[Closed] is new school geometry overhyped or am i doing it wrong?!

Experiment with the height of your bars & stem?

Try a shorter stem?

If you didn't feel the old bike was too short then that seems fairly obvious to me, unless you're already running a direct mount or very short stem anyway. New geo isn't all about reach, is it, everything is supposed to be slacker and lower too, so you should still get those 'benefits' even if you shorten things up.

More rise on the bars or increased stack height might also be worth a go.

doesnt help really. tried various heights.

It sounds like you're comparing effective top tube measurements, not reach. ETT is only relevant when you're sitting down.

does it sound like ?
nope.. i am not confused pal. I am talking about reach and riding dh , aka riding in standing position..

Reach of 640mm? no wonder you're struggling...

But yes, nu-skool geometry isn't better everywhere, for all riders, all the time.

according to geometry chart on Giant's website the reach is 458. (You appear to have quoted TT at 640)

Medium has a TT closer to you old bike...

640 sounds like an ETT measurement, my airdrop Edit has longish reach at 468.2, but 640???

My feeling is really long reach suits short legged, long bodied people the most.

I think the OP is quoting the reach figures as 6xxmm rather than 4xxmm. I wouldn't have said 458 was a huge reach for someone 6'1", I'm 5'7" and happy with 449mm reach, but if you're not happy and don't like riding a forward geometry bike get something with old school short geometry like a Capra.

640 Top tube 458 reach on a large Reign. [url= https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/reign-2 ]Click[/url]

What about stack height mate? Have you dropped your bars down? What was the old bike out of interest?

Up to a point I have this issue too, it depends on your build mechanically - my arms a quite short so I looked for a bike that reviewers moan about being cramped 🙂 e.g Try Norco / Devinci over Mondraker etc These are slack but don't take long to the extreme. If you are over 6' and / or have long arms, from my riding group, it appears the latest geom is great. Not exactly a great sample size 🙂

apologies to all. i messed up reach number. of course..
the reach of 458 mm new bike and 440 old bike.

perhaps the bike is just too long for you?

I get that bike geometry is changing (it's always evolved) some are longer than others, maybe you just need a bike that's a bit shorter?

and for information ETT alone means nothing if you dont take seatube angle into consideration.

my previous bike was large remedy 2013

Y'know, I wouldn't know the ETT or Reach figures for my bike, I don't think I've paid any real attention to any numbers (other than a rough guide to see if it will fit-ish)

If you're riding it, and it's not working for you, then move it on.

I prefer a shortish (by "modern standards") frame, even with "modern" angles / BB height. The L Meta HT is near perfect for me in that sense.

I don't want to trade reactivity/nimbleness for stability.

But there might be other benefits/downsides to a longer frame, although I don't know what they are, I asked here and didn't get a comprehensive/rational reply. So if anyone knows what they are, feel free to share.

I find on my process 153 I dont have to get off the back so much, im riding steeper stuff faster on it than I did even on my old short reach DH bike
I also find with the relatively short process rear end that its not lost any nimbleness compared to older bikes- which now feel cramped and twitchy

im 1.7m on a medium so im no gangly giant! just takes some adjustment to how you ride, I do like a lower saddle, gone from a 125 to a 150, now reckon maybe a 170mm dropper would be good
can keep my weight more central & cog lower i suppose

wonder if the quest for small bump + mid stroke support in forks is also to do with new school bikes being less 'off the back'- luftkappe crc spring kits etc

How long is the rear end?
Longer bikes can feel less chuckable, but I wouldn't say you feel any more over the bars, are you sure it's the length not something else?
I tend to think that the longer bikes are faster and more composed, but not necessarily better depending on how you're going to be riding things (e.g. a shorter bike might let you get away with lower speeds over a drop).
Shorter chainstays help, but there's a practical limit particularly with larger wheels.

wonder if the quest for small bump + mid stroke support in forks is also to do with new school bikes being less 'off the back'- luftkappe crc spring kits etc

That's a good point, people more centred on their bikes, hitting stuff a bit harder than before, with more weight on the front...Makes sense

When riding proper steep stuff ( dh steep like ) , with long reach bike i end up having way too much weight on my bars , making me feel uncomfortable and even less confident to attack the trail , as I get tired a lot faster as I have to soak up bumbs through my arms/ upper body a lot more compared to my previous bike . It also caused my fork to compress way too much , further adding to the issue and adding pressure to fork and some bottomless tokens and/or LSC helped , yet stiffer fork couldnt absorb bumps so well and only further increasing fatigue.On my previous bike I had much better stand on bike taking most of impacts through my legs - the way it should be to keep safer and also ride more confidently.

You have tall person issues. Youve probably been riding small bike (esp if youve ridden DH bikes) for most of your life, now your on one which is longer so needs more core and arm strength rather than just legs. Im the same, its hard to ride somethimes, you have to be switched on all the time! I went for a 2" rise bar and very short stem, looks old school but helps a lot as it puts me kind of half way between where i was and where the new bike would be with a stock cockpit.

Never mind all this chit chat.

Can I suggest we just burn the heretic?