Forum menu
Folk quoting geometry numbers of their own bike – have you actually measured it?
Not with my current bikes, but I did with a previous fleet and it's bloody hard to do accurately! I used the dining room for a flat floor, dangling bits of weighted string from the ceiling aligning with the centre of the BB and top of head tube, then a spirit level strapped to a long bit of wood to measure the horizontal.
Previous bikes were fairly close to quoted geometry. I can't be arsed doing my current bikes TBH, so far at least.
I realise there are compromises everywhere but when does HA become too slack for general techy trail riding with the odd Enduro race once or twice per year?
Personal preference, but I've not found a downside to the 63.3deg HA on my big bike or 64.5deg on trail bike (both measured as I'm running 10mm longer fork travel than 'book' figures for both). I do prefer how my trail bike feels locally but I think that's down to the slightly shorter reach and me getting the fork dialled in far better.
Head angles... practical performance improvements or marketing departments dream, as everyone wants slacker and slacker? Some enduro bikes are slacker than downhill bikes. For good reason? Or because its 'rad'?
When does a 65 degree head angle become un-rideable? On the steepest gnar of British Colombia? Or the steep south welsh trails of Barry Sidings? Or the flats of Swinley?
Or is it a case of you can charge harder on a slacker bike? Be it due to physics or placebo effect? Therefore you can get away with more which allows you to be more confident/quicker?
Atherton bikes are being perceived as 'conservative' with a 65 degree head angle, but maybe they know going slacker adversely effects the bike in other ways? The recent Enduro Bike magazine group test would suggest the Atherton wasnt held back by such a 'steep' head angle on the rails or compared to other enduro bikes. You could argue in this day and age of super enduro bikes, is 150mm rear even enduro... bro?!
Its hard to know without riding the same bike back to back with a significant change in the head angle... something most folks are unlikely to be able to experience.
PS. i am not saying they are good or bad, right or wrong... just throwing some points of view into the mix for discussion.
Or is it a case of you can charge harder on a slacker bike? Be it due to physics or placebo effect? Therefore you can get away with more which allows you to be more confident/quicker?
Mostly this, I found things just calmed down nicely when I got to about 63deg, with an extra-planted feel.
And the bike wasn't trying to pivot me over the front wheel on steep trails any more - which has always been an issue for me 'cos of my body proportions.
Not a placebo, as I wasn't expecting some of the changes at all.
intheborders
Folk quoting geometry numbers of their own bike – have you actually measured it?
This got me thinking and it is indeed hard to measure accurately but I tried. Using the entirely unscientific method of spirit level and straight edge and bits of masking tape on the floor mine measures about 20mm short of published figures. That kind of innacuracy could have easily been introduced by my technique though so I wouldn't stand by it.
However, if I input all the published figures into here, many of which I have been able to check then the calculated reach and stack come out pretty spot on with published figures.