Mullet Madness
- Thread starter Andeh
- Start date
I meant the Strive and Sommet that I mentioned in the previous post. But please, feel free to keep wandering off to pretend anyone who mentions reach numbers is completely unaware of basic geometry and sizing differences
I see we are doing the same when chosing bikes. The again I'm trying to buy a bike this year and I don't think those will be of any help given the only measurement that's valid this year is "is it available".
Also are you serously considering the Vitus? I thought you were not UK based.
Last edited:
I'm not actively combing the internet to find each and every possible mullet conversion from tiny bike brands.
If someone feels strongly that a certain setup from their darling brand should be listed, feel free to reply mimicking my formatting in the OP and I'll insert it if I feel like it satisfies my humble and not at all biased opinion of what decent geometry is.
If someone feels strongly that a certain setup from their darling brand should be listed, feel free to reply mimicking my formatting in the OP and I'll insert it if I feel like it satisfies my humble and not at all biased opinion of what decent geometry is.
Nah just having a look. I prefer longer reach numbers. The Commencals appeal a lot to me right now tbh.
I have both the new furious and clash and they are both currently set up mullet. Have run both full 27.5 too. Def feels great, esp on a park/dh bike where sta doesn’t matter too much
I need to calculate what fits me really. I know Large Ransom is too long but Large Reign or 2020 Slash are not. Had a few others but weirdly I think I felt most comfortable size wise on the Reign.
Their part specs does look good though. The only other brand that's is in stock that's comparable would be Fezzari
I know reach is just a part of the puzzle, but I've found Lee McCormack's method to determine your ideal one to be pretty accurate. You essentially multiply your height in cm by 2.4-2.6. 2.5 it's suppossed to your the goldylocks number. Go lower for a moar playful ride, and higher for a moar stable/planted one.
It probably works for bikes where the stack to reach ratio is similar to the rest of the industy but if a bike has a weirdly long or short stack the formula may be off.
Yup, it also pays to know your ape index. Most size calculation formulas apply to people with almost square or square complexion (ape index=1), but if you have a comparatively longer or shorter arm span, calculated numbers start to be less and less applicable.
I have long arms but narrow torso which is also weird because it means my wingspan is normal but my arms are long. I'm basically built like a tall slightly overweight woman.
Last edited:
@Gary - cheers for all the tips. Been tied up at work and riding hard every weekend. Typically ride Scolty (Banchory), Balfour Woods (Aboyne) and just rode Mastermind (Ballater) this past weekend and it was a wicked trail. Planning to hit up Ballater for a full weekend to ride Mastermind and Heartbreak Ridge.
Ballo is on my radar for something close to Forfar but after work Fridays I head straight for the hills. I really like the Dee strip because of all the trail options and the scenery is insane, good park up spots too.
Just found a quarry in Forfar with some epic jumps so this sorts out my mid-week post work rides.
On my way home today and stopping over in Buzzards Nest car park (Glentress). Quick spin around the little free ride park this evening and hitting Inners first thing in the morning before the long drive South. 6 weeks this trip and it’s been insane.
Ballo is on my radar for something close to Forfar but after work Fridays I head straight for the hills. I really like the Dee strip because of all the trail options and the scenery is insane, good park up spots too.
Just found a quarry in Forfar with some epic jumps so this sorts out my mid-week post work rides.
On my way home today and stopping over in Buzzards Nest car park (Glentress). Quick spin around the little free ride park this evening and hitting Inners first thing in the morning before the long drive South. 6 weeks this trip and it’s been insane.
Last edited:
Some pros chat about mullets
couldn't fall asleep last night. so I read that... well, some of it anyways! (it worked)
edited to add:
I'm actually surprised how little choice a lot of the riders have in what they ride. I suppose when they sign with a team, they know what they're getting in to.
Also, I like Camille B's attitude: "whatever. just give me a bike and I'll ride it. fast."
Last edited:
I think that one takeaway from article for a lot of typical riders should be: most pros aren't getting significant time difference between full 29 and MX, but almost all of them (even the tall ones) find MX easier to handle. And that's with them all being extremely good at handling bikes, orders of magnitude better than your typical rider. So most people would probably benefit from riding MX, since it will make the bike easier to manage.
and maybe even that for most riders, a full 27.5 bike will handle better. They mention having more room to move off the back of the bike, and better turn initiation... Neither of which would be impacted by a 27.5 wheel. I've been pondering a mullét bike as my eventual next ride. But now I wonder if it's really worth it? I mean, it's nice to be able to run the same tires front and rear to swap and save some cash... Is the 29 front really worth it? for extra roll-over and rock smashing ability?
Since I broke my Orbea Rallon frame and there are no spare parts to be found anywhere, I'm on the prowl for a replacement. My friends are trying to get me in the 29" bandwagon, or at least to convince me to get a mullet. I'm not too eager to sacrifice handling and poppyness for better rollover, and a mullet would mean having to carry more spares on the multi-day alpine trips we make.and maybe even that for most riders, a full 27.5 bike will handle better. They mention having more room to move off the back of the bike, and better turn initiation... Neither of which would be impacted by a 27.5 wheel. I've been pondering a mullét bike as my eventual next ride. But now I wonder if it's really worth it? I mean, it's nice to be able to run the same tires front and rear to swap and save some cash... Is the 29 front really worth it? for extra roll-over and rock smashing ability?
I hadn't thought of that, but indeed, it makes it so you have to bring/carry extra spares when you go on bike trips etc. I know 27.5 and 29 tubes are (mostly) interchangeable, but there's that too. And the weight gain. Seems like there really isn't all that much to be gained in the end.
You can run a 27.5 tube just fine on a 29, and vice versa. No need for two types of tubes.
My DH bike is still running dual 27.5 but with modern geo, and I've never felt like the front is under-gunned. I'm going to test out going back to full 27.5 on the trail bike at some point, as I seem to prefer wheels sized the same so far.
My DH bike is still running dual 27.5 but with modern geo, and I've never felt like the front is under-gunned. I'm going to test out going back to full 27.5 on the trail bike at some point, as I seem to prefer wheels sized the same so far.
I don't think roll over is actually that different with big wheels. They do feel more stable though, and I think it's easy to confuse the two - if it's easier to hold a line in rough stuff that can kinda feel like you're rolling over stuff better.
I pretty reliably like even wheel sizes (either one) better than mullets.
I pretty reliably like even wheel sizes (either one) better than mullets.
If you look back at videos of riders racing on 26" and 27.5" bikes on the World stage it is pretty hard to argue that you need a dual 29er to go silly fast. I think the concurrently occurring geometry improvements the bike industry rolled out potentially made a lot of people associate the 29er wheel size with a level of improved speed and handling that exceed the actual benefits presented by the wheel size. Having said that, I think they're still faster on average than smaller wheels, or for a given speed - they're safer for the most part.and maybe even that for most riders, a full 27.5 bike will handle better. They mention having more room to move off the back of the bike, and better turn initiation... Neither of which would be impacted by a 27.5 wheel. I've been pondering a mullét bike as my eventual next ride. But now I wonder if it's really worth it? I mean, it's nice to be able to run the same tires front and rear to swap and save some cash... Is the 29 front really worth it? for extra roll-over and rock smashing ability?
Generally speaking, if you're riding competitively and care about your results I'd say the mullet or 29/29 setup is worth it, otherwise just pick whatever seems most fun for you.
I think that roll over isn't the best phrase as it seems to imply you're just riding straight into square edge curbs non-stop. The big front wheel is a nice bit of insurance/confidence for blindly sending it deep into ruts/holes/braking bumps etc as they don't get hung up as easy or fall into holes quite as bad. When you're tired and really struggling to hang on to the bike, anything that helps in that regard is nice to have. The bigger front also seems less prone to deflection which in turn reduces fatigue a bit.
I've been swapping back and forth between wheel sizes a bit, and I think the 27.5 dual wheels are still relevant even in racing if you're willing to accept the energy penalty required to make them work. I don't notice much difference in braking traction between the two at all, but lateral traction the 29er is definitely better, and they seem super easy to drift predictably in comparison. That's not always what you're gonna want however, so its just horses for courses.
All well and good, but Connor Fearon was one of the most exciting riders to watch when he was on 26" bikes, now it is just meh.
26" DH bikes could often "look" moar wild and exciting even if they were slower.
Same with flat pedal riders though and they're pretty much gone from WC DH now too.
But don't forget DH tracks were often quite different back then too.
Same with flat pedal riders though and they're pretty much gone from WC DH now too.
But don't forget DH tracks were often quite different back then too.
Last edited:
Pythagoras won't help you find downtube length no matter how many reaches or stacks he has.
@vivisectxi is right. Actual measured downtube measurement is very very quick and useful way to physically compare your bike to other bikes sizing.
@Gary
reach and stack are always perpendicular, so reach^2 + stack^2 = downtube^2
for instance, a size 3 megatrail has a reach of 480mm, a stack of 628mm, which yields a downtube length of ~790mm
however, a bike with a reach of 628mm and a stack of 480mm would also have a downtube of ~790mm. but would fit and ride drastically different.
sure, downtube length is quick to measure, but that alone isn't enough to properly compare two bikes, and is why reach and stack are used.
reach and stack are always perpendicular, so reach^2 + stack^2 = downtube^2
for instance, a size 3 megatrail has a reach of 480mm, a stack of 628mm, which yields a downtube length of ~790mm
however, a bike with a reach of 628mm and a stack of 480mm would also have a downtube of ~790mm. but would fit and ride drastically different.
sure, downtube length is quick to measure, but that alone isn't enough to properly compare two bikes, and is why reach and stack are used.
You're completely wrong bro
and so is your diagram.
Reach and stack are both measured to the top/centre of headtube.
downtube is measured from BB centre to LOWER centre of headtube
As for being "stupid" I'm fairly confident all of us here understand and remember pythagorean theorem from when it was drilled into us while sat in a boring classroom at the age of 12. But even pythagoras himself can't tell you the hypotemuse of a right angled triangle if you give him the side measurements from an entirely different triangle.
and so is your diagram.
Reach and stack are both measured to the top/centre of headtube.
downtube is measured from BB centre to LOWER centre of headtube
As for being "stupid" I'm fairly confident all of us here understand and remember pythagorean theorem from when it was drilled into us while sat in a boring classroom at the age of 12. But even pythagoras himself can't tell you the hypotemuse of a right angled triangle if you give him the side measurements from an entirely different triangle.
Last edited:
you're wrong again.
If comparing two bikes with the same travel and your preferred head angle and BB height. Downtube measurement is actually a very good comparison.
Better infact if the two bikes have differing head tube lengths.
most mtb riders nowadays seem to fixate on the reach number without even considering it's relation to stack
Last edited:
This, so much
It was a 15 second Ms paint illustration meant to convey that absent of additional information, DT length alone doesn't convey all that much. You could have bikes with the same downtube length, but wildly differing reach and stack measurements.
If DT length is so important, why do the vast majority of bike makers not include it on geometry charts?
I agree with this 100%
Which just so happens to illustrate your written misunderstanding of where the measurements are to be taken from perfectly.
I'm not going to call you "stupid" for arguing about a geometry measurement system you clearly didn't actually understand though.
Simply because it's never been a Buzzword used in marketting jargon. Which is what generates sales. and as you've illustrated pretty well. Punters don't seem to understand why it's useful.
For rider position/sizing comparison all we really need is a consistent measurement that ties in pedalling axis (BB axle) with steering axis (steerer tube). Which Stack and reach measurement does by using TWO separate difficult to actually physically measure virtual measurements. While downtube does it more directly with ONE very quickly physically measurable length.
Frame builders/factories obviously do know downtube measurements on all the frames they build and a whole bunch of other frame dimensions are also ommitted from geo charts.
TBF I've been using downtube measurement as a comparison since waaay before reach and stack became the go to buzzwords/BS/misunderstood sizing measurements commonly used. As before that manufacturers used seat tube measurement, TT measurement and effective TT measurement in their geometry/sizing charts and fixating on just one of those was just as bad as the pointless debates over reach while missing out stack altogether we have now.
Fair. But I think folks like Reece Wilson and Amaury Pierron still look wild on 29" or mullets. So I guess it is both, rider and bike that need to match.
Wasn't Steve Jones from DIRT also pushing DT length as an important measurement since way back when? I remember becoming aware of it from him and it making so much sense. Measured my bikes and those I liked and found that it would work for me. Always thought it was sad that it never caught on.
I think Reece has gained the perfect balance in being comfortable riding flat out and loose partly from riding MX as a kid and partly from getting straight into DH following/riding with Ruaridh in the steep loose and slippy but often tight AF tracks surrounding them. But also from his enthusiasm for riding and just having fun on bikes
I think Amaury has a screw loose
both great to watch
I think Amaury has a screw loose
both great to watch
Last edited:
Dunno. Always though he was quite cyclical in what he pushed when at Dirt. He's well and truely in the harp on and on about "reach" but ignore stack camp now. And a lot of what he preaches about Ebike sizing nowadays is bollocks.
Him and Chris Porter refuse to even see that shorter mountain bikes still have merit. Steve was pretty fast back in his 30s. Neither are stylish or playful riders though so long stable bikes suit them but that's also why they both miss that long big wheeled bikes aren't the be all and end all of mtb.
Nah you need (reach² + stack²) + some headtube length + head angle kerfuckery to get the DT measurement. Or manufacturers could just print the damn number on geo charts if they're nice people.
Fuck I wanna be this meh
I do get what you're saying though. Racing was way more hectic and sketchy on the smaller wheels, even if the times were slower.
This is partying on the bike, not a race run! I am strictly talking runs agains the clock.Fuck I wanna be this meh
Do we know that the times were slower? Different courses, different bikes, often different riders.
I really want to see what a "modern" geometry 26" bike could do.
In reality it’s probably only a few seconds slower over a minute to run 26” over 29”. But race results = bike sales so 29” it is.
I find it quite funny that in the heyday of Freeride, bikes were pushed towards the idea of winch and drop. Super short, super high, with loads of travel. This informed the DH bikes and racers had to run all kinds of mods to slacken and speed the bikes up. Now racing is back at the forefront and many of the top Freeride guys are using old, shorter frames, 26” wheels and other mods to create bikes fit for purpose.
I imagine most recreational riders would actually prefer a nimble, Freeride based sled, over a full on DH race machine designed for today’s motorway tracks.