You finding top tube and reach measurements are all over the place?
- Thread starter ChrisRobin
- Start date
The reality of that particular situation is that the bushing thing has been a major thorn in their side for warranty issues, in addition to branding/image problems since it won't go away.
Now blend that with adding another complexity into the same system in parallel, and you have an additional cost that compounds their warranty costs since one likely will lead to a servicing/replacement of the other. That bluetooth dildo that seemed great in the PowerPoint and was eagerly sucked, slobbered and swallowed by a lizard that's never built anything ends up having far reaching effects across the business.
But this is about rider geometry. The parallel between those cases is other elements of geometry that were being dicked with before some of the basics were figured out. As a result, it's ended up being a long, drawn-out and recursive chase for geometry convention for over a decade.
Examples: Head angles being fucked with in major ways before ever considering offsets and lean angle responses. That cycle has been on display forever. The seat angle thing is another one where reach was popularized and scrutinized for some time while completely dismissing ETT as an effective measurement (and consequently the SA). This is how you got really dumb bikes being made where your climbing position had your ass in back of the rear axle going up an average climb with the post extended and the shock sagged. 1st generation Enduro 29 was a shining example. Then there was the non-consensual onset of different wheel sizes, and the geometry adaptations that had to come from that which is still just normalizing.
This comes from either 1) lack of requirements or 2) lack of understanding of requirements, and ownership of them.
Enduro/all-mountain/trail bike? Geometry must satisfy climbing ergonomics. Geometry must satisfy descending performance. 2 requirements. Simple. Shouldn't take a decade+.
I'm ridiculously corgi proportioned and prefer the steepest SA I can get. Short AF legs and stupid long torso by comparison.
The good thing is no-one is being forced to do anything really - there's still plenty of manufacturers sticking with old SAs if you look around.
Dunno if you ever watched Rick & Morty but there's a character in there called Baby Legs. I've had my buddies put that on my race numberplates instead of my name a few times now.
Do you mean just like they did with their 26" wheel bikes?
Ps. Why would short legs make steeper seat angles preferable?
b/c if you're further back you're likely farther from the bb?
Dat Ass
I have an ape index of 0. Preference for steep.
Let's throw pedals into the mix too! I only ride flats. I'd guess the Grandpa Simpsons running rear-offset seatposts are on clips.
can't not
lol
Baby Legs Rick And Morty GIF - Baby Legs Rick And Morty - Discover & Share GIFs
Click to view the GIF
tenor.com
I've wondered that myself actually. Understandably with long legs the higher the seat goes up, the further you are over the back axle. But I think it has more for me to do with comfort, and having my knee over the pedal spindle for seated climbing. With short femurs, I think I end up moving forward a long way to stop it feeling like i'm pedalling a recumbent up the hill. Not 100% sure though.
High BBs and short TTs, haha. The music goes well with the bb height of Romo’s Mongoose.
You still riding the 21 mega?
I'm built the same way if your torso is long you want a long reach bike. If the seat is as slack as 73° like before than Standing reach is really short.
I'm 5'6" but prefer a 450mm reach to stay centered in the bike.
Erm... What?
"Reach" measurement is horizontal BB to headtube so far more relevant when stood up.
If you also have corgi legs your saddle height is also going to be low. Ergo. Also Not all that far back. Even with slacker seat angles.
Plus. If you genuinely have micro legs with longer arms and torso i
you wouldn't need a steeper seat angle putting you closer the bars when seated.
"Reach" measurement is horizontal BB to headtube so far more relevant when stood up.
If you also have corgi legs your saddle height is also going to be low. Ergo. Also Not all that far back. Even with slacker seat angles.
Plus. If you genuinely have micro legs with longer arms and torso i
you wouldn't need a steeper seat angle putting you closer the bars when seated.
I think I counted only one berm-skid, and it was kind of half assed. I think we now know the real value of steeper seat angles.
Its a balance though. Too steep it throws you on your hands when Seated. On a longer travel bike I'm good with 76° to 77° STA on a 120mm bike I'm Seated more and find 77° uncomfortable.
Ok, here's a question... for you 5'10-5'11 people out there, what's your ideal reach number range?
