2010 Glory build, w/pics...

A.P · Sep 11, 2009

Natedog

I agree with your points, plenty of people are on poorly set-up bikes for their ability or size. I see people all the time with bars that are too wide or narrow for their size and ability, horribly tuned suspension and in general just dangerous setups. I did not mean to insinuate that everyone should ride 31'' bars or really slack bikes. I am about 6'1'' and have really long arms...after a full season on 30''s I still wanted something a touch wider. I also have friends that went a little narrower too. My home mountain is also Bromont, where nearly every trail is super wide, fast and rough. As always, ride something appropriate for your body size and skill set and trail type.

Hell, half the people I see in the lift line have their michelin's flipped backwards or have handlebars jacked sky high. Its surely a negative side effect of all of the equipment and setup choices we have, as well as the vast skill and speed differences found between riders in our sport.

It also stands to reason why many companies are going with eccentric sleeved headtubes....orange, commencal, evil, scott, etc. I know ive left my orange in the slack setting all season, but your are right, it is not for everyone. I would wager though that many people would be pleasantly surprised if they gave it a whirl.

In all seriousness though, those giants actually look good. I loved my faith, and this looks way lighter and more refined. I didn't mean to sidetrack your thread, just wanted to respond to some of the people who claim things can and should only be one way. Options are good.

d-tard · Sep 11, 2009

OK maybe i'm missing something but everyone's saying that 65.5 is too steep, but isn't the Morewood Makulu 65 and yet everyone's raving about what an awesome ride that is......, just seems that it's going to be a personal preferance thing and until you actually ride the bike saying that it's garbage based on figures seems a little dumb......

slowitdown · Sep 11, 2009

d-tard said:
OK maybe i'm missing something but everyone's saying that 65.5 is too steep, but isn't the Morewood Makulu 65 and yet everyone's raving about what an awesome ride that is......, just seems that it's going to be a personal preferance thing and until you actually ride the bike saying that it's garbage based on figures seems a little dumb......

in the Wurld Kupp of E-Riding, everyone's an "expert."

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3301417&postcount=23

stinky6 · Sep 11, 2009

It looks like a nice bike and good geometry. If this bike was to hold you back it probably just in your head. Or if it is really too steep you could get the shock tuned by some company, let them know your mental delema so they set your shock up to have a little more sag but still not bottom hard. Then you could go to your happy place when you ride, but soon enough you will imagine some other bike part is holding you back and then once again you will have a reason to be bitch.

Dox · Sep 11, 2009

d-tard said:
OK maybe i'm missing something but everyone's saying that 65.5 is too steep, but isn't the Morewood Makulu 65 and yet everyone's raving about what an awesome ride that is......, just seems that it's going to be a personal preferance thing and until you actually ride the bike saying that it's garbage based on figures seems a little dumb......

IIRC the Makulu with the BOS rear shock is setup to run more sag than you would with an other shock so the head angle is getting slacker. (A little bit like a V-10)

Transcend · Sep 11, 2009

However, just like wide handlebars, they don't work for everyone and there IS a limit to where it stops being helpful and starts being detrimental.

Dox · Sep 11, 2009

I mainly ride at Bromont with a Norco A-line park edition 2007. When i got it the bike had a HA around 65. I was totally pleased with the bike but this summer, I was thinking about getting an other frame with slacker HA and lower BB so I decided to build me a custom shock shuttle to try it. With my custom shuttle, my HA is around 63 and my BB is around 13.5.

I'm not a world cup class racer. In fact, I dont even race but that geo totally changed the way the bike handle. It fell much more stable at high speed and in the steep sections. Last week i've tryed to ride my bike with the stock shuttle but I only did one run with it because i felt much better with the slacker/lower setup.

All I want to say is that Slacker can benifit to everyone who ride with an "agressive" style. Even if you are not going World cup speed.

I would still give the Glory a try if i had the chance but i dont think i could be as confortable with a steeper HA.

Just my 0.02$

5150dhbiker · Sep 11, 2009

I like the sound of the bike but am still iffy on the HA. If it was slightly more slack I'd be looking into that bike but don't think that it suits my riding style.

MttyTee · Sep 11, 2009

A static HA measurement doesn't really give you all the information you need to definately say how the bike is going to ride. It'll give you an idea but it is just 1 of 3 factors which effect the static trail measurement which is the measurement that directly relates to stability of the F. wheel. The other 2 factors are wheel diameter and total offset (clamp+axle). This is kinda a mute since nobody is really messing around with clamp offset but given a constant wheel size you could achieve a trail measurement of 112mm with a HA of 64 and an offset of 49mm. You could also get the same trail measurement with a HA of 66 (gasp!) and an offset of 37mm.

