That may be a picture of one of the prototypes, much testing has gone into different seat/head angles and BB height and other parameters.

In one of Chris’s many interviews about the prototypes, he said the seat angle was as steep as was possible with the given suspension design. I guess the position of the saddle on this bikes means they’d like it even steeper, it’s just not possible given all the restrictions.

Apparently we’re all sinners for thin/think and clutch mechs also.

Tight corners, no bother?

😉

Yep, exactly like that, just more stylish, obviously 😆

I love the concept of longer, lower and slacker bikes!
I’m building a Mondraker Vantage L size with 660mm ETT and Works Components angled headset. Should gain 1,5°.
Eager to test ride it, hopefully this week-end!

The good point with hardtails is that you can use clutch mech, as there is no impact to expect on an unexisting rear suspension 😀

It might ride like a pig (I dunno) but it looks the tits!
If I had £6k to drop on a bike, I’d be considering this. With all that you get with it, it’s not at all bad value IMHO.

I bet nicolai could make an interesting short travel version too.

Are you blind, it is as ugly as sin. The only reason the have put that crappy mudguard on it is too try and visually shorten the distance between the frame and the front wheel in a failed attempt to make it look less spindly.

Who said that? 😀
I like it!

That’s how I run my seat. Much better seated climbing. No other drawbacks as that’s the only time I’m in the saddle.

+1

I think it looks flippin brilliant. Surely when you price up a Nicolai frame on its own (whats that, knocking on for £2k on its own?), then a grands worth of fork, another grand+ for the two sets of wheels then you’re at £4k already and you need the rest of the bike plus you get all the extras which, if I was spending that kind of money on a bike, I’d want rather than buying a Scott for that kind of price and just being handed it in a box and walking out the shop with no setup etc.

That’s how I run my seat. Much better seated climbing. No other drawbacks as that’s the only time I’m in the saddle.

If thats what people are doing, then why don’t manufacturers go for a steeper seat-angle/shorter TT to get the saddle forward?

Interesting that Chris Porter has chosen a multi-pivot, Horst Link frame for this. I’m pretty sure he has stated before that multi-pivot bikes are over-complicated, offer zero benefits compared to single pivots and that brake jack is a figment of Richard Cunninghams imagination.

then why don’t manufacturers go for a steeper seat-angle/shorter TT to get the saddle forward?

they do
Thats why this bike is better

I’m building a Mondraker Vantage

I’ll keep an eye open for this, those bikes do look pretty remarkable. 🙂

‘m pretty sure he has stated before that multi-pivot bikes are over-complicated

He also expressed disdain, as he still does, for rearward axle paths while using Orange downhill bikes which I believe had a rearward axle path.

That said, I don’t have any doubt that he knows more about mountain bikes and how to ride them than I do.

Mine in the Pyrenees last year. I did this separately to what Chris was doing after a ride on a Foxy which I loved. Feel free to wade in with bike Vs railings comparisons..

[/url]IMG_1657 by philip.pryor, on Flickr[/img]

and in a more local setting pre BOS Void rear shock.

[/url]IMG_1378 by philip.pryor, on Flickr[/img]

Very cool, Chainline. Are those LB rims?

Very cool, Chainline.

+1. That is a righteous bicycle.

then why don’t manufacturers go for a steeper seat-angle/shorter TT to get the saddle forward?
they do
Thats why this bike is better

AARRGH! So why is the saddle forward on this one then?!!!

Everything is a compromise.
Taking into account current trends for longer top tubes, wheelbases (but short chain stays), dropper compatibility on the seat tube, rear suspension design etc etc….something was always going to be ‘not quite right’ and in this case the saddle is having to be pushed further forward on its rails.

You simply won’t find a bike that incorporates all aspects of current geometry thinking and fits everybody perfectly, even in a custom build I would expect to play around with stem lengths, bar rise, seatpost offset, saddle position etc.

For what it’s worth I don’t particularly like this which surprises me as I like slack bikes.
It seems to be about as close to the ethos of ‘winch up, plummet down’ as anyone has got so far but in doing so I think that it would be cumbersome on flat winding singletrack….it looks to be a DH bike for places that don’t operate an uplift service leaving you to pedal to the top and that cuts out a part of the ride I enjoy that could probably be called XC.

