Next Level Bike Geometry: An Interview with Chris Porter 16

I didn't watch the video, but find it interesting you say in the last two sentences, ... we are probably at the beginning of a new era of technological development... and "the godfather of suspensions". those are not really dependant. And you imply he's old... You could call Chris the godfather of good quotes like this one "where's Ash???!! I'm gonna punch him in the fxxkin face!!!!!" quote from 2014 TransProvence when Chris couldn't follow a map...
happy his bikes make people feel good :-)

In reference to the dual crown comment I immediately thought of the MRP Bartlett, probably because i'm one of the few people who have one. Seems like it would be the perfect fit for that bike and what they were talking about. Low axle to crown to keep climbing in check, small weight penalty,1lb in my case. Nice stiff front end. When this fork first came out I thought people with big enduro bikes would be all over them. I get that it is probably overkill for most people but for me, who has one bike, it works and gives me better control and a safer feeling at speed, i'm pushing 50
Maybe someone can do a review, Vital, since I have yet to find one.
Cheers

I think most bikes have to low a bottom bracket height for realistic trails that include rocks and roots.

I appreciate the trend of longer / slacker / more travel bikes which brings stability speed and safety at the mountains (like a ski’s) - because it leads into the geometry change for the short travel bikes.


I purchased my last bike purely based on geometry, despite i do not need all of 180 travel, however at the moment of the purchase there where lack of short travel, slack and long bikes;

He's just a salesman.. his tactic is to get the consumer to question what they already have by pretending to be the 'expert'.

captaindouche. I wrote: you need to take a test ride then comment. Ok you replied that you did have a Geometron test ride and didn’t like it.
Fair enough. It’s not for everyone, but I guess I’m surprised. I love mine. Been on the CP longslacklow geo for 4 years and no looking back.
He’s definitely not trying to sell it to everyone, though. I'd describe CP as an evangelist rather than a salesman.

I agree with Chris 100% on his statements. I am certain there may be a few outlier applications (bar bar spins, very tight turns) but the notion that a dual crown fork is a major issue outside of downhill is as ridiculous as he illustrates. His mindset on measuring performance is spot on as well. Reminds me of an interview with Kyle Strait where he said rating stunts by a judge did a disservice to riders because it was subjective vs. measuring a clock to determine the winner.

I rode DH for many years. Started with 100mm travel. Progressed to a Santa Cruz Bullit and later a Specialized Demo with the Fox 40, etc. I got heavy into XC, bought a CX bike to commute (could this treat it more like a MT, and eventually also got into road cycling for the fitness and distance. I will never shave my legs though. Last year I raced a ton of Cross. I got me hooked again on the dirt, mud and off road in general, which I had been missing. Bought a fat bike and converted it to a 27.5 to hit the mountains during the summer. I plan to build up a legit MTB in place of my converted fat bike and I will give Geometron very serious consideration after watching this video.

I have been a fan of a more raked head tube angle for a very long time because of the benefits downhill. My Titus Racer-X was a beast climbing but it suffered tremendously on the DH. I like the approach of adjusting the steeper seat angle to compensate for the head tube angle on climbs. That approach really appeals to me and as he said, it is not a crazy concept but no one thought about it. Reducing weight should also not be the primary goal for any bike design. Especially above performance. Power:Weight does matter but you can hit the gym and train to improve power, explosive or endurance. The pros may need to be concerned about bike weight but within reason this has never been a major concern for me. Improving my fitness and bike handling skills have always had a bigger positive impact. I am interested to read what other folks have to say on this topic. I do not live in a vacuum and these statements are my personal opinion.

It’s a fabulous feeling to get on a bike that actually works like the G1 does. I encourage you to try a test ride.

i can really relate to what you are describing, and I agree that Chris is on to something. Even as a young rider in like 2000 i worked with Time to design a custom time trial frame. What did we do? Long, Low, Slack... for exactly the reasons Chris gave for mountainbikes... the bike was super stable at speed and cornered predictably... that geo just works... for all bikes... you still never see this outside of some mtb and gravel bikes...

I feel the same based on many years of riding and racing experience. I trained and rode hard and raced very aggressively for years. I rarely pushed my equipment to the limits but when I did it was always the steeper head tube/fork angles and compact bikes - on the downhill. They were amazing climbing but with a high penalty. I take less chances these days and I ride less aggressively. Most of the time. I would love to try out a bike which is DH focused but tailored to be more accommodating to other styles of riding. As an avid non-pro rider I no longer care about pushing my bike or skills beyond their limitations because the penalties are high. I like some of these concepts and I would eagerly welcome a bike that would be rideable on any trail but provide me with a buffer to compensate for the mistakes I know I am going to make (whether they are poor technique or sacrificing Form due to fatigue).

I really appreciate Chris’s out of the box thinking and the input and influence he’s had on bike design over the last decade is impressive and welcome. But he’s not always right and I think too heavily influenced himself by motorbikes at (all) times. If I wanna go ride in the woods with my mates (as he says in the interview) I’m not looking for a motorbike without an engine, I don’t want the slackest, longest or even the fastest bike. I’m looking for something simple, familiar and consistent and easy to throw about.
People started making longer bikes and it caught on quick because you can go stupid fast stupid easy but sooner or later you start to miss those little side hits and cheeky loops through the dirt jumps. At least I did.
Eager to see what he’s got in mind with the seat post but to help clarify my own feelings above - my bike has a bmx saddle on it with a rigid pivotal seat post. That’s how I go ride in the woods with my mates.

To start I'm not sure Chris is arguing his theories and ideas are 100% right for every single kind of bike rider. Reading between the lines, you seem like someone who might be just as happy on a downsized single pivot or some kind of aggressive hard tail. Put another wya, those who are into 50:01ing it may be a lot happier on something that gives up outright speed for jib-ability.

