27.5" AM/Enduro frames

[grinch]

how'd you decide? what do you prioritize, fit your person to the bike, or fit the bike to your person?

all those years you spent pedaling for pedaling's sake, and you didn't come away from it with a mild obsession about fit and ergo efficiency?

do you treat the MTB more like a BMX, "it's small to start with, I'm not trying to stretch out," etc?



do you think that Canyon in the Barnes video might have been stretched compared to what 2-3 yrs ago would have been avg, and maybe Barnes just picked a Med because he always rode Med and now he's actually on a L or XL based on WB stretch?

you think he picked a longer frame just to get steep/fast stability and doesn't mind horsing it a bit when it's weird?



you think as mfrs slackened HA they should have shortened ETT/reach/whatever its name this year? in order to not have people puzzled over why their Med is now Lg or Sm now Med?

or maybe S - M - L - XL be WB dependent rather than classic ST or ETT dependent? that might confuse a few people. would open some new doors for weird pre/post ride bench racing, WB superiority, etc.

so cesar rojo's no-stem "forward geometry" wasn't such a bad idea eh?

are there any riders who dislike the fact that we now can ride in the middle of the bike when descending steeper stuff, rather than hanging ass off the back and losing steering or riding the front axle but always threatened with flying W? some skiers still prefer to drive the tips despite many skis asking us to stay in the middle.

shit now I have to google this rojo dude. I'd eguate longer front center with driving the tips(longer front center on ski). I've been -1 of recommended on most centerish recommended skis . short cs short stem wide bar long tt help for climbing too. all or nothing

[grinch]

oh ya mondraker dude. thought that was Fab that pushed that. but 2009. tons of people road something similar way before this. I just did it being between sizes and after using it couldn't go without it. atleast now the bb's have been dropped and seat angles cranked to accommodate this design. early mid 90's are bb's were ski high and sa was slackened absurdly. hardtails with triple clamps and 35mm stems will do that but cs lengths were pretty much settled at under 17

[kidwoo]

how'd you decide? what do you prioritize, fit your person to the bike, or fit the bike to your person?

all those years you spent pedaling for pedaling's sake, and you didn't come away from it with a mild obsession about fit and ergo efficiency?

do you treat the MTB more like a BMX, "it's small to start with, I'm not trying to stretch out," etc?.

One at at a time.... Bike to the person, which includes riding style and preferences. Same idea just using different information prioritized. As far as obsessing over ergonomics, sure....on my road bike. On mountain bikes I've just owned too many of the damn things to try and fool myself that frame cockpit measurements define how a bike handles. That defines the angles of shoulders and thighs when you're sitting down. That's not the whole picture. But length is just another measurement. I've ridden enough small to large of the exact same frame to be able to say "okay, that model behaves like this, here's what changing length alone does". It's easily as important as everything else. So once you've decided on a frame, it can be really really useful to look at the measurements of different sizes.

do you think that Canyon in the Barnes video might have been stretched compared to what 2-3 yrs ago would have been avg, and maybe Barnes just picked a Med because he always rode Med and now he's actually on a L or XL based on WB stretch?

you think he picked a longer frame just to get steep/fast stability and doesn't mind horsing it a bit when it's weird?

Probably. That's what's happening pretty much across the board right now. I don't know what he's riding or what he used to ride, just that that video looked like some of the most labored riding I've ever seen. That's part of the reason hes throwing his back wheel around so hard. It's the only way he can get to make those tight ass turns. You remember when specialized started stretching their bikes out about 8 years ago? They were one of the first to start doing it. I was riding those. But that's exactly what I did...just kept buying mediums. And then I went back and bought smalls and went a hell of a lot faster on them, even though I was below the 'range' of recommended rider heights. It didn't make a damn bit of difference climbing. Now every company is going nuts with that idea.

you think as mfrs slackened HA they should have shortened ETT/reach/whatever its name this year? in order to not have people puzzled over why their Med is now Lg or Sm now Med?

or maybe S - M - L - XL be WB dependent rather than classic ST or ETT dependent? that might confuse a few people. would open some new doors for weird pre/post ride bench racing, WB superiority, etc.

so cesar rojo's no-stem "forward geometry" wasn't such a bad idea eh?

are there any riders who dislike the fact that we now can ride in the middle of the bike when descending steeper stuff, rather than hanging ass off the back and losing steering or riding the front axle but always threatened with flying W? some skiers still prefer to drive the tips despite many skis asking us to stay in the middle.

