Viewing 18 posts - 41 through 58 (of 58 total)
  • Santa Cruz: Why so short?
  • dirtyrider
    Free Member

    ^^ eh?

    wrecker
    Free Member

    Talk of the 5010 and Bronson being shitcanned and this being a new 140mm Blur.

    chakaping
    Free Member

    Hmm new 5010 oh dear, I need a new bike. I think 5010 will handle most stuff well, not just trail. Jacobs ladder? Straight down over a few rocks. Spent more time waiting for a gap between walker groups. Way overated

    Try to sober up a bit before you make any rash decisions like buying a new bike.

    🙂

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    Pawsy_Bear
    Free Member

    honourablegeorge
    Full Member

    wrecker – Member
    Talk of the 5010 and Bronson being shitcanned and this being a new 140mm Blur.

    Makes some sense to have just 140 and 160(165?) bikes instead of 130, 150 and 165, from their POV

    wrecker
    Free Member

    That’s what I thought George. All they have to do is get the angles right……..

    zelak999
    Free Member

    wrecker – Member
    Talk of the 5010 and Bronson being shitcanned and this being a new 140mm Blur.

    26”er too?

    Hob-Nob
    Free Member

    I still want a 5010, although it would have to be an XL, it would be about the same as most L’s.

    Now might be the time to buy one if there is something new coming.

    Don’t want a 140mm bike, 125 is perfect to have against my Reign. Build it up light, I reckon it would be a riot 🙂

    deviant
    Free Member

    As someone else said, short is a relative term.

    At 5′ 9″ I keep getting told to size up and get a large bike but I simply don’t like how they position me compared to my usual medium.
    I tried loads of these new breed of long bikes when I bought my Trance earlier this year and for me it was horrible….the long top tubes had me stretched out, coupled with fashionably wide bars I was then splayed out too….the end result was me effectively unable to move on the bike, stretched out in the middle of the thing in a precarious position for descending….it felt like I was on my road bike, far too much over the front….when I’m descending I like to be able to get my arse down and back , on extreme stuff that may mean nearly scraping the rear tyre with my bum….and this new school geometry didn’t allow me to do that, it effectively had me locked in the centre of the bike…..i felt like a passenger, a sack of spuds on the bike….I can see why people have OTB moments riding like that!…. It’s not for me, I’ll stick with mediums (or even small sizes, my 456 was 16 inches) and enjoy being able to move around on the bike instead.

    Some sage advice I had from a bike company no less was that it’s easier to size up a small frame and make it fit with longer stem, lay back seatpost etc than to be stuck with a frame that’s too large, you can’t exactly hack away at the tubing if you’ve bought too big!
    Obviously you want a perfectly fitting bike but if you’re between sizes like I often am I reckon it’s a safer bet to go smaller but each to their own.

    fettlin
    Full Member

    Oh man, rumours of a new SC bike! Just been and booked a demo on a 5010c, then got home and read this!

    Currently on an XL Blur LTC, want to try a L 5010 which has a 1/2inch shorter tt.but slightly longer wheelbase and lower standover.

    Had an amazing closeout deal on the blur (£1k off rrp) so waiting for a new model to be announced could reap rewards on an ‘old’ one.

    chickenman
    Full Member

    I would love to go for a ride with Deviant up somewhere like the Golfie. No weight over the front wheel means you can’t steer or brake on steep terrain; I guess the trees would slow you down! 🙂

    deanfbm
    Free Member

    Bum over the back wheel isn’t how you ride steep stuff in control.

    rOcKeTdOg
    Full Member

    Sold my superlight 29er as in was shorter in reach than the fat bike

    deviant
    Free Member

    chickenman – Member
    I would love to go for a ride with Deviant up somewhere like the Golfie. No weight over the front wheel means you can’t steer or brake on steep terrain; I guess the trees would slow you down!

    deanfbm – Member
    Bum over the back wheel isn’t how you ride steep stuff in control.

    Nobody mentioned riding the whole trail like that, I learnt the hard way at Rogate that hanging off the back all the way down just had the front tyre washing out as soon as I wanted to turn.
    Just Google images ‘downhill mountain biking’ and see what comes up for an idea of what I mean, I’m on my phone and can’t post pics from here but you’ll see pics of pros and amateurs alike all getting down and back (arses nearly on that rear tyre) for certain extreme sections of trail and drops/step downs….the test rides I did on large bikes didn’t allow me to do that, I was static in the middle of the bike and sections like that were a heart in mouth experience.

    This new long stretched out positioning on the bike justb isn’t for me, doesn’t allow me to ride the way I feel confident and comfortable.

    chickenman
    Full Member

    Whilst really good riders will fully commit and if necessary pop their way over obstacles, ordinary riders like me relish the big margin for error that the “Trendy” geometry bikes offer: I’ve committed down something then find (because I’m a woose), I don’t have enough momentum to carry me over all the rocks and come to a halt, wheel against a rock. With my old bike (yes, a Santacruz) I’d have been straight OTBs. With the seat right down I can still shove my butt way back behind the COG of the bike for flying off stuff,

    wallop
    Full Member

    I reckon it would be a riot

    That’s exactly what it is.

    chakaping
    Free Member

    Deviant – You may already be on the right length bike, but some of the new frames put more length in the frame and less in the stem.

    I know the feeling you describe though, had it on my old Foxy.

    It was amazingly stable at speed and in corners – but a bit awkward on lumpy steep stuff – unfortunately it was before stems under 50mm were widely available or I might still be on it now.

    Rorschach
    Free Member

    Again?
    ‘Old’ geometry 620mm ett and 90mm stem= 710mm
    ‘Trendy’ geometry 660mm ett and 50mm stem =710mm
    Assuming the same SA your reach to the bars stays the same,your position over the back wheel stays the same.
    The only things that change is the wheel base/front centre as the front wheel gets pushed forwards 40mm.
    No one is trying to recreate a superman position.If you are already running a short stem and you like the reach…great!I’m glad to have the option of not hitting my knees on the bars anymore if I want to run a short stem.

Viewing 18 posts - 41 through 58 (of 58 total)

The topic ‘Santa Cruz: Why so short?’ is closed to new replies.