Chainline will no doubt correct me if I’m wrong but the G series produced by Nicolai are the Geometron bikes. G13 is the 29, G16 is the 650b and G19 is the downhill bike. Mine certainly has Geometron printed in pretty large lettering on the seat stays. Anything else is special order and I believe can still be done through Mojo.

Podge – 140mm front, 133mm rear although lifting it to 150mm without any other jiggery pokery is apparently not an issue as you would expect.

Stompweaver – 95% of my riding is round surrey hills which is not exactly rough. My Banshee Prime was fine travel wise (135mm rear) in the Alps last summer (riding with guys on Specialized Enduro 650b and YT Capra) but at the same time my riding is more geared towards natural alpine singletrack (the enduro race stages for example) rather than smashing out park laps with big jumps all day. Geometry makes a massive difference though. I’ve had a pretty long Swarf Spline (490mm reach) that I’ve been riding for a while now and the difference in how that feels at speed over the rough stuff is remarkable. Geometron works to the same principle. I truly believe that it’s not the travel per se, it’s the design around the travel. I can’t stand the aforementioned Enduro (no offence intended) as it just feels way too short in reach (2015 model) even in XL, my mate enjoys it though. It’s personal preference but I can’t see any downside to the longer bike apart from perhaps if you like hitting a lot of jumps and getting stylish in the air where I assume it is harder to move the bike into whatever funky shape you’re looking for. That’s not my riding though so I can’t really comment. You do have to muscle the bike around more in the corners but it’s something you get used to very quickly in my experience. All I would say is that if you’re looking to spend on a new frame, don’t discount the Geometrons from the numbers, it’s definitely worth a ride and they’re really accommodating in sorting something out.

I thought the G series were Nicolai’s own version of the Geometron philosophy not direct copies.

Fairly sure Chainline mentioned something about different seat angles and slightly different pivot placement for suspension dynamics.

It can be confusing..

G series is Nicolai’s ‘version’ of the GeoMetron.

They were the same but then Mojo proposed some changes to this years models to make everything standard without ‘Mojo’ specials. Nicolai weren’t sure about going that far immediately on the G16, G13 or G19 versions.

So the Mojo GeoMetron G16 (27.5) is different from Nicolai’s version, it is a specific Mojo version. It is slacker, has a different BB set up.

The G13, what Gotama has, is a standard Nicolai bike, still derived directly from the GeoMetron.

The GeoMetron 29er, as produced originally by Chris is longer travel but is a custom order, it is not the same as the G13. It is slacker (the same as the std GeoMetron essentially) and 155mm rear travel and has a steeper seat angle being based entirely on the GeoMetron.

A really great, brave move by Nicolai this year, but not quite as brave as Mojo would have liked to have gone (I think there was as bit of a timing issue), perhaps understandably, the German market is still their main market and remains fairly conservative, customers there have however welcomed the GeoMetron (hence why they have gone this way across the range) but to go that far with the 29 immediately was clearly too far too soon…

So in summary the G13 is a stanard Nicolai. You can have a GeoMetron 29 as a custom order.

The Mojo GeoMetron G16 is a unique model. One way to tell is if it has Ion in the seat gusset as the moment that is a Nicolai version. If it says Mojo, then its specific to Mojo.

Currently looking how to allow the use of the front 29″ wheel (which Chris likes so much on the GeoMetron) in the GeoMetron (of course with the 29er 160mm fork) but to retain the same key geometry of the 27.5 (with the 180mm fork). It is doable…
I’ve not tested mine with the 29 front yet (still a huge fan of the 27.5) but I will do. The paper numbers make interesting reading…

Thanks for the detailed replies Gotama and Chainline it clears things up completely.

I do love my Enduro but fully understand that loving/hating a bike is a purely personal thing so no offence taken when you say you don’t like them Gotama. It definitely feels on the small side but back when I bought it it was one of the biggest XL’s there was available. Plus it was my dream bike at the time so I guess I was never going to think badly of it! I wouldn’t mind losing some rear travel as I rode all of the same stuff on the Stumpy (Wales, Peaks, Alps etc.) which was 135mm travel and it rarely felt out of it’s depth. I live 5 minutes away from Cannock Chase so most of my riding is there and it isn’t exactly the most challenging of places but Shropshire, Mid Wales and the Peaks aren’t far from here either. My favoured riding is much the same i.e. natural trails rather than bike park stuff even on my DH bike. I’m pretty sure I have never managed a stylish looking jump in my life! 😆

Saying all that if I could have 155mm travel over 135mm on a bike that rode the same then I would. More is always better right? 😉 I’m guessing that there is a cost implication though and that the ‘standard’ G13 is cheaper.

