Yeah but long WBs are great for that "bow-legged pre-skid the opposite direction of the berm" trick that is so popular in videos these days.
Pole Bikes hates Ridemonkey
- Thread starter norbar
- Start date
I think the positives of longer reach/wheelbases compared to 5 years ago are worth it, but it does mean that demoing a bike before buying has become critical. Previously I could look at a geo chart, know the frame was in the ballpark and then adapt quickly once I was on it. Now adapting means a lot more exaggerated weight shifting than it did with shorter bikes.
I agree and think test-riding has become more of a necessity than ever before as geo gets more extreme. I'm still a little torn though - I find the longer and slacker bikes definitely more stable than before, but I wish there were more opportunities for old school playful geo bikes. The longer reach and wheelbase makes things more stable and planted, but there's always a market for the more nimble and playful bikes.
Maybe we will see more manufacturers doing a Commencal and developing both long travel "race" rigs (Supreme DH), and more playful park bike options (Furious).
plz change thread title to “ridemonkey hates pole bikes.” thank.
FTFY
As a fat bastard I find this to be the opposite for me, steeper STA keeps the front wheel from pushing when riding seated. I don't have to slide forward on the seat and do some sort of weird torturous elbows down crunch the whole way up climbs to stop the front lifting. When I stand up I am almost* in the middle of the bike and the weight shift between sitting and standing is reduced a heap so your suspension can be tuned for the downs and still be tolerable on the ups.
*As mentioned previously I drew up my bike up a bit short, thought going from 417mm to 468mm reach would have been enough but I was wrong.
I totally agree on steep seat tubes - I love them. I find the long reach/wb issue to be the required weight shifts for cornering traction if your natural placement between the wheels isn't spot on for your body geometry. It feels awesome when the placement is bang on though.
Last edited:
I'm also a fan of the steep SA thing going on right now.
Been on a Fuel 9.9 for the last couple of years, but i'm quite tall so the 'effective' 74.7 puts you fairly far out the back of the bike at full height, with a reasonable reach of 465mm it was certainly spacious though.
Still have the Fuel as my light trail bike, but built a Sentinel, which at 76 felt noticeably different, maybe combined with the (much) slacker front end, it felt glued to the ground, where the Fuel can get a bit wandery when winching up real steep stuff.
Then went even further, on a bike with a 78 degree SA now (and long stays) & despite it's weight & sheer size, it feels like it would go up anything. I'd quite like to try a light, short travel version of it now, as I still love the Fuel for feel, as a 26lb trail bike but combine it with a steeper SA. Would probably be great
Been on a Fuel 9.9 for the last couple of years, but i'm quite tall so the 'effective' 74.7 puts you fairly far out the back of the bike at full height, with a reasonable reach of 465mm it was certainly spacious though.
Still have the Fuel as my light trail bike, but built a Sentinel, which at 76 felt noticeably different, maybe combined with the (much) slacker front end, it felt glued to the ground, where the Fuel can get a bit wandery when winching up real steep stuff.
Then went even further, on a bike with a 78 degree SA now (and long stays) & despite it's weight & sheer size, it feels like it would go up anything. I'd quite like to try a light, short travel version of it now, as I still love the Fuel for feel, as a 26lb trail bike but combine it with a steeper SA. Would probably be great
The ONE good thing about The Industry right now is that someone out there probably makes one like that. Look around and don't be brand specific.. I'd quite like to try a light, short travel version of it now, as I still love the Fuel for feel, as a 26lb trail bike but combine it with a steeper SA. Would probably be great
A guy I know build a FS DJ bike as his trail bike, basically short wheelbase, short travel and steep-ish HA. He said the bike is his favourite trail bike and by trail he means trails in Norway which doesn't lack steepness, rocks and roots...
Got me thinking... any bikes around like the old SC blur 4x and pivot m4x?
In or around 120mm travel, 26'' wheels, low and slack as fuck, something like a lowered 36 or lyrik up front and a coil out back. That's my perfect bike for 99% of irish trails anyway.
I am running an Intense Tazer (not the E-bike!!!), last generation, long TT, 100 mm travel, with currently a 120 mm travel fork. Sooooo fun! 
Plan to upgrade to a 150 mm fork and change the EC for a ZS headset. Should result in the same stack height but with an even slacker HA.
Plan to upgrade to a 150 mm fork and change the EC for a ZS headset. Should result in the same stack height but with an even slacker HA.
So you are putting a fork on it that will allow you to ride it way harder than intended?I am running an Intense Tazer (not the E-bike!!!), last generation, long TT, 100 mm travel, with currently a 120 mm travel fork. Sooooo fun!
