[ChrisRobin]

Back in the good ol days, all you had to worry about was top tube. Then 'reach' came out and that's fine...I'm sure we're all used to it and I'm sure we all have an ideal reach number in our heads we look out for when looking for a new frame. For me at 5'10.5 with long legs and arms, I don't want anything less than 470 reach.

What I'm not understanding is how a company like Transition for example, release a new bike like the Spire and in a large it has a reach of 485 (Ok that's good!). But when you look at top tube measurement it's super short 602. I understand that's a function of having a slack head angle, steep seat angle and a reasonable wheelbase, but I can't imagine having to pedal that thing up a trail - all I picture are my knees banging into my handlebars and feeling cramped. My large Megatower already feels cramped with a 620-ish top tube to the point where I'm looking for an XL.

I've been using geometry geeks to compare geometry and in some cases, some bikes are reasonable (Knolly Chilcotin) and some others just seem super short (Transition Spire).

 

[Gary]

Designers of those bikes have assumed you will be spending 90% of your time seated spinnning up a hill/mountain (so the seat angle will be tilted back) and the rest of the time you'll be stood descending with the saddle slammed. That long reach will mean you won't be banging your knees. The main downside is the fucking awful pedalling position when seated on the flat.

 

[Kanye West]

The steep seat angle is a benefit everywhere except that it requires a long wheelbase for the posture to be correct which people have to get used to. It's better on flats too. The lizards are just taking their sweet ass time adopting to it. Instead we get 10 iterations of "innovative new geometry" to get to a balanced end point.

 

[Westy]

Designers of those bikes have assumed you will be spending 90% of your time seated spinnning up a hill/mountain (so the seat angle will be tilted back) and the rest of the time you'll be stood descending with the saddle slammed. That long reach will mean you won't be banging your knees. The main downside is the fucking awful pedalling position when seated on the flat.

I think it also assumes you have nice smooth climb trails or forest roads. As you are pretty much already in the standing position there is fuck-all room to move around with the saddle up for climbing up even moderately technical stuff. Can be a pain in the ass dropping/raising the saddle constantly. Most of the stuff I currently ride have non technical climb trails or fire roads that these bikes work well on. There are also bikes out there with slacker seat angles. IMO It is nice to have a choice depending on what/how you ride and that every bike doesn't have the same 73 degree seat angle.

 

[Gary]

The steep seat angle is a benefit everywhere

is it fuck!

Why would I suddenly want my saddle further forwards when riding seated on the flat? The only way that would be beneficial is if I were to fit Tri-bars and get in an Aero tuck. and even then I'd still be losing pedalling efficiency

 

[SkaredShtles]

<snip> if I were to fit Tri-bars and get in an Aero tuck.

 

[ChrisRobin]

Well maybe that's just it... while the Spire (again for example), would be an awesome bike for descending and riding up fire roads, it might be too short for riding up technical climbing trails. You could do it, but it wouldn't be pleasant. Whereas a bike with a long reach and longer top tube would work better, but you'd have to make sure you aren't too stretched out because of the long reach.

Okay, so maybe things aren't completely out of control. You just have to find the right geometry for your local riding spots.

 

[StiHacka]

it might be too short for riding up technical climbing trails

Why is that? I don't remember wishing for a longer bike when wrestling it up a foot+ ledge at the top of a steep rocky climb or through a tight, chunky, rooty switchback.

 

[Kanye West]

is it fuck!

Why would I suddenly want my saddle further forwards when riding seated on the flat? The only way that would be beneficial is if I were to fit Tri-bars and get in an Aero tuck. and even then I'd still be losing pedalling efficiency

It might be fuck. Or it might not be fuck. Tough to say, knowing English and all.

They're plenty slack as is. The current convention still barely engages the quads in the pedal stroke, especially up a grade. If you need a touch more, move your seat back. Or stop riding on the flats with a long travel mountain bike then groaning on the internet when you're using it wrong.

 

[Kanye West]

Why is that? I don't remember wishing for a longer bike when wrestling it up a foot+ ledge at the top of a steep rocky climb or through a tight, chunky, rooty switchback.

Right. Longass bikes aren't great for technical climbing. Not due to the length/turning necessarily, but all else being equal, you'll high center and hit your pedals on way more shit.

