Thought this was an interesting screen grab of Reece Wilson’s body position riding a short stem and longer chainstays (no idea what they actually are since they have been testing proto stuff, but stock geo says static 445-460mm). Looks like he’s riding a moto.
Does anyone have experience with MX vs 29 on ling rear centers?
How long is long? I've owned a GG Gnarvana 29er (450 CS) and a few MX bikes that have CS from 440-447. I feel like in MX setup, the bike rides like the CS is about 5mm shorter while cornering. The 447 bike was an overforked Levo S3, so it was really close to having CS = reach, but the reach was about 8mm or so shorter than my SC bikes which have 440ish CS. So even though CS/reach were balanced on the Levo, I felt like I had less front end grip because the reach was kinda short and pushing me rearward. I guess my point there would be that I wouldn't want a bike with shorter reach just to match the CS length. The Gnarvana felt like I was driving a fire ladder truck, rear wheel felt WAY out behind me. Mega stable though. I briefly rode it as a mullet but not extensively because the BB got mega low, and it got crazy slack... can't remember how it cornered. I'm 5'8" and ride mediums FWIW.
How long is long? I've owned a GG Gnarvana 29er (450 CS) and a few MX bikes that have CS from 440-447. I feel like in...
How long is long? I've owned a GG Gnarvana 29er (450 CS) and a few MX bikes that have CS from 440-447. I feel like in MX setup, the bike rides like the CS is about 5mm shorter while cornering. The 447 bike was an overforked Levo S3, so it was really close to having CS = reach, but the reach was about 8mm or so shorter than my SC bikes which have 440ish CS. So even though CS/reach were balanced on the Levo, I felt like I had less front end grip because the reach was kinda short and pushing me rearward. I guess my point there would be that I wouldn't want a bike with shorter reach just to match the CS length. The Gnarvana felt like I was driving a fire ladder truck, rear wheel felt WAY out behind me. Mega stable though. I briefly rode it as a mullet but not extensively because the BB got mega low, and it got crazy slack... can't remember how it cornered. I'm 5'8" and ride mediums FWIW.
It’s helpful to think in terms of rear center and front center. When you overforked your Levo you decreased reach, but you increased front center (and stack.) When I overforked my SteVo I lost a ton of front wheel grip because of the increased front center and the increased slack leading to less weight naturally placed on the bars.
When we talk about longer rear centers, or ratios, we aren’t talking about reach, though we might be talking about decreasing front centers (see: slightly steeper HTA over the last couple years.) we can still make bikes that ride the same from the cockpit, but provide different ride dynamics from those points.
Matt Beers on riding a bike with a longer rear center:
“Putting the bike into steep, switchbacks takes some commitment to trust the front wheel won’t tuck underneath you. It’s not the most inviting if you’re not on your A-game and certainly not how I expected a 170 mm-travel enduro bike to respond in those scenarios. With that said, I do ride further forward on the bike than most. Compared to a ganglier rider, like Amaury Pierron, he tends to ride with his hips lower and further back over the saddle. I found myself mimicking his riding style on this bike. Only then did it start to click. If you expect a super-slack head angle to erase your mistakes, this isn’t the bike for you.”
If you don’t understand why every brand hasn’t adopted the geo that some of us are espousing, here is your answer. That instant shift in riding style is not possible for every rider. If Beers had trouble, what hope do the bumblers have? Why do we expect product managers to be able to make this shift?
It’s helpful to think in terms of rear center and front center. When you overforked your Levo you decreased reach, but you increased front center (and...
It’s helpful to think in terms of rear center and front center. When you overforked your Levo you decreased reach, but you increased front center (and stack.) When I overforked my SteVo I lost a ton of front wheel grip because of the increased front center and the increased slack leading to less weight naturally placed on the bars.
When we talk about longer rear centers, or ratios, we aren’t talking about reach, though we might be talking about decreasing front centers (see: slightly steeper HTA over the last couple years.) we can still make bikes that ride the same from the cockpit, but provide different ride dynamics from those points.
Yeah, I looked at that. GG Megatrail MX (trail) 1.85 FC:RC. GG Gnarvana 1.74. My Levo ended up with 1.77. My Nomad 6 (hi) is 1.82, Heckler SL (lo) 1.79, & Vala (lo) 1.82. Of all of those, the best all around handling for me (front end grip, stability, tracking in corners, & confidence in steeps) are the 3 Santa Cruz bikes. I mentioned reach because I feel like there's a sweet spot on it particular to each rider, especially on MX setups, that affects front tire grip - the FC:RC ratio is meaningless if reach is too short. Too short (especially paired with short rear end) and you end up with more weight on rear tire and not enough front grip. I had more front tire washouts on the Levo than any of the other bikes, and the Megatrail was the squirreliest in corners (wanted to square off / inside line everything).
I grew up riding cross country and most of that time was on 26" wheels, and I used to ride trials in college. I owned an Ozonys Curve 24" (gorgeous piece of art) and got decent at the basic trials maneuvers (once did a 10ft drop. That was surreal). The bike was a 17lb no-seat feather. Given the posture of the bike how many hours I spend on it, and how small the thing was, it felt like an extension of my body.
Little did I know that in the future when I pursued trail and enduro riding, that all of the trials riding would carry over into how I ride MTBs: far back or far forward. Is it improper posture? For a coach teaching a beginner, probably.
But... I'm 6' 2" with a +4" ape index and 34" inseam. Last year when I purchased a Spartan HP, I had to test a bike with almost identical geo (Spesh Enduro S2 and S3) and discovered there was NO WAY I could ever go over a 470 reach. I went with a size M Spartan, and I feel so at-home and comfortable on it. Even riding my shorter brother's fat bike and Giant Trance I feel very welcome on.
Taking a note out of Richie Rude's book, sizing down from the manufacturer's recommendations is absolutely the right choice for me. Just sitting on L and XL bikes inside of bike shops makes me feel like a stunted child: why are they so big? My 2017 Felt Decree XL has always felt a little big, and I've put a 35mm stem on it.
I've done some sketchy stuff on bikes in my life, but going full speed down powerline easements, mountain roads, twisty single track, steep techy chunk, never have I felt like my bikes are too small. That may be because of all of the trials riding I've done, but given my proportions, I am just not comfortable riding bikes with reaches above 470. If I was to guess my ideal reach, I'd park it around 457.
People will come on here debating f/r ratios and best cs lengths, reach etc without talking at all about cleat / foot position.The preference that a...
People will come on here debating f/r ratios and best cs lengths, reach etc without talking at all about cleat / foot position.
The preference that a rider has for a particular foot position hugely affects f/r weighting. And two riders on the same bike with the same proportions will have very different experiences if they run 5mm different cleat positions.
I don’t understand that. our weight rests mainly on our feet, with a small percentage on our hands. You can not change that long term. Bikes have pedals, on a rotating spindle. So, regardless of foot position, your weight can only ever go through the middle of the pedal. If you don’t compensate with the position of your hips/torso, you would end up with more weight on your hands, which would be very uncomfortable. So, you (subconsciously) adjust. Therefor foot position determines load on your calf muscles, and slightly, your range of motion fore and aft due to your neutral hip/torso being slightly for or aft, but I bet the latter is so small as to be unnoticeable.
I am fairly sure I prefer longer stays than what most brands offer currently. Of course, that’s because I ride XXL’s and am 6’5” with long...
I am fairly sure I prefer longer stays than what most brands offer currently. Of course, that’s because I ride XXL’s and am 6’5” with long legs. I can’t say I know for sure, because I have never been able to try a bike with front:rear ratios like the M L sizes have.
I think proportional Is the way to go, or at least a lot closer to proportional than we currently have.
Sure, some people need or want shorter or longer, even at the same body height. But, offering (nearly) proportional ratios of front to rear length for a certain bike would allow you to choose a bike that matches your preferences, regardless of your size.
As a tall rider, I also want taller stack. Just to get my bars level with my saddle (common for smaller bike sizes) on my S6 Stumpy Evo I have 35mm spacers, a riser stem and 70mm riser bars.
Again, while some people want their bars high, and others low, starting with proportional scaling gives individual riders the choice. Currently small riders can’t get a really low position, and tall riders can never get a very high handlebar.
Proportional scaling for stack gets really hard with 29 inch wheels on the small side, even on xc bikes running 100mm forks. Having your saddle level...
Proportional scaling for stack gets really hard with 29 inch wheels on the small side, even on xc bikes running 100mm forks. Having your saddle level with your bars isn't a great indicator of fit either, since it doesn't say anything about your hip handle and hip impingement while pedaling. I'm on the taller side, 6'1 32 inch inseam, and I have always ridden with my saddle higher than my bars because I really like an aggressive seated position on the bike, chest low and forward. Recently, I've been really bringing up my stack height, currently on 35mm of spacers, 3° rise 40mm stem, and 35mm rise bars on an over forked L Norco Sight, and it's been an adjustment for me to ride seated since it's so much higher than it used to be, but my saddle is still about an inch above my bars. My descending is way better now and I feel stronger. Next step is getting some higher rise bars, 40-50 mm, and actually going narrower, from 800mm to 780 or so. There's a good chance I'll go to a 50mm stem again too, to bring the bar a bit forward.
I'm lucky since I have a lot of options to raise myself up, but smaller riders aren't. There are a lot of bikes I work on where the rider has bars that sit well above their saddle slammed to the head tube with a flat bar (riders 5'5 and shorter) and they just don't have nearly as much room to move around on the bike. We focus a lot on the tall side of the spectrum when talking about geo, but not nearly as much for the shorties.
Some complaints about geometry are due to a lack of understanding of packaging constraints. I’m still curious about how these bike designers honestly feel about the...
Some complaints about geometry are due to a lack of understanding of packaging constraints. I’m still curious about how these bike designers honestly feel about the compromises between sizes…
Totally agree that long travel fork + 29” front wheel = high stack for a small size. But they should at least be as low as possible, and at a minimum those sizes should come with a flat bar. And I personally suspect a lot of very small riders would do better on full 27.5” bikes. Sure, a 29er front wheel might roll a bit better over stuff, but having full range of motion and the ability to load the front wheel is worth even more I bet.
Matt Beers on riding a bike with a longer rear center:“Putting the bike into steep, switchbacks takes some commitment to trust the front wheel won’t tuck...
Matt Beers on riding a bike with a longer rear center:
“Putting the bike into steep, switchbacks takes some commitment to trust the front wheel won’t tuck underneath you. It’s not the most inviting if you’re not on your A-game and certainly not how I expected a 170 mm-travel enduro bike to respond in those scenarios. With that said, I do ride further forward on the bike than most. Compared to a ganglier rider, like Amaury Pierron, he tends to ride with his hips lower and further back over the saddle. I found myself mimicking his riding style on this bike. Only then did it start to click. If you expect a super-slack head angle to erase your mistakes, this isn’t the bike for you.”
If you don’t understand why every brand hasn’t adopted the geo that some of us are espousing, here is your answer. That instant shift in riding style is not possible for every rider. If Beers had trouble, what hope do the bumblers have? Why do we expect product managers to be able to make this shift?
It's honestly refreshing to see a review talk about the potential short comings of longer rear ends, even if he didn't call it out specifically. That Comencal he was on had a 1.82 FC RC ratio, not really that out of the ordinary, but he noticed the ammount of weight it was putting on the front wheel for him and his riding style. That's why I'm generally against the idea of "proportional stays", because it's only accounting for a single factor, static weight distribution. I really hope the online crowds stop pushing for them like they are the only way forwards.
Matt Beers on riding a bike with a longer rear center:“Putting the bike into steep, switchbacks takes some commitment to trust the front wheel won’t tuck...
Matt Beers on riding a bike with a longer rear center:
“Putting the bike into steep, switchbacks takes some commitment to trust the front wheel won’t tuck underneath you. It’s not the most inviting if you’re not on your A-game and certainly not how I expected a 170 mm-travel enduro bike to respond in those scenarios. With that said, I do ride further forward on the bike than most. Compared to a ganglier rider, like Amaury Pierron, he tends to ride with his hips lower and further back over the saddle. I found myself mimicking his riding style on this bike. Only then did it start to click. If you expect a super-slack head angle to erase your mistakes, this isn’t the bike for you.”
If you don’t understand why every brand hasn’t adopted the geo that some of us are espousing, here is your answer. That instant shift in riding style is not possible for every rider. If Beers had trouble, what hope do the bumblers have? Why do we expect product managers to be able to make this shift?
What bike/review was that? Google can’t give me an answer.
It's honestly refreshing to see a review talk about the potential short comings of longer rear ends, even if he didn't call it out specifically. That...
It's honestly refreshing to see a review talk about the potential short comings of longer rear ends, even if he didn't call it out specifically. That Comencal he was on had a 1.82 FC RC ratio, not really that out of the ordinary, but he noticed the ammount of weight it was putting on the front wheel for him and his riding style. That's why I'm generally against the idea of "proportional stays", because it's only accounting for a single factor, static weight distribution. I really hope the online crowds stop pushing for them like they are the only way forwards.
