[Closed] Longer, lower, slacker...have manufacturers been taking the pee pee a bit ..

I think this thread shows just how conservative the market is...

What benefits/downsides does a longer top tube bring ?

sargey2003 - Member
I think this thread shows just how conservative the market is...

POSTED 1 DAY AGO # REPORT-POST
nickfrog - Member

I couldn't give too craps about angles, top tube length etc, I just want a bike I can ride quickly when I want to.
I also don't want to suffer because somebody can't ride a bike without a bottom bracket so low it needs shorter crank arms and steel toe caps.

tilt the fork back a bit so the resulting force is along the direction of the legs, ie slacker head angles.

Oh ? I thought slacker head angles resulted in more wear on the stanchion guides ? and that it was improvements in fork design and manufacturing that now allows slacker angles with trail forks...

@nickfrog>>>Many folk feel more confident tackling steep and gnarly trails on bikes with longer front ends and slacker head angles. They therefore feel they are having more fun. DH and enduro racers find they go faster (the long bike trend started in DH I think).

Why this is, is a matter for conjecture, but it has a lot to do with decreased sensitivity to front/back weight distribution and greater ability to survive potential front-door exit situations.

I reckon I've been MTBing proper for 14 years, in that time I've had 10 bikes, so not a swapper or a one bike guy either.
21 years here.
9 bikes, including two that were stolen, so really 7 if I had chosen.
You are verging on being a swapper sir.

haha.......pair of amateurs. 😆

Well thinking about the forces involved, if the way you habitually abuse your bike is landing to flat, then slacker angles increase fork bushing loads, but if it is by hitting large rocks as speed or nose-diving landings, then slacker angles would probably be better for your bushes.

I hadn't heard the one about it being to do with fork construction until just now though.

@ton. Im not even going to say how many bikes I've had.

How many out of those have I rode properly. .... Probs not many 😳

I've recently moved from a Classic Blur to a Bird Aeris. When I bought it (a long time ago) I thought the Blur was simply the best bike in the world. Just a fantastic bike. We've been round so many corners together.

However, the improvement in riding the Aeris over the older design is just difficult to get my head round. The amount of grip, the stability at speed, the amount more confidence on steeper trails - I could go on and on. Riding the Bird almost feels like cheating.

So, while I have no idea if nefarious bike companies have successfully get one over on me by lying about the benefit of modern long/slack designs, as long as their bikes ride like this, I'm a happy camper.

I'd been thinking I should get a modern bike, especially when one riding buddy just got a lovely carbon Transition Scout. But when I replaced the fork on my Mk1 Cotic Soul with a 10 yr old 140mm Pike, and changed to a wider flat bar and shorter stem it transformed it into the best bike I've ever ridden. Total investment £116. That included the new gear cable and brake pads.

Continuous improvement is a good philosophy but sometimes things just don't need improving.

Oh the shame of having 26" wheels, straight steerer and square taper. I'm condemned to night riding just in case anybody sees me riding it. And having just as much fun as I did back in 1999.

Taken with pinch of salt;
650b geometry looks like it will probably settle around 63-65 HA for trail/enduro and 76-77 seat tube angle.
Reach per size there's probably still fair bit of tweaking to cover the most amount of people per frame size. Though there is bound to be limits on longer reaches keeping you centred and making it difficult to get your weight right back when required.

BB drop is mainly 10mm ATM, but will probably go to 15-20mm, may need 165mm cranks though.

Some manufacturers are almost at those figures now, others however aren't. Even the new mk4 nomad's reach numbers seem quite conservative.

a moving bike is obviously more stable than a stationary one (even if - IIRC - physics can't really explain why)

It's partly gyroscopic effect and partly the fact that the tyre contact patch is behind the steering axis of the forks. Casters on trolleys are swept backwards for the same reason.

The lower the BB goes in relation to the wheel axles, the more stability you have and the more a bike will dig into corners.

My experience is that a 29er can have a higher BB but still feel more planted than a slammed 650b bike.