To go slightly further into detail we obviously spend very little time in a static mode while riding so we can now add spring rate and damping into the equation since they effect HA and HA effects trail. So now we are talking about a dynamic trail measurement. So a bike with a 66 HA and the proper spring rate will end up being more stable than another with a 64 and too low of a spring rate, all else being equal.

My only point is this is far to complex of an equation to say a bike is good or bad based of of static HA alone.

MttyTee · Sep 11, 2009

Transcend said:
However, just like wide handlebars, they don't work for everyone and there IS a limit to where it stops being helpful and starts being detrimental.

Very true, the slacker your HA gets the less your steering input gets to the wheel. Also the slacker your HA gets the more your trail measurement reduces when you turn the wheel.

So slacker is not better for all situations

MDJ · Sep 11, 2009

Natedog said:
I agree with this on some points. True wide bars are more comfortable, more stable, and confidence inspiring. But it is a fad that is abused by alot of people on the hill. Most people who are riding 30" + bars shouldnt be riding them, not because they aren't worthy on the ability front but simply because they are too wide for most peoples body types. There are so many groms (and adults alike) who want the widest bars they can find because some the WC guys ride wide bars (Fabien, Rennie, Minnaar). The fact of the matter is, those guys are smart enough to ride bars that fit there body type so it does not impede their riding performance. Bars that are too wide don't allow you to pull up or maneuver the bike as well as a narrower bar (not a 710 necessarilly) would. A perfect example of this can be done at home if you want to swear up and down that what I said is wrong and everyone should be on 31" bars... Pick up a broomstick and hold it out in front of you, mark it however you'd like widthwise (28-29-30-31 etc) and watch as the arng of motion you have decreases exponentially as you widen your grip. I bet only 10% of the riding population should be on a 30+" bar and have the full performance benfits that go along with it. Sam doesn't even ride a full 29" wide bar...why? Because it doesn't fit his body type, the same can be said for the likes of Brendan, Rando, Blenkinsop, Amiel (when he was still raacing), Strait, and the list goes on....

I think this also translates over to the headangle portion of bikes. But those people who buy "race" bikes are not always the fastest of riders or racers. I'm not saying that I am some pro pinner who knows all. But observing most racers at a race venue on any given weekend most of the people that ride, who are "core" racers and have race bikes are not capable to ride the bikes the way they say they can, or the way the bikes are designed to perform opitimally. How is a sport rider who struggles to get through flat tech sections, or some speedy singletrack portions of a race track going to benefit from a 63 degree headangle, 13.5" bb and 31" bars?...I'll answer for you, they aren't. Most of us on this board let our egos get in the way and get defensive about true riding abilities, trends, and become blind to what would really be the best set up for them, but ride what they ride so they can say they are on top of whats going on right now and look like a racer.

Point being that fads that are beneficial are twisted up by people who think they are a WC racer, or pro racer for that matter. I am not disagreeing with the points you have made. I just think that there is some more consideration that needs to be put into the products that are being ridden by people right now, instead of turning a blind eye to what is best for each person and riding what the pros ride.

I am not going to sell any more bikes with this, and don't want to totally de-rail this thread. Nor do I want to pick any arguements, or E-fights. I just think that this bike shouldn't be written off because of a HA number on paper. Open your mind to things that are "different", give it a try, I'm sure you'll be pleasantly suprised...maybe try riding 30" bars as well and see how that works out? Or maybe 29" bars even....thats what Sam runs, so it's gotta be fast. ;-)

Well said on all accounts 'dog. Sometimes herd mentality takes over and there's nothing you can do about it until the herd turns. Luckily, the updside down bar fad didn't catch on...

I'm personally not interested in this bike but look forward to your future reviews or impressions.

Fonzie18 · Sep 11, 2009

MttyTee said:
A static HA measurement doesn't really give you all the information you need to definately say how the bike is going to ride. It'll give you an idea but it is just 1 of 3 factors which effect the static trail measurement which is the measurement that directly relates to stability of the F. wheel. The other 2 factors are wheel diameter and total offset (clamp+axle). This is kinda a mute since nobody is really messing around with clamp offset but given a constant wheel size you could achieve a trail measurement of 112mm with a HA of 64 and an offset of 49mm. You could also get the same trail measurement with a HA of 66 (gasp!) and an offset of 37mm.

To go slightly further into detail we obviously spend very little time in a static mode while riding so we can now add spring rate and damping into the equation since they effect HA and HA effects trail. So now we are talking about a dynamic trail measurement. So a bike with a 66 HA and the proper spring rate will end up being more stable than another with a 64 and too low of a spring rate, all else being equal.

My only point is this is far to complex of an equation to say a bike is good or bad based of of static HA alone.

Yep...

Orvan · Sep 12, 2009

I feel numb reading this thread. Fickle numbers. Fox or Royal should make shorts with pockets to accomodate calculators.

davec113 · Sep 12, 2009

Am I missing something or has the Glory had the same geo. numbers for at least the last few years?

also, is it possible to use tapered ht cups to adjust ht angle on this bike?

I'm very interested in this bike, it's a great value.

norbar · Sep 12, 2009

MttyTee said:
A static HA measurement doesn't really give you all the information you need to definately say how the bike is going to ride. It'll give you an idea but it is just 1 of 3 factors which effect the static trail measurement which is the measurement that directly relates to stability of the F. wheel. The other 2 factors are wheel diameter and total offset (clamp+axle). This is kinda a mute since nobody is really messing around with clamp offset but given a constant wheel size you could achieve a trail measurement of 112mm with a HA of 64 and an offset of 49mm. You could also get the same trail measurement with a HA of 66 (gasp!) and an offset of 37mm.

To go slightly further into detail we obviously spend very little time in a static mode while riding so we can now add spring rate and damping into the equation since they effect HA and HA effects trail. So now we are talking about a dynamic trail measurement. So a bike with a 66 HA and the proper spring rate will end up being more stable than another with a 64 and too low of a spring rate, all else being equal.

My only point is this is far to complex of an equation to say a bike is good or bad based of of static HA alone.

Yes but if all the other factorsare being equal the HA has a big influence. Different frames but with everything the sames and the HA will matter(be it slacker or not)

Maestroforlife · Sep 12, 2009

Fonzie18 said:
My bad, how about this: "99% of people on this forum will not ride at a level that will require a slacker head angle." It's all in your head silly, especially when the bike has not been released or ridden/seen by anyone here (except natedawg, well, and myselfperhaps a few others).

True, headtube angle is important, but only as important as the rest of the bike's angles. Which would you prefer: a bike with a 64* headtube, 15" bottombracket and 18" chainstays OR a bike that has a 65* headangle, 14.5" bb and say 17.5/.25 stays...

So the Intense M6 is too steep @ 64.5 (A bike that is considered WC only style geometry)? That .5 of a degree can be lost or made up with tire size! Surely with adjusting the fork height or even switching to a different fork? how about changing the headset? Heck, the Intense M3 had a 66.5* headangle and it was good for all the world cup courses I raced and not a bit sketchy @ Vermont.

Here are a couple moar HT comparisons cuz its the only numba that matters!:

GOAT Sunday! 65*
M6: 64.5*
M3 (a total turd because ):66.5*
951: 64*/65*
Turner DHR (newest gen) 65*
Gnarly Foes 2:1: 64.5*-66.5*
Kona HUCK stab: 64*/65*

BTW, anyone notice the MSRP on the frame and bike? Giant is making a top notch bike accessible to many people, a good thing in a world of frame only MSRP of nearly 3k (some even 4K!)

I'm bored at work, carry on...

Man I tell you....thank you for putting it this way, I had an "discussion on Pinkbike" with a couple turds about headangle and personal set-up and percieved performance. LET ME TELL YOU, there alot of people out there that way over rate their ability.

Again thank you for being very clear and making sense.

Cheers

Maestroforlife · Sep 12, 2009

Fonzie18 said:
Yep...

Double YEP!!!!

Ian Collins · Sep 13, 2009

davec113 said:
Am I missing something or has the Glory had the same geo. numbers for at least the last few years?

also, is it possible to use tapered ht cups to adjust ht angle on this bike?

I'm very interested in this bike, it's a great value.

not really, cause it's 1.125 top cup....if it was 1.5 all around, then yeah

NoUseForAName · Sep 13, 2009

Fonzie18 said:
Here are a couple moar HT comparisons cuz its the only numba that matters!:

GOAT Sunday! 65*
M6: 64.5*
M3 (a total turd because ):66.5*
951: 64*/65*
Turner DHR (newest gen) 65*
Gnarly Foes 2:1: 64.5*-66.5*
Kona HUCK stab: 64*/65*

Completely irrelevant, and actually misleading.

ilfreerider · Sep 13, 2009

it is not the only number that matters ,but it does matter allot !
and while 65.5 is not the end of the world ,it does seems odd that a 2010 model year frame isnt designed around the new "standard" numbers (63-64) ,both performance wise and marketing wise (which is a very important aspect in designing a bike as well).
at the very least ,some kind of adj would have been awesome !

