Added a comment about feature Vital MTB Face Off: The Best Dropper Seatposts 11/8/2017 12:07 AM

Also have a Thomson as it's one of the only posts in 27.2. The great thing about the externally routed cable is the cable end is at the shifter. I have modded an XT shifter (Jared Graves style) to use with the dropper and it has a really light feel to it and is very intuitive to use. Plus it matches my right XT shifter. I used the standard Thomson one for a bit but it felt heavy and not intuitive to use.

When it is working it is awesome but it developed rotational play after a service and has been back twice and still has the same issue. I haven't had any cable issues as it is externally routed and very simple. Also Thomson customer service (i-Ride) have been awesome.

0 0 0

This feature has 69 comments.

Added reply in a thread The Internet Was Wrong: Short Chainstays Suck* 8/12/2017 12:29 PM

http://forums.mtbr.com/nicolai/nicolai-mojo-geometron-build-riding-development-thread-1016388.html

Added reply in a thread The Internet Was Wrong: Short Chainstays Suck* 8/12/2017 9:43 AM

There is also some interesting reading on the Geometron thread on mtbr. They are arguable at the forefront of the geometry revolution.

Added reply in a thread The Internet Was Wrong: Short Chainstays Suck* 8/12/2017 12:27 AM

Awesome bike and great geo numbers.

Added reply in a thread The Internet Was Wrong: Short Chainstays Suck* 8/11/2017 9:36 AM

I have done the same on my Surly Krampus but have done so to stop the front lifting when climbing. I had the CS at 446mm but lengthened to 460mm to get more weight forward. It also balances the bike when descending.

Added reply in a thread The Internet Was Wrong: Short Chainstays Suck* 8/10/2017 11:19 PM

The position of your feet in the pedals doesn't matter as all the load is going through the BB.

Added a comment about feature Modern Mountain Bike Geometry Defined - Transition Explains Effective Top Tube Versus Reach 7/11/2017 12:56 PM

hammer - you are right that the front washing out is to do with weight on the front wheel (or lack of). It could also be that you have a fork that isn't supple enough or a front tyre that doesn't have enough grip or you are running it too hard.

Maybe the first thing to do is drop the bars as far as you comfortably can. Then maybe change the front tyre or run it softer if you can get away with it - im 95kg and run my DHR2 at 23psi on a Flow3).

The reach on the 18.5 is 427mm which seems ok so its a matter of playing with the other bits until you get something that works.

0 0 0

This feature has 39 comments.

Added a comment about feature Modern Mountain Bike Geometry Defined - Transition Explains Effective Top Tube Versus Reach 7/11/2017 8:25 AM

hammer - One other thing I thought of...

With a short bike and long stem when you are descending you have to move your weight back (butt over the back tyre) to stop you going over the bars. Moving your weight back maybe the cause of your back pain.

With a long bike and short stem you can remain in the middle of the bike as you are less likely to go over the bars. It means you can stand of the pedals and remain neutral rather than hanging your butt over the back wheel.

If the longer bike keeps the back pain away I would be riding that one. You can sort any issues with climbing by getting the bars lower to transfer more weight onto the front wheel.

0 0 0

This feature has 39 comments.

Added a comment about feature Modern Mountain Bike Geometry Defined - Transition Explains Effective Top Tube Versus Reach 7/11/2017 6:56 AM

hammer - why does the 65mm stem compromise the bikes performance? As it is an XC bike my guess is the front lifting when climbing? How wide are your bars and what rise do they have? Do you have the stem as low as possible?

I am guessing you have the same butt to bar on each bike.

I run a 50mm stem on my 29HT with 10mm rise bars and it climbs ok. I have it set up more for down rather than up. I went uo to a 140mm fork and had to increase the CS to keep the front down.

Have you demoed other bikes with longer reach to see if this helps identify the problem?

Also how tall are you and what is your unseam?

0 0 0

This feature has 39 comments.

Added a comment about feature Modern Mountain Bike Geometry Defined - Transition Explains Effective Top Tube Versus Reach 11/16/2016 6:24 AM

Axa, The wheelbase gives you a good start. A bike with an 1100mm WB is never going to have a slack head angle (im talking low 62-64 degrees) otherwise everything else is going to be wrong. Whereas a 1250mm wheelbase is going to give you some room to move.

If your bike is too short it's hard to make it fit better whereas if its longer its easy. I'm 6'1" and my current 29 hardtail has a 1170mm WB (441mm R) and it is probably 2" too short as the front is too light when climbing. Yes I could increase the stem length from 35mm to 80mm but then it is going to handle badly when riding downhill. If I had a longer frame I could use a shorter stem, move the seat forward, offset HS etc to get a better fit.

It's worth reading some of Chris Porter's (Mojo) thoughts on geometry.

0 0 0

This feature has 39 comments.

Added a comment about feature Modern Mountain Bike Geometry Defined - Transition Explains Effective Top Tube Versus Reach 11/14/2016 4:11 AM

Does anyone else use WB as a starting dimension?

My logic is that the wheelbase is the sum of all the other dimensions. If the wheelbase is too short its likely the cockpit is cramped, head angle is too steep or chainstays are too short and the F/R balance is out.

The next dimension I look at is the ETT as you spend most of your time seated.

Also another key dimension is centre of seat (seatpost centreline) at XC seat height to centre of bars. As everyones seat height varies you cant compare this one on paper. Given your front and rear centre are balanced it removes seat angle from the equation.

I do see the point of reach but it is just another number to compare and not the defining number.

0 0 0

This feature has 39 comments.