When I moved from a Capra to my Meta, I addressed cockpit sizing with the saddle rails. Rather than having my saddle slammed forward as I did for the last 15 years, it is now close to slammed rearward.
I love the climbing position on my Meta.
I'm a hair over 6' on an L Meta (490 claimed Reach) and think I'd prefer 485 Reach on the same geo.
I love the climbing position on my Meta.
I'm a hair over 6' on an L Meta (490 claimed Reach) and think I'd prefer 485 Reach on the same geo.
Last edited:
She's a legend.
The main things that throw weight you onto your hands when seated are a nose down saddle angle too low bars or a rider with a weak core.
A steeper seat angle alone shouldn't.
Last edited:
5'11"
26" 420mm reach
27.5" 435mm reach
29" Urgh! 455 reach.
Those are minimums TBF. But I definitely still prefer shorter bikes overall. So you can see why I have even more reason to dislike overly steep seat angles.
Last edited:
Whatever I've gotten used to. DH bike is 480, last couple of trail bikes have been 475-480. I could probably go longer assuming rear center/front center are well balanced.
Yep. Mega 275. Bastards just released the 297 or i'd have gotten one of those.
6'-6'1 somewhere. Depends on the intended stem length. My current bike is a 511 reach which is longer than anything I've used before. With a 35mm stem it balances out far better than I would have expected. Still playing with bar height. Previously was in the 470-490mm range on my last few bikes. Can put so much more power through the bike having my back and hips unlocked in the descending position.
Ok.
In that case it's even more strange.
The Mega has an actual seat angle of 71deg. But it's offset forwards by around 150mm (on the small and medium frames). Meaning if you are indeed corgi legged your saddle at pedalling height will actually have an even steeper effective seat angle.
What's your inside leg measurement and saddle height (from BB to saddle top)?
For me. With a 33-34" inseam (and saddle height of around 74cm) the medium mega because of that offset is unridabrully cramped while seated.
Last edited:
Thats weird, how tall are you? I have like a 30,5" inseam (no shoes) and nearly the same saddle height ? I probably should get a bike fit done or something.
This is perfect,anyone here got a Thompson Layback seat post For my DerKerf Implant? Black would be crackers,but any will do. I can’t get the seat right.
When I read about off the back of saddle and angels,my 26“ DerKerf is outdated. However in the steep I feel strong and light. When I climb I feel like a Dork as I am 6“5 and 900 mm of post is sticking out of the frame.Then you add the small wheels and me you have a terrible looking matter. Moving on.
When I read about off the back of saddle and angels,my 26“ DerKerf is outdated. However in the steep I feel strong and light. When I climb I feel like a Dork as I am 6“5 and 900 mm of post is sticking out of the frame.Then you add the small wheels and me you have a terrible looking matter. Moving on.
Slightly shorter than the range you listed at 5'9", but I'll chime in that a Reach of around 450-465mm seems to work for me. Lots of other variables like ST/HT angles, TT length, CS length, and wheelbase that all get consideration as well. For fit (and handling, but more about fit) I usually consider the Reach and TT length. I find that something in that range for Reach along with a TT in the 600mm (give or take 10mm) I can usually get along with by adjusting stem length and saddle position.
The reach on my enduro/trail bike is roughly 460, just because of the taller fork. But then when I got my latest DH bike, which has a 470mm reach, I initially thought I was stretched out too much but eventually learned to love it. Now I'm looking for something closer to 480 for the trail bike. TT length for me and my long legs would need to be closer to 630-640. I saw the latest Knolly Chilcotin 167 in Large...looks awesome on paper but then you have that stupid 157 hub standard.
I like that 157 standard but only because I have a lot of nice DH hubs that would work on my trailbikes.
Don't really see why we needed 148 or 157 at all if hub and cassette manufacturers had simply brought proper DH Freehub spacing and flange spacing to 150 hubs and frame design. And trail/Enduro had also gone to 150 (albeit with slightly different flange/Freehub spacing) instead of the jump from 142 to 148
But fuck it.. My shed would look bare without all those marginally differently spaced wheelsets laying around.
But fuck it.. My shed would look bare without all those marginally differently spaced wheelsets laying around.