[Closed] Cy's Longshot Podcast

I saw it promo-ed this morning and was hoping they might discuss chainstay length in relation to 27 and 29.

I'll listen to it on the dog walk and weigh in later with my geometry geek/keyboard warrior verdict.

Great. Looking forward to it. I love a bit of geometry geekery 🙂

He does mention longer chainstays being better, but there is no real discussion of the differences between 27.5 and 29 in that (or any) context. It almost sounds as though all the development work for the new geometry was done on the rocket, then ported to other bikes in the range.

He does mention that they tried the rear end from the flaremax on the rocket, but it was too long. So, is it too long on the flaremax too and if not, why not?

Interesting, though I found his explanations of why he thought the changes had the effect they did somewhat unintelligible.  Sounds like good old trial and error at work there.

Yes, it's interesting that even an engineer's description of the process seems to come down to "we tried X and liked it, then we tried Y and didn't like that etc". Not that I expected differential equations but maybe a bit more on the logic behind it.

Well I say interesting. The silence on this thread would suggest that long discussions on the design process aren't everyone's cup of tea, which is fair enough.

They did seem to spend a lot of time talking about the advantages of a short stem, which seems to be the driver for the whole thing. I don't have a problem with that. I've been using a 35mm stem on 29ers and fatbikes for a couple of years as I like they way they feel. But that's on bikes with head angles around 68 degrees and a reach around 450mm. I'm still not sure why going 30mm longer and two degrees slacker would be better.

 “we tried X and liked it, then we tried Y and didn’t like that etc”. Not that I expected differential equations but maybe a bit more on the logic behind it.

Which is at odds with the geomgeeks who can tell you what a bike rides like based on a bit of paper 😉

If the bike designers and builders keep going back to make ride tweak and try then the less I care about the to the mm chain stays and fractions of a degree angle and more about the try.

I've not listened to the podcast yet. I am also curious about the difference in the length of the stays on the 29 v 27.5. I'd assumed it was necessary to get the clearance for the travel given that the seat tube isn't that heavily manipulated. I am probably wrong, though.

I'm also interested in his thoughts on shorter fork rakes. Especially any difference in handling/steering between the McQueen (46mm) and the Pike that they are now offering that I guess has a 51mm offset. I remember reading in the newsletter first featuring the longshot that they preferred a steeper head angle to those used on the geometron. I am interested in anyone else's thoughts on this topic, too.

I enjoyed listening to Cy, it’s good to hear he questioned his previously held views and discovered things he wasn’t expecting.

I think we’ll see the longshot geometry rolled out across a lot more Cotic bikes.

I think Cy said that a bike feels more confident descending if the stem is shorter than the fork offset (eg. 35mm stem on a fork with 46-51mm offset). Therefore you feel more behind the front wheel.

I do wonder how fork offset affects handling, but most of us aren’t going to be buying several forks to try different offsets.

Bars behind the front axle seems to be the determining factor, therefore increased fork offset and short stems.

I enjoyed it. Nought wrong with tried and tested R&D in my book.

For me, I Iiked the explanation of how it worked as a package rather than just a HA or reach figure being touted as the next big thing/what you need.

The new Cotics look great.

Regarding the geo, I always find it strange that companies aren't going way beyond the extremes for testing purposes. No wonder we always get very small advancements. I know part of it is down to customer conservatism (look at the reaction to the new Nomad, and Marin Wolf Ridge), but It can't help that most frames are built in Asia with all the associated lead times and delivery times.

Thank goodness we have people who can make things themselves to test out like Zerode, BTR, etc and people to push the boundaries like Clay Porter, Rob Metz, etc.

Mondraker really were well ahead of the game here, but seem to have lose their momentum once Barel left. When things are different, they need a voice to champion them I guess (see Clay Porter lol).

Thankfully there are still some innovators out there, even though loads of interesting companies have fallen by the wayside. Some previously innovative companies are getting more conservative as they grow - see Knolly, Ibis, Evil.

RIP Brooklyn Machine Works, Balfa, Xprezo, Honda, Maverick, etc
Good luck to Pole, Lauf, Zerode, BTR, Marin, Polygon, Robot, ARBR, Empire etc

AlexSimon

look at the reaction to the new Nomad

Honestly think most of the negative reaction to the Nomad was down to the awful colour scheme.

Honestly think most of the negative reaction to the Nomad was down to the awful colour scheme.

I guess we'll see. The other colour - the blue - is lovely

It's not the colour, it's the fact that the new Nomad's fugly.

I like my old one much better 🙂

I enjoyed it. Liked the honest, open & humble way he explained the design evolution.

I’m still not sure why going 30mm longer and two degrees slacker would be better.

He was basically saying (I think) that the extra reach is to compensate for the longer stems most people were running, plus a bit more for stability. The head angle adds more stability and he described the benefits of the long & slack bits in his riding anecdotes.

Of course they may not be better for you, but to understand if they would be you'll need to ride some longer bikes rather than thinking about it.

On the chainstays issue, I heard it a different way to you RP. Seemed he was saying the combo of the long 29er stay and 63deg HA was too much for him. Not just the long rear.

It's possible that they've gone as long on the chainstay as they feel customers will be comfortable with on the 27in Rocket - as smaller wheel riders can be a bit more conservative, or prefer a more "playful" bike.

I thought it was a good listen to be honest. I’d say that the geometry development was a bit more scientific in choosing why they changed or tried what they did, than point and shot. I just think it was sanitised a bit for better listening or viewing!!

I was really intrested in how he how he found that the much longer Geo was too extreme for him and others to really get the most out of, and it was paired back to get the current designs. I’m really excited by the Geometron concept, but Ive worried if I’d not ride it at the level needed to get the most out of it. I would also wager that Cy is a much better / braver rider than I am so maybe it’s a leap too far, and the longer but more conservative Geometry is a better suit.

( I’d love to ride them both to see however!!)

He was basically saying (I think) that the extra reach is to compensate for the longer stems most people were running,

That was my take, but since I've been running 35mm stems for a while anyway I guess that isn't relevant for me.

plus a bit more for stability. The head angle adds more stability and he described the benefits of the long & slack bits in his riding anecdotes.

Of course they may not be better for you, but to understand if they would be you’ll need to ride some longer bikes rather than thinking about it.

Fair point 🙂 It's fun to pontificate, but only riding will really answer my questions.

On the chainstays issue, I heard it a different way to you RP. Seemed he was saying the combo of the long 29er stay and 63deg HA was too much for him. Not just the long rear.

It’s possible that they’ve gone as long on the chainstay as they feel customers will be comfortable with on the 27in Rocket – as smaller wheel riders can be a bit more conservative, or prefer a more “playful” bike.

I suspect there is a fair bit of that (plus maybe the fact that they can't make the 29er chainstays any shorter anyway). We are a strangely conservative bunch.

Cheers for listening guys. I really appreciate it. Some interesting points, which I'll try to cover. The main issue with the podcast is that we wanted to keep it to a sensible length. I could have talked for another hour at least! Hence a few shortcuts.

Regardings the FlareMAX - I was hoping the idea for going with Longshot on the FlareMAX would be explained by the chat about the Soul. The fact that we went too far the other way trying to make a light and lively steel hardtail work with the geometry, finding the other end of the short stem envelope and it needing a certain slackness of head angle to balance it out, that experience all directly informed the geometry of the FlareMAX. Also, you might have missed it, but a lot of what I was talking about with the more recent testing is in regard to making the 29er bikes work and the upcoming (in the summer) RocketMAX in particular. The FlareMAX and RocketMAX are quite closely related, and we used shorter forks and some different shock mounts and other tweaks to develop the geometry of both bikes in parallel. The FlareMAX hit first simply because of stock levels and production cycles. You're right though, it is probably the more radical bike given its category. The point I was trying to make through the whole thing is that this geometry idea works for all mountain bikes for all riders. That's why we are applying it to everything from the Soul to the Rocket and the 29er bikes too.

