My Interbike Top 5
- Thread starter leprechaun
- Start date
Aren't you the nicest thing? Some people simply want a true mini dh bike = a lighter bike with less travell but with dh geo. I know about quite a few tracks it would work on.
Bingo. 64/65*, 6" of travel, and about a 7 lb frame w/ shock. The company that drops something like that is going to have a hit on their hands.
I have a 67* and am very tempted to make up one of those 1" headtube extender things that Barel had. I had originally planned on getting a tall ass crown race machined up, but I realized that the steerer tube on my 36 tapers too soon above the crown to make it tall enough and still have contact.
Someone on rm made them for socoms and sunday but they may fit your frame. I'm pretty sure k9 industries also sells them but they've got stupid prices.
I think the closest to that now is the intense SS for 2010 and it may be the first intense for a long time that i really like.
There are companies like that, well sorta. Quite a few companies have 5.5-6" travel bikes that have 1.5 HT's at around 67 that are able to run K9 ARC's which will get them around 65degrees.
A couple which come to mind; Banshee/Mythic Rune, Morewood Mbuzi, Corsair Marque (66deg's with their angled headset)...
I'm nice to people! I'm mean/skeptical toward stupid ideas though. If you don't need more than 6" travel you surely don't need a 65 or 64 deg HA. The only reason to have that HA is to have a smaller HA switch from DH bike to "mini DH bike." But anyone who rides bikes a lot should know that slacker HA isn't needed on a short travel bike, because if the terrain doesn't require that much suspension action, it can't possibly require such slowed-down steering.
I realize that this is a hot button issue -slash- fad at RM right now, to salivate after "mini-DH bikes" as if they're really needed. Good riders don't need that sort of setup. I'm sorta surprised that with all the skilled DH riders here on RM, there are people who say they need a bike with 3 or 2 deg slacker HA without even riding the existing HA and seeing how well it works.
Bench racing... blaaaaah. Stupid idea.
Using your logic I should seriously consider insulting you.
The fact that you haven't seen a fast/steep trail with less gnar doesn't mean they don't exist. Also some people simply like the feel of a slack bike. Not because they are pussies but because of personal preference and possibly a more forward positioned riding style.
Also if you belive that a skilled rider doesn't need a slacker ha than Barell must be seriously less skilled than 3/4 of the other riders considering his mondraker goes up to 59.5deg while most pros ride much steeper. What a looser... Seriously? I understand that a large number of people go for slack ha because of a fad but apparently bashing it is a same kind of a fad (same for people bashing lighter bikes when the whole idea was still reasonable)
here's a stupid idea. In SoCal we have a ton of epic Dh trails that can only be accessed by climbing to them. So it makes sense to have a lighter, shorter travel bike for climbs but with DH geo for the decents. Nagaradema and I ride a lot of the same trails and we're both in it for the DH but, like I said, we have to climb to the trailheads. I can ride about 20 miles and get 4 solid, long, steep, rocky descents and 4 long fire road/single track climbs, we don't have rolling single track, either you're going straight up or straight down. I like having a bike with a slack HA because our local trails are extremely steep, steeper than anywhere else i've ever ridden, maybe you've never been to LA to see how big and steep the mountains are that surround us? Still think wishing for a 65 HA is a bad idea? I think it's perfect because that's what i've been running for a while, and i would consider myself to be a pretty good rider.
Last edited:
norbar -- you have created an image of me in your mind, and that image is what you want to "seriously insult."
you have no idea what kinds of trails I ride, what types I build. I'd wager to say that I routinely ride steeper terrain than most RM members. you'd have no way of knowing this. not without meeting me in person and riding my trails. I'm speaking from experience, and my experience is that steepness is not the only reason to have a slack HA.
my most recent trail was finished 2 seasons ago. I took a group of my region's DH/FR riders up there, their only comment as a group was "it's too steep, I had too many situations where I thought I would crash from the steep off-camber turns." if you ever have ridden the steep fall-line trails of Nelson BC you will have an idea what I'm talking about -- they've all ridden those trails.
