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.
I'm running a dreadnought v2 with 470mm reach and 470mm chainstay in mullet configuration.
It rips. Corners harder than any of my other bikes, makes traction where there shouldn't be any.
Running a relatively high bar position to go with that, 645mm stack, 30mm under the stem and 50mm bars. I'm 6' with long legs.
Requires a recalibration of riding style to a certain extent, but it's fast.
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...
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).
Interesting to play with it that way. I read about people going long front ends with steeper forks but I can’t wrap my head around it. I haven’t noticed a downside to slack hta.
@ntm95 do you notice any downsides? Of course I’ll get used to anything and I know it will crush fast trails, but were you a bit bummed with any aspect of it? (Manuals, breaking the rear loose, euro turns, etc)
The headangle is an undesired byproduct, the intention behind changing it is lengthening or shortening the front centre to get as much of a change in the ratio as possible - not only change the rear end but effectively move the rider forwards between the two axles.
Interesting to play with it that way. I read about people going long front ends with steeper forks but I can’t wrap my head around it...
Interesting to play with it that way. I read about people going long front ends with steeper forks but I can’t wrap my head around it. I haven’t noticed a downside to slack hta.
@ntm95 do you notice any downsides? Of course I’ll get used to anything and I know it will crush fast trails, but were you a bit bummed with any aspect of it? (Manuals, breaking the rear loose, euro turns, etc)
If anything there is a point where on really steep stuff where it can pitch you forward a bit more, if your fork setup is marginal and you're going slow. But that's really steep, slow stuff that's full of steps, that most people don't ride regularly, if at all. And is exactly why everybody in arizona rides a bike with itty bitty chainstays and an air fork with 4 tokens in it, lol .
The time it takes to retrain from shifting forward and driving corners with your hips/shoulders to staying in the middle and driving with your hips/legs can also be considered a negative. The better the rider you are, the longer it actually takes to catch on. I can go back and forth easily enough now from a 1.9 bike to a 1.75-1.8 bike, but it's hard to break muscle memory to start with. I have a theory that fact does indeed contribute to the inconsistent reviews you see of bikes with lower ratios, like the dreadnought v2.
The advantages are that you're always in the right place. I find I can ride blind trails at speed with a whole bunch more confidence, and less mistakes. Gobs more grip, without having to go look for it with body position. Sounds lazy, but it can be a faster way to ride.
As far as manuals go, the ability to have a higher bar position helps, but you're not cheating/muscling the front end up. It's proper technique or no go. Not a bad thing really. Same thing for nose picking switchbacks, good technique, no problem.
Breaking the rear loose is harder at lower speeds, but you just go faster everywhere, and then it's easier :D . With the long rear end you can setup some pretty impressive scandis/drifts. Very predictable while doing so.
Years ago the trend in enduro was to size down, and riders went faster as a result. The interesting point was that riders were staying centered more on the smaller bikes.
The common thought process there was that the smaller frames were better on the tight stuff and a pro can deal with the hit in stability at speed. That's not untrue, but I think at least one of the positive contributing factors was that the smaller frames all had lower f/r ratios, due to the lack of size specific chainstays creating a consistent f/r ratio across all sizes.
Interesting to play with it that way. I read about people going long front ends with steeper forks but I can’t wrap my head around it...
Interesting to play with it that way. I read about people going long front ends with steeper forks but I can’t wrap my head around it. I haven’t noticed a downside to slack hta.
@ntm95 do you notice any downsides? Of course I’ll get used to anything and I know it will crush fast trails, but were you a bit bummed with any aspect of it? (Manuals, breaking the rear loose, euro turns, etc)
If anything there is a point where on really steep stuff where it can pitch you forward a bit more, if your fork setup is marginal...
If anything there is a point where on really steep stuff where it can pitch you forward a bit more, if your fork setup is marginal and you're going slow. But that's really steep, slow stuff that's full of steps, that most people don't ride regularly, if at all. And is exactly why everybody in arizona rides a bike with itty bitty chainstays and an air fork with 4 tokens in it, lol .
The time it takes to retrain from shifting forward and driving corners with your hips/shoulders to staying in the middle and driving with your hips/legs can also be considered a negative. The better the rider you are, the longer it actually takes to catch on. I can go back and forth easily enough now from a 1.9 bike to a 1.75-1.8 bike, but it's hard to break muscle memory to start with. I have a theory that fact does indeed contribute to the inconsistent reviews you see of bikes with lower ratios, like the dreadnought v2.
The advantages are that you're always in the right place. I find I can ride blind trails at speed with a whole bunch more confidence, and less mistakes. Gobs more grip, without having to go look for it with body position. Sounds lazy, but it can be a faster way to ride.
As far as manuals go, the ability to have a higher bar position helps, but you're not cheating/muscling the front end up. It's proper technique or no go. Not a bad thing really. Same thing for nose picking switchbacks, good technique, no problem.
Breaking the rear loose is harder at lower speeds, but you just go faster everywhere, and then it's easier :D . With the long rear end you can setup some pretty impressive scandis/drifts. Very predictable while doing so.
Years ago the trend in enduro was to size down, and riders went faster as a result. The interesting point was that riders were staying centered more on the smaller bikes.
The common thought process there was that the smaller frames were better on the tight stuff and a pro can deal with the hit in stability at speed. That's not untrue, but I think at least one of the positive contributing factors was that the smaller frames all had lower f/r ratios, due to the lack of size specific chainstays creating a consistent f/r ratio across all sizes.
I feel like I could have written this. I don’t view it as lazy, I view it as being able to ride relaxed, which is way more fun for me. I can ride so much looser and still make turns/redirect the bike without fuss. It’s made riding 10x funner
Thanks for the chatter. Medium with 450 stays ordered. I figured if it could be a lighter, more playful version of the Range, then it’s a huge win. The fact that it is mullet, lighter, and not high pivot but it starts with very similar length chainstays and has low AS, means I should like it a lot. Now to wait until spring…
I’m a fan of having competent, intuitive bikes that allow you to have fun while going really fast. Probably a result of where I ride and my skill level.
New Atherton is unrideable in any size under a 495 reach.
I wish they'd get someone who knows ANYTHING ABOUT BIKES to design these things! These fuckin' jokers have never ridden a bike fast or needed stability on a technical move. Just another brand who knows nothing but follows the crowd.
p.s. I don't actually feel this way. Just a little joke for the long chainstay crowd. The new Atherton A.150.M mullet has a 435 chainstay at 485 reach while the 29er has a 438 at 480 reach.
New Atherton is unrideable in any size under a 495 reach.I wish they'd get someone who knows ANYTHING ABOUT BIKES to design these things! These fuckin'...
New Atherton is unrideable in any size under a 495 reach.
I wish they'd get someone who knows ANYTHING ABOUT BIKES to design these things! These fuckin' jokers have never ridden a bike fast or needed stability on a technical move. Just another brand who knows nothing but follows the crowd.
p.s. I don't actually feel this way. Just a little joke for the long chainstay crowd. The new Atherton A.150.M mullet has a 435 chainstay at 485 reach while the 29er has a 438 at 480 reach.
Is there a reason DW link bikes all seem to run short chain stays? I used to feel strongly about chain stays being a certain length, and then I got a bike with a shorter chainstay and longer reach than I considered ideal.. the bike is heaps of fun, so i stopped caring so much.
New Atherton is unrideable in any size under a 495 reach.I wish they'd get someone who knows ANYTHING ABOUT BIKES to design these things! These fuckin'...
New Atherton is unrideable in any size under a 495 reach.
I wish they'd get someone who knows ANYTHING ABOUT BIKES to design these things! These fuckin' jokers have never ridden a bike fast or needed stability on a technical move. Just another brand who knows nothing but follows the crowd.
p.s. I don't actually feel this way. Just a little joke for the long chainstay crowd. The new Atherton A.150.M mullet has a 435 chainstay at 485 reach while the 29er has a 438 at 480 reach.
Is there a reason DW link bikes all seem to run short chain stays? I used to feel strongly about chain stays being a certain length...
Is there a reason DW link bikes all seem to run short chain stays? I used to feel strongly about chain stays being a certain length, and then I got a bike with a shorter chainstay and longer reach than I considered ideal.. the bike is heaps of fun, so i stopped caring so much.
Weirdly, Dario referenced this on the PB podcast that I just this second listened to- he speculated that there could be pressure from DW himself that pushes bike companies into shorter chainstays. Something like them just working better with his designs. It was just speculation though I think.
New Atherton is unrideable in any size under a 495 reach.I wish they'd get someone who knows ANYTHING ABOUT BIKES to design these things! These fuckin'...
