So very comparable to a Santa Cruz but alot more boutique/unique in some ways. Why aren't people queuing around the block? I.e it's Santa Cruz everywhere now 🙁
hora - MemberWhy aren't people queuing around the block?
THink people still look at a 180-forked bike with that geometry and the fact that it's not carbon and think that must weigh a ton/be awkward to ride/not go around corners, etc., etc. (None of which is true)
And you can't (for the most part) walk into a shop and see one or sit on one,
Everyone should though - they're awesome.
SC do make some nice looking bikes, but they always feel too small on the occasions I've had a go.
Realistically both are a shed load of cash, but the Nicolai has somthing about it that makes me think ohh yeah!!
You can build one for much less than £5k without too much compreomise tho. Especially using something like SLX and Hope wheels.
why aren't people queuing round the block
Small company with a corresponding advertising budget. They have, as I'm sure you know, been around for a long time but have only recently leaped to prominence as a result of the geometron. I have only seen one bike shop that has a Nicolai in the window and the idea of a shop holding stock is certainly very recent.
As said above, compared to carbon, or even hydroformed aluminum they don't took hi-tech, but I think with the recent exposure they will become a lot more popular and sought after.
So very comparable to a Santa Cruz but alot more boutique/unique in some ways. Why aren't people queuing around the block? I.e it's Santa Cruz everywhere
Having ridden one now (in the Alps) can now comment, my answer is in contrast to the owners. It's big - would be good if I lived out in that sort of environment but for most of my riding and racing, it's like taking a tank to a knife fight. It wasn't much fun on flatter, tighter trails, even considered to my reasonably long Patrol - which is probably as big as I personally want to go.
The weight - I've commented on the weight before - but apparently the bike I rode weighed just under 5lbs heavier than my Patrol. It felt like a few more to pick up and ride.
A few more personal issues in that no bottle mounts is a huge issue for me, and the looks. I just couldn't buy a bike that looks so bad.
I think it's great that people are pushing the boundaries though, it's just not for everyone.
I agree not for everyone.
Given the cockpit length of a L is similar to an XL of progressive makes like a Transition., other than the reach and head angle, how do those guys get on in the tight and steep?
5lbs! The Patrol frame weighs within 100g of the Nicolai according to their specs and me weighing a L (
On a scale guaranteed +/-1g accuracy) which is bigger then the transition L) so that difference can only be parts unless you're on the carbon. In which case it's 1lb lighter as a frame. With decent parts, most GeoMetron's should weigh around 31lbs even with a decent strength tyre.
If you didn't want to go longer than a Patrol for how you like to ride it would be interesting to compare to the GeoMetron that is equivalent to your size bike in ETT, to essentially test the reach increase, HA decrease and SA increase rather than just the feeling of overall size (tho the equivalent sizes only have a WB difference of 6cm overall)
Not everyone should just be in the longest they can take or only ride the recommended size by Chris, another reason for getting people to test ride back to back with different sizes and with their own bike.
I ended up sizing up, others have sized down.
I'm sure many could 'size down' and use a S GeoMetron if they are on a L of any other brand just taking on board the big geometry changes which would take less technique adjustment.
There have been a lot out in the Alps this year. Be good to hear feedback from owners and mates like this.
£2350 for an ally frame!!!!!!!
Hobnob - how tall are you and what size did you try? I'm interested in your thoughts as you ride in the same areas as i do and I suspect you're a damn site better on a bike than I am!
How did you get on with your test Gotama? It was last week wasn't it?
Hi Phil, unfortunately had to cancel as my wife went into labour the night before! Sod's law, c.four week window for a baby to arrive and she chose the day I was due to test the Nicolai! Hopefully going to rearrange for a week on mon/tue depending on whether Toby is around although I'm guessing he's very busy with Eurobike at the moment.
Given the cockpit length of a L is similar to an XL of progressive makes like a Transition., other than the reach and head angle, how do those guys get on in the tight and steep?
