I am after bike with this geometry numbers. Any hints if this bike actually exist?
160mm/650b
headangle 65 (+/- 0.5)
seatangle 76 ( 76 very important for me)
chainstay 425-430
reach 450 (+/- 5mm)
bb drop -10mm ( -15mm maximum)
stack irrelevant for me as is usually fine anyway and bar/stem rise setup is for personal taste.

saying you want 450 reach is kind of pointless unless we know what sort of seatube length/size.

hardly anything with 76 degree seat-tube angle.

Closest of the top of my head based on your numbers is the new tracer.

How do you know it’s perfect if you’ve never ridden a bike with that geometry?

That SA with that reach is a fairly small bike – I take it you’re not too tall (if you don’t mind me asking?).

The effective STA will be pretty different on a 160 travel bike – wouldn’t get too fixated on that. Easy to slide a saddle forwards to steepen the STA anyway?

to wiggles : why is it pointless or rather why is seatube length important when it comes to reach numebr? ok so if it has to be seatube must be short enough for 150 mm reverb so lets say 445-450ish ( shorter seatube is best – saves frame weight)

jam bo : i owned 4 full sussers and was experimenting with stem lenghts/ handlebar upsweep/backsweep and also height ( steerer spacers) many times on each frame , so somparing each frameset geo the numbers are bang on what i want – please note that I included some geometry tolerances that would be within my desired handlicg charasteristics of a frame with 50 mm stem.

benpinnick : yes you have valid point but in reality that does not matter. with that extra SA steepness I will be able to pedal uphills without need to bend my back/get my torso above stem – super comfort uphills + front wheel glued to steepest firetrack , but most importantly when standing and shredding downhills , saddle will be in perfect position – out of way when moving around bike/ getting behind saddle etc + added benefit of using saddle to steer with my thighs for better cornering (one of my previous framesets SA was 75 and it was excellent )

sillyoldman : not true. from my experience effective saddle is most important . moving saddle does help a bit , but does not feel same actually.
73.5 SA reign with saddle to front pedal worse than my previous bike 75 SA with centered saddle.

sillyoldman : what bike are you riding ? effective SA is next big thing in geometry evolution . effective at correct sag

Is that quoted effective seat tube angle, actual seat tube angle or the true effective seat tube angle at your saddle height?

Yes, but what colour? 😉

yes you have valid point but in reality that does not matter.

I ride a 76 degree seat angle and I can’t see how I would be able to ride a reach that short (at 5′ 10″). I’d be forever smashing my knees on the bars and probably feel like I would get ejected out the front at any moment as I would be so close to the stem when standing (or hanging my ass right out the back, but I don’t think that would suit me either). But geo is a very personal thing I guess!

A few different bikes. All different STAs. Some fully rigid, some FS and some hardtails with sups forks, so effective STA slackens on some, steepens on some, and remains the same on some. Happy to move saddle forward or back to get the saddle/BB relationship right.

effective angle ( the virtual line from BB to saddle ,just to clarify) is what I need. Just found out pole bikes have actual SA around 77.5 which is crazy steep maybe even overkill ??!)

For clarity – I meant sagged STA.

benpinnick:
what bike is it please?

yes sagged Effective SA – on full sussers when both fork and shock sag , then it doesn’t matter frankly as the result would be more or less same sagged or unsagged

Process 153 ticks all your boxes apart from your magic STA, which is 75

Not for me. I run more sag at the rear than the front.

trauty – Member
benpinnick:
what bike is it please?

think he rides a specialized 😉

kimbers : wow indeed. thanks although not completely perfect SA is steeper as you said but 75 is ok as with 1 degree angle headset ( workscomponents it would slacken it to 64.5 nad SA would be closer to 76. ‘only’ 153 mm travel though.

650b enduro is bang on (quiet impressed – as i did not expect this brand to come with this SA at all)

was a joke!!

Ben is an owner of Bird cycles I imagine hes talking about this

https://www.bird.bike/product-category/complete-bikes/aeris-145/

Trauty….you know Ben Pinnick IS Bird don’t you?
Edit…DAMMIT Kimbers 👿
My first thought was, 450 reach and 76 degree SA.You must be a midget.
If you rob a bank,Robot bike co will make you whatever you like.

Have a play with the Liteville configurator. See if you can find a combination to suit.

http://www.liteville.com/configurator/?language=en

Nope.I didn’t know who Ben Pinnick is. ironic joke frankyl as I now want that 650b enduro. good job with the joke. Sorry Ben. ( here in scotland I want 160 mm travel)

stack irrelevant for me as is usually fine

Unless the stack is really low, like on a Giant Reign – then your reach and ETT are shortened – because you add spacers under the stem, which brings the centre of the stem closer. This is worse on a slack HA, and can be significant on a low stack bike.

Worth keeping in mind!

rickon : you are correct.
right now i have 40 mm rise renthal bar 50mm zero rise stem and 2 mm spacer under stem on my Large Reign. I run my bar rotated slighly more towards back to decrease reach slightly and I like it a lot. Hence why I think 450 reach would suit me best.

here in scotland I want 160 mm travel

Travel is of course a personal choice, but I wouldn’t get hung up on it. I’m sure you could find a decent crop of 140/150 bikes that would out-gun most 160s if you look hard enough. Its a bigger market with a wider choice. Get out and try some would be my advice.

owned 150 mm remedy. was sweet , just not as good as 160 in a really rough stuff.

Thats my point though – a 160 remedy (given you liked it) might be better than a 150, but a [insert other company’s 160 here] might not be as good as your 150 remedy. Only trying it will determine that. Geo is one factor but there’s plenty of choice out there.

absolutely ben. well designed 150 mm suspension linkage is always better than average 160 mm. Actually my remedy 9.9 150 mm back /160mm front .
In the end I needed to swap it for some slacker bike. If it was possible to run the frame with -1.5ish angleset , then I would most likely kept riding it..

Answering the thread title rather than the post: After trying a good few bikes recently, I think enduro bike geometry is still very much a work in progress.

I’d suggest having a butcher’s at the Radon Swoop though, the 18in is pretty close to what you want.

Compared to the Process 153 it’s more planted than playful, though still easy to move around due to the short stays. The 153 is just ridiculously fun, at the expense of a bit of stability.

giant reign geo on large :
457 reach, 435 CS ,65HA,73.5 SA
what i would like it to be:
450 reach, 425ish CS , 65HA , 75+ SA and less bb drop (10mm higher bb for pedal clearance)

that would make bike more agile and still plenty stable ( about 2 cm less wheelbase)

Transition patrol but has 75 SA and 457 reach

If you want a steeper seat angle then you can use an angleset and/or a shorter fork than stock to drop the front end of the bike. I did this initially with my Bird Zero AM taking it from 75.4 deg to 76.2 deg seat angle (both quoted with 20% sag because it’s a hardtail). If you do this then bear in mind the BB height will drop and the reach will increase, so you have to consider everything. The very steep seat angle was great uphill but not comfortable on any flatter pedalling, hence I reverted to stock geometry (with a slightly slacker head angle).

chief : shorter fork is silly. same can be achieved with more sag
anyway I tried offset shock bushings to rise or lower bb on my previous bikes for various reasons.
perhaps offset bushing to rise bb few mm to steepen SA in combination with angle headset to slacken front could work , but that would make reach even longer than I would like + wheelbase would rise also.
medium sized bikes could be potentially great maybe with that adjustment.
(stock HA 66 / SA75 -> offset bushing plus angleset to 65/76 . reach should remain about same I think 5 mm change maybe – not problem)

Have you tried many bikes out?

I thought I knew exactly what I wanted in terms of geometry, but riding a good selection recently has probably changed my mind.

Running more sag does not feel the same as using a shorter fork.

chakaping – Member
Have you tried many bikes out?

Shhh tape measure and a protractor make the test irrelevant.

The Enduro bike geometry you are looking for can be found in the 2017 Enduro
Size L
B-B Drop 10.5mm
B-B Height (650×2.3) 345mm
B-B Height (650×2.6) 350mm
Bike Stand-Over Height 782mm
Chain-Stay Length 425mm
Fork Length (full) 559mm
Fork Rake/Offset 51mm
Front-Center 776mm
Head-Tube Angle 65.5°
Head-Tube Length 115mm
Reach 450mm
Seat-Tube Angle 76°
Seat-Tube Length 467mm
Stack 604mm
Top-Tube Length (horizontal) 604mm
Trail 106mm
Wheelbase 1201mm