Posts
8
Joined
8/16/2020
Location
Boise, ID
US
Edited Date/Time
4/1/2021 10:12pm
I have been consistently underwhelmed by the usefulness of 'static' geometry charts. It makes sense for road bikes, but it neglects major characteristics of full suspension platforms. Two bikes with identical static geometry could be completely different under sag. High pivot, single pivot, and concentric pivot bikes will all change the 'geometry numbers' completely differently as they run through their travel.
To remedy the issue, I think that charts should account for this by listing both 'static' and 50% sag values. I have yet to see this concept of listing geometry at these two points applied outside of Vorsprung's analysis. I think this concept should be commonplace.
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5R60JHJbxI]
The Kona Process X article we reviewed a few days ago also had a serious debate about seat tube angles. What it boiled down to, in my eyes, is the annoyance of the imaginary 'effective' measurement. I see a few different geometry calculators roaming around. But, it would be awesome to have the ability to see how your own setup (saddle height etc.) translates to the overall geometry in both static and at sag.
Thoughts?
To remedy the issue, I think that charts should account for this by listing both 'static' and 50% sag values. I have yet to see this concept of listing geometry at these two points applied outside of Vorsprung's analysis. I think this concept should be commonplace.
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5R60JHJbxI]
The Kona Process X article we reviewed a few days ago also had a serious debate about seat tube angles. What it boiled down to, in my eyes, is the annoyance of the imaginary 'effective' measurement. I see a few different geometry calculators roaming around. But, it would be awesome to have the ability to see how your own setup (saddle height etc.) translates to the overall geometry in both static and at sag.
Thoughts?
Post a reply to: Do geometry charts need an update?