Hello Vital MTB Visitor,
We’re conducting a survey and would appreciate your input. Your answers will help Vital and the MTB industry better understand what riders like you want. Survey results will be used to recognize top brands. Make your voice heard!
Five lucky people will be selected at random to win a Vital MTB t-shirt.
Thanks in advance,
The Vital MTB Crew
It depends on whether or not you want to ride more centered and/or if you want to run a shorter stem. If yes then yeah you could add 50-60mm of reach. If you are happy riding off the back then just stick with what you have. However, longer reach will also improve climbing if that matters to you.
It proves nothing.
People aren't buying bikes with 64 deg HTAs, 160mm+ travel and dampers that have as much technology as a top tier rally car to "value uphill performance".
I ride an enduro bike because I race enduro (shocking). As a racer, I know I need to value downhill performance far more than uphill performance. Its simple really, one part of the ride I'm timed on, the other I'm not.
I'm also not alone. Any racer I know skews their entire bike toward DH performance. At a point, it becomes "too much", eg, weight over 40 pounds, tires that roll like shit etc. But if there is one place we're all willing to sacrifice for the descent its geometry.
The irony however is I think we are all learning what works going downhill also works pretty well going uphill...
Small: 452
Medium: 475.5
Large: 500
X-Large: 520
Though i would still like to see their actual seat tube angle. It kind of appears they steepened it up just a bit. But still, such slackness (at least they went 77+ on the virtual angle...)
So, pulled the trigger on a shorter bike and Im stoked. I lost about an inch of wheelbase and I think over an inch of ETT, reach maybe is half an inch shorter. Back feels much better, can power through the end of climbs without muscles tightening up and slowing me down. On top of that, the smaller bike does not feel short/sketchy at all. I think its even more stable than my XL patrol was.
2 years on from the last post, do we still think the same? Have we jumped on board with the modern geo train?
I rolled the dice pretty hard on my next bike, For reference, I'm 6'1 (185cm, 100kg/225lb) I don't think the reach is my worry, it's the 1336mm wheelbase lol. I've done the modern geo thing before (stumpjumper evo 29'er in S3) and it was good.
Due to a few reasons, I'm downsizing my fleet to just 1 bike now. (ebike hate incoming) but this will be my trail, enduro, dh, gravel, commuter bike, pub runner all in one.
Have I fu**ed up here, this is a big bike, but I'm a big boy. Note that the bike is on its way, I have no way of sitting on one do to the stock/covid shit show. I bought purely off reviews, geo sheets and too much beer.
Comparison is new bike to current.
This could be the best, or worst decision I've made.... and I'm married lol!
For the nerds amongst us, chucked the big girl into Linkage, nice numbers for a plow on coil
Norco didn't release the info as a 4 bar eeb system is pretty hotly contested stuff. Mods if this causes trouble I can delete.
I went to relative modern geo with a Starling Swoop.
Alternatively all companies could just start using straight ZS56 head tubes (shout out to Transition for being rad like that). That way folks like me can get that 475mm reach we want, and the long-bois can get they're 485mm reaches too.
As for the wheelbase, DAAAAAAAAMN DANIEL that's a long bike. Speaking from experience, 1292 mm in the wheelbase department is quite long, I would actually very much like to properly (say, 5 rides) try out a smaller bike to be honest. It's awesome when it's wide open, hold on for your dear life kind of stuff, but once it gets a bit more twisty, technical and the like, such a big bike is a bit cumbersome. And I'm not even talking about the added weight of an e-bike.
While I was all for longer bikes, 'proper cockpit lengths' and the rest of the Kool-Aid, we might have just reached the limit geometry wise. Maybe it's me, getting older and getting a bit more precarious in my riding, maybe it's the fact I bought a bike catering to my strengths (wide open, higher speed chunder) instead of catering to my weaknesses, but yeah, it might be worth it taking bikes back a notch to make them more enjoyable instead of more faster. The more faster approach works for racing, but how many of us race? Even for those that do race, how often do they (we) actually race when riding?
Primoz, this will also be my race bike (yeah I race e-mtb, it's awesome) so it will tick that box as the courses will definitely play into the Norco's favor.
So why the range and not the sight you are probably asking, and it's a valid question. Like I said, this is my do it all bike, the tracks that are local and I enjoy riding and steep and loose, hand cut sketchy lines.
The reasoning for "all the travel" is you are assisted by a dirty old motor, efficiency, pedal bob, antisquat bla bla bla gets thrown out the window. You tend use more travel on a given trail on a e-mtb due to the weight and less ability to chose a line, rather you see a line and just smash through everything to come out the other side. So whilst 150mm on the sight seems appropriate, it's arguably not enough travel, However, the Sights Geo seems on point more to me as an all rounder.
My main concern is weighting the front wheel, as above I had a stumpy evo, which I even stupidly overforked. Front end traction was "interesting" to say the least. I revisited a few of Steve @ Vorsprungs vids on advanced Geo comparisons, in particular about FC to RC measurements, the Norco, whilst having some wild numbers came out with a ratio of 1.89. Which isn't where Pole/Geometron are. It would be akin to an older XL Transition Sentinel. So if I can weight the front wheel, I will be fine I think.
A large range is 475mm reach at 77deg SA, I've breifly ridden the new High Pivot Range at 480mm and similar SA and immediately said "I'd go XL" so that was part of my rationale, also everyone said when in doubt, size up..... shiiiiiiit
I suppose I've made my choice, now it's a waiting game for it to arrive and take that first ride, I'm most definately in my own head and freaking myself out. I wish I knew nothing about geometry and kinematics sometimes, would make life much simpler and worry free.
E-bikes are so stable you don't really need the extra stability of ultra modern geometry. My enduro (YT capra) is 1cm longer in reach full 29, but feels lieka BMX compared to my mullet meta power. So while I could be interested in going bigger on the YT, I'm not convinced I want to go bigger on the ebike.
All track style dependent of course, will be interesting to see how that works out for you on singletrack.
Just makes the sprung to un-sprung ratio higher
The huge ass chainstay and wheelbase was only a positive for me. Front end grip is ridiculous for something with a 63deg H/A. Flat turns didn't require any forward weight bias than normal, you just lean and it follows. I never felt like I couldn't maneuver the bike any worse than my old one, rather I felt I could let it eat more, off the brakes and the long wheelbase just tracked straight! I did a few cheeky features I had never done before at this spot, some rock rolls that would almost certainly have been OTB moments were no issue. However the confidence got a little too high and I had a hugey later in the day
Probably the biggest surprise was the climbing, it was insane! I did short vertical pinches I couldn't get close to before. The combo of steep seat tube, long C/S and wheelbase made climbing take a lot less effort than before, that was the biggest eye opener for me.
So in short, whilst this Geo seems downright bonkers on paper, the sum of it all works in a cohesive matter, maybe because it's an ebike this geo works? I'm not sure. But either way I'm stoked with it and my mind is at rest about this gamble on bike Geo.
Post a reply to: How Much Reach is Too Much Reach?