Yeah, but that's static, unsagged BB height on like 200mm travel. This is on 160mm travel. 345 is the norm, with some brands like Spec going a lot lower.
My ancient Nicolai Ion was at 13" BB height but I raced on what was really an XC track with a couple of boulders.
I'm East of Edinburgh. 10 miles from the City. 35 minutes drive from innerleithen (Golfie). GF is South of the City and slightly closer to Peebles. The trail builders (official and not) have done a great job of re-opening/rebuilding the trails. a fair few re-routes but most are good and have freshened up old trails. At the weekend the Golfie is like Blackpool pleasure beach on trade holidays week. Never seen the place so busy.
More like a Flu. different than first time.
Mental how busy the golfie is now, about 12 ish years ago it was for locals only and no one knew about it
He is very focused. I assume he dropped his car keys and this is a run back down to find them.
Looks like he's a conscious wildlife lover. He probably spotted a beetle bug or a
I started riding in 2000 and racing in 01 so Ive missed bit of that.
Imagine shopping for a bike based purely on sticker size and going from a Medium Sommet (443mm reach) to a Medium Canyon Strive (485mm reach).
True. That said, if I can't ride it first, I ain't buying it. We'll see what happens if the Tracer croaks before I do.
There's a more than 5cm difference in wheelbase too. The point is they're both Medium enduro bikes. The current sizing spectrum is huuuuuge.
damn, so you're saying my method of dividing downtube thickness by seatstay length and multiplying by the height of troy brosnan's forehead is out of date?
It's bike industry, dicks matter.
Fantastic "Science VS" podcast this week on Ivermectin with a look at how even a doctor trained to recognize and avoid bias can fall into the pit of confirmation bias and conspiracy theory.
I disagree because fit and handling matter most when standing. Saddle position has a large adjustment range, only affects climbing, and that's the part of riding that doesn't matter as much. You can say, "This bike has a bad climbing position," but that's different than saying its reach is the wrong size for you. Now that BB heights have settled and almost no one is making seat tube angles that are crazy slack I shop frames purely on head angle, reach, and chainstay and haven't had any surprises. Or just order the Scott with your travel number
I have a calc for that built into my geometry spreadsheet. The only problem with any of these variables is it relies on published numbers to be correct, which I often find isn't the case.
The number i look at is the measurement from the centre of BB to the centre of the top of the headtube. It is a bit more fiddly to measure/describe but more accurately reflect the hand-foot distance which is what I'm concerned with. You can calc it using right angle triangle math for reach and stack, or just measure.
They have the same stack
This is all well and good if you are living in an area where you just have climbs or descents. If there is a lot of undulating terrain, then these crazy upright seat tube angles are not ideal for getting in and out of the saddle.I disagree because fit and handling matter most when standing. Saddle position has a large adjustment range, only affects climbing, and that's the part of riding that doesn't matter as much. You can say, "This bike has a bad climbing position," but that's different than saying its reach is the wrong size for you. Now that BB heights have settled and almost no one is making seat tube angles that are crazy slack I shop frames purely on head angle, reach, and chainstay and haven't had any surprises. Or just order the Scott with your travel number
ALL bikes?
and combined with a looong reach and wheelbase a bit gash for seated wheelies.