We see this a lot in other sports like skiing where for a big group of people, speed isn't the end-all-be-all and that's okay.

Chris has a goal that he outlined without directly saying: Build bikes that go fast. If fast isn't your thing, then he isn't making a bike that'll be your cup of tea. (sorry, not English, no idea why I just used that colloquialism)

As far as the moto influence goes, Its hard to ignore how "right" moto has been all along. Its hard to find one influence from moto that was wrong for the sport of mountain biking. Maybe the Lenz sport "moto inspired" banana seat?

From clothing to real suspension technology to modern geo, moto had it first, and it was largely moto inspired mountain bikers who brought it inot the sport. That said, yeah, moto is all about speed. This side of trials, (the ultimate jib life sport) there aren't many two wheeled dirt oriented motorized machines that don't have a pretty heavy race heritage behind them.

The point I'm trying to make is Chris has long been onto something ***If your goal is to go fast***.

I didn't fully realize it until watching this, but clearly Chris and myself have very similar thoughts on bike geometry and design. Though clearly, he's a lot smarter and a lot wiser than I am.

The only thing I now believe is we should do our best to leave our preconcieved notions at the door. Sometimes something is better, but takes a different technique. Sometimes something is better, but feels goofy at first. Sometimes something is better for reasons we don't understand - and what might work for one person won't for another.

Only reason I write this is it took a slow chiseling away of popular opinion to arrive to the point we're now at, which is a pretty amazing place if you are a mountain biker. Remember, we were all SURE 29" wheels were for XC only and could never corner. We were SURE 64 degree headtube angles were too slack, and only for a select few downhill bikes. We were SURE short chainstays helped a bike corner. We were SURE higher offsets were better. We were SURE a wheelbase north of 1250mm was too long to ever work in a trail environment. We were SURE the Yeti DH-9 was too long. etc etc etc

What are we SURE of now that we aren't so right about!?

I don’t disagree with ya man. I truly do appreciate Chris’ influence and everything he’s done for mountain bikes.
And you’re right of course he’s looking at bikes in a different way to me although I did spend a good part of this decade hangin on everything he did, rode some pretty big bikes myself and had a blast.
But my path turned away from the Darkside. And now I ride a transition scout with a bmx seat and the suspension locked out :D

I do get what you are saying, for sure. I just added a Trek Top Fuel (2020) to my garage along with a new Enduro. Guess which bike is more fun on most of the trails I ride? Yup, the XCish one. I can load the bike so much easier on the tiniest of trail features and absolutely smash corners (well, as much as I can smash anyway). Its fun to be able to throw a bike around. But it also gets overwhelmed on the more legit DH stuff (very very quickly).

By far one of my favorite bikes was the OG Transition Smuggler. 115mm out back and 130 (well, for me 160) up front. Lots of fun was had on that...

Without getting lost in some nostalgia, I really do think we need to be pointed with the question "what are we trying to do with the bike". The same way I don't want to ski a DH race ski outside of a ski DH course, I kind of don't want to ride my enduro race bike outside of a real enduro track, as they are starting to become more like a real DH bike that can be pedaled. Not the "trial bikes" of yesteryear.

Its funny that we, the greater mountain bike collective, keeps going for longer, slacker, faster bikes, when 95% (or more?) will never race and never put the bike on a legit DH course. Kind of like the guy rolling around on 35s who gets 13mpg and will maybe see dirt in his truck 1x a year. lol.

Still, I think some of Chris's theories translate to the non racer, especially how to think about bike design, and being more quantitative with your measurements, leaving weight at the door. Its this "way of thinking" that I feel is more infectious that "what he's saying".

Something that I think gets lost in the discussion is this: the majority of people who buy mountain bikes suck at riding, ride somewhere boring, or both. It's all cool if a 1280mm wheelbase and 64 head angle works for me, someone who used to be fast, but that same super niche geometry has trickled down across most companies' entire MTB range, and I've gotta imagine that sucks for most riders in most places.

I have one mountain bike right now, and while I get around just fine, it's obviously waaaaaay too big for my local very-popular XC spot. Slow people riding that spot would be better served by a steeper head angle/shorter wheelbase bike than what you can buy from most brands. I think of the new Santa Cruz Blur and Tallboy. They have little DH bike geometry compared to trail bikes from a few years ago. Fun for me (and obviously for the designeers at SC), but total overkill and a handfull to manage on tight trails for their average customer.

@teamrobot isn't wrong. Robots are never wrong.

What you are describing however isn't new, nor is it isolated to mountain biking. I have zero idea what the number is but my two cents worth of a guess is 95% of all the shit marketed to dudes never gets used near to its potential nor heritage by which it was produced. Dirt bikes. Mountain bikes. Snowmobiles. UTVs. Fast cars. Powertools. You name it. Most guys buy shit and come nowhere near using it to the degree it was engineered.

I remember bumping into a really fast enduro rider before enduro was a thing 10 years ago. I just got on a bike with a (at the time) super slack 65 degree head tube angle (not a dh bike). I was complimenting the ride, but also described what you did above. He basically said, yeah, we like it, but the masses like it too because it makes them less likely to go over the bars and just makes riding safer. He wasn't wrong.

There are side benefits to all of this. Point is, even if you are right and a steeper, less travel bike is more well suited to the terrian, sucky riders still can likely stay upright longer on a bike with relaxed angles, giant tires and more travel.

...plus they feel *really* good about it when it sits in his garage after the ride while he sips an IPA thinking how he's basically Richie Rude. We're males. Our egos are dumb AF (and I put myself in this category, too)