Quantcast

120+20mm does not equal 160-20mm. Or, more to a bike than how much travel it has.

Cant Climb

Turbo Monkey
May 9, 2004
2,683
10
Be careful what you wish for. It doesnt matter if its light, or pedals well, because in my experience going slacker than 67.5 will turn the bike into a complete dog. These bikes inherently require more gas to ride well on flat and uphill terrain, and beyond that angle you've stopped riding xc and started pedaling simply for the downhills. XC bikes aren't dh bikes, and there really is a point where the bike is too low, too slack, and completely not worth the effort.
So true.....for the trails here in the NE. Bike has to be able to handle technical steepish uphills and alot of tight stuff.

Out west it might be a different story though. Alot of that riding seems like hours of climbing to hit super long descends...
 

W4S

Turbo Monkey
Mar 2, 2004
1,282
23
Back in Hell A, b1thces
So true.....for the trails here in the NE. Bike has to be able to handle technical steepish uphills and alot of tight stuff.

Out west it might be a different story though. Alot of that riding seems like hours of climbing to hit super long descends...
sounds right, my XC ride on saturday was about 5k feet of climbing and 5.6k descending in less than 20miles. That's why having the ability to customize geo on a bike (evil) really makes sense, there seems to be several ideas of what constitutes the perfect trail bike based on your local trails and riding style, and we're only talking about fractions of an inch in geo differences, too.
 

Banshee Rider

Turbo Monkey
Jul 31, 2003
1,452
10
So true.....for the trails here in the NE. Bike has to be able to handle technical steepish uphills and alot of tight stuff.

Out west it might be a different story though. Alot of that riding seems like hours of climbing to hit super long descends...
Fair enough. I've never put tracks out west so my opinion should be weighted with that in mind. For what its worth though, I'd like to elaborate on that alittle more.

In my experience a 67.5* bike still feels noticabley slower on sustained climbs than a bike of the same weight and travel that's 2 degrees steeper. It didn't matter if it was out of the saddle smooth doubletrack, or seated technical terrain. I've always been fortunate enough to have access to a variety of xc bikes, which I've rotated into the mix on the same trails I ride my personal bikes on. The relation between headangle and climbing ability has always been undeniable for me. I think the more objective point of view to take would be whether the climb is as important as the descent. If the descent is more important than getting there quickly, then why look at this type of bike to begin with instead of a even better descending AM bike with more travel?

In addition, 'feeling like a dog' isn't a climbing specific trait, its an overall trait in my experience. Slack xc bikes require more gas to squeeze the benefits from the geometry. This is as true for flat terrain as it is climbing. They not only require the handling of an ex-downhill racer, they require a full tank of fitness. If you're not fit enough to hammer as hard two hours into a ride as twenty minutes, the bike will increasingly work against you more. I can assure you that bonking on a slack xc bike is much more work than bonking on a 69* bike :) I've always ridden with xc purebreds who are often more fit than I am. For me personally, 67.5 was the cut off point where my handling skills were maximized without making me work harder than I had to.
 
Last edited:

Acadian

Born Again Newbie
Sep 5, 2001
714
2
Blah Blah and Blah
Slack xc bikes require more gas to squeeze the benefits from the geometry. This is as true for flat terrain as it is climbing. They not only require the handling of an ex-downhill racer, they require a full tank of fitness. If you're not fit enough to hammer as hard two hours into a ride as twenty minutes, the bike will increasingly work against you more.
I have to agree with you. If you don't carry good momentum with a slack bike, it's harder to turn - especially on flat & tight singletrack. I also found that you need to ride them aggressively over the front end (like you would ride a slalom track) otherwise the front doesn't want to track/turn...

with that said - that's what I like :thumb:
 

Gex

Turbo Monkey
Oct 29, 2004
1,112
0
Seattle
I have been riding my reign with a pike on it for about 6 months now and have found it to be a great bike on both the ups and downs. It weighs in right at about 31 lbs and with the u-turn and pop lock it is a great all around bike. I poped some outlaw wheels on for stoutness and am waiting for some more $ for a gravity dropper seatpost. The bike loves super D courses!. It replaced my bottlerocket.

I considered the Pitch, Remedy, and even a coilair when looking over bikes and the reign felt the best out of all. I ride aggressive downhill most of the time and like to throw a bike around and this bike can take the abuse.



The bike is currently setup with a dual ring up front and I switched to some cbro acid pedals.
 

