All

My last bike was a Large Megatower v1 with cascade link and long cs position resulting in ~1.75 fc/rc and that gave a lot of confidence when cornering. I ended up choosing to ride that bike at bike parks more than the large RAAW Yalla! that I also had at the time because it felt easier to ride. I had a -10mm headset installed and long cs setting on a large which gives something like 1.85 fc/rc. Now riding a medium frameworks enduro with 1.80 Fc/rc and I can’t help but think I still prefer the Megatower haha. Also tried...

i have modified my stumpy evo to go from a 1.85 to a 1.75 (approximate, will measure later...) and the difference is huge. I would not have kept this bike if I wasn't able to get it to turn the way I wanted it to. Its amazing that I was able to bolt on the XL seat stay to give me a 453 CS measurement. Honestly I just got lucky this was an available solution, otherwise I would be on a Madonna V3 (a better bike, but it would have cost me a lot of $$$ to switch frames.) I...

My bike (Nicolai G1) geo: HA: ~62.5º SA: ~78º R: 510mm WB: 1349mm CS: 474mm FC:RC 1.85 Handlebar height: 113cm (used to run 107cm for years) I've run this same bike with 442mm, 453mm and 462mm chainstays. My current setup offers the most front end grip and is the easier to corner. I would love to try 500mm chainstays and see how the bike would handle with FC:RC 1.75. I have found that the longer the chainstays the more stack you can run and still have loads of front end grip. Long chainstays also allow me to climb steep stuff...

If you add more stack and reach you will find that front wheel grip will suffer. Can’t increase those without increasing rear center to account for the shift of COG

Id be happy to see the return of Straight steerer's assuming we can control the flex/issues with pressfit steerers. zs56 or even bigger is excellent for adjusting without having a brand having to invest in its own cups.(trek, F U, Making people pay for mullet & adjusting headset pieces)

I wonder if limb length correlates in any way to how a bike feels at the different FC/RC ratios. Someone with long limbs might feel great at a 1.9 ratio because they have space to move around the area that useful body positions often find themselves while someone with short limbs on a bike with a 1.9 ratio might feel uncomfortable as they approach the ends of the useful body position area. Completely just shit runnin' through my brain rather than any real experiments. My two bikes have been (not on purpose) 1.72 and 1.73 so I don't have any...

Could it help if instead we start from riding posture? For example, start instead by refining our model of posture like the upright Jackson & Asa stance, the attack Amaury Pierron stance, Finn Iles crouching tiger, etc. If we thought about our own stance as the starting point then bikes could be properly fit to our measurements and center of mass, including optimizing weight distribution across the wheelbase, FC/RC ratio, stack/reach (including spacers, bar height, etc.) to maximize fore/aft stability and cornering grip? I think WC riders already do it, with custom stack heights, eccentric BBs (Bruni), mm perfect stems...

bernard doesn't know if he's on a 40 or 45mm stem and he's pretty quick i guess 🤣

To people saying that a bike would come too long with your prefered reach if you went with balanced front to rear ratio, you are in my opinion looking at it from wrong angle. Reach is like the fifth most (least?) important geometry number. One should always firstly look at wheelbase, followed by f/r center ratio, headangle, bb drop and then stack and reach because they are kinda intertwined (higher stack shorter reach for given wheelbase and vice versa). Also balanced front to rear ratio is not the same for different sizes and different riding styles as some have already...

Long RC is nice for climbing as well. Less prone to wheelies. You can relax your back and sit upright. Better traction and balance going up steep chunk.

we all know that bike-body system dynamics are complicated and heavily coupled in a myriad of ways, and that there are major simplifications that need to be made to compare geometry meaningfully (flat ground, static or at sag, rider in attack position, etc). sure, foot position and suspension design & setup affect F/R bias. but if we don't take an "all else equal" approach to talking about geometry, why even bother? I generally don't think these assumptions invalidate the discussion, and I'm happy to live with the reality that the conclusions I might draw from reading people's thoughts on this...

Exactly, Theres so much that effects balance on a MTB - I mentioned clips vs flats on anther post explaining that often Clip riders(this is heavily mentioned by Pro's) Will ride more ontop of the pedal or even and inturn will weight the front more - purely because flat pedals you have to remind yourself and/or naturally drop the heels. I believe Dak mentioned this in a video at sea otter when discussing high bars..... for the sake of serious discussion: just Whacking on a long rear centre isnt the answer or cure to balance without understanding everything that plays...

People will come on here debating f/r ratios and best cs lengths, reach etc without talking at all about cleat / foot position. The preference that a rider has for a particular foot position hugely affects f/r weighting. And two riders on the same bike with the same proportions will have very different experiences if they run 5mm different cleat positions.

Mind describing what you mean here in a lil more detail?

Man, thats a $hit response, If youve got some knowledge, help the group out, especially if you know what youre talking about. If not, no need to respond at all. We are all here in this forum to learn and embrace new things. So go ahead and enlighten the group...

So it's guilty until proven innocent now, is it?

You said it yourself mate: “ALLEGED”