Quantcast

euro/interbike 2019 aka the new stuff thread

jonKranked

Press Button, Receive Stupid
Nov 10, 2005
55,325
4,456
media blackout

ianjenn

Turbo Monkey
Sep 12, 2006
2,493
284
SLO
Last edited:

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
15,977
1,010
01776
when did we decide that we don't want short chainstays on 29ers anymore? I somehow glossed over when it became OK to build 29ers with 18" chainstays again. They sucked in 2008, they're going to suck again.
 

jonKranked

Press Button, Receive Stupid
Nov 10, 2005
55,325
4,456
media blackout
when did we decide that we don't want short chainstays on 29ers anymore? I somehow glossed over when it became OK to build 29ers with 18" chainstays again. They sucked in 2008, they're going to suck again.
when people realized that overall balance between front and rear was more important than a single discrete measurement?
 

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
15,977
1,010
01776
yea, i was gonna point out that reach and FC have gotten longer too, but i wanted to be snarky. :D
when people realized that overall balance between front and rear was more important than a single discrete measurement?
ok here we go

I should definitely listen to you, with all the time you've had on 29ers

oh wait

If that's true, then they must use the same length chainstays on their same-travel 650b bike (which has the same reach in size L)

oh wait

Surely they must change the stay length with increases in size, in order to keep the rider centered regardless of height like Norco does

Oh wait

Of course industry leaders of geometry like GG and transition must use longer chainstays on their 29ers

oh wait

this is lazy frame design, and it's been a trend recently with a lot of manufacturers that are building 29ers now that they have caught on, thanks to designs like the enduro that crammed small stays onto big wheels to make them feel smaller. You used to bitch all the time about how slow handling 29ers were- the shorter stays counteract that feeling, and I would argue that you need shorter stays on a big wheeled bike than a smaller one in order to make it feel similar. I would agree that longer stays in general are becoming more acceptable for enduro race bikes, but this sort of stuff seems contrained to late-comers of 29er building and chainstay length is quietly ignored in the press releases
 

jonKranked

Press Button, Receive Stupid
Nov 10, 2005
55,325
4,456
media blackout
ok here we go

I should definitely listen to you, with all the time you've had on 29ers

oh wait

If that's true, then they must use the same length chainstays on their same-travel 650b bike (which has the same reach in size L)

oh wait

Surely they must change the stay length with increases in size, in order to keep the rider centered regardless of height like Norco does

Oh wait

Of course industry leaders of geometry like GG and transition must use longer chainstays on their 29ers

oh wait

this is lazy frame design, and it's been a trend recently with a lot of manufacturers that are building 29ers now that they have caught on, thanks to designs like the enduro that crammed small stays onto big wheels to make them feel smaller. You used to bitch all the time about how slow handling 29ers were- the shorter stays counteract that feeling, and I would argue that you need shorter stays on a big wheeled bike than a smaller one in order to make it feel similar. I would agree that longer stays in general are becoming more acceptable for enduro race bikes, but this sort of stuff seems contrained to late-comers of 29er building and chainstay length is quietly ignored in the press releases
you're talking about a bike from the UK. since when do those have to make sense?
 

djjohnr

Turbo Monkey
Apr 21, 2002
1,885
517
Northern California
If that's true, then they must use the same length chainstays on their same-travel 650b bike (which has the same reach in size L)

oh wait

Surely they must change the stay length with increases in size, in order to keep the rider centered regardless of height like Norco does

Oh wait

Of course industry leaders of geometry like GG and transition must use longer chainstays on their 29ers
I think you're talking about the Zerode. If so, the chainstay/wheelbase ratio on the large is 35.6%. That's pretty middle of the road. For comparison a V3 Bronson is 35.4% and a Process 153 is 35.7%. I have a ton of bikes documented here for nerding out - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11jIbXx-Ax15dR7DTMyxQ7BtGtLEOQ8NkfVR1eUsjIJ8/edit#gid=0

Sucks about the same CS length for each size. I wish more companies would get on board with this. Using adjustable CS designs would cut down on the additional manufacturing costs.

The Megatrail I tested had a backend that was way too short for the front-center for my build. I had to see-saw that bike more than any other bike I've ever ridden. It obviously works fine for a lot of people, so I think it just comes down to what works for your build.
 

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
15,977
1,010
01776
That's a really interesting compositon you've made. I'm not sure of the value, in my mind, as Reach really depends on a mfg's idea of what size spacing should be. Most mfg's make reach in a few slots, if you're in between slots you have to go up or down. So you've got a decent amount of variability if your reach range is 445mm to 465mm. There's also the fact that some mfg's measure actual chainstay length and others report the horizontal. I had trouble comparing bikes in the past because of that difference (yay trigonometry).

Either way, I still feel that having short chainstays is basically essential to having a good riding 29" bike. I've noticed a trend toward 450mm chainstays by a lot of late comers. I don't think the Following, Enduro, and Process were so well recieved because of conservative climbing geometry. They fucking ripped and people knew it as soon as they rode them. Now Giant, GT, and others keep marketing 440mm bikes, and I'm wondering whether it's on purpose or lazy.
 

SuboptimusPrime

Turbo Monkey
Aug 18, 2005
1,374
937
NorCack
I thought the longer stays were trickle down from WC DH with the idea being it would help us with better high speed stability so we can shred the gnar at maxxximum speeds during the all teh enduroz.

I'm admittedly a GG homer and like their philosophy as far as geometry, but I've had several bikes with shorter stays and longer reaches and I think they kick ass (both 27 and 29). Just get up on the front and go. I'm 6'2 and have never felt like I was going to loop out or crash because my weight was misplaced between the wheels.
 

djjohnr

Turbo Monkey
Apr 21, 2002
1,885
517
Northern California
That's a really interesting compositon you've made. I'm not sure of the value, in my mind, as Reach really depends on a mfg's idea of what size spacing should be. Most mfg's make reach in a few slots, if you're in between slots you have to go up or down. So you've got a decent amount of variability if your reach range is 445mm to 465mm. There's also the fact that some mfg's measure actual chainstay length and others report the horizontal. I had trouble comparing bikes in the past because of that difference (yay trigonometry).
I've found that the chainstay/wheelbase ratio is a good predictor based on bikes I've test ridden and owned, however it's definitely directional vs absolute. I always need to qualify the ratio with an understanding of what the axle path looks like.
 
Last edited:

djjohnr

Turbo Monkey
Apr 21, 2002
1,885
517
Northern California
I've had several bikes with shorter stays and longer reaches and I think they kick ass (both 27 and 29). Just get up on the front and go. I'm 6'2 and have never felt like I was going to loop out or crash because my weight was misplaced between the wheels.
I was in the same boat until I found the edge. I had started at the other end, I had been on bikes where I felt the chainstays were too long. I seem to have found a sweet spot that works for me now. This all didn't matter a whole lot to me when wheelbases were shorter, since the weight shifts needed to compensate were minimal. As bikes have gotten longer it's been magnified though. However, I think the trade off is worth it when the balance is right.
 

SuboptimusPrime

Turbo Monkey
Aug 18, 2005
1,374
937
NorCack
I was in the same boat until I found the edge. I had started at the other end, I had been on bikes where I felt the chainstays were too long. I seem to have found a sweet spot that works for me now. This all didn't matter a whole lot to me when wheelbases were shorter, since the weight shifts needed to compensate were minimal. As bikes have gotten longer it's been magnified though. However, I think the trade off is worth it when the balance is right.
Fair enough. Riding almost exclusively east coast roxxx, our speeds are a bit less (in general) and having a balance of stability and maneuverability pays off. That said, the Pisgah has more than its share of fast gnar and we do alright out there. With coil suspension and good geo (as on my megatrail) I'd have to be hauling all manner of ass to really be held back by 10mm of chainstay.
 

djjohnr

Turbo Monkey
Apr 21, 2002
1,885
517
Northern California
Fair enough. Riding almost exclusively east coast roxxx, our speeds are a bit less (in general) and having a balance of stability and maneuverability pays off. That said, the Pisgah has more than its share of fast gnar and we do alright out there. With coil suspension and good geo (as on my megatrail) I'd have to be hauling all manner of ass to really be held back by 10mm of chainstay.
I think body geometry plays a big part in this. I'm 5'10.5", but when I plug my measurements into one of those body ratio calculators I get the legs of someone 5'7" and the torso of someone 6'1". I think it's likely that that affects what cs/wb ratio works for me.

There are scenarios where I think I'm riding faster based on having an ideal ratio (loose chutes into catch berms for example), but its more of I just feel more confident in corners and my fun level goes up.
 

Cerberus75

Monkey
Feb 18, 2017
206
41
Fair enough. Riding almost exclusively east coast roxxx, our speeds are a bit less (in general) and having a balance of stability and maneuverability pays off. That said, the Pisgah has more than its share of fast gnar and we do alright out there. With coil suspension and good geo (as on my megatrail) I'd have to be hauling all manner of ass to really be held back by 10mm of chainstay.
This is why I wish manufacturers would make different CS sizes. I ride East Cost trails and for me the shorter the better I'm also 5'6". I prefer 414mm to 425mm personally. If I rode the wide bermed trails over 30mph I might feel differently.
 

canadmos

Cake Tease
May 29, 2011
9,640
5,375
Canaderp
Oh well. If people actually use it that's better than wholly frame unique ones.
I'm all for it, but like you said its all dependent on IF it actually gets used.

I've broken hangars before on the trail, so now I always have a spare in my pack. I'm actually carrying two different ones right now; it'd be nice to just have one common one.

But that said, I haven't broken one recently as all my current bikes have quite stout thick machined aluminum hangars. Not one of those cheese grade silver bendy ones from years past.
 

shirk007

Monkey
Apr 14, 2009
308
110
The Syntace hanger style mount won't work with Split Pivot / ABP suspension. Well not in it's current shape and mount location.
 

Electric_City

The orangutans are loose!
Apr 14, 2007
1,442
315
Heh

Because syntace doesn't exist.


Oh well. If people actually use it that's better than wholly frame unique ones.
This is exactly "what's wrong with the Industry".

A small company invents something. Meh...
Sram, Trek, Specialized, ect. reinvent it. HOLY SHIT! THE END-ALL, BE-ALL OF BIKING IS HERE!

Not once in that article did I read anything about the Syntace one. I didn't know about it either.

Though this one is for a Split pivot, how many bikes are using that? I know Trek and Devinci are. Anyone else?
 
Last edited: