All

You know what's really super awesome? When the SC bikes do finally get released like this, we'll get ANOTHER 5 pages of people rehashing the same points ad nauseum.

How much do you know about capitalism?

Ha. One thing I should note, just because I'm a disgruntled larger reach riding rider doesn't mean all bikes handle poorly. For years smaller and medium sized bikes have worked really really well. To add, don't forget back in the day, a size large was like 425mm, which would balance a shorter rear end fairly well. Once we strated stretching things out is where we went off the proverbial rails...

Just drank some coffee so I'll play (ha). 1) On an academic level, someone who has a strong understanding of physics and mechanical engineering can chime in regarding how forces are distributed through the chassis into the ground via rider feedback. I'm not super interested in this, only because I already know the "levers" I can pull on the change this for the better (or worse) via frame geometry. The big takeaway here we all know to be true is riding through your hands is hard, riding through your legs is much easier. This hypothesis underlies this entire thread. 2)...

This jives with what I have heard around and through the grapevine, too. I guess the bikes were damn near ready to go, but something happened when scaling them up for full production. Last I heard there was not even a hint of an ETA for release.

Glad to see this thread revived. Based on admittedly very limited personal experience with just three different frames, I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea that if a benchmark frame size (e.g., a large) has a front center that is 65.0% of overall wheel base, making all other frame sizes ride as similarly as possible requires that they have an identical ratio. To me, it's felt like a 5% increase in rear center has more impact on ride feel than a 5% increase in front center. Would be curious to hear if anyone else has had the same experience. I am...