Cant Climb

Turbo Monkey
May 9, 2004
2,683
10
In my experience a 67.5* bike still feels noticabley slower on sustained climbs than a bike of the same weight and travel that's 2 degrees steeper. It didn't matter if it was out of the saddle smooth doubletrack, or seated technical terrain. I've always been fortunate enough to have access to a variety of xc bikes, which I've rotated into the mix on the same trails I ride my personal bikes on. The relation between headangle and climbing ability has always been undeniable for me. I think the more objective point of view to take would be whether the climb is as important as the descent. If the descent is more important than getting there quickly, then why look at this type of bike to begin with instead of a even better descending AM bike with more travel?

In addition, 'feeling like a dog' isn't a climbing specific trait, its an overall trait in my experience. Slack xc bikes require more gas to squeeze the benefits from the geometry. This is as true for flat terrain as it is climbing.
I agree with everything you are saying. Especially this part and it sounds like we ride similiar terrain. So maybe that's why we agree...

Other's in this thread have a different viewpoint based on the terrain that is common to them. I just wonder how much that is muddying this whole thread...
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
Sean, admit it. You want a Bionicon, don't you...? (I secretly do, too...it's OK...)

I personally tried to find the bike you're looking for with a Prophet 4x, but didn't get on with it spectacularly well. (Wasn't bad, but didn't blow me away...) Now am on a rigid singlespeed Sovereign and enjoy it quite a lot.

That special edition Ventana gives me wood, though. And Ventana came to mind when you were describing your dream bike...get the same eternal rear end with a great shock, the beefy pivot set and other tough-guy options with a front end tailored to your choice of geometry. Might take a little longer, but you've ridden long enough to know exactly what you like...so buy it!
 

Summit

Monkey
Sep 23, 2001
369
0
here 'n there
Good topic Sean, and one I and a lot of my friends have been kicking around a while. I have an Intense SS, and while it fits the bill, is a bit much in the travel and weight category. I really want a "mountain bike" that I can build to around 27 lbs and just rally everywhere. Probably not chuck it around like I would my SS but still ride aggressively on the down...and the up.

Right now I'm leaning heavily toward the Yeti ASR5, just would like to demo one before I pull the trigger (and sell some stuff so I can afford it).
 

frorider

Monkey
Jul 21, 2004
971
20
cali
I disagree that a HA slacker than 67.5 presents an issue for riding uphill for extended periods, or winding trails that are flattish. my nomad 2 / lyrik sits at 13.75 bb heigh and a 66.5 HA, and easily and efficiently racks up 5 - 6 thousand feet of climbing on a day ride. And that's on trails that i've ridden many times with 4 inch travel XC bikes and very light hardtails; trails that have some steep and winding sections. So when I'm saying 'easily and efficiently', I'm saying that the reason I sold my 4 and 5 inch travel, slightly steeper-angled bikes, is that they became obsolete for my rides. Obviously a 31 lb 160 mm travel bike isn't an xc racer, but if it cranks up the hills almost as efficiently as my 25 lb xc FS bikes did, then what's the point of having the xc bikes that suck on the downhills?

Geo can't be boiled down to one number. For a 66-67 deg HA bike to be well-suited to 6 hour rides w/ a lot of climbing and descending, the stem and bar setup is critical, as are the rest of cockpit (had to insert that ghey MBA term somewhere) dimensions.
 

Zark

Hey little girl, do you want some candy?
Oct 18, 2001
6,254
7
Reno 911
I'm not going to search through this whole thread, but anyone think the Cove Hustler might fit the bill? 67.5 deg HA with 5" fork, 13,25" BB height. Could be great.
 

abbike18

Chimp
Aug 23, 2009
30
0
I know you already said no specialized (you didn't give a reason, if you have one im curious why), but I've owned a pitch for a few months now and have been riding it non-stop and I really think it fits the bill. 140mm in the front, 150 in the rear. Geo is a 16.6 chainstay, 67 HA. It climbs decently when standing as long as you keep some weight back, and climbs great when seated. over a techy root or rock section ill actually lift up on the bars a little to really force the rear tire into the roots for traction, but the rear sus takes care of the uncomfort. on the super steep climbs i just have to bend over farther, sometimes parallel to the TT to get some weight forward. The propedal setting makes it super efficient, but also takes care of the bumps. I keep mine propedaled most of the time. So- its a capable climber

Descending - I do things with this bike I would never feel safe on a bike meant to climb like I described above. No, its not a DH race bike. but its got the geometry to let you blast down hills, scoot behind the seat and rail it into tech rock section while skipping over the tops of the rocks. less travel than a dh just means you have to be more smooth and theres less forgiveness of mistakes. It eats up 5 foot drops with no issue, and the longer chain stay that can hurt on the climbs keeps the rear end stable.

The only bad thing about this "AM" geometry (actually im not sure if its that bad) is that this bike likes to be pinned. Going slow on this bike feels a bit akward. not akward in the way that my devinci wilson feels when pedaling up a hill slowly (dont ask why i did that) which is not even fun, but akward in the sense that the bike really gets fun at speed, but then again a bike that is fun while slow will probably be unstable at speed. its all about compromise. Its not the best climber, its not the best descender. I get up the hill slower than an xc, and down slower than a dh. but its a bike i can pedal on all day xc adventures and rail the downhill on the way home without being afraid.
 

rosenamedpoop

Turbo Monkey
Feb 27, 2004
1,284
0
just Santa Cruz...
This thread is a trip... I don't understand why all you weird East-coasties don't just accept that the cycling industry as a whole needs to dedicate a good portion of it's attention to making products specifically for going as fast as possible in Santa Cruz, especially UCSC... :rant:


But, seriously, lots of blinded zealousy flying around in here. Everybody who's been riding long enough wonders why "they" don't make "X" product like this or that... I think most high volume manufacturers suffer heavily from varying degrees of out-of-touch syndrome. It's hard for them to know what sect of hardcore riders to even listen to, as we as a group make painfully evident...
 

bdamschen

Turbo Monkey
Nov 28, 2005
3,377
156
Spreckels, CA
I still don't get how we can cruise through this thread complaining that the bike industry is out of touch and can't build a trail bike that is fun to rip down hills and completely ignore people who have brought up:

Specialized Pitch
Cannondale Prophet
Giant Trance X
Intense Tracer
Santa Cruz Blur 4x
Etc...


and in the longer legged department
Santa Cruz Nomad
Trek Remedy
Giant Reign
Specialized Enduro

There's lots of fun trail bikes that do everything well, I really don't understand why these don't meet the needs?
 
Last edited:

punkassean

Turbo Monkey
Feb 3, 2002
4,561
0
SC, CA
8 pages of stupid later...
Ha-ha, right?!

Back to my post on page 1. You don't want a 6" AM bike, or an average XC bike with a lyrik or 36 on the front, or a 46lb freeride bike with 'the right numbers' because you actually ride xc(?), or a silly 'slopestyle' bike with a short and slack seat tube thats impossible to pedal without standing up. You simply want an xc bike you can pedal all day with slacker-than-norm angles because your a ex-downhill racer. You still climb, you still want to cover ground, you just don't feel comfortable on a traditional trail bike. I get it. I've been riding these bikes for years. None of the ones I've ridden exist is "stock" form. I've always put a pike, revelation 140, or a slightly shorter shock on to achieve the angles I wanted.
I get it too. and like you, I've resorted to tweaking my setup to better suit my needs. I've had short-shocked bikes and long-forked bikes, and bikes that had both. What I'm getting at is, I know a lot of people who end up making similar mods to their bikes to achieve the same end, therefore I'm more than a little surprised there aren't more bikes on the market with these specs to begin with. There are a handful out there to be sure, but not that many really. I believe in the next few years it will become very popular. I think perception will shift and people will come to realize a little less travel is fine, perhaps better even, especially if it allows better handling. I'm not talking about rock and root scraping BB heights or school bus-like steering at sub-mach-squirrel speeds. Just a tad lower and slacker than most of what's currently out there.

Be careful what you wish for. It doesnt matter if its light, or pedals well, because in my experience going slacker than 67.5 will turn the bike into a complete dog. These bikes inherently require more gas to ride well on flat and uphill terrain, and beyond that angle you've stopped riding xc and started pedaling simply for the downhills. XC bikes aren't dh bikes, and there really is a point where the bike is too low, too slack, and completely not worth the effort.
All I've ridden the past few years is 66-67* bikes with 160mm non-adjustable travel forks on them and I couldn't tell you the last time I shuttled. I like to climb, it's part of mtn biking and I wouldn't have it any other way. I firmly believe in earning your turns. Yes, slack bikes are more sluggish at low speeds but like Luc said, when ridden with proper weighting they handle phenomenally (assuming that jibes with one's riding style.) I used to run TALAS and U-Turn forks because I shared your thoughts about poor climbing but once I switched to tall forks I honestly never noticed a huge difference.

The bikes I've owned are the Blur 4X, which would be my first recommendation and fits your application like the last piece of a jigsaw puzzle. You'll need to watch ebay, because it was discontinued. They still pop up in excellent shape online, and parts are still available for them. Mine sat at approximately 67.5, 45" WB, and 13.25" bb.


I also owned a Giant TranceX with a Pike, and Revelation 140. It sat at 68.5 and 68 with each fork, with the other geometry strikingly close to the 4X. It was noticeably steeper, but was a much better climbing and cornering bike. You probably would like the 4X more.


