Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 63 total)
  • What do you think of the new, long geometry trend? (Mondraker, Kona, GT, etc)
  • kudos100
    Free Member

    It seems there are more bikes about with this style of geometry. It makes sense to me thinking about it, but I’ve always gravitated towards a slightly smaller bike as I’ve found them more fun to ride.

    I haven’t ridden a bike with a really long top tube, stubby stem and long wheelbase, but would like to have a crack at some point and see what it’s like.

    What do people think about them?

    Rorschach
    Free Member

    If someone says “I prefer bikes with short wheelbases because they are more “chuckable” I will vomit.

    mjsmke
    Full Member

    The long wheel base was enough to rule Mondraker out for me.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    oldfart
    Full Member

    I’m having a hoot on my Process 🙂

    bikeneil
    Free Member

    I prefer bikes with short wheelbases because they are more “chuckable”

    66deg
    Free Member

    I prefer bikes with short wheelbases because they are more “chuckable”

    davosaurusrex
    Full Member

    I concur. I find short wheelbases are a positive boon when I’m getting rowdy on the trails.

    Nobeerinthefridge
    Free Member

    Short wheelbases are not only more chuckable, but better suited for ‘aggressive XC’

    Clink
    Full Member

    I’m having a hoot on my Process

    How does it compare to your Raijin?

    fallsoffalot
    Free Member

    short wheelbases are more flickable 😀

    Clink
    Full Member

    short wheelbases are more flickable

    unicycles are where it’s at!

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I just bought a frame with adjustable wheelbase.. 😯

    No idea where to set it.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    My process 153 is very chuckable, got more airtime on it than any other bike I’ve had

    Whether its the longness of it all or something else about the bike its just incredibly confidence inspiring on anything technical

    Riding an older shorter bike that i used to think was chuckable just feels cramped and unstable now

    Northwind
    Full Member

    If I had a bike with an #enduro compatible long top tube, I’d have no excuse for doing badly in races- viva la shortbike.

    julianwilson
    Free Member

    Short wheelbases help on all them ridiculously tight uphill switchbacks cut into the side of the hill that you find in trailcentres. (Runs for cover 😉 )

    JCL
    Free Member

    If someone says “I prefer bikes with short wheelbases because they are more “chuckable” I will vomit.

    Likewise.

    That said, increasing front centre without increasing rear centre is moronic.

    bikeneil
    Free Member

    ^ couldn’t agree more. A bike without two centres is next to useless. It’s all I look for in a new bike now.

    nuke
    Full Member

    Im liking it as i must have short legs and a long body: the longer TT means i can size down but still have the long TT i want and, given ive sized down, i also get a shorter seattube which is better for running a decent travel dropper post.

    Hob-Nob
    Free Member

    I like it, but there is a limit for me.

    Plus I really dislike the whole Mondraker zero stem thing. Long TT with a reasonably short ~50mm stem is about spot on.

    Doesn’t introduce some of the weird understeer effect the Zero stems do.

    boriselbrus
    Free Member

    Well I tested a Mondraker and found it very twitchy and unstable and the front wheel kept wanting to tuck under. Scariest bike I’ve ridden in a long time.

    Doubtless someone will tell me it’s my technique or something, but it’s not for me.

    sweaman2
    Free Member

    Conversely I’m not a fan as I have long legs and short body so the longer top tube is now putting me annoyingly between sizes. Large seat tube with medium top tube would be perfect but is a bit tricky….

    However I’ve not actually ridden a new frame and so could be convinced otherwise…

    kudos100
    Free Member

    Plus I really dislike the whole Mondraker zero stem thing. Long TT with a reasonably short ~50mm stem is about spot on.

    Doesn’t introduce some of the weird understeer effect the Zero stems do.

    I’d like to try one, but my brain thinks it will be sh1te, as not enough weight on the front wheel. 30 or 40mm stem might be good though.

    richiethesilverfish
    Free Member

    All new Mondrakers come with 30mm stems.

    Traditionally I would’ve always been in the ‘liking small frames’ camp so when Mondraker first introduced me to Forwsrd Geometry I was already looking for faults.
    The fact is that I know love it.
    It ride faster and more confidently than anything else I’ve used.

    Boriselbrus – When they first jump on FG a lot of people feel that the front end is a bit twitchy and like they might lose the front wheel. It’s one of the reasons for moving away from a 10mm stem.
    After a while though you realise that you can ride the bike with waaaay more weight over the front wheel and that totally eliminates the ‘wandering’.

    It’s never going go suit everyone but a longer wheel base makes a lot of sense. It’s a more confident ride downhill as it’s longer and lower, it’s harder to pitch yourself over the handlebars and you don’t get that front wheel lift you get on some bikes when climbing the steep stuff.

    As I say, it’s never going to suit everyone but if you’re going to give it a try just do so with an open mind and let the ride and speed dictate your opinion.
    That’s what we asked the mag guys in the UK to do and they all, uninamously, loved the bikes.

    Cheers

    Richie

    chiefgrooveguru
    Full Member

    The strange thing that Mondraker missed with their first attempt at forward geometry and zero/10mm stems, is that when you pair a stem that short with a typical shape handlebar you end up with a negative effective stem length! In other words, grips behind the steering axis. This will feel weird and will cause active instability when you lean on the bars.

    With most handlebars once you’re down to 30-40mm actual stem length you’re at roughly zero effective stem length.

    mindmap3
    Free Member

    I like longer bikes these days.

    I’ve always been between sizes (top end of mediums, low end of large) and have always gone for the shorte bike on the basis that it’s more fun even though they may have been a tad short. I remember demoing a large 05 Soesh Enduro and it felt like a barge, whereas the the medium felt ok.

    My Rune changed my mind…the longer bike is much more stable and climbs better too. It works well with a short stem and side bars. The combination of slack head angle and steep seat angle works too, especially compared to the old Enduros which both were slack.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    The thing about the 0mm forward geometry, is it was never going to be good enough to make people buy such a horrendous looking bike.

    wl
    Free Member

    Had a quick spin on the new Alpine 160 650b the other day and it felt absolutely mint – long tt, 35mm stem. You soon get used to swinging longer bikes around tight switchbacks.

    Nobeerinthefridge
    Free Member

    The thing about the 0mm forward geometry, is it was never going to be good enough to make people buy such a horrendous looking bike.

    This.

    andyrm
    Free Member

    Keep hearing this thing of shorter bikes being more “fun” much like 26″ wheels.

    Guess it depends on your buzz factor how you define fun – for me, its going as fast as possible, so a long, slack 650B bike suits. And comparative tests on the same tracks prove not only does it feel faster, but it is faster on the clock too so I’m happy with that……

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I’ve no idea what category my bike falls into now! Seem to be fettling what I’ve got and enjoying it. Dunno what it is any more 🙂

    chickenman
    Full Member

    Well, had the proper “Chuckable” experience with an old style bike; very expensive that, not being able to work for 6 weeks. Thing is, most of my riding is on the very steep and twisty stuff (in all honesty, I’m pretty crap at it) and on that bike it was a constant battle trying not to bury the front wheel. Putting any weight over the front wheel for braking and steering was really rather scary.

    roverpig
    Full Member

    That said, increasing front centre without increasing rear centre is moronic

    This is the bit I don’t get. I can see that, if you want a slacker head angle (as most people seem to) then you need a shorter stem to keep the steering feeling the same. So, if you want to keep the reach to the bars the same, it makes sense to make the TT longer. But that increases the front centre, so what do you do about the rear centre (i.e. chainstays)?

    Make them longer too, in order to keep the FC/RC ratio (and the balance of the bike) the same, but accept that the wheelbase will increase? Or shorten the RC to keep the wheelbase the same, but accept that the weight will then be biased more to the rear?

    deanfbm
    Free Member

    I was in the “i want a smaller bike so it’s more chuckable camp”, so ran a small frame and short stem, then got a MTB that actually fitted me with a short stem. My body was in a better position to work the bike so it ended up being more planted and more chuckable.