 

[Westy]

Why is that? I don't remember wishing for a longer bike when wrestling it up a foot+ ledge at the top of a steep rocky climb or through a tight, chunky, rooty switchback.

I believe that by short he is just referring to top tube measurements.

Also, there is the old setback seatpost if one is set on a bike with an otherwise too steep seat angle. I only know of the 9point8 Fall Line but I assume there are other options out there.

 

[Gary]

It might be fuck.

So you're honestly telling us you have been riding mountainbikes for (What? 20? odd) years with your saddle two inches too far back... Odd that you didn't notice this until recently when it became fashionable for 4 degree steeper seat angles to be spec'd on them.

Or stop riding on the flats with a long travel mountain bike then groaning on the internet when you're using it wrong.

Haha...For real?
It's not just long travel mountain bikes though. is it? Stupidly steep seat angles are becoming more and more common on trail bikes in general.
As for doing it wrong. Over here we have zero access issues and can ride wherever we want so long as we're not dicks about it. That means we often ride to the hills (on or off-road), then ride from one hill to the next or traverse around hills to access more trails during longer rides. not all rides are long boring climbs followed by descents.

 

[Gary]

IMO It is nice to have a choice depending on what/how you ride and that every bike doesn't have the same 73 degree seat angle.

I totally agree.
But there's always some fanny who believes there's absolutely no drawback to the one extreme they've chosen

 

[djjohnr]

Well maybe that's just it... while the Spire (again for example), would be an awesome bike for descending and riding up fire roads, it might be too short for riding up technical climbing trails. You could do it, but it wouldn't be pleasant. Whereas a bike with a long reach and longer top tube would work better, but you'd have to make sure you aren't too stretched out because of the long reach.

Okay, so maybe things aren't completely out of control. You just have to find the right geometry for your local riding spots.

Setback dropper?

 

[toodles]

Why would I suddenly want my saddle further forwards when riding seated on the flat? The only way that would be beneficial is if I were to fit Tri-bars and get in an Aero tuck. and even then I'd still be losing pedalling efficiency

So you don't have to lock the shock? I reckon 90% of the reason people lock shocks out is to preserve seat angle rather than for any pedalling efficiencies.

A 79º seat angle on a 170mm bike ends up relatively slack once sag is involved, particularly on the flat or uphill.

 

[Gary]

I haven't locked out a shock my entire life.
I'm capable of pedalling a bike smoothly though

Ps. Sag is still involved when you lock out a shock on the move.

 

[toodles]

So you're honestly telling us you have been riding mountainbikes for (What? 20? odd) years with your saddle two inches too far back... Odd that you didn't notice this until recently when it became fashionable for 4 degree steeper seat angles to be spec'd on them.

To be fair, most people weren't trying to ride up hills on >160mm bikes for the past 20 years. I've yet to ride a bike with the seat angle too steep (except maybe a quick spin on a Kona Satori (sp?)) and if I did find one there's layback posts and stuff to fix that. I'm basically pushing the seat all the way forward on the rails on nearly every bike I own most of the time. DISCLAIMER - my body geo causes errors in bikefit applications (fuck you Canyon) so it could be I'm a corgi-legged freak

 

[rideit]

I haven't locked out a shock my entire life.
I'm capable of pedalling a bike smoothly though

This is a very…odd…thing to flex about. If a bike I am riding happens to have a compression/lockout switch and I am riding up a smooth fire road, road, or even buff single track, I will damn well use it. It’s just a tool, it won’t hurt your ego.

 

[Jm_]

The steep seat angle is a benefit everywhere except that it requires a long wheelbase for the posture to be correct which people have to get used to. It's better on flats too.

My wrists say no.

 

[Gary]

If a bike I am riding happens to have a compression/lockout switch and I am riding up a smooth fire road, road, or even buff single track, I will damn well use it.

Do you stop. twiddle both the lockouts back open every time the surface becomes a bit rougher or you come across an unforseen compression or obsticle? Or maybe just just want the bike to pre-load the same as an FS bike usually does when you want to bunnyhop, wheelie, manny etc.? then stop again to lock it out all over again if it becomes smooth again ad infinitum?
If not, why not?

 

[rideit]

Oh, I forgot, your big climbs are a few hundred feet.
carry on.

