For everyday riding , 100% everybody care too much about geometry and suspension (it used to be weight). I could probably ride anything from the last 10 years in any size from small to large and have a great experience. every geo decision have a trade off so you just have to adapt and develop has a rider instead of thinking that a new bike will patch your weakness. I would say for a dh racing where you try to extract every bits of performance, it matters a bit more but the dh bike geo did not really change anyway for the last 10 years.
At this point I’m realizing that I’m most sensitive to bar height when descending and seat to grips when seated climbing.
I would say for my local riding I prefer shorter wheelbase with a slacker seat tube angle. For dh I prefer both longer reach and wheelbase.
Getting older and pickier sucks. Wish I could just hop on and swing off it without overthinking. Every once in a while I can and that keeps me going I guess.
Mountain bikes really are so damned cool ….but we are trying to also have a good time, get a good workout and still feel flowy luxurious highs , so of course we are gonna find fit issues. Iam very sensitive to reach. And before that it was top tube length and seat angle, over the years I’ve had some success ignoring other parameters but as you and others stated, it’s all just so very connected. So I’m particular about reach and stack and seat angle and BB hight or drop now,- for my stature and expected comfort doing cardio for hours and handling with MY BODY. and I consider rear center and head angle for where and what I’ll ride and what I expect to be doing with /on the bike, combined with tires and travel numbers and it’s possible to have a damned fine ride with the right frame. Which is essentially WHY I CARE SO MUCH... but then sometimes I just like new bikes too. The optic I want won’t be lighter than my spire but it’s very different, and that’s interesting. Maybe not 8kUSD interesting tho, I think a new tall boy in XXL looks like a mini spire and that’s interesting and I can see myself climbing all day on that purple beauty …..
But I just climbed all day on dumb old spire either way. Shoot. Dang.
I'm just glad we still have some options as the industry seemingly converges into a single bike. I mean you can't even justify saying 'quiver killer' anymore because for any particular rider all bikes are kinda like that. Even more so now that we gave the heaviest long travel bikes motors.
The newest XC bikes being released are like 65 degree front end. The trail bikes are 64ish. Enduro bikes maybe 63. And the slackest DH are typically 62? Basically all of them are 29er, just some with a small wheel in the back. And 32 likely won't even catch on in widespread sense given how modern XC tracks are. Although it would be hilarious if they settled on 29/32 mullets for XC.
I'm just sick of seeing Shreddie Reynolds make slalom/slope bikes out of Hei Heis and Process 134s and Kona marketing it as 'cool'. Nah, man. Cool is making one off rigs like the Trek Sesh for your athletes or just outright releasing a proper slope/slalom/jib/freeride bike. Not implying there's some kind of cool diversity of bodging a 29er frame down with a low BB and short cranks to make a bike that used to be a stock option.
I thought adjustable geometry was gonna 'save' dual 275 bikes. What it did was 'save' brands money as they marketed all their bikes as MX or 29er. Geometry flip chips are now 'wheel size chips'. Kinda funny. Well played, guys.
The prices of the Shadowcat, Bottlerocket, and Clash are maybe the cherry on top of the irony for me. The fun bikes, usually for the young crowd and the poor crowd, are like ~5k for a base build. Meanwhile you practically step over Stumpjumpers laying about the parking lot when you go outside. They just want to get rid of all those Stumpy and Status builds for like ~2k. This is me discovering I am 'niche' and not appreciating it lol
I'm just glad we still have some options as the industry seemingly converges into a single bike. I mean you can't even justify saying 'quiver killer'...
I'm just glad we still have some options as the industry seemingly converges into a single bike. I mean you can't even justify saying 'quiver killer' anymore because for any particular rider all bikes are kinda like that. Even more so now that we gave the heaviest long travel bikes motors.
The newest XC bikes being released are like 65 degree front end. The trail bikes are 64ish. Enduro bikes maybe 63. And the slackest DH are typically 62? Basically all of them are 29er, just some with a small wheel in the back. And 32 likely won't even catch on in widespread sense given how modern XC tracks are. Although it would be hilarious if they settled on 29/32 mullets for XC.
I'm just sick of seeing Shreddie Reynolds make slalom/slope bikes out of Hei Heis and Process 134s and Kona marketing it as 'cool'. Nah, man. Cool is making one off rigs like the Trek Sesh for your athletes or just outright releasing a proper slope/slalom/jib/freeride bike. Not implying there's some kind of cool diversity of bodging a 29er frame down with a low BB and short cranks to make a bike that used to be a stock option.
I thought adjustable geometry was gonna 'save' dual 275 bikes. What it did was 'save' brands money as they marketed all their bikes as MX or 29er. Geometry flip chips are now 'wheel size chips'. Kinda funny. Well played, guys.
The prices of the Shadowcat, Bottlerocket, and Clash are maybe the cherry on top of the irony for me. The fun bikes, usually for the young crowd and the poor crowd, are like ~5k for a base build. Meanwhile you practically step over Stumpjumpers laying about the parking lot when you go outside. They just want to get rid of all those Stumpy and Status builds for like ~2k. This is me discovering I am 'niche' and not appreciating it lol
I'm just glad we still have some options as the industry seemingly converges into a single bike. I mean you can't even justify saying 'quiver killer'...
I'm just glad we still have some options as the industry seemingly converges into a single bike. I mean you can't even justify saying 'quiver killer' anymore because for any particular rider all bikes are kinda like that. Even more so now that we gave the heaviest long travel bikes motors.
The newest XC bikes being released are like 65 degree front end. The trail bikes are 64ish. Enduro bikes maybe 63. And the slackest DH are typically 62? Basically all of them are 29er, just some with a small wheel in the back. And 32 likely won't even catch on in widespread sense given how modern XC tracks are. Although it would be hilarious if they settled on 29/32 mullets for XC.
I'm just sick of seeing Shreddie Reynolds make slalom/slope bikes out of Hei Heis and Process 134s and Kona marketing it as 'cool'. Nah, man. Cool is making one off rigs like the Trek Sesh for your athletes or just outright releasing a proper slope/slalom/jib/freeride bike. Not implying there's some kind of cool diversity of bodging a 29er frame down with a low BB and short cranks to make a bike that used to be a stock option.
I thought adjustable geometry was gonna 'save' dual 275 bikes. What it did was 'save' brands money as they marketed all their bikes as MX or 29er. Geometry flip chips are now 'wheel size chips'. Kinda funny. Well played, guys.
The prices of the Shadowcat, Bottlerocket, and Clash are maybe the cherry on top of the irony for me. The fun bikes, usually for the young crowd and the poor crowd, are like ~5k for a base build. Meanwhile you practically step over Stumpjumpers laying about the parking lot when you go outside. They just want to get rid of all those Stumpy and Status builds for like ~2k. This is me discovering I am 'niche' and not appreciating it lol
Just figured I'd send those links along since I just saw them the other day!
oo glad to see the base Clash is back in stock.
when they did the re-release, I was worried about them not releasing a base model. I'm wondering if they are hoping to clear the rest of this stock before bothering with a base model of the new frame. at least I'm pretty sure a 5k model with a Zeb Ultimate is not supposed to be the base model going forward lol
I'd probably just buy a Zink (as i am currently considering) over a Clash but yeah. Building out a frame can get you closer to ~4k, depending on discounts/buysell.
what i REALLY wanted was a Dartmoor Jibbird. the Canadian dealer wasn't even done listing all the fees and tariffs for importing one before I tapped out. I think he had gotten to 10k usd or something. I was like... At what point is it cheaper to pay a Polish lad to bring it over on a plane or something
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...
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.
There are quite a few bikes where apparently ST could be just “kept straight” after all the pivot points down to the bb area, so I find your points reasonable but not absolute
To me it still seems as “form over function” approach, unless I’m missing some subtle technical details (which is actually very much possible)
New bike came out today. Vampire Ti DH bike with a pinion. Checks a lot of boxes for me. Reach is too short, FOR ME. I could run a mullet, I could run a bespoke small maker, I could happily ride a metal bike in the park, seems like the perfect place for a gearbox too. But I’m coming off a session with a similar reach and stay length and suspension design. And I’ve cupped it and still want more. So that’s WHY I CARE. But of course, I know a guy, so maybe I can just whip up a new front end for myself…
Right? It’s almost like we can’t execute decent geometry figures on both sides at any given time - I can still only find a handful of reach/stacks/stays/sestangles combinations in my proven formula for my large ass, but then the short and jibby riders are saying they’re not served either. Is this the age of M/L? Have you looked at the ZINK bikes? Also pivot makes great smalls (my wife is a shawty and she’s a pivot 4 life type rider now- bad for bank accounts, rad for trails)
There are quite a few bikes where apparently ST could be just “kept straight” after all the pivot points down to the bb area, so I...
There are quite a few bikes where apparently ST could be just “kept straight” after all the pivot points down to the bb area, so I find your points reasonable but not absolute
To me it still seems as “form over function” approach, unless I’m missing some subtle technical details (which is actually very much possible)
Sure I agree it can be done, but it would have been a conscious choice and other design parameters may have been deprioritised as a result. Your original post asked “why don’t ALL bikes [without a shock tunnel]”. Another example is that in the case of rad-XC bikes like the epic, water bottle space would win over a slightly longer dropper capability. As you mentioned appearance also factors in.
I’m with you though! I’ve sat down a few times with the intent to design a dual sus frame with an uninterrupted straight seat tube and hit a “wall”. Ultimately it’s not as straight forward as it may initially appear…
id rather not derail the dumb bike problems thread....or the tech rumors threads....or another ebike release announcement....I know that I care when new bikes id like...
id rather not derail the dumb bike problems thread....
or the tech rumors threads....
or another ebike release announcement....
I know that I care when new bikes id like to ride and potentially buy don't have geo that would work for me. im not saying just long stays, or a certain reach.
I can see the use case scenario differences and consider a bike for "play" or "jib" or "plow" or "all mountain in the rockies" vs. "enduro race" or even "Washington forests in October specifically"
But after seeing comments on new bike releases for decades now, it seems like many potential buyers, myself included, get bummed or stoked for random aspects of the design decisions. And it has also become clear that we are all (obviously) looking for different things in our NEW BIKES, relative to our lives, our riding styles, our current jacked up old bikes and such....
What gets you stoked or bummed on these new bikes geo?
Why do you care so much, or what are you looking for?
WHY?
Honestly, after year 2020, I don't care that much. Before that, I had a bike that just didn't work for me. My main gripes were that it was too short and the seat angle was soooo slack (I have long legs). I had problems climbing because I was sitting so far over the rear wheel. At the time, I got a new bike, and it still works great today.
I do still like looking at geo charts, but I am sure that I would be happy with the majority of new bikes.
For everyday riding , 100% everybody care too much about geometry and suspension (it used to be weight). I could probably ride anything from the last 10 years in any size from small to large and have a great experience. every geo decision have a trade off so you just have to adapt and develop has a rider instead of thinking that a new bike will patch your weakness.
I would say for a dh racing where you try to extract every bits of performance, it matters a bit more but the dh bike geo did not really change anyway for the last 10 years.
At this point I’m realizing that I’m most sensitive to bar height when descending and seat to grips when seated climbing.
I would say for my local riding I prefer shorter wheelbase with a slacker seat tube angle. For dh I prefer both longer reach and wheelbase.
Getting older and pickier sucks. Wish I could just hop on and swing off it without overthinking. Every once in a while I can and that keeps me going I guess.
Mountain bikes really are so damned cool ….but we are trying to also have a good time, get a good workout and still feel flowy luxurious highs , so of course we are gonna find fit issues. Iam very sensitive to reach. And before that it was top tube length and seat angle, over the years I’ve had some success ignoring other parameters but as you and others stated, it’s all just so very connected. So I’m particular about reach and stack and seat angle and BB hight or drop now,- for my stature and expected comfort doing cardio for hours and handling with MY BODY. and I consider rear center and head angle for where and what I’ll ride and what I expect to be doing with /on the bike, combined with tires and travel numbers and it’s possible to have a damned fine ride with the right frame. Which is essentially WHY I CARE SO MUCH... but then sometimes I just like new bikes too. The optic I want won’t be lighter than my spire but it’s very different, and that’s interesting. Maybe not 8kUSD interesting tho, I think a new tall boy in XXL looks like a mini spire and that’s interesting and I can see myself climbing all day on that purple beauty …..
But I just climbed all day on dumb old spire either way.
Shoot. Dang.
I'm just glad we still have some options as the industry seemingly converges into a single bike. I mean you can't even justify saying 'quiver killer' anymore because for any particular rider all bikes are kinda like that. Even more so now that we gave the heaviest long travel bikes motors.
The newest XC bikes being released are like 65 degree front end. The trail bikes are 64ish. Enduro bikes maybe 63. And the slackest DH are typically 62? Basically all of them are 29er, just some with a small wheel in the back. And 32 likely won't even catch on in widespread sense given how modern XC tracks are. Although it would be hilarious if they settled on 29/32 mullets for XC.
