The Cannondale Prophet MX had a 13" BB and a 65 or 67.5 deg HA.
120+20mm does not equal 160-20mm. Or, more to a bike than how much travel it has.
- Thread starter punkassean
- Start date
Hell no. Geometry wins over weight every and any day. Try climbing on a DH bike. It's not the weight, it's the geometry. Even the gearing pales in comparission to the geometry. I'll agree that massive differences in weight can have a big effect, but if we're not talking about 16lbs (because I'm simply strong enough to ride said bike) then geometry will always triumph. Bike manufacturers and shops would LOVE for us to believe that a few lbs saved will somehow allow us to magically keep up with faster riders, but as has always been said: It's the rider, not the bike. I won't even blink an eye to a difference of 5lbs.So you're climbing on a 47lb freeride bike and are saying something about how too slack and low will hamper climbing?
I can think of a bunch of compromises that wouldn't affect my riding as much as an additional 16 pounds of bike weight.
Seriously? I may be a massively strong rider right now, but geometry wins out every day. I guess all the manufacturers making adjustable travel and lock-down forks are wrong. Weight+good geometry=you can manage. Bad geometry+anything=misery.
Having had (and ridden uphill) downhill bikes, the geometry makes the absolute biggest difference in my experience. People aren't raving about highlines because they're light or because they're fast on the DH, they rave because they work so well due to the geometry. I like rocking a DH bike as much as the next guy, and if my bike could magically change (without moving parts) to a DH bike at the top (keeping the weight low as well) then all the better, but if I had a DH bike or "mini" DH bike, it would sit and gather dust most of the time and be broken out for weekend shuttles every few weekends or something. With more versatile geometry I can ride a bike every day that I want to and still have something gravity oriented, just not quite as DH oriented.
Last edited:
It seems to me that bikes start to get slackish at 6" of travel. Are there any bikes with 5" (140mm max) than have a slacker (67/66) head angle, I know about the Cannondale prophit with a 67.5 degree HT and the Sect is coming with a 66 degree HT but there must be something else out there.
dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. you're like an "economist," tossing out "data" that doesn't make your argument any better, but does make your argument seem "supported."
top tube length determines your reach to the handlebar. if you've never had a bike with a too-short or too-long top tube then you have no clue what its importance is, but you haven't "proved" it's irrelevant. you've only "proved" that you don't know its relevance.
it's easy to understand.
it's all about e-riders regurgitating what they think will "prove" they are hardcore DH riders. but they only thing they're proving is that they are good at following fads.
these discussions always bring out a whole fleet of morons who think they know how bikes work, but who post thoughts that prove the opposite.
You're making me laugh b/c I ride my slack and low sx everywhere and have done 5000' climb rides with it, 50mm stem and all. It's the most fun trail bike I've owned/ ridden. I've also ridden my Sunday on xc rides. Not fun, but the geometry wasn't what made it tough, the short cranks, gearing, short seatpost and heavy tires did that.
IMO, steep and tall isn't fast, and I'd trade some discomfort climbing for a bike that can rail the dh. If you get more out of climbing, then maybe you're on the wrong forum...
Last edited:
So a bike with a 45 degree seattube angle and a 23" TT will feel like a bike with a 90 degree seat tube angle and a 23" TT? I think his point is that you have to consider lots of other variables aside from just the TT length to interpret what it means in terms of the ride of the bike.
Or maybe they prefer something different from you. Amazing, but true...
...and a 5" travel bike is NOT a downhill bike. ummm that's why it doesn't have 8" travel, eh?
DH race geometry + 5" travel = the equivalent of an SUV for driving on asphalt.
nope, you missed the point too. it's not about my choice being in control, nimrod. it's about the real effect of top tube length on bike handling. if you don't feel that effect as TT length changes, it means only that you don't have the same body awareness. that's no big deal, a lot of people have skills but no idea how they got those skills or how they play out.Or maybe they prefer something different from you. Amazing, but true...
if TT length was irrelevant then there would be no need to change the TT length and every bike would have the same length. why isn't every TT the same length?
some of you fools should try framebuilding some time. it would help your ignorant selves learn a bit about the subject we're discussing here.
dude how the fuggg did you get that from what I said?
do you know what is "straw-man argument"?? it's where you make up a point that you intend to destroy, and you assign that point to someone who never argued it in the first place, and then you claim that you defeated that person's argument.
that's what you just did.
you argued against something I never said. I don't know why you would do that unless you're a deceitful liar. and I don't know why you would go onto a discussion thread and play the deceitful liar unless your only point in posting is to screw up the discussion.
most of those talking in this thread have never designed or built frames, that much is quite clear. there's so much mis-information running around here that the thread is pointless, because there's even a chorus of mis-led people echoing and cheering each others' mistakes as if the mistakes are carved-in-stone truths.
that's what happens when e-riders get together for an e-debate about e-truths.
Last edited:
Top tube length combined with seat tube angle and head angle should be able to give you a pretty good idea where your bottom bracket is located in relation to your front wheel. That is an important part of how the bike feels.
That's all I got to add to that.
Back on thread topic. I have now decided I REALLY REALLY want an Intense Tracer with a 36, but for now my prophet is still pretty perfect... It's just about ready to explode judging by the amount of swing arm flex I've been getting lately.
That's all I got to add to that.
Back on thread topic. I have now decided I REALLY REALLY want an Intense Tracer with a 36, but for now my prophet is still pretty perfect... It's just about ready to explode judging by the amount of swing arm flex I've been getting lately.
Wow!
And wow again!
I should have read into your screen name a little more carefully before replying to you the first time. Let's see if we can simplify this.
I've attached a little sketch of two frames. They both have identical geometry except for their seat angle/top tube. The one on the left having a 73 degree seat tube angle giving it a 23" top tube, and the one on the right having a 71 degree head angle giving it a 24" top tube. Do you think that these bikes will ride drastically different?
Attachments
They will feel different because the seat would hit your knees in a different spot.
Don't think the location of the seat and where it hits your legs is important when riding? Take your seat and seat post off and go try to rip a trail.
I never mentioned TT length or my feelings about it.
But thanks for the pet name, I'm sure you meant that with affection. 
You're making me laugh b/c I ride my slack and low sx everywhere and have done 5000' climb rides with it, 50mm stem and all. It's the most fun trail bike I've owned/ ridden. I've also ridden my Sunday on xc rides. Not fun, but the geometry wasn't what made it tough, the short cranks, gearing, short seatpost and heavy tires did that.
IMO, steep and tall isn't fast, and I'd trade some discomfort climbing for a bike that can rail the dh. If you get more out of climbing, then maybe you're on the wrong forum...
Uh..short seatpost=GEOMETRY. If you had a much longer seatpost you'd probably be sitting WAY back on the frame due to a slack seat-tube, so the geometry would still suck for climbing. Some DH bikes have no option and you have to run a smaller seatpost or some sort of telescoping device. At least in this case you *might* be able to make it better, but it will probably still suck. Putting light parts on a SX trail is pretty dumb too, so it's always going to be a heavier bike. Deal with it. As I said before, heavy+decent geometry=manageable. If you're looking to win an XC and DH race one bike ain't going to cut it. anything+crappy geometry=misery and you aren't going to have fun. This goes for having a super steep HT angle as well, or an excessively high BB, but it also goes for having an excessively low BB, too slack HT and STs. Once you get more to the extremes (such as XC or DH race geometry) it's going to suck for everything else.
Short cranks, well that can allow for a lower BB and is somewhat related, although there are implications in terms of gearing, but if you can't effectively use the correct muscles or use them to the correct extent (as above with the seatpost) it can easily be argued to be a geometry issue.
I've never said that we need overly steep or high bikes, just that going too far in one direction limits the versatility big time, most of what I see in this thread seems to be towards that end.
Last edited:
Also your slacker angled bike will be harder to pedal up steeps, for your butt will be positioned 1" further in the back, making you more prone to tip down the hill, thus causing more discomfort.
As I said in a earlier post. Horizontal seat position is easily adjustable.
It had quad bearings at every pivot. Still didn't feel very stiff, and surely not as stiff as the thru-axle pivots that Turner used...how could it be? Pivots 1" wide vs pivots 5" wide...alot more support offered. That's just my take though.
So you woke up this morning and needed to blow a little steam off, and headed over to Ridicule Monkey to give some of those jerks a piece of your mind... You are ANGRY ELF OF THE DAY, congrats!!!
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.
.
Start a new bike company called "SoCal" bikes.
Sorry, I wasn't sure what it was, if it was SoCal, Santa Cruz, South Carolina, Southern Comfort, etc...Sir, I take that as a direct slight... an insult of the highest order!
Santa Cruz is most definitely not SoCal. I live less than a mile from NHS, makers of all fine NorCal products...
.
Problem solved: http://www.bioniconusa.com/
...but these angles already exist and work well. Why are people hating on geo they have never ridden?
130mm travel fork with a 66° HA
fun in the corners
130mm travel fork with a 66° HA
fun in the corners
Bucko- your bikes are always the ****....but these angles already exist and work well. Why are people hating on geo they have never ridden?
130mm travel fork with a 66° HA
fun in the corners
...but these angles already exist and work well. Why are people hating on geo they have never ridden?
130mm travel fork with a 66° HA
While this bike looks like a lot of fun, it is totally out of place in this thread.
What is that, about a 14" seat tube length? Not a realistic cantidate for seated riding. I think there may be some confusion between what is being called a "mini DH" and a trail bike with more DH geo... I would call this bike the former.
.
wow, this has gotten pretty interesting. perhaps boiling down my argument to simpler terms will help clarify.
A) I'm more than willing to sacrifice an inch of travel for the lower bottom bracket height that inherently affords.
B) I like the way a slightly more slack head angle handles.
C) WTF doesn't a bike with the above features exist? Why must I install a fork that's ~1" taller than stock to make a bike handle 'right'?
I don't want a mini DH bike. I want an appropriate, modern-geometry mountain bike. Something with a reasonable amount of travel and well-rounded geometry. You can call it all-mtn, XC, enduro or whatever the f#@k you like. I call it a mountain bike 'cause that's what it is. A bicycle made to ride in the mountains, over and around rocks and logs and through turns of varying radii, camber and traction, both uphill and down, for hours on end. mountain biking. end of story.
A) I'm more than willing to sacrifice an inch of travel for the lower bottom bracket height that inherently affords.
B) I like the way a slightly more slack head angle handles.
C) WTF doesn't a bike with the above features exist? Why must I install a fork that's ~1" taller than stock to make a bike handle 'right'?
I don't want a mini DH bike. I want an appropriate, modern-geometry mountain bike. Something with a reasonable amount of travel and well-rounded geometry. You can call it all-mtn, XC, enduro or whatever the f#@k you like. I call it a mountain bike 'cause that's what it is. A bicycle made to ride in the mountains, over and around rocks and logs and through turns of varying radii, camber and traction, both uphill and down, for hours on end. mountain biking. end of story.
I really do think there are a few bikes out there that are exactly what you're talking about. A few of them were mentioned in this thread.
I'm going to experiment with my Pitch a bit for this. Love the way the bike rides as is, but just want to play around with it for the hell of it/because I can.
7.5 x 2 shock vs. stock 7.875 x 2.25 ought to slacken things a bit, drop the BB a touch, crop the rear travel down to around 5.4" or so. A Lyrik Solo Air is up front, so I can drop the travel down with some spacers to fine tune things and get the head angle 66-67 or so. With a Lyrik 160mm and the 150mm rear, it has right on 14" BB height, a 66* HTA. Wheel base and stays are a touch longer (46" and 17") than my ideal, but whatever. Not sure what those numbers will end up.
Eyeballing things, doesn't appear that there will be any clearance issues with the shorter shock. The deal breaker would be if it drops the BB too low for the chunky rocks on the trails around me.
7.5 x 2 shock vs. stock 7.875 x 2.25 ought to slacken things a bit, drop the BB a touch, crop the rear travel down to around 5.4" or so. A Lyrik Solo Air is up front, so I can drop the travel down with some spacers to fine tune things and get the head angle 66-67 or so. With a Lyrik 160mm and the 150mm rear, it has right on 14" BB height, a 66* HTA. Wheel base and stays are a touch longer (46" and 17") than my ideal, but whatever. Not sure what those numbers will end up.
Eyeballing things, doesn't appear that there will be any clearance issues with the shorter shock. The deal breaker would be if it drops the BB too low for the chunky rocks on the trails around me.
Nice work Scrubs, I was hoping you would get into a Marque and give us a thorough review. Riding a Maelstrom I think the Marque would be sick if they have the idler issue sorted.
I was thinking of the Voltage as a replacement option for myWildcard but there are no numbers on the website. The Card is a little to small to make it my all round do everything bike, mainly seat post length which is roughly an inch too short and the TT could do with an extra inch too. Yes its a little heavier than it could be for a trail bike and with a Lyrik U-turn I think I could improve climbing abilities but with short chain stays its always gonna wanna lift in the front under torque on the steep ups. Its rips on the trails when you need to pick up speed and boosts of every feature. It also rails corners like a champ. I too like the idea of a DHers trail bike and apart from geo I think quality suspension is also a key. My Wildcard sprints a treat but skips through the rough making it a big adjustment coming straight off the Maelstrom. Where I find myself hesitating to change this bike is finding something that jumps as well and has the strength to allow me to hit any feature I want with no worries of breaking the frame. If you ride freeride and/or DH then isnt strength a big issue too? Just cause you on your trail bike doesnt mean you want to miss the opportunity to hit the usual stuff? The Wildcard has also shown me that 5" out back is enough for a trail bike.
The Evil line up looks good
I was thinking of the Voltage as a replacement option for myWildcard but there are no numbers on the website. The Card is a little to small to make it my all round do everything bike, mainly seat post length which is roughly an inch too short and the TT could do with an extra inch too. Yes its a little heavier than it could be for a trail bike and with a Lyrik U-turn I think I could improve climbing abilities but with short chain stays its always gonna wanna lift in the front under torque on the steep ups. Its rips on the trails when you need to pick up speed and boosts of every feature. It also rails corners like a champ. I too like the idea of a DHers trail bike and apart from geo I think quality suspension is also a key. My Wildcard sprints a treat but skips through the rough making it a big adjustment coming straight off the Maelstrom. Where I find myself hesitating to change this bike is finding something that jumps as well and has the strength to allow me to hit any feature I want with no worries of breaking the frame. If you ride freeride and/or DH then isnt strength a big issue too? Just cause you on your trail bike doesnt mean you want to miss the opportunity to hit the usual stuff? The Wildcard has also shown me that 5" out back is enough for a trail bike.
The Evil line up looks good
You sound like you want the same as me. In addition to this I think that Lyrics or 36s are overkill for this sort of thing so want a bike that is sorted with Pikes on the front.
I am going to buy an 09 Cannondale Prophet before they sell out. This bike even has a 1.5" HT so if you really wanted to make it slacker I'm sure one of the sets of slackner cups avaliable now would do the trick.
It sits in the slack setting with a 67.5 degree HA and a 13" BB (I think the HA is slacker than advertised, it feels like it is and MBR measured their review one at 66.3).
I used my brothers one for racing the Megavalanche this year and it was awesome. A bit flexy in the rear but TBH this just added to the fun. It felt like it had a tiny bit of rear wheel steering and it also gave you a bit of a sling shot out of the corners.
Last edited:
8 pages of stupid later...
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Last edited:
8 pages of stupid later...
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.
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.
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 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.
^FTW
BTW, this is only 3 pages for me. There's this nice little feature on RM where you can change the setup to display more posts per page so you don't have to filter through 8 pages of garbage.