New Atherton is unrideable in any size under a 495 reach.
I wish they'd get someone who knows ANYTHING ABOUT BIKES to design these things! These fuckin' jokers have never ridden a bike fast or needed stability on a technical move. Just another brand who knows nothing but follows the crowd.
p.s. I don't actually feel this way. Just a little joke for the long chainstay crowd. The new Atherton A.150.M mullet has a 435 chainstay at 485 reach while the 29er has a 438 at 480 reach.
Is there a reason DW link bikes all seem to run short chain stays? I used to feel strongly about chain stays being a certain length...
Is there a reason DW link bikes all seem to run short chain stays? I used to feel strongly about chain stays being a certain length, and then I got a bike with a shorter chainstay and longer reach than I considered ideal.. the bike is heaps of fun, so i stopped caring so much.
Weirdly, Dario referenced this on the PB podcast that I just this second listened to- he speculated that there could be pressure from DW himself that...
Weirdly, Dario referenced this on the PB podcast that I just this second listened to- he speculated that there could be pressure from DW himself that pushes bike companies into shorter chainstays. Something like them just working better with his designs. It was just speculation though I think.
My first thought honestly. There is something to be said for longer chainstays and leverage…
There is the possibility the additional leverage could do weird things to the force chart. I don't have linkage anymore to model it. I do remember when we played around with overstroking DW bikes you always got a undesirable effect. But I almost always overstroke a horst bike and it's never an issue. Refer to my avatar. 210x55 native shock size, I think I went to 64mm stroke or something (2.5 inch) via removal of spacers and cane creeks way of recycling imperial parts on metric shocks.
Hey, thanks for the link! I somehow either missed that months back or forgot about and have been digging through/following along instagram for further information when provided. That link definitely helps explain and answer some of my questions about it. Rad bike! Diggin what he is doing geo wise for tall people!
New Atherton is unrideable in any size under a 495 reach.I wish they'd get someone who knows ANYTHING ABOUT BIKES to design these things! These fuckin'...
New Atherton is unrideable in any size under a 495 reach.
I wish they'd get someone who knows ANYTHING ABOUT BIKES to design these things! These fuckin' jokers have never ridden a bike fast or needed stability on a technical move. Just another brand who knows nothing but follows the crowd.
p.s. I don't actually feel this way. Just a little joke for the long chainstay crowd. The new Atherton A.150.M mullet has a 435 chainstay at 485 reach while the 29er has a 438 at 480 reach.
That's just the stock geo, you can get longer chainstays by request I think
A while back someone here had mentioned they believe a FC/RC ratio of 1.6-1.7 was optimal in regards to cornering and balance. I keep a spreadsheet...
A while back someone here had mentioned they believe a FC/RC ratio of 1.6-1.7 was optimal in regards to cornering and balance. I keep a spreadsheet of frame geo and setup data going back many years and added a new row for this ratio.
Sure enough, the bikes that cornered the best and were easy to weight the wheels correctly were right around the 1.7 mark. There was a DH bike approaching 1.9 FC/RC and it only really felt good going in a straight line through the steep chunder. You have to start with the reach number that works for you, but I'm a believer in a 1.7ish FC/RC ratio.
Steve mentions Sam Hill in the videos; in regards to frame fit/geo, Hill was known to run a tape measure from the center of the BB to the center of the grips. There was a certain number he was looking for. Similar to what Steve was talking about in regards to "spread", or the hypotenuse of the reach/stack triangle.
Confused about this. 1.9 would mean a shorter rear end than a 1.7 with the same reach. I thought the main reasons people want longer chainstays...
Confused about this. 1.9 would mean a shorter rear end than a 1.7 with the same reach. I thought the main reasons people want longer chainstays downhill is for longer wheelbase with stability through chunk. Longer chainstays arguably make it hard to get around corners. This ratio doesn't really match what people say?
And yes, Forbidden Druid is 1.78 FC / RC. or 64% front.
Long chainstays corner really well. They put weight on the front so you can drift/slide the backend around corners. Putting more weight on the front also allows you to use a taller front end. Large and XL bikes need 470-500mm chainstays to maintain that ideal 1.75 ratio-
A while back someone here had mentioned they believe a FC/RC ratio of 1.6-1.7 was optimal in regards to cornering and balance. I keep a spreadsheet...