 

[Gary]

Who's flexing about odd shit now?

 

[Redwood Mulch Chucker]

Unless you're 7000' tall the current steep azz seat tube angles suck. I have been slamming my saddles all the way back, and now have to run 9point8 droppers with setback to get some power to the pedals when climbing.

I believe the steep ST angles are directly related to the huge 50+ big cogs mated to a 28 or 30 front ring and large influx of "spinny sally" type riders who adore them.

Back when I was a kid we rode 36t single rings with 34t big cogs, and the trails were uphill in each direction....

 

[Jm_]

This is a very…odd…thing to flex about. If a bike I am riding happens to have a compression/lockout switch and I am riding up a smooth fire road, road, or even buff single track, I will damn well use it. It’s just a tool, it won’t hurt your ego.

I don't.

In an XC race....sometimes I do, but there it's more about controlling body movements and providing a stable chassis on level ground, rather than really going much faster or saving energy.

I'd bet over a 2000' climb, on my Enduro bike, I'd save maybe 30 seconds climbing with the lockout on. On a 4 hour ride...that's nothing, I don't care. In an XC race, that's huge, but the gap is probably not even that big between locked and not. Mind you, at the higher levels of competition, they are more running their bikes like hardtails most of the time and just unlocking them when they have to, to maximize power transfer. Those races are often separated by seconds or less.

But in any situation outside of that? No way. That's why I got the Jade for the Foes, because adjustable H/L compression. That's why I have the Arma, no-care-about-lock.

I will say this, for many years we've been using lockouts on longer travel bikes to account for the crappy geometry that you get with these bikes leaning way back on any kind of grade. Steeper seat-tubes fixed that (but created problems for the lesser/no-travel bikes on the flats). So even less reason to run a lockout on a modern bike. If someone thinks they are saving any significant time or energy...I have to laugh.

I think people would be really surprised to see the lack of diff between locked and not-locked over a big climb.

 

[Jm_]

I believe the steep ST angles are directly related to the huge 50+ big cogs mated to a 28 or 30 front ring and large influx of "spinny sally" type riders who adore them.

I still have trouble figuring out how the F people can stay upright on a bike turning a 24t ring up front with a 52t cog in the rear. It's not even fast enough to create gyroscopic rigidity IME.

 

[rideit]

Don’t get me wrong…I don’t choose to have it, but if it’s there, sure, I use it. That said, on an X2 or a DHX or whatever, it’s just a little more compression, and not a ‘lock-out’.

 

[Jm_]

Don’t get me wrong…I don’t choose to have it, but if it’s there, sure, I use it. That said, on an X2 or a DHX or whatever, it’s just a little more compression, and not a ‘lock-out’.

I think of climb-it-switches as lock-outs. They suck ass for descending/absorbing bumps and they effectively stop motion for normal pedaling.

 

[Kanye West]

So you're honestly telling us you have been riding mountainbikes for (What? 20? odd) years with your saddle two inches too far back... Odd that you didn't notice this until recently when it became fashionable for 4 degree steeper seat angles to be spec'd on them.

Haha...For real?
It's not just long travel mountain bikes though. is it? Stupidly steep seat angles are becoming more and more common on trail bikes in general.
As for doing it wrong. Over here we have zero access issues and can ride wherever we want so long as we're not dicks about it. That means we often ride to the hills (on or off-road), then ride from one hill to the next or traverse around hills to access more trails during longer rides. not all rides are long boring climbs followed by descents.

Yes. I've been harping on the seat angle thing for a REALLY longass time, like mid 2000's. If I were motivated to (and I am NOT), I could find posts of mine spelling this out in no uncertain terms that long ago and I've basically berated industry folk about it, who I thought would have some influence on such things. I avoided pedaling serious amounts for a very long time because my lower back would feel like complete shit from me being folded in half pushing forward on the pedals while using my back to pull myself back uphill onto the bike, and meanwhile my quads wouldn't get worked at all. All rear chain at those angles.

It was, and still is, stupid.

For some reason, the DH bike seat geometry of the Gen1 Turner DHR and Intense M1 found its way over to trail bikes through some sort of industry-wide lizard gangbang, and has basically been an STD that the industry has been trying semi-successfully to shake for the last decade or more.

 

[englertracing]

Yes. I've been harping on the seat angle thing for a REALLY longass time, like mid 2000's. If I were motivated to (and I am NOT), I could find posts of mine spelling this out in no uncertain terms that long ago and I've basically berated industry folk about it, who I thought would have some influence on such things. I avoided pedaling serious amounts for a very long time because my lower back would feel like complete shit from me being folded in half pushing forward on the pedals while using my back to pull myself back uphill onto the bike, and meanwhile my quads wouldn't get worked at all. All rear chain at those angles.

It was, and still is, stupid.

For some reason, the DH bike seat geometry of the Gen1 Turner DHR and Intense M1 found its way over to trail bikes through some sort of industry-wide lizard gangbang, and has basically been an STD that the industry has been trying semi-successfully to shake for the last decade or more.

I'm with you.

And when people say they don't want the steep sta on flat ground... well mmmm personally I find that when your spinning along on a flat portion of trail perhaps the mildest part of a climb or the boringest part of a decent or whatever kind of transfer.
A bike turns better, way way better with a forward seat position. Better front end feel than squatting off the back end of a bike. It's closer to the weight distribution of standing in a neutral position....

 

[Gary]

Do either of you ever do seated wheelies at all?

 

[iRider]

To be fair, most people weren't trying to ride up hills on >160mm bikes for the past 20 years.

Have you heard about the heydays of freeride? Everybody and their dog were pedalling heavy long travel bikes uphill. They were super heavy, had unrideable reach, TT and ST angles and on top of that tiny wheels! Luckily nobody from that era survived these rides to tell the tale.

 

[iRider]

A bike turns better, way way better with a forward seat position. Better front end feel than squatting off the back end of a bike. It's closer to the weight distribution of standing in a neutral position....

This does not make sense to me. If you have a slack ST, why would you squat off the back for cornering?
I ususally move more weight on the front wheel, especially on flat ground as the bikes were designed for descending.

 

[toodles]

Have you heard about the heydays of freeride? Everybody and their dog were pedalling heavy long travel bikes uphill. They were super heavy, had unrideable reach, TT and ST angles and on top of that tiny wheels! Luckily nobody from that era survived these rides to tell the tale.

We used to race DH on 26" wheels with 32mm stanchions too. Doesn't mean it was a great idea

 

[Gary]

Great idea or not TBF even with all the modern "improvements" we now have. Not one of us left here could even dream of riding anywhere near as well or as fast or as big as those 26" wheels and 32mm boxxer stanchions were ridden by the best riders at the time.

It wasn't even all that long ago in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Gary]

Ps. Everyone knows 26" #Strongwheels strength/stiffness cancels out the 32mm stanchions lacking thereof of anyway.

 

[slyfink]

Have you heard about the heydays of freeride? Everybody and their dog were pedalling heavy long travel bikes uphill. They were super heavy, had unrideable reach, TT and ST angles and on top of that tiny wheels! Luckily nobody from that era survived these rides to tell the tale.

Though as I recall, we weren't actually riding those bikes up the hill, we were pushing them!

 

[Kanye West]

I'm with you.

And when people say they don't want the steep sta on flat ground... well mmmm personally I find that when your spinning along on a flat portion of trail perhaps the mildest part of a climb or the boringest part of a decent or whatever kind of transfer.
A bike turns better, way way better with a forward seat position. Better front end feel than squatting off the back end of a bike. It's closer to the weight distribution of standing in a neutral position....

Actually it was descending really steep shit back in the day that made me want the seat to be between my knees when coming over the crest of a roller, and not hitting me in the balls. Somehow that was supposed to be a performance feature. The pedaling posture was secondary but equally as important.

 

[Kanye West]

Do either of you ever do seated wheelies at all?

Assuming you're referring to me here, yes.

 

[jonKranked]

You just have to find the right geometry for your local riding spots

this.

 

[ianjenn]

For some reason, the DH bike seat geometry of the Gen1 Turner DHR and Intense M1 found its way over to trail bikes through some sort of industry-wide lizard gangbang, and has basically been an STD that the industry has been trying semi-successfully to shake for the last decade or more.

That slack seat angle on the M1 never stopped Baggs from doing the 20-mile loops up and down the grade 2-3x to train......