[Closed] Longer, lower, slacker...have manufacturers been taking the pee pee a bit ..

don't worry once we're all riding barges they start going back the other way ! 😉

I think there are better examples of manufacturers doing what they are there to do - i.e. wring every last penny out of the customer.

I am still angry at 27.5. But then I'm old, grumpy and cynical.

Don't worry, soon shorter, higher, steeper will be the next big 'thing' 😉

Given that this happens as sure as night follows day, is their real motivation to build the best bike possible, or to hold something back to ensure that people with deep pockets will see the need to upgrade every year.

Interesting question

Could they really have sold this years bike 3 years ago. Even if it was the best possible bike would the market have been ready>

PS 2 bikes bought since 2000, one used. So not really the target market here

Radical doesn't sell [well]. Get too far ahead of (or behind) the band wagon and you have a product which, regardless of how awesome it is, doesn't sell.

For a perfect example look at the orange stage 6, sold out pdq in larger sizes but actually little different from the five 29 which didn't sell enough a few years earlier when few people did big 29ers (spec. Enduro being the obvious exception)

Look at 29er dh bikes, suddenly awesome or now available from enough manufacturers (pro level at least) to not look novelty and be desirable?

You'll always have a few early adopters but mostly we're herd animals.

I suspect you see small year on year increments because they are frightened of making a big change, cocking up and losing market. I'd also check the numbers for myself to be sure there was a real change if it was important to me, in the motorcycle world I remember Yamaha releasing an R6 with claims of a higher rev limit (more revs meant better at the time) but it was found to have an overreading rev counter.

On the one hand, there's a definite air of cynicism about the whole thing.

On the other hand, if you don't do the longer/lower/slacker thing incrementally and do it in one fell swoop, your design is considered too extreme and your bike doesn't sell.

650b was different. I don't know what to think about that. I went from a 26 inch bike to a 29er, now 27.5 and much prefer it. But that's likely down to bikes rather than wheel sizes. So I'm just a sucker.

Don't worry, soon shorter, higher, steeper will be the next big 'thing'

I predict that the 29er WC DH rigs will lead this, and by early 2018 there will be 'radical' and 'new' geometry changes, that mean you can clear bigger rocks without fear of pedal strike, steeper front ends for faster response - yet retaining the 'proven' and 'loved' long front centre and steeper seat angles. 🙄

I reckon I've been MTBing proper for 14 years, in that time I've had 10 bikes, so not a swapper or a one bike guy either.

The bikes have changed quite a bit since I started, but more importantly, the trails have too.

I'm quite happy to be involved in a pastime that evolves, but at the same time if you choose to, you can buy a reasonably priced bike that will last years.

I don't for one minute think it's any more cynical than any other 'sport'.

YMMV.

edit - oh, and I'll be watching the WC at FW this weekend with great interest, no - not in wheel size as I really couldn't give a shit, but because it's the showcase of our fantastic hobby.

Enjoy.

I don't think it's really for the annual dandyhorse swappers, I don't really believe there's all that many of them TBH.

It's more so those swapping on a 3-5 year basis notice a bit of a difference and those changing on a 5-10 yearly basis will see significant changes...

Radical doesn't sell [well]. Get too far ahead of (or behind) the band wagon and you have a product which, regardless of how awesome it is, doesn't sell.

^^And this^^

Too much change in one go spooks the punters... But they've sailled close to the wind in recent years with wheels, angles, uppty downy seats, wheel axles, BBs and 'Juan by' gears...

Yep - the 'too radical to sell' thing is a big one....

For instance, my 2012 Mega (I'm that up to date folks!) has the same head angles etc as my son's Foes frame from 2007ish I think. Now you could say that Foes have always been a bit too niche to sell. His bike handles just as well as mine (and is about the same weight) but the Mega was heralded as a fantastic development when it was first launched 5 years later!