A while back someone here had mentioned they believe a FC/RC ratio of 1.6-1.7 was optimal in regards to cornering and balance. I keep a spreadsheet of frame geo and setup data going back many years and added a new row for this ratio.
Sure enough, the bikes that cornered the best and were easy to weight the wheels correctly were right around the 1.7 mark. There was a DH bike approaching 1.9 FC/RC and it only really felt good going in a straight line through the steep chunder. You have to start with the reach number that works for you, but I'm a believer in a 1.7ish FC/RC ratio.
Steve mentions Sam Hill in the videos; in regards to frame fit/geo, Hill was known to run a tape measure from the center of the BB to the center of the grips. There was a certain number he was looking for. Similar to what Steve was talking about in regards to "spread", or the hypotenuse of the reach/stack triangle.
Confused about this. 1.9 would mean a shorter rear end than a 1.7 with the same reach. I thought the main reasons people want longer chainstays...
Confused about this. 1.9 would mean a shorter rear end than a 1.7 with the same reach. I thought the main reasons people want longer chainstays downhill is for longer wheelbase with stability through chunk. Longer chainstays arguably make it hard to get around corners. This ratio doesn't really match what people say?
And yes, Forbidden Druid is 1.78 FC / RC. or 64% front.
Long chainstays corner really well. They put weight on the front so you can drift/slide the backend around corners. Putting more weight on the front also...
Long chainstays corner really well. They put weight on the front so you can drift/slide the backend around corners. Putting more weight on the front also allows you to use a taller front end. Large and XL bikes need 470-500mm chainstays to maintain that ideal 1.75 ratio-
Stack is a great starting point for re-engineering the mtb, but for stack to change you must change your position and riding style. The hype around goldstones season and technique has opened peoples eyes to a different approach to rider-bike integration. What’s the central premise of how a rider interacts with the bike? Is the rider controlling with the hands or with the lower body? What are we optimizing for? Uphill and flat pedaling or descending? Revisiting the central ideas and assumptions (maybe visiting them consciously for the first time) can give us a new lens to view the bike through. This won’t be for everyone and these new riding styles and ensuing bikes won’t work for everyone, but for the people who want to ride that way, it will be heavenly
"I think that as fc/rc approaches 2, the reach needs to increase to accommodate the rider’s balance."
On the face of it it says "make a long bike longer", frame wise. I didn't read it as specific for your case to change the reach by moving the bars.
Sure riding over the front is better on a bike like that. I said it works. You just need to be committed. And that's a mentality thing. You can't just say to someone "go ahead and try it". I moved to a smaller frame to shorten the reach from the old bike precisely because I can not ride over the bars.
On the other hand raising them helped me a lot.
Plus to ride over the front, I'd say bringing the bars a bit closer will work better than moving it farther away. You need to take into account the mental effects and what the rider does versus just moving the touch point. The end game is loading the front. Flexed arms will give you more power to weight the front than stretched out arms. And more finess. Thus why bringing the bars closer might have a more positive effect.
But, we are derailing, I explained all of this before in the geometry thread, etc. etc. "
Length is from your interpretation, the off topic conversation was on high or low fc/rc ratio bikes. The hypothesis I shared is that there is a relationship between fc/rc ratio and reach, where I believe reach needs to increase as fc/rc approaches 2. I would extend that to suggest that reach and stack need to adjust as fc/rc increases. This is hardly different from what others suggest with RAD.
Again, talk is cheap - go and try to increase the effective reach and stack on a high fc/rc bike and see how it feels. You'll find that it doesn't feel like riding over the bars, it moves your center of gravity towards the front of the bike, weighting the front wheel more when in a neutral position. I had struggled riding an Enduro, increasing the RAD was an appropriate solution for me. For those already balanced on bikes like an Enduro, I think increasing RAD would make the rider feel more stretched out then they'd like.
Whether or not a specific rider can overcome the mental effects of changing their setup doesn't negate the idea that such a relationship might exist.
See above: "I moved to a smaller frame to shorten the reach from the old bike precisely because I can not ride over the bars."