Beer is also not particularly tall. Most of this discussion on this thread is about more balanced bikes for taller riders, not longer chainstays in a vacuum. Moreover, look at a bunch of his reviews and he like plenty of bikes with that ratio or even more balanced. For example: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/staff-rides-matt-beers-commencal-supreme-2927.html
Matt Beers on riding a bike with a longer rear center:“Putting the bike into steep, switchbacks takes some commitment to trust the front wheel won’t tuck...
Matt Beers on riding a bike with a longer rear center:
“Putting the bike into steep, switchbacks takes some commitment to trust the front wheel won’t tuck underneath you. It’s not the most inviting if you’re not on your A-game and certainly not how I expected a 170 mm-travel enduro bike to respond in those scenarios. With that said, I do ride further forward on the bike than most. Compared to a ganglier rider, like Amaury Pierron, he tends to ride with his hips lower and further back over the saddle. I found myself mimicking his riding style on this bike. Only then did it start to click. If you expect a super-slack head angle to erase your mistakes, this isn’t the bike for you.”
If you don’t understand why every brand hasn’t adopted the geo that some of us are espousing, here is your answer. That instant shift in riding style is not possible for every rider. If Beers had trouble, what hope do the bumblers have? Why do we expect product managers to be able to make this shift?
People will come on here debating f/r ratios and best cs lengths, reach etc without talking at all about cleat / foot position.The preference that a...
People will come on here debating f/r ratios and best cs lengths, reach etc without talking at all about cleat / foot position.
The preference that a rider has for a particular foot position hugely affects f/r weighting. And two riders on the same bike with the same proportions will have very different experiences if they run 5mm different cleat positions.
I don’t understand that. our weight rests mainly on our feet, with a small percentage on our hands. You can not change that long term.Bikes have pedals...
I don’t understand that. our weight rests mainly on our feet, with a small percentage on our hands. You can not change that long term. Bikes have pedals, on a rotating spindle. So, regardless of foot position, your weight can only ever go through the middle of the pedal. If you don’t compensate with the position of your hips/torso, you would end up with more weight on your hands, which would be very uncomfortable. So, you (subconsciously) adjust. Therefor foot position determines load on your calf muscles, and slightly, your range of motion fore and aft due to your neutral hip/torso being slightly for or aft, but I bet the latter is so small as to be unnoticeable.
Go watch D Nortons interview from sea otter, he talks about how running flats vs clips make a difference - also talks about How your more likely to destroy rear wheels with flats as you're slamming so much weight into the rear wheel & you tend to load the bike alot more. Clip riders can ride much more aggressively as they can ride more flat footed or even toe down in certain scenarios which in turn moves your COG more forward. Theo and others were trying to convince matt jones at hardline he needs to get into clips so he doesnt ride off the back so much.
I can easily switch between flats and clips. The changes in riding feel is very different you can make the bike feel light over the rough with clips.
You said it yourself "our weight rests mainly on our feet " which means when you change that you effect the bike alot. It's not something You change overnight if you ride flats and change to clips, it takes awhile to adjust to the actual ride feel and the way you can ride the bike.
Matt Beers on riding a bike with a longer rear center:“Putting the bike into steep, switchbacks takes some commitment to trust the front wheel won’t tuck...
Matt Beers on riding a bike with a longer rear center:
“Putting the bike into steep, switchbacks takes some commitment to trust the front wheel won’t tuck underneath you. It’s not the most inviting if you’re not on your A-game and certainly not how I expected a 170 mm-travel enduro bike to respond in those scenarios. With that said, I do ride further forward on the bike than most. Compared to a ganglier rider, like Amaury Pierron, he tends to ride with his hips lower and further back over the saddle. I found myself mimicking his riding style on this bike. Only then did it start to click. If you expect a super-slack head angle to erase your mistakes, this isn’t the bike for you.”
If you don’t understand why every brand hasn’t adopted the geo that some of us are espousing, here is your answer. That instant shift in riding style is not possible for every rider. If Beers had trouble, what hope do the bumblers have? Why do we expect product managers to be able to make this shift?
Long chainstays put more weight on the front wheel. On the steeps it makes it necessary to shift your weight a tad further back. Having long chainstays also allows you to run more stack without losing front end grip. I've gone to a taller handlebar since going to 475mm chainstays.
People will come on here debating f/r ratios and best cs lengths, reach etc without talking at all about cleat / foot position.The preference that a...
People will come on here debating f/r ratios and best cs lengths, reach etc without talking at all about cleat / foot position.
The preference that a rider has for a particular foot position hugely affects f/r weighting. And two riders on the same bike with the same proportions will have very different experiences if they run 5mm different cleat positions.
I don’t understand that. our weight rests mainly on our feet, with a small percentage on our hands. You can not change that long term.Bikes have pedals...
I don’t understand that. our weight rests mainly on our feet, with a small percentage on our hands. You can not change that long term. Bikes have pedals, on a rotating spindle. So, regardless of foot position, your weight can only ever go through the middle of the pedal. If you don’t compensate with the position of your hips/torso, you would end up with more weight on your hands, which would be very uncomfortable. So, you (subconsciously) adjust. Therefor foot position determines load on your calf muscles, and slightly, your range of motion fore and aft due to your neutral hip/torso being slightly for or aft, but I bet the latter is so small as to be unnoticeable.
Go watch D Nortons interview from sea otter, he talks about how running flats vs clips make a difference - also talks about How your more...
Go watch D Nortons interview from sea otter, he talks about how running flats vs clips make a difference - also talks about How your more likely to destroy rear wheels with flats as you're slamming so much weight into the rear wheel & you tend to load the bike alot more. Clip riders can ride much more aggressively as they can ride more flat footed or even toe down in certain scenarios which in turn moves your COG more forward. Theo and others were trying to convince matt jones at hardline he needs to get into clips so he doesnt ride off the back so much.
I can easily switch between flats and clips. The changes in riding feel is very different you can make the bike feel light over the rough with clips.
You said it yourself "our weight rests mainly on our feet " which means when you change that you effect the bike alot. It's not something You change overnight if you ride flats and change to clips, it takes awhile to adjust to the actual ride feel and the way you can ride the bike.
Dang. Spot on. I will check out the interview. I didn’t connect the dots but my geo journey started when I switched to flats and adapted my bike to my new riding position/style.
It's honestly refreshing to see a review talk about the potential short comings of longer rear ends, even if he didn't call it out specifically. That...