Chainstay length - there's a subtlety here which I did miss to explain. Because of their smaller wheels and shorter forks, a 27.5" wheel bike will have a shorter front centre than a 29" wheel bike if that have the same fork travel and reach. The steering axis of the 29er simply has further to travel to the floor than on the lower front end 27.5" bike. So, this is the reason why you need very slightly shorter chainstays on the 27.5" bikes, to keep the weight balance. The new 27.5" Longshot bikes are 437mm chainstay (slightly longer than before). The new MAX bikes are 448mm. The difference in front centre length ( like for like) is about 12mm more for the 29ers, so the longer rear end is very slightly moving the weight balance forward compared to the 27.5" bikes, but not by much. After that other considerations like tyre and chainring clearance influence things too.

I agree there was quite a lot of 'feels' and maybe not much maths, but to be honest this is a lot of what this project has been about. Getting too comfortable with the numbers breeds this tiny iteration process. I needed to ride and feel the bikes, get feedback from others, check some timing, then come back to the numbers and try and understand what is going on. The physics of bicycles moving across dirt is something no one fully understands. It's incredibly complex.

Feel free to ask any other questions. I drop back in now and then to answer.

The "bars behind the front axle" part particularly intrigued me.  First off, the bars are always going to be way behind the front axle horizontally, so I assume he meant "measured in a direction perpendicular to the steerer", so your stem has to be shorter than your fork offset.  Which means a short stem, so this statement is roughly equivalent to saying short stems are good.  What the mechanics might be that make stem length relative to fork offset a particularly important dimension is a matter of conjecture.

The trend to slack angles and low fork offsets (Transition and Geometron) is also interesting, and again the reasoning why it works looks a bit arm-wavy (see what Transition say about it),  That is going to result in a large trail figure and very high flop, but some folk clearly like it.

"He did mention that it was harder to make this geometry work for a 29er"

This why the Solaris is taking a looong time to come into stock dya reckon?

My post crossed with your's cy apologies for calling you "he" there.

So you have prioritised stem shortness and head angle followed by front/rear weight distribution as the key things affecting handling.  I say that because other ways of dealing with the inevitable extra out-frontness of a 29er wheel whilst keeping front/back weight distribution would be to shorten the frame and lengthen the stem, or to keep the stem and frame length, but steepen the head angle.  (When 29ers came in, and before we had 650b, the reason for giving them steeper head tubes was said to be to keep the same trail for a given fork offset.  But it would also have brought the front wheel back a bit.)

My own hapennyworth is that short stems and steep angles make twitchy steering.  I am sure I recall long stems being said to help with stability back in the day when bikes were shorter and steeper and bars were narrower, and I can kind of see that as with a long stem your hands will have to move sideways as well as fore-and-aft as the steering moves.  But if you have bags of stability from the large trail numbers we now have, you don't need that.  Plus, if you have a lovely modern 120mm+ travel fork on the front, it isn't such a problem taking a bit more weight through your hands.  I haven't tried it, but I imagine a long and slack rigid bike would be a bit of a bastard.

The stem length vs fork offset is an interesting one.

Actually, one question about fork offset - is that measured parallel to the ground or perpendicular to the steerer axis?

I see there being a more important measurement than stem length with regard to steering feel, and that's effective stem length. This is the stem length minus the bar backsweep at the centre of the grips. With a 35mm stem and typical bars the effective stem length is converging on zero. It's this distance that determines the tiller effect that increases stability and self-centreing when you weight the bars. If this goes negative (even shorter stems and wider and more swept bars) then weighing the bars decreases stability.

That leaves me thinking that this concept of stem length being shorter than fork offset isn't actually what matters. But what then does?

Bar width is also a contributor to steering feel. And obviously head angle, tyre diameter and fork offset are. And tyre mass and contact patch shape/stability.

I'm currently flitting between a hardtail which is 67 deg HA, 750mm bars, 35mm stem, 455mm reach and a full-sus which is 63.7 deg HA, 810mm bars, 50mm stem, 425mm reach, with the same wheels and tyres and 150 and 160mm forks respectively (42mm offset I believe). Very different steering feels - one feels light and quick, the other feels stable and unstoppable. (All measurements at sag).

But the hands are in almost the exact same place longitudinally vs the front wheel (shorter stem and steeper head angle vs longer stem and slacker) and the front centre measurements are very similar (longer reach and steeper head angle vs shorter reach and slacker head angle).

i thought people like whyte were using smaller offsets of forks to improve handling where as this seems to suggest that it could be a disadvantage?

Feel free to ask any other questions. I drop back in now and then to answer.

Is the standard flare getting the longshot treatment? When do you expect stock will land?

I ride a big bike and love it so this is interesting to read. I'll listen to the podcast when i get a chance.  Are there plans to release a new rocketmax? if so, it could be  my next frame!

Regardings the FlareMAX – I was hoping the idea for going with Longshot on the FlareMAX would be explained by the chat about the Soul.

Thanks Cy. To be fair, the discussions about the Soul should have answered my questions as it shown that you think the new geometry also works for a shorter travel XC bike. I guess I'm just hung up on the 27.5/29 difference so wanted to hear more about the 29er.

I'm also assuming that the launch dates are related to the development process. The FlareMax is out now but the RocketMax will be a few more months. So, I assumed that meant you were still working on the RocketMax and was concerned that you might discover things about the geometry on 29ers that would improve the FlareMax too. But it sounds as though you did the development of those two in parallel and the launch date has more to do with the levels of existing stock than the development cycle. Who'd be a bike maker 🙂

Presumably you'd accept that it is harder to throw these longer bikes around (wheelie, manual, bunnyhop etc), but that's just the price you pay for extra stability?

"Presumably you’d accept that it is harder to throw these longer bikes around (wheelie, manual, bunnyhop etc), but that’s just the price you pay for extra stability?"

I find it easier to manual my full-sus than my hardtail (431 vs 420mm chainstays) because it takes less subtlety of movement!

I really enjoyed it (watched it last night).

I've no idea about geometry but it's mega interesting to hear from folks who do, and I thought the explanation in plain English of how it works and how that translates to rider experience was really insightful for someone like me.

If I had the budget I'd be on the phone to talk about what would work for me well, and they would likely have my money.

The BIG question is - if the RocketMax is due in the summer

- When is the out of stock Solaris Max going to arrive?

In answer to general "is this being released soon" questions, the whole range will be going Longshot eventually, but not until later in the year.

Offsets is actually something I didn't do too much with as there were so many other variables flying around. It also helped that the X Fusion Sweep and McQueen are both 46mm offset so that was same between wheel sizes.

It doesn't follow that just because the stem is shorter than the fork offset it will handle - so a 100mm stem with a 120mm fork offset would be awesome - it wouldn't. It would be a floppy, ill handling mess. What I'm saying is shorthand for 'shorter than fork offsets as they are are generally settled upon'. I have run 42mm, 46mm and 51mm offsets on my 29er, and whilst personally I prefer 46mm, 51mm is good, and with respect to the FlareMAX actually works really well because the head angle isn't that extreme. The whole wheel flop thing with 51mm offset starts to manifest at very slack head angles, and I definitely noticed a slight tendency for this when I was first testing 160mm on the 29er this summer. The easy way to test was to dig out my Pike version 1 forks from a couple of years ago, set them 160mm and have a go. These are 51mm offset. They are very responsive around the straight ahead, but on the slacker head angles (getting into the 64s) there is a point where the front wheel moves quite quickly, but then once it's there it is very 'set' and stable. I know some people with Geometrons and 51mm offset forks who really like this stable 'locked in' feel. With a short stem and wide bars (I run around 770 across ends of the grips) it's easy enough to pick the bike up again, but personally I prefer the more consistent feel of a slightly shorter offset. All the Lyrics we have had in stock for the RocketMAX since we certified it for 160mm forks have been the 'new hotness' 42mm offset because we have access to them OE and felt for the RocketMAX they would be better than the 51mm offset. Having ridden them, I don't feel a massive difference between them and 46mm offset X Fusions, but I do prefer the more linear steering response of the shorter offset. It's not good or bad really, it's just preference. The other thing that helps with 51mm offset is it that I don't put as much steering input into a long bike, because it encourages and rewards really angling the bike to get the cornering done.

