Vital Rides the All-New Cannondale Habit 27
With more travel, bigger wheels, and a different approach to suspension design, the all-new 2019 Habit becomes a much more versatile trail weapon.
What is a trail bike? As you might infer from the name, it’s a bike made for riding trails, but that doesn’t exactly narrow it down much. To put it as simply as possible, a trail bike fits in somewhere between a cross country bike and a full-fledged enduro bike, and is made to be equally effective at going up, down, or across. Cannondale’s previous Habit sort of fit into that category, but it was certainly closer to the XC side of the geometry spectrum and as such, definitely too dated to keep up with what trail bikes have become today. Time for a bottom-up redesign, and one that marks a turning point for Cannondale in several aspects. The trail category is a very important category in mountain biking, and as such, this is an important bike for Cannondale. We went to Freiburg in Germany to ride the new Habit and see if they got it right.
2019 Cannondale Habit Carbon 2 Highlights
- 130mm travel front and rear
- 29/27.5+ compatible
- BallisTec Carbon front triangle
- SmartForm C1 Alloy swingarm
- Proportional Response Tuned
- Size optimized design
- Ai offset drivetrain
- ISCG05
- PF30 BB
- Internally guided cable routing
- Postmount brake mount
- Tapered headtube, integrated headset
- Weight: 13.5 kg/29.6 lbs (Habit Carbon 2, size M, without pedals)
- MSRP: $5250 USD
- Availability: October 2018
When Cannondale looked at what the typical “trail” rider needs, they ended up settling on 130mm of travel and 29-inch (or 27.5+) wheels. The modern trail rider also needs a confidence inspiring ride, which meant that a wholesale departure from the geo of the current Habit was required in order to keep up with the Joneses. With a 66-degree head angle and a comfortable but not extreme amount of reach, the new Habit ended up pretty close to the numbers of the Trigger 27.5 that was introduced last year, just with bigger wheels and less travel. Like with the Trigger (and Jekyll), Cannondale has also opted out of using its Lefty forks on the new Habit.
When it came to the suspension design, the recent expiration of most key patents on the market meant that it was time to put all the cards back on the table. Cannondale tested everything that is out there, and they came to the conclusion that the Horst link layout would provide them with the level of tunability and performance they were looking for. However, in testing so many platforms with a large number of test riders, they also noticed something: the way different riders experienced different suspension platforms depends to a large degree on the rider’s size.
The general suspension layout remains the same across the size range, but the suspension response is tuned specifically for each size, taking into account the way the center of mass influences the system for riders of different physical proportions.
What Cannondale discovered when digging deeper into this issue is that the relative position of the rider’s center of mass has a significant effect on suspension characteristics like anti-rise and anti-squat. Most companies settle on a suspension layout and then simply replicate it across their size range, which Cannondale says leads to compromised performance for people on either side of the weight/size spectrum. As a generalization, they found that shorter and lighter riders typically experience worse performance under braking, while taller, heavier riders would report worse pedaling performance. Cannondale’s solution is called “Proportional Response”, which basically translates to size-optimized pivot placement. The general suspension layout remains the same across the size range, but the suspension response is tuned specifically for each size, taking into account the way the center of mass influences the system for riders of different physical proportions.
Cannondale sought to make the Habit a bike that pedals well, but that also offers a smooth and confidence inspiring ride on the way back down the hill. For that reason, they settled on a moderate anti-squat number of around 70-90%, which is meant to reduce pedal bob but not introduce too much chain growth and pedal kickback into the system. Furthermore, they wanted to make the new Habit progressive enough to deal with rougher terrain, but not to the point of becoming harsh, which led the designers to settle on ~16% progression of the leverage ratio across travel, with ~10% progression occurring between sag and 90% of travel. The larger frame sizes were also given more end-stroke progression. Finally, a fairly low anti-rise number was chosen (~40-65%), favoring a supple suspension feel during braking as opposed to a bike that sits into travel when you drop the anchors. A choice consistent with the intended use case of the bike. As you have probably understood by now, there are no travel-reducing features on the Habit as found on the longer travel Trigger and Jekyll models. There is a flip chip on the seat stay which mainly serves to adjust the geo for those who would chose to run 27.5+ wheels.
In addition to “Proportional Response”, Cannondale also brought over its “Size Optimized Design” principles from other bikes in its range. Here, the thickness and other characteristics of the frame tubing is optimized across the size range to make sure riders of different physical proportions enjoy the same “feel” and performance from the frame. A 435mm chainstay length was chosen to provide a good mix of stability and liveliness, and since the bike is compatible with both 29-inch and 27.5+ tires, there is plenty of tire clearance out back. Cannondale’s “Asymmetric Integration” or “Ai” layout uses a standard 148mm rear hub which is offset to one side to provide for a dishless wheel build and enough room around the BB area to fit in the short stays.
Looking over the frame, we find fully integrated cable routing with internal guides to simplify working on the bike. The top-end model gets a full carbon frame, while the next two tiers down get carbon front ends with alloy swingarms. At the lower end of the range, there are three full aluminum models. Pressfit yes, but at least Cannondale went with the more durable PF30 standard which allows for a larger outer bearing diameter. There is space for a full size water bottle, with no proprietary parts or standards used anywhere on the bike. Ease of maintenance and a simple ownership experience were the stated design goals here.
On The Trail
To put the new bike to the test, Cannondale invited us to their European technical center located in Freiburg in the Black Forest region of Southern Germany. With a fully equipped workshop and a great trail network accessible literally within two minutes of riding out of the office, the location was to provide the perfect proving ground for the new Habit. The fact that it is co-located with a beer brewery was just a happy coincidence, while the proximity to the Schauinslandbahn gondola promised effortless elevation gain for when our legs would get tired.
Before any gondola rides would be considered however, we had to put away about 600-700 meters of climbing to complete the morning loop, which provided ample opportunity to evaluate the uphill prowess of the new Habit. It offers a relatively snappy pedaling response and moves out with good efficiency under power, the somewhat low anti-squat numbers helped in this regard by the short amount of travel. We noted that the bike would bob a bit less when closing down the shock, but we also often opted to leave it open, especially for the more technical parts of the way up. The suspension response is supple, but never to the point of feeling wallowy, and the bike remains dynamic at all times. The only gripe we had at this point was the seat tube angle, at 74.5 degrees effective it is just a bit on the slack side for our taste. We were able to make up for almost all of it by sliding the saddle forward as much as possible, but we still would have liked to see Cannondale go at least one degree steeper here, especially since we are talking about a trail bike.
The Habit really shone where carrying speed was of the essence, pumping over natural trail undulations and popping out of berms and turns.
When things got a bit more animated, a few key points stood out. The suspension response remains both active and supportive when you ask more of it. We found it perfectly balanced with a very smooth and controlled feel to it. Of course, 130mm is less than we are used to on our big enduro bikes, but the Habit feels essentially bottomless on most hits you’d consider with this kind of bike. In terms of the geo, the Habit is stable enough on most terrain, but we did find that it had us feeling a bit tall and a bit too much forward when things got steep. We were able to remedy this partially by increasing our rear shock sag beyond the recommendation, which left us feeling a bit more “in” the bike, a modification which did not cause the suspension to bottom out more frequently (we dropped from about 250 to 230 psi in our case). Part of this forward-bias feeling comes from the short, 130mm fork, but we also think the low anti-rise numbers are to “blame” as well. In opting for a low anti-rise tune, the suspension tends to stay high in its travel even under braking, which means that you benefit from a more supple suspension action under braking but also that the bike rides higher when you’re on the anchors. All in all, we think the design choice is a sound one, because a bike like this would be expected to really perform well on flatter trails as well as on technical climbs. If it’s that mini-enduro feeling you’re after however, this may not be the one you want.