It doesn't take hugely long reaches to accomplish riding in the middle of the bike. Slacker headangles and lower BBs already help that. Moving from two different model dhrs with the second model putting bars closer to the seat, the second bike is still WAY more stable because of some other things.....and that allows me to ride way more centered. It's not from being overstretched. If you're going to drop a headangle two degrees, sure let the wheelbase go out a bit. But companies are doing lower BBs, longer reaches, longer wheelbases, bigger wheels, wider bars, shorter stems mounted lower, AND slacker headangles, all to a significant degree. The whole package gets a little extreme. And the irony is (and obviously you'll remember this) is that these are the things guys like me have been asking for for eons. But it's being done by people who don't really evaluate the final product. That barnes video is just an example. I'm seeing people all over the place with their nipples dragging a top tube because their 800mm bars on their now 2" longer reach bike, is doing the opposite of allowing them to ride centered. They're getting bucked over the front or riding with their asses out back in the next county because they can't get behind their bike when they need to. Consequences man......consequences

I admit, I don't really ride in 'normal circles' that much in terms of the average rider. But there are a lot of really fast, really smart and really experienced people all saying the same thing right now. And a lot of guys are buying smaller frames based on the exact same things I'm laying out here.

edit: oh yeah, the zero stem thing. The only ones I've ever ridden were an old direct mount on a white brothers dh fork a million years ago. They were okay on that just because frames sucked. No way in hell I'd want that on a trail bike. They calm the steering down for sure but that just exaggerates turning your bars. No one rides 40+ constantly on their trail bike. They have to do other things reasonably too. The forward geometry thing had meaning then. Now most bikes achieved the point they were trying to make. And some going overboard IMO.

[creaky fossil]

atleast now the bb's have been dropped and seat angles cranked to accommodate this design.

the STA changes help, for me it's hard to not blow out the legs on longer climbs when I'm put too far behind the BB, and I have pretty long femurs relatively

when STA is too slack, even if the HA is steepish the front wheel is like those wonky grocery store cart front wheels that just spin rather than track, the climbs feel steeper than they are, pedaling the bike feels like more work than it should be

it's kinda like skinning up a steep pitch with no heel elevators and tight achilles

I admit, I don't really ride in 'normal circles' that much in terms of the average rider. But there are a lot of really fast, really smart and really experienced people all saying the same thing right now. And a lot of guys are buying smaller frames based on the exact same things I'm laying out here.

woo that big answer above was great, thanks.

the end result of the past few years of changes, basically too much at once? lower slacker longer.

were people overseeing these changes around the industry thinking only reach/ETT in the "longer" aspect, and WB growth was just incidental?

as front center grew, didn't a few mfrs shrink CS? and still this didn't claw back enough on the WB measurement and bikes got longer.

people you know are down-sizing to be properly sized, are mfrs going to take note? and if they do, will they relabel sizes, or will they shrink frames? cheaper to relabel.

[grinch]

^^yes definitely CF

and to woo. I go a bit "overboard" on travel(160) and 65 ha(140-50 and 66 would be fine generally) and could prob take 10mm off my bars . the travel and ha are because I'm a touch more focused on the down but neither are unreasonable. 10mm off bars, between lazy and procrastinating and it only be 10mm, whatever. the stem length will remain whatever bike I get as well as ett and cs. 28mm on my demo 30mm on the rune and dreaming of an endo w maybe a 32mm stem(xc length eh). wheelbases and bb heights will vary albeit slightly

[jm2e]

Just to clarify;
1) I initially put a 60mm stem on my Chilcotin because it's what I had in my parts bin. I wasn't trying to fit any specific goal.
2) The wheelbase on my Chilcotin is a mile long. I know this because it literally didn't fit on my Kuat Sherpa Rack. The wheelbase on my Stumpy was short. I don't miss the throw-around-ability (because I guess I'm not good enough at throwing a bike around). Nor do I miss the shorter top tube and steeper HA, because I like going fast (for me) down steep technical hills.
3) I'm not that good a rider. I really like my bike and figured I'd share a little first person anecdote that directly relates to the OPs current purchase plan. For better of for worse.
4) When I was looking for bikes, I realized that ultimately you just get used to the bike you own. Bike technology is at a place where you're going to end up with a pretty awesome bike whatever you buy. I was very limited in available demo options, so I just picked a few bikes that looked fun and waited for the right deal. I'm happy with my purchase and can see myself on this bike for the next few years.

[kidwoo]

as front center grew, didn't a few mfrs shrink CS?

Some were but then.........remember when everyone was sitting around asking for heavier, weaker, flexier wheels that accelerated slower and only did one thing better? Yeah I don't either but 27.5 wheels happened anyway.