I build trails to make me sharpen my steep terrain skills, especially steep corners. I know what is required to slow down in time to corner a steep sketchy turn at speed, in control.
besides, what sort of trail is so steep it requires 63 deg HA but only 6" or 5" of travel? a near-vertical asphalt path?
............
W4S, my comment applies to you as well. don't try to "out-regionalize" me by saying I don't know what steep is. you don't know what I know. you're guessing, and guessing badly.
maybe you people who are attacking me are just imagining I'm Napoleon Dynamite. good for you, it makes your attacks feel valid. don't be angry when you learn that you can actually ride 67 deg HA with 5" rear travel on the same things you can ride with 63 deg HA with 5" rear travel!
what you think you need, and what you need -- different things.
you have no idea what kinds of trails I ride, what types I build. I'd wager to say that I routinely ride steeper terrain than most RM members. you'd have no way of knowing this. not without meeting me in person and riding my trails. I'm speaking from experience, and my experience is that steepness is not the only reason to have a slack HA.
my most recent trail was finished 2 seasons ago. I took a group of my region's DH/FR riders up there, their only comment as a group was "it's too steep, I had too many situations where I thought I would crash from the steep off-camber turns." if you ever have ridden the steep fall-line trails of Nelson BC you will have an idea what I'm talking about -- they've all ridden those trails.
I build trails to make me sharpen my steep terrain skills, especially steep corners. I know what is required to slow down in time to corner a steep sketchy turn at speed, in control.
besides, what sort of trail is so steep it requires 63 deg HA but only 6" or 5" of travel? a near-vertical asphalt path?
............
W4S, my comment applies to you as well. don't try to "out-regionalize" me by saying I don't know what steep is. you don't know what I know. you're guessing, and guessing badly.
maybe you people who are attacking me are just imagining I'm Napoleon Dynamite. good for you, it makes your attacks feel valid. don't be angry when you learn that you can actually ride 67 deg HA with 5" rear travel on the same things you can ride with 63 deg HA with 5" rear travel!
what you think you need, and what you need -- different things.
Last edited:
My little bike has a 65° head angle.
anything can be ridden on a 71 ha steel hardtail with canti brakes, too, i used to do it, does that mean we should still do it that way?
believe me, i'm not trying to out rationalize you and i don't post on ridemonkey to validate anything, i'm not 16, i'm merely stating my opinion that small bikes with DH geo make sense for some people. if it doesnt for you then fine.
No I'm thinking about a person who insults others based only on as you say "your experiance"
Some people like the feel of steeper bikes and I acknowledge that though I think that most of the current bikes are to steep while I could to the same as you and based on my experiance call you an idiot because I feel better on slack stuff.
Also Steep trails have to be also reasonably fast. I know quite a few trails that are very steep but are too tight and then its obivious that a steeper ha would help. Different trails/bikers different need. Why do you find there is a need to insult anyone. I can think of quite a lot of euro trails that would feel much better on a 6-7 65HA bike (not 5'' though I still see a place for such bikes).
I've also never said there is a need for 63deg ha in a 5-6 bike so stop pulling numbers out of your ass. It's childish.
Also as W4S said - You can ride most trails on anything, I've seen guys on cromo, rigid frames with cantilevers in winterberg bikepark and they were having a blast. Does that mean that we all need to buy such bikes or that other bikes wont make us faster?
Ben - actualy your voltage was one of the bikes I was thinking about. If I had no money to visit the alps and some czech trails it'd be a perfect bike for our local dh trails. I know quite a few people are really tempted to go that way.
Bullsh*t. Anything can be ridden safely on a 6" bike. ANYTHING. Not everything can be ridden safely on a bike with a steep and dive-y front end. My 6" bike is 64 degrees right now, possibly a hair slacker. I wouldn't have it any other way for "mini-DH" purposes. A 6" bike set up very efficiently can be just as fast as a DH bike through 95% of DH terrain, if not faster in many areas.
Some of us actually like to ride and corner fast occasionally. Slacker head angles drift wonderfully.
Nags is surely not a "no talent hack either". He's also 6'7 or something. Riders that tall require some unique geo - longer chainstays, slacker head angles, not just longer top tubes.
what is this sh!tstorm of intranets egos that has replaced information about Interbike?