Treks Supercaliber, one of the few big brand XC race bikes with a 69+ degree head angle has been updated for 2024 with 67.5 head angle. Their more entry level XC Marlin frame has had its Gen3 geometry slackened from 69.5 down to 66.5. The Xcaliber which had a steep head angle seems to be disappearing from the line up altogether.
It's not just Trek, the traditional steep XC geometry seems to be being eliminated from offerings by the big brands.
Is this a trend that will ping back with marketing of "nimble" and "responsive" bikes eventually? Or is this simply forward progress in discovering the ideal geometry for the XC bike that most people actually need? If its progress, why did it take the industry so long to figure out? Or is this a reaction to the popularity of the gravel bike which has occupied the niche once filled by XC?
Longer front centres with short stems require slacker HAs to keep the steering from being too light. Don’t see it being a problem personally.
Trek/Fisher were the first big brand to use slacker sub 70 deg HAs on early 29ers when other brands were using mental 71/72 deg HAs. Surprised it’s taken them so long to move on from there.
Modern geometry is so much more confidence inspiring for me.
Is this a trend that will ping back with marketing of “nimble”
My bike is marketed as "nimble" (well, the nimble bruiser).
It's got a 63 degree head angle.
I bought an xc bike at the end of last year.
Tbh I discounted the old trek xc hardtails on that basis.
I went from an old skool 29er xc bike to a trail hardtails with much more modern geo and it was a revelation.
Why would you not want that extra stability, confidence and speed on an XC bike? It's free speed.
Short and steep has a place on cyclo-cross where the turns are slow and tight - but they are very slow and very steep and also mostly not rocky or technical.
67.5deg HA is nimble IMO
65deg HA (the standard "trail" geometry now) is still reasonably nimble
63deg HA is amazing for riding steep and/or fast trails
69deg HA is nice on my gravel bike
If its progress, why did it take the industry so long to figure out?
Slacker head angles have been a thing for what? More than a decade now? But blame; group think, conservatism, in built-beliefs, tradition...combo of any or all of them. But t'was ever so, every time an established "truth" is challenged, there's always going to be resistance to it.
Part of the reason it took so long to change is that big brands don't want to jump to the logical conclusion and risk alienating customers with a bike that looks weird. So every new model is a little bit, come on you know the words by now "Longer, lower, slacker!". 5mm here, half a degree there, a nip and tuck every few years. Slowly, painfully, inching away from the 1980's road bike geometry that all MTB's started with.
A company like Geometron can start at the end and prove that the theory works. Everyone else has to worry about selling incrementally different bikes with a new paintjob every season.
I bought a G16 over 6 years ago and people I knew literally pointed and laughed at it. Now they're all riding bikes from different manufacturers that are in the same ballpark sizewise.
Or is this a reaction to the popularity of the gravel bike which has occupied the niche once filled by XC?
I wondered this. I'm still riding a CX frame as my 'winter' gravel bike (since I don't actually race CX any more) and notice that I gravitate towards it for the more techy winter singletrack rides (as opposed to longer faster summer rides on the slacker 'other' gravel bike).
I definitely think there is still a place for steep HA/high BB bikes but it's maybe far too niche for any hardtail manufacturer, is anyone still riding 'natural' XC which might involve slow speeds, gnadgery singletrack and lots of pedalling? I definitely suffer an aversion to slacker head angles, even my old school Trek Superfly feels slacker than it needs to be, but I'm not shredding trail centres or Enduro trails any more.
is anyone still riding ‘natural’ XC which might involve slow speeds, gnadgery singletrack and lots of pedalling?
Raises hand.
Everyone else has to worry about selling incrementally different bikes with a new paintjob every season.
Did you listen to the Pinkbike podcast with Joann Barelli? When he rode the Grim Donut and showed that it was pretty rapid, Commencal were (obviously) less than chuffed with him.
I bought a G16 over 6 years ago and people I knew literally pointed and laughed at it.
Folk I know still point an laugh at my G16 now (at least I think it's the bike...). Even for a 2017 bike it's still very on-trend. I've even fitted an angle headset backwards to steepen the HA from 61deg to 62deg, am I ahead of the curve?!
Slacker head angles don't impede "lots of pedalling" or slow tech riding. Your point about BB heights on certain terrain is a good one though 3thfloormonk... but not so much for the XC "race" bikes in the OP.
I bought a G16 over 6 years ago and people I knew literally pointed and laughed at it. Now they’re all riding bikes from different manufacturers that are in the same ballpark sizewise.
Amongst my riding group my Cotic Flaremax was known as "the Gate" as it was so long (especially with a -2 headset in) , it's 6 years old in a few months.
Their bikes have all pretty much 'caught up' now.
Slacker head angles don’t impede “lots of pedalling” or slow tech riding.
Yeah true, I know a slacker HA doesn't impede pedalling, I was just differentiating between flat pedally riding and gravity propelled riding where the slacker HA clearly makes sense.
But slower tech riding, doesn't the slacker head angle (and wider bars I suppose) make steering more of an effort? I've not spent much time on slack head angles but what I recall was very ponderous feeling at slow speed...
Not trying to make a case against slack head angles by the way, just agreeing with the idea that maybe the niche for steep hardtails has been filled by gravel/CX
Steeper head angles work very nicely with rigid forks.
Steeper head angles work very nicely with rigid forks.
I think my Whippet is 69 deg with a rigid fork and I'm very happy with that for the type of xc wheels on the ground riding I do. Of course it might be because in the last 40 years of riding off road it's actually the slackest head angle I've actually ridden 😂
But slower tech riding, doesn’t the slacker head angle (and wider bars I suppose) make steering more of an effort? I’ve not spent much time on slack head angles but what I recall was very ponderous feeling at slow speed…
It does below about 65 degrees IMO.
I guess it depends on what your "slow tech riding" looks like. Most of my riding is general natural XC linking up more exciting bits. Where the "exciting bits" are slow/tight and techy they tend to be pointed steeply downwards.
In this context, for me, slacker HA has always been moar betterer: I haven't found the limit to that as yet. I've ridden a Geometron, and it was brilliant. My BFEMax is supposed to be 64 degrees at sag off the shelf, and I run it with a -2 degree headset. I haven't noticed slacker HA making things disastrously bad elsewhere on the normal XC stuff.
By contrast, I find going as steep as say 65 degrees is noticeably worse (more sketchy) for the exciting things.
Different strokes for different folks I suppose, and I might have a different perspective if I lived/rode somewhere different of course.
Yeah i think a definition of what "slow tech" is would be helpful.
We rode the Cheeky V off piste line in Grizedale last weekend. Tight, steep, tech and i certainly would not have wanted to do that on a bike with a steeper head angle.
Yeah, I also ride 'regular XC'. Going 29er and having bigger tyres has mode the most difference for me, rather than head angles. I think there's a place for a fairly wide range of angles, but I still smirk when I hear people refer to 65 degrees as steep. It's just shifting baseline syndrome. For pedalling, the steeper seat angle is an important factor too, and for XC i think it can get too steep..?
I also ride rigid and 69 degrees HA and it's spot on for pedalling and attacking more technical stuff. Rigid is a different ball game to HTs though.
I've got an old Superlight, its got an angleset on it to slacken it to 70 degrees. 😀
I don't really know why is still have it, about once a year i pump up the tyres and drag it out for a ride. Compared to a modern geometry bike (my regular bike is a Whyte S150) its absolutely terrifying!
As well as being steep its also really short. You hang off the back on anything remotely steep, I ride it with all the grace of an (overweight) octopus falling out of a tree.
I'll not been advocating for a return to steep geometry any time soon.
Compared to a modern geometry bike (my regular bike is a Whyte S150) its absolutely terrifying!
That's when you realise the benefits of modern geometry. When you go back to an old bike and feel how dangerous it is in comparison.
I had a few mates with big-money Bronson's and Nomad's and stuff which I used to be a little envious of. After riding the Geometron for a months I'd jump on someone's Santa Cruz and dive into a trail, it felt like I was going to fall over the bars and knock my teeth out.
is anyone still riding ‘natural’ XC which might involve slow speeds, gnadgery singletrack and lots of pedalling?
Yep, but it works just as well.
Absolutely. A long slack bike with wide bars on tight technical trails is like trying to steer a ship.
Not really.
Well a geometron on a steep uphill switchback might be problematic, but thats a wheelbase/chainstay length issue, not the HA. A 66deg angle on a hardtail has never given me any issues. It's different, you can't just sit there bolt upright and pedal / turn the bars like a lost roadie. But on the other hand you don't have to because the front wheel actually wants to roll over things (mix of 29er and longer wheelbase making it easier to unweight). I'd take my new scandal over an old inbred on a technical climb any day, the only thing that ever seems to stop it is my fitness.
My Nukeproof Reactor is dramatically slower than my Patriot on really twisty trails like that one on the Twrch at Cwmcarn. If I were buying again and I wanted to focus on pinning singletrack as fast as possible I'd probably go for 27.5. If I were buying a Mega I'd probably do the same.
The Reactor is great on uphill switchbacks though.
Further to my above, I think taking in other geometry changes like seat angles and reach, i've found the best for me is Long, Low and Slightly Slack, and that has a worthwhile application for a bit of everything. It might be called an ATB but let's not get mired in categories. This is where things differ when comparing just HA and older bikes, especially as many were much shorter, slacker SA, higher BB, even different wheel size.
Steeper head angles work very nicely with rigid forks.
And drop bars.
I wonder what the actually speed difference between say a 65 degree HA and a 68/69 is when the rider is an xc racing snake on an xc course.
I 100% agree about feel btw. But my 66 degree hartdtail feels loads more confidence inspiring iring than my last with a HA of 68, but I'm not sure it actually is faster on xc type trails because the pedaling position on the more trail oriented geo isn't quite as efficient.
Courses adjust to match. They put technical steep features on courses now that would have had everyone walking back in the day. So the time saved by hitting the features at full pelt is far greater than the fractions of a second saved by quicker feeling handling.
My rigid bike has a 70.5 HA and I love it, I specifically wanted a steep HA because it's essentially an adventure bike. It's main aim is to cover ground comfortably, and for some reason I can't explain this is far nicer with a steep HA and rigid forks.
This is where things differ when comparing just HA and older bikes, especially as many were much shorter, slacker SA, higher BB, even different wheel size.
and also compared to modern but less xc bikes. Sharkattack's bike may feel (and/or be) slower on tight slow speed trails. But as its presumably tyred and sprung based on its intended use, its probably not the head angle that makes it less nippy.
Superlight - mine had to go after I'd ridden a few modern bikes and every time I rode the SL I'd go over the handlebars! I'd got used to being able to ride at stuff not mince around it or clag-gone your butt-crack on the back tyre.
@Tomparkin what travel fork are you running on your BFeMAX and how do you like it compared to stock? I'm looking at running 130/140 with an angle adjust headset to get me essentially the 160mm head angle but without the big travel.
Cotic were helpful in pointing me in the right direction of the headset variant, I just haven't pulled the trigger yet!
but I’m not sure it actually is faster on xc type trails because the pedaling position on the more trail oriented geo isn’t quite as efficient.
Isn't it? I'm not convinced.
When it comes to racing, MTB courses tend to be up and down a steep hill and repeat, so even if a 5deg steeper seat angle is less efficient on the turbo trainer, in the real world you're pedaling up an incline >>5deg anyway so the seat angle is moot.
Unlike road bikes where 100 years of evolution have resulted in every bike having the same 73.5deg angles because the average race is still a flat-ish 100k.
My conclusions, for a hardtail anyway:
Long low slack = great downhill, but my god boring and boat-like everywhere else
Just a wee bit slack with super short chainstays is a good middle-ground for all types of riding I find. The bike remains fun on the flatter and more pedally bits.
What I can't get my head around is that when I first started riding mtbs again in 2004 my bike had typical XC geometry of the day with a really steep HA and a tiller for a stem. It was still a bit of a mission keeping the front wheel on the ground on very steep climbs with lots of leaning forward over the bars to keep the wheel down. Now, 20 years later with slack HA and stort stems it doesn't seem nearly so tricky when logic says it should be harder not easier.
It could of course just be I'm no longer anything like as fit and the steepest climb I can climb is nothing like as steep as it use to be!
@convert isn't that in part to do with the steeper seat tube and longer wheelbase?
It was still a bit of a mission keeping the front wheel on the ground on very steep climbs with lots of leaning forward over the bars to keep the wheel down. Now, 20 years later with slack HA and stort stems it doesn’t seem nearly so tricky when logic says it should be harder not easier.
You're probably sitting much further in front of the rear axle. A 29" wheel needs longer chainstays, plus a steeper seat angle will move you forwards quite a lot. Problem is that a longer bike is harder to wrestle around tight technical trails. Solution: build trail centers with nice open, flowing trails that suit longer bikes.
Compared to a modern geometry bike (my regular bike is a Whyte S150) its absolutely terrifying!
That’s when you realise the benefits of modern geometry. When you go back to an old bike and feel how dangerous it is in comparison.
A colleague bought a mid-90s Marin Eldridge Grade a year or two ago. I raced the same frame for a few years in the 90s, and now ride a Marin gravel bike to work. So, with a few jokes about gravel bikes being the same as a 90s MTB we rode the bikes around the carpark. The old Eldridge Grade was the twitchiest, most nervous bike I've ridden in years. I'm amazed that we used to race those things!
...... may feel (and/or be) slower on tight slow speed trails.
Going back to this, there's not a huge pool of people who ride tight slow speed trails, presumably fairly flat. Down here in Wales tight trails are normally also steep. If slack HA's and modern geo didn't work, we wouldn't be riding it.
@jfab it's running a 140mm Pike currently.
I like it a lot in slacker mode.
It wasn't especially steep beforehand, but having the front wheel a bit further away is nice, especially for steep "I'll plummet down here and then smack into that catch berm" type stuff, where it just gives you more margin before it feels like the front wheel wants to fold and spit you out the front.
Interestingly, the things I noticed most immediately after the headset swap were not really the head angle so much as the seat angle being a bit steeper and the front end being a bit lower.
The seat angle I thought was better a bit steeper -- I've always liked how it climbs, I think the slightly long chainstays help it be quite tenacious at motoring up stuff, but the seat angle being a bit steeper just makes it a bit better IMO.
The front end being lower I got on with less well: more weight on my hands didn't feel great, and I struggled with lifting the front wheel. I ended up replacing my 38mm rise bars with 55mm rise and that works a lot better for me. Front wheel lifts are no bother, and I don't feel like I'm putting a lot of weight through my hands any more.
@tomparkin that's really good feedback, thank you! The seat angle I think can only be a good thing, as it's not super-steep in stock form so you won't be in danger of tipping it over into "too steep" territory.
I think I have ~10-15mm spacers above the stem currently, so plenty of scope to play with that or higher bars if I need to later.
Cheers!