Now 17.5 chainstays are common which sucks too..... That used to be the sole domain of dh bikes. And at the extreme end, they'll be 17 which was average for trail bikes with 26s.

Specialized is still tooting that short chainstay thing pretty loudly in terms of trail bikes. But as far as their dh bikes, some fast guy on, new to their dh team last year became less fast and now they're even backing off of it.......not realizing their low as shit pivot is what makes their bikes hangup, not just the chainstays.

As far as retreating?

Look at this

http://ridegg.com/megatrail

http://www.gtbicycles.com/usa_en/201...ction-frameset

http://www.santacruzbicycles.com/en/us/nomad#geometry

Literally nowhere. Everything got bigger, lower, longer and slacker......PLUS bigger wheels. I've ridden a few of the new 'ilk'. They're sluggish pigs if you buy the 'right size'. And it's not because I don't 'go fast enough'.

Anyway.......all this was just to hopefully steer the op away from potentially too long of a bike that he'll actually be slower on. I'm seeing a lot of that these days.

[grinch]

makes sense , sounds like you have it figured and are probably more capable then you give yourself credit jm2e. really like all their bikes. I'd bet on it being a keeper from my hack perspective

[kidwoo]

Just to clarify;
1) I initially put a 60mm stem on my Chilcotin because it's what I had in my parts bin. I wasn't trying to fit any specific goal.
.

oh, well.........nevermind then

But yeah, you went shorter size of the two, plus a short stem, and still liked the result.





I just latched on your post because you were the first to say it. Lots of people have been 'sized correctly' with a longer stem and then gone shorter and loved everything about it.

[grinch]

couldn't find the guerilla cs. has to be short with those wheelbases. I'd prob be on an xs with those tt's. sc and gt cs' too long for me. I'd be most interested in that guerilla. think I could make it work with certain axle to crowns

[shirk]

Le Monstre Slack is 47" wheelbase with 17" stays 65.5 ha. Currently has a 50mm stem. 27/5 wheels. I stand 5' 11.5" tall.

The thing HAULS when you point is straight in the chunk. It don't corner so well.

I was aiming for Crankworx EWS race bike when I designed and built it. I wanted something planted on the high speed stuff and I'd muscle it on the tighter turns.

For general Shore riding I've found it's too much. Can't loft the front end and be playful on it. Point and shoot is the best way to describe it.

It's replacement will be a degree steeper and shorter. I need to work out how much to shorten the front centre.

Plan to get a 30mm stem for it to see how that changes. It will get ridden in the right terrain for it, but I plan to have another frame for times when not racing.

[kidwoo]

couldn't find the guerilla cs. has to be short with those wheelbases. I'd prob be on an xs with those tt's. sc and gt cs' too long for me. I'd be most interested in that guerilla. think I could make it work with certain axle to crowns

I was thinking the same thing.....xs. Based on wheelbases but still.......

Those things are nuts.

I was looking at those to buy one a while back. The strong wheelsize version is 16.8" Don't know what the weaker modern wheelsize chaistays are.

[kidwoo]

Can't loft the front end and be playful on it. Point and shoot is the best way to describe it.

It's replacement will be a degree steeper and shorter. I need to work out how much to shorten the front centre.

Plan to get a 30mm stem for it to see how that changes. It will get ridden in the right terrain for it, but I plan to have another frame for times when not racing.

1.5 headtubes are magic. Maybe use one of those and buy an angleset.

[grinch]

"strong wheelsize" think i'll borrow that

[JeffreyJim]

I think Atherton runs his with 64 ha. would make his wb 48.5

Actually he runs a size XL - mine is a L... His bike is over 49".

[shirk]

1.5 headtubes are magic. Maybe use one of those and buy an angleset.

Nah I just consider this one the mini DH that can actually pedal and I'll build something more nimble.

[creaky fossil]

Nah I just consider this one the mini DH that can actually pedal and I'll build something more nimble.

how will relative nimbleness be achieved? the answer, or theory being tested, might help people who think about such things.

leave all else alone, tighten HA?

nimbleness when seated will depend on STA being dead-on for the rider in Q and good that it's you you're designing for, another rider may not know his/her best hips-to-BB relation. also as woo's long answer above suggested, maybe what's ergo best hips-to-BB isn't what makes bike handle best? a tough nut to crack.

this could show why some custom framebuilders are good at delivering a ride feel. say you tell a builder, "I like tight & technical, fast & open, I weigh 185 and I sometimes jump/gap shit while descending." and say you don't know shit about geometry but are a good rider. what is builder going to give you? (we're not talking about Matt Chester, Chester always gave what Chester would ride if he were your build)

I'm more interested in how the FS came out, ride-wise.