Oh the shame of having 26" wheels, straight steerer and square taper. I'm condemned to night riding just in case anybody sees me riding it. And having just as much fun as I did back in 1999.

That made me chuckle John as I am the same as you. Or was. I have eventually moved from 26/straight steerer/conventional geo to a 27.5 Meta HT that I built up.
It cost me a bit more than you but the contrast is striking. And I had already done the upgrades that you mention.

And having just as much fun as I did back in 1999.

Honestly, I'm having more fun riding than I did back then. For a host of reasons, but one is because I have a slack 7" travel bike with big discs and a dropper which is quite a lot more fun on the descents than a rigid steel bike with cantis 🙂

Although as was discussed on a recent ride with an old friend, even like for like bikes are much better. We did a classic ride for old times' sake that we'd first done in the mid to late 90s, both of us on rigid bikes of course. This time we were both on rigid steel bikes again but with carbon forks, wide rims, fat tubeless tyres and disks. The descents were far more fun - the bikes handle much better. MTBs are evolving even faster now than they were then, and back then they'd only been around a short time.

And having just as much fun as I did back in 1999.

Mind you if I'd never ridden a modern bike I'd probably not know what I'm missing

Depends on what you're after innit? Faster riding on gnarlier terrain? Sure, get a more modern bike, they're better designed for it. I still have an absolute hoot riding my fully rigid steel 26er with V-brakes at Llandegla or wherever - going half the speed is twice as scary 😆 I'm looking forward to getting a more modern bike as well, mind...

Depends on what you're after innit? Faster riding on gnarlier terrain? Sure, get a more modern bike, they're better designed for it. I still have an absolute hoot riding my fully rigid steel 26er with V-brakes at Llandegla or wherever - going half the speed is twice as scary 😆 I'm looking forward to getting a more modern bike as well, mind...

The thing that bugs me about the buzzwords is when late arrivals still try and use it. Ibis are banging on about "longer for 2017", but it's more or less an admission that their bikes were short and they were lagging behind most of the competition (last year's Mojo HD XL was barely longer than my medium BMC). Most bikes that say long, low, slack don't deliver on all 3.

It's kind of like when Orange started selling maxles as an optional extra for stiffness- even with the maxle the frames were still among the flexiest on the market because of the swingarm design and construction but they were selling a £100 uptick on a perceived benefit that wasn't really there.

jamesoz - Member

Thing is I don't understand why everybody needs a low bb to ride round the woods or down an Alp for that matter.

You don't- you can do those things on my 25 year old carrera if you want. But I'd rather do it on a newer bike, wouldn't you?

Depends on what you're after innit?

Well, a modern steel rigid 29er is in a pretty similar vein to the old 26ers but it does everything better, in my book. Despite being a bit heavier. And it's not about speed and gnarliness - we are still talking fully rigid bikes here.

There is absolutely nothing to recommend a 90s bike in my mind.

And having just as much fun as I did back in 1999.

I'm probably having more fun now, I wasn't riding in '99 but I was for a bit in 94-95 and then again from 2005 to now.

I'm not saying we're still to reach 'peak fun', I'd guess on balance we've passed peak fun and are chasing peak speed now, I don't know maybe in 5 years we'll all look back and say "I can't believe we used to put up with mechanical bikes - I can do 50 easy on my D12 equiped e-bike" like we sometimes say we can't believe we used to put up with canti brakes that sort of work sometimes, narrow little 1.95 tyres that sort of gripped, sort of rolled but mostly flatted whenever to looked at them etc etc.

I did my "upgrade" because I was thinking of buying a more up-to-date bike. One which I borrowed to take round the old Marin Trail at Betws. The bike was a Trek Remedy which I didn't get on with. The reason was that on the downhill bits I just had to point it in the right direction and let it go. I didn't feel very involved in the process and was missing all the fun.
I know that is due to my age and skill level as I was aware that had I gone a good bit faster I would have found that sense of involvement and fun but the consequences of a mistake (to which I am prone) would have been quite serious.

