Plus being stumpy in the legs, standover and ability to drop the seat enough to move around and get low enough can be an issue....
So... it seems like I need a bike that isn't as long as modern stuff (so I can get the front up when I want), not too slack (as I want it to be agile), and with a low seat tube that can slam a dropper as low as possible (which given the short tube means you can only insert the post so far) - so I have room to move body position.
At least on older bikes - going to a small frame though meant TOO short in the ETT - meaning too twitchy and undermining my bottle on the descents due to the instability.
Bottom line? I'm thinking a 2018 bike geo is not for me, while a low standover frame IS for me. Also, as I'm simply not good enough to hammer Diamond Black DH runs (& Reds are more fun to me) - I do need it to help my aged lumpy carcass crank it up the hills too..... so I'don't need 170/160mm travel -I need a "trail bike" and 140mm-ish should be just fine.
So - I'm going to look over and try out a "new" bike this Saturday (currently on a 2013 160/155mm travel Medium Frame Ghost, which really is a fraction big on seatpost height and standover, plus I had to shorten the stem to unweight the front).....but have found an old-stock (2016) Cube Stereo 140 27.5" at a discount. 67.5 head angle, low standover, moderate geo, "only" 150/140mm. Considered archaic and out-dated (so am I lol).... but I'm thinking it might actually just be a better all-around ride for my particular odd build, needs, riding and talent level than a 66 degree, long-low weapon which I couldn't fully exploit on the couple of minutes of descending, but would hinder me on the rest of my ride.
Am I making any sense? Is it just me that is thinking the very latest trends are a step too far to suit me?
I had a Cube Stereo 29er and a Trek Stache simultaneously while I hade the Foxy, and there is no doubt that the Foxy was the (for me) best bike of them, more flickable, much more fun.
It took some time to get used with the Calling, since I was used to keep the weight on the front wheel, there was some OTB's the first rides.
I was a little concerned the the Calling actually would be worse for difficult climbing, but I can't sense much difference.
I have never looked back from going to 1x drivetrains. Most people don't need a huge range on an MTB. I much prefer having not front derailleur, especially in the snow or wet sand when they basically stop working and freeze up anyways. It also frees up the bar for other things like dropper post remotes.
I loved my bike before the Following; 26" Rocky Mountain Element MSL. Same rear travel. I said I'd never get a 29r.
Was test riding for 27.5 bikes and happened to try an IBIS Ripley LS. Felt great. Didn't want the IBIS, but saw the Following has similar numbers, and was getting good reviews as an all-arounder, so took the plunge.
The Following is simply a much more versatile bike, climbs just as well, slightly less agile (but still agile) but noticably more stable at speed in the rough and in corners. I still own the Rocky, but wouldn't take it out over the Following in any situation, other than it being down for repair.
That being said, just continuing to makes bikes longer, lower & slacker is simply silly. No matter how much someone claims that a bike like a Pole or Nicolai handles slow-speed tech well, it just isn't true. I ridden 29rs that aren't even that long and they feel like a bus. Even the Following, which is still sub 47" wheelbase in a large, does give up some slow speed agility over my previous ride. To say a 50 inch wheelbase 29r like a Pole is just as maneuverable is silly. There is no magic to overcome the laws of physics. By the same token, a bike like the Following will never be as stable a s Pole. There is always give and take. Personally for a large frame size, I think a 5-ish inch travel, 47-ish inch wheelbase and 67-ish degree head angle is where it is at for an all-around trail bike. Get the bike in your wheel diameter/tire size of choice an you're all set. Unless you're always doing steep downhill stuff, it will make you the most happy for the majority of your rides.
It's probably just me, my weird dimensions and sub-standard skills combo though
I think that for my kinda mildly-gorilla build.... that the issue is not really upper-body REACH as such.... but that I am more limited in being able to move my body back when pivoting around on my feet/ankles on the pedals to get back over the rear when needed?
It is easy to feel that it is hard to manual and pop, yet also that my bike is a bit "short" at the same time for stability when pointing south with a lick on.... a lose-lose. It is also quite easy to get a bit too far "over the front" at the wrong moment and have a near-miss OTB hitting a snag descending.
I am starting to accept that maybe its the limited fore-and-aft mobility as a result of having an ape-stance (i.e. short levers between hips and ankles and a longer torso/arms) that might be the issue rather than the geometry limits and variety of the bikes manufacturer's offer.
It isn't only the rangy above-average height guys that have their sizing and geo woes!
My current guess is that it is perhaps more important for me to be concerned with having a bike with a short seat tube and a longer dropper range to get the seat well out of the way (to compensate for the stumpy legs and allow me more fore-aft range) - than it is for me to worry about reach (on the basis that if I can move a bit further back and a bit lower on the bike, I can "fit" better and let the bike move around under me more).
I have NO idea if the above is inciteful or utter drivel as an idea though haha!
Long/low/slack, or tons of suspension, or both are really just a piece of that problem. Mind you, lots of people buy things aspirationally, rather than realistically - so you have tons of people cruising groomers on the beefiest big mountain skis/boards, etc - meaning it's more a human problem than a mountain biking problem. And hey, if you want to maximize that one gnarly drop you have in your local trail system and want a bit more confidence for that, perhaps that all makes some sense.
But hey, if we could start mounting laser beams on these bikes...
Once I shifted both mentally and literally to riding a bike that was more appropriate for the trails I rode 95% of the time, I find it much more enjoyable.
Same principal applies to tire choice (am I riding around on DHF's when Ikons would be better for my trails?), dropper/no dropper (am I having to remind & force myself to use it because I don't really NEED one on my trails?), etc.
Marketing is a powerful thing when done effectively, and the cycling industry does it better than most. Especially when it's core demographic are disposable-income having dentists :-)
Join Pinkbike Login