How do you calculate front center and rear center?
They're like virtual, draw a vertical line that intersects your BB, and then draw a horizontal line from your axle to the BB line. They would be your centre measurements.
Full agreement in regards to what @jeff.brines is saying about FC/RC ratio for modern bikes. Luckily I can ride medium and small sizes, so the RCs can be pretty good as long as the FC isn't super crazy.
A recent Transition Spire project::
Alloy frame (medium) with 27.5 rear wheel and +2 angle cups. 190mm fork, 180 rear travel with cascade link. HA 63, BB 342mm (in the high shock position), WB 1256mm.
It's a bit over my preferred max FC/RC of 1.75 (around 1.8), but the front doesn't "feel" long. It still turns quite well. Maybe something to do with the smaller rear wheel? First mullet bike I have had that was not a full DH sled.
Full agreement in regards to what @jeff.brines is saying about FC/RC ratio for modern bikes. Luckily I can ride medium and small sizes, so the RCs...
Full agreement in regards to what @jeff.brines is saying about FC/RC ratio for modern bikes. Luckily I can ride medium and small sizes, so the RCs can be pretty good as long as the FC isn't super crazy.
A recent Transition Spire project::
Alloy frame (medium) with 27.5 rear wheel and +2 angle cups. 190mm fork, 180 rear travel with cascade link. HA 63, BB 342mm (in the high shock position), WB 1256mm.
It's a bit over my preferred max FC/RC of 1.75 (around 1.8), but the front doesn't "feel" long. It still turns quite well. Maybe something to do with the smaller rear wheel? First mullet bike I have had that was not a full DH sled.
Sick build. It's crazy that the HA is still 63 after using a +2 cup and in high position, but perhaps its because of the 190mm fork.
So for XL bikes what’s out there for enduro bikes close to the 1.8 ratio?
Banshee Titan with long dropouts, Forbidden Dreadnought, anything else?
From what I’ve been able to find there’s no options in DH bikes anywhere close with the exception of the Forbidden Supernought and some short-reach XLs like the Banshee Legend 29. Even a Santa Cruz V10 with 465 chainstays winds up around 1.88 FC/RC.
So for XL bikes what’s out there for enduro bikes close to the 1.8 ratio?Banshee Titan with long dropouts, Forbidden Dreadnought, anything else?From what I’ve been...
So for XL bikes what’s out there for enduro bikes close to the 1.8 ratio?
Banshee Titan with long dropouts, Forbidden Dreadnought, anything else?
From what I’ve been able to find there’s no options in DH bikes anywhere close with the exception of the Forbidden Supernought and some short-reach XLs like the Banshee Legend 29. Even a Santa Cruz V10 with 465 chainstays winds up around 1.88 FC/RC.
You’re starting to see why there is a very vocal group pushing for more balanced bike geo…
So for XL bikes what’s out there for enduro bikes close to the 1.8 ratio?Banshee Titan with long dropouts, Forbidden Dreadnought, anything else?From what I’ve been...
So for XL bikes what’s out there for enduro bikes close to the 1.8 ratio?
Banshee Titan with long dropouts, Forbidden Dreadnought, anything else?
From what I’ve been able to find there’s no options in DH bikes anywhere close with the exception of the Forbidden Supernought and some short-reach XLs like the Banshee Legend 29. Even a Santa Cruz V10 with 465 chainstays winds up around 1.88 FC/RC.
So for XL bikes what’s out there for enduro bikes close to the 1.8 ratio?Banshee Titan with long dropouts, Forbidden Dreadnought, anything else?From what I’ve been...
So for XL bikes what’s out there for enduro bikes close to the 1.8 ratio?
Banshee Titan with long dropouts, Forbidden Dreadnought, anything else?
From what I’ve been able to find there’s no options in DH bikes anywhere close with the exception of the Forbidden Supernought and some short-reach XLs like the Banshee Legend 29. Even a Santa Cruz V10 with 465 chainstays winds up around 1.88 FC/RC.
The only two meat bikes that fit this bill that come to mind is a Kavenz VHP16 in its sagged position with the +20mm chainstay thingies and the Mistress Cycles GoodOnYa, which is a unique approach to geometry, and quite new and obscure.
The new Forbidden Druid CorE e-bike also fits the bill. It would be cool to see a corresponding meat-propelled equivalent.
Limited options for the meat brigade, but we'll keep hope alive.
I’m in the market for both an enduro and DH frame and now I have an excuse for why my buddies who ride mediums are faster...
I’m in the market for both an enduro and DH frame and now I have an excuse for why my buddies who ride mediums are faster than me.
The Kavenz could actually fill both roles with the proper linkages, two shocks and two forks. Ideally, probably wheels as well.
They also intend to release +30 dropouts in short(ish) order, if their socials are to be trusted. That would let you get even longer out back, should you desire that.
You could then direct the savings to sick, custom-tuned suspension components and/or various conspicuous bling!
So for XL bikes what’s out there for enduro bikes close to the 1.8 ratio?Banshee Titan with long dropouts, Forbidden Dreadnought, anything else?From what I’ve been...
So for XL bikes what’s out there for enduro bikes close to the 1.8 ratio?
Banshee Titan with long dropouts, Forbidden Dreadnought, anything else?
From what I’ve been able to find there’s no options in DH bikes anywhere close with the exception of the Forbidden Supernought and some short-reach XLs like the Banshee Legend 29. Even a Santa Cruz V10 with 465 chainstays winds up around 1.88 FC/RC.
So for XL bikes what’s out there for enduro bikes close to the 1.8 ratio?Banshee Titan with long dropouts, Forbidden Dreadnought, anything else?From what I’ve been...
So for XL bikes what’s out there for enduro bikes close to the 1.8 ratio?
Banshee Titan with long dropouts, Forbidden Dreadnought, anything else?
From what I’ve been able to find there’s no options in DH bikes anywhere close with the exception of the Forbidden Supernought and some short-reach XLs like the Banshee Legend 29. Even a Santa Cruz V10 with 465 chainstays winds up around 1.88 FC/RC.
Exactly the struggles I’ve been feeling. As an XL guy, my trail bike is 1.86 and my DH bike is 1.88. It’s a struggle!
Not many options out there at all. You named most. Kavenz getting closer. New Geometron can messing with mutators and trying to remember a couple others. DH is basically only Forbidden Supernought and Enduro has the few that have been listed here and by others.
Sure hope for more options soon… ready to build up a new trail and DH soon and really wanting closer to or at 1.8
I saw a list of bikes with ratios on a forum somewhere. Not sure where
Was thinking of making a spreadsheet with all bikes in all sizes that’s ongoing and added to that shows all the ratios for everyone to have access to and be able to scope
Be fun to put pros set ups in it as well for nerding and stuff like that
Just an assumption as most people ride mediums and logic says that geometry should be optimized for most people if it is for anyone. Considering the chainstays are basically the same for every size, mediums are where it's at.
Honestly, it could be just as out of whack as all the other sizes. Maybe front to rear ratio of 1,0 is the best?
Just an assumption as most people ride mediums and logic says that geometry should be optimized for most people if it is for anyone. Considering the...
Just an assumption as most people ride mediums and logic says that geometry should be optimized for most people if it is for anyone. Considering the chainstays are basically the same for every size, mediums are where it's at.
Honestly, it could be just as out of whack as all the other sizes. Maybe front to rear ratio of 1,0 is the best?
Paul Aston's style may not be for everyone, but it seems like he's on the front of this balanced geo for bigger sizes wave. Here's the geo chart for one of his custom bikes. 490mm chainstays, 510mm reach, 1.84 F/R ratio.
Some quirks in his setup since he's running an ultra-short Rulezman stem and the bottom bracket is 10mm above the hub-hub line at full extension.
This might be of interest to some, this is how rolling your bars 10 or 20° backwards affects the geometry of the bar if you have a 35 mm riser bar with 8/5° of sweep. The stack and setback (negative reach) are somewhat specific to the case, but it still gives some good insight on how some values are barely affected (backsweep), while others are greatly affected (the setback basically makes your bike almost a size smaller reach wise):
More backsweep and less upsweep both contribute to pushing your elbows inwards, giving you a less attacking position.
Is this part of the reason why Jackson is running his bars rolled so far forward?
This might be of interest to some, this is how rolling your bars 10 or 20° backwards affects the geometry of the bar if you have...
This might be of interest to some, this is how rolling your bars 10 or 20° backwards affects the geometry of the bar if you have a 35 mm riser bar with 8/5° of sweep. The stack and setback (negative reach) are somewhat specific to the case, but it still gives some good insight on how some values are barely affected (backsweep), while others are greatly affected (the setback basically makes your bike almost a size smaller reach wise):
More backsweep and less upsweep both contribute to pushing your elbows inwards, giving you a less attacking position.