After the morning’s exertions was over, we rode the gondola back to the top of the hill for more. This time, we sampled a very fun, MTB-specific trail that combines natural segments with flow trail style berms and rollers. Once again, the Habit really shone where carrying speed was of the essence, pumping over natural trail undulations and popping out of berms and turns. Towards the bottom of the hill, things got progressively steeper and rougher at which point the Habit once again found itself closer to its limits. Looking around the riding group, the main designer’s own Habit sported a 10mm longer fork and a couple of extra spacers under the stem, a modification that we believe opens up the geo of the bike a bit more when things get hairy. Don’t be looking to turn the Habit into something that it is not however, any more fork travel than that would probably throw the geo off and cause the bike to become unbalanced. More to the point: this bike was designed the way it was for a reason, if it’s not what you are looking for, there is always the Jekyll, which is now available in both wheelsizes. The 145mm travel, 27.5-inch Trigger also remains in the line-up, should you find yourself wanting something in between the in between, although it seems pretty certain that the new Habit is set to eat up a large chunk of Trigger sales going forward, particularly since many trail riders are indeed looking for bigger wheels these days. Having ridden both of these bikes albeit only for a couple of days, we feel like the Trigger still holds a slight edge when it comes to the more rowdy stuff, while the Habit provides ultimate versatility across a broader spectrum of trails.
2019 Cannondale Habit Geometry
2019 Cannondale Habit Carbon 2 Build Kit
We rode the second model from the top of the range, the Habit Carbon 2. It features a homogeneous build that offers pretty good value for money, with a carbon front end and an alloy swingarm. Here are a few observations on the kit list:
- FOX’s Performance Elite series suspension offers all the internals of the Factory series minus the Kashima coating. It provides excellent performance with a lot of adjustability.
- SRAM’s X01 Eagle drivetrain provides all the range you need to get up a hill, especially paired with a relatively small 30T chain ring (a choice consistent with the stated design goals of this bike).
- SRAM’s Guide RS brakes feel good and offer great performance on the trail. We know they can be prone to developing sticky lever pistons after a while, but SRAM has been good with taking care of their customers under warranty.
- Cannondale provides their own parts for the cockpit, the carbon handlebar specced here was comfortable on the trail and we were happy to see a 780mm wide handlebar mated to a short stem as standard right across the range.
- Cannondale also makes its own dropper post, the DownLow. It’s a cable-activated, cartridge-based design that is easy to operate and performed well out on the trail.
- Stan’s Arch MK3 rims with a Maxxis DHF/High Roller 2 combo is a solid choice for the rolling stock – only the pedestrian engagement of the Hollowgram hubs was a bit of a letdown (they feature DT Swiss internals, so a star ratchet upgrade is an easy fix here).
2019 Cannondale Habit Range and Pricing
The full Habit range is comprised of nine models: three carbon models for men, three alloy models for men, one women's specific carbon model and two women's specific alloy models. The women's range offers sizes from XS to M, with the XS running on 27.5-inch wheels. Only the range-topping Habit Carbon 1 gets a full carbon frame, all the other carbon models get alloy swingarms. Every bike in the range features wide bars, short stems, single-ring drivetrains and Maxxis tires. Only the Habit 6 and Habit Women's 3 lack a dropper post.
US pricing (USD):
29 M Habit Crb 1: $7,900.00
29 M Habit Crb 2: $5,250.00
29 M Habit Crb 3: $4,000.00
29 M Habit Al 4: $4,000.00
29 M Habit Al 5: $3,150.00
29 M Habit Al 6: $2,625.00
27.5/29 F Habit Crb 1: $4,000.00
27.5/29 F Habit Al 2: $2,625.00
27.5/29 F Habit Al 3: $2,100.00
All models are available in retail now, except the Habit Carbon 1 which will drop in early 2019. Head to www.cannondale.com for more.
