[thom9719]

why don't bike companys just start giving the rest of the population slacker numbers on there production bikes from the get go. for yrs, the top pros have always been giving slacker frames for racing an such, but us normal riders who end up paying for the **** get stuck with the industry standard!

That might have been true a few years ago, but now a lot of the pro's I know don't run their bikes in the slackest settings. There is a point when it's too much. You'd be surprised to find how steep some pros bikes actually are.

-KT

 

[HAB]

That might have been true a few years ago, but now a lot of the pro's I know don't run their bikes in the slackest settings. There is a point when it's too much. You'd be surprised to find how steep some pros bikes actually are.

-KT

Yeah, my DH bike is somewhere in the 63-63.5 range and that's too slack sometimes. I'd actually like to have the option to use the angleset to steepen it up for some tighter places I ride. Doubt I'd ever want to run it slacker.

 

[Tomasis]

K9's system is inferior IMO to CC's because it relies greatly on the cups being aligned perfectly.

maybe that. dirt says angleset is 1 degree to be more precise .. I think i prefer have 1 and 2 degrees adjustability.

Set the headset and forget.. I see that new cups has a screw inside to hold the frame firmly

 

[Tomasis]

Yeah, my DH bike is somewhere in the 63-63.5 range and that's too slack sometimes. I'd actually like to have the option to use the angleset to steepen it up for some tighter places I ride. Doubt I'd ever want to run it slacker.

mondraker guys seem love 61 ha in their bikes maybe they are living near Alpes

63 is perfect compromise for different tracks for me, without changing cups too often

 

[HAB]

mondraker guys seem love 61 ha in their bikes maybe they are living near Alpes

63 is perfect compromise for different tracks for me, without changing cups too often

Yeah, it's all dependent on where you ride. 63 is great for some stuff around here, back on the East coast it's often a little too slack for the tight stuff.

 

[4130biker]

I think it's cool that (hopefully) soon we'll have even more options! Very nice.
It's strange, because it will change the way people look at just about every frame out there.

 

[norbar]

jada jada stupid....


Jerkstore, I didn't say you CANNOT climb with a 65* hand angle...I'm suggesting that it may not be worth it. Just as a 69 or 67* angle is a compromise for DH stability, 66 or 65 is a compromise on uphill stability. Nobody in this forum worries about "attacking" the climbs, so it's not worth the argument, but the *ideal* for a *trailbike* should be somewhere in the middle, since a *trailbike* goes up and down.

You certainly can climb a slack bike, and some people prefer it. I just don't believe that "relaxed" geometry is optimum for fast climbs or up-and-down transitions that we see "over here". If you want to grind up a fireroad, you can do it on a recumbent. The great thing is that with items like the angleset, you can adjust it per your own feel....I can have a nice aggressive sketchy fast bike, and you can have your slow easy handler.

so bring on the friggin 1 1/8th angleset.

Comming from XC racing backgroun I really agree with you. I'm suprised how fast everyone on RM became steave jones about their bikes. I really enjoy difficult, techy climbs and being in a horizontal position with my chest touching the bars isn't the way I want to climb. I used to be all about slack and cool on my trailbike but last summer when I went back to doing more techy climbs I was annoyed with the uphill performance (doable but tireing if you do many climbs or want to do them fast) so I reduced the travel on my fork from 140 to 100mm. Left it on the downhills out of curiosity and kept it that way for a season. Maybe it's trying to ride my DJ bike like a trailbike but a steep trailbike doesn't bother me that much as long as it is long. I only go 140mm in the mountains when I go berserk and pretend my 8 year old Ellsworth is a dh bike. Though RM probably frowns on that kinda thing too... ellsworth

 

[Sandwich]

Comming from XC racing backgroun I really agree with you. I'm suprised how fast everyone on RM became steave jones about their bikes. I really enjoy difficult, techy climbs and being in a horizontal position with my chest touching the bars isn't the way I want to climb. I used to be all about slack and cool on my trailbike but last summer when I went back to doing more techy climbs I was annoyed with the uphill performance (doable but tireing if you do many climbs or want to do them fast) so I reduced the travel on my fork from 140 to 100mm. Left it on the downhills out of curiosity and kept it that way for a season. Maybe it's trying to ride my DJ bike like a trailbike but a steep trailbike doesn't bother me that much as long as it is long. I only go 140mm in the mountains when I go berserk and pretend my 8 year old Ellsworth is a dh bike. Though RM probably frowns on that kinda thing too... ellsworth

yeah pretty much this. I'm not telling other people what to ride, but I don't want to be stuck on a 67* 4.5" trailbike because it's "hot right now". I took my trek fuel on some moderately serious DH trails (lift assisted at least) and was supremely impressed with its performance. I think just as much can be gained with going slacker, so can there be gains made with going steeper....but again, I'm simply against going super slack and instead allowing the end user to adjust.

Anyways...in three years, will we find out that 67* is super fast and aggressive for DH, and if you have to "be pro" to handle it?

 

[Jeremy R]

I hear you guys talking about static numbers, but there are other important things to consider as well when looking at head angles. The suspension design plays a big role in this. I had my eyes opened up to this recently when I switched trail bikes. My shova had a 69 degree head angle on it which should ride steep, but that bike has so much squat built into the suspension, I thought the head angle suited that bike very well. Ha, if you did not like the head angle, change your body position, and you could basically get the bike where it needed to be. I imagine the prophet that sandwich is talking about rode the same way. Lean back in the steeps and push hard into corners.
Now I have a Yeti asr 5 that with a 140 fork, it has a 67 degree head angle.
But the suspension on the Yeti if setup properly will barely move from a change in body position. It does not pop into and out of corners. It carves a precise line right through them with no give in the suspension. So with this design, a 67 degree head angle feels perfect, because the suspension holds itself up in the travel better, and the BB is already low to begin with.
Ha Sandwich, you should go demo an ASR 5 and see what you think. Its just silly fast at everything I have thrown at it.

 

[Sandwich]

I imagine the prophet that sandwich is talking about rode the same way.

I probably shouldn't use that bike as much of a reference. It had a MASSIVE wheelbase since cannondale screwed up the sizing (every size on that frame was an inch too long in the headtube) so it was too long with a too long stem. Still, the wanderiness I felt at 67 made me keep it at 69...had I more time, maybe I would have changed my mind.

You're right about the subtlety of static geo though. My racelink, with its 67* HA and high BB, still handled well at speed because the fork had so much trail and the sag/suspension slackened it way out. Once it got slow, it was a pig, but I was rather impressed at higher speeds...on that though, you could run a real fork (sorry avy) with one of these slackers and get similar high-speed geo but better low speed.

 

[FlipFantasia]

thank you JR and Sandwich for bringing some logic/reality to this thread

 

[norbar]

I probably shouldn't use that bike as much of a reference. It had a MASSIVE wheelbase since cannondale screwed up the sizing (every size on that frame was an inch too long in the headtube) so it was too long with a too long stem. Still, the wanderiness I felt at 67 made me keep it at 69...had I more time, maybe I would have changed my mind.

You're right about the subtlety of static geo though. My racelink, with its 67* HA and high BB, still handled well at speed because the fork had so much trail and the sag/suspension slackened it way out. Once it got slow, it was a pig, but I was rather impressed at higher speeds...on that though, you could run a real fork (sorry avy) with one of these slackers and get similar high-speed geo but better low speed.

Yeah. Length can compensate for head angle. In dh I really like slack-ish bikes. 63.5-64 ha for a pure DH rig is great and if you live in some seriously steep terrain (ie. like Ben in Champery/Morgins) go even slacker but for trailbikes I prefer simple bigger wb. I ride the prophet and it was super stable though for some insane reason my Joker XC is even longer.

 

[Biffff]

another example, Specialized picks up Sam Hill to ride there demo bike. an he gave his input on what he wanted an now most of there line of dual bikes are all slacker an lower. an the demo 8 is the race bike to get! what it only took them only 10 yrs to figure this out. come on man!

Wrong......The 2010 and 2011 Demo has the exact same Head Angle as the 2007 to 2009 Demo. They did lower the BB though

 

[William42]

Wrong......The 2010 and 2011 Demo has the exact same Head Angle as the 2007 to 2009 Demo. They did lower the BB though

and the BB was not high before they lowered it. The BB was at like 13.9 before they lowered it for hill. People talking about how pre sam hill, the demo's geo sucked are living in 2004.

 

[norbar]

and the BB was not high before they lowered it. The BB was at like 13.9 before they lowered it for hill. People talking about how pre sam hill, the demo's geo sucked are living in 2004.

It was 14.25 in the low setting for the 7 and 14.7 in the high one. I remember they rode quite high.

 

[zdubyadubya]

It was 14.25 in the low setting for the 7 and 14.7 in the high one. I remember they rode quite high.

my '09 demo 8 sits at a 64* HA and 13.9 bb in the low setting. measured on a flat concrete slab (average of both directions and measured with plumb angle finder), '10 boxxer team slammed, and specialized clutch front/chunder rear 2.5 tires partly worn. maybe the demo 7 sits higher for some reason?

*edit* and for kicks and giggles, i really want to try a angleset on this guy just to see what its like.

 

[bizutch]

Since we are wishing for things, I wish there was an angleset bottom cup that worked with tapered steerers.

It's called your steerer tube pinch bolts.



I kid.....

 

[toodles]

Since we are wishing for things, I wish there was an angleset bottom cup that worked with tapered steerers.

One of our local guys here is running an offset cup in his tapered HT TR450 and hasn't had any problems. He wanted the slacker angle but not the super low BB that the TR gets in the slackest setting. I thought it would stuff the bearings but I've been proven wrong so far.

 

[daisycutter]

from Dirt comments
To all who wrote in about the 1-1/8″ AngleSet, i.e. “EdSet” – wow. Great response and we (Cane Creek) have heard you. I personally have read every comment (the ones accusing us of form over function hit me extra hard!). As a product that has never been tested, we have a lot of work to do before we can commit, but we have heard you and we know you want it. We’ll update this thread if we can make it happen. Josh Coaplen, Director R&D, Cane Creek Cycling Components

 

[William42]

from Dirt comments
To all who wrote in about the 1-1/8″ AngleSet, i.e. “EdSet” – wow. Great response and we (Cane Creek) have heard you. I personally have read every comment (the ones accusing us of form over function hit me extra hard!). As a product that has never been tested, we have a lot of work to do before we can commit, but we have heard you and we know you want it. We’ll update this thread if we can make it happen. Josh Coaplen, Director R&D, Cane Creek Cycling Components

awesome. I'm getting one for my road bike so I can slack it out and run a 68 degree HA for those descents.

edit, but seriously, looks like a great product

 

[Pete..]

If you check the dirt link, apparently now it's slated for production. Coming out April 1st... Hmm.

 

[yopaulie]

You can always tell when you Northeast guys have been snowed in all winter.

It is the only way possible to reach the magical level 6 butthurt over head angles.

Ha Ha, very true!

 

[Saar G7]

After experimenting with angle changes between 0.5 and 1.7 degrees, anything below 1 degree is not that significant.
I ended up riding with 1.7 degree change on a 2010 5 spot with a 150mm fork.

44mm headtubes allow for serious angle changes, way more than the 0.5 - 1.0 degree proposed by CC.

Here is an example for a 1.5 deg headset for a 44mm headtube (zerostack with external top cup).

You can see the angles that can be achieved here:
ofanaim.net/has.html

 

[daisycutter]

If you check the dirt link, apparently now it's slated for production. Coming out April 1st... Hmm.

CC is not making an angled headset for:
1-1/8" traditional press Fit - external cup external ec 33.95-33.90 ec34 yet.
This would freshen up allot of old M1s,Foes etc.

 

[quickneonrt]

my '09 demo 8 sits at a 64* HA and 13.9 bb in the low setting. measured on a flat concrete slab (average of both directions and measured with plumb angle finder), '10 boxxer team slammed, and specialized clutch front/chunder rear 2.5 tires partly worn. maybe the demo 7 sits higher for some reason?

*edit* and for kicks and giggles, i really want to try a angleset on this guy just to see what its like.

Because the HA on the Demo7 is different 66/65 vs 65/64 for the demo8