The last was a Giant Reign with a .3" shorter-than-stock i2i shock. The headangle matched with the 4X, and it sat at 13.0" flat. Unfortunately I don't have a picture. You would like this bike though.
I rode a TranceX with a 150mm fork this past weekend and it was great. I also had a ReignX and loved it so I'm giving strong consideration to a TranceX. I'd thought about short-shock-ing a regular Reign but wasn't sure how that might affect Maestro. linkage bikes are more finicky in that regard than the rudimentary design bikes it seems. Glad to know that setup works well. Might be a better option than the TranceX. Definitely have to give that some thought.

I'm familiar with the Blur4X, I do live in SC and work in the bike industry. :) In fact both of my housemates are longtime SCB employees. I've recently joked with them about bringing the 4X back actually. Yours looks really fun (and super sick).

I really don't see why you need advice from ridemonkey on this subject. You seem to know what you want. When I know what I want, I don't ask for peoples opinion or input. Jump on manufacturer websites, look at the numbers and the AC forks they are spec'd with, and play the comparison game.
I didn't need advice per se, I wanted to open a dialogue on the topic since I figured it would be a hot subject. Looks like I was right. I'm pretty much aware of what's out there as far as bikes but I mostly wanted to see what people had to say about the subject in general. Isn't that the point of a forum after all?

Thanks for your feedback, it was valuable and helpful.
 

punkassean

Turbo Monkey
Feb 3, 2002
4,561
0
SC, CA
I still don't get how we can cruise through this thread complaining that the bike industry is out of touch and can't build a trail bike that is fun to rip down hills and completely ignore people who have brought up:

Specialized Pitch
Cannondale Prophet
Giant Trance X
Intense Tracer
Santa Cruz Blur 4x
Etc...


and in the longer legged department
Santa Cruz Nomad
Trek Remedy
Giant Reign
Specialized Enduro

There's lots of fun trail bikes that do everything well, I really don't understand why these don't meet the needs?
All good bikes....well, pretty much all anyway. :D Each does have one or two shortcomings, some more glaring than others. Again, this is my opinion. :) Thanks for consolidating that list though, hopefully it will help make this thread more constructive and useful.
 

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,853
9,557
AK
Sean, admit it. You want a Bionicon, don't you...? (I secretly do, too...it's OK...)
I think a bionicon would be cool if:

They used coil shocks.

Used something better than the high-pivot on the supershuttle and ironwood.

At least had shocks that Push could modify according to the riders.

Used decent damping in their forks.

Did not require you to lean back so much to return the suspension to "normal" (I'm always wondering where it's set at). Maybe with a more positive return-spring system or something.

With that in mind, I find them to be uninspiring and the suspension is just not that great. My 6" travel 6-pack felt like it had more and better-controlled travel than the ironwood (8" DH bike). It had that big honkin 8" air-sprung, inverted fork on it, yet it just didn't feel like a DH bike in terms of the suspension and ability to just "hit stuff". Adjustable geometry is great, but the bionicon bikes make too many compramises. It is a novel idea though and their adjustable-geometry DOES work. I can get 95% of the benefit with an adjustable travel fork though.
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
In response to your quoted comment; many of us here in SC and surrounding areas have said for years and years now, that our perfect bike would be a 5 or 6 inch bike with DH geo and an xc seat angle/seat-tube length. You can call that bike whatever the heck you like, but I've wanted one since '01 or '02.
SC doesn't have any tough grinder climbs, though. For there, sure, a slopestyle bike with a full length seattube is great, but no matter how SC-centric those who inhabit the region are, they forget there are places with real mountains that require actual climbing elsewhere in the country.

On that note, I'm thinking I'll be on a Corsair Marque with an updated pulley assembly for 2010.
 

punkassean

Turbo Monkey
Feb 3, 2002
4,561
0
SC, CA
SC doesn't have any tough grinder climbs, though. For there, sure, a slopestyle bike with a full length seattube is great, but no matter how SC-centric those who inhabit the region are, they forget there are places with real mountains that require actual climbing elsewhere in the country.

On that note, I'm thinking I'll be on a Corsair Marque with an updated pulley assembly for 2010.
UCSC may not have any 'grinder' climbs but we indeed have some grunts in the area. The climb to Santa Rosalita is ~2,500 vertical over the course of about 12 miles or so. On any given weekend, that bit of climbing represents only the first leg of the rides we do. After that, we drop in to Demo only to climb back out again. At the end of the day its not terribly uncommon to have 5-6K' under our belts and 40+ miles.

