Someone posted a link to the Superfly SS recently, and I see that it has G2 geometry. A quick web search shows it’s been around for a few years, so perhaps it’s not too different from other bikes, but I’m wondering what it is. Is it a cross-country racing geometry? Twitchy/responsive? Unsuitable for long day/bikepacking rides in Scotland?

Wasn’t G2 something Gary Fisher came up with whereby you have a longer TT and a shorter stem (ie, whatever everyone does these days anyway).

large fork offset – giving low trail. i think that most other companies did something similar when the second generation of 29ers came along. (massively broad statement in know).

Yeah with 51mm offset fork too.

It’s good!

G2 is Genesis v2.0 geometry. Fisher marketed Genesis geometry, as a short back end, long top tube and short stem setup on 26ers and 29ers. Idea was better climbing but the same wheelbase as normal setups so a stable, non twitchy ride.

G2 was a revised version, with a slacker head angle (somewhere around 69deg) and increased fork offset from about 45 ish, to 51mm. This was to keep the fork trail similar to steeper head angled bikes with normal offset forks, te keep steering sharp, but have the slacker angle to help make the front end feel stable, especially on the downs.

Thanks. Was going to ask if it would be reassuring on steep descents. I’ve had a look at the numbers for some different frames, but it’s hard to make sense of them all. Trek seems to have very short head tube. Some other bikes have more fork offset (eg Stooge at 55mm). Trek looks to have longer top tube than most, but could be offset with shorter stem. It might make sense to ride a few…

This video sums up G2 geometry nicely. I have a 2008 Fisher Big Sur (26″), and I have always been happy with it. Indeed, I bought it for its geometry.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a5CnLOmUySQ[/video]