[Gary]

Since we're talking about Capras any Capra owners, @Gary , figure out what to do with the goofy front derailur mount? I pulled it off and there's a raw aluminum bracket under it. Dafuq am I supposed to do with this thing lol

Go full #ENDURO of course bro...

One of these:
https://www.tredz.co.uk/.BBB-BBC-90-CO2-Hold-Bottle-Cage_60322.htm

Rather handily bolts straight onto those redundant F/Mech adapter threads.



My Capra CF came with a blanking plate and the adapter for the mount. Contact YT for one of those.

 

[rockofullr]

https://www.bikerumor.com/2014/05/09/review-mrp-decapitator-bottle-opener/

This is why I love you guys!

I've got one of those installed... Haven't used it.

How? Lol

 

[Gary]

£30 for a bottle opener?

FFS!

Spend that £30 on this if you can't work out how to open a bottle without a bottle opener*.

*most flat pedals will open bottles nicely

 

[mykel]

If you can't open a bottle of beer with a flat rock, stout stick (hardwood preferably) seat belt buckle, the lighter you used for the safety meeting mid ride, or whatever else is at hand - Please put down the beer, and turn in your man card.

 

[Westy]

If you can't open a bottle of beer with a flat rock, stout stick (hardwood preferably) seat belt buckle, the lighter you used for the safety meeting mid ride, or whatever else is at hand - Please put down the beer, and turn in your man card.

Plenty of good beer available in a can these days. Amazing times we live in.

 

[HAB]

Plenty of good beer available in a can these days. Amazing times we live in.

Cans are much better for mid-ride packability too.

 

[Westy]

Cans are much better for mid-ride packability too.

And they cool down quicker if you have the luxury of a mountain stream or bit of snow.

 

[mtg]

Ok, I now see what you mean. Mtg here wrote that he limited the travel of his Smash to 140mm in order to not compromise the geometry. If I remember well his bike has rather short chainstays, steep seat tube angle and middle of the pack bb-height.

Have you also considered a slightly rearward axel-path to solve this equation?

Correct. 29ers need more BB drop, plus being a larger diameter wheel, the seat tube to tire clearance at bottom out gets used up pretty quickly. You have to choose the amount of wheel travel, BB height, chainstay length, seat tube geo, axle path, and tire size compatibility to make it all work. I chose not to compromise with a slack actual seat tube angle, long chainstays, a BB that was too tall, or a goofy axle path.
Adding to what Brian said, many other long travel 29ers move the seat tube out of the way to make it work. However, even with a steep effective angle (which is measured at roughly the saddle height used for descending), they usually have very slack actual angles where the saddle is pretty far back for climbing, and/or the cockpit length changes too much when moving the saddle up/down.

 

[Lelandjt]

But they don't need to be so "actually slack". The designers just make them this way. Pretty much every bike out there with a bend in the seat tube could do to have the part above the bend 2 degrees steeper. It wouldn't be the end of the world if some riders thought they were too steep and chose to use setback posts. You and I talked about steep ST angles combined with setback dropper posts like 5 years ago at Angel Fire. The saddle would be forward enough for climbing without being too forward to sit on when descending.

 

[mtg]

But they don't need to be so "actually slack". The designers just make them this way. Pretty much every bike out there with a bend in the seat tube could do to have the part above the bend 2 degrees steeper. It wouldn't be the end of the world if some riders thought they were too steep and chose to use setback posts. You and I talked about steep ST angles combined with setback dropper posts like 5 years ago at Angel Fire. The saddle would be forward enough for climbing without being too forward to sit on when descending.

Agree, and I’m sure you’ve seen the seat tube angles on my designs.

 

[toodles]

But they don't need to be so "actually slack". The designers just make them this way. Pretty much every bike out there with a bend in the seat tube could do to have the part above the bend 2 degrees steeper. It wouldn't be the end of the world if some riders thought they were too steep and chose to use setback posts. You and I talked about steep ST angles combined with setback dropper posts like 5 years ago at Angel Fire. The saddle would be forward enough for climbing without being too forward to sit on when descending.

There's a few designs out the come so close to being perfect aside from that detail. This years Giant Reign is a killer in terms of spec, weight, geo (aside from SA), price, kinematics and warranty. Then they went and kicked out the seat angle to 73º. It literally deviates after the shock pivot location, so the suspension design actually forced them to use a proper SA, and they adjusted the tubing to slacken it back out. Every review I've read on it has basically whinged about it and it would have been super simple to fix.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

I agree with @Gary (I know - shock horror).
Running a dropper with a proper underbar remote lever lets you get that mofo out of the way as quick as a gear change once you're used to it.

I guess my point is, on a lot of terrain, there is no need to get the saddle out of the way. And I like the handing of the bike with the saddle a bit low, even if saddle height is a little low for optimum pedaling. Maybe it's just my personal preference, but moving the seat up and down for every up or down section is a pain, especially when they're very short and max drop isn't needed.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

Brian, this Capra 29 is just a place holder until I can get a 160mm 29" Tantrum. In the sorting of compromises remember no one has ever complained that a seat tube angle is too steep and 9point8 make an offset head for their dropper so you could push the seat tube WAY forward. Weld up a test frame with a radically steep ST and "normal" BB drop and CS.

i guess here's the elephant in the room. You need to ride my bike. The ST angle when climbing is steeper than anything out there. Period. done.

regardless of static, effective or actual.

You will not get me to disagree that steeper is better for climbing. duh, no brainer, I've been pitching this for decades. the exact reason my bike exists.

 

[Udi]

Maybe it's just my personal preference, but moving the seat up and down for every up or down section is a pain, especially when they're very short and max drop isn't needed.

It's just you.
Everyone else knows how to use a dropper (presumably), and if this isn't the point of a remote-actuated dropper, I don't know what is. First ride on one I was popping it up and down for every small uphill, and in my head all I could think was "this will be a game changer". Doesn't have to be all the way down either, that's the point of infinite adjustability. If anything, up/down trails are where a dropper shines most - for big-mountain, a QR worked fine to put it up for a single huge climb and then leave it down for the descent.

Anyway, this isn't about your bike at - just what's ideal in general - but as I stated, having a steep *actual* seat angle (a measurement which barely anyone provides), whereby the seat doesn't move too much further backwards when fully extended is what benefits most riders, coupled with a tube *position* that is as far forward as possible.

I think that @mtg's bikes are class-leading in this area (one of very few brands that does it right) and I really hope major manufacturers catch on since most suck equally in this respect.

 

[toodles]

Maybe it's just my personal preference, but moving the seat up and down for every up or down section is a pain, especially when they're very short and max drop isn't needed.

Have you got a proper dropper remote? I probably use my dropper posts as much as my gears some rides. That teeny drop or lift takes a millisecond with an underbar remote. I don't even think about it anymore.

But either way - steep SA = better. You don't often see anyone running their saddle pushed all the way back on the rails unless they've bought a bike too small.

 

[Mo(n)arch]

But either way - steep SA = better. You don't often see anyone running their saddle pushed all the way back on the rails unless they've bought a bike too small.

This.

 

[Happymtb.fr]

You don't often see anyone running their saddle pushed all the way back on the rails unless they've bought a bike too small.

You are neglecting the rather large part of the cycling population firmly believing that their knee cap must be right above the pedal axle when the crank arms are horizontal. This people are usually fairly conservative so save your time and energy by not trying to salvage them!

 

[mtg]

i guess here's the elephant in the room. You need to ride my bike. The ST angle when climbing is steeper than anything out there. Period. done.

regardless of static, effective or actual.

You will not get me to disagree that steeper is better for climbing. duh, no brainer, I've been pitching this for decades. the exact reason my bike exists.

According to your geometry chart, your claim of "The ST angle when climbing is steeper than anything out there. Period. done." is false. The actual seat tube angle on any current GG bike is steeper than the effective angle of the "long" frame geo below. And if you compare effective to effective, the gap is even larger.

edit: geo chart screenshot didn't post.

 

[vincent]

According to your geometry chart, your claim of "The ST angle when climbing is steeper than anything out there. Period. done." is false. The actual seat tube angle on any current GG bike is steeper than the effective angle of the "long" frame geo below. And if you compare effective to effective, the gap is even larger.

edit: geo chart screenshot didn't post.

I think he is talking about a geometry number which does not exist right now, the "In context ST angle". I did not verify but I'm pretty sure he is right when saying that when you are actually climbing, his bikes are steeper than most if not at. This is because his bikes are climbing in the top out position and all other full suspension climb at a certain amount of sag which is even higher than the sag set on flat ground.

I find that with most bikes it is not an easy task comparing geometries since putting them in context make a lot of bikes geometry numbers overlap or at least partially invalidating choices based on published geometry chart.

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

According to your geometry chart, your claim of "The ST angle when climbing is steeper than anything out there. Period. done." is false. The actual seat tube angle on any current GG bike is steeper than the effective angle of the "long" frame geo below. And if you compare effective to effective, the gap is even larger.

edit: geo chart screenshot didn't post.

Kinda what Vincent said below. For example, in a "first gear" climb, the rear shock will be fully extended and the fork will be somewhat compressed.

What is the actually geometry at that time when measured against level? Difficult to say, as it is on all bikes.

Pretty much every bike on the market with any suspension at all (except bionicon??) Share a common trait on climbs, the fork is extended and/or the rear is compressed further than static sag levels. On the Tantrums, the fork is still compressed and the rear is always extended over static sag or geo numbers.

Which means my ST angle steepens while others tend to slacken

 

[Tantrum Cycles]

I think he is talking about a geometry number which does not exist right now, the "In context ST angle". I did not verify but I'm pretty sure he is right when saying that when you are actually climbing, his bikes are steeper than most if not at. This is because his bikes are climbing in the top out position and all other full suspension climb at a certain amount of sag which is even higher than the sag set on flat ground.

I find that with most bikes it is not an easy task comparing geometries since putting them in context make a lot of bikes geometry numbers overlap or at least partially invalidating choices based on published geometry chart.

Not to mention stem length, seatpost extension and a few other things that come into effect