It's honestly refreshing to see a review talk about the potential short comings of longer rear ends, even if he didn't call it out specifically. That Comencal he was on had a 1.82 FC RC ratio, not really that out of the ordinary, but he noticed the ammount of weight it was putting on the front wheel for him and his riding style. That's why I'm generally against the idea of "proportional stays", because it's only accounting for a single factor, static weight distribution. I really hope the online crowds stop pushing for them like they are the only way forwards.
Beer is also not particularly tall. Most of this discussion on this thread is about more balanced bikes for taller riders, not longer chainstays in a...
Beer is also not particularly tall. Most of this discussion on this thread is about more balanced bikes for taller riders, not longer chainstays in a vacuum. Moreover, look at a bunch of his reviews and he like plenty of bikes with that ratio or even more balanced. For example: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/staff-rides-matt-beers-commencal-supreme-2927.html
I think you're way overstating your case
Maybe a little bit, but him not being very tall is good for highlighting my point, and that him liking longer stays on some bikes while feeling a bit off on others is also great to show that it isn't the end all be all fix that a lot of people online make it out to be. When I started the thread, it was in response to long chainstay talk, but I did want it to be about geo in general, what we like and don't like, how we experiment with it and how it's going, and general complaining about it.
Honestly, I'm really interested in talking about stack height right now since that's what I've been trying to experiment with the most. Most of us ride mid to big travel bikes (140-170mm rear) so a lot of us are going higher stack, but what about the xc and short travel riders? How have they been experimenting with stack height?
The one downside I've noticed with taller stack (as a medium sized rider) is that while it feels great on steeps, I find it harder to lean over rapidly and pump/pull. I'm not saying it's not possible to do those things, just that like many others there's a sweet spot that works for one's height. I feel like there's an optimal amount of arm bend to be at in the default riding position, and if you raise stack too high, it becomes harder to, say, pull up on the bars. I'm sure you can adapt to it eventually, but with 3 bikes, I've found that I need to get the stack within a couple mm of each other in order to be able to ride them interchangeably without conscious adjustment.
Maybe a little bit, but him not being very tall is good for highlighting my point, and that him liking longer stays on some bikes while...
Maybe a little bit, but him not being very tall is good for highlighting my point, and that him liking longer stays on some bikes while feeling a bit off on others is also great to show that it isn't the end all be all fix that a lot of people online make it out to be. When I started the thread, it was in response to long chainstay talk, but I did want it to be about geo in general, what we like and don't like, how we experiment with it and how it's going, and general complaining about it.
Honestly, I'm really interested in talking about stack height right now since that's what I've been trying to experiment with the most. Most of us ride mid to big travel bikes (140-170mm rear) so a lot of us are going higher stack, but what about the xc and short travel riders? How have they been experimenting with stack height?
Stack and HA adjustments seem like the next variable to tackle. Just stumbled on an insta post by the Raise and Reverse stem guy that seems relevant. I don't really understand wheel flop as a characteristic and its relationship with stack and HA, but this is interesting because his point is that tweaking those things you can have a more extreme rear weight bias and still keep front end grip with his unique setup.
"You might think that with such a long 920mm front center and short 423mm chainstay for a 1343mm wheelbase combined with the tall Gen 1 150mm RR stem with a -15mm Reversed offset putting the rider over their feet with less weight on their hands that there would be such a small amount of weight on the front that it would always understeer and wash the front with no front traction. In practice much like with cars, a rearward weight bias will actually tend to oversteer with a rear wheel drift or even tailspin. On a traditional forward offset stem, you have a lot of wheel flop at the hands, and unlike with cars where if you understeer you just track a wider arc, with bikes you have to balance in turns by steering and counter steering to keep from standing up or falling over leading to you washing the front with your weight falling off from loading the tires. With so much wheel flop at the hands with a forward offset stem, it’s harder to get good feel of your traction and balance point to know if you are falling over leading to a front wash unless you are aggressively on top of it with weighted hands. This is the main reason you feel you need to get forward and keep weight on the front to keep it from washing. That washing out isn’t so much a lack of traction from a lack of weight on the front, it’s a lack of balance making you fall over unless you keep on top of the floppy balance point by weighting the bars. With the RR stems Reversed offset steering geometry, you get much less wheel flop at the hands and a much calmer steering response. This means that even with a rearward weight bias to overload and drift the rear to oversteer, you can still keep good feel of the bikes balance and traction points."
Maybe a little bit, but him not being very tall is good for highlighting my point, and that him liking longer stays on some bikes while...
Maybe a little bit, but him not being very tall is good for highlighting my point, and that him liking longer stays on some bikes while feeling a bit off on others is also great to show that it isn't the end all be all fix that a lot of people online make it out to be. When I started the thread, it was in response to long chainstay talk, but I did want it to be about geo in general, what we like and don't like, how we experiment with it and how it's going, and general complaining about it.
Honestly, I'm really interested in talking about stack height right now since that's what I've been trying to experiment with the most. Most of us ride mid to big travel bikes (140-170mm rear) so a lot of us are going higher stack, but what about the xc and short travel riders? How have they been experimenting with stack height?
Stack and HA adjustments seem like the next variable to tackle. Just stumbled on an insta post by the Raise and Reverse stem guy that seems...
Stack and HA adjustments seem like the next variable to tackle. Just stumbled on an insta post by the Raise and Reverse stem guy that seems relevant. I don't really understand wheel flop as a characteristic and its relationship with stack and HA, but this is interesting because his point is that tweaking those things you can have a more extreme rear weight bias and still keep front end grip with his unique setup.
"You might think that with such a long 920mm front center and short 423mm chainstay for a 1343mm wheelbase combined with the tall Gen 1 150mm RR stem with a -15mm Reversed offset putting the rider over their feet with less weight on their hands that there would be such a small amount of weight on the front that it would always understeer and wash the front with no front traction. In practice much like with cars, a rearward weight bias will actually tend to oversteer with a rear wheel drift or even tailspin. On a traditional forward offset stem, you have a lot of wheel flop at the hands, and unlike with cars where if you understeer you just track a wider arc, with bikes you have to balance in turns by steering and counter steering to keep from standing up or falling over leading to you washing the front with your weight falling off from loading the tires. With so much wheel flop at the hands with a forward offset stem, it’s harder to get good feel of your traction and balance point to know if you are falling over leading to a front wash unless you are aggressively on top of it with weighted hands. This is the main reason you feel you need to get forward and keep weight on the front to keep it from washing. That washing out isn’t so much a lack of traction from a lack of weight on the front, it’s a lack of balance making you fall over unless you keep on top of the floppy balance point by weighting the bars. With the RR stems Reversed offset steering geometry, you get much less wheel flop at the hands and a much calmer steering response. This means that even with a rearward weight bias to overload and drift the rear to oversteer, you can still keep good feel of the bikes balance and traction points."
Maybe a little bit, but him not being very tall is good for highlighting my point, and that him liking longer stays on some bikes while...
Maybe a little bit, but him not being very tall is good for highlighting my point, and that him liking longer stays on some bikes while feeling a bit off on others is also great to show that it isn't the end all be all fix that a lot of people online make it out to be. When I started the thread, it was in response to long chainstay talk, but I did want it to be about geo in general, what we like and don't like, how we experiment with it and how it's going, and general complaining about it.
Honestly, I'm really interested in talking about stack height right now since that's what I've been trying to experiment with the most. Most of us ride mid to big travel bikes (140-170mm rear) so a lot of us are going higher stack, but what about the xc and short travel riders? How have they been experimenting with stack height?
Stack and HA adjustments seem like the next variable to tackle. Just stumbled on an insta post by the Raise and Reverse stem guy that seems...
Stack and HA adjustments seem like the next variable to tackle. Just stumbled on an insta post by the Raise and Reverse stem guy that seems relevant. I don't really understand wheel flop as a characteristic and its relationship with stack and HA, but this is interesting because his point is that tweaking those things you can have a more extreme rear weight bias and still keep front end grip with his unique setup.
"You might think that with such a long 920mm front center and short 423mm chainstay for a 1343mm wheelbase combined with the tall Gen 1 150mm RR stem with a -15mm Reversed offset putting the rider over their feet with less weight on their hands that there would be such a small amount of weight on the front that it would always understeer and wash the front with no front traction. In practice much like with cars, a rearward weight bias will actually tend to oversteer with a rear wheel drift or even tailspin. On a traditional forward offset stem, you have a lot of wheel flop at the hands, and unlike with cars where if you understeer you just track a wider arc, with bikes you have to balance in turns by steering and counter steering to keep from standing up or falling over leading to you washing the front with your weight falling off from loading the tires. With so much wheel flop at the hands with a forward offset stem, it’s harder to get good feel of your traction and balance point to know if you are falling over leading to a front wash unless you are aggressively on top of it with weighted hands. This is the main reason you feel you need to get forward and keep weight on the front to keep it from washing. That washing out isn’t so much a lack of traction from a lack of weight on the front, it’s a lack of balance making you fall over unless you keep on top of the floppy balance point by weighting the bars. With the RR stems Reversed offset steering geometry, you get much less wheel flop at the hands and a much calmer steering response. This means that even with a rearward weight bias to overload and drift the rear to oversteer, you can still keep good feel of the bikes balance and traction points."
Ironically, I've seen plenty of videos of him understeering off a corner using that stem.
Wheel flop is really only a factor when riding slowly with sharp turns. It's the tendency for the front end to drop down when turning the wheel relative to the bike. Slacker head angles cause the wheel to flop over since the rotational axis is more angles relative to the ground, causing the front end to drop. When you're riding fast and linking corners that stops being an issue because you're leaning your bike into the turn. Honestly not sure how stack height factors in to wheel flop, since it's determined my your effective wheel radius and head tube angle.
People will come on here debating f/r ratios and best cs lengths, reach etc without talking at all about cleat / foot position.The preference that a...
People will come on here debating f/r ratios and best cs lengths, reach etc without talking at all about cleat / foot position.
The preference that a rider has for a particular foot position hugely affects f/r weighting. And two riders on the same bike with the same proportions will have very different experiences if they run 5mm different cleat positions.
I don’t understand that. our weight rests mainly on our feet, with a small percentage on our hands. You can not change that long term.Bikes have pedals...
I don’t understand that. our weight rests mainly on our feet, with a small percentage on our hands. You can not change that long term. Bikes have pedals, on a rotating spindle. So, regardless of foot position, your weight can only ever go through the middle of the pedal. If you don’t compensate with the position of your hips/torso, you would end up with more weight on your hands, which would be very uncomfortable. So, you (subconsciously) adjust. Therefor foot position determines load on your calf muscles, and slightly, your range of motion fore and aft due to your neutral hip/torso being slightly for or aft, but I bet the latter is so small as to be unnoticeable.
Go watch D Nortons interview from sea otter, he talks about how running flats vs clips make a difference - also talks about How your more...
Go watch D Nortons interview from sea otter, he talks about how running flats vs clips make a difference - also talks about How your more likely to destroy rear wheels with flats as you're slamming so much weight into the rear wheel & you tend to load the bike alot more. Clip riders can ride much more aggressively as they can ride more flat footed or even toe down in certain scenarios which in turn moves your COG more forward. Theo and others were trying to convince matt jones at hardline he needs to get into clips so he doesnt ride off the back so much.
I can easily switch between flats and clips. The changes in riding feel is very different you can make the bike feel light over the rough with clips.
You said it yourself "our weight rests mainly on our feet " which means when you change that you effect the bike alot. It's not something You change overnight if you ride flats and change to clips, it takes awhile to adjust to the actual ride feel and the way you can ride the bike.
Are there any elite riders / coaches / engineers lurking here who can explain current or changing schools of thought on optimal body positioning? Do you start with body position & balance, then build/adapt the bike from there? I remember Minnaar talking about trying to adapt to the more upright modern position you see from riders like Jackson, Asa, Loris, etc but at a certain point over-elongated wheelbases and additional drag might prevent setups from scaling accordingly for large riders (ex Coulanges/Kolb are more hunched-over).
I'm imagining that many many riders (including myself) are very poorly fit into our cockpits but have no realistic starting point or target to work with aside from trial and error with different setup options- I could see bike-fitting services making a comeback but for descending rather than pedaling.
I don’t understand that. our weight rests mainly on our feet, with a small percentage on our hands. You can not change that long term.Bikes have pedals...
I don’t understand that. our weight rests mainly on our feet, with a small percentage on our hands. You can not change that long term. Bikes have pedals, on a rotating spindle. So, regardless of foot position, your weight can only ever go through the middle of the pedal. If you don’t compensate with the position of your hips/torso, you would end up with more weight on your hands, which would be very uncomfortable. So, you (subconsciously) adjust. Therefor foot position determines load on your calf muscles, and slightly, your range of motion fore and aft due to your neutral hip/torso being slightly for or aft, but I bet the latter is so small as to be unnoticeable.
Go watch D Nortons interview from sea otter, he talks about how running flats vs clips make a difference - also talks about How your more...
Go watch D Nortons interview from sea otter, he talks about how running flats vs clips make a difference - also talks about How your more likely to destroy rear wheels with flats as you're slamming so much weight into the rear wheel & you tend to load the bike alot more. Clip riders can ride much more aggressively as they can ride more flat footed or even toe down in certain scenarios which in turn moves your COG more forward. Theo and others were trying to convince matt jones at hardline he needs to get into clips so he doesnt ride off the back so much.
I can easily switch between flats and clips. The changes in riding feel is very different you can make the bike feel light over the rough with clips.
You said it yourself "our weight rests mainly on our feet " which means when you change that you effect the bike alot. It's not something You change overnight if you ride flats and change to clips, it takes awhile to adjust to the actual ride feel and the way you can ride the bike.
Are there any elite riders / coaches / engineers lurking here who can explain current or changing schools of thought on optimal body positioning? Do you...
Are there any elite riders / coaches / engineers lurking here who can explain current or changing schools of thought on optimal body positioning? Do you start with body position & balance, then build/adapt the bike from there? I remember Minnaar talking about trying to adapt to the more upright modern position you see from riders like Jackson, Asa, Loris, etc but at a certain point over-elongated wheelbases and additional drag might prevent setups from scaling accordingly for large riders (ex Coulanges/Kolb are more hunched-over).
I'm imagining that many many riders (including myself) are very poorly fit into our cockpits but have no realistic starting point or target to work with aside from trial and error with different setup options- I could see bike-fitting services making a comeback but for descending rather than pedaling.
I am curious how much the hunch over is from proportions on those bikes of people you list and then the upright folks having better bike proportions, higher stack, and the ability to weight the front a lot more naturally all while being more upright still. I mean look at all the changes that Minnaar was trying to do to his old XL SC to have a better fit. Mega stack, +10 custom chainstays, higher bars.
I think Jackons bike came out to 1.79 at the time and Minnaars was something like 1.86. BIG difference in ride characteristics between the two and body positioning needed to ride em. Jackson has the ability to drastically change cockpit set up(stack, bar rise, etc) and still maintain good positioning AND good front end balance/weight while Minnaar is having to do a heap load of changes just to get it acceptable but still not optimal. He made the best with what he had.
I think its the comparison of bike geo and balance between Mediums and XLs. XL is way behind the curve for balance for the most part for bikes produced cerrently (forbidden and few others being the exception).
As a decently tall person (6'2"), this stuff gets me all sorts of frustrated and fired up. Just want to ride good balanced stuff too in a better ride position!
Brands sell alot of Medium and large sizes, a few small and hardly any XL. It makes zero sense to try make an XL ride like a Medium.. for starters the damn thing is long wheelbase, youll never change that. We ride the same trails, why should you take your XL bike down the same trail as a person on a small? the trail may suit the smaller bike...then what? youll change the trail to suit your Trail train?
at 6'2 youll find a size large will naturally balance because you will be able to ride it. Im 6ft and many of my friends are over 6ft and they stopped riding big bikes - many have tryed longer rear centre bikes and ended up back on proper bikes.
also worth noting: every single anti-proportional cs person talks incessantly about tight corners, as if thats the best part of mountain biking. "how will you steer your bike through 180° switchbacks?!?" dude i don't look forward to those types of turns on any length cs or wheelbase. when we are talking about suspension performance we hear the same thing about pedaling efficiency, as if pedaling uphill is this incredible experience that we are all looking forward to. Why are we designing bikes around moments that at best are bearable on a bike rather than optimizing our bikes for absolutely sick parts of a ride? i want suspension that feels great riding fast through the rough and I want geo that lets me ride balanced and fast and turn at speed without tucking my front or needing to lean over the bars to get the front to hook up.
we get that there are different styles of riding, but there is a large contingent of riders chasing a different experience on the bike than the one that was pushed on us for the last 5-7 years or so.
Every bike I have upgraded to has been longer than the last, yet I feel I am cornering better than ever (which is still poorly), even on tight turns. So I agree that I am not willing to sacrifice handling on most of the terrain (by lengthening wheelbase) to improve in the very tightest of corners.
For me the real question is:
Do “more standard” chainstays, or proportional length chainstays work better for the largest bike/rider sizes? My suspicion, based on theory and limited experience is that closer to proportional would be better.
I have a stumpy Evo, so I can adjust cs length, but it’s a tiny adjustment, that also adjusts BB drop and head- and seat-tube angle, so it’s not been very informative.
It would be cool to ride a bike and be able to change just CS length, in a noticeable amount, to test this.
Does anyone have experience with MX vs 29 on ling rear centers?
Thought this was an interesting screen grab of Reece Wilson’s body position riding a short stem and longer chainstays (no idea what they actually are since they have been testing proto stuff, but stock geo says static 445-460mm). Looks like he’s riding a moto.
Looking like Chase Sexton with that body position. I'm assuming he is quite comfortable given how much time he spends riding motocross.
How long is long? I've owned a GG Gnarvana 29er (450 CS) and a few MX bikes that have CS from 440-447. I feel like in MX setup, the bike rides like the CS is about 5mm shorter while cornering. The 447 bike was an overforked Levo S3, so it was really close to having CS = reach, but the reach was about 8mm or so shorter than my SC bikes which have 440ish CS. So even though CS/reach were balanced on the Levo, I felt like I had less front end grip because the reach was kinda short and pushing me rearward. I guess my point there would be that I wouldn't want a bike with shorter reach just to match the CS length. The Gnarvana felt like I was driving a fire ladder truck, rear wheel felt WAY out behind me. Mega stable though. I briefly rode it as a mullet but not extensively because the BB got mega low, and it got crazy slack... can't remember how it cornered. I'm 5'8" and ride mediums FWIW.
It’s helpful to think in terms of rear center and front center. When you overforked your Levo you decreased reach, but you increased front center (and stack.) When I overforked my SteVo I lost a ton of front wheel grip because of the increased front center and the increased slack leading to less weight naturally placed on the bars.
When we talk about longer rear centers, or ratios, we aren’t talking about reach, though we might be talking about decreasing front centers (see: slightly steeper HTA over the last couple years.) we can still make bikes that ride the same from the cockpit, but provide different ride dynamics from those points.
Matt Beers on riding a bike with a longer rear center:
“Putting the bike into steep, switchbacks takes some commitment to trust the front wheel won’t tuck underneath you. It’s not the most inviting if you’re not on your A-game and certainly not how I expected a 170 mm-travel enduro bike to respond in those scenarios. With that said, I do ride further forward on the bike than most. Compared to a ganglier rider, like Amaury Pierron, he tends to ride with his hips lower and further back over the saddle. I found myself mimicking his riding style on this bike. Only then did it start to click. If you expect a super-slack head angle to erase your mistakes, this isn’t the bike for you.”
If you don’t understand why every brand hasn’t adopted the geo that some of us are espousing, here is your answer. That instant shift in riding style is not possible for every rider. If Beers had trouble, what hope do the bumblers have? Why do we expect product managers to be able to make this shift?
Yeah, I looked at that. GG Megatrail MX (trail) 1.85 FC:RC. GG Gnarvana 1.74. My Levo ended up with 1.77. My Nomad 6 (hi) is 1.82, Heckler SL (lo) 1.79, & Vala (lo) 1.82. Of all of those, the best all around handling for me (front end grip, stability, tracking in corners, & confidence in steeps) are the 3 Santa Cruz bikes. I mentioned reach because I feel like there's a sweet spot on it particular to each rider, especially on MX setups, that affects front tire grip - the FC:RC ratio is meaningless if reach is too short. Too short (especially paired with short rear end) and you end up with more weight on rear tire and not enough front grip. I had more front tire washouts on the Levo than any of the other bikes, and the Megatrail was the squirreliest in corners (wanted to square off / inside line everything).
I grew up riding cross country and most of that time was on 26" wheels, and I used to ride trials in college. I owned an Ozonys Curve 24" (gorgeous piece of art) and got decent at the basic trials maneuvers (once did a 10ft drop. That was surreal). The bike was a 17lb no-seat feather. Given the posture of the bike how many hours I spend on it, and how small the thing was, it felt like an extension of my body.
Little did I know that in the future when I pursued trail and enduro riding, that all of the trials riding would carry over into how I ride MTBs: far back or far forward. Is it improper posture? For a coach teaching a beginner, probably.
But... I'm 6' 2" with a +4" ape index and 34" inseam. Last year when I purchased a Spartan HP, I had to test a bike with almost identical geo (Spesh Enduro S2 and S3) and discovered there was NO WAY I could ever go over a 470 reach. I went with a size M Spartan, and I feel so at-home and comfortable on it. Even riding my shorter brother's fat bike and Giant Trance I feel very welcome on.
Taking a note out of Richie Rude's book, sizing down from the manufacturer's recommendations is absolutely the right choice for me. Just sitting on L and XL bikes inside of bike shops makes me feel like a stunted child: why are they so big? My 2017 Felt Decree XL has always felt a little big, and I've put a 35mm stem on it.
I've done some sketchy stuff on bikes in my life, but going full speed down powerline easements, mountain roads, twisty single track, steep techy chunk, never have I felt like my bikes are too small. That may be because of all of the trials riding I've done, but given my proportions, I am just not comfortable riding bikes with reaches above 470. If I was to guess my ideal reach, I'd park it around 457.
I don’t understand that.
our weight rests mainly on our feet, with a small percentage on our hands. You can not change that long term.
Bikes have pedals, on a rotating spindle. So, regardless of foot position, your weight can only ever go through the middle of the pedal. If you don’t compensate with the position of your hips/torso, you would end up with more weight on your hands, which would be very uncomfortable. So, you (subconsciously) adjust. Therefor foot position determines load on your calf muscles, and slightly, your range of motion fore and aft due to your neutral hip/torso being slightly for or aft, but I bet the latter is so small as to be unnoticeable.
Totally agree that long travel fork + 29” front wheel = high stack for a small size. But they should at least be as low as possible, and at a minimum those sizes should come with a flat bar.
And I personally suspect a lot of very small riders would do better on full 27.5” bikes. Sure, a 29er front wheel might roll a bit better over stuff, but having full range of motion and the ability to load the front wheel is worth even more I bet.
It's honestly refreshing to see a review talk about the potential short comings of longer rear ends, even if he didn't call it out specifically. That Comencal he was on had a 1.82 FC RC ratio, not really that out of the ordinary, but he noticed the ammount of weight it was putting on the front wheel for him and his riding style. That's why I'm generally against the idea of "proportional stays", because it's only accounting for a single factor, static weight distribution. I really hope the online crowds stop pushing for them like they are the only way forwards.
What bike/review was that? Google can’t give me an answer.
Beer is also not particularly tall. Most of this discussion on this thread is about more balanced bikes for taller riders, not longer chainstays in a vacuum. Moreover, look at a bunch of his reviews and he like plenty of bikes with that ratio or even more balanced. For example: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/staff-rides-matt-beers-commencal-supreme-2927.html
I think you're way overstating your case
pretty sure the h/a contributed more to beer's observations than the (445mm) rc. to wit:
"If you expect a super-slack head angle to erase your mistakes, this isn’t the bike for you"
New comencal ebike review
Go watch D Nortons interview from sea otter, he talks about how running flats vs clips make a difference - also talks about How your more likely to destroy rear wheels with flats as you're slamming so much weight into the rear wheel & you tend to load the bike alot more.
Clip riders can ride much more aggressively as they can ride more flat footed or even toe down in certain scenarios which in turn moves your COG more forward.
Theo and others were trying to convince matt jones at hardline he needs to get into clips so he doesnt ride off the back so much.
I can easily switch between flats and clips. The changes in riding feel is very different you can make the bike feel light over the rough with clips.
You said it yourself "our weight rests mainly on our feet " which means when you change that you effect the bike alot.
It's not something You change overnight if you ride flats and change to clips, it takes awhile to adjust to the actual ride feel and the way you can ride the bike.
Long chainstays put more weight on the front wheel. On the steeps it makes it necessary to shift your weight a tad further back. Having long chainstays also allows you to run more stack without losing front end grip. I've gone to a taller handlebar since going to 475mm chainstays.
Dang. Spot on. I will check out the interview. I didn’t connect the dots but my geo journey started when I switched to flats and adapted my bike to my new riding position/style.
Maybe a little bit, but him not being very tall is good for highlighting my point, and that him liking longer stays on some bikes while feeling a bit off on others is also great to show that it isn't the end all be all fix that a lot of people online make it out to be. When I started the thread, it was in response to long chainstay talk, but I did want it to be about geo in general, what we like and don't like, how we experiment with it and how it's going, and general complaining about it.
Honestly, I'm really interested in talking about stack height right now since that's what I've been trying to experiment with the most. Most of us ride mid to big travel bikes (140-170mm rear) so a lot of us are going higher stack, but what about the xc and short travel riders? How have they been experimenting with stack height?