5lbs! The Patrol frame weighs within 100g of the Nicolai according to their specs and me weighing a L (
On a scale guaranteed +/-1g accuracy) which is bigger then the transition L) so that difference can only be parts unless you're on the carbon. In which case it's 1lb lighter as a fram
For me & my riding style, a decent size large works to be around 460mm reach & 65/64 degree head angle. I ride a bit off the back of the bike, so super long stuff and really short stems creates some odd handling traits I don't like. I had similar feelings with a Mondraker a few years ago - I felt like you need to super aggressive over the front of the bike to get it to work properly in the corners, which made it hard work to ride unless you were wringing it's neck all the time.
The WB made it feel like a bit of a barge for me - it's got ~10cm on my Patrol & that coupled with having to ride it very differently just made it feel like it didn't work. As I said, if I lived somewhere that warranted it a bit more it might be a little more suitable. The ideal bike for me is probably a 130mm travel Patrol in reality - but then I'm quite a fussy one with what I like.
I should mention my Patrol is the carbon one - looks to be a couple of pounds lighter on paper. The spec of mine is light - coming in at just under 28lbs, the Nicolai certainly felt like a bit of a heffer by comparison. Again, going by my experiences.
That said, I can see merit as I said before in the design other people live in areas much more suited to this bike so it works for them 🙂
Can certainly imagine that someone who rides off the back of the bike would find it not suiting. Reminds me of that thing I read about Danny Hart doing tht run in Champery with a dry tyre up front and a spike out back - there's a whole spectrum of ways to ride and setups that suit.
I think I do ride more centred or towards the front, so I'm loving mine, been having a ball with it, not finding the length to be a negative in any way. (Or at least I was, until my cranks shattered this morning, but that's another matter)
Tis true, it doesn't work if you don't work the front. I admire peeps that know what they like and what does and doesn't work for them.
I never really realised how much a more currently conventional set up didn't work for me until I began down this road with a Mondraker a few years ago. I just could never get confident in the front.
How about an "Extra Longest"?
The Surrey hills requires such a monster?
Tis true, it doesn't work if you don't work the front. I admire peeps that know what they like and what does and doesn't work for them.
I never really realised how much a more currently conventional set up didn't work for me until I began down this road with a Mondraker a few years ago. I just could never get confident in the front.
interesting that Danny Hart used to be a very typical off the back rider but has now hit great form on the Mondraker.
Chainline - Any news on the specs and changes to the new 2017 Geometron (Nicolai G16?). I have noticed that the new one says that the idea of the flip chips is to change travel rather than geometry. Is this do-able with the 2016 frame model? I have a 2016 model and would expect that if i was to fit a 222x70 rear shock and put the geo in the low setting, i would have the 170mm travel but with the geometry of the "high" geometry setting? Have you known this be done? Or is there a known conversion kit that allows 2016 frame users to increase travel whilst maintaining the geo of the low setting? maybe with a revised linkage?
Thanks
Ash
Have just flicked back to page 18 and seen the list of updates that you have already provided... Sorry for my ignorance lol. But yeah, can I achieve an increase in travel on my 2016 frameset?
BTW have you thought about creating a Geometron owners page on FB?
Regards
Ash
New swingarm needed along with the 222 shock I believe.
The revised swingarm does effectively allow both high and low geometry on a std 2016 model.
We wanted to increase the swingarm length on the longest and now XL lengths anyway but it's not for everyone.
You can use offset shock bushes in conjunction with changing the trail key to low to achive a correct BS BB height of 340mm (approx) with a 222x70 mm shock to get ~175mm travel without changing the swingarm, I need to double check with Chris but I recall there is plenty of room between tyre and seat tube at max compression.
This is due to the old trail key moving something like 4-5mm rather than the 6-7mm required. The new trail key obviosly still has a geometry impact if used without changing shock but we optimised the length to accomodate the shock.
I hadn't thoguht about a FB pge no. Perhaps thats a plan!
It's great that people are bothering to actually test ride a Geometron before they say they don't like it!
Awesome news then CL! So if i want to pursue a longer travel from my '16 Geometron all I need do is buy a Float X2 222x70 with offset bushings and i should be able to run low geo with ~175mm travel?
I don't understand why the extra-longest has 5mm longer chainstays "to balance it out" when the other 3 sizes all have the same size chainstay...
Chainline - What would the costs involved be if i wanted to go for a 450mm swingarm if sticking with the standard one were to have an adverse effect on performance?
I don't understand why the extra-longest has 5mm longer chainstays "to balance it out" when the other 3 sizes all have the same size chainstay...
You are right, it would make sense to do the same across the board to achieve the same weight distribution.
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/behind-the-bike-developing-the-xxl-santa-cruz-v10-2016.html
wiggles, I prefer my Longest with the 450mm swingarm. We also suggested to Nicolai that the 2017 Longest and longesterer(c) 😆 both had 450mm swingarms but that didnt make it through. You can feel the difference in balance and how it corners, but it is harder to lift and gives a different feeling to climbing, even more grip on a bike that has a lot of grip to begin with but a friend described it as feeling more like you were pulling the wheel up compared to shorter chainstay bikes and that made it 'feel' less zippy.
A key part of the bike is trying get the weight in the right place. Given mine is running -2deg. HA as well it has a 1350mm odd WB so the longer swingarm is proportional.
ayyjayy95 it's about £300 for the new swingnarm fitted. If you have a low mileage 2016x63 shock Mojo may do a package deal with you to exchange that shock too. Speak to Paul or Chris.
It won't have an adverse effect per se. It just depends whether or not you prefer the charateristics it provides.
I would say it's less critical with a Longest size and standard head angle. It wassuggested that the bike be 1 deg slacker across the range with the ref. 170mm a2c height as mentioned, many have gone out with -1 anglesets in as well as the 180mm fork and no one has gone back to std HA. I have -2 in but mainly because I have 40's fitted and they have a bigger std offset clamp at 51mm which means -2 gives me the approximately the same trail and feel as the -1 with 44mm offset 180mm 27.5.
Where does that leave your HA, CL?
I thought mine was around 62.5 with the 180 fork - -2 must be 81 or less?
It's 61 +/- 0.2 deg on my angle finder taking into account level ground deviation as I also have it in the high setting to get the right BB height for me with the increased travel and to minimise pedal strikes as it is a trail bike not a DH bike 😉
Chainline - Member
It's 61 +/- 0.2 deg on my angle finder taking into account level ground deviation as I also have it in the high setting to get the right BB height for me with the increased travel and to minimise pedal strikes as it is a trail bike not a DH bike
Well yes, you certainly don't want to go too extreme with the geometry 🙂
Chainline - It's 61 +/- 0.2 deg
and yet still people keep suggesting 68 deg is slack.
I was running it at 60.5 in low which actually feels really good but it's a bit too low in the BB imho at ~335mm with 175mm travel for normal riding, you have to be too careful with pedalling. Just hooning down hill is fine though.
The dynamic ride also makes a big difference to pedal strikes/how low is too low I have found, something I hadn't considered before trying to make this longer travel feel like the shorter travel bike, so whether that is managed by higher pressure/less progression in the shock or lower pressure/higher progression.
Its been and continues to be a very interesting and fun journey.
Got a G13 29er on the way too and have figured out how to put a 200mm X2 in and deliver the HA originally wanted so will get that out in the wild in the next 6-8wks.
Chainline - Ok, that seems like a reasonable price. So just to ensure that I understand correctly what you're saying is that with an updated swingarm, my HA will be 1 degree slacker than the quoted HA on the geometry chart with a the referenced 572mm A-C height? So if I were to simply purchase a Float X2 222x70 with some offset bushes and run the trail key in the low position I would essentially be running 170mm travel with a 1 degree slacker head angle compared to the standard 215x64 shock with the trail key in low position? I also noticed that a lot of your pictures are taken at Cannock Chase? Is that a local riding spot for yourself? I am from Wolverhampton myself and would love to see your bike in person and talk through some ideas with you?
Cannock is the nearest trail centre to me so it's fairly easy. happy to catch up.
The swingarm change along with the 222x70mm shock delivers the same geometry as standard which was the intention.
Standard geometry is only standard with the 170mm 36 installed at 559mm a2c. With the 180mm 569mm a2c installed it is 0.5deg approx slacker. In addition the quoted geometry is with Conti tyres of 715mm diameter, which is too tall for most tyres. 'Most' people also run a faster rear and grippier front which generally results in a slightly slacker still stance. Most measured HA's come in at 62.5 - 63deg as 'standard'
I'm surprised to see 572mm referenced unless it includes the 3mm stack for the lower headset which Nicolai often include.