I’ve found my personal sweet spot for all encompassing riding to be around the 140mm mark with a head angle not so slack that things get vague up front, I also don’t like the ‘long front centre’ trend as being fixed in a superman position as the bike drops down something steep freaks me out.

It would seem that folks aiming to win Enduros have a different technique to us mortals and unweight the rear end to such an extent

Shhh, don’t you know every mtb coach in the country teaches 0% weight through the bars? I read it on here you know so it must be true.

Thanks honourablegorge, Wrecker.
ir_bandito, Do you mean mine or Mojo’s. Mine is bang in the middle of the rail, I spent long enough(forgive pun) speccing it to make sure the saddle was in the middle. OR did you mean on the Mojo bike?

As I said, I suspect is one of the proto’s current seat angle is set so you shouldn’t need to.

Mine climbs amazingly well, I cant say I felt I needed an even steeper seat angle BUT mine is 2 deg steeper HA. For me 65deg seems good especially when the bike is 1250mm odd wheelbase. Stability it does not lack.

Shhh, don’t you know every mtb coach in the country teaches 0% weight through the bars? I read it on here you know so it must be true.

Did you fail comprehension at school, or haven’t you left yet?

If thats what people are doing, then why don’t manufacturers go for a steeper seat-angle/shorter TT to get the saddle forward?

That’s a very fair point, in addition to the reported improvement in climbing, there are a number of potential advantages:

~ More rear wheel clearance, allowing shorter chainstays and/or more flexibility in rear suspension design

~ Shorter back ends would be stiffer and lighter

~ Less thrust on Seatposts, especially droppers, meaning less wear and potential for lighter components

Guess the disadvantages are:

~ Less sizing adjustment: bike will fit a narrower range of riders due to fixed Effective Top Tube length

~ Less room in Front Triangle for Shock

~ Potential weight distribution and ergonomics issues

Would be interesting to get a bike designer on here (paging Brant) to confirm or deny my thoughts…

That said, I don’t have any doubt that he knows more about mountain bikes and how to ride them than I do.

Same here.

Lovely bike chainline! Do like a Nicolai!

Deviant, in the UK I also think 140mm is good, I want Loco to shorten the stroke on my CCDBair to get 140 at the back on this one.

Even though this bike has a very long front centre you don’t need to superman, just lower your body and maintain central weight, the length/HA does the rest when it gets steep.

What’s the Geo on that bike chainline? It looks great btw.

Chainline

Your bikes way prettier than that Mojo gate.

It would seem that folks aiming to win Enduros have a different technique to us mortals and unweight the rear end to such an extent

For what it’s worth I don’t particularly like this which surprises me as I like slack bikes.
It seems to be about as close to the ethos of ‘winch up, plummet down’ as anyone has got so far but in doing so I think that it would be cumbersome on flat winding singletrack….it looks to be a DH bike for places that don’t operate an uplift service leaving you to pedal to the top and that cuts out a part of the ride I enjoy that could probably be called XC.

I’m trying to develop a style that’s more central but with a lot of weight over the front during the corners only. I really love watching the drifty/loose style, going to start running bollocksed Rock Razors on the back….everywhere….so I get used to the rear sliding out all the time.

Staying central on the bike everywhere else is pretty important to me though, I don’t want to go for a bike that’s so long that I am in the low Lopes style attack position all the time. I am of the opinion that the style used by Sam Hill, central and over the front only when it’s needed is the best for enduro riding. It fatigues you less, which over the course of a day means that you are going to be faster.

I would also, really really love to be able to pull off tight corners like the guy in that gif – that impresses me more than people hitting big stuff. I think I’m going to spend a lot of time dicking around on the DJ bike rotting in the shed to develop my bike handling skills more.

If thats what people are doing, then why don’t manufacturers go for a steeper seat-angle/shorter TT to get the saddle forward?

There’s a balance needed, sitting further forward for a good steep-climbing position works but sit too far fwd and you may be unable to get comfortable/balanced on flatter longer distance stuff – particularly if you’re also leaning forward over a long and low-ish front end. I’m guessing that Chris Porter isn’t too fussed about 6-hr pedally XC comfort but does need it to climb well. Or it just gets it out of the way for the fun stuff, simple as that.