Additionally most people from SC, myself and my friends included, make frequent trips to Downieville, Tahoe, Auburn, Santa Barbara, etc. All places that have lots of climbing. Not to mention the annual road trips to Canada by way of Oregon and Washington, or the trips out to Moab and Colorado. We climb, A LOT, believe that.

A slopestyle bike is not what we're looking for. Sure it'd be fun to ride at times but way too specialized to fit the bill of the everyday bike. Have you ever tried to ride the original Tazer on an actual trail? Those were such fun bikes but absolutely no good for XC. I'd way rather ride 14+" BB, 6+" travel, 68* HA all-mtn franken bike than ride a DS bike for XC. But neither bike is ideal....And we're not looking for 100% ideal. Trust me, we're willing to compromise within reason. Mike (rosenamedpoop) for example rides a SS Chameleon with a 160mm coil fork on LONG, EPIC XC rides and makes it work just fine, but he'd never try to tell you that's the ideal bike for that type of riding.

Yeah, there are a ton of bikes in the 'all-mtn' category that more-or-less fit into the spectrum of what I (and I believe others) are looking for, however very few don't have at least one shortcoming. For example if the Reign had 1-1.5* more relaxed head angle (and a less-than-6" long headtube!) then it would be close enough to perfect. Thanks to BansheeRider's sharing of his experience with running a short-shock on a Reign, I'm pretty confident I can get one of those bikes to work very well for me. Its pretty much down to choosing between That and a TranceX at this point.

Blue, you're thinking Corsair. What is everyone else thinking about riding next year?
 

rosenamedpoop

Turbo Monkey
Feb 27, 2004
1,284
0
just Santa Cruz...
SC doesn't have any tough grinder climbs, though. For there, sure, a slopestyle bike with a full length seattube is great, but no matter how SC-centric those who inhabit the region are, they forget there are places with real mountains that require actual climbing elsewhere in the country.

Hahahahaha.... come out and visit.

I'm sure we can find a little grind for you... maybe the route of the Hell Ride?:brows:
 

bdamschen

Turbo Monkey
Nov 28, 2005
3,377
156
Spreckels, CA
Blue, you're thinking Corsair. What is everyone else thinking about riding next year?
Currently rocking the prophet... it's ok, but it's days of not cracking are numbered.

Most probably will be on a tracer next. If I could get over my aversion to giant's aesthetics, I'd look at the trance x... That's probably not going to happen though. :D
 

MichaelT

Monkey
Sep 19, 2001
161
0
home
Yeah, there are a ton of bikes in the 'all-mtn' category that more-or-less fit into the spectrum of what I (and I believe others) are looking for, however very few don't have at least one shortcoming. For example if the Reign had 1-1.5* more relaxed head angle (and a less-than-6" long headtube!) then it would be close enough to perfect. Thanks to BansheeRider's sharing of his experience with running a short-shock on a Reign, I'm pretty confident I can get one of those bikes to work very well for me. Its pretty much down to choosing between That and a TranceX at this point.

Blue, you're thinking Corsair. What is everyone else thinking about riding next year?

Mr. Punk AsSean,
1st thing 1st, THANK YOU for bringing the obvious to some of us and to the rest of the attention of all. I shake my head at the "new and improved with more travel this year bikes!". Awesome sir mr./mrs/ms. product manager, you created a bike with more travel yet the frame is soooo psychopathic that the frame has no idea what it wants to do. A BB height of a 140mm bike, a ht angle of a 120mm hardtail, a chainstay lenght of a 160 mm bike... sick!!!! let's change the channel to a monkey humping a football!!! AWESOME!!!

In all seriousness, the bike you seek is not available yet. Don't worry, as it will be availabe soon..... 2 more weeks.... umm.. and 2 more weeks... and.... okay, it is not available..... AND let's get something straight. It is not as if you are asking for a DH bike to pedal up (cough*... 2005 demo 8 owners and VP free owners.. *cough)
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, it is just fact this bike is not available. The big brands either hate you personally, do not hear you, have PM's who do not know what mountain biking is, or have marketing teams who have their head up their bums. Meanwhile the small brands are too stuck in their "local" trails to consider "global" rider needs or hell, follow legitimate industry standards.
All sarcasm aside, a Turner 5 spot, tweaked with a weight savings, improved ID lines, and a bit slacker HT would hit the spot. Oh wait..... that is my desired bike... ... ... then again I will smoke you on any dh run on XC bikes.
yeah, that is a challenge sucka. Bring it. Bring it to the Northeast.....you got room and board to test the bikes I speak of.
I am even rocking a crazy emoticon to tell you how serious I am. ha!
:weee:
 

rosenamedpoop

Turbo Monkey
Feb 27, 2004
1,284
0
just Santa Cruz...
Mr. Punk AsSean,
1st thing 1st, THANK YOU for bringing the obvious to some of us and to the rest of the attention of all. I shake my head at the "new and improved with more travel this year bikes!". Awesome sir mr./mrs/ms. product manager, you created a bike with more travel yet the frame is soooo psychopathic that the frame has no idea what it wants to do. A BB height of a 140mm bike, a ht angle of a 120mm hardtail, a chainstay lenght of a 160 mm bike... sick!!!! let's change the channel to a monkey humping a football!!! AWESOME!!!

