[Closed] Demo'ed a Pole Bicycles - EvoLink 140 yesterday....

Neil, they also had to put a 50mm stem on it to be able to weight the front properly.....entirely defeating the point of longer bikes.

I dont want to have to run a 50mm stem fon a bike thats meant to be ridden on ateep terrain. Its hard enough riding bikes that long on steep terrain as it is. Having geometry so long to gain stability to the point that you need to to that is simply a crutch - it should be about balance.

Neurotypical....Im running custom dampers in both.

He put a longer stem on it to get it to ride how he wants, that's not too shocking. (I have a longer stem on my remedy than most folks, it just works better for me, I worry more about function than numbers tbh)

Pole Harts dh bike is shorter than the off the shelf Dunes....

I like that Seb's approach to his reviews, but I wonder if that Pole one's got a bit mixed up. It highlights the BB as being both too low in some situations and not as low as he'd like.

On another note, it's funny how some people can be so scathing about a bike they haven't ridden and so dismissive of people they haven't met.

You can send me one and i'll test it to destruction, I'm very good at breaking bikes.

Adam Price has our bikes. [url= https://goo.gl/photos/YxCGjZf2Lf7EYBzw9 ]So far he only snapped the rear axle to two pieces on our production models.[/url] He has a reputation of destroying bikes for breakfast.

Im assuming that this XL Pole 140 will have a longer wheelbase than a 280hp 225mph moto gp bike then?

Tom - your sort of reaffirming my point; you didnt get on with the longer geo. Fair enough. I, along with a few others have found it to be to be a good set up.

Just cause you didn't get on with it doesn't mean to say its crap; it seems your trying hard to prove longer geometry doesn't work when thats not really possible. I'm mindful of not putting definitive statements out there like CP does - there are always gains to be had. Saying something is better, end of, is a bold statement.

A lot of product is pushed forward with the Brailsford type % gains philosophy. However, personal preference is an important decision as any - you seem to be missing that point by posting examples of other peoples setup.

I look to a lot of the riders you mention out of interest as I love geeking about this, as it seems you do to, I suggest you remember that it's their setup and something that might not be universally applicable. I could follow this up with loads of examples of riders that use this geo with positive results / feedback - but thats not the point here.

Cheers

edit - hamishthecat, just saw your post; that bike was a 27.5 (SC Solo).

Im assuming that this XL Pole 140 will have a longer wheelbase than a 280hp 225mph moto gp bike then?

I can't be bothered getting into a long discussion over bike geo etc, but other than having 2 wheels, motoGP and mountain bikes are completely different.

They're designed for 2 totally different things (one to go round a flat track at 200mph, one to ride on massively varied terrain, up, along and down), the weight distribution is totally different (one is heavier than the rider, one is considerably lighter) etc etc etc

Ultimately, what you (or anyone) thinks doesn't really matter that much - what matters is that you have a choice, and that's what the likes of Pole offer. if you don't like it, don't buy it. it's a mountain bike - a leisure activity and therefore very much un-important in the grand scheme of things.

One reason why a longer wheelbase makes sense on a bicycle vs a motorbike is that the former has a much higher centre of gravity.

I don't think Seb's review was mixed up - I believe the editor who formatted the pros and cons transposed high and low, as the review text consistently refers to a relatively high bottom bracket. That's not hugely surprising because Finland is relatively flat, so more pedalling required, with big wheels a higher BB helps initiate a turn, with a long wheelbase you don't need such a low BB for stability on steeps, and the Evolink suspension will sag/bob under pedalling, particularly in higher gears (ie on flatter pedally trails).

I see the review has been updated now to remove confusion.

It highlights the BB as being both too low in some situations and not as low as he'd like.

I think there is a mistake at the start of the article. He wanted to have the BB lower. Anyhow I needed to make some compromises on the bike so it performs good in any country and terrain. I'm not putting the BB lower because the bike would be too low for rough. It's now on a happy medium level where you can still pedal if you are fe. on off camber.

Last week I was riding at Pontypool the grasey and steep tracks. I didn't see the BB height a problem at any time. (great riding there) It might be that Seb can not get the bar height high enough. Our head tube is 135 mm and I have still stack under my stem for 30mm. I'm 179cm and Seb is 192cm. He has the highest rise on his bar.

Seb said that the bike bottoms out every now and then. Well, it's a 140mm travel bike so it does not have a lot of travel. I made some changes to the tune on the 2017 model and now the rider can use higher pressures and less SAG on the bike. The leverage curve is progressive from the start but a bit regressive from the end so it's possible to use all the potential travel in air shocks without having the beginning stroke too soft.

For the MY2017 I added more fast rebound damping. For the fast and heavy (and both of them) riders you need more air to prevent prevent bottoming out. This means that because we have progressive leverage ratio there will be more energy stored a t the end of the stroke. The previous tune made the rear end feel harsh from the mid stroke if you used high pressure. Then people started to play with the rubber bands in the air canister. The tune is now low compression and high rebound on Monarch plus and it works brilliantly. I'm looking for a tune that feels similar like you would drop a bag a flour to the floor 😉

Neil, if geometry roughly conforms to normal distribution curves - of which pole and nicolai would be off the deepend... it could be that although being outliers, theyre still right - having ridden some really long bikes I dont think they are. But Chris will tell you everyone else is wrong.

Now imagine a world in which Pole and Nicolai are smack in the centre of a normal distribution graph, whats progressive going to be? A 2000mm wheelbase?

Personally, I think Pole and Nicolai have found the limit and that most manufacturers are going to settle on bikes that are an inch or two shorter. I dont for a second believe that people vary so much as to the mtb world ending up with wildly varying geometry, in both motocross and road racing - geometry has converged - with minor variations between riders.

Chris at Mojo will carry on saying everyone else is wrong though, so as to differentiate his product in an oversaturated market.

The fact that moto gp bikes are heavier in terms of stability helps...for sure....but grip on the front and rear wheel is also effected less by rider position as a result.....

Imagine a motorbike where the engine is up above the seat and moves about as you ride. And then imagine thousands of motorbikes where the engines vary widely in weight, power, height, fore-aft position and available range of movement. Then you'll understand why MTB geometry and motorbike geometry are not comparable.

Motorbike riders vary in height and weight, and move dynamically around as they ride as well....... your point?

The day that mtbs hit 1400mm wheelbases is the day the mtb world decided to gaze up its own arsehole...

Oh come on, please try to take the blinkers off and think analytically. There is a massive difference between bicycles and motorbikes because a bicycle weighs far less than its rider. The rider's own mass totally dominates the dynamic system which determines the handling of the vehicle. Even the lightest motorbike weighs as much as the rider and most weigh far more.

And that point plays right into mine, as bicycles are more affected by weight distribution...by
Greatly increasing the wheelbase to that of a motorbike you have to individually weight the wheels more than you should...carrying a higher risk of making mistakes. At some point you go past having an optimum weight distribution when centered on the bike and have to conciously ride around it to get the most from the bike.

i might have missed this elsewhere, but how much time have you spent on a pole/geomotron Tom_W? Or if neither of them, what's the longest bike you've ridden and which bikes have you ridden enough of to compare them to?

FWIW I've ridden many bikes on the market, including a geomotron (but not a Pole, yet) - i, personally, don't particularly like the Geomotron - i posted some darn quick times on it (compared to my usual, it's all relative), but I prefer a shorter, more playful bike, as ultimately I'm looking for a fun and involving ride, rather than the pure fastest way to get from A-B. If i decided to race an enduro, I'd probably choose a geomotron/pole, and would spend a few weeks on it beforehand to get to grips with its handling.

Tom - I get where your going and agree that yes Pole et al are pushing the norm. However, that's a good thing IMO and considering distribution of peoples heights, limb / torso lengths I'm surprised that manufactures are so limiting with their number of frame sizes and wheel choice. This is where we differ.

I feel there are a [i]lot[/i] of people out there who are riding some form of compromise in terms of fit and how they way a bike to feel / handle. Therefore, brands like Pole, as chiefgrooveguru put it, gives the consumer choice, not only for fit but the way a bike behaves. A fresh look is a good thing IMO and the Evolink 140 esp' seemed to confirm that statement.

For example, I had an Ibis Mojo HD (in large, i'm 6ft, 50mm stem) - A truly aufwl bike imo as it didn't fit. Not really the bikes fault, more mine for buying it! Its numbers were not that far off the Solo i currently ride, but it felt like a bag of spanners to me.

I too have ridden a lot of different bikes, on technical steep trails and also have results to back that up - my riding history allows me to (I think) notice the differences in these things, I also have an objective interest in trying them out. I can also prove a lot with stats (as that a large part of my job) so its probably not the best analogy.

I'd say, have a go on the Pole before being difinitive - the sum of the parts is the main point here. A long reach is just one of those.

Again, for me the Pole is a very capable bike that I got on with very well. I'm trying to get my hands back on the demo so I can stick my fork / wheels in it and have a bit of a longer go on it.

Cheers

Look at Tom's past post history... He's never wrong about a lot of stuff.

Seriously Tom, you really have the most spectacular lack of self-awareness, humility or appreciation of the limits of your own knowledge or expertise. I know you're some kind of scientist - and I wouldn't relentlessly argue with you about related things. If you were more mature you'd realise that you should maybe do more reading and thinking and less typing when mechanical engineers like myself are speaking the truth.