I think if we rewind the clock 10 years and show the STW of 2007 what sells these days most of us would have gone "Woah! thats far too rad - I'm not buying that it's too much bike, where would I ride it?", but what has happened over the past 10 years is that places like BPW have opened and suddenly there are places to use a bike like that. It's evolution. And it just happens to help make manufacturers money.

My cynicism is actually fairly restrained by this stuff.
There’s always been something focused on the march of progression in MTBing, years ago it was travel, the first Spesh Enduro which was one of the first ‘big trail bikes’ had about 100mm of travel, which grew to 120mm 130mm 150mm etc etc – at the time we wondered why they didn’t just make the first one 150mm in the first place and we guessed it was because they wanted us to buy a new bike every year or because they needed to give it a niche because the Stumpjumper was always an inch behind in the travel stakes.
Then we got more gears, 7, 8, 9 I don’t need to type them all, again, why didn’t they just make 10 when they started and not 7? Of course we all got less in the end but that’s another story.
Bars got wider every few weeks it seemed, stems shorter etc.
Now everyone gets the ruler and compass out and wants to know the angle on the dangle of everything.

I could be the Evil Bike Industry has a big pow-wow every winter and decides how much they’re going to eek out for next year and they all agree, but I doubt it.

Partly I think it’s because there’s more going on than most riders understand, you can’t just load up the design of your current bike on CAD and hit a few keys and slacken off the head angle by a couple of degrees without redesigning a load of other things too.
Also, if you did you might find that the bike is now not quite as nice to ride, or unsoddingridable by anyone who hasn’t got a half dozen Redbull edits under their belt. Years ago there was an interview with Max Commencal about Gee’s DH racebike, I’ve just checked they left Commencal in 2011, god I’m old, I would have said about 2 years ago – anyway, Max was saying how Gee’s frame wasn’t the same as the one you could buy, it had really radical geometry, silly slack head angle for the time (probably fairly steep these days) and they’d never sell it like that because unless you were a world cup level racer it was all but unrideable. Does that mean in the last 6 years we’ve all progressed to the level that would have won world cups back then? I really doubt it, it’s the other parts of the design that have been adapted to make a slack bike work for muggle riders.

Travel didn’t get longer every other year because they just made the same forks a bit longer and fitted a longer shock at the back, it was a redesign to make it not only longer, but usable at the same time. Bars, stems and head angle progress to make each other work, they’re not arbitrary things if you stick a 30mm stem on a 2005 bike it will be a twitchy little shit to ride, same if you stick a 150mm stem on a Capra it may not steer at all.

Don't worry, soon shorter, higher, steeper will be the next big 'thing'

The circle, the circle of liiiiifffe...

[img] [/img]

If Jamie could knock up an image of Mufasa holding up Geoff Apps, that'd be super. Ta.

Given that this happens as sure as night follows day, is their real motivation to build the best bike possible, or to hold something back to ensure that people with deep pockets will see the need to upgrade every year.

They do want to improve bikes and they do but clearly the industry decided cynically to do things so that you had to buy an entire bike rather than upgrade components hence the array of new standards in wheel size, then on forks, then BB, then on bigger wheels and so it goes on until the market [ those who buy bikes] stop playing the game

Still on 26 so someway from their target audience but one day I wont be able to get spares for it but it is still more bike than I need

The figures given for the current spesh enduro 29 compaired to the previous one certainly doesn't equate to the claimed longer & lower.

I reckon I've been MTBing proper for 14 years, in that time I've had 10 bikes, so not a swapper or a one bike guy either.

😯 I've had prob 4 mtb's in 25 years or so.

The 2017 Banshee Spitfire is a few mm longer in reach and lower of BB than the 2013 version, and the seat angle is about half a degree steeper. That's it! They even take all the same axle and head tube standards. The 2013 one was ahead of its time, making a 140mm bike with aggro angles - since then everyone else has been catching up.

But Banshee is a niche brand that can be more daring with its models, it's never going to have the sales volume of Giant or Trek or Specialized...

The bit that gets me is when they say how radical some of the smaller niche brands are, but when you look at the numbers they are virtually identical to everyone elses.

I looked at the new Nomad's numbers and to be honest the difference between them and my 2015 Jekyll with offset bushings in is pretty minimal.

I reckon I've been MTBing proper for 14 years, in that time I've had 10 bikes, so not a swapper or a one bike guy either.

21 years here.
9 bikes, including two that were stolen, so really 7 if I had chosen.
You are verging on being a swapper sir.

Not if he still has most of them

This just made me do a quick count up. 31 years and 14 bikes, some of which did not last long.

had is the past tense

21 years here.
9 bikes, including two that were stolen, so really 7 if I had chosen.
You are verging on being a swapper sir.

12 years for me, 7 trail bikes, 2 DH bikes which don't really count as they were all but ornaments given how little I rode them.

Of the 7, one got stolen which means 6, but really if I drilled it down it's replacement was pity bike and the one after was a frame rather than a bike per-se and that was shit too.

In reality it was:

First bike, which was the wrong bike (aren't they always) that I sold after a year.

First proper bike - which I kept for 5 years, until it was worn smooth and knackered, okay, I stopped caring about it so much that I stopped keeping up with maintenance and it became knackered, it was still perfectly serviceable.

Second proper bike which was on paper great, but in actual fact a bit shit in hindsight, just about got it right and some sod knicked it, and it wasn't insured.

First pity bike, a hardly used, but abused, year older, lower spec version of the above that I bought for a song because the owner thought he'd knackered the forks - £5 in Mojo and it was perfect, rode it for 2-3 years bit always resented it.

Second Pity bike, a well used, badly abused re-frame of the above with a dodgy repaint job, but it was a bike that I'd always wanted, should have saved some more money and bought a better one.

Third Proper bike, my current bike, I love it, it's a year old, I'll probably keep it another 3-4 years at least.

9 bikes, but I'd argue only 3 I wanted.

All seems a bit farcical these tbh, hence me updating my current LTc with tubeless and a slightly slacker HA rather than fork out £4k on a new bike for largely the same result.

My DH rig is 3yrs old, and 2 wheel sizes out of date already 🙄

Luckily the .01 sec faster for your average WC racer doesn't relate me too much!

21 years here.
9 bikes, including two that were stolen, so really 7 if I had chosen.
You are verging on being a swapper sir.

Meh, if you say so.

You make lifestyle choices that will have an affect how much you have left over for your hobbies, you made yours, I've made mine.

I've had most of my bikes over the last 3 years, I only rode a Soul with no other bike for a period of about 5 years, I've enjoyed trying new bikes since then, probably pretty settled now tbh, though I could sell the spectral 29 full suss as the Bronson is better at absolutely everything, but only having one bike has it's drawbacks.

major difference between my old 2010 ghost asx and my current transition suppressor. I'm happy with the change. not all bikes are as long or as slack as others, you have such a wide variety of bikes to choose from these days.

Don't worry, soon shorter, higher, steeper will be the next big 'thing'
The circle, the circle of liiiiifffe...

[img] [/img]

If Jamie could knock up an image of Mufasa holding up Geoff Apps, that'd be super

Thing is, I've ridden a couple of versions (including this one) of Geoff's bikes, and they are amazing for what he has designed them for. Namely off-piste pootling, deep mud, and ridiculously steep hills.

On the other hand for fast, rooty, techy single-track my long, low and slack DME trailstar is perfect.

For a lot of people something like Geoff's bike would be perfect. But, you know, fashion.

or to hold something back to ensure that people with deep pockets will see the need to upgrade every year.

Interesting choice of words...Upgrade...Most countries the deal is pretty much that folks change their whole bike every couple of years or so...It's only really the UK that does this whole customs Frame and bits...thing. which makes stuff like wheel size change a whole heap of trouble that doesn't really effect the rest of the market in the same way.

I am still angry at 27.5

Really? Why

Given that this happens as sure as night follows day, is their real motivation to build the best bike possible, or to hold something back to ensure that people with deep pockets will see the need to upgrade every year.

Unless you're suggesting that a large industry cartel regulates head angles, if:

- a 3 degree slacker head angle is self-evidently better in 2017; and
- in 2017 Company A decides to do a [b]1 degree[/b] slacker angle to keep two more years of "improvements" to its geometry in reserve

then Company B,which goes straight to a [b]3 degree [/b]slacker angle in 2017 should expect to be able to outsell Company A in 2017 and 2018 because its bikes are self-evidently better. 😕

It's far from clear that anything like this is happening. Instead, you've got a few mad-sounding people like Chris Porter muttering about the need for everything to be [i]totally[/i] different, and everyone else tinkering and refining a bit and hoping for the best and (for example) cobbling together this year's 29er DH bike from last year's 650b DH bike's front end and an angleset.

I am still angry at 27.5

I was, I've got over it.

Is it better? Dunno really, my 27.5 bike is a better than my old 26 bike some areas a little and in some a bit more. Is it because of the wheel size or something else? Again dunno. Is the 'something else' an advancement made possible because of the wheels? Dunno.

Truth is a lot of the fears we had didn't come to pass - apart from the odd niche brand and poor old Spesh who went ahead with 29er trail and Enduro bikes (coz that was ever going to work...) the industry 'went 27.5' in 2014 which of course was Sept 2013 is you use a calender, 3.5 years ago - can you still get rims? Yes, plenty, can you still get tyres, yes plenty, can you still get forks - okay they're limited but you can still service the ones you have, and I think it's fair to say no one is building new, new 26" bikes, not middle of the road trial bikes anyway.

I'd bet you can still get all the consumables you need to keep a 26er running for years to come, there's still piles of them being ridden every week.

The bikes have changed quite a bit since I started, but more importantly, the trails have too.

I suppose it's the last bit that is controversial. Have the trails changed? If you talking about say Woburn (local to me) then yes people have cut lines with jumps and berms and these are subject to change with. But the rights of way new work hasn't. I find the bottom bracket low enough to be a pain in ruts and and it isn't low by modern standards

Agree with Ampthill. Low bb's have started to annoy me so much I'm riding my older bikes more and more.
There's little difference in speed except I can run what length cranks I want, run more sag if I want and pedal when I want.

People will say technique, ratchet etc etc but on a flattish rocky track or if the trail has eroded into a dip my bike from the early 2000's is way better than my modern bike.

All geometry is a compromise but ride a 65/66 degree HA 72+ SA bike with a low BB for a while and then jump back onto a late 90's or early 00's machine and feel the twitchiness.

I'd happily adopt 165mm cranks to reduce pedal strikes rather than raise the BB 5mm.

Modern geometry works pretty well almost everywhere.

Geoff Apps says

https://crosscountrycycle.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/stabilty/

https://crosscountrycycle.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/wheelbase/

My first 'proper' MTB was one of these:
[img] [/img]

I loved it and looking at it now it doesn't exactly look unridable... But I wouldn't choose it now over an equivalent bike from the last decade or so...

I mean pretty much everything on it is now 'obsolete' and now ~25 years on the frame probably seems a bit more like touring geometry than what people would recognise as a mountain bike today.

I really don't think "the industry" knew the secret formula for an awesome mountain bike back then but were just holding it back to help 30 odd years of future sales... There's been a long development curve, technologies borrowed from other areas and some oddballs trying [i]weird[/i] things only for them to eventually be adopted by the mainstream.

Of course MTBing is very different today, lots of varied niches and the new golfer contingent, plus being a sport/pastime that you can pick up at 6 and probably still be doing past 60, mean it's become a much bigger business, the likes of specialized, Trek and Giant are far bigger organisations today and it's not unreasonable to be at least a bit cynical about the development and marketing of modern MTBs...

sargey2003 - Member
All geometry is a compromise but ride a 65/66 degree HA 72+ SA bike with a low BB for a while and then jump back onto a late 90's or early 00's machine and feel the twitchiness.

I'd happily adopt 165mm cranks to reduce pedal strikes rather than raise the BB 5mm.

Modern geometry works pretty well almost everywhere.

POSTED 2 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST

One reason is to compensate for the deficiencies of telescopic forks as they get longer.

A tele fork as a long lever tends to flex. This means under braking it can bind, and also on rough terrain.

A fork behaving like this is hard to damp effectively and can sometimes give you stutter.

There's ways of dealing with this - stronger springs, larger diameter fork stanchions (compare with a few years back), or the current favourite, tilt the fork back a bit so the resulting force is along the direction of the legs, ie slacker head angles.

There's other reasons, but I reckon that's the main reason.

paton - Member
Geoff Apps says
> https://crosscountrycycle.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/stabilty/
https://crosscountrycycle.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/wheelbase/

His example of let go of your bike and it will fall over doesn't work - a moving bike is obviously more stable than a stationary one (even if - IIRC - physics can't really explain why) otherwise ghost rides wouldn't happen.

And taken to a logical conclusion, according to that idea a Penny Farthing should be the ultimately manoeuverable off-road bike with as much stability as a modern long. low. slack enduro sled?

More stable when moving due to gyroscopic effect of spinning wheels surely?

So back to the cynical conspiracy...

Have a watch back through the Syndicate vids, for the last few years it's been custom links, custom head sets, tweak this, move that etc.
Back in the day when Fabien and TMo were racing Kona got a look at the proper stab WC and it had heaps of mounting holes for the brake arm so they could try this stuff out.

Regardless of what the Geomobores tell you whats on the paper doesn't make the bike. It's try, see, adjust repeat that dials the bike. The SC Hightower that will be getting a rejig probably is being pushed by the EWS guys and fed back into the designs.

Very few people could get from a 2010 bike to a 2017 one is a single design step. What was learnt a long the way was fed back, some dead ends were found, some silly ideas tried and binned.

Watching some of the Fox test vids show a lot too, the new stuff is going in to the top race gear, it's being tested by the best in the world and refined before it makes it to production.

It's obviously fun to mock and poke fun at the bike industry and think it's all just a game to piss people off but in reality it's working really well. Do we have to go and prove you can still get 9sp 26" QR stuff again? 😉

What benefits/downsides does a longer top tube bring ?

I think this thread shows just how conservative the market is...

What benefits/downsides does a longer top tube bring ?

sargey2003 - Member
I think this thread shows just how conservative the market is...

POSTED 1 DAY AGO # REPORT-POST
nickfrog - Member

I couldn't give too craps about angles, top tube length etc, I just want a bike I can ride quickly when I want to.
I also don't want to suffer because somebody can't ride a bike without a bottom bracket so low it needs shorter crank arms and steel toe caps.

tilt the fork back a bit so the resulting force is along the direction of the legs, ie slacker head angles.

Oh ? I thought slacker head angles resulted in more wear on the stanchion guides ? and that it was improvements in fork design and manufacturing that now allows slacker angles with trail forks...

@nickfrog>>>Many folk feel more confident tackling steep and gnarly trails on bikes with longer front ends and slacker head angles. They therefore feel they are having more fun. DH and enduro racers find they go faster (the long bike trend started in DH I think).

Why this is, is a matter for conjecture, but it has a lot to do with decreased sensitivity to front/back weight distribution and greater ability to survive potential front-door exit situations.

I reckon I've been MTBing proper for 14 years, in that time I've had 10 bikes, so not a swapper or a one bike guy either.
21 years here.
9 bikes, including two that were stolen, so really 7 if I had chosen.
You are verging on being a swapper sir.

haha.......pair of amateurs. 😆

Well thinking about the forces involved, if the way you habitually abuse your bike is landing to flat, then slacker angles increase fork bushing loads, but if it is by hitting large rocks as speed or nose-diving landings, then slacker angles would probably be better for your bushes.

I hadn't heard the one about it being to do with fork construction until just now though.

@ton. Im not even going to say how many bikes I've had.

How many out of those have I rode properly. .... Probs not many 😳

I've recently moved from a Classic Blur to a Bird Aeris. When I bought it (a long time ago) I thought the Blur was simply the best bike in the world. Just a fantastic bike. We've been round so many corners together.

However, the improvement in riding the Aeris over the older design is just difficult to get my head round. The amount of grip, the stability at speed, the amount more confidence on steeper trails - I could go on and on. Riding the Bird almost feels like cheating.

So, while I have no idea if nefarious bike companies have successfully get one over on me by lying about the benefit of modern long/slack designs, as long as their bikes ride like this, I'm a happy camper.

I'd been thinking I should get a modern bike, especially when one riding buddy just got a lovely carbon Transition Scout. But when I replaced the fork on my Mk1 Cotic Soul with a 10 yr old 140mm Pike, and changed to a wider flat bar and shorter stem it transformed it into the best bike I've ever ridden. Total investment £116. That included the new gear cable and brake pads.

Continuous improvement is a good philosophy but sometimes things just don't need improving.

Oh the shame of having 26" wheels, straight steerer and square taper. I'm condemned to night riding just in case anybody sees me riding it. And having just as much fun as I did back in 1999.

Taken with pinch of salt;
650b geometry looks like it will probably settle around 63-65 HA for trail/enduro and 76-77 seat tube angle.
Reach per size there's probably still fair bit of tweaking to cover the most amount of people per frame size. Though there is bound to be limits on longer reaches keeping you centred and making it difficult to get your weight right back when required.

BB drop is mainly 10mm ATM, but will probably go to 15-20mm, may need 165mm cranks though.

Some manufacturers are almost at those figures now, others however aren't. Even the new mk4 nomad's reach numbers seem quite conservative.

a moving bike is obviously more stable than a stationary one (even if - IIRC - physics can't really explain why)

It's partly gyroscopic effect and partly the fact that the tyre contact patch is behind the steering axis of the forks. Casters on trolleys are swept backwards for the same reason.

The lower the BB goes in relation to the wheel axles, the more stability you have and the more a bike will dig into corners.

My experience is that a 29er can have a higher BB but still feel more planted than a slammed 650b bike.

Oh the shame of having 26" wheels, straight steerer and square taper. I'm condemned to night riding just in case anybody sees me riding it. And having just as much fun as I did back in 1999.

That made me chuckle John as I am the same as you. Or was. I have eventually moved from 26/straight steerer/conventional geo to a 27.5 Meta HT that I built up.
It cost me a bit more than you but the contrast is striking. And I had already done the upgrades that you mention.

And having just as much fun as I did back in 1999.

Honestly, I'm having more fun riding than I did back then. For a host of reasons, but one is because I have a slack 7" travel bike with big discs and a dropper which is quite a lot more fun on the descents than a rigid steel bike with cantis 🙂

Although as was discussed on a recent ride with an old friend, even like for like bikes are much better. We did a classic ride for old times' sake that we'd first done in the mid to late 90s, both of us on rigid bikes of course. This time we were both on rigid steel bikes again but with carbon forks, wide rims, fat tubeless tyres and disks. The descents were far more fun - the bikes handle much better. MTBs are evolving even faster now than they were then, and back then they'd only been around a short time.

And having just as much fun as I did back in 1999.

Mind you if I'd never ridden a modern bike I'd probably not know what I'm missing

Depends on what you're after innit? Faster riding on gnarlier terrain? Sure, get a more modern bike, they're better designed for it. I still have an absolute hoot riding my fully rigid steel 26er with V-brakes at Llandegla or wherever - going half the speed is twice as scary 😆 I'm looking forward to getting a more modern bike as well, mind...

Depends on what you're after innit? Faster riding on gnarlier terrain? Sure, get a more modern bike, they're better designed for it. I still have an absolute hoot riding my fully rigid steel 26er with V-brakes at Llandegla or wherever - going half the speed is twice as scary 😆 I'm looking forward to getting a more modern bike as well, mind...

The thing that bugs me about the buzzwords is when late arrivals still try and use it. Ibis are banging on about "longer for 2017", but it's more or less an admission that their bikes were short and they were lagging behind most of the competition (last year's Mojo HD XL was barely longer than my medium BMC). Most bikes that say long, low, slack don't deliver on all 3.

It's kind of like when Orange started selling maxles as an optional extra for stiffness- even with the maxle the frames were still among the flexiest on the market because of the swingarm design and construction but they were selling a £100 uptick on a perceived benefit that wasn't really there.

jamesoz - Member

Thing is I don't understand why everybody needs a low bb to ride round the woods or down an Alp for that matter.

You don't- you can do those things on my 25 year old carrera if you want. But I'd rather do it on a newer bike, wouldn't you?

Depends on what you're after innit?

Well, a modern steel rigid 29er is in a pretty similar vein to the old 26ers but it does everything better, in my book. Despite being a bit heavier. And it's not about speed and gnarliness - we are still talking fully rigid bikes here.

There is absolutely nothing to recommend a 90s bike in my mind.

And having just as much fun as I did back in 1999.

I'm probably having more fun now, I wasn't riding in '99 but I was for a bit in 94-95 and then again from 2005 to now.

I'm not saying we're still to reach 'peak fun', I'd guess on balance we've passed peak fun and are chasing peak speed now, I don't know maybe in 5 years we'll all look back and say "I can't believe we used to put up with mechanical bikes - I can do 50 easy on my D12 equiped e-bike" like we sometimes say we can't believe we used to put up with canti brakes that sort of work sometimes, narrow little 1.95 tyres that sort of gripped, sort of rolled but mostly flatted whenever to looked at them etc etc.

I did my "upgrade" because I was thinking of buying a more up-to-date bike. One which I borrowed to take round the old Marin Trail at Betws. The bike was a Trek Remedy which I didn't get on with. The reason was that on the downhill bits I just had to point it in the right direction and let it go. I didn't feel very involved in the process and was missing all the fun.
I know that is due to my age and skill level as I was aware that had I gone a good bit faster I would have found that sense of involvement and fun but the consequences of a mistake (to which I am prone) would have been quite serious.

Anyway, I thrashed my whipper-snapper buddy on his Transition Scout carbon with Eagle and Enve on Cannock Chase last Thursday so I'm doing fine.

The bit that gets me is when they say how radical some of the smaller niche brands are, but when you look at the numbers they are virtually identical to everyone elses.

There are definitely some radical bikes being made by smaller brands, Pole and Nicolai/Mojo are a couple of examples and Mondraker have been selling 'forward geometry' bikes for quite some time now.

Look at the reach/ETT numbers on the Aeris 145 as well - the larger ones are properly long. Steep ST as well, though the HA is 65° with a 160mm fork. I think the BB drop comes in at 13mm too.

diotdogbrain - Member
Look at the reach/ETT numbers on the Aeris 145 as well - the larger ones are properly long. Steep ST as well, though the HA is 65° with a 160mm fork. I think the BB drop comes in at 13mm too.

They aren't far on the geometron tbf.
At a certain point reach length per size is going to be too long to allow you to get your weight fully back for manualing etc.
Question is, is the geometron already at that limit?
Would be nice if we could measure our arms and legs etc and be able to work out optimal reach, would take a lot of this guess work, and manufacturer testing of increasing length bit by bit out.

jamesoz - Member
Thing is I don't understand why everybody needs a low bb to ride round the woods or down an Alp for that matter.

You don't- you can do those things on my 25 year old carrera if you want. But I'd rather do it on a newer bike, wouldn't you?

I could live with a little less stability for a little more ground clearance.

Been riding mtb's for a long time. 1st bought a 1993 Kona Fire Mountain new with my money when I was 13. Been riding QR20 axles since 2001.

Trails when I started = fire roads, some old, some new.

Trails when I was running QR20, xc to NS to DH, Freeride drops & skinny's

Now: Incredibly well built epic long amazing trails with gravity assist.

The bikes are adapting to the trails riders build.

A Modern bike would have sucked at the shore & the freeride trails back in the day, too long, too slow.

Just like an early to mid 00's trail bike isn't going to feel as great at Mach Chicken on today's trails, too short & tall.

I see the future 15 years from now..... MX like tracks down all the mountains you ride now.... wider, smoother & bigger and a lot faster.

More from Geoff Apps, and his ideas

http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/cleland-original-big-wheeled-off-road-bicycle-813437.html

Yesterday, one 2004 Commencal Meta 5.5 on 1.9 xc tyres, one 2010 Sanderson Breath on 2.3 High Rollers, one 2016 Specialized Enduro 650b on 2.4's. All ridden by similar height and weight riders.

Downhill on forest track, Commencal was fastest apart from the really stony bits and the wet corners, where the Breath was fastest.
Climbs – forest track, the HT Sanderson was fastest, bumpy wet roots marginally the Specialized.
Descents on twisty, natural mud trails – the Sanderson was nippiest in among trees. Commencal was fastest on easy bits. Specialized bars were too wide, plus the shocks were not set up properly so rear kept bottoming out….

Conclusion – we all had a fab time ?

That Geoff Apps thread is daft. It might be more stable if you are higher up - but some riders want to change direction rapidly, so a higher centre of mass is a disadvantage in that situation.

That Geoff Apps thread is daft. It might be more stable if you are higher up - but some riders want to change direction rapidly,

Horses for courses. It's the polar opposite of the Nicolai Geometron but the Cleland is designed for slow speed 'trials' style riding (Geoff describes it as pootling in the woods). The Geometron is a handful at slow speeds - it's primarily designed to going downhill fast and "through" things rather than picking lines around them. Trying to ride the Cleland like a modern enduro bike on, say, a trail centre descent would likely be fairly terrifying.

It is horses for courses, absolutely. But what really winds me up about these grumpy old shed tinkerer types is that they're so convinced that their invention is the one true way and that if all of us gullible imbeciles could just get over our obsession with modern kit we'd see the light and all buy their bikes instead.

If they said 'hey, I like riding this thing, give it a try, it might be a laugh' that'd be great. But no, it's all 'you've been duped your whole lives, my amazing invention has been stifled by these horrible mega corporations' etc etc etc 🙄

I'm sure there are plenty of riders that are on entirely the wrong bike - including middle aged pootlers who've been seduced by flashy enduro machines.

Trying to ride the Cleland like a modern enduro bike on, say, a trail centre descent would likely be fairly terrifying

I agree 🙂

If they said 'hey, I like riding this thing, give it a try, it might be a laugh' that'd be great. But no, it's all 'you've been duped your whole lives, my amazing invention has been stifled by these horrible mega corporations' etc etc etc

You've not met Geoff then?

He's much more the former than the latter, with an element of [i]"lots of people are riding bikes that aren't appropriate for the kind of riding they actually do*, because they're trying to ride how the marketing tells them they should"[/i]

* See why Gravel/Allroad bikes are so popular, bikes for 'just riding places' as some people realise that's what they actually like doing, mixed terrain, mixed riding not all hardcore drops berms and rock gardens. 'Proper MTBs' obviously have their place for people that are into it (me included) but bike brands aren't really catering to the 'woodland bimbler' element at the moment are they?

Trying to ride the Cleland[b] like a modern enduro bike [/b]on, say, a trail centre descent would likely be fairly terrifying

Key bit emboldened, you're right trying to ride it like that would be terrifying, in the same way that trying to ride a modern Enduro bike like a Cleland would be cumbersome and frustrating. But trying to ride a Cleland like they are designed to be ridden, even down that same descent would actually probably surprise you how capable it is, and you'll likely not find anything that could climb [i]up[/i] a tricky technical trail like that quite like a Cleland 😉

trying to ride a modern enduro bike like a Clenland would be cumbersome and frustrating.

I reckon I could ride down a 3 inch deep stream on my enduro bike pretty easily. 😆