In all seriousness, the bike you seek is not available yet. Don't worry, as it will be availabe soon..... 2 more weeks.... umm.. and 2 more weeks... and.... okay, it is not available..... AND let's get something straight. It is not as if you are asking for a DH bike to pedal up (cough*... 2005 demo 8 owners and VP free owners.. *cough)
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, it is just fact this bike is not available. The big brands either hate you personally, do not hear you, have PM's who do not know what mountain biking is, or have marketing teams who have their head up their bums. Meanwhile the small brands are too stuck in their "local" trails to consider "global" rider needs or hell, follow legitimate industry standards.
All sarcasm aside, a Turner 5 spot, tweaked with a weight savings, improved ID lines, and a bit slacker HT would hit the spot. Oh wait..... that is my desired bike... ... ... then again I will smoke you on any dh run on XC bikes.
yeah, that is a challenge sucka. Bring it. Bring it to the Northeast.....you got room and board to test the bikes I speak of.
I am even rocking a crazy emoticon to tell you how serious I am. ha!
:weee:

This is the most thoroughly confusing post I've read in a while... I assumed because of your creative sentence structure that you were, as your screen name would suggest, Swiss.

Then you start talking about the Northeast...






.
 

MichaelT

Monkey
Sep 19, 2001
161
0
home
The response was more of a response to Punkassean's general question. It is also a commentary of his question. I agree with Mr. Punkassean that the travel equation needs to be recognized. But then yes, I called out Mr. Punkassean to venturing to the cold and treacherous Northeast. :)
If you think of it this way.... does it make more sense?
 

MichaelT

Monkey
Sep 19, 2001
161
0
home
This is the most thoroughly confusing post I've read in a while... I assumed because of your creative sentence structure that you were, as your screen name would suggest, Swiss.

Then you start talking about the Northeast...






.
Ola Rose,
Think of this response as more of a global response to the originally proposed question. Or, if you are industry veteran you will laugh at my response. yeah, us industry folk have some funny ways..... and if you don't understand then let me know. I will do my best to elaborate.
 

Dogboy

Turbo Monkey
Apr 12, 2004
3,208
581
Durham, NC
I'm going to throw one in the ring that hasn't been mentioned: Commencal Meta 55. I've settled on this bike after having OWNED (not parking lot tested) and ridden extensively a lot of bikes mentioned in this thread (and some not mentioned). I've owned an Intense 6.6, Intense Slopestyle, Iron Horse MkIII, Iron Horse 6 Point, Cannondale Prophet MX, Mongoose Khyber, Corsair Marque, and Commencal Meta 6. Out of all of these the Meta 55 suits me the best - and hits a lot of the criteria you have mentioned. Key points are: 1. A suspension platform that works amazingly well without any of the quirks that come along with some linkage bikes. 2. Geometry that I can live with. To the first point, the linkage driven single pivot on the Meta has a wonderfully deep feel that ramps up nicely and pedals great in all gear combinations. I have definitely made the mistake of going for great geometry at the sake poor suspension performance. To the second point, the geometry, while not 100% what my ideal would be, is pretty damn good and a fair bit more progressive than what a lot of bike companies are willing to do. A couple of real (measured by me) numbers are a BB height just a hair under 13.5" and a head angle of 66.9 degrees. This is with 140mm of travel front and rear, 2.1 rear/2.25 front Maxxis Crossmark tires, and no mods such as a shorter eye to eye shock. A 2.1 front tire would put the BB at about 13.25" and a slightly steeper head angle - say 67.3. One caveat - the TT lengths are on the short side - think Santa Cruz. So you may find yourself between sizes. I'm 5'9" and find the medium perfect because I don't have an overly long torso or arms. Anyhow, I just thought I'd mention this bike because this is a good thread and mirrors a lot of my own desires for the perfect trail bike. Here's a picture of mine for good measure.
 