So in summary the swingarm itself changes nothing except allowing the introduction of the 222x70 shock and approx 175mm travel.
This is due to the old trail key moving something like 4-5mm rather than the 6-7mm required. The new trail key obviosly still has a geometry impact if used without changing shock but we optimised the length to accomodate the shock.
I'm pretty sure it's just the trail key insert that has changed so you should be able to get Nicolai to sell you replacement trial key parts as an alternative to using offset bushings.
Thats also true Simon, it is just the amount of adjustment in the trail key that has changed, pretty sure it will be more than £20 however.
Ah ok, so any rough estimates of what the geometry would be like if were to simply purchase a new trail key or offset bushings along with a 222x70 shock on my standard swingarm?
I guess that so long as the final effect is the same I have no preference between bushings or the trail key, though I like the idea of being able to use Fox's plastic bushes tbf.
It would be the same as your current low ayyjayy95 if used in the high setting with the longer shock.
Chainline - Sorry to be repetitive or seem as if I don't have a clue what I'm on about but please bare with me, I'm having a hard time working out the numbers for the overall change in geometry :S I would like to know how you came to that conclusion. Surely a larger E2E would result in a steeper HA/SA. Therefore, using offset bushings to negate the change in E2E would either result in the same geometry after the shock change, or would be to negligible a change to return the geometry to stock, meaning that the trail key in low with a 222x70 shock would give the same geometry as a 215x64 in high? Or would the offset bushings overcompensate for the increase in E2E, making your above statement correct?
I'm confusing myself here... Lol
I think you do know what you are on about but are confusing yourself either that or I'm articulating it badly!
The above is basically correct. Clearly the level of compensation from the offset bushes depends on the offset, this can be changed to suit the desired outcome.
Try this:
With current trail key, 216x63 shock and bike in 'low' setting:
Switching trail key to 'High' and replacing the 216x63 with a 222x70 shock would result in a slightly higher BB and steeper geometry than std low and ~175mm rear travel
Adding one or two offset bushings to the above setup will move the geometry back to std Low with the longer shock in terms of both BB height and geometry with ~175mm rear travel
With new 2017 trail key and 216x63 shock in low setting, bike 'may' be 'slightly' slacker and lower than the 2016 std bike.
Switching 2017 trail key to 'High' and replacing the 216x63 with a 222x70 shock would result in the same BB height and geometry as the std 2016 bike in 'low setting' with a 216x63 shock but ~175mm rear travel.
Using the longer swingarm essentially pulls the seat stays back to allow room for the shock whilst keeping the std BB height and geometry numbers.
Feel free to email if you need to!
Fixed this for ayyjayy95, apologies for writing it the reverse of what was in my head. The lesson, don't do two things at once when you're a bloke!
[i]I think you do know what you are on about but are confusing yourself either that or I'm articulating it badly!
The above is basically correct. Clearly the level of compensation from the offset bushes depends on the offset, this can be changed to suit the desired outcome.
Try this:
With current trail key, 216x63 shock and bike in [i]'low' [/i]setting:
Replacing the 216x63 with a 222x70 shock would result in a slightly higher BB and steeper geometry than std low and ~175mm rear travel due to not enough offset in trail key
Adding one or two offset bushings to the above setup will move the geometry back to std Low with the longer shock in terms of both BB height and geometry with ~175mm rear travel
With new 2017 trail key in 2016 bike and 216x63 shock in old 'high' new 155mm travel position, bike 'may' be 'slightly' steeper and higher than the 2016 std bike in high, tbc.
Switching 2017 trail key to [i]'low'[/i] and replacing the 216x63 with a 222x70 shock would result in the same BB height and geometry as the std 2016 bike in 'low setting' with a 216x63 shock but ~175mm rear travel.
Using the longer swingarm essentially pulls the seat stays back to allow room for the shock whilst keeping the std BB height and geometry numbers.
Feel free to email if you need to![/i]
That G13 looks awesome. Not sure why I'd need it, but I'd sure like it.
[img] 
[/img]
These Geometron geometry based bikes look so much better with 29er wheels...
I don't think it looks better with 29er wheels, but hey.
Got a G13 on the way. I definitely don't need it!