Plan to upgrade to a 150 mm fork and change the EC for a ZS headset. Should result in the same stack height but with an even slacker HA.
For some reason i saw tracer....
If you want a long TT, don't mind the burlyness and have the extra cash, Black Market still makes the Killswitch. The L size was ahead of its time on terms of reach. A friend used it as his trail bike with a 140mm fork for a long time, and it was a blast.
the old intense ss2 was an awesome little trailbike
So basically buy the 4-5"-ish xc/trail bike of choice. One size larger than you would normally go. Pop in a -2 degree Works Components headset. That fixes the longer reach from the one size larger frame. Over-fork 20-40m. Ride. Replace when it breaks.
Vorsprung's Tuesday Tune video on geo is pretty cool.
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/video-understanding-advanced-bike-geometry-the-tuesday-tune-25.html
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/video-understanding-advanced-bike-geometry-the-tuesday-tune-25.html
As much as I like Intense, no! Too heavy, too slack ST angle, not long enough seat tube for longer travel droppers, crank-chainstay interference with lighter weight cranks in longer than 165 mm. The last generation 26" Uzzi is all the fun geometry of the SS2 in a better climbing package, no matter what DIRT writes. I wouldn't call the SS2 a trail bike to begin with either, maybe enduro but it really is a fun park bike.
"spread"? FFS! it's the fucking downtube measurement. You know... an actual real life non virtual measurable tube that happens to connect the crank and steering axes and what I've been using to compare bikes sizes for decades.
I generally like Steve's videos and articles but this was a lot like being taught to suck eggs with a lot of terminology I wouldn't ever use to describe eggs or sucking.
i've always thought that downtube length should be the standard for front center measurement. bike industry - why ya gotta make things so complicated?
i like the way steve presented this; fairly intuitive stuff, but clearly demonstrated reasoning.
i like the way steve presented this; fairly intuitive stuff, but clearly demonstrated reasoning.
Fit an angleset/offset bushings to either a Trek ticket S, Canyon Stitched 720 or TY play.
Infact. Do spesh still do the SX? Pretty sure they still did a couple of years back
I have an old model Rose Jester (the horst link one) I run a coil U -turn Pike on at 140mm it descends great and 120 it's better for steeper lips and arseing about. BB isn't what I'd consider low though
Last edited:
Yeah! Good thing there is a nice straight tube that always proceeds at the same angle on each bike!
Downtube measurement means nothing if you don't know the stack and reach.
center of bb to center of bottom hs race is a fixed straight line. it's really all the info i'd need for FC comparison. don't really care about stack, as HT's are all pretty short these days, and i'll achieve the same bar height with rise / spacers regardless of the measured stack.
Good thing my metal tape measure isn't fucking bent, eh @rockofullr
Downtube means everything I need it to. no matter what height you have your bars they always spin around that same steerer axis.
When comparing frames axle to crown is needed. H/A is handy (but assuming similar style of frame it's going to be a similar H/A anyway)
Stack isn't actually all that handy at all (even along with reach). unless you have every stem on every bike you own slammed with a zero stack headet and no spacers.
Read what @xy9ne said. He put it more politely than I would but it's the same as I've done for decades.
Downtube means everything I need it to. no matter what height you have your bars they always spin around that same steerer axis.
When comparing frames axle to crown is needed. H/A is handy (but assuming similar style of frame it's going to be a similar H/A anyway)
Stack isn't actually all that handy at all (even along with reach). unless you have every stem on every bike you own slammed with a zero stack headet and no spacers.
Read what @xy9ne said. He put it more politely than I would but it's the same as I've done for decades.
your feet and stance pivot around the BB centre axis
your hands pivot around the steering axis
it's the positions of those axes that matter. not where a random point (hint:headtubes aren't all the same length) on the steering axis meets the BB axis via a right angle.
your hands pivot around the steering axis
it's the positions of those axes that matter. not where a random point (hint:headtubes aren't all the same length) on the steering axis meets the BB axis via a right angle.
Aye that seems the way to go, especially since I can those bikes second hand. Pivot still makes the m4x and it ticks all my boxes but 1800$ for a frame is pure stupid.
Ticket frames are only a grand new. Stitched not much more. SX frames do come up on Pinkbike from time to time in pristine condition and no one wants them (despite their obvious awesomeness) so they're massively haggleable. If you find one do check it's Geometry and shock length spec. Some years are suitable for what you want to do. some not so much.
correction £1199 for a ticket now so about the same as the stitched. Tickets were £999 from when released 'til 2017. I've been so close to buying one too many times.
correction £1199 for a ticket now so about the same as the stitched. Tickets were £999 from when released 'til 2017. I've been so close to buying one too many times.
Last edited:
Rocky Mountain Slayer SS, Commencal Meta 4X and old YT Play would be other options.