About The Reviewer
Johan Hjord - Age: 45 // Years Riding MTB: 13 // Weight: 190-pounds (86kg) // Height: 6'0" (1.84m)
Johan loves bikes, which strangely doesn’t make him any better at riding them. After many years spent practicing falling off cliffs with his snowboard, he took up mountain biking in 2005. Ever since, he’s mostly been riding bikes with too much suspension travel to cover up his many flaws as a rider. His 190-pound body weight coupled with unique skill for poor line choice and clumsy landings make him an expert on durability - if parts survive Johan, they’re pretty much okay for anybody. Johan rides flat pedals with a riding style that he describes as "none" (when in actuality he rips!). Having found most trail features to be not to his liking, Johan uses much of his spare time building his own. Johan’s other accomplishments include surviving this far and helping keep the Vital Media Machine’s stoke dial firmly on 11.
Photos by Ale di Lullo/Cannondale and Johan Hjord
Rafael
10/13/2018 5:51 AM
Comments section full of cientists
And bike geometry masters.
Tough crowd
daway
10/13/2018 11:15 AM
Haha right? I think it's more just a tough market. Too many good bikes out there these days. Not a lot of love for something mediocre (as good as I'm sure it rides...).
ninjichor
10/13/2018 2:08 PM
Just call me an officer of the "what size did you ride test" police. I'm just going to assume XL, based on the tester's height. That "balanced" feel is not gonna be there in the other sizes, with smaller sizes begging for more length up front. Not surprised that Boobar long-forked his bike for extra length.
iceman2058
10/14/2018 12:23 AM
At 6'0 (1m84) I rode a size L, as I would probably have struggled to fit the 150mm dropper with regards to seat tube length on the XL. And that was not Boobar's bike I was talking about...
daway
10/9/2018 6:27 PM
Proportional response optimized pivot placement. These guys must have taken that 2019 Carbon Patrol press camp video too seriously. Speaking of proportional, why so long in the seat tube for the given sizes?
And even for taller people that can deal with the seat tube length...there's the angle, which is still no good. Close...but...pass, too many good bikes out there these days! Feel like these are gonna be a tough sell.
burritoboy
10/9/2018 12:12 PM
Ratty’s new ride?!
ninjichor
10/9/2018 9:57 AM
Dang Johan, you look so cramped standing and pedaling on this thing. No wonder people get bars so wide--your kneepads would be banging on the controls if you just turned the bar a little. The seat looks so slack too; it's closer to being over the rear axle than the BB. Sadly, it's probably needed with the front end being so stubby.
Nice focus on suspension, Cannondale, but how about some geo innovation. Contact me if you want input. Hint: you made one of the greatest fitting size smalls to make my list, the Jekyll 27.5, but short riders have unbendable bias about 165/170 travel. xD
just6979
10/9/2018 8:02 AM
Very surprising they're talking up size-specific anything, but continue to have the same size chainstays on all sizes! Perhaps the big folks feel the pedalling effects because they're automatically more over the back tire and weighting the rear suspension more, and the small folks feel scared braking because they're automatically over the front more and that much closer to OTB.
Medium reach is 430, very close to the 435 chainstay, so riders on M frames should feel well centered.
XL reach is 490, about 2 inches longer than the Medium reach and the chainstay, for automatic backseat riding relative to the Med.
Meanwhile, XS reach is only 366, about 2.5inches (!) shorter than the medium reach and the chainstays! Riders on the XS are going to feel like they're going OTB much easier than a rider on the Med.
Norco is one of the only companies doing actual size specific geometry (and geo is more than just head & seat angles and reach & stack), with different length chainstays to match the different reaches, and they're made in Canada, both of which are reasons they're high on my list of next rides.
zhendo1990
10/9/2018 8:44 AM
Norco bikes are made overseas. Pretty sure Devinci is the only large North American brand still manufacturing most of its full lineup domestically.
ninjichor
10/9/2018 10:09 AM
"XS are going to feel like they're going OTB much easier than a rider on the Med."
