Why do you CARE so MUCH about new bikes geo?

should trousers always come in the same length and only with different widths at the waist?

Great thread idea; I can't wait to see how it develops. I'm going to throw a wrench into it right away though, and say I DON'T care that much about geometry. Here are my thoughts: I come from a motocross background. For all the years I've been doing it, there has only ever been one size of MX bike, and every rider had to adjust to that size. Same with geo: it's different from brand to brand, but there are no flip chips or mullet options (well, they are all technically mullets - let's call it a "same-size wheel option.") I therefore got used to just riding what the manufacturer offered. 

I trust that when the MTB brands make a bike which is a "long-travel trail" or "Enduro" bike, it will be sufficient for those endeavors. Close enough for me, at least. 

I went from a Forbidden Druid v1 to a Starling Murmur. The Druid was a bit high maintenance and I was looking for something easy to service, durable, and I like to support smaller companies when I can. It took some fiddling with different rear shocks due to the linear leverage ratio, but I love it. Geo seems pretty settled these days but the longer chain stays definitely make the bike feel more balanced.

I just want balanced geo and tall stack on XL. I feel like that shouldn't be that crazy of a concept but thats what I am after. 

shorter reach (sub 500)

tall stack (660+)

steep seat tube angle (78 or so)

chainstay doesn't matter as a number to me (just want 1.8-1.82 ratio in the bike)

all I do is yell at the clouds though. I'm tall... lots of things in life end up being a little bit different!

And yet what you describe is super rare. Isn't only Forbidden offering these numbers on a normal mountain bike? It is better when you look on ebikes though, but there are VERY few XL bikes that offer F/R-ratio of 1,8 and a high stack. Like apart from Forbidden, RAAW and Framework no one is building an mtb with chainstays above 460mm.

And that's why I care so much.
Mo(n)arch, the 6'3".

I'm definitely in the slack head angle, long chainstays crowd for enduro bikes.  But really pretty much every category of bike my tastes vary.  But I'd argue geo on a well constructed frame is going to make a bigger factor in your riding experience than kinematics, suspension design, or even your choice of components besides your cockpit (which effects your bikes geo).

I don't get too wrapped up in geometry as there are tradeoffs with every frame.

Example - short chain stays are something I like/prefer but I wouldn't turn down a bike with longer chain stays just because of that trait.

Older bikes can be really fun to ride even though they have outdated geometry by today's standards and new bikes can also be quite rad.

Bikes are pretty great and what I prefer may not be what someone else prefers but variety makes things interesting across different terrain and riding styles.

Horses for courses and all that...

I think for most brands now the addage of "there are no bad bikes" is quite true.

But as a 5'10 (177cm), I am pretty sure my favourite reach is in the 460-470cm range, so I get pretty bummed out by the amount of brands these days that have a 450mm M and a 480mm L! 

One thing that drives me crazy is how innacurately BB drop is measured/reported/guessed by many brands, and how rare it is that brands give a target BB height (assume 2.4 tyres) even if it is probably innaccurate. My last 2 bikes came in 10-20mm lower than the geo sheet which I absolutely hate and have had to compromise suspension setup to make up for.

as much as everyone treats reachnumbers as the holy grail, i stopped caring.

in the last 6 years i rode 4 different bikes between 515 and 470mm and every bike was great for another reason. all of those bikes were enduro, long travel trail bikes whatever you might call them. 

The only thing that really bothers me on modern trail bikes is slack seat tube angles, especially ones that are measured opaquely and you end up over the rear hub despite a claimed 77* effective angle, fortunately its easy to pick out visually. Stumpjumper as notable example. I'm also XL and don't really like chainstays over 445-450 so I sometimes worry the long chainstay cult will have their demands met and I'll be stuck choosing between a small handful of DW™ © Copyright Dave Weagle ® bikes

I love nerding out on geometry, but the truth is unless you actually ride the thing you won't really know how it feels. Especially for full sus bikes, where suspension characteristics will affect the dynamic geometry. 

That said, I'm a big fan of steep seat tube angles and low standover. The former because I've been on a bike with almost 79 degrees STA and it's been game changing when it comes to tech climbs and climbing comfort in general. The latter because I'm 5'4" and I appreciate the clearance, esp. if I have to do an emergency dismount at some point. 

I thought I prefered low BBH's, but after trying different heights I found I don't really mind higher BB's at all. 

I'm also glad that XC bikes have finally landed at slacker head tube angles, which is something I was looking forward to for 10yrs now. I had just acquired my state-of-the-art aggro ht in 2016 which had a 66 deg HTA (pretty slack for the time) and to my susprise it didn't hinder climbing one bit. I imagined a lighter (carbon) version of that frame would be the ultimate XC weapon and here we are now, the current crop of race bikes are about that slack at the front.

I thought I prefered low BBH's, but after trying different heights I found I don't really mind higher BB's at all. 

I've often thought about that whole moto sizing thing. I'm 6'7" and I've got short friends. It seems like cruel and unusual punishment to make us all ride the same sized bike. Would moto companies freak out and sue if someone started a company making aftermarket frames in different sizes? Or just offered a service to lengthen the main frame?

I think some of it has to do with both the sport and its participants aging.  When I first started riding in the late 90's, I didn't know anything about geometry. I based my bike preferences around what I saw in Mountain Bike Action and on the racks at my LBS.  When looking at spec's of a bike, I usually looked at what fork it had and what "level" rear derailleur.  Does anyone remember the days when bike brands would spec a bike with a rear derailleur that was 1 level higher than the rest of the drivetrain?  There must have been some market research showing that having the big "XT" or "XTR" printed on the rear derailleur influenced buying habits.  

As I rode more and owned more bikes, I became more aware of geometry.  I was more in the Freeride/DH scene, so the first big number that everyone seemed fixated on was head angle; lower the better.  Super-short chainstays had their moment in the sun, then reach seemed to be the next thing to argue over, seat tube angle after that; now I'd say proportional chainstay length and stack are the 2 hot buttons, with reach still up there.    

Most of us are bike nerds in here, and as nerds do, once we feel like we've "solved" one aspect of the bike, we move on to the next part of the bike we think needs to be "fixed."  The incremental improvements of new bikes seem to get smaller and smaller with each iteration.  There was a time when I never considered if a frame could hold a water bottle; I only cared about suspension travel and head tube angle.  Now I wouldn't even look at a bike, regardless of geometry, if it can't hold a water bottle inside the front triangle.   As with a lot of hobbyist activities, the user gets more knowledgeable, the gear gets better, and the nitpicks get smaller and more trivial. 

As a 6‘2 guy with long legs and BMX background, I find it awkward to ride bikes with high ST and shorter dropper. When I see a kink in a seat tube or a schock going through it, I instantly know the bike/frame is not for me. 

Btw, can someone tell me why not ALL seattubes (apart from those with schock tunnel for suspension-layout needs) are dead straight all the way? Is it purely an aesthetic choice or there is a strength/compliance matter to it? Are there any structural trade-offs to having a fully straight ST? Again, if you don’t run a shock through it. Examples: Stumpjumper, Jeffsy, latest Yeti LT.

Pivot points, wheel clearance, shock clearance, and to a lesser degree simplicity of construction for manufacturability (mostly a metal bike problem).

Essentially the issue is packaging. There are a bunch of things that occupy a finite space and  all want to be in similar and very specific locations.

BEATS having a REAL job.