As for manouverability, bunnyhopping is no problem, it's just a matter of timing. And as mentioning above, although you have to pull a bit harder to get up into a manual or wheelie, once you are there, the longer rear ends and more central weight position make the balance point much wider and more friendly. I'm crap at wheelies, but I'm better on my Longshot.

Another point I didn't make about the long bikes about the confidence is also that when riding in super steep terrain like at Revs or Golfie, the length of the bike means that the angle it gets to when dropping the front wheel off things isn't as extreme as a short bike, which also adds to the feeling of security.

SolarisMAX 'should' be next month. Frame builder is being a bit capricious at the moment though, hence the radio silence until a firm date.

I am confused again, I thought higher fork offset leads to lower trail and thus lower flop.

Anyway, flop-wise I put an angleset in my Transition Bandit to see what the effect was and though I like it, one downside is the low speed handling (I mean really low walking pace).  On slow technical climbs, say when the front wheel is going over a root and you have almost slowed to a standstill, the steering wants to flop over when I want to go ahead, it definitely takes more keeping control of than with a steeper head angle.  But going a bit faster, even quite slow tight woodland stuff, it feels fine.  Originally I found the difference in feeling between that and my 29er Scandal un-nerving, the steering on the latter felt a bit like a car where the power steering is off, but after a few rides I got used to it and stopped noticing it (most of the time).

Really looking forward to getting my Large Rocket frame 🙂

I tried one of the new long-shot FlareMAX’s this afternoon (currently own a Mk1 FlareMAX).  Demo bike was medium, my own bike is large with 50mm stem.  I was interested in trying the medium, as I quite like an upright seated position and the ‘chuckability’ of a smaller bike - but I guess I wasn’t getting the full advantage of the long-shot geometry on the fast descents with the medium frame.  However, it was an interesting ride - not a massive difference in feel to my current bike, but I really liked the steering feel on the long-shot with the 35mm stem, which worked much better than my current bike when fitted with a 35mm.  Don’t know what I was expecting of the new geometry, but it felt very normal and intuitive, and to me, it felt like it really suits the FlareMAX - easy to pop the front up over puddles, rock step-ups etc., and the chainstay length works well on steep climbs.  I took the bike down a proper steep, muddy, trials tech descent and it felt great.....especially after I heard a couple of old ramblers say “he’s never gonna ride that is he?!” 😁   I’ll be interested to try one of the new FlareMAX’s in large.

Thanks @bowglie, that's interesting. I guess if you size down the numbers don't look so radical. A medium FlareMax is really just a couple of degrees slacker than some other short travel 29ers, with the other numbers being similar. But, as you say, are you really getting the full "advantage" of the new geometry if you do that?

My brother bought one as well, he actually sized down to a small even though he is on the cusp of a Large - he comes from a BMX and DH background so loved the short seat tube combined with the reach of a large 2015 Capra. As he can only have one bike, he wanted a trail bike and something that can be used as a playbike /almost a slopestyle bike at Wharncouver or a BMX at pump tracks.

The guys that like to send it big and play around on the bikes seem to like shorter bikes, those of us who need a bit more confidence or want to eek out a few milliseconds on a track seem to up size.

My guess is now that a lot of bikes are going very long, slopestyle bikes will go through the same thing that all-mountain bikes did and evolve - demand is going to go up for shorter flicky bikes that will drive the evolution of a new genre of bikes.

@bowglie good info - couple of quick questions if you don't mind please. How tall are you riding the medium? Was the demo 27.5+ or 29er? I'm hovering over the Cotic order button for a large FM with 35mm stem, I'm 179cm with long legs, short torso, long arms - so medium seat tube seems very low compared to my current bikes in 475mm range.

“I’m 179cm with long legs, short torso, long arms – so medium seat tube seems very low compared to my current bikes in 475mm range.”

I’m the exact same height and I’d describe my proportions similarly - my bikes have 440 and 430mm seat tubes. I’ve had a 125mm dropper on the 430 without having a problem getting the saddle high enough and now have a 170mm dropper on there (which a much longer seat tube wouldn’t allow).

I’m 184cm tall with 86cm inseam and it was the 29er I tried.  Just to get a feel of how the suspension on the FlareMAX compared to the RocketMAX, I also tried a medium 29er version of the latter (current non-longshot version).  Suspension wise, I didn’t have enough time to get the suspension setup on the bikes similar enough to give a direct comparison.  However, geometry wise, I felt that the medium RocketMAX was definitely too small for me, and my large non-long shot FlareMAX feels way more confidence inspiring.  (I bottled out of a sketchy tech descent that my current bike feels super confident on).

To qualify my comments, I should mention that I’m a fairly creaky 56yo, and following shoulder surgery a couple of years ago, I can struggle to get a comfortable seated riding positions on bikes - so I’ve found that (in general), I have to make compromises in bike sizing and setup to compensate.  The latter might explain why, when I’m seated, I feel slightly stretched out on my current large FlareMAX when running a 50mm stem - but this is a compromise I’m willing to make, as the bike handles so well with that length stem as soon as I’m up on the pedals. Speaking of which, I think the geometry, handling and suspension on my current bike is stunning, especially when running the Cane Creek shock - it is very nearly as quick down Peak descents as my Spesh Enduro 29!  (Geometry on my current FlareMAX feels more confidence inspiring than large E29).

Because of my peculiar set up requirements, I did find the sizing of the medium longshot FlareMAX a bit more comfortable than my current bike when seated - but perhaps not enough overall performance advantage to replace my current FlareMAX, as the latter feels better on fast descents, and when grabbing a little bit of air:)  If money was no object, I’d get a medium longshot FlareMAX just for messing about on trials-ey type stuff (it was great fun popping up  balancey super tech climbs - so easy to loft the front wheel (nearly looped out the first time I tried manualling it)), and keep my current large FlareMAX - although, as luck would have it, my wife’s is demoing a medium FlareMAX, so I might be doing a sly sales pitch😉

Just out of interest, I’d like to have a back to back demo of a new large FlareMAX and my current bike - Hopefully this is something I might do this weekend, as Cotic have a demo weekend at Calver on Sat and Sun (if I do, I’ll post an update👍)

@bowglie - It's interesting that you find your current (large) FlareMax better on descents than the (medium) current version. Looking at the geometry charts and assuming that you have the saddle and bars in the same position on both bikes, the only real difference is that the new bike is 1.5 degrees slacker, which should make it a bit more stable on fast descents. Could it be that the bars were lower on the demo bike than on yours and that was what made it feel a bit less secure on the descents?

Of course, that does mean that you could stick a -1.5 degree headset in yours and give it to your wife 🙂

Do report back after trying the large flaremax, seems like we're currently on similar sized bikes so it'll be interesting to hear what you make of the longer version.

Yes, I'd be particularly interested to know whether you find it significantly harder to pop the front end up on the large bike, since it wasn't a problem for you on the medium.

When I took the Large longshot FlareMAX for a ride… I found getting the front up "easier" than my own bike, despite it never lifting on steep climbs etc.  It needs a bit more body English to start the lift, but then it is far easier to control, and feels like it can't go wrong… presumably that's to do with where you weight sits on the longer bike. I dunno.

For me the LLS design means I can ride a small, medium or a Large due to the standover (I'm 5' 8")  and choose which reach feels best for my riding - brilliant!

At the moment I'm on a Nukeproof Mega - large 460mm reach = Medium new Rocket and it feels good, however the other day I was at the Cotic warehouse trying a new rocket and I was surprised how much easier the small Rocket was to chuck around, manual and hop than the medium Rocket (a similar size to my large Mega).

I will now wait to test the small on some proper rides to see if the reduction in length equates to it feeling less "safe" when descending steep terrain, if so I'll be down sizing to a small Rocket - as so far I think it's spot on.

I wonder - did Chris Porter sell us a marketing pitch "Long, Longer, Longest"?

The Cotic is more "Normal, long and longer"

Just my thoughts!

Sorry. Should read - if not, I'll be down sizing.