Tazer on the baby-colored site: https://www.pinkbike.com/buysell/2449564/?page=0&lastredirect
Make sure that is really the M (long TT) when you want to buy.
I agree its very similar to the downtube measurement, but I don't think downtube measurement is as useful. It is well worth using the centre of the TOP of the headtube versus the bottom for effective stance/spread/whatever bullshit you call it.
As head angles have gotten slacker, the difference in HT length means that the reach figures change by quite a bit just on HT length. The Giant Reign for example jumps 20mm in HT length between the M and L sizes, and with a 64.5º HA that affects the hand-foot "spread/stance" measurement by 10mm. Now a lot of riders really couldn't care about 10mm here or there, but it makes a noticeable difference IMO.
There's no way to say this without coming across as a pedantic dickhead, but again - its a substantial difference between bar height achieved via stack/spacers versus bar height. With a 64.5º HA again, the difference between a 20mm rise bar and a 35mm rise bar at the same actual bar height is about 9mm of reach (shorter reach for the 20mm bar vs the 35, assuming they're rolled straight upwards).
Again, maybe not a crazy amount, but I bet most people would notice the difference in a 9mm stem length increase. I'm a picky annoying pedantic dickhead though.
You're missing the point Toodles.
Both me and Xy9ne mean that if we are looking for a DH bike we already know we want a 63deg ish H/A so the downtube measurement from our current DH frame is a good measure of any new frame we see in the flesh.
If I want a new dirt jump bike I know it's going to have a 69deg ish H/A so the same applys there.
and so on for BMX, Road, trail, Derp, and even EVIL Eebs.
Have you ever measured reach or stack manually?
Probably not. More than likely you've just blindly believed the numbers you've read in the manufacturers geometry chart.
We didn't ever need more virtual measurements to determine frame fit.
Both me and Xy9ne mean that if we are looking for a DH bike we already know we want a 63deg ish H/A so the downtube measurement from our current DH frame is a good measure of any new frame we see in the flesh.
If I want a new dirt jump bike I know it's going to have a 69deg ish H/A so the same applys there.
and so on for BMX, Road, trail, Derp, and even EVIL Eebs.
Have you ever measured reach or stack manually?
Probably not. More than likely you've just blindly believed the numbers you've read in the manufacturers geometry chart.
We didn't ever need more virtual measurements to determine frame fit.
Thats exactly my point.
If you measure the downtube length and compare from bike to bike, if the head tube is 20mm longer your hands will be 10mm further back.
I agree reach and stack are mostly useless (except for using trig to calculate the stance/stretch/whatever word you use). I'm just saying downtube measurements aren't any better unless the HT length remains fairly similar. The Giant Glory frames had some ridiculously tiny 90mm HT length or something, and the M3 frame I had had something like a 135mm HT. At the same DT length, the bars would be nearly a frame size closer to the back of the bike.
Measuring from the BB to the centre of the top of the head tube, in a straight line is a better indication of your actual-hand foot spacing IMO.
I measure up most stuff myself, because as I explained earlier - I'm a pedantic dweeb who likes to measure stuff.
only if you're certain kind of special and don't drop the bars on the new frame by that 20mm so they're in the position you already know suits you.
Bit of a schoolboy error don't you think?
when I buy a new roadbike these days I can only buy race genoetry frames becuase punter geometry frames all now have huge headtubes. (Taking a Giant Defy Vs TCR as a mainstream example. the angles, wheelbase, stays and length are often really close and perfectly acceptible for good fast road/racebike handling on both but the Defy in the same length might have a 50mm longer headtube which to me would feel hellish)
I'm never going to race on the road but I like a lot of bar drop.
Taking headtube length into consideration is no different when buying an mtb frame
I'm never going to race on the road but I like a lot of bar drop.
Taking headtube length into consideration is no different when buying an mtb frame
Nope. That is at the same bar height measured from the ground. Thats exactly my point - people making schoolboy errors ;-)
If you space up the stem it is the same, but if you use different rise bars to get the bar height instead you end up changing the reach.
which is why i said "drop the bars" rather than "fit lower rise bars"
you know fine downtube is a useful ACTUAL measurement that doesn't involve balancing two tape measures while holding two sprit levels and a set square to find in the real world and be useful..
I was using downtube measurement as a size guide when frames were being sold based on toptube lengths and even more worryingly seattube length as their size guide.
you know fine downtube is a useful ACTUAL measurement that doesn't involve balancing two tape measures while holding two sprit levels and a set square to find in the real world and be useful..
I was using downtube measurement as a size guide when frames were being sold based on toptube lengths and even more worryingly seattube length as their size guide.
Last edited: