Do report back after trying the large flaremax, seems like we’re currently on similar sized bikes so it’ll be interesting to hear what you make of the longer version.

Yes, I’d be particularly interested to know whether you find it significantly harder to pop the front end up on the large bike, since it wasn’t a problem for you on the medium.

When I took the Large longshot FlareMAX for a ride… I found getting the front up “easier” than my own bike, despite it never lifting on steep climbs etc.  It needs a bit more body English to start the lift, but then it is far easier to control, and feels like it can’t go wrong… presumably that’s to do with where you weight sits on the longer bike. I dunno.

For me the LLS design means I can ride a small, medium or a Large due to the standover (I’m 5′ 8″)  and choose which reach feels best for my riding – brilliant!

At the moment I’m on a Nukeproof Mega – large 460mm reach = Medium new Rocket and it feels good, however the other day I was at the Cotic warehouse trying a new rocket and I was surprised how much easier the small Rocket was to chuck around, manual and hop than the medium Rocket (a similar size to my large Mega).

I will now wait to test the small on some proper rides to see if the reduction in length equates to it feeling less “safe” when descending steep terrain, if so I’ll be down sizing to a small Rocket – as so far I think it’s spot on.

I wonder – did Chris Porter sell us a marketing pitch “Long, Longer, Longest”?

The Cotic is more “Normal, long and longer”

Just my thoughts!

Sorry. Should read – if not, I’ll be down sizing.

It’s interesting the different experiences of how easy these bikes are to move around.

@kelvin says:

When I took the Large longshot FlareMAX for a ride… I found getting the front up “easier” …

Then @cyclelife says:

I was surprised how much easier the small Rocket was to chuck around, manual and hop than the medium

I don’t doubt that both are right, but I wonder why their experiences are different. Maybe it comes down to the technique you use on your current bike and whether that translates to the one you are testing or not. Maybe it is just the way they are setup. It brings me back to my hobbyhorse about the limited value of test rides. Sometimes you don’t get on with a bike straight away but if you change the way you ride to suit the bike (after time) you then find you love it.

I can’t see how a larger bike can be easier to throw around than it’s smaller sibling,. In my opinion the longer bike (more stable) is more of a help to less confident riders, especially when the terrain gets steep.

My “easier” was in quotes deliberately, and if you read my clarification that immediately followed it, you’ll see that it doesn’t contradict what @cyclelife is saying. I expect that I fall into their “less confident riders” category… no doubt about that at all!

Yes, I definitely feel safer on my long geometry Mega compared to my old Nomad 2, however the small Rocket just felt so good in the car park test, won’t know until I’ve taken one down some old school steep tracks in Wharncliffe to see if it works for me.

This will also give me an idea of how much the head angle/short stem and fork offset make compared to just extra reach and wheelbase.

Sorry @kelvin I wasn’t deliberately trying to misquote you there, just trying to keep it brief.

I think the logic is that it takes a bigger movement of your body (body English) to initiate the lift, but with the longer bike you have more space to move around and it sounds as though everything happens a bit more slowly as well making it easier to control. But on the flip-side maybe it requires a different timing, which may take some people a bit of time to perfect.

I can’t see how a larger bike can be easier to throw around than it’s smaller sibling,. In my opinion the longer bike (more stable) is more of a help to less confident riders, especially when the terrain gets steep.

Because as others have rightly pointed out, they allow you to use more body english without upsetting the bike – once you have the bike in the manual it is easier to hold it.

BMX’s whilst more capable of tricks than mountain bikes, are trickier to ride for similar reasons.

The Dirt boys ride bikes fast, a lot of them prefer longer bikes with 29 inch wheels, whilst the Murmuur was their fastest bike on test. So I’m not sure that the reach argument holds weight for underconfident riders either, they do help confidence but they also reward aggressive riders.

The initial increased difficulty of popping the front wheel can be compensated by raising the bars or running an even shorter stem than 35mm. A 30mm difference in reach is simply going to make less of a difference than a change in bar height – and you are giving up significant room to move within the bike on descents.

<div class=”bbcode-quote”>

When I took the Large longshot FlareMAX for a ride… I found getting the front up “easier” …

</div>

This could well be because the weight distribution on these long, slack bikes with short stems is more rearward when riding on the flat. They just allow you to ride more centrally when descending in the attack position.

I’d add that most of a manual accomplished by your legs, reach isn’t going to affect that and surely for a given amount of rotation around a back wheel/axle, a long front is going to transalte to more height off the ground?

The important bit is the chainstay length, and those are longer on the Cotic than the Mega.

I think most peoples peoples first impressions of a bike are affected by their preconcieved notions of how a bike should ride, based on how it looks or the numbers.

Interesting discussion, and good to see some open mindedness among the MTB industry.

It’s amazing how RAD!!!!! yet how conservative MTBers are on the whole….

It seems things may be settling on a new ‘normal’ for a while.  It’s telling that the bikes Cesar Rojo is producing now at Unno have settled on a 455 reach and 64ish HA depending on model.

Almost the same as he was doing in 2008/2009..

Between him and Barel at Mondraker I suspect they would have done as Cy has and gone full Geometron and beyond, then brought things back to their best all round compromise.

A compromise is what it is at the end of the day.  As others have said, bare numbers don’t explaing everything that is happening while propelling a bike across dirt at all sorts of angles.  Bigger/smaller angles, less/more weight all have plusses and minuses.

I wonder if now that the numbers settle for a while, will the next great frontier be linkage front ends?  I’d love to see a modern take on PRST1 and the USE Sub fork.  Modern forks are great, but with great failings really.  Anti brake dive would be a game changer.  Consider how much interest there is around rear sus kinematics and spring curves compared with a front fork which has it’s performance ruined every time you brake.

But it won’t look MOTO!!!!  Waaah.  Piss off.  Give me something that works.

Someone above mentioned rigid bikes in this context.  It’s a fine line.  The front needs to be unweighted easily enough, while still allowing weight over the tyre for cornering grip.  It can work though.  My rigid bike has a 63 HA (custom fork)and 450 reach and 440 CS.  It works a treat.   IT feels really neutral and balanced.  I got the fork made with a huge offset to give the right mechanical trail and wheel flop numbers.  The chainstay a little shorter may be nice.  Again, it’s a compromise.

I wonder if now that the numbers settle for a while, will the next great frontier be linkage front ends?  I’d love to see a modern take on PRST1 and the USE Sub fork.  Modern forks are great, but with great failings really.  Anti brake dive would be a game changer.  Consider how much interest there is around rear sus kinematics and spring curves compared with a front fork which has it’s performance ruined every time you brake.

That’s been done to death, they failed in the past for a number of reasons supposedly – stiffness due to bearing play – they require a lot of maintenance, more so than the rear because play causes a lot more issues in terms of handling at the front. Secondly, the predictable axle path of the telescopic forks makes handling more predictable through cornering. Thirdly, the amount of LSC you have to run to resist G-outs is roughly equivalent to what you have to run to get some brake dive resistance, so you end up running a fair bit of LSC on these linkage bikes anyway. Fourthly, linkage designs have varying abilities to cope with brake dive, just as rear linkage designs have varying ability to cope with squat etc.

Everyone has always said they’d be a game changer, but they have time and time failed to gain traction in motosports and mountain biking.

https://www.pinkbike.com/video/462644/

Vorsprung did a pretty good takedown of them.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=84hF-qoR5I8C&pg=SA1-PA15&lpg=SA1-PA15&dq=girder+fork+stiffness&source=bl&ots=F-x-rEObLl&sig=-PorHQKe-Cb0DN4Nlam76HBSxFo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS16KT9PDZAhUMe8AKHcmOARYQ6AEILjAA#v=onepage&q=girder%20fork%20stiffness&f=false

Good bit of history on linkage forks here, although the author seems to think the telescopic fork is all about marketing.

For me the LLS design means I can ride a small, medium or a Large due to the standover (I’m 5′ 8″) and choose which reach feels best for my riding – brilliant!

That makes no sense to me, just suggests you don’t know what size bike you should ride.

Well, at that height he can conceivably ride an 18 inch frame and choose a bike based on the reach. The only issue with doing that is that if you run a lot of post out of the frame by choosing a small, you will lose a lot of the benefits of having a steep seat angle and will be hanging off the back whilst climbing.

That makes no sense to me, just suggests you don’t know what size bike you should ride.

Exactly my point –  it does make sense if you don’t know what size bike you should ride as you can try them and find out, as it is possible to ride 3 sizes  reasonably efficiently – it’s about feel not figures.

Interesting stuff. Realistically if you can’t see it from the numbers, you just have to try one. That’s what started this whole thing off for me. Looking at Chris’s bike and going ‘that can’t possibly work’, then trying it in a car park and it just felt like a bike. The breadth of layout which can be made to go down a trail is much wider than people think, mainly because human’s are so bloody good at staying upright and sensing when they are about to not be upright! Doesn’t mean making that process and bit easier and bit less likely to happen is a bad thing. Really, I can’t recommend strongly enough getting involved in one of our demos, or getting a shot on a Mondraker or Geometrion. Just give them a (proper, not car park) go.

For the guy who has a large current FlareMAX with 50mm stem and tried the medium: you REALLY need to try the large. The medium demo bike has a similar reach to your large gen1 frame, but a 35mm stem, so is a fair bit shorter bars to BB. New large with 35mm stem is a little longer, but that should suit you I think.

For the guy who car park tested the small, I am 99% sure it won’t feel as good on the trail as the medium. Car park jibs are one thing, trails at reasonable speed is another. Obviously it’s a preference thing, and if you prefer that, then great, but my gut feeling is that ‘playful’ in the yard at Calver translates to ‘nervous’ once you’re properly offroad.

Cheers!

I’m almost certain, just as the podcast was ending, i could hear CY whisper that “that lovely big fella from Northern Ireland who completely trusted in us and bought one of the first RocketMax’s completely blind, and has been singing it’s praises to anyone who would listen, would be getting a new Longshot RocketMax frame at at highly discounted rate.”

Cy can you confirm i wasn’t just hearing things?

“The only issue with doing that is that if you run a lot of post out of the frame by choosing a small, you will lose a lot of the benefits of having a steep seat angle and will be hanging off the back whilst climbing.”

The perceived seat angle will be exactly the same for the same saddle height, regardless of how much seatpost is sticking out of the frame.

Depends, Cotic quote effective STA. So depends if they use same  reference point (saddle height) for each frame size. I’m not sure what the industry standard is and manufacturers seem to vary in regards to whether they are quoting for the same saddle height on whether they are quoting for different saddle heights based on the size of the frame.

Sorry for not updating earlier – we didn’t get over to the demo weekend ‘cos of the snow.

I had a couple of hours on a new large FlareMAX today.  I think it’s only fair to mention that trail conditions in the Hope Valley were pretty ‘sub optimal’ – still a fair bit of snow on the ground. Other thing was the fork on the demo bike (2018 Pike) felt a bit off, and it seemed to be doing that sucking down at 10-15% sag thing that Pikes sometimes do – so it was lacking the supple grippy feel of the XFusion on my own bike. (Guess the Pike just needed a lowers service).

Given the above, I don’t think I can give anything more than a first impression on fit and handling.  I’d like to try it again on drier trails, and maybe some flowy trail centre type stuff (unfortunately, the local man made ‘flow trails’ are closed at the moment).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the bike felt a fair bit longer than my current large FlareMAX, although not uncomfortably so.  Once off road, I noticed on the climbs that I was spending more time on the nose of the saddle than I am on my bike, and the saddle was already almost fully forward on its rails.  The steering was a bit more wandering than my current bike.  Stem was pretty low, so it might have been partly down to the forks reluctance to move past its sticky point – the front of the frame and bars felt a very similar height and width as my own bike, but it really felt like the forks were propping the front up.

I was struggling with the conditions on the tech descents, and wasn’t feeling the love for the fork, but once I dodged off piste onto some steep snow free bits, the updated geometry started making sense – very confidence inspiring and the front end was gripping really well on some horrible sniper roots on pretty steep off Camber stuff.  On the return leg I was able to let the bike run on a couple of stretches of a rough descent, and again, the new geometry started to shine.  I’m looking forward to having another go on one when the trails have dried out a bit.

p.s. I’d intended to repeat the loop straight after on my own bike, but ended up in front of the wood burner in the local cafe stuffing my face……mmmm, cake😊

Thanks @bowglie. I guess it’s not too surprising that a longer slacker bike will wander a bit more on the climbs. Pity about the fork though. Hope the cake was good 🙂

Hey RP, judging by the other recent Cotic, you can’t go saying something positive about the cake! Even if cake is good it is only what the baker should have done surely 😉

🙂 I must admit I was somewhat surprised by some of the comments on the other tread. I’ve seen similar comments for a range of brands over the years though. From bigger players (like Santa Cruz) down to a guy in a shed. But I still don’t understand it. If people generally like the products produced by a company and have positive experiences to report I’d take that as a sign than the company is doing something right. But it seems to annoy some people to the point that they feel compelled to insult the people who like a certain brand.

I’m more cynical than most, but it’s a sad world where you can’t say anything positive about a company without being insulted in return. Maybe it’s the sheer number of happy customers that upsets people. But surely that’s still a sign than the company is doing something right. Whether it is good products, good support or just clever marketing, it’s still worth celebrating. Oh well, such is life I guess. Back to the bikes

Getting back to the bikes; it’s not surprising that a longer slacker bike wanders a bit more on the climbs, but this is probably the most off putting thing I could have read about the new geometry to be honest. I know you can’t have something for nothing. If it’s more confidence inspiring on descents there has to be a price to pay. I was ready to pay that price in having to move my body more to make it change direction (up/down or left/right). More confidence probably just mean more stable, so it’s going to take more effort to move. Fair enough, but I’m not sure I’m willing to pay the price in worse climbing.

Of course, I’m a self confessed demo sceptic, so I won’t give too much weight to one demo ride. Maybe it was the fork. Maybe the bar height was not optimal. But it’s certainly making me pause for thought.

Hey Cy,

Any idea why the frame deliveries have been pushed back to the 3rd week of April?

it’s not surprising that a longer slacker bike wanders a bit more on the climbs, but this is probably the most off putting thing I could have read about the new geometry to be honest. I know you can’t have something for nothing. If it’s more confidence inspiring on descents there has to be a price to pay. I was ready to pay that price in having to move my body more to make it change direction (up/down or left/right). More confidence probably just mean more stable, so it’s going to take more effort to move. Fair enough, but I’m not sure I’m willing to pay the price in worse climbing.

That’s simply not the case.  A modern geo bike with a 64 head and 75 seat angle will climb great, no question about it.

The slack bikes don’t climb myth is a throwback from the olden days when you made a bike slack by sticking long forks on.

Put some lovely long Bombers on your bike to slack it out from 70 to 67 degrees.  Now the 72 SA is 69.  You are sitting way out over the back wheel and the BB is sky high = wandery front end.

Get a long n slack bike and expect much better climbing, not worse.  The steep SA puts your weight over the pedals too, so you don’t need to haul on the bars and upset the steering.  Sit in the middle of the bike, in the middle of the saddle (not on the nose) and spin your way up the dirtiest climbs you can find.  Long chainstays will make it even more planted.

I disagree, in fact I think I made this point up-thread somewhere.  Slack angles = high flop = steering can wander at low speeds (such as when one is grunting up a really steep climb).  One gets used to it but it is definitely a thing one can perceive.

ETA the problem isn’t the length, and I agree that steep seat angles help when the hill is steep, though they can make it more difficult when the hill isn’t steep but grip is at a premium so you want all the weight over the back if combined with longish chainstays such as on a 29er.

So for climbing, yes long, yes steep seat angle, but no slack head angle is what I am saying.