MichaelT

Monkey
Sep 19, 2001
161
0
home
I'm going to throw one in the ring that hasn't been mentioned: Commencal Meta 55. I've settled on this bike after having OWNED (not parking lot tested) and ridden extensively a lot of bikes mentioned in this thread (and some not mentioned). I've owned an Intense 6.6, Intense Slopestyle, Iron Horse MkIII, Iron Horse 6 Point, Cannondale Prophet MX, Mongoose Khyber, Corsair Marque, and Commencal Meta 6. Out of all of these the Meta 55 suits me the best - and hits a lot of the criteria you have mentioned. Key points are: 1. A suspension platform that works amazingly well without any of the quirks that come along with some linkage bikes. 2. Geometry that I can live with. To the first point, the linkage driven single pivot on the Meta has a wonderfully deep feel that ramps up nicely and pedals great in all gear combinations. I have definitely made the mistake of going for great geometry at the sake poor suspension performance. To the second point, the geometry, while not 100% what my ideal would be, is pretty damn good and a fair bit more progressive than what a lot of bike companies are willing to do. A couple of real (measured by me) numbers are a BB height just a hair under 13.5" and a head angle of 66.9 degrees. This is with 140mm of travel front and rear, 2.1 rear/2.25 front Maxxis Crossmark tires, and no mods such as a shorter eye to eye shock. A 2.1 front tire would put the BB at about 13.25" and a slightly steeper head angle - say 67.3. One caveat - the TT lengths are on the short side - think Santa Cruz. So you may find yourself between sizes. I'm 5'9" and find the medium perfect because I don't have an overly long torso or arms. Anyhow, I just thought I'd mention this bike because this is a good thread and mirrors a lot of my own desires for the perfect trail bike. Here's a picture of mine for good measure.

Mister Dogboy,
Thanks for adding this to the mix. I for one have been very curious on how this bike rides. Do you feel that this bike climbs/tracks as well as your older Mark III? how well does it shred the gnar(1 to 10 level?).
 

Dogboy

Turbo Monkey
Apr 12, 2004
3,208
581
Durham, NC
Mister Dogboy,
Thanks for adding this to the mix. I for one have been very curious on how this bike rides. Do you feel that this bike climbs/tracks as well as your older Mark III? how well does it shred the gnar(1 to 10 level?).
Senor Swiss,

I'd have to give the DW Link on the MkIII a slight advantage in terms of climbing efficiency. Everywhere else the Meta is at least as good. Traction rules on this bike. As far as the gnar goes, I'd give it around a 8.5. One nice feature is the modular dropouts, so you could put a burlier wheelset on it with a 12x135 bolt-on axle and a lowered Fox 36 fork to bump up the gnar to 9.999. :thumb:
 

mattmatt86

Turbo Monkey
Feb 9, 2005
5,347
10
Bleedmore, Murderland
Thanks Matt! :D
How did you like the Khyber? My shop carries Mongoose/GT (mostly just BMX bikes) but I was looking at the 2010 Mongoose Khyber Super with the hammerschmidt as a possible all mountain/light freeride bike. I really like that it comes with a Lyrik and the hammerschmidt but if the frame/suspension sucks I'd rather build something from the frame up with both of those.
 

I.van

Monkey
Apr 15, 2007
188
0
Australia
In the context of this thread, do you guys have an opinion on the Transition Covert ( HA: 67, SA: 73, BB: 13.95) or the Lapierre Zesty (HA: 68, SA: 73, BB: 13.4 and long TT)?


 

Santa Maria

Monkey
Aug 29, 2007
653
0
Austria
Mister Dogboy,
Thanks for adding this to the mix. I for one have been very curious on how this bike rides. Do you feel that this bike climbs/tracks as well as your older Mark III? how well does it shred the gnar(1 to 10 level?).
I went from a 2007 MkIII to a 2009 Morewood Shova. The DW link climbs better, but concernig the rest, the Shova performs way better

Some of you might consider the HA of the Shova as too steep, but with the right amount of Sag and the right stem bar combo the shova is super fun to ride downhill.
 

Orfen

Monkey
Feb 22, 2004
259
0
UP, michigan
I'm surprised nobody mentioned the Orange Five!
67 HA
13 BB
stable wheelbase
low maintenance

that would be my choice if I had the munn-eh!
 