Your prediction is right, but it's not due to the reach, it's due to there being so much weight on the front wheel when out of the saddle. You can have super long reach, but if the bike's weight distro is still forward due to a steep HA, you get the same end result. Steep HA not at fault either, as you can make a bike that feels balanced with one--it's the distance between the BB and either axle that is the root (precise "ratio" of front center and rear center).
just6979
10/10/2018 10:11 AM
Umm, reach to chainstay ratio is a part of the weight distro. You said it yourself, the distance between the BB and either axle. With the same HA, reach to chainstay ratio is the only thing that going to alter the front center to rear center ratio. So if only one variable is changing (reach in this case), the the front to rear ratio is going to change with that one variable (reach).
ninjichor
10/10/2018 10:17 AM
Reach is measured to the top of the head tube. Can have the same reach, but vastly different front centers. It's just one point of many that can affect the location of the front axle, besides head angle: head tube length inc headset stack, fork length, fork rake/offset, fork travel, etc.
Make the head tube longer and your reach is shorter. The other stuff should be self-explanatory.
Reach is generally more for out-of-the-saddle fit. You compromise that if you try to address OTB risk with it alone. You can address it with a combo of the above, plus CS length. Technically, you can just relocate the BB rearward in relation to everything else.
Primoz
10/10/2018 10:30 AM
And as such reach is a useless number for any bike up to and including enduro category - any bike that gets pedalled sitting down for over 75 % of the ride.
Also, reach to chainstay ratio is not the only thing determining the weight distribution, as mention, but i'm taking it to another direction. Yeah, the fork angle and the like does have an effect, but reach to CS ratio would be useful only for a given cockpit length, where you in effect move the seat forwards and backwards when changing the reach, in effect changing the effective seat tube angle. But you can get a steep seat tube angle, a short cockpit length and keep the reach and chainstay at the same number. That will nevertheless move the CoG of the rider slightly forwards and also upwards (because he will be more upright due to a too short cockpit), which then also affects the antisquat numbers.
Everything is very connected.
just6979
10/10/2018 10:44 AM
Head angle and all fork measurements are the same in this case: we're talking about one single model of bike.
And yes, I'm talk about out of the saddle fit. As has been said, in the saddle can be adjusted by moving the saddle fore and aft.
"you can just relocate the BB rearward in relation to everything else"
just6979
10/10/2018 10:50 AM
@Primoz, I'm not talking at all about seated. Otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned reach, I would have mentioned effective top tube among other things (Stack, HA, SA, effective SA, BB drop, etc).
Besides that, moving the CG when seated can be adjusted a bit by moving the seat, and there usually isn't a huge concern about going OTB when seated, it's more about power transfer so it's seat to BB location that is important.
And 75% seated? For real? Not how/where I ride.
Primoz
10/10/2018 11:22 AM
Okay, maybe i was a bit optimistic with the 75 %. 85 % would be more appropriate. The ride i did yesterday was 1:10 long and had a less than a 10 minute descent with pauses in it to check the trail, since some fallen trees have to be cleared out. And i had some pauses on the uphill and the top as well. The hill i was on takes less than three minutes to get down from on another, faster trail. The loop, no pauses, could be done in just about under an hour. All of the transfer and the uphill was done sitting down.
And no, this is not an extreme case for where i ride.
ninjichor
10/10/2018 11:25 AM
@just6979 Well, if you do that, then this XS would have a reach of ~485* to balance out the front center. Not unfittable, but it'll take a lot of convincing to sell. I'm amused by the thought of it, cause I really think I can make that work as a one-off.
One reason why I think people sit more than they should, is because their out-of-saddle fit is uncomfortable. They likely already worked up their sitting pedaling muscles to be more efficient too.
Hope forward geo takes off, to lessen the difference between sitting and standing positions, thanks to the steeper STA. Already showing promise, with a few new bikes showing up with 77d seat angles and reach that's more than 50mm longer than usual. Just need these brands to not neglect the other sizes, in terms of getting rider CoG balanced between the axles.
