Yeah 48" wheelbase is f**king huge. My current bike is 47.1" (I'm 6'2" so not a midget) and even that's pushing it for too long really. I can live with it as is, but I'd prefer slightly shorter.
Session 88, whats up with the Dirt review
- Thread starter djamgils
- Start date
Well if one rides WC tracks that makes sense. I'm actualy 5'10'' and ride a 48'' WB bike and well there was one place it felt right... Maribor
In other places it was overkill. I know Jonsey rides a lot of places like that but regular blokes like us don't (even though I would like to change that in my case).It's not my argument it's his. I was just putting that out there because the previous poster was talking about how much Jones raved about Sam's bike.The only noticable differance between those rigs and production models is 2deg steepr HA that's only usefull for WC style very steep tracks so I think your argument is kidna invalid here
I'm with you guys, when I read that article, I was baffled by the comment about the Sunday. In issue 81 when Jones defends his point he says he's only comparing the production bikes. Not one off specially tuned race bikes.
You guys are talking like a 2 degree head angle change is a very minor geometry change over the stock bike. Changing the head angle by 2 degree's and lengthening the wb by a 20mm seems pretty big to me.
OK. I'm holding #79 in front of me right now. Page 106, third column over under "Beyond the Show" second paragraph down.
"This bike measures up. In terms of angles believe it or not this bike is closer to Sam Hill's bike than a production Sunday and therefore lines up remarkably close to the original Orange 224, also a benchmark bike that still has a huge command of the mountains. Gee Atherton's Commencal is also in a similar place to this bike. That's not to say that Hill or Atherton's bike should validate the geometry of the Trek because they are different designs."
I stand by my previous statement. If you don't believe me get out that issue and see for yourself what Steve Jones wrote. If he decided to go back on his observations in a later issue, that isn't my fault. (I don't have number 81 yet, will be getting it later today)
Like I said earlier, I'm taking all of this with a grain of salt so really, everyone's opinions will not hold ground to a rider actually riding it for himself/herself at their local slope.
And by the way, how many of us here have actually ridden SH's custom Sunday? How many of us actually talked to SH and Jacy closely about the details and ride characteristics of his bike? Some of you might not think Jones is a qualitative technical reviewer but I figure we have to give him points to his experience of riding bikes and courses most of us never had. I'm referring mainly to European WC courses and the Alps. I know there are a lot of Euro racers on here so maybe they could chime in. And if you've ridden SH's Sunday, well, you can go to hell.
Last edited:
Haha, nice.And if you've ridden SH's Sunday, well, you can go to hell.
I'm not defending it just passing along what was expressed in 81. The way I read it was that the comments about the outdated sunday that everyone found strange (including me) were about the production bike. I've never been a huge fan of dirt tests, or most bike mag tests for that matter.
OK. I'm holding #79 in front of me right now. Page 106, third column over under "Beyond the Show" second paragraph down.
"This bike measures up. In terms of angles believe it or not this bike is closer to Sam Hill's bike than a production Sunday and therefore lines up remarkably close to the original Orange 224, also a benchmark bike that still has a huge command of the mountains. Gee Atherton's Commencal is also in a similar place to this bike. That's not to say that Hill or Atherton's bike should validate the geometry of the Trek because they are different designs."
I stand by my previous statement. If you don't believe me get out that issue and see for yourself what Steve Jones wrote. If he decided to go back on his observations in a later issue, that isn't my fault. (I don't have number 81 yet, will be getting it later today)
Like I said earlier, I'm taking all of this with a grain of salt so really, everyone's opinions will not hold ground to a rider actually riding it for himself/herself at their local slope.
And by the way, how many of us here have actually ridden SH's custom Sunday? How many of us actually talked to SH and Jacy closely about the details and ride characteristics of his bike? Some of you might not think Jones is a qualitative technical reviewer but I figure we have to give him points to his experience of riding bikes and courses most of us never had. I'm referring mainly to European WC courses and the Alps. I know there are a lot of Euro racers on here so maybe they could chime in. And if you've ridden SH's Sunday, well, you can go to hell.
Yeah I remeber what he said but that makes little sense for normal riders. He raves about bikes that are not really lower or have shorter cs but only about the ones that are VERY slack and VERY long (ie. orange or the bikes of Sam and Gee). I think I understand from where the raving comes from but I think he didn't take into consideration that 95% of us dont race WC type trails where the extra stability at fast speeds and very steep terrain is needed.
How many of ppl here complained that their full blown dh rig lacks stability? It would be hard to find such complains. A 0.5 or maybe 1 steeper Ha on many bikes would be reasonable but going to 63 makes little sense for us regular ppl(or even 61 in one of Gee's settings). What's funny for me is that in all the other reviews He always raves about that for the uk trails the bikes need to be less agressive and suddenly he pops out with stating that a WC pro's geo is the best.
For me I find most bike are too long for what I want.
Well, I remember them testing out Gee's prototype Supreme DH bike (the green CG one with the sloped top tube). They mentioned that despite Dan and Gee running extra long stays with the adjusters to the max 10mm and the head angle to the slackest setting, those angle won't be on the production models since no "mortal" would be able to turn those rigs effectively.
I understand your arguments and I somewhat concur. My first reaction about Jones's review of the Session was that he was just being too biased and that this extreme optimism could be misconstrued as blatant pandering to Trek.
Ultimately, I appreciated his review for certain details and will take into consideration certain facts and numbers of the bike when I'm shopping for a race rig. DIRT is a good magazine by my standards. Gravity-oriented, good design, great pictures, and there's a lot of information in there to be had.
Of course, I remember someone on here or mtbr stating that riding on the east coast (N.America) you don't really need a full-blown downhill race bike (considering my inexperience, smaller stature, and frequency of race participation--4 races this past year, mostly shuttling).
Sorry for the novel.
Back to our usual mud-slinging.
I understand your arguments and I somewhat concur. My first reaction about Jones's review of the Session was that he was just being too biased and that this extreme optimism could be misconstrued as blatant pandering to Trek.
Ultimately, I appreciated his review for certain details and will take into consideration certain facts and numbers of the bike when I'm shopping for a race rig. DIRT is a good magazine by my standards. Gravity-oriented, good design, great pictures, and there's a lot of information in there to be had.
Of course, I remember someone on here or mtbr stating that riding on the east coast (N.America) you don't really need a full-blown downhill race bike (considering my inexperience, smaller stature, and frequency of race participation--4 races this past year, mostly shuttling).
Sorry for the novel.
Back to our usual mud-slinging.
1st. In newest dirt there is a comparison between Gee's bike and production model and well. 5mm longer CS + HA instead of 63-65 is at 61-63(none of us would probably need it).
2nd. Dirt is a great magazine by my standards but I don't really trust any reviews in any magazines as they all have to be more or less positive (meaning they can't really burn a bad product). The main problem with Jonsey review I have is that he is prasing a bike that in other reviews would be stated as unnecessary for uk trails (and all of his reviews are very uk oriented).
2nd. Dirt is a great magazine by my standards but I don't really trust any reviews in any magazines as they all have to be more or less positive (meaning they can't really burn a bad product). The main problem with Jonsey review I have is that he is prasing a bike that in other reviews would be stated as unnecessary for uk trails (and all of his reviews are very uk oriented).