punkassean

Turbo Monkey
Feb 3, 2002
4,561
0
SC, CA
I'm going to throw one in the ring that hasn't been mentioned: Commencal Meta 55. I've settled on this bike after having OWNED (not parking lot tested) and ridden extensively a lot of bikes mentioned in this thread (and some not mentioned). I've owned an Intense 6.6, Intense Slopestyle, Iron Horse MkIII, Iron Horse 6 Point, Cannondale Prophet MX, Mongoose Khyber, Corsair Marque, and Commencal Meta 6. Out of all of these the Meta 55 suits me the best - and hits a lot of the criteria you have mentioned. Key points are: 1. A suspension platform that works amazingly well without any of the quirks that come along with some linkage bikes. 2. Geometry that I can live with. To the first point, the linkage driven single pivot on the Meta has a wonderfully deep feel that ramps up nicely and pedals great in all gear combinations. I have definitely made the mistake of going for great geometry at the sake poor suspension performance. To the second point, the geometry, while not 100% what my ideal would be, is pretty damn good and a fair bit more progressive than what a lot of bike companies are willing to do. A couple of real (measured by me) numbers are a BB height just a hair under 13.5" and a head angle of 66.9 degrees. This is with 140mm of travel front and rear, 2.1 rear/2.25 front Maxxis Crossmark tires, and no mods such as a shorter eye to eye shock. A 2.1 front tire would put the BB at about 13.25" and a slightly steeper head angle - say 67.3. One caveat - the TT lengths are on the short side - think Santa Cruz. So you may find yourself between sizes. I'm 5'9" and find the medium perfect because I don't have an overly long torso or arms. Anyhow, I just thought I'd mention this bike because this is a good thread and mirrors a lot of my own desires for the perfect trail bike. Here's a picture of mine for good measure.
I've always liked Commencals. they remind me of the old Cortina Joyride and Europa FS. I know what you mean about that bottomless feeling. Some bikes make much better use of a given amount of travel than other bikes, which is exactly the point of this thread. same goes for geometry, it gives you an idea of how the bike will feel but until you ride it you will never know for sure. This is especially true for the type of bikes we're discussing seeing as they will be ridden in all conditions both sitting and standing, up and downhill, fast and slow. Any flaws will be brought to the surface after a couple of good rides.

On an unrelated note. how are you liking those Easton Haven wheels? That's what will be going on my TranceX, along with a 150mm Fox QR15 fork. Hopefully I'll have it built up next week. pretty pumped.
 

punkassean

Turbo Monkey
Feb 3, 2002
4,561
0
SC, CA
Mr. Punk AsSean,
1st thing 1st, THANK YOU for bringing the obvious to some of us and to the rest of the attention of all. I shake my head at the "new and improved with more travel this year bikes!". Awesome sir mr./mrs/ms. product manager, you created a bike with more travel yet the frame is soooo psychopathic that the frame has no idea what it wants to do. A BB height of a 140mm bike, a ht angle of a 120mm hardtail, a chainstay lenght of a 160 mm bike... sick!!!! let's change the channel to a monkey humping a football!!! AWESOME!!!

In all seriousness, the bike you seek is not available yet. Don't worry, as it will be availabe soon..... 2 more weeks.... umm.. and 2 more weeks... and.... okay, it is not available..... AND let's get something straight. It is not as if you are asking for a DH bike to pedal up (cough*... 2005 demo 8 owners and VP free owners.. *cough)
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, it is just fact this bike is not available. The big brands either hate you personally, do not hear you, have PM's who do not know what mountain biking is, or have marketing teams who have their head up their bums. Meanwhile the small brands are too stuck in their "local" trails to consider "global" rider needs or hell, follow legitimate industry standards.
All sarcasm aside, a Turner 5 spot, tweaked with a weight savings, improved ID lines, and a bit slacker HT would hit the spot. Oh wait..... that is my desired bike... ... ... then again I will smoke you on any dh run on XC bikes.
yeah, that is a challenge sucka. Bring it. Bring it to the Northeast.....you got room and board to test the bikes I speak of.
I am even rocking a crazy emoticon to tell you how serious I am. ha!
:weee:
hahaha....'2 weeks...and 2 more weeks.' you're killing me Michael. It's all so, so painfully true. I'm hoping the Sect will be the holy grail and put all naysayers to rest. one can only hope....

If I ever make it out to the northeast, you got yourself a showdown, bronan the gnarbarian! my slack cali pinner ha'dangle and low slung stance will ensure certain victory over any would-be challengers. Besides, y'all wrong coasters have no idea what a good bike is all about, us Cali boys are the authority on all things pinner. We do everything gooder on tha leffff' coast. just ask us, we'll gladly tell you all about it.
 

brocelif

Chimp
Oct 28, 2006
48
0
Has anyone looked into replacing the 8.5" shock on the Heckler with a 7.875? I think the Heckler swingarm has plenty of clearance. Running a 150 fork the BB would be approx. 12.9 with a 67.5 HA. (Stock with a140 fork is 13.5 and 69) That could be a lot of fun.
 

Daver

Monkey
Jun 1, 2005
390
0
Shiddeny
What do we think of the Trek Remedy and Fisher Roscoe? Would love a Remedy 7 or 8 with a chainguide and 34T ring for everything from 24 hour races to flatter DH racing.