Personally I've found I prefer bikes with moderate reach, which I believe relates to my personal anatomy, strength, flexibility and riding style. I don't believe there is any one perfect geometry for a bike because of the complex relationship with the rider. I do believe that there is a place for a much wider range of geometries than sold by the mainstream. Almost all brands have changed geometry in small steps, in synchrony. The outliers offer options and that can only be a good thing.

The common denominator in many new bikes appears to be the ever slackening HA. With the pole the chainstays provide the extra wb which if I am right creates the comfortable climbing position. Though the compromise is weighting the front when descending. I wonder how slack HAs will go

Chainline suggested in another thread anything below 59 doesn't work (yet / for him) as a head angle.

I have no problem weighting the front wheel when descending as the wheel is still in front of me. The longer front end and slacker head angle gives me more of a window to work with, short front ends and steeper head angles mean the window is much smaller and I'm much more likely to get my weight / balance wrong resulting in an over the bars... I'm not a subtle rider.

There seems to a lot of things that a good graph would explain but I need a bit time to draw it. For now I would lile to clear few things by explaining.

When you extend rear centre, the weight balance comes to front. When you extend reach (without changing stack) the weight balance moves to front.

When you slacken head angle, the weight balance moves to rear. When you shorten the chainstay, the weight moves to rear.

NOW. How much this effects when descending is a different story because everything is at different angle. Also you need to look at the suspension layout. I will make a graph out of this when I have more time.

People talk about motorbikes. Motorbikes travel (except MX) on quite flat surfaces. As a reference the HD Cop model has a 64° head angle and thats 0.5° slacker than our 140's stock head angle.

The geometey we have now is something that we have been aiming to by countless hours of testing and measuring the changes by stopwatches. Gravity is a bitch that you can't cheat.

thepodge, I did say say that, for a general use bike. I think Jack used around 60deg at MSA this year.
CP has suggested below 60 is currently a limit for him but again thats an all round, all be it descent focussed, bike.

and chiefgrooveguru speaks sense imho..

not sure the 176 is the longest bike out there either..but it's not a stat that actually matters. All that matters is if riders like it, can ride it in ways they lke and if it's a bike for racing on, it can be ridden really fast by the rider who has chosen it 😀

All that matters is if riders like it, can ride it in ways they lke and if it's a bike for racing on, it can be ridden really fast by the rider who has chosen it

Well, you seem to know then what to do next 😉

Now imagine a world in which Pole and Nicolai are smack in the centre of a normal distribution graph, whats progressive going to be? A 2000mm wheelbase?

Personally, I think Pole and Nicolai have found the limit and that most manufacturers are going to settle on bikes that are an inch or two shorter.

Chris at Mojo will carry on saying everyone else is wrong though, so as to differentiate his product in an oversaturated market.

I can't talk for Chris but I think he has same reasons to be on the market as me. I love bikes and I made the first Pole just for me. I didn't actually think that I would put up a business around it. I hate what the market is now and I think I can do it differently (better). Not just to make business but for having a bike that I actually believe. I want to be honest with our stuff and use minimum amount of jargon. It's hard but I'm learning.

"Now imagine a world in which Pole and Nicolai are smack in the centre of a normal distribution graph, whats progressive going to be? A 2000mm wheelbase?

Personally, I think Pole and Nicolai have found the limit and that most manufacturers are going to settle on bikes that are an inch or two shorter."

You can also add Mondraker to the list as they "started" the geometry revolution.

Personally I think the companies noted above are not scared to push the boundaries and see where the limit is as they have nothing to lose. None of the biggies are going to do this as it will kill their marketing and sales for the next 5 years. It will be interesting to watch as the biggies slowly tweak geometry each year selling it as the next best thing.

As for finding the limit - I think we are a little way off that yet. MX bikes(2 wheeled machines designed to be ridden off road) have ~1500mm wheelbases. They have gone through a lot more R+D than mtb.

My L GeoMetron is t 1380mm, the XL with the same angles is near 1450mm. I would agree on the limit being found.

Head angles have settled around the 61deg mark for most bikes going out now, witht the exception of G13's of course, some remain stock at around 62deg. G13's I think will gradually come down to about 62.5 HA.

Personally I think the companies noted above are not scared to push the boundaries and see where the limit is as they have nothing to lose. None of the biggies are going to do this as it will kill their marketing and sales for the next 5 years. It will be interesting to watch as the biggies slowly tweak geometry each year selling it as the next best thing.

Head angles and reach have stayed pretty consistent in DH for a few years now. Even with dual crowns, supposedly, once you go past around the 63 degree head angle mark - bushing bind becomes a major concern. Now imagine running 59 degrees with your flexier Pikes, Lyriks and 36's. Thiss is negated a bit by riding on really steep tracks, but where do we have those in the UK? We don't have much that approaches alpine levels of steepness.

I think that it's a crowded market, so there will always be those that push beyond the limits in an effort to stand out. For everyone else, I think size large Enduro bikes will settle around 64 degree head angles and 460-480mm reaches.

The EWS riders styles appear to be moving towards moto/dh style open chested attack positions - not the low crouched positions that ridiculously long reaches encourage. The courses are moving towards being very much like downhill tracks as well - so much so, that I really think that Enduro bikes are just going to end up as mini-DH bikes with steeper seat tube angles and moderately longer reaches. There are a lot od DHers riding both disciplines now, and I see that trend increasing - as there is a lack of money in the sport - those riders will want their enduro bikes and DH bikes to feel as close as possible.

"ridiculously long reach', ' low crouched' positions. Have you ridden one yet Tom? You could argue that it puts yu in the right position, I certainly don't feel low and crouched over mine, Danny is one a similar length bike taking into account size. Binding? One SC mechanic article, I'm yet to find anyone on the Mojo forks, 40 or 36 that feels that, and and there are plenty of really, really steep tracks in the UK, just not at regular trail centres.

Yup.

There are a couple of downhill tracks and some scottish trails that are steep enough, but Barrell, Nico and some of the other crazies that played around with 59 degree head angles dropped the idea because of similar reasons as well. Minaars gone to using 60mm stems to weight up the front wheel enough on a bike with a 63.5 degree head angle.

I think most bikes could be slacker, I think Porter will just continually try to redefine the limits in an effort to sell bikes though. I don't like his idea of chopping head tube lengths right down and running flat bars either.

Minnaars bike is hardly revolutionary.... he's 6'3" and has a 470mm reach and 1280mm wheelbase with a 63.5 degree head angle. This is shorter than the Pole trail bikes... It's an example of the bigger companies being a way off the cutting edge geo wise.

Wow, I certainly needed popcorn reading that...
So where's the nearest place to Oxford I get to try one?

Like fartymarty said, Minaar's bike is pretty short on balance, and that's not why Fab, Nico etc dropped the idea, they didn't, the DH bikes run close but unless you commit to the whole change in set up it doesn't work well, as discussed at length here, you can't go short at the back and very long at the front and use a slack SA....

Porter has never tried to re-define the limits to sell bikes and you might note isn't making massive efforts to keep the bike in the headlines...I saw the latest Enduro bikes must have etc with same old same old geo and some standards tweaks, selling as many bikes as he gets hold off from word of mouth and people test riding..

Interesting reading this forum thread! It has the same ebb and flow as all other threads, some getting defensive, others explaining, its good to see Pole bicycles always gets involved!
I read an interesting book called Start With Why - it's main line is that people don't buy what you do they buy why you do it. The author references Apple a lot.
It feels to me like Pole bicycles actually follow this line of approach. The owner of Pole genuinely seems to believe what he's saying (he made the first bike for himself, when was the last time anyone did that! :wink:), and if you personally believe what he believes too you'll feel congruence with his attitude join his line of thinking.
If you don't believe his line of thinking you won't follow him. Pole doesn't care, because he knows that if he is consistent with his approach (which is easy because he believes what he's saying) people that believe what he believes will find him and join in with what he's doing.
Then there's the diffusion of innovation curve, early adopters and innovators will always be looking for something like this long bike geo because they're not afraid to try something new to see if it can be done better than before.
The rest of the market ~ 82% of people will get on board when enough of the early adopters and innovators ride these bikes. Then there are the laggards who still have rotary phones 😀
It seems to me that mtbs started as really long cruisers pelting down wide open fire roads, then they started to resemble road bikes with arbitrary 26" wheels and knobby tyres and it's from here that Mountain bikes have come. I remember when suspension forks came out and people were still saying rigid forks were better, but the diffusion of innovation curve dealt with that. 29er wheels? See the Diffusion of innovation curve for an explanation of that one (and improvement in design).
So to say that these bikes are outliers is only possible with reference to where Mountain bikes came from. They are slowly actually being designed fit for purpose, wider bars, slacker HTA etc. Imagine if 30 years ago Mountain bike design had started from where we are now, what would they look like? Guess we'll have to wait 30 years!
Comparing mtb to MX bikes is like comparing apples with bananas, both (excellent) fruit but with different applications.
I ride with Seb who wrote the review and he's really fast on the large Pole! But he's about 6'2". The owner of Pole is also really fast, not as tall as Seb and he rides a large too!
So it feels to me like people are appraising these bikes through the lens of bikes from the past not through the lens of what bikes need to do. Pole, Mondy, CP are pushing the frontiers back, without companies with the same attitude as them, we'd still be riding rigid forks and rigid seat posts and that's just not as fun!
Lastly, there's no one ring to rule them all. Short bikes are fun, long bikes are fun, if you can - buy one of each.
If you don't believe in long bikes that's fine, because there's always someone who will.