about the frames you listed :

sunday - is a 5 year old frame !!!
m6 - 9.5" of travel with 64.5 ha - do the math even with 30% sag and you get very slack
m3 - was replaced with the m6 (for a reason)
951 - 64 is the new 65
dhr - new generation will have 63.5 ha (you can ask dt)
foes 2:1 - again ,64.5 with 10" of travel = very slack
kona - again 64 is the standard this days (or so it seems)

now for some other popular race frames :

revolt - goes to 63
supreme - goes to 63
demo8 - 64
mondraker - goes to 61
new transition - will go to 63.5
224 - can go to around 62

norbar · Sep 13, 2009

Also wasn't the real measured geo on the 07-08 dhr much much slacker than the claimed 65?

John@UKMB · Sep 13, 2009

Hey Natedog. Really nice build you have there, similar to the one Im thinking of.

Any chance you can confirm 100% if it has ISCG 05 tabs and not the old ISCG?

I have my frame ordered and Im buying all the parts for it but I cant get any details such as that anywhere.

Cheers man.

NoUseForAName · Sep 13, 2009

ilfreerider said:
and while 65.5 is not the end of the world ,it does seems odd that a 2010 model year frame isnt designed around the new "standard" numbers (63-64)

This +1

Kanye West · Sep 13, 2009

norbar said:
Also wasn't the real measured geo on the 07-08 dhr much much slacker than the claimed 65?

Mine had measured out to 63.5 with an '09 888 slammed in the crowns and a somewhat low headset and 2.5 tires.

John@UKMB · Sep 13, 2009

Ahh cheers for the quick reply man.

I have a Gamut P40 sat here the same as the one on my ReignX so Il be using that probably. But if that doesnt fit for some reason Il take a look at the E13.

Youre lucky to have it all ready because over here the earliest I could have mine is 9th October

Cheers for the answer tho thats one less thing to worry about.

dump · Sep 13, 2009

people need to get out & ride more

BikeLuvR904 · Sep 14, 2009

Seems like you put a lot of time into that bike man. Nice job. Love the suspension. Looks like its got mad squabbles.

mtnbiker49 · Sep 14, 2009

Remember when this thread was about the 2010 Glory.

Metal Dude · Sep 14, 2009

Anyone got a solid release date? I hear October for the frame late Oct. early Nov. on the completes...

Foxbat · Sep 14, 2009

Metal Dude said:
Anyone got a solid release date? I hear October for the frame late Oct. early Nov. on the completes...

I have a frame on order from my LBS and the word from their Giant rep is that they are due sometime this month.

mattmatt86 · Sep 14, 2009

I checked the dealer website earlier today and it said early Nov for both the frame and complete.

mountains4me · Sep 19, 2009

Has anyone considered possibly running a 24 inch rim in the rear to slacken the HA and lower the bb height. The trade off with the 24 may be worth it to get better geometry.

Dogboy · Sep 19, 2009

mountains4me said:
Has anyone considered possibly running a 24 inch rim in the rear to slacken the HA and lower the bb height. The trade off with the 24 may be worth it to get better geometry.

What a morbid way to achieve the geo numbers.

Foxbat · Sep 19, 2009

mountains4me said:
Has anyone considered possibly running a 24 inch rim in the rear to slacken the HA and lower the bb height. The trade off with the 24 may be worth it to get better geometry.

You give up a lot with a 24" wheel including dynamics (e.g. reaction to square-edge hits) and hardware( access to modern rims and tires).

More time testing is needed before the geometry of the bike is written off.

Dogboy · Sep 19, 2009

Not trying to bash this bike (I haven't ridden one and the weight is certainly impressive), but one has to wonder if there is a disconnect between the engineers at Giant and the riders - both sponsored and the general public. I mean do you honestly think that they consulted with riders when they decided to reduce the travel from 8.8" to 8" and keep the same static geometry? The end result certainly has a lot of people questioning the logic behind it.

dropmachine · Sep 19, 2009

What makes me laugh isn't the geo of the new bike, but the idea that people honestly think this bike isn't as fast as they are, and that its somehow the reason they aren't winning everything.

daisycutter · Sep 19, 2009

I know it will be the reason I will give next year. That and my 24 inch rear wheel with a tioga tire

2010 Glory build, w/pics...

Monkey

Chimp

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

My Nuts Are Flat

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

....................

Monkey

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause

Chimp

Chimp

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause

Chimp

Monkey

220# bag of hacktastic

Monkey

Chimp

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Chimp

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Chimp

Turbo Monkey

Chimp

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey