My much loved Blur Classic probably can’t live forever. I may finally be in a position to buy a replacement. I have two main bikes which I consider just about perfect from a geometry point of view – my Blur and my BFe. I run 150mm Revs with both bikes and am extremely happy with the feel of either bike. I would guess that both bikes have something like 67 degree head angles – I have a 1 degree angle set on the Blur.

I’ve never spent much time on any of the new breed of bikes – but everything is advertised as long, low and slack nowadays. What I love about both my bikes is the ease with which the front end pops up to wheelie over stuff. Both feel very playful in character. Very “flickable” in tight singletrack.

The bikes I’m looking at are the Aeris, the Cotic Flare and the new Santa Cruz 5010. Is all the talk of the new geometry much ado about nothing, or is there a possibility that I might be genuinely disappointed if I buy one of these bikes without a test rise (probably impossible in Belfast).

Lots of bikes are advertises as “long low and slack” but are often just half a degree slacker or 5mm longer than the previous year’s version. It’s all relative.

At the same time, thinkgs like steeper seat angles have to be taken into account – lookign at the front end of the bike in isolation really won’t tell you the whole story. Short chainstays probably have as much to do with ease of popping the front wheel as anything else, and most manufacturers are pushing in that direction.

Go ride some…..

It’s the entire package you are buying not angles 😉

There are a new breed of shorter travel non XC geo bikes that are a great fun pointed down etc. From the write up of the bikes I doubt you will be disspointed at all. I’m riding a Blur LTc with 160mm forks which does exactly what you describe. In the shorter travel stuff feels just as playful in modern bikes, some of the truly longer Enduro wagons may feel sluggish until you ge them up to speed though.

Turners haven’t (yet) subscribed to the long reach fad.

Yeah, I have kind of decided that a 160mm bike would be overkill. I prefer to buy something a little more agile, manouverable and fun. I’m not going to be racing enduros, so flat out speed is not an issue.

Also, the White G130 also appeals to me.

Pygas seem quite normal as well.

reading with interest.. riding a similar SC model and will be looking to change to something ‘new fangled’ once i’ve got buying a new car out of the way

the longer bike thing is a side effect of losing stem length? so a function+fashion change

i really like the look of starling bikes right now: http://www.starlingcycles.com/

There’s quite a lot of variation in reach for bikes that all claim to be long – but if one you like the look of is longer in reach than you want, simply buy a smaller size. With massive long dropper posts nowadays you’d have to have really long legs to not be able to get the saddle on a small up to pedalling height.

Slackness is easy to adjust with anglesets – but a lot of bikes aren’t all that slack.

There’s a fairly narrow range on the lowness front but it does make quite a big difference. BB height numbers aren’t always that informative because it depends the tyres used when quoting, BB drop is more useful. Some bikes are adjustable (like my Spitfire), so you can move something on the dropouts or linkage or shock and raise or lower the BB whilst making the bike steeper or slacker.

Some bikes work best with more sag than others, so the actual geometry when riding can be quite different between two bikes that have near identical static geometry.

Of those three bikes I think the 5010 is the shortest and the Aeris the longest – but like I said, you can always go down a size.

Go ride some, don’t try and work out what geometry you like until you’ve tried different things.

I like shorter chainstays, for example, but I only found this out from riding two bikes (HTs, one was geared the other SS) that were very similar in other ways – and even then it’s only a slight difference. I also am used to quite slack angles, but like the responsiveness of a road or track bike in the right context, and can see why slack wouldn’t appeal to everyone (I’m used to it as I’ve often run slightly longer forks than standard – so feel free to berate me for the high BB’s I’ve thus had to “put up with”).

Pivots are relatively short in the top tube. Doesnt hinder them in the slightest. Some bargains about also.

I can build you a Starling Cycles frame (www.starlingcycles.com) with the front triangle geometry you want. Reach, head angle are standard options.

Long and slack is indeed fast on flat out rough courses. But short and steep is great fun and possibly faster on tight tracks.

Read the recent review on Pinkbike of the IBIS Ripely comparing long and short geometry.

Lots of bikes are advertises as “long low and slack” but are often just half a degree slacker or 5mm longer than the previous year’s version. It’s all relative.

This.

But ride a few and see what you think.

I’ve been looking into bike fit for MTBing and one suggestion I’ve seen is that what matters is the distance your fists are from the floor when you stand tall and reach downwards – so someone with longer arms will fit better on a smaller bike than someone of the same height with shorter arms. That’s the distance between BB and grips – the more downhill focused the bike, the more you have as height rather than length.

I’ve certainly found that although I don’t like short bikes I don’t like particularly long ones. My Bird Zero AM medium now effectively has a zero stem – 35mm actual stem length plus 40mm riser bars rolled back a bit, putting the centre of the grips on line with the steerer. My Spitfire is shorter so has a 50mm stem with 20mm rise bars in a neutral position. The Spitfire is about 420mm reach when sagged, the Zero AM about 450mm, so they’re about the same length once you take into account stem and bars.