I would also, really really love to be able to pull off tight corners like the guy in that gif – that impresses me more than people hitting big stuff. I think I’m going to spend a lot of time dicking around on the DJ bike rotting in the shed to develop my bike handling skills more.

Yep, loving that GIF.

As luck would have it i did some post-winter TLC on my hardtail yesterday and also got rid of the winter tyres….doing that combined with seeing that awesome corner technique has renewed my enthusiasm to get out there and practice, practice and practice.

Sam Hill, central and over the front only when it’s needed

Shirley thats got to do with him using flats so hes not over the front as much (generally) as clipped in DHers.

is 340mm BB considered low or high?

Would be interesting to get a bike designer on here (paging Brant) to confirm or deny my thoughts…

IIRC he did exactly that on the last On-One’s he made (456evo, Codien etc).

is 340mm BB considered low or high?

11.5-12″ sagged is low at least in terms of the last 10 years, so 340mm on a 7″ travel bike is 11.25″. It’s not all been low though, the original Transition Covert (2012 ish) that eveyone loved was really quite high even when sagged, but then Canadian bikes always have been slack and tall whereas the trend in the UK was for lower BB’s and steeper angles.

I’d really like some longer bikes, I don’t nececeraly want <66deg head angles and 30mm stems, 67-68 and a 70mm stem is probaly as slack as I’d like for a trail bike, but I’d like that with 630mm ETT’s on 17″ frames.

@jimjam

Geo: Low/High
ETT : 662mm/667mm
HA:65.5/66
SA:74/74.5
CS: 432mm
ST: 430mm
BB height:342mm/350mm
Reach:487mm/492mm
WB:1236mm
160mm travel both ends (can take up to 180mm front but designed around 160mm)

@thisisnotaspoon
I had aexactly that problem excluding the HA, wanted long but not big seat tube, I not particularly tall. I cant see the issue with running a 10-30mm stem though.

I specced it to run a 10mm stem, currently trying a 30mm (wit hseat forward) for a lower front, but don’t know which I prefer yet/ When cornering on a bike with this geo central is the name of the game not big front wheel weighting, I feel the slacker head angles do help that.

I didn’t want a winch/plummet only bike and I use a lot of quad in pedalling so I didn’t want a crazy steep seat tube and the HA is a function of how you like it to feel on a bike this long,

It’s not necessary to have slacker than 67deg for stability to be honest for almost anything, but it does feel different in how the bike enters a corner and slower speed handling.

I guess I will find out if my pedalling position fears are unfounded with the change in position. 5mm saddle movement is worth 0.5deg on the seat tube.

It pedals well, tyres are important as it has uber wide rims on, and they make a big difference to the weight. its 30lb as specced in the picture, with the 30mm stem/Minion 3c exo 2.3’s and the 200mm Vecnum dropper it drops 750g to 28.5lbs.

It’s fair to say its not cheap to get it that weight, but it could be lighter too for the same cost ( it is/was somewhat cheaper than a full S-Works Spesh or SC Carbon Bronson/Nomad in a similar spec) .e.g. CK hubs aren’t light, it has a bashguard, could use lighter discs and the Fox 36 is lighter than a Deville..
So for little if any loss of durability I could lose just over another 1lb. but I like the BOS feel, CKs are bombproof and I like how the shimano discs feel 😀

Shirley thats got to do with him using flats so hes not over the front as much (generally) as clipped in DHers.

Partially, there are other riders who ride more like Sam whilst being clipped in though.

Great looking bike Chainline. I bet it’s a monster downhill. I’ve ridden a bike with similar numbers and it was awesome 🙂

Those numbers are interesting Chainline just to compare to my off-the-peg 160mm bike –

ETT: 600(s) – 660(xl)
HA: 65
SA: 74
CS: 439
BB height: 348
Reach: 426(s) – 483(xl)
WB: 1194(s) – 1257(xl)

The Mondrakers and Oranges are approaching that geo territory as well, with the new Reign tailing them with a slightly more conservative reach but still ahead of pretty much every other manufacturer on the planet.

Yeah, my numbers are from the Alpine 160.

Surprised actually that it’s so ‘on trend’.