I admit to being amazed how well received the Geometron geometry has been received in Germany given how short, steep and generally conservative their home market bikes have been up until relatively recently.

The mixed wheel size thing is intriguing, I can remember talking to Steve Jones about it at the FoD a while ago (which is where I got the idea for the 650b shock yoke) and later reading about it on the Dirt website. He thought the Enduro with that setup was a beast. For Chris to be so keen on it shows that it must be good. Give it a go Chainline it would be very interesting to see what a “normal” rider thinks of it. Not that I’m saying that you’re not a good rider though!

Thanks again for taking time to advise, it is much appreciated.

stompweaver, I’ve had a few 29/27.5 setups on my rigid bikes and I like it.

The G13 is intended much more as a do it all bike than can nail DH but ultimately if it gets really gnarly it will get tougher.

As a go-to ride short or far on anything I think it’s gonna be great. Can’t wait to get mine. But I am also a tinkerer so will try the 29 front.

We also looked at the angles for dropping the 27.5 in the rear of the G13 and resetting the geo with a longer shock. I think that also works but it leaves the end result steeper than if you do it with a GeoMetron at 170mm rear and since the testing is still about pushing the limits it seems more sensible to focus on the GeoMetron version of that.

I want to try the G13 at sub 63HA. Based on the experiences we have so far, including Chris with the 29 front, it should steer even better and brings the SA back a bit too (but 0.5deg can be gained from 10mm of rail position and not everyone likes it very steep, as ever all different).

A nice -2 headset in there should go nicely…With that in and a 150mm fork it gives exactly the same trail, mechanical trail and flop values as my GeoMetron with -2 and 40’s (Due to the 40’s having 51mm offset, close to the 29 fork)

Of course it will feel different dynamically (which is the key thing here) as the 29 wheel has a different foot print on the trail, grips differently, I know from discussions with Chris it will feel different to turn it too, and his experiences with a different size rear wheel change things too for corner initiation but the static numbers are a good base to go on for steering feel.

I’ll be watching your tinkering with interest Chainline. Does there come a point where it is too slack and if so have you and Chris found that limit yet?

Gotama, Yes definitely. about 59deg according to CP. Even more applicable for trail use. We both seem to have settled around the 61deg mark with 27.5 front.

Chris has approx 62 on his 29 front version of the GeoMetron (pretty sure he hasn’t dropped offset bushes in (we both think 29 needs a higher BB than a 27.5 for complicated reasons mainly around flip flop cornering (you can’t get away from greater gyroscopic inertia in the 29 but riding style etc etc all come into it) but also braking and related to BB drop and weight transfer (all theory)

With the big sizes XL and XXL you start to struggle a little to keep dropping HA with anglesets as the HT is already quite tall to accommodate the bigger riders the front can get too tall which may mean changing bar/stem but not always possible etc…. I’d find it slightly easier as I’m on a longest, but that’s also to do with the fact Chris is using an XL but by conventional sizing would be on a L, at 6ft he hasn’t got the upper body height of a 6’2″ or 6’4″ guy who wouldn’t have the height issue.

So the upshot is there is definitely a limit. There is data for that limit for a 27.5 but not yet proper data for either a 29 front or the 29. I’ll give it a go but can only go so far before compromises kick in a little around BB height. I’ve some idea’s..

Has Chris come around to the 29er yet Chainline?

ION GPI in 29er/27.5er setup.

Wookster not the full 29, but he is liking the 29 front, as long as it is suitably slack creating the right steering characteristics.

Difficulty is balancing bar height for him on the Xl, it would be easier on the L. We have some solutions for that though…

The other quandry is the fork, he would like longer travel to allow for a bigger neg chamber as on the 27.5 but not a solution for that yet. You can squeeze a 29 into the 40 and then have the flexibility to run 180mm but the bar height/BB height/reach becomes the constraint again.

i can feel a dedicated proto in my bones….

I don’t get the issue with bar height, I mentioned this to CP at his Sheffield talk but I don’t think he got what I was on about.

He was saying that low bars are good but you cannot get the bar low enough when using triple crown forks as the top of the stanchions are in the way.

If you were to machine custom fork yolks and turn the forks round but leave the axle in the same position so the steering axis remains the same then you’d get the stanchions out of the way and you could drop the bars.

Admittedly it’d look very odd (kind of like an old Girvin Vector) but it would prove the point.

Or just slap some Fox stickers on an upside down fork like the Manitou Dorado, this would give you the room for the wheel and I would imagine its not out of their skill set to retune one to get ride characteristics similar to a 40.

It’s cool to watch this being developed! I do love my 29er, it will be interesting to see where this goes!

If you were to machine custom fork yolks and turn the forks round but leave the axle in the same position so the steering axis remains the same then you’d get the stanchions out of the way and you could drop the bars.

Admittedly it’d look very odd (kind of like an old Girvin Vector) but it would prove the point.

Stratos FR4/MX6/S8 used to have the stanchions out front with the axle directly underneath the lowers. Shifting the legs forward definitely affected the steering (was a looonnngggg time ago so cant remember exactly what went on)

shifting the legs forward does not affect steering.
chaining the steering axis to wheel axle dimensions will affect steering.
what you were experiencing is poor design.

thepodge – Member

shifting the legs forward does not affect steering.

If you’ve just moved (for example) 1.5kg forward off the front of the bike, at least 40mm or so to give the clearance you’re looking for, it’s going to have an effect

It’s resolvable by using a shorter HT I think. and there is scope to do that, of course the problem is that not everyone wants to use a triple clamp 180mm 29er fork so its a properly niche market But also it’s related to rider height.

CP is experiencing this problem on an XL bike at 6″ tall which in theory is upsizing for him. He has said he’d still be happy riding Longest but likes the additional length, if we were talking a taller rider its less of an issue.

I think there is scope to drop the HT by 20mm min, possibly 30mm wihcih would solve the problem for Chris anyway but if a tall rider of 6’5′ had the bike he might need a million spacers and/or would be fine with it as is..

The bar height isn’t an issue with the 160mm Fox 36 29er fork, but CP would like to mod that….and prefers stiffness and curves of the 40 in general (when I last spoke to him anyway :wink:)

All of which means if it was you or I on a Longest who wanted to do this it would be fine. Given i’m currently on a 2016 GeoMetron I have an angleset in mine and a 40 which does lift the front by 15mm. IF I applied a 29 front wheel to a 2017 GeoMetron I Wouldn’t need it as I would get the same angles with a slight compromise on seat angle…..

legend – If you’ve just moved (for example) 1.5kg forward off the front of the bike, at least 40mm or so to give the clearance you’re looking for, it’s going to have an effect

In the world of tiny changes that don’t really matter then yeah it makes a difference but in this case especially we’ve already moved half a bike over 40mm forwards versus an off the shelf bike and we’re doing it to improve something (lower bars) so it’s still a positive. We’ve also suggested that weight doesn’t really matter as much as people think hence using Fox 40 because they have better damping not RS sids because they are ultra lightweight.

Chainline I know this might seen as heresy by some but has anyone tried a 27.5+ wheel in the back of a 29er Geometron? The slightly smaller overall diameter and extra grip may well be the sweet spot, slacker HA and lower BB worth a try surely? Probably running one of the newer 29×2.6″ tyres that are starting to come on to the market now. This was the way I was thinking of going on my Enduro but I’m going to wait until I replace it now.

It’ll be very interesting to see how you find the 29/27.5 combo.

Coincidently one of the problems finding a suitable replacement for me is the stack height. It seems virtually every manufacturer is trying to get the stack as low as possible. This might be great for most people but for us big and tall gentlemen we have to load the steerer with spacers reducing precious reach even further. A friend of mine who is taller than me suffers even worse with this issue so for us the higher the better. A super slack front end with decent height sounds perfect! 8)

As an aside DH bikes don’t have an issue with bar height on dual crown forks. I run 40mm rise bars just get a reasonable height on my 27.5+ Glory. Why the need to pursue it on trail bikes, surely we are just riding up to go down again that being the fun part?

toofatty that is one sweet ride. I’d love try that, is it yours? ’nuff spacers under the stem too 😉

Get that prototype sorted out with CP Chainline. We are all watching with interest… 😈

In the world of tiny changes that don’t really matter then yeah it makes a difference but in this case especially we’ve already moved half a bike over 40mm forwards versus an off the shelf bike and we’re doing it to improve something (lower bars) so it’s still a positive.

So 40mm change is or isn’t a sizeable one? If it’s barely worth mentioning then this thread is way longer than it should be.

We’ve also suggested that weight doesn’t really matter as much as people think

We’re not talking about an increase in weight, we’re talking about a re-positioning of the majority of the weight of a fork ahead of the axle and steerer with the weight pivoting around a different part of the steering arc (this would change the movement of the fork legs to turn more left-right relative to the pivot point [steerer])

More than happy to be proved wrong when you build this fork.

stompweaver…yes, and I agree, I think you just suported my point abut the stack/HT, it is right for tall people which are the most likely to select such a large bike, CP is pushing the limits so some of the issues I’ve raised are specific to him.
On the G13, yes already checked it out, the 27.5 in the G13. It was an early plan. Not ridden yet but some concerns about the impact on SA and reach. The intention was to try it with a longer shock to reset the BB height and SA.
The 27.5 drops the rear by approx 10-15mm, putting in a 200×57 grabs about half of that back so the BB would be a bit low. May be able to compensate with the chip but don’t really want to make it steeper, would want to add an angleset…..basically the conclusion was it’s a less material change and easier to normalise in a Std GeoMetron than the G13.

I’ve asked Chris to write down some of his thoughts so far so they can be shared here and on the mtbr forum..

In the meantime, i’m working on subliminal messaging for a proto…

I don’t understand any of that last bit, you don’t pivot around an arc, you pivot around a point.

How does, what does, what is turn more left-right mean?

I’ll cad it up when I get to work tomorrow… I presume you’ll accept a virtual fork in place of a physical one.

Chainline – Yes my point was as far I and other riders who are 6′ plus are concerned at least we don’t want or need to be chasing lower and lower stack heights to get the bars as low as possible. There’s a lot of rubbish written in the media about bar height and it’s resulted in stack heights which aren’t suitable for the majority of taller people. I understand we are veering slightly off on a tangent here but I know Chris doesn’t do anything without serious technical consideration so it was more a thought out loud as to why he is so keen to get stack and bar height so low. If you could get him to jot down a few thoughts that would be great.

Regarding the 27.5 wheel in a G13 I was wondering if you had tried it with a 27.5+ wheel/tyre combo? So a 27.5×2.8 or 3.0 tyre to see what that did to the geo and ride. You’d gain back a bit of BB height, SA and reach but lose a little HA in the process.

Thanks again for taking the time to post such detailed and informative replies, it’s a very interesting topic and is great to get info and feedback from someone who’s out there experimenting.

I think CP does quite a bit without ‘serious’ technical consideration in my experience, sometimes just to try it, if it appears to work, it gets serious technical consideration!

the main perceived advantage of the 29/27.5 set up is that the additional rollover of the 29/rolling speed has the most effect on the front and that the rear is much less affected by hitting obstacles and the suspension becomes a bigger factor (in speed here remember) also that the smaller diameter rear has a tighter turning radius which in the absence of rear wheel steering in theory enables it to track the front more easily in a carve and thus reduce scrub and make the turn faster with more grip, when compared to two wheels the same size. Thats the theory.
Chris is also finding using narrower wheels to be more beneficia (again think speed)l in the back, i.e. sub 28mm internal (the front 29 he is using is pretty damn narrow, I’d be worried about using it and I’m waaaay slower!)

So I guess I’m saying that I don’t think there is much advantage at all to using a bigger width/diameter tyre in the rear on the 29. That was the experience I had on my rigid bike in the end, but that was less obvious as there were comfort benefits that aren’t applicable to the full suss.

Couldn’t you just run a higher rise stem and bigger bars or are you already at the upper limit?

There’s a splendidly strange parallel thread going on here!

Chainline soz for the thread drift, it’s all interesting stuff though.

I’m glad to hear that Chris follows the same pattern of erm, messing about with stuff that we all do.

I understand the logic of the smaller rear wheel and the turning principle. It makes sense that the rear wheel would turn on a tighter radius if it has a smaller diameter. If the benefit of experience says that it isn’t worth running a bigger tyre on the back then that’s that proven.

I do like my wide-ish rims though being a clumsy lard, the increase in strength and traction is worth paying for with slower rolling for me.

Right what were talking about? Ahh the Geometron. Do carry on…

When are you getting your G13?

Liteville have been putting big wheels up front & small at the back for years. See here for an explanation of their “scaled sizing”:

http://www.liteville.com/en/40/technology/

It makes sense but when I saw one in France it looked gopping.

Only a couple of years Mildred and for different reasons, as you point out theirs is size driven despite the bikes being quite small in other ways.

Stood next to Chris’s bike it’s quite hard to tell. I’ll see if I have a pic from Spain.

Look what they’ve gone and done

Exclusive: NICOLAI ION G16-EBOXX-3 – the GEOLUTION of E-MTBs

Wish they’d ban them already

Has anyone ridden the hardtail geometron? I had a 29er/650b hardcore soft tail (it’s a tad bike niche), it was custom built for me, but it’s much too short for me now (I had a serious spinal issue when I had it built, so it’s got rather an upright position).

That being said, The 650b 29er combo really work for me so I’d like to give it a try in another bike, I just don’t think I need as much travel as these monsters have.

As ebikes go I think it looks better than the rest. probably due to the length. Not my bag at the moment but I’m in good health so far….

Out of interest, why are you trying to lower bar height? The trend in Enduro has been towards a more relaxed and neutral, chest up moto style position to be able to look farther ahead down steep courses comfortably.

Again, tying in with my previous comments about the DH scene – that it’s not seen anywhere near as crazy reach values – I think the Enduro racers have found “peak reach” and have started moving towards more DH focussed geometry and riding styles.

Tom, it depends to a large degree on what you are riding, the mix, so for less steep terrain more weight over the front required to maintain grip. More front height can be dialled in for steep terrain easily if you already have the scope in the chassis which in turn reduces reach.

WC DH is a different ballgame too, very steep all the time so yes, crazy reach (I wouldn’t call it that of course) less applicable.

It does ultimately come down to personal preference , what you are used to etc etc.

If the front gets too high for a given rider height then driving the front is difficult unless it’s steep and then that results in reduced grip, understeer and running wide.. not great.

Hi Chainline,

Bit of basic question here but on the tech sheets it says that the G13 has bottle cage bosses? Where are they on the frame? Please don’t say on the underside of the down tube! must be room on the underside of the top tube near the seat tube junction?

quick sizing question…i´m 183cm tall, shall i pick 502 (m) reach, or 520 (l) reach?

Rollsroyce- I saw that on the Nicolai tech sheet as well but can confirm mine doesn’t have any. Personally just use a 1l Source flexi bottle thing stuffed in some stash style bib shorts. Works well and you don’t get cack all over it as you do with a bottle. If you can get them fitted then I suspect the only sensible space is under the downtube.

About a year ago I was inspired to get a Works -2 deg headset for my Spitfire, thanks to this thread. I got a bit distracted and started designing a hardtail and then put the headset into a production hardtail. Anyway, following some tweakery that headset ended up spare so it went into the Spitfire about a month ago. I shortened the fork at the same time to add a bit of reach too. It’s far short of the Geometron reach but the head angle is now sitting at 64.1 deg in its slackest setting (the only way I’ve ridden it so far). This is a 150mm fork, 140mm rear 27.5 bike btw.

It seems to be better at everything like this, from woodland singletrack to rocky downhill tracks, down, along and up.

quick sizing question…i´m 183cm tall, shall i pick 502 (m) reach, or 520 (l) reach?

I am 182cm (6′) and went for 520 longest but had to go custom through Nicolai as I didn’t want the seat tube/top tube to be as high as the Mojo version. My leg is 34″ and I found a 460mm seat tube to be spot on as it lowered the top tube nicely. The 502 medium just felt way too short on the car park test a bit like Mondrakers that are supposed to be really long but in fact are not at all when you sit on them. All these bikes numbers make zero sense on paper and have to be ridden to see what the sum of the parts is.

The reach on the 520 is spot on with a 31mm renthal stem and feels weirdly normal but is 70mm longer than my last Nicoloai! Are you anywhere near the North Lakes? You are welcome to swing a leg over mine for sizing if you like.

duir – Member

I am 182cm (6′) and went for 520 longest but had to go custom through Nicolai as I didn’t want the seat tube/top tube to be as high as the Mojo version. My leg is 34″ and I found a 460mm seat tube to be spot on as it lowered the top tube nicely.

Seems Mojo agree, the current longest is 460 ST

http://geometron.mojo.co.uk/G16%20Geometry.html