Long: don’t really understand why longer is better. I’d have thought a relatively short reach, within the bounds of reason, would give you a better range of fore and aft body movement?

I read this, but it’s not terribly clear.

What’s the chat?

I think the ‘long’ is more of a side effect of the whole AM/ENduro thing of steep seat angles (better for climbing and keeping the back end relatively short) and slack HA for the descents.

If you did both of them without lengthening the bike then you’d end up with a really cramped cockpit

Chris Porter Article 1
Article 2
Article 3

Not everyone agrees with the articles but they’ll probably explain a lot of the plus points

a better range of fore and aft body movement?

Shorter reach gives you a smaller ‘sweet spot’ for you body weight.Small movements (or getting pushed out of position) can place you too far forward/rearwards.
Longer reach ‘centres’ you more on the bike,increasing stability.Good for gnar.

less likelihood of going over the bars if the bike is more in front of you was my understanding, sure I read Gee Atherton saying something like that about the new Fury at the time. There are definitely times on my relatively short Troy that I feel too far over the front, usually steeper, slow speed stuff where you get hung up on a root or something.

just more stable, confident feeling, sitting in the bike

low standover gives you the range of movement, you can still move backwards and forwards, and im a big fan of shortish chainstays making bikes flickable and more fun, still able to jump and pop off stuff

ride one and going back to anything short feels cramped and unstable

Longer wheelbase means the angle of the bike changes less over bumps compared to a shorter one that gets pitched up and down more.

It’s a combination of things but you can definitely feel the benefit. I’m 6’2″ and I’ve got bikes that fit properly for the first time.

Wheelbase is a by product…..rather than the reasoning.

I’d love to try out one of these long, low style of bikes to see what all the fuss is about. I’d welcome a bit more room up front what with being tall and all, but despite riding just large frames (which are probably two sizes too small for me on paper) i rarely go OTB and don’t feel unstable going slow or fast. Cornering isn’t an issue either. All the things the latest bikes are said to improve i don’t seem to suffer from.

So will i be blown away with the advances in bike design over the last 5 years (my newest bike is 2011- Stumpy Evo) or is it just marketing guff?

What rorscach said.

If you made the switch to wider bars and noticed the steering was less twitchy and more modulated, it’d a bit like that.

It’s just cooler

So will i be blown away with the advances in bike design over the last 5 years

Yes

Surely its short stems
Back in the day I used to run 90mm stem. As soon as I started running sub 50mm stems my bikes felt way too short….obviously.

But for some reason its taken years for the bike industry to realize we all like short stems and start stretching their frames out to compensate…but thankfully it is happening now. For years I have been buying large frames (I’m only 5,8) which feel spot on. A frame that’s too short may have one or two advantages but its so much more unstable at speed – which is what its all about surely 🙂

I must remember next time I may need a medium.

Its not a night and day difference,but it is an improvement, I switched from an ibis mojo HD with an angleset to an orbea rallon, and despite the head angles being similar,the orbea is a fair bit longer,and lower and as a result is just more confidence inspiring when things get steep and technical.

It took me a fair bit of riding the rallon to realise it wasnt going to throw me over the bars if I made an error,but once I realised this I could start to take liberties that I wouldnt on my old ibis

It’s the slow dawning of “oh, these aren’t actually road bikes” on designers.

Its not a night and day difference,

Is for me.

🙂

Stability is not the be all and end all of bike design.

It’s totally a matter of taste tbh, lots of people still like the short-n-steep. I couldn’t go back though… It’s less fatiguing, it’s easier to ride- which both add up to quicker and safer, and means I can focus on the important stuff. I’d worked a lot with my last bike to get it slacker and lower and that did give it a new lease of life but you can’t really add significant reach.

Why? Couldn’t tell you tbh.

Stability is not the be all and end all of bike design.

Quite, and bikes are never stable really. Anything related to geometry is a pro-con thing that depends on what/where/why you ride, for me there’s places where a L/L/S bike feels less involving in the way bigger travel bikes can and there’s places where they feel great. Not all bikes need to be optimised for the same thing imo.

The long thing, if the reach to the bar gets too long it affects my ability to get my c of g back to the right place over BB or rear axle so longer isn’t better, just needs to be ‘roomy enough’ with a stem that suits handling needs rather than using it to get the reach right.

The best thing to do is go and ride one.
It’s not difficult to find a good example of a long bike to try.
There’s no way I would trust such a big decision to forum chat.

—

The main thing for me, was that I feared that long.low.slack would hurt one of my favourite aspects of mountain biking – the technical climb.
So I borrowed a bike and took it up Cumberland Clough and 3 Shires (in the Peak District). Then I borrowed another and took it down The Beast and up Hagg Berms.
I enjoyed all 3 climbs on them. Clearing one section I normally only clear 1/3 times and setting Strava PRs on 2 of them. It was enough to convince me there wasn’t a downside for me.

Then I borrowed another around Cannock and it was still really good fun, so I bought it. It happens to be the longest, lowest and equal slackest of all the bikes I tested.

imho:

longer bikes with short stems mean we don’t need silly-slack head angles. You still get the wheel-out-in-front thing for steep descent confidence, without the awful floppy slow-speed handling.

The long thing, if the reach to the bar gets too long it affects my ability to get my c of g back to the right place over BB or rear axle so longer isn’t better, just needs to be ‘roomy enough’ with a stem that suits handling needs rather than using it to get the reach right.

But the short stem + slack angle gives you the neutral handling (same as a long stem and steep angle), and by keeping the saddle to bar reach constant you get a long TT which all together give you the much longer front center and more stability.

longer bikes with short stems mean we don’t need silly-slack head angles. You still get the wheel-out-in-front thing for steep descent confidence, without the awful floppy slow-speed handling.

I don’t agree with that,

Iron horse kinda went that way with the MK3 trail bike, longer TT, shorter stem, average (for the time) head angle. And like people putting 60mm stems on XC bikes, to me it just feels horrible and twitchy, without the actual benefit of a shorter bike in terms of maneuverability.

As Jameso said, if you make one of those changes in isolation you end up with pro’s and con’s, which need to be balanced out.

Specialized were traditionally described as such…

The length is necessitated by steeper seat angles IIRC, which in turn are feasible thanks to dropper posts. This means that reach doesn’t alter with saddle height, so the extra room has to come from somewhere.

I’m skeptical about a great many so called “innovations”, but a sensibly long top tube paired with a steep seat angle and a short stem makes a lot of sense out on the trail. I found that I needn’t move my body weight around so much to keep the front end down when climbing, or to aid stability when descending, it all seemed to hang together better.

I recall buying a large Marin Wolf Ridge about six years ago, which wasn’t appreciably longer than the medium size but was significantly taller. Marin made up the extra room by fitting a ten degree, ninety – yes ninety mm stem. The long stem negated any handling benefit from the (then) wide bar and the front of the bike felt difficult to pin down.

kimbers – Member

‘So will i be blown away with the advances in bike design over the last 5 years’

Yes

Interesting, sadly not that easy to get a test ride over here so i doubt i’ll get to try before buying. And there was me thinking my next bike would be a 29 HT 😀

Interesting, sadly not that easy to get a test ride over here so i doubt i’ll get to try before buying. And there was me thinking my next bike would be a 29 HT

Pigeon holes are for pigeons, etc.

http://www.last-bikes.com/products/frames/fastforward.html

The long thing, if the reach to the bar gets too long it affects my ability to get my c of g back to the right place over BB or rear axle so longer isn’t better, just needs to be ‘roomy enough’ with a stem that suits handling needs rather than using it to get the reach right.

But the short stem + slack angle gives you the neutral handling (same as a long stem and steep angle), and by keeping the saddle to bar reach constant you get a long TT which all together give you the much longer front center and more stability.

I mean if the reach BB-bar reach gets too long it’s harder to get my weight back over the r wheel as my arms are only so long : ) for unweighting the front rather than steep riding.

I do agree with ahwiles point though. Slackness is simply long trail and more ‘flop’ effect. Flop’s not all a good thing, just a trade-off of generally beneficial stability. Stability is as much about weight distribution as trail after a certain point, so there’s different ways to do it.

Here’s an image comparing more traditional geometry (but still relatively slack) with long/low/slack:

Red is a Cotic Soul/BFe 26 with 140mm forks, light blue is the HT frame I designed for me but was stillborn, dark blue is the Bird Zero AM with -2 deg headset and 130mm fork that I bought (because it was basically the same!) I was running a 50 or 55mm stem with the Soul and have a 50mm stem on the new bike (but the bars have quite a lot of backsweep so the effective length is shorter).

There’s a lot more room to move within the bike when you’re standing up. When you’re sitting down the ETT is about the same. When you’re going steeply uphill the front wheel stays much more planted because your weight is further ahead of the rear contact patch and the pedalling position feels a lot more efficient. The chainstay length is near identical so it rocks back into a manual or flicks from the hips easily. You have to move more to keep the front wheel weighted on flatter trails but once you get used to that it isn’t a problem. On long flat pedally rides it isn’t as comfy as a slacker seat angle, more weight on the hands.

I know that with some of these bikes the ETT is longer than on older models but often the perceived ETT will be little different because the slacker seat tube of the old models will shift the saddle further away at riding height (ETT is measured with saddle at head tube height). The bigger difference is the increase in reach.

Bear in mind that when you’re sitting down, you have your torso and arms to form a triangle of reach from saddle to bars. When you’re standing up you have your legs, torso and arms to form a quadrilateral of reach from pedals to bars. The horizontal distance from pedals to bars is shorter than seat to bars and you have your full outstretched height to do that reach, not just your upper body and arms.

Obviously if you go too long you won’t be able to get your hips back into a position where you can control the bike well. Yesterday was my first outing on fast (as opposed to ridiculously muddy) trails on the new bike and I was feeling really stiff and tight in my lower back and that manifested in me losing a pedal a few times – I can’t remember the last time that happened to me, it was years ago. I think the lower back/hips tightness meant I was putting too much weight on the bars and not enough on my feet. I stopped, did some stretches and all was sorted. On the shorter bike there was always lots of weight on my feet regardless of how knackered my body was feeling but I couldn’t attack the trails with the confidence and resulting speed the longer geometry gives.

I had a couple moments of messily hammering through braking bumps on my way out of a berm and jump sequence on a trail I rode twice and the long reach kept me inside the bike and the bike moving forwards instead of me departing through the front door. I think the wheelbase thing (through added front-centre) is just as big a benefit as the longer reach – the bike itself is more stable as well as the rider’s body movements affecting it less.

Would love to see the last fat forward with 27.5+ wheels overlaid on that, ctg

Be interested so see how it compares to my 26er 140 Soul, since I have to wait until the end of March to find out for real now 🙁

So will i be blown away with the advances in bike design over the last 5 years

Yes. My current bike is a 2010 Santa Cruz Superlight, 26er with 120mm forks, a classic XC susser. Last year I hired a 2016 Trek Slash (modern enduro, 150mm travel, long and slack) and ignoring the massive travel difference it was a lot more stable and confidence-inducing on descents, whilst still being a capable climber.

The Last FF is pretty damned similar, though stack height is taller due to the longer 29er fork and seat tube not quite as steep. BB drop is the same, so BB height depends on the wheel choice (both bikes will run 27.5+ but coming at it from opposite directions). Large Last a little longer, medium Last a bit more shorter. Last has more wheelbase due to longer fork and chainstays. I should probably do something useful rather than more messing with CAD, otherwise I’d have drawn it! 😉

PJM1974 – Member

I recall buying a large Marin Wolf Ridge about six years ago, which wasn’t appreciably longer than the medium size but was significantly taller. Marin made up the extra room by fitting a ten degree, ninety – yes ninety mm stem. The long stem negated any handling benefit from the (then) wide bar and the front of the bike felt difficult to pin down.

Aye, and even the medium was a wee bit stubby. To be fair, it’s pretty common, lots of brands get taller faster than they get long.

chiefgrooveguru – Member

I should probably do something useful rather than more messing with CAD, otherwise I’d have drawn it!

Yeah – I should be working too. 🙂