I'm just sick of seeing Shreddie Reynolds make slalom/slope bikes out of Hei Heis and Process 134s and Kona marketing it as 'cool'. Nah, man. Cool is making one off rigs like the Trek Sesh for your athletes or just outright releasing a proper slope/slalom/jib/freeride bike. Not implying there's some kind of cool diversity of bodging a 29er frame down with a low BB and short cranks to make a bike that used to be a stock option.
I thought adjustable geometry was gonna 'save' dual 275 bikes. What it did was 'save' brands money as they marketed all their bikes as MX or 29er. Geometry flip chips are now 'wheel size chips'. Kinda funny. Well played, guys.
The prices of the Shadowcat, Bottlerocket, and Clash are maybe the cherry on top of the irony for me. The fun bikes, usually for the young crowd and the poor crowd, are like ~5k for a base build. Meanwhile you practically step over Stumpjumpers laying about the parking lot when you go outside. They just want to get rid of all those Stumpy and Status builds for like ~2k. This is me discovering I am 'niche' and not appreciating it lol
DUDE I don’t really THINK that I DO
Clash V2 w/Marzocchi suspension is $3300
https://www.commencal.com/us/en/commencal-clash-origin-marzocchi-enduro-mtb-us/BT4CLAOEU1.html?lang=en_US
And the new Clash V3 frame for preorder at $2200
https://www.commencal.com/us/en/bikes/frames%20%2F%20a%20la%20carte/enduro/new%20clash%20v3/FT7CLAV31S.html?lang=en_US
Just figured I'd send those links along since I just saw them the other day!
oo glad to see the base Clash is back in stock.
when they did the re-release, I was worried about them not releasing a base model. I'm wondering if they are hoping to clear the rest of this stock before bothering with a base model of the new frame. at least I'm pretty sure a 5k model with a Zeb Ultimate is not supposed to be the base model going forward lol
I'd probably just buy a Zink (as i am currently considering) over a Clash but yeah. Building out a frame can get you closer to ~4k, depending on discounts/buysell.
what i REALLY wanted was a Dartmoor Jibbird. the Canadian dealer wasn't even done listing all the fees and tariffs for importing one before I tapped out. I think he had gotten to 10k usd or something. I was like... At what point is it cheaper to pay a Polish lad to bring it over on a plane or something
There are quite a few bikes where apparently ST could be just “kept straight” after all the pivot points down to the bb area, so I find your points reasonable but not absolute
To me it still seems as “form over function” approach, unless I’m missing some subtle technical details (which is actually very much possible)
New bike came out today.
Vampire Ti DH bike with a pinion.
Checks a lot of boxes for me. Reach is too short, FOR ME.
I could run a mullet, I could run a bespoke small maker, I could happily ride a metal bike in the park, seems like the perfect place for a gearbox too. But I’m coming off a session with a similar reach and stay length and suspension design. And I’ve cupped it and still want more. So that’s WHY I CARE. But of course, I know a guy, so maybe I can just whip up a new front end for myself…
Other than that, wow, what a great looking bike
As a short arse bikes are getting too long.
Right?
It’s almost like we can’t execute decent geometry figures on both sides at any given time - I can still only find a handful of reach/stacks/stays/sestangles combinations in my proven formula for my large ass, but then the short and jibby riders are saying they’re not served either. Is this the age of M/L?
Have you looked at the ZINK bikes? Also pivot makes great smalls (my wife is a shawty and she’s a pivot 4 life type rider now- bad for bank accounts, rad for trails)
Sure I agree it can be done, but it would have been a conscious choice and other design parameters may have been deprioritised as a result. Your original post asked “why don’t ALL bikes [without a shock tunnel]”. Another example is that in the case of rad-XC bikes like the epic, water bottle space would win over a slightly longer dropper capability. As you mentioned appearance also factors in.
I’m with you though! I’ve sat down a few times with the intent to design a dual sus frame with an uninterrupted straight seat tube and hit a “wall”. Ultimately it’s not as straight forward as it may initially appear…
Honestly, after year 2020, I don't care that much. Before that, I had a bike that just didn't work for me. My main gripes were that it was too short and the seat angle was soooo slack (I have long legs). I had problems climbing because I was sitting so far over the rear wheel. At the time, I got a new bike, and it still works great today.
I do still like looking at geo charts, but I am sure that I would be happy with the majority of new bikes.
Post a reply to: Why do you CARE so MUCH about new bikes geo?