Anyway, I thrashed my whipper-snapper buddy on his Transition Scout carbon with Eagle and Enve on Cannock Chase last Thursday so I'm doing fine.

The bit that gets me is when they say how radical some of the smaller niche brands are, but when you look at the numbers they are virtually identical to everyone elses.

There are definitely some radical bikes being made by smaller brands, Pole and Nicolai/Mojo are a couple of examples and Mondraker have been selling 'forward geometry' bikes for quite some time now.

Look at the reach/ETT numbers on the Aeris 145 as well - the larger ones are properly long. Steep ST as well, though the HA is 65° with a 160mm fork. I think the BB drop comes in at 13mm too.

diotdogbrain - Member
Look at the reach/ETT numbers on the Aeris 145 as well - the larger ones are properly long. Steep ST as well, though the HA is 65° with a 160mm fork. I think the BB drop comes in at 13mm too.

They aren't far on the geometron tbf.
At a certain point reach length per size is going to be too long to allow you to get your weight fully back for manualing etc.
Question is, is the geometron already at that limit?
Would be nice if we could measure our arms and legs etc and be able to work out optimal reach, would take a lot of this guess work, and manufacturer testing of increasing length bit by bit out.

jamesoz - Member
Thing is I don't understand why everybody needs a low bb to ride round the woods or down an Alp for that matter.

You don't- you can do those things on my 25 year old carrera if you want. But I'd rather do it on a newer bike, wouldn't you?

I could live with a little less stability for a little more ground clearance.

Been riding mtb's for a long time. 1st bought a 1993 Kona Fire Mountain new with my money when I was 13. Been riding QR20 axles since 2001.

Trails when I started = fire roads, some old, some new.

Trails when I was running QR20, xc to NS to DH, Freeride drops & skinny's

Now: Incredibly well built epic long amazing trails with gravity assist.

The bikes are adapting to the trails riders build.

A Modern bike would have sucked at the shore & the freeride trails back in the day, too long, too slow.

Just like an early to mid 00's trail bike isn't going to feel as great at Mach Chicken on today's trails, too short & tall.

I see the future 15 years from now..... MX like tracks down all the mountains you ride now.... wider, smoother & bigger and a lot faster.

More from Geoff Apps, and his ideas

http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/cleland-original-big-wheeled-off-road-bicycle-813437.html

Yesterday, one 2004 Commencal Meta 5.5 on 1.9 xc tyres, one 2010 Sanderson Breath on 2.3 High Rollers, one 2016 Specialized Enduro 650b on 2.4's. All ridden by similar height and weight riders.

Downhill on forest track, Commencal was fastest apart from the really stony bits and the wet corners, where the Breath was fastest.
Climbs – forest track, the HT Sanderson was fastest, bumpy wet roots marginally the Specialized.
Descents on twisty, natural mud trails – the Sanderson was nippiest in among trees. Commencal was fastest on easy bits. Specialized bars were too wide, plus the shocks were not set up properly so rear kept bottoming out….

Conclusion – we all had a fab time ?

That Geoff Apps thread is daft. It might be more stable if you are higher up - but some riders want to change direction rapidly, so a higher centre of mass is a disadvantage in that situation.

That Geoff Apps thread is daft. It might be more stable if you are higher up - but some riders want to change direction rapidly,

Horses for courses. It's the polar opposite of the Nicolai Geometron but the Cleland is designed for slow speed 'trials' style riding (Geoff describes it as pootling in the woods). The Geometron is a handful at slow speeds - it's primarily designed to going downhill fast and "through" things rather than picking lines around them. Trying to ride the Cleland like a modern enduro bike on, say, a trail centre descent would likely be fairly terrifying.

It is horses for courses, absolutely. But what really winds me up about these grumpy old shed tinkerer types is that they're so convinced that their invention is the one true way and that if all of us gullible imbeciles could just get over our obsession with modern kit we'd see the light and all buy their bikes instead.

If they said 'hey, I like riding this thing, give it a try, it might be a laugh' that'd be great. But no, it's all 'you've been duped your whole lives, my amazing invention has been stifled by these horrible mega corporations' etc etc etc 🙄

I'm sure there are plenty of riders that are on entirely the wrong bike - including middle aged pootlers who've been seduced by flashy enduro machines.

Trying to ride the Cleland like a modern enduro bike on, say, a trail centre descent would likely be fairly terrifying

I agree 🙂

If they said 'hey, I like riding this thing, give it a try, it might be a laugh' that'd be great. But no, it's all 'you've been duped your whole lives, my amazing invention has been stifled by these horrible mega corporations' etc etc etc

You've not met Geoff then?

He's much more the former than the latter, with an element of [i]"lots of people are riding bikes that aren't appropriate for the kind of riding they actually do*, because they're trying to ride how the marketing tells them they should"[/i]

* See why Gravel/Allroad bikes are so popular, bikes for 'just riding places' as some people realise that's what they actually like doing, mixed terrain, mixed riding not all hardcore drops berms and rock gardens. 'Proper MTBs' obviously have their place for people that are into it (me included) but bike brands aren't really catering to the 'woodland bimbler' element at the moment are they?

Trying to ride the Cleland[b] like a modern enduro bike [/b]on, say, a trail centre descent would likely be fairly terrifying

Key bit emboldened, you're right trying to ride it like that would be terrifying, in the same way that trying to ride a modern Enduro bike like a Cleland would be cumbersome and frustrating. But trying to ride a Cleland like they are designed to be ridden, even down that same descent would actually probably surprise you how capable it is, and you'll likely not find anything that could climb [i]up[/i] a tricky technical trail like that quite like a Cleland 😉

trying to ride a modern enduro bike like a Clenland would be cumbersome and frustrating.

I reckon I could ride down a 3 inch deep stream on my enduro bike pretty easily. 😆

You've not met Geoff then?

No, only read the thread in which he came over a bit of a nobber.

even down that same descent would actually probably surprise you how capable it is

Hehe. Niche-fans say stuff like this a lot. You'd be surprised.. it's not as bad as you'd think.. no, maybe, but it's still not as good as a proper bike is it? (general statement - never ridden a Cleland)

and you'll likely not find anything that could climb up a tricky technical trail like that quite like a Cleland

That intrigues me more. Having a stratospheric bottom bracket probably helps a lot. The tyres aren't particularly big though. Maybe in 1984 they were, but they are tiny now.

No, only read the thread in which he came over a bit of a nobber

I think eccentric is the accepted term 😉 he is a lovely person in, ah, person. But does have quite a dry sense of humour which maybe doesn't come across that well in forum posts.

Hehe. Niche-fans say stuff like this a lot. You'd be surprised.. it's not as bad as you'd think.. no, maybe, but it's still not as good as a proper bike is it? (general statement - never ridden a Cleland)

I tried hooning down a rutted gully on the Cleland, straight after trying the same thing on my krampus. It was certainly different, but actually after getting used to the very different handling it did very well. It's not designed for fast downhill speeds, but with a bit of adjustment in riding style it worked very well.....that leads me onto your next point....

and you'll likely not find anything that could climb up a tricky technical trail like that quite like a Cleland

That intrigues me more. Having a stratospheric bottom bracket probably helps a lot. The tyres aren't particularly big though. Maybe in 1984 they were, but they are tiny now.

It is an amazing climber, even at nearly stalling speed I was able to crawl up a near vertical (well maybe 45 degree) bank. The low gearing helps, as do the eccentric pedal axles, so you get more leverage at the bottom of the stroke, and the really low tyre pressures - about 5-6 psi I think Geoff said.
True the tyres aren't plus size or fat, but he runs 2.5 29er DH tyres (with motorbike innertubes in, he seems to distrust tubeless setups) so plenty of grip, especially with the low pressures.

@ nickc -

I reckon I could ride down a 3 inch deep stream on my enduro bike pretty easily

The point is he rides down, up, sideways, all at a constant speed of about 5-6 mph, but never putting his feet down. I tried following him through ruts and puddles, and a couple of streams on my Krampus, and just ended putting my feet down all the time.

even down that same descent would actually probably surprise you how capable it is

I'm intrigued. I reckon you could probably ride it down steep stuff but I can't imagine it corners well at speed.

and you'll likely not find anything that could climb up a tricky technical trail like that quite like a Cleland

That intrigues me more. Having a stratospheric bottom bracket probably helps a lot. The tyres aren't particularly big though. Maybe in 1984 they were, but they are tiny now

Steep high bike, easy to keep your weight forward and the front wheel down (or lift it when you need to according to Geoff), easy to change direction and pick a line.

The Geometron climbs like a steamroller - front wheel glued to the trail - but that, and the wheelbase, make it hard work to pick a line through a rocky climb.

I'd rather a fatbike for the steep rocky stuff, I reckon.

never heard of Cleland before, good that's ok to admit!

They remind me of the bike radiant of a land Rover for some reason.

I mean that in a good way! 🙂

Niche-fans say stuff like this a lot. You'd be surprised.. it's not as bad as you'd think.. no, maybe, but it's still not as good as a proper bike is it?

I can't imagine it corners well at speed.

You're still both thinking about riding it for stuff its not intended for...

I doesn't corner all that well at speed no, but it's not for that kind of riding, that's proper MTB not woodland bimbling, same with the 'proper bike' comment. For woodland bimbling and the stuff it's designed for it is better than a proper bike. One of the best analogies is 'Pony trekking but on a bike' It will just keep going and going and going anywhere you like....

I'd rather a fatbike for the steep rocky stuff, I reckon.

you might be surprised 😉

FWIW, I don't own a Cleland, and I doubt I will anytime soon as it doesn't suit the kind of riding i (mostly) do at the moment*, but that doesn't stop me realising how good they are at what they're supposed to do, and the 'you'd be surprised' bit might have a smiley, but you genuinely probably would be, they are surprising bikes.

* The amount of people who I see riding around woods and trail centres on big bouncy slack and modern MTBs, who then only bimble about at a bit over walking speed would suggest there are plenty who do, it would also suit the people who take their hybrid/commuter because they want to ride offroad a bit, but then get put off because it's hard and you 'need an MTB'

You're still both thinking about riding it for stuff its not intended for...

I doesn't corner all that well at speed no, but it's not for that kind of riding, that's proper MTB not woodland bimbling

No, I get your point and I'd really like to ride one, but the original discussion here was (I thought) about whether incremental changes in MTB geometry were manf's taking the piss. I think mtb geo is matching what (many) people want to do with it. We were discussing different bikes for different jobs.

I had a Geometron for a few months and found it incredibly capable for a particular type of riding but too compromised (for me) in other areas. My Helius AC (140mm, but with modern geometry, long TT, wide bars) descends at speed better than any other bike I've had on properly steep rocky trails but is still fun to climb up technical, trails-y, rocky climbs. I've ridden every iteration of the AC for the last 15 years and it is the most capable. However, I'm really enjoying riding my Argon TB29 these days as well - it feels sufficiently different to the Helius to be a contrast. In the Surrey Hills I can get up and down the same stuff but in a different way.

I reckon I'd have lot of fun on a Cleland in the right environment.

I think mtb geo is matching what (many) people want to do with it.

But also shaping what people do. Bikes and biking are leading each other.

I'm sure there are plenty of riders that are on entirely the wrong bike

Yep. I have ridden a fixed gear, brakeless track bike for last 5 years on exactly the same off road routes than I used an MTB for in the past

It is a handful on some sections but very fast on uphill fireroads. I love it and don't plan on changing but would not recommend it and don't say it is the answer for all...

simons_nicolai-uk - Member
I had a Geometron for a few months and found it incredibly capable for a particular type of riding but too compromised (for me) in other areas. My Helius AC (140mm, but with modern geometry, long TT, wide bars) descends at speed better than any other bike I've had on properly steep rocky trails but is still fun to climb up technical, trails-y, rocky climbs.