If you can remember to steer the bike when climbing then slack head angles aren’t a problem at all. And steep seat angles are very good (bear in mind that a full-sus bike’s seat angle will get slacker uphill as the rear suspension sags more than on the flat).

The point of the short stem combined with increased offset is to move the tyre contact point relative to the axle when using slacker head angles, helping to eleviate what you call steering flop.

Funny that steering flop used to be avoided at all cost by frame designers, now head angles have become so slack that it’s now a good thing as it’s the only way to initiate a turn on these long barges 😂😂

According to the equation listed above, increasing the trail and/or decreasing the head angle will increase the wheel flop factor on a bicycle or motorcycle, which will increase the torque required to bring the handlebars back to the straight ahead position and increase the vehicle’s tendency to veer suddenly off the line of a curve.

Wiki, so with slack head angles – short stems are part of equation in terms of countering steering flop. The tendency for the front end to wander off line, in an outwards direction could easily be controlled through a steering damper – like every single race motorcycle worth it’s salt – including puny little 125 crossers….have.

Like everything in the mountainbike world, we are constantly playing catch up with the big boys. Slack 62 degree head angles? Wide bars? Zero length stems direct mount stems? Speed sensitive suspension? Disk brakes? How many donkey years did the MX boys have these whilst we were pissing around with elastomer sprung seatposts, long stems on our single crown forks, 72 degree head angles, position sensitive damping and bar ends on our 600mm wide bars?

Too long.

You never know, some genius might give us actual gas pressurised dampers in forks and encourage a wider use of bleeder valves next….hopefully….in 5 years….maybe.

If you can remember to steer the bike when climbing then slack head angles aren’t a problem at all. And steep seat angles are very good (bear in mind that a full-sus bike’s seat angle will get slacker uphill as the rear suspension sags more than on the flat).

That is the point @chief – if you are pedalling your lungs out just to keep the bike rolling at a walking pace up a technical climb with a bit of exposure on one side, you can do without distractions like having to steer the bike all the time.

@cyclelife – the increased offset, if you have one, doesn’t make up for the slacker head angle.  It doesn’t even get the trail back to where it was.  Each degree slacker gets you ~7mm more trail, so to compensate for that going from 69 to 66 degrees you would have to go from something like 40mm trail to 65mm trail, and that range is not available in forks atm.  And flop rises with trail and with slackness (well, untill your head angle gets to 45 degrees).  (Figures for a 29″ wheel.)  So you can’t really avoid more flop with slacker head angles.

Realistically, it only effects the ride quality at less than walking pace doesn’t it. Because 63 degree head angled downhill bikes aren’t exactly unridable are they?

Again though, the best way to counter the flop is steering dampers and zero stems – but people didn’t like the aesthetics of the mondraker stem and no one yet has got the balls to say “SINGLE CROWNS SUCK GIGANTIC DONKEY BALLS FOR ANY GRAVITY SITUATION – DIRECT MOUNT STEMS RULE”

Because some XC baboon would come along and say “what about the turning circle”?

Same with air suspension, the MTB world continually pushes them because the weight weenies are so concerned about weight as opposed to performance and each year we get some new iteration of an airspring because actually – sorry guyzzz…. turns out that last years model had nowhere near the same bump compliance or mid stroke support of an actual coil…..and this years won’t either…..

to compensate for that going from 69 to 66 degrees you would have to go from something like 40mm trail to 65mm trail, and that range is not available in forks atm.

It is on my bike 🙂  100mm offset  63 HA for lovely stable neutral steering.

But yeah, it’s rigid and custom so doesn’t really apply to this conversation.

Wheel flop is a thing with slacker sus bikes, but it’s easier to live with for the benefits than a sharp steering steep bike with it’s drawbacks.

Good pionts @ryanwomble.  I used to love the wombles.  If you could get the bars behind the steering tube, you could separate the issues of reach and head angle, so you could have long, low and steep if you wanted.  It would be interesting to separate the length from teh slackness to see which did what.  I think Tony Foale tried that with motorbikes.