    Seems silly now that running it small was the thing to do, i already went through the same experiences on a BMX, one that fitted well served me much better than one that was too big or small.

    But yea, of course if you went to big you’d lose chuckability, but if you went too small your body would be in the wrong position making it uncontrollable or less chuckable, it’s that balancing act.

    it’s expensive but to find out what’s too big, you have to go too big, just as you have to go too small to find out what is too small.

    Im a hair over 5ft 10 running a large 29er, the bike is always all sorts of sideways, in the air, can turn on a sixepence if i really wanted.

    kudos100
    Free Member

    This is the bit I don’t get. I can see that, if you want a slacker head angle (as most people seem to) then you need a shorter stem to keep the steering feeling the same. So, if you want to keep the reach to the bars the same, it makes sense to make the TT longer. But that increases the front centre, so what do you do about the rear centre (i.e. chainstays)?

    JCL seems to hate short chainstays regardless of what bike they are on. I can see the advantage of having a longer TT, shorter stem and a longer wheelbase, but lengthening the chainstays too much IMO will make a bike handle like a pig. I can’t imagine ultra short stays and a long front centre would be much fun either.

    Perhaps it’s personal preference, but the bikes i’ve ridden with longer chainstays have been dull. Stable, but boring.

    tomaso
    Free Member

    The strange thing is some of these new fangled long front centre/top tube/wheelbase designs aren’t too dissimilar to a Specialized Pitch. And for that reason it can only be a good thing cos I’ve never had so much fun on one bike. My geeky geometry spreadsheet bike selecta makes for interesting reading. For a large size the reach / wheelbase is as follows:
    Mondraker Dune 480mm / 1222mm
    Kona Process 153 460mm / 1190mm
    Canyon Strive Race 468mm / 1207mm
    Pitch 480mm / 1183mm

    If you don’t adjust your style/riding position to the bikes geometry then the front will wash out and feel nervous because there is insufficient weight on it.

    dekadanse
    Free Member

    Even though at 6′ with 33″ inside leg I’m between longer size M bikes and size Ls, and have in principle subscribed to the ‘short but chuckable’ school, I now have a large 26″ Foxy XR which I love. I find no problem at all with the longer top tube/minimal stem combo, the front wheel doesn’t tuck under (more of a steep geometry/long stem thing surely?) and doesn’t feel twitchy. It manoeuvres exceptionally well, and handles tight corners better than a large 2013 Spicy (which has similar slack angles, but shorter top tube/longer stem).

    So yes – Forward Geometry wins an unlikely convert.

    davidy
    Free Member

    I have had my Summum for a year now, and its easily the best bike I have ever owned. It descends insanely well, the most stable bike ever. I have just fitted the adjustable geo kit, and the long wheelbase chips, hopefully this will increase its awesomeness! For long travel bikes I am completely sold.

    seanthesheap
    Free Member

    Chuckable bike?

    What the hell does it mean? easy to jump? or turns fast? Serious question.

    Brake-neck
    Free Member

    The Foxy XR just seems to suit me, yeah it fell out of the ugly tree but if you buy a bike for how it looks over how it rides you’re an idiot. I also think that bikes with this sort of geometry are quite terrain specific. The Foxy handles well enough at the likes of GT or Inners XC but that’s because it’s not getting pushed, show it something steep, slippy and scary and it clicks immediately.

    Interestingly I had a loan of a Rocky Mountain MSL 750 for a couple of weeks there, it had a 50mm stem and felt far more twitchy than the Mondy. One thing I did notice is that I could push the front end of the Rocky a bit harder so I’m going to try the 30mm stem next. Also, bear in mind Mondraker took 10mm off the top tube this year, so the 30mm is only really a 20mm 😉

    Brake-neck
    Free Member

    BTW Northwind, you had an Ellsworth so your comment on looks is invalid 😉

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 63 total)

The topic ‘What do you think of the new, long geometry trend? (Mondraker, Kona, GT, etc)’ is closed to new replies.