Some were but then.........remember when everyone was sitting around asking for heavier, weaker, flexier wheels that accelerated slower and only did one thing better? Yeah I don't either but 27.5 wheels happened anyway.

Now 17.5 chainstays are common which sucks too..... That used to be the sole domain of dh bikes. And at the extreme end, they'll be 17 which was average for trail bikes with 26s.

Specialized is still tooting that short chainstay thing pretty loudly in terms of trail bikes. But as far as their dh bikes, some fast guy on, new to their dh team last year became less fast and now they're even backing off of it.......not realizing their low as shit pivot is what makes their bikes hangup, not just the chainstays.

Is my memory gone, or did some DH bikes in the early/mid 00s have 18 or bigger CS? Like Rotec maybe?

I think some shit-shooting about CS length as an independent variable would be useful. What happens when you just change CS with the other geo static? Does the effect of a CS-only change suggest that another dimension or angle should change at the same time?

Skilled riders can get the front wheel up even if their rear axle is back in Tennessee. The rest of us, maybe not so much.

[JeffreyJim]

Some were but then.........remember when everyone was sitting around asking for heavier, weaker, flexier wheels that accelerated slower and only did one thing better? Yeah I don't either but 27.5 wheels happened anyway.

Now 17.5 chainstays are common which sucks too..... That used to be the sole domain of dh bikes. And at the extreme end, they'll be 17 which was average for trail bikes with 26s.

Specialized is still tooting that short chainstay thing pretty loudly in terms of trail bikes. But as far as their dh bikes, some fast guy on, new to their dh team last year became less fast and now they're even backing off of it.......not realizing their low as shit pivot is what makes their bikes hangup, not just the chainstays.

As far as retreating?

Look at this

http://ridegg.com/megatrail

http://www.gtbicycles.com/usa_en/201...ction-frameset

http://www.santacruzbicycles.com/en/us/nomad#geometry

Literally nowhere. Everything got bigger, lower, longer and slacker......PLUS bigger wheels. I've ridden a few of the new 'ilk'. They're sluggish pigs if you buy the 'right size'. And it's not because I don't 'go fast enough'.

Anyway.......all this was just to hopefully steer the op away from potentially too long of a bike that he'll actually be slower on. I'm seeing a lot of that these days.

I haven't read everything here but I do disagree with a few things in this post...

What I believe is fit is its like skis. What works for one won't work for another... nobody is right nobody is wrong.

For me, sub 17" chainstays certainly make the bike easier to "cutty" but doesn't inspire confidence when trying to hold a line at speed through a sweeing off camber corner. On the contrary, CSs north of 17.5" are silly too. I love CSs around 17.2-3". Works awesome for me, but doesn't mean that is the "right" size.

Same with long front center - to me it allows for more room to "work" the bike without feeling like I'm holding on off the back or about to go over the bars...but this is my own opinion.

I do disagree with the whole vertical axle path vs rearward axle path. I used to be a big believer in rearward carrying more speed. It works - when there is only one impact at a time (think - Moab rock ledges). If the suspension is cycling to track giant WC sized sequential holes, that wheel has to come BACK (rebound) to the top of its travel hence "running into" the back of the next bump and can really feel as though it is hanging up. There is a balance here - sure - but yeah, this was a new way of thinking about rearward paths to me...

Just food for thought...(pretty sure that new fast guy came from a bike with a fairly vertical axle path too...)

[creaky fossil]

my favorite ski coach told me to avoid these conclusions when thinking about things I'd done, or concepts: wrong. mistake. fuckup. apparently negative feedback loops are self-perpetuating if you're analytical, and push you away from "what if?" they did/do for me. it was a breakthrough, not just for skiing, when he told me this bit of insight. preferences are never wrong, but they may be sub-optimal if efficiency or better performance are personal goals. with tool-using sports, preferences can be big. I don't have to like the same kind of ski as someone else, even if that someone else is my exact size/build/strength/ability.

since woo's analytical, he can explain his geo prefs with whys. maybe he'll do that!

[kidwoo]

Just food for thought...(pretty sure that new fast guy came from a bike with a fairly vertical axle path too...)

He did. But then went to a bike some of the most fore/aft movement of any bike ever made. It's nowhere near vertical.

Those demos move an inch and a quarter from topout to bottom. You ever ridden one? Corner like champs but they do hang up on things worse. But a bike with an identical chainstay length with the main pivot where your gt is would fix a lot of that.

I'm not proclaiming the glories of rearward axlepaths or anything......for exactly the reasons you mention. But the demos are special.

science lines!

http://www.ridemonkey.com/attachment...th-jpg.115593/


All this sizing stuff with frames getting longer for a given size has already been around for years. It was just called 'riding your taller friend's bike for a few laps'. And just like the newer frames, they're obviously completely rideable and make going in a straight line easier. But the other stuff suffers. And you essentially accept that your last frame that 'fit' you with a 50mm stem didn't reall 'fit' you afterall because now you're on a bike that's an inch or two longer with the same stem that 'fits'. But in reality that's the much bigger range of what works for someone than people like to accept when sizing a bike.

So yeah, I absolutely agree with you that's much more preference than all the bike fitters in shops want to admit.

[JeffreyJim]

[QUOTE}

So yeah, I absolutely agree with you that's much more preference than all the bike fitters in shops want to admit.[/QUOTE]

I'm 100% agreeing here. Its not a road bike. The movement is so much more dynamic.

[creaky fossil]

this is why it's taking so long for designers to sort out MTB geometry, right? the vestige of road bike fit/performance ideals?

what if MTBs literally derived from BMX, rather than from road bikes? how would they have looked in 2000? today?

how many riders come to MTB from road? how many from BMX? how many from no riding background? your frame of reference will influence your preferences and your expectations.

[shirk]

how will relative nimbleness be achieved? the answer, or theory being tested, might help people who think about such things.

leave all else alone, tighten HA?

Plan is steeper ha and shorter reach thus, so shorter front centre. This will also bring the wb back from XL DH bike length. The ha I'll go one degree steeper to 66.5. Don't yet know how much I'll shorten the reach. Need to sit down and draw it out. Recently started playing with FreeCAD so being able to quick visualize changes in cad will be nice vs full scale hand drawings.

For me and my size and location I think I found the upper limits. On certain trails or sections of trail the bike is great, but it's a low percentage.

this could show why some custom framebuilders are good at delivering a ride feel. say you tell a builder, "I like tight & technical, fast & open, I weigh 185 and I sometimes jump/gap shit while descending." and say you don't know shit about geometry but are a good rider. what is builder going to give you? (we're not talking about Matt Chester, Chester always gave what Chester would ride if he were your build)

This certainly separates the great custom builders from the great fabricators. There really are very very few builders doing anything in this realm aggressive bikes, even less doing FS. A rider should be able to tell you what they like about past bikes in certain trail styles and the builder should be able to look at the bike and make the links between personal preference and geo. If a builder can't do that then they themselves don't really understand geo and should go ride more on many more different bikes.

I'm more interested in how the FS came out, ride-wise.

Assume this is asking for more detail on how my build rides? It surprisingly feels really good. Very little pedal bob due to pivot placement in line with chainrings. Not overly firm either. Climbing I can see the shock working but there isn't a ton of feedback.

It doesn't blow through travel but I feel I could use some more compression on the shock tune. It's also not super supply on small bumps. I want to try a Debonair Monarch on it to see how the increased negative air chamber helps with small bump. The aftermarket ones are a M/M tune and my RP23 is a Low compression / Medium rebound.

[creaky fossil]

good to hear, thanks.

I agree about builders, experience with diff't geometries, etc. a custom builder could probably stay afloat without great ability to build anything for anyone (because builder has huge experience base riding different things). aesthetics seem to matter a lot to custom frame clients. I'm not sure all custom frame clients know themselves well enough to know what they'd want, need, rather have, etc. if optimal-for-use is the goal. sometimes the goal is just "I want what I want."

all aftermarket Debonair Monarch are med/med, can't get different?

[shirk]

The aftermarket RS that I have access to via the two Canuck distributors are M/M.

My RP23 is Low compression and Medium rebound. I think that going to medium compression will help. Between messing with volume spacers and air pressure I should be able to find an optimal.

With the Low comp I feel I need to keep the pressure a bit higher than I want for climbing and general trail, it's not harsh, but it's a very fine line. So up the compression and back off the air pressure.

There is also a great resource for the Monarch on emptybeer. Guys have taken apart all the variations and given the break down on what shims are used. Because RS used an available valve for the IPS chamber a home hack like me can get some shims and play with tune much easier than Fox, no nitrogen needed.

Waltworks is a builder that knows his stuff, doesn't build an artistic bike, he builds a solid functional custom bike. He actually has made some rad fs bikes that are a mix of steel front end and Ventanna rear ends.