Quantcast

Random new bike thread

Lelandjt

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2008
2,514
827
Breckenridge, CO/Lahaina,HI
Yeah, I have been waiting for the new Druid for a while.

I think it's a very nice revision, but I am both surprised and sad to see they kept the seat tube length at 420mm for a Medium. With the new longer dropper posts, I was expecting all manufacturer to start reducing their STL.
I'm in the opposite position. My new Scott Genius size large has a 485 reach, longer than the 460-470 I usually ride and getting close to the 490-500 of XL Santa Cruzs that I think don't want to manual or go around tight turns when I try them. So I definitely don't want to go to the 510 reach of the XL. While setting up the bike last night with a 200mm Wolftooth seatpost I ended up with it right at the max height line. I couldn't believe the seat tube was almost too short on a large for a 6'1" rider. I'm a little concerned that geometry is now being pushed by intermediate riders who want max stability. Most pros are now running bikes a size smaller than weekend riders. I've seen in other sports when equipment development stops being pushed by the pros and starts catering exclusively to the masses and it becomes hard to find gear that works well for high performance.
 
Last edited:

FlipSide

Turbo Monkey
Sep 24, 2001
1,386
820
I'm in the opposite position. My new Scott Genius size large has a 485 reach, longer than the 460-470 I usually ride and getting close to the 490-500 of XL Santa Cruzs that I think don't want to manual or go around tight turns when I try them. So I definitely don't want to go to the 510 reach of the XL. While setting up the bike last night with a 200mm Wolftooth seatpost I ended up with it right at the max height line. I couldn't believe the seat tube was almost too short on a large for a 6'1" rider. I'm a little concerned that geometry is now being pushed by intermediate riders who want max stability. Most pros are now running bikes a size smaller than weekend riders. I've seen in other sports when equipment development stops being pushed by the pros and starts catering exclusively to the masses and it becomes hard to find gear that works well for high performance.
Indeed, we are in the opposite position. I have ridden several small frame in the past, but in retrospect, they were all too short for me. The medium frames are fitting me much better, but not being able to fit a 180mm dropper on 420mm STL frame can be a bummer.

It's nothing new that mtb fitting can rapidly become challenging for both tall and short people, but the angle you bring regarding pros vs weekend warriors is very interesting! I guess the adjustable reach we are starting to see on some bikes are likely to become more mainstream in the future.
 

konifere

Monkey
Dec 20, 2021
531
661
I am 5'8" running a 467mm reach Large Meta AM and it's perfect, but I couldn't fit more than a 150mm OneUp dropper (like 10mm short of the 180). It's perfectly fine for me though.

i think that people are too stuck with reach numbers to see how comfortable they feel, but it's the effective top tube that matters. If you have a super steep seat tube angle, 460mm reach can feel short, but if you have a 71* STA, it can be too long. I've found that 620mm is the sweet spot for me for the ETT. That's what I'm checking for sizing when buying a new bike. If the STA is steeper I can go for a longer reach (if wanted), but I don't want to get a 460mm reach with 90* STA and feel cramped on like 580mm ETT.

Reach has an influence on the overall wheelbase and stability, but is not super relevant for sizing IMO.
 

Happymtb.fr

Turbo Monkey
Feb 9, 2016
1,913
1,268
SWE
@konifere
I respectfully disagree with you on that one. As I see it, ETT is a good measure for the sitting position, reach is for the standing position.
At 5'9" I once had a bike with 630mm of ETT and 475mm of reach. The sitting position was nice but the length of reach was too much for me: I couldn't bring the bike along and felt like a passenger as soon as the speed went down for tight and twisty stuff. It was incredibly fast and confidence inspiring in chunky straight lines on the other hand. My own made theory about it is that I was too stretched between the pedals and the handlebar and couldn't move around enough because of my limited strength and flexibility. With the wisdom of hindsight a narrower bar than 785mm might have helped...

All in all both ETT and reach are important parameters for sizing.
 

konifere

Monkey
Dec 20, 2021
531
661
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm always up to change my point of view, and you're right! I would not buy a 400mm reach bike with a 620mm ETT (anymore, because in '10 that was probably it!).