The one downside I've noticed with taller stack (as a medium sized rider) is that while it feels great on steeps, I find it harder to lean over rapidly and pump/pull. I'm not saying it's not possible to do those things, just that like many others there's a sweet spot that works for one's height. I feel like there's an optimal amount of arm bend to be at in the default riding position, and if you raise stack too high, it becomes harder to, say, pull up on the bars. I'm sure you can adapt to it eventually, but with 3 bikes, I've found that I need to get the stack within a couple mm of each other in order to be able to ride them interchangeably without conscious adjustment.
Stack and HA adjustments seem like the next variable to tackle. Just stumbled on an insta post by the Raise and Reverse stem guy that seems relevant. I don't really understand wheel flop as a characteristic and its relationship with stack and HA, but this is interesting because his point is that tweaking those things you can have a more extreme rear weight bias and still keep front end grip with his unique setup.
"You might think that with such a long 920mm front center and short 423mm chainstay for a 1343mm wheelbase combined with the tall Gen 1 150mm RR stem with a -15mm Reversed offset putting the rider over their feet with less weight on their hands that there would be such a small amount of weight on the front that it would always understeer and wash the front with no front traction. In practice much like with cars, a rearward weight bias will actually tend to oversteer with a rear wheel drift or even tailspin. On a traditional forward offset stem, you have a lot of wheel flop at the hands, and unlike with cars where if you understeer you just track a wider arc, with bikes you have to balance in turns by steering and counter steering to keep from standing up or falling over leading to you washing the front with your weight falling off from loading the tires. With so much wheel flop at the hands with a forward offset stem, it’s harder to get good feel of your traction and balance point to know if you are falling over leading to a front wash unless you are aggressively on top of it with weighted hands. This is the main reason you feel you need to get forward and keep weight on the front to keep it from washing. That washing out isn’t so much a lack of traction from a lack of weight on the front, it’s a lack of balance making you fall over unless you keep on top of the floppy balance point by weighting the bars. With the RR stems Reversed offset steering geometry, you get much less wheel flop at the hands and a much calmer steering response. This means that even with a rearward weight bias to overload and drift the rear to oversteer, you can still keep good feel of the bikes balance and traction points."
Would love to see a vid of him drifting his mtb
Ironically, I've seen plenty of videos of him understeering off a corner using that stem.
Wheel flop is really only a factor when riding slowly with sharp turns. It's the tendency for the front end to drop down when turning the wheel relative to the bike. Slacker head angles cause the wheel to flop over since the rotational axis is more angles relative to the ground, causing the front end to drop. When you're riding fast and linking corners that stops being an issue because you're leaning your bike into the turn. Honestly not sure how stack height factors in to wheel flop, since it's determined my your effective wheel radius and head tube angle.
Are there any elite riders / coaches / engineers lurking here who can explain current or changing schools of thought on optimal body positioning? Do you start with body position & balance, then build/adapt the bike from there? I remember Minnaar talking about trying to adapt to the more upright modern position you see from riders like Jackson, Asa, Loris, etc but at a certain point over-elongated wheelbases and additional drag might prevent setups from scaling accordingly for large riders (ex Coulanges/Kolb are more hunched-over).
I'm imagining that many many riders (including myself) are very poorly fit into our cockpits but have no realistic starting point or target to work with aside from trial and error with different setup options- I could see bike-fitting services making a comeback but for descending rather than pedaling.
I am curious how much the hunch over is from proportions on those bikes of people you list and then the upright folks having better bike proportions, higher stack, and the ability to weight the front a lot more naturally all while being more upright still. I mean look at all the changes that Minnaar was trying to do to his old XL SC to have a better fit. Mega stack, +10 custom chainstays, higher bars.
I think Jackons bike came out to 1.79 at the time and Minnaars was something like 1.86. BIG difference in ride characteristics between the two and body positioning needed to ride em. Jackson has the ability to drastically change cockpit set up(stack, bar rise, etc) and still maintain good positioning AND good front end balance/weight while Minnaar is having to do a heap load of changes just to get it acceptable but still not optimal. He made the best with what he had.
I think its the comparison of bike geo and balance between Mediums and XLs. XL is way behind the curve for balance for the most part for bikes produced cerrently (forbidden and few others being the exception).
As a decently tall person (6'2"), this stuff gets me all sorts of frustrated and fired up. Just want to ride good balanced stuff too in a better ride position!
Brands sell alot of Medium and large sizes, a few small and hardly any XL.
It makes zero sense to try make an XL ride like a Medium.. for starters the damn thing is long wheelbase, youll never change that.
We ride the same trails, why should you take your XL bike down the same trail as a person on a small? the trail may suit the smaller bike...then what? youll change the trail to suit your Trail train?
at 6'2 youll find a size large will naturally balance because you will be able to ride it.
Im 6ft and many of my friends are over 6ft and they stopped riding big bikes - many have tryed longer rear centre bikes and ended up back on proper bikes.
If you look at the youth in any developed country, they are getting taller.
I'm 6'1 and every 18 year old male towers me in Australia it seems
must be the chicken
@The Serious , that’s interesting to hear. Can you elaborate some more on what geometries you tried and what your experiences with them were?
also worth noting: every single anti-proportional cs person talks incessantly about tight corners, as if thats the best part of mountain biking. "how will you steer your bike through 180° switchbacks?!?" dude i don't look forward to those types of turns on any length cs or wheelbase. when we are talking about suspension performance we hear the same thing about pedaling efficiency, as if pedaling uphill is this incredible experience that we are all looking forward to. Why are we designing bikes around moments that at best are bearable on a bike rather than optimizing our bikes for absolutely sick parts of a ride? i want suspension that feels great riding fast through the rough and I want geo that lets me ride balanced and fast and turn at speed without tucking my front or needing to lean over the bars to get the front to hook up.
we get that there are different styles of riding, but there is a large contingent of riders chasing a different experience on the bike than the one that was pushed on us for the last 5-7 years or so.
Every bike I have upgraded to has been longer than the last, yet I feel I am cornering better than ever (which is still poorly), even on tight turns.
So I agree that I am not willing to sacrifice handling on most of the terrain (by lengthening wheelbase) to improve in the very tightest of corners.
For me the real question is:
Do “more standard” chainstays, or proportional length chainstays work better for the largest bike/rider sizes?
My suspicion, based on theory and limited experience is that closer to proportional would be better.
I have a stumpy Evo, so I can adjust cs length, but it’s a tiny adjustment, that also adjusts BB drop and head- and seat-tube angle, so it’s not been very informative.
It would be cool to ride a bike and be able to change just CS length, in a noticeable amount, to test this.
Post a reply to: Modern Geo Talk: Chainstays, Stack, Reach, and Bitching About It