I did a back to back test a while ago with a pair of hardtail Ragley Mmmbop frames (M and L sizes, 440mm and 460mm reach, 425 stays) I'm abble to ride both confortably and confidently, but the medium sized one feels better while climbing (less prone to wheelie in step sections, even if I ended adding more setback to the saddle) and was easier to turn (it felt to me that the wheels paths in the large frame were drastically diferent, sometimes it even feel like riding a shopping trolley)
At the end of the experiment, (this is anecdotal evidence and personal conclusions obviously) what I learned was that sizing, reach, fc:rc ratio is mostly a matter of personal preference and that anybody has a huge range of bicycle geometries that will feel right. for reference, i'm 5'9" tall and, willing to test against my own theories, I ended up building one of those On-one hello dave frames (rebranded sick bicycles) with 480mm reach, 460mm stays, 78° seattube angle and a headtube so slack you can see the headbadge while you are seated pedaling... And this was totally fine too
Now that I remember...during that same time I test another Ragley frame that has steeper headtube and slacker seat tube. I picked a size L based on the reach figures and WB but the bike ended up being totally unrideable on step terrain (in contrast, it was one of the best bikes I have ever ridden on flat corners). At around 655mm, the ETT was probably way to long for me, even if it was comfy to pedal around.
I think RAD and RAD angle are as pertinent as ever. Ran the numbers on my bikes that I ride the most and I found the numbers to be strikingly similar between a trail, enduro, and park bike, despite different fc/rc ratios, stack heights, stem length, etc.
Appreciate the response back! As i feared, all would be smaller sizes. It is a struggle for myself with the preferences I have and being 6'2"...
Appreciate the response back! As i feared, all would be smaller sizes. It is a struggle for myself with the preferences I have and being 6'2" on XLs. Very challenging to find much even close to 1.8.
I'm also 6'2" on a Spire with Large front triangle, XL chainstay (452mm). I thought I had a pretty good balance with it, but nowhere close...
I'm also 6'2" on a Spire with Large front triangle, XL chainstay (452mm). I thought I had a pretty good balance with it, but nowhere close to 1.7! 1.86.
Also anecdotal, but adding the 6mm from the Large CS to the XL was a major noticeable improvement for all the reasons stated above. I can ride more neutral from the middle of the bike and it's much more intuitive and safer feeling and makes it so I feel more confident cornering aggressively because I trust the front wheel. I also have an XL Spur (1.88 ratio) and have a blast riding it, but I notice I have to consciously be more forward and active and it's a bit scarier trusting the front wheel. Also interesting point about clips. I switched from flats a couple summers ago and it was a huge benefit from a body position perspective (could get forward more), especially on the Spur.
That is so sick man, thanks for reporting on how that is. I am 6ft tall and have a L spire as well and have been trying to get my hands on an XL rear end but I wasn't sure if it was a longer seat stay or chain stay, could you confirm which it is for me perhaps?
Do you mind if I ask how you got that XL rear end? I have tried to ask Transition if I could buy one from them and they didn't even respond back to me about it lol. I bet that they are coming out with a new Spire in the next year or so but if I can just get my hands on a longer chain stay I think I wouldn't need a new one anytime soon. Thanks again!
Hey happy to help! I was lucky to get a full rear end from a buddy who warrantied a frame. I just swapped the whole rear end so can’t confirm if it’s just cs or ss. You should absolutely do it if you can get your hands on one.
Hey happy to help! I was lucky to get a full rear end from a buddy who warrantied a frame. I just swapped the whole rear...
Hey happy to help! I was lucky to get a full rear end from a buddy who warrantied a frame. I just swapped the whole rear end so can’t confirm if it’s just cs or ss. You should absolutely do it if you can get your hands on one.
Thanks man, I already got a +1 degree angleset for it, I will keep my eyes peeled for an XL frame that I can slap on there. Maybe I'll get lucky on the PB buy/sell
Something I've always been curious about, many companies that advertise "Size specific chainstays" only grow the chainstay like, 2mm between sizes. Are they just moving the pivot locations to increase the chainstay length? Because that would make such small increments make sense rather than a whole new rear triangle thats 2mm larger lol
Something I've always been curious about, many companies that advertise "Size specific chainstays" only grow the chainstay like, 2mm between sizes. Are they just moving the...
Something I've always been curious about, many companies that advertise "Size specific chainstays" only grow the chainstay like, 2mm between sizes. Are they just moving the pivot locations to increase the chainstay length? Because that would make such small increments make sense rather than a whole new rear triangle thats 2mm larger lol
Yes, that is what many (most) are doing. One of the things that's not often discussed by the long chainstay gang (i'm included in this, I'm 70% all in on long stays), is the change in leverage ratio and travel. While yes, the FC/RC ratio can be the same as a smaller size with proportional chainstays, the LR changes enough that shock tunes and spring rates would be different. Not saying that is insurmountable or a bad thing even, but it would then be on the oem to pay attention to this and test/tune accordingly. Some are better at that then others.
Something I've always been curious about, many companies that advertise "Size specific chainstays" only grow the chainstay like, 2mm between sizes. Are they just moving the...
Something I've always been curious about, many companies that advertise "Size specific chainstays" only grow the chainstay like, 2mm between sizes. Are they just moving the pivot locations to increase the chainstay length? Because that would make such small increments make sense rather than a whole new rear triangle thats 2mm larger lol
depends on the suspension design. 4 bar is nice because you can just make a couple of different seat stays that have more or less distance between axle and pivot. you don't really want to change any of the pivot locations relative to each other, but you can move the whole rear triangle forward or backward, I think this is what you're saying? I hadn't really considered the swingarm bikes (because I have never owned one or seriously looked at buying one) but now these comedically small differences between sizes makes more sense: they only have so much room to push the rear end in or out (that's what she said.)
I'm running a dreadnought v2 with 470mm reach and 470mm chainstay in mullet configuration.
It rips. Corners harder than any of my other bikes, makes traction where there shouldn't be any.
Running a relatively high bar position to go with that, 645mm stack, 30mm under the stem and 50mm bars. I'm 6' with long legs.
Requires a recalibration of riding style to a certain extent, but it's fast.
Western canada, winch and plummet style riding.
Interesting to play with it that way. I read about people going long front ends with steeper forks but I can’t wrap my head around it. I haven’t noticed a downside to slack hta.
@ntm95 do you notice any downsides? Of course I’ll get used to anything and I know it will crush fast trails, but were you a bit bummed with any aspect of it? (Manuals, breaking the rear loose, euro turns, etc)
The headangle is an undesired byproduct, the intention behind changing it is lengthening or shortening the front centre to get as much of a change in the ratio as possible - not only change the rear end but effectively move the rider forwards between the two axles.
If anything there is a point where on really steep stuff where it can pitch you forward a bit more, if your fork setup is marginal and you're going slow. But that's really steep, slow stuff that's full of steps, that most people don't ride regularly, if at all. And is exactly why everybody in arizona rides a bike with itty bitty chainstays and an air fork with 4 tokens in it, lol .
The time it takes to retrain from shifting forward and driving corners with your hips/shoulders to staying in the middle and driving with your hips/legs can also be considered a negative. The better the rider you are, the longer it actually takes to catch on. I can go back and forth easily enough now from a 1.9 bike to a 1.75-1.8 bike, but it's hard to break muscle memory to start with. I have a theory that fact does indeed contribute to the inconsistent reviews you see of bikes with lower ratios, like the dreadnought v2.
The advantages are that you're always in the right place. I find I can ride blind trails at speed with a whole bunch more confidence, and less mistakes. Gobs more grip, without having to go look for it with body position. Sounds lazy, but it can be a faster way to ride.
As far as manuals go, the ability to have a higher bar position helps, but you're not cheating/muscling the front end up. It's proper technique or no go. Not a bad thing really. Same thing for nose picking switchbacks, good technique, no problem.
Breaking the rear loose is harder at lower speeds, but you just go faster everywhere, and then it's easier :D . With the long rear end you can setup some pretty impressive scandis/drifts. Very predictable while doing so.
Years ago the trend in enduro was to size down, and riders went faster as a result. The interesting point was that riders were staying centered more on the smaller bikes.
The common thought process there was that the smaller frames were better on the tight stuff and a pro can deal with the hit in stability at speed. That's not untrue, but I think at least one of the positive contributing factors was that the smaller frames all had lower f/r ratios, due to the lack of size specific chainstays creating a consistent f/r ratio across all sizes.
I feel like I could have written this. I don’t view it as lazy, I view it as being able to ride relaxed, which is way more fun for me. I can ride so much looser and still make turns/redirect the bike without fuss. It’s made riding 10x funner
Thanks for the chatter. Medium with 450 stays ordered. I figured if it could be a lighter, more playful version of the Range, then it’s a huge win. The fact that it is mullet, lighter, and not high pivot but it starts with very similar length chainstays and has low AS, means I should like it a lot. Now to wait until spring…
I’m a fan of having competent, intuitive bikes that allow you to have fun while going really fast. Probably a result of where I ride and my skill level.
New Atherton is unrideable in any size under a 495 reach.
I wish they'd get someone who knows ANYTHING ABOUT BIKES to design these things! These fuckin' jokers have never ridden a bike fast or needed stability on a technical move. Just another brand who knows nothing but follows the crowd.
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/first-look-atherton-a150m-is-their-additively-manufactured-mullet.html
p.s. I don't actually feel this way. Just a little joke for the long chainstay crowd. The new Atherton A.150.M mullet has a 435 chainstay at 485 reach while the 29er has a 438 at 480 reach.
Is there a reason DW link bikes all seem to run short chain stays? I used to feel strongly about chain stays being a certain length, and then I got a bike with a shorter chainstay and longer reach than I considered ideal.. the bike is heaps of fun, so i stopped caring so much.
Weirdly, Dario referenced this on the PB podcast that I just this second listened to- he speculated that there could be pressure from DW himself that pushes bike companies into shorter chainstays. Something like them just working better with his designs. It was just speculation though I think.
My first thought honestly. There is something to be said for longer chainstays and leverage…
I think DW has a stipulation on CS length IMO.
There is the possibility the additional leverage could do weird things to the force chart. I don't have linkage anymore to model it. I do remember when we played around with overstroking DW bikes you always got a undesirable effect. But I almost always overstroke a horst bike and it's never an issue. Refer to my avatar. 210x55 native shock size, I think I went to 64mm stroke or something (2.5 inch) via removal of spacers and cane creeks way of recycling imperial parts on metric shocks.
Any of you other fellow tall people following this person? Some modern new age geo philosophy on XL sized bike
PB first look was in August: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/first-look-the-factory-cycles-tahr-goes-dh-or-enduro-derailleur-or-gearbox.html
Don’t think Vital had coverage.
Hey, thanks for the link! I somehow either missed that months back or forgot about and have been digging through/following along instagram for further information when provided. That link definitely helps explain and answer some of my questions about it. Rad bike! Diggin what he is doing geo wise for tall people!
That's just the stock geo, you can get longer chainstays by request I think
Long chainstays corner really well. They put weight on the front so you can drift/slide the backend around corners. Putting more weight on the front also allows you to use a taller front end. Large and XL bikes need 470-500mm chainstays to maintain that ideal 1.75 ratio-
Stack is a great starting point for re-engineering the mtb, but for stack to change you must change your position and riding style. The hype around goldstones season and technique has opened peoples eyes to a different approach to rider-bike integration. What’s the central premise of how a rider interacts with the bike? Is the rider controlling with the hands or with the lower body? What are we optimizing for? Uphill and flat pedaling or descending? Revisiting the central ideas and assumptions (maybe visiting them consciously for the first time) can give us a new lens to view the bike through. This won’t be for everyone and these new riding styles and ensuing bikes won’t work for everyone, but for the people who want to ride that way, it will be heavenly
"I was aiming at this part specifically:
"I think that as fc/rc approaches 2, the reach needs to increase to accommodate the rider’s balance."
On the face of it it says "make a long bike longer", frame wise. I didn't read it as specific for your case to change the reach by moving the bars.
Sure riding over the front is better on a bike like that. I said it works. You just need to be committed. And that's a mentality thing. You can't just say to someone "go ahead and try it". I moved to a smaller frame to shorten the reach from the old bike precisely because I can not ride over the bars.
On the other hand raising them helped me a lot.
Plus to ride over the front, I'd say bringing the bars a bit closer will work better than moving it farther away. You need to take into account the mental effects and what the rider does versus just moving the touch point. The end game is loading the front. Flexed arms will give you more power to weight the front than stretched out arms. And more finess. Thus why bringing the bars closer might have a more positive effect.
But, we are derailing, I explained all of this before in the geometry thread, etc. etc. "
@Primoz from an off topic in the other thread.
Length is from your interpretation, the off topic conversation was on high or low fc/rc ratio bikes. The hypothesis I shared is that there is a relationship between fc/rc ratio and reach, where I believe reach needs to increase as fc/rc approaches 2. I would extend that to suggest that reach and stack need to adjust as fc/rc increases. This is hardly different from what others suggest with RAD.
Again, talk is cheap - go and try to increase the effective reach and stack on a high fc/rc bike and see how it feels. You'll find that it doesn't feel like riding over the bars, it moves your center of gravity towards the front of the bike, weighting the front wheel more when in a neutral position. I had struggled riding an Enduro, increasing the RAD was an appropriate solution for me. For those already balanced on bikes like an Enduro, I think increasing RAD would make the rider feel more stretched out then they'd like.
Whether or not a specific rider can overcome the mental effects of changing their setup doesn't negate the idea that such a relationship might exist.
See above: "I moved to a smaller frame to shorten the reach from the old bike precisely because I can not ride over the bars."
I did a back to back test a while ago with a pair of hardtail Ragley Mmmbop frames (M and L sizes, 440mm and 460mm reach, 425 stays) I'm abble to ride both confortably and confidently, but the medium sized one feels better while climbing (less prone to wheelie in step sections, even if I ended adding more setback to the saddle) and was easier to turn (it felt to me that the wheels paths in the large frame were drastically diferent, sometimes it even feel like riding a shopping trolley)
At the end of the experiment, (this is anecdotal evidence and personal conclusions obviously) what I learned was that sizing, reach, fc:rc ratio is mostly a matter of personal preference and that anybody has a huge range of bicycle geometries that will feel right. for reference, i'm 5'9" tall and, willing to test against my own theories, I ended up building one of those On-one hello dave frames (rebranded sick bicycles) with 480mm reach, 460mm stays, 78° seattube angle and a headtube so slack you can see the headbadge while you are seated pedaling... And this was totally fine too
Now that I remember...during that same time I test another Ragley frame that has steeper headtube and slacker seat tube. I picked a size L based on the reach figures and WB but the bike ended up being totally unrideable on step terrain (in contrast, it was one of the best bikes I have ever ridden on flat corners). At around 655mm, the ETT was probably way to long for me, even if it was comfy to pedal around.
I think RAD and RAD angle are as pertinent as ever. Ran the numbers on my bikes that I ride the most and I found the numbers to be strikingly similar between a trail, enduro, and park bike, despite different fc/rc ratios, stack heights, stem length, etc.
The calculator I used in case anyone else is interested: RAD Calculator - MAD SCIENTIST MTB
We sound like conspiracy theorists
That is so sick man, thanks for reporting on how that is. I am 6ft tall and have a L spire as well and have been trying to get my hands on an XL rear end but I wasn't sure if it was a longer seat stay or chain stay, could you confirm which it is for me perhaps?
Do you mind if I ask how you got that XL rear end? I have tried to ask Transition if I could buy one from them and they didn't even respond back to me about it lol. I bet that they are coming out with a new Spire in the next year or so but if I can just get my hands on a longer chain stay I think I wouldn't need a new one anytime soon. Thanks again!
Hey happy to help! I was lucky to get a full rear end from a buddy who warrantied a frame. I just swapped the whole rear end so can’t confirm if it’s just cs or ss. You should absolutely do it if you can get your hands on one.
Thanks man, I already got a +1 degree angleset for it, I will keep my eyes peeled for an XL frame that I can slap on there. Maybe I'll get lucky on the PB buy/sell
Something I've always been curious about, many companies that advertise "Size specific chainstays" only grow the chainstay like, 2mm between sizes. Are they just moving the pivot locations to increase the chainstay length? Because that would make such small increments make sense rather than a whole new rear triangle thats 2mm larger lol
Yes, that is what many (most) are doing. One of the things that's not often discussed by the long chainstay gang (i'm included in this, I'm 70% all in on long stays), is the change in leverage ratio and travel. While yes, the FC/RC ratio can be the same as a smaller size with proportional chainstays, the LR changes enough that shock tunes and spring rates would be different. Not saying that is insurmountable or a bad thing even, but it would then be on the oem to pay attention to this and test/tune accordingly. Some are better at that then others.
depends on the suspension design. 4 bar is nice because you can just make a couple of different seat stays that have more or less distance between axle and pivot. you don't really want to change any of the pivot locations relative to each other, but you can move the whole rear triangle forward or backward, I think this is what you're saying? I hadn't really considered the swingarm bikes (because I have never owned one or seriously looked at buying one) but now these comedically small differences between sizes makes more sense: they only have so much room to push the rear end in or out (that's what she said.)
Post a reply to: Modern Geo Talk: Chainstays, Stack, Reach, and Bitching About It