Is this part of the reason why Jackson is running his bars rolled so far forward?
The other piece of the equation that I was told about cockpit setup and elbow position is that brake angle also dictates it. Flatter brakes want to move your elbows in, and steeper brakes move your elbows out. Given that viewpoint as well, someone like Goldstone who runs flatter brakes needs more forward bar roll to get the elbows in the right spot vs someone (like Loic and Richie from what I can tell) run a bit steeper brakes and probably less forward bar roll because of it.
I've personally moved to a bit of "backwards" bar roll and steeper brakes. So my bar roll is "mostly" in line with headtube angle and my brakes are at a 42 degree angle down from level on the bar.
This might be of interest to some, this is how rolling your bars 10 or 20° backwards affects the geometry of the bar if you have...
This might be of interest to some, this is how rolling your bars 10 or 20° backwards affects the geometry of the bar if you have a 35 mm riser bar with 8/5° of sweep. The stack and setback (negative reach) are somewhat specific to the case, but it still gives some good insight on how some values are barely affected (backsweep), while others are greatly affected (the setback basically makes your bike almost a size smaller reach wise):
More backsweep and less upsweep both contribute to pushing your elbows inwards, giving you a less attacking position.
Is this part of the reason why Jackson is running his bars rolled so far forward?
The other piece of the equation that I was told about cockpit setup and elbow position is that brake angle also dictates it. Flatter brakes want...
The other piece of the equation that I was told about cockpit setup and elbow position is that brake angle also dictates it. Flatter brakes want to move your elbows in, and steeper brakes move your elbows out. Given that viewpoint as well, someone like Goldstone who runs flatter brakes needs more forward bar roll to get the elbows in the right spot vs someone (like Loic and Richie from what I can tell) run a bit steeper brakes and probably less forward bar roll because of it.
I've personally moved to a bit of "backwards" bar roll and steeper brakes. So my bar roll is "mostly" in line with headtube angle and my brakes are at a 42 degree angle down from level on the bar.
This is all a good reminder to revisit my bar roll/lever angle setup. I made a marked improvement with a bar roll forward but now I’m wondering how far I can push it…
Depends on what you want to change. Reach, stack or sweep angles? Then when you know what you want to change it also depends on the bar that you have and what it enables you.
At some point it might make more sense to change the bar altogether, the stem or both and play with roll.
This might be of interest to some, this is how rolling your bars 10 or 20° backwards affects the geometry of the bar if you have...
This might be of interest to some, this is how rolling your bars 10 or 20° backwards affects the geometry of the bar if you have a 35 mm riser bar with 8/5° of sweep. The stack and setback (negative reach) are somewhat specific to the case, but it still gives some good insight on how some values are barely affected (backsweep), while others are greatly affected (the setback basically makes your bike almost a size smaller reach wise):
More backsweep and less upsweep both contribute to pushing your elbows inwards, giving you a less attacking position.
Is this part of the reason why Jackson is running his bars rolled so far forward?
I’ve been thinking about this lately, as a possible downside to higher rise bars ( >35mm) so really interesting to see some of the numbers put to it. Thanks @Primoz! It’s definitely something to consider with bike setup if you’re someone who has a preference of some roll in either direction.
I would warrant a guess that the roll is to help align the bars with his arms/upper body, because he’s not off the back of the bike or tucked in behind the cockpit, he’s standing tall and more so pushing down and into the front end, so the forward roll does help get his elbows up and out, keeping him in a strong position when he needs to weight the front.
Here’s a clip of Jackson’s mechanic talking about them trying the 50mm bar and the forward roll adding too much reach. As well as some other setup details.
This is going to be incredibly minute, and probably kind of pointless, but I'm thinking about how different ways to reach the same effective bar height and position can feel different, and change the handling of the bike. I have not done any real analysis of this, but think of the difference between having a slammed stem with a higher rise bar, and a stem at the top of the steer tube with a lower rise bar. Let's assume that the bar geo is identical other than rise, and the roll is positioned the same way, so in order to get the exact same relative hand position, we run a slightly longer stem to compensate for the head angle when it is at the top of the steer tube (for example the stem on a bike with a 64 degree head angle is about 13 mm farther back when 30mm higher up the steer tube). I have this idea that the longer higher stem lower rise bar would have a larger moment of inertia, and then would be more resistant to turning or slower handling than the slammed shorter stem with a higher rise bar. It's probably an incredibly small difference, but I bet it would have a perceptible difference in feel, more damped steering vs less damped with the exact same effective hand position.
I wonder if anyone is considering how you get there when it comes to their hand position.
I’m going to order a new medium Rallon soon but I can’t decide on 442 or 450mm chainstays. I’m a long chainstay fan for sure, but is 450mm reach and 450mm chainstays crazy!?!?!? (Ermagerd!). One of my most favourite bikes was the hp Range, one bike I had a tough time getting used to was a Pivot Firebird. The Rallon will be mullet.
I was going to make a long winded post (already is…), instead I will ask:
If you primarily rode fast DH trails, would you go with a rear end that matched your reach, is given the choice?
Interestingly, 450 reach / 450 cs is already a longer rear end than most people get.
I’m going to order a new medium Rallon soon but I can’t decide on 442 or 450mm chainstays. I’m a long chainstay fan for sure, but...
I’m going to order a new medium Rallon soon but I can’t decide on 442 or 450mm chainstays. I’m a long chainstay fan for sure, but is 450mm reach and 450mm chainstays crazy!?!?!? (Ermagerd!). One of my most favourite bikes was the hp Range, one bike I had a tough time getting used to was a Pivot Firebird. The Rallon will be mullet.
I was going to make a long winded post (already is…), instead I will ask:
If you primarily rode fast DH trails, would you go with a rear end that matched your reach, is given the choice?
Interestingly, 450 reach / 450 cs is already a longer rear end than most people get.
Why can't cs be the same/longer than the reach?
Longer CS means you can have taller stack/bars and more upright position riding, which is rather nice when you get used to it.
I’m going to order a new medium Rallon soon but I can’t decide on 442 or 450mm chainstays. I’m a long chainstay fan for sure, but...
I’m going to order a new medium Rallon soon but I can’t decide on 442 or 450mm chainstays. I’m a long chainstay fan for sure, but is 450mm reach and 450mm chainstays crazy!?!?!? (Ermagerd!). One of my most favourite bikes was the hp Range, one bike I had a tough time getting used to was a Pivot Firebird. The Rallon will be mullet.
I was going to make a long winded post (already is…), instead I will ask:
If you primarily rode fast DH trails, would you go with a rear end that matched your reach, is given the choice?
Interestingly, 450 reach / 450 cs is already a longer rear end than most people get.
What significance is there in the reach matching the chainstay?
Or, to put it another way, I hope your seat tube length will also match the same value. It's about as important.
Fair. A ratio of 1.75. Still the same question and concern.
Although given that I’m talking about one bike with a given head tube angle, reach compared to chainstay basically portrays the same meaning. But it’s not the proper calculation so I hear ya.
Why can't cs be the same/longer than the reach?Longer CS means you can have taller stack/bars and more upright position riding, which is rather nice when...
Why can't cs be the same/longer than the reach?
Longer CS means you can have taller stack/bars and more upright position riding, which is rather nice when you get used to it.
Totally. As I said, I like long chainstays. These are proportionately longer than man at people have access to. There has to be a limit, no?
Fair. A ratio of 1.75. Still the same question and concern. Although given that I’m talking about one bike with a given head tube angle, reach compared...
Fair. A ratio of 1.75. Still the same question and concern.
Although given that I’m talking about one bike with a given head tube angle, reach compared to chainstay basically portrays the same meaning. But it’s not the proper calculation so I hear ya.
Correct on both accounts, but at the end of the day stem length, handlebar rise, etc., all play a part. And judging by the discussions we have here, the weight distribution is what matters. Things get very nuanced...
As for what to choose, I don't think there are many people that can give an honest answer on what works and what doesn't, this is a new area to explore for the industry. But the few that have ventured that far claim the limit is still very much far away (judging by some 500 mm ca bikes out there).
On that note, I did the Stumpjumper EVO experiment on the friend of mine, short chainstay and full slack fork vs. long chainstay and full steep fork - 1,9 vs.1,8 front to rear ratios. He says there is a difference but I think he needs some more time on the 1,8 setup to fully get in tune. But the first ride was a marked improvement over the other setup. He was on the 1,9 setup for about a month (rides about 130 days a year).
They're like virtual, draw a vertical line that intersects your BB, and then draw a horizontal line from your axle to the BB line. They would be your centre measurements.
Full agreement in regards to what @jeff.brines is saying about FC/RC ratio for modern bikes. Luckily I can ride medium and small sizes, so the RCs can be pretty good as long as the FC isn't super crazy.
A recent Transition Spire project::
Alloy frame (medium) with 27.5 rear wheel and +2 angle cups. 190mm fork, 180 rear travel with cascade link. HA 63, BB 342mm (in the high shock position), WB 1256mm.
It's a bit over my preferred max FC/RC of 1.75 (around 1.8), but the front doesn't "feel" long. It still turns quite well. Maybe something to do with the smaller rear wheel? First mullet bike I have had that was not a full DH sled.
Sick build. It's crazy that the HA is still 63 after using a +2 cup and in high position, but perhaps its because of the 190mm fork.
So for XL bikes what’s out there for enduro bikes close to the 1.8 ratio?
Banshee Titan with long dropouts, Forbidden Dreadnought, anything else?
From what I’ve been able to find there’s no options in DH bikes anywhere close with the exception of the Forbidden Supernought and some short-reach XLs like the Banshee Legend 29. Even a Santa Cruz V10 with 465 chainstays winds up around 1.88 FC/RC.
You’re starting to see why there is a very vocal group pushing for more balanced bike geo…
I’m in the market for both an enduro and DH frame and now I have an excuse for why my buddies who ride mediums are faster than me.
The only two meat bikes that fit this bill that come to mind is a Kavenz VHP16 in its sagged position with the +20mm chainstay thingies and the Mistress Cycles GoodOnYa, which is a unique approach to geometry, and quite new and obscure.
The new Forbidden Druid CorE e-bike also fits the bill. It would be cool to see a corresponding meat-propelled equivalent.
Limited options for the meat brigade, but we'll keep hope alive.
The Kavenz could actually fill both roles with the proper linkages, two shocks and two forks. Ideally, probably wheels as well.
They also intend to release +30 dropouts in short(ish) order, if their socials are to be trusted. That would let you get even longer out back, should you desire that.
You could then direct the savings to sick, custom-tuned suspension components and/or various conspicuous bling!
G1 can get close ~1.83 and it’s a big xl
Exactly the struggles I’ve been feeling. As an XL guy, my trail bike is 1.86 and my DH bike is 1.88. It’s a struggle!
Not many options out there at all. You named most. Kavenz getting closer. New Geometron can messing with mutators and trying to remember a couple others.
DH is basically only Forbidden Supernought and Enduro has the few that have been listed here and by others.
Sure hope for more options soon… ready to build up a new trail and DH soon and really wanting closer to or at 1.8
What are the ratios of medium and small bikes?
My medium Strive is 1,9 by using the geo chart.
When using real measurements its 1,88.
I saw a list of bikes with ratios on a forum somewhere. Not sure where
Was thinking of making a spreadsheet with all bikes in all sizes that’s ongoing and added to that shows all the ratios for everyone to have access to and be able to scope
Be fun to put pros set ups in it as well for nerding and stuff like that
Out of curiosity - where did the rhetoric come from that medium bikes have the best ratios and ride the best?
Just an assumption as most people ride mediums and logic says that geometry should be optimized for most people if it is for anyone. Considering the chainstays are basically the same for every size, mediums are where it's at.
Honestly, it could be just as out of whack as all the other sizes. Maybe front to rear ratio of 1,0 is the best?
Paul Aston's style may not be for everyone, but it seems like he's on the front of this balanced geo for bigger sizes wave. Here's the geo chart for one of his custom bikes. 490mm chainstays, 510mm reach, 1.84 F/R ratio.
Some quirks in his setup since he's running an ultra-short Rulezman stem and the bottom bracket is 10mm above the hub-hub line at full extension.
I think it comes from preference and trying different things. I ride size large and have ridden 1.88, 1.86, 1.85, 1.84, and 1.83 f/r ratios.
I have a much easier time maintaining speed over rough terrain but turning is relatively more challenging for me - so I prefer bikes closer to 1.83.
This might be of interest to some, this is how rolling your bars 10 or 20° backwards affects the geometry of the bar if you have a 35 mm riser bar with 8/5° of sweep. The stack and setback (negative reach) are somewhat specific to the case, but it still gives some good insight on how some values are barely affected (backsweep), while others are greatly affected (the setback basically makes your bike almost a size smaller reach wise):
More backsweep and less upsweep both contribute to pushing your elbows inwards, giving you a less attacking position.
Is this part of the reason why Jackson is running his bars rolled so far forward?
