Quantcast

Pole Bikes hates Ridemonkey

rpet

Turbo Monkey
Jun 9, 2003
3,046
348
El Lay
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.
 

djjohnr

Turbo Monkey
Apr 21, 2002
1,980
613
Northern California
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.
 

toodles

Turbo Monkey
Aug 24, 2004
2,846
1,125
Australia
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).
 

HardtailHack

used an iron once
Jan 20, 2009
2,387
273
Now adapting means a lot more exaggerated weight shifting than it did with shorter bikes.
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.
 

djjohnr

Turbo Monkey
Apr 21, 2002
1,980
613
Northern California
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:

-C-

Monkey
May 27, 2007
296
9
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 :)
 

Electric_City

The orangutans are loose!
Apr 14, 2007
1,517
376
. 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.
 

Happymtb.fr

Monkey
Feb 9, 2016
888
262
SWE
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...
 

dovbush66

Chimp
Aug 27, 2018
99
77
Ireland
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.
 

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
2,067
403
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! :weee:
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.
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
9,754
2,098
AK
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! :weee:
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?
 

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
2,067
403
So you are putting a fork on it that will allow you to ride it way harder than intended?
It is a 4X frame. I highly doubt I get anywhere near the max loads that these frames were intended to take. It is a fast little ripper for those in between trails where the enduro bike is too much but an XC bike is not burly enough if you want to hit the odd jump here or there.
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
9,754
2,098
AK
It is a 4X frame. I highly doubt I get anywhere near the max loads that these frames were intended to take. It is a fast little ripper for those in between trails where the enduro bike is too much but an XC bike is not burly enough if you want to hit the odd jump here or there.
For some reason i saw tracer....
 

slimshady

¡Mira, una ardilla!
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.
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.
 

jstuhlman

We noticed.
Dec 3, 2009
10,112
4,865
Cackalacka du Nord
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...
the old intense ss2 was an awesome little trailbike
 

scrublover

Turbo Monkey
Sep 1, 2004
1,065
1,422
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.
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
9,754
2,098
AK
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.
Does he Engage it?
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
9,754
2,098
AK
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.
You shut your dirty mouth.
 

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
2,067
403
the old intense ss2 was an awesome little trailbike
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.
 

Gary

"S" is for "neo-luddite"
Aug 27, 2002
2,843
877
UK
"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.
 

xy9ine

Turbo Monkey
Mar 22, 2004
2,847
237
vancouver eastside
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.
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
9,754
2,098
AK
I wanna go back to bullshit marketing and thinking the newest shock on the market is the best thing eva.
 

Gary

"S" is for "neo-luddite"
Aug 27, 2002
2,843
877
UK
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.
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:

rockofullr

confused
Jun 11, 2009
7,356
912
East Bay, Cali
"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.
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.
 

xy9ine

Turbo Monkey
Mar 22, 2004
2,847
237
vancouver eastside
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.
 

Gary

"S" is for "neo-luddite"
Aug 27, 2002
2,843
877
UK
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.
 

Gary

"S" is for "neo-luddite"
Aug 27, 2002
2,843
877
UK
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.
 

dovbush66

Chimp
Aug 27, 2018
99
77
Ireland
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
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.
 

Gary

"S" is for "neo-luddite"
Aug 27, 2002
2,843
877
UK
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.
 
Last edited:

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
2,067
403
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.
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.
 

toodles

Turbo Monkey
Aug 24, 2004
2,846
1,125
Australia
"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.
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.
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.

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.
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.
 

Gary

"S" is for "neo-luddite"
Aug 27, 2002
2,843
877
UK
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.
 

toodles

Turbo Monkey
Aug 24, 2004
2,846
1,125
Australia
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.
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.
 

Gary

"S" is for "neo-luddite"
Aug 27, 2002
2,843
877
UK
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.
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?
 

Gary

"S" is for "neo-luddite"
Aug 27, 2002
2,843
877
UK
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
 

toodles

Turbo Monkey
Aug 24, 2004
2,846
1,125
Australia
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?
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.
 

Gary

"S" is for "neo-luddite"
Aug 27, 2002
2,843
877
UK
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.
 
Last edited: