Anyone got the BTR belter? How is it to ride like an Enduro/All mountain bike? Would it be any good pedaling or is it really a pure DH machine not suitable for more singletrack and trail riding?
I know the Ranger would be the optimal choice, but I just cannot wrap my head around doing DH tracks on a 120mm fork.

Thank you

Best regards
Einherjar

They’ve definitely made Rangers with adjusted geometry to suit 140mm forks, so I’d ask them about that. My tweaked Zero AM is the same geometry within millimetres and fractions of a degree as a Ranger and it is a lot of fun. It is more fatiguing than my full-sus and the super low BB doesn’t get on so well with rough yet flat-ish trails, whilst the very steep seat angle is less than relaxing on longer pedally rides. However it climbs like a mountain goat (ratcheting skills required at times!) and is brilliant descending steep tech or flowy bermy trails. That’s with a 130mm Pike.

Aesthetically I’d rather have a longer fork than longer head tube and most burly 27.5 forks are made for 140-160mm travel and the air spring curve can be a bit skewy when the travel is so short. I agree with BTR that you don’t want a long fork bobbing about, messing with the geometry but 130-140mm where you only use the last 10-20mm occasionally can work very well.

The most recent BTR frames look really good, nice welding details!

27.5 with 140mm forks: https://www.btr-fabrications.com/portfolio/andy-lutz-custom-650b-ranger-068/

Ive not ridden one but, in comparison, my frame (Meta HT CrMo) is similar in geometry, very similar angles at 65 HA and 73 seat, so slacker seat, similar head on mine. The 75 seat on the BTR is similar to a track bike so should be pretty full on for pedal stroke. The head angles are just .5 degree out compared to mine so not much 65 versus 64.5 on BTR, I have a Pike 160 on mine, it rides up hill very well, and is very pointable over undulating single track. Its hard to imagine a seismic handling difference. I use mine both on DH tracks and weekend longer rides and its is fine. Obviously all this depends on personal taste!

Looks a rad bike!

Edit: What size travel forks do they suggest?

Comparing your own completely different bike is a bit pointless IMO – my Enduro has loads of very similar angles and measurements to my Capra but put them side by side and they are wildly different. It only needs one measurement to be different to change the whole bike, so unless you are comparing every single bit of geo, it’s a bit pointless I’d say – others may disagree

Talk to Tam at BTR – he will be able to advise as to what would work for you – frames can be tweeked to suit requirements

fong

Comparing your own completely different bike is a bit pointless

It isn’t if you understand how the measurements and angles connect.

Zero AM Gnarpoon vs Ranger M/L
HA = 64.3 vs 64.5
SA = 75.4 vs 75
Reach = 440 vs 425/445
Stack = 630 vs 629/647
BB drop = 55 vs 55
Chainstay = 419 vs 415
Headtube + A2C = 652 vs 656/676

That data ties everything together. Match the bars, stem and seat height and if the data above is identical (plus matching fork offset) the fit and handling (ignoring frame flex and fork behaviour) will be identical.

So non of you would consider the Belter, and og straight for the Ranger With maybe a 130 or 140 fork? As stated in the first post I also want to use it in DH tracks. Hafjell, Megavalanche ect… The Belter got a 74 SA and 61 HA(about 63 to 63.5 sagged With 20 to 30 % sag. Ranger would be 65.5 to 66 sagged With 15 to 20% sag.

Belter is built around a 160mm travel and is why I am more in favor of this compared to the Rangers 120mm travel

Thanks, @chiefgrooveguru, you did a far better job than me!

Simplifying it hugely, steep seat and slack head angles seem to work well on steel hardtails! Hope you get the bike you want 😉 Speak to BTR but, I reckon that long travel slack hardtails are great fun and work well flat and uphill, as siad – speak to BTR as it seems you want it more for downs anyway

All their frames are made to order and they’re happy to do customisation. Tam was really helpful when I made some enquiries years ago, when they were still working out of (and he was sleeping in!) a shed. The only issue I see with using a Belter as an enduro bike is the BB height – it’s 60mm drop static so that’ll be about 70mm drop with sag. If your flatter trails are smooth and your rough trails steep then that won’t be a problem but I’ve found flat+rough and 60mm sagged BB drop gives too little clearance, even with 165mm cranks.

Email them, they’ll know what to do!

As CGG says above, give them a call and chat to Tam and discuss what you’re after, they do custom stuff and will happily build you a Beltanger/Ralter with whatever geometry you want and adjust burlyness to suit requirements.

I had a custom job* off them a few years ago and love it to bits, the new finish looks ace in the flesh too and and their frames are just getting better and better with every revision.

*completely different to what you’re after, and not even something in their product lineup, but the point is still valid.

This is interesting as it goes to show how flexible geometry can be on MTB/HTs

Not sure how your Zero AM is 64.3 HA with a 130mm fork given Bird make the frame with a 65.4 HA with a 150mm fork.

Unless by ‘tweaked’ you mean Bird made you a custom frame. Or you are using a slackset etc.

It has a Works Components -2 deg headset.

wonder what the tolerance is with angles on these frames? half a degree?

Well figures are normally quoted with a Xmm travel fork, but being that fork A2C can vary between manufacturers and models by 10mm or more in some cases, and headeset stack heights (if they use an external cup) can vary by a few mm as well it’s all pretty ‘guideline’ anyway.

It’s rare for companies to actually say what actual A2C and headset it’s been measured with, some do, but that’s only good for comparison if they all do!

Actually I’ve noticed more and more manufacturers are quoting axle to crown length (and headset stack height) on geometry charts, and a lot are quoting BB drop (offset vs axles) rather than BB height.

I’ve seen some companies quoting 1 deg tolerance on head angles and I’ve asked others and been told they work to 0.5 deg (+/- 0.25). Whyte’s geometry charts are +0/-1 deg head angle tolerance.

For some strange reason both Fox and Rockshox claim +/-5mm on A2C length which is a huge variance considering how precise thinks like castings, air spring components and damping components tend to be. My guess is they’re just covering themselves for future manufacturing changes…

It isn’t if you understand how the measurements and angles connect.

Zero AM Gnarpoon vs Ranger M/L
HA = 64.3 vs 64.5
SA = 75.4 vs 75
Reach = 440 vs 425/445
Stack = 630 vs 629/647
BB drop = 55 vs 55
Chainstay = 419 vs 415
Headtube + A2C = 652 vs 656/676

That data ties everything together. Match the bars, stem and seat height and if the data above is identical (plus matching fork offset) the fit and handling (ignoring frame flex and fork behaviour) will be identical.

Horseshit. Manufacturers are quite inconsistent with how they measure geometry. My Reign has a measured head angle in stock trim of 64.6 degrees as opposed to 65, and a wheelbase of 1210 instead of 1217.

See previous post regarding frame tolerances. And do you think 0.4 deg head angle and 7mm of wheelbase are a big deal? On a full-sus you’ll get more variance than that depending on how much sag front and rear you run.

My old mans 2016 Nukeproof Mega and my Reign are practically identical geometry wise (save for the seat angle) yet feel very different.

So yes, I do think it matters – small number differences on the reach, top tube and head angle can all add up to make a bike feel different.

A medium whyte G160 is supposedly 15 odd mm longer than my reign, in terms of reach. Yet felt shorter than my reign in reality and I’d wager it actually was.

I’ve seen some companies quoting 1 deg tolerance on head angles and I’ve asked others and been told they work to 0.5 deg (+/- 0.25). Whyte’s geometry charts are +0/-1 deg head angle tolerance.

I’ve spoken to whyte, they claim that the -1 thing is actually the sagged head angle – when set to recommended sag.

If you haven’t personally spent a load of time investigating geometry and drawing up bike designs in CAD then you’re probably not well placed to argue with me on this subject. Without stack height and seat angle, ETT is misleading. Without seat angle reach is misleading. Without stack reach is misleading. And so on.

So when someone says two bikes are practically identical “bar xxxx” what that means is they’re not identical because one thing being sufficiently different throws off everything else. The example I have given is so close in all the key criteria that the bikes will feel incredibly similar barring the frame flex.

Show me the figures you’re referring to.

See the comment from Whyte’s USA distributor: http://m.pinkbike.com/news/british-invasion-whyte-bikes-t130c-works-sea-otter-2016.html

Considering that’s on the biggest MTBing website you’d think they’d get it right.

Reach is independent of seat angle isn’t it? So when standing in the attack position, both bikes should feel similar.

Off the top of my head, reach on the giant is 457mm – 460mm on the Mega, head angles on paper are apparently exactly the same, measured BB height was 5mm different (Giant give actual height, whilst Nukeproof give drop). Stack height was the same. Chainstays are within a few mm of each other.

The Nukeproof feels shorter and more sat on top of, with a tiny 5mm change in BB height.

I don’t buy it at all.

That Whyte was supposedly longer in the reach btw.

The Nukeproof will feel shorter and more sat on top of because the seat angle is 2.5 degrees steeper – that’ll make the ETT about 30mm shorter. Even if they had the same standing geometry the difference in sitting position will change how you perceive the bikes. And then there’s the suspension tune and kinematics – that makes a far bigger difference than on hardtails.

For sure, suspension kinematics will make a huge difference.

I still don’t think that you can tell someone to look at the numbers and expect the bike to ride the same if the numbers are similar. They never are in real life and some people are more perceptive of small changes than others (Downhillers using reach adjuster headsets etc).

A test ride is the first thing you should do before buying a bike – even if it’s just a quick knock around a car park.

This is despite me accurately predicting with some reasonable accuracy how the Nukeproof would ride for my old man based on the geometry and suspension kinematics. At first glance you would expect it to ride like the Reign, but it’s poppier due to the combination of a more progressive leverage ratio and a higher BB. Which is what he wanted, a more playful version of my Reign, with a similar reach and a shorter seat tube.

The point I think for the OP is you can have a steep/slack hardtail bike and go uphill and down hill. The belter looks mental btw

I’ve never test ridden a bike. And I think riding a mountain bike around a car park is pretty pointless. I’m very aware of how things affect fit and handling but if I wasn’t such an analytical thinker then I know if you stuck me on a bunch of different bikes of similar size I’d choose whichever one had the widest handlebars because that’s what fits me best.

And if you aren’t average weight the suspension set-up will be way out on many demo bikes.

Saying that, proper demo days where the bike is set up right and you get enough time, like Cotic are running, are a great idea.

Depends on the shock and fork doesn’t it. Very easy to get your usual monarch/pike combo within an acceptable operating range – even for a quick 5 minute hoon.

Last Fast Forward might suit the OP too

Chief – why does seat tube angle affect reach? Isn’t reach a vertical from the bb to create a horizontal to the top of the headtube?

I’d also look at Swarf as well in a similar vein to BTR. I love mine albeit I’m more in the less travel camp and only have a 120mm fork. This might be worth a read…..

http://www.swarfcycles.co.uk/news/sexiest-hardtail-2015

Seat tube angle doesn’t affect reach but it does seem to affect a lot of riders’ perception of it – I noticed this when a mate was trying out the hardtails in our group. I think it’s quite common for a rider’s standing position to be affected by their seated position, particularly on more rolling trails.

I bumped into Mr Swarf some months back on his local trails and then more recently started a longterm custom frame plan, inspired by my Spitfire and Zero but also possibly able to fit 2.8 plus tyres. The idea is to use the moveable Banshee dropouts but on a hardtail, giving two different geometries, summarised as follows:

High is:
HA = 65 static, 66.5 sagged
SA = 74 static, 75.5 sagged
BB drop = 37mm static, 47 sagged
Reach = 440mm, 455 sagged
Chainstay = 420mm

Low is:
HA = 63.5 static, 65 sagged
SA = 72.5 static, 74 sagged
BB drop = 55mm static, 65 sagged
Reach = 425mm, 440 sagged
Chainstay = 428mm

That’s probably with a 140mm fork rather than the 130 on my Zero.

What’s your Swarf like? Ade and Sah’s two looked very nice!

^^^^^^

Without seat angle reach is misleading.

Seat tube angle doesn’t affect reach

So which one is it?

Seat angle doesn’t affect reach but it hugely affects effective top tube length and that’s an important part of how a bike fits. The recent trend is for steeper seat angles to allow reach to get longer without ETT getting too long. My Zero is only 11mm longer ETT than my Soul was but 56mm longer in reach.

What’s your Swarf like?

Fantastic. I cheated slightly in that I bought the frame Singletrack had as a test bike from Adrian, although I prefer it with the front at 120mm as it was designed but with a decent rise on the bars. Being pretty tall (6ft 3 and bit) I’ve often felt that bikes are just too short for me so this has been a bit of a revelation. You have to concentrate a bit more in the tight and twisty stuff but it more than makes up for it everywhere else. Nearly always find myself leaving the full sus in the shed for my surrey hills trails as this is just more fun to ride.

Oh and it looks awesumz as well.

Was told by BTR that the Belter have a BB height of approximately 296mm unsagged for the 650b frame. Thinking about getting a custom geo and raise it a few cm so it would be a bit better for flatter bumpy terrain as well… Would you go any steeper on the SA as well or just keep it at 74 degrees.

-einherjar

Do you plan to do much pedalling on the flat? I’ve found the 75.4 deg seat angle on my bike (about 76.5 sagged) climbs brilliantly but it isn’t that comfy on the flat – though the longer your forks and head tube and higher your bars, the less of a problem I’d say that is. If it’s literally a winch and plummet bike 75 deg or so is nice, otherwise I’d go for 73-74 deg static.

Well, there will be a bit of flat pedaling getting to the trails and parts of the trail are flat aswell..