* I estimate my CoG to be about 175mm forward of the BB, when in my out-of-the-saddle pedaling position with the very slightest touch on the bars on various bikes, roughly the length of a crank coincidentally. Should be less for a shorter rider.
Primoz
10/9/2018 2:01 PM
Personally i don't mind the chainstays staying the same, it's like saying you need a slacker headangle if you're taller. Having your feet about the same distance from the rear axle makes sense to me if you have your arms at about the same distance from the front axle over the sizer.
My gripe is with the damn bent seat tube, putting L and XL riders over the rear axle. A longer chainstay is a bandaid fix here, since the actual seat tube angle drops to around 70° in that case, the suspension squats too much, etc.
THe more i think about everything, the more clear it becomes to me, that each frame size should be completely different to the other sizes for a given frame model. This includes the geometry numbers (effective seat angles and the like) AND the suspension layout. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that larger riders will have less antisquat than smaller riders, when the 100 % anti squat value is connected to the CoG height...
EDIT: the way Norco make 'size specific frames', at least the way i understand it, is down right idiotic. They make the chainstay longer by moving the BB forward. Which makes the seat tube angle even slacker on larger sizes. Which exactly the opposite of what you want. You can make a bike with a 420 mm chainstay that has a better (more balanced) weight distribution compared to many modern bikes with bent seat tubes, when you're talking about L and XL frames. Because you use a steep seat tube angle, move the rider forwards and weight the front wheel more. Simple.
just6979
10/10/2018 10:25 AM
It's not about hands and feet in relation to the axles, it's about center of gravity. Smaller riders are going to have shorter arms and thus their CG is going to be closer to the front axle already. Combine this with long chainstays relative to reach, and now their CG is relatively much more forward in the bike than a bigger rider on a large.
Yes, bent seat tube change the effective seat tube angle, especially for tall riders. But longer chainstays are not just a band-aid, and in fact for descending, when the rider is standing, the seat tube angle just doesn't matter while the rear-center to front-center ratio is directly effected by chainstay and reach.
Norco sizes have the effective top tube changing about 10mm more than the reach, which makes perfect sense since the stack also goes up about 10, thus making the ETT measurement happen further up the seat tube. a Norco Sights rear-center:front-center ratios range from .62 to .56, where this CDale's range from .64 to .53. Neither hits the perfect ideal of the same ratio between sizes, but the numbers show that Norco shrinks the range a bit.
Primoz
10/10/2018 10:38 AM
Of course it is about the hands and feet in relation to the axles. The main effect of pushing on the pedals goes to the rear axle (simple lever relation), while the same can be said for hands and the front axle - pushing down on the handlebars does little for grip in the rear.
Yeah, what you do on the pedals has an effect on the front too, but still, hands influence the front and feet influence the rear wheel.
Never mind the ETT and reach numbers comparison, thought it over and the ETT numbers should rise faster than the reach numbers in any case, since reach is measured against the vertical from the BB (edited this part).
ninjichor
10/10/2018 10:47 AM
Primoz, you are vastly underestimating how much standing on the pedals weighs the front. Perhaps you're a very tall rider that often gets bikes in the recommended size, and often have to tuck with your chin over the stem to compensate for rear-heavy geo, but it doesn't have to be that way.
I want to spread just how nice it is to have excellent weight balance simply through standing straight on the pedals, in your out-of-the-saddle pedaling position. It really takes a load off of your body to hold such positions (aggro over the stem, or defensively behind the saddle), with a bonus of being able to pedal whenever you like, without needing to get into position to anticipate obstacles. The bike sort of does everything for you, so you have more opportunity to manhandle the bike, which is even more intuitive.
You sound like you want to stick to what you're familiar with, a short bike with a rear-heavy weight bias, but seem prejudiced about making seated positions fit with such a relaxed looking seat angle. Downsides in both configs: relaxed STA forces you to use different muscle groups which can be untrained (can be a bit painful), while steeper STA might make things seem cramped (also somewhat painful). Solution is to open up to a longer bike--longer CS and longer wheelbase, long enough to enable forward geo where your seated position uses similar muscles to the ones you use when standing.
I'd like to suggest BikeCAD to you, to try out. Perhaps it will give you a perspective of how a rider fits on a bike. Works in a browser, though a bit slowly. Can enter all the rider measurements, showing how arms and torso affect seated fit. Have the dimensions of a shorter person too, to add some contrast and depth, and to see the challenges of designing.
P.S. blame industrial designers for slack actual seat angles. They try to get it to closely match the fork angle, since having the seat and fork at different angles looks funky in side shots.
Primoz
10/10/2018 11:35 AM
Please read my posts here. Or on many other sites. I want to burn offset, slack and bent seattubes with a flamethrower. I'll be buying an XL Bird Aeris because it is the only relatively affordable bike with a normal seat tube (not bent) and seat angle (76 virtual, 74 actual for the 27" model). Otherwise all the options on the whole MTB market, currently, are a Nicolai Geometron/Ion GPI, a Pole (Machine) or a Raaw Madonna. All these bikes have one thing in common - steep seat tubes, the actual angles, and long front centres. And a crazy pricetag.
I HATE being over the rear axle, sitting down, hate it from the bottom of my heart. And i am fully aware that a steep (nay, PROPER!) seat tube angle will mean a longer front triangle. Because the cockpit length needs to be correct, which means an 'insanely long reach'. Which is exactly why the reach number is such a god damn useless number. It's kinda like saying what axle to crown fork you have, without looking at the wheel size and travel you'll use. Sure, you can find the right ATC for your needs, but will it actually fit?
As for the pedals/feet weighing the front, no i am no underestimating it.And i am also talking about being active on the bike when i talk about loading the front or the rear. You don't press on the pedals to push the front wheel into a hole, you do it with your arms. And the opposite for the rear. Same goes for cycling the suspension (say after cleaning or the like), jumping on the pedals does little for the fork, pressing on the bars does little for the rear shock.
As for weight distribution, i threw up a geometry with a 78° seat tube angle and something around 1280 in the wheelbase, where the front was weighted more than on my Large Reign (2015 model) with a much shorter wheelbase. Due to the slacker seat tube angle and more weight being over the rear. I also have my proportions and body part weights entered so i can plot out the supposed CoG of my body in there (i have a script written up in Matlab for that, so i don't need bikecad).
I went with the large because the XL seemed a bit long (i was on a large, due to a recommendation in the shop, for 7 years before that as well) and because the model i have wasn't available in XL. But it's too short. Way too short.
I do fully blame industrial designers and the bike industry as a whole, because the suspension designs are a copy and paste between the sizes. I mentioned in one of the comments in this thread that a given frame should be COMPLETELY different between the sizes. The seat angle, the chainstay length, the pivot placement, everything should be adapted. I mean do you see different length skis have the same radius? Or different snowboard lengths have the same width?
(also, don't get me started on shorts inseam lengths, that never fit me. I'm the defacto model for a thigh gap, even with a 15 inch inseam short)
jive turkey
10/10/2018 8:48 PM
@Primoz Some ski manufacturers absolutely do keep the turn radius consistent across all lengths.
Primoz
10/11/2018 1:37 PM
jive turkey which ones? I'm genuinely interested in how they look then.
bikeboardorblade
10/9/2018 7:15 AM
Yet another Horst link. Kinda disappointing from a company that is known for beating their own drum. It does look clean though.
just6979
10/9/2018 8:09 AM
That's because 4-bar designs are the best (noting that most dual-short-link designs are effectively 4-bar).
ninjichor
10/9/2018 1:40 PM
When the Spec does it so well on the Stumpjumper, gotta find something else to compete on. I suppose making the suspension compensate for the nose-heavy geo on small, and compensate for the rear-heavy geo on XL is a start...