The other piece of the equation that I was told about cockpit setup and elbow position is that brake angle also dictates it. Flatter brakes want to move your elbows in, and steeper brakes move your elbows out. Given that viewpoint as well, someone like Goldstone who runs flatter brakes needs more forward bar roll to get the elbows in the right spot vs someone (like Loic and Richie from what I can tell) run a bit steeper brakes and probably less forward bar roll because of it.
I've personally moved to a bit of "backwards" bar roll and steeper brakes. So my bar roll is "mostly" in line with headtube angle and my brakes are at a 42 degree angle down from level on the bar.
This is all a good reminder to revisit my bar roll/lever angle setup. I made a marked improvement with a bar roll forward but now I’m wondering how far I can push it…
Depends on what you want to change. Reach, stack or sweep angles? Then when you know what you want to change it also depends on the bar that you have and what it enables you.
At some point it might make more sense to change the bar altogether, the stem or both and play with roll.
I’ve been thinking about this lately, as a possible downside to higher rise bars ( >35mm) so really interesting to see some of the numbers put to it. Thanks @Primoz! It’s definitely something to consider with bike setup if you’re someone who has a preference of some roll in either direction.
I would warrant a guess that the roll is to help align the bars with his arms/upper body, because he’s not off the back of the bike or tucked in behind the cockpit, he’s standing tall and more so pushing down and into the front end, so the forward roll does help get his elbows up and out, keeping him in a strong position when he needs to weight the front.
Here’s a clip of Jackson’s mechanic talking about them trying the 50mm bar and the forward roll adding too much reach. As well as some other setup details.
This is going to be incredibly minute, and probably kind of pointless, but I'm thinking about how different ways to reach the same effective bar height and position can feel different, and change the handling of the bike. I have not done any real analysis of this, but think of the difference between having a slammed stem with a higher rise bar, and a stem at the top of the steer tube with a lower rise bar. Let's assume that the bar geo is identical other than rise, and the roll is positioned the same way, so in order to get the exact same relative hand position, we run a slightly longer stem to compensate for the head angle when it is at the top of the steer tube (for example the stem on a bike with a 64 degree head angle is about 13 mm farther back when 30mm higher up the steer tube). I have this idea that the longer higher stem lower rise bar would have a larger moment of inertia, and then would be more resistant to turning or slower handling than the slammed shorter stem with a higher rise bar. It's probably an incredibly small difference, but I bet it would have a perceptible difference in feel, more damped steering vs less damped with the exact same effective hand position.
I wonder if anyone is considering how you get there when it comes to their hand position.
I’m going to order a new medium Rallon soon but I can’t decide on 442 or 450mm chainstays. I’m a long chainstay fan for sure, but is 450mm reach and 450mm chainstays crazy!?!?!? (Ermagerd!). One of my most favourite bikes was the hp Range, one bike I had a tough time getting used to was a Pivot Firebird. The Rallon will be mullet.
I was going to make a long winded post (already is…), instead I will ask:
If you primarily rode fast DH trails, would you go with a rear end that matched your reach, is given the choice?
Interestingly, 450 reach / 450 cs is already a longer rear end than most people get.
Why can't cs be the same/longer than the reach?
Longer CS means you can have taller stack/bars and more upright position riding, which is rather nice when you get used to it.
What significance is there in the reach matching the chainstay?
Or, to put it another way, I hope your seat tube length will also match the same value. It's about as important.
Fair. A ratio of 1.75. Still the same question and concern.
Although given that I’m talking about one bike with a given head tube angle, reach compared to chainstay basically portrays the same meaning. But it’s not the proper calculation so I hear ya.
Totally. As I said, I like long chainstays. These are proportionately longer than man at people have access to. There has to be a limit, no?
Correct on both accounts, but at the end of the day stem length, handlebar rise, etc., all play a part. And judging by the discussions we have here, the weight distribution is what matters. Things get very nuanced...
As for what to choose, I don't think there are many people that can give an honest answer on what works and what doesn't, this is a new area to explore for the industry. But the few that have ventured that far claim the limit is still very much far away (judging by some 500 mm ca bikes out there).
On that note, I did the Stumpjumper EVO experiment on the friend of mine, short chainstay and full slack fork vs. long chainstay and full steep fork - 1,9 vs.1,8 front to rear ratios. He says there is a difference but I think he needs some more time on the 1,8 setup to fully get in tune. But the first ride was a marked improvement over the other setup. He was on the 1,9 setup for about a month (rides about 130 days a year).
Post a reply to: Modern Geo Talk: Chainstays, Stack, Reach, and Bitching About It