[zedro]

ya, but giant has always gone overboard with seat-tube lengths on their dh frames. they could easily lop a couple inches off & provide adequate seat extension. these ARE dh frames, after all. the large frame looks positively xc; what is it, 19"?

no, the 19" is XL. These are the sizes, which seem pretty average: 15", 16.5", 17.5", 19". I guess Giant chose to picture the biggest frame maybe. I remember when Kona did this and it made the bikes look very strange in print.

 

[narlus]

Oh, and the whole have-to-remove-shock-to-adjust-it package as well? Yeh, fantastic design there.

both mark and i have avys on our giants...no problem getting to the adjusters at all, and once done it's set and forget.

 

[me89]

Haven't been around DH bikes a long time have ya?

no but i know enough that when you start grinding away at things without the knowledge or the know how you can slip and easily **** something up. done it before thats why practice makes perfect and you dont practice on your new dh rig

 

[cali4niabiker]

yes, and then called it a small frame. Noticed you lopped of some seat tube.

Notice that Santa Cruz uses bent top tubes for the larger models that have the longer seat tubes, and the smaller ones can use the sloped ones.

Its either that or use big gussets, or a seat mast.

Yeah, but that would be a problem with the seatpost because of the curvy seatpost tube. The seatpost will go in... what? maybe 2, 3"? Something like that. If you kept pounding it, expect some bent or broken seatpost tubes.

-CAbiker

 

[buildyourown]

They spec that chainguide because they are super cheap. These are price point bike people. They have to keep that comp at $3k. Still a killer bike for the purpose. The shock and linkage work great. So what if they are a PITA to adjust?

 

[zedro]

Yeah, but that would be a problem with the seatpost because of the curvy seatpost tube. The seatpost will go in... what? maybe 2, 3"? Something like that. If you kept pounding it, expect some bent or broken seatpost tubes.

-CAbiker

not sure what the argument is, they make a 15" seat tube model, a medium is 16.5"...that pretty low already, the seattube doesnt need to be cut down anymore. And it seems like they have the clearance issue figured out anyways, cant see how else to easily improve it, or the need to.

Photoshop doesnt make for good design revisions!

 

[thaflyinfatman]

Well, in that case, there is no design in the world that will satisfy you. Right behind the stem is always going to be high, that's set by your fork height. And the rear tire is set where it is.

When a company gives you a "standover" measurement, it's when you're standing in front of the saddle. Seems to me like they did a great job of improving standover...

You missed the minor part of my post where I mentioned that 99% of the time I nut myself on the SEAT. But congratulations on addressing the other 1% of the time, which I didn't mention having any problem with anyway.

Since when do you EVER have your hips over the top tube in front of the seat, while you're riding? Fanfriggintastic if you like to ride like that, I don't - I usually attempt to ride with my feet on the pedals. I want to be able to put the seat out of the way, which you still can't do because the friggin seat tube isn't any lower.

 

[thaflyinfatman]

how the hell can you get anymore standover clearance than that? remove the top tube alltogether? how is this new revisions standover worse than 95% of the bikes out there? Maybe they should remove the headtube also, because that seems to promote the use of other annoying structural members sticking out from it.....

is it just me, or are people becoming more and more incessant whiners here? its like if they dont like a particular bike or company at one time, when something new comes out from them they'll poo-poo all over it without even using their brain to actually look at it. And if theres nothing technically wrong that they can legitimatly point out, it just simply becomes ugly, or un-innovative....

despite Ridemonkeys collective superiority complex, its still within a stones-throw of Pinkbike...

Dude, grow the hell up. What's the point of having a bb-level top tube if the seat still doesn't go any lower than armpit height? Dunno about you, but I rarely have problems with TT clearance, it's invariably with the seat itself (and I'm 6'2" and ride a medium SGS). Maybe some people try and wipe their scrotum(s) on their top tubes or something, but I haven't met or seen any of these people yet. If it wasn't the seat that was getting in the way, we'd all run xc-height saddles for DH... but virtually nobody does, and heaps of people (eg me) run them fully slammed.

And you realise you're simply whining about the whining, which doesn't help anything other than to cause other people (eg me) to whine about you whining about the whining? Fantastic...

 

[binary visions]

You missed the minor part of my post where I mentioned that 99% of the time I nut myself on the SEAT. But congratulations on addressing the other 1% of the time, which I didn't mention having any problem with anyway.

Since when do you EVER have your hips over the top tube in front of the seat, while you're riding? Fanfriggintastic if you like to ride like that, I don't - I usually attempt to ride with my feet on the pedals. I want to be able to put the seat out of the way, which you still can't do because the friggin seat tube isn't any lower.

Did you actually read my post? I addressed your seat-nutting problem with the statement that, and I quote:

there is no design in the world that will satisfy you

...so whining about Giant's standover height is rediculous. You can either have a seat that is high enough to actually sit on, or the frame has to be designed such that you can never sit down. You can't run 8"+ of exposed seatpost on a DH bike and expect it to last more than two runs.

Complaining about the lack of seatpost adjustment on a DH race bike is like complaining about the lack of trunk space in a Ferrari. Who cares?

 

[zedro]

Dude, grow the hell up. What's the point of having a bb-level top tube if the seat still doesn't go any lower than armpit height? Dunno about you, but I rarely have problems with TT clearance, it's invariably with the seat itself (and I'm 6'2" and ride a medium SGS). Maybe some people try and wipe their scrotum(s) on their top tubes or something, but I haven't met or seen any of these people yet. If it wasn't the seat that was getting in the way, we'd all run xc-height saddles for DH... but virtually nobody does, and heaps of people (eg me) run them fully slammed.

And you realise you're simply whining about the whining, which doesn't help anything other than to cause other people (eg me) to whine about you whining about the whining? Fantastic...

:mumble:

huh?

 

[me89]

yeh okay

 

[esr]

does it get a 150 rear end and a evolve bb this year by chance

 

[SuspectDevice]

does it get a 150 rear end and a evolve bb this year by chance

The semi-informed rumors I hear mention 150, and keeping the 100mil it has.

 

[Wingnut]

Well now. This is a little out of hand. Some people with good points arguing with people who don't like the bike. So..ummm, let me summerize:

I ride a DH comp.

I set the shock up and have not touched it since, it works perfect for me in any condition. Always soakes up big hits/drops. Sticks to the ground in the flats. Eats up rough terrain and rails the corners. Pedals like there is no tomorrow.
Shock location = non-issue.

I set the seat at a fairly reasonable point and have never adjusted it. DH, freeride, XC, it never gets changed(well, ok..for some real long climbs it goes up, if I happen to have a allen key!!). It is always right, never too high nor low. I get canned occasionally, but mostly by the rear tire, or stem.
Seat hight = non-issue.

I did have to play with the guide a bit, but I got it set, good chainline, no rubbing. I've even cased a step-up, full tilt sprocket stall, and the guide did not bend. Never drops the chain.
Chain guide = Non-issue.

The biggest problem with the DH comp is the Boxxer Race. Though mine has been fairly reliable, it has had it's bad day's.

If you don't like it fine, but please don't complain about this and that unless you've put in the tuning time, setup time and at least a season of good ride time on one.

 

[thaflyinfatman]

Did you actually read my post? I addressed your seat-nutting problem with the statement that, and I quote:


...so whining about Giant's standover height is rediculous. You can either have a seat that is high enough to actually sit on, or the frame has to be designed such that you can never sit down. You can't run 8"+ of exposed seatpost on a DH bike and expect it to last more than two runs.

Complaining about the lack of seatpost adjustment on a DH race bike is like complaining about the lack of trunk space in a Ferrari. Who cares?

Yeah I did read your post, and despite your intimate knowledge of what I want, it seems the laws of physics have been defied once again and there ARE heaps of bikes around that I don't have standover issues with. For example - Balfa BB7, PDC DH1 (just from looking at it, haven't ridden one), 222s etc. Do you see the just barely massive difference here? Edit: for the record, 222s and BB7s ARE able to have the seat put up high enough for me to sit comfortably on, even though I wouldn't bother (if it was my bike). Wow, the wonders of the modern world.

I never complained about the lack of seatpost adjustment at all (and you were accusing ME of not having read YOUR post?! Of all the irony...). I complained about the MINIMUM HEIGHT. I rarely, if ever, sit down on my DH bike whilst actually riding it. Like you said, it's a race bike - when are you ever going to need to sit down anyway?

 

[thaflyinfatman]

Well now. This is a little out of hand. Some people with good points arguing with people who don't like the bike. So..ummm, let me summerize:

Ah, that's clever. Implying that anyone who doesn't like the bike is just arguing out of spite, rather than there being "good reasons" why people might not like them.

Honestly the bike itself isn't bad, but the standover thing ****s me.

 

[heikkihall]

bent toptubes = teh suck (from an aesthetic perspective anyways). what they *should* have done:

I couldnt agree more. I rode a DH Team the first year they were available to the public and liked the bike but it was just too damn big for me. Im 6'2" and had a large, but even the medium felt a tad large for me. Top tube on the large was perfect but standover sucked.(Im talking about the seat not the top tube) I couldnt get the seat low enough and out of the way. It seems to me that the team riders had the same concerns. Look at their bikes they are riding this year. They actually look really similar to the photoshopped picture above. The team bikes look awesome.

 

[zedro]

Yeah I did read your post, and despite your intimate knowledge of what I want, it seems the laws of physics have been defied once again and there ARE heaps of bikes around that I don't have standover issues with.

yeah, but they've fixed that remember, the bent top tubes with the low/average seatube height. Thats what the discussion is. But for some reason, people have declared this isnt enough because there are bikes out there that may have an extra half-inch in the usable stand-over area

 

[thaflyinfatman]

yeah, but they've fixed that remember, the bent top tubes with the low/average seatube height. Thats what the discussion is. But for some reason, people have declared this isnt enough because there are bikes out there that may have an extra half-inch in the usable stand-over area

This is the whole problem: as far as I can see, the seat tube is still the same height. All they've done is change the standover where it DOESN'T matter...

Edit: I really don't consider that to be a "low/average" seat tube height... 99% of DH bikes are lower than that. In fact, I can't think of any that are higher, off the top of my head.

 

[zedro]

This is the whole problem: as far as I can see, the seat tube is still the same height. All they've done is change the standover where it DOESN'T matter...

Edit: I really don't consider that to be a "low/average" seat tube height... 99% of DH bikes are lower than that. In fact, I can't think of any that are higher, off the top of my head.

the bent toptube lowers the whole tube, like was said, the headtube can only be in one place, and the increased angle does lower the effective standover.

And Balfas for example are 15.1 and 16.3 (s/m), where the giant is 15 and 16.5...if you need a large frame (18"), standover shouldnt a problem because you should be over 6' tall. Anyways....

 

[thaflyinfatman]

the bent toptube lowers the whole tube, like was said, the headtube can only be in one place, and the increased angle does lower the effective standover.

And Balfas for example are 15.1 and 16.3 (s/m), where the giant is 15 and 16.5...if you need a large frame (18"), standover shouldnt a problem because you should be over 6' tall. Anyways....

What I'm saying is that the top tube itself isn't what bothers me... it's the minimum height of the seat that affects me. I just want to get it down and out of the way (as Heikki said), which bending the top tube doesn't help me to do. It's the actual height of the seat tube htat makes the biggest difference IMO.

Note: being a tall guy, not many frames *really* cause big problems for me as far as standover goes. But nonetheless, I prefer to be able to slam the seat down to dirtjump-bike-height; to me this is how standover height matters (I ride a medium SGS and yes, I'd much prefer the seat to go down lower, and I run it slammed). I don't put the seat up for efficiency (I just always stand up), and as such the top tube height in itself makes bugger all difference to me - which is why I see the bent top tube as a bit of a marketing gimmick rather than a useful change - becaues they haven't lowered the minimum seat height. JMO.

 

[zedro]

- which is why I see the bent top tube as a bit of a marketing gimmick rather than a useful change - becaues they haven't lowered the minimum seat height. JMO.

well, i'm not that cynical, its all they can do really without changing the entire frame design, so it's more a stop-gap approach with minimum impact to manufacturing.

what i want to know is, why did they bother when theres supposed to be a whole new platform comming out. This version may never even hit our shores.

 

[thaflyinfatman]

well, i'm not that cynical, its all they can do really without changing the entire frame design, so it's more a stop-gap approach with minimum impact to manufacturing.

what i want to know is, why did they bother when theres supposed to be a whole new platform comming out. This version may never even hit our shores.

Fair enough. Whole new platform? Any more info?

 

[Jm_]

Fair enough. Whole new platform? Any more info?

I did see a picture of it, but I flippin forgot what it looks like. The chassi name is Maestro, but that just may be a code name, supposedly 4, 6 and 8" travel iterations of this chassi as well. Will replace VTs, probably ACs as well. Maybe replace DH bike.