I should have said that I choose my reach for feel and desired stability level and ETT for seated pedaling. When I started DH racing in '99, I bought large bikes to get the wheelbase/stability needed and it's still true today I guess.

We could maybe conclude that ETT is the best way to figure out seated-pedaling sizing and reach is the best way to find out stability-and-bike-feel sizing? Now I say that and someone else will come with another good point and I'll have to change my stance again haha! All in all, thinking about it, it's all a complex mix of desired characteristics.

We're lucky to have that much choice nowadays for geometry, but sadly this choice is often narrowed down because of headset routing or other industry nonsense. :close:
 
Last edited:

Gary

"S" is for "neo-luddite"
Aug 27, 2002
7,639
5,559
UK
ETT still needs seat tube angle/effective seat tube angle, seat tube offset and saddle height taken into account to be any use determining seated pedalling sizing from a geometry chart unless you're that ONE Corgi™ legged freak of nature who's saddle at full pedalling extension is the exact same height as his top headset cup.
Plus modern bikes actual seat post angles intentionally put your (arse) position in a completely different place to old skool with regards to your BB.
Probably easier just to go ride what you have and not bother ever buying a new bike again ;)
#TheresNothingwrongwith26
 
Last edited:

konifere

Monkey
Dec 20, 2021
531
661
I'm not Corgi™ legged but close I guess since I usually have the top of my saddle pretty much level with the top of my grips at full extension. And I like to keep my bikes 5+ years/until they break so I don't have to do the chart studies too often!
 

6thElement

Schrodinger's Immigrant
Jul 29, 2008
15,950
13,203
ETT still needs seat tube angle/effective seat tube angle, seat tube offset and saddle height taken into account to be any use determining seated pedalling sizing from a geometry chart unless you're that ONE Corgi™ legged freak of nature who's saddle at full pedalling extension is the exact same height as his top headset cup.
Plus modern bikes actual seat post angles intentionally put your (arse) position in a completely different place to old skool with regards to your BB.
Probably easier just to go ride what you have and not bother ever buying a new bike again ;)
#TheresNothingwrongwith26
I'm not Corgi™ legged but close I guess since I usually have the top of my saddle pretty much level with the top of my grips at full extension. And I like to keep my bikes 5+ years/until they break so I don't have to do the chart studies too often!
Why are you all picking on @toodles ? :D
 

Gary

"S" is for "neo-luddite"
Aug 27, 2002
7,639
5,559
UK
I'm not Corgi™ legged but close I guess since I usually have the top of my saddle pretty much level with the top of my grips at full extension. And I like to keep my bikes 5+ years/until they break so I don't have to do the chart studies too often!
Yeah. level with your grips is a good bit higher than where ETT is measured. unless you're using an extremely negative rise stem and flat bar.
 

Lelandjt

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2008
2,514
827
Breckenridge, CO/Lahaina,HI
I am 5'8" running a 467mm reach Large Meta AM and it's perfect, but I couldn't fit more than a 150mm OneUp dropper (like 10mm short of the 180). It's perfectly fine for me though.

i think that people are too stuck with reach numbers to see how comfortable they feel, but it's the effective top tube that matters. If you have a super steep seat tube angle, 460mm reach can feel short, but if you have a 71* STA, it can be too long. I've found that 620mm is the sweet spot for me for the ETT. That's what I'm checking for sizing when buying a new bike. If the STA is steeper I can go for a longer reach (if wanted), but I don't want to get a 460mm reach with 90* STA and feel cramped on like 580mm ETT.

Reach has an influence on the overall wheelbase and stability, but is not super relevant for sizing IMO.
The difference between us is you size a bike sitting, I do it standing. How a bike handles when descending and turning are my priorities. Reach is front end length and that affects handling. Combined with chainstay and head angle those tell me everything I need to know about how a bike will handle (BB drop & HT length are so close among most bikes). I then set my saddle up relative to the BB to put me where I like to be over the cranks.

Edit: I see we all now agree on this.
 
Last edited:

canadmos

Cake Tease
May 29, 2011
20,458
19,462
Canaderp
Yeah LOL

We complain about other brands and their expensive $4000-$5000 frame kits.

Then along comes Giant with a Lee Roy Jenkins holy my beer moment. :rofl:

How long do you think they've been designing this frame? It's carbon, while lots of others are moving back to aluminum. No headset cable tourism.
 

Flo33

Turbo Monkey
Mar 3, 2015
2,066
1,306
Styria
I agree, it looks nice. too bad they've given up on their strong value for money position though.
I thought $ 8k for a complete bike with decent usable parts isn't seen as overly expensive nowadays. Not that I would pay that sum, but how much is a Demo, Phoenix or a V10 in comparison?
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,889
24,474
media blackout
I thought $ 8k for a complete bike with decent usable parts isn't seen as overly expensive nowadays. Not that I would pay that sum, but how much is a Demo, Phoenix or a V10 in comparison?
compared to the price point for the last iteration of the glory this is a significant jump. the last gen glory was one of the least expense DH bikes from a brand that wasn't consumer direct.

demo frame is $3k, builds are $5600 to $7100.

v10 frame is $4100. builds are $7150 to $9150.
 

canadmos

Cake Tease
May 29, 2011
20,458
19,462
Canaderp
I thought $ 8k for a complete bike with decent usable parts isn't seen as overly expensive nowadays. Not that I would pay that sum, but how much is a Demo, Phoenix or a V10 in comparison?
Its not bad, if compared to the cost of the frame I guess. For us plebs here in Canada, looks like the retail price will be $9300.

Demo ranges from $6999 to $8999.
V10 ranges from $9349 to $11999
 

slyfink

Turbo Monkey
Sep 16, 2008
9,324
5,076
Ottawa, Canada
compared to the price point for the last iteration of the glory this is a significant jump. the last gen glory was one of the least expense DH bikes from a brand that wasn't consumer direct.

demo frame is $3k, builds are $5600 to $7100.

v10 frame is $4100. builds are $7150 to $9150.
Canyon Sender starts at $7000
Commençal Supreme V5 starts at $5700
YT Tues Core 2 is on their site for $2800 - down from the regular $3500 at the moment - which seems crazy to me, even at full price.

*all USD, I haven't looked at the Canadian sites yet...
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,889
24,474
media blackout
compared to the price point for the last iteration of the glory this is a significant jump. the last gen glory was one of the least expense DH bikes from a brand that wasn't consumer direct.

demo frame is $3k, builds are $5600 to $7100.

v10 frame is $4100. builds are $7150 to $9150.
just noticed the frame only edition also includes a factory fox 40 and DHX2, so that's not quite as bad as i was originally thinking
 

vivisectxi

Monkey
Jan 14, 2021
473
577
yeast van
yeah, incorporates pretty much all the tweaks i'd chose to make my TR more better. would pref mullet, but i'm sure the boys at wrp will whittle something up in short order.
 

Gary

"S" is for "neo-luddite"
Aug 27, 2002
7,639
5,559
UK
The previous iteration of either the SX or AM
As is fashionable it looks more like they've just moved the goal posts.
Yeah it's shorter travel but with the addition of the reach and angle adjustable headset the pinkbike blurb mentions it's headtube being open to it looks like the new frame could cover a pretty similar geometry/sizing range to the old ones. No?
 

toodles

ridiculously corgi proportioned
Aug 24, 2004
5,502
4,754
Australia
As is fashionable it looks more like they've just moved the goal posts.
Yeah it's shorter travel but with the addition of the reach and angle adjustable headset the pinkbike blurb mentions it's headtube being open to it looks like the new frame could cover a pretty similar geometry/sizing range to the old ones. No?
Not 100% sure hey. Its a good 20mm shorter in reach than the old one at the XL end, which is gonna leave really tall customers pissed I imagine. Wonder if they'll do an XXL one day.

For a medium dude like me they're 10-15mm shorter depending on the flip chip position, which I'm fine with. Reach aside, the steeper HA (61.4/64.5 vs 63.6) and the 20mm shorter WB seems to be better for twisty stuff which I'm also keen on. I'm biased towards the stuff I prefer obviously, so wondering if it will leave some people wanting for really burly singlecrown offerings.

As some people in the comments have pointed out - it seems likely they'll punch out bigger and burlier model soon for the FR and park rat crew that want single-crown bikes.