Flatlanders - how's that modern bike working for you?

Related:
Bike Buying Advice
Geometry
Question
Primoz
Profile picture for user Primoz
Posts
4581
Joined
8/1/2009
Location
SI
Primoz 7/2/2020 12:17pm
7/2/2020 12:17pm
smelly wrote:
Ah, I had a 5 spot way back when. Loved that thing so much I keep thinking maybe I should just stick to old school bikes...
Ah, I had a 5 spot way back when. Loved that thing so much I keep thinking maybe I should just stick to old school bikes!

Good to know seat tube angle might matter more for my purposes, so long as I don't go too slack on the front end. Sounds like the weight distribution is gonna be most important. Bummer to hear the Trail Pistol might be too much, I really liked the idea of buying a GG, and I like having bikes that can take a beating - I like testing my terrible trials skills and seeing boulder I can climb or huck off, and it ends up with a lot of low speed crashes. I also want to be able to run 2.5 tires with ease, otherwise the The Kona HeiHei has some good looking geometry, maybe that's a Process 134, but less travel would be better). The Spur at 100mm sounds pretty good - anything other bikes I should think of? I won't get it till next year anyway, so no rush.

I'm not sure you mountain folk and comprehend quite how flat my average ride is. Trails don't drain because there's so little elevation. Worn, eroded tree stumps count as climbs. There are a few little 10-15 second downhills in my local spots, and there's one spot within 30 minutes of me that has a 300 foot climb - everything else is pancake, except for the bombfields of glacial debris.
To me it sounds you're in perfect XC country. Given what (Alps, 150/150 loooooong slack AM sled) and how (enjoying myself on technical stuff regardless if I'm going up or down, but still prefer the down), in your position (or if I had any XC terrain) I'd be looking at bikes like the Yeti SB100. Downcountry bikes. The Transition was also mentioned previously.

But I'd be looking at them because of their better descending capabilities compared to out and out XC bikes and as an additional bike to the sled, so ideally you'd want to test out a bike like this to see if it does fit your terrain.

As for long and slack not working, take a listen to The Inside Line podcast with Cesar Rojo, where he says 65° headtube angles work on XC bikes too.

So yeah, ideally try out anything before you buy and I'd take a serious look at downcountry bikes.

Also, is a full suspension a given? Why not stick with hardtails?
groghunter
Profile picture for user groghunter
Posts
90
Joined
5/18/2013
Location
Tucson, AZ US
groghunter 7/2/2020 12:43pm
7/2/2020 12:43pm
groghunter wrote:
I've literally, personally, had knee pain from it, from having a seat slammed too far forward when I was young and dumb. it's not some myth...
I've literally, personally, had knee pain from it, from having a seat slammed too far forward when I was young and dumb. it's not some myth. it's the basic bio-mechanics of how your leg muscles and joints work. You're not going to explode your knees like if you do heavy weighted squats with your knees too far forward, but the potential for RSI is there.
Primoz wrote:
My point is that this is not caused by the knee going over the toes. It's caused by an issue somewhere else and due to the...
My point is that this is not caused by the knee going over the toes. It's caused by an issue somewhere else and due to the position of the rider on the bike it just comes out that the knee goes over the toes.

By the logic of knee over toes, a recumbent bicycle is impossible to cause knee problems. I sincerely doubt that.
... you do realize "knee over toes" is a way to describe rider position, not a literal description? it's just a way of pointing out that you are over working some of the ligaments in your knee (particularly the patellar tendon) if you don't have a good position on the bike. i mean, everybody's knees are forward of their toes at the 9 'o'clock crank position, that isn't the point.
Primoz
Profile picture for user Primoz
Posts
4581
Joined
8/1/2009
Location
SI
Primoz 7/2/2020 12:45pm
7/2/2020 12:45pm
There you have it then, knee over toes makes no sense. Why use it to describe a rider position then if it does nothing but confuse things?

But this is not the point of this topic.
1
jeremiad
Profile picture for user jeremiad
Posts
1
Joined
5/24/2020
Location
Oakland, CA US
jeremiad 7/2/2020 12:50pm
7/2/2020 12:50pm
I have the new Sentinel and the thing that stands out for me is the forward body position the geometry puts you in. Still getting used to it, but my cornering is way better, esp on flat or off camber turns. So even on trails wo much elevation change, there’s a huge benefit for how I ride.
tylerb
Profile picture for user tylerb
Posts
17
Joined
10/15/2013
Location
Edgewater, CO US
tylerb 7/2/2020 2:27pm
7/2/2020 2:27pm
smelly wrote:
Been awhile since I've been in the market for a new bike. Currently riding a 2013 Canfield Yelli Screamy, which had some progressive geometry for the...
Been awhile since I've been in the market for a new bike. Currently riding a 2013 Canfield Yelli Screamy, which had some progressive geometry for the time (and by today's standards would be an XC race bike). Starting to think about picking up a trail bike - something like a GG Trail Pistol or this new Transition looks rad. But I live in a flat region (eastern Maine) - Sure, there's the occasional 50 foot descent, but for the most part it's just flat, rocky, rooty, twisty, technical stuff. There's a lot more slow, slogging, technical chunder than anything else. Not the kind of the up-down gettin' rad kind of stuff that modern bikes seem designed for.

When I'm riding I feel like my bike is just about perfect geometry wise. I can't imagine something that's 3 or 4 degrees slacker, and a few centimeters longer. Feels like it'd just flop around and hang up on things. Am I just a total curmudgeon who needs to hang out with rigid singlespeeders, or do these newfangled bikes actually work on flat trails?
To touch on your original bike considerations I can say that I owned a trail pistol and loved the geometry. In my opinion the leverage ratio was best in plush mode (higher initial leverage rate) than in crush. This meant I frequently rode it in the steeper seat tube and head tube angle position. I rode it everywhere, from flat XC to DH and never felt out of place.

Having said that, I have been working on a flex stay design for my next build that just so happens to be similar to the new Transition. (Although my inspiration was Swarf and Scott) The GEO on the new transition looks great as well. I don't think you could go wrong with either. The GG would allow you to try many different setups though, so if you wanted to run a steeper HT angle you could.
smelly
Profile picture for user smelly
Posts
218
Joined
3/7/2016
Location
Colorado Springs, CO US
smelly 7/2/2020 4:44pm
7/2/2020 4:44pm
Primoz wrote:
To me it sounds you're in perfect XC country. Given what (Alps, 150/150 loooooong slack AM sled) and how (enjoying myself on technical stuff regardless if...
To me it sounds you're in perfect XC country. Given what (Alps, 150/150 loooooong slack AM sled) and how (enjoying myself on technical stuff regardless if I'm going up or down, but still prefer the down), in your position (or if I had any XC terrain) I'd be looking at bikes like the Yeti SB100. Downcountry bikes. The Transition was also mentioned previously.

But I'd be looking at them because of their better descending capabilities compared to out and out XC bikes and as an additional bike to the sled, so ideally you'd want to test out a bike like this to see if it does fit your terrain.

As for long and slack not working, take a listen to The Inside Line podcast with Cesar Rojo, where he says 65° headtube angles work on XC bikes too.

So yeah, ideally try out anything before you buy and I'd take a serious look at downcountry bikes.

Also, is a full suspension a given? Why not stick with hardtails?
Good question. You know, I'll probably end up also getting one of the new Canfield Nimble 9 because I love my bike so much and just want to keep supporting the company, and that way my old school one that I can't get replacement derailleur hangers for anymore can become a super fun commuter. But I'm pushing 40 and wouldn't mind some cush, and it's hard not to buy into the hype and want to taste the kool-aid on these fancy, new fangled squishy bikes the kids are riding these days. I'd love to enjoy riding just as much and not worry about my backaches afterwards. But I also won't be surprised if I get a squishy bike and end up going back to a hardtail because.. I don't know. Just because.

As for this fat tire issue - I can totally see that maybe if I've got some extra suspension I'll downsize from 2.5 tires. But the thing I like about fatter tires is the ability to run lower pressure and have grip galore on the climbs and slow speed stuff. This isn't a crazy idea - Nino Schurter runs 2.4s (granted they don't have the knobs my Minions do)
smelly
Profile picture for user smelly
Posts
218
Joined
3/7/2016
Location
Colorado Springs, CO US
smelly 7/2/2020 4:49pm
7/2/2020 4:49pm
jeremiad wrote:
I have the new Sentinel and the thing that stands out for me is the forward body position the geometry puts you in. Still getting used...
I have the new Sentinel and the thing that stands out for me is the forward body position the geometry puts you in. Still getting used to it, but my cornering is way better, esp on flat or off camber turns. So even on trails wo much elevation change, there’s a huge benefit for how I ride.
totally makes sense. It's the only thing I'd change about my current bike - I'd like to be more forward when in a neutral position.

Post a reply to: Flatlanders - how's that modern bike working for you?